Inner Cities CAN Be Rebuilt from Within

I live near East Saint Louis, Illinois and drive through the town often as it is a quick route to I-55 to get into downtown St. Louis, Missouri, and I also use Apex Recycling in East Saint Louis to turn in my aluminum cans. 

Years ago, when I lived in Wisconsin, I did a stint with a pest control company and my commercial route was largely in the inner-city portions of Milwaukee on the north side. When it comes to most inner cities, the observation is always the same.

Boarded up houses, garbage in the streets, run down, dilapidated buildings, high crime, and one other major thing stands out like a sore thumb.

There are no major businesses there.

In other words, little is ever invested in these communities. The unfortunate truth is that in America's inner cities, the primary source of their economy is largely derived from social welfare programs. And that's not a knock on the community. It's just that without much going on in terms of businesses offering meaningful employment within the community, it is harder for the economy to be sustained by much of anything else.

Beyond that, because of East Saint Louis' proximity to downtown St. Louis, and because it is a direct route to Busch Stadium where the Cardinal baseball team plays, and because many people bordering Missouri also work in St. Louis, there are potentially millions of dollars, if not tens of millions of dollars that pass through East Saint Louis every year.

Few people from outside of East Saint Louis will actually stop and patronize any businesses that may be there. And there are a lot of reasons for that. High crime being one of them. People simply won't feel safe.

Every time I have driven through any inner-city community, I have always felt that this can change. I have always felt, it doesn't have to be this way. And it often pains me that it is this way.

It is obvious that community leaders and elected officials have failed these cities in incalculable ways. Because when you get right down to it, they have the most opportunity to make the change that paves the way for greater success within the communities.

And really, it has to come from within first.

There is some thought that part of the reason more businesses aren't interested in making investments within certain communities is because of the current conditions that exist there. It's just not an attractive place to do business, and so they don't.

Why can't a big company like Proctor & Gamble build a factory smack dab in the middle of East Saint Louis, or some other inner city, that could provide a major boost to the people and the economy of East Saint Louis?

The thought is that they can, but there is reluctance to do so for other reasons. It's just not a place today that would provide a pool of resources that would be determined to be valuable to the business. At least, not in the short term.

It starts with the citizens.

And quite frankly, it has to start with the citizens. The people who live in these inner cities need to want to make their town successful. They have to want to make their communities a nice place to live, work, and for other people to visit.

If citizens rise up and say, "Enough is enough," change can happen. If the citizens are able to recognize their downfalls, and who or what is holding them back, change can happen.

Beyond that, I think if there were stronger leaders, and a certain culture of despair were dismissed and a strong change in attitude instilled that, "We can do it," were to permeate and define the culture, I think a lot of positive change could come from that.

There are many black athletes and black musicians, and even very successful black entrepreneurs who could not only become great ambassadors, but they also have the ability to make good and meaningful investments into the communities they could potentially serve.

Because that's the other part of the problem, isn't it? Even when an inner-city community produces success, that success is rarely returned back to the community. It simply leaves. If the goal is only to escape a community, it can never thrive.

Granted, restoring a community is not an easy thing to do. And even if it were to start today, it could take years for the results to have a major impact. Getting the community to come together and want the change, and to invest in the change is also not an easy thing to do.

Having churches and other community organizations come together and work to clear trash and debris would be a great place to start. Having wealthy people buy land and dilapidated buildings and tear them down and clear the parcels would be a great accomplishment as well. 

It could serve to at least restore faith within the community, and to have something to work towards. To have something to be proud of. And perhaps the businesses come. Perhaps more investments are made. Perhaps opportunities increase. Perhaps a massive cultural shift occurs.

Every community, I feel, should have the ability to serve itself in ways that make the community stronger and better. But it never necessarily happens by accident. It takes work. It takes pride. It takes commitment. It takes having an attitude that anything is possible. It takes leadership, and by that, I mean real leadership.

America's inner cities, as I see it, have enormous potential to be destinations, and places where people want to live and work and not just pass through. But to actually be enjoyed by all.

But again, the citizens have to take these cities back and be proactive about the restoration before any of that can actually happen. It literally takes a community to build a city as much as it takes a community to raze one.

The time is now to build.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601 or check out my Facebook page to keep up with my latest writings wherever it is I write.

Oceangate: From Tragedy Perhaps a Few Silver Linings

So many times in our lives, when it comes to seeking fun and adventure, we're literally putting our lives into someone else's hands with the firm idea that what we are doing will be safe because someone has taken the time and care to ensure our safety.

We put a lot of faith into that. 

When we step onto a ride that will send us through multiple loops at incredible speeds, we're quite sure that someone has tightened all the bolts and done all the checks to ensure the coaster stays on the tracks and all the seatbelts work properly.

I am sure that's what the five passengers of the Oceangate sub that went missing, and that we eventually learned had imploded hours into its descent, thought.

As I think about what happened, as tragic as the event is, I do take at least some solace in the idea that the implosion scenario was likely far less painful for the people impacted by it than what the alternative may have been.

To slowly suffocate miles below the ocean's surface.

Nonetheless, it does appear that there were many questions long before this tragic event occurred about the safety of the experimental vessel—and a seemingly large amount of defiance about those questions from the CEO of the company, Stockton Rush, who was piloting the sub and died along with the four other passengers.

Silver lining number one is that at least their deaths may have been quick. If that's a silver lining, of course. Silver lining number two may come from what we learn about what happened and why as investigations delve deeper into what went wrong.

Beyond the lawsuits that will most certainly be forthcoming, especially if evidence points to gross negligence on the part of Oceangate, which I think it will, there will likely be more checks and balances and more oversight for any future vessels like this, as well as for any others currently operating.

Tragedy often breeds understanding and typically makes things safer. And as such, when we seek fun and adventure, we can do so more comfortably knowing that even with all the checks and balances, things may still go wrong. But we can do so with more confidence that someone actually has our safety in mind.

