Peanut Salmonella and FOOD SAFETY, FDA Apparently has very little power over the conduct and practices of food suppliers IN THE UNITED STATES.

Safety of Food Supply 2nd meeting by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee over the Peanut Salmonella outbreak revealed several interesting things. 9 people died from salmonella that was apparently linked to the recent peanut salmonella contamination.

The FDA has little power to investigate companies such as PCA (peanut corporation of America) peanut processing plant. Corporations
that sent their own quality control food inspectors to PCA and found the conditions deplorable, kept their discoveries "in house" and did not share the results with anybody else.

PCA was required to conduct their own investigation, hired a private company to do it, and magically received an A+ rating along with a certificate proclaiming PCA as a company in excellent standing.

John Dingall, a congress person from Michigan, took a swipe at the Bush administration by stating in the last 8 years nothing was done to improve the FDA's ability to prevent what happened at PCA.

I kind of wonder what the Clinton administration did in the area of food safety. I could see the issue being lost during Bill Clinton's first term in office because of the attempt at healthcare reform, two Republican led congressional shut downs over the budget, and then the Republicans contract with America. During the second term, Bill Clinton's hands were tied his final two years while Republicans witch hunted him.

Prior to Bill Clinton there was 12 years of Republican rule so probably more food safety inactivity could be found. Yet here we are in 2009 and food companies that violate health and safety practices are required to pay for their own investigation. It seems like the less money they spend, the less will be found "wrong", and that is exactly what happened in this instance.

Federal Judge orders Los Angeles City to Allow REALLY HUGE, OBNOXIOUS BILLBOARD ADVERTISING that Covers Entire Sides of Huge Hotels.

Photo from PSFK.com  (photo removed for copyright reasons)

It looks like World Wide Rush LLC and Sky Tag Inc., will get to blight the city of Los Angeles with huge billboards that hang from the side of really large buildings. 

 

I think Judge Audrey B. Collins erred in allowing World Wide Rush to basically get their way when it comes to hanging HUGE billboards from the sides of Hotels that can be seen from Los Angeles freeways and that are visible from freeway off ramps and freeway interchanges. It is kind of freakish to think that when I am driving a car I have to actually avert my eyes from distractions that are designed to, distract me into looking. 

 

Maybe Judge Collins assumed that the huge billboards will cause the drivers to look back up at the road from their text messaging and pay attention, sort of like, two wrongs, looking into one laps while text messaging, and looking into the skyline at huge billboard ads will cancel each other out and cause the driver to actually just look at the road directly ahead. There are other issues to consider, that is for sure. 

 

A hotel that is barely making it financially might find the revenue they receive from the billboard advertising to be the difference maker in being able to pay their California state and local taxes, oh the irony of that one. 

 

If the judge is forcing the city of Los Angeles to comply to the whims of "free speech bill board entrepreneurs", can a driver who is distracted by the huge billboards and causes a severe accident then sue the city of Los Angeles as well? 

 

Can the judge make a motion to deny all such lawsuits in advance? Or at least protect the city of Los Angeles from such lawsuits? Will car insurance companies raise their rates to those who drive by these huge billboards, thereby once again making it JOE citizen the one who ultimately subsidizes these ads? 

 

Or has the judge basically said that L.A. must allow huge, distracting billboards, and then allow citizens of L.A. to sue when those signs cause an accident, while also allowing insurance companies to raise their rates in these areas. Now that is one heck of a stimulus package. 

 

Or should we call it a scrumulous package? What if the ads are for fraud driven products? Is there a psychological ploy at work in which seeing something so ostentatiously presented must mean it is either ethical or truthful? Will politicians be on these huge billboards in the not too distant future? 

 

Big Brother Consumerism towers over U.S.

Link to Photo that was removed for copyright reasons.

Disney's Escape to Witch Mountain has controversial scene in it.

Years ago, a movie came out in which drunken college kids lay out in the middle of a roadway and attempted to prove their manhood by not flinching as unsuspecting cars drove by them. Of course, in real life a few drunken college kids tried this out as well.

As I recall, at least one person lost their life, and another person was badly injured.

In the Disney Movie Witch Mountain, we have a much younger person standing in front of a fast moving car. The fast moving car obliterates upon impact with the young person, aka a witch.

Just curious if this scene was necessary to the making of this movie, and I hope that nobody out there believes it is possible to stop a fast moving car by standing in its way.

Is this the kind of stuff that should be censored since it can influence the mindset of minors in a way that can be fatal?

MoveOn.org Tells a Big Lie about Ronald Reagan and his Income Tax Rate Cuts while Extolling Barack Obama's Tax Increases.

I wasn't a Ronald Reagan fan. I felt Mr. Reagan really didn't respect the environment, was too pro business, and somebody in Reagen's camp was able to engineer the Iran Hostage release to coincide with his inauguration ceremony.

However, Ronald Reagan did reduce come tax rates TWICE during his presidency, and he was right both times for doing it. Also, Ronald Reagan had to negotiate with many different conflicting factions to get these tax cuts approved, and that made these two income tax cuts amazing achievements.

According to Moveon.org, Reagan's tax cut can't compare to Barack Obama's tax increase.

Here is the madness Moveon.org has sent out to their huge mailing list.

Dear MoveOn member,
This is ridiculous. The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%—even asking if that makes him a socialist.1

But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.

Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!

Shocking, right?

And for all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track.2

We saw a great chart in The Washington Monthly3 that shows just how absurd Republican complaints about Obama's budget are. Check it out and pass it on:


Thanks for all you do.

–Daniel, Eli, Laura, Matt and the rest of the team

Even though I was not a Ronald Reagan fan back in the 80's, I find the above email to be one of the most misleading, fraudulent, and despicable communiques ever sent to a LARGE mailing list by a group such as MoveOn.org.

When Ronald Reagan took office income tax rates for the wealthy were 70%. It was impossible for Ronald Reagan to lower it in one fell swoop to anything resembling a reasonable amount. I find it amazing that Ronald Reagan was able to cut the upper end income tax from 70% all the way down to 50% during his first term. What Moveon.org conveniently leaves out is that Ronald Reagan further reduced the maximum income tax a second time, during his second term in office, to 15, 28. & 33%.

In other words, when Ronald Reagen was re-elected, he was able to pass legislation that lowered income taxes a second again. Kind of logical and ethical to wait until a second term before doing the second tax cut, no?

