I believe the amount of time people spend on developing or thinking of taglines is nuts. Yes. They are important but in the scheme of things I would envision if you are analyzing your time (or people’s time in general) by billable hour, the amount of time invested in this type of thing is … well … not a good investment.
Second.
Here is why I think the time invested is out of whack. In general, here are the guidelines for developing a brand line.
If the company/brand name is more aspirational/inspirational, or less descriptive, like Nike’s company name, err on the side of aiming for a more descriptive tagline telling people what the company offers or does (like Nike’s original line of “superior performance athletic shoes”).
If the company/brand name is more descriptive of the product/service that is being offered then the tagline can assume a more aspirational feel & direction.
The exception: when a company has achieved such a strong awareness that it has achieved a brand status, meaning that people know what the company actually does/offers, a tagline can take on more of an aspirational aspect (use Nike as an example when it shifted to “Just do IT” after they had attained 90+% awareness).
Third.
The main rule of the road for descriptor/tagline development:
When the logo/name of company and tagline are stand-alone, make sure people can tell you exactly what that company does or offers. In other words, don’t be tricky or creative and lose an opportunity to be clear about who and what you are. And this is REALLY important when you come out of the starting blocks. Look. You can always change later. Upfront be clear. Making people guess (and you don’t have enough money to answer their guessing) is a silly investment.
Why? Anything other than meeting that main rule translates into having to invest a lot of money, and time effort, to educate people.
There you go.
All these “inspirational taglines” and such are kinda silly.
Do other things to inspire people.
Plus. I am also a believer that a tagline can change. Almost as often as you would like (as long as it stays in the same sphere of character).
The strategic foundation is so simple and clearly good it is a worthwhile read for anyone in business. Whether you actually use the disruption methodology or not the idea of positioning in a way to create disruption (and therefore being distinct) is a powerful concept.
Drawing from experiences as the founder and chair of a global advertising agency, Dru gives us this practical, refreshing approach to thinking about advertising, positioning a business in the marketplace and … well … thinking in general.
His compelling concept of “disruption” is a three-step reasoning process for creating a set of new visions for successful growth.
Dru first explores how firms can get in a rut with their advertising strategies.
He then offers hundreds of examples of advertising in Europe, the United States, and Japan to explore cultural differences and government rules and regulations about advertising. Dru’s last section provides more detail and looks toward the future.
Rich with examples, this timely book is recommended for advertising-agency and marketing professionals as well as for corporate executives, consultants, and advanced students and academicians.
I have written on a variety of issues with regard to running a business and effective organizations (Running a Business Part 1 and Part 2, Collaboration & Consensus Part 1 & Part 2).
But I came across this video which discusses “the surprising science of motivation.”
It is a long video (18+ minutes) and Daniel Pink, the presenter, is a little practiced on occasion in his delivery but the information is nice. There were two things in the video which I appreciated.
One I had felt but had never been able to confirm.
The other I already knew but hadn’t written about yet.
1. Motivation Incentives.
Maybe it’s because I have worked with several advertising agency owners who wanted to run their agencies like manufacturing plants, but this issue has been near and dear to my heart for quite awhile. The video talks about “carrot and stick” motivational techniques and crap like that.
He uses some nice simple illustrations and some fact based conclusions for why the typical ways we try to motivate each other fail in business today.
A Daniel Pink Quote:
“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and business does.”
Possibly because most of the organizations I have either consulted for or worked at have been more “idea driven” versus “product output” organizations I have always believed (maybe more a feeling) that financial based reward models sucked. Daniel finally gave me some facts (from studies):
“Once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skills a larger reward led to poorer performance.”
“As long as task involved only mechanical skills, bonuses worked, i.e., higher pay = better performance.”
Halleluiah.
That isn’t to say people in a cognitive driven business shouldn’t be fairly compensated; it simply states that rewarding financially to increase productivity is not the most effective path.
So if it isn’t financial rewards, what does help productivity?
2. Constructed Autonomy.
This is all about self direction within a solid construct of vision and company ‘direction.’ This is something I have believed to be an effective characteristic of effective organizations for some time. It is most likely embodied within larger franchise organizations (in some form or fashion) but it is easier to see it in those organizations because they are obviously fragmented and local autonomy works within some “rules” construct.
So.
The video.
In addition to talking about motivating employee behavior he also talks about creating an environment for productivity. I wrote about this in Organizational Alignment.
But.
He reminded me when he discusses the idea of autonomy about what I call “constructed autonomy” environments (yup. I do love contradictions).
