What About Retirees? Is Waiting for the Market Rebound Sage Advice?

When it comes to many things in life, there's always a caveat. And this week's turmoil in the stock market is no exception. Portfolios across every sector have taken a massive hit, and while it's sensible advice to urge people not to panic, not to sell, and to ride out the storm while taking advantage of dips for potential long-term gains, context matters. That's easy enough for someone like me—a 51-year-old with years ahead of me before I'll be fully (or even mostly) reliant on these funds in retirement—to say.

For those with time on their side, all the standard wisdom applies. Don't sell anything, stay the course, and consider increasing contribution percentages to retirement accounts like 401ks. This advice, grounded in years of experience navigating market cycles, acknowledges that while downturns are tough, markets have always historically rebounded—not just to prior levels, but to new highs beyond the point of the initial decline.

However, this advice is tailored to those still working or those not yet needing to draw on their investments. They have the benefit of time to weather short term losses on paper and emerge stronger on the other side.

But what about retirees, like grandad, who are already drawing on their funds? For them, it's a different story. Ideally, much of their money would have already been shifted from stocks into less volatile options like annuities, bonds, or other fixed-income investments. Still, many retirees leave a significant portion of their portfolios in the market, and they face a much harder road—they don't have the luxury of time to simply wait out the storm.

It hasn't always been this way. Over the last half-century, things have shifted dramatically—retirements today are increasingly tied to the stock market. With traditional pensions largely a thing of the past, most people now rely heavily on the money they've earned and saved, money that's directly linked to the market's performance. And while history shows that markets typically perform well over time, there are moments when of course they don't, even if they are just short-term blips. 

Beyond those already in their retirement years, my heart goes out most who are on the cusp of retiring. Think of the many baby boomers who are just now reaching this pivotal moment, preparing to leave the workforce. They face some of the toughest decisions right now, caught in the middle of the market's turmoil. Many haven't yet transitioned their portfolios into less volatile investments, and with their portfolios' current diminished value, making that shift now isn't an attractive option.

Several years may have just been added to their time at work.

This situation, however, presents a valuable opportunity for those who still have ample time ahead to start thinking more strategically about their retirements. It's an ideal moment to begin crafting better plans, especially by considering contingencies. For instance, how would you navigate the scenario if the markets fail to cooperate, whether just before you are set to retire or even after you've already entered retirement?

Planning for contingencies is a fundamental part of life, and retirement should be no exception. In fact, this becomes especially critical in retirement, where options to bridge financial gaps are more limited, making careful preparation all the more essential.

One prudent strategy to consider is to allocate at least three years' worth of anticipated retirement income into investments outside of the stock market. Think of it as a retirement emergency fund, providing a cushion and the flexibility to weather market downturns without having to make hasty, unfavorable decisions.

This one small consideration allows you to protect your overall retirement plan, reducing the short-term impact of market volatility and safeguarding your long-term financial outlook.

Imagine those nearing retirement right now, caught in the midst of this steep market downturn. If a three-year retirement emergency fund were already in place, their plans wouldn't be as heavily influenced by current market conditions. Instead, the fund would provide them with the flexibility and breathing room needed for markets to stabilize, allowing their retirement goals to remain on track.

No matter where someone stands, the game of life is always evolving. That's why I have never been a fan of the "set it and forget it" approach. Life doesn't ever follow a straight line—it requires flexibility, the ability to pivot, and to zigzag when necessary. 

Again, my thoughts go out to those facing tough decisions right now—they're the ones we often don't think about when the markets give you reason to gulp very hard—potentially having to alter their plans, especially those who no longer have the option to make broader adjustments. It's why I so strongly advocate for careful and thoughtful planning in advance. Moments like this serve as invaluable reminders of the importance of preparation, offering opportunities for reflection and encouraging people to consider their strategies more critically.

Too often we fall into the trap of oversimplifying: "If you just do X, everything will fall into place." But more often than not, reality is more nuanced. This truth becomes glaringly apparent during moments like these, when oversimplified approaches reveal their limitations.

For example, take the age-old idea that if all you do is put everything into an S&P 500 tracking fund, you will retire a millionaire, and everything will work itself out. It's mostly true. But today, for those who are expecting those funds to be there, they now have less funds for that reality to hold true right now. In this exact moment.

This is one of the moments when you have to be able to zigzag. Because again, such thinking only holds true if you have the luxury of time for the idea to reach its full potential to be true. That time is before, when you're actively working toward retirement, not approaching it or already navigating its complexities.

That's the caveat to all of the other otherwise sound advice about what to do when the markets decide to go south.

This advice can't offer much to help anyone caught up in the current market downturn. But it can be helpful to anyone currently planning their retirements, because the markets will rebound, just like they always do, but eventually, like the markets also always do, they will also retract.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also follow me X at @jimbauer601. Want to support this blog and help to keep valuable posts and commentary coming? Check out my Amazon affiliate link. Any support is always greatly appreciated.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

How About American Interests Over Political Games for Once?

Sometimes my critiques of Democrats leave readers guessing—am I rooting for them or scolding them from a place of support? Neither. My goal is to highlight where they are going wrong, why their ideas miss the mark with the masses, and just how far off the rails their positions have become. 

Let's face it. Liberal ideology has gone off the deep end, and it's only getting stranger. Just when you think it can't, they hit you with a "hold my beer" moment. And oh, there's always more.

For me, the growing political divide today is unsettling. While clashes and disagreements have always been part of the process, we've reached a point of absolute "no compromise," and that's deeply concerning. How can we ever hope to find common ground and make progress?

Consider the Democrats' dramatic shift on border security and protectionism when Trump ran for president—positions they once championed but abandoned as soon as Trump adopted them. You'd think they could have stayed consistent on these issues, but instead they flipped entirely. Sure, many Republicans have also shifted their stance on these things, being more open to cheaper labor and free trade and globalization, but let's not forget that many Democrat voters crossed over to support Trump, likely because of these very issues.

