BOTH SIDES NOW by l.t. Dravis

HOW The big 3 can help bailout the Bailout

2009-02-03T14:43:00.001-08:00

by l.t. Dravis

Hey, Senators . . . listen up!

Here’s a terrific way to help bailout the bailout.

We can stop throwing taxpayer money at bankers who pay themselves billions in bonuses and give elaborate super bowl parties by investing in products and services that not only provide income and dignity for families but also improve the quality of life for all Americans.

Why not invest taxpayer funds with the Big Three Detroit automakers to utilize their resources, capabilities, and potential to design, develop, and produce Multiple-Fuel internal combustion engine powered vehicles, Electric Vehicles, and Mass Transit systems?

Think about the possibilities here . . . we could help ensure the Big 3’s ability to pay back taxpayer supplied loans; we could save and add thousands upon thousands of good, long term jobs; we could generate millions of dollars in offsetting revenues to the treasury and to states from additional payroll and income taxes; and, we could invest in green, clean transportation systems to improve the environment while we reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

No matter which side of the so-called ‘bailout’ argument you’re on, it’s important to remember that Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors do not just build cars and trucks . . . they create, design, manufacture, sell and deliver a broad range of vehicles for a variety of applications at various price points.

These capabilities, developed and delivered by thousands upon thousands of educated, experienced, skilled, talented people working with an incredible array of advanced mechanical and electronic tools and high-tech facilities, are too valuable for the nation to ignore or reinvent.

BIG 3 CORE CAPABILITIES

1. Concept & Design . . . The Big 3 automakers are experts at creating and designing a variety of vehicles for a variety of applications; skills which can quickly be transferred to the creation and design of ‘Green’ vehicles required to break our dependence on foreign oil

2. Prototyping parts, components, and completed assemblies . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have the experience, capabilities, and tools necessary to produce computerized models of 3-dimensional prototype parts prior to dynamic elastic analysis in preparation for casting, forming, and/or machining

3. Fabrication . . . The Big 3 have the proven ability to produce parts, components, and assemblies utilizing a variety of specialty processes, including computerized press brake forming, computerized precision laser cutting and machining, Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) technologies, and computerized MIG and TIG precision welding processes

4. Assembly . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors employ thousands of men and women who know everything there is to know about manual and automated precision assembly processes

5. Distribution . . . the Big 3 Detroit automakers have perfected the logistical infrastructure necessary to efficiently and consistently deliver millions of cars and trucks to every town, village, and city throughout the country

6. Parts and Service Support . . . The Big 3 have successfully provided parts and service support for tens of millions of vehicles in tens of thousands of configurations in thousands of locations for decades

7. Warranty, Repair, and Service . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have created, written, and distributed printed and electronic service and repair protocols for numerous varieties of millions of increasingly complex vehicles produced over decades

UTILIZING TAXPAYER INVESTMENTS TO DEVELOP A NEW, 3-PART BUSINESS MODEL

1. MULTIPLE-FUEL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE-POWERED VEHICLES – Each company would develop fuel-efficient internal-combustion engines which run on bio-fuels, natural gas, hydrogen, and blended fuels for their existing lines of hybrids and non-hybrid cars and light trucks.

a. Technical Goals: Reduce time to design, prototype, acquire or modify capital equipment, and manufacture new products from the current industry standard of 48 months to 24 months. This reduction in product development time would come from strengthening relationships with suppliers and partners. New efficiencies would be built-in to the manufacturing process by utilizing advanced technologies such as intelligent flexible assembly processes, virtual manufacturing, ceramic injection, metal injection, powder metal processing, precision forging, squeeze casting, and reactive molding, improved precision tooling, net-shape forming, and the expanded use of high-tech lightweight materials (ceramics, polymers and specialty metals)

b. Cost Reduction Goal (Build-to-Order Models): Each company would implement a ‘build-to-order’ matrix which would allow consumers to order certain models with specific options direct from the factory to eliminate dealer inventory costs, minimize dealer inventories, and reduce consumer acquisition costs. ‘Build-to-Order’ vehicles would ship from the factory along with dealer inventory units and would be prepared and delivered to each consumer by the nearest factory authorized dealer

2. ELECTRIC VEHICLES – Each of the three companies would cooperate to design, prototype, and produce new battery/charging technologies to power pure-electric vehicles (similar size and design as the hybrid Chevrolet Volt) with extended range (up to 250 miles) at reasonable delivered price points.

a. Technical Goals: Improve pulse battery chargers to decrease time required to recharge electric vehicle batteries to 15 minutes or less with a full-charge battery range of 200 miles; establish a network of electric charging stations to facilitate long-distance trips in all regions of the nation

b. Cost Reduction Goal (Build-to-Order Models): The same ‘build-to-order’ matrix would apply to Electric Vehicles as would apply to Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

3. MASS TRANSIT – Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have the people, tools, and design and manufacturing facilities necessary to create, design, prototype, manufacture and deliver Hybrid buses, GLT buses, light rail ‘Trolley’ cars, commuter rail engines & cars, and high-speed rail conventional and Maglev train cars

a. Conventional (Green-Power) Buses: Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors would design, prototype, produce, and deliver Hybrid buses which operate on bio-diesel, fuel cells (a reactant fuel is converted to electrical power), fuel generated from renewable energy sources, or electric motors charged by wind-driven generators

b. GLT (Guided-Light-Transport) Buses: The Big Three would design, prototype, build and deliver GLT buses in two modes: In ‘Bus Mode’, the GLT operates like any other bus, powered by a CNG or Natural Gas burning internal combustion engine or by electric motors. In ‘Guided Bus’ mode, the GLT tracks a central rail (guide) imbedded in the roadway to allow it to function as a ‘ground-bound monorail’

c. Light Rail (Streetcar, Tram, or Trolley) Cars: Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors would collaborate on the design and manufacture of Light Rail cars (Powered by overhead electric line via a ‘trolley’)

d. Commuter Rail Engines & Cars: The Detroit 3 would design, build, and deliver multi-level, light weight, computerized, energy-efficient engines and cars for urban passenger train service

e. High-Speed Rail (Conventional & Maglev) trains: The Big 3 would design, build, and deliver self-propelled, electric cars which draw power from a GPS-controlled remote ‘3^rd’ rail. Maglev trains use electromagnetic power to literally ‘float’ over rails. Maglev trains rely on electrified coils in rails and guide way walls for ‘magnetic’ propulsion at speeds in excess of 300 miles per hour

EPILOGUE – If we take an objective, non-partisan look at the Big Three Detroit car companies, we have to admit that they design, test, produce, and sell lots of vehicles . . . even in tough economic times.

In 2007, the Big 3 Detroit automakers sold 8½ million cars and trucks in the United States and millions more in countries around the world.

General Motors outsold Toyota by 1¼ million vehicles last year and even in 2008, when the entire free world seems to be decrying General Motors’ ability to give the buying public what it wants or needs, GM managed to outsell Toyota by nearly 600,000 units.

Worldwide, General Motors sold nearly 9.4 million vehicles in 2007 – more than any other manufacturer, including Toyota.

In the U.S., Ford outsold Honda and Nissan, combined, by about a million vehicles in 2007.

And, Chrysler outsold Hyundai and Nissan, combined, in the U.S. in 2007.

Why?

Because, contrary to ill-informed hype, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors build high-quality, market-priced vehicles that offer exceptional fuel economy.

The Chevrolet Malibu is 2 miles-to-the-gallon better than the Honda Accord; the Ford Focus matches the fuel economy of the Toyota Corolla; and, the Chevy Cobalt offers better overall fuel economy than the Honda Civic.

This message was sent to 48 Senators yesterday.

Only Senator Shelby even bothered to acknowledge having received the message and his was an automated response.

But if Senators are serious about using taxpayer dollars wisely, if they truly support the ‘greening’ of American industry and all forms of transportation produced in this country, if they trust millions of American workers, and if they believe in American technologies, and American production capabilities to keep the American Dream alive, they will amend the bailout bill to invest in our own Big Three automakers and clean up our environment while we finally turn the page on our dependence on foreign oil.

Won’t they?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

NO Audacity, no hope . . .

2009-01-30T15:36:00.000-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Friday, January 30, 2009 – Another year, another bailout.

So what’s this one all about?

Washington politicos are now telling us that we should allow them to indebt our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren for an additional $819 billion to ‘stimulate’ the economy.

But wait a second; what are we really trying to do here?

Are we trying to stimulate the economy or are we trying to save it?

Given George W. Bush’s legacy of incompetency, it’s difficult to argue against doing something.

But, to borrow from President Obama’s own words, is the 2009 bailout package ‘audacious’ enough to stimulate, much less save the economy?

I don’t think so . . . and here’s why:

BUSINESS TAX BREAKS . . . Adds up to $?? billion or $??? million (no one knows exactly). Allows businesses to claim tax credits on profits over the past five years as opposed to two years under current law. Also allows businesses to take ‘bonus depreciation’ for investments in equipment and facilities while doubling write-offs for capital investments and new equipment purchases. Also gives tax credits for hiring young people and veterans.

