http://www.kyle-brady.com coherent thoughts on diverse topics Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:07:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2009/02/07/why-congress-needs-a-reboot/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2009/02/07/why-congress-needs-a-reboot/#comments Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:48:46 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=1268
But it gets better.

I don't personally agree with another huge check cut by the government to give people money, because this is something that will solve itself fairly quickly if people stop being stupid, but the whole process has truly frustrated me.

Take a look at what got "cut" from the bill, courtesty of CNN.

My first question is:  WHY ARE THOSE IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Congress loves to add "pork" to bills, which has always annoyed me, and this seems to be no exception.  Even when they're crying about the cost of the bill, they add stuff to it.  This makes sense.  If I ever meet a Congressman, I'm going to, in a totally nonviolent way, slap him silly because what's more important?

1. "Fixing" America so we can continue as a great nation


2. Lining your own pockets and those of your supporting groups

I'm pretty sure it's #1, although many Congressional shinyheads may disagree.

My second question is:  If they cut ALL THIS, what ELSE is in there?

I'd like to know what percentage of "pork" got cut from the bill, and, probably more importantly, what's left.  Are we spending $100m to give NASCAR 10 years to improve fuel efficiency?  Or maybe $33m to give oil companies tax breaks?

Something tells me that what they cut was either "the lesser of two evils" or things that were too outlandish to pass anyways, for the most part (we'll get to the exceptions in a second).

My third question is: Excuse me, but I thought this was an economic stimulus package?

Maybe I'm misguided, but when I heard "economic stimulus package", I assumed that meant giving money to small businesses to smooth things over, sending checks out to individuals that pay taxes (like Bush's did), and helping to foster a new era of growth in what will be the next generation of "driving forces" for the economy.

But this is apparently not what Congress is concerned with.  They're concerned with giving money to organizations that probably already have it, tax breaks to those who needs it less than your average American, and a whole litany of more crap.

My fourth question is: Why did some of these get cut, you dumb motherfuckers?

In a time where space exploration and development is more crucial then ever, NASA gets budget cuts.  And when someone (God save the Queen!) adds some pork to this bill that actually might be useful, like giving NASA a "bonus" that would trickle down to it's contractors and subcontractors... it gets cut.

And the NASA earmark isn't the only one.  There's a few, so let me list them for you:

1. NASA


2. Broadband


3. NIST


4. Aeronautics


5. Exploration


6. Cross Agency Support


7. NSF


8. School Construction


9. Higher Education Construction

Don't those sound like things you'd like to have money sent to?  Put that list together and you end up with:

• more money for science and space, NASA included


• a government that works together slightly better


• money for a better education system, which in turn would generate "tomorrow's" American businesses


• broadband growth that not only creates better access, but would institute Net Neutrality clauses (not mentioned in CNN)

The total cost of those specific items cut comes to $22.15b.  Now that sounds like alot of money, but when you consider it would have been part of a $950b package, it comes to only 2% of the cost of the package.

Two percent that could have made a real difference in both the economy and America's waning intelligence in certain sectors of the country.

My fifth, and final question, is: What the hell?

What it really comes down to is whether or not this money is going to be spent ever so wisely as the bank bailout was (search Google for "banks, bailout, planes" or "banks, bailout, bonuses" for more details).  Because if this has all the intelligence that the bank bailout had, we're fucked as a country.

We can't afford to keep propping up failing industries and throwing money at those who already have it.  America is already massively in debt, and none of this is helping.  Like I said previously, I'm completely at odds with the idea of bailouts and stimulus packages, because people need to learn to fend for themselves [see "The End of Democracy" for why].

But if Congress is going to ignore the voices of those of us smart enough to know it's a bad idea, then they need to do it right.  Because we'll only have one chance at "fixing" this... if America hasn't turned around, with no more epic failures of industry, by the end of Obama's first term of office, we may never recover.

Something tells me America will cease to be a single, united, and unified country when the money runs out and the supplies run low.  There's already talk about fractures in the country.

Those can quickly become fault lines when the conditions are right.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2009/02/07/why-congress-needs-a-reboot/feed/ 3 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2009/01/13/bailouts-an-epidemic/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2009/01/13/bailouts-an-epidemic/#comments Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:42:43 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=1068 my thoughts on the auto-industry bailout?  One of my main concerns was that once you reach a certain point, you're going to end up in a "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" situation.

Well, I hate to say "I told you so", but... I TOLD YOU SO!

There are now three separate entities/industries wanting bailouts from the Federal Government:

• Individual States


• The Porn Industry


• Real Estate Developers

And I'm sure this is only the beginning.  Health insurance is rumored to be the next whining crybaby, and there's a whole plethora of people we haven't heard from yet.

Phone companies like Verizon Wireless?  "We suck and are dying" companies like Yahoo!?

Who knows, maybe they're next.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2009/01/13/bailouts-an-epidemic/feed/ 3 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2008/12/19/the-end-of-democracy/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2008/12/19/the-end-of-democracy/#comments Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:20:59 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=934
Because you're no longer a populist democracy when you do the opposite of what most of the intelligent people in your country want, and it's not capitalism/"a free market" when you're doling out obscene amounts of money to companies that are too inept to manage themselves properly.

First was the immensely ridiculous financial bailout, which we've all seen has been used essentially for large bonuses, giant parties (or "sales meetings" as they say), and huge takeovers.  And now we have the auto industry bailout.

Why did the "big three" auto makers have financial problems?  Yes, the industry went down with the economy.  But there's a bigger problem here:  they make shoddy products, eschew innovation for excuses and size, and continue to produce products that people are not interested in purchasing.

America's supposed to be a "free market".  And that means that if your company is no longer producing attractive products for purchase, or if your management is only interested in how rich they can get, your company fades quietly (or not so) into the night.  There's no handouts.  Maybe you get bought by another company, but you don't continue to exist on someone else's dime.

People have used the "Millions will be unemployed if they fail!  They're too big to fail!" excuse in the auto industry arguments, but that's not even remotely valid.  How many people have lost their jobs in the last 6 months, and they haven't even been part of a failing company?  They're not getting financial handouts to be able to keep all their employees on the basis of unemployment.

The "big three" should have gone under, or at least filed for bankruptcy - which would have given them a way to operate for some time to get on their feet.  Just look at the airlines.  And all the unemployed could file a class action lawsuit against the Board of Directors and Executives (CEO, CFO, etc.) for inept management (or whatever the legal equivalent would be), and potentially get a cut of all those large bonuses and salaries they've been getting for years while the company failed but celebrated their corporate fatcats.

Finally, using the markets as an indicator of success is comparable to the Chinese Government saying they successfully ended pollution in Beijing- everyone knows it's a lie, because they're only acting on rose-tinted self interest.  As shareholders, these people are investors in the companies, and the companies' continued existence is profitable to them, especially if the stock goes up.  But since everyone has their panties in a bunch right now, the temporary relief for these companies gives a glimmer of hope to all those Wall Street suits who've been crying into their glasses of Chardonnay for the last few months.

Yes, not providing this bailout to the auto industry would have likely meant the end of the current American auto production companies.  But that's not necessarily a bad thing.  There are a number of small companies trying to grow into the mainstream (Tesla Motors, for example), and the foreign companies (Volkswagon, BMW, Toyota, etc.) have been selling more cars to Americans than American companies have...

We could have been on the pinhead of revolution in the auto industry, thanks to necessity, but those hopes have now been dashed.

Get ready for another 20 years of crappy American cars attempting to dominate the industry, and spending thousands of dollars on gasoline a year.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2008/12/19/the-end-of-democracy/feed/ 9