If you've been with me for a while—and many of you have—you know where I stand. I've always supported secure borders and protectionism, even when it meant challenging my own party. To me, these are just common sense. We need strong borders, we need to protect American jobs, and we must ensure we can produce what we need for our safety and national security. I've been crystal clear on that.

This brings me back to the troubling divide we face. On secure borders and protecting American jobs, you'd think we'd finally found common ground—even unions are backing Trump's push to make more things here in the U.S. Yet, here we are, stuck in disagreement. Democrats, who rallied for these causes for decades, suddenly want no part of these issues, and we're back to square one, bickering endlessly and stalling progress.

I'm not rooting for Democrats to win. Not hardly. I disagree with over 75% of their positions. They often seem irrational, failing to think through the consequences of their actions. When they blindly push through their agenda, bad outcomes follow—that's just reality. We've seen it firsthand and lived through the fallout of their poor decision making.

I simply want a more democratic approach. When we finally agree on something, it's a rare chance to come together, hash out the details, and even celebrate the moment.

I don't believe Republicans have all the right ideas, just as I don't think Democrats have all the wrong ones. What truly serves the American people is compromise—solutions that benefit us all, not just political outcomes.

My criticism of Democrats isn't about elections or wanting them to win at the polls. It's about urging them to listen to the American people—to the majority voice that truly matters. Being misaligned on every issue feels deliberate, and if that's the case, it undermines American interests and serves no real purpose.

I'm highlighting just how disconnected Democrats are now from The People—a disconnect that hurts us and shifts the focus away from what truly matters. Hopefully, I've managed to clear the air on that. We can never expect to agree on everything. But we should be able to at least sometimes agree on something.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also follow me on X at @jimbauer601. Need computer gadgets and want to help support this page? Check out my Amazon link for some good buys.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Tesla's Loss, Rivian's Gain?

Not long ago I thought that Donald Trump could present a boon for Rivian. But with all the angst against Tesla right now, my perspective on why that might be has shifted a bit—it's clear there's more at play than I initially anticipated. And frankly, who could have seen any of this coming?

Tesla is literally on fire.

That said, this isn't some seismic event, so it's not going to cause me to change my position on Rivian for the long term, nor do I think it potentially knocks Tesla out of the game. Sure, the left right now is in a tizzy over Elon Musk's presence in the White House running DOGE, but when heat gets applied to businesses, no matter who's applying the heat, it tends to be fleeting. Boycotts and protests, no matter how loud, usually fizzle out over time.

Take the Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney controversy. It's mostly in the rearview mirror now. While some customers haven't come back, the stigma has cooled considerably. Even Kid Rock who once made headlines by shooting up a case of Bud Light, now says, "It's okay to drink Bud Light again." 

That's not to say there's no lingering impact. Yuengling, for instance, has seen a notable surge in popularity, likely fueled by those still upset with Bud Light, aiding their push into new markets.

Like some beer drinkers may have traded out of Bud Light and into Yuengling and other beers, Tesla owners are reportedly trading in their EVs at unprecedented rates—not for gas guzzlers, but for other electric vehicles from legacy automakers, and more interestingly, from startups like Rivian.

By the way, Rivian's lineup is already impressive, and with more affordable models on the horizon like the mid-size R2 SUV and the R3 crossover hatchback, they're poised to attract a whole new wave of customers.

Sooner or later, the protests targeting Elon Musk will lose momentum. But, as with the Bud Light controversy, scars may linger after the dust settles. This creates a chance for others to step in, capture interest, and expand their market share. 

As the saying goes, one man's misfortune can pave the way for another man's gain. My long-term outlook for Rivian remains unchanged, and I'm holding steady on my position. Still, it'll be worth watching to see if Rivian capitalizes on the moment while Tesla's negative hype is still buzzing.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

You may also want to read:

Ford's Long Road: Why its Consistency Keeps me Invested
What's Next for Rivian Stock?
The Cost of Being Right
Tesla Could Become a Literal Powerhouse, But Not in the Car Market

Dollar General's Dirty Secret: It's NOT Inflation

Is Dollar General really a barometer for consumer sentiment? Sure, it's a retail giant with 20,000 stores and plenty of shoppers. But can it really pin its struggles on inflation and Trump-era tariffs?

The reality is that these stores have been virtual glorified junkyards for years. Customers might simply be fed up with navigating cluttered aisles and rummaging through disorganized piles of merchandise.

Management seems indifferent, and it shows. It's clearly a Dollar General culture, because every store looks exactly like the other. Consistency is one thing, but does every store have to look like a disaster zone? One can only assume that chaos is part of their literal brand strategy.

I mean, think about it. A brand new Dollar General opened up in our area—a fresh build from the ground up. Yet, on day one, it looked like it had always been there, neglected for decades: dirty floors, scattered products, unopened bins clogging the aisles.

It was remarkable—a deliberate effort, no doubt. This store layout screamed, loud and clear, "This is how we do things."

Beyond all of that, can anyone honestly claim Dollar General offers great prices? Sure, there are occasional deals, as with any store, but more often than not, their prices can be easily undercut on nearly every product.

If they had great deals, believe me, I'd walk out of there with bags full instead of just a couple of items. That never happens. 

Isn't the whole premise of Dollar General about saving money? In that sense, perhaps inflation does play a role. As wallets have tightened, shoppers simply become more conscious of what they are actually paying for things. Suddenly as buying power gets pushed to the brink, people walk into a Dollar General more aware than ever before and start thinking, "Wait a second—something's off."

Dollar General has been dodging accountability for years, pointing fingers instead of looking inward for solutions as customers drift away. That's part of their problem as much as anything is, really.