I used the whole Constructed Autonomy idea in a consulting presentation in early spring (with a source reference) as I discussed organizational alignment and creating the most effective organization.
I apologize but for the life of me I cannot dig up the source for that autonomy business idea but I believe there was a big European based study on organizational behavior that talks about it (if I can find that presentation on some thumb drive I will source it).
My “twist” on the Autonomy thing was to tie it to a tightly constructed organizational vision. To me it’s all about giving employees within the organization lots of freedom within a well defined construct (not a box but rather a guiding star they can always locate).
Ok.
Maybe not lots of freedom but enough freedom on some key things (whatever they may be that is relevant to that particular organization).
Ok.
So here’s the deal with Autonomy.
Every time I have used the word “autonomy” to an organizational owner, President, Sr. VP, whatever…their faces pale, hands grip the table a little harder, they may even gasp a little and their voices quiver slightly with fear.
Autonomy means lack of control.
Autonomy means I need to trust my employees.
Autonomy means “so then what do I do”? (sorry, had to throw that last one in).
But autonomy on the ground:
permits a slight level of localization (if that is relevant to an organization)
certainly creates a higher level of responsiveness (good for customer satisfaction)
actually is a good idea/innovation generator (as long as you have a feedback mechanism)
automatically creates a higher level of energy within an organization
builds a happier organization because it creates a stronger sense of ownership & responsibility
It takes a strong leader with a clearly articulated vision to make autonomy work within an organization (if you don’t, then autonomy simply fragments an organization by permitting pieces to go flying off in every direction aimlessly).
So.
That’s the “Constructed” portion of it. In my Running a Business Part 2 I described this as one end of the bookends. A clearly articulated vision, mission, okay … what ‘the organization is going to be good at’. And ruthlessly good at.
If that is provided as the “North Star,” then Autonomy always knows what direction to steer toward. And because of that North Star, autonomous groups can wander slightly but have an opportunity to course correct (
which, by the way, is also a good evaluation mechanism for employees).
There you go.
A nice video sparking some clarification on my part.
It’s a marketing ploy used in a marketing environment (doesn’t a double negative erase itself?).
It is all about tiny sharp insights. Sharp insights that have the possibility of expanding to something big. Unfortunately I now have a visual of one of those stupid little sponges that expand when you put a drop of water on them).
Maybe Big Ideas are crap is overstating it a little. It is the concept of “finding” or “uncovering” the Big idea that is crap.
What is the Big Idea? Simply by starting your thought process out with this question you have complicated your life and in fact you are saying you are seeking the wrong thing. For in seeking something big you find something that can be torn apart into meaningless little nothings.
I cannot tell you how many times I have seen presentations where someone presented “the Big Idea” and I admit it looked really good. Really Big. And everyone walks out of the room feeling like they have been in the presence of something Big and Big things are gonna happen. Then reality enters the room. The Big Idea needs to be implemented. And the implementing organization starts picking at parts & pieces. And the implementers start dealing with all the individual parts & pieces needed to … well .. actually implement the Big Idea. All of a sudden the Big Idea (which was probably a pretty good looking puzzle when it was all together) is a jumble of little puzzle pieces (which don’t fit together to make that really nice Big puzzle again).
Compounding the “Big Idea is crap” issue is that the Big Idea originator (who really didn’t think through all the littleness needed to bring it to life) starts compromising on the Little implementation components (and they don’t need to be just tactics, it can be words and phrasing and things like that) and that makes the jumble of little puzzle pieces become even more jumbled and even less likely to fit back into the Big Idea puzzle.
Oh. And the Big Idea Originator always sits back and blames the Big Idea Organization Owner because they couldn’t see the Bigness in the Idea well enough to not break it apart. Silly. Each component of the Big Idea Organization thinks of themselves as Big in their own right with Big needs and wants to own their Big part. The Big Idea Originator forgot, and consistently does, that without all the Little parts in the organization working to become Big (or even just thinking Big thoughts) the organization is neither Big nor Little, it is simply nothing.
That is why the Big Idea thinking process is crap.
As an acorn becomes an oak. We should be seeking the acorn. We need to learn to revel in the smallness and power of what it is. And understand the gloriousness of what this little thing can become if it is watered and nurtured.
But.
Small isn’t sexy in marketing. It needs to be Big to be meaningful. Too bad. Because Big Ideas are crap.
I have recently read three articles on decriminalization:
One on Portugal’s national drug decriminalization program.
One on a local US program which didn’t decriminalize but attacked the problem with a treatment option (in High Point, NC).
