I already summarized the Republican presidential candidates a few weeks ago. With the Iowa caucuses (and liberation from the endless, mindless TV campaign ads) a mere one week away, let me now quickly summarize the various candidate campaign strategies:
For all those not named Ron Paul or Mitt Romney or John Huntsman: Watch the news (easier than reading it) and simply say you are against everything that's currently happening.
For Ron Paul: Just keep saying extreme liberatarian things to win the youth vote.
For Mitt Romney and John Huntsman: Just say nothing. That passes for a moderate view in this group, and while it may not serve them well in Iowa, it's makes them look presidential in comparison.
That's it. I told you it was simple.
When it comes to the Republican party, the Iowa caucuses don't help the party find a nominee, they help the party realize who NOT to nominate - specifically anyone who panders to the social conservative base that the electorate eventually rejects.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Meaning Of Christmas (Cards)
In the past couple of weeks, we've received our share of Christmas cards from family and friends. I generally enjoy this annual ritual, and for many years our family has put forth an above average effort to send not only a card, but a themed-letter with highlights of the past year, along with a short personal note.
On the other hand, the Christmas cards we receive fall into two general categories: Those that include a picture with a form letter, and those that are simply a pre-printed family picture.
I acknowledge that lots of people don't think much of the Christmas form letter. I get that, it can be kind of lame, and include all kinds of unnecessary information. But as silly as that sounds, at least it's something. Which brings me to today's touchy subject.
I have little regard for those who send only a pre-printed picture as their so-called Christmas card. Sadly, this has become the norm for the greetings we receive, and that trend has been growing ever since it became easy for people to make the pre-printed picture card several years ago.
If all someone cares to send me for a Christmas greeting is a once-per-year family picture, why bother? If you're unwilling to give more than the minimum effort, just send it to me another time, when you aren't so lazy, er, I mean busy. Hell, you can even send it electronically in an email, or tell me about a picture you posted to Facebook; it's all the same to me.
To all those family and friends who send me nothing but a pre-printed picture card as a Christmas greeting, I have a Christmas gift for you, something to make sending your Christmas greetings even easier: Take me off of your Christmas card list. If our relationship doesn't mean enough for you to personalize your greeting, then I assure you, it doesn't mean enough for me to care about getting an annual picture of your family/pet/vacation.
Just save the stamp, or better yet, donate the postage to charity. That's a better way to show someone how much you care.
Monday, December 12, 2011
CDs = Bad Investment
Some time ago I wrote about how insurance is a bad investment and should be used only for protection. Today I'm going to pile on another bad investment in the current financial environment - good 'ol certificates of deposit.
I’m routinely contacted by people looking for a higher rate of return than can be found on CDs. Such frustrated investors are everywhere these days, as 12-month CD rates have hovered below 1%. Even in this environment, however, many are reluctant to leave the ‘safety’ of CDs.
Here’s what I’ve told those investors, and everyone else for the past year: Safety and capital preservation are not the same thing. CDs are not safe, in terms of preserving your capital. They are in fact locking in a loss; the real CD return is currently negative after inflation plus taxes on the interest. If fact, in terms of annual purchasing power, a CD investor will likely have about 2% less than they did before putting the money in the CD.
To preserve capital in this market/economy, investors will need something more than CDs. One secure alternative is U.S. government bonds. The interest paid may not be much more than on CDs, but those bondholders don’t have to pay any state taxes on the interest. These bonds do carry risk, but in a way, U.S. government bonds are safer than CDs – there’s less chance Uncle Sam will go insolvent than a bank.
Another alternative is municipal bonds. For residents who purchase such bonds issued in their state, none of the interest is taxable at the federal or state level. This means a bond with a 2% coupon would have an effective taxable yield of closer to 3%, assuming the bond is purchased at or near par value.
A third option is to invest in dividend paying stocks of large companies. Many well-known companies are paying up to 5% a year just to invest in their stock. The stock price could go down, but if it goes nowhere the investor will make that dividend yield on the money, and if the stock price goes up, even better! And also, qualified dividends currently receive favorable tax treatment.
