Y3Y3's Blog

the first guy put a bumper sticker on his car in August, the day after the convention.  He put it on his BMW. 

A week later, a second guy put a bumper sticker on HIS Volvo.

The campaign was ugly.  Finally, the election came and went.

The guy with the losers bumper sticker was carefully removed the 5th of November with a soaking with 1st water with some 409 in it, and later some rubbing alcohol to get the adhesive off.  At least HIS CAR wouldn't have a blemish that reduces the resale value.

The guy who had the winners bumper sticker on it decided to leave it on his car for the near future.  It was on all winter, and all through the next year. 

Finally, after a YEAR of that bumper sticker being on the BMW, the owner realized that with the problems the president was having, and his actions being what they were, that he just didn't want the bumper sticker on the Beemer anymore.  He tried soapy water, HOT WATER, and even special cleaners and removers.  NOTHING would get the paper backing on sticky layer off the back of the car.  Finally, he used a little steel wool and hot 409 and alcohol.  After a time it was finally off the car.  The spot, made by all the scrubbing was visible, even at dusk, and lowered the resale value of his car by 3000 bucks.

With all the expectations of a new and better administration, what we are getting is all the old, disgraced Clinton era fools, back again. 

I guess the promises were just BS......

Just like the promises of ALL the lying Politicians....

The IDIOTS

who run the Auto companies are
SO STUPID
,
they flew down in their
PRIVATE JETS

and Stayed in the
5 star hotels,

and took
LIMO's
to the Hearings,
where they
begged for money.



Chrysler shouldn't get ANYTHING!

They STUPIDLY hired the guy who almost ruined HOME DEPOT,
and let HIM run that company??
And it's tanking?? DUH! HELLO

MORONS ON THE AUTO Industries board of directors:

I'd say YOU ALL WERE TO BLAME FOR THIS.

The Union Thugs did
NOTHING TO HELP EITHER.
 
Unions serve
NO PURPOSE
as it relates to the
quality of the employees.
The Union thugs
have had it too good
for too long.

Make it a LAW that any industry, bailed out CAN'T HAVE UNION CONTRACTS.
They should suffer financial collapse like the businesses they
FORCED to use their lazy, high cost, low output workers.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: On November 4, documentary filmmaker John Zeigler interviewed a dozen Obama supporters as they left the polls. He asked them simple questions about the campaign and politics in general. Here are some of their responses.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN ZEIGLER, FILMMAKER: Which party currently controls Congress?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Currently? Like — I don't know, actually.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Republicans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republicans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republicans.

ZEIGLER: Republicans control Congress?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yep.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Probably Republican because the president's Republican. That's my honest answer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's — it's Republicans who control it now, I believe.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Republicans?

ZEIGLER: Which political party currently controls Congress?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know.

ZEIGLER: You don't know?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

ZEIGLER: Which wore clothes that their party spent $150,000 on?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Palin.

ZEIGLER: Which has a pregnant teenage daughter?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Palin.

ZEIGLER: Which has a pregnant teenage daughter?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sarah Palin.

ZEIGLER: Which of the four candidates has a pregnant teenage daughter?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sarah Palin.

OBAMA: I've now been in 57 states. I think one left to go.

ZEIGLER: Which claimed to have campaigned in 57 states?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sarah Palin, I don't know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Fifty-seven states? Probably Sarah Palin.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COLMES: The same questions were asked in a nationwide Zogby poll of Obama voters. Some of the highlights were that, while 81 percent identified McCain as the candidate who forget how many houses he owned, only 42 could say which party controls the Congress.

Joining us now is former radio talk show host, documentary filmmaker and the producer of 'Blocking the Path to 9/11," John Zeigler.

How are you doing, John?

ZEIGLER: Doing all right, Alan. Give me your best shot.

COLMES: Moi? Look...

ZEIGLER: Yes. Go ahead.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Fire away, John.

COLMES: I just want to ask you this. If you were to go out and find McCain supporters, could you put together a similar documentary with those kind of wrong answers?

ZEIGLER: Not without the corresponding poll results, Alan. And here's the challenge I present to you and any other liberal. I will bet you the money that I spent on this video on this poll, which was about $13,000 for you to go out and do the same thing with McCain voters. And if you get the same poll results or worse, I will pay you your expenses. I will double your expenses.

COLMES: No, you fund my film first. I want the money first. I want it up front.

ZEIGLER: I'll be happy to do that up front, if you pay me back in double. You will not be able to duplicate the poll results with McCain voters. Not a chance in the world, Alan. And you know it.

