Considering Dividend Income as the Fed Lowers Rates

If you are in retirement, or even semi-retirement, having a dividend rich portfolio is quite a necessary thing. The dividends you receive serve as a significant source of replacement income, filling the gap left by regular W-2 wages.

It's a delicate balancing act. I mean, just because you leave the workforce doesn't mean you no longer want to still grow your portfolio while covering your living expenses—who doesn't always want more money if you can have it? Avoiding having to dive into the principal is a big consideration as well. Especially in the beginning years. And of course, even when inflation is low, it's still a factor to keep in mind. That $100 you have today will not be worth the same $100 tomorrow because inflation will eat away at some of the value.

You need to have a reliable source of income to pay your bills while continuing to build your wealth as much as possible, and that means making things so that the dividend income you are receiving exceeds what you are using to fill the gaps.

That means sensibly managing dividend yields to ensure you can get the best bang for your invested dollars. But, in all fairness, that can be a bit tricky with so many variables to consider.

When we had the massive decades high inflation, courtesy of poor economic policy by the Biden administration, it came with at least one silver lining, and that was higher yields on basic savings from banks as the Fed raised rates in an attempt to slow down the economy.

In other words, being able to get a 5% yield on "safe" money was an advantage, and offered a bigger incentive to be cash heavy during that time. The thing is that when you are relying more heavily on dividend income as a major source of your income in retirement and semi-retirement, you want to keep your money as close as possible. You don't want an enormous amount of risk because the bulk of your growth opportunities have come to pass.

Chasing massive yields from monthly payers, such as can be found with many ETFs, can be very risky. Seeing yields surpassing 10% is not uncommon but share valuations can fluctuate wildly. So, finding more sure investments become crucial to maintain as much of your portfolio balances as possible.

Ideally, anything between 4%-8% is considered a good yield as an average to shoot for.

Now that interest rates are falling, it becomes less desirable to hold money in a high yield savings account and it becomes more important to start looking back to the markets to increase your dividend income.

The rate on my Ally savings account, for example, has fallen to 3.8%, and will likely drop further as the Fed continues to lower the benchmark rate. A $100,000 balance which offered $5,000 a year will now only offer $3,800 a year. I don't want to simply lose the $1,200 difference. But rather, I want to adjust my cash position to bring it back around.

One ETF I like is BXMX which offers a 7% yield and happens to be rather stable. While a 7% yield is always more attractive than a 5% yield, because the cash position was "safe," it offered a desirable compromise at the time. Now it offers a better opportunity to earn higher dividend income even if my principal will not have the same benefits of safety that my savings account did.

The key takeaway here is something I have always said that no matter whether you are still working or retired, your money should never be left in a set it and forget it mode. You have to be constantly aware of what's happening with your money, and what's in the best interest of maximizing its value, both in terms of growth and income.

The balancing act part comes in as you try to mitigate risk and offer all of the things you wish to get from it. Growth, income and relative safety.

Even finding something that offers 4% is better than making spending adjustments from the 1.2% you no longer will realize and is a decision that recoups at least $200 worth of potential lost income. It's still important to keep enough cash handy to deal with emergencies and keeping that money safe and accessible is essential. The rest of it should be maximized to offer the best return and income possible.

Currently I am only moving the dividends from the high yield savings to higher yielding stocks and ETFs. But as interest rates continue to fall, more of that cash position will be moved to higher ground.

Balancing growth and income while managing inflation and avoiding principal depletion can be a daunting task, but it's well worth being one to take on. Sensibly managing dividend yields and staying aware of market conditions, even when you no longer have a more reliable source of income, maximizes the value of your wealth and ensures more financial stability, even when things become more complicated or difficult.

It's more important to consider levels of safety in retirement and semi-retirement. Of course. But being too safe can cost you more money than a carefully considered level of added risk would.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

More from the Springboard at HubPages:

The Biden Inflation Catalyst
Certainly, there are myriad factors as to what causes inflation to occur. Do presidents have a role? Most certainly they do, although they do not necessarily directly impact inflation, fiscal and other policies absolutely do. So, how can we tell Biden is the man behind the inflation we have now?

Student Loan Forgiveness Was a Misguided Initiative Anyway

Whenever the government opts to simply distribute funds, it's bound cause issues, and understandably so, for numerous reasons. It's not their money, after all. It's our money. And how ever it gets spent needs to at the very least, make sense.

The student loan forgiveness program never did.

If you benefited from the program, it's easy to see why you might support it. But at the end of the day, the bottom line is clear: if it's debt, and it's elective debt like college loans, then the responsibility to repay it should fall on the one who incurred it.

While the program was a key initiative touted by the Biden administration, polls consistently showed it was extremely unpopular—not to mention it wasn't actually constitutional.

When the government is already burdened with its own enormous debts, and is literally hemorrhaging money, how can we, as Americans, support what is essentially frivolous spending of our tax dollars? It makes no sense.

We know the why of course, although the left would never admit to it. They called it a "crisis." They were trying to buy votes from a needed sector of society. It's really that simple.

It's dead in the water now, as was recently announced. Well, of course it is. They don't need the votes anymore. Well, that and the Biden administration knows the program won't see the light of day under the Trump administration anyway.

Nor should it. Because again, it made no sense to do it in the first place.

I think there were a good many people who thought about it and wondered, where else could the money be spent if we could assume we actually had it to spend? What other areas may have offered better opportunities to provide relief, not to just one sector of society, but the masses?

Maybe we could have suspended the federal gas tax to help reduce the cost of gas and diesel. Maybe we could have offered an automatic energy credit to help with the burden of higher energy bills, especially during winter months.

Or better yet, perhaps we could have looked to aid our aging public by raising social security benefits, suspending income taxes on those benefits, or if we wanted to forgive debts, maybe we could have forgiven medical debts incurred by seniors.

The point is that while just giving money away alone rarely makes sense, if it was to be given away, at least one could better digest the notion of doing it at all if what it was given away for made at least some sense.

Set aside, if you will, that many people had to be left scratching their heads a bit at the whole idea of student loan forgiveness. I mean, aren't college grads supposed to be the smartest of the smart? They couldn't figure out how to manage and repay the debt? And wasn't the whole sell of the college education to make more money than non-college grads? But they couldn't repay the debt even with the supposed higher wages? And non-college grads would now have to pay college tuition through taxes on lower wages?

Beyond just giving money away, perhaps what would be better to do is to address why college costs as much as it does, and why the promise is not delivering the goods, but rather saddling students with debt they can't repay in the first place.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

From the Springboard on HubPages:

What Are the Drones Doing Over Our Heads?
Despite reassurances, the mystery of the drones over New York and New Jersey has imaginations running wild. Until we have some answers, it's anyone's guess why they are there and what they are up to, leaving growing public concern and speculation.

