GM's New Deal

Government General Motors is now offering American auto buyers a seemingly-sweet deal: if you find yourself disliking your new ride within thirty to sixty days, you can return it for the big pile of money that you paid for that piece of crap (minus applicable taxes, naturally).

Of course, it really doesn’t matter how sweet a GM deal seems, because taxpayers with new GM vehicles are, you know, buying the same car twice.

Wow...That Sucks.

My middle brother's a contract laborer. He doesn't have a company or anything like that - just works for an employer who doesn't want to cough up half of the employee-related taxes, that's all.

Bro. just did his taxes yesterday.

And is still shrieking.

Because this year...even though he made an average of one thousand dollars a month...he owes more than two thousand dollars in taxes. This is quite a bit more than the few hundred or so that he paid this time last year.

He's none too happy about this huge increase...and I can't say that I blame him. But, hey...this is what happens when politicians can't figure out that, when they don't have enough money to fund all their little programs and other crap, they need to reduce their spending.

So...if you hear the distinct POP! of somebody's head a'splodin' somewhere in Texas, it's probably his.

The Social Security Ponzi Scheme

As so many others have already pointed out, Social Security is this country's biggest, longest-running Ponzi scheme. Our government is full of idiots, and they're going to attempt to prolong this ripoff until it dies - just like monkeys will keep hitting the pedal to collect another dose of the crack that eventually kills them. Unless we manage to dig up some politicians who will actually acknowledge that they're running a Ponzi scheme, and kill the beast, we have to accept that our Social Security investments probably won't be available to us when we retire.

Even if the money is, miraculously, waiting for us, when will we be able to access it? The government knows good and well that their Ponzi scheme is collapsing. As with other Ponzi schemes, they have to convince people to reinvest in this ripoff. By upping the retirement age, and by cutting benefits to those who retire earlier than that, they're prolonging the inevitable - and making currently-employed Americans miserable.

The only real difference between the Social Security scam and Madoff's bull crap is the fact that we're forced to participate in SS. We don't get the right to say, "Hey, this is a scam. I'm not going to pay into it anymore." Thank you, Uncle Sugar, for doing our thinking for us. You've obviously done a fantastic job with all those superior brain cells scattered among the brilliant politicians who conceived this plan.

Say, what will you brain trusts think of next? Regulating cow farts? Check. Forcing me to buy a low-flow toilet that doesn't actually flush my turds the first time, thus negating the "water saving"? Check. Man, what a brilliant think tank we have in D.C.

My suggestion: consult a financial adviser who will help you invest in private retirement funds. Yes, this sucks. You're probably going to lose all of the Social Security taxes that you've paid over the years. We can't do anything about that, but we can look to the future, see that the Ponzi scheme is going to collapse at some point, and prepare for that as best we can.

And, hey: even if the funds are available, can you really live on the monthly check? I doubt it. Private investments, if done right, should provide a comfier retirement than SS is promising.

I won't give any specific advice, because I'm not an expert. But there are good financial planners out there. Just be sure that you aren't getting involved with somebody like Madoff, that's all.

Prescription Drugs

Health care is expensive, at least here in the States. We have to go see the doctor for treatment because, without the physician, we can't get the prescriptions that heal us, or even save our lives in some cases. We have to pay for insurance coverage, if we can afford that. But if we're uninsured, we have to pay for office visits, which can cost a good bundle of cash. Having to see the doctor just to get a prescription refill is a big problem.

The solution: stop prescribing drugs. Just make all of that stuff over-the-counter medication. When I'm low on migraine medicine, I should be able to go to the pharmacy and cough up a big pile of cash for the Axxert, or Imitrex, or whatever it is that I'm on at the time. The same thing goes for Hydrocodone-laced cough syrup, antibiotics, and narcotic painkillers like Vicodin. Yes, I do advocate keeping that stuff locked up. We lock up sinus medication, after all, to keep those icky meth addicts away from it. I'd definitely recommend keeping the Vicodin and other good stuff secured - wouldn't want somebody's untrained four-year-old grabbing it. And the pharmacy definitely wouldn't want someone stealing the $9-per-pill migraine meds. I wouldn't object, either, to carding people. If you aren't a legal adult yet, no Hydrocodone for you. Neener neener.

Obviously, people object to this idea. Here are some of the arguments that I've heard.

Drug seekers will have an easier time getting their narcotics. So what? They have the same right to their vices as I do to mine. If they choose to destroy their gizzards with pills, then that's up to them. It's not the nanny state's job to make sure that they have a harder time obtaining their drugs, now is it? Of course not. It shouldn't be, anyway. Freedom means that you have access to not only choices that are good for you, but also to the ones that might foul you up.

