Texas Driver License RFID – Advanced license can be read by anyone

July 17, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Funny and Odd, Government, Political Issues · Comment 

Chips in official IDs raise privacy fears
By TODD LEWAN
Associated Press

EDITOR’S NOTE — This story, part of a series on the growing industry of radio frequency identification technology and its impact on business, government, health and personal privacy in America, explores its use in passports and driver’s licenses.

————

Climbing into his Volvo, outfitted with a Matrics antenna and a Motorola reader he’d bought on eBay for $190, Chris Paget cruised the streets of San Francisco with this objective: To read the identity cards of strangers, wirelessly, without ever leaving his car.

It took him 20 minutes to strike hacker’s gold.

Zipping past Fisherman’s Wharf, his scanner detected, then downloaded to his laptop, the unique serial numbers of two pedestrians’ electronic U.S. passport cards embedded with radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags. Within an hour, he’d “skimmed” the identifiers of four more of the new, microchipped PASS cards from a distance of 20 feet.

Embedding identity documents — passports, drivers licenses, and the like — with RFID chips is a no-brainer to government officials. Increasingly, they are promoting it as a 21st century application of technology that will help speed border crossings, safeguard credentials against counterfeiters, and keep terrorists from sneaking into the country.

But Paget’s February experiment demonstrated something privacy advocates had feared for years: That RFID, coupled with other technologies, could make people trackable without their knowledge or consent.

He filmed his drive-by heist, and soon his video went viral on the Web, intensifying a debate over a push by government, federal and state, to put tracking technologies in identity documents and over their potential to erode privacy.

Putting a traceable RFID in every pocket has the potential to make everybody a blip on someone’s radar screen, critics say, and to redefine Orwellian government snooping for the digital age.

“Little Brother,” some are already calling it — even though elements of the global surveillance web they warn against exist only on drawing boards, neither available nor approved for use.

But with advances in tracking technologies coming at an ever-faster rate, critics say, it won’t be long before governments could be able to identify and track anyone in real time, 24-7, from a cafe in Paris to the shores of California.

The key to getting such a system to work, these opponents say, is making sure everyone carries an RFID tag linked to a biometric data file.

On June 1, it became mandatory for Americans entering the United States by land or sea from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean to present identity documents embedded with RFID tags, though conventional passports remain valid until they expire.

Among new options are the chipped “e-passport,” and the new, electronic PASS card — credit-card sized, with the bearer’s digital photograph and a chip that can be scanned through a pocket, backpack or purse from 30 feet.

Alternatively, travelers can use “enhanced” driver’s licenses embedded with RFID tags now being issued in some border states: Washington, Vermont, Michigan and New York. Texas and Arizona have entered into agreements with the federal government to offer chipped licenses, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has recommended expansion to non-border states. Kansas and Florida officials have received DHS briefings on the licenses, agency records show.

The purpose of using RFID is not to identify people, says Mary Ellen Callahan, the chief privacy officer at Homeland Security, but rather “to verify that the identification document holds valid information about you.”

Likewise, U.S. border agents are “pinging” databases only to confirm that licenses aren’t counterfeited. “They’re not pulling up your speeding tickets,” she says, or looking at personal information beyond what is on a passport.

The change is largely about speed and convenience, she says. An RFID document that doubles as a U.S. travel credential “only makes it easier to pull the right record fast enough, to make sure that the border flows, and is operational” — even though a 2005 Government Accountability Office report found that government RFID readers often failed to detect travelers’ tags.

Such assurances don’t persuade those who liken RFID-embedded documents to barcodes with antennas and contend they create risks to privacy that far outweigh the technology’s heralded benefits. They warn it will actually enable identity thieves, stalkers and other criminals to commit “contactless” crimes against victims who won’t immediately know they’ve been violated.

Neville Pattinson, vice president for government affairs at Gemalto, Inc., a major supplier of microchipped cards, is no RFID basher. He’s a board member of the Smart Card Alliance, an RFID industry group, and is serving on the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.

Still, Pattinson has sharply criticized the RFIDs in U.S. driver’s licenses and passport cards. In a 2007 article for the Privacy Advisor, a newsletter for privacy professionals, he called them vulnerable “to attacks from hackers, identity thieves and possibly even terrorists.”

RFID, he wrote, has a fundamental flaw: Each chip is built to faithfully transmit its unique identifier “in the clear, exposing the tag number to interception during the wireless communication.”

Once a tag number is intercepted, “it is relatively easy to directly associate it with an individual,” he says. “If this is done, then it is possible to make an entire set of movements posing as somebody else without that person’s knowledge.”

Echoing these concerns were the AeA — the lobbying association for technology firms — the Smart Card Alliance, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the Business Travel Coalition, and the Association of Corporate Travel Executives.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security has been promoting broad use of RFID even though its own advisory committee on data integrity and privacy warned that radio-tagged IDs have the potential to allow “widespread surveillance of individuals” without their knowledge or consent.

In its 2006 draft report, the committee concluded that RFID “increases risks to personal privacy and security, with no commensurate benefit for performance or national security,” and recommended that “RFID be disfavored for identifying and tracking human beings.”

For now, chipped PASS cards and enhanced driver’s licenses are optional and not yet widely deployed in the United States. To date, roughly 192,000 EDLs have been issued in Washington, Vermont, Michigan and New York.

But as more Americans carry them “you can bet that long-range tracking of people on a large scale will rise exponentially,” says Paget, a self-described “ethical hacker” who works as an Internet security consultant.

Could RFID numbers eventually become de facto identifiers of Americans, like the Social Security number?

Such a day is not far off, warns Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and co-author of “Spychips,” a book that is sharply critical of the use of RFID in consumer items and official ID documents.

“There’s a reason you don’t wear your Social Security number across your T-shirt,” Albrecht says, “and beaming out your new, national RFID number in a 30-foot radius would be far worse.”

There are no federal laws against the surreptitious skimming of Americans’ RFID numbers, so it won’t be long before people seek to profit from this, says Bruce Schneier, an author and chief security officer at BT, the British telecommunications operator.

