While the housing industry collapse has been dragging our economy down the mountain, the Democrats financial policies and sometimes their lack of details are shoving us right off the cliff.  President Obama, showing his economic genius, says that the markets are just tracking polls with day-to-day shifts.  Somebody needs to smack him upside the head – this is a plunge not a shift.  We know he knows jack about economics or the markets, he’s told us that.  So why does he have to continue to prove it with intelligent comments on “profit earnings ratio”.  It’s price earnings ratio.  Every time they come out with some policy or detail, the economy shows its confidence by taking a nosedive.  Down over 30% now since Obama won election. 

Today is the day we should all start feeling stimulated.  Liberals will probably still have to pay to get stimulated.  The unfortunate fact is that our grandchildren will be paying for our stimulation.

Obama finally signs the package that everybody else had to hurry up and rush through, while he takes his own sweet time to sign it at another 2012 campaign stop, this time in Colorado.  Do you suppose he will take the time to answer a few questions from some carefully chosen ahead of time reporters today, since this is the only way he has done it to this point?

Prediction:  We will start to hear positively spun economic numbers within the next month, as if the stimulus had already had an effect on the economy. 

President Obama, here is a suggestion.  Please have one of your tax evading cabinet nominees give you a whack on the side of the head, or push your reboot button to get you out of this endless campaign mode.  Your country needs you to stop campaigning, and start getting things done. 

Update:  The Congressional Budget Office has come out and said that the recession will end during the second half of 2009 without the stimulus.  It also said that the stimulus would only make it worse and prolong the recession.The Democrats are liars and thieves.  Stealing from your kids and grandkids.

“Pass it now or we may never recover.”  This is the type of politics that Obama favors if he doesn’t get his way.  Fear-Mongering.  This is all over the economic crap package, which not even all Democrats are buying into as several Dems in the House voted against the House version of the bill last week.

Liberals like to think this is about Republicans trying to stick it to the Democrats, but this is about making the right decisions for America for the long term or buying into the Obama fear tactics.  Remember, Congressional Republicans did not favor TARP either and that was already one huge mistake.

The 2009 Super Bowl is history, the guacamole is cleaned up and the next meaningful game is September 5^th.  The game itself was fun to watch, particularly the last quarter.  Poor officiating for a Super Bowl and too many stupid penalties by players kept this game from being the greatest Super Bowl.  Congratulations to the Steelers and their fans for their victory.

I also enjoyed Bruce Springsteen's halftime performance.  Never a great singer, the nearly 60-year-old Springsteen and his East Street Band put on a very good performance.  I would have preferred to have the new song and Glory Days replaced with a couple of other songs, but we can't always get what we want.  (Sorry for the Stones reference.)

If your party or house was like mine, the ads were a bit of a disappointment overall.  The anticipation of the 3-D ads set us up for a real let down.  Anyway, in my opinion, here are a few of the winners and losers for Super Bowl 2009 Ads.  Too see any of these ads again you can go to Super Bowl Ads: 2009 - SPIKE.

Best Bang For the Buck:  Disney World.  They didn't pay for an ad, but got a huge plug from Bruce Springsteen when he shouted, "I'm going to Disney World", at the end of his performance.  Not much later was a 30 second spot that cost $3,000,000.00 for Universal Orlando.  Free from the Boss is a better bargain.  Also in this category is the 1-second spot for Miller High Life.  It had as big an impact as any of the Bud or Bud Light ads, which for a change were mostly lame.  Finally in this category is the Doritos add with the crystal ball.  I thought the ad was one of the funniest - yes it was somewhat crude in its slapstick humor, but it was also filmed for just $2,000 by a couple of out of work guys that did most of it in one take.

Other ads that I liked included the other Doritos ad showing the power of Doritos to give you what you want.  This made Doritos one of the big winners of the night.  I also enjoyed the Bridgestone ad featuring the Mr. Potato Head and the way to talkative Mrs. Potato Head.  Nextel's ad featuring Roadies running the airport was entertaining.  The Hulu.com ad featuring Alec Baldwin was pretty funny and in an annoying until its funny spot, I enjoyed the people that should look for a new job in the Careerbuilders.com ad.  Finally, my favorite ad was one that had a little nostalgia.  It was the ad for Coke Zero that was similar to the Mean Joe Green Coke ad from 1980, but incorporated the new Coke Zero guys in a slight comic twist.

The losers of the night besides Budweiser had to be all of the movie ads and car ads.  I really didn't have any desire to see these movies base on the ads, and none of the spots for automobiles were all that clever.  GoDaddy.com laid a couple of eggs and other than the "I'm good", Pepsi Max spot, and the other Pepsi ads were fairly boring.  In a strange twist, a couple of the ads for NBC television shows were actually better than most of the ads that tried too hard to be entertaining.

What did you think?  Let me know and here's hoping next years ads are better, and that we get to see the Bears dominate in the big game once again.

