In the 1950s, the saying went "As goes General Motors, so goes the nation." We've inevitably heard this phrase over and over again during the last month or so first with the news of Chrysler's bankruptcy and now with the fall of GM.

Last week when the deadline for GM passed, I made the comment that I would never purchase another General Motors product again. As someone who has been a Chevy guy his whole life this saddened me, but it is probably the truth. Sure, GM could magically turn itself around and become a profitable, lean, mean automotive machine but history tells us otherwise as was the case with Amtrak and the USPS. Truthfully, by the time I am ready to purchase a vehicle, it won't be new, and I'm not even sure GM will exist.

Another popular phrase oft mis-quoted is "The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results." This epitomizes what has been happening in the automotive industry for years now, and even with what appeared to be a revolving door policy when it comes to management, the top brass seemed to find a way to achieve the status quo. Why bother studying to get an A, when you can coast your way through school and get a solid C. Of course, the "me too" mentality of the workers strived for a C, but demanded to be compensated as if they were not only getting an A, but had perhaps wrote the textbook!

Even in bankruptcy, which is intended to shed baggage to help restructure, the auto companies can't do it right. Instead of starting fresh and doing business the right way, we're rewarding those who are responsible for putting us in this mess and changing the law so that they are like self-centered celebrities, cutting in front of all the "common people" to get in to the newest hot spot. Besides the inept management, there are two groups to blame here: Unions and the Government, both of whom are easy to blame, sometimes fairly, other times not.

Lets start with the unions. As is the norm with nearly every article discussing unions, it will be prefaced with "Unions were a vital part of America at one point in history. However..." Lets face it, that however portion didn't just magically appear in 2009, its been sitting there in a corner, bound and gagged under threat of cement shoes for decades. Many of the people I work with belong to a union. Most of them are under the notion that they've got these wonderful benefits that nobody else has, and that the union officials fought long and hard to get every last inch of negotiating room. After having a conversation with them, the health benefits really aren't that special, nor are having to pay union dues. As my coworker discovered, they don't particularly like it when, after asking why you don't belong to a union, the response is "Can't afford the pay cut." The hardball negotiations have earned a few perks, but have been abused to the point where they've negotiated themselves out of a job. Tell me how much sense it makes to have someone come in to perform work, only to be told that they weren't allowed to do work, because they were incapable of doing so - not being in the union, and therefore unqualified - but that they would still get paid for said work, while watching the union member perform said work, if time allowed during the course of breaks, lunch and other mandated times where work was unallowed, and that the "watching" turned in to "showing" them how to do something because they didn't have the specialized training to complete the task in a reasonable amount of time. Most unions are a cancer on an organization and do not fight for the rights of workers, but simply give perks to those select few union officials.

The government isn't far behind either, in fact there's a good chance they've done more damage to the industry than unions could if they tried. The main issue of the government, as is the case in nearly anything the government gets its hands on is too much interference. Think of that job where every three minutes your supervisor comes and looks over your shoulder or calls you to see how things are going. That's the government in a nutshell - micromanaging us all to death. What the government did that was so unforgivable, is to tell the American people - "You don't know what is good for you as much as we do" and then decided to mandate numerous restrictions to the automotive companies to help them "compete" with the foreign ones. Remember, as bad as big trucks and SUVs are, Americans prefer those vehicles to small compact cars. With the exception of last summer with gas going for over $4 per gallon, there hasn't been a trend in that direction, and the sale of hybrid cars is even more lacking, especially when you look at the resale value of the same hybrids being pushed on us. We don't want hybrids and fuel efficient cars is one argument made. Another is that the select group of individuals who wanted a hybrid to "save the planet" have already purchased one, and the people looking to save money realize that the few thousand dollar premium for hybrids far outweighs the savings in fuel over the lifetime of the vehicle, from a purely economic standpoint. The government pushed FlexFuel E85 - a massive disaster which used up our food supply and was lacking in any savings, both environmentally and economically. Now we're on some pseudo electric-hybrid type kick since hydrogen cars have been ruled out by the new Administration. What all of this means from a common sense perspective is that the companies are being forced to retool as the regulations and incentives from government change, but are reluctant to do so because as soon as change is implemented, they may be forced to do so again on the government's whim, making there no winning situation for companies.