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . Tax credits and write-offs don’t generate cash unless and until a business makes a profit, files a tax return, and receives a refund check. Besides potential negative cash flow problems for the treasury, accelerated depreciation puts only $.27 back into Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for each $1.00 the government gives. Corporate tax reductions put only $.30 back into GDP for every $1.00 the treasury gives away.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . Businesses need cash and they need it now and that means they need orders for products and services. The administration should talk to businesses and governmental agencies in cities, counties, and states to determine which high-demand products and services can and should be produced and delivered in the shortest periods of time. The government could then provide performance-based low-interest loans and/or cash grants disbursed monthly to businesses that create new jobs and/or retain existing jobs.

CHILD TAX CREDIT . . . Increases the number of people who can claim a child tax credit (currently $1,000 for each ‘qualifying’ child under 17) this year and next . . . costs $1.05 billion a year for ten years.

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . Consumers, like businesses, need cash. Tax credits don’t become cash until tax returns have been filed and refund checks received. These tax credits do not create jobs and therefore do not create additional federal and state income tax revenues.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . $1.05 billion a year could create 21,000 new jobs paying $50,000.00 a year, generating $262,500.00 in gross federal income tax revenue at the current 25% tax rate.

EDUCATION . . . Provides $29 billion for ‘education programs’, $4.6 billion for job training, $18 billion for Pell grants for college students, and $3 billion for ‘scientific research’.

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . This part of the stimulus falls significantly short of the need. The National Education Association estimates that it will cost $322 billion to bring our nation’s schools up to code to enable our children to learn in relative safety and comfort.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . Let’s get audacious on education! Let’s put enough borrowed money ($322 billion) into our borrowed future by awarding best-bid construction contracts to rebuild and refurbish school buildings, ancillary facilities, and grounds. Let’s also contract with publishing companies to produce updated textbooks and negotiate working partnerships between computer manufacturers and software providers to develop ‘virtual studio classrooms’ to engage students in interactive learning.

ENERGY . . . Puts $54 billion into ‘renewable’ energy ($41 billion for energy-efficiency projects and grants, $11 billion into a ‘smart’ electric grid and $8 billion into loan guarantees).

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . $54 billion will not significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will not create enough jobs to generate a return on taxpayers’ investment.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . Private capital typically follows government capital into viable economic development packages at the rate of 4 to 1. If, for example, we invested $500 billion in wind farms, viable electric cars, geothermal and solar systems, and other green technologies, private investments could total as much as $2 trillion and could create as many as a million new jobs.

HEALTH CARE . . . Spends $40 billion for Medicaid coverage and to subsidize health care insurance for low-income workers and unemployed people. States would receive $87 billion to subsidize Medicaid costs. Also includes $20 billion dollars to computerize medical records over the next five years. Spends another $6.5 billion on preventive health care and to support community health centers and fight avian flu, AIDS, STDs, and tuberculosis.

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . It is commendable for the federal government to subsidize Medicaid and health care insurance for low-income workers and unemployed Americans, but money spent here will not create new jobs and will not generate a return to taxpayers.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . Health care for all Americans should not be conflated with an economic stimulus package. The stimulus package should be focused on saving existing jobs, creating new jobs, and reviving businesses that might otherwise fail. This $153.5 billion could be better spent on ‘shovel-ready’ infrastructure projects. Suggestion: As part of the Obama health care initiative, companies like Assurant Health Care, Blue Cross, Health Pass, Kaiser Permanente, and United Healthcare could receive deferred tax credits to provide no-cost and low-cost short-term health care policies for low-income workers and unemployed Americans.

INFRASTRUCTURE . . . $142 billion would be spent on a wide range of infrastructure projects, including building and renovating highways and public buildings. Includes $10.4 billion for bus, high-speed rail, subways, and trains.

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . This package provides only 6.5% of the total amount necessary to rebuild our infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) reports it will cost $2.2 trillion in 2009 to rebuild our infrastructure, an increase of $600 billion over its 2005 estimate. Our crumbling infrastructure will not support (no pun intended) a healthy economy and threatens to derail the whole point of this stimulus package. Many infrastructure projects could take as long as 1½ years get started; more than half the money allocated to repair the infrastructure won’t be released until after 2010; and nearly two-thirds of the $60 billion allocated for highway construction and to repair federal buildings may not be released until 2012. These delays will severely curtail new job creation during a critical time when millions of unemployed Americans desperately need to return to work.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . It is time to finally confront the problem for what it is . . . $2.2 trillion should immediately be invested in expanding, rebuilding, and refurbishing our infrastructure. An aggressive, fast-track, infrastructure rebuilding program would create thousands upon thousands of jobs in a variety of occupations and would return billions of dollars in income taxes to the federal government and to states.

LAW ENFORCEMENT . . . The stimulus package provides $4 billion for police departments to offset anticipated declines in state, county, and city funding to keep police officers on the job.

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . $4 billion allocated to police departments without any conditions will not do anything to create new jobs or to stimulate business activity.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . Funding for law enforcement should be part of a separate anti-crime bill designed to comprehensively improve overall efficiencies in the criminal justice system. The $4 billion allocated here should be used to hire people to work on infrastructure projects.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY . . . Nearly $6 billion for research and development would be handed out to NASA, the National Science Foundation, and to expand broadband service in rural areas.

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . $6 billion would have a minimal impact in the short-term to create new jobs or stimulate business activity.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . Research and development projects should create real jobs for real people across a variety of industries. The Federal Government could, for example, send requests for proposal to Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors to develop heavy-duty natural gas engines to replace diesel engines in tractors and trucks or to design and produce new forms of light-rail systems or to design and build Mag-Lev trains for long-distance routes. The Federal Government could also contract with non-profit medical research facilities like the Duke University School of Medicine, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the James Wilmot Cancer Center at the University of Rochester, and other similar facilities to develop affordable medicines, medical procedures, and new technologies to improve the lives of all Americans.

TAX RELIEF . . . $212 billion gives individuals a $500.00 reduction in payroll tax deductions, a refundable $1,000.00 per child tax credit, expands the Earned Income Tax Credit, and provides a partially refundable $2500.00 four-year college tuition credit.

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . 43% of federal government revenues comes from personal income taxes. 40% of revenues for the treasury come from payroll taxes. Tax reductions interrupt cash flow to the federal government and increase the federal deficit. The government then has to borrow more money which increases interest payments on the national debt and creates the need for future tax increases. Additionally, when the government competes against private enterprise for capital, private enterprise pays more which means consumers pay more. Tax credits to individuals will not create new jobs and will not have any measureable impact on the economy until people receive tax refund checks.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . Tax cuts may sound good to politicians on Election Day, but they don’t help the economy as much as increased spending on infrastructure projects. According to Mark Zandi, Chief Economist for Moody’s, each $1.00 in individual tax cuts adds only $1.03 to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) while each $1.00 in increased spending on infrastructure adds $1.59 to GDP.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS . . . $60 billion would be spent to increase unemployment benefits by $25 a week and extend benefits for eleven months. Included are funds for job training and an increase in food stamp benefits, plus $7.5 billion in SSI payments to poor families with children.

WHY THIS WON’T WORK . . . According to the Heritage Foundation, an extension of unemployment benefits actually increases the number of people who remain unemployed. The Heritage Foundation also found that a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits adds only $.25 to the economy for each $1.00 spent.

WHAT WILL WORK . . . $60 billion would be better spent to assign unemployed workers to full-time community service jobs, job training classes, and to positions with organizations like SCORE and the SBA to gain experience helping new entrepreneurs establish and manage small businesses.

ACCOUNTABILITY . . . We know that banks, financial services companies, and Wall Street misappropriated hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars originally intended to be loaned to businesses and individuals to stimulate the economy.

One wonders why our ‘leaders’ in Washington failed to anticipate that the same people whose incompetence and greed precipitated the economic meltdown would misuse and steal billions of ‘free’ dollars and institute standards of accountability to protect taxpayers?

After having learned the ‘missing bailout money’ lesson at our expense, Congress seems to have gotten smarter and incorporated the following accountability provisions in the 2009 bailout package:

· A Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board will review how taxpayer funds are being spent and will intercept problems before they become disasters. This seven-member board will include inspectors general and deputy Cabinet secretaries.

· City, county, and state officials will be required to certify justification for public funding of each investment and will certify that each investment has been fully vetted and will post those certifications on the Recovery Act website.

· Contract announcements, grant competitions, contract awards and grant allocations will be posted on the Recovery Act web site.

· Earmarks will not be allowed to be added to the stimulus package.

· Funds will be distributed only through programs with a history for fiscal responsibility.

· GAO inspectors general will be allowed full access and will be equipped with resources necessary to review all forms of funding.

· Names, phone numbers, and addresses of program and project managers will be posted on the Recovery Act web site.

· Project descriptions, including purpose, total cost, timeline, and justification for funding will be posted on the Recovery Act web site.

· Whistleblowers who report abuse and fraud will be protected from any and all forms of retribution.