COLMES: So your point is the people who voted for Barack Obama are a bunch of morons...

ZEIGLER: No.

COLMES: ... and the people who voted for John McCain are all bright, well-educated, knowledgeable human beings?

ZEIGLER: No, because that would, of course, be racist, like every other criticism of Barack Obama.

COLMES: That's not what I'm saying. I'm just asking you about your position.

ZEIGLER: But no. No, here's what I'm saying, Alan. What I'm saying is that the media coverage of this campaign was so scandalous, so beyond bias, into the realm of media malpractice, which is why I'm doing a documentary with that title — and that's why we did this film, at HowObamaGotElected.com — that the reality is the media coverage was so horrendous that Obama voters had no idea for what they were voting. They had no idea about some of the basic issues of the campaign, many of which you and Sean talked an awful lot about.

COLMES: So what you're saying. John, at least be honest and tell me, because what you're saying is you believe we stupidly elected Barack Obama. The people who did it, you think, are not that bright. If they knew anything they wouldn't have voted for him. Isn't that the point you're trying to make?

ZEIGLER: No, that's what you would like to believe, Alan. But the reality is, I think that every person that was interviewed on that video, which again you can find for yourself, 12 people who are very intelligent, very informed at HowObamaGotElected.com?

I, by the way, did not choose them. They were chosen by a black female, by the way, Alan. I had nothing to do with choosing the subjects for my — my documentary.

But the reality is these are not dumb people.

HANNITY: John...

ZEIGLER: That's a tragedy. They're not dumb people. They were misinformed by the media.

Yes, Sean.

HANNITY: For years on radio, for years on television, I do a bit. It's called man on the street. And this corroborates every single interview I've ever had.

It's frustrating to me how ill-informed people are, you know, that can cancel out our well-educated, well-informed vote. I mean, you look at the numbers here.

As much as I talked about the Weather Underground, 56 percent couldn't identify that Obama started his career in Ayers' house. Eighty-eight percent said that — could not correctly say that Obama, you know, wanted to eliminate the coal industry, as he said, as you point out. These questions are really fundamental and really basic.

ZEIGLER: Well, Sean — well, Sean, the important point here is the Zogby poll, which will come out in its entirety tomorrow, was a multiple choice question.

HANNITY: Yes.

ZEIGLER: This wasn't just off the top of your head. That means if you were guessing, if you were guessing, you would get 25 percent of them right, because we gave them the four choices of Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin. There are three questions on this list that a group of monkeys, if they had been guessing, would have done better than the Obama voters did.

HANNITY: Let me...

ZEIGLER: HowObamaGotElected.com.

HANNITY: One question — one question. Nearly 60 percent could not correctly say which party controls Congress. Now, that's frightening.

ZEIGLER: What else can you say?

HANNITY: That's pretty bad.

ZEIGLER: What can you say? HowObamaGotElected.com.

HANNITY: I've identified this as Obamania syndrome, and the media, I think, are the biggest culprits. Journalism died. And I suggest, for better — you know, from what I've seen of this documentary, it's pretty frightening, I've got to tell you, John. Thanks.

ZEIGLER: Thank you, Sean.

How the Consortium of News Organizations Conducted the Ballot Review

By FORD FESSENDEN

he ballot review project commissioned by eight media organizations tried to decipher 175,010 Florida ballots that went unexamined in last fall's presidential election and the ensuing recounts.
Beginning in Polk County in February and ending in Orlando in May, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago maneuvered a small army of 153 ballot examiners, or coders, through courthouses and office buildings across Florida's 67 counties to inspect the ballots.
The coders were there to discern what was on the ballots that so divided the parties and the courts, and kept a nation in a constitutional twilight for a month.
The ballot project was organized in December by The New York Times and joined by The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Tribune Company, The Palm Beach Post, The St. Petersburg Times and The Associated Press, which shared the $900,000 cost.
The choreography of the ballot review was familiar to anyone who watched the spectacle of hand recounts that followed the election. Like dealers in a slow-motion blackjack game, county employees pulled ballots from precinct boxes one by one, turning them from back to front, flashing them in front of miniature photographic light tables that all the teams carried. The coders, squinting and craning, spent an average of 60 seconds on each before recording what they saw.