We're Missing the Mark on Mass Shootings: The Same Will Be True in the Madison, Wisconsin Case

Whenever a school shooting occurs, or any mass shooting event for that matter, it is always a terrible tragedy. There is always something that gets missed before it happens. By the parents. By the administrators. By our politicians. By frankly everyone. In the aftermath we want answers. Unfortunately, the questions we pursue are often not the ones that lead us to the solutions we need.

For instance, President Joe Biden wasted no time to seize the opportunity to advocate once again for stricter gun control laws. One has to question the relevance considering the shooter in this case that happened in Madison, Wisconsin was a 15-year old girl who, by current law, cannot even legally obtain a firearm.

What law would have prevented her from getting access to a gun?

And of course, it's likely that calls for tighter regulations will intensify in the coming weeks following this tragic event that left three people dead, including the shooter, and many more injured. To me, that is as much a part of the tragedy as the event itself.

As controversial as it may be to say this, and this is something I have been saying for a long time, guns are not the issue, and if we ever want real solutions, we need to set the guns aside in order to get to the bottom of it.

Lack of religion isn't the issue either, as this Wisconsin school shooting clearly suggests. It happened at a private Christian school, and one would presume not only were the parents religious, at least the shooter was exposed to a religious upbringing.

Of course, the details are quite slim here. The shooter took her own life and so she can't tell us what motivated her to do the shooting which left one teacher and a fellow student dead. But one would presume that there was likely some bullying going on.

What it comes down to most of the time for me is the mental health issue coupled with what I see as the rampant misdiagnosis of fake illnesses doctors can prescribe dugs for. Kids today are more medicated than ever for all sorts of things like learning disabilities to hyperactivity and anxiety.

In other words, everything is a disease now that must be treated with some sort of drug. And who knows what the real effects of these drugs are considering kids are still in their developing stages of life. Whatever they put in their bodies determines how they grow and what they grow into, and while I am no medical professional, I think that thought stands to reason.

Are guns an issue? Sure. I think we can all agree that guns make it easier to carry out these acts. But to say they are the problem is too easy. And the more we focus on that, the less likely we will be able to get at the root and have any impact on stopping these things from happening.

When I say people are missing things before these things happen, what I am referring to are the signs. Because I am sure there are always signs. The parents miss them. The administrators and teachers miss them. Everyone misses them and then when something does happen the only thing we focus on are the guns that do the consequential damage of what we missed in the end.

Was this girl on medications for anything? We don't know. Was she bullied? We don't know. Even still, at least in the case of bullying, how did we get to where we are now where the final decision is to kill people? Bullying has been occurring since the beginning of time, but while shootings are a regular occurrence these days, it's still a relatively new thing.

You can argue that's because access to guns is easier. But is it really? As I said before, for decades we have enacted more laws than ever to make it harder to obtain guns. Sure, it is still easy for the most part. But the point is that we have more laws on the books than ever and equally, we have more shootings than ever.

So, the question becomes, if the stricter laws haven't prevented or slowed these shootings down, but rather, since new laws were enacted shootings actually increased, what are we missing not only before a shooting event occurs, but what are we missing in finding the solutions to them?

It's yet another tragic event that will only go down as that. Something we can reflect on. Something we can point to when we discuss the need for more control over powerful weapons. But what it will accomplish in terms of getting down to what causes these things?

It will accomplish nothing at all because we will continue to miss the point. Meanwhile, the next shooter is simply waiting their turn.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

 

Johnstown, New York Building Inspector Jeff Persch Says, "It's Unfortunate people have a 1st Amendment right."

Regardless of your opinions on the activities and demeanor of so-called 1st Amendment Auditors, popularized on platforms like YouTube, Facebook Reels, and TikTok, I believe they serve an important function.

Far too often, public sector officials seem to forget who they serve. The government does not operate independently of the People; rather it is dependent on the People who grant them the ability to serve, whether or not they are elected to their positions.

Indeed, these audits often provoke strong reactions, which in turn attract views. 1st Amendment Auditors essentially earn their livelihood from an engaged audience, many of whom harbor resentment toward their government and its officials. However, they also function as independent members of the press, something that can be argued, at a time when most major news organizations can no longer be trusted to deliver the news honestly and fairly, provides us with vital insights into the workings of our government that might otherwise remain hidden.

Consider that part of the reason these audits elicit certain responses is the lack of understanding among many government officials regarding their roles in the public sector, the rights of the public, and the significance of transparency within our government.

Mainstream media often ignores these stories, but 1st Amendment Auditors bring them to light. How do government officials act when the doors are closed, and no one is watching? And how do they feel about the importance of transparency? Or what about the importance of the Constitution? Do they understand it? Do they understand their role regarding it? Do they understand the rights of the People? Do they appreciate it? Do they fundamentally understand that their role is to serve the public rather than be in control of it?

Increasingly, I find myself writing about these audits and sharing my thoughts on the behavior of certain government officials within them. I believe it's crucial for people to understand the roots of the divide between the People and their government.

When public servants forget they work for us, they assume power and authority that rightfully belongs to the People.

Consider a recent audit conducted by 1st Amendment Auditor Auditing Erie County during a visit to the Town of Johnstown, New York. The auditor encountered building inspector Jeff Persch, who, although not excessively rude, clearly did not understand nor appreciate the auditor's rights. One particular comment Persch made to the Sheriff's Deputy who arrived on the scene, after police were called, stood out as especially appalling and worth highlighting.

"It's unfortunate that people have a First Amendment right," Jeff Persch remarked.

To me, it underscores a troubling mentality that seems deeply ingrained within our government and is frequently exposed during these audits. It conveys a sentiment of, "We are above the People." It's particularly concerning when public sector employees are unaware of fundamental public rights, to the extent that they call the police on someone simply for exercising their 1st Amendment rights. I find the lack of understanding regarding public access and the right to a free press quite alarming as well.

How many times does someone, when an auditor identifies himself as a member of the press, get asked to display credentials? All the time. Yet, there is no such thing as press credentials. Anyone can be a member of the press as is implicitly afforded by the Constitution, and the only credentials necessary is that document itself.

The question becomes, why are so many public sector employees and officials, many of whom take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, so blatantly unfamiliar with the very rights they are meant to honor and protect in their duties to the public?

What does this say about someone like Jeff Persch in his role? Does he see himself as a servant of the People or as an authority figure above them? If he doesn't respect the right to free speech, how will he respond to any complaints or concerns from the public he serves?

Admittedly, Persch's remark about the 1st Amendment was in response to the auditor calling him a punk. However, the context does not diminish the significance of the comment itself. The fact that Persch took offense does not invalidate the auditor's right to call him a punk. When Persch mentioned this to the deputy, it seems as though he hoped it would lend credibility to his claim that the auditor was in the wrong.

It's important to note that the auditor's comment came after Persch had already been infringing upon his 1st Amendment rights. I think this is crucial to understanding the situation.