These are all good, manageable risks for people to take with some of their savings – and it beats the heck out of an inflation-and-tax adjusted 2% loss!
I’m routinely contacted by people looking for a higher rate of return than can be found on CDs. Such frustrated investors are everywhere these days, as 12-month CD rates have hovered below 1%. Even in this environment, however, many are reluctant to leave the ‘safety’ of CDs.
Here’s what I’ve told those investors, and everyone else for the past year: Safety and capital preservation are not the same thing. CDs are not safe, in terms of preserving your capital. They are in fact locking in a loss; the real CD return is currently negative after inflation plus taxes on the interest. If fact, in terms of annual purchasing power, a CD investor will likely have about 2% less than they did before putting the money in the CD.
To preserve capital in this market/economy, investors will need something more than CDs. One secure alternative is U.S. government bonds. The interest paid may not be much more than on CDs, but those bondholders don’t have to pay any state taxes on the interest. These bonds do carry risk, but in a way, U.S. government bonds are safer than CDs – there’s less chance Uncle Sam will go insolvent than a bank.
Another alternative is municipal bonds. For residents who purchase such bonds issued in their state, none of the interest is taxable at the federal or state level. This means a bond with a 2% coupon would have an effective taxable yield of closer to 3%, assuming the bond is purchased at or near par value.
A third option is to invest in dividend paying stocks of large companies. Many well-known companies are paying up to 5% a year just to invest in their stock. The stock price could go down, but if it goes nowhere the investor will make that dividend yield on the money, and if the stock price goes up, even better! And also, qualified dividends currently receive favorable tax treatment.
These are all good, manageable risks for people to take with some of their savings – and it beats the heck out of an inflation-and-tax adjusted 2% loss!
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The Problem With Kids Is Parents
There are no bad kids, there are only bad parents. I say this all of the time, and usually end up defending it to a parent who seems convinced that some kids are so insufferable, no parenting would have mattered.
When an adult argues that there's something in the gene pool that turns children into delinquents, you can assume two things: 1) that parent had or has rotton kids, and 2) that you've just heard an incredible crock of crap. Sure, some infants are born with genetic mental or physical defects, but none are born inately bad.
Bad kids are a direct by-product of bad parenting. And bad parenting doesn't mean abusive parenting - there are a lot of ways to be a bad parent. One example is the parent who compensates for never being around their kids, by giving their kids whatever they want. They're the ones most likely to think they're great parents, when just the opposite is true. Their kids will not contribute to society.
Another one of the worst kinds of bad parents are the enablers. You know, the kind whose kids never do anything wrong, and if they do, believe everything their kid says in defending their actions. Here again, they think they're great parents, but really they suck at it. Those kids eventually leave home, then get their asses kicked by the real world. Or they never leave home, to avoid getting their asses kicked.
To be fair, bad parents are often the product of a poor environment, perhaps from an abusive past, or from having kids too young. However, most of the bad behavior I see in my white-bred suburban lfe comes from comes from children of well-to-do parents. Go figure.
If we want to reduced juvenile delinquency, let's cut of the snake's head. Stop focusing on the bad kids, and start calling out the bad parents.
When an adult argues that there's something in the gene pool that turns children into delinquents, you can assume two things: 1) that parent had or has rotton kids, and 2) that you've just heard an incredible crock of crap. Sure, some infants are born with genetic mental or physical defects, but none are born inately bad.
Bad kids are a direct by-product of bad parenting. And bad parenting doesn't mean abusive parenting - there are a lot of ways to be a bad parent. One example is the parent who compensates for never being around their kids, by giving their kids whatever they want. They're the ones most likely to think they're great parents, when just the opposite is true. Their kids will not contribute to society.
Another one of the worst kinds of bad parents are the enablers. You know, the kind whose kids never do anything wrong, and if they do, believe everything their kid says in defending their actions. Here again, they think they're great parents, but really they suck at it. Those kids eventually leave home, then get their asses kicked by the real world. Or they never leave home, to avoid getting their asses kicked.
