Why I'm Against Trump's Economic Policies

Genius and talent don’t only exist among the privileged, and far too often, bright young people who could potentially be the next Einstein or Steve Jobs never get the chance, because of their situation—too little money, too little opportunity. Liberals believe that the best way to help even the playing field is to make sure resources are available for the disadvantaged, to make sure they have access to food, shelter, and education. These things cost money. 

It used to be, in the era when labor unions were strong and more businesses were local and home grown, instead of huge corporations, that people got a living wage for their labor. Now they don’t. And so liberals believe that those who have enjoyed the incredible advantages offered by being upper class in America, those who profit massively from the businesses that pay workers shit, should do their part to help those at the bottom. If your CEO makes 20 million a year, and your company makes millions in profits, and your workers can’t feed their families, the government either has to step in and stop that abuse, or step in and fill the gap.

Conservatives like to call this communism and conflate it with progressivism. But it’s a far, far cry from seizing entire businesses and profits, assigning people to jobs and distributing the money “equally” like communist Russia. Liberals believe that a progressive tax structure, in the end, works for everybody. The money ends up back at the top, because of a few factors. One, a healthier, well educated, well-compensated workforce is more productive. Two, poor people spend money. Not on private jets, but consumer goods. This money flows into the economy and ends up feeding business profits. Three, we don’t need to waste as much money on the things that poverty tends to create—crime, homelessness, astronomical health care costs. 

On the flip side, conservatives believe the more money concentrated at the top, the better. They think the poor are scum that will suck the teat of Uncle Sam for the rest of their lives. They think the poor can’t be trusted with money. Trickle-down economics has been Republican policy since Reagan, and every Republican presidency has proven it wrong. The 80s saw a devastating recession under George Bush. The 90s boomed under Clinton. The 00s led us to the greatest economic disaster since the great depression thanks to George W. Bush. 08-‘16, the economy has come back under Barack Obama. Do you see a pattern? Liberals do. 

And its not like rich Americans have suffered liberal policies. Why does Trump believe doing the same thing Republicans have tried and failed at for years will produce different results? Why do the rich, who haven’t been hurt at all by economic downswings, reap the benefit of tax cuts while poor Americans get their health benefits cut, their salaries kept at starvation levels, and face the loss of life-saving social services? Why does Trump believe that the middle class will benefit if the rich people get richer—even though that has never been the case?

The Brexit Won't End The World; Will Trump?

I had a moment of panic tonight, when I read reports about the Brexit vote. I never imagined Britain would actually vote to leave. I was not prepared, despite the close polls.

I guess after that young MP got murdered by a wacko Britain First guy, I figured people wouldn't want to vote on the same side as a xenophobic domestic terrorist. But Britain was so afraid of being attacked by immigrants that they decided to attack themselves first.

Their currency is currently collapsing. No one knows whether you'll ever be able to buy tea and crumpets in Brussels anymore. Even Game of Thrones, GAME OF THRONES!!! will probably never film its scenes in Northern Ireland again (but where will Yara and Theon call home?).

What's worse, markets everywhere are crashing. That means your... Well,  everyone's, investments will drop considerably in value. You will be worth less tomorrow because of some racist British guy.

And the bottom could be really low. We're bound to see Northern Ireland and Scotland (and possibly other territories--like Gibraltar) make their own Brexits, leaving England behind. That would send markets tumbling further.

So yeah, I was flipping out. About to write an email to my investment advisor... SELL SELL SELL! But then I remembered something I read, a truism preached by Ben Graham and Warren Buffet. I can't be a slave to "Mr. Market." He can offer me $20 for my shares in a company one day and $5 the next. Yeah, the price someone will pay for my investments will drop... For now. But if the things I've invested in are solid, those pieces of companies and properties--they will still be solid no matter what Mr. Market offers. They won't disappear. New deals will be cut, commerce will resume. It may take a while, especially in this political climate. But we'll get most of the value back with time if people do what's in their best interest and don't do things that will sell their investments short.

But... Will people do what's in their best interest? Panic tends to make us do things that hurt ourselves. And make no mistake, the Brits will suffer for this, that's clear by the market's reaction.

There's a lot of panic in the United States right now too, obviously. People so scared of Mexicans and Muslims that they want to elect a mealy tomato (sorry, that's insulting to tomatoes) who vows to kick those immigrants out, keep them out, and hey, maybe send Muslim citizens to some sort of secret "summer camp."

The blog FiveThirtyEight, in trying to explain the Brexit and its impact on the EU, used the United States as a point of comparison:

Imagine that the states of the Northeastern U.S. — New York and New Jersey, plus New England — don’t like the outcome of November’s election (not that far-fetched!) and decide they would rather split off on their own. After all, the Northeast is culturally different from the rest of the U.S., it has the most prestigious universities and the dominant financial capital, and it pays far more in taxes than it gets back in benefits. Why should people there let leaders they didn’t vote for impose policies they dislike?

