Day #55 in The Gulf! The Race Baiting Continues!

According to the MSM and the “Talking Heads” that claim the title of  “Democratic Strategists” there is no question. Oppose or criticize and you are branded a racist.

Personal Criticism of Obama, The Man and His Policies 

As an American and as a Conservative I was elated to celebrate the election of our first black President, however, I was not willing to celebrate the election of Barack Obama, the man,  nor am I currently willing to celebrate Obama’s policies. “Content of character not color of skin”.

Oh how I wish our first black President would have been General Colin Powell.  I can only speculate as to how General Powell would have handled our current set of crisis.

While I’ll never know for sure, I’d speculate that under General Powell’s leadership we would now be moving towards securing our borders, that after 53 days the oil leak in the gulf  would be capped.

Under General Powell’s leadership, Operation Desert Storm only lasted 40 days  (01/17/91 to 02/27/91) and the “ground war” with Iraq lasted a total of 13 days (02-14-91 to 02-27-91).

I just can’t imagine General Powell conducting an international “bow and scrape” tour or engaging in a never ending set of apologies for America’s role in world affairs.

I can’t imagine Powell embarrassing his Nation.

Under Powell’s leadership would we, as a nation, be speculating on whether the latest set of “impotent sanctions” against Iran would have any meaningful effect on stopping that rogue nation from developing nuclear weapons? Would the Nation be wondering, “and if these don’t work, what do we do next?”

I doubt that the national economy would be be any worse than it is today, if General Powell, if he were President, had simply ignored it.

Yes, these are speculations, but my strong criticism of Obama has nothing to do with race. My speculation as to  “what would General Powell do” has nothing to do with race either.   

When Obama was elected the Liberal Main Stream Media and the Democratic Party heralded the beginning of a “post-racial” America. Less than 18 months into Obama’s Presidency the MSM and the Democratic Political strategists are running to the familiar comforts of race and gender baiting.

It is 2010, isn’t it time we move on?  Let us remember and never forget the lessons of the 1960’s, even if those lessons are 50 years old! We, as Americans, need to learn and move on. To understand this is 2010 and not 1960. To learn from the past but not surrender to being a victim of it.

Unbelievable Corruption – Government To Rebate $42,000 On $110,000 2 Seat Sports Car!

What former Politicians or current Political contributors are cleaning up on this scam?

How much of the “stimulus money” went to underwrite the budget in the State of Colorado and therefore indirectly underwrite this giveaway program?

We all know there is only so much money to go around – that is why the US Government is borrowing trillions of dollars from the Communist Chinese to pay our current bills. Trillions of dollars that the younger generations of Americans will be forced to repay.

And now we have this stupidy …….

The State of Colorado’s “income”, which it generates through taxes and fees and the transfer of funds from the US taxpayers who don’t live in Colorado, isn’t umlimited.

So why funnel $42,000 to inidivuals who buy a a Tesla. Tesla is a California based company, which is partially owned by Daimler AG (as of May 19, 2009). You remember, Damlier, Chryslers’ former owner?

Tesla has already received $500 Million from the US Department of Energy (March 2009) to “defer” the cost of developing these vehicles. $500 million from the Department of Energy, when the “owners” or “investors” in Tesla, have committed approximately $100 million of their personal wealth. In other words, 5 out of 6 dollars has been funded by American Taxpayers through the Department of Energy to start with. Now the Taxpayers will fund half the purchase price of the car for those who can plunk down $100,000 plus to start with.

You don’t need to sell Tesla’s to develop the technology – the technology is already in the car. If someone wants to use the “technology” they should pay a royalty to Tesla to use and adapt it. If the plan is to let Tesla “hoard” the technology, that is fine, but they can do that without further Government subsidy.  If Tesla can make autos that will sell on their own, let the private market place fund the venture, not the American taxpayer.   

At the present time Tesla employs something slightly more than 350 people. Tesla has 8 sales stores, 2 in California, 1 in Colorado, 1 in Illinois, 1 in Florida, 1 in Washington, DC, 1 in Toronto, Canada and 1 in Monaco.  At full production, Tesla manufacturers approximately 25 autos per week.

The Tesla vehicle in question carries a US Identification number, however, the chasis and most of the vehicles external parts are manufacturered outside of the US. The components are assembled and shipped to the US where the battery packs and power drive are installed.

It appears that the Tesla is a wonderful vehicle, but as a $100,000 plus 2 seater, it isn’t really a practical vehicle for a family of 4?