To be fair, bad parents are often the product of a poor environment, perhaps from an abusive past, or from having kids too young. However, most of the bad behavior I see in my white-bred suburban lfe comes from comes from children of well-to-do parents. Go figure.
If we want to reduced juvenile delinquency, let's cut of the snake's head. Stop focusing on the bad kids, and start calling out the bad parents.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Still More Things For Which I'm Not Thankful
For the third consecutive year, I present my contrarian Thanksgiving week entry, listing in random order those things for which I'm not thankful. (If you want to catch up on the prior versions, see 2009 here and 2010 here.)
Republican presidential candidates stumping in Iowa, and their related advertising and robo-calls.
The cold and darkness. (To avoid confusion, here I’m referring to the weather, not the Republican presidential candidates again.)
The curerent state of the economy.
Any TV reality series based solely on cameras following people living their ‘normal’ lives. (I’m looking at you Kardashians, Duggars, teen moms, hoarders, and housewives)
Dreamers without pragmatism, a/k/a leaderless political movements. (Tea partiers and Occupiers, go away, your 15 minutes is up.)
Paying people to not work.
That the NBA lockout is keeping EJ, Kenny, and Charles off the air.
The politically far right and the politically far left.
Anyone who thinks insurance should be used as an investment vehicle.
Speaking when not speaking would have been just as good.
[This list gets longer every year. That's either a bad omen, or a sign that I'm quickly becoming a malevolent old man, or both.]
Republican presidential candidates stumping in Iowa, and their related advertising and robo-calls.
The cold and darkness. (To avoid confusion, here I’m referring to the weather, not the Republican presidential candidates again.)
The curerent state of the economy.
Any TV reality series based solely on cameras following people living their ‘normal’ lives. (I’m looking at you Kardashians, Duggars, teen moms, hoarders, and housewives)
Dreamers without pragmatism, a/k/a leaderless political movements. (Tea partiers and Occupiers, go away, your 15 minutes is up.)
Paying people to not work.
That the NBA lockout is keeping EJ, Kenny, and Charles off the air.
The politically far right and the politically far left.
Anyone who thinks insurance should be used as an investment vehicle.
Speaking when not speaking would have been just as good.
[This list gets longer every year. That's either a bad omen, or a sign that I'm quickly becoming a malevolent old man, or both.]
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Lobbyists + Money x Politicians = Results
Here's a reason why the Occupy movement exists:
According to a November 15th CNNMoney report, filings show that after the bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nearly $100 million of tax money went to lucrative pay packages for top executives. The top five executives at Fannie Mae received $33.3 million in 2009 and 2010, and the top five at Freddie Mac received $28.1 million. Today both the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee were scheduled to discuss the Fannie/Freddie compensation packages of the firms' top executives. But that posturing isn't going to get this money back, much less send anyone to jail for bilking investors/taxpayers out of millions/billions in the financial crisis (no one has even been indicted).
Now, here's why the Occupy movement will never accomplish anything in the area of financial reform, or anything else for that matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10
In short, they need lobbyists!
According to a November 15th CNNMoney report, filings show that after the bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nearly $100 million of tax money went to lucrative pay packages for top executives. The top five executives at Fannie Mae received $33.3 million in 2009 and 2010, and the top five at Freddie Mac received $28.1 million. Today both the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee were scheduled to discuss the Fannie/Freddie compensation packages of the firms' top executives. But that posturing isn't going to get this money back, much less send anyone to jail for bilking investors/taxpayers out of millions/billions in the financial crisis (no one has even been indicted).
Now, here's why the Occupy movement will never accomplish anything in the area of financial reform, or anything else for that matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10
In short, they need lobbyists!
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
A 2012 Candidate Guide
It's Election Day, circa 2011. Not a whole lot to worry about nationally today, but a year from now - oh baby.
