Went to Europe a long time ago, just looking around. St. Paul's Cathedral in London was very moving for a couple reasons. For one thing, on the outside of the building is a stone with a Latin inscription that reads something like, "If you seek his monument, look around you." It refers to Christopher Wren, St. Paul's architect.
I'd like to borrow that idea and apply it to socialized medicine. Fitting that St. Paul's is in London, huh?
Just watching news reports showing long lines of people standing outside clinics and hospitals, waiting for H1N1 (swine flu) shots that never materialize. The project was managed by the government -- those people who are so willing to make all of our health care decisions for us.
It seems that it was cheaper to have the flu vaccine manufactured outside the USA than inside. It also seems that it takes longer to develop swine flu vaccine than vaccines for other kinds of flu. The vaccine is being produced in Australia, and as it comes off the assembly line, so to speak, it's shipped to whomever Australia prioritizes. Which is fine. The USA seemed to agree to those terms when we failed to manufacture the vaccine here. But apparently Australia is not shipping to the USA first. Too bad. Americans are not as important to Australians as Americans are to Americans.
So now there's not enough vaccine to go around, and we see these long lines outside of clinics and hospitals. Yet the government keeps issuing statements and advisories to suggest that there's a major swine flu epidemic sweeping the country, so get your swine flu shots! Sounding the alarm, but failing to deliver any remedy for it. They have a big megaphone, but that's about all they have.
Oh, but the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been vaccinated. Even though many health care workers have not. Well, you know those wild and crazy guys incarcerated at Guantanamo, with their busy social schedules and myraid guests traipsing in and out. Surely they need the vaccine more than any American citizen does. Heaven only knows, if they get released, they'll head right for a jumbo jet, and the enclosed ventiliation loop on passenger airlines are incubators for things like flu. So I guess they need the shots. We wouldn't want anything bad to happen to them.
The thing is, did you expect this whole vaccination project to be handled any better, any more efficiently? I didn't.
And I expect that government-run socialized medicine will be managed in exactly the same way.
So if any of these pie-in-the-sky and forthrightly deceptive proposals for socialized medicine passes through congress successfully -- and there's still time to stop them -- well, what do we have to look forward to?
Like that inscription at St. Paul's -- If you want to know how it's going to work -- or how it's not going to work -- look around you.
Now imagine you have cancer, or you've nicked an artery, or your kid has appendicitis. What are your chances of survival going to be?
Oh, but it'll be free! Yeah.... as long as you pretend that 20% or so additional withholding from your paycheck doesn't constitute a payment.
Oh, but everyone will be covered. Yeah.... everyone can get in line. Whether or not any useful services will be delivered is another question.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The great American hot dog
Congress has me in stitches again.
First, Harry Reid comes up with this brilliant suggestion: States can "opt-out" of socialized medicine!
Great! Terrific! For a minute there, I thought there was a light at the end of the tunnel. Although surely Illinois would not be one of those opting-out, at least I could stay in the USA instead of migrating to Honduras.
Except that, as it turns out, what Reid means is, states can "opt-out" of receiving any benefits from socialized medicine. Of course, they still have to pay into the system.
I bet all the liberals in the senate are cheering for that one. If they get five or six states to "opt-out" of receiving benefits while those same five or six states continue to pay the crushing tax burden, they just might be able to balance their books.... I don't know, it may be a squeaker.... let's take out the calculator...
Yup! See! 100% deficit neutral!! Just create a different group of 30 million uninsured. Which is pretty much what they've already proposed, by robbing the Medicare fund to provide coverage for 18-year-olds.
Then, leave it up to Pazzo Pelosi for the real kicker. She suggests that if "public option" is an idea that the public rejects, why not just rename it the "consumer option"?
Why not just rename it "The Great American Hot Dog" or "I love Mama"?
No one would reject those. After all, it's not like there's any real idea attached to the words, huh, Pazzo? And heaven knows, Pazzo seems to be operating on the principle that the American public can't possibly be as stupid as she is -- and she's probably be right about that.
See, this socialized medicine scheme is all just a marketing problem. But ya know what? I've worked in and around marketing and advertising for more than 30 years. One thing is true: If your product sucks, no matter what you call it, your product still sucks.
Even if you try to build it up with public relations and all that and you do get a few people to try it out, you only create a bigger mess, because the product still sucks. All you're doing is generating a lot of unhappy customers, who will tell their friends, who will tell their friends, who will..... you get the idea.
But man, these guys are coming up with some real screamers. It must be a real hoot, working in congress. They must laugh all day.
First, Harry Reid comes up with this brilliant suggestion: States can "opt-out" of socialized medicine!
Great! Terrific! For a minute there, I thought there was a light at the end of the tunnel. Although surely Illinois would not be one of those opting-out, at least I could stay in the USA instead of migrating to Honduras.
Except that, as it turns out, what Reid means is, states can "opt-out" of receiving any benefits from socialized medicine. Of course, they still have to pay into the system.
I bet all the liberals in the senate are cheering for that one. If they get five or six states to "opt-out" of receiving benefits while those same five or six states continue to pay the crushing tax burden, they just might be able to balance their books.... I don't know, it may be a squeaker.... let's take out the calculator...
Yup! See! 100% deficit neutral!! Just create a different group of 30 million uninsured. Which is pretty much what they've already proposed, by robbing the Medicare fund to provide coverage for 18-year-olds.
Then, leave it up to Pazzo Pelosi for the real kicker. She suggests that if "public option" is an idea that the public rejects, why not just rename it the "consumer option"?
Why not just rename it "The Great American Hot Dog" or "I love Mama"?
No one would reject those. After all, it's not like there's any real idea attached to the words, huh, Pazzo? And heaven knows, Pazzo seems to be operating on the principle that the American public can't possibly be as stupid as she is -- and she's probably be right about that.
See, this socialized medicine scheme is all just a marketing problem. But ya know what? I've worked in and around marketing and advertising for more than 30 years. One thing is true: If your product sucks, no matter what you call it, your product still sucks.
Even if you try to build it up with public relations and all that and you do get a few people to try it out, you only create a bigger mess, because the product still sucks. All you're doing is generating a lot of unhappy customers, who will tell their friends, who will tell their friends, who will..... you get the idea.
But man, these guys are coming up with some real screamers. It must be a real hoot, working in congress. They must laugh all day.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Good laugh!
Came across this video while looking for something else (on polar bears of all things). Anyway, I don't think this guy, Tim Hawkins, has enjoyed enough publicity.
Must-see video, to the tune of Sammy Davis' "The Candy Man." Also, really professionally done. It sounds even better with earphones:
"The Government Can"
I don't know Tim personally, but he's a really funny, funny guy... and I mean that in the best possible way.
This is what I love about Americans. No matter what happens, keep smiling! We will prevail.
And ya know, Sammy Davis was a Republican. My sister went to a Sammy Davis concert once. Jesse Jackson was in the audience, and sat through the whole performance with arms crossed and a disapproving expression. Sammy got a standing O at the end of the performance, and Jesse Jackson made a show of not moving from his chair.
I'm sure Sammy was really really upset.
Must-see video, to the tune of Sammy Davis' "The Candy Man." Also, really professionally done. It sounds even better with earphones:
"The Government Can"
I don't know Tim personally, but he's a really funny, funny guy... and I mean that in the best possible way.
This is what I love about Americans. No matter what happens, keep smiling! We will prevail.
And ya know, Sammy Davis was a Republican. My sister went to a Sammy Davis concert once. Jesse Jackson was in the audience, and sat through the whole performance with arms crossed and a disapproving expression. Sammy got a standing O at the end of the performance, and Jesse Jackson made a show of not moving from his chair.
I'm sure Sammy was really really upset.
Profits to pay for socialized medicine?
I just read this silly article about health care reform in the Chicago Southtown Star newspaper. It was written by a guy named Phil Kadner for the AP (Associated Press) wire service. Kadner interviewed US Rep Dan Lipinski from Chicago, but it seems Kadner was speaking for himself in this statement:
This is one of the stupidest comments I've heard so far in this entire debate. Kadner knows absolutely nothing about the insurance business and should do some homework before he attempts writing about it intelligently. Do believe Lipinski tried to enlighten Kadner, but most of Lipinski's comments were about the legislative process.
For what it's worth, the largest health insurance companies report only about a 3.3% percent profit margin, and the smaller carriers earn even less. Spending 3.3% more on health care will not cover the cost of single-payer socialized medicine -- although apparently some people want you to think so. And it's altogether possible that those who are broadcasting this misinformation, like Phil Kadner and/or the White House, may be ignorant enough about business to truly believe this themselves. (Somehow, re: the White House, I doubt it.)
Here's a tip for people reporting on any industry: insurance, oil, financial, cars, etc. Do not confuse "revenues" with "profits" or "net earnings."
"Revenues" represents the total amount of money a company takes in. It's usually the first line on a quarterly or annual report. Profits is how much they get to keep, after deducting the costs of doing business, including: the cost for creating their product or service; rent on facilities; wages and salaries; payments to shareholders; employee insurance; paying for telephone service, computers, and all other utilities; paying employee travel and training expenses; taxes, taxes, taxes; any R&D (research and development) they might do; interest on loans and credit; "bad debt" for things like customers who skipped; the cost of legal and accounting services and any other professional or consulting fees; the cost for picking up the trash, watering the plants, cleaning the office, striping the parking lot.....
"Profits" is usually the last line of a quarterly or annual report, and it's often enclosed in brackets (like this), indicating a loss. Just about every line between "revenues" and "profits" or "net earnings" represents an expense and is subtracted from "revenues."
So, you (or a reporter) could say, "Hot damn! Goodfellows Insurance reported record revenues of $4.5 billion last year!" So? That means nothing when they could have spent $6 billion on pay-outs to the insured, losses from investments, and heavens knows what other expenses they may have incurred -- like a $10 million liability suit, maybe?
Matter of fact, a typical survival strategy in a slow economy is to "down-size." Reduced sales means reduced revenues, so you reduce your expenses, thereby remaining profitable -- or at least avoid getting so deep into the hole that you'll never recover. And in many states, any employee who gets laid off still represents an expense to the company -- and without any revenues coming in from that employee. It's not something any company likes to do.
Most corporations don't even look for profits unless they're publicly traded -- offering shares on the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ or elsewhere. They just try to balance their revenues with their expenses. Most corporations are family-owned or are "closely-held" by a relatively small circle of investors, often the people who are running the business day-to-day and the company's creditors. Even Ford Motor Co. is closely-held and not publicly traded.
Any sort of government regulation usually adds to business expenses -- if only in terms of adding to paperwork and documentation requirements -- without adding any value to the product or increasing profits. The net result is that the price of the product to consumers goes up to cover the additional expense. And raising prices is usually the last thing any business wants to do, because it can make them less competitive in the marketplace.
Businesses can and do try to reduce production costs by automating or streamlining their internal operations, or by reducing perks to employees, like training, tuition reimbursement, or insurance coverage. They might consolidate the operations of two facilities into one, or stop offering a product or service that costs too much to produce vs. what price consumers will pay for it. Apart from raising prices or cutting expenses, business has no other source of funding unless they borrow money, and then they have to pay interest, the cost of credit.
I can't think of one business, now or from all of human history, that actually had a goose in the back room that was laying golden eggs. I believe that was a fairy tale. I suppose I could be wrong.
The fact that news reporters, White House staffers, or many congresscritters believe otherwise just might be a useful way to measure their belief in fairy tales, or their inability to come to grips with reality.
Congress and apparently the White House now, too, are confronting an unhappy reality in trying to figure out how to offer anywhere from 30 million to 45 million more people health insurance without incurring anymore costs.
Not a remote possibility. Money doesn't grow on trees. There is no Santa Claus. This insurance wouldn't be "free." Somebody's going to have to pay for it. Probably everyone will have to pay for it, especially because a single-payer system would add thousands of people to the government payroll -- and guess who pays their salaries?
So despite their idiotic rhetoric and posturing, I think politicians are finding out that the insurance companies are doing the best job they can and that there's very little slack in the private health care system. To politicians, the fact that health insurance companies can meet expenses and show a profit must look like a miracle. Maybe that's why they think there's some kind of magic involved.
In addition, Medicare and Medicaid are flushing $60 billion per year down the toilet through unchecked fraud and waste, but I doubt any private insurance company would be able to let that kind of money hemorrhage out of their systems. Their accountants and CEOs would be held responsible by the board of directors and the shareholders. The executives could end up in jail.
Who will watch the expenses of government-run, socialized medicine? Who's watching Medicare and Medicaind now? Congress couldn't give a damn where the money goes. It's not their money, after all, is it? Once they appropriate it, who cares what happens to it? If they run out of money, they can just print more... Or raise taxes to cover the shortfalls and hide their shortsightedness. That's what's happened so far with Medicare and Medicaid.
So where would the money come from to pay for socialized medicine? China? Doubt it... China sees how the US is managing its finances and it's backing away. No private investors allowed in socialized medicine.
That leaves two choices: raise taxes or reduce services. Or both. Probably both, if you look at what has happened in every other country on earth that has socialized medicine. We'll be paying more and getting less.
As long as we all live in the real world, Utopia simply is not an option. And given this fact, socializing the health care industry only promises to create the worst of all possible worlds.
I support single-payer national health insurance because everyone would be covered, and I believe the billions of profits now made by insurance companies could cover the cost of a government plan.
This is one of the stupidest comments I've heard so far in this entire debate. Kadner knows absolutely nothing about the insurance business and should do some homework before he attempts writing about it intelligently. Do believe Lipinski tried to enlighten Kadner, but most of Lipinski's comments were about the legislative process.
For what it's worth, the largest health insurance companies report only about a 3.3% percent profit margin, and the smaller carriers earn even less. Spending 3.3% more on health care will not cover the cost of single-payer socialized medicine -- although apparently some people want you to think so. And it's altogether possible that those who are broadcasting this misinformation, like Phil Kadner and/or the White House, may be ignorant enough about business to truly believe this themselves. (Somehow, re: the White House, I doubt it.)
Here's a tip for people reporting on any industry: insurance, oil, financial, cars, etc. Do not confuse "revenues" with "profits" or "net earnings."
"Revenues" represents the total amount of money a company takes in. It's usually the first line on a quarterly or annual report. Profits is how much they get to keep, after deducting the costs of doing business, including: the cost for creating their product or service; rent on facilities; wages and salaries; payments to shareholders; employee insurance; paying for telephone service, computers, and all other utilities; paying employee travel and training expenses; taxes, taxes, taxes; any R&D (research and development) they might do; interest on loans and credit; "bad debt" for things like customers who skipped; the cost of legal and accounting services and any other professional or consulting fees; the cost for picking up the trash, watering the plants, cleaning the office, striping the parking lot.....
"Profits" is usually the last line of a quarterly or annual report, and it's often enclosed in brackets (like this), indicating a loss. Just about every line between "revenues" and "profits" or "net earnings" represents an expense and is subtracted from "revenues."