But the process was far different from last fall's in critical ways. The coders were not trying to decide whether a ballot showed evidence of intent to vote but simply recording as objectively as possible critical information about the marks they found. Were chads disrupted, and by how much? Were bubbles filled in, and in what fashion? Were there notes, X marks, editorial comments?
The coders made their judgments without consulting other coders. The method provided both a guard against inaccuracy and a measure of how difficult the dimples and scratches were to see.
Every undervote ó the name given to ballots with no machine-readable vote for president ó was viewed separately by three coders.
"Three coders gives us a good bit more accuracy than using one, or even two," said Kirk Wolter, senior vice president for statistics and methodology at the National Opinion Research Center.
On the more straightforward overvotes ó those that were rejected because the machine saw two or more punches or marks in the presidential race ó the research center used one coder, but only after running a test with three coders showing that the overvotes could be reliably recorded by one person.
The database produced by the research center was ultimately analyzed by consortium members using computer software designed by the members to sort the ballots based on rules and standards that might have been used by canvassing boards in a manual recount.
The coders were hired, screened and supervised by the research center. Political and demographic data on the coders was collected so researchers could study the ways hand-recounters worked.
When one coder began professing strong pro-Democratic views after the project was completed, the research center reviewed his work and found it was not tainted by partisanship ó he agreed with other coders 96 percent of the time, the average for all coders.
Dr. Wolter said the outcome proved that the information on a ballot could be reliably recorded by independent reviewers. Even working without consultation, they agreed more than 95 percent of the time.
But the project also showed the inherent difficulties of finding voter intent on punch-card ballots on which the chads are not dislodged. Using a standard that tried to count dimples as well as other marks, the research center found that coders agreed about 87 percent of the time. Using a less ambiguous standard ó a ballot with two corners of a chad dislodged ó and in optical-scan ballots, coders agreed more than 98 percent of the time, Dr. Wolter said.
"A dimple isn't any one thing," Dr. Wolter said. "There's a scale of dimples, from virtually no dimple at all to a more pronounced dimple that borders on detachment."
Dimples also revealed a partisan fissure among the coders: Republicans were more likely than Democrats to see dimples on Bush chads and less likely to see them on Gore chads, Dr. Wolter said. But the use of three coders, he said, would minimize the effect of such differences on the results.
Many county election supervisors initially resisted the ballot project. Some refused to separate the uncounted ballots. Charlotte County refused to put the ballots back through counting machines ó the best way to know which ones the machines could not read ó arguing in court that it would violate the Supreme Court's order to stop recounting the ballots.
A county judge dismissed the contention, and ultimately all the supervisors agreed to produce the ballots.
"There was never any dispute that ballots were public ó everyone accepted that fact," said Rachel Fugate, a lawyer with Holland & Knight in Tampa who represented The New York Times. "What we had to fight about was the manner in which they were produced for us."
In many places, supervisors found it difficult to find all the ballots that were uncounted on election night, even by running them through the machines. The problem was worst in punch-card counties, as chads dislodged and undervotes suddenly disappeared. Even in optical-scan counties, though, supervisors were often unable to exactly replicate the undervotes and overvotes from the election.
In all, the research center reviewed 175,010 ballots, more than 99 percent of the approximately 176,446 that were considered overvoted or undervoted in the certified vote total.

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER


comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff ó filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties ó Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."
In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.
More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.
Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at ó a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.
The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.
For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush.
But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.
Even so, the media ballot review, carried out under rigorous rules far removed from the chaos and partisan heat of the post-election dispute, is unlikely to end the argument over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. The race was so close that it is possible to get different results simply by applying different hypothetical vote-counting methods to the thousands of uncounted ballots. And in every case, the ballot review produced a result that was even closer than the official count ó a margin of perhaps four or five thousandths of one percent out of about six million ballots cast for president.
The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected last November. Those included so-called undervotes, or ballots on which the machines could not discern a preference for president, and overvotes, those on which voters marked more than one candidate.
The examination then sought to judge what might have been considered a legal vote under various conditions ó from the strictest interpretation (a clearly punched hole) to the most liberal (a small indentation, or dimple, that indicated the voter was trying to punch a hole in the card). But even under the most inclusive standards, the review found that at most, 24,619 ballots could have been interpreted as legal votes.
The numbers reveal the flaws in Mr. Gore's post-election tactics and, in retrospect, why the Bush strategy of resisting county-by-county recounts was ultimately successful.
In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical ó a statewide recount ó could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.
Another complicating factor in the effort to untangle the result is the overseas absentee ballots that arrived after Election Day. A New York Times investigation earlier this year showed that 680 of the late- arriving ballots did not meet Florida's standards yet were still counted. The vast majority of those flawed ballots were accepted in counties that favored Mr. Bush, after an aggressive effort by Bush strategists to pressure officials to accept them.