With General Motors now owned and run by the government, why would anyone purchase a vehicle from them? The government has been able to succeed in certain things, but has never been efficient when doing so. If mediocrity is what you're after, then by all means, purchase a new General Motors car. Consider my refusal to purchase one a boycott, a protest or whatever you want. When we first offered bailout money to the automotive companies, I, along with many others, was steadfast against the bailout. Living in Detroit, not giving the auto companies free money gets you many odd stares, but every once in a while, you need to stand up for principle. Giving the auto companies was a waste of money then, and the way this bankruptcy was orchestrated is a waste of money now. It wouldn't have been worse had no money been given, because it doesn't get worse than bankruptcy. We just would have been here a bit sooner instead of delaying the inevitable and been a few billion dollars less in debt.

And a final story to end it on: General Motors was founded by William Durant. Before founding General Motors, he ran the Durant-Dort Carriage Company, which as the name implied, was a manufacturer of horse-drawn carriages. The Durant-Dort Carriage Company was a failure, but only after the onset of the automobile. Durant didn't ask for a bailout 100 years ago from the government. He saw the changing times and adjusted accordingly. History, as they say, is bound to repeat itself. In 1931, after Durant had built a mansion in northern Michigan, it mysteriously burned to the ground, which some say was the work of the newly formed United Auto Workers. Ironic, thinking that nearly eighty years later, the same United Auto Workers would be responsible for burning the entire General Motors company to the ground as well.

Well it certainly has been some time. As the Nationwide commercials say - "Life comes at you fast."

Politics are still a major interest of mine, but the economy, both personally and for that of the country have far surpassed the petty political jabs lobbed back between the two parties. The two parties, which I might add have worked in conjunction to bring us to the brink of collapse we are at today. In any event, I've shifted from politics to economic matters. My core beliefs have not changed, but the intricacies have been refined and have evolved.

From a personal standpoint, I've fully embraced the financial planning of Dave Ramsey. He is the quintessential guide to personal finance and getting out of debt. Ironically, much of the criticism levied against him is that his solutions to complex problems are often too simplistic. But isn't that the case most of the time? We overcomplicate everything as a way to justify our own action, or to place the blame on others. The first tenant that Ramsey speaks of is the "Baby Steps" to get out of debt.

1. $1000 Emergency Fund
2. Pay off all debt using the "debt snowball"
3. Expand the Emergency Fund to include 3-6 months of expenses
4. Invest 15% of household income into Roth IRAs and Pre-Tax retirement
5. College funding for children
6. Pay off home early
7. Build wealth and give - invest in mutual funds and real estate

In addition to the Baby steps listed above, there are a couple ideas that I consider to be core principles. The first is in relation to home mortgages and of buying "too much house." Dave's rule of thumb is to get a 15 year mortgage that is no more than 25% of your take home pay. This succeeds in doing two things - First, you aren't burdened with a 30 year mortgage that will cost excessive amounts of interest over the term of the loan. Second, the payments are low enough that you have the ability to save money for the future, be it retirement, college funds etc...

The other core principle is one which hits close to the heart of my fellow Michiganders and is in relation to the automotive industry and that is to avoid buying new cars, and more importantly - leasing cars, or as Dave refers to them - "fleecing" cars. I'll quote Dave's book directly on this to put car payments into perspective:

Taking on a car payment is one of the dumbest things people do to destroy their chances of building wealth. The car payment is most folks' largest payment except for their home mortgage, so it steals more money from the income than virtually anything else. USA Today notes that the average car payment is $464 over sixty-four months. Most people get a car payment and keep it throughout their lives. As soon as a car is paid off, they get another payment because they "need" a new car. If you keep a $464 car payment throughout your life, which is "normal," you miss the opportunity to save that money. If you invested $464 per month from age 25 to age 65, a normal working lifetime, in the average mutual fund averaging 12 percent (the seventy-year stock market average), you would have $5,458,854,45 at age sixty-five. Hope you like the car!

So while I come off as boring to many, I'm simply using logic and looking to the future. It is human nature to want it and want it now; it is also a sign of immaturity. Being willing to delay pleasure for a greater result is a sign of maturity. However, our culture teaches us to live for the now. Don't live for the now, but rather, the future.

Newspapers have existed for thousands of years dating back to the time of Julius Caesar, although perhaps not in the form that we are familiar with, which didn't exist until movable type was invented with the first modern newspaper being published in 1605.

A little more than four-hundred years is quite a run I'd say. The sad truth is that newspapers are becoming obsolete, both as a medium for information and as a business model. As nearly everyone has access to the Internet, television or radio, the printed newspaper just doesn't cut it.

