Bullspit a place to spit your bull!

You know what drives me nuts these days?  As I drive in my car listening to talk radio and techno I think about these things.. what don’t you?  Whats driving me nuts is the use of our $700 billion dollars.  Here’s the story for those of who don’t watch all the papers, congress decided about 4 months ago to give our Secretary of Treasury, Hank Paulson, a blank check for $700 billion dollars.  That’s right, one man, $700 billion, here’s the check fix it.

Now to be fair you must know the Fed (or Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke) and Paulson told congress they plan to purchase the bad debt from the banks to free up the credit markets, in my terms - the banks could stop using their incoming cash to cover the losses from bad loans and get back to making money.

See the Secretary didn’t actually intend to purchase all those loans, they we’re going to guarantee a successful auction by placing all the bad loans in pools and putting them up for auction to the highest bidder.  Quick example, if a pool of say $100 million comes up, the Government bids $0.35 on the dollar, or  $35,00,000, and then in the private sector they bid say $0.36, and on from there, pool goes to the highest bidder.

See investors will pool together to pick up an investment at such a huge discount.  Following this track would keep the capital markets moving, jobs still being generated, or at least not lost and beginning to generate.

Back to point, Paulson and the Fed told congress, this is what they are going to do with our money; now the geniuses in congress, and not to leave the President out of this, I don’t WTH he was doing; did not place ANY accountability.. yep.. it’s true, no accountability,, here’s the check, fix it.

Now Paulson, armed with his $350 billion, he, wait, “what happened to the other $350?”, well congress at least had the sense to not hand the entire thing out at once, Paulson, armed with his first half, decides well, rather than doing what I said I was going to do , now I’m going to just GIVE the banks this money.

Giving money to the banks; could very well be the title of a chapter in my first book; Paulson handed over chunks of $20 billion, $25 billion, to whichever bank he felt.  Why the change?  Well British Prime Minister Brown decided HE was going to funnel THEIR bailout to THEIR banks by simply giving them the money and owning parts of these banks.

Owning parts of these banks, and this too could be a chapter title, now to be honest I haven’t been 100% up front with you, I said they were “giving” this money to the banks, I call it giving because our money is going in, our money, the government owns a meager portion with no real control over how the bank operates, a silent partner if you will.

All this with the promise of paying us back.  Unfortunately, these CEO’s are no Lee Iacocca.  Our money goes in, we’re an investor, we make meager premiums on that investment, none of which will hit our pockets.  And life goes on.  The only way this would work if we demand a return on our investment, we put financial security at risk, our tax dollars, this money is more than double the total cost of the Iraq war right now!  We made a promise to pay, more over a promise that our families for generations will pay, and all we ask in return is help keep this a place of opportunity, a beacon of light in the dark for ourselves and so many worldwide.

If we demand a return, pressure for the CEO’s to buy out the government’s investment, with a ridiculous amount of interest, of which, should be distributed to the American People, in the form of a check!

As you may have expected or already know, Paulson decided to follow Brown’s lead and pump this money into the banks, owning parts of them.  Self doubt is a bitch.

With $350 billion left still needed to be invested, we must have “transparency”, see where the monies are going, what are the strings, move policy back to what was originally told to congress, help the banks get this paper off their books.

In recent times we’ve seen the attack from those without belief, from the Seattle Washington incidents, to the posting of ads on Washington DC buses, those without belief, the Atheists, are making themselves known.

Lets briefly example this paradigm, the absence in belief, defined as the belief that there is something greater than oneself, otherwise known as “God”.  Is in itself, a belief –or so say the Atheists.  If the government cannot stop an individual or group from posting their beliefs in a public square, can they not prohibit those who have no belief from attacking those with beliefs?  At the very least not allow them to do with Governmental approval, as such incident occurred in Washington State’s Capital.

Another thought, read it if you like.

The basic sales strategy, of a small business targeting, business solution provider, is 3 fold.  One begin your traditional door-to-door smiling face salesman.  Two, those annoying 8 pm at night sales telephone calls from an infamous group known only as, Telemarketers.  And Three, however hap hazard an effort, working trade show floors.  I say hap hazard, because as most managers know, however high-up on the chain they may be, that all 3 areas are rarely executed properly.  They’re also aware if only one is successful, that can become a sellable business model upon which revenues can be proven to potential investors.

In my humble opinion, if you can’t make one and two successful you should find another line of work, not that you can’t be good at something, but in sales management, you’re only dis servicing yourself.