Now, this is really getting eerie and makes me wish I hadn't slacked off writing my novel. But in the story I envisioned, New Jersey and New York DO secede. The President (elected on a nationalist platform) announces a new policy of "Discernment," where Muslims are required to report to centers where they will undergo interrogation and investigation to establish their loyalty to the U.S. (You could see Trump proposing this!) New York and New Jersey immediately refuse to contribute their tax receipts to the federal government and declare they will not enforce or cooperate with the order. Troops are sent in to make sure they do, some shots get fired, and the states officially secede. The independent nation of New New Amsterdam is short lived, however, as federal troops arrest the Jersey governor (not Chris Christie, in my book) and New York gets in line under a Vichy-like regime puppet-mastered by Washington.

I honestly thought the plot was, perhaps, too complex and unrealistic. But now? Our country is panicking just as bad as the Brits, and its easy to see how some may be ready to break it all up too.

We've got to remember something. We haven't just invested in some invisible concept called America, that is worth $20 one day and $5 the next. We bought into something real. The same land our parents bought into, and those first generations of immigrants: from those who crossed a land bridge from Siberia to follow wild game, to those who crossed an ocean to flee famine, war, and hate. America is something real--houses built and businesses grown and yeah, even cars parked on the Moon. We bought into a land built by people who had seen enough of the misery people make for one another and wanted to lift their families up. That America is still here, despite what some will say, despite its flaws. America doesn't need to be "great again."  It is great. It always was. Now is not the time to panic. Now is not the time to sell.

Some people want us to. Because it benefits them when things fall apart. One of those opportunists cheered on the Brexit, knowing full well it would launch a recession. He's also cheered on other policies that will lower us in the eyes of the world, wither away our perceived value, make us forget how great we are with vague promises of how great we'll be.

Donald Trump wants to buy us for $5.

Don't sell low. That's how people lose everything.

What If The Republicans WANT Us To Fall Off The Fiscal Cliff?

Pretty much everyone has been wondering how congressional Republicans can be so boneheaded as to allow this country to "fall off the fiscal cliff," i.e., allow the Budget Control Act of 2011 to take effect that would raise taxes on all Americans and massively cut government services. Economists unanimously agree: this would have a devastating effect on our nation's economy, possibly plunging us into another recessionary period. Look at the effects of Greece's austerity measures, which have resulted in chaos and the rise of Nazi-like fascism.

Jonathan Chait of New York magazine writes, "we are not dealing with rational people here. We are dealing with House Republicans." He, and others have argued that the Republicans have nothing to gain by letting us go over the fiscal cliff. Taxes rise, which is every Republican's nightmare, and then Obama has all the leverage he needs to maintain high taxes on the rich while cutting taxes for middle class Americans, which is the plan he prefers. Republicans wouldn't dare to oppose a tax cut for the middle class just because it doesn't include one for the rich. Such a move would be unpopular. Chait argues that the Republicans have nothing to gain by holding out.

But there's a hole in this logic. And its a big one. What if the Republicans secretly WANT to go over the fiscal cliff? Is there something in it for them?

Hear me out. It makes sense.

Ignore the taxes for a second, and look at what else happens when the Budget Control Act goes into effect January 2nd:

"According to Barron's, over 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget and Medicare are in line for "deep, automatic cuts."

Think about this for a second. Sure, Republicans are big national defense boosters, and they don't want cuts to our war machine. According to the White House, Army operations and maintenance would lose nearly $7 billion next year, the Navy more than $4 billion, and diplomatic programs and embassy security would lose $1.2 billion. 12.2 billion. That's not pocket change, and Republicans will not be happy about that part.

But what else will be cut? "Over 1,000 government programs and Medicare." To the tune of $87.8 billion. $87.8 billion!!!!!!

Now we're talking about something Republicans want, badly. They've wanted to cut those programs for decades. As my friend Robbie Republican puts it, "It's time to stop giving those communist hippie freeloaders money for their drugs, their spinning shiny rims and ghetto subwoofers. Let them work for a living. I hear McDonalds is hiring." One huge part of the Republican platform is smaller government, cutting "entitlements." And this would be the largest cut in government programs for lower-income Americans in history.

Let's enumerate some of these cuts...

-Most domestic programs would be sliced by 8.2 percent

 -Total payments to hospitals through Medicare would be cut by more than $5.8 billion next year, while prescription drug benefits would be trimmed by $591 million.

-The Library of Congress stands to lose $4 million for its books for the blind and handicapped.

-The National Institutes of Health would lose $2.5 billion. Rental assistance for the poor would fall by $2.3 billion; nutrition programs for women, infants and children would lose $543 million.

-Inquiries and investigations, a mainstay of the Republican House, would lose $11 million. Salaries and expenses in the House of Representatives would drop by $101 million. However, under the terms of the budget law, salaries for lawmakers would be exempt. 

And these are just the bare bones detailed in The New York Times article. The list is much longer. Billions longer. Maybe even Big Bird isn't safe.