For every $42,000 that the Government “rebates” for the purchase of a Tesla, that is $42,000 that isn’t in the Government’s budget to pay for the operating expenses, expenses that lead to “budget deficits” and budget short falls. $42,000 that isn’t available for student loans, to pay teachers, fireman or police officers or to cover unemployment benefits for the 7.6 Million lost jobs in this Country.

$42,000 that must be replaced by taxing the average working stiff.  

Has the Country gone crazy or just the people we elect to govern it?

World’s Largest Cash-Back Rebate: $42K Off Tesla Roadster

 
provided by      
 

If you’re in the market for a new car and would like a little help with the purchase, there’s a nice $3,500 cash-back rebate this month on the Pontiac G8. There’s a similar $3,500 rebate on leftover 2009 Ford Mustangs. Or, for Colorado residents, there’s a $42,083 rebate on the all-electric Tesla Roadster.

Yeah, read it again. Didn’t change, did it?

Autoblog reports, “Colorado is offering a $42,083 rebate on the 2009 Tesla Roadster until December 31st…yep, that’s a 38-percent discount on what must be the most desirable electric car currently for sale in the United States.” 

For the uninitiated, the Tesla Roadster is a guilt-free supercar. A topless, wind-in-your-hair rocket that surges from a standstill to sixty miles per hour in less than four seconds, it’s fast enough to catch the gingerbread man. It corners faster than a caffeinated chipmunk running from a lawn mower and, oh yeah, it doesn’t use gas. When you get home (which shouldn’t take long), you just plug it back into the wall.  

The only problem with the Roadster is its buzz-killing six-figure sticker price. Except, apparently, for those who can see the Rockies from their driveway.  

Autoblog explains, “The incentive actually applies to a slew of qualifying hybrid and electric vehicles and will be paid in the form of an income tax credit that’s calculated by determining the difference in price of the alt-fuel car or truck as compared to a competitive gas-powered model. In the case of the Tesla Roadster, Colorado figures the EV costs a whopping $50K more than its competitive set.”  

We have no idea what possessed them to think the Tesla had competitors. There’s just nothing else like it. They may have compared it to the Lotus Elise, a similarly-sized, lightweight track racer that does cost about $50K less.  

(McAuleys World: So the Government thinks they should help you buy a Tesla, provided you live in Colorado, and to make sure you don’t have to pay more than you would spend on a Lotus – and just how many of us drive a Lotus sports car?)

Whatever they were comparing it to, they took a massive chunk out of the price. Jalopnik notes, “The final price, after the tax credit, is a relatively low $67,800 (relative to the 110K starting price).”  

Tesla dealers are rare, but Colorado shoppers are in luck. Fox News reports, “Tesla will open a new store in Boulder, Colorado, this Friday.”  

If you need more than two seats, or trunk space for something larger than a pen, the Tesla won’t meet your needs. But we found jaw-dropping rebates on some cars that might. A fact sheet put of by the Taxpayer Service Division of the Colorado Department of Revenue lists the lot of them, ranging from $3,906 off a Ford Escape Hybrid to $20,392 off a Lexus LS 600 hybrid 

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1151/worlds-largest-cash-back-rebate-42k-off-tesla-roadster/

Hmmmm …. $20,000 plus off a Lexus LS 600 Hybrid.

Somebody pays for the $20,000 discount on the Lexus, just like somebody pays for the $42,000 on the Tesla. Wanna guess who?

Wanna guess whose tax money was sent to Colorado to subsidize their State Budget and indirectly subsidize this giveaway program? 

It is absolute insanity!

Thanks Regular Visitors – 5,000 Vistors A Day Adds Up – 1.5 Million Visitors Todate.

Thank you again.

When I started this blog last fall I didn’t expect 100 visitors a day, I guess I still don’t.

Let me say that I know this is still a small blog, a very small blog ….. but 5,000 visitors a day grows to 150,000 a month and now 10 months later – 1,500,000 visits (a million and half  visits).

I’m stunned.

In case your wondering, this is still a very small blog – the “Big Blogs” get as many visitors in a week as this site has had in 10 months. The mega blogs get that many visits in a day.

I really appreciate all of your comments, however, this blog is a hobby and not a job or a way of life for me.

This Blog isn’t even my favorite hobby.

I simply don’t have the time it would take to review and post more of the comments – my apology. Comments are posted in a semi random manner – provided the comments are on topic and not excessively vulgar.

I won’t be posting comments from the “professional bloggers” – those bloggers working for a fee to get out a poltical message – under the pretense of being members of the general pubic. They have been pretty easy to spot.

