December 22, 2008
Caroline Kennedy - a name with no place in politics
By admin
Written by Michael Vass
I’ve waited for a while now, just waiting for something from Caroline Kennedy to justify or remove her from consideration in replacing Senator Hillary Clinton. Mind you that I am not sorry to see Senator Clinton gone from office, as I am tired of her excuses on the broken promises that mark her time in New York. Though I am greatly saddened to see her working anywhere near the Executive Branch. But long-term readers know that, and this is about Kennedy.
Up til now there can be no question that Caroline Kennedy has zero qualifications for the Senate. She is a lawyer, like much of Congress. She is a Democrat, which at the moment gives her a boost. And she is the daughter of a revered dead President. Because if we are honest, that is the only reason any of us know her name.
Since she has never been politically active, which is a problem for me with anyone that would be Senator, we need to look at other aspects of this woman. She is part of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which I personally like but is not enough. She has worked for 2 years, 2002-4, and rose $65 million in private funds for schools in New York which is great. The job was only 3 days a week though and one must wonder how much money she could have raised if she worked a full 5 days, the schools in NY could have used the extra effort.
Still none of this is a qualification. Yes she helps people, and is a committed Democrat. But what can she do? And what does she plan to do to help the state in this very critical time? The New York Times and other news media had the same question and asked her just that on several issues. The answers reveal quite a bit.
Mrs. Schlossberg is shrewd, having given a total of $7300 to Clinton before she switched to Obama in September of that year and gave him $2300. At the same time she has not voted in numerous Primaries since 1988. So we can understand she is willing to let her money vote for her.
In addition we now know that she supports same-sex marriage, which 68% of the nation opposes - even in California and New York. Something that neither Clinton nor Obama support. Which makes me believe she is even more liberal than the former most liberal member of Congress - President Obama.
It also seems that she opposes any restriction on abortion. This is another far-left Democrat policy stance. It includes, and Kennedy defered to not answer about, partial birth abortions. Even those in favor of abortion have issues with that. But seemingly not Kennedy, though she prefers to avoid having to make polispeak about such a position.
And in a hat tip to the Pelosi led Congress, she supports the mandating of public vote at unions. Thus taking away the normal right of secret ballots, and forcing workers to deal with peer pressure and criticism for co-workers and management. How kind.
And of course she is in favor of the auto bailout. Something that all Democrats are pushing to advance, though none have answered a simple question. When the auto industry came back to Congress after using up $25 billion in bailout money in one month, they stated that they HAD to have $50 billion or they would fail. Congress is trying to provide $15-35 billion instead, with a “car czar” (otherwise known as more government interference resulting in another Barney Frank). Since this is not $50 billion, and thus means the auto industry will fail and/or come back for more money, why does she support the lesser amount? No Democrat has a good answer for that, though they have been very good at avoiding the question.
And we know that Kennedy is anti-gun, which places her at odds with most of the state - except New York City. And it is the City that NY politicians proffer to.
Speaking of which, surprisingly she backs her uncles plan to make illegal immigrants (otherwise known as undocumented workers - the missing document is a greencard and reason to be in the U.S.) citizens. Pay a fine and swear in. We might as well make citizenship available on eBay.
But in a question that hits the pockets of the people in the state Kennedy is mum about capping property taxes. Or on taxing the higher income brackets more (which still would not make up the shortfall that the new spending creates).
So all in all what can we surmise? Kennedy is a liberal the likes of which we have not had in this state as far back as I can remember. She is more liberal than Clinton, and Obama. And if you wonder why might that be a bad thing recall this. Senator Clinton PROMISED to bring 200,000 jobs to New York State if upstate New York voted her in. We have lost over 30,000 jobs as of 2007, long before the current crisis hit.