I repeat-- these are things the Republicans have been trying to cut for decades. And they get it all, in one fell swoop. They don't even have to lift a finger.

Yes, taxes go up. Yes, defense spending is cut drastically. But both of these issues are temporary, and everyone knows it. It's very, very easy to cut taxes. It's very, very easy to justify defense spending with the global threats America faces. If no deal is struck by January 2nd, taxes will rise and defense budgets will be cut, sure. But by next January 2nd, it's very likely that taxes and defense spending will be restored to somewhere near their current levels.

The other programs? Programs for the poor and middle class? Programs for the arts and sciences? Programs for education? The Democratic desire to restore funding to these initiatives will be met with fierce resistance from the Republican caucus, and the public support behind them will not be strong enough to overcome it. Many of these programs were created back in the salad days of the Clinton Presidency or other Democratic administrations, and have had their funding slowly stripped during the Bush years. It will be very hard to get that funding back with the current makeup of congress.

Obama could try to save these programs, refusing to lower any taxes until the Republicans agree to end or reduce these doomsday cuts, but the Republicans will then argue he's holding Americans hostage, making them pay more unless he can increase the size of government. And they'd be right. That would be a tough position to be in.

When viewed in this way, it makes perfect sense for Republicans to sit on their hands and wait for January 2nd. They get all the cuts they've always wanted, and the things they don't like--higher taxes, lower defense spending-- can be and will be fixed within months. Once taxes are lowered again (even if taxes remain on wealthy Americans), Republicans believe that the "entitlement" cuts won't significantly impact the economy--THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THEIR BELIEF. So they look forward to rolling into the November elections being able to say they took a stand against big government and won. And if the economy doesn't crash and burn, the Democrats will be hard-pressed to argue they're wrong.

Of course, if these spending cuts do have a devastating effect on the economy, as the Democrats and most economists say, the plan goes awry. But even then, Republicans will pivot, and argue the fiscal cliff wasn't to blame. They'll say Obama got the tax plan he wanted. They'll point to billions in government savings, helping to move toward a balanced budget (even if a slow economy has hurt government revenues and isn't reducing the national debt). They'll sell any downturn as a continuation of the previous recession, and you know what? Enough people will believe it to help the Republicans remain relevant.

It's a gamble, but what's the alternative? Make a deal with Obama and give him everything he wants? That's not flying with this group of "boneheads."

Democrats agreed with the Budget Control Act because they thought there was no way it would ever be put into action. To me, this seems to be a very bad miscalculation. They've played a game of chicken with the Republicans-- but the Republicans are willing to get hit by the train, if it means getting what they want in the long run.

Hope you've saved up a nest egg and packed a parachute. Because we're going over this cliff, and it's going to cost a lot to climb back up again.

UPDATE: It appears that I was right.

Pity The Millionaires



By Robbie Republican

Hello my fellow patriots. You're looking well, for now. I say, "for now," because if Obama and the devil spawn of the Democratic party has their way, all of us will soon be reduced to dressing in rags and mining for scraps of food in the bottom of our neighbors' trash cans in order to survive.

Obama's nefarious plan to fix the economy is two fold. First, spend nearly a half a trillion government dollars to fund construction projects, invest in new technologies and train new workers. Secondly, raise taxes on people making a million dollars a year or more.

I know, I know. I feel your outrage. Obama (Hussein) is basically proposing the same thing that criminal Robin Hoodlum did back in the day. Robbing the rich, who use their wealth for so many great things, and giving their money to the greedy, immoral poor, who will only use it to spend on things like drugs and hookers. No wonder my good friend Bill O'Reilly is threatening to quit if the legislation is enacted.

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) is a perfect example of who this policy will hurt. He makes only a paltry $174,000 a year for his service to the country. And he barely makes $6.3 million a year from investments, his Subway franchises, and UPS stores. 6.3!!! That's such a tiny, tiny number!!

That's not all. With his tiny, minuscule income, King John needs to support his 500 employees, all of who DEMAND at at least $7.25 an hour for spreading mustard on turkey and licking stamps. He also has to pay for rent, equipment and supplies for the stores he owns. After that, he must spend nearly half a million dollars to buy new properties, create new stores and hire more workers. Would you believe this vicious cycle leaves him with only $200,000 to spend on food for his family?

I believe, because John Fleming is a rich man, and rich men are always honest and never exaggerate. Imagine how you and I would live if we only had $200,000 a year to spend on food for our family. I don't even want to imagine it. We'd probably have to fire our chef and eat at Denny's.

If John is struggling to get by now, just imagine what happens if Obama raises taxes on millionaires. John would be forced to close all his stores and fire all his employees. He'd have no choice but to abandon his mansion (who would be able to afford to buy it?) and live on the streets with his wife and their four adult children.

Meanwhile, all that government money gives the poor more money for drugs and pornography. John, his wife and four children now have to face an apocalyptic wasteland in which gangs of cracked out rapists roam the countryside, leaving a trail of wanton destruction and misery in their wake.