In the case of Oceangate, it appears to me that Stockton Rush simply wanted to do what he wanted to do, and put lives in jeopardy every time he submerged, just in the interest of that and money, and nothing else.

And for that, he and four others paid the ultimate price.

Like the way I write and the things I write about? Follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601 or on my Facebook page.

Tesla Could Become a Literal Powerhouse, But Not in the Car Market

Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley has it right when he says that EV adoption comes down to charging infrastructure, and the deal it sealed with Tesla not only bodes well for Ford and Tesla, but it also bodes well for potential customers who want to consider buying a Ford electric car ultimately.

Granted, there are a lot of asides here. There is much work to be done as well to ensure we have an electric grid that can handle the capacity needed if more adoption occurs, and I think even when it comes to charging stations, the speed at which charging needs to occur has to increase.

We may never get to a point when you can charge your car nearly as fast as you can gas up. But if the time gap can be further closed, which I think technology can advance enough to eventually figure that out, it becomes more of a game changer.

The fact is that among charging technologies, Tesla leads the way and I think they will continue to do so. That makes the Ford deal even more attractive since other automakers may make similar deals with Tesla to convert their chargers to the one that Tesla was using exclusively with its cars.

Ultimately, I think Tesla can become to EV and charging what big oil became to cars.

And certainly, Tesla has the advantage. It has invested the most in the technology as well as adding charging stations across the country.

Elon Musk recently said that he thought autonomous driving was the key to Tesla stock and the company growing. I continue to believe he is wrong about that. I think the driving experience is still at the forefront of car buyer's interests and will remain so. 

People want the experience of driving.

And when it comes to most other automakers, that's the experience they are building into their offerings. Ford, for example, with it's Mach-E Mustang. It's about driving and performance and muscle. Chrysler is doing the same as it electrifies its Chargers and Challengers.

I don't think Tesla will lead in cars, but rather in EV charging. And I think that's a big deal. I also think that alone makes Tesla an attractive company to own right now, which is a major shift for me than the thoughts I had before.

I continue to prefer Ford and Rivian when it comes to automakers, and I have shied from Tesla mainly because I feel Tesla simply appeals to a different kind of car buyer than any of the other automakers appeal to.

Tesla is about technology, and it appeals to those customers interested in that as well as an environmentally conscious crowd. That's a different customer than one who wants to buy a Ford F-150 Lightning or a Rivian R1S. 

The shift to charging is what appeals to me now when it comes to Tesla as an investment. And if it shares its charging stations, it may also eventually share its technology. And that side of Tesla's business, I think, could be far more valuable than the cars it wants to sell. It could literally become an industry on its own which Tesla would likely dominate.

Can I imagine a time when most other cars on the market are adorned with a label much like many computers are, Intel Inside to simply say Powered by Tesla?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I can.

Want to keep up with my writing? Follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601.

Right or Left, We Have to be Fair in our Analysis

Sometimes when we get deep into our politics, we tend to forget things. Or maybe we just set things aside depending on who is doing the talking—or of course, depending on who is in charge. Both sides are guilty of this, although it happens more on the left.

But the right is not without its faults, and to not call them out from time to time would show a considerable amount of personal bias which I try as much as possible to avoid. Perhaps there is some sense that I have that if I set aside biases when I write my commentary, it adds credibility to some of my points.

I am probably kidding myself, but no matter.

Take two situations we are currently talking about on the right which I think are a bit contradictory to where we might normally stand if it were our side making the decisions. The Ukraine war and the recent trip by Blinken to China.

I must stress I don't like Biden, and I don't like Blinken. I disagree with almost everything that the Biden administration is doing, wants to do, or has already done. But being a person who tries to set aside bias, I have to also make sure to evaluate each opinion I have based on some sort of reference.

What would the republican party have done when Russia invaded Ukraine? Considering our position with Ukraine at the time and our stance that Ukraine should at least be considered for entry into NATO—although not without strong provisions, a position Biden also holds—I think we would have responded in similar fashion.

We would have assisted Ukraine.

Granted, I do hold the belief that had Trump still been the president at the time, Russia would not have invaded in the first place. But that's a what-if scenario. We don't know if that would have absolutely made a difference or not.

Whether or not we, as a party, are fully committed to the idea of policing other nations, we have often acted in a way that polices nations and helps out smaller guys under attack. If Trump had made similar decisions to provide support to Ukraine, I think we, the republicans, would have supported that.

Conversely, it is fair to point out that democrats would have opposed what they now currently support regarding Ukraine.

Biases get in the way of certain judgements sometimes, as I said, on both sides.

My position is clear. I believe Putin is a madman, and I believe Ukraine should not have been invaded, deserve their independence, and also deserve our help. That's despite my overall opinion on Ukraine, which would digress from the aim of this post. It is also despite my opinion that I am not sure Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO at this time.

Enter the visit by Blinken to China to meet with Xi Xing Ping. One issue that came up was whether or not the United States supported an independent Taiwan. Republicans have railed against Biden and Blinken, essentially having said, "The U.S. wants to be abandon the people of Taiwan."

This patently untrue and an unfair accusation by republicans.

Because the United States has had a One China policy for decades. In fact, we have held this position since 1972. Even a year or so ago Biden slipped and almost indicated that our One China policy had changed, which his staffers had to then backtrack and remind the American people that our China policy had not, in fact, changed. We still are for a One China policy.

The decision by Biden and Blinken to maintain that Taiwan not be independent of China is directly in line with the One China policy we have held since 1972. Our position did not change, and Biden is not abandoning a people.

Granted, what we would actually do if China invaded Taiwan, is another question. It is a question even Trump has refused to answer, asserting that making public his position would compromise his negotiating ability with Xi Xing Ping. And that's a sensible answer.

I point these things out because I prefer to operate in a political environment of fairness and real-based analysis of positions and circumstances. I can't blame democrats for getting it wrong if I don't also criticize republicans when they do.

