akapatrick's Blog

The man isn't even office yet and his pending rule has people scared to act. This was posted on CNN today in an article about the use of the 700 billion bank bailout....
Paulson, however, has said publicly in recent days that he would not ask Congress for the remainder of the $700 billion package before the end of the year. Instead, it would be up to the next session of Congress to approve the remaining bailout money so that President-elect Barack Obama and his administration can allocate it as they see fit.
Combine that with the fact that the G20 has to meet again to get his blessings on matters they could not finalize last weekend, and this president is screwing us already.

So you think the news has been bad so far, CNN has posted an article at

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/15/markets/sunday_week
ahead/index.htm

Check it out, and then take into consider hedge funds, which are being slowly liquidated because of withdraw deadlines that happen at limited times during the year and this week proves to be another big loser for the markets.

This is not to say pull your money out of the markets, but rather, as we all have seen, as the markets goes, so does our economy.

With all this money set aside for banks, are they lending?  Somehow I suspect the banks are using a large portion if not all of it, to pay their own bills.  With deflation, stock market drops, high unemployment, and more importantly, increased bankruptcies, how do banks find the confidence to lend?  Is this bank bailout, just that?  Does it do nothing more than keep the banks alive without the expected commercial and private lending that we expect to aid the rest of the world?

I thought Obama's acceptance speach was very humble.  Voting for McCain, I was relieved and had some respect for this.  But what of his statement that he won't be able to accomplish anything till his second term?  Now that's arrogant.  He never told his supporters this in the campaign.  How do suppporters of both appreciate this comment that he not only expects a second election, but that he apparently expects not to be effective in his first?

The problem with obama is he has been shooting from the hip from day one.  He is a good speaker because he believes he is saying what the audience wants to hear.  And that's the key.  He says what he believes the audience wants to hear.  It hasn't been until really recently that things he says make any sense at all, and that's because he has had to redefine his stance based on what he has heard.  Problem is, if he just keeps telling us what he thinks we want to hear, what does this man really think?  A great speaker, yes.  But what change is he talking about then?  He just keeps poll pandering.  Maybe that's the change he's talking about.  When the polls change, so will he.  A president that just keeps blowing in the wind.

While I support McCain and probably will vote for the crazy old fart, i have to say one thing.

Who the hell said we needed to compete!?  How do you compete with countries who's people make a dollar a day? Hello! The only way to do that is pay our workers .99 cents a day.  We need to tax imports, not embrace them.  The only people made richer in the long run from imports, are the people selling the stuff, from the foreign manufacturer, to the retailer, to the wealthy stock holders of said companies.  You can't keep spending more than you make.  It's just stupid.  I'm sure a first grader even knows that.

Can someone please pass this on to him, in case he does get into office.

 

Are we in a depression on the scale of the great depression?  The answer is simply yes.

 

 

Any student of history can tell you the following facts about the great depression of the late 20's early 30's:

 

 

1) It included a banking collapse.

 

 

2) It included a stock market crash.

 

 

3) It included deflation.

 

 

4) It's effects where worldwide.

 

 

5) It included unemployment.

 

 

So we have a banking collapse in the investment banks.  The main difference today is that before, invest and mortgage banks where combined and there was no federal insurance.  Today they are separate, so we are insulated from some of the direct repercussions felt before.  Or did we just recombine them again?

 

 

The stock market is declining rapidly.  Yes we have small gain backs, but the trend is obviously going down.

 

 

Gas prices are finally going down, as well as house prices.  Why?  Experts say because of diminished demand for gas because of a slowed economy.  This is not good. Add in the housing market slow down because of the same, highlighted by the fact mortgages are hard to come by, and foreclosure sales driving prices down.

 

 

And if you haven't notices, there are a lot of fingers pointing at us because the world economy is also hurting.