Whether or not Persch actually feels this way about the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution is impossible to know. I don't know Persch personally. But clearly, he does not fully comprehend his role, or the rights of citizens—camera in hand or not. 

I did reach out to the building inspector, as well as copied my correspondence to the town supervisor, clerk, and the Mayor of Johnstown, Amy Praught for comment. So far, I have not received any response regarding the matter. Usually, I don't. But I would be curious to know not only their thoughts on the Constitution, but on 1st Amendment auditors as well.

If nothing else, I think that anyone working in the public sector should, regardless of their opinions, uphold the rights of citizens afforded to them, and moreover, fully understand what those rights are that citizens have.

That being said, I have to give a strong round of applause to the Sheriff's Deputy who answered the call for doing his duty and honoring the rights of the auditor. In the early days of 1st Amendment auditing, police were far less informed about public citizen rights in public buildings, and thus, I think it goes back to the importance I alluded to in the beginning, of these audits in the first place.

Some auditors may be annoying in the way they approach things, but at the same time, they are serving to educate many people who clearly need to be educated. Perhaps Jeff Persch will have a different perspective of not only his role as a public servant, but also of the public at large he serves, going forward.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer 

Sifting Through the Implications of Biden's Pardon Decision

Following President Joe Biden's Sunday night pardon of his son, we can expect the left and the media to scramble to downplay the event as a "nothing to see here" moment. And really, that's pretty much what it is. Historically, presidents have exercised their right to pardon people across the spectrum of guilt and innocence. The good, the bad, the ugly? It's all fair game when it comes to pardons. Presidents have the prerogative to grant pardons, regardless of the circumstances or the individual's guilt.

The fact that President Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, isn't something I take issue with—except for the context. In this case the context does matter. At least to my mind it does. 

To grasp the implications of Biden's decision to pardon his son, one has to reflect on the past four years and all of the narratives surrounding Trump. How many times were the tables pounded, telling us, "Donald Trump broke the law, and no one is above the law!"

I said many times it was never truly about the law. And I think many Trump supporters and even some Democrats, would agree. If nothing else, this pardon highlights that point more clearly.

What was it really about? Politics. That, and I think it was a historic and blatant attempt to undermine the American people's right to choose their leader. This was always more about eliminating a political opponent than upholding any laws.

What makes this clearer will be the entire reaction by the left and the media to Biden's pardoning of his son. And we already know what that will mostly be. A complete dismissal of the entire event. That's the tell, folks. That's the shiny thing in the darkness.

During his campaign, Biden repeatedly assured the American people that he would honor the law, even with his own son on the wrong side of it. "We respect the rule of law," he said with a smirk, subtly pointing to his opponent as if to say, "Unlike that other guy."

And how many times was that assurance even used as more means to convince people Trump needed to be held to account for what he allegedly was accused of? "See how important the law is," they suggested. "Even the president himself won't let his own son off the hook."

The left might argue tit for tat. I can already see that coming. After all, if Trump wasn't held accountable and was even elected, isn't pardoning Hunter now fair game? If Trump's election negated the law's importance, shouldn't Biden have the right to go back on his word?

Why should Hunter face prison time while Trump gets to hold the keys to the White House?

As I mentioned, I'm not concerned about Hunter being pardoned. It's the president's prerogative. What interests me more is the current stance on the law for those who once emphasized its importance. If they now dismiss it, just because, what does that say about their entire argument against Trump and the alleged travesty of justice he orchestrated?

Will Biden and Harris supporters claim Biden lied when he assured the American people he would follow the law? Will they have any misgivings about Hunter being given a pass? Can they be honest about it? Or will they simply go along with it, ignoring the context when compared to their arguments about Trump over the past four years?

This is the moment of truth. It's when true colors are revealed. It's where we see if those who claim to be committed to their convictions can step away from their staunch support and take an honest stand.

To me, the issue isn't just about Hunter Biden's pardon. It's about the consistency and integrity of those who loudly championed the rule of law against Trump. It's a moment of introspection and honesty, where actions speak louder than words. If justice was so important in the case against Trump, how could it not be in the case of Hunter, and how could the same people who called for justice in one case now openly advocate against it in another?

We'll see.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Looking for great deals from Amazon? Click here. Commissions from any sales help to support this page to keep providing great content and is greatly appreciated.

Don't Underestimate Trump's Plan to Kill Higher Prices: He Knows Exactly What He's Doing

James Carville once famously quipped, "It's the economy, stupid." This phrase still resonates today because, in many ways, it's true. People often vote with their wallets, and while by far it wasn't the sole reason for Donald Trump's historic comeback in 2024, it played a significant role.

As I've mentioned before, we can't simply erase past inflation and suddenly see lower prices at the grocery store or for other items that we buy. Inflation is a past event. It has already happened. The only thing that can truly bring prices down is deflation, and one doesn't need to be a master economist to understand that deflation is worse than inflation.

However, there is one area of our economy that has the potential to reduce costs on goods and services and profoundly impact the overall economy.

The cost of energy.

Energy costs are factored into every aspect of everything we buy because energy is a crucial part of production and transportation.

Factories rely on electricity to run their machines, while trains, ships and trucks all run on diesel. Although the cumulative inflation we have experienced over the past 3 1/2 years was not solely due to energy costs, they still represent a significant portion. By reducing these costs, the savings can be passed on to consumers, potentially lowering prices.

This is a crucial aspect of Donald Trump's plan to alleviate some of the pain we've endured. It addresses at least some of the root issues that were a contributing factor to inflation in the first place. By opening the U.S. to more exploration and drilling, we can better control our energy costs.

The thing is, and it's very important here, that it's never been about price gouging. And of course, I think most Americans outright rejected that ridiculous claim anyway. "Mrs. Harris," the American people said. "If you think that's why prices are higher, you have no real idea how to make them lower." It's one thing Trump does understand and made it a point to make it a strong part of his campaign.

Granted, some may argue that businesses will just pocket the savings and keep prices the same. Those damned greedy corporations, right? But I believe businesses are fully aware that Americans are simply exhausted by higher prices. They've had enough, and consumer pullback from spending has clearly shone to be a real thing that could have a very negative impact on business' bottom lines.

Discretionary spending has slowed significantly. People have been opting for store brands over name brands and cutting back on fast food. Businesses are suffering more than people realize. The reality is, they can't just charge whatever they want and expect to get it. Consumers decide.

Again, this absolutely denies the idea that price gouging is not only a thing, but any real benefit to businesses who would engage in it.

In other words, gouging customers would literally be biting the hands that feeds them, and in the most fundamental of ways, it makes no sense to do it. They aren't dumb. They know their customers and what drives them.

Any good business, if it wants to be successful, knows full well what makes their customers come and what makes them go away. And they know customers are tired. Their wallets are worn out at the seams. Companies will be more than eager to pass along any cost savings to consumers because they desperately want to regain customer confidence and have them waltzing back through their doors.