Do you believe a more liberal, pro-illegal immigrant, anti-second ammendment, spend and tax, lawyer with no experience in politics would be a good Senator? Without the last name, the answer can only be no. But what Gov. Patterson decides will happen. Sadly.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
December 12, 2008
Respect My Mind…Screw the rest
By admin
Written by Michael Vass
Young, old, or inbetween every woman has a mind. Latina, Black, and/or White every woman deserves respect.
At M V Consulting, Inc. we know this firsthand. Mothers, daughters, wives, and every woman on the face of the planet were on our mind when we were thinking of an image that could convey all the aspects of being a woman.
The Repsect My Mind clothing and goods product line captures the essence of a Lady and a sensuous being. From a Governor to a Mom, from Secretary of State to the secretarial pool the Respect My Mind line encompasses you all.
This gift is welcome all year long. Men can buy it for the women in their lives, or women can buy it for themselves.
And once you are at our online store, take a moment to look around at the 1500 other items we have available. We believe there is something for everyone there, as a Christmas/Holiday gift or at any time of the year. [And yes it is still possible to get delivery before Christmas if you order now.]
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
November 24, 2008
Citigroup - what was known and when?
By admin
Written by Michael Vass
This year Christmas has come before December, especially if you are a money center bank, a brokerage house, insurance company, or car manufacturer. For regular people though the holiday may not arrive at all. Such is the way things happen when the Government gets involved.
The news is out now that Citigroup will receive another $20 billion, with guarantees for $306 billion in assets, before the holiday season ends. In fact they should have the money, your money, in hand before the holiday season officially starts this Friday. Santa it seems has a 401k.
The good part of this is that Citi should not fail. Thus money will be stable in over 100 countries around the world, for the time being. Another bonus that New York City officials must love is that Citi will not be sold off in parts, and thus tens of thousands of additional jobs should be secure. And there is a better than 50% chance that many of the major bonuses that help the Big Apple float will be paid out (contractual obligations don’t end when the company gets a Government bailout). And in all honesty that is a good thing for the U.S. economy too, as long as they spend the money and not hoard it in fear of future layoffs.
The bad thing is that none of the officials tasked with resolving the financial crisis the nation is in foresaw this event. Chriss Dodd and Barney Frank didn’t see it coming, not because they were asleep at the wheel like when they promised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be ok, because they were too busy blaming anyone but themselves for missing the problem. Treasury Secretary Paulson missed it. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke missed it too.
Not one of these men, each tasked with identifying this continuing problem, envisioned this problem. They have dozens of staffers and hundreds working behind the scenes crunching numbers. Yet they all missed the chance of this happening. And the public is left to assume that it was so sudden they couldn’t have known.
Not true.
I said that in December of 2007. That’s without being a stockbroker for years, without financial racords, conversations with CEO’s, discussion of the Fed, data from international sources, or Congressional committees. Just me reading the news and analyzing the public information.
I in fact went on to say
“Will those experiencing deflation outweigh the inflation fears? And if more people lose their homes how much of our financial institutions are we willing to sell to avoid the harshest realities of a crash?”
I knew Citigroup was in trouble a year ago. I knew there would be a major crisis from the mortgage industry, and that a bear market would hit the stock market. And I defined it several times, months in advance, in detail. The main thing I have been wrong on is the severity and speed at which all these things happened.
My point about this is simple. If I can figure out how bad things were, and most likely will continue to get, then what the hell were all these people whose only job is to figure this out doing!?
If they can’t get off they political posteriors, open their Government entrenched eyes, and understand the degree of a problem that is apparent to a guy on a computer in Binghamton – without even a stock ticker – they why are we giving them control of $700 billion and more? How can we expect that a single dollar of that money will be put to a use that is effective?
Case in point. Citigroup is in big trouble. They insure themselves internally. They are failing. So what is the value of the $306 billion in assets today, what was it yesterday? Are we guaranteeing a value that was intially set for these assets, the current market value of these assets, or are we getting to pick up the debt and bad loans of Citigroup mixed in with actual assets? The difference is very important. And I doubt if Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are even aware that this question should be asked.