So the focus here will be the lonely number three, working a trade show floor.  Or how I’ve decided to call it, the trade show whore.  Hey, it isn’t meant to be a kids blog!  Trade show Whore, or how I’ll refer to it going forward TSW.

See in the minds of many managers, regardless of department, going to a trade show, talking to people, obtaining information on companies products and services, “collecting business cards”, is effectively working a trade show.  Folks, I’m here to tell you, your far, far, far!! from where you need to be.  The numeral Uno mistake a business solution provider will do is attend the wrong show.

I’ll take the example of a web and business solution provider, we’ll call them Digital; we’ll assume they are effectively working both d2d sales and telemarketing.  Digital is attempting to market their products and services to small to medium sized businesses.

The first area we need to evaluate is their definition of a small to medium sized business.  Currently they’re marketing to mostly retail customers, store front companies, and light industrial with a sprinkle of medical.  All clients obtained on the d2d method.  When attending trade shows their focus was industry specific, technology.  And, here in this industry is where a mistake is made.  Attending TS that could potentially assist your company in expanding its business offers or improve on existing ones is extremely important, but, is not the correct approach when revenues are of importance.

Problem: working wrong industry trade shows, marketing to limited s2m sized business.

Solution: real tool companies view of s2m sized businesses, effectively work TS

In my experience companies who seem to struggle, or are always working to cover payroll, are marketing themselves to the wrong market.  Or don’t even know what there market is.  In designs case, the solution is to attend all trade shows, also know as TSW’s.  =)  A small to medium sized business can be the store front down the road.  But it can also be the consumer electronics company with annual revenues under 1 million, but capital investment in excess of annual revenues.

Marketing to all sectors will open digitals exposure from the ma and pop show locally marketing and bugging you on the phone to the trusted adviser of small to medium sized business in many markets, from many different business sectors.

The store front is an important customer, but to ensure long gevity, you need to expand your horizons, don’t be afraid to attack a market with impressive and large entities, know that there are always new companies trying to penetrate those markets who can be YOUR customers.

We’re back, and so are the SP’s!  In force this time with lawsuits against Chief Justice Roberts (CJR) and Rick Warren. 
Washington Post Quote:

“A group of atheists, led by a California man known for challenging the use of the words “under God” in recitals of the Pledge of Allegiance at public schools, filed a lawsuit yesterday to bar prayer and references to God at the swearing-in of President-elect Barack Obama.

Michael A. Newdow, 17 other individuals and 10 groups representing atheists sued Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., several officials in charge of inaugural festivities, the Rev. Joseph E. Loweryand megachurch pastor Rick Warren. They filed the complaint in U.S. District Court.

Newdow failed in similar lawsuits to remove prayer fromPresident Bush’s swearing-in ceremonies in 2001 and 2005.”

The atheist’s, as the WP called the group, are suing to completely remove religion from the ceremonies; to force the President Elect and future President Elects to disallow prayer and the words so help you god.

Now this is just another example of how the overzealous SP group will not soon be going away.  We may have made good headway in the fight on Christmas, but this war has many fronts. 

What is needed in my humble opinion, which I can give because of our great constitution, is for a non-atheist group (lawyers and non-lawyers) to counter these attacks at their every turn.  For every one law suit they present we file suits against their actions, and additional suits on their reckless attempt at changing the cultural fiber of our nation.

To allow one group, however large or small, to force their views into the larger populous we empower those who oppose us.  Simply allowing the events to run their course leaves the door open to the inevitibly stupid court decisions that will follow.  We WILL lose our rights.  Your right to celebrate an occasion, whether celebratory or religious will be limited.  No more Christmas lights, the environmentalist SP’s recently released documentation outlining how our festive displays contribute to global warming.  Here’s a news flash for our E-SP friends, when you release air from the large orifices many of you call your a%$, YOUR contributing to global warming.

While your sleeping, they are fighting..

I want to pose to you a question, nothing overly controversial, not a earth shattering, family changing question, just a simple question.  But before I get to that let me give you the premise for my asking this question.   

So here goes, with the presidential election behind us and all the issues that we’re tossed around where do you stand?  Left, Right, Middle, Pun dent, Mullah, and what the heck do all these names mean anyway?  Let me tell you LEFT - left of center, CENTER - center, Right - Right of center, Pun dent - Reporter, Mullah - Some group in the Middle East.  But left or right of what, center of what?  Ever thought of it in these terms?   