Trump understands the economy. He knows how money moves and what drives spending. So naturally, it makes sense that he's going to target the very things that make an economy thrive and grow and home in on stimulating the economy in a way that supports more jobs and even better wages. And if wages can grow, we can catch up to past inflation more quickly.

Energy is the first step in the bigger picture plan Trump has—an important one, but just the beginning. What drives an economy? Money. The more people and businesses have, the better the economy performs. Trump understands this. By lowering costs, reducing prices, and cutting taxes, you essentially put more money in everyone's pockets to spend on what matters most.

Commerce.

Even for those who argue that Trump's tariffs could negatively impact efforts to reduce consumer costs, I think they are thinking about this rather narrowly. There's more to consider. His threat of tariffs, combined with his desire to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% could have more benefits than drawbacks. These measures not only encourage businesses to operate within the country, but it also incentivizes other businesses to open new factories or return labor to the U.S.

It's the economy, stupid, is right. James Carville nailed it. But I think the more important thing here is that the person we put in charge understands how to make it go. And I think Trump does. It doesn't mean there isn't still a long road ahead. It doesn't mean it will be easy. The impact won't be felt overnight. But what we do know is that Trump will be leading the charge day and night, putting in place ideas and policies that can have a major positive impact on our wallets and more importantly, giving people back a large portion of the spending power that was stripped away from them during the Biden years.

If people are busy trying to poo-poo what Trump is proposing, I think it's simply because they don't understand what he knows and aren't willing to more deeply explore what it is he's actually up to. The worst thing one can do is underestimate Trump's intelligence. He's way smarter than most would ever dare give him credit for.

It won't be long before that becomes all too evident that he knows exactly what he's doing. Mark my words on that.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Whoopi's Wealth and You: A Tale of Two Worlds

Whoopi Goldberg made what can only be construed as a remarkable comment on The View recently, that she works for a living and empathizes with the financial struggles Americans have faced due to inflation over the past 3 1/2 years under Biden.

While it's true she is a working individual, and her job is indeed a paid position, it's rather misleading to imply that she experiences financial hardship in the same way as the average American.

Understandably, she's facing significant backlash for her comments. This Thanksgiving many will be asking, "Are you serious?" around dinner tables across the country. She's honestly comparing herself to everyday Americans with a median income of $80,020 a year?

Whoopi Goldberg earns an annual salary of $8 million for her appearances on The View alone. On top of that, she likely receives substantial income from her extensive work in TV shows, movies, and comedy albums over the years. Her estimated net worth is approximately $60 million.

She's hardly on her way to rags and a shed in the woods hunting deer for food.

Having a political stance is one thing, and understanding the dynamics and impacts of inflation is another. You don't need to be poor to grasp how inflation affects one's financial quality of life. However, to sit there with a straight face and claim to share the same struggles as your audience is quite insulting.

Her comment serves as yet another reminder of how disconnected celebrities can be from reality. It's important to remember this when they comment on issues that affect the rest of us. They don't live in our world, see things through the same lens, or experience life as we do.

It's not to say they are not people, of course. But someone like Whoopi Goldberg isn't facing the tough choices at the grocery store that many Americans do. She's merely complaining about the increased costs, not making the same sacrifices as a working mom with a family of four to feed on a limited budget.

How can she sit there earning 100 times what her audience does and be taken seriously trying to argue that she's just like you? In the most basic of ways, it simply lacks credibility.

Granted, it's Whoopi Goldberg, who is known for making controversial remarks rather frequently. However, this does not entitle her to a free pass. The significant disparity between the lives of celebrities and average Americans is evident—do they not understand this? Have they become so far removed from their past lives that they have forgotten what it's like for everyone else?

It's perfectly fine to empathize with the financial hardships of others and to voice concerns. However, comparing their own experiences to those of average Americans only highlights that they lack the same perspective to draw upon.

Personally, I think Whoopi Goldberg should apologize to her audience. She once faced financial hardships and was a regular person. It would be more sincere for her to reflect on those experiences and share that story honestly. It would be much more genuine for her to acknowledge that these aren't her struggles today but that she remembers and understands what it's like to make tough decisions at the grocery store. Instead of claiming she's just like us, she should reflect on how fortunate she is to be in a different place.

Interested in reading more opinion and commentary from The Springboard? Check out other published posts at HubPages. You can also follow The Springboard at the Facebook fan page for links to articles and YouTube posts and Reels.

© 2024 Jim Bauer 

Celebrities vs. the Real World: The Illusion

At the end of the day, there is one big detail I think is important to note as we now have confirmation that Trump's run for the White House was successful, and quite so. Celebrity's opinions in elections really don't matter.

Granted, if you were to ask them, I think they'd tell you they disagree, but that's because they are largely out of touch with the rest of the country and do not face the same challenges the rest of us do. They have money. They have notoriety. What they don't have is as much influence as they would like to believe.

Sure, some people will listen to them. People who agree with them, of course. But it's not like any message they may try to push is going to change any minds.

"Well, I mean, it's Robert DeNiro. He must be on to something, right?"

The thing about celebrities, which is rather telling when you think about it, is their reaction when they don't get their way. 

They act like children that are denied their day at the park.

Children want all sorts of things, and a lot of the time they are things that are denied by the adults in the room for good reason. Adults have to be the hitch that keeps the trailer attached to the tow vehicle because the trailer is not equipped to drive itself. But what happens when the child is denied something they want so badly, even if it's not good for them?

They throw tantrums.

Isn't that what celebrities largely do? Jimmy Kimmel is on his monologue brought to tears. Sally Field is caught ripping up a Trump sign. And how many of them took to X and other social media declaring they'd leave the country if Kamala lost?

Isn't that sort of like little Johnny packing up his Radio Flyer and pulling it up the block in defiance? "Take that. I'm running away!"

What are they mad about, really, though? Is it that Kamala Harris lost, and Trump won? I mean, that's part of it. Sure. Is it that they didn't get their way? You bet. But more than that, I think, is that no one cared what they thought. In a moment like this their strong feeling of self-importance is literally crushed.

They are big stars, after all, and they must be important because so many millions of people adore them. Even when a child throws a tantrum, it's not necessarily because they didn't get what they wanted. It's because they were powerless to have things go their way.

That's a frustration that's hard to get over.

But it's the message that the reaction sends that I think is the most important to examine. What they wanted weren't rational things that would be good for them.

The reason their message was denied was because the things they wanted did not make any sense. Their message was as irrational as their response is, of course. The adults in the room stepped in and said no, and this hurts them immensely.

This can be seen in the liberal media as well. Their reactions which can only be defined as tantrums. Because just like the celebrities, they are supposed to be the news, and we're supposed to take them at their word and heed every single one they utter.

How could The People have gotten it so wrong? Why did they not listen to us? It simply can't be.