Data brokers that compile computer dossiers on millions of individuals from public records, credit applications and other sources “will certainly maintain databases of RFID numbers and associated people,” he says. “They’d do a disservice to their stockholders if they didn’t.”

But Gigi Zenk, a spokeswoman for the Washington state Department of Licensing, says Americans “aren’t that concerned about the RFID, particularly in this day and age when there are a lot of other ways to access personal information on people.”

Tracking an individual is much easier through a cell phone, or a satellite tag embedded in a car, she says. “An RFID that contains no private information, just a randomly assigned number, is probably one of the least things to be concerned about, frankly.”

Still, even some ardent RFID supporters recognize that these next-generation RFID cards raise prickly questions.

Mark Roberti, editor of RFID Journal, an industry newsletter, recently acknowledged that as the use of RFID in official documents grows, the potential for abuse increases.

“A government could do this, for instance, to track opponents,” he wrote in an opinion piece discussing Paget’s cloning experiment. “To date, this type of abuse has not occurred, but it could if governments fail to take privacy issues seriously.”

———

Imagine this: Sensors triggered by radio waves instructing cameras to zero in on people carrying RFID, unblinkingly tracking their movements.

Unbelievable? Intrusive? Outrageous?

Actually, it happens every day and makes people smile — at the Alton Towers amusement park in Britain, which videotapes visitors who agree to wear RFID bracelets as they move about the facility, then sells the footage as a keepsake.

This application shows how the technology can be used effortlessly — and benignly. But critics, noting it can also be abused, say federal authorities in the United States didn’t do enough from the start to address that risk.

The first U.S. identity document to be embedded with RFID was the “e-passport.”

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks — and the finding that some of the terrorists entered the United States using phony passports — the State Department proposed mandating that Americans and foreign visitors carry “enhanced” passport booklets, with microchips embedded in the covers.

The chips, it announced, would store the holder’s information from the data page, a biometric version of the bearer’s photo, and receive special coding to prevent data from being altered.

In February 2005, when the State Department asked for public comment, it got an outcry: Of the 2,335 comments received, 98.5 percent were negative, with 86 percent expressing security or privacy concerns, the department reported in an October 2005 notice in the Federal Register.

“Identity theft was of grave concern,” it stated, adding that “others expressed fears that the U.S. Government or other governments would use the chip to track and censor, intimidate or otherwise control or harm them.”

It also noted that many Americans expressed worries “that the information could be read at distances in excess of 10 feet.”

Those concerned citizens, it turns out, had cause.

According to department records obtained by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, under a Freedom of Information Act request and reviewed by the AP, discussion about security concerns with the e-passport occurred as early as January 2003 but tests weren’t ordered until the department began receiving public criticism two years later.

When the AP asked when testing was initiated, the State Department said only that “a battery of durability and electromagnetic tests were performed” by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, along with tests “to measure the ability of data on electronic passports to be surreptitiously skimmed or for communications with the chip reader to be eavesdropped,” testing which “led to additional privacy controls being placed on U.S. electronic passports … “

Indeed, in 2005, the department incorporated metallic fibers into the e-passport’s front cover, since metal can reduce the range at which RFID can be read. Personal information in the chips was encrypted and a cryptographic “key” added, which required inspectors to optically scan the e-passport first for the chip to communicate wirelessly.

The department also announced it would test e-passports with select employees, before giving them to the public. “We wouldn’t be issuing the passports to ourselves if we didn’t think they’re secure,” said Frank Moss, deputy assistant Secretary of State for passport services, in a CNN interview.

But what of Americans’ concerns about the e-passport’s read range?

In its October 2005 Federal Register notice, the State Department reassured Americans that the e-passport’s chip — the ISO 14443 tag — would emit radio waves only within a 4-inch radius, making it tougher to hack.

Technologists in Israel and England, however, soon found otherwise. In May 2006, at the University of Tel Aviv, researchers cobbled together $110 worth of parts from hobbyists kits and directly skimmed an encrypted tag from several feet away. At the University of Cambridge, a student showed that a transmission between an e-passport and a legitimate reader could be intercepted from 160 feet.

The State Department, according to its own records obtained under FOIA, was aware of the problem months before its Federal Register notice and more than a year before the e-passport was rolled out in August 2006.

“Do not claim that these chips can only be read at a distance of 10 cm (4 inches),” Moss wrote in an April 22, 2005, e-mail to Randy Vanderhoof, executive director of the Smart Card Alliance. “That really has been proven to be wrong.”

The chips could be skimmed from a yard away, he added — all a hacker would need to read e-passport numbers, say, in an elevator or on a subway.

Other red flags went up. In February 2006, an encrypted Dutch e-passport was hacked on national television, with researchers gaining access to the document’s digital photograph, fingerprint and personal data. Then British e-passports were hacked using a $500 reader and software written in less than 48 hours.

The State Department countered by saying European e-passports weren’t as safe as their American counterparts because they lacked the cryptographic key and the anti-skimming cover.

But recent studies have shown that more powerful readers can penetrate even the metal sheathing in the U.S. e-passport’s cover.

John Brennan, a senior policy adviser at the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, concedes it may be possible for a reader to overpower the e-passport’s protective shield from a distance.

However, he adds, “you could not do this in any large-scale, concerted fashion without putting a bunch of infrastructure in place to make it happen. The practical vulnerabilities may be far less than some of the theoretical scenarios that people have put out there.”

That thinking is flawed, says Lee Tien, a senior attorney and surveillance expert with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which opposes RFID in identity documents.

It won’t take a massive government project to build reader networks around the country, he says: They will grow organically, for commercial purposes, from convention centers to shopping malls, sports stadiums to college campuses. Federal agencies and law enforcement wouldn’t have to control those networks; they already buy information about individuals from commercial data brokers.

“And remember,” Tien adds, “technology always gets better … “

———

With questions swirling around the e-passport’s security, why then did the government roll out more RFID-tagged documents — the PASS card and enhanced driver’s license, which provide less protection against hackers?