So, you (or a reporter) could say, "Hot damn! Goodfellows Insurance reported record revenues of $4.5 billion last year!" So? That means nothing when they could have spent $6 billion on pay-outs to the insured, losses from investments, and heavens knows what other expenses they may have incurred -- like a $10 million liability suit, maybe?
Matter of fact, a typical survival strategy in a slow economy is to "down-size." Reduced sales means reduced revenues, so you reduce your expenses, thereby remaining profitable -- or at least avoid getting so deep into the hole that you'll never recover. And in many states, any employee who gets laid off still represents an expense to the company -- and without any revenues coming in from that employee. It's not something any company likes to do.
Most corporations don't even look for profits unless they're publicly traded -- offering shares on the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ or elsewhere. They just try to balance their revenues with their expenses. Most corporations are family-owned or are "closely-held" by a relatively small circle of investors, often the people who are running the business day-to-day and the company's creditors. Even Ford Motor Co. is closely-held and not publicly traded.
Any sort of government regulation usually adds to business expenses -- if only in terms of adding to paperwork and documentation requirements -- without adding any value to the product or increasing profits. The net result is that the price of the product to consumers goes up to cover the additional expense. And raising prices is usually the last thing any business wants to do, because it can make them less competitive in the marketplace.
Businesses can and do try to reduce production costs by automating or streamlining their internal operations, or by reducing perks to employees, like training, tuition reimbursement, or insurance coverage. They might consolidate the operations of two facilities into one, or stop offering a product or service that costs too much to produce vs. what price consumers will pay for it. Apart from raising prices or cutting expenses, business has no other source of funding unless they borrow money, and then they have to pay interest, the cost of credit.
I can't think of one business, now or from all of human history, that actually had a goose in the back room that was laying golden eggs. I believe that was a fairy tale. I suppose I could be wrong.
The fact that news reporters, White House staffers, or many congresscritters believe otherwise just might be a useful way to measure their belief in fairy tales, or their inability to come to grips with reality.
Congress and apparently the White House now, too, are confronting an unhappy reality in trying to figure out how to offer anywhere from 30 million to 45 million more people health insurance without incurring anymore costs.
Not a remote possibility. Money doesn't grow on trees. There is no Santa Claus. This insurance wouldn't be "free." Somebody's going to have to pay for it. Probably everyone will have to pay for it, especially because a single-payer system would add thousands of people to the government payroll -- and guess who pays their salaries?
So despite their idiotic rhetoric and posturing, I think politicians are finding out that the insurance companies are doing the best job they can and that there's very little slack in the private health care system. To politicians, the fact that health insurance companies can meet expenses and show a profit must look like a miracle. Maybe that's why they think there's some kind of magic involved.
In addition, Medicare and Medicaid are flushing $60 billion per year down the toilet through unchecked fraud and waste, but I doubt any private insurance company would be able to let that kind of money hemorrhage out of their systems. Their accountants and CEOs would be held responsible by the board of directors and the shareholders. The executives could end up in jail.
Who will watch the expenses of government-run, socialized medicine? Who's watching Medicare and Medicaind now? Congress couldn't give a damn where the money goes. It's not their money, after all, is it? Once they appropriate it, who cares what happens to it? If they run out of money, they can just print more... Or raise taxes to cover the shortfalls and hide their shortsightedness. That's what's happened so far with Medicare and Medicaid.
So where would the money come from to pay for socialized medicine? China? Doubt it... China sees how the US is managing its finances and it's backing away. No private investors allowed in socialized medicine.
That leaves two choices: raise taxes or reduce services. Or both. Probably both, if you look at what has happened in every other country on earth that has socialized medicine. We'll be paying more and getting less.
As long as we all live in the real world, Utopia simply is not an option. And given this fact, socializing the health care industry only promises to create the worst of all possible worlds.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Stimulus, lies and census takers
Christine Romer, some economic hotshot on the Comrade's staff who until today always bounced chirpily around like she was entertaining children, reported that the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2009 (ending Sept. 30, 2009) saw the peak effects of the $787 billion stimulus package. She doesn't expect that this spending spree will have any significant impacts in 2010.
What?
Not all of that $787 billion has been spent yet, has it? Or where did it go? Was it spent in the US?
I can't imagine anyone spending that amount of money and it doesn't even register a perceivable blip on any radar screen. The money must be in somebody's bank account in the Cayman Islands.
This is just unreal. It's like a magical trick. We'll be paying this bullshit off for the next 10 years and.... there are no perceivable results from it? In fact, unemployment continues to rise.
How incompetent do you have to be to spend nearly $1 trillion dollars and have nothing to show for it? I'm rather disappointed when I spend $30.00 at the supermarket and only take home two plastic bags half-full of buy-one-get-one-free canned goods and off-brand chocolate chip cookies. I can't even picture spending $787 billion and seeing absolutely no returns whatsoever.
I mean, what the hell did they do? Set it on fire?
If any of those funds have not yet been spent, the rest of that bill should be repealed and the funds applied to the national debt. Quickly. Before they flush any more. I'd like that $410 billion from the Pork Bill back, too.
Of course, Romer could be lying. I mean, the way you can tell if the White House is lying is to check and see if their lips are moving.
I had heard some talk that most of the "stimulus" wouldn't be spent until next year to give the nation an economic high and grease the skids for the next election. I mean, create a false sense of prosperity so the Democrats could get re-elected.
Maybe they're just pretending the money is gone now so that when the inflation and all that hits next year, they can act like they have no idea why that's happening. I'm sure they'd find some way to blame George Bush.
That's the trouble when the White House and its minions show themselves to be habitual liars. You can't believe anything they say, whether it's good, bad, or otherwise. It's like that line from "Law & Order": "Were you lying then or are you lying now?"
These people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between their pipe dreams and real life. There's such a gaping breach between "what is" and their interpretation of it, you have to double-check everything they say.
And then there's the little trick about the "Doc Fix." That is, they took $250 billion to fund payments to doctors out of the socialized medicine bill and stuck it into its own bill in order to make it look like the socialized medicine bill will cost less than $1 trillion.
Obvious lies and deception. Not even very skillful. Fortunately, the general population is not half as stupid as the people in Washington.
And after this stimulus fiasco, who in their right mind would trust them managing the health care industry?
A Man Goin' 'Round, Takin' Down Names
Meanwhile, starting last year this time, the Dept. of Commerce has been sending gophers to my house to try to get me to participate in an Economic Census. They showed up every month for about three months last year. Now they're b-a-a-a-ck.
I told them I don't volunteer to help the government destroy me.
They say, "Do it for your neighbors."
I shut the door. I used to yell at them, but now I just shut the door.
What ticks me off is that these people -- and there's been three different ones so far -- show up on the doorstep and reach for the handle on the storm door to let themselves in. Like they have a right to come into my house. Like they were invited.
"Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Yeah sure. I tell them to go away. They want to stand there and argue with you. They say they don't care about me personally, but their computer gave them my address, so they need to know how much money I make and apparently a bunch of other questions. I don't really know the questions because I never got that far into the process with them. But I'm absolutely sure that my personal information is none of their goddamn business.
I tell them if they're not interested in me personally, then they can go across the street and knock on someone else's door. I'm sure they'll find some hapless citizen somewhere who's anxious to help the feds calculate how much welfare my county is due. Or what our "fair share" should be in paying into their socialist scheme.
And these census-takers persist. You have to slam the door or they won't go away. I had to tell one person to "get the hell off my property." And she still didn't go away. She stood on the porch for a while, apparently believing that I was just teasing her, and sure, come on in and go through my bank records. Wanna see my appendix scar, too? Wanna go through my laundry basket?
I suppose they want to know how much change I've got in my wallet, just so they know how much to steal next tax season.
Have to keep thinking about the Constitution and Washington and all those guys or else the USA just wouldn't be worth it anymore. "Not worth a pitcher full of warm spit," as one politician said once. He was talking about the vice presidency. But I'd put the whole country -- as it stands right now -- into that category.
On the Plus Side
One good thing: The White House offered the press interviews with their czar-who-dictates-executive-salaries -- every news organization but Fox. So all the news organizations refused the offer.
The White House relented and let Fox do an interview. However, then the White House limited each interview to only two minutes. Two minutes is probably about as much as anyone could stand of that crap.
Anyway, during the Civil War, General Ambrose Burnside for a time was in charge of one military district of the Union (north of the Ohio River, generally.) The military had to defer to civilian authority in most cases, but in one incident, the Chicago Sun newspaper, which was quite pro-secession, encouraged the idea of young men dodging the draft. So Burnside ordered the newspaper suspend publication. The Sun and a couple others that were doing the same thing.
Horace Greeley, rabid pro-Union Republican, along with other prominent publishers, immediately went to Abe Lincoln and expressed their displeasure. Lincoln repealed the order. The newspapers were closed for maybe a few days at most.
We do have a tradition of freedom, especially freedom of speech and the press. That does go deeper than the Comrade's silly notions of hopenchange.
Have to remain focused on the positive. The ideals remain, even when those in authority seem to believe they have a better idea. They don't.
What?
Not all of that $787 billion has been spent yet, has it? Or where did it go? Was it spent in the US?
I can't imagine anyone spending that amount of money and it doesn't even register a perceivable blip on any radar screen. The money must be in somebody's bank account in the Cayman Islands.
This is just unreal. It's like a magical trick. We'll be paying this bullshit off for the next 10 years and.... there are no perceivable results from it? In fact, unemployment continues to rise.
How incompetent do you have to be to spend nearly $1 trillion dollars and have nothing to show for it? I'm rather disappointed when I spend $30.00 at the supermarket and only take home two plastic bags half-full of buy-one-get-one-free canned goods and off-brand chocolate chip cookies. I can't even picture spending $787 billion and seeing absolutely no returns whatsoever.
I mean, what the hell did they do? Set it on fire?
If any of those funds have not yet been spent, the rest of that bill should be repealed and the funds applied to the national debt. Quickly. Before they flush any more. I'd like that $410 billion from the Pork Bill back, too.
Of course, Romer could be lying. I mean, the way you can tell if the White House is lying is to check and see if their lips are moving.
I had heard some talk that most of the "stimulus" wouldn't be spent until next year to give the nation an economic high and grease the skids for the next election. I mean, create a false sense of prosperity so the Democrats could get re-elected.
Maybe they're just pretending the money is gone now so that when the inflation and all that hits next year, they can act like they have no idea why that's happening. I'm sure they'd find some way to blame George Bush.
That's the trouble when the White House and its minions show themselves to be habitual liars. You can't believe anything they say, whether it's good, bad, or otherwise. It's like that line from "Law & Order": "Were you lying then or are you lying now?"
These people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between their pipe dreams and real life. There's such a gaping breach between "what is" and their interpretation of it, you have to double-check everything they say.
And then there's the little trick about the "Doc Fix." That is, they took $250 billion to fund payments to doctors out of the socialized medicine bill and stuck it into its own bill in order to make it look like the socialized medicine bill will cost less than $1 trillion.
Obvious lies and deception. Not even very skillful. Fortunately, the general population is not half as stupid as the people in Washington.
And after this stimulus fiasco, who in their right mind would trust them managing the health care industry?
A Man Goin' 'Round, Takin' Down Names
Meanwhile, starting last year this time, the Dept. of Commerce has been sending gophers to my house to try to get me to participate in an Economic Census. They showed up every month for about three months last year. Now they're b-a-a-a-ck.
I told them I don't volunteer to help the government destroy me.
They say, "Do it for your neighbors."
I shut the door. I used to yell at them, but now I just shut the door.
What ticks me off is that these people -- and there's been three different ones so far -- show up on the doorstep and reach for the handle on the storm door to let themselves in. Like they have a right to come into my house. Like they were invited.
"Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Yeah sure. I tell them to go away. They want to stand there and argue with you. They say they don't care about me personally, but their computer gave them my address, so they need to know how much money I make and apparently a bunch of other questions. I don't really know the questions because I never got that far into the process with them. But I'm absolutely sure that my personal information is none of their goddamn business.
I tell them if they're not interested in me personally, then they can go across the street and knock on someone else's door. I'm sure they'll find some hapless citizen somewhere who's anxious to help the feds calculate how much welfare my county is due. Or what our "fair share" should be in paying into their socialist scheme.
And these census-takers persist. You have to slam the door or they won't go away. I had to tell one person to "get the hell off my property." And she still didn't go away. She stood on the porch for a while, apparently believing that I was just teasing her, and sure, come on in and go through my bank records. Wanna see my appendix scar, too? Wanna go through my laundry basket?
I suppose they want to know how much change I've got in my wallet, just so they know how much to steal next tax season.
Have to keep thinking about the Constitution and Washington and all those guys or else the USA just wouldn't be worth it anymore. "Not worth a pitcher full of warm spit," as one politician said once. He was talking about the vice presidency. But I'd put the whole country -- as it stands right now -- into that category.
On the Plus Side
One good thing: The White House offered the press interviews with their czar-who-dictates-executive-salaries -- every news organization but Fox. So all the news organizations refused the offer.
The White House relented and let Fox do an interview. However, then the White House limited each interview to only two minutes. Two minutes is probably about as much as anyone could stand of that crap.
Anyway, during the Civil War, General Ambrose Burnside for a time was in charge of one military district of the Union (north of the Ohio River, generally.) The military had to defer to civilian authority in most cases, but in one incident, the Chicago Sun newspaper, which was quite pro-secession, encouraged the idea of young men dodging the draft. So Burnside ordered the newspaper suspend publication. The Sun and a couple others that were doing the same thing.
Horace Greeley, rabid pro-Union Republican, along with other prominent publishers, immediately went to Abe Lincoln and expressed their displeasure. Lincoln repealed the order. The newspapers were closed for maybe a few days at most.
We do have a tradition of freedom, especially freedom of speech and the press. That does go deeper than the Comrade's silly notions of hopenchange.
Have to remain focused on the positive. The ideals remain, even when those in authority seem to believe they have a better idea. They don't.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Taxation without representation?
Neil Cavuto on Fox has been running a daily few minutes about the congresscritters+Rahm Emanual closeted deep inside the Capitol Building, merging four socialized medicine proposals and two socialized medicine concepts -- one from the Senate, the other from the Comrade -- into one bill. Cavuto is collecting suggestions from viewers about what exactly is going on in there.
My favorite suggestion was that we just nail the door shut. Sure. Throw a couple pizzas and a bag of burgers over the transom once or twice a day. They'll be fine. And so will we.
I do have a more serious and realistic picture of what those guys are doing. Typically if you want to pass a bill -- any bill -- in congress, you lard it up with as much pork as it can carry. Something big and expensive (and useless and wasteful) for every state in the union. That way, the congresscritters, be they Dems or Reps, lifers or single-termers, just won't be able to contain their greed and lust for glory. They'll vote for anything that promises them a building or a highway or a bridge with their name on it.