A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.
But Mr. Gore chose not to challenge these ballots because many were from members of the military overseas, and Mr. Gore did not want to be accused of seeking to invalidate votes of men and women in uniform.
Democrats invested heavily in get- out-the-vote programs across Florida, particularly among minorities, recent immigrants and retirees from the Northeast. But their efforts were foiled by confusing ballot designs in crucial counties that resulted in tens of thousands of Democratic voters spoiling their ballots. More than 150,000 of those spoiled ballots did not show evidence of voter intent even after independent observers closely examined them and the most inclusive definition of what constituted a valid vote was applied.
The majority of those ballots were spoiled because multiple choices were made for president, often, apparently, because voters were confused by the ballots. All were invalidated by county election officials and were excluded from the consortium count because there was no clear proof of voter intent, unless there were other clear signs of the voter's choice, like a matching name on the line for a write-in candidate.
In Duval County, for example, 20 percent of the ballots from African- American areas that went heavily for Mr. Gore were thrown out because voters followed instructions to mark a vote on every page of the ballot. In 62 precincts with black majorities in Duval County alone, nearly 3,000 people voted for Mr. Gore and a candidate whose name appeared on the second page of the ballot, thus spoiling their votes.
In Palm Beach County, 5,310 people, most of them probably confused by the infamous butterfly ballot, voted for Mr. Gore and Patrick J. Buchanan. The confusion affected Bush voters as well, but only 2,600 voted for Mr. Bush and another candidate.
The media consortium included The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN. The group hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago in January to examine the ballots. The research group employed teams of three workers they called coders to examine each undervoted ballot and mark down what they saw in detail. Three coders provided a bulwark against inaccuracy or bias in the coding. For overvotes, one coder was used because there was seldom disagreement among examiners in a trial run using three coders.
The data produced by the ballot review allows scrutiny of the disputed Florida vote under a large number of situations and using a variety of different standards that might have applied in a hand recount, including the appearance of a dimple, a chad dangling by one or more corners and a cleanly punched card.
The difficulty of perceiving dimples or detached chads can be measured by the number of coders who saw them, but most of the ballot counts here are based on what a simple majority ó two out of three coders ó recorded.
The different standards mostly involved competing notions of what expresses voter intent on a punch card. The 29,974 ballots using optical scanning equipment were mostly interpreted using a single standard ó any unambiguous mark, whether a circle or a scribble or an X, on or near the candidate name was considered evidence of voter intent.
If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive "dimpled chad" standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin.
But the dimple standard was also the subject of the most disagreement among coders, and Mr. Bush fought the use of this standard in recounts in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. Many dimples were so light that only one coder saw them, and hundreds that were seen by two were not seen by three. In fact, counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219.
Using the most restrictive standard ó the fully punched ballot card ó 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.
All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.
While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real- world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes.
The Florida Supreme Court urged a statewide recount and ordered the state's 67 counties to begin a manual re-examination of the undervotes in a ruling issued Dec. 8 that left Mr. Gore and his allies elated.
The Florida court's 4-to-3 ruling rejected Mr. Gore's plea for selective recounts in four Democratic counties, but also Mr. Bush's demand for no recounts at all. Justice Barbara Pariente, in her oral remarks, asked, "Why wouldn't it be proper for any court, if they were going to order any relief, to count the undervotes in all of the counties where, at the very least, punch-card systems were operating?"
The court ultimately adopted her view, although extending it to all counties, including those using ballots marked by pen and read by optical scanning. Many counties immediately began the effort, applying different standards and, in some cases, including overvotes.
The United States Supreme Court stepped in only hours after the counting began, issuing an injunction to halt. Three days later, the justices overturned the Florida court's ruling, sealing Mr. Bush's election.
But what if the recounts had gone forward, as Mr. Gore and his lawyers had demanded?
The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.
The Florida Legislature earlier this year banned punch-card ballots statewide, directing counties to find a more reliable method. Many counties will use paper ballots scanned by computers at voting places that can give voters a second chance if their choices fail to register. In counties that use that technology, just 1 in 200 ballots had uncountable presidential votes, compared with 1 in 25 in punch-card counties.
Others will invest in computerized touch-screen machines that work like automated teller machines.
Kirk Wolter, who supervised the ballot review for the National Opinion Research Center, said that the study not only provided a comprehensive review of uncounted ballots in Florida but would help point the way toward more accurate and reliable voting systems. All data from the consortium recount is available on the Web at www.norc.org.
The review produced databases to study this election from a historical perspective, said Mr. Wolter, the research center's senior vice president for statistics and methodology, adding, "I hope in turn this can lead to voting reform and better ways of doing this in future elections."