I asked how much are we willing to sell to avoid a problem a year ago. Today I am looking forweard and I have to ask a different question. How much of the American capitalist system the nation functions on are we willing to lose to avoid the pain of this crisis? And if we are willing to comnpromise the basis of our economy, how do we prevent losing the freedoms a solcialist nation cannot tolerate?
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
November 18, 2008
Couple Links: adult game launch and review
By admin
Written by Michael Vass
If you watch the news in recent weeks you might believe that the economy is singing a death knell. You might think that every small business in America is on the verge of failing. And if you happen to be Black or a woman, the major media would have you believe that you have no chance beyond whatever elected officials provide you with.
I’m happy to say that this is all false. In fact I was able to attend the launch party for a new product that I can recommend to my readers. And the owner is a fellow high school alumni, Black and a woman.
Now I want to interject a bit of information. While I know Barbara Jenkins from my high school reunion, my review is not based on favoritism. In addition I received no payment, in any form, for the review. Nor has anyone read over this review prior to it being on my blogs.
Barbara Jenkins is a fellow Evander-ite. She is also the owner of Couple Links, a new board games that is for adults. Mrs. Jenkins is the owner, corporate head, and the inventor Couple Links; and proof that even in the worst of environments innovation can take shape.
The launch party for the game took place at Latitude Bar in Manhattan, near W48th on 8th Ave. The top most private room was used for the occasion and I commend the choice. It’s clean, modern, spacious, and had decent music. It’s not too loud, and you really didn’t notice the sounds of immense crowd downstairs in the main bar. Well stocked, and they cook too.
The staff of the establishment were all very personable, late-20 somethings. They were social, good conversationalists, and efficient at handling a crowd. They could pour a decent drink, and made a point of paying attention to names. You have to love a well-staffed bar. And in choosing a location with such facilities and staffing, you have to be impressed with Mrs. Jenkins.
The first clue to a successful business can often be their choice and manner of presentation. This choice spoke of class and sophistication without being stuffy or pretentious. That was a major plus in my book. Oh, and the chocolate fountanin, with fresh strawberries, and other dippable finger foods was a unique bonus too. Another plus.
The crowd came in at about 8pm on Saturday, and continued to stream in throughout the night. While I don’t have any exact numbers, I was told that of the RSVP’s some 80% showed up to the event. For NYC on a Saturday night, that’s very good. Especially as there were some people that had traveled from Pennsylvania and Chicago, beating me in distance traveled to this event.
After about an hour or so Barbara Jenkins and her husband were able to pull themselves from the huge crowd of well-wishers and other interested groups trying to get a heads-up on the game, and began the nights program.
The introduction of key people that had helped Mrs. Jenkins design, build, and initially market Couple Links were all introduced without dragging the buoyant mood of the evening down. The speeches about Mrs. Jenkins going from normal average American worker to entrprenuer and owner of her own company was inspirational and short. Again another sign of a sharp mind, economy of words while conveying your thoughts completely.
But the big test of the night was about to start. Virtually all the people at the launch party had never seen the game. Even fewer were familiar with the style of the game. Basically all they knew was that the game was created with adult couples in mind, can be played with 2 or more couples, and took somewhere around a hour to play. So interest was high.
3 couples were selected randomly out of a large crowd with interest in trying the game. The following video is a very abridged account of the gameplay, which took roughly 25 minutes in total. All sprits were high at the time, and my editing skills are not the greatest in the world, so any blame about the video is all mine.
Of the couples in the video, the still picture is Mr. and Mrs Jenkins. Of the couples playing the game, 2 are married – 1 couple are newlyweds I believe, and one couple is dating. I mention that because the game need not only be for married couples, or those dating, exclusively.