Center means my views are neither Conservative nor Liberal, but in the middle.  Left or Liberal!, the nasty word it is, and Right the Conservative Church book hugger, gun slinger group.  These are the lines that have been drawn in our society today; not conscious of it?  Well it’s there I assure you, Bill O’Reilly being the most effective voice for the right and Hollywood, Obama, Pelosi, and Reed for the left.  I place Obama in there because that’s where his records shows him to be, now on the stump we’ll find out what kind of man he really is.  Did he follow the party lines to stardom and the highest office just to get him there and now he can put his 2 cents in?  Or is he really as radical as his record shows and will drive the country smack dab into Europe with one big Euro Orgy at the American Tax Payers expense.  We’ll see.

 My question for you is, if you are called to the stand in a trial.. and you are asked to place your hand on a bible swearing an Oath on the bible, let me say that again, placing your hand on a bible swearing an Oath on the bible, should the bailiff end his statement with “so help you god”, or simply “do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth”? 

 Now you might say well yea, then you say “so help you god”.. well the fact is the bailiff for 200+ years said “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god”, the person on the stand would say, “I do”.  You see, the liberals, or the ones who wish to pull all tradition out of society, they are responsible for this.. the ACLU.. the removal of the “Christmas Tree”..

Did you get your “Holiday Tree” this year?

Heck no!  Holiday tree my rear!  Christmas tree, and a Merry Christmas to you too… we all need to say a big THANK YOU to Bill O’Reilly for saving this one sacred American Icon. 

Holiday Tree or Christmas Tree? 

=(  Well not really, but a damn shame McCain couldn’t pull it off.  Palin would have made a great VP, I truly hope she doesnt leave the national scene.  There are too many inherent problems with John’s campaign.  It didnt appear to become energized or even organized until the very end.  Is that a republican problem or a candidate issue.  I think thats the real question here.  For too long the party (republican) has been associated with the rich, and well to-do, or old bitty types.  Rednecks, and NRA members; not that there is anything wrong with that but some freshness like Mitt Romney is needed to energize the people.. not the base, the people. 

I am not one that believes in only appealing to a base, thats a scham, a valid candidate must appeal to voters of all backgrounds. 

I’m done for now, let us only hope Obama uses this moment wisely to break down the countries racial divide and hopefully not turn to far left.  Socialism sucks!  I’ve been to Europe, we the people.. will not like it.

Peace.

When you interview for a job, here is a hint: make sure you know what the job is. Joe Biden failed that test last Thursday. He couldn’t even get right what a vice president does, but the media didn’t notice.

The media is all over itself about how smart and experienced Biden is. Political analyst Charlie Cook is quoted in the Washington Post on Saturday as saying “Biden is clearly so much more knowledgeable, by a factor of about a million.” Saturday Night Live does a skit about Biden being smart, if slimy. Meanwhile, Governor Sarah Palin is treated as being nothing more than a simpleton.

Yet, take Biden’s statement from the debate on the role of the vice president:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

One should be careful when throwing around terms such as “most dangerous” and “bizarre.” But Biden is confusing which part of the Constitution covers the Executive Branch (it is Article II, not Article I). More importantly, the notion that the vice president can preside over the Senate only when there is a tie vote is simply wrong. Nor is it true that the only legislative involvement the vice president has is to break tie votes. The vice president is the president of the Senate, where he interprets the rules and can only be overridden by a vote of 60 senators.

Early vice presidents spent a lot of time in the Senate. Thomas Jefferson even spent his timewriting “A Manual of Parliamentary Practice: for the Use of the Senate of the United States.” Modern vice presidents may show up only when they think tie votes will occur, but that is their choice.

This isn’t rocket science. The Constitution on this point is very straightforward: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

Instead, it was Palin who got it right. Besides correctly stating that the vice president holds positions in both the executive and legislative branches, she also noted that:

Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not only to preside over the Senate and [I] will take that position very seriously also. I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

But just as the vice president’s job includes more than simply being ready to assume the presidency if the president dies, the Constitution merely states what the vice president’s minimum responsibilities are.

Compare the uproar over Palin’s answer to Charlie Gibson about the “Bush Doctrine,” a doctrine that Gibson clearly didn’t understand and for which there apparently exist at least four different versions. Where is the outrage over Biden not understanding what vice presidents do? For Biden, his inability to correctly say what vice presidents do was surely his “gotcha” moment.