But, can you imagine? The bill already costs more than $1 trillion -- don't forget, they're merging a bunch of bills in there. Can you imagine what size it will be when they get done packing in funding for repaving the driveway of every voter in Ohio? (Ohio being a swing state.)
Why stop at $1 trillion? Let's make it $735 bazillion. Everybody gets two pairs of imported Italian leather boots for winter -- to protect their health, of course -- and sherpa-lined full-length coats. Chinchilla hats. Everyone will get an Olympic-size heated indoor swimming pool to ensure we get enough exercise in any weather.
Every citizen over 14 will qualify for an adjustable bed, the kind that you set a glass of wine on one end and jump up and down on the other end, and the wine won't spill. After all, we need our sleep -- and our wine.
Why not assign us all a week's stay in any hospital of our choosing, every year, and run every non-invasive medical test anyone has ever thought up? Or a week of mudpacks and massage in a spa, if you're already weight-appropriate.
Why not sneak in a moratorium on all mortgages -- no one can afford to pay them anymore anyway, yet our good health depends upon having adequate shelter.
As many groceries as you can eat. Free.
Any pharmaceuticals now will be completely free of charge, including marijuana and angel dust.
The only reservation... When you turn 40, they'll cart you off in the middle of the night and turn you into soylent green. But what the heck? It'll be fun while it lasts. And the congresscritters will be sure to vote for it... Party time!
Actually, this whole entitlement thing has gotten way out of hand already. Entitlements started out as a way to keep people from rioting, for pete's sake. They were a way for politicians to buy votes and secure their re-election.
The thing is, everybody who's ever had to pay their own rent now realizes that government giveaways actually cost a whole lot more than they're worth. Nobody wants them anymore.... except the ignorant and politicians (overlapping categories). They haven't got the word yet. They're so wrapped up in their little fantasyland in DC, so out of touch with reality.
And here's another thing from Cavuto, I think, though Glenn Beck also quoted it. And I believe it was originated by Mark Twain, one of my favorite writers: Don't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.
Remember the Stamp Act, anyone? 1765 the Brits put a tax on paper, ink, all kinds of printing stuff, and for mailing, too, I think. It was to compel the colonials to help pay for the French and Indian War. But all the Stamp Act really accomplished was to alienate the printers and the press from any sense of loyalty to England. I mean, if they were on the fence before, when their oxes were gored, they began to experience genuine enlightenment.
The Stamp Act gave the colonials their slogan: No Taxation Without Representation! It doesn't exactly come trippingly off the tongue, but it seemed to catch on.
Of course, it was followed by a couple more absolutely ridiculous measures designed to impress upon Sam Adams and Ben Franklin, et. al., that they were supposed to genuflect before the king. By that time, they weren't buying any.
Interesting about Ben Franklin. I think it's from his autobiography. He went to England to try to negotiate some kind of settlement with the Crown, or at least smooth things over between Parliament and the wild colonials. All the officials, and maybe the king as well, sat at a long, long table somewhere in a long, long room with fireplaces at the ends. They made Franklin stand in the middle of the room while they chastized him for his temerity in challenging their royal selves.
'Ol Ben Franklin, as he stood there, just got to thinking about how much more useful and practical it would be to replace the fireplaces at the ends of the room with one big stove in the middle of the room. It became known as a Franklin Stove. So at least this negotiating with nobility wasn't a complete exercise in futility.
Does it occur to anyone else that it's just about time for another American Revolution? And for all the same reasons.
My favorite suggestion was that we just nail the door shut. Sure. Throw a couple pizzas and a bag of burgers over the transom once or twice a day. They'll be fine. And so will we.
I do have a more serious and realistic picture of what those guys are doing. Typically if you want to pass a bill -- any bill -- in congress, you lard it up with as much pork as it can carry. Something big and expensive (and useless and wasteful) for every state in the union. That way, the congresscritters, be they Dems or Reps, lifers or single-termers, just won't be able to contain their greed and lust for glory. They'll vote for anything that promises them a building or a highway or a bridge with their name on it.
But, can you imagine? The bill already costs more than $1 trillion -- don't forget, they're merging a bunch of bills in there. Can you imagine what size it will be when they get done packing in funding for repaving the driveway of every voter in Ohio? (Ohio being a swing state.)
Why stop at $1 trillion? Let's make it $735 bazillion. Everybody gets two pairs of imported Italian leather boots for winter -- to protect their health, of course -- and sherpa-lined full-length coats. Chinchilla hats. Everyone will get an Olympic-size heated indoor swimming pool to ensure we get enough exercise in any weather.
Every citizen over 14 will qualify for an adjustable bed, the kind that you set a glass of wine on one end and jump up and down on the other end, and the wine won't spill. After all, we need our sleep -- and our wine.
Why not assign us all a week's stay in any hospital of our choosing, every year, and run every non-invasive medical test anyone has ever thought up? Or a week of mudpacks and massage in a spa, if you're already weight-appropriate.
Why not sneak in a moratorium on all mortgages -- no one can afford to pay them anymore anyway, yet our good health depends upon having adequate shelter.
As many groceries as you can eat. Free.
Any pharmaceuticals now will be completely free of charge, including marijuana and angel dust.
The only reservation... When you turn 40, they'll cart you off in the middle of the night and turn you into soylent green. But what the heck? It'll be fun while it lasts. And the congresscritters will be sure to vote for it... Party time!
Actually, this whole entitlement thing has gotten way out of hand already. Entitlements started out as a way to keep people from rioting, for pete's sake. They were a way for politicians to buy votes and secure their re-election.
The thing is, everybody who's ever had to pay their own rent now realizes that government giveaways actually cost a whole lot more than they're worth. Nobody wants them anymore.... except the ignorant and politicians (overlapping categories). They haven't got the word yet. They're so wrapped up in their little fantasyland in DC, so out of touch with reality.
And here's another thing from Cavuto, I think, though Glenn Beck also quoted it. And I believe it was originated by Mark Twain, one of my favorite writers: Don't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.
Remember the Stamp Act, anyone? 1765 the Brits put a tax on paper, ink, all kinds of printing stuff, and for mailing, too, I think. It was to compel the colonials to help pay for the French and Indian War. But all the Stamp Act really accomplished was to alienate the printers and the press from any sense of loyalty to England. I mean, if they were on the fence before, when their oxes were gored, they began to experience genuine enlightenment.
The Stamp Act gave the colonials their slogan: No Taxation Without Representation! It doesn't exactly come trippingly off the tongue, but it seemed to catch on.
Of course, it was followed by a couple more absolutely ridiculous measures designed to impress upon Sam Adams and Ben Franklin, et. al., that they were supposed to genuflect before the king. By that time, they weren't buying any.
Interesting about Ben Franklin. I think it's from his autobiography. He went to England to try to negotiate some kind of settlement with the Crown, or at least smooth things over between Parliament and the wild colonials. All the officials, and maybe the king as well, sat at a long, long table somewhere in a long, long room with fireplaces at the ends. They made Franklin stand in the middle of the room while they chastized him for his temerity in challenging their royal selves.
'Ol Ben Franklin, as he stood there, just got to thinking about how much more useful and practical it would be to replace the fireplaces at the ends of the room with one big stove in the middle of the room. It became known as a Franklin Stove. So at least this negotiating with nobility wasn't a complete exercise in futility.
Does it occur to anyone else that it's just about time for another American Revolution? And for all the same reasons.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
A lock on the truth
This debate over Fox News is ridiculous. I've written about this before (see "All the news that's print to fit" for July 11, 2009).
Let's face it, no one is objective. As stated ad nauseum in the earlier blog, what a newspaper, broadcaster, commentator -- whatever -- what they choose to publicize and how they publicize it are both pretty subjective value judgments.
The whole idea of objectivity in journalism was only invented less than 100 years ago. And it's pretty much an impossible dream, maybe something to shoot for. But I'd rather know the biases up front and listen to both sides, instead of listening to one side and hearing them claim it as the one and only "Truth."
I must say, too, when what Anita (pup-tent-on-her-head) Dunn said that Fox News was not a news organization like CNN is.... My initial reaction was something like "Right!" Actually, after watching Susan Roesgen stumping for the Comrade at the Chicago Tea Party last summer, I've entirely discounted CNN as a reliable news organization. Fox News is nothing like CNN.
Actually, the local news from the Chicago affliates of all the networks -- with the obvious exception of CNN -- aren't that bad. What sucks are the national broadcasts that come from the networks. They are so terribly biased they can't even see it. It's like they're color blind and keep insisting that yellow is green because that's the way they see it. Yet they believe they have a lock on "Truth."
All of their friends agree that they're right. They can look stuff up that supports their views. So they must be right. And apparently they don't look much further, are incapable of considering another perspective. No imagination or no brains?
I can usually predict what liberals are going to say because I understand their point of view, crazy as it is. (That's why I ramble about their psychology, even though that's pretty unprofessional.) But liberals haven't got any kind of clue about conservative views. Although they think they do.
Like, liberals believe:
Look at the facts. I mean actual facts. Organizations exist that tediously sit and count how many news stories an event generates, who runs the stories, and if they give it a positive or negative slant. Fox News comes up all the time with a real balance of positive and negative for both liberal and conservative politicians and issues. Just about all the other news outlets reflect a liberal bias. Dig around in this report from Journalism.org, surveys conducted by the Pew Trust.
So what it comes down to is that the Comrade and the Merry Marxists don't like the hard questions. They have no answers. They seem to think it's good enough to say, "I won the election." Or, "It's all George W. Bush's fault." And with that attitude, the win last year will be their last (fingers crossed).
Look at the Comrade's face some time when he's in front of an audience soaking up the cheers and applause. He looks like he's in the throes of sexual ecstasy. Entertainers aren't that emotionally needy, or at least they know better than to let it show. It really gives me the creeps.
Thomas Jefferson once said that Lafayette had a "wolfish appetite for fame." I think the Comrade is the same way, only a "wolfish appetite for praise." He can't deal with criticism. He can't -- or at least he won't -- even answer any real, factual questions. He spins out his campaign slogans and we're all supposed to just lap it up.
Honestly, I'm starting to think he's a little wacko.
And as far as interviewing people at the White House goes... What for? It was bizarre watching Axelrod and Emanual on two different shows on Sunday, both delivering exactly the same message in almost exactly the same words. You can get the same information from a press release. Why bother going through the motions of phone calls and setting these people up in a studio with a microphone? Fox does it, anyway, I suppose out of a sense of fairness.
But my God, the White House's Communications Corps is positively frightening. It's like something out of "1984." These people don't have any minds of their own, no original thoughts, no spontaneity, no souls. They're like a bunch of little cookie-cutter paper dolls. They drank the Kool-Aid.
Like, what was that movie? About the pods coming from outer space and taking over? "Day of the Triffids"* or something like that? Even the re-make of that movie -- or the first re-make, anyway, the one with Donald Sutherland -- was good. And the argument from the pod-people was the same as the argument from the White House: "Stop defending your humanity and individuality. Just give up and give in. You'll be much happier if you just stop thinking and let us control you."
Of "The Stepford Wives." The White House is like that.
The White House apparently stopped thinking a long, long time ago. They had campaigns to run. Almost a year after the election, and they're still campaigning. At least they found their niche, I suppose. Let's just put them in a big auditorium somewhere and let them campaign while the rest of us try to live real lives.
*Correction -- Not "Day of the Triffids," but "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." The Donald Sutherland re-make was on later in the day I wrote this, but I didn't know it was coming on. Watched it again for the first time in a few years. For a minute there, I thought it was a documentary about the 2008 presidential campaign.
Let's face it, no one is objective. As stated ad nauseum in the earlier blog, what a newspaper, broadcaster, commentator -- whatever -- what they choose to publicize and how they publicize it are both pretty subjective value judgments.
The whole idea of objectivity in journalism was only invented less than 100 years ago. And it's pretty much an impossible dream, maybe something to shoot for. But I'd rather know the biases up front and listen to both sides, instead of listening to one side and hearing them claim it as the one and only "Truth."
I must say, too, when what Anita (pup-tent-on-her-head) Dunn said that Fox News was not a news organization like CNN is.... My initial reaction was something like "Right!" Actually, after watching Susan Roesgen stumping for the Comrade at the Chicago Tea Party last summer, I've entirely discounted CNN as a reliable news organization. Fox News is nothing like CNN.
Actually, the local news from the Chicago affliates of all the networks -- with the obvious exception of CNN -- aren't that bad. What sucks are the national broadcasts that come from the networks. They are so terribly biased they can't even see it. It's like they're color blind and keep insisting that yellow is green because that's the way they see it. Yet they believe they have a lock on "Truth."
All of their friends agree that they're right. They can look stuff up that supports their views. So they must be right. And apparently they don't look much further, are incapable of considering another perspective. No imagination or no brains?
I can usually predict what liberals are going to say because I understand their point of view, crazy as it is. (That's why I ramble about their psychology, even though that's pretty unprofessional.) But liberals haven't got any kind of clue about conservative views. Although they think they do.
Like, liberals believe:
- All military people are warmongers -- not true, most military would rather do anything else but go to war;
- Rich people are all greedy and inconsiderate -- not true, they fund all the charities in the US, for one thing, and give us all jobs, for another;
- All blacks are socialists -- not a chance;
- And all women are preoccupied with their breasts -- size, tumors, nursing -- and with their family's health. I think men are more fascinated with breasts than women are, and women do have to make most of the doctor appointments. However, apart from that, I know as many women as men who eat junk food and smoke.
Look at the facts. I mean actual facts. Organizations exist that tediously sit and count how many news stories an event generates, who runs the stories, and if they give it a positive or negative slant. Fox News comes up all the time with a real balance of positive and negative for both liberal and conservative politicians and issues. Just about all the other news outlets reflect a liberal bias. Dig around in this report from Journalism.org, surveys conducted by the Pew Trust.
So what it comes down to is that the Comrade and the Merry Marxists don't like the hard questions. They have no answers. They seem to think it's good enough to say, "I won the election." Or, "It's all George W. Bush's fault." And with that attitude, the win last year will be their last (fingers crossed).
Look at the Comrade's face some time when he's in front of an audience soaking up the cheers and applause. He looks like he's in the throes of sexual ecstasy. Entertainers aren't that emotionally needy, or at least they know better than to let it show. It really gives me the creeps.
Thomas Jefferson once said that Lafayette had a "wolfish appetite for fame." I think the Comrade is the same way, only a "wolfish appetite for praise." He can't deal with criticism. He can't -- or at least he won't -- even answer any real, factual questions. He spins out his campaign slogans and we're all supposed to just lap it up.
Honestly, I'm starting to think he's a little wacko.
And as far as interviewing people at the White House goes... What for? It was bizarre watching Axelrod and Emanual on two different shows on Sunday, both delivering exactly the same message in almost exactly the same words. You can get the same information from a press release. Why bother going through the motions of phone calls and setting these people up in a studio with a microphone? Fox does it, anyway, I suppose out of a sense of fairness.