Lets let the Auto manufacturers crash n burn!

The parts can be rebuilt as "US Auto", and the best of all 3 can produce a new breed of cars, not the overweight, poorly conceived junk they have been building for so long.  Fire the worst managers, and the lazy, inept workers.  build big trucks, small trucks and 5 models of cars. 

The 5 models would be:

1. luxury sedan
2. Caravan type thing
3. 5 passenger mid-car
4. sporty 4 passenger hot roddy type thng (Mustang-ish)
5 tiny green type thing

Also, the managers should get NO severance package as they let it happen!

The DEMOCRATSS are responsible for the saving and loan collapse.
The DEMOCRATS are responsible for the mortgage lender failures.
The DEMOCRATS are responsible for limiting our ability to drill for oil IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.
The Democrats are now giving away al the money in the treasury to reward MORE LOSERS!

It wasn't until President Bush dropped the ban from offshore drilling that the oil prices started going DOWN.  Pelosi & Reid decided that VACTION was more important than tackling the rest of the oil scam, which would have saved more of the average guys savings by a drop in gas prices.

I see it as two competing disasters which should have been avoided IF the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP had actually been responsible, and DONE THEIR JOBS SINCE TAKING CONTROL IN JAN '07.  Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, Shumer and others should be ashamed.

Now we have a barge load of the horrid, self-centered, lying political hacks left over from the embarrassing Clinton years...BACK TO CONTINUE their game playing.  Only this time, we don't have a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS to control spending and keep the radical left in check.

The Dems are handing out YOUR MONEY TO POOR PERFORMING COMPANIES, and their inept management.

It looks like we are in for a GREAT DEPRESSION.  We will be able to blame the Democrats and 0bamas failed MARXIST POLICIES.   Just look at 0bamas home state for how bad things will get.  Look at ANY STATE where Liberal Democrats have been running things to see how bad it can get.  CALIFORNIA is the biggest failure.  Look how many taxes they pay, and how many regulations the businesses have to deal with.

I would much rather our government SAVE OUR TAX DOLLARS for important things - of which failing businesses ARE NOT.

We won't get any relief until 0bama is gone as he and his party have no realistic solutions, but are planning to do more of EXACTLY WHAT CAUSED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Also, the pure haters on the Democrat side want to impose all these social engineering changes too.  The Censorship Doctrine.   All to silence their critics.   Very sad, and very immature and emorion driven.    JUST WHAT WE DON'T NEED!

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Fraud: Many millions in dubious campaign donations to Barack Obama are going unaudited. Meanwhile, Minnesota's Senate race is ripe for the stealing. When elections lack integrity, the people no longer rule.

We may have found something on which the two most powerful black men in the U.S. government (as of next year) — President-elect Obama and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — agree.
Thomas differs with the rest of the high court on the issue of public disclosure of campaign contributions. Noting that the Federalist Papers "are only the most famous example of the outpouring of anonymous political writing that occurred during the ratification of the Constitution," Thomas contends that "it is only an innovation of modern times that has permitted the regulation of anonymous speech."
In the age of modern communications, it takes a lot of money for speech to reach enough voters to have the kind of effect the Federalist Papers had two centuries ago. So in Thomas' view, the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, with its spending limits on broadcast ads, "directly targets and constricts core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection.' "
How could Obama disagree? He took hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of "speech" from anonymous sources and used it to saturate the airwaves. Someone once again drove an armored car right through a campaign finance law loophole. Ironically, it was the author of the campaign law, Sen. John McCain, who was run over.
Having reneged on his pledge to accept public financing, Obama will likely escape an audit by the Federal Election Commission — which the heavily outspent loser, McCain, must undergo because he took public funding. So much for those filthy-rich Republicans taking advantage of a system supposedly skewed in their favor.
What all this means is we might never get to the bottom of who the thousands of fictitious donors were with names such as "Test Person" and "Doodad Pro." We might never know if the next president of the United States intentionally took money that exceeded the limits allowed under law, or money from foreign powers.
We might never know if the more than $800,000 in falsely reported funds the Obama campaign paid an offshoot of the left-wing organization ACORN was a coordinated national scam, although the FBI is reportedly investigating the group.
ACORN filed more than 43,000 new voter registration forms in Minnesota, where the razor-thin margin of victory for Republican Sen. Norm Coleman over former "Saturday Night Live" comedian Al Franken evaporated from more than 700 votes to just 221 nearly overnight thanks to "typos" discovered over a week before a scheduled recount. Fox News reports that much of Franken's mysterious new votes come from one heavily Democratic small town.
That seat could give Democrats an effectively filibuster-proof Senate majority. But if the cloud of voter fraud hangs over both the Senate and the White House — with Obama's untraceable millions in question — the soon-to-be president might want to change the name of his new Web site from "change.gov" to "cheat.gov."