The game kept the attention of all of the dozens of couples attending the launch party with ease. As you heard in the video several of the questions were risqué, and the crowd quieted a bit to hear those answers. So as a game of entertainment and adult relaxation, it succeeded not only with those playing, but those observing as well. And in an age of digital everything, that is saying quite a bit.
Sales were brisk that night, and from what I understand word of mouth is spreading well. I have no doubt that those that have not heard of the game yet, likely will hear something of it over the holiday season.
I have not gone into more detail about the nature of the game, or the multitude of questions available to be asked, because I think that is a big part of the fun of the game. Suffice to say that the rules are simple, logical, and built on the premise of fun. Every couple that played the game laughed and giggled as they played, and had nothing but smiles at the finish. I can name few things that can accomplish the same results in a large crowd of diverse people.
I recommend this game to any couple among my readers. I think this is a great gift, and just as good to own for yourself. I personally own a copy of the game.
If you would like to know more about Couple Links go to their website (http://www.couplelinksgame.com). Mention Mr. Vass sent you – because every owner likes to know where their clients come from.
Have fun above all else. And let me know what you think of the game, review and video.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
October 20, 2008
Nancy Pelosi wants 2nd try at stimulus plan failure
By admin
Written by Michael Vass
Just one month ago Nancy Pelosi was advocating a mortgage bailout bill that would give nearly $1 trillion to Treasury Secretary Paulson and use any potential profit or repayment for pro-Democratic groups including federally indicted ACORN instead of the public. Also in that initial bill was a quiet attempt to add $50 billion dollars as a stimulus plan for normally pro-Democratic segments of the nation.
Nancy Pelosi was shot down in her first attempt, but she did not give up. Though ACORN is now recognized as a bad choice for more federal funding, especially as a substitute fro repaying the public bailout of financials, Pelosi is still trying for her stimulus plan. And you have to give her credit, she has increased the amount she wants to spend to $150 billion now (or more if she can get it). And she is now getting support from Fed Chairman Bernanke and the White House it seems.
Long-time readers will be familiar with the fact that I thought the first stimulus plan was a waste of money. It was a complete failure in every objective it was hoped it would deal with. It did not stimulate anything, it did not bring stability to the housing markets, it did not prevent the failure of several banks and brokerages, and it did not alleviate the credit crunch.
Another stimulus plan will have the same effect. Nothing. Any funds being used to give to the public will be used to pay down bills and debt, again. Even moreso now with such uncertainty.
And we need to get this into perspective. Nancy Pelosi has presided over the worst Congress ever. It was her Congress that failed to see the crisis from the start. It was her Congress that as late as July denied any problems, in the words of Barney Frank. It was Paulson and Bernanke that have been playing catch-up. It is the current fiscal plans that are causing real inflation to grow, and business to slow – which is the only reason oil prices have dropped. And they want to make it worse by doubling down.
Pelosi is confident that she will get another stimulus plan, if Obama is elected. She plans to wait til then to really push for this useless plan.
“But we can get something signed — please, God — when Barack Obama wins the election.”
That is just blatant polispeak. But what it also means is this. An Obama Administration will bring in $832 billion in new spending, we are spending $700 billion on the bailout, we have spent over $200 billion on prior bailouts, and we will be spending another $150 billion or more on another stimulus plan while businesses will be saddled with 10% higher taxes, and investments will be shutdown with another 15% in capital gains taxes.
Given these facts, I cannot see how anyone will not have their taxes increased. And I don’t mean the 3% increase that Obama and Democrats have voted for and tried to pass in March of 2008. If anyone thinks that business will not slowdown further, and jobs will be lost while inflation grows under these economic plans, they have never done well in basic math – in my opinion.
Nancy Pelosi is decidedly a partisan and underhanded politician. She promotes wind energy without disclosing her substantial stock investment in wind energy companies. She has refused and block discussion on domestic drilling. She has wasted the taxpayers money on trying to point blame on Republicans, admittedly where no laws have been broken. She has had a Congress that has accomplished the least ever, while maintaining a majority in both Houses. And now she wants to make things worse.