The RFIDs in enhanced driver’s licenses and PASS cards are nearly as slim as paper. Each contains a silicon computer chip attached to a wire antenna, which transmits a unique identifier via radio waves when “awakened” by an electromagnetic reader.

The technology they use is designed to track products through the supply chain. These chips, known as EPCglobal Gen 2, have no encryption, and minimal data protection features. They are intended to release their data to any inquiring Gen 2 reader within a 30-foot radius.

This might be appropriate when a supplier is tracking a shipment of toilet paper or dog food; but when personal information is at stake, privacy advocates ask: Is long-range readability truly desirable?

The departments of State and Homeland Security say remotely readable ID cards transmit only RFID numbers that correspond to records stored in government databases, which they say are secure. Even if a hacker were to copy an RFID number onto a blank tag and place it into a counterfeit ID, they say, the forger’s face still wouldn’t match the true cardholder’s photo in the database, rendering it useless.

Still, computer experts such as Schneier say government databases can be hacked. Others worry about a day when hackers might deploy readers at “chokepoints,” such as checkout lines, skim RFID numbers from people’s driver’s licenses, then pair those numbers to personal data skimmed from chipped credit cards (though credit cards are harder to skim). They imagine stalkers using skimmed RFID numbers to track their targets’ comings and goings. They fear government agents will compile chip numbers at peace rallies, mosques or gun shows, simply by strolling through a crowd with a reader.

Others worry more about the linking of chips with other identification methods, including biometric technologies, such as facial recognition.

The International Civil Aviation Organization, the U.N. agency that sets global standards for passports, now calls for facial recognition in all scannable e-passports.

Should biometric technologies be coupled with RFID, “governments will have, for the first time in history, the means to identify, monitor and track citizens anywhere in the world in real time,” says Mark Lerner, spokesman for the Constitutional Alliance, a network of nonprofit groups, lawmakers and citizens opposed to remotely readable identity and travel documents.

Implausible?

For now, perhaps. Radio tags in EDLs and passport cards can’t be scanned miles away.

But scientists are working on technologies that might enable a satellite or a cell tower to scan a chip’s contents. Critics also note advances in the sharpness of closed-circuit cameras, and point out they’re increasingly ubiquitous. And more fingerprints, iris scans and digitized facial images are being stored in government databases. The FBI has announced plans to assemble the world’s largest biometric database, nicknamed “Next Generation Identification.”

“RFID’s role is to make the collection and transmission of people’s biometric data quick, easy and nonintrusive,” says Lerner. “Think of it as the thread that ties together the surveillance package.”

Tags: , , , , ,

Ponzi scheme victims get to write off 95% of losses – Welcome to the American Ponzi scheme

April 5, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Financial Crisis, Political Figures, Political Issues, Thoughts on the economy · Comment 

This is a sad sad day for the American taxpayer.  Apparently, the United States tax system is officially only in place to take money from stupid Americans and make every possible exception for those tax payers who have the power to manipulate our representatives.

I sympathize with people who were swindled by criminals, I hate that people in this world try to skate through life by stealing from others.  The world would be a much happier place, if these types of people would simply vanish.  However, none of the investors who were victims of criminals has earned even $1 dollar of my money or yours.

Am I missing something or has the U.S. tax system somehow morphed into a nanny state system?  I for the life of me cannot figure out how or why U.S. taxpayers deserve to become victims of these Ponzi scheme criminals, but that is exactly what is happening if we us non-victim money to bail them out.

Over the last 100 years there have been numerous scammers and thiefs who stole countless dollars from millions of Americans, but I do not recall a single instance where their grief and suffering somehow became all of American’s problem.  But you take one high flying Wall Street banker, and an elaborate scheme to steal from his influential clients, and all of the sudden we all have to bail them out.

Again, I have sympathy for those who lost money by the heartless acts of criminals, but our congress is no better than Bernard Madoff when it comes to robbing Peter to pay Paul, with absolutely no regard for the little tax payer who keeps their engine of greed running.

Here is an article that discusses the tax break, if you want to read the facts, instead of my rant.

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service announced unprecedented tax relief for victims of Ponzi schemes, saying many of those affected could deduct up to 95% of their losses immediately.

The move, which corresponded with a congressional hearing on the issue Tuesday, represents a significant relaxation of longstanding limits on tax relief for victims of investment scams. It reflects the pressure officials are feeling to help individuals who have been hurt in the current financial crisis, particularly at a time when public resentment is growing over the billions of dollars the government is directing into troubled banks and other big corporations.

The IRS action drew praise from lawmakers, who have been pondering legislation to help victims of swindlers such as Bernard Madoff, who has pleaded guilty to securities fraud and other charges, after confessing to running a $65 billion Ponzi scheme. “It’s a rare day when someone can be happy with the IRS,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) at the hearing held by the Senate Finance Committee.

The IRS guidance is more favorable to victims than prior positions the agency has taken, said Robert Willens, a New York tax adviser.

In broad terms, the IRS said Ponzi scheme victims who aren’t suing to recover their losses can generally deduct up to 95% of their qualified losses — minus any potential recoveries from insurance or the Securities Investor Protection Corp. — in the year the fraud is discovered. Those pursuing third-party recoveries can deduct 75% of relevant investments, after potential recoveries. The Securities Investor Protection Corp., or SIPC, is an organization designed to help investors at failed brokerage firms.

The IRS said victims wouldn’t be subject to limits that apply to personal casualty or theft losses and could carry back net operating losses five years to offset taxes paid, or forward 20 years. Under prior rules, many investors had to subtract $100 and 10% of their adjusted gross income from their loss deductions, and could carry back losses only three years, or forward 20 years.

In another change, the IRS said investors can include their principal, as well as any so-called phantom income they have received over the years, in their theft-loss deductions. Previously, the IRS allowed some Ponzi scheme victims to deduct only their principal as a theft loss, not phantom income.

The changes left open a number of questions, including how to help people who had invested in Ponzi schemes through nontaxable accounts such as Individual Retirement Accounts. People who invested indirectly through feeder funds potentially face a more complex situation in getting relief under the changes.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he was concerned that the guidance would “encourage tax cheats to take abusive deductions.”