Environmentalists can celebrate the reduction in the usage of paper. Impatient folks can jump for joy with not having to search through the paper for a story and the techies can be giddy with the advancements made during the last few years.

Newspapers hold some nostalgic value - I recall saving papers of important sporting events when I was younger - Championships by the Red Wings and Pistons, Presidential elections and record setting events. People naturally want to hold on to things and not embrace change, but that is, unfortunately, what we must do.

Newspaper circulation is down across the board, Senator Ben Cardin's proposed Newspaper Revitalization Act simply delays the inevitable. In a nutshell, the bill allows newspapers to become a tax-exempt non-profit organization, prohibited from making political endorsements.

What's puzzling is that Senator Cardin agrees with the same logic I'm using, but still finds the bill to have merit:

"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."

Like anything else, the newspaper industry needs to find a way to reinvent itself. Many papers are voluntarily reducing circulation or moving to an online business model. Singling the industry out for something like this makes no sense. When looked at from afar, it can be substitued with other industries such as the horse and buggy manufacturers or steam engines - both of which seem preposterous - but are valid comparisons because all of the industries are obsolete from a technological perspective.

Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but I'm also skeptical of the political endorsement clause as well. Lets face it, the newspaper media isn't known for being unbiased in reporting stories, so the lack of an endorsement would simply make the message more covert. In addition, when government funds and tax-exempt status is placed upon a private industry or institution, it opens the door for corruption. A puff piece here or some extra digging here to receive extra funds and completely twist and distort the media's purpose from checking government to working hand in hand with them as a mouthpiece to further an idea. The same works for rich donors offering a tax-deductible donation for writing or not writing certain stories.

Corruption, technology, whatever - The newspaper industry should be allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits, rather than be supported while failing as that only enables the same poor decision making to continue and pushes back the inevitable failure.

Think back to October 2007, when we hit the all time high of 14,164 - quite different than the economic climate of our country and world today. At 6547.05, we're at forty-six percent of only seventeen months ago. Back when we started this downward spiral, all the experts were in a state of denial, and to some extent, still are. They kept saying how things were only going to get better, even though all of the signs said otherwise.

So while I don't want to be a bringer of doom-and-gloom, I'm here to say that the worst is yet to come, and by that I'm talking sub 5000 numbers, possibly as low as 3000. Back when we hit around 12,000 I restructured my 401K and got out of anything with stocks and moved into the low risk bonds. The transaction fees cost me less than what the market swings in my account seemed to be doing daily and was therefore well worth it. I've had family, friends and co-workers look at me puzzled when I first brought this up, only to see them distraught over their retirement savings.

One person told me I was stupid and should wait it out because I'm so young and could then be there when the market hits the low point to buy again for my future. While this holds well traditionally, with the losses we've had and the losses I expect to continue it would basically be throwing my money down the toilet. A good rule of thumb is as follows - if the money you are losing in the stock market, percentage wise, is less than the amount your employer contributes, then you should re-invest that money, either by paying down debt, or moving it into an alternative market that has minimal gains and at the very least reduces the amount being lost.

I've seen my company's stock drop nearly $70 from its all time high along with that of my wife's. Other companies like Citigroup have gone from over $55 per share to under $1, with Citigroup hitting a low of $0.99. At $93 in the year 2000, GM has, on the verge of bankruptcy, nearly bottomed out as well to $1.68 today and a 75 year low in price when it hit $1.51.

There is no joy from seeing the retirement funds of others magically vanish, or that of companies failing and workers losing jobs. There is, however, a way to be proactive when seeing such trends and by taking our head out of the sand, we can prepare for the worst case scenarios, so that if they come, we are ready, and if they don't, we'll be that much better off. The government and top economists aren't doing anything to help us right now. President Obama isn't worring about the ups and downs about the stock market, but in fairness, that isn't his job. Rather, the economic advisors should be focusing on policy to work with those on Wall Street and the investor class. The rich aren't the only ones losing money here and many middle class Americans are relying on a robust 401k and possibly a pension to supplement any menial amount that Social Security may provide as safety net come retirement.

There's plenty of blame to go around - Politicians on both the left and the right in the legislative and executive branches, "greedy" fat cat Wall Street types, CEOs and mortgage companies to name a few, but also us, Americans who've lived beyond our means by purchasing too much house, refinancing one too many times and racking up excessive debt on plastic. The next decade is going to be a tough one. Lets start by doing as much as we can, person by person, family by family to get back on track as soon as we can.