But my God, the White House's Communications Corps is positively frightening. It's like something out of "1984." These people don't have any minds of their own, no original thoughts, no spontaneity, no souls. They're like a bunch of little cookie-cutter paper dolls. They drank the Kool-Aid.
Like, what was that movie? About the pods coming from outer space and taking over? "Day of the Triffids"* or something like that? Even the re-make of that movie -- or the first re-make, anyway, the one with Donald Sutherland -- was good. And the argument from the pod-people was the same as the argument from the White House: "Stop defending your humanity and individuality. Just give up and give in. You'll be much happier if you just stop thinking and let us control you."
Of "The Stepford Wives." The White House is like that.
The White House apparently stopped thinking a long, long time ago. They had campaigns to run. Almost a year after the election, and they're still campaigning. At least they found their niche, I suppose. Let's just put them in a big auditorium somewhere and let them campaign while the rest of us try to live real lives.
*Correction -- Not "Day of the Triffids," but "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." The Donald Sutherland re-make was on later in the day I wrote this, but I didn't know it was coming on. Watched it again for the first time in a few years. For a minute there, I thought it was a documentary about the 2008 presidential campaign.
Monday, October 19, 2009
We are the national mushroom
A while ago there was this little poster that used to be displayed at company bulletin boards all over the nation. It showed a cartoon of a mushroom and said, "I am the company mushroom. They keep me in the dark and feed me bullshit."
Watched parts of all the network Sunday political shows yesterday, as well as Fox's show, and it occurs to me that the public is the national mushroom. They keep us in the dark and feed us bullshit.
Did notice that the White House sent out its "big guns" for appearances -- David Axelrod, Rahm Emanual, Valerie Jarrett -- but only on the networks. Fox had to be content with non-White House guests. And you know what? Fox had the better show.
The network hacks don't have the gonads to ask any real questions, and the White House people only prattled the pre-approved talking points. They were tedious and not very informative. Just the same old crap. On ABC, Paul Krugeman was his smarmy self and Peggy Noonan, in her kind of smug and self-satisfied way, mopped up the floor with him.
By contrast, on Fox, Karl Rove and Terry McAuliffe gave off sparks, with McAuliffe ending up looking like some kind of Democrat C3PO, wind him up and he spouts the pre-approved talking points. He even pretty much admitted that he'll say anything anyone will pay him to say.
Arlen Specter, who was also on Fox, was pathetic. Left you wondering why this guy hasn't retired by now. Hopefully he will retire next year, whether he wants to or not. No doubt if there's a Republican sweep next year, ol' Arlen will try to change parties once again, but it will be too late. How could you reach the age of 80+ and still be unsure of what you believe in?
Just now on Fox (this is Monday), they had two guys talking about proposed socialized medicine legislation. The Democrat guy starts rambling on about Bob Dole, Bill Frist and a couple other Republicans have stated that they're all for "reform." Yeah, butthead -- REFORM -- not this socialist crap. Bob Dole even complained publicly about the Democrats connecting his name to socialized medicine, and the Dems pulled a TV ad that used his name... rather than be sued, I guess.
Bob Dole, Bill Frist and a lot (if not most) other Republicans have stated over and over again that they want health care reform. But they don't want the socialized medicine garbage that has come out of congress so far. This is the same attitude of the general public, which according to a Rasmussen poll today, is now 54% opposed to socialized medicine.
The Dems say, "How can they be opposed? There is no bill yet!"
You know what, buttheads -- if you can vote on it on principle, as a "concept," we can vote against it on principle and as a "concept."
Apparently you're not going to show anyone any bill until you've rammed it through with your majority... If you can... If congressmen are so enamored of the Comrade that they prove themselves willing to vote away their futures in congress.
Just exactly how stupid do you think we national mushrooms are?
It's obvious to me that we're a lot smarter than the blockheads in Washington.
I for one will take careful note of exactly which legislators vote for this piece of crap socialized medicine bill, and would happily vote for Hitler before voting for any one of them. After all, even Hitler recognized American exceptionalism. And he experienced it in much the same way these idiots will.
One question: If they do pass socialized medicine, will we be able to rescind it next year, after we vote out these horses' asses? I'll make that a prerequisite for anyone I vote for next year.
Watched parts of all the network Sunday political shows yesterday, as well as Fox's show, and it occurs to me that the public is the national mushroom. They keep us in the dark and feed us bullshit.
Did notice that the White House sent out its "big guns" for appearances -- David Axelrod, Rahm Emanual, Valerie Jarrett -- but only on the networks. Fox had to be content with non-White House guests. And you know what? Fox had the better show.
The network hacks don't have the gonads to ask any real questions, and the White House people only prattled the pre-approved talking points. They were tedious and not very informative. Just the same old crap. On ABC, Paul Krugeman was his smarmy self and Peggy Noonan, in her kind of smug and self-satisfied way, mopped up the floor with him.
By contrast, on Fox, Karl Rove and Terry McAuliffe gave off sparks, with McAuliffe ending up looking like some kind of Democrat C3PO, wind him up and he spouts the pre-approved talking points. He even pretty much admitted that he'll say anything anyone will pay him to say.
Arlen Specter, who was also on Fox, was pathetic. Left you wondering why this guy hasn't retired by now. Hopefully he will retire next year, whether he wants to or not. No doubt if there's a Republican sweep next year, ol' Arlen will try to change parties once again, but it will be too late. How could you reach the age of 80+ and still be unsure of what you believe in?
Just now on Fox (this is Monday), they had two guys talking about proposed socialized medicine legislation. The Democrat guy starts rambling on about Bob Dole, Bill Frist and a couple other Republicans have stated that they're all for "reform." Yeah, butthead -- REFORM -- not this socialist crap. Bob Dole even complained publicly about the Democrats connecting his name to socialized medicine, and the Dems pulled a TV ad that used his name... rather than be sued, I guess.
Bob Dole, Bill Frist and a lot (if not most) other Republicans have stated over and over again that they want health care reform. But they don't want the socialized medicine garbage that has come out of congress so far. This is the same attitude of the general public, which according to a Rasmussen poll today, is now 54% opposed to socialized medicine.
The Dems say, "How can they be opposed? There is no bill yet!"
You know what, buttheads -- if you can vote on it on principle, as a "concept," we can vote against it on principle and as a "concept."
Apparently you're not going to show anyone any bill until you've rammed it through with your majority... If you can... If congressmen are so enamored of the Comrade that they prove themselves willing to vote away their futures in congress.
Just exactly how stupid do you think we national mushrooms are?
It's obvious to me that we're a lot smarter than the blockheads in Washington.
I for one will take careful note of exactly which legislators vote for this piece of crap socialized medicine bill, and would happily vote for Hitler before voting for any one of them. After all, even Hitler recognized American exceptionalism. And he experienced it in much the same way these idiots will.
One question: If they do pass socialized medicine, will we be able to rescind it next year, after we vote out these horses' asses? I'll make that a prerequisite for anyone I vote for next year.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Congress's piggy bank
Or maybe I should call this "Congress is piggy," whaddaya think?
The US has how-many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, apparently just barely supported by the Comrade, who can't make a policy decision about Afghanistan. Ever hear of making a decision by default? That is, you vacillate and do nothing, and meanwhile the US and other forces in Afghanistan serve no other purpose but for target practice for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Have you noticed a big push in activity coming from the other side, Comrade? Notice the death rate among US soldiers and our allies has gone up this month? Think it might be related to your weakness on the issue?
In December, 1860, the slave states in the US began seceding. By the end of January, 1861, I believe something like 10 already had seceded and in February, 1861, as these states were forming the Confederate States of America, a couple more slave states pulled out of the Union. Abraham Lincoln wasn't even inaugurated as president until March.
Throughout this secession process, President Buchanan did very little. He issued a statement condemning secession. O-o-o-o-h, scary. For one thing, he didn't want to set a policy that Lincoln wouldn't want to enforce. For another thing, his Cabinet was full of southerners -- some of whom walked out as their home states rejected the Union.
The thing is, as the CSA organized armies and began building up defenses, the USA did nothing. A common assumption across the CSA was that "the Yankees won't fight." The CSA thought it could do anything with impunity, and it did. In my opinion, this is one reason the Civil War actually became so long and bloody.
See any parallels as the Comrade just doesn't know what to do, which way to go, while the Taliban steps up its own activity?
'Course, according to the Comrade's world view, everyone in the world really just wants to be friends, so what the heck do we have to worry about? According to his world view, there's no fundamental reason to fight anyone. More like we should invite them over a barbecue. Then there would be world peace.
The Comrade apparently doesn't have the guts to stand up for one side or the other -- reinforce and support our troops, or bring them home. He doesn't want to piss off anyone on either side. He might lose more love.
Yet his indecision doesn't make him attractive; it only makes him look weak. And makes the US look weak, and will only attract more and heavier attacks. "Yankees won't fight" and all that....
While this might look like some kind of half-assed Nobel-Peace-Award-oriented diplomacy to the Comrade, it only looks like opportunity to our ruthless opponents. And they may be right.
Meanwhile back at the Capitol Hill ranch.... several greedy pigs in congress are looting a defense bill that would fund operations and maintenance of US troops. Trying to get the names right.... Kerry, Inouye, Landrieu, and Vitter are hoping to peel off a few billion dollars designated for the military to build museums and other silly crap in their home districts. The Twit Sisters from Maine -- Snowe and Collins -- are trying to grab a few millions for "Humvee maintenance," so long as it takes place in Maine.
Good grief! $878 billion in the so-called Stimulus bill, and another $410 billion in pure pork a couple weeks later, and these hogs at the trough in DC are still rooting around for more. When unemployment is approaching 10% nationwide with very little hope for recovery.
Who the hell are these people and how did they get into office? Why have these rapacious slobs been given the authority to run my country? They very obviously are lacking not only the brains department, but also have no sense of ethics or honor. Kinda like robbing a corpse before it's cold.
H-m-m-m-m-m. What would Lincoln do?
The US has how-many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, apparently just barely supported by the Comrade, who can't make a policy decision about Afghanistan. Ever hear of making a decision by default? That is, you vacillate and do nothing, and meanwhile the US and other forces in Afghanistan serve no other purpose but for target practice for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Have you noticed a big push in activity coming from the other side, Comrade? Notice the death rate among US soldiers and our allies has gone up this month? Think it might be related to your weakness on the issue?
In December, 1860, the slave states in the US began seceding. By the end of January, 1861, I believe something like 10 already had seceded and in February, 1861, as these states were forming the Confederate States of America, a couple more slave states pulled out of the Union. Abraham Lincoln wasn't even inaugurated as president until March.
Throughout this secession process, President Buchanan did very little. He issued a statement condemning secession. O-o-o-o-h, scary. For one thing, he didn't want to set a policy that Lincoln wouldn't want to enforce. For another thing, his Cabinet was full of southerners -- some of whom walked out as their home states rejected the Union.
The thing is, as the CSA organized armies and began building up defenses, the USA did nothing. A common assumption across the CSA was that "the Yankees won't fight." The CSA thought it could do anything with impunity, and it did. In my opinion, this is one reason the Civil War actually became so long and bloody.
See any parallels as the Comrade just doesn't know what to do, which way to go, while the Taliban steps up its own activity?
'Course, according to the Comrade's world view, everyone in the world really just wants to be friends, so what the heck do we have to worry about? According to his world view, there's no fundamental reason to fight anyone. More like we should invite them over a barbecue. Then there would be world peace.
The Comrade apparently doesn't have the guts to stand up for one side or the other -- reinforce and support our troops, or bring them home. He doesn't want to piss off anyone on either side. He might lose more love.
Yet his indecision doesn't make him attractive; it only makes him look weak. And makes the US look weak, and will only attract more and heavier attacks. "Yankees won't fight" and all that....
While this might look like some kind of half-assed Nobel-Peace-Award-oriented diplomacy to the Comrade, it only looks like opportunity to our ruthless opponents. And they may be right.
Meanwhile back at the Capitol Hill ranch.... several greedy pigs in congress are looting a defense bill that would fund operations and maintenance of US troops. Trying to get the names right.... Kerry, Inouye, Landrieu, and Vitter are hoping to peel off a few billion dollars designated for the military to build museums and other silly crap in their home districts. The Twit Sisters from Maine -- Snowe and Collins -- are trying to grab a few millions for "Humvee maintenance," so long as it takes place in Maine.
Good grief! $878 billion in the so-called Stimulus bill, and another $410 billion in pure pork a couple weeks later, and these hogs at the trough in DC are still rooting around for more. When unemployment is approaching 10% nationwide with very little hope for recovery.
Who the hell are these people and how did they get into office? Why have these rapacious slobs been given the authority to run my country? They very obviously are lacking not only the brains department, but also have no sense of ethics or honor. Kinda like robbing a corpse before it's cold.
H-m-m-m-m-m. What would Lincoln do?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Trust and anti-trust
Haven't really had time to listen to media today, but what I have heard seems to revolve around the insurance companies being exempt from anti-trust laws. Somebody introduced a bill or something to take away that status?
Good.
You know, the only way you can actually have a trust, cartel, or a monopoly is if it's enforced by one government or another. I mean, think about it. Suppose you're making tons of money in, let's say, carbonated water. You want to own the only supply of carbonated water. How do you do that? You could try buying up all the production capacity for carbonated water... but if there's really any money in carbonated water, people will make more carbonated water factories -- and probably cheaper and more efficient ones. Or they'll develop a competing product to woo your customers away from you.
The only way you can truly and absolutely "corner a market" is to go buy yourself a couple senators and get them to pass a bunch of laws -- or maybe only one law -- that keeps anyone else from entering your market and competing against you.
This is exactly what happened in the late 1800s in the USA. It was the "rise of the trusts." The USA was very proud of its trusts, which actually were kinda like cartels. The Sugar Trust was a pretty good one, enforced by federal laws. John D. Rockefeller tried to set up an oil trust, and he might have come pretty close, using some pretty strong-arm tactics, too. He probably should have been busted for that -- actual crimes like bribery and grand theft -- instead of anti-trust. It required bribery and theft to try set up his monopoly.
The trouble is, when you get a limited number of producers (or only one) in a market that enjoys strong demand, the cartel or monopoly can make product any old way it wants -- with/without quality control. They can charge anything they want for it, and they can use their supply to extort the public. They probably won't do much R&D to improve their product or make additional products.
And the thing is, with free market capitalism, any market that enjoys high demand is going to attract a lot of investors and potential producers. The only way you can keep other people out of the market to establish a cartel or a monopoly is to buy a couple senators and pass a few laws... So while capitalism is often accused of creating monopolies, it's really government meddling that creates monopolies and cartels.
Left alone, capitalism is a bloody free-for-all. Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door... And everyone else will be turning their attention to creating even better mousetraps to grab your market share.
The anti-trust laws also address price-fixing, another trick that has been tried by groups of producers. Suppose you get six guys in a room that decide the price of light bulbs will be $2.00 each. You might price them higher -- non-competitively -- but they all agree not to price them any lower. Then the CEO of ABC Light Bulb Company is driving home, and he gets a hot flash: Hey, everyone else is going to be charging $2.00 for a light bulb. If I charge $1.50, I can corner the market!!