I can have an opinion on One China, for example. But I can't simply change the facts around it because I happen to disagree politically with the other party and the current administration. I also can't, in good faith, change my fundamental position just because the leadership has changed. And I don't also want to engage in blanket disagreement simply because the one at the helm is someone other than I would prefer to be there.

Politics, above all else, should place heavy weight on truth, and we should maintain a level of common sense and common ground. I think it helps to advance discussions and discourse, and I think it provides a level of balance to what gets decided and how we deal with it that is badly needed in this country.

To do anything else is to simply run in place, and in doing that, we get nowhere.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Twitter @jimbauer601 or on my Facebook page.

The Lost History of Juneteenth and the Achievement of Black Freedom is Important

Regardless of one's political affiliations, Juneteenth is an important day. Ironically, it became a national holiday after Joe Biden, a democrat, signed it into law.

What it celebrates, in part, is the official end of slavery in the United States, something signed into law by Abraham Lincoln through the Emancipation Proclamation. A republican president. And who were largely the Confederates?

Democrats in the deep south.

What the holiday also celebrates is the contribution that black Americans made on their own to fight for their freedom, donning Union uniforms and going into battle against the Confederates who sought to maintain slavery and secede from the United States. 

I have never been bothered at all by the holiday, nor the celebration of a very defining moment in our history for black Americans. What does bother me is the lack of history provided to the American people when we talk about it.

Especially when you know the media, Joe Biden himself, and the democrat party will celebrate their making it a national holiday.

The thing is, while the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, it did not immediately end racism. It did not change the views of the Confederates, and certainly it did not change the views of the democrat party, and I think making that narrative front and center is important when we talk about the holiday.

Because it is important. It is important to understand who it was who fanned the flames of racism throughout our history. It is important when the narrative that will be laid out is before the American people is that it was we the democrats who acknowledged the struggle of black Americans and made official the celebration of their freedom.

Sure. One can say, times have changed and ideas have shifted. For decades the democrats have tried to pain the republican party as a party of racists. It has never been true of course. But that's their story and they aren't going to edit that one.

What's worse is that the democrat party has been quite successful selling that narrative, most notably among the very people they, the democrats, largely contributed to the continuing degradation and separation of in America.

That's quite a feat if you think about it. And kudos to the democrats for having achieved it without many people blinking an eye.

Who fought against slavery and who continued to fight for the rights and freedoms of black Americans after slavery's end is an absolutely pertinent and vital part of the story.

You see, the thing is, the republican party itself was created as an anti-slavery party. Factions of the then Whig party adamantly opposed slavery and wanted it ended. Their sole purpose, after a meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin, was to oppose the expansion of slavery into the Western territories.

Abraham Lincoln joined the republican party and was the first president to serve as a republican. And of course, he ended slavery after the Civil War.

Thus, it was the republican party who freed the slaves.

At the time, the republicans called slavery a crisis. They opposed the tyrannical leadership of democrat president Andrew Jackson who did not see the urgency of ending it, and did nothing to oppose the push in the South to keep slavery, and expand it.

While the republicans won the fight, democrats continued to oppose the rights and freedoms of black Americans. This was particularly true in the South.

Southern democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan. Democrat legislators wrote and passed into law Jim Crowe laws, forcing blacks to the back of the bus and reserving designated areas where blacks could eat in restaurants, or barred blacks from eating there altogether. There were separate bathrooms and separate drinking fountains for blacks vs. whites. The democrats opposed equal voting rights for black people, fought against equal opportunity laws for black people and fought to maintain segregation of black and white students in schools.

No democrats voted for Civil Rights for black Americans. No democrats voted for desegregation either. When the laws were signed, the democrats made every attempt to refuse to uphold them.

I simply think that the whole story is important, and not enough people know it. I think it is an opportunity for black Americans to get the whole story and to understand it. I think it is important for black Americans to understand who was on their side and who was vehemently, and even violently opposed to them.

The horrible and haunting history of lynchings were not carried out by republicans. They were carried out by democrats in the South.

It is important to note that not only were democrats very open about their racism. They were proud of it. It was on full display, and they were not afraid to be called racists. The KKK did not operate in the shadows. They operated front and center, despite hiding their identities under white hoods. But everyone knew who they were.

The holiday is important to the American people. It is important to the history, even dark parts of it, of America. It is important to black America. 

To not acknowledge, or try to erase from history the who, what, where and when is disingenuous. It rapes the achievement and tarnishes the cause. It makes a mockery of the battles and struggles of black Americans and the republican party who fought so hard for them to have freedoms and enjoy the same rights afforded to all Americans.

It is also unfair to the black people of this country to not have an opportunity to honestly evaluate how much they have achieved and who the people were who helped to make it possible. Because the history is as important as the day. And without the history, the day is meaningless. Especially when the ones telling the story now are the ones, who had they won the fight, would have had nothing to sign into law as a national holiday.

Like the way I write and the things I write about? You can follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601 or follow me on my Facebook page.

A Reconsideration of a Biden Impeachment

There have been several times, throughout Biden's presidency, when calls for impeachment have been made where I have said, impeachment proceedings should be reserved for real and undeniable high crimes and misdemeanors.

In other words, it should not be molested. It should be an important and very serious part of our system of government, and people should trust that when the word "impeachment" is uttered, it actually means something, and all eyes, ears, and attention should be on the seriousness of the charge that brought it about.

The impeachment process, even as far back as Bill Clinton, I think, have been used more as a political weapon than anything else. Although, even though I think the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a huge stretch, it still had more merit than any of the impeachments posed against former president Trump.

They were simply a result of a party desperate to remove a president they did not like. It's not any more complicated than that.

It molested the process and instead of Americans being concerned about real crimes and misdemeanors, it was more of an in your face "hah-hah" moment and "this is what you get" scenario. Far from what the intentions ever were for such a process.