It makes you wonder—has the CEO ever stepped foot in one of those stores? And if he has, what's his reaction? "Fantastic work. This is exactly what customers want." Really? If Dollar General wants a turnaround, step one is simple: clean up the stores! Create a shopping experience that's pleasant, not frustrating. Do that, and maybe customers won't even mind the higher prices.

Take a page from Culver's or Chick-Fil-A, even though they operate an entirely different business. They're not the cheapest options in fast food, but they win with quality, service, and clean restaurants. It's clear they care about their business and their customer experience. Presentation matters.

I've said the same about Burger King. The issue isn't the food—it's the filthy, poorly managed restaurants that make customers cringe the moment they step inside.

If you want to win customers back, clean up your act—literally. An exciting new sandwich won't cut it if people dread walking in to get it.

This brings us back to Dollar General. The chaos isn't a fluke; it's clearly baked into their culture. How else could every single store in the chain achieve the same level of disarray? Not one manager, anywhere, thinks to break the mold?

I've joked that if I managed a Dollar General, my first move would be to clean, organize, and properly staff the store. Their first move? Fire me for breaking their "standard operating procedure."

It's not inflation, guys. Your stores are a freaking disaster!

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

You might also like:

Can Burger King Restore the Brand?

When Innovation Meets Frustration: The Downside of Kiosk Ordering at Taco Bell

Have You Ever Eaten a Tuck's Pad?

Jack-in-the-Box Goes to Pot

From Fear to Fortune: When the Markets Tumble the Last Thing to do is to Panic

Every time I share this opinion, I get a few odd looks. But, without fail, I am eventually proven right. 

The stock market has one ultimate direction, and that direction is up.

We've all been down this road before, time and time again. The stock market frequently experiences hiccups that can momentarily crash and burn our investments. However, if we are fundamentally aligned with the businesses we're invested in, these fluctuations really don't matter, because in essence that's what we're buying into: the businesses. Not the markets.

When the markets stumble, there's always a certain panic that sets in that always feels amazingly misplaced to me. Because we've encountered these kinds of markets so many times before. It's really nothing new. Yes, it initially hurts to see our portfolio values diminish. Hey, we're human. It's going to give us pause. It might even prompt us to make some adjustments—not necessarily to our portfolios, but to our plans around them, such as holding off on certain expenditures. It may delay profit-taking or alter trades we may have had in mind.

Ultimately, however, nothing truly changes except the current bottom line. That, and something we tend to miss. Opportunity.

I've made the most money when the markets fall. In fact, it's during these downturns that many investors see their greatest profits. Those who know well enough to ride out these events and seize the opportunity to invest more in strong businesses generally come out significantly ahead in the long run because, as some say, everything goes on sale.

That's not to say that these market conditions won't have a short-term impact on businesses. But that's the key term here: short-term. When the economy pulls back or potential job losses follow, especially during inflationary times or a recession, it's natural for businesses to feel some near-term pressure on their bottom lines.

However, economies eventually stabilize and return to normal. That's when the markets, after having bottomed out, not only recover but often surpass previous highs before the next downturn occurs.

It's the reaction to these events that prompts me to write about this nearly every time it happens. The selloffs and the doomsayers running around proclaiming that the sky is falling.

The bottom line is that you don't actually lose any money if you don't sell. If the underlying business you own is fundamentally sound with a strong future despite current market or economic conditions, it will survive the crunch and there's no reason to sell.

Granted, I want to be careful not to make this all a blanket statement. It depends on what you are invested in. Some businesses may struggle more depending on the nature of their business, and in those cases, it may be worth considering taking some of the pain and cutting your losses.

But for most businesses, this isn't the case and never has been. Take companies like Coca-Cola, which has been around for over a century. How many times has it endured devastating blows to its stock value? How many times has it navigated through tough economic times, through recessions and even a Great Depression? Is Coca-Cola any less valuable an investment now than it ever was before? 

No, not at all.

In markets like this I refuse to buy—or should I say sell?—into the panic. It's not something I will ignore, mind you. I will simply work smarter to make informed choices, identifying the businesses I own that present the best opportunities for my portfolio once the dust settles.

Just look back at where the markets have been and where they are now—it's all you need to know. In 2008 and 2009, the DOW peaked around 13,000, lost over 50% of its value, dropping into the 6,000s. Today it's in the 40,000s. Even if it dips into the 30,000s, it's safe to say that ten years from now, we will likely see the DOW in the 50,000s and 60,000s.

Downturns like this simply offer a premium on top of future profits. That's really the main takeaway here and missing that point will also leave countless thousands of dollars either sitting on the table or lost forever.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also follow me on X at @jimbauer601.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Who Let the Kids into the Chambers?

There are many times I find myself wondering if Democrats really behave like children as much as I think. I want badly to believe the answer is no. This simply can't be. They just disagree, right? Yet, their antics seem to confirm time and time again for me that they are actually just like children.

Remember Maxine Waters during Trump's first term out there chanting, "Impeach 45," like a schoolgirl denied her playtime, wanting to bring down the "evil teacher" who took it away? And what about Schumer going out recently trying to rally the crowd chanting, "We will win! We will win!" clearly oblivious to the reality that his team already had their shot, and they lost the game in a literal shellacking.

The Democrats just aren't getting the memo. Their playbook failed, yet they're still clinging to it like it's a guaranteed winning strategy.

Then we have the president's speech to the joint sessions of Congress. It was like watching a bunch of pouty, spoiled brats being defiant simply because they aren't getting their way. They wouldn't clap or stand for anything, not even for the families of slain victims or a little boy with a brain tumor being honorarily accepted into the Secret Service to fulfill a lifelong dream.