That's the pill that is hard to swallow for them all right now. The reality that their influence is imaginary. Their importance is something that really only resides in their own tight-knit circles of people there only for the ride and the benefits, that the celebrities believe is real.

They are used to the usual, "Yes sir, and certainly sir." 

And certainly, the Democrats thought this celebrity endorsement, as they usually do, would matter as well. After all, they had Taylor Swift and Beyoncé in their corner, and untold many more people on their side, delivering their message. Certainly, it would matter. Certainly, people would listen.

After all, it's Taylor Swift and she's got hundreds of millions of adoring fans.

One other thing I want to point out when it comes to celebrities—how about the conservative ones. Yes, they exist, and actually the list is longer than many might think. When Robert DeNiro was in the streets shouting down Trump supporters and calling them idiot and morons and despicable people, what were the conservative celebrities doing?

Simply supporting their candidate and explaining the reason. They weren't yelling at people and calling them names. They weren't threatening to run off to Canada if Kamala won. And even when Trump lost in 2020, they weren't throwing tantrums.

The bottom line is that it's great to have opinions and be able to share them. It's part of what makes America great is that we can have differences and voice them. But sometimes how we act when we give them, and how we react when the majority disagrees, is rather telling of the quality behind those opinions, and the reason for delivering them.

These celebrities were not interested in winning an election. They were interested in winning on the idea that their opinions mattered and could impact winning an election. When they lost the election, they didn't just lose the race they were fighting to win. They lost a sense of their importance.

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 watch The Springboard on YouTube for more great content and commentary.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

DEI Initiatives are a Fool's Game

Why do we need DEI initiatives anyway? Frankly, the entire idea of it is simply stupid. What the focus should be on for businesses is to simply hire qualified people. Period. End of story. No further discussion needed. If not enough gay or transgendered people get hired, or Mexicans, or blacks or any other group that might be in the DEI pool, it should not be a question of businesses creating opportunities. It should be a question for the people who would be considered to be in the DEI pool to qualify themselves better.

If the question comes up, "Why do you not have any transgendered (name your job title)?" the answer should be simple. "We hire the most qualified individuals to perform jobs based on criteria that is the same for everyone. If we do not have any transgendered people in that job now it is because from the pool of candidates, none were more qualified than who we ultimately hired."

Granted, there will still likely be backlash. "That's just an easy way to get out from under your bigotry," some might accuse them of. But isn't it bigotry to even have DEI in the first place? Think about it. What does it say to someone who gets hired just because they happen to be gay, black, Mexican or transgendered? 

Were it not for our DEI program, you'd never have been able to succeed in getting this job on your own.

So, now it is admirable and respectable to be chosen for a job to serve as a token for the company to wave around rather than because the job was actually earned? How degrading. At least it would be to me. I would think it would be to most people.

Of course, the reality is that DEI initiatives are unpopular, and companies are finally starting to understand this, which is why many have pulled back their initiatives. Companies like Ford and Target and Anheuser-Busch for example. 

For one thing, it serves no purpose for the business to hire unqualified people, and it alienates customers. So, it's really a lose-lose situation. Of course, any company now has to quietly walk back from their initiatives since they are afraid of back lash from the other side, even though the largest customer base will be from conservatives who will applaud pulling away from DEI.

It's another reason why businesses should always avoid treading into political waters. Their purpose is to sell stuff, and in order to be successful at doing that, they need to simply do things that sell products. All the other stuff is not conducive to good business and should be avoided.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

The Next Market Run Could Last 20 Years: Here's Why I Think So

No one's talking about it—not that I've seen or heard anyway. But I think the stock market is on the brink of a massive, long term growth spurt. Despite any economic pressures we might face, this could last for at least the next 20 years.

Now, I admit, I have zero data to back this up. It's purely my gut feeling. And yes, I might be a little crazy. But hear me out: Two words.

Baby boomers.

I mean, think about it—if there's one group poised to rake in truckloads of cash, it's the baby boomers. And let me tell you, there are a lot of them out there.

Now, I'm not suggesting that every single baby boomer is going to glide into retirement with a golden parachute. We know the sobering statistics about many entering their golden years financially unprepared. But still, there's plenty to consider that teases the idea of a significant influx of spendable cash hitting the market over the next two decades.

How many billions—maybe even trillions—have been locked up in 401k plans since the 1980s, now coming due for distribution? What about all those pensions and Social Security checks being cashed in? And let's not forget the baby boomers downsizing their homes, unleashing loads of cash tied up in unrealized equity.

The money floodgates are about to open, folks. In fact, they might have already begun to flow. The stock market has been on an incredible tear for a long time, marking one of the longest bull runs in history. The money has to be coming from somewhere, and a good chunk of it might just be coming from baby boomers already.

It's worth keeping in mind as well that these baby boomers are well past their saving years. They've already done that and now they're ready to enjoy the fruits of their labors, which means they will likely be more freewheeling with their spending compared to those still working and saving for their futures.

They know they can't take their loot with them when they leave this Earth, so they're going to want to have a little fun while they can.

Again, let's not ignore the very real fact that many will still struggle through their retirement years. Those darned statistics. So, it won't be all fun and games for everyone. But that doesn't negate the fact that there's a lot of old money set to reenter the markets after being locked up for so long.

The money is coming. It's out there, sitting stagnant, with no choice but to be released.

It's not to suggest we should just throw the baby out with the bathwater and go all in and flood the markets with investable cash. It's simply something to consider about the future prospects and potential for more upside than we might typically see in the markets—the money has to go somewhere, and that means it has to be spent, and that means businesses will benefit from that spending and so will investors.

Maybe. Just maybe. But I have a strong sense it's probably true.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Ford's Long Road: Why its Consistency Keeps me Invested

Ford Motor Company might be the biggest bear in my portfolio, yet I've held this stock off and on for over 30 years and still own shares today. Despite its lackluster performance, I believe Ford is a company worth owning, and its recent dip in share price might present a good opportunity.

I have to admit, my belief in Ford comes with a grain of salt. Nearly 20 years ago, when OneShare was a thing, I bought a share of Ford for my nephew, complete with a framed stock certificate, because he was showing interest in investing. That share cost a little over $9 back then, and today, it's trading around $11 a share.

Granted, it's not all bad. The stock has hit highs in the mid-20s over the years. But overall, it's been a sideways performer. It's also no dividend aristocrat, although you'd think it might be, having suspended its dividend in 2020 during the pandemic and only restoring it in Q4 2021. Still, with a current yield of 5.76%, the dividend offers an attractive opportunity to earn while you wait.

Generally, my approach to trading Ford has been to buy shares under $12 and sell them once they exceed $15. Rinse and repeat. Ford's historical data over the past 40+ years shows consistent cycles, so I don't anticipate any significant stock runs soon. Therefore, I view Ford as a place to simply park money for the yield and occasional gains as it presents a fair overall return beyond just the dividend.