No one was interested in the truth, of course. They just wanted to see Trump gone. They wanted to see his legacy tarnished. They wanted something for the history books. It did not matter that the facts weren't there or that the claims were entirely outside of the realm of what any real impeachment should look like. 

Just for the history books, all that mattered is that it would claim the history that Trump was the first president to be impeached twice during his presidency.

The bottom line here, for me, is that while Biden's presidency has been nothing short of a complete and utter disaster, regardless of whether or not I believe he actually won the election in 2020, there has been nothing I have seen that I would envision would be in the realm of intent of the process to be impeachable.

That is, until now.

It is clear to me that this latest indictment of Trump has nothing to do with criminal activity and everything to do with politics. It has everything to do with an upcoming election, serious questions about Biden's own potential criminal activity being alleged and ultimately distracted from. Moreover, it is an abuse of power and an evil witch hunt to attempt to potentially remove a front-running presidential candidate from the opposing party from being able to run.

What is also worth considering, although I will admit it is a bit of a departure from the crux of this post's main point, is what really happened in November 2019? Does Trump know something? Is it possible he could have the power to find out? Was J6 actually, as many suspect, a staged event coordinated and funded by Soros, Antifa and the democrat party itself as a means to distract from any further questioning that there may have been a stolen election?

Is the indictment of Trump just another means to steal another election yet again?

I think there are serious things happening right now with Joe Biden, or at least his administration (or whoever is actually running the show) at the helm of it. Something like this really does warrant itself as high crimes and misdemeanors if ever there were any to exist. 

It would even make Nixon's pending impeachment, had he not resigned before it actually happened, look like child's play compared. In the case of Nixon, he'd have not only been impeached, he'd have been convicted.

Granted, it is easy to understand that during that time we also had a more united country. Politics was still a deeply entrenched thing, but there was a higher level of respect for the White House as well. The only reason Nixon resigned was because both sides of the aisle would fully participate in the country's best interests and convict him.

His own party could not dismiss what he did and not vote to convict.

It is very difficult for me to imagine, in this highly charged and divided political climate we are living in today, that the democrats would take seriously any impeachment charge or proceeding, regardless of evidence, let alone convict. I believe even the media would be quick to assert that any accusations or case brought against Biden would simply be retaliation by the GOP for the Trump indictment.

As well, can we trust that the American people would stand ready to maintain the integrity of the White House and rally behind an impeachment and conviction and take seriously any charge?

Nonetheless, I do feel that if there ever was a time when serious impeachment considerations should be made, it is now. If we don't go that far, we should at least give very serious consideration to having an honest, open, and thorough investigation.

After all, the highest office in the land does not belong to a political party. It does not belong to one man or woman. It belongs to all of us. The American people. And preserving its integrity and being able to have faith in our government is a higher consideration than any other. 

I think every American should be very concerned about what is happening in our government right now, especially in terms of our elections, how they are handled, how they are determined, and who gets to run, and more importantly whether we want the government deciding for us who can't run.

If the election was indeed stolen in 2020 and now the government is working to omit a potential winning candidate from the opposition party, this is how dictatorships start. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook to keep up with the latest postings wherever I write or follow me on my Twitter page @jimbauer601.

Too Old to Serve? Election 2024

Age is certainly a factor in the next election for president in 2024. Beyond all of the flubs from the Biden administration, which is a complete disaster, and all of the chaos and infighting among republicans right now on the GOP side, the one thing that should be abundantly clear is this.

Joe Biden has not earned reelection and is too old to serve, and likely won't make it through another four year term. Kamala Harris is not fit to be president. And even though I think Trump not only deserved another four years in 2020, even he may be too old to serve.

It's a bit of a slippery slope because what it leaves us with is a "big picture" decision at the polls. Who exactly are we ultimately having to choose to vote for? The person running for president? Or the running mate? And while we have had times in the past when a vice president did become the president for various reasons, it has not always been the best course for America.

Trump seems vibrant and full of life, but that doesn't guarantee nothing will happen.

I do think that Trump still offers the best opportunity to get America back on track. He's become a politician, for sure. But he's still an outsider. He's got bite. He doesn't play like other politicians do. He fights back, gets contentious and pulls no punches. 

I like that.

DeSantis, so far, seems like a strong and clear alternative choice. But I also think that what DeSantis brings to the table is more of the same old politician stuff. He's an establishment guy even if he says he isn't.

He is also much younger which presents an interesting alternative as well. And regardless of what my opinion overall may be about DeSantis vs. Trump, the one thing I do know is that he would still present the better choice over Biden in 2024.

I do wonder, if Trump were to become the nominee, if there could ever be a Trump/DeSantis ticket that could potentially pave the way for a determinable victory for DeSantis in 2028 and beyond, and a victory for the republican party to boot.

The thing is, we're going to also be in this boat again in 2028 necessarily since Trump can't run for a third term no matter what. So, with that in mind, we also have to make sure that in 2024, at least on the GOP side, we have to get this right.

If the next four years with Trump, for example, is like the first four years with Trump, and I am not referring to what he did, because I think Trump's presidency was a stellar success, with the media and the democrats out to take him out at every turn, that will only present more of an uphill battle for DeSantis, if he were to be vice president, because he'd be running directly as a Trump candidate.

It's a lot to consider. There are so many moving parts here. We only know we can't afford another four years of Biden and we certainly won't survive a Harris administration. So, it's a big task ahead. I think what we need to do, not just as a party, but as Americans who want to see the country headed back in the right direction, is to really think long and hard about what the best course for America is.

In the end, nothing else matters more.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601.

Money is What You Make of It, Not How Much You Make

Because I write a lot about money and opine a lot about money, I tend to get all of the usual types of responses that are almost entirely, in my opinion, generic, and all easily debunked or argued against. The rich are all greedy and just want to hoard the money. Workers are exploited with low wages. You can't get ahead in the world if you don't make a lot of money. You can't live on the kinds of wages most companies provide.