However, I wouldn't gripe one bit if health-insurance providers refused to cover people who were on narcotics. Private companies can have any customers they choose, and drop them, too. My company charges a higher rate to insure people who have "risky" hobbies, for example, like skydiving. Makes sense, as those customers are more likely to, say, break their bones. Put narcotic-drug use under the "risky" category. The routine whiz quiz during the yearly physical will turn up the narcotics, and the insurance companies can do whatever their policies dictate in these situations. Yay. Freedom.

People shouldn't be able to buy drugs over the counter. See the first argument, and my response. We're Americans, so we ought to be free to make our own choices.

Doctors are better informed than patients. Though this is sometimes the case, we live in the information age. My medication always includes patient literature, too, which I do read. If I choose not to ask questions, read the literature, utilize WebMD's wealth of free knowledge, then that's my choice and my problem. I'm the one who has to live with the consequences of taking this medicine, so it's on me to be sure that I know what's going on. The information is very easy to find - the sheet's in the same bag as the pills, so I'd have to be extraordinarily stupid to miss it. It's not like I'm suggesting that We the People take wild guesses about our health.

We need physicians. Yes. Yes we do. A doctor can tell us what's wrong. He or she can also recommend treatment options. Then, we ask questions and get answers. The doctors are still the experts - they're the ones who figure out what's wrong with us, after all. They certainly aren't going to go out of business if they no longer prescribe anything. We still need them to diagnose us...to answer our questions...to save our lives if we're in bad shape. However: when we know that we need X to take care of Y, we don't need the doctor. If we're having problems, then yes, we should still have access to the friendly physician. But when everything's just fine, why should we have to cough up office fees, on top of prescription costs, just to get a refill? That's stupid.

This all comes down to individual freedom, folks. You and I ought to have that freedom where our health is concerned. I shouldn't have to go see the doctor every few months for my migraines. She and I both know good and well what's going on with my head. Before I even went to see her, I already knew that I was having migraines. I'd done the research, found answers to my questions, and started dealing with the head bashers on my own as best I could.

By the time I realized that I really needed a prescription to deal with the skull thumpers, I'd already eliminated triggers (which is what she recommended that I do), and discovered that the over-the-counter medication does not work all that well (another thing that she recommended before I told her that I'd already done it). She didn't have any new information for me at all. None whatsoever. Everything that she suggested, I'd already learned about and done. Everything. She was good for writing the prescription, and that's it. In the future, when I need more refills, I have to go see her. That costs money. She's not going to do anything for me that I haven't done for myself. I appreciate her expertise, but it's not necessary as long as I have access to information.

We the People, though, are so used to regulations and restrictions that the idea of not seeing a physician for our medicine is...ridiculous. This is sad, folks, because we used to be a nation full of independent, thinking people: individuals who took it upon themselves to be responsible, and make their own decisions. Now, we rely on the nanny state to tell us what's okay and what's not - and we're shocked when somebody says that things shouldn't be this way.

We're quite the wasteful society

America, as a whole, is a very-wasteful society.

Given the choice between a disposable, plastic spork and toting metal cutlery around for our lunch breaks, most of us will reach for the spork. Then, when lunch is over, we’ll toss that into the trash can without a second thought. When we hit the drive-thru, and the employee crams a dozen or so napkins into the bag, we throw away the extras – even though we could put aside the clean, unused napkins for future use. (Because, as we all know, the drive-thru employees of America sometimes forget to give us napkins at all.)

Restaurants continue serving massive portions – enough to feed me two whole meals, actually – and we keep throwing away the food instead of asking for a to-go box. I don’t understand this at all. The to-go box does not cost me anything, but throwing away half a plate of food does. Why not take the leftovers home and re-heat them later? I’ve taken leftovers to work before. I’ve eaten them for lunch or dinner the next day. A little time in the microwave or oven and the food is every bit as good as it was when it was first served to me. Better, in some cases, actually.

Better yet: If we aren’t going to finish the adult portion, or take the leftovers home, why don’t we ask the server if the cook/chef can either a) give us a half portion, or b) prepare us something from the kid’s menu?