For a more accurate analysis of income tax cuts under Ronald Reagan, I recommend the American Thinker article that was written in 2005, Legacy lost: Ronald Reagan's tax simplification

In the meantime, the comparison of Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama by Moveon.org, when it comes to income tax rates, is a headshaker at best, and something clearly Moveon.org is incapable of doing in an honest and forthright manner.

Credit Card Companies Increase Global Warming Risk Every Time they Increase Interest Rates on Old Credit Card Debt.

While the media trains us to believe that Wall Street is the God of all Gods, the wall street banks that received huge amounts of bailout money from the government continue to RAISE their credit card interest rates on their customers.

It is one thing to charge higher interest rates on new credit card debt, but it is evil to retroactively raise the credit card interest rate on old debt. The longer it takes a consumer to pay off an old credit card debt because banks are now increasing credit card interest rates, the more that consumer has to work to pay off their old, ever rising debt, and the less money there is available to maintain the present economy.

Old credit card debt requires the consumption of even more of the earth's resources by that consumer/worker as they attempt to earn more money so they can pay down their old debt that the banks have already profited from handsomely.  If this old debt could be paid down to zero, than the person has a choice, either buy new products, but at a slower rate, or just consume less and not run up new debt.

Plus, if the monthly minimum payment were increased to 8 or 10% of the total due, most people would not run up as much debt as they did when the monthly minimum payment was 2% of the total due, and more of their payment would go towards principle as well.  The higher monthly minimum payment would help conserve the world's resources by reducing life long indenturedness.  Life long indenturedness helps cause global warming, assuming you believe global warming is occurring.

Show me jobs that don't require the earth's resources and everyone could be a millionaire. Show me a person working to pay down an old debt that continues to inflate because of 15, 20 and 30% interest rates, and I'll show you why we are doomed as a planet.

Yes, older credit card debt causes increased global warming risks. If you don't believe in global warming risks, the accelerated overuse of limited earth resources occurs when people work to earn money to pay off old credit card debt that the banks have already profited from.

Old credit card debt continues to increase and multiply because of the obscene interest rates associated with them, sort of like the way cancer increases and multiplies. If you think cancer is good, then so is old, high interest, credit card debt.

As we move forward, the argument can be made that raising interest rates on NEW DEBT will result in less overall money being borrowed, and therefore the more profitable the bank's credit card divisions will become. In other words, people will borrow less money overall, but banks will profit more quickly from the higher interest rates. Additionally, a borrower will see more quickly how much they can actually afford to borrow before they can no longer afford the monthly payments.

However, those sneaky low monthly minimum credit card payments still entrap many consumers who use credit cards, and that is the way the banks have always wanted it, and is a significant part of the debt problem nowadays. If banks had just charged higher monthly minimums all along, there would be a lot less debt right now.

Do you see what is happening? LESS IS MORE! Banks give out less money, but charge higher interest rates, thereby making the God of Cable Media, Wall Street, happy. The problem is the EXISTING CONSUMER CREDIT CARD DEBT that was borrowed when everybody had more wealth and opportunities to pay it off, has gotten railroaded into the new, less money borrowed, higher interest rate charged paradigm. The result is increasing consumer indenturedness from their old time credit card debt, which in turn suffocates the worldwide economy from maintaining as we move forward.

Banks were forgiven on their old time debt, can consumers at least have the luxury of paying down their OLD CREDIT CARD DEBTS INTEREST FREE? The ratio of unsecured debt versus home equity has never been worse, and to allow the banks to continue to charge outrageous interest rates on old time credit card debt that they have already made huge profits from is an abomination that will offset any consumer benefit that lower mortgage rates may bring.

What makes Wall Street happy, does not necessarily translate into better times for the consumer, and that is something the media refuses to acknowledge, let alone report.

The Creepy, Sneaky, Jim Cramer Confession about Stock Market Hedge Fund Price Manipulation from a 2006 interview, found courtesy of MountainSage.

This is just creepy to watch. Jim Cramer explains how satisfying it is to artificially spike his own hedge funds to make a quick buck. Yeesh. Click Here for Creepy Crawler Jim Cramer Conversation, courtesy of Mountain Sage.

Google News Search Option, just who is "newsworthy" to be listed, and who is the decider?

I am trying to figure out how Google knows the difference between a news article, and a newscraping article. In general, many blogs are of the newscraping variety.

Newscraping means the blog writer reads an already existing news story, or watches a program on television, and then writes about it. This would be considered "newscraping". The blogger didn't create the news story, instead they re-interpreted an existing story from their own viewpoint.

But wait a minute. What if you or I actually do come up with a news story? What if we are the first to report something of note? Will Google News know to include the blog on their Google News search service? I suggest fellow PUMA bloggers do some google research. Write a story about something that you personally witnessed, and then use search words from your article and search Google "news" to see if your story appears.

Daily PUMA wrote an article about the KFI Tax Protest and the content was based on what was being said on a radio program. In many respects this is no different than a press conference in which a reporter never gets to ask a question but uses the responses from other reporters questions to write their own story.

Even though Daily PUMA reported key facts from the radio show that were NOT reported by anybody else anywhere on the internet, the Daily PUMA article DID NOT appear on Google News Search.

Example. KNBC reported that hundreds showed up to the KFI Tax Protest Rally in Fullerton, California. Based on estimates from police officer estimates, it is believed that as many as 15,000 people actually showed up. Daily PUMA was reporting on how inaccurate the television news station was in reporting the attendance, this IS a news story worthy of being on Google News.

Most subscribers to google's key word service are actually subscribing to google news, which appears to mean that our blogs may never be worthy of inclusion to the millions of internet users who use google key word search.

KNBC News Under Reports Tax Protest Crowd of 15,000 by 95 Percent!!! John and Ken of KFI AM 640 California Anti Tax Increase Rally a Huge Success.

15,000 Southern California Tax Protestors participated in a KFI AM 640 anti tax rally. In a rather strange twist, KNBC reported the grass roots protest crowd as "hundreds" of protestors, under counting the attendees by 95%!

The Los Angeles Times refused to cover the rally, and instead ran a story about a protest in Sweden that had half the attendance. Later on, The La Times Internet edition ran a story from another newspaper and added their own snide comments to the article. KABC declined to cover the event. Apparently KTLA, an ally of the Los Angeles Times, may have not covered it as well.