EPILOGUE . . . This is new ground for the United States of America. For two hundred plus years we’ve been a democratic nation with a capitalist financial system considered by the world to be the strongest in the history of mankind. Capitalism survived the Revolutionary War, the settling of the west, the Civil war, World War I, a twelve-year long depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, a century or more of racial injustice, the assassinations of President Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Senator Kennedy, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the fall of the Soviet Union, famine and natural disasters around the world, but was very nearly destroyed by eight years of the incompetency and moral bankruptcy of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and a do-nothing Congress.

Politics aside, only the federal government has enough borrowing power (or the ability to print money at will) to even come close to managing this mess, so we have no choice but to turn to the world’s largest and, some would say, most incompetent institution, to save us from ourselves.

Save us from ourselves?

Yup.

We stood by and did nothing while Bush, Cheney, the Bush cabinet and the House of Representatives and the Senate stumbled around for eight long years, squandering the nation’s financial, political, and military resources.

We were evidently too busy watching American Idol and Dancing with the Stars to watch our elected and appointed representatives.

And, some would say, we’ve gotten what we deserve.

But with President Obama in office, we have a chance to turn things around.

Our new President is intelligent and thoughtful and he believes in democracy as envisioned by the framers of our constitution, he believes in transparency, and, most important, he believes in listening to us.

So we have the power to make certain this bailout package not only ‘stimulates’ the economy, but actually saves it.

Who could ask for anything more?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

KEEP Your job . . . Guaranteed!

2009-01-28T22:18:00.000-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Wednesday, January 28, 2009 – Your job is not about your boss or about your co-workers or even about you; your job is about money . . . all about money.

So, I won’t waste your time by advising you to ‘chat-up’ the boss. I won’t tell you to avoid ‘telecommuting’ because it’s easier to fire someone by Email than in person. I won’t tell you to promote yourself by sending your boss Email summaries of what you’re doing. And, I sure as heck won’t tell you to ‘make nice’ with co-workers and management.

The way to keep your job when others lose theirs is to generate more in profits than the company spends to keep you on the payroll.

Your job security also depends on your company’s ability to survive, so you need to look for ways to improve productivity in all departments.

Productivity is defined by how well you, your colleagues, and management utilize capital, equipment, facilities, markets, processes, and technologies to create, design, produce, and deliver the products and/or services your company sells.

No matter where you work or what you do, review every aspect of your job to determine where, when, and how you can improve productivity.

If you handle accounts receivables, find new, reliable, cost-effective, methods to speed up billings and collections.

If you have a clerical position, create new, less costly ways to store, retrieve, and utilize information to speed up and improve communications with suppliers, vendors, customers, and prospects.

If your job is in logistics (warehousing, transportation, maintenance, etc.), evaluate every cost item in the process by which your company receives raw materials, maintains equipment and tools, and packages, ships or delivers products and services.

If you work in manufacturing, production, or assembly, become proficient in six sigma-type techniques to improve quality, reduce costs, and cut lead times.

No matter what your job is, no matter who you work for, take responsibility for rooting out wasted time and effort. While you’re at it, meet regularly with colleagues to brainstorm ways you can work together to increase productivity throughout the company.

Remember to coordinate everything you do with appropriate managers so you don’t work at cross-purposes.

Moreover, set a good example for your colleagues . . . when you get to work, get to work . . . never cut corners on quality or delivery . . . and, most important, always put customers first!

There’s nothing more than common sense here . . . but now you have it all on one piece of paper.

Nice, huh?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

THE Smirk is real!

2009-01-15T21:45:00.000-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Thursday, January 15, 2009 – George W. Bush gave his farewell, ‘feel-good’, address to the country tonight to defend his version of his record over the past eight years.

So, what’s the truth?

Let’s compare what he said to what he did . . . and then, you tell me . . . am I wrong when I say, The Smirk is real?

WHAT HE SAID: “For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President.”

WHAT HE DID: The man who said tonight that ‘it has been my honor to serve as your President’, told FOX News on December 18, 2008 that he didn’t care about what the American people thought of his decisions and policies. In fact, he said, “I’ve had, hell, a lot of serious challenges. What matters to me is I didn’t compromise my soul to be a popular guy.”

WHAT HE SAID: “The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence – a time set apart.”

WHAT HE DID: The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence primarily because George W. Bush lied to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without cause, killing over 4,200 Americans, injuring more than 30,000 Americans, killing and wounding a hundred thousand or more Iraqi men, women, and children, and costing American taxpayers $588,525,042,916.99 as of 9:32 PM, EST, January 15, 2008.

WHAT HE SAID: “And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me.”

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush took an oath, twice, to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet he violated the trust of the American people when he worked behind the scenes to dilute or even get rid of constitutional protections for U.S. citizens and purposefully circumvented constitutional protections by authorizing a secret program to eavesdrop on Americans in violation of an existing law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

WHAT HE SAID: “This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house - September 11, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock. I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son's police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush failed to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001. Despite the fact that U.S. intelligence sources were reporting higher-than-normal levels of terrorist communications around the world, as of June, 2001, there had not been a single Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism. On September 4, 2001, Bush administration Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke urged officials to prepare for a terrorist attack that could kill hundreds if not thousands of Americans. George W. Bush refused to acknowledge Mr. Clarke’s warnings and within a week, thousands of American heroes and their families would pay the price for his refusal.

WHAT HE SAID: “And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander in Chief.”

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush’s lopsided vision of establishing a democracy in Iraq on the lives and limbs of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings was mismanaged from day one. If he was truly honored to serve as Commander in Chief, why did he send too few troops to Iraq in 2003, why did he allow his dim-witted Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to disband the Iraqi army and leave caches of weapons all over the country for militias, Al Qaeda, and other warring factions to use to kill and wound American troops? Why did he allow hundreds if not thousands of precious U.S. troops to be killed and wounded in Iraq because they were not issued body armor? And, why did his administration allow wounded veterans to be neglected and mistreated at the Walter Reed National Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.?

WHAT HE SAID: “When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy.”

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush’s failed policies caused the ‘challenges to our prosperity’ (challenges, after all, do not ‘emerge’, they are caused). This is the president who wasted the budget surplus left by Bill Clinton and more than doubled the national debt to nearly $11 trillion with year-after-year deficit spending. George W. Bush caved into lobbyists, backed away from proposed regulations on easy-credit, interest-only, no money-down mortgages, and helped precipitate the ‘mortgage meltdown’. And, what about the ‘decisive measures to safeguard our economy’ George W. Bush sounds so proud of? Those measures simply put American taxpayers in debt to the tune of more than $1 trillion in bailouts to pay for Bush’s failure to protect the economy in the first place.

WHAT HE SAID: “America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.”

WHAT HE DID: George W. Bush wasn’t worried about ‘good and evil’ when he supported ‘rendering’, ‘water boarding’ or the arrest and illegal detention of suspected terrorists for years. And, when George W. Bush said tonight that, ‘Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere,’ how does he square that statement with the forced imposition of American-style democracy on innocent Iraqis?

AND THEN HE SAID: “And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next president. And may God bless you and our wonderful country.”

AND SO WE SAY: “And, so, George W. Bush, for the final time: Good night and good riddance. May God forgive you for the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries you’ve caused . . . but, most of all, may God make you go away – quietly – while we pray we never see your kind again.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

WHERE Were the tough questions?

2009-01-12T23:49:00.000-08:00

Photo Credit: Chip Smodevilla/Getty

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, January 12, 2009 – George W. Bush held his final news conference today, played fast and loose with the truth as he defended his eight year record, and no one in the room had guts enough to challenge him.

George W. Bush opened the door wide several times for tough questions, but reporters didn’t dare rush in.

Why, I’ll never know . . . it’s not like any of these reporters had to worry about being barred from the next Bush Press Conference for having committed the mortal sin of asking a tough question.

Bush was aggressive, arrogant, and even joked about the incredible mess he’s left this country in.

And the White House Press Corps laughed with him.

Not one professional journalist had the courage to challenge Bush when he commented on his presidency’s record by saying, “I think it’s a good, strong record. You know, presidents can try to avoid hard decisions and therefore controversy. That’s just not my nature.”

With America mired in two wars, with our military nearing the breaking point, with our infrastructure falling down, with unprecedented deficit spending adding up to a $10+ trillion national debt, with unprecedented mismanagement of American resources in Iraq, with our economy in shambles, with millions of Americans facing foreclosure, with millions more out of work, with our banking system on the edge of failure, and with our manufacturing base nearly destroyed, why wouldn’t at least one journalist challenge that statement?

Who in the room, who in the nation, who in the world sincerely believes George W. Bush’s record, is ‘good and strong’?

When asked about America’s image around the world, Bush said, “I disagree with this assessment that, you know, that people view America in a dim light. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom.”

Of course, eight years of George W. Bush’s arrogant, detached, incompetence has damaged America’s image around the world.

Did the reporters at Bush’s final press conference truly believe that our image around the world has been strengthened by his mismanagement of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did those reporters believe our image has been helped by Bush’s lack of leadership in coping with the ongoing nuclear threat in Iran? Did any of those reporters seriously believe that the Bush administration strengthened America’s image by ‘rendering’ and ‘torturing’ suspected terrorists in secret prisons in foreign countries and at ‘Gitmo’?

Yet not one reporter challenged him.