And an article from Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
To be clear. Decriminalizing drug usage is not about making drugs legal. It remains illegal, in particular selling of drugs is a felony, but users & possessors are given the opportunity to be treated rather than punished. And I would like to also note that decriminalization isn’t selective to the drug. It’s not just about marijuana but everything (yes. Including heroin, crack, etc.).
I don’t want to get into a debate on “punishment matching the crime” I simply want to make a point on solving a problem. I read that oftentimes our existing programs are driven by the fact that voters want vengeance and politicians (wanting the voters) accommodate their requests and set up strong punishment programs. But after awhile even the most naïve have to see that whatever we are doing isn’t working.
Portugal is a wonderful example of how a treatment decriminalization program can positively affect usage numbers and all the violence that is typically associated with a thriving drug community.
Decriminalizing versus legal. Just to be sure everyone is on same page. Drug usage in Portugal is still illegal and drugs are confiscated when in possession and offenders are sent before a commission. What this means is that instead of entering the judiciary system (or legal system), offenders are sent to “dissuasion commissions.”
This encourages addicts to seek treatment (without fear of legal repercussions) and stop recreational users from falling into addiction.
And it works. Addicts entered into drug substitution programs have risen from 6000 to 24000, 1999 to 2008. Drug usage (trial) in general has decreased. And most notably, drug usage among vulnerable younger age groups has declined.
The evidence from Portugal since 2001 is that decriminalization of drug use and possession has benefits and no harmful side effects (headline in August 2009 The Economist). So the United States, which has been mired for years in discussion of whether marijuana should be legal or not, maybe should take a bigger view on things. Or maybe get some perspective at minimum. I am not a drug user (unless you count Advil)…well…not anymore at least.
As the article points out, when Portugal created this legislation there were no lack of doomsayers across Europe (“pure lunacy” … “planeloads of people would head to Algrave to smoke marijuana” … it kind of makes me think of Bill Murray in “Ghostbusters” … “madness. dogs and cats living together”).
To top it off, earlier this year an American research company (yes. American) published a study stating:
“In numerous categories Portugal drug usage is now among the lowest in the European Union”
Is Portugal the USA? Surely not. Does it showcase an example worth pursuing? Absolutely.
To me selling and trafficking drugs is a crime. And deserves to be punished. Using drugs is not a crime…it is a problem that needs treatment. Once again I am forced to point out (because most people who challenge and debate bring it up) there will be exceptions. But, please remember, you don’t build programs based on serving the exceptions. You develop successful programs to meet the majority.
While I envision that writing my thoughts on this stemmed from the fact I guess I never really thought that hard about how to help resolve a drug problem (beyond the fact I thought burning fields in Columbia didn’t seem to be a great long term solution), this whole decriminalization and community support talk has reminded me of a lesson. “Treating the problem” is often not as popular (it sometimes appears to the public to not have a strong enough sense of urgency), but it is often the most effective path. Maybe it is time America should think of a program like Portugal’s.
I have always believed the moment you own a contradiction is the moment you capture an emotional and intellectual awareness.
I encountered one on Tuesday.
Letting go and holding on.
That was the day my 15 year old dog died. That morning I was ready to let go and wanted to hold on.
Walking into the vet with my dog’s head resting on my shoulder I had already said goodbye alone at home. I was ready to let go.
And yet.
When I laid him down on his towel at the vet I asked for a couple minutes more.
I wanted to hold on. What I chose to do was scratch him behind his ear and say goodbye. I know he couldn’t feel it. It was more for me then it was for him. But. It was my last time to hold on to him before I let go.
Illustrator Harry Grant Dart’s vision of the increasingly aggressive and intrusive character of advertising in turn-of-the-century America appeared in a 1909 issue of Life. During this period, the growth of mass production and mass marketing changed the way consumer goods were bought and sold. Information about products now came not from those who made or sold them, but from persuasive advertisements trying to create brand recognition and brand loyalty. Advertisements moved out of separate sections in the back of magazines, as the newest periodicals featured full-page ads and depended upon advertising, rather than subscriptions, for their revenue. Coordinated advertising campaigns using billboards, store displays, and electric signs, became common.
I am not sure if this is a rant or a diatribe. But. I read something the other day about making brands indispensable.
Okay. Let’s talk about indispensable. Sure. Many great traditions dictate some “indispensable” actions.
Getting married and diamonds.
New Years Eve and alcohol.
Love and flowers.
Emotional traditions are the strongest links to indispensable.