And what was with their corny circular signs on sticks that read, "Save Medicaid," as if Trump has done anything to take down Medicaid, or the words "False," and "Musk steals," or whatever other corny message they held up while moaning and groaning and shifting uncomfortably in their seats—seemingly being pelted by taser darts as Trump stood at the podium talking about American greatness, power to the people, and the Golden Age of America. He spoke directly to the American people on the issues they elected him to the White House to address, reaffirming law and order, common sense principles, and values, and it was literally driving them bonkers.

"No, no, no! This goes against everything we stand for. America is a horrible, hateful country! How dare you speak of it in such grand terms!"

The funny thing is this was a coordinated effort. It took time to plan. They must have held a special meeting to discuss their intended actions, and someone, of course, had to coordinate having those signs printed.

Why not spend their time figuring out why they lost the election and understanding why Trump is so popular? Or better yet why not start actually listening to the American people?

I mean, is it a stretch anymore to suggest that Democrats have no other purpose, and no other interest except to oppose Trump? That's their entire platform literally reduced down to one sentence. Do they really believe this behavior will win over the hearts and minds of the people they need to elect them? Those signs and their attitudes were essentially the same as waving a middle finger in the air at the American people at large.

It's absolutely gating to them to see unity. It's grating to them to hear the country being talked about in terms of strength and common sense. "My God," they seem to be saying in shocked incredulity. "Is he actually talking about one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?"

Because that's just not the world the Democrats want. They want everything to hurt. They want everyone to hate each other. They want suffering and pain to be felt economically and socially, and they want everyone to be a victim of something. Moreover, they want everyone to hate the core values of our founding fathers, because only through that kind of hatred can you fundamentally change what America is.

They've lost this fight, and their opportunity is slipping away, and they simply can't handle it. Just like children, they are having a temper tantrum and putting it on full display for everyone to see. I think most people are seeing the same thing I am seeing: their childlike behavior and how ridiculous it looks to anyone really paying attention.

It's not a winning strategy for them, and frankly, it's not a winning strategy for America either. Luckily, they are in the minority, and so long as they continue to act this way, ignoring the will of The People, and defying common sense, in the minority they shall remain, and probably in a growing way.

The jig is up, kids.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Trumps Tough Love vs. Zelenskyy's Reality Check

Some might call the breakdown in talks between Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Donald Trump, which unfolded live in front of cameras in the Oval Office on Friday, a fallout. However, I see it as a demonstration of strength from the United States, which has provided billions of dollars to the war-torn country. This support has, no doubt, enabled Zelenskyy to mount a stronger defense against Russia, a feat that would have been impossible to accomplish without outside help.

Vice President J.D. Vance was right to point out to Zelenskyy that he ought to be thankful, which President Trump reiterated.

"You wouldn't have lasted two weeks," Trump blasted at Zelenskyy, referring to the potential outcome had Zelenskyy been left to his own devices after Russia's invasion. And I think he's right about that, and while some might suggest its callous to say that out loud, his comment underscores the reality that Ukraine needs the United States badly to end this conflict. It put his other statement to Zelenskyy right in line as well, that he doesn't have the cards. He's got to be willing to compromise and can't hold the illusion that he holds an advantage in peace talks with Russia because he has the backing of the United States.

"I don't want advantage. I want peace," Trump said.

The takeaway from the exchange, granted, will largely depend on one's political stance. The left will undoubtedly criticize this as a terrible and embarrassing act by a sitting president, berating another country's leader in front of the world. However, it's clear to me, and should be clear to anyone honestly taking a step back, that Zelenskyy was trying to play out his defense in the public eye and garner support from the American media, as the vice president suggested.

Watch Zelenskyy's body language throughout the entire meeting, which started off rather benign. You could see it from the minute the meeting began, and you didn't have to be a body language expert to see it. He was agitated, uncomfortably playing with his hands, shifting his body, raising his eyebrows, quivering his upper lip, and at one point folded his arms. In the end, his entire attitude was nothing less than very disrespectful.

It was commendable to acknowledge and defend his troops' courage, and to praise their strength and resolve, and I applaud that. Any leader would be wise to stand firmly in support of their country and its people. However, it is another matter to deny certain facts or try to paint a picture that differs from reality, especially in the very place where you need our help and support to achieve your goal.

And what did he ultimately gain? Nothing at all. The deal was cancelled, and Zelenskyy was essentially sent packing until he can demonstrate a genuine commitment to achieving peace.

Look, I understand Zelenskyy's argument. He didn't start the war—Russia did. But in the end who started it doesn't matter. The war continues to rage on, and if he truly wants it to end, given that Russia clearly has the upper hand here, Zelenskyy will need to swallow his pride and accept even some uncomfortable terms.

He also needs to accept, even if not publicly, that his lasting power against a much stronger military is largely due to the support he's gotten from other countries and especially consider the importance of our support over other nations like the UK and France. 

America is a world superpower, and one would be wise to not deny the significance of that reality or risk abandoning it as a force for achieving peace. 

Ultimately, what Trump did here was to effectively win the argument and, quite frankly, put Zelenskyy in his place. I don't say this to be arrogant. This isn't to diminish Zelenskyy or the people of Ukraine. But when Zelenskyy tries to play a hand he clearly doesn't have, it defeats his purpose. If Zelenskyy truly wants the war to end, he's going to have to face reality and realize that the only reason he's held on for as long as he has is because he's had a posse behind him to throw a few extra punches.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also follow me on X @jimbauer601.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Musk's Discoveries vs. Media Distraction: It's the Language Game at Play Here

Elon Musk is facing criticism in the media for repeatedly using the R-word, which, according to federal guidelines, he should use the term "intellectual disability," as mandated by Rosa's Law, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010.

It's just more political correctness trying to take over the conversation. On the surface, is calling someone "intellectually disabled" really any different from using the R-word? If I tell someone they lack intellect, that's not really a compliment, is it?