My favorite one is, I can't afford to save, therefore how can I invest?

In part I say easily debunked or argued against because, like most people, I started at the bottom. Not the top. Yet despite that it has not stopped me from being financially secure, getting ahead, or being able to take advantage of the myriad wealth building opportunities everyone has no matter where they exist financially.

Yes. There are limits. But what the real limit is, is how little people recognize what the real opportunities are, how accessible they are to everyone, and what opportunities are afforded us by what the rich have created to have a shot at joining their ranks on some level.

I am not going to say it is easy. By no means. But nothing that is worth doing in life ever is. It's hard because it is supposed to be. It is hard because the challenge is what drives us forward despite what limitations we have or what hurdles we have to overcome.

I took my first job working for Dominoes Pizza at 14 years old putting circulars on doorknobs advertising pizzas to potentially hungry customers. They paid me $2.85 an hour. That was in 1987. In 1992 I went into the United States Navy and, according to my Social Security statement, by the time I got out in 1996 I was making $13,418 a year.

I started investing shortly before I left the navy. And granted, my expenses were low because I lived on the ship during the time and most of my food was paid for. I started investing with roughly a few hundred dollars. 

But I had a mindset. Live on 80% of your income and sock away the 20% you don't need. When I left the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in April of 1996 I had a total savings stash worth only around $3k. That was from money saved as well as money earned from investments.

Even 10 years later, according to my Social Security statement, I was only earning $36,951. But during that time I had real expenses. I bought my first investment property when I was 26 in 1999. Most of the downpayment and my ability to do that was based on proceeds, dividends and gains earned on saved money in the stock market.

I continued to save and invest at rates of 20% or greater, acted frugally, and continued to invest and learn about various strategies in the stock market. 

Never once did I ever think of the rich people I worked for as greedy. Never once did I allow myself to feel exploited. Never once did I complain about low wages, and certainly I was mostly always paid low wages.

I worked for big companies like Quad Graphics, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, and Nestlé. I even did a short stint as a pest control guy for a small company called Batzner Pest Management in New Berlin, Wisconsin.

My best year was at Coca-Cola, working in mid-level management and earned $60k. After Coca-Cola I took pay cuts to take on new challenges, and my last full year at Batzner I only made about $36k. The key here is that no matter how much money I made or didn't make, I never deviated from the plan. I never made an excuse to stop saving or to make changes to my investment goals and strategies.

The one thing that remained static was my thinking that it never matters how much you make, but rather it matters what you do with it.

More importantly, throughout my earning career one thing I never changed was my lifestyle. If I made $60k in my best year at Coca-Cola or $36k in my best year at Batzner Pest Management, I was living the same way, saving the same way, and investing the same way.

I even took time off frequently between jobs. In fact, between Nestlé and Batzner, I took nearly two years off.

Because of my investments, my bottom line changed little. My money was making money for me, and while it may not have been a period where I was necessarily getting ahead at the same rate as before the hiatus, I was still not going backwards.

And because despite the lack of new income coming in from a job, my money was still earning an income, and my lifestyle did not change much.

I will admit I did have to make some adjustments. But not unlike adjustments I had to make after I left Coca-Cola and took major pay cuts to do that. I was always viewing money not as a crutch or a limitation, but rather as an opportunity. 

If I look at my entire lifetime to date W-2 wages, from 1989 to 2022, according to my Social Security statement, my lifetime earnings to date are roughly $975k. Breaking that down that's roughly an average annual earnings of $29,546 a year.

I won't tell you what's in the "bank" now. But I can tell you it is an impressive amount of money considering what I ever had to work with. And that amount that's there now could never have been achieved if I had accepted for myself, the generic responses I get now when I talk about money or opine about it.

I lived on paltry wages and saved and invested them. I held a long-standing belief that opportunity is there for anyone who wants to take the time to learn about them, understand them, and exploit them as opposed to ever telling myself that I was the one being exploited.

In other words, rather than make excuses, I took action. I never once was able to allow myself to be convinced I was the underdog and doomed to poverty by the system or by circumstances not necessarily in my control.

I instead made my own circumstances and controlled my own fate and dictated my own financial future. I took hard the stance, no one can stop me from achieving what I want, because I have seen others before me do it. I always saw the possibilities. 

In no way was my desire to ever become a victim of circumstance or blame others for financial issues I may have had along the way. My financial existence was mine in the making, and mine to determine. If I took a job that paid a wage I didn't like, it was never once thought to be the responsibility of my employer to kick more money into my paycheck. It was my responsibility to kick more money into my paycheck by making decisions to increase my wages or wealth through finding a better job or making decisions about money I was already making to increase its value or worth.

When I write about or opine about money, I am doing so from a point of view of someone who never made much money but was able to build wealth anyway. It's part of the reason I am so strongly opinionated about it. It's why I get a little hot under the collar when someone says to me, "Yeah, you just say that because you have money."

You're just another rich guy lecturing the poor.

But I wasn't always that guy. I was the other guy. The guy who averaged under $30k a year who got somewhere despite it. Do you want to call $30k a year a decent wage? Hardly. And again, I lost ground several of those years, taking time off between jobs. Living off investments and making no income. And despite low wages and year-long hiatuses, still made my way through it. Still walked away with more money than I left off with.

The bottom line is that if you want to be a victim, that's a choice. If you want to allow yourself to be limited financially by circumstance, that's your choice. If you don't want to participate in the opportunities everyone has to get ahead, that's also your choice.

But it's not the rich guy's fault. It's not the cheap boss' fault. It's not societies fault. It's not the government's fault. It's not wage disparity's fault. It's not rich business owners or shareholder's fault.

It's yours.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with all of my latest posts from all the places I write. Or follow me on Twitter @jimbauer601 to advance the conversation.