How about functional indispensables?
Water. Food. And beer (to college kids).
An indispensable brand? (harrumph. Bet you haven’t seen that in awhile)
To me … to believe you can make your brand indispensable is pure & simple marketing arrogance.
You can make it useful.
You can intertwine it in a positive way into the lives of people.
You can even make people emotional about it.
Indispensable? To the wacky few maybe (yeah. We have all seen that guy who only buys Coke apparel and products for his family every Christmas. And maybe the pez connoisseur.) But don’t be fooled by these fanatical few. You love ‘em as a manufacturer (oops, brand). But you can’t build a brand around them. In fact in some cases you hesitate to make too big deal about them.
Brands become “brands” because a certain group of people have deigned to anoint your product as such.
And the most loyal of this group are probably “head over heels in like” with you.
I purposefully use like here.
In today’s world “brand love” is not a common thing (maybe in the 50’s when people had fewer choices and no internet to create educational doubt). The best it seems to get resides “in like.” What that means is the brand is not even close to being indispensable; rather it is always one mistake away from “I like you but I want to date other people.”
So how do you remain “a head over heels in like brand”?
First and foremost. Usefulness.
Yup. Pretty functional <and boring> but pretty essential. Some marketing expert folks call this the ‘price-value equation.’ Whatever. Just be clear about this. The moment your brand does not meet use expectations it has become dispensable. And people just won’t like you any more <that is bad>. That is why I made this first and foremost.
Second. Equal emotional engagement, i.e., do you like me as much as I like you?
True brands have emotional things attached to the functional usefulness. To make it an ongoing relationship both sides have to communicate the emotion. Buyers do it with dollars and displaying your logo. Sellers do it … well … with whatever may match the emotional relationship.
Here is what I mean (let me be a guy for a moment). While I could give “things” to someone I date all the time nothing trumps a good “hey … I love you” in words. Oh. And the love is reciprocated in some way. Hey. Does that mean all gifts (i.e., loyalty programs, promotions, etc.) are unnecessary? Nope. It’s balance. Buyers & sellers need some balance to maintain the emotional aspect of the relationship. Gifts are part of it and words are part of it and … well .. just as with any relationship … there is are lots of moving parts. But both have to believe it is worth it and it’s not just ‘wooing’ (I wanted to type that word) by the seller all the time.
Hey.
If you read any of my other stuff you will see a strong thread of “dreamer” (or belief in aspirational) objectives in my belief infrastructure. I like thinking big <personally and in business>. I like dreaming. And believe it has value in organizational management. But, with ‘brands? I just struggle with “indispensable.”
No. I do not struggle … I just do not buy it.
Just a last thought on this.
I do think of brands as marriages.
Think of it this way … in a ‘courting phase’ I believe it is unhealthy for one to try and make themselves look indispensable in seeking a long term relationship. In addition I also tend to believe if one partner purposefully seeks to be indispensable in a relationship it is unhealthy.
Great marriages are some give and take. Some communication. Some respect. And the understanding that you are “right” for each other and imperfections … well … can make it a perfect fit.
And I also believe the moment one partner feels indispensable things are out of whack. But, hey, I am no Dr. Phil. And I am no “Brand Expert.” This is just my opinion.
I talk with them about what it takes to be successful in a career (and life).
My favorite topic to discuss is “character.”
I describe it as a fork in the road. Okay. A shitload of forks in the road.
A moment, or moments, where you have a choice which helps define who you will be moving forward in life.
I ceratainly never mean to suggest I know “the right path” … all I mean I that we all have choices to do “the right thing” or “the wrong thing” and those types of decisions go a long way to defining “once and for all who you are.”
The other thing I happen to mention which I oddly enough learned in the advertising world … each moment matters.
If you find an excuse to not do what is best one moment … well … the next moment is even easier to not do the right thing -… and then the next thing you know you are on the slippery slope and you cannot get off.
Anyway.
This is a Life truth. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
In business there is a significant difference between having the skill to actually build something … and having the skill to fix something.
Me? I guess I have always seen myself as a fixer. Or a renovator. I have always been pretty good <at least … very comfortable> stepping in to manage a business where maybe the business has become stagnant (the organization itself, sales, ideas, whatever). Maybe stepping in when someone well thought of, who has been in a position for a long period of time has left. It is most typically a place and time where shaking the etch-a-sketch was needed (although it may not be liked/appreciated by all at the moment).
Some guy named Pareto (an Italian sociologist) suggested there are two types of people.
The Speculator and the Rentier.