George W. Bush then defended his record in the Middle East by justifying his failure. “It’s been a long time since they’ve had peace in the Middle East,” Bush said. “The challenge, of course, has been to lay out the conditions so that a peaceful state can emerge. Will this ever happen? I think it will. And I know we’ve advanced the process.”

No reporter pointed out the fallacy of his argument or asked Bush to explain how his administration had ‘advanced the process’.

Bush then said he’d “thought long and hard about Katrina. You know could I have done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge.”

Bush was revealing that the most important thing on his mind when Katrina hit was where to have a photo op . . . in New Orleans or Baton Rouge . . . yet no one in the room pointed out that he was talking about something completely unrelated to the question of his administration’s abysmal response to a national tragedy.

Bush then said something absurd . . . even for him. He said, “Don’t tell me the federal response was slow when there were 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed. Could things have been done better? Absolutely. But when I hear people say the federal response was slow, what are they going to say to those chopper drivers or the 30,000 who got pulled off the roof?”

That Bush could get away with making a statement like that . . . in front of experienced journalists was unbelievable.

It is well documented that George W. Bush failed to take charge; that he failed to make certain that every federal resource was utilized to quickly and effectively save lives and property throughout the Gulf Coast after Katrina. His failure cost lives and seriously delayed the rebuilding effort. George W. Bush and his minions failed to anticipate the scope of the disaster (despite very clear warnings from the national weather service) and they failed to react and they failed to follow-through.

Three and a half years after the fact, damage done by Katrina is still impacting the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans on the Gulf Coast.

Yet not one reporter pointed out that the Coast Guard’s valiant efforts to save 30,000 Katrina victims had absolutely nothing to do with Bush’s leadership or with his administration’s response to the tragedy.

Not one reporter asked George W. Bush to explain or justify why his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, threw the first $350 billion of the financial bailout at banks with no accountability.

The outgoing president stood at that podium in front of the White House Press Corps for three-quarters of an hour so it wasn’t like reporters didn’t have time enough to ask the tough questions.

If the media exists only to serve as a conduit for truth between us and them, why didn’t reporters hold George W. Bush accountable for his failures today?

Were those reporters more concerned about playing by the unspoken rules of presidential press conferences, which are designed, first and foremost, to protect the president’s image or were they more concerned about honoring their obligation to report the truth?

After today, we know the answer to that question.

Don’t we?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

BANKING Lobbyists aren't happy . . . so what?

2009-01-10T00:11:00.000-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Friday, January 9, 2009 – SURPRISE, SURPRISE! Some big names in the banking lobbyist game, the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and other lobbyists aren’t happy about Citigroup’s sudden turnabout on a proposed law to give bankruptcy judges the authority to alter mortgage terms to help homeowners facing foreclosure to stay in their homes.

Without any basis in fact, these lobbyists say if Congress gives broader authority to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages to help homeowners avoid foreclosures, home loans will cost more.

Why should we care what lobbyists say?

Because if we don’t head this bunch off at the pass, they’ll defeat the legislation and run up foreclosure rates higher than they are now.

So, we have to deal with them, don’t we?

Floyd Stoner, who represents himself as the American Bankers Association Executive Director for Public Policy, supposedly said, “The ABA is opposed to the agreement because it will leave in place overly broad mortgage ‘cram-down’ authority and other provisions that will harm thousands of banks across the country that have made, and continue to make good loans.”

What?

Where does Stoner come up with the assertion that allowing bankruptcy judges to help homeowners avoid foreclosures will harm thousands of banks across the country that have made, and continue to make good loans?

Call me silly but I presume those thousands of banks across the country that made and continue to make good loans shouldn’t be too seriously impacted by bankruptcy judge decisions . . . aren’t good loans good loans?

Am I wrong to make that presumption?

In any case, let’s forget Stoner for a moment, get rid of the bank-speak, and translate this situation into plain English.

First things first: ‘Cram-down’ means that a bankruptcy judge could reduce a mortgage balance or principal or interest-rate to enable a homeowner to avoid foreclosure. For example, a bank holding a $125,000 mortgage on a property worth $100,000 could ‘cram-down’ the mortgage balance to $100,000, leaving the bank to write-off $25,000, but only if the mortgage holder proves his or her ability to pay the balance.

Banking lobbyists are too self-serving to care about the people who actually support them (the good folks who send in their mortgage payments every month and deposit money in their clients’ banks); they’d rather force mortgage holders and their families into the streets, board up properties, and further drive down overall property values.

Not too bright, huh?

Think about it . . . banks actually pay these people (the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, and the Mortgage Bankers Association and others) to fight legislation designed to strengthen the long-term economy, create jobs, and increase bank deposits and purchases of banking products.

Let’s go back to Floyd Stoner to get some insight into why and how banking lobbyists would be so short-sighted.

Stoner again revealed his ignorance of basic economics when he said, “Anything that is so broad, even if limited in time, is a grave concern. We always believe this economy will recover. As it does, real banks are the engine of the recovery. We need to make sure that we don’t do things that make it more difficult for them to participate in that recovery.”

What?

‘Real banks (what are ‘real banks’?) are the engine of the recovery?

Come on!

Consumers will be the engine of the recovery!

You know who consumers are, don’t you, Floyd?

Consumers are the men and women who earn the money and the credit necessary to purchase the trillions of dollars in products and services that drive this economy year in and year out.

Consumers are the good folks who have been forced to cope with an economy turned inside out by inept, self-serving politicians who created a ten trillion dollar public debt and greedy bankers who are now begging taxpayers to bail them out of trillions of dollars in ‘toxic mortgages’.

Nearly 600,000 mortgage holders (consumers) were forced to file for bankruptcy in 2008.

About 50 million consumers hold residential mortgages today . . . representing more than $10 trillion owed to your clients.

Consumers are the folks who pay your fat salary and benefits.

So, the next time you receive a paycheck, enjoy a perk, or take a paid vacation, remember who makes it all possible.

Consumers.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

CONDI Rice . . . crazy or just stupid?

2008-12-29T13:13:00.000-08:00

Photo Credit: Reuters

By l.t. Dravis

SOMEWHERE IN CONDI-WORLD – Sunday, December 28, 2008 – I’m worried that Condoleezza Rice, the least effective Secretary of State in recent memory, has lost her mind or is just plain stupid.

Why am I worried?

Because the Secretary of State was interviewed by Rita Braver on yesterday’s edition of the CBS Sunday Morning show and said, “people will soon start to thank this President for what he’s done.”

What?

Why on earth would the Secretary of State say something like this?

What was she thinking?

Does any sane, reasonably intelligent person seriously believe that, except for leaving Washington on January 20, 2009, George W. Bush has done anything that people will ever thank him for?

The sanity or intellectual capacity of the Secretary of State of the United States of America is too important for even me to play politics, so I’ll simply compare the Secretary’s words to the George W. Bush record.

Rice said, “So we can sit here and talk about the long record, but what I would say to you is that this President has faced tougher circumstances than perhaps at any time since the end of World War II, and he has delivered policies that are going to stand the test of time.”

Secretary Rice failed to tell us, specifically, which George W. Bush policies will ‘stand the test of time’?

Was she saying that the Bush policies which alienated even long-time allies around the world will ‘stand the test of time’?

Was Secretary Rice saying that George W. Bush’s unnecessary, unprovoked invasion of Iraq predicated on a series of orchestrated lies . . . the ‘policy’ that killed thousands of precious Americans, maimed thousands more, caused the deaths of a half million or more Iraqi men, women, and children, and indebted U.S. taxpayers for billions of dollars for decades to come . . . is a policy that will ‘stand the test of time’?

Would the Secretary of State be willing to sit down with the families of dead and injured American troops and tell them that it was okay for their husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters to be killed or wounded because the Bush Iraq policy will ‘stand the test of time’?

Does Secretary Rice seriously believe that the Bush policies that created a $10 trillion dollar national debt and helped cause the near-collapse of our economic system, a system that was able to survive centuries of hot wars, cold wars, racial strife, political upheaval, depressions and recessions, but very nearly couldn’t (and still may not) survive eight years of Bush/Cheney will ‘stand the test of time’?

The Secretary of State praised George W. Bush for his ability to ‘change the conversation’ in the Middle East.

Rita Braver should have asked, What is Bush’s ‘new conversation’ and has it been worth the cost in lives and treasure?

But Rita didn’t ask.

So, Rice didn’t say.

Secretary Rice did say, “This isn’t a popularity contest. I’m sorry, it isn’t. What the administration is responsible to do is make good choices about American’s interests and values in the long run . . . not for today’s headlines, but for history’s judgment.”

I don’t know about you, but I was shocked to learn that the Secretary of State believes a President, Vice-President, and the Cabinet should invest its time and taxpayer money in making sure the administration looks good for ‘history’s judgment’.

If that wasn’t crazy enough or stupid enough, Rice went on to say, “And I am quite certain that when the final chapters are written and it’s clear that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is gone in favor of an Iraq that is favorable to the future of the Middle East . . . when the history is written of a U.S.-China relationship that is better than it’s ever been . . . an India relationship that is deeper and better than it’s ever been . . . a relationship with Brazil and other countries of the left (sic) of Latin America, better than it’s ever been.”