I hope people in California wake up and vote her out of office. But the fact is she will hold power long enough to cause damage that will last years. And considering that she has enabled a Congress to willfully damage the nation via inaction and inattentiveness, I can only have nightmares about the damage she will be able to inflict on the nation with a Democratic, left-wing, President as banks and healthcare is socialized.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
September 9, 2008
Bill O’Reilly interview with Senator Obama - part 2 analysis
By admin
Written by Michael Vass
Well the questions between Bill O’Reilly and Senator Obama on the economy was interesting. And aggressive.
First are the facts. The economy grew during President Bush. The average wage increased for Americans $400 to $500 dollars, that’s on top of the $2000 it grew under President Clinton. And the Federal Government increased revenues by 20% under President Bush. Spending by President Bush has been outrageous though, and wasteful.
Now if you want to see what I think of the increases on the corporate tax structure just check out my previous post [Democratic tax plans: a look from reality]
A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.
Senator Obama clearly states that he will be increasing taxes on investments to at least 25%, which is massive. It means that to make a decent return on an investment – say the historical 11% that most mutual funds have made per year – you in fact have to make a 36% profit to get the return, which most stocks never make unless you are in the middle of the internet bubble. That is a fact I can attest to from my experience as a successful stock broker.
So to make attactive profits for inestors, companies will be forced to make changes. As I have stated in the abovementioned post, that means that since virtually all costs are fixed except employees they will absorb the hit as will consumers.
Also note that Senator Obama restates a previously stated comment. He states that 95% of Americans will benefit from his tax plan. That is a lie. He has clearly and repeatedly stated that 95% of American that RECEIVE A PAYCHECK will benefit from his tax plan. Business owners are not included in his savings, no matter the size of their business.
Bill O’Reilly also failed to mention that Senator Obama, along with his Vice President, already voted to effectively increase the taxes of all Americans making $31,850 or more this year. That’s a 3% tax increase on roughly 95% of Americans.
Now in a quick statement Senator Obama mentioned China
“…[the debt has] gone up $4 trillion dollars, that a credit card we’re taking out on our kids from the bank of China, that they’re goning to have to pay back…”
While I too have no love of foreign investment levels that currently exist I have a problem with what is being implied. Does Senator Obama plan to limit who can invest in American companies and banks? Because in a free economy you can’t stop anyone from investing.
In addition, I am unaware of English, French, or German companies, individuals, or nations stepping up and offering to make the investments in America that the Chinese and Saudi Arabians has offered. So if we are to have these investments and no friendly countries are offering anything, what are we to do?
The counter position – which is never being mentioned – means that we refuse the investments of these nations, or limit them. That also means that several of our banks, this year, would have been short on average $5 billion each at least. That means that at least 2 major money center banks would have failed this year. Without that foreign money the economy would have crashed as the dollar got crushed and inflation flew thru the roof because banks would have caused a domino effect that would easily have plunged the nation into a depression.
I have yet to hear an answer that addresses the problems the counter position creates. Perhaps it’s because there is no answer, or they realize that most Americans are unfamiliar with stock market intricacies to ask this question. But I do.
So does this mean that Senator Obama would rather have CitiGroup, and Lehman, and other banks/brokerages fail than accept the billions of dollars foreign investors offer – even is only certain countries are willing to give us the money and none of them are close friends? Is Senator Obama saying that he is willing to plunge America into a Depression that will obviously not help retirees, workers, the economy, and ultimately the world?
Tonight is part 3. Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and other questions on character that are sure to be the high point of the interview.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
September 5, 2008
Democratic tax plans: a look from reality
By admin
Written by Michael Vass
Let’s talk taxes and business. It’s one of the key items in the campaigns of each of the Presidential candidates, and I know its something average Americans are concerned about.