I suppose the television and newspaper industries view radio DJ's such as John and Ken of KFI-AM 640 radio no differently than an attorney that advertises their services on television, but I would disagree. John and Ken marshaled 15,000 people to come out on their own time to Fullerton, California. Thousands more gave up because of traffic jams that occurred around the protest site in Fullerton, California.

This is a big deal, that is for sure.

A side note to all you PUMA blogs. I just googled KFI Tax Protest, Daily PUMA appeared on the first page because this article is only an hour old, but when I then googled "news", Daily PUMA does not show up at all. Is Daily PUMA being obstructed from the news section of google? I'll continue to check and see if this article ever appears on the news portion of google.

-------------------------------

It's approximately 19 hours later. When I google KFI Tax Protest. under the news option, only 8 hits come up, and Daily PUMA is not one of them. Since the KFI Tax Protest just happened, in theory, there should be almost as many hits for the google "news" option as there is for the standard google search.

Something is not right here. Google has figured out a way to not allow blogs to have their articles be considered "news". In case you don't understand what google news is, Google will list story links from the last 20 days. You can change the amount of days you search for, but the KFI Tax Protest is a NEW story, and it is a NEWS STORY, yet google news only revealed 8 News story links to a story that may have been discussed on several hundred blogs.

Maybe Google should add a "newscraping" category for all of us lowly bloggers that report about the news.

Six Simple Ideas to help people, the economy, and reduce foreclosures.

1. All Renters should be allowed to fully deduct their yearly rent charges on their income tax. The renter's "deduction / savings" would automatically be deposited into a 4% interest bearing account that could be spent on education, medical emergencies / insurance, or used towards a down payment on a home.

2. Instantly reduce ALL primary home mortgages to a Fixed 4% interest rate.

3. Send Full Tax Disclosure statements to all tax payers that calculate and reveal the SUM TOTAL of all the taxes they paid throughout the prior year.

4. Reduce interest rate charges on ALL credit card debt that is older than 1.5 years to zero percent for those that can keep on making their monthly payments.

5. An Additional credit card incentive, pay twice the monthly minimum due and ALL INTEREST RATE CHARGES FOR THAT MONTH ARE WAIVED.

5. Make Tax Refund Checks instantly depositable into special savings accounts that pay 4%, allow citizens the ability to deposit a matching amount as well, don't tax the interest from this account.

6. Make balloon mortgages illegal, instead, have the monthly mortgage slowly inflate, even if it is a month by month increase, have it be such a small amount that the mortgage payer can afford the increases for a few years after the increases have started.

Pets In Uniforms, sometimes, nothing more needs to be said.

This topic will probably be long remembered more so than any other Daily PUMA article. (Double Click on Image to see a larger version of the Pets in Uniform video, if you dare).

Latreasa Davis is a Hero, Not a Zero, and should not have been arrested for calling 911 about McDonald's Chicken McNugget Bait and Switch Agenda.

The police arrested Latreasa Davis for "wrongfully" calling 911 when her Chicken McNuggets order was substituted to whatever McDonald's felt like giving her. "You PAID for a garden salad, well, try our super nachos al grande instead, we INSIST".

You decide to purchase the purple prius with gold plated hubcaps, "Well we're going to exchange your purchase "request" into a hummer because it is of equal or greater value, and we have a bunch more of them in stock anyways". That's fair, right?

The McDonalds in this particular situation offered meal substitutions whenever they did not have what the customer ordered! This is shockingly socialistic. If this particular McDonalds did not have what the customer ordered they would give something else of equal or greater value. The CUSTOMER HAD NO CHOICE NOR WOULD THEY GET THEIR MONEY BACK!

While the media tries to get everybody to play along and laugh at Latreasa Davis, Latreasa Davis is a righteous hero in my book. I only wish Latreasa Davis could be recognized as the flash point for THE birth of real consumer rights in this country rather than being ridiculed by our very own stupid media.

While everyone mocks Davis's use of 911 for a Chicken McNuggets order gone wrong, the real issue here is that there is no way to instantly report blatant corporate stupidity and have someone from the government actually show up and protect the consumer from the corporation.

We should all be concerned that not only is there no way to get instant action over corporate arrogance, if you try to get instant protection, YOU WILL GET ARRESTED and be made fun of by the media.

McDonald's should be picketed for actually thinking it is OK to take a customer's money, and then decide what food to give that customer. McDonald's offer of a free make good coupon to Ms. Davis is the final condescending insult from the corporate world to the consumer.

For those of you who don't take this editorial seriously, I DARE YOU to accept someone else's money for a specific product or service that you regularly sell, and then inform the customer you do not have their item and instead will be giving them something of equal or greater value of your choosing, and that under no circumstance will you give them back their money.

I double dare you to try that. Actually, please don't, as I don't want to be responsible for your premature demise or likely injury that may result.

Would you really accept such shallow treatment if it happened to you?

The Bush Administration warned about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but were overruled by Congress.

This YouTube Video paints the Bush Administration as trying to warn everybody about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What I don't understand is why the Bush Administration didn't have a fall back plan that could have been implemented immediately when the sub prime mortgage rates were spiking overnight. I believe the economic downturn could have been softened if home owners didn't just give up paying their mortgage because it dramatically increased overnight.

Regulation does not just have to happen on the front end. Bush, the Republicans and the Democrats seemed more concerned about the banks failing then people who had been paying their mortgage just giving up overnight when the monthly payment ballooned. I still blame the banks for offering a mortgage program that increased the monthly mortgage payment overnight by a factor of 50%, 100%, or even 200% on homeowners.

It would have been amazing if just once, we could have seen Bush ride in and actually rescue the average american.

Daily PUMA releases its own PUMA STIMULUS PACKAGE and Daily PUMA readers are the beneficiaries!

After watching Congress effortlessly add money to the United States economy, Daily PUMA wondered if extra width could be added to the two, far right PUMA Blog columns. After playing with column width numbers, Daily PUMA is pleased to announce its very own PUMA STIMULUS PACKAGE! If you look to the right you will notice BOTH PUMA COLUMNS ARE NOW WIDER!