 

 

Okay, enough of stating the obvious.  If you figure out that the last great baby boom was after the civil war and do the math, you get some startling similarities to today, and the great depression.  The great depression happened 64 years after the end of the civil war, at the time those born after the civil war where dying out of the work force.  Remember they didn't have social security or welthfare.  They got sick and quit, or died.  Three years later unemployment hit 23%.  Do the math since world war two and that means 2009 and 2012 respectively.  These facts alone would simply be speculations or theory, except for the fact that every economic indicator is running the same course, except one.

 

 

Debt is a major problem facing this country and this world that we did not face in the great depression. Even if you adjust the national debt to the value of a dollar over time, it has a negligible effect over the horrifying graph that represents our growth in national debt since the 80's.  Now add in the fact that the country has in place social security and welthfare.  With the current baby boomer leaving, all be it slower because of longer life spans, the government is going to be footing a bill to pay for the retirees, that was never paid for those same baby boomers leaving the work force during the great depression. 

 

 

Our trade deficit is staggering.  The numbers put out by the census bureau are actually doctored up a little so that the numbers don't look as bad they actually are.  If you read the rules they use for calculating exports and imports, you will see clearly in plain English that they count certain fees into the export dollars that are not include into the import dollars.  This means that in a real world even exchange of goods, it would be counted as a trade surplus because they would add some extra dollars to the export number.  Check out all the convoluted rules for our new NAFTA partner Canada.  Seems the census bureau wants to put out it's own opinion of the data, rather than the real data for us all to see. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/cur
rent_press_release/ft900.pdf

 

 

A little interesting tid bit, for you guys.   Greenspan believes that a trade deficit is good because the countries in surplus would invest in countries in deficit.  Sounds good until the country in deficit can no longer pay back the country in surplus.   Do you see a problem here Mr. Greenspan?

 

 

If you look at the unemployment number, you have to keep in mind the definition of what it is.  Unemployment is a percentage of the work force actively seeking work.  Retirees, welthfare recipients, and those moving into much lower paying jobs are not accounted for.  Yet the number still goes up.  What of all those people moving into low paying retail jobs.  I have said for years we are in a retail economy, and that industry is now being flooded with new applicants.  So what does that do to wages?

 

 

If you check out the government's statistics on wages, it will seem that they are going up some.  Read further into it, as common sense should tell that something doesn't add up, and you will find further manipulation of the numbers.  They state that they cannot account for such things as people working two jobs, and that people working two jobs artificially inflate the hourly rates reported.  This is part of a disclaimer as to why the statistics are not accurate.  There is more, i suggest going to http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_10162
008.htm

 

 

So when the time comes for the government to start some rebuilding projects to put us all to work fixing and replacing all those bridges and dams that have out lived their life expectancy from the first new deal, where are they going to get the money?

 

 

 

I just read the article here about Palin's racial hiring practices.  According to the numbers, 240 members of her appointed staff report race, 8 are black, and 49 are native alaskan.  Okay, 4% of Alaska is black, and 18% of Alaska is native alaskan.  Do the math, she is damn close to the actual percentage on black, and a little over on native alaskan.  Black  leadership states she is not receptive to insistance on her to hire more blacks into positions, but according to the numbers, everything is fair.  What's the problem then, stop playing the race card.  Does she have to have double the black percentage to not be considered racist?  Then if you ask me, she would be racist for hiring less than whites than there are in the state percentage wise.  But I'm white, so I can't say I'm being discriminated against.  This self serving double standard has got to stop.  If she dismisses race card playing activist for trying to manipulate her into racist hiring practices, I agree with her.

So what?  I find it comforting to think that somebody would spend money making the next potential vice president look more presidential.  It's part of the uniform, like any other job, except it's not a pullover stamped Joe's Fast Food.  Of course the wardobe for the the next vp is going to cost more.  Give it a rest.  No harm, no foul.  Just reporters looking to make a name for themselves.