Musk is using the term to describe his findings as DOGE delves deeper into the country's books, uncovering hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful spending by our government at taxpayer's expense. Isn't it abundantly clear, when you really take a hard look at the growing list of what's being spent on, that the people responsible for the expenditures weren't making the wisest decisions when they deemed any of this as a responsible use of America's money?

What else could it be? People with intellectual disabilities or R-worded people? Essentially, it's describing the same thing, especially when you consider the broader definitions of both terms.

Of course, steering the language, which is what political correctness is really all about, serves to shape, redirect and lead the conversation towards a different narrative. Would the discussion change if Musk used terms like ignorant, stupid, dumb, idiotic or insane?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

But regardless of what word is used, all of them accurately describe the spending Musk is referring to, including the R-word.

Criticizing Musk's use of the R-word is nothing more than a tactic to divert attention away from his findings and diminish their significance. The desired goal here, and Democrats and the media happen to be experts at this, is to shift the focus from the wasteful spending to Musk's character, thereby undermining his credibility and making his efforts appear more absurd than the wasteful spending DOGE is exposing.

It's not unlike a magician skillfully concealing his sleight of hand, showing you only what he wants you to see.

We've seen this exact same pattern in how the media and the Democrats portray President Trump. By focusing on his words and actions, we avoid discussing the actual impact of his decisions. It's a trick to effectively shift the conversation to a preferred narrative, rather than addressing the real issues underneath.

Ultimately, Musk has a manner of speaking much in the same way that President Trump has. They can be a bit over the top, and sometimes even insensitive. I will grant that. We don't have to like it, and it sometimes might even catch us off guard. But it shouldn't detract from the actual work being done, or in Musk's case, the discoveries being made. 

It's not so much about the words used; it's about the substance behind them that truly matters. And that's what all the hoopla is really about when Musk is criticized for the language he chooses to use—the substance of what's being uncovered.

It's like an old saying. If you can't win the argument, attack the person. They are attacking Elon Musk because they can't win the argument.

What Musk is uncovering is alarming, and that is of course what the Democrats and the media want us to turn our attentions away from. If they can effectively win the language game, maybe we won't see what's really going on behind the curtains.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

From Frivolous Spending to Fiscal Sanity: The DOGE Agenda

Why would anyone want to argue over DOGE? Is it purely because they hold a disdain for Donald Trump or believe Elon Musk is a whack job? The reality is that the government has been engaging in reckless spending for generations, leading our nation into massive debt. The truth is no one really knows where all the money has gone or where it's being spent now. DOGE simply aims to tells us and put a stop to it in the interests of the American people. It's a matter of common sense at the most basic level.

So far, the revelations being brought to light should outrage anyone who (by force, it should be noted) dutifully pays their taxes to the federal government each year. One would have the reasonable expectation that the taxes we pay would at least contribute to provide essential services and improve the lives of American citizens.

But consider this. How does spending $20 million on airing Sesame Street programming in Iraq benefit Americans? Why are we allocating $6 million to Egypt to boost their tourism? And what is the purpose of sending $2 million to Guatemala for transgender surgeries?

When you witness the careless and appalling waste of our money, which offers no real value to the American people who are forced to foot the bill, it becomes even more infuriating that anyone would dare to call for additional funds from taxpayers under the pretense of "improving the lives of Americans."

Poverty remains a significant issue. We are continually told that we can't afford to strengthen our police forces. Cities in California are engulfed in flames with little support or relief for those affected. Our infrastructure is crumbling and desperately needs attention. The Social Security system and Medicare are under immense strain, and the list goes on.

It's high time we have someone in the White House who is willing to ask the tough questions and get to the bottom of where all the money is going. Americans should be celebrating this effort, not opposing it. When you take a deep dive into how the money is being spent, it becomes all too clear that we are being taken advantage of as a society, and it's all for the benefit of others, not for us. The funds are going towards special interests that don't align with the needs of the American people.

Even what we consider to be essential programs like FEMA are misusing our money. For instance, what does sending $59 million to New York City to pay for hotels for illegal immigrants have to do with disaster relief, especially when people affected by Hurricane Helene and the fires in California are still struggling? On top of that FEMA spent $110 million to assist illegal immigrants with food and shelter programs, and another $77 million was given to communities willing to accept illegal immigrants to help cover the associated costs. 

That alone is a significant amount of money being spent to accommodate people who shouldn't even be here in the first place.

Trump is aiming to uncover at least $2 trillion in wasteful spending, and from what we've observed so far—which I believe is merely the tip of the iceberg—we're likely to find even more. I mean, from what we've learned so far, this thing runs deep. Musk even recently suggested that Social Security benefits are being paid to people who are 150 years old, which can only mean one thing: these people are clearly dead, and their benefits continue to be collected by their descendants, or someone else is fraudulently receiving the payments.

The president is just doing what any sensible person would do if they looked at their finances and saw ballooning debt and obligations that far exceed their income. Just as a household or business would collapse without intervention, America faces the same risk. This situation is unsustainable and has been left unchecked for far too long. 

As has been emphasized, regardless of what the left wants to argue, DOGE is not targeting or eliminating essential services. Instead, it intends to identify and eliminate frivolous and absurd expenditures that serve no real purpose but cost taxpayers substantially. These funds could be better allocated within our government or returned to the American people to benefit the real economy.

It's just common sense.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Squid Burgers and Politics: Hey Schumer, Are You Getting This?

The Democrats are an intriguing group, when you think about it. Are they even aware of their situation yet? Not only did they lose the presidential race, but they also lost everything, and decisively. The critical swing states all went to Donald J. Trump, who also managed to secure votes from the black, Hispanic, young, and even union demographics.

Yet, here we have Chuck Schumer rallying his supporters with chants of, "We will win! We will win!" For any rational observer, the question becomes, "How exactly do they plan to achieve this?"

Not that I have any interest in seeing Democrats succeed, of course. Considering their extremely radical ideas, I'm grateful they did lose.