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said any taxpayers who seek the new relief must file special forms identifying themselves as Ponzi victims. That will make it easier for the IRS to monitor claims and “look behind these, so we don’t have a lot of fraud,” he said.

The government has also limited tax-loss claims by individual investors that apply to normal losses from trading, due to concerns that it could result in a large loss of government revenue. But Sen. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) Tuesday said Congress should consider liberalizing those rules to help more consumers.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Paying off the National Debt and Stimulus Package in minutes, hours, days

March 14, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Finance, Financial Crisis, Government, Political Issues, Politics, Thoughts on the economy · Comment 

stimulus-package-and-national-debt-informationI do not think much needs to be said here.  Just look at the numbers, and imagine how much money it really is.  Numbers like this seemed inconceivable just 30 years ago.

We need to worry about how we are going to fix the debt problem, and we need to ask how those spending the money plan on paying it back.

Stimulus money feels great when you receive it, but paying it back is not as fun.

Tags: , , , , , ,

File under AWESOME – McCaskill Proposes Compensation Cap For Private Companies Getting Federal Dollars

February 3, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Finance, Financial Crisis, Funny and Odd, Government, Political Issues, Politics · 5 Comments 

Yep, the awesomeness meter just went to eleven.  Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) just dropped a bomb on CEO’s and other executives who work for companies asking for or using bailout money.  I do not know yet whether I love it, or hate it, because I just got the news via email from a friend, but I can tell you I love Congress actually dropping a bomb like this on the floor.  It makes C-SPAN must see t.v.

Here is the rest of the story directly from Senator Claire McCaskill’s website.

Under Bill No Employee Could Make More than President of the United States

Outraged by the latest news stories about corporate luxuries afforded by the very same companies that took public money and assistance in recent economic emergency packages, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today took to the senate floor to introduce new legislation that would prevent company executives receiving federal assistance from receiving compensation totaling more than the salary of the President of the United States.

“Going forward if you want taxpayers to help you survive, if you want the people at your financial institution to have a job tomorrow, then you’re going to have to limit everyone’s pay at your company to the same salary that the President of the United States makes,” said McCaskill from the Senate floor. “Now once they’re off the public dole, once the taxpayers aren’t footing the bill, then it’s not as much our business what they get paid. But right now they’re on the hook to us. And they owe us something other than a fancy waste basket and $50 million jet.”

Under Cap Executive Officer Pay Act of 2009, no employee of any private company that accepts federal dollars because of the economic downturn would be able to make more than the President on the United States – approximately $400,000 a year – until the company is no longer reliant on federal dollars. According to the bill, compensation would include salary, bonuses, and stock options.

Click here to read the bill.

And here is the video of the Senator on the floor

Tags: , , , , , ,

Debunking a “theoretical” criticism of the Obama Stimulus

January 26, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Finance, Financial Crisis, Government, Political Figures, Political Issues, Politics, Thoughts on the economy · Comment 
January 20, 2009 - President Barack Obama Oath of Office

January 20, 2009 - President Barack Obama Oath of Office

OK, I am probably diving in over my head on this one.  So here goes.  The Wall Street Journal online ran an opinion piece (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123292987008414041.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) which cites a study that claims to de-bunk the theory behind a Keynesian-style stimulus plan as a cure (partial or otherwise) for an ailing economy.

The basis of the argument is that when a government spends a dollar, it takes a dollar from some other pocket which washes the impact of the spending.

The claim is that because the government would have to (in this case) sell a bond, the investor that buys the bond would otherwise have invested the money somewhere that would have had much the same effect as the stimulus package would have on the greater economy.

I accept that this may be true in an otherwise healthy economy.  But in the current economy it must be kept in mind that the propensity of savers to invest in riskier assets – let alone in job creating businesses is sharply lower than what it would be in an otherwise healthy economy.  Thus it is likely that those funds, if not used to purchase the government bond used to finance the stimulus, would have stayed in some ultra secure savings vehicle, a bank account (and we know how eager banks are to lend these days) or some other asset which is ultra secure and would not in fact be deployed somewhere that would get the economy moving.

It is exactly in situations like the one we are in where a Keynesian stimulus package will work.  No, it will not cure all the economy’s problems.  Will it make them less severe than they otherwise might be.  I truly believe it will.

You can find a PhD or study to say just about anything you want.  The key is to understand the assumptions underlying the theory or study.  I have not reviewed the study referenced in the opinion piece.  But you do not need a PhD to know that Keynesian stimulus proposals – whose impact may very well be muted by less private spending in a healthy economy – are made to order for an environment where the propensity of consumers and investors is to be risk averse to an extreme degree.

Further, the psychological shift in confidence that may result in increasing private economy risk appetites (and is probably impossible to quantify in an economic study) over time from the knowledge that the government is stepping up to the plate is a key component in the effectiveness of any stimulus plan.

The article makes some good points about the first version of the stimulus package and its apparent lack of timeliness (when the money will be spent).  But this Congress and Administration have been in place less than a week (together).  Let’s give them a few weeks.

In ordinary times I am very much opposed to Keynesian policy for reasons consistent with the position laid out in the article.  But, like the great man himself once said, “when the facts change, I change my mind….what do you do sir?”

Tags: , , , , , ,

The modern medical establishment helps save lives but do you know everything you should?

January 15, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Featured, Government, Health Care, Social Change, Social Issues, Things to think about, Topic Blogs · 1 Comment 

A bold statement but after all the media, studies, and bullcrap science out there- I’m starting to believe it.  There is a myth in this country that the medical establishment is 100% completely committed and focused on the health of Americans.  This is not an all out assault on those who practice medicine, work late hours in ER’s, or show a genuine passion for those patients who they care for.  The issue lies with the over marketing, over hype, and over bombardment that Americans are subject to from the drug companies.   Drugs can be good, drugs can save lives, but they also can hurt people.  