Even when aluminum soda/beer/energy drink cans were worth more than sixty cents a pound where I live, I still saw plenty of people throwing them into the trash – or, worse, out their car windows. There are plenty of scrap-metal yards here. Turning in a few bags full of cans takes just a couple of minutes. You walk out the door with cash. Why wouldn’t you toss your empties into a box in the back yard or something, then turn them in for the folding money? I’ve walked out with fifteen dollars before. That’s a lot of money for doing almost nothing. And when times were really tough, I salvaged cans from the roadsides around my house. That was a bit of effort on my part, yes, but the cans were cash, right there in front of me, free to take.

And yes, I do know that some people have serious space constraints. But I managed to save my soda cans even when I lived in a 400-square-foot apartment. The trick is to rinse them so that they don’t attract bugs. You can also sprinkle boric acid in the bottom of your collection container (I used a plastic trash can) to further discourage pests.

I’m also surprised at the overwhelming amount of repairable, or even perfectly-good, stuff that we just throw away. If you live in a university town or city, go look at the Dumpsters on campus at the end of the semester. You’re going to see all sorts of good things sitting around. Students throw away everything from perfectly-good novels from their English classes to furniture. Seriously: some of us would rather throw out our almost-new end tables and chairs than haul that stuff back home or try to sell it before moving out.

The same goes for stuff that can be repaired. I’ve acquired perfectly-good electronics from people several times in my life. These things were broken, but not beyond the point of repair. In one case, all that I had to do was change the batteries in the portable CD player and it worked just fine. One of my brothers got a big honkin’ TV for free because the volume control didn’t work. He bought a ten-dollar universal remote and configured it for that set. The TV works perfectly.

These aren’t difficult repairs, and they don’t require much thinking to figure out. I completely understand getting rid of something that’s beyond your ability to repair. And I understand dumping something when the repair would cost more than simply buying a replacement. (If you buy super-cheap pieces of crap, you can expect this to happen quite often. If you see a Durabrand product, run away. They’re the worst electronics and appliances on Earth.)

But changing batteries? Trying a universal remote before giving up on the thing? Both simple, dirt-cheap fixes. The people who gave us this stuff were on their way to the Dumpsters. They were just going to trash these perfectly-good electronics. Landfills are packed full of things that could be easily repaired.

These same landfills are also full of things that aren’t broken at all. A surprising number of Americans simply throw away their old stuff when they acquire something newer and better. People trash perfectly-good clothes, PC monitors, TV sets, you name it. This is easier, it seems, than posting them on Craigslist, dropping them off at a charity shop, or even simply putting them by the curb with a “free” sign scribbled on cardboard.

I am not, by the way, a tree hugger, or even close to it. I’m wasteful, just like many other people here are. You will catch me trashing plastic soda bottles, for example, because there’s no plastics-recycling facility within driving distance of my house – and I can find creative uses for only so many of the things.

To be honest, my big angle here is the money that I save by not being wasteful. Most of us are having budget problems right now, what with the economy being so messed up and all that. Saving money – even if it’s only a few bucks here and there – can make a difference. Why not give it a try, especially when the small changes you make requires almost no effort?

Crybaby Parents and Tight Toy Budgets

Today, we have a graph-by-graph snarkfest, courtesy of a group of parents who don't understand what "No" means - much less how to teach this concept to their offspring.

Meltdown fallout: some parents rethink toy-buying
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

NEW YORK – In a season that inspires earnest letters about toys, one notable batch is being sent not by kids to Santa's workshop but by parents to the executive suites of real-world toy makers.

The letter-writing initiative was launched by the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which says roughly 1,400 of its members and supporters have contacted 24 leading toy companies and retailers to express concern about ads aimed at kids.

Novel idea: Turn off the TV. The fewer hours your offspring spend planted on the couch, the fewer commercials they'll watch. Get your butt off the Internet and go play with your kids for a change. It won't kill you. I promise. Your all-important video games, e-mail, and IM sessions will still be there later. Trust me.

"Unfortunately, I will not be able to purchase many of the toys that my sons have asked for; we simply don't have the money," wrote Todd Helmkamp of Hudson, Ind. "By bombarding them with advertisements ... you are placing parents like me in the unenviable position of having to tell our children that we can't afford the toys you promote."

Because you, the parent, have no control over what your children watch, right? Toy marketers force you to make your kids watch TV, right? Of course. Those evil toy companies.

Again: Turn off the idiot box. There are far more creative, productive ways to have fun, and they don't involve these evil advertisements that you're so upset about.

The Toy Industry Association has responded with a firm defense of current marketing practices, asserting that children "are a vital part of the gift selection process."

Of course children are vital. They're the ones who will unwrap, and play with, the toys on Christmas Day. They're the gift recipients, so what they prefer is a huge part of deciding which toys to buy, or not buy.

