Ragging on Barack Obama for going on a date with his wife via government-provided transportation?

You should be ashamed of yourselves!

What’s the President of the United States supposed to do to get from D.C. to the New York City? Peter Pan Bus Lines?

Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama went to New York City this past weekend to enjoy dinner and a show. The two ate dinner in the Village and saw a show in Times Square called “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone.”

Of course, the Republican National Committee was all over this, clamoring that the President was too insensitive to the worries and concerns of most Americans who were struggling due to the economy. They criticized him for going to see a show in Manhattan while GM was prepping for bankruptcy in Detroit. And as most Republican arguments of the time do, they focused on the fact that the President “wasted” taxpayer money by having to take a private plane and Marine One in order to get to their date.

As for their argument concerning Obama’s desire to take some time off while, yes, the rest of the world continues to live on, I do not even feel the need to address that.

However, the notion that the President somehow wasted taxpayers’ money is ridiculous. Do we really want to go there people? What would you have liked him to do? It’s not as if the President is free to go transporting himself all around the country at his own discretion. People have to travel with him, people have to watch over him, and he has to remain in a state of limited accessibility at all times. It just kind of goes with the territory of being President.

Of course, those against Obama’s “extravagant” trip could say that he could have opted out of it for the benefit of the taxpayers. The estimated $24,000 in travel cost that taxpayers fit the bill for is clearly not going to set America all the way back to the days of The Depression?

Oh wait. What? We’ve already reached that point? Damn!

Seriously. As if the American taxpayers will ever suffer from this $24,000. That’s how much taxpayer money GM uses in half-a-second.

Let’s not get bent out of shape over something not worth crying over. The man wanted to take his wife out, he followed proper protocol to do it, and it just so happens that it cost $24,000 to maintain the safety and wellbeing of the Presidency. So unless you’re advocating a dormant, driving-distance lifestyle for the most powerful man in the world, then I suggest any doubters out there (GOP) stop crying over milk that wasn’t even spilled. Besides, that last guy to man the Oval Office was known for taking a vacation or two, and I didn’t see him being publicly indicted for using up his Presidential Frequent Flyer miles.

As you saw on The Daily Show clip, Bill Bennett, CNN analyst and former Secretary of Education, is completely outraged by the notion that Wanda Sykes would utter a joke that involves Rush Limbaugh’s kidney failing.

Oh, the outrage!

You mean, a comedian told a joke that suggested someone might die for pure entertainment value? That never happens, except in movies, plays, songs, literature, and this little industry that pays Bennett: television!

But no, Bennett can’t stand the thought of Sykes telling a joke about Limbaugh’s kidney failing, and it’s because of jokes like those, that Bennett chooses not to attend this annual “political” roast, if you will.

Well so what?

Who the hell is a Bill Bennett? I don’t care if he attends the dinner. Why did he feel the need to tell me that he doesn’t attend? I didn’t even know he got the invite. Just opine on the dinner itself and move on, Bill.

You have to be quite a jerk to get up in the middle of a dinner and walk out because you heard a joke you did not like? I mean, who does that?

It is not as if he didn’t know that offensive jokes would be used at the dinner, it happens every year, a fact he claims to know. So why did he have to leave the dinner two times? If he knew that this event had jokes he, apparently, wholeheartedly objected to, why go back again? I can only assume that Bill Bennett isn’t all that sensible. It is either that, or he is lying. Would you go back to a dinner, where at the same dinner the year before, you had to get up and leave? That just doesn’t make any sense.

And as if his outright criticism of Sykes joke and this event wasn’t enough, the idea that this guy thinks that the Sykes’ jokes cross the line, but water boarding is okay, has to be some of the most hypocritical bullshit I have ever witnessed. Seriously, how can he be so enraged by Sykes jokingly going after Rush Limbaugh, but he is okay with the U.S. essentially breaking the laws of the Geneva Convention and torturing prisoners of war? You show me Bill Bennett, and I’ll show you a guy who has his priorities messed up.

At the end of the day, Bennett is just yet another old-fashioned ideologue who can’t see the forest through the trees. As John Stewart pointed out, the man doesn’t even have the heart to refer to his wife outside of her full name. It’s a tragedy that such a traditional, immovable, personality like his is on a great channel like CNN. But like with any good joke, sometimes you have take the brunt of the impact to enjoy the rest of the ride.