Big pharma is a multi- billion dollar industry that thrives off the fear it instills in people.  The fear is disguised as “empowerment” and disguised behind such statements as  ”backed by clinical studies”  or seeing normal everyday people on TV who are suffering from such a debilitating condition that they are forced to “ask their doctor”.   I frankly get sick and tired of all the targeted advertisement hour after hour after hour that reminds me how sick I am and how I need to take control of my health, take control of my life, beat my cholesterol (which by the way there is a huge establishment which believes this is junk science),  and control my symptoms of depression.  The depression commercials are my favorite simply for the list of side effects alone…no thanks.  I have been through a lot of shit in the last two years, believe me and I would never pop this garbage in my mouth.  I’d rather be a little blue and snap out of it on my own.

 There is no financial benefit to curing a disease and there is no reward in medicine any greater than the ability to treat someone for a condition and profit highly from it.  Don’t get me completely wrong here; I do believe there are medications out there that serve a valuable purpose in a sick person’s life.   Conditions like Parkinson’s, Leukemia, Sickle Cell, and other inherited diseases have very focused courses of treatment.  You noticed I left cancer off the list and I am not going to haul off and act like I know everything there is to know about cancer, however, there is a very very strong opposition out there to chemo therapy and unfortunately this is the standard course of treatment, that’s it!   There is no other alternative if you are treated by conventional medicine.  Whether you or a loved one chooses to receive chemo for treatment is a purely personal decision and it’s a decision made under a horrendous amount of stress, emotional pain, and financial burden.  Cancer can be prevented in many cases if you learn about food and how food intake effects your body.   You hate to see people struggle with cancer so maybe down the road in a not so distant future, there will be methods to prevent and abort it for good.  A woman who is newly diagnosed with breast cancer is scared out of her wits and will take any course of treatment recommended to her, and frankly, I probably would too.

There are websites out there if you only look for them and believe me, do not think that the old saying “don’t trust everything you read on the internet” rings true all the time.  In fact, there is a wealth of information that is at your fingertips when it comes to medications, supplements, and the healing properties of FOOD!  

Let me get back to my rant earlier about how we get bombarded by drug ads and how big pharma has laced the pockets of the mainstream medical community and worse, our government.   First of all, I wish doctors would get back to their roots and begin the art of being a doctor again.  I get sick of sitting in an exam room and seeing fifty different cardboard displays, poster ads, and little trinkets on the counter with drug names and drug marketing.  You telling me you haven’t noticed?  How come you don’t see anymore pictures of fruits and veggies?  Why can’t there be a poster that lists the benefits of drinking water?  You see my point?   Sadly, doctors, nurses, dentists, and the like are surrounded by an empire.  A business to peddle legal substances in every corner office, every clinic, and every office cabinet.  It has turned Americans into hypochondriacs.  The drug companies unleash millions of dollars into their advertising campaigns and use the false sense of “health empowerment” to making you think that if you mention a drug to your doctor, then you are being very proactive!  Way to go Joe Acid Reflux, make that move and ask your doctor about Prilosec.  Keep eating spicy Mexican food three times a week, but at least you are making the right choice.   

We are one of the few countries on the planet which allows direct TV to consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals.  The article is from 2002 and god only knows what the figures are for today’s ads.   The FDA is also to blame, I personally think this organization is a joke.  Not because a lot of other naysayers think it is too, but based on all the side effects of drugs, the lawsuits, the recalls, the need for new studies, and the non-disclosure of information, it’s a worthless organization that does not protect the people in this country.   Here are examples of how absurd and dictatorial the FDA policies are, which are not designed to benefit you.

  • Have you seen this on bottles? – “This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”   It’s a catchy little phrase that producers of supplements are forced to put on a product that is not deemed a “drug”.  A drug means it has gone through intensive and long clinical studies to confirm it’s safety, reliability, and effectiveness in the treatment of disease.   These studies are performed by who else other than…the drug companies…tada!   
  • These are the same clinical studies which gave us – Vioxx (pulled off the shelves for invoking heart attacks in people), Baycol(a cholesterol drug pulled for causing fatal rhabdomyolysis, a muscle disease that can be caused by any cholesterol lowering drug), Ketek (an antibiotic found to cause acute liver damage after it was released) Trust me, there has been more, Actos, Avandia, and Celebrex which got major heat a few years back, but is still being pimped!  Celebrex is an NSAID, and studies (outside of the drug companies) have shown that they can cause fatal cardiovascular events.  This commercial by far takes the cake and if you watch and listen carefully, you can decipher what they are really trying to tell you.  Phizer is basically rubbing in your face that whatever information is out there has to be false, or unclear, because their study didn’t find anything wrong!!   They use the guidance of the “FDA” to instill a sense of relief in consumers that it is still OK to buy Celebrex,  because both Phizer and the FDA have acknowledged on the bottle with a “warning” that there is a slight chance it could kill you.  (which of course makes you feel better that the FDA is aware of this, wheeew!)   They place Celebrex on a level playing field with other NSAIDs (like over the counter stuff) and because its an FDA approved drug with a long ass’ commercial, then it can be considered the best of the worse.  People- you’ve seen this and it is sickening and an utter insult to your intelligence.  This is targeted towards people who already have RA or the elderly who will unfortunately believe anything.  

  • A doctor can prescribe a medication called Niaspan, which is a large dose of Vitamin B3 or also called Niacin.  If you get a prescription for Niaspan it will run you around 20 bucks, because it’s a large large dose of a clinical studied medication – this is bullshit.   You can buy Niacin right off the shelf at GNC for a hell of a lot cheaper and it’s the same fucking thing, Niacin.  Oh, and that statement from up above is clearly written on the bottle informing you that this cant be considered a “drug”.   Hmmm, that’s funny – when a doctor gives it to you as Niaspan, it’s a drug.  (Niaspan is made by Abbott Labs)  Interesting, it’s a company!
  • If you buy a huge ass bottle of Vitamin C, the bottle has that silly statement on it again…remember it’s not a drug and not intended to cure anything.   Again, I can buy an orange and there is no warning label.  Ahhh, but if I squeezed that orange into a bottle a made mention of how healthy it was.  The FDA can knock down my door at gunpoint and arrest me for selling something not clinically tested for safety.    But Vioxx has been !?!?!