How can Rice possibly know that today’s Iraq ‘is favorable to the future of the Middle East’ when Iraq is rife with corruption, is surrounded by hostile neighbors, and is divided by ethic and religious factions historically prone to violence.

The Secretary of State’s prediction seems to dismiss some troubling facts: Iran, a potential nuclear power, lies on Iraq’s eastern border while Syria, certainly not an ally, borders Iraq to the northwest. Rice seems also to have forgotten that Kurds, Shi'ites, and the Sunni are still in Iraq, will stay in Iraq, and are not likely to ever stop killing each other. The Secretary of State is either too crazy or too stupid to think beyond the day when U.S. troops are finally out of Iraq and Moqtada Sadr, his militia, other militias and ethnic, political, and religious factions, Al-Qaeda, and any other terrorist organization decide the time is right to start killing and maiming for oil, cash, and power.

Did Rice consider the possibility that when the history of the U.S.-China relationship in the early 21^st century is written that it may very well contain a chapter on how the Chinese foreclosed on America’s failure to repay the billions borrowed by George W. Bush, throwing us – not him - into bankruptcy?

Do you think Secretary Rice forgot that India always resented George W. Bush’s support and praise for former Pakistani strongman, General Pervez Musharraf, and that resentment has seriously, if not permanently damaged relations between India and the U.S.?

What has George W. Bush done to build a partnership with South America to develop sustainable, renewable, energy? What has George W. Bush done to help our South American neighbors fight climate change? What has George W. Bush done to manage immigration? What has George W. Bush done to promote the expansion of South American economies? What has George W. Bush done to protect the U.S., Mexico, Central America, and South America from drug traffickers and organized criminal activities?

Secretary Rice didn’t say.

Instead, she said, “I’m here to make tough choices, and this President is here to make tough choices, and we have. And, yes, I . . . there are some things that I would do very differently if I had it to do over again. You don’t have that luxury. You have to make the choices and take the positions that you do at the time.”

Wait a second, Madame Secretary!

When you say, “You have to make the choices and take the positions that you do at the time,” you make me wonder, what happened to your concern about ‘history’s judgment’?

Are you talking out of both sides of your mouth or are you crazy or stupid?

Or all three?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

WE'VE Been had bad . . . again!

2008-12-22T19:08:00.001-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sunday, December 21, 2008 – We’ve been had bad . . . again!

The Associated Press reports that two supposedly smart guys, Treasury Secretary Henry (Hank) Merritt Paulson, Jr. (B.A. in English from Dartmouth and an MBA from Harvard and former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs) and his bagman, Neel Kashkari (Bachelor’s degree in Engineering, University of Illinois; Master’s degree in Engineering, University of Illinois, and Master’s degree in Business Administration, Wharton School of Business) have handed out nearly 1.6 billion taxpayer dollars to banks that used the money for cash bonuses, chauffeurs, company jets, country club memberships, multi-million dollar executive pay packages, salaries and stock options.

Remember last September 21, when Treasury Secretary Paulson so somberly urged Congress to move quickly to give him 700 billion taxpayer dollars to bailout financial firms?

Paulson went on MEET THE PRESS and justified the historic bailout by saying, “Credit markets are still very fragile right now and frozen. We need to deal with this and deal with it quickly.”

The Treasury Secretary also said, “I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative – a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion. The financial security of all Americans depends on our ability to restore our financial institutions to a sound footing.”

‘Hank’ didn’t say a word about giving banks $1.6 billion for cash bonuses, chauffeurs, company jets, country club memberships, multi-million dollar executive pay packages, salaries and stock options.

George W. Bush, the man who has all the financial expertise in the free world at his fingertips said, “My first instinct (sic) was to let the market work.” But then, according to White House insiders, Bush actually listened to some of his financial advisors, evidently changed his mind, and said, “a robust and strong bailout was necessary.”

Bush went on to explain to all of us who wouldn’t otherwise understand by saying, “It is a big package because it was a big problem.”

And, then, if that wasn’t enough, the 43^rd President made sure we were able to understand the complexity of his thought process by letting us know that “The risk of doing nothing far outweighed the risk of the package.”

Thank you, Mr. President, for explaining this very complex set of financial machinations so we can understand, too.

But, wait a minute . . . there was nothing in Bush’s statement about giving banks $1.6 billion for cash bonuses, chauffeurs, company jets, country club memberships, multi-million dollar executive pay packages, salaries and stock options.

Hmmm.

Okay, let’s give these guys the benefit of the doubt and take a hard look at where we are now . . . perhaps I’m being too picky about Paulson and Kashkari handing out $1.6 billion so banks could pay for cash bonuses, chauffeurs, company jets, country club memberships, multi-million dollar executive pay packages, salaries and stock options.

Three months after Paulson urged Congress to give him $700 billion, Paulson and Kashkari have handed out $350 billion.

How much better off is our economy today?

Paulson said the bailout was necessary to prevent a ‘series of financial institution failures’?

How’s that working for us?

Since Paulson got his $350 billion, the following financial institutions failed: Franklin Bank (Houston), Security Pacific Bank (Los Angeles), Community Bank (Loganville, Georgia), Downey Savings & Loan (Newport Beach, California), PFF Bank and Trust (Pomona, California), First Georgia Community Bank (Jackson, Georgia), Haven Trust Bank (Duluth, Georgia), and Sanderson State Bank (Sanderson, Texas).

Okay . . . but, surely, the inflow of $350 billion in taxpayer money into bank coffers has eased the credit crunch, hasn’t it?

Yes or no?

No.

Why?

Because nothing in the bailout bill requires banks to lend a red cent to any one, any time, under any circumstance.

I know it sounds nutty, but it’s true.

So . . . why on earth would any bank risk loaning ‘found’ money when the Treasury Department doesn’t require them to?

Does anyone believe bankers have the character it takes to use the bailout money to help anybody but themselves?

Of course not.

So, I wondered, why would supposedly ‘smart guys’ like Paulson and Kashkari hand out hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to prevent bank failures and free up credit markets without conditions to prevent bank failures and free up credit markets?

But then, I remembered the great words of wisdom left us by an equally great American, Forrest Gump, who said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

And then I knew.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

THE Bush legacy . . . too late to change?

2008-12-17T09:40:00.000-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

BAGHDAD, IRAQ – Sunday, December 14, 2008 – Under a strict veil of secrecy, the White House issued false schedules detailing George W. Bush’s activities for today so he could tiptoe off to Baghdad where he attempted - for the umpteenth time – to convince the world that the Iraq war was necessary.

“The work hasn’t been easy, but it has been necessary for American security, Iraqi hope, and world peace,” George W. Bush said with a straight face. “I’m just so grateful I had the chance to come back to Iraq before my presidency ends.”

Let’s evaluate the 43^rd President’s own words and we’ll decide the truth – not the spin - about Bush’s legacy!

“The work hasn’t been easy,”

Thinking people will ask, what work has George W. Bush done?

While Donald Rumsfeld was doing his senile best to screw things up in Iraq, by his own admission to Bob Woodward, George W. Bush had so little concern for hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops he put in harm’s way that he handed the Iraq war over to Stephen Hadley, a lawyer turned career bureaucrat who’d earned enough political points to become Bush’s National Security Advisor.

Hadley, a man with no military experience, was the White House Iraq Groupie who ‘allowed’ Bush to lie about Saddam Hussein’s supposed attempt to secure nuclear materials from Niger in the President’s 2003 State of the Union Address. Hadley is also the man who didn’t know the difference between Nepal and Tibet when interviewed by George Stephanopoulos as recently as last April.

This is also the man George W. Bush considered to be best qualified, in his abdicated absence, to protect more than a hundred thousand American men and women who went to Iraq to risk their lives in service to their Commander-in-Chief.

That this Commander-in-Chief would abdicate his responsibility to protect our troops, that he would turn over that responsibility to a Washington bureaucrat, fits what we know about George W. Bush’s character.

When George W. Bush assumed the Presidency, he had every power and every resource necessary to govern wisely, to use his office to protect and defend Americans in particular and the people of the world in general.

He was given a majority in the House and the Senate.

He was given a budget surplus by President Clinton.

Moreover, he was given the trust of millions of Americans and millions more freedom loving people around the world.

But George W. Bush lacked the intellectual curiosity, the compassion, the intelligence, the insight, and the vision to use the gifts he was given to make the nation and the world better today than it was when he took the oath of office . . . twice.

“but it has been necessary for American security,”

How does George W. Bush, with any true sense of history, reason or logic, say that the Iraq war was necessary for American security?

Do the families of 4,209 brave Americans who gave their lives because George W. Bush ordered them to fight an unnecessary war based on lies trust this assessment from a man whose own record of military service is at best questionable?

How about the thousands upon thousands of brave American men and women whose bodies and souls have been forever damaged by horrific war wounds? Do they believe they gave their limbs, their flesh and bones for a war that was necessary for American security?

Prove to us, George W. Bush . . . not with rhetoric, but with facts . . . that the Iraq war was indeed necessary to keep America safe, stay silent, or admit your culpability, apologize profusely to the victims of your misguided ego, then go away.