I dare not speculate further. There may be children reading this. But fear not. The Republicans will never let it happen, because unlike Democrats, we care about our country.

See, Republicans like me know the truth. The only way to save the economy is to stop giving so much money to the poor. We need to get rid of medicare and medicaid, get rid of the social security shell game, close public schools, eliminate affordable housing, and stop providing welfare. With all those crutches gone, the poor will instantly drape themselves in the finest suits and dresses (which I just know they have hiding in their closets), and will finally start trying to find jobs.

Where will they find jobs? Well, use the money we save to give another government bailout for mega corporations and millionaires. John Fleming will no longer have to fear his family going hungry. If John has only 500 sandwich makers and UPS drivers now, just think of how many he can hire if we make the Bush tax cuts permanent and reward the rich with even more money? Think of all the jobs that will be created! If we play our cards right, we can have a Subway restaurant on every street corner in America and they'll even deliver subs to your door via... you guessed it, UPS! By the Lord Jesus Christ, no one will go hungry again!

Because that's the way the economy works. Make the rich richer and it all trickles down, solving poverty and world hunger in one fell swoop. Heck, we even get to all be as healthy as that Jared guy. National Healthcare, get bent.

It hasn't happened yet, of course. Not yet. But once the Republicans are in charge again, it'll definitely happen. This time. Unlike the other times we tried it. Because this time will be different than the previous times. No Enron or Lehman Brothers to screw it up this time. Trickle down, this time for sure. It'll be proven correct, mark my words.

'Till next time, as always, I'm Robbie Republican. See you around the country club... for now.

Quitting Has Never Been So Much Fun!

In these tough economic times, jobs are hard to come by. But that isn't stopping today's over-extended, stressed-out workers from voluntarily joining the unemployment lines. After all, quitting has never been so much fun!

Take Steven Slater, (former) JetBlue flight attendant. Fed up with facing abusive airline passengers everyday and working long hours in the confines of a flying metal sardine can, he finally did what pretty much every person would dream about doing in his situation. When a passenger bonked him on the head with a suitcase and told him to, "F*ck off," Steven stormed to the intercom, told the passengers to all f*ck themselves, grabbed a couple of beers from the galley, grabbed his personal belongings, opened the emergency door, activated that super-fun-looking inflatable slide, and slid down onto the tarmac. Then he ran to his car, drove home, and engaged in victorious sex with his lover.


How Did He Fit In That Tiny Plane??

Then there's this HPOA:


What's a HPOA?

No, she was not a member of the Hispanic Police Officers Association. She was an assistant at some sort of financial firm. She overheard her boss referring to her as a "HPOA." Apparently scrolling down the list of Google results further than I did, she discovered it meant "Hot Piece Of Ass." That, apparently, was enough for her to send 33 photos to various people in the company, which depict her getting progressively hotter and holding a whiteboard that slowly reveals her boss was a Farmville addict, abusing the company's internet in the interest of expanding his acreage. This was apparently cathartic for her. And has made her a minor internet star. Where she can show off her assets to potential future employers. Like Playboy magazine.

Finally, there's Matt Green, a Brooklyn engineer who decided to take a walk during lunch one day. That walk took him to Rockaway Beach, where he took a dip in the ocean. Then he turned and walked in the other direction. He's been walking for 138 days across the country for "no particular reason."


Nope, Not Him...


...Him

He seems to be having the time of his life:

He is armed with a push cart filled with supplies like rain pants, beef jerky, bear repellant and a plunger, which was given to him by a hardware store owner in New Jersey to ward off stray dogs.

A sign hanging from the front of his cart reads, "We may never meet again."

The 30-year-old Bay Ridge resident quit his civil engineering job and set out with no grand plans of raising money or awareness for a cause. In fact, he made no plans at all to stop at popular attractions.

"I've just been blindly following the route and seeing whatever I see," he said. "It's been more about the journey itself."

Ah, the seductive temptress of the open road: the beauty, the freedom, the plunger-adverse rabid dogs!

Hearing these stories kinda makes you want to quit your job, doesn't it?

Who Says The American Auto Industry Is Dead?

Factories have shuttered in Detroit, Obama runs GM, and foreign companies are picking up the corpses of Chrysler and others, but the American car industry is far from dead. In fact, there's one domestic car that's outsold both the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord this year:


The Cozy Couple

It makes sense. What it lacks in power (the coupe only comes with a 2-shoepower engine and manual transmission), it makes up for in style and affordability. For $49.99, you get a car with the most headroom in its class, and, in this year's anniversary edition, a wicked cool set of cartoon-y eyes. Why spend a year's pay on foreign car when you can get this economical, domestically-produced gem that's guaranteed to attract the ladies?

The Cozy Coupe was developed by Jim Mariol, a former Chrysler designer. Hmm... I wonder why Chrysler went under?? Maybe... just maybe they shouldn't have let Jimmy go.