The Speculator is constantly preoccupied with the possibilities of new combinations. Rentiers are more conservers of the routine … he also calls them Stockholders.
While I am not sure I agree life is as simple as he suggests, I do agree different people think different ways … and inevitably they have different skill sets <despite the fact many business people would like to think they are good at everything>.
Me? It is absolutely, clearly, in my DNA to be “constantly preoccupied with possibilities of new combinations.” Now. That can make me a pain in the ass to work with.
I vividly remember the time a mentor, and a manager I loved working for, once said to me “sometimes you are a pain in the ass, but I am glad you are my pain in the ass.”
And in liking this ‘new combinations’ concept that means the more pieces available the better I am. By pieces I mean perceptions, attitudes, strengths, weaknesses, things they may have even forgotten they were good at or had years ago and just need to be brought off the shelf and used again.
By the way … I have written something called “thoughtful reimaging” that captures what I believe about that process.
Anyway. I enjoy taking existing pieces and rearranging them. But to be a good <effective> Renovator I guess I have to be good, or at least comfortable, at making choices.
If you have a hundred pieces you cannot use them all.
New combinations means sifting through everything that is there … prioritizing and analyzing … and it will mean using some old and some new and discarding some being used in the present. Maybe what people have liked (or what has worked for me) is that I don’t like to throw everything out (mostly because I tend to believe there are people a lot smarter than me, and one or two of them had probably thought about this situation before I came along) and I don’t really like – or think about – putting my own thumbprints on something.
In the end I just like to reshape thing a little so that maybe people think it’s bigger and better <or more efficient and effective> than it really is … but implementing it is pretty easy to do because it’s just not that new.
<note: communicating this is an entirely different post … because I believe so many people want to use buzzword bullshit to imply greater/bigger/magical/NEW … that thinking simplistically & pragmatically like this gets stalled in cynicism and lack of understanding>
I had a business associate tell me once after I told him all of this that there should be no reason why I shouldn’t be good at building because the thought process underpinnings were exactly the same. I agreed theoretically … but noted this was more about mindset. I would suck as an entrepreneur. I just don’t have the head for it. And I guess I just can’t cross that mental block that would make it possible for me create something from scratch.
As I wrap this thought up I think about the ‘pain in the ass’ comment.
This isn’t like home building renovation. This is about business. So being a Renovator sometimes means having a little lack of subtlety in your approach so that people understand that the renovation has to be discernible to make a difference. Not whole scale (as noted earlier I do like to take some old and some new) but discernible in order to make a difference. One foot in the past, or present and one foot in the future. It takes a lot of pragmatism … but also a good dose of futurism <which some people call potential or hope>.
So. If you visit my LinkedIn site you will see a past client says:
“If you don’t want to be “nudged” into new ideas and creative solutions – don’t ever call Bruce McTague. If, however, you want to look at things through a different telescope and find 3-dimensional ideas you’ve never considered, call Bruce now. Not tomorrow. He’ll make you uncomfortable, but I firmly believe that if the idea doesn’t make you uneasy, it’s not a big idea. Easy to work with, but always stretching your mind, Bruce is a true business Partner. You’ll grow working with Bruce.”
I guess we renovators (if we don’t want to be order takers) have to be a little contrarian at times. And we are not “nudgers.”
And I don’t mean to be … and probably never will be.
But I do love putting new combinations of things together. I do love taking something existing and breathing new life into it. I do love taking something that maybe is standing still and getting it to run again. And maybe that is what being a renovator is all about … pushing organizations and products to get the momentum going again.
Maybe it would have been more fun to call us “etch a sketchers’ instead but I will stick with being a Renovater <and owning an etch a sketch>.
Ok. This is a multi-part rant on how money is being spent. Hence the reason I call it “monopoly money.” People banter about numbers that seem unreal <at least to me>. In addition … politicians throw numbers around in ways that is at it’s worst … simply lies … and at it’s best … partial truths. I do not like it. At all. But here you go …
Monopoly Money: International Version
So. On April 25th 2009 the IMF resources were increased from $250 billion to $750 billion. This new fund is called IMF 2.0 (as coined by Time magazine). I guess I should have been impressed with a $500 billion increase in one day.
But maybe I am just numbed by the numbers.
These numbers (billions of dollars) get bantered about like pennies in that jar you have on top of the refrigerator. Or maybe even better. Like monopoly money.