Now let me state something up front. I am a Republican, business owner, Black Puerto Rican, 40 year old man. I am voting for the McCain – Palin ticket. So if you cannot accept any of those thoughts, click away now.
I want to examine one of the tax plans that has gotten huge support and acclaim – that of Senator Obama. In reality this is a tax plan that the Democratic Party has always pushed for most of my life. It can be summed up in the following:
- Tax the rich
- Tax business
- Tax the stock market
Let me explain in simple terms why this is a stupid plan.
Assume that Senator Obama wins the election. And a Democratic Congress remains in force. And their tax plans are enacted.
First the President Bush tax cuts will be reversed. Based on the votes from earlier this year that would mean that every American making $31,850 or more would have a 3% tax increase.
Now add to this the thought that business taxes increase 10%. And payroll tax increases 3%. And short-term and long-term tax on investments increases 10%. And lastly the minimum wage is increased to say $9.
Middle and low income Americans should rejoice, right? The rich are now paying for everything like some believe they should. The economy will improve and everyone will get nationalized (meaning standardized) healthcare.
So if you were at 28% tax, you are bumped up to 31%, but you are making more money now so it’s ok? Well in a vacuum yes. But in the real world you are out of your mind.
As a business owner I have to pay corporate taxes as well as my personal taxes. So I am faced with a situation where my raw materials cost more, my employees cost more, and I pay more in taxes at every turn.
If I had a business that had revenues of $100,000, and 2 part-time employees, and paid myself a salary here is the rough scenario.
Let’s say that my cost of goods is only 10%, research 3%, location 15%, energy use 15%, corporate taxes are 39% and employees get $7/hr. This is before the tax increase and minimum pay jump. They become 49% and $9 respectively. So if my employees cost $9/hr @ 20 hours a week each they are a minimum of 17% not including tax for them. For simple math let’s just call it 20%.
That’s a total of 112%. Without assuming my cost of goods from other businesses in the same position have increased, or if the price of energy increases (which it has for every year since 1972), I am in debt 12%, or in this example $12,000.
That says nothing of paying myself anything. Add in a modest living of $35,000 for owning the business and you get even more debt – but let’s say that I just have it at no cost to the business – though I am paying at least 31% on that money (including the end of the Bush tax cuts) as well.
So I am now in debt. Where can I cut cost? Raw goods and energy are essentially fixed to me. Location is fixed. Taxes are fixed. I could increase prices of my finished goods or services, but there is no guarantee that consumers will pay the higher price. Plus I still have to pay everything first to even test if consumers will pay a higher price.
So a smart plan is to increase my sale price by no more than 5% - small enough to test if the new price range will work, and most won’t notice it. Still I am short the upfront money to get the goods. The only variable left is to cut what I can affect.
I would need to cut either the number of employees and/or their hours until I can bring costs to just even (and probably take a pay cut). At that point I can see if I can make a profit with the price increase.
Now this scenario is overly simplified, given. [A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.] But the theory is sound. So please explain to me where the higher taxes benefit the 95% of people that receive a paycheck? They will get more money, but fewer of them will be working – and working less hours with higher expectations at that.
The pressure to make a profit increases exponentially if that company has stock and needs to make a profit for investors. And higher profits than normal since they have to make up for the loss incurred from taxing investments.
People that have investments so they can retire are now hurt as they either have to wait longer to retire, or must lower their quality of life. I don’t mean the CEO’s on television quality of life, I mean papa Joe who built up positions in GE so he could sell it over time to make up the difference between SSI (which will be going bankrupt shortly) and his pension that was cut after the company lost it’s ass in the internet bubble crash.
Feeling cheerful? Taxing the rich sound good still?
Add in the cost of higher raw goods since those companies have to make more money too. Add in the higher cost of energy – either because of higher oil prices or the cost of creating and converting to alternative energy. Remember ethanol is only ¾ as efficient as gasoline, so you will need more of it and thus spend more money for the same usage. Plus building solar plants, wind power generators, research and development of biomass, geothermal, and the rest.