“Iraqi hope,”

Would George W. Bush have the courage to sit down, face-to-face with even one of the millions of Iraqis who’ve lost sons and daughters and husbands and wives and fathers and mothers in firefights, bombings, and mortar and rocket attacks in his war and tell him or her that their sacrifice was worth it because Iraqis now have hope?

“and world peace.”

World peace . . . by what measure beyond rhetoric?

Since the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq 5½ years and a trillion dollars ago, U.S. troops continue to lose life and limb in Iraq, terrorist organizations around the world still threaten to attack the United States and its allies, expanding conflicts threaten to engulf Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, and a revived ‘Cold War’ with more nuclear players on the pitch than ever before is evolving even as I write this piece.

Epilogue: Mr. President, I have news for you: Your legacy is inviolable . . . it cannot be tampered with . . . no number of talking points can change eight years of bumbling, narrow-minded, stupid, wasteful actions, inactions disguised as your ‘policies’.

Just go away Mr. 43^rd President, quietly, while millions of Americans hope and pray we never see your kind again.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?
GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

WHY 'Bailout' the big 3 when we can invest in them and us?

2008-12-09T23:15:00.000-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

DETROIT, MI – Tuesday, December 9, 2008 – WHY ‘bailout’ Detroit when we don’t have to?

Why not guarantee the success of the Big Three Detroit automakers – short-term and long-term – by utilizing taxpayer investments to develop a new 3-Part business model so Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors never again have to return to Washington D.C. for a handout?

We’ve all heard the propaganda – for and against – the so-called ‘Detroit bailout’ and to those who oppose the government rescue of any private enterprise, I understand and respect your opposition.

However, no matter which side of the so-called ‘bailout’ argument you’re on, it’s important to remember that Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors do not just build cars and trucks . . . they create, design, manufacture and deliver a broad range of vehicles for a variety of applications at various price points.

BIG 3 CORE CAPABILITIES

1. Concept & Design . . . The Big 3 automakers are experts at creating and designing a variety of vehicles for a variety of applications; skills which can easily be transferred to the creation and design of ‘Green’ vehicles required to break our dependence on foreign oil

2. Prototyping parts, components, and completed assemblies . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors have the experience, capabilities, and tools necessary to produce computerized models of 3-dimenstional prototype parts prior to dynamic elastic analysis in preparation for casting, forming, and/or machining

4. Assembly . . . Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors employ thousands of men and women who know everything there is to know about manual and automated precision assembly processes

UTILIZING TAXPAYER INVESTMENTS TO DEVELOP A NEW, 3-PART BUSINESS MODEL

b. Cost Reduction Goal (Build-to-Order Models): The same ‘build-to-order’ matrix would apply to Electric Vehicles as would apply to Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

c. Light Rail (also known as Streetcars, Trams, or Trolleys) Cars: Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors would collaborate on the design and manufacture of Light Rail cars (Powered by overhead electric line via a ‘trolley’)

d. Commuter Rail Engines & Cars: The Detroit 3 would design, build, and deliver multi-level, light weight, computerized, energy-efficient engines and cars for urban passenger train service

EPILOGUE – If we take an objective, non-partisan look at the Big Three Detroit car companies, we have to admit that they sell lots of vehicles . . . even in tough economic times.

In 2007, the Big 3 Detroit automakers sold 8½ million cars and trucks in the United States and millions more in countries around the world.

Worldwide, General Motors sold nearly 9.4 million vehicles in 2007 – more than any other manufacturer, including Toyota.

In the U.S., Ford outsold Honda and Nissan, combined, by about a million vehicles in 2007.

And, Chrysler outsold Hyundai and Nissan, combined, in the U.S. in 2007.

Why?

Because Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors build quality, market-priced vehicles that offer exceptional fuel economy.

So, if the Big Three Detroit car companies fall by the bankruptcy wayside, who will produce and sell all the cars and trucks that would have otherwise been produced and sold by Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors?

Would it be in the best interests of the United States to hand over the production, sales, and profits of multiple millions of cars and trucks to Toyota? Or Nissan? Or Honda? Hyundai? Kia? Volkswagen? Renault? Chery Automobile Company (a Chinese automaker)?

Or any combination thereof?

Of course not.

If we are serious about the ‘greening’ of American industry and all forms of transportation, if we believe in millions of American workers, American technology, and American production capacity to keep the American Dream alive, we should invest in our own industries and keep the profits – and the jobs – here in the United States and finally rebuild this economy and, at the same time, finally the page on our dependence on foreign oil.

Shouldn’t we?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well? GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

BUSH, Cheney . . . shall we pray?

2008-12-07T20:40:00.001-08:00

The 'Big' Men

By l.t. Dravis

SOMEWHERE IN THE WINDMILLS OF GEORGE W. BUSH’S MIND – Saturday, December 6, 2008 – What brought our almost erstwhile President George W. Bush (remember him?) out of the shadows of the White House this week?

Some think Bush came out into the open because of a Labor Department report which confirms that under his vicarious leadership, the nation has chalked up another ignoble statistic in the Bush/Cheney record book: American businesses dumped 533,000 Americans out of their jobs in the month of November, reportedly the largest job loss in 34 years.

After more than 7½ years of deft leadership, skilled management, and responsible budgets, Bush, Cheney, and their helpers finally managed to punch up the unemployment rate to 6.7%, the highest rate we’ve seen in a decade and a half.

George W. Bush surprised lots of us today when he said, “I am concerned about the viability of the automobile companies.”

Don’t get me wrong . . . I don’t mean to get your hopes up.

One moment of near-lucidity doesn’t mean that George W. Bush actually understands – or even cares – that 3 million Americans could lose their jobs if the Federal government doesn’t ‘loan’ 34 billion ‘conditional’ taxpayer dollars to Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.

Bush confounded millions of Americans who believe he’s a complete fool and even those who don’t think he’s a complete fool, when he said, “I’m concerned about those who work for the automobile companies and their families.” (QUESTION: Did the President mean he’s concerned about people who work for automobile companies and the families of those automobile companies or did he mean he’s concerned about the families of people who work for automobile companies?) “And, likewise (sic), I am concerned about taxpayer money being provided to those companies that may not survive.”

George W. Bush’s concern for ‘taxpayer money’ is out of character for a man who blew through Bill Clinton’s legacy budget surplus like there was no tomorrow, ran up huge deficits every year of his presidency, and who leaves American taxpayers, their children, and grandchildren in debt to the tune of more than $10 trillion . . . and counting.

House Speaker Pelosi, Chairman of the House Financial Service Committee Barney Frank, and Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid know they can’t trust the President of the United States to save millions of American jobs. So they came up with a ‘backdoor’ stunt to prevent the bankruptcies and liquidations of Chrysler and General Motors in the next couple of months. Congress will use $25 billion Congress already approved to help Detroit design and build truly fuel-efficient cars and trucks to keep Chrysler and GM in business until January 20, 2009 when a real, oops, I mean, our next President will be in the White House.

Because George W. Bush refuses to back current Congressional efforts to provide meaningful ‘bridge loans’ to the Big Three automakers, taxpayers will be forced to throw away $25 billion over the next 44 days on a ‘cash-flow bailout’.

Given the staggering economic realities facing the Big Three Detroit automakers, what other choice do we have?

Would it be possible to get George W. Bush and Dick Cheney out of the way by bringing them up on impeachment charges for gross incompetence compounded by a thorough lack of character and integrity?

Nice thought, but no dice . . . not enough time.

What if millions of taxpayers went to Washington D.C., got down on their knees, and ‘begged’ the President and Vice-President to please go home so Nancy Pelosi could be the Interim President who would immediately sign off on a sensible series of bridge loans to make the Detroit Big Three competitive?

Naw . . . who’s to say that Bush or Cheney would notice, much less care?

President-elect Obama, Vice-President-elect Biden, and the economic transition team could take over the White House tomorrow, put the finishing touches on a comprehensive loan package for Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors, get congressional approval, and save 3 million jobs.

Then again, it probably wouldn’t be constitutional to take over the White House. Besides, if Bush and Cheney happened to realize they weren’t alone, the country could get bogged down in a costly 44 day court battle and Obama might even lose credibility with millions of conservatives around the country.

Okay, then, what other choices do we have?

Give me a moment . . . let me think through every possible contingency.

Hold on . . . I’m thinking.

Hold on . . . I’m still thinking.

Hold on . . . And, I’m still thinking.

Okay . . . I’ve thought it through and I know precisely what we can do.

Care to join me in prayer?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

WHEN Will we ever learn?

2008-12-03T14:40:00.000-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

SOMEWHERE – Tuesday, December 3, 2008 – When will we ever learn to stop trusting the ‘smart people’?

We trusted some supposedly smart people, people we pay lots of money to, to use 700 billion taxpayer ‘bailout’ dollars wisely and, now we find out from the Associated Press that those highly-paid, well-benefitted folks let us down.