Just look at all these satisfied customers:

A Heist Movie

This January, coming to a theater near you...

Jeremy Irons...

"Fort Knox? Compared to this, Fort Knox is a piggy bank."

Jean Claude Van Damme...

"We need to stoup dem, beefer its too laight!"

Based on the true story of the greatest robbery ever pulled...

They told Congress they would save the country. But in the end, they only saved themselves.

"700 billion, ours for the taking."

"Surely they'll catch us."

"Catch us? Ha. They'll help us!"

Directed by Tony Scott.

Congress gave 700 billion to financial firms without much debate. Yet 14 billion for the auto industry, is being scrutinized endlessly. Hmm... when Republicans in suits have finincial difficulties, there's no debate. But when Democrats wearing hardhats are in trouble... there's got to be some "serious changes."

"But wait, Adam," you say. "That 700 billion came with restrictions too." Really? You mean that limit on executive pay?

"Yes," you say.

Um....

WASHINGTON POST- Congress wanted to guarantee that the $700 billion financial bailout would limit the eye-popping pay of Wall Street executives, so lawmakers included a mechanism for reviewing executive compensation and penalizing firms that break the rules.

But at the last minute, the Bush administration insisted on a one-sentence change to the provision, congressional aides said. The change stipulated that the penalty would apply only to firms that received bailout funds by selling troubled assets to the government in an auction, which was the way the Treasury Department had said it planned to use the money.

Now, however, the small change looks more like a giant loophole, according to lawmakers and legal experts. In a reversal, the Bush administration has not used auctions for any of the $335 billion committed so far from the rescue package, nor does it plan to use them in the future. Lawmakers and legal experts say the change has effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives.

"The flimsy executive-compensation restrictions in the original bill are now all but gone," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), ranking Republican on of the Senate Finance Committee.

The truth is, Congress is hemmoraging money left and right, and all this talk about restrictions and oversight is grandstanding and outright lies. The Dems may have a slim majority in congress, but they're as gutless as ever, and as long as Bush is still in the White House, he will continue to undermine any attempts to put regulations on his big business cronies.

Executives at companies like AIG are laughing all the way to the bank.

American International Group Inc., the insurer whose bonuses and perks are under fire from U.S. lawmakers, offered cash awards to another 38 executives in a retention program with payments of as much as $4 million.

The incentives range from $92,500 to $4 million for employees earning salaries between $160,000 and $1 million, Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy said in a letter dated Dec. 5 to Representative Elijah Cummings. The New York-based insurer had previously disclosed that 130 managers would get the awards and that one executive would get $3 million.

“I remain concerned, as do many American taxpayers, that these retention payments are simply bonuses by another name,” Cummings said in letter responding to Liddy.

AIG, which received a U.S. rescue package of more than $152 billion, has been criticized for saying it will eliminate bonuses for senior executives while still planning to hand out “cash awards” that double or triple the salaries of some managers.

They claim the bonuses... er... "cash awards" are necessary to retain top excutives-- to prevent them from joining other companies.

Um... why would anyone hire a failed executive? In this crappy economy? There's no demand for them!!!

Basically, it looks like much of the 700 billion will go towards making sure the financial futures of wealthy individuals are secure. The rest will probably be donated to various senators' re-election campaigns.

I wouldn't be surprised if Congress doesn't approve 14 billion for the auto industry. The mass unemployment and general destruction of the American economy will make sure that the public is too distracted to notice AIG executives cruising by on their brand-new yachts.

Obama can't come soon enough. But even he may be powerless to stop the greatest robbery ever committed in the United States.

Will Bush Destroy The Country?

I know what you're thinking. Hasn't he already? Embroiled in a costly and stagnant war, with our economy on life support and a major city still as mangled as the day it was hit by a hurricane, our country is in deep trouble. But, sadly, it could get worse, and there's a good chance that president Bush will make it so, despite his limited time remaining in office.

Lost amid the hubbub over Obama's cabinet appointments has been a call by Obama and his newly-selected chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, for Bush to authorize a bailout plan for the auto industry. Bush has already helped out his pals on Wall Street, but so far, he's seemed reluctant to help an industry that is just as integral to the American economy's success. With unemployment already at a level not seen since just after 9/11, the economy cannot afford more job losses.

Time magazine reports:

It's now clear that GM can't survive as an ongoing entity without massive federal assistance. The company is burning through more than $2 billion each month. It has $16 billion left. As if they were aboard a dirigible losing altitude, GM's bosses have been frantically throwing all manner of stuff overboard — retiree health-care benefits, people, assets, new car design — to conserve $5 billion. That will get it through the year.

Furthermore:

The system — the domestic auto plants and their interconnected group of suppliers — is far bigger than GM. It includes 54 North American manufacturing plants and at least 4,000 so-called Tier 1 suppliers — firms that feed parts and subassemblies directly to those plants. That includes mom-and-pop outfits but also a dozen or so large companies such as Lear, Johnson Controls and GM's former captive Delphi. Beyond those are thousands of the suppliers' suppliers.