If anyone wants to back the FDA and support the overall health value of medications that we see on TV, feel free to comment.    Like I said before, drugs do save people’s lives in certain circumstances, there are drugs that help control conditions which people suffer from.  They do the job because they target certain metabolic processes with synthetically produced chemicals.  You bet they do a good job because that’s what they are designed to do.  The problem is that too many of these drugs are profitable and are also hurting and potentially could kill people over time.   I take some drugs that I don’t want to be taking.  I have had some health issues hit me but I still believe firmly that I need to protect myself.  Supplements are good for you!  Don’t let anyone tell you any differently…a drug curves a symptom, that’s it.   Use your noggin and don’t place all your faith in what others sell you.  Doctors are smart people and I wish more of them would not be hesitant to discuss the real science behind the human body and how nutrition, natural substances, supplements, and food can have more of an effect on your body than a drug.   I don’t want to hear about the safety issues of supplements, or the safety issues of herbal substances.   You want to know why their safety is questioned?  It’s based on how they could potentially interact with a…you got it…drug.    It’s based on the fact that natural substances are not deemed worthy of medical study and I am a FIRM believer in this.   I don’t walk around outside popping evergreen trees and crab grass in my mouth with the thought it might cure a headache…but you know what..it fucking might!  This is not a radical viewpoint, it’s based on what goes on in our society today.  If the benefit is not financial, it has no benefit.   This is a disgusting reality.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Auto makers are failing and the car business has always failed us!

January 15, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Featured, Financial Crisis, Social Issues, Things to think about, Thoughts on the economy, Topic Blogs · 2 Comments 

I don’t think the failing automakers is totally a result of poor management, lack of innovation, or lack of faith in American made vehicles.  I think the issue goes deeper than that.  It starts at street level where the real dealing and car buying experience takes place.  With the advent of an internet market place, the car lot mentality is losing its appeal and frankly- I think savvy consumers are f**** tired of dealing with an archaic and crooked method (and might I add one of the main ways) of purchasing a car.    I do know people who have bought cars online through Ebay and Cars.com. The problem is that you rely entirely on the description and faith in the entity selling the vehicle, granted there are warranties involved, but you don’t get to see it, smell it, and sit in it.  I personally would have a tough time buying a vehicle online for that fact alone – I need to feel the controls.

I know this is an old cliche, the slimy car salesman, that pushy odd feeling when you walk onto a car lot hunting for a new vehicle.  It sucks, it really does.   It’s almost a science to learn the correct way to barter and deal with salespeople.  The cars are always marked up from their invoice price, if you didn’t know that you need to learn.  Besides the invoice price always being this hidden top secret price, most car dealers will always act like they are one step up the ladder on you.  What I mean is that no matter how much research you do, how much you learn about the car you are buying or trading, the dealer will somehow try to refute the information or pass off what they have to offer as being much better than anything you discovered yourself, it’s quite frustrating and makes you want to leave.   Which by the way, is a great tactic since the last thing a dealer wants is for you to walk out the door, they outright lose you and the potential sale.

Car dealers are a breed many will not understand.  There is a local example of a Kansas City family who has been in the car business for years- and most of that time it has been spent breaking the law, defrauding customer, and spending time in jail.   The Franklin family has been screwing over KC car buyers for a long time and their methods are quite humorous – and in the same light sad and pathetic.   To keep this short, the father’s name is Pete Franklin and he started this family legacy of filth.  He was famous for airing these 60 minute infomercials, yeah, 60 minute infomercials on local KC stations to sell his cars.  It apparently worked because he opened multiple locations throughout the city and raked in about $45 million in sales each year.

His legacy continues with his sons, Jeremy and Chad.  Now this gets downright ugly and exemplifies all that is wrong with the business.  They say the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree and this proves that saying.    The sons of Pete Franklin continued on the business of selling Suzuki vehicles which makes me wonder if Suzuki’s are a perfect fit for sub-prime buyers.  This is exactly the market that the Franklin family targets, they pimp low low monthly payments with nothing down, which is exactly the hook line that thousands of car dealers use to suck people in.

Quick lesson- you don’t buy a car based on how much it will save you monthly- you buy a car based on whether or not you can afford to have it paid off in 5 years !  That is the rule of thumb for financing.
Warning:  a dirt cheap monthly payment = longer financing term (6-7yrs) = you are seriously upside down and paying on a depreciating car for years! Back to the story.

The biggest part of this story is Chad Franklin.  His car dealerships were recently sued by the Kansas Attorney General for “unconscionable and deceptive business practices relating to an advertising campaign.”  I feel partly sorry for the buyers in this video because they should have known better!  That being said, they still got scammed.

You’ll notice the video mentioned that Chad Franklin changed the name of the dealership to Legend Susuki, which is the icing on the cake.  The guy is so crooked that his own NAME can’t be associated with the dealership HE owns out of fear that they won’t sell cars!  His brother Jeremy is somewhat more “legit” and has never been investigated but once had dealerships under the name Jeremy Franklin Suzuki and were recently changed to Showcase Suzuki to avoid association to his brother’s troubles.  How sad is that?

Granted, there are larger more reputable dealerships out there.  (reputable used lightly).  The problem is that car dealers are completely independent brokers of cars.  They buy cars from the automaker and turn the car right around to flip a profit on it and trust me- they always turn a profit!  Even the business of fixing your car is a business and the guarantee that parts and service are honored everywhere is a myth as well.

When your car breaks down, not only does the dealer run tests to find what is wrong, but they also run tests, punch in your VIN, and check their “databases” to see what else on your car needs to be “repaired” or is “due for maintenance”.  This is not a service, it’s a sales tactic.   This also ties back to how poorly cars survive the test of time and how auto makers covers themselves when they sell it to you.  If you actually followed the manufacture suggested maintenance schedule of your car – you would end up paying thousands and thousands of dollars to maintain your car over its lifetime.  This is pathetic considering you just paid some people’s yearly income for that shiny new sports-car.    Most people can only afford oil changes and occasional 30K maintenance which can still run you $400-500 bucks because of the labor costs.  Sadly, service managers are often reprimanded in dealerships for not pushing replacement and maintenance of specific parts on your car EVEN if there is no reasonable explanation of why you need it replaced.   In fact, the entire service bay is a sales arena in itself.  I know this and if they tell you differently –  they are lying.