Yet, this mistake during the debate was hardly unique. Biden got a lot of things wrong in the debate that are going unnoticed by the fact-check media. Take just a few:

– Will McCain’s health care proposals raise taxes? Biden says that McCain’s proposal will cost people money. The Tax Foundation finds that could easily be “roughly deficit-neutral over ten years.”

– Under an Obama Administration the middle class will “pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan”? No, the tax rates will be similar to the higher rates under Clinton.

– Did “we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country”? No, one year’s worth of spending in Iraq equaled five in Afghanistan.

– France and the U.S. “kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon”? No, and it wouldn’t have made much more sense if he had said “Syria” instead.

– Is it really “simply not true” that Obama said that he would meet with the leader of countries such as Iran without preconditions? No, Obama said “I would.”

– Did Obama warn against letting Hamas participate in Palestinian legislative elections in 2005? No.

– Do “Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus”? No. If oil prices had remained high, it might have reached $50 billion by the end of this year.

– Finally, an amusing point as evidence that Biden is just one of the people he pointed to, inviting anyone to have a beer with him at “Katie’s Restaurant” in Wilmington, Del. Unfortunately, people will have a hard time taking him up on his offer, since the restaurant hasn’t had that name for probably 15 years.

Unfortunately, voters who are trying to get an accurate count on whether the candidates are telling the truth can’t rely on the media. FactCheck.org mentions only one of these points, the size of the Iraqi surplus. The Washington Post mentioned Biden’s misstatement on Hamas andKatie’s restaurant. AOL’s coverage of the errors in the vice presidential debate was by far the worst, though that might not be too surprising given that Tommy Christopher, who wrote their news analysis, also blogs on the Obama Web site. None of these checkers mentioned Biden’s statements about the role of the vice president.

Compare this to the attacks on Sarah Palin:

– FactCheck.org criticizes Palin for claiming that McCain’s health care tax credits will be“budget neutral” – they argue that the tax credit will be larger than the new taxes that the program will impose. Fine, but if the people at FactCheck.org believe that is true and that the Tax Foundation is wrong, Biden’s claim about increased taxes is even more inaccurate. But FactCheck.org doesn’t even mention Biden’s statement from the debate.

– From AOL’s news analysis piece. “Palin: Said that it is untrue that the U.S. is killing civilians in Afghanistan. According to an analysis by the AP, however, the U.S. is killing more civilians than insurgents are.”

What Palin actually said was: “Now, Barack Obama had said that all we’re doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians.” Whether one believes the AP estimate or not, the question is whether she was accurately characterizing Obama’s statement of the job that our forces were doing. And Obama said, “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” (emphasis added).

– FactCheck.org’s first critique claims that Palin was wrong to claim that troop levels in Iraq are down to their pre-surge levels. They are correct that after the recently announced drawdown, 6,000 more troops will be in Iraq than immediately before the surge. But why not mention that 84 percent of the 38,000 troops in the surge are home or are in the process of coming home?

The media seems to have been covering for Biden for some time. While news stories still talk about Dan Quayle’s spelling mistake 18 years later, there has been almost no news coverage of Biden’s numerous wacky statements. What if Quayle had said something similar to Biden’s recent statement that, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’” A neat trick given that Herbert Hoover was president in 1929 and television was not yet invented.

It might not fit the simple template for a 36-year veteran of the Senate to not understand what vice presidents do (after all, eight vice presidents have served with him), but Biden knew less about this than the political outsider, Sarah Palin. Given that they are running to be vice president, why didn’t that story dominate the news coverage after the debate?

We’ve had a rough month.

In case you just woke up from hibernation (welcome back, by the way), here’s a quick recap of the events that have crippled our financial and credit markets and forced the government’s hand … all in the last month:

• Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM), Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), and AIG (NYSE: AIG) were all bailed out by the government, while Lehman Brothers was left to fail. Just three weeks ago, we called these events the biggest financial story of the past 50 years.
• Washington Mutual (NYSE: WM) was seized in the largest U.S. bank failure ever and handed over to JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM).
• The government agreed to backstop Wachovia’s (NYSE: WB) loan portfolio to speed a sale to Citigroup (NYSE: C). A few days later, Wells Fargo trumped Citi’s offer and required no government backstop.
• The stock market was sent into hyper-reactive mode, spurring ridiculous day-to-day volatility. The VIX, or Volatility Index, hit its highest level ever.
• We both cried. On more than one occasion.