DailyPUMA hasn't quite mastered the art of creating column width out of non-existent space with the same ease that congress creates wealth out of thin air. It appears that when the right two PUMA columns were widened, the center, main column shrank by an equal amount.

In an effort to appease all points of view, the left column of the blog, the non PUMA blog column, was also widened just a tad, resulting in even more shrinkage (aka tax cut) of the center column.

For some reason, DailyPUMA can't seem to master the concept of increasing all the columns that demand increases while also maintaining the original size of the center column.

Good News, Bad News about DailyPUMA.

Well, it's mostly good news actually. Daily PUMA has EXPANDED the two right columns of this blog to give better highlighting to the PUMA blogs. The Wider columns should also increase how long each PUMA article remains near the top of the column. (It's a mathematical, longitudinal distance thing).

The bad news is the center column had to be shrunk and now has to have all the individual video clips readjusted. At the moment the time to do that cannot be found.

Reflecting on Team Sports and how they prepare us for our adult social interactions.

I have this nagging suspicion that being part of a team sport, and then being able to walk away from the game afterwards without either being indifferent to the experience, nor so passionate that one remains emotional about the outcome for far too long, can lead one to developing healthy relationships later on in life.

If a team sport has creaed an environment in which the players work with their teammates for the best result while caring about the outcome, yet once the game is over are able to move on, that person is setting themselves up for a lifetime worth of terrific social interactions.

It is quite the irony to think that something as nebulous as playing a team sport may actually have a huge impact later on in life when it comes to dealing with others in a variety of social situations, but I think there is a correlation.

BETTY JEAN KLING, LOUIS RODAS UPDATE, URGENT INFORMATION, CALL TO ACTION !!!

Here is a link to Betty Jean Kling's blog with an important update regarding Louisa Rodas. One Last Kiss Goodbye.

I dearly hope that Betty Jean Kling has made an official, WRITTEN request to Kessler asking for at the very least, supervised visits so Louisa won't be so alone all the time.

Being on the other side of the country, DailyPUMA does not know the inner workings of what is going on, but denying a mother a chance to visit her struggling to survive daughter, a victim of domestic violence and a shot gun blast to the face and brain, just does not seem to make sense under most circumstances.

You can send a postcard, get well card, or balloons to LOUISA RODAS - PATIENT, Kessler Rehabilitation, West Orange Campus, 1199 Pleasant Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07052

But PLEASE READ BETTY JEAN'S BLOG ARTICLE One Last Kiss Goodbye. FOR THE FULL STORY.

IF YOU SENT IN A POSTCARD, OR GET WELL CARD, PLEASE POST IN THE COMMENTS SECTION THAT YOU DID. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE YOUR REAL NAME OR ANYTHING.

Can MSNBC continue to cover Barack Obama Speeches day after day?

Barack Obama was speaking recently and MSNBC was providing a live feed and I noticed a few "cheerers" in the back of the room that seemed to be obvious plants. How long can MSNBC and Barack Obama continue to sponge off of each other?

Did MSNBC show George Bush live, everyday and everywhere he went? Is it plausible that Barack Obama will continue to make live, daily televised appearances to the merriment of MSNBC? I guess I just can't believe it can keep up for his entire term in office without a backlash occurring.

Decoding the New York Post Chimpanzee Cartoon.

Some people view The New York Post Chimpanzee Cartoon by Sean Delonas as racist, others seem to think that calling the cartoon racist is just another example of people looking for publicity.

Perhaps what is throwing people off is not the cartoon, but the cartoon caption. The cartoon caption "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," does not fit the cartoon images.

The cartoonist appears to have juxtaposed three completely unrelated events while creating the cartoon, and strangely enough, forgot to actually add one of those three elements into either the cartoon or the caption. Those three elements include the stimulus bill, the chimpanzee that was recently shot and killed, and the Geico Caveman slogan, "So easy even a caveman could do it."

Where I think the cartoonist went wrong was thinking of the Geico Caveman commercial slogan, but forgetting to incorporate it into the caption or the cartoon. If the chimpanzee on the ground had instead been the Geico Caveman with a stimulus document on his chest, and the caption read, "So easy even a Caveman thought he could write it", there probably would have been far fewer complaints of racism, because we've all seen the Caveman commercials.

Or, keeping the cartoon exactly as is, the caption could be changed to, "his stimulus bananas never arrived"... The powerful message being that the stimulus package is not going to reach anywhere near enough people to be useful. Again, no racism message. Or, the caption could have read, "He got his stimulus package check today, but all he really wanted was bananas". Whats the point of fixing the roads if the cars driving on them aren't made in america, aka, the chimp got his check, but could not find local bananas to buy.

The fixation over the IMAGE within the cartoon, rather than the CAPTION, points to a disturbing societal trend of caring more about image rather than verbal content. If simply changing the caption can eliminate the cartoon's presumed racist angle, then why isn't anybody up in arms over the lack of verbal cleverness and clarity by the cartoonist?

Am I upset, yes, because I can't draw. I'm upset that I get ideas but can't draw them, yet someone who knows how to draw, but can't think cleverly, is able to get their sterile and unfunny message out to a big audience.

The Bailout Noise and Stimulus Package Succeeds in Obfuscating the Real Heart of the Matter.

Click here for most recent DailyPUMA article.

Barack Obama wants to reprise the role of the Grinch as he throws 1/2 trillion dollars from his sleigh (not counting tax cuts), back to the very people who were robbed in the first place.

Oh wait a minute, the Grinch did a much better job of returning the stolen goods to those who actually were robbed. I suppose one could say that the robbery happened under George Bush, and that Barack Obama is just picking up the pieces and "redistributing" the lost wealth as best he can.

Whatever your view of the sub-prime mortgages that first fueled, then fooled, then unspooled the economy, the one thing that stands out, and that is conveniently ignored by the elite of our society is...overnight increases in home mortgage payments that rise more than 10% are unethical, will, and did crash & burn the economy.

Instead of sub prime mortgage programs that wildly spike at the five year mark, what if the homeowners monthly payment started going up at the five year mark by just one percent (not the interest rate, but the monthly payment plus one percent, then the next month the monthly payment plus 2 percent) each month when the subprime loans vested after five years? What would have happened? Customers would have had their own built in "bailout plan" in the form of TIME.

If subprime loans SLOWLY ESCALATED the customer would have had PLENTY of TIME to sell their home if they found they could not keep up with the increasing payments.