A car dealer will not honor someone else’s work unless you outright force them to.  What I mean is that if you have two different dealers look at your brakes, they could give you two different assessments of what is wrong – and if you told a third dealer about it, they would still run their own tests and give you their own view.   They don’t act as a singular network representing the brand (Ford, Nissan, etc).  This is the facts!  A car dealership for the most part makes it’s own rules of engagement.  The only thing that is shared between the dealers are the national offers or services put out by the manufacturer themselves.  If you see a national Ford sale, or national “Toyotathon” event – then you’re going to see those details advertised at the dealers simply because they are the “face” of that car maker.  For all other intents and purposes, a dealer is on their own until they get caught doing people wrong  – which is often the case.

You don’t see this type of independent robbery techniques in a lot of other businesses.   If I buy pants at an Old Navy store in California and have issues and take my receipt to a location in Alaska, the store will make every possible concession to help you.  They will make some phone calls and might even allow you to exchange your items in that store.   Not so with auto dealers.  In fact, most don’t even talk to each other in the same metro area, seriously.  If you’re transmission was tested, estimated and confirmed broken at a car dealership – you can’t take your car to another dealership and have them call the other location to verify the issue and fix the transmission for you.  Wanna know why and you know the answer?  Money !!  The dealers love to check out your car, run tests, open the hood, move shit around, pull out cables, unscrew caps, hook up diagnostic laptops, and poke and prod.  They are no different than the doctor’s office – everything they touch is charged to you!  Sooo, that is why they don’t listen to what you tell them, if they did, they wouldn’t profit from your car !!!   I do have a soft side and realize that many have no choice.  The system has forced dealers to make money by employing these practices- they have to!  Dealers have to make money to pay bills and their people and it does not translate to a positive experience for the consumers.

So what do you do?  Be forceful because most car dealerships are staffed with push overs.  They are push overs because the more you fight, the more they give in.  You can make the car experience better by pursuing a second opinion, or questioning what they found, or simply saying ”I don’t need that fixed right now.”  It’s a bad deal no matter how you look at- and it won’t change unless the basic platform of dealerships changes.   CarMax is a step in the right direction but I have never been to one, so I don’t know that much about them – maybe time to research a little.

There is a positive side with a bad economy- they need the sales!  Now could be a great time to wiggle and waggle your negotiating skills and land a cool car at a great discounted price because dealers are hurting big time.  I know it’s tough for people to make big ticket purchases right now, but you can’t ask for a better time to do it.  In fact, my wife and I are about to start because god knows nobody else is looking for cars right now !   I can’t wait to go bully some dealers.

Tags: , , , , ,

The REAL problem with the TARP

January 12, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Finance, Financial Crisis, Government, Thoughts on the economy · 1 Comment 

federal_reserveThe real problem with the TARP is not that the banks took money and can not track where it has gone.  As I outlined in a comment to a recent post on this site, this is impossible and irrelevant.

The real problem with the TARP is that the money was sent to the wrong place initially.

If your house was on fire from a gas leak, would you just randomly spray water or would you first try to get the gas leak cut off?

If you randomly spray water the fire is likely to reignite.  If you cut off the gas leak you can then put out the fire without fear that the gas leak will reignite.

The banks were (are to some degree still) collapsing because the value of their assets was deteriorating.  Those assets that were the initial problem were, for the most part, home mortgages.

The Treasury should have – as originally intended by Congress – used the money to stem foreclosures.  By doing that we would have stabilized the value of the underlying assets of the banks and been able to avoid injecting “untrackable” tax payer dollars into the banks.  And we would have helped – directly – a lot of struggling tax payers in the process.

If you want to complain about the TARP, don’t bitch about the subsequent behavior of the banks…..bitch about the initial use of funds by your government.

Imagine, if instead of putting the money into the banks, the U.S. Treasury had taken the $700bn and used it as 20% equity in a giant Federal Reserve backed facility (the Federal Reserve is not allowed, by law, to buy assets if it believes it will incur lossses – this is why the $700bn would have served as a “backstop” to a Federal Reserve facility) to allow Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FDIC and other institutions to buy mortgages and mortgage backed securities and then to restructure loans for struggling borrowers.  We would have been able to acquire $3.5 Trillion (with a “T”) of mortgages and adjust terms to allow people to stay in their homes.

By doing this the government would have supported the value of the mortgage backed securities market and thus the write-downs that ultimately have required additional equity for the banks would have – to a great degree – been avoided.

Think about it.

Tags: , , ,

Clark Griswold has a message for the United States government and the powers that be

January 12, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Financial Crisis, Government, Thoughts on the economy · 2 Comments 
Merry F'ing Christmas and Happy Holidays - Government A'holes

Merry F'ing Christmas and Happy Holidays - Government A'holes

Clark Griswold had it right on the money, he was not talking about the financial bailout money Congress gave to virtually every bank in the land, but he might as well have been.  I think if Clark was talking about the bailout this is all he would have had to change.

Hey! If any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me. I have one……..Congress, the President, the Federal Reserve, my leaders, right here tonight.
I want them brought from their happy holiday slumber over there on Pennsylvania Avenue with all the other rich people and I want them brought right here, with a big ribbon on their head, and I want to look them straight in the eyes and I want to tell them what a……..

  • cheap
  • lying
  • no-good
  • rotten
  • four-flushing
  • low-life
  • snake-licking
  • dirt-eating
  • inbred
  • overstuffed
  • ignorant
  • blood-sucking
  • dog-kissing
  • brainless
  • dickless
  • hopeless
  • heartless
  • fat-ass
  • bug-eyed
  • stiff-legged
  • spotty-lipped
  • worm-headed
  • sack of monkey shit…….