Now seems a good time for my independent (yes, there are still independents out there), Iowa-based analysis of the current serious (?) Republican candidates. In no particular order:
Mitt Romney - Plasticman. Backpedaling on his past in order to get the right-wing to nominate him. He's probably going to get that nomination, and then start moving to the center again, while spending a bunch of time rationalizing how Romneycare is different than Obamacare.
Herman Cain - Doesn't really want to be president. Just got in this thing for the attention and to sell his book, and didn't plan on the scrutiny. The only reason people are drawn to him is his 9-9-9 tax plan, which just proves in this economy, any idea, good or bad, is better than no idea at all.
Michele Bachmann - WOITH. Less qualified to be president than Sarah Palin, by far, and that's no compliment. In way over her head, but since she only talks to friendly crowds (and literally avoids those who might intellectually confront her - just Google 'bachmann grinnell college') she doesn't know it.
Ron Paul - The most independent, dare I say Liberitarian candidate, which makes him very likable. Unfortunately, his ideas for swift and radical change would make things a lot worse before they could possible become better, and no one is going to vote for that.
Rick Santorum - Can't take his colorless form seriously, not to mention his last name. (Google that, too.)
Rick Perry - Not ready for national prime-time politics, and maybe never will be. Partly a victim of the Texas-governor-cowboy fatigue of the American public, and partly a victim of not understanding what is and isn't acceptable to blurt out when running a national campaign.
Jon Huntsman - Best of the bunch. Moderate. The only one who seems to understand the role of foreign policy in the U.S. But his only hope is a John McCain-like, crazy come-from behind 3rd place or better in the Iowa caucuses, where he's not campaiging. (Another reason to like him.)
Newt Gingrich - The Bill Clinton of the Republican Party. Most intellectually ready to be president of the group, but also the most personally flawed - although Cain is giving him a run for his money. Probably wishes he could have back some of what he said as Speaker of the House in the 90s.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican candidates for president. A year from now I suspect they will all just be part of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's very large shadow.
Now seems a good time for my independent (yes, there are still independents out there), Iowa-based analysis of the current serious (?) Republican candidates. In no particular order:
Mitt Romney - Plasticman. Backpedaling on his past in order to get the right-wing to nominate him. He's probably going to get that nomination, and then start moving to the center again, while spending a bunch of time rationalizing how Romneycare is different than Obamacare.
Herman Cain - Doesn't really want to be president. Just got in this thing for the attention and to sell his book, and didn't plan on the scrutiny. The only reason people are drawn to him is his 9-9-9 tax plan, which just proves in this economy, any idea, good or bad, is better than no idea at all.
Michele Bachmann - WOITH. Less qualified to be president than Sarah Palin, by far, and that's no compliment. In way over her head, but since she only talks to friendly crowds (and literally avoids those who might intellectually confront her - just Google 'bachmann grinnell college') she doesn't know it.
Ron Paul - The most independent, dare I say Liberitarian candidate, which makes him very likable. Unfortunately, his ideas for swift and radical change would make things a lot worse before they could possible become better, and no one is going to vote for that.
Rick Santorum - Can't take his colorless form seriously, not to mention his last name. (Google that, too.)
Rick Perry - Not ready for national prime-time politics, and maybe never will be. Partly a victim of the Texas-governor-cowboy fatigue of the American public, and partly a victim of not understanding what is and isn't acceptable to blurt out when running a national campaign.
Jon Huntsman - Best of the bunch. Moderate. The only one who seems to understand the role of foreign policy in the U.S. But his only hope is a John McCain-like, crazy come-from behind 3rd place or better in the Iowa caucuses, where he's not campaiging. (Another reason to like him.)
Newt Gingrich - The Bill Clinton of the Republican Party. Most intellectually ready to be president of the group, but also the most personally flawed - although Cain is giving him a run for his money. Probably wishes he could have back some of what he said as Speaker of the House in the 90s.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your Republican candidates for president. A year from now I suspect they will all just be part of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's very large shadow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)