Rather than force homeowners out of their home practically overnight, the homeowner could easily have had another six months to five years to sell their home WHILE STILL MAKING THEIR MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO THE BANKS!

Sub-prime borrowers would have made educated guesses as to how long they could afford their slowly escalating mortgages, and would have been much more likely to sell their homes in a timely fashion without being desperate when they did it. Just as importantly, the homeowner would have continued making their payments. Instead, as structured, the sub prime mortgage five year spike resulted in many homeowners simply giving up and even walking away from the home.

A SLOW ESCALATION in the monthly mortgage payment would have been a more responsible method for both stimulating the economy without it collapsing almost overnight. I believe somebody should go on trial over the design of the sub-prime mortgage program. Millions of consumers in the US and elsewhere had their sub-prime loans converted to foreclosure simply because the overnight price escalation was an abomination they could not afford.

Homeowners who bought into sub prime loans, in many instances were lured there by bankers and other money people who told them they would be foolish to not invest in a home purchase if the cost to own was not that much higher than renting. Add in the lure of rising home property values, and in most instances this was no different than entrapment.

Yes, it is possible that the sub prime mortgage industry was a plot to first falsely escalate both the economy and real estate values, and then cause the almost immediate foreclosure and LOSS of EQUITY to practically everybody in the country. Meanwhile, Credit Card Debt now remains at a record all time high as a ratio of credit card debt to total home equity in the United States. The banks appear to have won every which way even as they clamored for more bailout money.

The banks have really made out a lot better than the media tends to report. There seems to be a latent desire to scarlet letter law abiding citizens so they can be taxed and charged excessively in the future,because of past sub-prime mortgage failures. "Oh, you had a subprime loan that turned into a foreclosure? Well, you'll have to pay a penalty in the future for our fraudulent and unfair subprime loan scam that heavily contributed to your practically overnight foreclosure in the past".

Will anybody enact a law that limits how quickly a home mortgage payment can escalate from one month to the next? The sub prime loan swindlers not only got away with the past sub prime mortgage scam, they also have been given bailout money for the next great swindle as well, and the consumers that were victimized by the sub-prime loan received a scarlet letter stamped on their forehead that will cost them dearly the next time they attempt to purchase a home or buy a car.

John Ziegler's Documentary, "Media Malpractice", Good News, Bad News?

I have mixed feelings about John Ziegler's documentary "Media Malpractice", primarily because it has not been released yet and I don't know what is in it.

(Edit update - Hey, RumpRoast gave my opening line an award. Probably deserved too. lol, I still haven't seen the video as of Oct. 19th, 2009, but I do want to.)

Here are my hopes about Media Malpractice. Mr. Ziegler was really able to demonstrate how the media and the democratic party worked against Hillary Clinton to give the race to Barack Obama, and that Hillary Clinton will end up looking like the real winner who was literally robbed of the democratic nomination by the united but unethical actions from several different, but connected sources.

Here are my concerns. The film is going to focus more on Sarah Palin and less on Hillary Clinton. My second concern is that Mr. Ziegler's use of PUMA blogs for critical information may have been underutilized or under acknowledged. For now, the above is speculation, it will be interesting to see what made it into Mr. Ziegler's final cut and if any PUMAs or PUMA blogs get credited.

However, the strange thing is it may not matter whether PUMA's are credited or not in Mr. Ziegler's documentary. If PUMA's are credited, that could feel very validating and somewhat empowering. If PUMA's are not credited, yet Mr. Ziegler comes up with his own examples of media bias that favored Barack Obama over all others, this will further validate PUMA talking points about the 2008 primaries and beyond.

I think the media, led by Keith Olbermann, definitely excreted a form of georacism against the state of Alaska and Sarah Palin. Part of the reason this georacism was accepted was because Alaska is comprised of primarily white people. According to the media, white peopl can't be the victim of georacism, especially when it is the media slinging the disparaging remarks, Keith Olbermann, take a bow.

The cynical side in me thinks the doc will be more about Sarah Palin because Palin is more likely a shooting star still rising and therefore there is more to gain by sucking up to the future rather than setting the past straight. I do hope I'm wrong.

Bill Clinton asked to not cross Picket Line.

No on Prop 8 advocates urge Bill Clinton not to Participate.

Bill Clinton is supposed to speak this Sunday (see link above) at a hotel in which the hotel owner donated 125,000 dollars towards the passage of Prop 8. From what I understand, Bill Clinton's reason for speaking is that it was an organization that hired him to speak, not the hotel.

Ideally, a list of whom Prop 8 is targeting should be given to Bill Clinton or his people so in the future he can make his decisions on where he speaks with more information.

Did the gay community really back Hillary Clinton during the democratic campaign? I seem to recall that around 10%, maybe even as high as 15% of all democratic delegates were gay, yet when it came time to fight for Hillary, I just don't recall any delegate group fighting for Hillary, gay or otherwise.

Is a Blog a blog if there is no way to contact the blog owner?

Is a Blog a blog if there is no way to contact the blog owner? Would love to get feedback. Should DailyPUMA include any blog that doesn't have any mechanism for either being able to reply to a blog article OR contact the blog author via email? Just asking.

Taking all the fun out of Stimulation, even when we're still paying for it anyways.

It just dawned on me what bugs me most about the stimulus package. I would much rather see congress give out 300, three billion dollar stimulus checks over a years time, then do it all at once. Suddenly the flaw of the stimulus program is exposed.

300, three billion dollar stimulus checks would be the equivalent of two a day if we factor in how many days a year congress is actually in session. Um, maybe even three a day! Clearly it would take congress a week to two weeks to approve each 3 billion dollar check, and if one factors in that some bills won't be approved right away, we see that congress can only give away so much money, so fast, and do it in a responsible fashion.

Why can't all the stimulee's out there make a case as to why their program deserves immediate attention. and money? Why can't all the projects that might be eligible for funding get their project in order in a coherent, realistic and rapid manner as soon as possible so they can get their cut? Why can't stimulus equal incentive?

Are we possibly headed for a situation where the government will be so anxious to hand out money that they will practically be begging organizations to take the money and run? We should be grateful that car sales are down 40%. Why do we want people buying old school gasoline technology when we should be spending money fast tracking lighter weight transportation that also converts the suns rays to battery power?