Don't Just Blindly Enter the Markets

If there is one thing I talk about all the time wherever I write, it is about the importance of understanding and participating in the stock market. I talk about it as much as I do because I think being in the stock market trumps all other means of income and wealth building, aside from owning your own successful enterprise.

But there is a caveat to this that I often do not have the space to dig into more deeply, but it as important as my advice to understand and participate in the stock market, and that's to make sure that you know what you are doing when you decide to invest your money.

It's not unlike many things we do in life. We can't just blindly step into something and expect to have an instant good outcome. Knowledge is everything when it comes to not only saving your money but also investing your money.

The thing to keep in mind is that, generally speaking, the stock market is not all that complicated a place. Granted, some may find it a bit scary. Some may believe that it's rigged against the little guy. Some people think it's not a place to make money, but to lose it.

You can learn it.

A great book to read, if you have not already, which is often considered the Bible of Investing is The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham, the man who was the mentor for Warren Buffet and a lot of the ideas he has about what to look for in a company—and essentially how to invest.

I will contend that it is not an end all be all guide. But it is a great book to get started to get your feet wet.

In order to ever be in the money, you must first be in the know. You need to know, when you pick a stock, why you are picking it, and keep in mind in so doing that you are not investing in a stock, but rather you are investing in a company.

What that means is that stocks do things day to day. The interest is not in what a stock does day to day, but what the company does and the value of the company over the long term. Many people get overly cautious or skeptical when a stock moves—they either get scared and sell at a loss, or they sell too soon if the stock suddenly jumps and lose out on the real future value the shares may generate.

It's not as simple as putting a bunch of company names on a dartboard, blindfolding, and simply start tossing darts. It is important to read balance sheets and understand how a company makes money, and how it will either potentially keep on making money or make more money.

It's important to know how a company manages its debt, how much money it keeps in cash, what the costs of operating the business are and what external factors may drive margins up or down. It's important to understand terms like price to earnings, debt to income, EBITDA, and it is important to understand how to compare companies against their peers or to evaluate companies that are similar.

For example, I invest in both Walmart and Amazon. But I invest in them for different reasons. For one, I don't view Amazon, really, as a total retail company like Walmart is. Amazon is much more about distribution and tech, and I think that separates Amazon. Both have lasting value, just in different ways.

For the same reason I invest in Ford Motor Company and Rivian for different reasons.

Granted, you could probably be relatively safe investing in iconic brands that have stood the test of time and likely will for the foreseeable future like Coca-Cola, Kraft Heinz, McDonald's, Proctor & Gamble and things like that. But there are myriad other businesses just as good, with just as much future potential to rocket, that are worth investing in.

You just have to make sure to know what you are doing and do your homework. Due diligence is a tenet of sound investing, and it is key to generating profits that can not only provide future income, replace current income, and generate wealth—but even change the entire way you view money and its benefits.

I think it is vitally important to point all of this out, because the fear I always have is that if people simply go blindly into the markets and then lose their money because they didn't know what they were doing, it will stop them from ever exploring more and they will likely never get ahead or reap the benefits of what the stock market truly offers. Most importantly, to ordinary working folks like you and me.

When I advise people to get into the stock market, I want them to actually succeed. And unfortunately, I can't always take the time to fully explain what it all means, what to look for, and how to actually do it. I also don't like to make investment suggestions, although sometimes I will, because I also feel it is more important for individuals to seek out information on their own, and to have their own perspective and ideas about why Company X is a good investment or not.

A lot of people get it wrong, including me. And you will get it wrong too. But at least you have the goods to understand what you missed because you did your own research in the first place.

At the same time, a lot of people want to rely on brokers or other so-called experts. They watch certain business news programs and want to trust that guys like Jim Cramer know what they are talking about all the time.

Never invest in a company because someone told you it is a good investment. Invest in a company because that's what your own research tells you. If you aren't sure, don't invest until you are. I can't stress that enough.

At the end of the day, it's your money and every penny is important. You work hard to make it, and you work hard to save it. Blindly investing what you have worked hard for and worked hard to save is as much of a waste of money as walking into a casino and expecting a big win or buying a lottery ticket and expecting a big jackpot.

Even a blind man doesn't simply walk blindly. He has the tools and the knowledge to get where he wants to safely be before he ever walks out the door.

Like the way I write and the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook to keep up with my latest writing. Feel free to follow me on Twitter @jimbauer601 as well.

Don't Rush to Buy These Boycotted Companies' Stock

Not so fast, folks. As I work my rounds around the Facebook and Twitter spheres about this controversy faced by several companies over backlash against Pride stuff—Anheuser-Busch, Kohl's, Target and others—it seems the naysayers and deniers of the effectiveness of the boycotts are quick to simply say, "Thanks for the opportunity to make a lot of money buying shares of stock of these beaten down companies."

Normally I would agree with them. And maybe ultimately, they are right. Eventually these companies will make a comeback and perhaps come back stronger. It is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, and things like this do eventually tend to pretty much go away once the heat dies down.

I will say that being an avid and long-time stock market guy, I will certainly be keeping my eyes on it. I don't want to miss any opportunities to make money either. But I think the time is not now. Not immediately. Because I also think this backlash has legs left yet.

It would be best to sit this one out and wait until the fire dies down, the smoke clears, and the ashes have all been cleaned up.

Because this is a different feeling backlash. It's still quite hot. And I don't think consumers are near done with it yet and may not be for some time. Especially when it comes to Anheuser-Busch. Even just the other day when I went to Casey's to pick up a craft beer to share with my brother-in-law, all of the AB InBev beers were untouched while competing brands like Coors Light and Miller Lite were almost completely gone.

Nobody is buying Budweiser, Busch, Busch Light, Bud Light or any other AB beer. And that's the same story at Walmart, Schnucks and everywhere else I have been.

It's different because the fact is that consumers are just very tired of the whole LGBTQ+ thing. As I have said many times on this blog, they've simply had enough of the forceful spoon-feeding of the rhetoric. Not only that, but there's another interesting element here that needs to be considered.