Price-fixing rarely works without a government behind it to enforce it with law. Interesting to note, too, that with socialized medicine -- both the Baucus Bill and the House's HR3200 -- the main feature is fixing the prices for insurance. Just think about it.
Teddy Roosevelt, who initially loved the US trusts, like everyone else at the time, eventually got on board the anti-trust movement to break them up and loosen up the marketplace. Interesting that General William Tecumseh Sherman's brother, John Sherman, was the guy who wrote the "Sherman Anti-Trust Act" that prohibited establishing trusts and cartels that acted "in restraint of trade."
All Sherman -- or even ol' Teddy Roosevelt -- had to do was to forbid congress from making laws that created artificial barriers to trade. It was the law that prevented other potential producers from entering the sugar or the oil markets. The anti-trust laws are kinda stupid for that reason. All they do, mainly, is try to fix something that was created by bad law and government regulation.
The abuses perpetrated by the trusts also led to a Constitutional amendment that changed the way US Senators are elected. Originally, they were elected by state legislatures. The amendment made them elected by popular vote. I actually prefer the popular vote method -- but I'm from Illinois, don't forget, and may be too close to seeing the results of state-level corruption in government. The US Senate at the end of the 1800s was known as The Rich Man's Club. That was a pretty fair description of it, too.
Anyway, good! Do away with anti-trust exemption for insurance companies. They should have to compete, and that surely would improve their products and bring prices down -- as long as the government keeps its warty nose and long arm out of the marketplace. How likely is that?
You know at one time in the very near past, AT&T and the Bell Telephone companies had state-enforced monopolies all over the country. They were compelled to break up. So now we've got dozens, if not hundreds more phone service providers, as well as cell phones and a myriad of other telephony products. Sure, big disruptions for a time. But would you prefer going back to landlines-only, available only by designated Bell Telephone Companies?
But then here's another reminder -- the insurance industry is very heavily regulated because there has been a lot of Nigerian Banker-type fraud attached to insurance schemes throughout that industry's history. Not to suggest that insurance itself is a fraud -- it's not. But leave us not forget that many criminal organizations also sell "insurance." The whole concept apparently is too tantalizing for criminal types to resist.
I would prefer that insurance be unregulated. All that means is doing a bit of research before you buy. That's always a good idea anyway, for anything. Look at the insurance company's investment fund before you buy -- and make sure they've got good fund managers and are regularly audited by outside accountants. There will always be a risk and probably always some corruption, but that's also very true of anything run by the government. In private enterprise, if one company goes bust, only some people are affected. In a socialist scheme, if the government goes bust, we're all screwed -- and also unable to rebuild. I mean, look around.
At any rate, can you name any other industries that are exempt from anti-trust laws? Show of hands? Anyone? Anyone?
That's right! Very good! Labor unions are exempt from anti-trust laws and prohibitions against price-fixing.
Just to muddy the waters a little more.....
Good.
You know, the only way you can actually have a trust, cartel, or a monopoly is if it's enforced by one government or another. I mean, think about it. Suppose you're making tons of money in, let's say, carbonated water. You want to own the only supply of carbonated water. How do you do that? You could try buying up all the production capacity for carbonated water... but if there's really any money in carbonated water, people will make more carbonated water factories -- and probably cheaper and more efficient ones. Or they'll develop a competing product to woo your customers away from you.
The only way you can truly and absolutely "corner a market" is to go buy yourself a couple senators and get them to pass a bunch of laws -- or maybe only one law -- that keeps anyone else from entering your market and competing against you.
This is exactly what happened in the late 1800s in the USA. It was the "rise of the trusts." The USA was very proud of its trusts, which actually were kinda like cartels. The Sugar Trust was a pretty good one, enforced by federal laws. John D. Rockefeller tried to set up an oil trust, and he might have come pretty close, using some pretty strong-arm tactics, too. He probably should have been busted for that -- actual crimes like bribery and grand theft -- instead of anti-trust. It required bribery and theft to try set up his monopoly.
The trouble is, when you get a limited number of producers (or only one) in a market that enjoys strong demand, the cartel or monopoly can make product any old way it wants -- with/without quality control. They can charge anything they want for it, and they can use their supply to extort the public. They probably won't do much R&D to improve their product or make additional products.
And the thing is, with free market capitalism, any market that enjoys high demand is going to attract a lot of investors and potential producers. The only way you can keep other people out of the market to establish a cartel or a monopoly is to buy a couple senators and pass a few laws... So while capitalism is often accused of creating monopolies, it's really government meddling that creates monopolies and cartels.
Left alone, capitalism is a bloody free-for-all. Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door... And everyone else will be turning their attention to creating even better mousetraps to grab your market share.
The anti-trust laws also address price-fixing, another trick that has been tried by groups of producers. Suppose you get six guys in a room that decide the price of light bulbs will be $2.00 each. You might price them higher -- non-competitively -- but they all agree not to price them any lower. Then the CEO of ABC Light Bulb Company is driving home, and he gets a hot flash: Hey, everyone else is going to be charging $2.00 for a light bulb. If I charge $1.50, I can corner the market!!
Price-fixing rarely works without a government behind it to enforce it with law. Interesting to note, too, that with socialized medicine -- both the Baucus Bill and the House's HR3200 -- the main feature is fixing the prices for insurance. Just think about it.
Teddy Roosevelt, who initially loved the US trusts, like everyone else at the time, eventually got on board the anti-trust movement to break them up and loosen up the marketplace. Interesting that General William Tecumseh Sherman's brother, John Sherman, was the guy who wrote the "Sherman Anti-Trust Act" that prohibited establishing trusts and cartels that acted "in restraint of trade."
All Sherman -- or even ol' Teddy Roosevelt -- had to do was to forbid congress from making laws that created artificial barriers to trade. It was the law that prevented other potential producers from entering the sugar or the oil markets. The anti-trust laws are kinda stupid for that reason. All they do, mainly, is try to fix something that was created by bad law and government regulation.
The abuses perpetrated by the trusts also led to a Constitutional amendment that changed the way US Senators are elected. Originally, they were elected by state legislatures. The amendment made them elected by popular vote. I actually prefer the popular vote method -- but I'm from Illinois, don't forget, and may be too close to seeing the results of state-level corruption in government. The US Senate at the end of the 1800s was known as The Rich Man's Club. That was a pretty fair description of it, too.
Anyway, good! Do away with anti-trust exemption for insurance companies. They should have to compete, and that surely would improve their products and bring prices down -- as long as the government keeps its warty nose and long arm out of the marketplace. How likely is that?
You know at one time in the very near past, AT&T and the Bell Telephone companies had state-enforced monopolies all over the country. They were compelled to break up. So now we've got dozens, if not hundreds more phone service providers, as well as cell phones and a myriad of other telephony products. Sure, big disruptions for a time. But would you prefer going back to landlines-only, available only by designated Bell Telephone Companies?
But then here's another reminder -- the insurance industry is very heavily regulated because there has been a lot of Nigerian Banker-type fraud attached to insurance schemes throughout that industry's history. Not to suggest that insurance itself is a fraud -- it's not. But leave us not forget that many criminal organizations also sell "insurance." The whole concept apparently is too tantalizing for criminal types to resist.
I would prefer that insurance be unregulated. All that means is doing a bit of research before you buy. That's always a good idea anyway, for anything. Look at the insurance company's investment fund before you buy -- and make sure they've got good fund managers and are regularly audited by outside accountants. There will always be a risk and probably always some corruption, but that's also very true of anything run by the government. In private enterprise, if one company goes bust, only some people are affected. In a socialist scheme, if the government goes bust, we're all screwed -- and also unable to rebuild. I mean, look around.
At any rate, can you name any other industries that are exempt from anti-trust laws? Show of hands? Anyone? Anyone?
That's right! Very good! Labor unions are exempt from anti-trust laws and prohibitions against price-fixing.
Just to muddy the waters a little more.....
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Fox News: The Great Satan?
This is almost embarrassing.
Some lady from the White House, who looks like she's wearing a small pup-tent on her head (oh, sorry, that's her hair), announced today that White House employees will no longer be allowed to speak to Fox News.
What is this, kindergarten?
Actually, the White House doesn't seem to have much regard for things like the First Amendment, so it's not all that surprising. Their attitude toward US citizens seems to be, "They don't need no stinkin' information!"
I mean, look what American citizens do with information -- it tends to change their positions; they may act on it and vote all these miserable cusses out of office at the first opportunity. Then maybe the Comrade and his Band of Merry Marxists will have to get real jobs.
Heaven forbid!! They won't even have Acorn to kick around anymore and broadcast upon the land to do their bidding, fetching them voter registrations and grateful first-time homeowners.
This would be funny -- it's so childish -- except that's it's so pathetic. "If you continue to question me and my friends, we just won't speak to you anymore."
Fox will have to sit all by itself at the corner table in the lunchroom.
Think maybe some people have some really screwy perceptions of power? It always seemed to me that the President -- any US President -- has so little power, really. He's got to deal with the House and Senate, after all. An army of bureaucrats. And then a real Army, too. And heaven knows, the general public.
When a President -- any US President -- says "Jump!" none of the above are likely to ask "How high?" Except maybe Pelosi, Baucus, and Reid. Barney Fudd would, but only when no one was looking. He does have a certain reputation to maintain.
What is truly worrisome is that the Comrade and those around him don't seem to understand that words aren't magic. You can't just say something to make it come true. He seems to believe that's all that's necessary. He confuses the media with the message.
And does he really think that everyone should just automatically believe everything he says, no questions asked? I've never in my life met anyone who was quite so convinced of his own wonderfulness. He seems to really expect people to regard him as a deity. That's actually crazy, you know? Really kinda twisted.
And as far as the Nobel Peace Prize goes, that's kind of a farce. I mean, look who's won it so far from the USA: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson (who bragged about being a member of the KKK, by the way), Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore. Well, they're all famous, anyway. I wouldn't care to live next door to any one of them.
Anyway, didn't I say that as this government pursues its strange and twisted path, doing its best to 1) deny American exceptionalism; 2) wipe out free market capitalism; 3) demolish the US military, apparently; 4) hold hands with Abracadabrajab and Hugo Chavez.... Didn't I say many blogs ago that all the Comrade was doing was making the US government irrelevant?
At least I won't hear much from him anymore. The Comrade doesn't have anything important enough to say to me to compel me to sit through colonoscopies on Katie Couric's friends and family, or listen to drivel from NBC, and Diane Sawyer, who I used to like, just seems to be trying too hard nowadays to present herself as a "regular person." She's always so breathless. It's exhausting.
I should be serious about this. But I can't quit laughing. It's just so-o-o-o-o Middle School.
Some lady from the White House, who looks like she's wearing a small pup-tent on her head (oh, sorry, that's her hair), announced today that White House employees will no longer be allowed to speak to Fox News.
What is this, kindergarten?
Actually, the White House doesn't seem to have much regard for things like the First Amendment, so it's not all that surprising. Their attitude toward US citizens seems to be, "They don't need no stinkin' information!"
I mean, look what American citizens do with information -- it tends to change their positions; they may act on it and vote all these miserable cusses out of office at the first opportunity. Then maybe the Comrade and his Band of Merry Marxists will have to get real jobs.
Heaven forbid!! They won't even have Acorn to kick around anymore and broadcast upon the land to do their bidding, fetching them voter registrations and grateful first-time homeowners.
This would be funny -- it's so childish -- except that's it's so pathetic. "If you continue to question me and my friends, we just won't speak to you anymore."
Fox will have to sit all by itself at the corner table in the lunchroom.
Think maybe some people have some really screwy perceptions of power? It always seemed to me that the President -- any US President -- has so little power, really. He's got to deal with the House and Senate, after all. An army of bureaucrats. And then a real Army, too. And heaven knows, the general public.
When a President -- any US President -- says "Jump!" none of the above are likely to ask "How high?" Except maybe Pelosi, Baucus, and Reid. Barney Fudd would, but only when no one was looking. He does have a certain reputation to maintain.
What is truly worrisome is that the Comrade and those around him don't seem to understand that words aren't magic. You can't just say something to make it come true. He seems to believe that's all that's necessary. He confuses the media with the message.
And does he really think that everyone should just automatically believe everything he says, no questions asked? I've never in my life met anyone who was quite so convinced of his own wonderfulness. He seems to really expect people to regard him as a deity. That's actually crazy, you know? Really kinda twisted.
And as far as the Nobel Peace Prize goes, that's kind of a farce. I mean, look who's won it so far from the USA: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson (who bragged about being a member of the KKK, by the way), Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore. Well, they're all famous, anyway. I wouldn't care to live next door to any one of them.
Anyway, didn't I say that as this government pursues its strange and twisted path, doing its best to 1) deny American exceptionalism; 2) wipe out free market capitalism; 3) demolish the US military, apparently; 4) hold hands with Abracadabrajab and Hugo Chavez.... Didn't I say many blogs ago that all the Comrade was doing was making the US government irrelevant?
At least I won't hear much from him anymore. The Comrade doesn't have anything important enough to say to me to compel me to sit through colonoscopies on Katie Couric's friends and family, or listen to drivel from NBC, and Diane Sawyer, who I used to like, just seems to be trying too hard nowadays to present herself as a "regular person." She's always so breathless. It's exhausting.
I should be serious about this. But I can't quit laughing. It's just so-o-o-o-o Middle School.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The beauty of for-profit health care
Ever wonder why it will cost the government more than $1 trillion to do what private industry does while making a profit? Like the Senate plan is supposedly cheaper than the House's, but it's still going to cost $829 billion (estimate based on the conceptualization, not a detailed bill), and there will still be 25 million people still without insurance.
Since right now about 30 million people don't have insurance, the expense of covering an additional 5 million is absolutely astronomical. Seems to me, you could replace those people entirely with bionic body parts for $829 billion.
So what good is it?
Anyway, no one mentions the following point, but to me it illustrates the beauty of capitalism.
Insurance companies DO NOT just collect money from healthy people and use it to pay for the medical expenses of others. The insurance companies take the money they get from premium payments and invest it. As an investment, the money is used to fund a range of things, but mostly fairly conservative things, like municipal bonds, blue chip stocks and bonds, etc. etc.
Same with private pension funds. Pension funds don't just collect the money and keep it in a vault. The money is put to work through all kinds of investments. Corporations that have "self-funded" retirement and health insurance programs have these same types of investment funds. Unions have these same kind of pension funds.
Therefore, if you start out with maybe $100,000, with good and experienced fund managers, you get a fairly predictable return of XX% on this money every year. It's the returns (also known as capital gains) that are actually used to pay the medical costs and the pensions.
By contrast, a government-funded system -- even a government option -- represents only the simple transfer of funds from my pocket into yours, or vice versa. There is no investment, no growth. It's just a redistribution of income, like if I "redistribute" your car to drive myself to work because my car broke down -- and don't pay you anything for it.