I am intrigued by the UCLA plastics / photovoltaic research currently going on. The UCLA photo voltaic plastics research program could actually be a cornerstone towards any new breakthrough in weaning americans off of gasoline.

People need to survive on less money right now so that science and industry can maneuver society towards superior modes of transportation. This is why allocating all of that stimulus money all at once is not the way to go. Let society come forward with their proposals. Governments need to call a time out when it comes to taxation and interest rate charges being assessed on their own citizens.

Instead of figuring out ways to loan citizens more money, lets figure out ways to get people to reduce the debt they already owe without just writing it off as a bad debt. Let the people of this country help guard the stimulus package money. Calling a credit card interest rate time out for all americans interested in paying down their debt would require that bankers sit on their assets and not continue to charge outrageous interest rates on the one trillion in credit card debt.

Perhaps UCLA comes forward and asks for 250 million dollars in research for their photo voltaic plastics research projects. Would it be so bad to hire two hundred and fifty out of work people, pay them a stipend of 3,000 a month, and have their job be to monitor how that 250 million dollars is being spent? Some may say, well that's only one new job per million dollars. Wrong, that is just one job to help supervise the spending of each million dollars.

UCLA would be spending to purchase materials, conduct tests, have prototypes made, etc. The end result could be closer to one new job for every 100,000 dollars spent. That is probably an acceptable ratio, and the end result will then feed Michigan with entire new types of vehicles to build.

This is the type of cross pollination that needs to be going on. Use the Western Sun to accelerate plastic photovoltaic research, then use that technology in Michigan to create jobs for the new age of cars. Trying to revive a tired old economic system all at once will reduce money that could be going towards real progess.

Jake Tapper asks the White House about the mysterious Ethics List.

Thanks to The Real Barack Obama Blog for finding this



Ethics rule number 1,
For maximum flexibility, don't reveal list of ethics.

Ethics Rule number 2,
Refer to rule number one.

Ethics Rule number 3,
Are you still here?

Ethics Rule number 4,
It is not ethical to waste the presidents time with non-pertinent
ethics questions.

Ethics Rule number 5,
If you don't have another question, please allow someone else a chance.

Ethics Rule number 6,
Just Go Away, Please.

Ethics Rule number 7,
Just Go Away.

Ethics Rule number 8
Just Go.

Ethics Rule number 9
So, have you found a new press plane to travel on?

Ethics Rule number 10
The ethics list doubles as a bib for your wagyu steak.

http://www.DailyPUMA.com

Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolfe Absolve Hillary Clinton For her Iraq War Vote without even realizing it, Amazing.

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Richard Wolfe of Newsweek engaged in an incredible exchange during Keitho's Friday night show. (Feb. 06, 2009) The hidden message behind their discourse was so profoundly counter to the harrassment that they lathered on Hillary Clinton during the democratic primary race least year, right around the first of February of 2008.

Here is the excerpt that DailyPUMA has transcribed from last nights show. After you read it the first time, I'll explain how to decode the hidden message lurking within.

Keith Olbermann

Time to call in our own political analyst, Richard Wolfe. Good Evening Richard.

Richard Wolfe

Good Evening Keith.

Keith Olbermann

All right. Obviously the the moderates, the democratic moderates made this deal, Sherrie Brown was quoted about uh, about this before and several others, wha what about the other democrats, are they going to go along with this.

Richard Wolfe

Yeah, I think they are. Uh, look. Everyone's feeling the same pressure here and the pressure comes not uh, not slightly here from the economic numbers, which we just saw today those terrible unemployment numbers. Nobody wants to go out and face their own members in their districts or in their states and said-say that they didn't do something when the president was saying, saying it had to be done, so....

Yeah people are gonna get on board. Their gonna be unhappy, yes its rushed, no, not every piece of spending is gonna be inthere, but, in the end, the economic pressure, the political pressure from this president is just gonna be too great, and that was always the case with this bill. This was all symbolic from the beginning, but now is coming to a head.  - END OF QUOTE

----------------------------------

Mr. Wolfe is basically saying that the democratic senators really have no choice regarding the stimulus package vote, "whether they like it or not, it's gonna happen". Now, think back to the possibly paid off protestors during last years democratic presidential campaign that would follow Hillary Clinton around and scream at her for voting yes for the war in Iraq.

I'm going to take Richard Wolfe's own words, and by REPLACING JUST A HANDFUL OF THEM, the comment sounds exactly like justification for supporting George Bush going to war in Iraq.

----------------------------------

Keith Olbermann

All right. Obviously the the moderates, the democratic moderates made this deal, Sherrie Brown was quoted about uh, about this before and several others, wha what about the other democrats, are they going to go along with this.

Richard Wolfe's comments, when applied to the vote on the Iraq War.

Yeah, I think they are. Uh, look. Everyone's feeling the same pressure here and the pressure comes not uh, not slightly here from the ongoing terrorism threat, which we just saw those terrible numbers, 3000 dead. Nobody wants to go out and face their own members in their districts or in their states and said-say that they didn't do something when the president was saying, saying it had to be done, so....

Yeah people are gonna get on board. Their gonna be nervous, yes its rushed, no, not every piece of the war plan is in there, but, in the end, the pressure to stop terrorism before it comes to the U.S. again, the political pressure from president Bush is just gonna be too great, and that was always the case with the Iraq war vote. This was all symbolic from the beginning, but now is coming to a head.

-------------------------------------------end of slightly altered quote.

I barely changed the passage, yet word for word it could have been used by Wolfe to describe why the Iraq war vote was going to pass.

One could try and argue that, well, Wolfe is talking about the party that is in power, that they are the ones in lock step with their own president. However, that argument falls apart because George Bush was saying, back me, we are in danger of another act like the World Trade center collapse if we don't fight the war outside of the United States. Factor in the argument that the troops in Afghanistan could be outflanked if Iraq was ignored, and the democrats were basically there to support the president. 

Blaming Hillary Clinton for George Bush's war was lame. Has a senator ever stopped a war? But suddenly the first woman candidate can only run and be accepted if she had stopped George Bush's war? What kind of a load is that?

Olbermann and Wolfe chastized Hillary Clinton for voting yes on the war in Iraq during the early stages of the 2008 democratic campaign race and used it as a reason why she could not be president of the United States. 