"If children are not aware of what is new and available, how will they be able to tell their families what their preferences are?" an industry statement said. "While there is certainly greater economic disturbance going on now, families have always faced different levels of economic well-being and have managed to tailor their spending to their means."

Right. In the past, parents had this talk with their kids. It went something like this: "Honey, Santa can't fit all of these toys in his sleigh. He has to have room for other kids and their presents. Don't expect everything on your list to be here on Christmas Day. Now, let's go make some hot chocolate."

That's a long, elegant version of "No," but it works rather well, especially if you back it up with action. Don't tell your kid "No," then max out your Visa to get him everything that his little heart desires.

In recent conference calls with investors, toy company executives said they expect to suffer some holiday-season impact from the economic crisis, yet suggested their industry would be more resilient than many other sectors. The toy industry is commonly viewed as recession-resistant, due largely to the parent-child dynamic.

In other words: as long as spineless parents have credit cards and don't understand the power of "No," they'll continue buying every little thing their children want for Christmas. Appeasing the shortest people in the household really makes sense, considering that they're the ones who earn the money, and because they're so capable of, like, beating you up if you don't keep them happy. Who's running the asylum again?

"Parents have trouble saying no," said Allison Pugh, a University of Virginia sociology professor. She says parents often buy toys to avoid guilt and ensure their children feel in sync with school classmates.

Jimmy and Susie will make fun of my child if she doesn't have that doll. They'll tease my son if he doesn't get the new truck that all the other boys want. I'm proud to teach my children that, to fit in and be accepted, they have to be just like everyone else. Oh, my goodness - everything I just said has a bleating sound at the end of it. What's a "sheeple"?

"Even under circumstances of dire financial straits, that's the last thing parents give up," said Pugh. "They'll contain their own buying for themselves before they'll make their child feel different at school."

Because, you know, FEEEELINGS are everything. Let's not teach children that a) it's okay to be different, and b) they can stand up for themselves if brats want to make fun of them. Heaven forbid we rear a generation of resilient individuals, versus bleating sheep.

Amanda Almodovar says she encounters such families in her work as an elementary school social worker in Alamance County, N.C., where homelessness and unemployment are rising.

That sucks. Being unemployed and/or homeless has to blow. Seriously.

"I had one parent who said she'd prostitute herself to get what her child wants," Almodovar said. "It's heartbreaking. They feel inadequate as parents.

Because goodness knows that Susie will feel better about her Mom being a hooker if she has that new doll. Way to destroy the family, skank. This isn't really about the kid's feelings. If it were, Mommy the Streetwalker wouldn't even consider prostitution - as that has a nasty mental effect on the kids. Mommy Dearest is concerned about HER feelings, and how her children see HER - not about their well being. Selfish skank.

"I try to tell them, worry about your home, your heating bill — but they're the ones who have to look into children's faces, the children saying 'I want this, I want that.'"

The heating bill? Pfft. Susie and Jimmy can play with their new Wii in the cold. They might shiver, and catch pneumonia if I let the heat stay off too long, but by God, they'll love me.

Even in some households not in fiscal crisis, there's a sense that this holiday season is different.

Ya think?

John Schenkenfelder, a financial adviser and father of three in Louisville, Ky., wrote a blog entry this month urging families to scale down their gift-giving and spend more time playing together.

A brilliant idea. I don't have 99 percent of the things that my family bought for me when I was a child. But I remember quite a few of the cool things that we did together. We built tree houses, played card games, played marbles, et cetera. The time that we spend with our loved ones stays with us a lot longer than the consumer goods. Especially the cheaply-made, Chinese garbage. That stuff breaks even before Jimmy and Susie can run up the street to shove their Christmas loot in their neighbors' faces.

"This has been bugging me for years, even when times were great," Schenkenfelder said in a telephone interview. "Maybe people will get it this year — they're so unprepared for this debacle. They're shell-shocked."

Yeah, this year has been kind of weird for many of us. However, why aren't parents saying "No" to their children even when times are good? Doesn't this object lesson apply regardless of how much, or little, is in Mom and Dad's bank account? Of course it does. But it's easier to indulge the little bratlings, and turn them into big brats later in life, when you can just swipe your debit card and not worry about the consequences, right?

In Columbus, Ohio, Erin Beth Dower Charron has been trying to brace her 4-year-old son and 8-year-old daughter for more subdued gift-getting this year as the family begins financial belt-tightening.

"Brace" them? Why? If you were doing your job, they'd already know what "No" means. They're four and eight: old enough to have a little self control, and understand that they can't get everything that they want.