Think of it as a "savings account with benefits." Sure, Ford could suspend its dividend again—a valid concern given their last earnings call and forward guidance, which weren't stellar despite beating top-line and earnings per share estimates. However, considering Ford's current position, I believe the dividend is safe for the foreseeable future. The recent drop in share price stems from Ford's less than impressive outlook, which didn't inspire investor confidence, leading to a 6% dip in post-call trading.

One area of concern and nervousness is Ford's EV division, which has still shown impressive growth despite the overall downward pressures in the EV market. Even though the EV division only accounts for 3% of Ford's overall business, it could still impact revenues, especially as it continues to be a loss-maker. Any significant drop in EV sales in the near future can potentially negate any strides made in more profitable areas of their business, becoming a major drag on their bottom line.

The bottom line for me is that whenever I evaluate Ford's stock, despite its perpetually stagnant share price, what stands out, at least in my opinion, is Ford's consistently strong position. Something I think many investors ignore. Over the years, management has navigated tough waters in a highly competitive market, keeping the company moving forward, maintaining impressive cash levels, and keeping debt relatively low. Even back in 2008, when the government bailed out the ailing auto industry, Ford opted out and pulled through with flying colors.

Ford's stock may never be the most thrilling investment I ever own, but I believe it continues to have value despite some forward-looking hurdles. It holds a place in my portfolio because, while it may never make me rich, I'm confident it won't make me poor either. Sometimes a steady and reliable investment, despite many ups and downs, is just what you need to balance out the highs and lows of a more volatile market. For me, Ford offers that stability, making it a worthwhile investment to continue to hold.

When I say, "Ford's not going anywhere any time soon," sure, I may be saying Ford isn't going through the roof, but I am also saying it's not going through the floor either.

Disclaimer: This information is for entertainment purposes only and should not be considered as financial advice. It is important to always do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions or to seek the counsel of a certified financial planner or other financial professional. Jim Bauer currently holds shares of Ford Motor Company stock and intends to buy more shares following the publication of this article.

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. Want to know more about the stock market and how to invest? Consider reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. Any proceeds from the sale of this book helps to support this page and to continue to deliver content of interest and is greatly appreciated.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

There You Go Again, myLot: Can You Ever Just Stop Being Mean to Members?

It pains me to continually have to write bad press about myLot, a social interaction community that pays its members to interact with each other. At the same time, there is an old saying about staying out of "the news."

If you don't want to be in the news, don't create the story.

I like myLot, and I want to be very clear about that. I would not have stuck around with the site as long as I have if that were not the case. And generally speaking, my experience there is mostly fun and rewarding, especially since it is a rather tightknit community of people who reside there. They almost become like family and friends, even if it is rather unlikely you will ever meet anyone there in person.

However, admin, and I would say even the ownership, is another story, and it wasn't always this way. But it has been this way over the past three or more years, and maybe a bit longer actually. Not good.

The way admin conducts themself, and I should point out that it has been different people during this time, is rude, condescending and quite disrespectful toward members, and blatantly so. And this has been true of at least the last three of them.

I often question why this is. Because as I have stated many times before, the members of myLot are the heart of the site. They are the only reason it even exists. What exactly is the point of driving a wedge between the people who moderate the site and the members who interact within it?

Most who have no ill intentions, mind you, who are operating within the site.

Sites such as myLot, as well as other social media platforms, all have rules, and there's no rocket science behind understanding why they are there, and even why they are important. It's the glue that keeps everything working smoothly so that everyone participating on the site can have a good experience and be free from certain people who may not have the best interests of the site or the community at hand.

And by the way, admin should have the capacity to know who those people are, and who those people aren't. You should also afford any good member at least some leeway when it comes to enforcing the rules since while we are all aware of them, we're not necessarily going to remember every single detail about them.

It happens. We're human. It's not to say that the rules are as complex as say, the tax code. But you're still not bound to remember every little detail. 

Granted, and I have said this many times before about myLot, I will admit some of the rules are a bit weird. But I'm not here to critique that, other than to simply say some of the rules are weird. It's my opinion. The site owners are well within their rights to disagree with me about that.

My issue is more about the manner in which admin interacts with the community and the lack of concern, it seems, from the owners regarding how members feel about that. I have expressed concerns in the past directly to them, and never received a response.

That is, by the way, a response. They simply don't care. Even if they don't say the words, the non-response speaks for itself.

What leads me to this current rant, if you want to call it that, was a post that was deleted by admin that was discussing a lapse in earnings updates at HubPages, a site where writers write articles or blogs and publish them.

There is no rule against writing about other earning platforms on myLot. But they do have a rule about adding a link to the site you are talking about. I am aware of the rule. However, I had simply forgotten about it. So, the reason the post was deleted was not because of the content, but rather because it did not link back to HubPages.

A very minor infraction, mind you. And not one that should, in any case, illicit a holier than thou response from admin.

As is my personal rule, I contacted admin to learn why the post was deleted and based on former interactions with admin that I have had before, I gave a response to it. I will grant, one might suggest my response could be construed as rather immediately "combative" in nature. But if you understand the full back story, the response to my post being deleted, and the reason I worded it the way I did, actually makes sense.

It's not like, when it comes to admin, that it has ever been unclear that I will not challenge them whenever I feel it is necessary. So, is it just to antagonize me in some way? They seem to dislike any member who doesn't bend to their power. And of course, I am not one of them.

I said, "If you decide to delete a post of mine, I do expect an advance notice and an explanation. It's called courtesy. Just letting you know."

Many members have posts deleted often with no explanation, and while it is clear that admin is not required to offer one, I am often perplexed what purpose it serves not to? Especially when most members are not out to break rules intentionally or are otherwise engaged in "nefarious" activities.

If the only problem with the post that was deleted was that it needed to have a link added, there is an edit function for our posts. Admin could have easily sent a friendly reminder for me to simply add a link, and all would have been good.

But instead of taking a practical approach, admin chooses to continually assert some form of "authority" over members that I think, serves no purpose other than to stroke the egos of a person who has been put in a position to be in charge of something that goes right to their head—and let's face it. The people the owners choose to do this are not necessarily at the top of the food chain. Hey, let's be real. It's myLot where, believe it or not, some people earn $5-$10 a month and refer to myLot as a job! 

The former admin was an elderly pot smoking dude who lived with his dad, living on the government teat.

Not exactly the cream of the crop, as you might say. It was often quite the ponderance, to try to figure out how many tokes of the bong he took before getting really nasty with some members, running myLot like a prison camp. "Do as I say or else!"

The response I got from admin was exactly of the sort I am always used to, and so it was no surprise. Nasty, rude, condescending, as well as demeaning. "I will refer you to the Terms you agreed to when joining which state I am not required to tell you when or why something gets deleted. However, if you want to know why, I will tell you. There is a 4-year old discussion by a previous Admin stating you must add a link to a site when discussing other earning sites. Yours was the third such discussion I have deleted in the past week for not adding links (all from members who should know better), and now I believe I am simply no longer going to allow discussions about other earning sites."