The financial markets have been especially volatile this past week, as market participants wondered if U.S. government legislation would come in to shore up the credit markets. The plan, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, asks for — cue Dr. Evil impression now — $700 billion to buy the more toxic assets from the Wall Street balance sheets.

The $700 billion bailout plan is by no means an act of charity; this money will be invested, notspent. These assets would not be value-less (in fact, it’s possible the government makes a profit), but it could take years to unlock their worth for the American taxpayer.

The ramifications of not passing this legislation are serious. Credit markets will freeze, businesses will take a hit, and, most of all, consumers will be pinched.

Problem is, the ramifications of passing it are serious, too. (Rock, meet hard place.) There was a loud uproar this week from Main Street over this legislation: about the piling on to our national debt, about further devaluing the dollar, about increased governmental intervention in the private sector.

Even we Fools disagree vehemently on which is the right course of action. Heck, we can’t even agree on whether it should be called a bailout, a rescue plan, or a stabilization necessity.

To help you figure it out for yourself, we’ve put together our best thoughts from both perspectives. Read below and educate yourself, Fool!

Understanding the Bailout
Morgan Housel: “What Part of the Bailout Plan Did You Miss?” (Sept. 30)
Morgan Housel: “National Debt: The Race Toward $10 Trillion” (Sept. 30)
David Forrest and Bill Mann: “Fool Blog: No Depression? Really?” (Sept. 30)
David Lee Smith: “Some Tough Questions on the Bailout” (Sept. 23)

The “For” Argument
Morgan Housel: “Market Meltdown: What Happens From Here” (Sept. 30)
Anders Bylund: “How to Be Finnished With This Crisis” (Sept. 30)
Morgan Housel: “The Bailout: Myths, Half-Truths, and Inconsistencies” (Sept. 29)
Scott Schedler: “How We Can Fix a Crisis We Did Not Create” (Sept. 26)

The “Against” Argument
Alyce Lomax: “Fool Blog: 6 Thoughts on the Bailout Buzz” (Sept. 30)
Alyce Lomax: “Bailout: The Sucker Punch” (Sept. 25)
Chuck Saletta: “What This Bailout Means to You” (Sept. 22)
Alyce Lomax: “Fool Blog: Paulson’s Mother of All Boondoggles” (Sept. 22)

You Chime In!
“Fool Poll: How Should the Senate Vote?” (Oct. 1)
“Fool Poll: Do You Agree With the House’s Vote?” (Sept. 29)
The Paulson Plan Discussion Board

By Anand Chokkavelu and Brian Richards

Sanity prevails.

Pelosi, moments ago: “The Democrats more than lived up to their side of the bargain.”

Horsepuckey. Pelosi has 235 members. She needed 218. She could spare 17 members and still pass the bill.

The GOP spotted her 65 members, for a bill that made most Republicans’ skin crawl in both broad outline and in terms of detail.

That meant Pelosi could afford to lose 82 Democrats.

She lost 95.

Bush and Paulson were never going to pass this bill with House Republican votes. It had to be palatable to the Democrats, and Pelosi and Frank said that it was.

Think about it - the majority party is insisting that the minority party is responsible for the bill not passing with a majority. Do you see the incongruency there? Why is anyone taking that argument seriously?
UPDATE: Hoyer says “we got every gettable Democrat.” If so, that’s stunning.
Chuck Todd on MSNBC right now: “Every member in a tough race voted ‘no’.”
ANOTHER UPDATE: I’m not buying this “Pelosi’s speech turned Republicans against it” argument. Either you think the bill is worthwhile (or that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action) and you vote for it, or you don’t. Somebody else’s speech is a lousy reason to change a vote on an issue as big as this…  

 I disagree with the last point.  For Nancy Pelosi to unleash an attack on Republicans and George Bush the way she did on the eve of a vote she has consistently framed as bi-partisan was astounding.  And to attack George Bush when he was her biggest backer was equally galling.  She was asking Republicans to swallow very hard to vote for this bill, and to attack them and rub their noses in it on the eve of the vote was both arrogant and stupid.  A hallmark of her speakership.  It also showed a complete lack of respect for the opposition, something she has made clear through the entire process.  A smart speaker - a Rayburn or an O‘Neal - if they truly wanted Republican support to pass a vote would reach out, embrace them and their concerns, and work hard with them.  Instead, Pelosi screamed “crisis” then basically said “do what I say.”  Not only “do what I say,” but I’m going to attack you minutes before the vote just for funsies.