And these costs go up every year.
And don’t even mention paying for healthcare, which employers have to cover.
So someone please explain to me how the Democrats plan to raise taxes will benefit anyone. Like I said earlier, it looks great in a vacuum but I own a business in the real world and it doesn’t look so good there.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
August 13, 2008
Nancy Pelosi at the DNC - strike 2
By admin
Written by Michael Vass
Recently I mentioned how I felt that having Speaker Nancy Pelosi speak on the first night of the Democratic National Convention was a mistake. I felt it was a massive strike against Senator Obama.
I continue to feel that way, and I believe that strike 2 has just been dealt.
“She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them becomes less and less attractive.”
CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi’s home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives. Namely: Natural gas and wind.”
So effectively we see that Nancy Pelosi is in the pocket of alternative energy companies. It’s basically the same claim being made by Pelosi and other Democrats against Republicans. And it’s just as bad as what they say the result is with Republicans.
Speaker Pelosi has walled-off any discussion of domestic drilling for oil. She has refused to allow any votes on the subject. And according to her most recent comments on Larry King she will only consider possibly allowing a vote on domestic drilling IF it also includes alternative energy incentives.
Effectively that means that Speaker Pelosi wants alternative energy to get more money to earn more money for herself. The higher the cost for oil, the better her alternative energy stocks will do. And the American public be damned.
Of course many other Democrats believe in this same style of system as well. Senator Obama wants to increase electricity costs, is against domestic drilling (though he has suggested he might be open to drilling in recent speeches – campaign speeches designed to get him elected), and has stated that higher oil costs is good because it will force people to use less oil. Don’t mind the fact that higher energy costs mean more Americans will lose their homes and businesses, and will force a slow down in the economy that makes unemployment higher.
But look at it from a different point of view. Senator McCain stated at 4:33pm on Aug 13, 2008 in a news conference that creating nuclear energy plants would create 700,000 jobs. McCain is also more in favor of domestic drilling.
If there was a move in the nation to do domestic drilling, building nuclear plants, and alternative energy – and each of these ideas would employ 500,000 Americans – there would be a boost to the economy and a reduction in the cost of oil and energy. Speaker Pelosi would make money on her stocks (though not as much) and so would oil companies, utilities, 401K’s, and the average American (via energy cost savings).
But according to Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, domestic oil is a bad thing since it means oil prices would drop. Also nuclear energy is opposed as well. That’s 1,000,000 American jobs they don’t want to create, at least. That means that unemployment will go higher since businesses of all sizes will not be able to afford the higher cost.
Of course Nancy Pelosi will make more money though.
So I will return to my original thought. Is having Speaker Pelosi speak at the DNC a positive? Especially since she represents a Democrat-led Congress that not only has done nothing they promised in 2006, but is also actively looking to hurt American families. While lining her own pockets with more money.
Strike 2.
Topics: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
March 31, 2008
How To Protect Your Brand with a Trademark
By admin
I recently received some of the best business advice I ever received and at least one person out there is going to thank me for it. It’s related to trademarks and if you intend to build a brand, it’s really necessary to protect your trademark.
Many of us create a business idea but for some reason, we don’t create the business immediately because of a lack of funding or current job and business obligations.
If you’re in this position, file an Intent to Use application with the USPTO. This application will put you in a priority position, even better than someone who is actually using the trademark if your Intent to Use application was filed before:
1. Either the other person’s first use or first commerce date.
2. Before the other person’s Intent to Use application.
You can file extensions for up to 36 months with the USPTO and I highly advise to stay on top of all correspondence with the USPTO. With an Intent to Use application, you will be protecting your mark for 36 months and then you need to prove use.
Please note that when filing this application, you still need to file a mark that can be registered and you are not given a less vigorous examination just because you are not using it.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