In the spirit of being fair, here is a much more reasonable and levelheaded version of Bill Bennett…despite the fact that I disagree with him on this notion as well.

Let’s really think about what that question is really asking. If banking was less lucrative, and if the Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers of the world did not handle so much of our economies money, wouldn’t that ultimately be better for the economy?

What bankers don’t tell you is that you don’t need them. Sure, they make buying, selling, investing, restructuring, and capitalizing on anything monetary a lot easier. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, they are nothing more than a real estate agent trying to sell your house. And while real estate agents are especially handy and adept at what they do, the fact is, you don’t need them. If you have a property that somebody wants, and you put it on the market, that somebody will buy it from you. Having the real estate agent just makes it an easier transaction that cost you more. Making things “easy” is delightful during prosperous times, but during a recession, it is a cost many choose to do without.

In Krugman’s piece, he makes specific mention of some very crucial points in our history that prove show a correlation between a smaller financial industry and good economic times. First, he mentions the stock market crash of 1929 that eventually led to the Great Depression. In the years well before that crash and the depression, dating back to World War I, banking was not an incredibly lucrative job. In fact, banking was boring, and the smartest and brightest young minds did not aspire to become bankers—afterall, if it’s not paying, it’s not really an awe-inspiring career. However, in the years leading up to the Great Depression, banking became lucrative, and big players in the industry had emerged and all of a sudden, the great young minds of that time wanted in on it. And when banking was doing well, the economy was growing, but only because the bankers were driving up debt, effectively doubling the average household debt as a percentage of G.D.P. between World War I and 1929. Turns out, the era of banking leading up to 1929 was full of scandal, fraud and poor investing, and ultimately, that led to the stock market crash and the Great Depression.

However, the Great Depression led to another period of time that Krugman pointed out, which was the decline of banking from 1929 to 1980. During that time, banking reverted back to its post World War I ways: it became boring again! As a result of the ’29 crash, banking was closely regulated, watched and restricted. Bankers began making far less money than they did pre-1929, and “household debt stayed far below pre-1930 levels.” It’s sufficient to say that this era in banking led to “an era of spectacular economic progress for most Americas.”

But then, as Krugman points out, 1980 rolled around and the Republicans started to take over the Capitol. I’m not trying to be partisan here, it’s just a fact that once the Republicans began to control congress and Ronald Regan was elected, “banking became exciting again.” Household debt rose, banking regulations were softened, and most importantly, bankers were making tons of money again.

Which brings us to 2009, or the years leading up to our current state of affairs. As a result of the growth of the financial industry and cutting of restrictions on it, we now find ourselves in this little pickle, better known as a recession. As history shows us through the Great Depression, it is bad times like this that can correct the economy and force the government to put strict regulations on the financial industry. We have already seen both political and public resentment towards bankers, Wall Street, and anyone who profits off the financial industry. That resentment from the public and Congress should result in America putting tighter restraints on banks, thereby shrinking the industry and ultimately our nation’s debt.

But one has to wonder, will that be enough? There is the distinct possibility that we have too much debt to erase. The financial industry and the major players in it may have dug us into such a big hole that we can’t climb ourselves out of this mess Yes, debt and the lucrative business of finance may be the fall of this baby empire we call America.

For those of you who choose to ignore this country’s youth, let me remind you, this country is young. The damn Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. That makes this country less than 300 years old. England, Egypt, China, Italy and Greece have buildings older than that. So if you have ever heard anyone compare America to Ancient Rome, I suggest you start listening to that person, because he or she is a smart human being.

Ancient Rome ultimately fell because of three factors. One, the military interfered with politics—something quite reminiscent of the Bush Administration. Two, corruption and lack of confidence in the government had taken over the public domain—something we have seen with the banking and mortgage frauds and the low approval ratings for Congress. And three, the gap between the rich and the poor had grown so large that the economy just wasn’t able to function properly—a mark our economy appears to be reaching as well.

Now, ultimately, Ancient Rome was invaded by the Huns and German Tribes, but the empire was so unbalanced politically, economically and socially, that these vastly inferior entities were able to conquer them in a relatively short period of time.