If you are regular, you know this site supplies links to my source materials. The “professionals bloggers” ignore the source documents and focus on personal attacks. For them it is all about “spin”, trying to obscure the facts. Unfortunately, I’d guess 2/3 of the comments I receive come from the professionals. When you receive 20 plus commenst, all with similar and unsubstantiated criticisms, using the same phrases and those comments are all received within a 5 minute time span – the activity is coordinated.

I’m sure you’ve seen the same activity at other sites.

In the not so distant past I posted an entry noting how disppointing Obama’s Mortgage Modification Program has been, quoting sources thusly, “The program was touted as intended to help 4 million homeowners”, however, the results todate are very disappointing as some number of mortgages “more than 10,000 but less than 50,000” have been modified in the first 4 months. I received over 120 responses, all received within 30 minutes of “posting”, all claiming, with very similar language, that I was “making the numbers up” while expressing their “unique opinions” on how successful the “program” had been. In fact the “links” in my “post” clearly proved the accuracy of the numbers. The claim that the program was intended to help 4 million mortgage holders was made by – you guessed correctly – Barack Obama, on the day he announced the program to cheers in Phoenix, Arizona. As it turns out more people attended the speech than have had their mortgages modified todate. The estimate that the program has fallen far short of expectations, helping  “more than 10,000 but less than 50,000”, a number far short of the 4 million targeted, came from – a press conference at The Obama White House, where the estimate was supplied by an Obama Staff Member.

It isn’t possible to receive 120 comments claiming the statistics used in the post, statistics which were supplied by the Obama Administration, are inaccurate, without some type of coordinated activity taking place.

I will make an effort to publish more of your comments in the future ….. Thanks again for visiting.

Treasury’s latest “Toxc Asset” plan – The Return Of The Bush Plan – Taxpayers Take The Risk – Hedge Funds Take The Profits: By MSNBC

Treasury’s latest plan faces pitfalls

Government seeks private partners, but taxpayers bear the risks

By John W. Schoen
Senior producer
msnbc.com
After months of speculation and false starts, the Treasury Monday announced a new plan to deal with the so-called “toxic assets” that have been weighing down the financial sector and clogging global credit markets.

The announcement by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was greeted by a big rally on Wall Street but leaves unresolved some major hurdles that have plagued the rescue plan since October, when the Bush administration first floated the idea to deal with the troubled assets. And the new plan leaves unanswered the biggest question echoing from Wall Street to Main Street: Will it work?

With private investors still loath to step up and buy mortgage-backed securities and related assets, the latest Treasury plan shifts much of the risk to taxpayers. By partnering with the government, a few big investment funds will have a chance to profit off the toxic assets, sharing any proceeds with the government. But if the investments don’t pay off, taxpayers will bear most of the risk. [Who decides who gets to participate and have a shot at making a profit? Will politicians be rewarding their political cronies again?]

“There is no doubt the government is taking risks,” Geithner told reporters. “You can’t solve a financial crisis without the government taking risks.”

In addition to the risk of taxpayer losses, there is also the risk that the government could set such a low price on the toxic assets that it could actually worsen the credit crunch.

The new plan will draw on up to $100 billion in funds already approved by Congress under the  Troubled Asset Relief Program, as well as additional funding from the Federal Reserve. The government will match private investment dollar-for-dollar, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. will put up significant backing, up to $6 for every $1 invested, in exchange for a fee.

[The Government will provide 70% to 90% funding of the “toxic asset” purchases] 

The FDIC funding will be in the form of “non-recourse” loans, meaning private investors will be allowed to walk away from their investment if it goes bad, leaving the government with the failed investment and any losses on the loan.

[This isn’t a “partnership” in a “partnership” all parties share in the “profit or loss” – generated from the relationship. This is simply a giveaway of Taxpayer Dollars under the disguise of “partnership”] 

After months of preliminary discussions with potential investors, the Treasury is now moving quickly; private firms have to apply by April 10, and the government will respond by May 1. Some of the nation’s biggest money management firms, including PIMCO and BlackRock, are considered likely candidates. The Treasury is expected to limit the list to a half-dozen firms at most. [Who deicdes who gets to participate? Blackrock or Blackrock Financial is a Hegde Fund or Holding Company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackRock, Black Rock was involved with “no credit score” no “FICO” Mortgage Loans in California. http://www.blackrockloan.com/ . http://www1.blackrock.com/. PIMCO is a Bond Fund – http://www.pimco.com/Default.htm, http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=PZ&date=20090320&id=9715984 ]

What’s the ‘market’ price?
At the height of the housing boom, investors couldn’t get enough of the mortgage-backed bonds Wall Street was churning out by the boatload because these investments offered a good return for what seemed like little risk. [The Plan returns to the “source” of the problem and rewards the same actors].

