North Korea already possesses nuclear warheads and the rockets to deliver them.  Iran has successfully tested their own rockets this past week during war exercises and it is also widely believed they will be nuclear armed within the next six to nine months.  In previous comments, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced his distaste for the country of Israel and his plans to “wipe them from the face of the earth”.

Here is where Sarkozy chimed in,
“We are right to talk about the future. But the present comes before the future and the present includes two major nuclear crises.  We live in the real world, not a virtual one.  We say that we must reduce (the number of nuclear weapons).  President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons.  Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment.  Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions…  I support America’s extended hand.  But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community?  Nothing but more enriched uranium and centrifuges.  And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations.  What are we to do?  What conclusions are we to draw?  At a certain moment, hard facts will force us to make decisions.”

The ongoing conversation was about a number of different topics - the first of which I heard was regarding the stimulus bill.  As you continue reading, keep in mind that the stimulus package was in the neighborhood of $787 Billion Dollars and approximately 4-5% of the money has actually been spent on projects so far.  Obama sold this as a tool to create jobs and get money moving again.  Also keep in mind that just this morning, it was announced that unemployment is at 9.8% which is the highest it has been in 25 or 30 years.

In the month of September alone, the American economy lost another 263,000 jobs.  In fact, if you have been paying attention to the job loss and economy reports, you will notice that all of the headlines are suffixed with “<rose or fell>” and “<more or less>” than expected.  This means that just like global warming, I mean global cooling, I mean global climate change - the economists do not the ability to predict the state of the economy or rate of job loss with any kind of accuracy.

A caller gets on the program and says that she is pleased with the way the stimulus money is being used.  Why, just the other day she was driving along and came across some road construction.  There was a large sign near by that indicated that this work was being performed as a result of the stimulus money.   WhoooHoo! She also said that she had a sister that was some how involved in public education and her department had run out of money to fund some kind of project but they had now received new funding again as a result of the stimulus money.  Her view point - The stimulus is working.  So there you have it - two rock solid and indisputable examples disproving the supposed facts of the doom and gloom news.

Does it strike anyone else as odd that there would be a sign along the road advertising where the funding was coming from for a public works road construction project?  How do you reconcile this with the fact - and I do mean FACT that the economy is flat out not doing well?  This is putting the direness of the situation in a more positive light than it actually deserves.  There are communities where unemployment has now exceeded 25%.  Some areas are shutting down government offices, police stations, and other public works facilities.  The state of Michigan and the upper parts of Indiana come first in my mind.

How can the WPR guests conclude that the “stimulus is working”, when in fact percentage wise - very little of the money has actually been spent and what has been spent, is by and large not going to sectors of the economy that produce jobs or long term stability?  If all it took was 4 or 5 percent of the $787 B to get it going, can’t the government give all or most of the rest of it back?   Yet, if you were to listen to Obama alone, this is exactly what he is telling the world as he travels around.  “We’re investing in American infrastructure…” and “… we’ve spent our way out of debt…”.  Of course he can say that because there is at least one road project being worked on and the bill for the debt has not come due (yet) - which makes his statement true in a binary sense.  Yet in truth, it is largely a deceptive statement.

The caller then goes on to comment on her feelings about bringing the Olympics to Chicago.  “I think it would be great thing to showcase all the mid-west has to offer”, she says.  “It is a great thing for Milwaukee (to be so close to Chicago)”.  Basically, she feels very positive about the potential for the 2016 Olympic Summer games to come.   Nothing is said about the recent polls that indicate half of Chicagoians do not want the Olympics because the preparations for it will turn into a huge financial burden after the games are done.   Certainly no one comments about the kid who was recently beat to death by a gang or the 4 other survivors that are currently in the hospital.

This is when Professor Oshkosh chimes in, “absolutely… blah blah blah… this would be a great opportunity”.  It was obvious that he has been drinking the Obama Kool-aid.  What struck me was Professor Althouse’s comments.  She said, “If Obama wanted to do something good for Chicago, he would concentrate on addressing the problems the people of Chicago actually have rather than trying to showcase the best of Chicago for the world to see.  They have a high crime rate, high unemployment, high welfare, and other long term problems that the people need real solutions to.”  It was a very insightful analysis on the order of importance and what is the best long term benefit not just for Chicago and Illinois, but the mid-west in general.

Another caller chimed in, “… I think this is nothing more than payback to the city of Chicago for all its support in helping Obama get elected…”  Still another caller says, “… I would be concerned with Obama’s connections to people like Tony Resko and any other real estate connections he might have.  There is going to be a lot of construction for this.  Who is going to benefit financially from the Olympics coming to Chicago.  Follow the money.”

Professor Oshkosh piped back in, “This is not payback for anything.  That is just foolishness”.  Would somebody please serve up another glass of Kool-aid for Professor Oshkosh.  Of course leave it to the show’s host to not address or recnognize any of what has just been said, address any of the questions raised by the callers, and to change the subject.  This is why I don’t like to listen to public radio.  While it might be “OK” to state your opinion on the “idea’s network”, it is definately not “OK” to put them on the chopping block and analyze what has been said.

What is a person to conclude from all of this?  First and foremost - PAY ATTENTION!  Pay attention to what is actually happening verses what people say is happening.  When they don’t jive, someone is lying.