This will end up EXACTLY like Social Security, which is supposed to be bankrupt this year by one account. Social Security actually went broke a long time ago. Maybe the difference this year is that more payments will be paid out of Social Security funds than are being paid into it.
Anyway, if you took that 7.5% or whatever it is that most employees pay into Social Security and invested it instead in the stock market, or even in your own business or a family business, you'd get some returns from it -- capital gains. If you invested, say, $50,000.00 over your lifetime, you'd probably have double that to retire on or to leave to your kids. What's wrong with that?
Of course, there's risk involved. But there's just as much risk involved by letting the government do it. The government gets its money from us. If we're not making money, the government isn't going to collect much in taxes, is it?
So, if private insurance is destroyed, it will take billions and billions of dollars out of the national economy. That's billions and billions less to extend for mortgages, business start-ups and expansion, even money that might be donated to charities and other non-profit organizations. It will slow growth significantly and will inevitably cost even more jobs and eliminate innumerable economic opportunities for everyone.
Sound like a good idea?
For some reason, marxists absolutely hate the idea of economic growth. I don't know why. Really, what the heck is wrong with profits? You know, most really rich people live on only a fraction of their incomes and invest the rest -- either directly through their own advisors and brokers, or indirectly, through banks. That's the grease that keeps the economy rolling. That is the "capital" in "capitalism."
Why is it supposed to be bad?
Karl Marx had this big thing about labor being exploited, etc. However, his whole concept of "production" was that it all came from labor and land. Like some poor guy would plant potatoes, and then some other guy would sell them and keep the money. I suppose feudalism did work that way.
However, since the Industrial Revolution, production has resulted less and less from actual, manual labor than from ideas -- innovation, information, and technical skill. American workers aren't exploited. In fact, a lot of American workers have investments in the stock market, they have bonds, mutual funds, shares in the companies they either manage or work for. They're capitalists themselves.
Look at the balance sheet for any corporation. Labor is a huge expense, usually 100 times or more the actual profit, if there is one. In the financial industries, those much-despised bonuses go to workers, after all, don't they? So how can Marx or anyone else claim that the corporation's employees aren't benefiting from capitalism and profit-making? As a matter of fact, the workers usually get paid before the shareholders and investors do.
Capitalism hasn't hurt American workers at all. Rather, it's made it possible for them to enjoy a pretty high standard of living with unlimited potential for personal growth and development -- as well as supporting a lot of people who simply don't work for one reason or another (retired, disabled, in congress...)
So what the heck is the problem? Why wipe out something that works so well?
It's stupid. Just stupid. There is absolutely no advantage to it, no reason to do it, except to make us all dependent upon the government and keep us that way.
Since right now about 30 million people don't have insurance, the expense of covering an additional 5 million is absolutely astronomical. Seems to me, you could replace those people entirely with bionic body parts for $829 billion.
So what good is it?
Anyway, no one mentions the following point, but to me it illustrates the beauty of capitalism.
Insurance companies DO NOT just collect money from healthy people and use it to pay for the medical expenses of others. The insurance companies take the money they get from premium payments and invest it. As an investment, the money is used to fund a range of things, but mostly fairly conservative things, like municipal bonds, blue chip stocks and bonds, etc. etc.
Same with private pension funds. Pension funds don't just collect the money and keep it in a vault. The money is put to work through all kinds of investments. Corporations that have "self-funded" retirement and health insurance programs have these same types of investment funds. Unions have these same kind of pension funds.
Therefore, if you start out with maybe $100,000, with good and experienced fund managers, you get a fairly predictable return of XX% on this money every year. It's the returns (also known as capital gains) that are actually used to pay the medical costs and the pensions.
By contrast, a government-funded system -- even a government option -- represents only the simple transfer of funds from my pocket into yours, or vice versa. There is no investment, no growth. It's just a redistribution of income, like if I "redistribute" your car to drive myself to work because my car broke down -- and don't pay you anything for it.
This will end up EXACTLY like Social Security, which is supposed to be bankrupt this year by one account. Social Security actually went broke a long time ago. Maybe the difference this year is that more payments will be paid out of Social Security funds than are being paid into it.
Anyway, if you took that 7.5% or whatever it is that most employees pay into Social Security and invested it instead in the stock market, or even in your own business or a family business, you'd get some returns from it -- capital gains. If you invested, say, $50,000.00 over your lifetime, you'd probably have double that to retire on or to leave to your kids. What's wrong with that?
Of course, there's risk involved. But there's just as much risk involved by letting the government do it. The government gets its money from us. If we're not making money, the government isn't going to collect much in taxes, is it?
So, if private insurance is destroyed, it will take billions and billions of dollars out of the national economy. That's billions and billions less to extend for mortgages, business start-ups and expansion, even money that might be donated to charities and other non-profit organizations. It will slow growth significantly and will inevitably cost even more jobs and eliminate innumerable economic opportunities for everyone.
Sound like a good idea?
For some reason, marxists absolutely hate the idea of economic growth. I don't know why. Really, what the heck is wrong with profits? You know, most really rich people live on only a fraction of their incomes and invest the rest -- either directly through their own advisors and brokers, or indirectly, through banks. That's the grease that keeps the economy rolling. That is the "capital" in "capitalism."
Why is it supposed to be bad?
Karl Marx had this big thing about labor being exploited, etc. However, his whole concept of "production" was that it all came from labor and land. Like some poor guy would plant potatoes, and then some other guy would sell them and keep the money. I suppose feudalism did work that way.
However, since the Industrial Revolution, production has resulted less and less from actual, manual labor than from ideas -- innovation, information, and technical skill. American workers aren't exploited. In fact, a lot of American workers have investments in the stock market, they have bonds, mutual funds, shares in the companies they either manage or work for. They're capitalists themselves.
Look at the balance sheet for any corporation. Labor is a huge expense, usually 100 times or more the actual profit, if there is one. In the financial industries, those much-despised bonuses go to workers, after all, don't they? So how can Marx or anyone else claim that the corporation's employees aren't benefiting from capitalism and profit-making? As a matter of fact, the workers usually get paid before the shareholders and investors do.
Capitalism hasn't hurt American workers at all. Rather, it's made it possible for them to enjoy a pretty high standard of living with unlimited potential for personal growth and development -- as well as supporting a lot of people who simply don't work for one reason or another (retired, disabled, in congress...)
So what the heck is the problem? Why wipe out something that works so well?
It's stupid. Just stupid. There is absolutely no advantage to it, no reason to do it, except to make us all dependent upon the government and keep us that way.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
...And what's yours is mine
Trying to make this quick. Just one question as the US Senate and House are in the process of debating how to fund socialized medicine....
Ever occur to you -- and especially to those in congress -- that my income, your income, your neighbor's income, doesn't belong to the federal government? That is to say, our incomes are our own private property and it's not any government's decision how we spend it or what else we do with it.
Seriously, where does congress get the authority to tell us what to do with our own hard-earned cash? Where do they get the right -- or even the necessary information -- to tell each of us what we each need to live our lives?
The government does need to be funded. For the first 133 years or so of the republic, it was funded by tariffs -- taxes on imports. In 1912, the Constitution was amended to allow an income tax, which had been prohibited by the Framers as granting government too much power over citizens. And just as they suspected, with the income tax, ordinary citizens now have to fight in order to keep even half of our earnings.
Another facet of anti-private property thinking is the way the Comrade, among others, states that "we" pay too much for health care.
Who's "we"? I suspect we each pay what we believe we need to pay or we do without.
These jerks are taking 280 million individual souls and lumping us into one big collective. That's the very basis of marxism. It denies the existence and the rights of the individual. It's a fiction based on statistics. It doesn't recognize human life or individuality; it only turns each of us into a unit of production or consumption.
In reality, the marxist "we" does not exist. We are individuals and not just carbon copies (literal "carbon" copies) of each other. And our incomes don't belong to anyone but ourselves. We, as individuals, are the ones who earn it. We, as individuals, own it. We have the right, endowed by the Creator, to dispose of it as we, as individuals, wish.
I mean, what reasonable citizen would go next door and just take his neighbor's car? Or stop somebody coming out of the bank on payday and demand 15% of their paycheck. That's what these legislators are doing. No respect for property rights.
And, increasingly, they refuse to even let us know their intentions. We can't even review pending legislation. What is congress for, what is its purpose, if not to review pending legislation? Otherwise, they're just one more useless expense.
Recognition of private property and defense of private property rights has always been a sacrosanct tenet of the US government. Private property is an indispensable element of political freedom.
The concept of private property also invalidates everything the Comrade, his minions, and the 111th congress are cooking up right now to thrust upon American citizens.
Very simply -- they're behaving like criminals, even by their own rules.
Congress includes some people in positions of grandeur, like Charlie Rangel, who apparently has consistently reported only about half of his income and hasn't even paid the assessed taxes on that. How come he gets away with it, and even gets to chair the House Ways & Means Committee, which writes tax bills?
And Pazzo Pelosi was on TV today defending Rangel. No surprise there. Birds of a feather, honor among thieves and all that.
Didn't this nation once fight a war over all of this kind of thing? I thought that was what the American Revolution was all about.
Here's one enduring solution: cash. And I suggest you report as much of your income as Charlie Rangel does -- if that.
Ever occur to you -- and especially to those in congress -- that my income, your income, your neighbor's income, doesn't belong to the federal government? That is to say, our incomes are our own private property and it's not any government's decision how we spend it or what else we do with it.
Seriously, where does congress get the authority to tell us what to do with our own hard-earned cash? Where do they get the right -- or even the necessary information -- to tell each of us what we each need to live our lives?
The government does need to be funded. For the first 133 years or so of the republic, it was funded by tariffs -- taxes on imports. In 1912, the Constitution was amended to allow an income tax, which had been prohibited by the Framers as granting government too much power over citizens. And just as they suspected, with the income tax, ordinary citizens now have to fight in order to keep even half of our earnings.
Another facet of anti-private property thinking is the way the Comrade, among others, states that "we" pay too much for health care.
Who's "we"? I suspect we each pay what we believe we need to pay or we do without.
These jerks are taking 280 million individual souls and lumping us into one big collective. That's the very basis of marxism. It denies the existence and the rights of the individual. It's a fiction based on statistics. It doesn't recognize human life or individuality; it only turns each of us into a unit of production or consumption.
In reality, the marxist "we" does not exist. We are individuals and not just carbon copies (literal "carbon" copies) of each other. And our incomes don't belong to anyone but ourselves. We, as individuals, are the ones who earn it. We, as individuals, own it. We have the right, endowed by the Creator, to dispose of it as we, as individuals, wish.
I mean, what reasonable citizen would go next door and just take his neighbor's car? Or stop somebody coming out of the bank on payday and demand 15% of their paycheck. That's what these legislators are doing. No respect for property rights.
And, increasingly, they refuse to even let us know their intentions. We can't even review pending legislation. What is congress for, what is its purpose, if not to review pending legislation? Otherwise, they're just one more useless expense.
Recognition of private property and defense of private property rights has always been a sacrosanct tenet of the US government. Private property is an indispensable element of political freedom.
The concept of private property also invalidates everything the Comrade, his minions, and the 111th congress are cooking up right now to thrust upon American citizens.
Very simply -- they're behaving like criminals, even by their own rules.
Congress includes some people in positions of grandeur, like Charlie Rangel, who apparently has consistently reported only about half of his income and hasn't even paid the assessed taxes on that. How come he gets away with it, and even gets to chair the House Ways & Means Committee, which writes tax bills?
And Pazzo Pelosi was on TV today defending Rangel. No surprise there. Birds of a feather, honor among thieves and all that.
Didn't this nation once fight a war over all of this kind of thing? I thought that was what the American Revolution was all about.
Here's one enduring solution: cash. And I suggest you report as much of your income as Charlie Rangel does -- if that.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Deadly V.A.T.
Anybody know what a V.A.T. is? It stands for Value-Added Tax, and some pundits are characterizing it as a national sales tax. But it's not. It's much, much worse.
Suppose you sell furniture. Right now, you just go to some furniture manufacturer and buy at wholesale rates, and there's no tax on it whatsoever to you. However, you do add a retail sales tax onto the price when you sell it to a customer.
OK... With a V.A.T., you go to a furniture manufacturer and buy at wholesale rates, and the manufacturer charges you a tax -- a value-added tax. The manufacturer took a chunk of wood and added value to it by turning it into a table, and he's taxed for that. He passes that tax on to you, the same way you pass on the retail sales tax to your customers. Everyone has to make a living, after all. Someone's got to pay. There's no free lunch.
Now you take the table and sell it to a customer, and the customer pays the value-added tax and the retail sales tax. You've got to pass all that along to the customer.
Suppose you bought the table already built, but not finished. You still pay the V.A.T. Then you have a guy in your back room put about four coats of varnish on it to give it a mirror-like, protective finish. Uh-oh. You've added value. That means tacking on a second V.A.T.
So now you take the table and sell it to the consumer, who pays two V.A.T.s (one for manufacturing, the other for finishing) plus the retail sales tax.
The final price to the consumer of any item includes the V.A.T.s accrued to it from every phase of its manufacture. If a product goes through three or four different production processes, each adds a tax. The consumer gets to pay the whole amount.
Pazzo Pelosi now is talking about establishing a V.A.T. in the USA. She's apparently stupid, ignorant, and shallow enough to believe that whatever is done in Europe is "cutting edge" and is something to brag about at wine-tastings, and V.A.T.s have been a part of the European landscape for a long time. It's one reason the USA has been so much more productive than Europe, and why American consumers have had so much more money to spend -- we haven't been gouged by V.A.T.s.
But that's about to come to an end if Pazzo has her way.
Ol' Pazzo never met a tax she didn't love, or one that she's not foaming at the mouth to load upon the backs of the American public. Pazzo loves hurting people. She wants to see how far she push us before someone calls her a Nazi and she gets to play "victim." That's what really sends a tingle up her leg. Look what she's done to the farmers in California -- and to California in general -- and at her obsession with destroying the American health care industry.
Yeah... Hey, we may get to keep almost 50% of our incomes if/when socialized medicine goes into effect... So we need a V.A.T. to entirely hobble us, just in case anyone gets any big dreams about making a living here. Pazzo may be afraid there will still be some manufacturing done in the USA somewhere. That has to be stamped out completely and the V.A.T. will surely do it. It will be much cheaper to import just about everything.
That is, if anyone is able to buy anything.
We can't have prosperity in America. Not with these power-mad, tax-hungry lunatics running things. Not with Pelosi as Speaker of the House. No. She wants to make sure we know that we work for her. We owe our lives to her. She wants at least half (three-quarters is better) of everything we earn.
This Pelosi witch is a serious psychopath and a genuine danger to any free society. Not good enough for her to destroy California. She's got to infect the entire nation with her ruthless, sadistic ambition.