I’m not suggesting that America has reached that stage, but I’m not saying it’s impossible that we could get to that point. Think about it, is our military not suffering because of our political, economic and social behaviors? We are so divided politically that we are in a war that the 75% of the people in this country do not want to be in. We are so jacked up economically, that the very industries that help build this country into greatness (Detroit and New York City) are now facing financial ruins. And socially, had it not been for Barack Obama lighting a fire under the American people, I’m not sure anyone would give a damn about politics right now.

However, let’s be real. This whole thing is about money. Money is what this country is lacking, and the question is, we will ever be able to rectify our financial woes? And the answer, sadly, may be “no.” No nation, for the most part, has stood the test of time by importing more than they export in the early years of their existence. But that’s what we are doing despite being a nation that is less than 300 years old. We’re driving up our national debt, we’re driving up our household debt, and we’re driving up our personal debt, and unless there is a complete turnaround to all of this, I’m not sure we are going to come out of this like we expect to.

I am an internal optimist though. I do believe that we will do what’s right. I just don’t see any signs of it yet. I think the second this economy turns around, the big banks will be up and running again, ready to pounce on a market with much less competition. And unless those banks return to a market where they are not needed, used or coveted, I don’t see how this child we call America is going to be in this entity we call civilization for the long-haul.

However, the price of a single fare is not the only thing the MTA has raised. More commonly, the price of a monthly subway card has risen at least two times since my arrival, and the price of riding in taxis and on the train have gone up substantially as well.

If you are a New York City resident and worker, the most staggering price shift is that monthly fare increase. Right now, the cost of a monthly subway card is just $81, but it is set to jump all the way to $103, a shift of over 27%!

If you could show me the numbers that say this is the price that that the monthly card has to be if we are going to keep the subway running at its currently level of efficiency, then eventually I would have to accept that. I would hope for continued improvements if I am going to give that much more of my money to the MTA, but I can only expect so much from a municipality, right?

However, instead of the MTA simply saying this is the price that they need to make monthly Metrocards if the subway is going to continue to operate, they are also adding to that by saying that they will cut back subway service.

That’s right. The MTA is going to ask New Yorkers to pay more money for the subway while giving its riders less subway to work with.

Subway service is not the only thing the MTA is going to cutback. Bus routes will also be cut. Need I not point out how critical bus transportation is to those outerboroughs. So on top of cutting back subway service in areas of New York City where the subway runs too infrequently, the MTA is also cutting back on one of the most vital forms of transportation for the elderly.

I find it amazing how the MTA turns to the people of New York City when they need to bludgeon people for money. As if it’s the people using the subway everyday to get to work that are responsible for the MTA’s poor financial accounting and the city’s overall economic downfall. If you ask me, if the MTA needs money, they need to turn to the people who are responsible for the city’s budgeting problems: the people on Wall Street and government officials.

If Citibank and Bank of America can acquire taxpayer money and backing, then why can’t the people of the New York City have some of that money spent on rescuing the MTA?

I would rather see the fall of Citibank before I see the subway shut down. Call me shortsighted, but the subway is the reason this city is the way it is. Public transportation is what makes New York City unlike any other, because it puts people on a level playing field, in that anyone can get anywhere, regardless of income. Citibank is only a proponent for making the wealthy even wealthier, and while many New Yorkers have benefited from that, I want my tax dollars saving the average man from a 27% increase on the subway, not from some proposed catastrophic fall of a bank that could care less about me.

Sure, America is an advanced nation. A nation full of educated people, living middle class lives, with a decent regard for the rights of all mankind. But America is far from perfect. And it sure isn’t without its own mistakes.

This country still disallows gay marriage and the absence of diversity is prevalent throughout many of America’s industries and organizations.

But those are just systemic problems, right? America would never outright legalize something that was in direct defiance of human rights?

Well, how about slavery and the disenfranchisement of black people?

I know what you’re going to say. Slavery hasn’t been around for over a hundred years. But what was America’s excuse then? America was a leader as an industrial nation, and yet they still had people pickin’ cotton and being bartered about as inanimate objects. And America allowed that to happen in the mist of a stable government, stable country, and stable people. Afghanistan on the other hand, certainly does not have a stable government, is corrupt with terrorism and it is far from being a national power. I’m not trying to justify their legalization of such a despicable act, but they have a better excuse than America did given their circumstances.