……They ARE!  Hallelujah!  Holy shit!  Where’s the Tylenol?

Why you ask would Clark Griswold be so pissed at Congress, the President and the Federal Reserve? Well the answer my friend is blowing in the wind. Yep that really unkind and nasty wind that blows from the backside of the financial world. Here is the story about how your money is being spent, and how grateful everyone is for you spending your hard earned money to keep them in business.

WASHINGTON – It’s something any bank would demand to know before handing out a loan: Where’s the money going?

But after receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation’s largest banks say they can’t track exactly how they’re spending the money or they simply refuse to discuss it.

“We’ve lent some of it. We’ve not lent some of it. We’ve not given any accounting of, ‘Here’s how we’re doing it,’” said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. “We have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to.”

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in government money and asked four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings, and what’s the plan for the rest?

None of the banks provided specific answers.

“We’re not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking,” said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Some banks said they simply didn’t know where the money was going.

“We manage our capital in its aggregate,” said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout.

The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion — about the size of the Netherlands’ economy — to help rescue the financial industry. The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.

There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money. Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month and implored them to lend the money — not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses, junkets or to buy other banks. But there is no process in place to make sure that’s happening and there are no consequences for banks who don’t comply.

“It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry,” said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.

But, at least for now, there’s no way for taxpayers to find that out.

Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings on the $700 billion bailout in October. And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.

“Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One,” said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress. “Where is the money going to go to? How is it going to be spent? When are we going to get a record on it?”

Nearly every bank AP questioned — including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money — responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.

A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase’s plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year. Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley Corp., said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.

But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.

“We’re choosing not to disclose that,” said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billion.

Others said the money couldn’t be tracked. Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T Corp., said the bailout money “doesn’t have its own bucket.” But he said taxpayer money wasn’t used in the bank’s recent purchase of a Florida insurance company. Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn’t being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.

Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity. When AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying: “We are going to decline to comment on your story.”

Most banks wouldn’t say why they were keeping the details secret.

“We’re not sharing any other details. We’re just not at this time,” said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica Inc., which received $2.25 billion from the government.

Heine, the New York Mellon Corp. spokesman who said he wouldn’t share spending specifics, added: “I just would prefer if you wouldn’t say that we’re not going to discuss those details.”

The banks which came closest to answering the questions were those, such as U.S. Bancorp and Huntington Bancshares Inc., that only recently received the money and have yet to spend it. But neither provided anything more than a generic summary of how the money would be spent.

Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.

“What we’ve been doing here is moving, I think, with lightning speed to put necessary programs in place, to develop them, implement them, and then we need to monitor them while we’re doing this,” Paulson said at a recent forum in New York. “So we’re building this organization as we’re going.”

Warren, the congressional watchdog appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they’ve spent the money.

“It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers,” she said.

But Warren said she’s surprised she even has to ask.

“If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn’t be in a position where you’re trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents,” she said.

Garrett, the New Jersey congressman, said the nation might never get a clear answer on where hundreds of billions of dollars went.

“A year or two ago, when we talked about spending $100 million for a bridge to nowhere, that was considered a scandal,” he said.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

GM and GMAC are no longer relevant – No more bailout money, please

January 12, 2009 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Financial Crisis, Government, Rant · 5 Comments 
GM Sucks

GM Sucks

I think the title pretty much sums up the point of this article, but for the sake of those who do not immediately agree with me I will expand on the subject just a tad.

This weekend I went to look for a new vehicle, and I was shocked at how out of touch General Motors (GM) is with the WORLD and the LITTLE PEOPLE who buy their vehicles.

You see GM has been pushing their smart lease program for the last 20 years, and for many of us the program worked just fine.  We would buy a vehicle, make payments for 3 or 4 years and then return the vehicle for a new one, and that is exactly what we have done for the last 12 years.  Unfortunately, GM has chosen to eliminate their program, and to add insult to injury they have chosen to beat the crap out of the customers who need to turn in their vehicles virtually assuring no one will want to buy from them again.

To save you some time here is a little information you might want to consider if you are going to GM to buy a new vehicle.  GMAC is not writing loans for vehicles, so if you have had a GMAC loan for quite some time your payment history and loyalty will not mean a thing to anyone.  Their are no leasing options or smart buy options, so you will have to purchase the vehicle to keep.  Which means that ugly GM car will be yours for the foreseeable future and the only way to get out of it is to sell it for a loss, because no one wants a used GM car.  Now if you go and buy a Lexus, Toyota or Mercedes you can turn around and sell it in 3 years, and not take a total bath, but that is just not the case with GM.

Why you say? Because GM cars are horrible.  All you have to do is take a trip across the road and you will find really smart cars at Toyota, Lexus and Mercedes, and by smart I do not mean hybrid, I simply mean cars that are made for people who drive them.  They include features you want in your vehicle, and they are RELIABLE.  The only vehicle I would consider buying at GM now is a truck, but the truly sad part, is even their trucks leave much to be desired these days.  In fact if you have seen a Chevy truck commercial with Howie Long lately then you know their new campaign is about making fun of really cool features on other models, like a tailgate step, heated steering wheel and GPS.  You see their trucks do not come with these things, so if you like them you are according to Chevy a wimp.  I guess I am a wimp, because I like trucks that will last for at least 250,000 miles and I like to use a step to get into the bed of the truck, if it is available.

Face it, the economy is in bad shape, GM and Congress would like you to believe their problems are based on Union salaries or other financing problems, but after this weekend I can assure you the problem is GM. GM has no foresight, and is completely oblivious to the changes that have taken place in America over the last 8 years.  For example, they do not seem to care where they place their car chargers or how you play your music and most importantly they simply do not care how long your car will operate without problems. These are just a few of the items GM has clearly no interest in addressing, and in today’s information at your fingertips world that is just no longer going to fly.

I know GM is planning on asking Congress for additional bailout money in March, but I for one say let it fail, and maybe, just maybe someone will take the helm who understands it is time to make great vehicles, care about the customers and not just continue doing the same old thing over-and-over-and-over again.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Next Page »