It's the left's reaction to it.

Suddenly the word snowflake is being hijacked and used to describe conservatives. Suddenly, after the left succeeded in kicking Aunt Jemimah pancake syrup off the shelves, destroying iconic logos like the Land 'o Lakes indian and seeing name changes from Uncle Ben's rice to simply Ben's Original, forcing the Washington Redskins to change their name to The Commanders, the left is signaling a "wah-wah-wah" stance against conservatives over beer, and over our stance against the Pride movement.

Apparently, unless you are on the left, you are not allowed to have a position, take a stand, voice an opinion, or otherwise be offended by anything.

The left also makes a mistake to assert that we, the ones opposed to cancel culture, are now engaging in cancel culture. I have pointed out in my arguments that what we are opposed to when it comes to the Pride movement is in fact, in direct opposition to cancel culture.

Because ultimately the LGBTQ+ thing is trying to cancel gender.

This movement on our side against Pride and the LGBTQ+ movement is something that runs quite a bit deeper than other positions in the past—from both sides, frankly. It is an assault on family values. It aims to clutter the minds of children and influence them to question their identity. It pits normal lines of thinking against a societal fringe. And it is attempting to create bigotry where none exists.

If you disagree, you simply hate. And no one likes to be called a hateful bigot when that's not the case at all.

I simply think that there was a final straw on this issue that broke the camel's back, and it is going to take a lot longer than usual to heal the wounds. And for that reason, I am not so sure those discounts offered today are really discounts at all. I don't think they will bear fruit. And even if they one day do, it's going to be a long time to wait for them.

If you are a lefty thinking a pot of gold has been left on your doorstep, you may want to take careful hold of your britches and wait this one out. Because I think not only have you lost the LGBTQ+ fight to attempt to change the status quo of common culture, the companies who have fallen in your court have also fallen out of favor, and there's no guarantee a comeback is coming.

Like the way I write and the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to find the latest posts in all of the places I write. You can also follow me on Twitter @jimbauer601. Interested in some free Bitcoin? Check out this fun faucet.

Dave Ramsey in Some Heat

One day it seems to eventually come that certain faces we know and love have a dark side. To be fair, don't we all? I think it could be safely said that nearly everyone has at least one skeleton tucked away in their closet.

To be fair, it may not even be an example of a dark side or a skeleton in a closet, but there does seem to be another side to financial advice radio talk show guru, Dave Ramsey in light of a recent lawsuit seeking $150 million in damages from a time share exit company he has touted on his show for years, Timeshare Exit Team.

The lawsuit alleges that customers of the company Ramsey endorses has robbed them of tens of thousands of dollars and that the company rarely actually gets people out of their timeshares, but simply pushes customers to simply default on what's due.

That's a far cry from what Ramsey advertises about what Timeshare Exit Team actually does. The company also seems to have found itself in legal trouble before—including in May of 2019 when it was deemed by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to be unfair and deceptive. The company was also sued by Washington's attorney general stating that every aspect of Timeshare Exit Team's business was deceptive or unfair.

It would seem that Dave Ramsey would be aware of what a business he promotes does, yet he continues to promote the company on air. And over the years it is estimated that for doing so he has received over $30 million in payments from the company.

Perhaps beneath the surface Ramsey is just an opportunist? Which seems a bit counter to how he advertises himself as a "helper of people," and often cites his Christianity on air and off air. Over the years he has gained quite the following and is loved and admired by many. Thus, he has made a fortune doing this.

I actually listen to Ramsey often and find most of his advice, although some of it a bit on the extreme side, to be informative and useful. I think he is mostly a genuine guy with the right ideas at heart behind what he does.

But he is a businessman, of course, and sometimes in business you do things to simply bring home the bacon. I am not sure there is much wrong with that either, but I do take issue with misleading your listeners and find it puzzling that despite mountains of evidence that Timeshare Exit Team is not an above-board company that he continues to promote it.

But Ramsey is not without other issues against him. He's been sued for discrimination in cases where he fired employees who were unmarried and became pregnant. Certainly a result, likely, of his Christian beliefs, but not necessarily an appropriate workplace policy for any company. It also seems, to me, that's a bit mean-spirited.

The bottom line is that for decades Ramsey has always come off a squeaky clean guy with the best of intentions at heart, and in light of some of these new details, it suggests that behind the helpful face behind the microphone, there may be darker things afoot and perhaps Ramsey is not as much the loveable, likable guy he portrays himself as.

He's got a few skeletons in his closet, some of which are being seen, and it makes you wonder what else lies in the deeper, darker corners of his closet?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with all the lastest writings from all the places I write.

On McCarthy: Obligations Now, Spending Later

Everyone is trying to suggest Speaker Kevin McCarthy rolled over on the debt ceiling debate. Maybe he did? Maybe he didn't. The thing is, getting anything agreed upon on any bill is a tough thing to do on its own. It's when we throw in all these add-ons and ultimatums that we get all tangled up, and processes take longer or shut down.

The key issue, in my opinion, regarding the debt ceiling is that it is about money already spent and making sure we honor our debt obligations. We have to pay our bills regardless of the reality of out of control spending. 

You can't go to Discover and say, "Let's hold my payment until we can talk about spending less." That's just not how it works. You spent the money, the bill has come due, and you have to pay it. Even if the spending was irresponsible or out of line.

McCarthy does assert that the dems are onboard with furthering the discussion to include some welfare reforms, cut spending and slash IRS funding. Who knows if they will actually be onboard when the real debate begins. 

Nonetheless, I think all of these are important issues and I truly hope McCarthy can bring these items to the table.

But the point is that that's the time to have the discussion. Before future spending occurs. And we need to stop just talking about cutting spending, but actually do something about it. That's where we always get stuck. When the bills come due and the other side wants something we use it as a tool but once all is said and done it's back to business as usual.