According to Associated Press this week, the FDIC is seeking some help from the banks because they are having trouble insuring some, most, or all of their deposit accounts.  There is something that smells terribly wrong with this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/ap_on_bi_ge/us_banks_fdic_bailout

Consider the following scenero:  Junior asks Dad if he can borrow five bucks.  Dad says, “ok” and then turns around and asks if he can borrow five bucks from Junior so that he can loan it to Junior.  Hmmmm…?  The government is probably going to ask Junior for six bucks so that he can make a buck on the deal and then turn around and charge Junior two more dollars in interest for the loan.  In the mean time, since Dad is in charge, he will refuse to pay any interest that Junior may charge for the six dollar loan simply because he can.  It sounds a lot like Junior would be better off loaning the money to himself or going without.

This FDIC thing also makes me think of the things that sent Bernie Madoff to prison…

Consider the following recent events in American History

- Government insures bank deposits with FDIC
- Banks deposit money in other banks and financial institutions so that it is insured by you and me
- Government pressures banks to make bad housing loans
- Against better financial judgement, Banks make the loans and they go into default
- Housing market goes into decline and George Bush borrows $500 Billion from China to stimulate the economy
- Banks need more money to avoid financial collapse
- Obama creates another stimulus package ($787 Billion) by printing money and borrowing from the future
- Some banks collapse anyway and the government absorbs them
- FDIC begins to run low
- Government borrows ($100 Billion) from the banks that they are also lending to

What comes next?

The government will raise taxes to pay off the debt incurred from all the borrowed money
- $500 Billion from China
- $787 Billion from the future and from printing
- $100 Billion from the banks

Now that the economy has been flooded with money, the value of the dollar drops like a stone.  What will happen if and when the government defaults on all of this borrowed money?  This does not take into account the fact that they are considering borrowing again for the Health care bill.

Answer: They will raise taxes.

What happens if they are not able to generate enough revenue through taxation due to the slowing economy, unemployment and other factors?

Answer: Someone is going to end up OWNING someone else.

The question then is, who will be the owner and who will be the slave?

What is the likelyhood that the Obama administration is going to let the selfish capitalists run the economy?  Zero.

What is the likelihood that the Obama administration is going to listen to the American Tax Payer from which a good chunk of all this money was stolen?  Zero.  After all, they have already demonstrated they are willing to elect someone with zero experience who is openly not who or what he says he is.

All that leaves is China.  What is the likelihood that they will be running the show?  In some ways, they already are.

Here is what is coming: socialism/communism followed by marshal law and then destruction.

The reason I’m commenting on this is because I recently read the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll on Rasmussen Reports and they are giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index score of -8. What does that mean? The index score is a measure of those who strongly approve vs those who strongly disapprove.

Rasmussen is reporting that 29% of Americans strongly approve while 37% strongly disapprove. Further more, 47% say that they “somewhat” approve of Obama’s performance, while 52% “somewhat” disapprove of his performance. It was the word “performance” that set me off on the OEE trail.

As I mentioned, OEE is a score and it consists of three constituent components - Availability, Performance, and Quality. Here is a brief explanation of each:

- Availability: Of the total amount of time a given piece of equipment “could have been” ready, how much of the time was it “actually ready”.

- Performance: For the given amount of time that a piece of equipment was actually “ready” and knowing the maximum amount of work that potentially “could” have been done, how much work was actually performed.

- Quality: Considering the amount of work that was “actually performed”, how much of that was “good”.

Here is my analysis:

Obama has been mostly available since he took office. While he did have some trips outside the country in various places around the world where he spent time apologizing to terrorist nations on behalf of America, he has been (or could have be) available when needed. It’s not like he can “disappear” and not be contacted in the event of an emergency. Let’s give him a score of 90%.

Rasmussen is giving Obama a performance score of 47%, so let’s use that.

As for Quality, let’s consider the sum of the work that Obama has actually done since he took office and what of that is to be considered “good work”.

- TARP (bad)
- Taking control of the banks (bad)
- Buying junk mortgages and taking ownership of the housing industry (bad)
- Forcing GM CEO to resign (bad)
- Taking control of GM and Chrysler and then giving the UAW union a controlling share (bad)
- Attempting to nationalize Health Care (bad)
- Apologizing around the world to known terrorist regimes (bad)
- Entertaining the “Fairness Doctrine” (bad)
- Reinstating government support for Abortion (bad)
- Closing GITMO and moving terrorists to Michigan (bad)
- The Stimulus Bill (aka “Porkulus”) (bad)
- Prosecution of previous administration (bad)
- Global Warming, I mean Global Cooling, I mean Global Climate Change, I mean Cap and Trade Bill (bad)
- Cash for Clunkers band-aid to prop up low new car auto sales (bad)
- Being the 2nd highest recipient of campaign donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (bad)
- Backing up the cut-over date for the switch to digital TV (good? maybe…?)
- Not producing his birth certificate to put an end to the discussion (bad)
- Choosing Sonya Sotomayer as a replacement justice (bad)
- Comments made about the police department that arrested Henry Gates (bad)

I’m seeing a trend here and it isn’t going well for the quality component of our OEE formula. Since any number multiplied by zero produces zero, for the sake of argument let’s give Obama a preliminary Quality score of 10% just so he has “something” and we can keep our OEE score interesting.

Therefore, Obama’s OEE score would look like the following:

Availability (90%) x Performance (47%) x Quality (10%) = OEE (4.2%).

Just an FYI - “World Class OEE” is a score of 85% or better. That would require an average score of 95% on each of the sub-components. In simple terms, Obama’s OEE score could be explained this way: While he seems to be around and available enough of the time, he actually doesn’t do very much of what he potentially could be doing, and what he does do by and large produces bad results.