Why reward poorly run companies or the greedy cowards who have mis-managed them?

There are REASONS these companies have failed.  POOR MANAGEMENT.  Lack of scope.  Lack of vision - ESPECIALLY WITH THE AUTO Manufacturers. 

The Car companies have TOO MANY LAYERS OF HORRID MANAGERS.   They have so many people who do NOTHING but agree with other managers about the various decisions, and THAT IS COSTLY. 
The Unions are just as much to blame as they have soaked the auto manufacturers for the costs like sick leave, holidays, insurances, union dues, and costs that have NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING THE CARS. 

Why is it that ALL the manufacturers of autos in teh US don't have these problems?   How can Honda do it? 

I'm GLAD the big 3 are almost GONE.   If Nancy Pelosi is FOR SAVING THEM, then I KNOW I'm right.  She's NEVER RIGHT.

Other investors might just buy the remains and produce a good car!  That would be the first time such an item was made in those factories since the 1950's.

STOCKS ARE STILL DROPPING. LOL

ANOTHER 400 PLUS points today.


Some endorsement for Marxist Kunta Hussein 0bama huh?

At this rate,
their WON'T BE ANYONE
WHO MAKES $100,000.00
A YEAR
LEFT TO TAX!

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!

Obama campaign workers angry over unpaid wages

Indianapolis - Lines were long and tempers flared Wednesday not to vote but to get paid for canvassing for Barack Obama. Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown to control the crowd.

The line was long and the crowd was angry at times.

"I want my money today! It's my money. I want it right now!" yelled one former campaign worker.

A former spokesman for the Obama campaign said 375 people were hired as part of the Vote Corps program and said people signed up to work three-hour shifts at a time. Three hours of canvassing got workers a $30 pre-paid Visa card.

The workers showed up to get their cards Wednesday morning at 10:00 am.

"There was a note on the door saying 1:00 pm and then at 1:20 pm everybody was like why is nobody here. They just got here and they're trying to get it organized," said Heather Richards, a former campaign worker.

The large gathering of around 375 people prompted police to call in extra officers and set up temporary barricades. The barricades helped keep the crowd from spilling out onto Meridian Street. Police say the several hundred people in line were for the most part orderly.

"No arrests. Some of the people were upset at first because the line wasn't moving as fast as they thought it should. But we really haven't had any problems," said Major Darryl Pierce, Metro Police.

Eventually people did start getting paid, but some said they were missing hours and told to fill in paperwork making their claim and that eventually they would get a check in the mail.

"Still that's not right. I'm disappointed. I'm glad for the president, but I'm disappointed in this system," said Diane Jefferson, temporary campaign worker.

"It should have been $480. It's $230," said Imani Sankofa.

"They gave us $10 an hour. So we added it. I added up all the hours so it was supposed to be at least $120. All I get is $90," said Charles Martin.

"I worked nine hours a day for 4 days and got paid half of what I should have earned," said Randall Waldon.

Some people weren't satisfied with filling out a claim form for money they felt was still due to them.

"They say that they gonna call you or they going to mail it to you, but I don't know. We'll see what happens," said Antron Grose.

"Talking about they'll mail it to us. I ain't worried about that, man. They're not going to mail nothin'," said Martin.

BWA-HA-HA-HA

SOME FINANCIAL PLANNERS AND SUCH!

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!


Spread De Wealff! 

0bama Da Man!  

U.S. Stocks Post Biggest Post-Election Drop on Economic Concern

By Elizabeth Stanton

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The stock market posted its biggest plunge following a presidential election as reports on jobs and service industries stoked concern the economy will worsen even as President-elect Barack Obama tries to stimulate growth.