Almost as if the government is simply playing games with the American people to make the appearance they want to cut spending. If they really did then the issue would not come up nearly every time the bills come due and we have to raise the debt ceiling.

Because we spent too much, again.

Even when Trump threatened to shut down the government, I thought that was a wrong-headed approach, and I am a strong Trump supporter. To me, it serves no purpose to default on our obligations and shut down the government. It doesn't help any American if that happens. And beyond that, it does nothing to actually curb spending.

To further call for McCarthy's ouster for coming to some terms around the deal, I think, is wrong-headed.

Beyond that, the animus from our side, against our side, against McCarthy is just more of the same problem republicans always have. We simply have trouble rallying around and uniting as a party. Debt ceiling aside, it kills us in elections.

We already have an uphill battle to win seats and offices as it is. When we can't unite, the other side wins by default a lot of the time. And beyond that, it's fodder for the other side and its accomplice media to spread the news that our party is in chaos. It never looks good for us. 

Say what you want about Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, but no matter what she did the democrats stuck by her side come hell or high water. Regardless of what you think about McCarthy, I think our side needs to do the same.

Because while McCarthy might not be our "winner," so to speak, if we can't rally behind him now, how are we going to be united in 2024 to win back the White House? Because one can argue that because we have such animus toward certain candidates, if we don't go to the polls to vote for whoever the nominee winds up being, it may as well be a vote for the other side to win.

Frankly, the bottom line for me is this. We're being way too hard on McCarthy. We need to give him a chance and cut him some slack and stop fueling discussions of infighting and chaos that the democrats can use as a reason NOT to vote republican in 2024.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to get all the latest posts from all the places where I write.

Chick-fil-A Next in the Crosshairs

Considering the recent debacle over a beer can depicting transgender social media influencer, Dylan Mulvaney, clearly a marketing campaign despite what Anheuser-Busch wants to say—you sent a can to an influencer with millions of followers and had to have known that influencer would post something about it—which lost AB InBev billions of dollars in beer sales, not just of Bud Light but across all brands, that they still have yet to recover from, and now with Target showing losses in a major consumer backlash over pride merchandise being marketed to kids which has plummeted the value of the company by $10 billion in 10 days...

What in the hell is a company, who was long the bastion of conservative consumer high fan-fare, like Chick-fil-A doing when it decides it wants to join in on the fun and make an effort to potentially destroy what they have worked so hard to build by introducing DDI into its work culture?

Because we are operating at a time when, and it is not just conservatives, people in general have simply had enough of woke and cancel culture and having pride and diversity and gay and transgender life rammed down our throats at every turn.

It is not a question of if there will be backlash. It's a question of when will it come?

Granted, the Chick-fil-A thing is slightly different and so maybe the company can slide quietly on this without a major impact. It's not a marketing campaign. But I think consumers see the writing on the wall. It's just one more company trying to push something, even if from a purely business perspective it makes no sense to do it.

You would think, especially from a company like Chick-fil-A, that they would have gotten a clear message from both the Bud Light and Target disasters—maybe we still want to do something but now may not be the right time to do it.

When it comes to business the thing that puzzles me the most is that the entire purpose for any business is to make a profit. That's really all there is to it. It's the only reason you exist as a business. To enjoy a profit and make money for everyone who works for the company or who owns it. 

There is no other purpose.

So, why would anyone knowingly and willingly put that potential profit in jeopardy? On purpose! Why would you do it?

I am hard pressed to figure out what the purpose actually is. Is it to strongly support woke and cancel culture and all this liberal ideology fueled garbage because you believe in it? Is it a political agenda on the part of management? Even if it is either or those things or something else, it goes completely against the purpose of being in business, which is why I am perplexed about any of it.

It also makes me wonder if shareholders may now have grounds to sue for lost value of their investments in a case like this where management has to be fully aware that engaging in any of this sort of thing is absolutely going to destroy value.

It's just not a question right now because we have the proof right in front of us and it is clear. In this environment, if a company decides to do something that will clearly drop their bottom lines, can investors say, "Hey, wait a minute. This is our company and we want you to focus on what makes us money. Nothing else matters."

None of this is to say that any group should not be acknowledged or left behind. But it is to say that we should also recognize what any group represents as the whole, and clearly the LGBTQ+ community is in the minority, and by leaps and bounds. It's a very tiny percentage of the population that is part of that community.

What's at issue here is that that small group wants the majority to conform or else. Something I have talked about extensively. No one in society should be forced to do anything. And beyond that, it's about the kids right? And I think that's really where all of this backlash is really coming from. It's the fuel for the fire, so to speak.

Had this thing not been pushed in SCHOOLS, for Heaven's sake, maybe no one would care if you had a beer can with a transgender face on it or a few tuck friendly swimsuits on the shelves at Target.

It is when it is not about inclusivity, but rather about indoctrination, not just of kids mind you, but society as a whole to simply accept their point of view or else is when the whole thing implodes on itself.

Because that's what they are doing. The LGBTQ+ community is not wanting inclusion at all. They are wanting to disrupt everyone else's lives in order to have their way. Shove it right down our throats, have pride flags flown everywhere, have children be taught about their way of life, have our television shows and TV commercials and billboards filled with Pride Awareness and Pride Agenda. 

The backlash against these companies, regardless of what their actual agenda is, is about all of that. And consumers are saying no. Enough. And it is almost as though the companies don't care if they go broke in the process. 

Perhaps there is another little hidden agenda in all of this. Destroying wealth and pushing the real hidden cause. Universal Basic Income and socialism at its core. Maybe that's what these companies are really up to? 

Who knows? All I can say is that Chick-fil-A certainly will fall into the crosshairs, and it may not bode well for the company. And once reputations are ruined, the reality is that it will be difficult to get it back. As I was always told, "It takes years to build a loyal customer and only seconds to lose one." 

I am almost of the opinion that these companies don't care. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest postings wherever I may post. Want to have a conversation? Find me on Twitter @jimbauer601.