Besides the response being poorly written, it belittles members and is quite accusatory. But again, why is there so much animosity dealt toward members of the community, which seems constantly apparent when dealing with admin? I mean, I simply forgot to add a link. This requires swift and decisive action delivered with a commanding blow?

It's myLot remember, for crying out loud. A place where we talk about what we did that day and what we had for dinner. Sometimes there are deeper discussions. But that's pretty much the bulk of them. Menial and rather trivial things that even most people outside the site, if the posts came up in search, wouldn't even remotely be interested in reading about.

So, these are largely inside discussions. The site doesn't seem to care much if organic traffic waddles in. It makes its money by the ads members see. No one else. And I think the owners are realistic when it comes to knowing myLot will never be a multi-million-dollar enterprise. It's just a tiny site that lives on the Internet with a handful of people playing around on it that the owners might be able to make a car payment with.

I'll grant you, even my own response should be, it's just myLot. Who cares? A post got deleted. It wasn't important. It's not important. I might have lost two cents if I am lucky. But it's, of course, the principle of it. And I am big on principle.

I did write to the owners of the site on this one, simply asking the question, "I am curious why you continue to put admin in place that is rude and disrespectful, as well as rather condescending toward members here?"

I will await their response, but if past history is any indication of future results, I am pretty sure my concerns have once again fallen on deaf ears and admin will go about his or her business as usual, waving their iron fists over member's heads. 

I would very much like to give the owners an opportunity to share their thoughts on the issue. But I have no expectation that they will do that.

Either way, I have a platform outside of myLot to talk about it. And of course, that's exactly what I will do. That is exactly what I did here. myLot hates bad press enough that they don't allow any negative commentary regarding myLot within their walls. Yet, they always forget that some of us who are on that site have bigger audiences outside of it, and the commentary that gets put out here will be far more scathing than anything that might get put inside of it.

But hey, just in case Blogspot happens to have its own internal Gestapo lurking around the edges waiting to pounce on me, I'll be sure to leave a link below to myLot that you are welcome to peruse at your leisure.

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. Want to check out myLot, you can click the link here to learn more.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Well, What Do We Have Here? The FCC, CBS and Kamala Harris

Is this sort of like a James Comey moment when he had just a small shred of integrity in 2016 when he announced just days before the election that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, supposedly on the merits?

Oh wait. No. It wasn't that at all. He was sure that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump, and he thought releasing that information would offer him some cover, just in case he was wrong about that. You see, if you remember, Trump had some very serious questions about Comey's actions, even suggesting some of them may be criminal, and if Trump would have control of the Justice Department, that could present some issues for Comey.

Well, that and his thought that if the information were to come out after Clinton was elected, she'd be considered an illegitimate president. According to Hillary, she contended that Comey's announcement, which came on October 28th, 11 days before the November 8th election, was part of the reason she lost.

Now we have a formal complaint filed with the FCC by the Center for American Rights regarding the recent CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris that was found to be edited in a way that could be an effort to mislead the American people.

A serious accusation, by the way, and one that the FCC may have to also take seriously. But it also opens a broader speculation, which has always been clear to some people, but now may wind up being clearer to more people similar to Comey's announcement.

"Maybe Clinton did actually do something bad here. And even something very illegal."

"When broadcasters manipulate interviews and distort reality, it undermines democracy itself," said Daniel Suhr, who is the president of the Center for American Rights. The FCC must act swiftly to restore public confidence in our news media."

It's one thing to believe that the media has it "in the bag" for Kamala Harris. It's entirely another for it to be glaringly obvious and irrefutable. On top of that, it's dangerous that certain details be kept from the public in an obvious attempt to protect her.

When she was asked about American-Israeli relations, in the aired interview she answered, "We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end." What she actually said was, "Well Bill, the work we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in that region."

As Suhr put it, it's not about editorial considerations in the news media. It's about distorting the news, which falsely represents a candidate or otherwise causes people to potentially have a different view.

Gosh, where has he been in the past decade or so regarding Trump news coverage? But I digress.

The thing is that, and not that it's all that big a surprise, the news media is covering for Kamala Harris and have been for a long time, just like they were covering for Joe Biden. It's simply wrong. It's not the media's job to campaign for or provide cover for candidates. It's their job to report the truth, fair and simple. They owe it to the American people to do that because every time we turn on the news, we are supposed to trust them to give it to us straight, and that trust has been eroding for a very long time. Things like this just serve to speed up that erosion.

There's a bit of a deeper question here as well. So, that clip was found. Or was it leaked? Perhaps by someone within CBS who is not favorable to Harris? Hey, they can't all be die-hard liberals, can they? The clip came out before the "edited" interview aired. But unlike other interviews, CBS has thus far refused to release the transcripts of the full interview.

The question is why? What other answers were edited? Were there some word salads in there that someone thought, "Oh, we probably don't want to show that?" Or, worse, some worse answers that would cause some people to cringe a little bit at the thought of her being in the White House?

Because we know how she talks. We've seen it too many times to count in the past. And we know that she's had great cover since she was announced as the Democratic nominee, making a concerted effort to keep her well on script to reign her in as much as possible.

Whether or not the FCC does anything with the complaint is to be seen. But perhaps there may be some political considerations in acting or not acting similar to political considerations Comey made in 2016. Either way, the filing is in the news. People are going to know about it. Will this revelation of an edited interview have any impact in November? That's to be seen.

I mean, I do think we are reaching a tipping point of some sort here when it comes to the media. From wall-to-wall negative Trump coverage to the cover up of Joe Biden's health and hiding policy positions Harris had before she was the nominee and making her seem like an entirely different person than she was.

I think consumers of news are becoming a bit fatigued and are tired of the lies and misleading coverage.

What the FCC has to decide now is whether they want to ensure they have some cover no matter who wins in November. Because this kind of puts them between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and Trump wins and he might direct the FCC to do something, or Harris wins, and they have to look like they are acting in an actual regulatory manner as opposed to doing the bidding of a political party.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Going into the interview I had some concerns, even though I have great confidence and faith in Brett Baier to ask the hard questions, that he might go a bit light on Vice President Kamala Harris, or even allow her to close question segments with the final word with no clear rebuttal.

He didn't do that. He challenged her on claims. He presented her former and current positions and gave her the opportunity to explain the contrast. He presented polling outlining voter sentiment on a variety of issues that are not favorable to Kamala Harris on the economy, the border and other issues and point blankly asked her why, if she has a better path forward, the majority of the American people seem to be indicating they disagree with her.

Look, I am going to give Kamala Harris at least some credit for sitting down with Brett Baier. She easily could have said no, and I am sure that she was prepared to be in an interview situation that would be unlike anything that she would ordinarily be accustomed to.