Somebody needs to teach President Obama what bipartisanship means.  It usually means two sides coming together in agreement, often with some sort of compromise being reached.  It always means, however, that both sides agree.  It does not mean telling the other side "It's my way or the highway".

In a meeting this week with Republican congressmen, that is in effect what the President told them.  The Republicans had brought to him their ideas for an improved Stimulus Plan.  At least the President sounded like he was willing to listen, while the Democrats in Congress, who created this pile of pork and goodies, would have nothing to do with any input from Republicans. 

Too bad the President that promised bipartisanship isn't willing to work for it and has no idea what it means.  Both its leader and his party are destroying a Presidency that was supposed to be about so much hope and people coming together.

I enjoy the Super Bowl.  Doesn't matter that the teams usually don't include my Bears. 

As much as I enjoy the game, I also look forward to the commercials that usually air for the first and sometimes only time during the game.  Some of the funniest and most memorable commercials have been seen first during this pricey advertising time.  It could also be said that some of the biggest ad bombs have also made their debut during the Super Bowl. 

Over the years some ads have done better by not being shown during the Super Bowl.  This year is no exception, as several ads have been rejected for one reason or another.  PETA tried to air a pro-vegetarian ad that NBC said was too racy.  It involved scantily clad models in steamy scenes with vegetables.  The publicity from this rejection is probably better for PETA than if it had been aired.  The video has received a lot of hits on youtube and has been shown by a number of news and entertainment news programs.

Another of the recently rejected ads is a pro-life Obama commercial by Catholicvote.org.  It shows an ultra-sound of a baby in the womb, and tells the story of Barack Obama.  NBC first accepted this ad, but has since said that they are not going to show any advocacy ads.  Once again the publicity from this may prove to be worth more that actually airing the ad.

Just like last year, I will be reviewing the ads that actually do air and will publish an article that rates the best and the worst.  I would appreciate it if anybody wants to comment on that article with his or her own best and worst.  Remember to stop back at http://community.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/what_the_/default.aspx.  Thanks!

What isn't in it would be a shorter list.

I urge everyone to take a look at the text of this bill to see some of the crap they are trying to pass off as stimulus.

Please click here to see a searchable text version of the bill.

Congress has buried all kinds of earmarks and other nuggets of dung in the hopes of appeasing their constituents or payoff particular political action groups. 

Most Republicans, like our own Paul Ryan, are dead set against this.  Too bad the Dems didn't bother to get any input from Republicans on this.  In fact as Ryan has learned, the price tag on this anything but Stimulus Bill now has a price tag of over $ 1 trillion.

And if Congress is not asking for bi-partisan help in drafting an actual Stimulus Plan, than surely President Obama can't be in favor of this.  After all he promised that bi-partisanship would be the only way to tackle these problems. 

This may just be the beginning to folks.  Most of these programs and projects, as always happens, will cost more than what we've been told.  Also, any government program that gets started never goes away.  Just think about our own stadium tax.  The best physical example of this is the toll roads in Illinois.  They were only supposed to be temporary - as a way to pay for some infrastructure costs.  Well, once the money is coming in they can always find more uses for it. 

Plus many of these programs and projects will have ongoing costs that will continue long after this stimulus money is gone.  Light rail is a good example.

This bill is a bad gamble that all of our grandchildren will be paying an enormous debt for and will do nothing, but put us into an even worse position than we are now.  Any Republican or Democrat that votes for this needs to be voted out of office as soon as possible.

Please contact your congressmen and senators now, to let them know how you feel.

“Ponzi scheme” is a term that has been in the news heavily the last few weeks.  Much to my surprise this does not involve getting both of the Tuscadero sisters to date the Fonz at the same time, which everyone knows is a “Fonzy scheme”. 

A “Ponzi Scheme” is a type of fraudulent pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi because his operation took in so much money that he became a millionaire in just 6 months in 1920.  A Ponzi scheme usually promises and initially gets unusually high returns in a short period.  The scheme relies on an ever-increasing flow of money from investors with new money being used as payouts to earlier investors.  It differs from a multi-level pyramid scheme in that the schemer acts as the central hub for all participants, but in a pyramid scheme the newest level of recruits are required to bring in still more new recruits in order to benefit directly.

Bernard Madoff is the reason for all the news about Ponzi schemes recently, as he has been accused of being the mastermind behind a fraud that is estimated to include more than $50 billion in losses.  How is this guy not in jail?  He gets to live in his mult-million dollar apartment on bail, even though he has been caught several times violating court orders to leave his assets alone.  And, if anybody is a flight risk it has to be somebody with access to what he has.

The reasons Ponzi schemes all eventually fail are that either the schemers all vanish taking the remaining investments with them, legal authorities expose the scheme or the scheme collapses as investments slow due to promoters not being able to bring in enough new investments to payout the promised returns. 