Unless, of course, neither of them have been told "No," often, if at all. Oh, man, they're going to grow up to be those really annoying, whiny coworkers who throw toddler-like tantrums when the boss tells them that they can't switch schedules with a coworker. Great. Thank you so much for inflicting that on us.

"My 8-year-old is still holding out hope that Santa will get her that one special gift, but understanding this year may be different," Dower Charron said. "My son doesn't understand. Everything he sees, he wants."

Yes, well. I want all sorts of things too, but somebody took the time to teach me that I don't get everything I want.

Toy ads on kids' TV shows make the process harder, she said. "The onslaught seems to be more intense this year."

Of course the marketers are trying harder this year. They want to keep their doors open! And their customers (toy makers) want to stay in business. Obviously, with the economy being weaker than it was just a few years ago, companies are trying harder to land sales.

Dower Charron was among the hundreds of parents who took up the suggestion to write to toy companies.

Oxygen thief.

"Help me understand why your toy is the better one for my child, and why it should be one of the few I can afford," she wrote. "Don't leave that up to my children."

Don't leave the decision to your kids? Hello, lady! That's your job already - to decide what to buy for your kids. You're the one who's leaving the choice up to them by catering to their whims.

The director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, psychologist Susan Linn, said she and her colleagues don't expect toy companies to stop advertising — rather, they want the ads directed at parents.

Why? The toys are for the kids, right? Why would advertisers target parents?

"It's cruel to dangle irresistible ads for toys and electronics in front of kids — encouraging them to nag for gifts that their parents can't afford," she said. "It's just not fair."

Wah, wah, wah. I see irresistible ads every day. Advertisers want me to buy all sorts of neat things - new computers, plasma-screen TVs, luxury SUVs, nice firearms. I want all of those things, but you don't see me crying about how unfair it is that I can't have everything that I see on TV.

The big toy makers aren't likely to redirect their ads for one fundamental reason, according to Richard Gottlieb, a New York-based consultant to the industry.

"Toy companies advertise to children because it works, to be brutally honest," Gottlieb said in an interview.

Well, duh. Advertising to children is legal and effective. Why change tactics when things are working just fine as they are?

Gottlieb also contends that it's good for children to encounter toy ads — even in cases where products later turn out to be disappointments.

"It teaches, for very low stakes, how to navigate in our consumer culture," he said.

"They are going to have to spend the rest of their lives listening to every kind of marketing approach, and childhood is where they will learn to cope with it."

Exactly. That's a huge point. Kids are miniature consumers. As they grow up and earn/spend their own money, they'll be big consumers like you and me. The sooner they learn about impulse control, and making good buying decisions, the less likely they are to end up in major debt.

As for the economic pressure on parents, Gottlieb sounds a fatalistic note.

"Believe me, there are families with much bigger issues on their plates right now then worrying about whether their child will be unhappy because they did not get a particular toy," Gottlieb wrote in his "Out of the Toy Box" blog. "Delivering disappointment goes with the job of parenting."

Thank you, Mr. Gottlieb. Thank you for a simple, logical and truthful response to all this. You, sir, have a brain, and are apparently using it. May I clone you?

I Buy Foreign Cars, Folks

I drive a Honda. This car is a '94 model - not a hybrid, and not a new car by most peoples' standards. The rice rocket has nearly 200,000 miles on the engine and has yet to give me major problems. My transmission is in good condition, too.

This car is fun to drive, yes. But more importantly: when I drive conservatively (read: 99.999 percent of the time), I average 42-44 miles per gallon. That's both highway and city driving.

This car cost less than three thousand dollars.

All of these add up to my decision to support foreign auto makers. Not all are fantastic (*Cough*KIA!*Cough*), but Honda's near the top of the list as far as their smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles are concerned. Toyota tends to do well in my experience as well. I would happily get a Camry if I ever want or need a four-door.

When I want a land yacht that averages 20-something MPG, I'll buy an American-made sedan.

When I want to pay way too much for a basic vehicle that will fall apart before my odometer hits 150,000 miles, I'll buy American.

In the meantime, I'm sticking with Honda. This is just good financial sense, folks. I'm going to buy the best that I can afford and, right now, the foreign makers are fulfilling that desire.

Now: If Chrysler, GM and Ford reevaluate what they're doing and come up with something that's equal to, or better than, the foreign competitions' offerings? I'll give them my business. They're going to have to work hard, and change a few things, but they could very well make that happen. I'll be happy to buy American if they pull that off.