But she didn't pass the smell test. She didn't answer the questions, and I think a lot of her combativeness during the interview was more to stall it, present less time for real questions, and control the interview than to display a sense of command.

What she ultimately did was spend the bulk of the interview taking shots at Donald Trump and dismissing the dismal results of the administration she was part of for the past four years, taking no responsibility, acknowledging no mistakes, yet at the same time trying to distance herself from Joe Biden.

As you would expect, Harris was armed with an arsenal of talking points, and she wanted to get them all out in rapid-fire as best she could.

In the end, I don't think the interview did any good for the Kamala Harris campaign, but at the same time I am not sure if this close to the election, it changes any minds either. But it did present a glaring example of why a Kamala Harris presidency poses more danger to the American people than she wants to claim a Trump administration would be.

Again, we have results to go by. We have Trump's first four years, and we have Biden's last four years, and she is correct to point out that there is a stark contrast between the two choices, only all of the problems that have happened in the last four years were partially under her command.

Over and over again she lobbed accusations against Trump about the dangers he poses, from threats to democracy to weaponizing the military against the American people, yet at the same time completely dismissing the fact that 79% of the American people in polls say that we are headed in the wrong direction as a country.

That's her problem to own and explain, by the way, because Trump wasn't there to steer the country anywhere. And actually, Harris' attempt at an answer to the question why was actually a bit bizarre, if you ask me. "It's Trump's rhetoric for the past decade," she tried to assert. But as Brett pointed out, "You were in the White House. Not Trump."

The bottom line is that we are in the final throes of this election. I think we have all the information we, as voters, need in order to make a final decision. I tend to believe that decision is Trump. But of course, it's hard to tell when the media seems to want to point us in a different direction. 

Like I have said before, I think any popularity or lead Harris has ever had has largely been driven by media spin much more than voter sentiment. Will the race be close? Who knows? It shouldn't be. But again, who knows?

All in all, I am going to give Brett Baier a thumbs up for a hard hitting, on point interview that I think touched on key issues and questions that gave us a better picture of the real Kamala Harris, unfettered by the usual media drooling over her or the left that we are used to.

We got to hear the right questions asked, and the American people got to see her unable to answer them with any conceivable substance. The left wing media will of course say Brett attacked Kamala Harris or was rude to her. But I'll just say that's because he didn't ask her what her favorite color is or what she plans to serve on her table at Thanksgiving.

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL OF THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into a Deer In Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

One of the most frustrating things about Kamala Harris' repeated assertions during the Brett Baier interview, was this notion she was trying very hard to convey that Donald Trump is not putting the interests of the America people first in his campaign. 

What? Where have you been?

Trump has talked about the devastating blow to American families that inflation has caused. He has talked about the border. He has talked about the economy. And he has talked about the need to reduce high prices at the gas pump.

"Donald Trump has no plans," she kept saying.

Only the reality is that Trump has had plans all along, including many of which he had already implemented during his first four years. Policies and plans that were mostly effective and worked, by the way, no matter how badly Harris wants to convince the American people they didn't.

Brett asked her specifically regarding the economy, "Why do you think most people say they trust Donald Trump more than you when it comes to the economy?" And once again she skirted the question, instead bashing Trump as well as citing Nobel laureates and the Wall Street Journal as sources to say, "They trust our plan."

Which is essentially, the same plan the Biden administration was wanting to pursue—Harris is really just an extension of that even if she somehow wants to try to separate herself from it, while at the same time telling The View she wouldn't change anything the Biden administration did during their four years in office.

Again, am I the only one completely confused here?

I go back to what I have said before. Who was in office these past four years? Was it Donald Trump? Or was it Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? She acknowledges we have all these challenges and problems that need to be fixed. But it wasn't Trump who was in the White House when they happened and now, she's the one with the better ideas to get us out of it?

Brett asked her another very poignant question about her saying over and over again that her presidency would turn the page. "You've been vice president for the past four years. What are you turning the page from?"

Where I find her "answer" is remarkable is how she framed it, basically trying to suggest we are needing to get away from divisiveness, pointing fingers and passing blame, and trying to take people down instead of lifting them up.

Wait a minute. Would that be like accusing a political opponent of crimes? Of insurrections? Of trying to jail him? Of having wall to wall endless negative coverage comparing Donald Trump to Marxists and fascists and Adolph Hitler himself? 

She says Donald Trump's rhetoric instills fear in people's minds. So, what does saying that he will become a dictator, wanting to use federal law enforcement agencies to jail dissenters, take down democracy or whatever other evil plans he supposedly has—all of which are patently untrue, by the way—do to not instill fear in people's minds?

She is basically saying that we need to turn the page ahead against all the things her administration has been front and center of for the past four years, orchestrating all along.

At the end of the day, the fact is, Harris has nothing new to offer the American people and she's trying as hard as she can to erase the last four years and somehow pin all of America's woes on Trump. There's no other way of putting it. 

The question is, who's really buying it?

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Brett Baier Puts Kamala Into a Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question

If you ever wanted to know what a deer in headlights looks like, it was Vice President Kamala Harris as she was squarely trapped by a question brilliantly framed, that she thought she nailed the answer to.

"There's a lot of people that look back at what you said in 2019 when you first ran for president," Brett began. He reminded her that she supported allowing immigrants who were in the country illegally to apply for driver's licenses, that she supported free tuition for illegals at universities, as well as offering illegals free healthcare.

"Listen," Kamala Harris said, almost seeming irritated by the question by her body language. "That was five years ago."

She went on to convey her regard for the law and asserted she didn't advocate for these things while she was vice president. But of course, we all must remember, she was the vice president. Biden would have had to sign off on these things, and I contend even for him, these ideas would have been considered far too radical to take seriously.

Because of course, they are radical, and I think most Americans, including many Democrats, would be opposed to them.

She basically tried to throw out the notion that she would ever go back to her former position. But it was Brett's follow up question that was the gotcha moment. "If that's the case, you chose a running mate, Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, who signed those very things into state law. So, do you support that?"

Her pause was nearly 3-seconds long, which may not seem like a very long time. But clearly, she was taken aback by the question and immediately the wheels were spinning in her head. One could have pictured a sudden appearance of Will Robinson's robot in "Lost in Space" entering the frame warning, "Danger! Danger!"

The problem with her ultimate answer is the same as is the problem she has with most of her answers. She didn't answer it. She said her and Tim Walz are committed to following federal law. Yet clearly, Tim Walz had different interests as governor. So, which is it? She changed her position on the position and now Tim Walz has too?

How much more confused can the American people be made trying to figure out what Harris is actually for or against? Why didn't she condemn Walz' law or have further comment on it? Will she now, if elected, go to the courts to ask to challenge Walz' law on the grounds that it violates federal law? And will Walz, who enacted it, now side with her in the challenge?

Does this make sense to anyone?

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.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take