Although the Detroit Three directly employed about 240,000 people last year, according to the industry-allied Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Mich., the multiplier effect is large, which is typical in manufacturing. Throw in the partsmakers and other suppliers, and you have an additional 974,000 jobs. Together, says CAR, these 1.2 million workers spend enough to keep 1.7 million more people employed. That gets you to 2.9 million jobs tied to the Detroit Three... Shut down Detroit, and the national unemployment rate heads toward 10% in a hurry.

We saw what happened when the government chose to let one big banking firm, Lehman Brothers, fail. The entire financial community fell down with it. Now it seems Bush is content to do the same with the auto industry. Except the workers laid off by this collapse won't be as well off as those let go by Wall Street.

So far, the President has offered only to speed through Congress an already approved $25 billion loan to help Detroit create new fuel-efficient models. But GM needs an additional $10 billion simply to pay its bills next year and $15 billion more to close plants, compensate redundant workers and dump some of its lesser-performing brands.

Bush was apparently angry that details of his conversation with Barack Obama were released to the press. One of those details was that Obama had urged him to support an auto-industy bailout. Of course, Bush had other ideas in mind...

The president stressed that his main priority for any postelection action out of Congress is approval of a long-stalled free trade agreement with Colombia. -Jennifer Loven, AP White House Correspondent

Yes, Bush is worried about Columbia, while Rome burns.

It may just be the cynic in me, but it seems to me that the Republicans have little to gain by supporting a bailout of the auto industry. They already took heat in this year's election for supporting the bailout of Wall Street. And by allowing GM and others to go under, they assure that Barack Obama begins his first year as President in a very, very deep hole that's nearly impossible to climb out from. By doing nothing, the Republicans can let Obama and a Democratic congress take the heat for a dead economy in the next election. Meanwhile, if they do approve a bailout and it fails, then the Republican base, already pissed at large government spending, will have all the incentive they need to vote their incumbents out of office.

Already, the Republicans are showing signs that they could care less about 2.9 million jobs.

AP - House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Thursday he would oppose an auto industry bailout. "Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers' competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy," Boehner said.

If Bush uses his veto power to kill a bailout bill, it's hard not to figure he's doing so in order to deliberately hurt the country for the immediate future, creating a toxic environment for the next party in charge.

Given what we've seen so far, I can't say I'd be surprised.

A Changing Landscape

While the whole world focuses on President (elect) Obama, and speculates on what changes he will bring to this country, the new president of the Maldives has just announced concrete plans to change some things about his tiny island nation.

He wants to change the size of it.

Much of the Maldives is a mere 3 feet above sea level, which means that if a polar bear living in the Arctic Circle accidentally spills his glass bottle of Coca Cola into the ocean, the nation will be inundated with floods.


The Real Cause Of Global Warming

Unlike previous rulers seeking to expand their territory, President Mohamed Nasheed is looking to make a purchase, not an invasion.

From the BBC:

Mr Nasheed's plan is to create a "sovereign wealth fund" using tourism revenues to buy land so that future generations will have somewhere to rebuild their lives if they have to leave.

He wants somewhere within the region, where the culture is similar - possibly India or Sri Lanka.

Unfortunately for Mohammed, it's unlikely that India or Sri Lanka is looking to sell. India's so against giving up territory that they're fighting tooth and nuke with Pakistan over a tiny remote mountainous region, and Sri Lanka is a pretty tiny nation to begin with.

Is there any nation in desperate need of cash that can grant the Maldivians a bigger homeland? Yes.

The U.S.A.

Let's face it. We're going through a recession. We owe so much money to China that George W. Bush has agreed to wash president Hu Jintao's car every other weekend. The national debt is climbing everyday, thanks to an endless war. At the rate we're burning up money, it won't be long before we become like Worm in the movie Rounders, depending on Matt Damon to win big in a poker game and save our ass.

And the U.S. has plenty of worthless properties in the South Pacific:


The Northern Mariana Islands are not too far from the Maldives, and it's highest peak is 3,166 feet above sea level, high enough to avoid drowning in the event of a global meltdown. Plus, Maldivian men would be happy-- the islands boast the lowest male to female sex ratio in the world: an average of 76 men to every 100 women (according to wikipedia).

But yeah, those islands have people that might not be happy joining the Maldives. So what about Jarvis Island? It once held the town of Millersville, which was abandoned during the second world war. Sure, its a bleak place with no fresh water, but this bargain-bin island may be just what the Maldives ordered:


Jarvis Even Comes With Its Own Bird-Doo-Lined Walking Path!!

Perhaps the Maldivians want a place with more history? Look no further than Palmyra Atoll, which boasts the Pacific's largest collection of unexploded World War II ordinance. It was also home to a notorious murder on the high seas. It's also got a lovely bunch of coconuts, so the inhabitants won't starve:


One Of The Least A-Bombed Atolls In The Pacific!

But I'm sure that after all these years on an island, some Maldivians might be cravin a little mainland. That's why I propose something a bit radical:

Sell Alaska.

Let's face it. Sure, it's a beautiful place, but how many of us will ever visit it? Yeah, it's got oil, but we can work out a deal when the Maldivians make the purchase. Alaska is like the appendix of America, a fine but superfluous part of our country that has the potential at any given moment to flare-up and spew poisonous Sarah Palin into our 49 other states.

We bought Alaska for $7,200,000 back in 1867. Accounting for inflation, rising land values, and significant because-the-Maldives-is-desperate markup, I think we can easily get 7 BILLION.


Motivated Seller?

Yes, the Maldivians would have to get used to the cold, but hey, when your nation is about to be under the sea with Sebastian the Crab, you have to make trade-offs.

Think about it, President Nasheed. You could use the land, and we could use the money. Make an offer.

And remember, as broker, I take 20%.

The Money Pit

Why am I reading the most insightful analysis I've read to date of congress's 700 billion dollar bailout plan in an article written by a sports journalist?

As Congress continues to debate whether they are going to hand over $700 billion of your money to the wealthy who screwed up Wall Street and the banking industry, you will be relieved to learn that top executives of the bailed-out firms temporarily will be limited to a strict $500,000 a year in tax-subsidized income. Surely you receive $500,000 a year in tax-subsidized income, don't you? Anyway, supposing we assume the bailout is required, here is what bothers me about the plan so far: Taxpayers don't get stock, what they get is warrants that can be exchanged for stock, and nonvoting stock to boot. This means that once media attention switches to the next crisis that everyone will claim in retrospect to have seen coming, the Wall Street rich can quietly lobby to have the warrants never called, thus keeping the entire bag of gold for themselves. Even if the warrants are called, taxpayers get no voting positions -- meaning the boards of directors of the bailed-out firms can do anything they damn please with taxpayers' money.

A week ago, Warren Buffett rescued Goldman Sachs by injecting $5 billion in capital. Did Buffett bargain for warrants that can be exchanged at an unknown later date for nonvoting shares? No: He is not a fool. Buffett gave Goldman Sachs $5 billion in return for senior preferred stock, the kind that votes and also is more valuable than ordinary shares. That is to say, he used his money to buy something. Goldman can now employ the cash to fix its liquidity problems. The United States Congress and the White House should use the public's $700 billion to buy something, namely senior preferred shares. Why are Congress and George W. Bush not simply following the road map laid out on this problem by the smartest investor of our era? Either Congress and the president are a bunch of blithering fools -- or what they actually want is to insure the public's money is never seen by the public again.

Gregg Easterbrook for congress?? We need somebody in there with an ounce of intelligence, rather than stooges who do whatever big business tells them to do.

The Economy's Latest Victim

Who cares about Bear Stearns? Or Lehman Brothers? Who gives a damn about AIG? The economic crisis has hit a company far more important to America, and indeed the nation's psyche as a whole.

I'm talking, of course, about Hershey's.

Hershey's Replaces "Milk Chocolate" with "Vegetable Oil Chocolate."


It's Still Chocolate, Except Vegetabley

Inflation and gas prices has made the price of cocoa butter go up-- so Hershey's decided to switch to cheaper vegetable oil. A tragedy of monumental proportions.

What sort of country are we living in when a venerable institution like Hershey's (founded in 1893) is forced to change their legendary product due to a floundering economy? What's next? Dropping a stripe from the American flag because red thread is just too costly?!?

What would Milton S. Hershey say?


"Give them quality. That’s the best kind of advertising in the world." -Milton Hershey

In other news, Willy Wonka had to lay off another twenty Oompa Loompas today. Union leader Orangehair McGiff criticized the move.

"He spends all this money on stupid stuff," McGiff said. "A riverboat in the middle of the factory? A train that transports people a few feet? No wonder Wonka can't afford to give us a health plan."

A sad day for chocolate lovers. A sad day indeed.

Vote For McCain (if you want to be poor)

The New York Times has an article today comparing Americans' average income growth under Democratic leadership vs. Republican leadership. While I'm sure my friend Robbie Republican would argue that the Times is full of communists and can't be trusted, the numbers don't lie:


Rich & Poor Get Richer Under Democrats

Coincidence? I think not.

How Baseball Can Strike Out The Recession

Four weeks into the 2008 Major League Baseball season, some of the sport's most legendary players are still standing on line at the unemployment office.

That line includes Barry Bonds, holder of baseball's all-time home run record. Sammy Sosa, a member of the 600-club. Kenny Lofton, a ten year veteran who is 15th overall on the career stolen bases list and holder of the record for most post-season steals. And most recently, Frank Thomas, one of the game's best hitters with more than 500 homeruns.

What is going on here?