But when it became apparent that sloppy mortgage lenders had doled out hundreds of billions of dollars to people who couldn’t pay it back, no one wanted to touch investments backed by mortgages. With no way to sell them, banks are now stuck with trillions of dollars worth of assets they can’t properly value. That’s clogging up the global flow of credit.

WOW – at least $5 Trillion in additional Government spending – $5 Trillion in additional Tax Dollars. When will it stop.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29839898/page/2/

Though roughly 90 percent of mortgage holders are still making payments, investments backed by mortgages are selling for only 30 to 60 cents on the dollar. The reason is that — with unemployment rising and home prices falling — no one knows which mortgages will be the next to default. So banks have been forced to write down the value of these investments and take huge losses to cover the write-downs.

The Treasury is hoping that by jump-starting the private market with a massive shot of government investment and lending, prices of these assets will stabilize and banks can either sell them off or assign them a more realistic value on their books. [Why would this happen – the asssets are being purchased with Government funding, the Government funding 70% to 90% of the pruchase. The Plan will simply create two classes of investment vehilces – Risky, Government backed Mortgage based securities and risky Mortgage backed securities not backed by taxpayer dollars. To imply both groups wil be treated equally in the market place is ridiculous. Fundamental change to the Government Programs that created the “bogus bad mortgages” is what is required if one wants to restore confidence in “mortgage backed securities”. This proposal not only leaves the risk with the Taxpayer – it is a solution akin to blowing smoke away from a fire, it will give you a better look at the fire but won’t put the fire out]

The plan still faces a major hurdle that’s dogged rescue efforts since the Treasury first unveiled a plan to buy mortgage-backed bonds last October. If banks in the deepest trouble need to raise cash by unloading their troubled assets on the cheap, much the way they’re dumping foreclosed houses at distressed prices, that “market” price for one set of bad loans could force other banks to take bigger write-downs on their holdings. [So the Congress and the Treasury can send more Taxpayer Money to the Financial Institutions – What a scheme] 

Banks may also have second thoughts about selling their “toxic” investments at any price, because bankers believe that most of these assets won’t be toxic forever. Since most mortgage holders will eventually make their payments, many of these investments should recover much of their lost value once the housing market and economy stabilize. If the Treasury purchase program sets a market price that’s too low, banks could decide to sit on these investments for years — producing the opposite effect the Treasury is trying to achieve. [Payments through the Mortgage Rescue Plan – Isn’t it time to pause and let all of these programs catch up with each other, instead of pursuing this shot-gun approach that requires throwing Trillions of Taxpayer Dollars at every issue simultaneously] 

The Treasury’s buyback plan also could be affected by a proposal now working its way through Congress that would change the so-called “mark to market” accounting rules that force banks to take big losses on investments that may some day recover much of their lost value.

With Congress in an uproar over bonuses paid to executives at bailout-recipient AIG, some potential private investors also have been reluctant to sign on for fear that the rules may change after the game has begun. The Treasury is trying minimizing that risk by promising firms that participate in the purchase plan they won’t be subject to executive compensation caps added to the original TARP plan.

But some on Wall Street fear Congress may yet enact rules that undercut the appeal of partnering with the government.

“The dark cloud on the horizon is this congressional hysteria against pay and redesigning the terms of a contract after they’ve been written,” said Steve Bartlett, CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry lobbying group. “I think Wall Street is just sort of justifiably holding back because of that.”

As anger in Congress has risen, the odds have fallen on the possibility of additional bailout funding. But key portions of the Treasury’s plan don’t require congressional approval. That’s because the program draws much of its funding from the independent Federal Reserve and from the FDIC, which can draw on its own assets. [The whole program subverts the Constitutional Separation of Powers and prevents regualtion of the actions by Congress – so the same “guards” who were on duty when this mess started are in now charge and they get to choose who participates – Isn’t this a sure formula of disaster for Taxpayers]

 

 Despite the unimaginably large pile of money being funneled into the financial system, some of those involved in the plan say that — even if it works — it’s only a down payment on the eventual solution.   

“Its fair to be optimistic; that’s the way Americans should be leaning,” said Bill Gross, chief investment officer at PIMCO, one of the nation’s largest bond funds. “But the hole here is a $5 trillion-plus whole in terms of assets and capital destruction.  I think we’ve only gone about half of the way and the will be additional programs to come.”