Citigroup Inc. tumbled 14 percent and Bank of America Corp. lost 11 percent as the Standard & Poor's 500 Index and Dow Jones Industrial Average sank more than 5 percent. Nucor Corp., the largest U.S.-based steel producer, slid 10 percent after bigger rival ArcelorMittal doubled production cuts amid slowing demand. Boeing Co., the world's second-largest commercial planemaker, lost 6.9 percent after UBS AG forecast a 3 percent drop in global air traffic next year.

``We had an election yesterday; that doesn't mean the problems go away,'' said Kevin Rendino, a Plainsboro, New Jersey- based money manager at BlackRock Inc. who oversees $10 billion. ``We still have an economic slowdown.''

The S&P 500 tumbled 5.3 percent to 952.77, erasing yesterday's 4.1 percent rally. The Dow retreated 5.1 percent to 9,139.27. The Russell 2000 Index of small U.S. companies fell 5.7 percent to 514.64. The MSCI World Index of 23 developed markets decreased 2.5 percent to 982.98.

The slide halted an 18 percent rebound from the S&P 500's five-year low on Oct. 27. The benchmark for U.S. equities has lost more than 35 percent this year, the steepest annual plunge since 1937, and Obama will have to contend with an economy pummeled by the fastest contraction in manufacturing in 26 years and the lowest consumer confidence.

Biggest Rally Erased

The market's decline came a day after the biggest presidential Election Day gain since the New York Stock Exchange first opened for trading on a voting day in 1984.

The report by ADP Employer Services showed companies cut 157,000 jobs in October, the most since November 2002 when the U.S. was emerging from a recession. The Institute for Supply Management said service industries in the U.S., which make up 90 percent of the economy, contracted by the most on record.

About 1.3 billion shares changed hands on the NYSE, 11 percent less than the three-month daily average.

Citigroup lost $2.05 to $12.63 and Bank of America plunged $2.78 to $21.75. The S&P 500 Financials Index sank 8.8 percent after extending declines late in the day following Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Meredith Whitney's prediction on CNBC that the mortgage market will contract and more than $2 trillion in available credit-card lines will be pulled from the system.

Whitney also said potential loan modifications under an Obama administration will hurt banks and diminish their appetite for risk.

$6 Trillion Lost

The S&P 500 has lost about 39 percent since it peaked at 1,565.15 on Oct. 9, 2007, as the U.S. economy contracted 0.3 percent last quarter and credit-related losses and writedowns by global financial firms approached $700 billion. More than $6 trillion was erased from U.S. equities this year by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Nucor sank $4.16 to $35.50. Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal reported third-quarter profit that fell short of analyst estimates, said its global output will drop by more than 30 percent, and forecast fourth-quarter earnings will fall as much as 48 percent. The company's New York-registered shares slumped 22 percent to $24.88, their biggest retreat in seven years.

Boeing fell $3.67 to $49.55. Its share price, which rose 28 percent from Oct. 10 through yesterday, ``is at least six to nine months from bottoming and beginning to mover higher again,'' David E. Strauss, a New York-based analyst at UBS, wrote in a report. Aircraft deliveries may tumble 29 percent from 2009 to 2012, the analyst said.

`Continued Softening'

Textron Inc. lost $1.71, or 9.2 percent, to $16.93. The world's biggest business-jet maker through its Cessna unit reduced the number of Citation jets it plans to deliver next year, citing ``continued softening in the global economic environment.''

Stocks extended their retreat even as Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, said Democrats may seek two economic stimulus measures if President George W. Bush limits the size of a plan to be considered during the post-election ``lame- duck'' session. Obama's party captured at least 19 seats in the House and at least five in the Senate, expanding its congressional majority.

General Growth Properties Inc. tumbled almost 50 percent to $2.25 for the biggest drop in the S&P 500. The U.S. mall owner that has lost more than 90 percent of its market value on concern it won't be able to refinance debt coming due this year reported a wider third-quarter loss and suspended its quarterly dividend.

Bond Insurers

MBIA Inc. and Ambac Financial Group Inc. slumped after the bond insurers posted wider losses than analysts estimated. MBI fell 22 percent to $8.16. Ambac, dropped from the S&P 500 in June, fell 41 percent to $2.01. Slumping credit markets forced the companies to increase reserves for claims.

Pioneer Natural Resources lost 15 percent to $24.79. The oil and natural-gas producer in North America and Africa reported third-quarter earnings that missed analyst estimates and said it will cut drilling activity.