Auditors from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) are telling us that the Department of Treasury, headed by Henry (Hank) Merritt Paulson, Jr. (you’d think a guy who has a B.A. in English from Dartmouth and an MBA from Harvard and was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs would be fairly smart, wouldn’t you?) failed to understand that it would be stupid to give $150 billion (so far) to banks without monitoring how they spend – and lend – our money.

Right?

Wrong.

The GAO report says, “Treasury has not yet determined how it will monitor compliance with this or other requirements such as limitations on dividend payments and stock repurchases.”

Huh?

Let me translate this into terms people like me (no Harvard MBA, I’ve never been Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs, and I’ve certainly never been Secretary of the Treasury) will understand: This is like me going down to my local bank and asking to borrow fifty or a million dollars. I don’t tell the bank how I’m going to spend the money and I don’t tell the bank how much my ‘collateral’ is worth and I don’t tell the bank when, if ever, I plan to give them back their money.

But they give me the money, anyway.

Whattadeal!

The GAO’s 72-page report also tells us that banks are not lending taxpayer money!

But, wait a minute . . . we were sold this ‘bailout’ plan by members of the House and Senate who told us that the whole point of the $700 billion bailout was to stimulate the economy by freeing up credit markets.

These Representatives and Senators talk a lot about ‘putting country first’ and chatter incessantly (especially in front of TV cameras) about how devoted they are to ‘protecting the taxpayers’ of this great nation.

These patriots includes Senator John McCain (Annapolis, class of ‘58), George W. Bush (remember him?), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (JD Georgetown University), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (JD, Kentucky Law School), Senator Chris Dodd, Chair of the Banking Committee (JD, University of Louisville), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Degree in something from Trinity College), Representative Brad Miller (JD, Columbia University), Representative John Shadegg (JD, University of Arizona) and too many other well-educated geniuses to mention here.

So, why didn’t even one of these very smart folks understand that it is not very smart to allow bankers to run free with billions of taxpayer dollars?

And, if even one of them was smart enough to figure that out, why didn’t that ‘smarter-than-the-rest’ person do something about it?

Unfortunately, you know as well as I know that we’ll never know.

So, how did Hank’s Treasury Department react to the GAO report?

Neel Kashkari (Bachelor’s degree in Engineering, University of Illinois; Master’s degree in Engineering, University of Illinois, and Master’s degree in Business Administration, Wharton School of Business), is evidently the smartest person in the Treasury Department’s so-called Office of Financial Stability because he’s the guy who actually hands out cash to banks, but he doesn’t think it’s necessary to work with regulators.

In fact, Kashkari is so smart, he’s perfectly comfortable with the Department of Treasury coming up with its own program to monitor banks . . . but he doesn’t know where or when that will happen.

So . . . when will we ever learn not to trust the ‘smart’ people?

We believed them when they gravely announced that we were in a so-called ‘financial crisis’ and we trusted them when they told us, just a couple of months ago, they could save the economy . . . if only we would allow them to borrow $700 billion in our names to give to banks in their names.

How’s that worked out for us?

They let us down . . . again.

Surprised?

I’m not.

Why?

Because this is the same group that pushed us into a pointless war in Iraq war that cost thousands of precious American lives and wounded thousands more and caused countless billions of dollars to be forever unaccounted for. This is the same bunch that sat by and allowed wounded veterans to be ignored and mistreated at Walter Reed Army Hospital. These are the shameless men and women in the Congress of the United States of America who’ve been content to let millions of Americans on the Gulf Coast live with the damage done by Hurricane Katrina . . . 3 years after the fact. And, these are the people who were ‘smart’ enough to spend us into a ten trillion dollar national debt!

So, we shouldn’t be surprised that they let us down on the bailout.

That is what these people do.

They let us down . . . you know that, I know that.

My question is, why do we continue to let them get away with it?

When will we ever actually hold these people accountable to do the jobs we elect – and pay - them to do?

When will we screw up enough courage to tell them to stop wasting their time and our money with self-aggrandizement, posturing, and strutting?

When will we tell them to either do the people’s work or get out of the way so someone else can?

After all, as of 5:04 PM, Eastern Standard time, December 3, 2008, there are 305,802,056 of us and only 535 of them.

So . . . what are we afraid of?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

IT'S 'Official' . . . finally!

2008-12-01T17:41:00.000-08:00

Tony Fratto – Bush Deputy Press Secretary - Photo Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, DC - Monday, December 1, 2008 – The ‘experts’ have finally gotten around to telling us that we’re in a recession and we’ve been there . . . for an entire year!

This brilliant deduction came in the form of an announcement by an organization that calls itself the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (http://www.nber.org/info).

NBER announced today that December, 2007 was when the economy went into recession; a recession which evidently precipitated the economic slide into the current financial crisis, culminating in September’s Wall Street meltdown and subsequent economic problems.

Who supports the National Bureau of Economic Research?

Well, don’t worry . . . you don’t.

NBER likes to say that it’s a non-profit, non-partisan research group dedicated to helping Americans understand how the economy functions.

Okay.

The NBER has been around since 1920 and is quite proud of the fact that it has produced 31 Nobel Prize Winners, 6 Chairs of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and a thousand or so professors of economics and business teaching in universities all over the country.

Sounds good . . . but with all due respect to the NBER, thousands of people who lost their jobs a year ago could have told us – way back then- that we were in a recession.

All sorts of people in George W. Bush’s Administration with access to more economic data than you or me have yammered on and on about some sort of economic problem facing the nation at least since March; but not one of those people had the character or integrity to dare to use the “R” word.

Despite the fact that the 43^rd President of the United States and all the people he considers to be the best and the brightest the nation has to offer wouldn’t be honest about something the entire world already knows says more about character and integrity than I could ever explain.

However, if it is true that we can’t change what we won’t acknowledge, why wouldn’t the President, Vice-President, all their advisors, and all the Cabinet Secretaries who accept our money and benefits come clean with us in time to fix the economy before it ‘melted-down’?

If the Bush Administration hadn’t been so concerned about covering its collective butt, it could have taken steps at the time, on time, in time, to prevent the collapse of Wall Street, the banking industry, the auto industry, and other industries that are laying off American men and women at the rate of 500,000 each week, every week.

Now, I admit I shouldn’t be so one-sided . . . it’s just that I hate to see people lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

So I’ll give the Bush White House the benefit of the doubt and ask a fair question; How did the Bush White House react to the NBER’s announcement?

Did the White House admit that if it had acknowledged the fact that we were in a recession a year ago, it could have done something sooner to protect the jobs of millions of Americans? Did the White House accept responsibility for trillions of dollars in retirement savings and investments lost by millions of Americans over the past year? Moreover, did the White House admit that George W. Bush’s failed policies contributed to the recession?

No . . . the White House made a political statement.

The Bush Administration sent Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto, 42, (a well-connected Republican . . . former spokesman for ex-Senator Rick Santorum, former campaign worker for Tom Ridge’s re-election as Pennsylvania Governor, and lobbyist who was rewarded by George W. Bush with a position as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Treasury Department and then re-rewarded by George W. Bush who named him Deputy Press Secretary in 2006) out to dismiss the fact that the nation has been in a recession for a year by saying, “The most important things we can do for the economy right now are to return the financial and credit markets to normal and to continue to make progress in housing and that’s where we’ll continue to focus.”

What?

What does that mean?

We have to ‘return the financial and credit markets to normal’?

Why the heck would we do that?

A year ago the financial and credit markets were normal and look where that’s gotten us!

By the way, what did you mean when you said, “continue to make progress in housing”?

Ask home builders and home owners to tell you about the ‘progress’ they see and they’ll ask, “What progress?”

I gotta tell you, Mr. Deputy Press Secretary, I’m disappointed.

The taxpayers of this great nation pay you $141,000.00 per year ($11,750.00 per month; $2,937.50 per week), plus cushy benefits they can’t afford for themselves.

Yet, where were you a year ago?

Why didn’t you or one of your highly-paid, well-benefited colleagues on the White House roster earn your pay by coming clean with the people who pay you? Why didn’t you admit then what the President, the Vice-President, advisors, plus Cabinet members were too chicken to admit . . . that we were in a recession?

Wait a second . . . since we just discovered that we’re running a year behind on ‘official’ economic news, could we already be out of the recession and not know it?

I could ask the NBER or I could ask Tony Fratto . . . or I could ask one of the half million Americans who lost their jobs last week.

Who do you think would know best?

Huh?

Copyright © 2008 by LTD Associates West, Ltd. All rights reserved.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

TODAY'S Monster story . . .

2008-11-29T23:16:00.000-08:00

Photo Credit: MSNBC

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, D.C. Saturday, November 29, 2008 – SO . . . what’s the ‘monster’ story today?

Potential atomic war between India and Pakistan?

The death toll from terrorist attacks in Mumbai?

Continuing violence in Iraq?

The economic future of the world?

World poverty?

Famine?

The end of the Bush/Cheney reign of error?

No.

We’re talking about Samantha Power, Pulitzer Prize winning author, graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School, and Harvard professor; an accomplished American, bright, astute, who’s made a series of outstanding contributions to humanity.

Are we talking about Samantha Power because of her accomplishments?

Nope.