One word, ladies and gentlemen. A decline in this country's real gross domestic product, or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.

Actually, that's a lot of words. So let's just call it "Recession."

Like millions of Americans, Barry, Sammy, Kenny and Franky find themselves fighting each other for applications to the local Denny's franchise because America's economy is in a funk. Others might blame their unemployment on criminal investigations, old age and cranky demeanors, but I'm calling it like I see it. In an America drowning under the weight of debt and inflation, even our national pastime isn't immune.

Consider: The Yankees, long one of baseball's biggest "spendy" franchises, went the whole offseason adding only two players to their roster: Morgan Ensberg and LaTroy "Call Me Paul O'Neill" Hawkins, neither of whom cost an arm and a leg.

Consider: The Baltimore Orioles, who began the season first place in the AL East, in one of the country's best ballparks, can't fill their stadium.

Consider: A mere year ago, Jose Canseco's book exposing steroids in baseball, "Juiced" sold over 200,000 copies and hit the New York Times bestseller list for eight weeks. But this year, his book on exactly the same subject, containing no new revelations whatsoever, is languishing on the Barnes and Noble discount rack. Two books about the same exact thing, by the same exact author. But the one released during this particular financial quarter fails.

Coincidence? Or evidence of our country's desperate state of affairs?

Clearly, we need to turn this recession around. And fast. The baseball season only lasts until November, and if Barry, Sammy, Kenny and Franky don't have jobs by then, they'll be forced to give up one of their many luxury automobiles. Or worse... be forced to appear in ads for Viagra:


Yes, I Should Be An Ad Executive

Yet, not one of the Presidential candidates has mentioned the plight of these unemployed baseball heroes. If a guy who hits 762 homeruns can't get a job, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Fortunately, I have a solution. It worked for Barry in the past, and I believe it can work for our nation.

Steroids.

That's right. I said it. We need to juice this nation up with some tasty, preferably racehorse-strength hormones. A nationwide program to inject every man, woman and child with some super-charging serum.

Think about it. Why does the economy fail? Well, I'm not sure, I didn't pay attention in economics class. But I read somewhere it has to do with weak performance. A large company doesn't meet its quotas. A huge construction project doesn't get done on time. A shortage of consumer products creates inflation. Money spent doesn't bring back results. Weak, weak, weak.

With everyone on steroids though, imagine the possibilities. If Barry can hit 70 homeruns in his 40s, then Joe Schmo at the plant can churn out four times as many widgets on the assembly line. Bigger muscles for the masses mean increased spending on new clothes and high-calorie food. No one will care about the price of gas: we'll be able to push our cars to their destinations. Suddenly, with our superhuman workforce, we're producing more than enough products to both fill our needs and trade with the world market. Beat that, China.

And we can cut our spending in Iraq in half: One Super-Soldier can do twice the work a regular one can, meaning we can withdraw thousands of forces and keep winning (cough) the war.

Steroids kept Barry in baseball long past his expiration date. And it can get him back in again. Just as it can get us all back to the muscular heights we once enjoyed in those blissful, Soundgarden-filled days of the 1990's.

My slogan: "Stronger People, Stronger Economy."

Hillary, Obama, John: this plan may just make you a winner. I urge you to consider it.

And if it doesn't work, at least we'll all be ripped.

Can Cuba Save Us?


Raul "Weird-Photoshopped-Lobsterhands" Castro

After 49 years, Fidel Castro has finally stepped aside as leader of Cuba. His brother, Raul, will most likely take his place. Will Raul be less "dictatorish" than his older brother? By most accounts, yes... and this could be great news not only for the Cuban people and for US-Cuba relations, but also for our economy.

The U.S. economy is tanking. The dollar is so weak that some American stores are accepting Euros as payment from European travelers. It's so weak that the list of countries where Americans can travel cheaply is shorter than the list of countries that still like us. And there hasn't been an end in sight. Bush can cut taxes until the federal government belongs entirely to Saudi Arabian and Chinese U.S. savings bond holders, but it still is doing little to stop the slide.

What can? How about 11,382,820 new U.S. consumers?

An end to the U.S./Cuba trade embargo would instantly make the isolated country's population accessible to American businesses. Raul Castro recently admitted in a speech that Cuban supplies of staple products like milk are about a third of what they should be for the country's population. Is there any doubt that the Cuban people would be seeking the products of American dairy farmers if the embargo were to end? And we're not just talking about 11 million people who need food-- wouldn't some of those Cubans like iPods and Ford Tauruses? Then add in the taxes on imported Cuban cigars that could help ease some of our national debt. Not to mention how the U.S. travel industry would benefit from providing trips to a nearby tropical isle where the dollar is strong and the curiousity factor is high. Exports and travel to Cuba could provide just enough juice to power up this economy and get our dollar headed in the right direction again... just in time for a Democrat to take charge in the White House.

You can bet Bush will one day try to take credit for it. But the booming economy we could find in the near future may be owed entirely to a guy named Raul.