What kind of people would vote this bitch into office? That's even more of a puzzle. I can't imagine the piece of work who was running against her if she won the election. Charlie Manson, maybe? I mean, he and Pelosi are pretty much working for the same result, aren't they? Master of the Universe?
Suppose you sell furniture. Right now, you just go to some furniture manufacturer and buy at wholesale rates, and there's no tax on it whatsoever to you. However, you do add a retail sales tax onto the price when you sell it to a customer.
OK... With a V.A.T., you go to a furniture manufacturer and buy at wholesale rates, and the manufacturer charges you a tax -- a value-added tax. The manufacturer took a chunk of wood and added value to it by turning it into a table, and he's taxed for that. He passes that tax on to you, the same way you pass on the retail sales tax to your customers. Everyone has to make a living, after all. Someone's got to pay. There's no free lunch.
Now you take the table and sell it to a customer, and the customer pays the value-added tax and the retail sales tax. You've got to pass all that along to the customer.
Suppose you bought the table already built, but not finished. You still pay the V.A.T. Then you have a guy in your back room put about four coats of varnish on it to give it a mirror-like, protective finish. Uh-oh. You've added value. That means tacking on a second V.A.T.
So now you take the table and sell it to the consumer, who pays two V.A.T.s (one for manufacturing, the other for finishing) plus the retail sales tax.
The final price to the consumer of any item includes the V.A.T.s accrued to it from every phase of its manufacture. If a product goes through three or four different production processes, each adds a tax. The consumer gets to pay the whole amount.
Pazzo Pelosi now is talking about establishing a V.A.T. in the USA. She's apparently stupid, ignorant, and shallow enough to believe that whatever is done in Europe is "cutting edge" and is something to brag about at wine-tastings, and V.A.T.s have been a part of the European landscape for a long time. It's one reason the USA has been so much more productive than Europe, and why American consumers have had so much more money to spend -- we haven't been gouged by V.A.T.s.
But that's about to come to an end if Pazzo has her way.
Ol' Pazzo never met a tax she didn't love, or one that she's not foaming at the mouth to load upon the backs of the American public. Pazzo loves hurting people. She wants to see how far she push us before someone calls her a Nazi and she gets to play "victim." That's what really sends a tingle up her leg. Look what she's done to the farmers in California -- and to California in general -- and at her obsession with destroying the American health care industry.
Yeah... Hey, we may get to keep almost 50% of our incomes if/when socialized medicine goes into effect... So we need a V.A.T. to entirely hobble us, just in case anyone gets any big dreams about making a living here. Pazzo may be afraid there will still be some manufacturing done in the USA somewhere. That has to be stamped out completely and the V.A.T. will surely do it. It will be much cheaper to import just about everything.
That is, if anyone is able to buy anything.
We can't have prosperity in America. Not with these power-mad, tax-hungry lunatics running things. Not with Pelosi as Speaker of the House. No. She wants to make sure we know that we work for her. We owe our lives to her. She wants at least half (three-quarters is better) of everything we earn.
This Pelosi witch is a serious psychopath and a genuine danger to any free society. Not good enough for her to destroy California. She's got to infect the entire nation with her ruthless, sadistic ambition.
What kind of people would vote this bitch into office? That's even more of a puzzle. I can't imagine the piece of work who was running against her if she won the election. Charlie Manson, maybe? I mean, he and Pelosi are pretty much working for the same result, aren't they? Master of the Universe?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Comrade and business leaders
The Comrade had a meeting today with the CEO's of Amazon, Florida Power & Light, Kodak, and Kraft. I see this going one of two ways.
1.) The Comrade asked them what impacts they have seen and/or can predict from massive tax increases on employment and on power sources. They told him the unvarnished truth, and the Comrade listened to their comments. This would be what the Comrade is fond of calling a "teaching moment," since he has absolutely no experience with profit-making organizations and perhaps it's dawning on him that he can't just go to the federal government for grants when he IS the federal government.
Maybe Jeff Bezos could inform the Comrade that, no, he doesn't have an underground vault full of an endless supply of gold dubloons; he earns his money on pretty slim retail profit margins. Kodak could tell the Comrade that the printing industry is going to hell in a handbasket, tied as it is to the general ups and downs of the economy. Florida Power & Light could explain that windmills just won't keep those home fires burning, and taxing the hell out of energy isn't going to make it easier to produce. Kraft might explain that if you curtail agriculture for the sake of preserving bait fish that prices on food will rise.
And maybe this will introduce some new thinking into the Comrade's current mental stew of marxist platitudes. Who knows? It could happen.
2.) In the other scenario, the Comrade offered the executives anything on the White House menu and their choice of foreign and/or domestic beers. He explained to them how critical it is that the nation go socialist so that we can be like other desperate bankrupt nations around the world so that they'll quit envying us and stop blowing up our buildings. Americans just have too much and even want more. Our gluttony is unbridled. We have to be reined in for the sake of the macro-economy (non-existent), to "save the planet" (absurd), and to swell the ranks of the SEIU, which organizes health care workers (pretty damn likely).
Mainly, the Comrade wants business leaders to get behind his socialist agenda. If one lunch doesn't work, maybe the Comrade will fly that wizard pizza chef from St. Louis to make them all an informal feast they can snack on while they watch the NFL on the White House flat-screen some Sunday. If only they'll hop on board and drink the Kool-Aid.
I'm curious about which way this went. I suppose we'll see.
1.) The Comrade asked them what impacts they have seen and/or can predict from massive tax increases on employment and on power sources. They told him the unvarnished truth, and the Comrade listened to their comments. This would be what the Comrade is fond of calling a "teaching moment," since he has absolutely no experience with profit-making organizations and perhaps it's dawning on him that he can't just go to the federal government for grants when he IS the federal government.
Maybe Jeff Bezos could inform the Comrade that, no, he doesn't have an underground vault full of an endless supply of gold dubloons; he earns his money on pretty slim retail profit margins. Kodak could tell the Comrade that the printing industry is going to hell in a handbasket, tied as it is to the general ups and downs of the economy. Florida Power & Light could explain that windmills just won't keep those home fires burning, and taxing the hell out of energy isn't going to make it easier to produce. Kraft might explain that if you curtail agriculture for the sake of preserving bait fish that prices on food will rise.
And maybe this will introduce some new thinking into the Comrade's current mental stew of marxist platitudes. Who knows? It could happen.
2.) In the other scenario, the Comrade offered the executives anything on the White House menu and their choice of foreign and/or domestic beers. He explained to them how critical it is that the nation go socialist so that we can be like other desperate bankrupt nations around the world so that they'll quit envying us and stop blowing up our buildings. Americans just have too much and even want more. Our gluttony is unbridled. We have to be reined in for the sake of the macro-economy (non-existent), to "save the planet" (absurd), and to swell the ranks of the SEIU, which organizes health care workers (pretty damn likely).
Mainly, the Comrade wants business leaders to get behind his socialist agenda. If one lunch doesn't work, maybe the Comrade will fly that wizard pizza chef from St. Louis to make them all an informal feast they can snack on while they watch the NFL on the White House flat-screen some Sunday. If only they'll hop on board and drink the Kool-Aid.
I'm curious about which way this went. I suppose we'll see.
Just raise taxes!
Well, Baucus et. al. in the Senate have figured out a way to make socialized medicine "deficit-neutral" -- raise taxes!
Gee, is that supposed to be a new idea?
Mentioned before... I love it when they claim they'll get companies like the insurance carriers and equipment manufacturers to pony up more cash to pay for the system. As though the insurance carriers and equipment manufacturers have access to some huge secret stash of money.... like they have sources of funds other than their customers.
So if insurance companies have to pay the feds for the privilege of staying in business, insurance premiums will rise. Similarly, if equipment manufacturers have to kick in more cash, hospital beds and respirators are going to cost more to those who need them.
And how does this make health insurance and/or health care more affordable? By making it more expensive?
What the hell are they drinking? (Oh... Kool-Aid, of course!)
Here's a secret, Senator Baucus -- Money doesn't grow on trees. Everyone but governments has to actually produce something or perform some type of marketable service in order to earn it. We, the public, can't just get money from somebody else, like you do. For us, there is no Santa Claus. No printing presses. Just lots and lots and lots of work. Which with an unemployment rate at almost 10%, isn't likely.
Everyone but congress has to earn money somehow. I know that's an alien notion to congresscritters. They just don't get it.
Do you ever wonder how these people got by before they were elected? Did they forget all about reality when they were sworn in, or what?
So, go ahead, buttheads, pile it on! We'll all be living on the beach out of shopping carts, but, doggone it!, we'll have health insurance. Or go to jail, which is looking like the more attractive option.
And what the heck is up with refusing to publicize any of these stupid bills before they're voted on? What IS that all about?
Apparently the idea of the democratic process is also a foreign notion to those in congress.
I mean, really, take a couple steps back and look at this situation. You will vote yay or nay for... what?
What is the difference between this and a sovereign despot who just makes up any rule he or she wants? Really. No one gets to know what's in the legislation? That's so totally absurd.
Doesn't anyone in Washington have any notion whatsoever about what the USA is supposed to be or how it's supposed to operate?
Who the hell are these people?
My LSD-in-the-DC-water-supply theory is looking more and more plausible every day. How else to explain this mess?
More important -- How do we put an end to it?
Gee, is that supposed to be a new idea?
Mentioned before... I love it when they claim they'll get companies like the insurance carriers and equipment manufacturers to pony up more cash to pay for the system. As though the insurance carriers and equipment manufacturers have access to some huge secret stash of money.... like they have sources of funds other than their customers.
So if insurance companies have to pay the feds for the privilege of staying in business, insurance premiums will rise. Similarly, if equipment manufacturers have to kick in more cash, hospital beds and respirators are going to cost more to those who need them.
And how does this make health insurance and/or health care more affordable? By making it more expensive?
What the hell are they drinking? (Oh... Kool-Aid, of course!)
Here's a secret, Senator Baucus -- Money doesn't grow on trees. Everyone but governments has to actually produce something or perform some type of marketable service in order to earn it. We, the public, can't just get money from somebody else, like you do. For us, there is no Santa Claus. No printing presses. Just lots and lots and lots of work. Which with an unemployment rate at almost 10%, isn't likely.
Everyone but congress has to earn money somehow. I know that's an alien notion to congresscritters. They just don't get it.
Do you ever wonder how these people got by before they were elected? Did they forget all about reality when they were sworn in, or what?
So, go ahead, buttheads, pile it on! We'll all be living on the beach out of shopping carts, but, doggone it!, we'll have health insurance. Or go to jail, which is looking like the more attractive option.
And what the heck is up with refusing to publicize any of these stupid bills before they're voted on? What IS that all about?
Apparently the idea of the democratic process is also a foreign notion to those in congress.
I mean, really, take a couple steps back and look at this situation. You will vote yay or nay for... what?
What is the difference between this and a sovereign despot who just makes up any rule he or she wants? Really. No one gets to know what's in the legislation? That's so totally absurd.
Doesn't anyone in Washington have any notion whatsoever about what the USA is supposed to be or how it's supposed to operate?
Who the hell are these people?
My LSD-in-the-DC-water-supply theory is looking more and more plausible every day. How else to explain this mess?
More important -- How do we put an end to it?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Residing in the wrong state
Oh boy, heard the details today from Baucus' Senate conceptualization for socialized medicine. I'm living in the wrong state.
It seems that the conceptualization includes some kind of equalizer-multiplier-doomsday machine mathematical function that determines who gets stuck carrying most of the burden for this vile socialist program. If a state's unemployment rate is astronomically high, it doesn't have to pay the 49% in income tax. This means: Nevada, Michigan, and Rhode Island.
If the unemployment rate in your state is only moderately devastating, you get to pay Nevada, Michgan, and Rhode Island's share. The states who will be crushed under this miserable and unfair scheme are: Illinois, California, and Florida.
Please.... California looks healthy to the buttheads in the Senate? Good grief, what end of the telescope are they looking out of, exactly? What idiots. And Illinois is something like $540 million in the red. Pretty damn pathetic if that makes Illinois a real high-performer economically.
I live in Illinois, but as I noted a couple days ago, I'm looking forward to abandoning my home for lack of funds and moving into the back seat of my car in coming months. I did have a question about where to park the car. Now I know: Nevada. It's warm there during the day, and at night I can shuffle from one casino to another begging for change, drinking abandoned cocktails, and looking pathetic -- maybe some jackpot winner will take pity and toss me a few bucks for dinner from time to time.
My only real question is: Isn't this equalizer thing unconstitutional? Isn't there a clause in there somewhere that says if the feds plan to drive one citizen into poverty, they have to drive ALL citizens into poverty equally? I thought the only other option was to introduce a "special bill," one that gives only a crony or two special favors and largesse from the feds. Like every line item in the Stimulus package or the Pork Bill that followed it.
'Course, I could be wrong. And what the hell, the 111th Congress has entirely anihilated the Constitution already. Why pretend it still has any relevance whatsover, if it gets in the way of the takeover bids of these power-mad freaks?
I mean, do you seriously believe that individual citizens count for anything anymore? Except as sources of revenue for these stupid bastards in Washington.
I mean, really. And guess what? I'm tapped out and thanks to way these geniuses in DC have handled the economy, I don't have any real prospects.
I did write Senator Dick(head) Durbin about this. Like that matters. I'll get back some silly crap about how we all need to kill ourselves working to keep little fishes alive and sacrifice our entire hope for any sort of future in the name of keeping this son of a bitch in office.
Can you tell I'm really getting sick of all this bullshit? It's not even funny anymore.
It seems that the conceptualization includes some kind of equalizer-multiplier-doomsday machine mathematical function that determines who gets stuck carrying most of the burden for this vile socialist program. If a state's unemployment rate is astronomically high, it doesn't have to pay the 49% in income tax. This means: Nevada, Michigan, and Rhode Island.
If the unemployment rate in your state is only moderately devastating, you get to pay Nevada, Michgan, and Rhode Island's share. The states who will be crushed under this miserable and unfair scheme are: Illinois, California, and Florida.
Please.... California looks healthy to the buttheads in the Senate? Good grief, what end of the telescope are they looking out of, exactly? What idiots. And Illinois is something like $540 million in the red. Pretty damn pathetic if that makes Illinois a real high-performer economically.
I live in Illinois, but as I noted a couple days ago, I'm looking forward to abandoning my home for lack of funds and moving into the back seat of my car in coming months. I did have a question about where to park the car. Now I know: Nevada. It's warm there during the day, and at night I can shuffle from one casino to another begging for change, drinking abandoned cocktails, and looking pathetic -- maybe some jackpot winner will take pity and toss me a few bucks for dinner from time to time.
My only real question is: Isn't this equalizer thing unconstitutional? Isn't there a clause in there somewhere that says if the feds plan to drive one citizen into poverty, they have to drive ALL citizens into poverty equally? I thought the only other option was to introduce a "special bill," one that gives only a crony or two special favors and largesse from the feds. Like every line item in the Stimulus package or the Pork Bill that followed it.