Greenspan says today that he doesn't understand why banks didn't self regulate to avoid this crisis.  Perhaps greenspan has been too close to the fire to understand, but it's simple, simple human greed.  We are all in it for a buck from the guy washing your windshield at a stop light, to the CEO.  Just the scale of money is different.  CEO's only know that if their competition can do it, they will, and that this CEO better get going or go broke in competition.  This is also combined with the truly unscrupulous CEO's that have golden parachutes and know if even what they do hurts a company in the long run, as long as they leave while the stats are pretty, they will get a giant increase in pay at their next company.  Free markets are great, but still need regulations. Thanks old man, you are at fault for not understanding basic human nature.

 

I watched the Michelle Obama speech last night waiting for the contraversial screw up, but never really noticed anything truely noteworthy.  I actually smiled when I heard Obama's daughter blurt out a "Hi Daddy" to her father when he appeared on the screen behind her.  That was a precious moment, a moment that would make a any parent feel good.  This was an unscripted child reaching out to her father to say I love and miss you daddy.  But It seemed to contradict Barrack's script.  He was supposed to say something about where he was, and who he was with.  This was extremely important for some reason.  Perhaps it made him a better candidate, or more of a democrat.  Whatever the case, it was extremely important to say his lines.  Apparently more important than truely acknowledging his child's very cute attempt at attention.  Maybe she has a habit of interputing?  Maybe she was told to be quiet and didn't listen?  Whatever the case may be, maybe Barrack should have embraced the moment with his daughters, said hello, asked how they where, or showed how extremely proud he was.  He should have done anything, if not for his kids sake, but for the viewers sake.  He was live in fornt of milions, press like this doesn't come every day.  And when it does, do not ignore the terribly cute child, especially your own, to get on with the script.  This could have been an endeering moment in time, instead, it was just plain awkward.  And yes, Obama finally did say hi to his daughter, but I think it was like her third attempt to get his attention.

    In a recent report report on Fox Philly they had a blurb about hospitals wanting a special medical credit report to report the patients ability to repay.  This made me think about my own dealings with bills and hospitals.

    The fact is my insurance pays for most of my bills.  But I do have to spread out payments on things such as emergency room visits.  I have been to the emergency room, but I don't know how life threatening my cases where.  The fact is, it seems when ever a doctor is unsure, and afraid of underestimating symptoms, they send you to the ER for treatment.

    I was once sent to the ER by my (previous) doctor because of a bad case of sun poisoning on my head.  The doctor explained that it could be an infection requiring immidiate antibiotics.  Without the ability to get instant test results from the office, I had to go to the ER.  All this after I explained my extended sun exposure and sensitivity to the sun, and that I personally knew it was sun burn.  My own doctor refused to treat me.

   I went to the ER and pretty much was the funny of the day in the ER.  They all instantly agreed it was sun burn.  They ran the requested blood test.  I was diagnosed with sun burn and given steroids to help reduce the swelling in my face and on my head.

    I was a little while later gifted a nice four-hundred and some dollar bill from the hospital for my deductible from the insurance company.  Now with limited funds, this bill pay gets paid, but over time.  And has been long since paid off.

  In the past years members of my family have been sent to the ER for somewhat more uncertain problems, none of which turned out to be life threatening.  All of which fell into the 'it could be, so let's be safe category" by the doctor category.

    Each time you sit in the ER and see people bleading or limping.  You see children crying, and adults too.  But you sit there thinking, why am I here.  This is another trip to the ER for tests, just to make sure.

    How do we get away from using the ER for bad, or scared doctors.  I have, and so have many people I know, gotten afraid to talk symptoms with my doctor.

    I sum-up by saying that the ER is an expensive "Emergency" care facility that is being ABUSED by doctors who are either incompetent, scared of lawsuits, or both.  This needs to be fixed.   ER abuse is out of control and it diminishes health care in more than way.  Fix this, before worrying about my health care credit history, which will only serve to diminish health care even further.

    HAS ANY ONE ELSE HAD CASES OF USELESS OR UNNECESSARY VISITS TO THE 'ER' BECAUSE OF DOCTORS NOT TREATING?