[How much of the $5 Trillion goes to PIMCO Clients at Taxpayer Risk?] 

 

Bailout Opposition Grows 09/23/08

Leading Banking Panel Senators Reject Bailout Plan

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

WASHINGTON —  Leading senators of both parties are expressing strong reservations about the administration’s financial bailout plan despite pleas from the treasury secretary and Federal Reserve chairman for quick passage.

Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said on Tuesday, “What they have sent us is not acceptable.”

Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, said, “We have got to look at some alternatives.”

“Nobody is happy” about the bailout request, said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., although he spoke of possible passage of legislation by the weekend.

Added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., “I am emphatically against it.”

Even before Paulson could speak, lawmakers expressed unhappiness, criticism of the plan and — in the case of some conservative Republicans — outright opposition.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel’s senior Republican, was even more blunt. “I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike,” he said. Seated a few feet away from Paulson and Bernanke, he added, “We have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well spend $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis.”

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., added, “This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it’s un-American.”

Polls reflect that 66% of America opposes the bailout. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426505,00.html

Obama Pledges $50 Billion to “International Poverty” – Why Not America First

By Bill Sammon

Barack Obama, who lamented Friday that “we have not managed our federal budget with any kind of discipline,” is nonetheless promising to spend $50 billion on a United Nations anti-poverty program that critics say will drive up American debt.

“The short-term weakness in the capital market is a reflection of long-term problems that we have in our economy,” Obama told reporters in Florida. “We have been loading up enormous amounts of debt.”

Yet Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, have pledged tens of billions in new spending on a U.N. program that promises cash to poor countries. The program is one of eight sweeping “Millennium Development Goals” the U.N. adopted in 2000.

“Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal,” the candidates vow in their campaign platform.

Johns Hopkins professor Steve Hanke said such spending would merely drive up American debt, while doing almost nothing for the world’s poor.

“It goes down a bureaucratic rat-hole, lining the pockets of people who are connected to the power structure,” said Hanke, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “It’s basically a system to redistribute income from middle class people in the United States to rich people in poor countries. It never reaches those people who are living on a dollar a day.”

Hanke said such expenditures are especially unwise in the wake of significant expansions of government and spending during President Bush’s tenure.

“We’ve been spending like drunken sailors and making obligations into the future like drunken sailors,” he said. “We’re on an unsustainable path in terms of the fiscal situation in the United States because of massive spending growth and commitments.”

Obama said he wants to curtain at least one of those costly commitments.

“We have spent well over half a trillion dollars — soon to be a trillion dollars — on a war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraqis are now running surpluses,” the Illinois senator said Friday. “We’re still spending $10 billion a month there.”

But in December, Obama also sponsored the Global Poverty Act which, if passed, would require the president to commit to cutting global poverty in half by 2015. Critics say that would cost American taxpayers $845 billion.

Susan Rice, one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, says the U.S. should give 0.7 percent of its Gross Domestic Product to developing nations.

Bill Sammon is Washington deputy managing editor for FOX News Channel.

Another Example of Democrats Blocking Reform – McCain’s attempt at reform “Scuttled”

McCain Accounting Proposal Scuttled

Senate Rejects Listing Of Stock Options as A Corporate Expense

By Helen Dewar and David S. Hilzenrath

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, July 12, 2002; Page A01

 

Senate Democrats yesterday blocked a proposal that would have changed the way companies account for stock options, an initiative vehemently opposed by high-tech companies that have used such grants to award billions of dollars in compensation to their executives and employees.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) tried unsuccessfully to attach to a broader corporate accountability bill a requirement that companies subtract the cost of stock option grants from their reported profits. But the Democratic leadership prevented McCain’s amendment from reaching a vote.

 “The fix is in,” said McCain, vowing to try to force a vote on the measure in the future. McCain’s proposal faced bipartisan resistance in the Senate.

Unlike salaries and cash bonuses, option grants to executives and employees are not counted as an expense on corporate statements. If they were, many companies would report weaker profits, and some companies that now appear profitable would post losses.

The ability of companies to dispense options as if they had no cost has led to huge executive grants, giving corporate leaders added incentive to cook the books and artificially inflate stock prices, some politicians and business analysts say.

After Republicans used parliamentary maneuvers to block Democrats’ amendments, Assistant Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) outflanked McCain. As a result, Reid spared senators the potential discomfort of going on record with a vote against the stock option amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A58272-2002Jul11&notFound=true

%d bloggers like this: