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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)