Why does a Ponzi scheme sound so much like our own Social Security System?  It takes money from later investors (taxpayers) and pays off earlier, now retired taxpayers.  Like a Ponzi scheme, Social Security also paid out unusually high returns.  Charles Ponzi only promised returns of 40%, but initial recipients of Social Security achieved returns approaching 100,000%.  Baby boomers have paid into this scheme their entire lives, including paying numerous increases to the required contributions, with no possibility of ever receiving the same returns of those retirees during the first 70 years.  Also, the number new investors (taxpayers) can’t keep up with the number of baby boomers reaching retirement.

Democrats don’t consider this to be an imminent crisis.  It’s to be expected from the same dimwits that have bought into this global warming scam.  So far their solutions require higher payments from investors to keep the scheme afloat.  They want to demand additional funds for a failing system.  This same thinking could have kept Madoff’s scheme or Ponzi’s scheme going too.  This same bailout happy, Democratic controlled Congress won’t think twice about writing a Chinese backed check to bailout their beloved fraud program. 

Social Security needs to be blown up and reworked.  I would prefer the option for individuals to opt out and plan for their own retirements.  This Ponzi scheme has to go the way of the Fonz – retire it.

Thank you for your service to our country President Bush.

Obama supporters, although you are in the minority in Waukesha County, you are not alone.  The Onion provides the following report.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

What you should know by Tuesday morning

McCain = Solid Experienced Leadership

McCain = Commander In Chief Ready

McCain = Proven his dedication to this country, with hardship, sacrifice and public service.

McCain = Works well with Democrats and Republicans and has their respect.

Obama = Nothing - Just watch.

No Experience!

 Done Nothing!

Not Ready!

Change?

The right kind of change can only come from one candidate.  Help yourself and your country!  Vote for John McCain tomorrow, Tuesday, November 4th.

Thank you!

The question is:  In 4 years will you feel safer than today? 

Answer yes, by electing John McCain on November 4th.

John McCain, along with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, has been a champion of Campaign Finance Reform.  The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain-Feingold for its sponsors, was the first major overhaul of campaign finance laws in almost 30 years. 

In 2007 Barack Obama and John McCain both promised to accept public financing if the other party's nominee did.  McCain, being a man of honor (how's that working out for you John?), stuck to that promise.  Obama deceived the public and broke that promise.

It's easy to see why Obama makes himself out to be a liar; once he realized how much money it would take to defeat more qualified candidates, he had no real choice but to accept the money.  Due to the limitations on spending from public financing, Obama is outspending McCain by about 7-1.  He promises to outspend McCain as president by an even higher number.  Can you say higher taxes everyone, despite another soon to be broken promise by Obama.

Did McCain make a mistake by sticking to his promise and following up on his beliefs that campaign finance ought to be a fair fight.  It's possible that it might cost him the election, but not his integrity.  This is something that he believed strongly in and has fought for, once again against his own party's wishes, and he stayed true to himself.

What about all this money that the Obama campaign has collected?  Is it all legal?  Probably not.  In this day of Internet donations, prepaid debit/credit cards and an unwillingness to verify the validity of these donations by his campaign, too much opportunity exists for illegal money to be flowing in.  The campaign is fond of saying that many of its contributions come from millions of small donors, but what it doesn't say is that a greater percentage of funds are coming from those contributing more than $200.  Obama will also have received more than twice as many contributions of over $1,000 than any candidate in history. 

What are they doing with all that money?  Spending more money on negative campaigning than any candidate in history. 

With an ad spending disparity of 7 - 1 and an opposition party incumbent in the White House with an extremely low opinion rating, why is it that polls show Obama with leads of only 2%-11%?  Frequency of message is extremely important in selling something and Obama has a clear advantage.  The answer lies in the fact that the product and the message are not strong enough and without the extraordinary amounts of cash, Obama would stand no chance.

What will be the future of campaign finance reform?  There will still be a few attempts to fix it, but since Democrats were the ones screaming for it before and one of their own showed everybody what could be accomplished with private money, it will mostly disappear.  Obama has caused me to change my mind on one thing; I am now in favor of eliminating the public financing route and applaud Americans for supporting their political beliefs with their dollars.  The one thing that will be needed is to make certain that we can have more checks in place to keep out the corruption.

I just finished watching the Obama infomercial and I have to say that he has a lot to learn from Ron Popeil.  Frankly, I think the country would do better listening and watching Ron get people pumped up about his ovens and food dehydrators.

Here's the short version of what Obama's selling.  "My plan is to spend over a trillion dollars for new programs.  Pay for it?  Did I say no tax increases if you make less than $250,000?  That was a republican smear that they spread.  What I said was no tax increases if you make less that $250."  The rest of his spiel was more of his same lies, distortions and not quite truths.  Some of it would have been comical, if I didn't realize that there are some people out there gullible enough to buy it.

If ABC had carried this they could have called it Extreme Makeover:  The Marxist Government Edition.

Hey Obama's in good company in doing the infomercial.  Nixon used to do these.

Here are the reasons I'd vote Democrat in this election.

P>

H/T Charlie Sykes