'Course, I could be wrong. And what the hell, the 111th Congress has entirely anihilated the Constitution already. Why pretend it still has any relevance whatsover, if it gets in the way of the takeover bids of these power-mad freaks?
I mean, do you seriously believe that individual citizens count for anything anymore? Except as sources of revenue for these stupid bastards in Washington.
I mean, really. And guess what? I'm tapped out and thanks to way these geniuses in DC have handled the economy, I don't have any real prospects.
I did write Senator Dick(head) Durbin about this. Like that matters. I'll get back some silly crap about how we all need to kill ourselves working to keep little fishes alive and sacrifice our entire hope for any sort of future in the name of keeping this son of a bitch in office.
Can you tell I'm really getting sick of all this bullshit? It's not even funny anymore.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
No free lunch
Strange. Got into a brief discussion with someone who's in favor of socialized medicine, then turned on the radio and caught the tail end of an interview on the Wall Street Journal's early morning broadcast, with a woman identified as head of some "public hospitals" organization saying with some disdain, "There is no free health care in America."
Hey... there's no free health care anywhere! Doctors and hospitals don't rain down from heaven, not even in France, England, or Canada.
At any rate, it occurs to me that it's becoming increasingly impossible to talk to anyone about any of this. Kinda like right before the Civil War -- both sides dug in and not willing to budge. But I don't know, I'm willing to let the government keep Medicare and Medicaid, as long as they leave the rest in private hands.
And if history can provide any indication of what will probably happen in the future, after a couple years of socialized medicine -- after all possible reserves and back-up funds have been looted and pillaged -- there's just not going to be enough medical resources to go around. No one will benefit from this. Everyone will lose. In fact, even Canada, that bastian of good intentions, now allows private health care services because the experiment with a socialized, single-payer system didn't work out quite as well as they wished.
We're working with two different mindsets here. Liberals just want to give people things, especially if they don't have to pay for it themselves. They truly do believe in Santa Claus, that some things really are "free." And that everything can be transformed into something "free." They believe if you want something bad enough, it will find its way to your doorstep... somehow. No questions asked, or answered.
Then there are conservatives, who aren't any less generous so much as they are first, rational. They probably won't give you the shirt off their backs unless they have another one. Somehow, liberals believe this attitude is morally wrong. Like, is it somehow "right" to mess up your own life, throw yourself upon the charity of others -- make yourself a burden to others -- so long as you're doing it for "other people"?
I mean, did you ever actually listen to that little recital by the stewardi on commercial flights? They tell you about how the oxygen masks drop out of the overhead console and show you how to put them on. They tell mothers, "Put on your own mask first before you put on your children's masks. If you have no oxygen, you're not going to do your children any good."
Is that really difficult to understand?
In fact, if the liberals wipe out the private health insurance and private health care industries in the USA, there will be no way to fund the giveaways. Liberals just don't get that. They persist in repeating (to anyone who cares to hear it) the mantra that the funding will come from somewhere. Wishes do come true. There certainly is a Tooth Fairy and an Easter Bunny, too. They say so, so it must be true. Maybe they read it in the New York Times. It must be true.
I don't get that.
What kind of lunacy is this, and how can anyone take this liberal bull-hockey seriously? I don't get it.
Like, I took political science 101 in college, and this particular professor had worked for the US State Dept. We were discussing oil and gasoline shortages in the US. The prof said something like the federal government had to increase the domestic supply of oil and gas. Like somehow, an increased supply could be legislated.
I asked him, "How would they do that?"
He said, "Oh, there's ways."
What "ways"? Buy a lottery ticket? Huh?
Actually, bad example... there are ways of increasing oil and gas. Like allow drilling domestic resources. And congress could act on that, but they're terrified an owl or something might die in the process.
When I was a kid, in our little neighborhood gang, we had this bizarre superstition. Don't know where it came from. Anyway, it went like this: If you see a mail truck, you cross your fingers and make a wish. Then you keep your fingers crossed until you see a dog, and your wish comes true.
I still keep doing that, entirely involuntarily. Like I'll be driving along and suddenly realize my fingers are crossed and have been crossed for quite some time. I've learned how to function with crossed fingers. I can make pie crust and count out change with crossed fingers. And it's all because of that stupid superstition -- which hasn't worked in more than 40 years, by the way. Not once. Not ever. And all I wish for is to find a bank sack full of cash. Not hard. Maybe dropped by a fleeing robber. No one gets hurt in that situation, right? It's not like I'd be stealing something that isn't rightfully mine, is it?
If you're a liberal, you probably answered "yes" to that question. If you're a conservative, no matter how much you wish things were different, you know you'd just have to return that money because, No, Virgina, there is no Santa Claus.
And who's moral?
Hey... there's no free health care anywhere! Doctors and hospitals don't rain down from heaven, not even in France, England, or Canada.
At any rate, it occurs to me that it's becoming increasingly impossible to talk to anyone about any of this. Kinda like right before the Civil War -- both sides dug in and not willing to budge. But I don't know, I'm willing to let the government keep Medicare and Medicaid, as long as they leave the rest in private hands.
And if history can provide any indication of what will probably happen in the future, after a couple years of socialized medicine -- after all possible reserves and back-up funds have been looted and pillaged -- there's just not going to be enough medical resources to go around. No one will benefit from this. Everyone will lose. In fact, even Canada, that bastian of good intentions, now allows private health care services because the experiment with a socialized, single-payer system didn't work out quite as well as they wished.
We're working with two different mindsets here. Liberals just want to give people things, especially if they don't have to pay for it themselves. They truly do believe in Santa Claus, that some things really are "free." And that everything can be transformed into something "free." They believe if you want something bad enough, it will find its way to your doorstep... somehow. No questions asked, or answered.
Then there are conservatives, who aren't any less generous so much as they are first, rational. They probably won't give you the shirt off their backs unless they have another one. Somehow, liberals believe this attitude is morally wrong. Like, is it somehow "right" to mess up your own life, throw yourself upon the charity of others -- make yourself a burden to others -- so long as you're doing it for "other people"?
I mean, did you ever actually listen to that little recital by the stewardi on commercial flights? They tell you about how the oxygen masks drop out of the overhead console and show you how to put them on. They tell mothers, "Put on your own mask first before you put on your children's masks. If you have no oxygen, you're not going to do your children any good."
Is that really difficult to understand?
In fact, if the liberals wipe out the private health insurance and private health care industries in the USA, there will be no way to fund the giveaways. Liberals just don't get that. They persist in repeating (to anyone who cares to hear it) the mantra that the funding will come from somewhere. Wishes do come true. There certainly is a Tooth Fairy and an Easter Bunny, too. They say so, so it must be true. Maybe they read it in the New York Times. It must be true.
I don't get that.
What kind of lunacy is this, and how can anyone take this liberal bull-hockey seriously? I don't get it.
Like, I took political science 101 in college, and this particular professor had worked for the US State Dept. We were discussing oil and gasoline shortages in the US. The prof said something like the federal government had to increase the domestic supply of oil and gas. Like somehow, an increased supply could be legislated.
I asked him, "How would they do that?"
He said, "Oh, there's ways."
What "ways"? Buy a lottery ticket? Huh?
Actually, bad example... there are ways of increasing oil and gas. Like allow drilling domestic resources. And congress could act on that, but they're terrified an owl or something might die in the process.
When I was a kid, in our little neighborhood gang, we had this bizarre superstition. Don't know where it came from. Anyway, it went like this: If you see a mail truck, you cross your fingers and make a wish. Then you keep your fingers crossed until you see a dog, and your wish comes true.
I still keep doing that, entirely involuntarily. Like I'll be driving along and suddenly realize my fingers are crossed and have been crossed for quite some time. I've learned how to function with crossed fingers. I can make pie crust and count out change with crossed fingers. And it's all because of that stupid superstition -- which hasn't worked in more than 40 years, by the way. Not once. Not ever. And all I wish for is to find a bank sack full of cash. Not hard. Maybe dropped by a fleeing robber. No one gets hurt in that situation, right? It's not like I'd be stealing something that isn't rightfully mine, is it?
If you're a liberal, you probably answered "yes" to that question. If you're a conservative, no matter how much you wish things were different, you know you'd just have to return that money because, No, Virgina, there is no Santa Claus.
And who's moral?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Suicide is painless
OMG! It's been like, 36 hours or so, and nothing from Comrade Osama. I checked, the networks are still operating. What the heck's wrong?
Maybe the Comrade's slumlord cronies in the Windy City are ticked off that they're not going to be able to sell their useless, trash-filled wastelands to some hapless developer to create an "Olympic Village," which later will be repurposed to low-income housing. Something like that? He must be so ashamed.
Or maybe it just never before occurred to the Comrade, who seems to be stalled in adolescence, that you can't always get what you want. What a shocker. And with such overwhelming disillusion, what will he try to dump on citizens next to make us pay for his humiliation? I shudder to think.
Actually, Brazil had the Olympics in the bag. It's a third-world country just developed enough in certain areas to support the games. And personally, I'd love to go to Rio de Janeiro, though I've heard that half the city's population of 20 million or so live in packing crates along dirt streets that double as sewers. Just stay away from those neighborhoods, I guess.
And don't worry, Comrade. After four years of your policies, the USA will be a 12th-rate nation buried under unsustainable debt, with half the population living in army surplus tents and hijacking Chinese aircraft for sacks of rice. Then we'll qualify to host the international games.
On another, not very closely related subject....
Watching a comedy program, actually, where they were talking about some Islamo-terrorist crazy who shoved a bomb up his anus and then went to "visit" some local official or someone. Apparently the bomber's cohorts actually did "dial in" to blow up the bomb. Seems the target escaped unharmed, but they're still scraping the bomber off the insides of the tent.
Someone on the show pointed out that these are the kinds of enemies the USA faces -- same as the jerks who blew up the WTC. So, back to this again: Why has self-destruction gained such glamor in today's society?
I mean, if you want to die, go on ahead. No one's stopping you. But why take other people with you? What the hell is the point? Go ahead, set yourself on fire. We'll make sure to stand by without a fire extinguisher.
And logging in to come this blog, saw a headline about that Sicko what's-his-face? who makes anti-American films? The big fat guy with the nose like a squid's beak? He's got a movie out now that's anti-capitalist. Apparently someone asked him why the hell doesn't he leave the country.
I didn't read his response, but -- Yeah, why not? I think Hugo Chavez would welcome him with open arms. They could wallow in self-pity about how they've been victimized and shat upon by the whole world, how they're just trying to do good by anihilating the entire human race with their half-assed and irrational authortarianism. They're soul-mates.
Why stay here, butthead? Where you're not wanted. Run to the warm heart of some armpit totalitarian nation. And it's all there just waiting for you. You won't even have to work so hard to wreck everyone else's life.
All your dreams come true. It's to die for.
Maybe the Comrade's slumlord cronies in the Windy City are ticked off that they're not going to be able to sell their useless, trash-filled wastelands to some hapless developer to create an "Olympic Village," which later will be repurposed to low-income housing. Something like that? He must be so ashamed.
Or maybe it just never before occurred to the Comrade, who seems to be stalled in adolescence, that you can't always get what you want. What a shocker. And with such overwhelming disillusion, what will he try to dump on citizens next to make us pay for his humiliation? I shudder to think.
Actually, Brazil had the Olympics in the bag. It's a third-world country just developed enough in certain areas to support the games. And personally, I'd love to go to Rio de Janeiro, though I've heard that half the city's population of 20 million or so live in packing crates along dirt streets that double as sewers. Just stay away from those neighborhoods, I guess.
And don't worry, Comrade. After four years of your policies, the USA will be a 12th-rate nation buried under unsustainable debt, with half the population living in army surplus tents and hijacking Chinese aircraft for sacks of rice. Then we'll qualify to host the international games.
On another, not very closely related subject....
Watching a comedy program, actually, where they were talking about some Islamo-terrorist crazy who shoved a bomb up his anus and then went to "visit" some local official or someone. Apparently the bomber's cohorts actually did "dial in" to blow up the bomb. Seems the target escaped unharmed, but they're still scraping the bomber off the insides of the tent.
Someone on the show pointed out that these are the kinds of enemies the USA faces -- same as the jerks who blew up the WTC. So, back to this again: Why has self-destruction gained such glamor in today's society?
I mean, if you want to die, go on ahead. No one's stopping you. But why take other people with you? What the hell is the point? Go ahead, set yourself on fire. We'll make sure to stand by without a fire extinguisher.
And logging in to come this blog, saw a headline about that Sicko what's-his-face? who makes anti-American films? The big fat guy with the nose like a squid's beak? He's got a movie out now that's anti-capitalist. Apparently someone asked him why the hell doesn't he leave the country.
I didn't read his response, but -- Yeah, why not? I think Hugo Chavez would welcome him with open arms. They could wallow in self-pity about how they've been victimized and shat upon by the whole world, how they're just trying to do good by anihilating the entire human race with their half-assed and irrational authortarianism. They're soul-mates.
Why stay here, butthead? Where you're not wanted. Run to the warm heart of some armpit totalitarian nation. And it's all there just waiting for you. You won't even have to work so hard to wreck everyone else's life.
All your dreams come true. It's to die for.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Looking ahead
Been trying to plan for next year.
Let's see, at least $1,900.00 in fines for refusing to play along with the Comrade's socialized medicine diktat... or maybe about $5,000 for a health insurance policy...
An estimated $1,800.00 more for electricity costs under the federal "Let's see if we can destroy America" cap-and-tax energy plan....
A likely 30% reduction (conservative estimate) in my personal income due to the onerous tax burdens placed on small businesses, which are my main clients....
Guess next year this time I'll be living in the back seat of my car. 'Course, I'll have to find someplace nice to park because I won't be able to put much gas in it. Maybe a Walmart parking lot.
Gosh, almost sold my old camping equipment. Better hang onto that. Or with a little luck, I'll develop a chronic health condition so I can move into a free medical facility for an indefinite period.
Aren't you just jumping up and down with joy at all the hope these changes are bringing?
Gonna need shades, the future's looking so bright.
Let's see, at least $1,900.00 in fines for refusing to play along with the Comrade's socialized medicine diktat... or maybe about $5,000 for a health insurance policy...
An estimated $1,800.00 more for electricity costs under the federal "Let's see if we can destroy America" cap-and-tax energy plan....
A likely 30% reduction (conservative estimate) in my personal income due to the onerous tax burdens placed on small businesses, which are my main clients....
Guess next year this time I'll be living in the back seat of my car. 'Course, I'll have to find someplace nice to park because I won't be able to put much gas in it. Maybe a Walmart parking lot.
Gosh, almost sold my old camping equipment. Better hang onto that. Or with a little luck, I'll develop a chronic health condition so I can move into a free medical facility for an indefinite period.
Aren't you just jumping up and down with joy at all the hope these changes are bringing?
Gonna need shades, the future's looking so bright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)