Maybe it is just me. But I think I have a good education (although I would imagine I am still not the sharpest knife in the drawer). And I have earned a higher than average salary in my lifetime. But I admit. I don’t get it. The numbers are so huge they just don’t seem real to me. I am the guy who still blinks twice when the heating bill hits $200 in the winter. Swallows painfully when I have to write the $300 car payment every month. Even that 55 dollar a month getting pulled out of my paycheck for health insurance is kind of painful (in a bamboo shoot under the fingernail sort of way). I see $750 billion and I wonder how the farmer in Congo or Zimbabwe (the 2 poorest countries in the world) feels about the trillion or so his country is gonna get. (I have to envision it takes up more than a suitcase of money you see in the movies…maybe 4 suitcases?).
I also find it is interesting to me that Ukraine is one of the largest beneficiaries of the IMF. It surprises me because I guess I just don’t think of a European country as needing money as much as, say, a third world country (I admit that is a naïve point of view). But I have to tell you when I read something like that it reeks of supporting democratic governments versus those who need it most. Oops. That’s rambling and off point.
This is about 750 billion dollars. I understand how the money is supposed to be used and how it is supposed to benefit “the people” and “the economy.” But the numbers are so big they are meaningless to me. (and I am a member of the 7th richest country club in the world). And that is a shame. Because I am willing to bet the IMF is doing a great job (although the trillions of dollars make me feel like they should be doing a triply great job). I just cannot wrap my arms around it.
It would probably benefit the IMF at some point to dumb it down a little for me and quit talking about 750 billion dollars.
Monopoly Money: Government version.
On August 25th 2009 the US released updated budget figures. As stated in the press…“America’s budget is on a dangerously unsustainable course.”
Okay. What facilitated that comment was the fact they estimate America’s cumulative ten year deficit will INCREASE BY ALMOST A TRILLION DOLLARS to a new total of $9.05 TRILLION DOLLARS (I bolded those numbers to emphasize them).
Okay again. You have to be shitting me. So a deficit of $7 trillion dollars (I am rounding here) was sustainable? Someone smarter than me needs to tell me how that works. I earn pretty good money. I have friends who don’t earn as much as I do (and somehow live within budget and quite comfortably) and I have friends who earn a lot more (and have a budgeted lifestyle). None of us earn a TRILLION dollars. All of us worry about money. No matter how much money you have you worry (trust me) about bills and the future and..well…you get it.
So how am I not supposed to worry when our country is 9.05 trillion dollars in debt?
Once again. Monopoly money. The numbers are numbing. And once again I admit, they become meaningless to me. Maybe because it is unbelievable to me. And that ain’t right. I need to care. And I need to know that the people managing this nifty little number care. And it would REALLY help me out if they stopped bludgeoning me with trillions of dollars and started telling me about making the right side of the balance sheet equal the left side of the balance sheet (see. I took accounting once). And I don’t want any “voodoo accounting” (that is what came after basic accounting in college).
Listen. When someone tells me we have a trillion dollar deficit, oops, I meant a 9 trillion dollar deficit, I know something is wrong. But the numbers are so overwhelming it is difficult to see a solution…beyond selling Park Place and getting some more money.
It would probably benefit the government if they would dumb it down for me and tell me how they are gonna balance a budget. (and don’t tell me a budget cannot be balanced cause you expect me to).
12/25/09 update:
On Christmas Eve the Senate voted to raise the ceiling on the government debt to $12.4 trillion, a massive increase of $290 BILLION over the current limit. If this isn’t proof that our government is simply playing Monopoly behind all those closed door meetings (and we thought with all those smart people they were playing Chess). The senate has Park Place, the House has Boardwalk and it seems every time you pass Go they are paying out money they don’t have. Maybe I am the only one…but this is crazy.
Monopoly Money: Stimulus version.
Ok. If this is monopoly money then let me use it for a moment and talk about “stimulus packages.”
The government keeps talking about giving money to the people to rejuvenate the economy. What they really want is to give people money so they can turn around and spend it.
Sneaky bastards.
And while I am sure people appreciate receiving a $750 check (or whatever it is) it just doesn’t seem like it makes a difference. Why don’t we do something that not only helps economy but also does something positive for the everyday people?
Here is the idea. Why doesn’t the government pay one month of everyone’s, except those in the highest tax bracket, living expenses? Mortgages, rents, gas, electricity, heck, how about including cable/internet if it only adds another billion to the price tag?
Why exclude the top tax bracket? Shit. If these people can’t manage their budget they don’t deserve getting more money.
Will there be people who abuse the program? Yes. Get over it. It will be a small percentage and we have to accept there will always be assholes out to “beat the man.”