We talking about Samantha Power because the Washington Post wanted to remind us that last March she called Hillary Clinton (let’s be brave and drop the ‘Rodham’ . . . okay?) a ‘monster’.

Why on earth would Samantha Power say such a nasty thing about the Senator from New York, the wife of the 42^nd President of the United States of America, the woman with ’35 years of experience’ who broke the glass ceiling by becoming the first serious female presidential candidate in the history of the nation?

It is reasonable to presume that Samantha simply expressed her considered opinion about a public figure.

If so, why would this story matter now . . . nearly nine months after the fact?

Let me refresh your memory on Samantha’s ‘monster’ comment.

It was the spring of 2008; the Democratic primaries were smoking with vitriol (arguably more from Hillary’s side than Obama’s).

As February became March, the Clinton’s were losing – big time - and they didn’t like it!

So, instead of giving Americans good reasons to vote for Hillary, the campaign and the candidate decided to come up with anything and everything negative – real or imagined – to knock down Senator Barack Obama as a man and as a candidate.

Remember when Hillary threw Barack under the bus by saying said she and John McCain had plans to lead America while Obama only had ‘a speech’?

Recall the insane insinuations Hillary Clinton made about Reverend Wright’s supposed influence over Barack Obama?

Do you remember the prime-time news spots featuring Hillary making fun of Barack’s campaign of ‘hope’?

Haven’t forgotten about Hillary’s allegations that Barack Obama simply was not qualified to lead on ‘day one’, have you?

Let’s put ourselves in Samantha Power’s shoes last Spring; she’s one of Obama’s foreign policy advisers and she’s sick and tired of listening to Clinton’s load of bull, so she refers to Hillary Clinton as a ‘monster’ in an off-the-record interview with a Scottish newspaper.

Samantha’s exact quote was, “She is a monster, too . . . that’s off the record . . . she is stooping to anything.”

Off the record or on, is it true that Hillary is, or was, a monster?

Who cares?

It was an opinion . . . not an edict, not an order, not a sentence.

So, when did people living in a democracy become obligated to hide their opinions about people who would dare to lead the nation?

The when in this case was March 7, 2008 . . . the day Samantha Power had to resign her position as an unpaid advisor to Barack Obama and apologize to Hillary Clinton.

I don’t like that Samantha Power had to resign, I don’t like that she had to apologize, but I understand that it’s over.

If the President-elect wants a bright, eminently qualified person like Samantha Power to advise him on ‘transition matters relating to the State Department’, why doesn’t the Washington Post get out of the guy’s way and let him do what he needs to do.

Maybe the Washington Post thinks the back story here is that Power and Clinton will run into each other at 2201 C Street NW and get into a cat fight.

If that happens, Washington Post, publish the story!

We’ll read it; more than once if you get pictures.

In the meantime, give us ‘monster’ stories that actually mean something.

Okay?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

MAYBE I'm amazed . . .

2008-11-26T11:30:00.000-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

CHICAGO, IL – Wednesday, November 26, 2008 – Ain’t it nice to finally have a smart guy in (coming in) to the White House?

Think about it . . . compare the way President-elect Obama handled himself in today’s press conference to the way George W. Bush muddled his way through eight years.

You remember, don’t you?

George W. Bush, the genius, was actually reelected after he said, "My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire."

And, despite the fact that there was no doubt about George W. Bush’s intelligence or lack thereof, voters sent him back to Washington for a second four year term after he said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

It is eminently refreshing that President-elect Barack Obama is more than able to string an entire series of sentences together to create cohesive paragraphs to convey a logical series of meaningful thoughts and ideas . . . a skill that is critically essential to anyone who aspires to the highest office in the country.

His ‘Help is on the way’ press conference today reassured the American people and financial markets around the world that a thoughtful, intelligent, resourceful, committed, dedicated man has arrived to lead the nation out of the morass created by eight years of the meanderings of a failed frat boy who couldn’t convey a meaningful idea on his best day.

President-elect Obama said, “I was elected with the charge of getting this economy back in shape. We are going to implement starting day one when I come into office.”

Nice political statement . . . but he then went on to support that statement by conveying the following meaningful thoughts and ideas:

He announced the creation of the ‘President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board’ (not made up of old friends from college or campaign contributors or incompetent political hacks) headed by 81 year old Paul Volker, an epitome of Washington experience whose leadership will be augmented and balanced by top staffer, 39 year old Austin Goolsbee, a well-respected, visionary, economist from the University of Chicago.

In Monday’s news conference, the President-elect announced that he would nominate 41 year old Tim Geithner, current New York Federal Reserve President, to be Treasury Secretary and on Tuesday, Obama announced he would nominate Peter Orszag to manage the Office of Management and Budget with the immediate responsibility of evaluating the federal budget, ‘page-by-page, line-by-line’, to eliminate wasteful spending and realign how taxpayer dollars are spent.

In the coming week, President-elect Obama is expected to move on from putting together his economic team to naming his national security and foreign policy team, including the vaunted, but not yet confirmed nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. He is also expected to confirm publicly that current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates will stay on for the first year of his administration.

In response to a tough question from CNN’s Ed Henry about ‘playing musical chairs’ by recruiting people who worked in the Clinton Administration, Obama said, “The American people would be troubled if I selected a treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever.”

“What we are going to do,” Obama went on to say, “is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand where the vision for change comes from. First and foremost, it comes from me. That’s my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing.”

Lest we forget how George W. Bush handled a similarly tough question in a press conference, permit me to take you back to April 3, 2004, when the 43^rd President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world, George W. Bush answered a question about whether he’d ever made a mistake in his presidency by saying, “I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet . . . I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t . . . you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.”

Huh?

President-elect Barack Obama, unlike his soon-to-be predecessor, has demonstrated that he is a man of action . . . holding three press conferences in as many days to send a clear message to not only millions of shaky Americans worried about their economic futures but to the world in general.

Be advised, America and the world, there is a new man taking the helm of democracy in America, an intelligent man, a man unafraid to work at being President, a man willing to reach out to the best and the brightest the nation has to offer to build not only a better nation but a better world as well.

Maybe I’m amazed, but I’m also relieved.

Aren’t you?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well? GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

WE'RE Screwed!

2008-11-25T14:55:00.000-08:00

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, DC - Monday, September 24, 2008 – Why are we spending hundreds of billions of our dollars to save Citigroup?

We’re taxpayers and the Bush Administration and Congress have put us in debt more than $10 trillion, we’re losing our businesses and jobs at the fastest rate in decades, our retirement accounts are going bust, and trillions of dollars we invested in the stock market, are gone . . . perhaps forever.

Tragically, our children and grandchildren will pay for the sins we committed by electing and re-electing the wrong people.

That fact was underscored this weekend when Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, abetted by George W. Bush, negotiated a secret deal to put us another $325 billion or so in debt.

Why does Citigroup need a bailout?

Because its management got greedy and funded thousands upon thousands of subprime (translation: potentially high profit) mortgages for people who couldn’t afford them.

And, because it got greedy and mismanaged its business, Citigroup lost money every quarter for the past four quarters.

The consequence of that greed and mismanagement was revealed yesterday when we learned that Bush, Bernanke, and Paulson agreed to give Citigroup a $20 billion cash bonus plus in excess of $300 billion in deferred bonuses.

Citigroup agreed to not pay more than a penny a share in the form of dividends for three years without approval from the federal government.

But why limit dividends? Why not require Citigroup to pay 75% of dividends to the taxpayers who made it possible for the company to be around to ever pay any dividends?

And why not require Citigroup to pay those dividends to taxpayers until it repays our investment?

Citigroup also agreed to limit compensation and bonuses for executives.

Limit bonuses?

What bonuses?

Why would any of the grossly incompetent Citigroup executives who created this mess or stood by and watched their colleagues create this mess, still have jobs, much less be eligible for a bonus of any kind?

The agreement ‘asks’, but does not require Citigroup to ‘take steps to help’ homeowners facing foreclosure.

Why not require Citigroup to use taxpayer money to help taxpayers save their homes?

Why can’t any portion of those hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars we are giving Citigroup go to revamp, revise, and refinance mortgages that have been foreclosed or will be foreclosed?

By the way, where’s the money coming from?

If any of the original $700 billion bailout ‘budget’ approved by Congress is still available, the Treasury Department will borrow and/or print the cash required to make this deal happen while the FED will ‘loan’ Citigroup enough cash to finance the remaining balance of its losses.

And where the FED will get the actual currency to ‘loan’ Citigroup?

Where else but to the same foreign banks and/or domestic printing presses?

And, what do we taxpayers give and get?

We give Citigroup approximately $325 billion in cash and loans and we get $7 billion in ‘preferred shares’ of Citigroup stock.

$325 billion for $7 billion?

Hmmmm.

Some deal.

By the way, what did George W. Bush, the obviously detached outgoing President, have to say about the Citigroup deal?

If anyone actually cares, the lame duck President threatened to reward other financial institutions for their greed and incompetence by saying, “If need be, we will make these kinds of decisions to safeguard our financial system in the future.”

So, where does this leave us?

Decorum prevents me from getting too graphic here, so permit me to simply say, “We’re screwed!”

What do you think?

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .