While quietly sipping your morning coffee on your suburban front porch in middle America, you notice a menace before you. You have no idea what this menace is other than it being a person that has an issue that you are unaware of and could probably care less. Yes I'm speaking of oppositional defiant disorder. Quite frankly you don't care and have no need to care because he, just like you, doesn't like people telling him what to do. But, chances are somebody has, or will in the future champion this cause. There really isn't a need to, but more than likely someone will and raise money and come up with some gimmick to "raise awareness".
Now a money hungry mental health provider could diagnose you with such a thing as a means to get you to come back on a weekly basis when just like everyone else, you have a boss that's an idiot and don't like him telling you what to do. Now do you need to be aware of this sort of thing? I don't think so, since everyone fits the definition in all the pschyc books. Now if we look at other causes such as Livestrong, they exist for the sole purpose of "raising awareness" which is fine to a point for things like autism, which we are just beginning to learn about, but cancer is very old, and I think it's a safe bet to say that everyone has been affected by one cancer or another. So why wastenthe money on telling people about something they already know? If I had cancer I could care less what the general populace knew about my plight, but would rather have a cure.
Pink ribbons that say save the tatas aren't helping to find a cure any faster than O.J. Simpson looking in a cereal box is going to find the real killer. Those gimmicks cost money to produce, and when you donate money it's going to make things like that as well as finding a cure, or it's going to produce that and raise awareness.
I thought I'd give you a little food for thought on charities with tax day coming up shortly. If you really wanna give to a cause that just raises awareness I'd recommend the NRA's Eddie the Eagle program which teaches kids that guns aren't evil, but don't touch it, and tell an adult. I think that's awareness that we can all live with.
08 April 2012
25 July 2011
You Want What!?
With all of this talk and hoopla about raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on our debt; is it really our debt though? Have we the people been spending more than we had on testing the nicotine content of toenails, planned parenthood, national public radio, keeping 2 post offices on the same block, Amtrak routes that no one uses, the list goes on. Clearly it is not the majority of people that have caused this in the sense that they made the decision to spend money on these use programs. Yet, apparently enough voted for those that did; so we got the fecal covered end of the stick because, they don’t require I.Q. tests to vote, and or hold office. So, now we all have to suffer as a result of the dolts ruining the country. So let’s roll up our sleeves and wipe the excrement off our hands and dive into it.
In a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office states that unless we change current laws, fix the economy and so fourth that in the next ten years we will add $7 trillion more to our debt. So is the whole raising the debt ceiling thing actually going to fix anything? Of course not because we will have to do it again very shortly and only be worse off. By the way that is not factoring the rest of the Obamacare spending that, like all entitlements always costs more than projected. They say that as the debt continues to grow there is a negative effect on peoples incomes, meaning that the government would receive much less in revenue, making the problem that much worse.
The main problem is what is called “mandatory” spending. It would seem that if we didn’t pay this the world would stop spending , and Oprah would make a surprise stop at my place for supper. This is also known as the third rail of politics, because like the third rail of a train, you touch it, you pee on it, you’re dead. So nobody wants to discuss the clear failure of these programs, or point out that we are wasting money on these programs. This is the number one expenditure of the feds.
First things first, social security is an utter failure, and that money isn’t there in a lock box like they told us it would be it is spent already on something else, combine that with the fact that we aren’t having any large population growth so who will pay for my generation’s social security? Then you have the cost of the upkeep for the administration buildings and the employees pay and benefits. Of course they pay taxes, but their jobs eat up more in tax revenue then they could possibly pay back into. The answer is simple; shut the thing down. We can’t do it all over night, people are expecting it and planned on it so it wouldn’t be right to deny that to them after they paid into it. So we set a date in the future, say 2050, after that date you can no longer join but benefits will be paid out until the last person dies. In the meantime, you can stop sending your money into it at any time and use that money for a 401k or IRA. The Gipper said in his 1981 State of the Union address that the additional money available as a result of his tax cuts would boost the economy by freeing up funds to invest therefore creating more jobs. The same thing applies here, the money that people would invest into the private sector as a result of the investments made for the peoples retirements. Currently the money that is confiscated from us in the name of social security is squandered on something that it is not initially intended for, and as a result isn’t really doing anything positive. Even if it is required that the same amount of money be set up in another retirement fund, or stop treating us like children and let us make our own decisions. If you are that stupid that you can’t take care of yourself or be responsible for your own future, well you deserve to die out. Survival of the fittest.
Our “humble” leader is trying to play hardball, yet in a rather hypocritical manner. He himself cited principle for not voting in favor of raising the debt ceiling as a senator. He claims that the Republicans are being difficult and walking out of negotiation, yet he himself has walked out. Not just out of the meetings but on the American people. He is certainly not leaving too many options for the house to work with. With all of this calamity on nonpartisan compromise, he threatens to veto every effort that the Republicans suggest. The idea behind cut, cap, and balance is sound, and common sense; but since it came from the other side of the room, they are “not good enough”. He asks for so much, yet fails to suggest anything. Harry Reid after claiming that he felt left out, due to his incompetence and sheer stupidity, has actually come up with something that is probably going to be the one that is selected because he has a D in front of his name. Cut $2.7 trillion over the next few years and raise the debt ceiling high enough, (in theory) to last us until 2012. This is not a long term solution, the long term solution is to quit spending so much and instead of paying just interest, actually make payments.
Once again, we only have ourselves to blame, Barney Frank, Pelosi, Reid, heck even RINOs that have made a career out of sitting on their bums, and suggesting that those that elected them aren’t smart enough to make our own decisions. Vote ‘em out. (Sterilization might be an answer, that way we can get stupidity out of the gene pool.)
In a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office states that unless we change current laws, fix the economy and so fourth that in the next ten years we will add $7 trillion more to our debt. So is the whole raising the debt ceiling thing actually going to fix anything? Of course not because we will have to do it again very shortly and only be worse off. By the way that is not factoring the rest of the Obamacare spending that, like all entitlements always costs more than projected. They say that as the debt continues to grow there is a negative effect on peoples incomes, meaning that the government would receive much less in revenue, making the problem that much worse.
The main problem is what is called “mandatory” spending. It would seem that if we didn’t pay this the world would stop spending , and Oprah would make a surprise stop at my place for supper. This is also known as the third rail of politics, because like the third rail of a train, you touch it, you pee on it, you’re dead. So nobody wants to discuss the clear failure of these programs, or point out that we are wasting money on these programs. This is the number one expenditure of the feds.
First things first, social security is an utter failure, and that money isn’t there in a lock box like they told us it would be it is spent already on something else, combine that with the fact that we aren’t having any large population growth so who will pay for my generation’s social security? Then you have the cost of the upkeep for the administration buildings and the employees pay and benefits. Of course they pay taxes, but their jobs eat up more in tax revenue then they could possibly pay back into. The answer is simple; shut the thing down. We can’t do it all over night, people are expecting it and planned on it so it wouldn’t be right to deny that to them after they paid into it. So we set a date in the future, say 2050, after that date you can no longer join but benefits will be paid out until the last person dies. In the meantime, you can stop sending your money into it at any time and use that money for a 401k or IRA. The Gipper said in his 1981 State of the Union address that the additional money available as a result of his tax cuts would boost the economy by freeing up funds to invest therefore creating more jobs. The same thing applies here, the money that people would invest into the private sector as a result of the investments made for the peoples retirements. Currently the money that is confiscated from us in the name of social security is squandered on something that it is not initially intended for, and as a result isn’t really doing anything positive. Even if it is required that the same amount of money be set up in another retirement fund, or stop treating us like children and let us make our own decisions. If you are that stupid that you can’t take care of yourself or be responsible for your own future, well you deserve to die out. Survival of the fittest.
Our “humble” leader is trying to play hardball, yet in a rather hypocritical manner. He himself cited principle for not voting in favor of raising the debt ceiling as a senator. He claims that the Republicans are being difficult and walking out of negotiation, yet he himself has walked out. Not just out of the meetings but on the American people. He is certainly not leaving too many options for the house to work with. With all of this calamity on nonpartisan compromise, he threatens to veto every effort that the Republicans suggest. The idea behind cut, cap, and balance is sound, and common sense; but since it came from the other side of the room, they are “not good enough”. He asks for so much, yet fails to suggest anything. Harry Reid after claiming that he felt left out, due to his incompetence and sheer stupidity, has actually come up with something that is probably going to be the one that is selected because he has a D in front of his name. Cut $2.7 trillion over the next few years and raise the debt ceiling high enough, (in theory) to last us until 2012. This is not a long term solution, the long term solution is to quit spending so much and instead of paying just interest, actually make payments.
Once again, we only have ourselves to blame, Barney Frank, Pelosi, Reid, heck even RINOs that have made a career out of sitting on their bums, and suggesting that those that elected them aren’t smart enough to make our own decisions. Vote ‘em out. (Sterilization might be an answer, that way we can get stupidity out of the gene pool.)
11 April 2011
Too Little Too Late? The Answer is Private
People are all p.o.ed and perturbed over National Public Radio, to cut funding or keep it. Then you have another stupid leftist quote to add to their ever growing bank of them, by none other than Harry Reid. Yes I myself enjoy cowboy poetry, but I can assure you Mr. Reid that we are in the minority and the world won’t stop spinning if tax payers stop paying for it. The budget has after too many years, finally come to the tip of everyone’s minds. (Which you’d think would be quite easy for those whose heads come to a point.) Yet nobody in office seems to want to do anything serious to fix the problem, just moan and groan and propose feeble attempts to fix it. If you are shot, sticking your figure in the hole might be a solution for the few seconds until you can get an actual dressing on it, but it certainly isn’t a long term solution and not one that most people would even try because, it’s not really going to help. So to best preform the necessary cuts I used a little boot leather, accumulated calluses on my fingertips, and darn near broke a few toes when one of the books fell on my foot. If we think of this in a legal sense, like you would if bringing this to a trial at the supreme court, we have a lot of precedent that supports our cause, and a little thing called the constitution that tells us what we need to fund, and cowboy poetry just wasn’t one of the founding fathers priorities.
Article 1 section 8 of the constitution explains the purpose of the congressional coin purse, or in modern speak, credit card because the coin purse isn’t holding change, but rather moth balls. “ The congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,”(don’t complain that is how it was all written and spelled) this provides a relatively clear picture of what they should be spending OUR money on. Defense is the first priority, blowing money like Clinton’s $400 doesn’t achieve any of them just like npr AMTRAK and the like. Then there is that vague general Welfare dooflinky. This has a muddled history that even the founding fathers couldn’t quite agree on with three different views on the subject. Hamilton saw it as there are no limits to spending and constantly pushed for this idea throughout his life. Yet the Constitutional Convention turned him down. In Hamilton’s 1791 Reports of Manufacture, he explains his view that the only limits of tax- and- spend power are that duties be uniform, that direct taxes be apportioned by population, and that no tax should be laid on articles exported from any state. The power to raise money was otherwise “plenary, and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive.” Thankfully the majority of the founding fathers didn’t share these views otherwise things might be a lot worse off than we are now. James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson both held the view that the power to tax and spend did not give congress the power to do whatever they thought best for the country, but that it was to further the end specifically enumerated elsewhere in the constitution. The third view was that “general” meant that it had to be of national benefit not local or state. This way of thinking is elaborated more in the X Amendment, basically stating that if that state thinks it’s good for that state, have at it, but at that states expense not the entire country’s. So, with those last two opinions it would look like a lot of what’s be going on of late is unconstitutional. Like bailouts, Haiti, NPR, National Endowment For The Arts, all of that has no business being paid for with tax dollars according to the constitution.
The First Congress refused to loan money to a glass maker after several members said it was unconstitutional. The Fourth Congress didn’t believe that they possessed the power to provide relief to Savanna Georgia after a fire destroyed the whole city. Guess what? Savanna looks like it’s still around, I think they made out quite well on their own. Now, what does that mean for New Orleans and the rest of the Katrina ravaged places? Precisely. Oh, yeah, George Bush in an alliance with global warming caused the hurricane. The debates don’t give their exact reasoning for not paying that really goes along with any of the above mentioned opinions, but rather that they reject such a broad interpretation of what they can spend. Pretty much they went against Hamilton’s interpretation. A few notable cases that go along with this limiting of spending include Andrew Jackson vetoing a $2oo million bill to purchase stock in the Maysville and Lexington Turnpike company, putting an end to this “dangerous doctrine” and the idea of directly paying for roads and canals by government. Congress got the message, (if they only would now) and didn’t even attempt to send another bill like it to his desk for four years. Then it was a bill to help make Wabash River more navigable, which he promptly vetoed, calling it a “fallacy”. Polk vetoed a bill for $6000 for the Wisconsin Territory, this in and of itself was permissible due to the stronger powers held over a territory, but the real reason for the veto was $500,000 for projects in existing states. Polk’s belief that to interpret the spending clause to allow for such appropriations would permit “combinations of local and individual interest [that would be] strong enough to control legislation, absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the government into hopeless indebtedness.” Could he see the future? Read that again, that might make a nice new tattoo. That my friends, is pork barrel spending, and when you look at the big picture, he’s 100% correct, and that is how we are where we are. OK one more quick quote from Sandra Day O’Connor from her dissent of the South Dakota v. Dole case. “If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality…. is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress… to become parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This…. was not the Framers’ plan and is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”
So where does NPR, the poetry festival, and pork projects fit in? There is no place in our government for them. We have debt because of them. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that this broad interpretation of the Spending Clause has been used, and since FDR started taking an extreme approach to spending, others have used this as an excuse to increase it even more. If it in some way benefits us all that would be one thing, but only taking care of people to buy votes and get reelected is pure and simple abuse of the power that we have entrusted them with. By waiting for a government handout, whether it be in the form of subsidies, welfare, or a bailout you are only helping them bankrupt us morally and economically. We shouldn’t have this notion that the government is always there to help us out, because for starters, that is not why the government is there, but history has shown us that the government is never there when you expect it. Instead you should plan ahead for yourself, social security is bankrupt, and even if somehow you do get paid it’s not enough for you to get by on. If you had that money invested in an IRA it would actually be worth your while and not spent already. With all of these programs are we any better off? Johnson’s War on Poverty hasn’t eradicated poverty in America; it just created more government bureaucracies and even more dependency on government. Which might not trouble you, but it does trouble those that actually have to pay for it, while you get handouts for nothing there are people that are struggling to get by, or they themselves have to get a handout because of having to pay for you.
The Grace Commission estimated that unless something was done about spending by 2000 the nation would have accumulated $15 trillion in debt, and as a result proposed how to cut, and where to cut. But this fell on deaf ears. Their plan would’ve eliminated the national debt in a few short years. I think this is something that maybe we ought to revisit now, that would mean wiping out programs entirely, but limiting the fraud and waste of a lot of programs. My personal opinion is that we can cut around ¾ of the government and that would fix almost every problem with the government. There is no need for Amtrak, they along with the postal service lose money every year. You want my suggestion? Either privatize them, or make it that they can cover their costs, such as paying their employees and upkeep. Regardless of if they are privatized or not they need to be run like a business. Tax money shouldn’t go to support it. How many people have ridden AMTRAK? Not too many. It isn’t providing something necessary, instead it wastes tax dollars to keept it afloat and by not trying to cover its own expenses; it essentially under cuts the private legitimate businesses providing the same service, but if you aren’t trying to make a profit, (at least break even) you have a monopoly on that service, and not only cause higher taxes, you eliminate fair competition from numerous other private companies that do the same thing, so you also have no competition and job creation to compete with you. That is socialism, the beginnings of communism. Take a look at the power that they are abusing, they refuse to let us drill for oil due to environmental concerns, yet they offer the tools and training to Brazil for them to drill, while telling them that we will buy it from them. It would seem that we would take better care of the environment due to all of the environmental wackos in the country and the standards that we have in place. They want to lessen our dependency on foreign oil, yet they promise Brazil that we will buy from them and give them the resources for it. This is doesn’t make any sense. They complain about the price of oil, and the economy; their solution: high speed train.
The reason why we don’t already have high speed trains is because people don’t want it. If we did the private industry would already have built it, so while the market sees it as a waste of money, they want to add to the debt by building one. The states are already starting to refuse it because of the high cost it would create for the states. The true solution is quite obvious. We drill now. This creates jobs. That will lower the cost of oil because we aren’t paying anyone else for it. The tax base will increase because of more jobs and the increase of money flow into this country. Yeah sure what if it does take ten years before we start seeing everything, the positive effects would be immediately obvious. The job creating and the stability that would come from it would start turning this country back around until to where it should be going.
We should be focusing on letting the private industry work itself out and not dabble. Fannie and Freddie is proof of this, whenever the government starts messing with the private sector it creates more problems than it started out to fix. We should be focusing on that, and not whether or not to cut funding for NPR and poetry festivals. The cuts that are straight forward obvious won’t hurt a thing except maybe a few liberal feelings. I’d love a world where we greased the treads of our tanks with leftist tears. If we apply this simple litmus test to most of the government’s spending: why isn’t the private sector doing that? That might explain why the government shouldn’t be doing it either because it is just a money pit. The excuse that we must do this to create jobs does not help the situation at all, instead it makes it much worse. Creating and or increasing the number jobs for government bureaucracies whither they are new ones or already existing shouldn’t even be considered as creating jobs. Why? Because it does the exact opposite of its intended purpose, sure those people are now employed, but that means that the government needs to increase revenue to pay those people. What does the government do whenever it wants to increase revenue? Raise taxes! That’s how. This once again stifles the economy, causing more lost jobs in the private sector, and even less revenue in the gov’t coffers. Is it me, or does that seem like an awful lot of harm just to claim that you created jobs for your reelection bid?
This is just a plain and simple economic reform that I know would do wonders for our current woes. This isn’t rocket science, it is a plain and simple answer to it all. Why are we bickering over a few billion, when the real number to be concerned is trillions? Remember that come election time. If a business did 1/5467949372393903932837 of that financial mismanagement, there would be no company come years end. The government doesn’t need to turn a profit, but they shouldn’t be wasting the fruits of OUR labor. This year’s tax freedom day is 12 April, tomorrow. That means that we have all worked over 3 months before we have started making money that goes into our pocket. That’s ¼ of the year. Yes we should be all very very P.o.ed over that we have wasted a quarter of our lives funding useless, fraudulent programs and actions that have no business existing. Remember that.
Article 1 section 8 of the constitution explains the purpose of the congressional coin purse, or in modern speak, credit card because the coin purse isn’t holding change, but rather moth balls. “ The congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,”(don’t complain that is how it was all written and spelled) this provides a relatively clear picture of what they should be spending OUR money on. Defense is the first priority, blowing money like Clinton’s $400 doesn’t achieve any of them just like npr AMTRAK and the like. Then there is that vague general Welfare dooflinky. This has a muddled history that even the founding fathers couldn’t quite agree on with three different views on the subject. Hamilton saw it as there are no limits to spending and constantly pushed for this idea throughout his life. Yet the Constitutional Convention turned him down. In Hamilton’s 1791 Reports of Manufacture, he explains his view that the only limits of tax- and- spend power are that duties be uniform, that direct taxes be apportioned by population, and that no tax should be laid on articles exported from any state. The power to raise money was otherwise “plenary, and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive.” Thankfully the majority of the founding fathers didn’t share these views otherwise things might be a lot worse off than we are now. James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson both held the view that the power to tax and spend did not give congress the power to do whatever they thought best for the country, but that it was to further the end specifically enumerated elsewhere in the constitution. The third view was that “general” meant that it had to be of national benefit not local or state. This way of thinking is elaborated more in the X Amendment, basically stating that if that state thinks it’s good for that state, have at it, but at that states expense not the entire country’s. So, with those last two opinions it would look like a lot of what’s be going on of late is unconstitutional. Like bailouts, Haiti, NPR, National Endowment For The Arts, all of that has no business being paid for with tax dollars according to the constitution.
The First Congress refused to loan money to a glass maker after several members said it was unconstitutional. The Fourth Congress didn’t believe that they possessed the power to provide relief to Savanna Georgia after a fire destroyed the whole city. Guess what? Savanna looks like it’s still around, I think they made out quite well on their own. Now, what does that mean for New Orleans and the rest of the Katrina ravaged places? Precisely. Oh, yeah, George Bush in an alliance with global warming caused the hurricane. The debates don’t give their exact reasoning for not paying that really goes along with any of the above mentioned opinions, but rather that they reject such a broad interpretation of what they can spend. Pretty much they went against Hamilton’s interpretation. A few notable cases that go along with this limiting of spending include Andrew Jackson vetoing a $2oo million bill to purchase stock in the Maysville and Lexington Turnpike company, putting an end to this “dangerous doctrine” and the idea of directly paying for roads and canals by government. Congress got the message, (if they only would now) and didn’t even attempt to send another bill like it to his desk for four years. Then it was a bill to help make Wabash River more navigable, which he promptly vetoed, calling it a “fallacy”. Polk vetoed a bill for $6000 for the Wisconsin Territory, this in and of itself was permissible due to the stronger powers held over a territory, but the real reason for the veto was $500,000 for projects in existing states. Polk’s belief that to interpret the spending clause to allow for such appropriations would permit “combinations of local and individual interest [that would be] strong enough to control legislation, absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the government into hopeless indebtedness.” Could he see the future? Read that again, that might make a nice new tattoo. That my friends, is pork barrel spending, and when you look at the big picture, he’s 100% correct, and that is how we are where we are. OK one more quick quote from Sandra Day O’Connor from her dissent of the South Dakota v. Dole case. “If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality…. is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress… to become parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This…. was not the Framers’ plan and is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”
So where does NPR, the poetry festival, and pork projects fit in? There is no place in our government for them. We have debt because of them. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that this broad interpretation of the Spending Clause has been used, and since FDR started taking an extreme approach to spending, others have used this as an excuse to increase it even more. If it in some way benefits us all that would be one thing, but only taking care of people to buy votes and get reelected is pure and simple abuse of the power that we have entrusted them with. By waiting for a government handout, whether it be in the form of subsidies, welfare, or a bailout you are only helping them bankrupt us morally and economically. We shouldn’t have this notion that the government is always there to help us out, because for starters, that is not why the government is there, but history has shown us that the government is never there when you expect it. Instead you should plan ahead for yourself, social security is bankrupt, and even if somehow you do get paid it’s not enough for you to get by on. If you had that money invested in an IRA it would actually be worth your while and not spent already. With all of these programs are we any better off? Johnson’s War on Poverty hasn’t eradicated poverty in America; it just created more government bureaucracies and even more dependency on government. Which might not trouble you, but it does trouble those that actually have to pay for it, while you get handouts for nothing there are people that are struggling to get by, or they themselves have to get a handout because of having to pay for you.
The Grace Commission estimated that unless something was done about spending by 2000 the nation would have accumulated $15 trillion in debt, and as a result proposed how to cut, and where to cut. But this fell on deaf ears. Their plan would’ve eliminated the national debt in a few short years. I think this is something that maybe we ought to revisit now, that would mean wiping out programs entirely, but limiting the fraud and waste of a lot of programs. My personal opinion is that we can cut around ¾ of the government and that would fix almost every problem with the government. There is no need for Amtrak, they along with the postal service lose money every year. You want my suggestion? Either privatize them, or make it that they can cover their costs, such as paying their employees and upkeep. Regardless of if they are privatized or not they need to be run like a business. Tax money shouldn’t go to support it. How many people have ridden AMTRAK? Not too many. It isn’t providing something necessary, instead it wastes tax dollars to keept it afloat and by not trying to cover its own expenses; it essentially under cuts the private legitimate businesses providing the same service, but if you aren’t trying to make a profit, (at least break even) you have a monopoly on that service, and not only cause higher taxes, you eliminate fair competition from numerous other private companies that do the same thing, so you also have no competition and job creation to compete with you. That is socialism, the beginnings of communism. Take a look at the power that they are abusing, they refuse to let us drill for oil due to environmental concerns, yet they offer the tools and training to Brazil for them to drill, while telling them that we will buy it from them. It would seem that we would take better care of the environment due to all of the environmental wackos in the country and the standards that we have in place. They want to lessen our dependency on foreign oil, yet they promise Brazil that we will buy from them and give them the resources for it. This is doesn’t make any sense. They complain about the price of oil, and the economy; their solution: high speed train.
The reason why we don’t already have high speed trains is because people don’t want it. If we did the private industry would already have built it, so while the market sees it as a waste of money, they want to add to the debt by building one. The states are already starting to refuse it because of the high cost it would create for the states. The true solution is quite obvious. We drill now. This creates jobs. That will lower the cost of oil because we aren’t paying anyone else for it. The tax base will increase because of more jobs and the increase of money flow into this country. Yeah sure what if it does take ten years before we start seeing everything, the positive effects would be immediately obvious. The job creating and the stability that would come from it would start turning this country back around until to where it should be going.
We should be focusing on letting the private industry work itself out and not dabble. Fannie and Freddie is proof of this, whenever the government starts messing with the private sector it creates more problems than it started out to fix. We should be focusing on that, and not whether or not to cut funding for NPR and poetry festivals. The cuts that are straight forward obvious won’t hurt a thing except maybe a few liberal feelings. I’d love a world where we greased the treads of our tanks with leftist tears. If we apply this simple litmus test to most of the government’s spending: why isn’t the private sector doing that? That might explain why the government shouldn’t be doing it either because it is just a money pit. The excuse that we must do this to create jobs does not help the situation at all, instead it makes it much worse. Creating and or increasing the number jobs for government bureaucracies whither they are new ones or already existing shouldn’t even be considered as creating jobs. Why? Because it does the exact opposite of its intended purpose, sure those people are now employed, but that means that the government needs to increase revenue to pay those people. What does the government do whenever it wants to increase revenue? Raise taxes! That’s how. This once again stifles the economy, causing more lost jobs in the private sector, and even less revenue in the gov’t coffers. Is it me, or does that seem like an awful lot of harm just to claim that you created jobs for your reelection bid?
This is just a plain and simple economic reform that I know would do wonders for our current woes. This isn’t rocket science, it is a plain and simple answer to it all. Why are we bickering over a few billion, when the real number to be concerned is trillions? Remember that come election time. If a business did 1/5467949372393903932837 of that financial mismanagement, there would be no company come years end. The government doesn’t need to turn a profit, but they shouldn’t be wasting the fruits of OUR labor. This year’s tax freedom day is 12 April, tomorrow. That means that we have all worked over 3 months before we have started making money that goes into our pocket. That’s ¼ of the year. Yes we should be all very very P.o.ed over that we have wasted a quarter of our lives funding useless, fraudulent programs and actions that have no business existing. Remember that.
07 October 2010
Who Will Serve?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressed this question and the growing divide between the civilian and military communities. Never was it more obvious than at Tuesday evening's final editing session for the campus newspaper.
I was working on my column, a compilation of news stories. Lately, I've been including the ranks, names and ages of our fallen military. That came under fire Tuesday evening, when, for want of space, I was asked why I print that, because "it seems like filler." I was then told that "We aren't the Military Times," and then spent the next fifteen minutes arguing that the ages bring our military to a more personal level -- I can look at those names and realize that the specialist killed by an IED last week was my age, that the staff sergeant who gave his life yesterday could have been my best friend. For those who have never had any sort of contact with the military community, this is one way in which we can all relate.
Also, since my college campus has little to do with the military, it seems hardly enough to even devote a few inches of column space to the deceased. Can we not give them that much? They have fought and died for my right and privilege to contribute to the mass media -- can we not show them perhaps the only form of respect we are able?
Thirdly, posting a list of the war dead appeases two groups: anti-war and pro-war. Those against the war are able to look at the list and realize that people are dying, even though combat operations have ended. Those for the war can be proud of the fact that a small, private liberal arts college is devoting a portion of its newspaper to researching and printing the names of our fallen military personnel.
I was working on my column, a compilation of news stories. Lately, I've been including the ranks, names and ages of our fallen military. That came under fire Tuesday evening, when, for want of space, I was asked why I print that, because "it seems like filler." I was then told that "We aren't the Military Times," and then spent the next fifteen minutes arguing that the ages bring our military to a more personal level -- I can look at those names and realize that the specialist killed by an IED last week was my age, that the staff sergeant who gave his life yesterday could have been my best friend. For those who have never had any sort of contact with the military community, this is one way in which we can all relate.
Also, since my college campus has little to do with the military, it seems hardly enough to even devote a few inches of column space to the deceased. Can we not give them that much? They have fought and died for my right and privilege to contribute to the mass media -- can we not show them perhaps the only form of respect we are able?
Thirdly, posting a list of the war dead appeases two groups: anti-war and pro-war. Those against the war are able to look at the list and realize that people are dying, even though combat operations have ended. Those for the war can be proud of the fact that a small, private liberal arts college is devoting a portion of its newspaper to researching and printing the names of our fallen military personnel.
07 August 2010
Shell Game
Money is a rather touchy subject overall, rather it be how to save, invest, or spend it. Just look at taxes and health care reform. So, when you pay for something and you dish out a substantial amount of money for it, you hope that you get your money's worth out of it. For example, you purchase a brand new Cadillac off of eBay, when you go and pick up your $50k car you discover that instead of a brand new caddy you instead got a '72 Pinto that looks like it was sat on blocks in front a ramshackle trailer for 50 years while the squirrels and cats had their way with it. I think it is obvious that you would be quite upset by the incident and say lots of things like oh gee, gosh, golly darn, while contemplating the justifiable slaughter of the individual(s) behind the scam. But what you don't know is that a quite similar scam is being inflicted upon us right this very second as we speak.
Gasoline prices have skyrocketed over the past ten years, so much that it has altered our way of life and thinking. Instead of driving a nice big comfortable SUV with a 10.5 liter engine, we now shop for Fred Flintstone powered clown cars. So when you buy gas now you think of how to get the best fuel economy and dreading the next fill up. But what you may or may not know is that now when you are buying gas, you aren't getting just gas. The sign on the pump is rather small, it reads 10% ethanol. ETHANOL! Not gasoline. So, you might be asking what is the big deal? For a little over a year now I've been noticing a little silver and yellow sticker on tailgates, on closer inspection I saw it reads E85 ethanol equipped. So the newer vehicles are designed for use with ethanol, but what about me. The BEAST! was made in 1993 and does what its told, all while sounding quite seductive like a lady talking about rate of twist in Lazzeroni barrels with a southern accent. Sexy, much unlike the current fad of sounding like Miny Me getting a purple nurple. Anyhow, the BEAST! is not meant to run off of ethanol, so you might wonder why exactly I'm bringing this up. Well when lets look to the professionals for advice on the subject. Bud Tillman of St. Lucie Outboard Marine says: "Corn and cane make great whiskey, not fuel" is company handled over 200 cases where boats were damaged from the use of ethanol as an additive in 2008. So lets look at the "scientific" reasons for this problem.
Ethanol doesn't really mix with gasoline, they have a non- polar bond. Next what settles in is condensation that bonds with the ethanol, (everyone knows water in the gas tank is a no go) which pulls the ethanol and the octane levels from the gasoline and the know pretty much useless fuel to the top. Ethanol is a very potent varnish dissolving rust and gunk from your fuel tank sending it straight to your filters and possibly your fuel injectors causing a nice clog. Wow! I'm going to have to keep shelling out money for a rather underhanded policy just to keep my truck running! Yea!!! Mom, Dad, don't expect much for Christmas this year.
So those of you that have the extra money lying around to buy one of these new fancy cars you could probably care less about everyone else that doesn't have one. Well Mr. you are effected too, because ethanol is 28% less effective than straight up gas. So, you are paying for Pepsi, and getting water. Your fuel economy is considerably less than with straight gas, I'm not talking about what a truck cap can fix, this is more. Throwing stuff on the roof rack is known to lower mileage, but to compare it to putting something on the roof would be to through Oprah up there. So, why are they doing this to us? The whole lowering our carbon footprint garbage doesn't fly, because plants need carbon dioxide to survive, and there are more trees here then when Columbus landed. Here is a better reason for why, they are too stupid to drill for American oil. This cuts down on the actual amount of oil that we use, but doesn't properly address the problem. We are getting oil from people that wipe there butts with a bare hand one second and our plotting our demise next. The whole green movement needs to realize that we are the best place to drill because we are the safest. In the mean time I will continue looking for pumps that aren't trying to kill the BEAST!
Gasoline prices have skyrocketed over the past ten years, so much that it has altered our way of life and thinking. Instead of driving a nice big comfortable SUV with a 10.5 liter engine, we now shop for Fred Flintstone powered clown cars. So when you buy gas now you think of how to get the best fuel economy and dreading the next fill up. But what you may or may not know is that now when you are buying gas, you aren't getting just gas. The sign on the pump is rather small, it reads 10% ethanol. ETHANOL! Not gasoline. So, you might be asking what is the big deal? For a little over a year now I've been noticing a little silver and yellow sticker on tailgates, on closer inspection I saw it reads E85 ethanol equipped. So the newer vehicles are designed for use with ethanol, but what about me. The BEAST! was made in 1993 and does what its told, all while sounding quite seductive like a lady talking about rate of twist in Lazzeroni barrels with a southern accent. Sexy, much unlike the current fad of sounding like Miny Me getting a purple nurple. Anyhow, the BEAST! is not meant to run off of ethanol, so you might wonder why exactly I'm bringing this up. Well when lets look to the professionals for advice on the subject. Bud Tillman of St. Lucie Outboard Marine says: "Corn and cane make great whiskey, not fuel" is company handled over 200 cases where boats were damaged from the use of ethanol as an additive in 2008. So lets look at the "scientific" reasons for this problem.
Ethanol doesn't really mix with gasoline, they have a non- polar bond. Next what settles in is condensation that bonds with the ethanol, (everyone knows water in the gas tank is a no go) which pulls the ethanol and the octane levels from the gasoline and the know pretty much useless fuel to the top. Ethanol is a very potent varnish dissolving rust and gunk from your fuel tank sending it straight to your filters and possibly your fuel injectors causing a nice clog. Wow! I'm going to have to keep shelling out money for a rather underhanded policy just to keep my truck running! Yea!!! Mom, Dad, don't expect much for Christmas this year.
So those of you that have the extra money lying around to buy one of these new fancy cars you could probably care less about everyone else that doesn't have one. Well Mr. you are effected too, because ethanol is 28% less effective than straight up gas. So, you are paying for Pepsi, and getting water. Your fuel economy is considerably less than with straight gas, I'm not talking about what a truck cap can fix, this is more. Throwing stuff on the roof rack is known to lower mileage, but to compare it to putting something on the roof would be to through Oprah up there. So, why are they doing this to us? The whole lowering our carbon footprint garbage doesn't fly, because plants need carbon dioxide to survive, and there are more trees here then when Columbus landed. Here is a better reason for why, they are too stupid to drill for American oil. This cuts down on the actual amount of oil that we use, but doesn't properly address the problem. We are getting oil from people that wipe there butts with a bare hand one second and our plotting our demise next. The whole green movement needs to realize that we are the best place to drill because we are the safest. In the mean time I will continue looking for pumps that aren't trying to kill the BEAST!
31 July 2010
Due to technical difficulties, the
Due to technical difficulties, the Blogathon has been postponed until next weekend.
30 July 2010
More Asianness!
Jay Chou is an Americanized Chinese singer. He starred in the Americanized film "Curse of the Golden Flower," which just so happens to feature one of my favorite actresses, Gong Li (I think she's absolutely gorgeous). Gong Li also starred in "Memoirs of a Geisha," but she doesn't speak English, so she memorized her lines by rote (impressive, considering the emotion in her lines). But, I digress. This is one of my favorite Jay Chou music videos.
And this one is just plain awkward.
And this one is just plain awkward.
Sad, But True
Gen. George S. Patton once said "No good decision was ever made from the seat of a swivel chair." Being that I work for the federal government, I have a phrase that I repeat quite frequently, this is not because of the alignment of the planets or the fact that when I sweat profusely my under britches ride up my butt crack; though I do frequently utter something about that, just a different one. For whatever reason the people that get paid the most for their alleged intelligence, do just the opposite, for example instead of cutting the size of our military, why don't we increase the number of troops, so that we have fresh people, and more people with a regular source of income. But that would make sense which is self defeating in the federal government. That is my quote.
So to tie this in to a much larger scale the fact that today Arizona's controversial law was to start being enforced today, but it wasn't. Because the federal government said that they couldn't enforce the most controversial parts. That being if someone was pulled over or caught jay walking, even questioned about an indecent exposure incident because nobody believed that I had the words "Your Name" tattooed on my posterior; they could ask to see proof of citizenship. This heinous atrocity must never happen! Why not? They already ask for I.D. and vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. How is proving that you are supposed to be hear that difficult? But this would make sense.
The supposed logic behind all of this was that they were trying to enforce federal law. Hmmm, local cops can arrest me for federal weapons charges, and tax evasion if they catch me at a still. Wow, I was always under the impression that any law enforcement agency could arrest me for any law breaking as long as it was, and they are in their jurisdiction. But that's just me, and what do I know?
Now I'm always told that if I see a problem I should also have a suggestion. If I was Jan Brewer I would have the law enforced anyway. What are they going to do declare marshal law. Oh please! Stop! My sides hurt at the thought of Obama having the intestinal fortitude. What are they going to do if they said since you aren't doing your job we will continue to cover for your sorry butt? They wouldn't do anything. The fact that they have to do this in the first place is very sad. But once again the tenth amendment permits Arizona to do so, this is not just the nations problem, but I think a little more Arizona's problem than say, Massachusetts. Just a thought. What is to stop a state from making a federal law stricter in that state? If this makes sense to you, either one of your personalities is a lot like the voices in my head, or B., you make less money than those that are supposed to be smart enough to see common sense for what it is. With that said, I think its time for me to call it quits and take my blood pressure medication, and read more terrorist transcripts on the newest and coolest in the firearms world while driving my roommate nuts blasting Ted Nugent in between Pavoratti and Dvork.
So to tie this in to a much larger scale the fact that today Arizona's controversial law was to start being enforced today, but it wasn't. Because the federal government said that they couldn't enforce the most controversial parts. That being if someone was pulled over or caught jay walking, even questioned about an indecent exposure incident because nobody believed that I had the words "Your Name" tattooed on my posterior; they could ask to see proof of citizenship. This heinous atrocity must never happen! Why not? They already ask for I.D. and vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. How is proving that you are supposed to be hear that difficult? But this would make sense.
The supposed logic behind all of this was that they were trying to enforce federal law. Hmmm, local cops can arrest me for federal weapons charges, and tax evasion if they catch me at a still. Wow, I was always under the impression that any law enforcement agency could arrest me for any law breaking as long as it was, and they are in their jurisdiction. But that's just me, and what do I know?
Now I'm always told that if I see a problem I should also have a suggestion. If I was Jan Brewer I would have the law enforced anyway. What are they going to do declare marshal law. Oh please! Stop! My sides hurt at the thought of Obama having the intestinal fortitude. What are they going to do if they said since you aren't doing your job we will continue to cover for your sorry butt? They wouldn't do anything. The fact that they have to do this in the first place is very sad. But once again the tenth amendment permits Arizona to do so, this is not just the nations problem, but I think a little more Arizona's problem than say, Massachusetts. Just a thought. What is to stop a state from making a federal law stricter in that state? If this makes sense to you, either one of your personalities is a lot like the voices in my head, or B., you make less money than those that are supposed to be smart enough to see common sense for what it is. With that said, I think its time for me to call it quits and take my blood pressure medication, and read more terrorist transcripts on the newest and coolest in the firearms world while driving my roommate nuts blasting Ted Nugent in between Pavoratti and Dvork.
Minorities
There are so many African-Americans and Latinos on base that I started anxiously searching for Caucasians. Insane, since I'm Asian.
Profiling
Earlier this week, The Sergeant needed to stop by the classroom before his lunch break ended, and when we entered the room, two other soldiers were already inside. Later, The Sergeant informed me that one of them, Sergeant Ostrich (not his real name . . . obviously) had invited us to dinner at a nearby Mexican restaurant. The Sergeant told Sergeant Ostrich that he wasn't sure if I would eat Mexican, to which Sergeant Ostrich replied that he didn't think I looked like someone who would eat Mexican food (in Sergeant Ostrich's defense, he did preface that statement by saying that he meant no offense). Well. I immediately told The Sergeant that we would be happy to accept his invitation, and so we will be having dinner Sunday evening.
I've never had Mexican food.
I've never had Mexican food.
Have You Honored a Wounded Warrior?
We are currently over 20% to the goal of $250. If you've not already donated, support a wounded warrior and ensure that this generation's wounded warriors is the most successful and well-transitioned by donating at WWP Proud Supporter.
10 Things I Like About You
About six years ago, my Pastor's wife invited the young teen girls from our church on a girls' night out. We spent the night in a nearby hotel, fellowshipping and bonding. One of the events of the night was to create a list of ten qualities we wanted in our future husbands. We dubbed the lists "Ten Things I Like About You," and gave them to our parents to keep until later and review. Since then, I've reviewed and revised mine, but only one has changed. I've also added two "optional" (read: two requirements that aren't required only because it would throw of the title of the list) traits. This is my list, as mentioned in my Bucket List.
Christian
- He must have a personal relationship with Christ. We should be on similar levels spiritually and able to challenge each other to grow. Bonus points if he's Pentecostal.
Supportive
- He must be supportive of my ambitions. Bonus points if he's willing to travel the world.
Intelligent
- His intelligence should be comparable to mine. Bonus points if he's got street smarts, since my common sense only occasionally jumps out of the negatives and into the positive percentile.
Understanding
- He must understand and accept who I am, my needs and wants. I do not believe in changing for others, and I would never ask him to change for me. Love is unconditional.
Conservative
- He must share my beliefs and values. I am unwavering in my support of the first amendment, second amendment and support of the military. I also believe that authority can and should be challenged from time to time.
Respectful
- He must respect me, himself and others, regardless of whether they are above, beneath or on his level.
Ambitious
- He must be able to support me (though I will be more than capable of supporting myself); he must have a drive to accomplish and succeed.
Devoted
- He must be loyal to me, as I will be loyal only to him.
Trusting
- He must trust me, and I him.
Strong
- He must be physically strong so that I feel protected. Physical strength is not based solely upon hand-to-hand combat skills. Proper sight alignment and trigger control are also viable criteria, though preferably at a ranger greater than mine.
*Fatherly
- He should be good with children and want his own.
*Humorous
- He should be able to make me laugh.
The last two are optional, but not. :]
Christian
- He must have a personal relationship with Christ. We should be on similar levels spiritually and able to challenge each other to grow. Bonus points if he's Pentecostal.
Supportive
- He must be supportive of my ambitions. Bonus points if he's willing to travel the world.
Intelligent
- His intelligence should be comparable to mine. Bonus points if he's got street smarts, since my common sense only occasionally jumps out of the negatives and into the positive percentile.
Understanding
- He must understand and accept who I am, my needs and wants. I do not believe in changing for others, and I would never ask him to change for me. Love is unconditional.
Conservative
- He must share my beliefs and values. I am unwavering in my support of the first amendment, second amendment and support of the military. I also believe that authority can and should be challenged from time to time.
Respectful
- He must respect me, himself and others, regardless of whether they are above, beneath or on his level.
Ambitious
- He must be able to support me (though I will be more than capable of supporting myself); he must have a drive to accomplish and succeed.
Devoted
- He must be loyal to me, as I will be loyal only to him.
Trusting
- He must trust me, and I him.
Strong
- He must be physically strong so that I feel protected. Physical strength is not based solely upon hand-to-hand combat skills. Proper sight alignment and trigger control are also viable criteria, though preferably at a ranger greater than mine.
*Fatherly
- He should be good with children and want his own.
*Humorous
- He should be able to make me laugh.
The last two are optional, but not. :]
Bucket List
A bucket list is a list of things you'd like to accomplish before, well, kicking the bucket. This is mine.
celebrate independence day in washington, d.c.
be kissed under fireworks.
visit washington, d.c. during the cherry blossom festival (with a significant other).
dance in the piazza san marco on a moonlit night.
eat duck tongue in wenzhou.
see the pyramids in egypt.
spend a day daydreaming on the battlefields at gettysburg.
have a picnic in a meadow.
visit williamsburg. <-- To be completed this evening!
finish at least one of my never-ending novels.
marry a God-fearing man (whom i love and meets the 10 things i like about you).
subsequently terrorize the world with kidlets.
go skydiving. maybe.
expand L2.
earn at least an MA in either political science, history, journalism or middle-eastern studies.
search for my biological parents.
learn to swing dance.
earn at least my third degree black belt in tae kwon do.
learn how to drive manual.
learn how to unassemble and reassemble an ar-15. preferably mine.
celebrate independence day in washington, d.c.
visit washington, d.c. during the cherry blossom festival (with a significant other).
dance in the piazza san marco on a moonlit night.
eat duck tongue in wenzhou.
see the pyramids in egypt.
spend a day daydreaming on the battlefields at gettysburg.
have a picnic in a meadow.
visit williamsburg. <-- To be completed this evening!
finish at least one of my never-ending novels.
marry a God-fearing man (whom i love and meets the 10 things i like about you).
subsequently terrorize the world with kidlets.
go skydiving. maybe.
earn at least an MA in either political science, history, journalism or middle-eastern studies.
search for my biological parents.
learn to swing dance.
earn at least my third degree black belt in tae kwon do.
learn how to drive manual.
learn how to unassemble and reassemble an ar-15. preferably mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)