This was just another in a series of planned out anti Hillary smokescreens to discredit her campaign. As more and more of these plots come to light, it sure looks like a planned conspiracy from within the democratic party and the media to elevate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

Will we ever find out if any of those anti Hillary protestors who claimed she could not be president because of her yes vote on the war on Iraq, were paid off? Olbermann and Wolfe sure appear to have been.

Fixing Infrastructure DOES NOT stimulate the economy, it actually does the opposite.

When it comes to "infrastructure" spending, unless a road, bridge, electrical line, or sewage system's collapse is imminent, not spending on infrastructure can actually stimulate the economy faster.

Instead of government prematurely fixing infrastructure, let the private sector know which potholes are not going to be filled so private investors can invest in alignment shops, tire stores, car repair bays, and build the repair shops on both sides of the potholes. Even rims and hubcap places will experience terrific economic stimulation if infrastructure is just left as is and assuming general safety is not being compromised. This will save the government billions on unnecessary infrastructure repairs, and many many new car repair businesses will crop up as a result of LESS infrastructure spending.

One key to a useful stimulus program is to stimulate the consumer to get the consumer to want to pay to fix things that they own that break, including their cars. Another aspect to not going crazy on infrastructure repair is to motivate the consumer to go out and buy a new, "stronger car" that comes with a pothole protection plan. (I bet some car manufacturer will now come up with such a program)

Flying road debris may also stimulate cars into being repainted more often. The less roads that are fixed the more overall stimulation is created, it's how the west was won.

The key to capitalism has never been about efficiency, it's always been about filling the needs of people in need. If we prematurely fix roads and bridges while they still work, we are just increasing the country's long term debt via this bailout bill while simultaneously hurting all aspects of auto maintenance and auto manufacturing.

Better roads mean people's cars will last much much longer than they currently do. Plus, those extra automobile fix it shops that were going to be built near the potholes, the people those new businesses were going to employ, and the taxes that these businesses were all going to pay, never happened because all the roads were fixed instead.

One pothole making machine can do a whole lot more economic stimulating than one hundred construction people fixing an unbroken road ever could.

"But, but, you can't be serious". Well, consider this a "Modern Proposal".

Assuming that infrastructure repair means the timely maintenance of roadways, bridges, electrical and sewage lines and has been done on an annual basis following a logical maintenance schedule, than it really should be business as usual and no stimulus program is needed for infrastructure at all....

....unless, the overall rate of yearly infrastructure deterioration has been occurring at a much greater rate than it was being repaired all along???

If the government is behind on its infrastructure repair maintenance schedule AND the economy is tanking as well, then clearly the government didn't spend wisely over the past few decades on infrastructure, and instead diverted infrastructure funds to pad their own pet projects in ways we'll never know. "If you don't have the money to do infrastructure right the first time, how are you going to have the money to do infrastructure correctly, later?" I would suggest that using taxpayer money to give roadways a new coat of asphalt before it is necessary, is not a way to stimulate the economy.

Fixing only the neediest bridges and roads is all that is needed for infrastructure, and that infrastructure money should already have been allocated within the yearly budget anyways. "What, you mean money that was supposed to go to annual infrastructure maintenance was being diverted to other projects? Really???" So the government now wants to borrow even more money to do the work that should have been being done all along anyways???

Just who wants to stimulate a bunch of politicians now, when it appears they have used prior years budgets to stimulate their own needs rather than fix infrastructure at the proper yearly maintenance level? I don't.

I hope you can understand that as silly as this blog article seems, everything in it is the truth, and that is why we have a MUCH BIGGER problem related to how to run a worldwide economy without it being stimulated by wasteful spending and inefficiency.

It Appears the Best Man for the Job was a Woman, Barack Obama's Daschle Mistake was actually preempted by Nancy Killefer's Decision to step down.

Barack Obama offers Nancy Killefer a newly created position called "federal government's chief performance officer", and she realizes the way to get chief performance is for her to resign because of past payroll tax issues.

Tom Daschle, who was nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, resigns shortly thereafter.

Barack Obama apologizes for not doing a better job of "vetting" Mr. Daschle. Barack Obama's supporters laud Barack's honesty and willingness to take the blame.

Are we to believe that Mr. Daschle was not properly vetted? Really? Or, is it more reasonable to assume that Barack Obama knew about the tax issue, felt it was not that big of a deal, and went ahead with his selection of Tim Daschle? If that is the case, then that means it took the bravery of Nancy Killefer resigning to get Mr. Daschle to see the light and resign as well.

Do I really have to listen to Barack Obama supporters once again cheer Barack Obama for his willingness to take the hit even as they ignore nor thank Nancy Killefer for her willingness to step down before the payroll tax issue grew in scope?

--------------------------------------------------

I wonder if the issue here is not that laws are being broken, but that these politicians seek to move upward with their careers without apologizing first, and then waiting to see if public opinion will forgive them before they go into the upgrade pool.

Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders (Independent) Vermont, let the DailyPUMA cat out of the bag.

Update - April 11, 2016. The reason I do not support Bernie Sanders in 2016 is in the seven years since this article was first written I don't think he ever really came up with anything that would actually help consumers reduce their own debt. Instead Mr. Sanders railed against Wall Street when the more viable solution was to help consumers struggling to get out of debt.   End of Update.

I have predicted for the last two years that the economy was going to tank, I even wrote two websites over two years ago warning of the theft of money from the american consumer by the Banks and Wall Street. Credit-Card-Cap.com and Credit-Protector.com

Both Websites expose financial methods that loaning institutions have used to rob americans of billions upon billions of dollars.

Tonight (February 3rd, 2009), Rachel Maddow had Bernie Sanders on, a Vermont INDEPENDENT congressman who said something of real substance.

Here is the transcript of a crucial part of the Rachel Maddow, Bernie Sanders interview. I personally transcribed it, please link to it if you like (versus just cutting and pasting it) as it took quite a while to transcribe.

Rachel Maddow

If this executive pay cut can be done well, can be done without loopholes and it works, what's next on the agenda? Do you think in terms of making sure that the bailout money that is already committed, because the bailout money is already outflowing, that it should, can be used in a less exploitive, less immoral way?