Some of you won’t like this slavery argument, purely on the fact that it happened so long ago in a non-modern era.

Okay.

How about the fact that there are black people alive today who witnessed hatred, bigotry, segregation, routine victimization, pillaging and the killing of black people…and it was all perfectly fine by our lawmakers!?

Look, once again, I’m not justifying Afghanistan legalizing marital rape, and I’m not making excuses for it. All I’m saying is that before we start judging the entire nation as a people, let’s remember what America did in its dark past, in a country that was more at liberty to correct itself than almost any other nation in the world.

They f***** up.

Yeah, that’s right, I said it. They f***** up.

How on Earth do you give A.I.G. $170 billion in bailout funds and not have adequate restrictions on their compensation of employees?

As you probably know, A.I.G. is set to go forth with giving out $165 million in bonuses to its employees in which it is legally obligated to do so. Of course, I don’t understand how one is obligated to give out a bonus when the company is losing money (such as the approximate $62 billion A.I.G. lost last quarter), but I digress.

The real problem is why didn’t our government put conditions on the bailout money before giving it to A.I.G. so that the fledgling company couldn’t pull this move on them at the 11th hour?

That’s the question I want you to ask yourself as President Barack Obama throws out phrases, like the Treasury Department is going to “pursue every single legal avenue” to recover the bonuses. Because the very aggressiveness he is using to stop these bonuses is the same type of aggressiveness he should have used to prevent them from ever coming to fruition.

This is a HUGE blunder. This is a complete mismanagement of money. This isn’t much worst than appropriating funds for Iraq-centric projects and winding up with billions of dollars missing. It is completely irresponsible to give money to a company, become a partner in that company, and not have conditions as to what your money is to be used for. That’s like giving a kid money to pay for his own cavity fillings at the dentist without spending the time to tell him that he can no longer use your money to buy excessive sweets and ice cream. It’s just stupid!

I’m all for spending money to get the economy going, and I was the first one on board for the latest stimulus plan. But let’s be smart with the money. The first bunch of TARP money was essentially wasted. If we don’t stop the bleeding now, it will be hard for President Obama to ask for any money, of any kind, for any purpose, anytime in the near future.

According to a reports, Travis Henry, former Broncos running back, has 9 children with 9 different mothers.

That’s right. It wasn’t enough for him to produce 9 children before the age of 30, but he had to make each child with a different woman. In the report, Henry says it was the old “I’m on the pill” ruse that made him a victim to the game, but any brotha with half of an education should no better than to that.
Keep Reading–>

First of all, the way the housing boom of the last 10 years was going, renting became much more affordable than buying over the long haul. Let’s say most couples want to retire in a house that is worth $350,000 on average. Sure, that’s slightly higher than what the national average was at its peak ($329K, March 2007), but in many of the higher-income parts of the country the average house cost was much more, and besides, we all want to end up in our dream house, which more than likely cost more than the average house.

But I digress. Buying that $350,000 house of ours with a 20% down payment and a 6.5% interest rate would be more expensive than renting for 30 years. To be exact, it would be $95K cheaper to rent a place that cost $1,500 over the 30 years of the mortgage. That includes everything from annual renovation and capital gains exclusions, to utilities and maintenance costs. I don’t have any facts on this, but had this current upward housing trend continued uninterrupted, Millennials probably would have been the first generation where a life of renting was cheaper than owning one’s own house.

On the other hand, let’s say that buying a house would be worth the $150K to $200K, because most people look at buying their dream house as an emotional investment and not a monetary one. But even if we threw caution to the wind in regards to cost, that doesn’t mean that we could have afforded it. By the time Millennials reached their 30’s and were actually in a position to buy a permanent house, the average house would have cost at least $500K. Salaries certainly would not have kept up with that average, and many families would have been forced to rent.

But right now, as of January 2009, the average home price is $234K, down $50K from January 2008. And if housing prices continue to follow, we’re talking about average prices below the $200K mark, a mark we haven’t seen since February of 2000. At that average national price, the Millenials will certainly be able to afford the houses they will eventually retire in.

So relax. While this recession is full of doom and gloom, let this be a bright note for you youngsters out there. One day, you will be able to afford a house, just like your parents. And truth be told, you have this recession to thank for it, because without it, I’m not so sure you (or me) would have had a home to call your own.