Sara Lee Corp. slid 14 percent to $10.20. The maker of frozen cakes and Jimmy Dean sausages said full-year profit will be less than it previously estimated because of falling foreign currencies and waning demand in Europe.

Marsh & McLennan Cos. fell 12 percent to $26.06. The world's second-biggest insurance broker said profit dropped 78 percent in the third quarter amid the slowing U.S. economy and price declines for commercial coverage and reinsurance.

Earnings Season

Most companies in the S&P 500 have managed to increase profits even as the economy slows. Of the 386 companies that reported third-quarter results so far, 232 posted higher earnings than in the year-earlier period. Still, profits are down 7.4 percent on average after accounting for losses at financial companies.

Medco Health Solutions Inc. climbed 9.1 percent to $41.47 for the biggest of only 13 advances in the S&P 500. A surge in use of generic and mail-order prescription drugs fueled a 38 percent increase in third-quarter profit at the largest U.S. drug benefits manager.

Molson Coors Brewing Co. gained 8.3 percent to $41.78. The third-largest U.S. beer maker reported market-share gains in Canada and the U.K. and said it expects to achieve total cost savings from its joint U.S. venture with SABMiller Plc six months early.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. climbed 8.2 percent to $24.83 on speculation it will be acquired by BP Plc.

General Motors Corp. slipped 16 cents, or 2.8 percent, to $5.56. GM, the biggest U.S. automaker, needs government aid because ``time is very short'' to stop its collapse, Roger Altman, an adviser to the automaker and Obama, said in an interview.

Recession Rallies

The S&P 500 Index may be on the cusp of a rally by Inauguration Day, based on the speed of its tumble from last year's peak and the time it took stocks to gain before recessions ended in 1975, 1982 and 1991, data compiled by Bloomberg show. This year's plunge in stocks suggests that equity investors anticipate an economic contraction as severe as the one that began under Richard Nixon that will end in July.

The S&P 500's slump since last year's high is the steepest for a comparable period since the gauge fell 43 percent in the 13 months ended in October 1974, Bloomberg data show.

1970s Recession

The economy then was mired in a recession that lasted 16 months and ended in March 1975, five months after the equity market began its rebound. During the recessions of 1982 and 1991, the S&P 500 began to climb four months and five months before the economy started to recover, respectively.

Based on the market's history of anticipating economic recoveries, the S&P 500 may embark on its next bull market in February, about a month after Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20.

Stocks gained yesterday after the 17th straight decline in a key interest rate, a sign that as much as $3 trillion of emergency funds provided by governments to resuscitate bank lending are working. The London interbank offered rate, or Libor, that banks charge each other for three month loans in dollars fell again today to the lowest level since December 2004.

Watch the Stock Market as it gets used to 0bama, and that TRILLION DOLLARS of new spending OVER TOP OF THE CURRENT TAXES ALREADY IN PLACE.

Would YOU want to have a business where ALL THE HARD WORK you put in goes to useless minority slackers and illegals?  Businesses are already planning their moves OFF SHORE.  Even some football team owners are trying to sell!

OK, so now you have your first black President.
He has been highly touted.
Have you been LIED TO?

HOW MUCH IS BS?
We JUST DON'T KNOW!
He did little as a Junior Senator except vote "present"
instead of offering any constructive input. Will this pattern continue?

WHO does 0bama have to make deals with for getting these votes?
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST YOU??

If he raises taxes on all the businesses
(Share De Wealff)

THOSE BUSINESSES will pass it on to YOU.
So Your taxes go down,
BUT THE COST OF EVERYTHING GOES UP,
what are you left with?

LESS MONEY AFTER EACH PAYCHECK.


If he ruins the coal industry, and the businesses who are interwoven with them,
YOU WILL PAY THE EXTENDED WELFARE & UNEMPLOYMENT.

See the Pattern Yet?

HE has NO ALTERNATIVES in energy to fall back on, so is he LYING?


Who will advise him?
The same disgraced Liberal Democrats who showed the world their incompetence during the Clinton Administration?
YOU BETCHA!

So much for that free car.
So much for the free mortgage.
So much for decent health care.
So much for FREE SPEECH.
So Much for owing a gun.
So much for Being able to own property.
So much for hiring who you want at a rate you want to pay them.
0bama will TELL YOU HOW MUCH MONEY YOU CAN MAKE...
And how much of it HE will
GIVE AWAY
to the unproductive, lazy, drug soaked losers
who DON'T PAY ANY TAXES.