What astounds me is their sheer lack of comprehension. They really believe they are still championing causes people care about, when, in reality, the American public has completely rejected their entire platform.

We don't want men competing in women's sports. We don't want tampons in boy's rooms. We don't want transgender people serving openly in our military. We don't want DEI initiatives. We don't want open borders. We don't want widespread smash-and-grab store robberies, and the list goes on.

We rejected their ideas and policies at the polls. Rather than listening to the American people—something Democrats seem incapable of—they are doubling down on even more radical policies and ideas. 

It simply defies logic.

Let's be honest. A great product will naturally attract customers. No amount of savvy sales techniques can turn a subpar product into a success. So, you have two choices—either acknowledge the shortcomings of your product and improve it or reach out to your customers to understand what they truly want that your product currently lacks. Otherwise, you're just beating a dead horse. 

Speaking of beating dead horses, and not to necessarily beat my own, but I've often been saying over and over again, that if you don't understand why you lost, you can't know why you weren't winning.

The voters made it crystal clear—they don't want what the Democrats are selling. I understand the need to rally their most loyal supporters. However, it is astonishing to me that they don't get it, that their core base wasn't enough to win any part of the election. They should be addressing the masses who didn't vote for them. Instead of huddling in back rooms discussing better sales tactics for their unwanted products, they should focus on fulfilling the duties they were elected to perform.

To speak and act on the behalf of the American people!

How can they not grasp that their role isn't to reshape America into their personal vision, but to represent the desires of the majority? What's the point of pushing a platform that nobody wants?

If you're selling squid burgers and nobody's buying them—because, let's face it, squid burgers just aren't good—who in their right mind would continue trying to sell them? At some point, someone has to realize they'd be better off offering something more traditional.

That's not to say you can't try new things and present fresh ideas. Of course, you should do that. People might be interested. But they will also let you know when they think your ideas aren't good, and at that point, you move on. 

No matter how hard you try, or how much you want it, if people don't want your squid burgers, you will continue to fail while others succeed. Chanting outside your restaurant, "Squid, squid, squid!" in the face of defeat won't change anyone's mind.

The fact is, even if it's hard for the Democrats to accept, the American people said no. When that happens, it's time to change and adapt. Especially with radical ideas, it's wise to return to more traditional, commonsense approaches.

Like the squid burger concept, sometimes things just go too far, and when they do, you need to pull back on the reins a bit.

The more the Democrats pound their fists and push their failed agendas, the clearer it becomes to anyone paying attention that they are out of tune with the American people. It's like a guitar. It can sound good on its own when it is in tune with itself. But the moment you join a band, if your guitar isn't in sync with the rest of the group, it won't sound good and it will stand out as bad in the mix. 

If Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats want to win, they cannot hope to achieve it by acting against the views and interests of the very people they need to win over. Right now, all that Schumer and his buddies are doing is making it abundantly clear why they lost.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

The 'Yes' or 'No' Trick in Congressional Hearings

Let's be candid and fair here. Both sides of the aisle in congressional hearings engage in this practice. They pose what they term "a simple yes or no question." However, when you actually listen to these questions, you'll often find that they are not straightforward yes or no questions at all. Instead, they are meticulously crafted to establish a foundational claim that the questioner wants the respondent to confirm or deny. Their goal is a "gotcha" moment, and these questions are specifically designed for that purpose.

The reality is that no one asking the questions are genuinely interested in the answers. Rather, they use their five minutes as an opportunity to deliver a narrative that supports their preconceived conclusions. When the person being questioned attempts to clarify the details or explain their actual position beyond the confines of the question, the questioner can conveniently dismiss them by saying, "I guess you don't want to answer the question, let's move on." 

The reality is that most questions almost always require more than just a simple yes or no, especially depending on how they are framed—and let's be real here, politicians are as masterful at asking questions that lay traps as they are at answering questions with non-answers.

It's a trick for the cameras and a way for the questioner to commentate rather than to actually learn what the respondent actually believes.

I will admit, as a political junkie, it can be entertaining to watch. At the same time, it can also be a bit frustrating because, we all want to hear the answers to real questions regardless of what aisle we happen to be sitting on.

The purpose of asking questions, by their very nature, are not to hear the views of the person asking the questions, but rather to understand the views of the respondent. When we get gotcha questions such as are posed in these hearings, what we get instead is a one-sided view and before anyone can even attempt to answer, they're more often than not simply cut off.

Of course, the time limits are part of the problem. These senators and representatives want to get as much "information" out as they can and if they allow questions to actually be answered, they'd run out of time before they can say all they want to say.

Maybe we should change the rules. Limit the time for the questioners but stop the clock on their time for the answers and allow a separate time limit for the answering part of the back and forth. If we did that, perhaps these congressional hearings would actually serve the public better than they do.

When we don't get real answers, but instead only receive commentary, we, as voters, have a much more difficult time getting the answers we actually want to hear. It makes the whole thing seem like nothing more than a show.

More than that, wouldn't it be better for the respondent to decide whether the question is a yes or no one? After all, it's their answer. If it were as simple as a yes or no, I am sure that's how the question would actually be answered.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Carville's Harsh Words Are Only Halfway to the Truth

Most of the time, we can agree that James Carville's views are often more hot air than common sense. It really depends on the topic at hand. When he dives into wild, woke progressive agendas, for example, it seems like he's not putting much thought into his words—he's just spouting nonsense and trying his best to make it make sense.

At best, he's an entertaining individual, and I usually listen to him whenever I get the chance, purely for that entertainment value. He's a living, breathing caricature who often has a way with words that you can admire, even if you don't always agree with him. 

While his policy ideas might not always hit the mark, one thing he does know well is the political game and how it works. These are the views I tend to agree with most of the time. His insights on strategy and his ability to dissect the political landscape.

Ultimately, Carville emphasizes that politics is about tapping into the psyche of the American people and understanding what they want to hear. Does that mean policy doesn't matter? Not at all. But it does mean that, regardless of your policy, you need to deliver results and convince people why you are right.

More importantly, you need to show why you are the right person to lead it all.

Carville has long believed that the Democrats' loss in the last election was due to Biden not dropping out of the race much sooner. I don't agree with his assessment. The Democrats lost because they didn't listen to the American people, deployed harmful policies, and weren't forthcoming about the reality of the situation. 

Nonetheless, Carville still places all the blame for their devastating loss on Joe Biden himself, and there I think he's right. It is Biden's fault. He knew he was unfit to lead, and so did his staff, yet they continued the ruse and allowed him to run for reelection anyway, making it harder to put forward better candidates than himself or Kamala Harris.

Maybe the Democrats could have forged a closer race? Who knows? We can only speculate if the outcome of the election would have been different if Joe Biden had dropped out and there would have been a real primary. 

I still think Trump would have won because, unless someone on the left was willing to admit what Americans already knew—that the entire Biden presidency was a disaster—they stood no chance. But things certainly might have gone differently.

The trouble for Carville is how Biden tarnished his legacy—though I question how Carville might define legacy. He says no one cares about Biden anymore. He's old news. People are tired of hearing from him. He needs to go away.

My words are slightly harsher than Carville's, but not by much. "Just go to your condo in Rehoboth and stay there," Carville said. He even chided Biden's back and forth with his own party as petty, "'Oh, I would have beat Trump.' No one f--king believes that at all. Look guy, you had a noble career. Your last act was terrible. Just get out of the way."

I get it. Carville's mad that his party lost the election, and handily. What Carville should do is not just scold Biden for his mistakes but also hold the entire party accountable for theirs. As I mentioned before, the Democrats failed to resonate with the American people and caused more harm than good. That's why they lost. Putting a fresh face on bad policy wouldn't have changed the outcome. Their ideas weren't what the American people wanted, and the damage they caused was too much for anyone to bear another four years of going down the wrong path and leaving untold new carnage in the wake.

Biden's done, and Carville is right about that. But if the Democrat party doesn't grasp the full reason for their loss, wake up, and listen to the American people rather than just themselves, the damage might be permanent.

Woke isn't just failing in America. It's failing around the world. On that, I think Carville misses the point. More than that, it was the inflation, the border crisis, the war in Ukraine, putting tampons in men's restrooms, and allowing men to compete in women's sports. It was all those things and then some, and the fact that the Democratic party missed the mark on all of it. That's why they didn't win over the American people and lost the election to Donald Trump.

For all of his political smarts, Carville should know this. As he might say, "It's not rocket science, stupid."

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Congressman Andy Ogles' Proposal is a Pandora's Box We'd Rather Not Open

Here we go again. If we want to fan the flames and give the left an I told you so moment, just follow Tennessee Republican Congressman Andy Ogles' lead and introduce a resolution to the Constitution to allow Trump a third term.

Of course, it won't pass and likely won't even be taken seriously. But that's not the point. The left will still run with it, and the mainstream media will have a field day. They're already still talking about threats to democracy and conveniently leaving out the context of Trump telling Fox News' Sean Hannity that he would be a dictator on day one.

The point is, we don't need to give the left any more fuel to stoke the flames of false narratives. Why give them a reason to focus on something as absurd as Ogles' proposal and ignore all the good coming from the new administration that they otherwise couldn't overlook?

The bottom line is, if you give the media a distraction, they'll seize it and overlook the real news.

I understand Congressman Ogles' point, and he makes a valid argument. We have numerous issues that need addressing, and we want to ensure President Trump has all the necessary resources to tackle them. However, proposing a change to the 22nd Amendment is not the right approach. We have rules for a reason, and the law is the law. Moreover, what happens when this change applies to a president we don't support?

In other words, we shouldn't just consider the immediate implications of such a proposal, but also its long-term impact. I offered the same caution to Democrats regarding their overzealous and wrongful pursuit of Trump, dragging him through the courts and threatening imprisonment. 

Had they succeeded, one day the tables will be turned, and once the door to political persecution has been opened, you could be next in line.

We won. Let's just rejoice in that and be satisfied and committed to the fact that we have four years to get the job done. That's how it works. We also have four years to prove our case for 2028 and hopefully have Vice President J.D. Vance or another Republican carry the torch. But we only have four years with President Trump.

I don't want the law changed, and I don't even want to entertain the discussion. No American, not even Trump supporters, should want to have that conversation, even if it might work in the country's favor this time. 

Moreover, if a proposal like Ogles' were to pass easily with serious consideration, how simple might it be one day to argue against term limits altogether? If we have a good president, why not let them run indefinitely until America decides it's time for a change?

This is a glaring example of a slippery slope. 

Congressman Andy Ogles may have good intentions, and I trust that he does. However, it's the bigger picture implications that matter most. Our time in Congress should be dedicated to advancing Trump's agenda, not giving the media a reason to overlook our accomplishments or causing on-the-fence voters to question our intentions.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Schumers Spin is a Dance Around Biden's Mental Acuity

I get it. Politicians have a knack for speaking in a way that only politicians can. It's either in their DNA, or they undergo a rigorous orientation upon taking office, complete with courses on the art of "communication."

How to dodge questions while appearing to answer them. How to create the illusion of transparency. How to lie convincingly and make it seem like you're being truthful. How to craft intricate riddles that no one can truly solve, yet make you sound ingenius.

It is literally an art form.

Remember when Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats dismissed claims about Biden's mental acuity as right wing conspiracies? Then came that infamous debate performance, leaving Democrats visibly stunned.

"Oh, God. We can't possibly spin this anymore. Can we?"

They couldn't spin it anymore. The writing was on the wall, clear as day. But to be fair, they're still dodging the question, doing their best to find creative ways to deny the truth. This was evident once again when Chuck Schumer was recently asked on Meet the Press if he felt he misled the American people with his comments.

He didn't answer the question. Instead, he rambled on about Biden's "record," his supposed accomplishments, claiming he achieved more than any other president in history, and highlighting achievements that marked a very successful presidency. 

Beyond none of that being true, it was a relatively simple question. "Did you and the Democrat party mislead the American people about President Joe Biden's health?" Of course, answering that question truthfully would have posed another important question that no one really wants to address.

If Joe Biden's mental acuity was in decline, then who was making the decisions? Who was truly running the country? And whoever that was, how much power did they amass in Biden's mental absence? Could they have controlled Harris? Were they controlling Harris? Was she merely a Manchurian candidate?

During Trump's first term, without any doubt, he posed an existential threat to The Establishment. Were Joe Biden and Kamala Harris the ultimate opportunity for them to reaffirm and cement their power indefinitely?

Conspiratorial, I admit. Crazy? Maybe. Possible? You never know. But I digress.

When Chuck Schumer skillfully dodged the question, the follow-up might have been even more revealing. "Do you believe Biden could have served another four years?" Schumer's response was that he didn't want to speculate. For all intents and purposes, that's a no, which circles back to the original question.

If Joe Biden wasn't in mental decline, why did he debate performance essentially seal the deal for calls for him to drop out of the race? If he was fit to lead, wouldn't that have outweighed the impact of the debate? And if it were true that he wasn't experiencing any mental decline at all, and it was nothing more than a bad night at the podium, why couldn't that be easily conveyed after the debate to change the Democrat's minds?

I understand Chuck Schumer's going to speak like he does. He's seasoned. The real question is whether the American people buy his answer, and I believe the answer is no. Beyond that, if the Democratic party continues to blatantly mislead the American people and dodge the truth, how will they ever restore the trust they lost in the last election?

Not that I'm rooting for them to do that, mind you. I'm just making an observation and asking, what else were they hiding?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Biden Blocks Nippon Steel Deal: The Uncertain Future of U.S. Steel and Granite City Works

Driving through the streets of Granite City, Illinois, you might notice that the city appears a bit worn down. This is largely due to the presence of the steel mill, Granite City Works, which is part of U.S. Steel, and SunCoke Energy, a separate entity, both of which involve demanding and gritty work environments. However, despite their rugged nature, and the fact that driving past these facilities is quite a bit of an eyesore, these operations play a crucial role in holding the community together.

Without these industries, Granite City might risk becoming a ghost town.

It's no secret that U.S. Steel has faced several financial challenges, putting Granite City Works in jeopardy. Even as negotiations with Nippon Steel to acquire U.S. Steel for an estimated $14.9 billion were underway, Nippon pledged to enhance steel mills in Gary, Indiana and Pittsburgh. However, they remained silent about their plans for Granite City.

In 2023, the plant had to shut down its only operational blast furnace, resulting in layoffs. Additionally, there have been other temporary layoffs and shutdowns, leaving unions frustrated and workers uncertain about their job security. 

These jobs are well-paying, with the average worker earning around $75,000 a year, and certainly these are important, family supporting wages. That's something any community wants to keep around. At one time, about 900 people were employed there. But recent cuts in production and layoffs have reduced that number to around 300.

Typically, if there's an opportunity for new leadership to bring in innovative ideas and operational efficiencies, potentially increasing profitability and securing jobs, people would support the sale. However, steel is different. It's a critical resource for national security, making it understandable that selling to a foreign company could pose certain risks.

Even the unions preferred the initial offer from American based Cleveland Cliffs over Nippon Steel's, despite it being half of what Nippon ultimately offered. This was true even while Cleveland Cliffs never provided details about its plans for any of the U.S. Steel mills involved in the transaction.

President Joe Biden ultimately blocked the deal, and incoming President-Elect Donald Trump likely would have done the same, as he said as much on the campaign trail. Personally, I support the decision for the same reasons they cited.

National security.

The question becomes, are we in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation? U.S. Steel continues to face financial difficulties, and regardless of the outcome of the Nippon Steel deal, the company will still need to make decisions in its best interest. This means that even if we prioritize national security interests, it doesn't guarantee that the workers at Granite City Works will be better off with a sale to either Cleveland Cliffs or Nippon Steel.

Moreover, if U.S. Steel cannot fix its problems, mills will potentially have to be closed anyway, or even the entire company could cease to exist—defeating the purpose of blocking the Nippon Steel deal anyway for national security interests to protect a valuable commodity. 

This raises the question, should the federal government step in and offer assistance, similar to the bailout provided to automakers? Unlike the financial issues faced by automakers, if the government's decision to block the deal creates additional hardships for the company, does it have an obligation to provide some support?

It's reminiscent of the Covid shutdowns mandated by governors and mayors. If the government decides to close business' doors, regardless of the reasons or the societal impact, offering relief seems like a reasonable thing to do. These businesses did not make decisions to close on their own. They were forced to operate under government directives rather than according to their best interests, and unable to make decisions on their own how to operate within the environment they were in.

While I generally do not support government intervention, I believe a case can be made for a situation like the one regarding U.S. Steel. If the goal is to protect an essential commodity, then we must take steps to also ensure its protection.

Moreover, amid all this uncertainty, I think the workers of Granite City Works, and all of U.S. Steel's mills, deserve some clarity about their futures. The people of Granite City also deserve transparency, as decisions made could have long-lasting impacts on their community. High paying jobs like those at Granite City Works are crucial—they are part of the glue that keeps the city whole.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

American Manufacturing Is About More Than Just Jobs
Bringing back American manufacturing is critical to American society in more ways than just economic ones. In order for America to succeed it needs the ability to make things, not only for the stability and good jobs it provides, but for national security as well.