Senator Bernie Sanders
Well Rachel, this is the problem with this issue, is, it is so big, that nobody can get their hands on it. It is not just 700 billion dollars, as you know the fed has lent out 2.5 trillion dollars. The president is probably going to ask for more top money.

The fed, we think, is going to lend out trillions more. So what we need to do, among many other things, is we need to figure out a way that we do more than get back to where we were a couple of years ago, by making the institutions stable.

If the taxpayers of this country are putting such a huge amount of money into financial institutions, we need financial institutions that are gonna be beholden to the needs of ordinary americans and not go back to where we were... (as in a couple years ago.)

For example, Just one example. Right now, we're bailing out banks which are charging american taxpayers 25 or 30 percent interest rates on their credit cards. Does that make sense to anybody?

We're giving banks money and they're not telling us how their spending it. We're trying to loosen up credit in america, they're not doing it.

Sanders went on to talk about actually prosecuting the richest people on the planet who may have performed misdeeds that have led to the current situation, and wondered if the justice department was up to the task prosecuting those who are culpable.

Now, I have been advocating an interest free paydown of all credit card debt on my WallStreetChange blog. Bernie Sanders has just said the exact same thing I have been saying about credit card debt. Credit Card Interest charges are suffocating the life support out of the economy and it makes no sense to give the banks more money if they cannot pass the savings on to the consumer in any way.

Barack Obama needs to be funding research and completion of photovoltaic plastics which would do two things at the same time. Photovoltaic plastics lighten the weight of all cargo carriers that travel by ground or water, which instantly improves the efficiency of any battery powered systems because of the lighter weight. Plus, the photovoltaic technology imbedded into the plastic means that the cargo carriers are actually rergenerating part of their own energy even as they travel! Because the carrier's weight has been reduced, whatever is regenerated will power the carrier that much farther.

Let the consumer sweat the smaller stuff. The one trillion dollars in credit card debt is producing 250 billion dollars a year in new interest charges. The republicans want a huge tax cut, the democrats want to give money out, those two ideas merge together if the consumer is given a reasonable way to pay down their own debts via zero percent credit card interest rates to those who desire to pay down their debt.

Judges Blurring the wrong line regarding Proposition 8.

Excellent Radio discussion on Dec. 15th, 2008 about Prop-8 Protesting Strategies from the John & Ken Show, KFI-640 AM. A MUST LISTEN for anyone involved in Proposition 8.

I think judges are making a mistake by blurring the line between making a donation to a human being, and making a donation to a ballot measure proposition.

Link - Judges rule full donation disclosure is acceptable.

When it comes to donating to a politician, I think donation disclosure makes sense. A donation to a politician can mean an ongoing alliance, so keeping this a secret does not seem ethical. Some political contributors donate to more than one politician, and may have even donated to a politician that didn't become the nominee. These two scenarios help blur the line as to how someone may have voted.

I like blurring the line when it comes to finding out how someone voted simply because our whole voting system is based on the privacy of a voting booth, and frankly, caucus style of voting just doesn't seem to cut it. However, donations made to people should be documentable, it just seems logical to do so.

Regarding donation disclosures and ballot measure propositions, a ballot proposition, once voted on, cannot be approached later on for additional favors. Favors maybe initiated by the people involved in enforcing or spending money as it relates to a proposition, but the proposition itself is not a human being.

Donations made to a proposition is probably going to represent the way that contributor voted on that issue. I've never made a donation to a ballot proposition because after the vote has been tallied, the losing side can try to overturn the result in court. Why would I ever donate money to any proposition ballot measure knowing that the result can be overturned by a judge after the fact, and I don't even get my money back!

I am in favor of voting in the privacy of a voting booth, yet having people know how I voted anyways by how I contributed on a ballot measure seems to supercede the privacy of voting in a voting booth. I've now been given another reason to never donate to any ballot measure in the future.

Prop 8 lost because Gavin Newsome made a short speech in which he stated, "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not".
That is not the way to win friends and influence people. This quote by Newsome was gleefully played over, and over, and over by the proponents of Prop 8. Newsome was against Proposition 8, yet the Pro 8 side used his quote in their ads. I find it ironic that an opposing side can take someone's comment without mentioning in the ad that Newsome was against Prop-8. I sometimes think that the laws are too lax in certain areas of the law when it comes to political advertising.

I wish people would focus on why Prop 8 lost rather than try and witch hunt people who may have been reacting to Gavin's over the top statement, (see youtube video, plus a news story, of Gavin's famous comment, below).

Prop-8 won because they played what I call the Gavin Newsome commercial several hundred times before the Nov. 4, 2008 elections.

The juxtaposition of Gavin Newsome twice stating "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not" bookending a boring but scholarly looking middle section was a powerful one two three punch that certainly swayed many people who hadn't decided which way to vote yet.

This news clip explores the quote heard the world... News Clip about "Whether you like it or not". My opinion that Gavin's sound bite was the difference maker is also held by others in the media. This article includes two such links, one to the news clip, and the John and Ken Radio Show link.

Was it ethical to play the clip of Gavin Newsome over and over and over, when the original speech only happened once? This gets into a very sticky area of freedom of speech. I think it is manipulative in a dishhonest way to take one portion of one speech, and literally play it so many times that people can't stand the clip and mistakenly believe that Gavin Newsome is saying it over and over.

Publicizing ballot measure donation disclosures will just make it harder for future ballot measures to get donations.

Kentucky hit hard by Ice Storm, 700,000 homes have been without power for a few days now.

Here is a link, Kentucky slowly thawing.

I feel badly that somehow, either I missed the news over the past few days about Kentucky's worst ice storm ever, or because of the economy, it being Super Bowl week, and tributes to Barack Obama during the Super Bowl, maybe Kentucky was minimized and that is why I missed it? I didn't mean to turn this into a Barack Obama topic but, did coverage of Kentucky's worst ice storm ever suffer because of the Super Bowl, and tributes to Barack Obama, and bailout talks?

Did Bruce Springstein mention Kentucky during the super bowl half time special, or would that have offended the other countries that watch the super bowl and are having their own problems? Anyways, 100 dollar steaks from Japan celebrating the ridiculous bailout bill for passing gas in the house of representatives where it faced a monopolistic vote is not my idea of a "victory".

Oh yeah, Barack lost Kentucky to Hillary Clinton by a huge, huge margin. No 100 dollar steak for you Kentucky.