Saturday, February 28, 2009
But he was "just born that way"
Everyone has their sexual attractions....... some like tall blonds, some like short brunettes, some are chubby chasers.
You have people who are attracted to members of the opposite sex and people who are attracted to the same sex.
So it's all good; all tastes are normal and natural. Right?
So why are we coming down on this dude who happens to take a liking to dead chicks.....
You have people who are attracted to members of the opposite sex and people who are attracted to the same sex.
So it's all good; all tastes are normal and natural. Right?
So why are we coming down on this dude who happens to take a liking to dead chicks.....
On many nights over 16 years, Kenneth Douglas engaged in his own personal macabre workplace party.He often brought drugs or alcohol to work and sometimes had sex with women.
At least three of those women were dead, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said Thursday.
But if Douglas is to be believed, he could have had sex with as many as "over a hundred" bodies in the 16 years he worked as night attendant at the Hamilton County morgue.
"I am sure there are more (victims). I'm certain of it," Deters said Thursday in announcing new indictments against Douglas.
"This guy's just a pig. I can't explain why someone would do something like this. ... This is off-the-charts weird."
Now why is this weird? I thought we established a long time ago that all things sexual are just a matter of preference but now we're going to make it illegal.
In addition, if you follow the no God line, these corpses were nothing more than piles of protoplasm. So why is this guy doing something illegal? Isn't it the same thing as having sex with a mound of Silly Putty?
Or is it that maybe some sexual prudes out there are just hating on necrophiliacs because they don't understand that guys like Kenneth Douglas were "just born that way"?
Liberal hypocrisy du jour II
Bono, The Edge, now The Boss.....
The Boss is owning up to a mistake. In an interview with Sunday's New York Times, Bruce Springsteen says he shouldn't have made a deal with Wal-Mart. This month, the store started exclusively selling a Springsteen greatest hits CD.Some fans were critical because Springsteen has been a longtime supporter of worker's rights, and Wal-Mart has faced criticism for its labor practices.
Springsteen told the Times that his team didn't vet the issue as closely as he should have, and that he "dropped the ball on it."
You mean to tell me your team didn't know how liberal you are and, as a liberal, you probably despise Walmart? Bruce you either have a absolutely clueless team or you are lying.
I'll tell you what Bruce, I'm going to support your cause. I've heard the CD and I promise not to put money in Walmart's pockets by buying it.
Liberal hypocristy du jour
Bono is upset because people are criticizing the band's move to the Netherlands to avoid Irish taxes....
U2 SINGER Bono says he was “stung” and “hurt” by criticism of the band moving part of its business to the Netherlands to lessen its tax burden.In an interview in The Ticket today, he speaks about the band’s 2006 decision to move part of its business out of Ireland following the Government’s decision to put a cap on the amount of tax-free earnings available to artists.
U2’s move was criticised by politicians and some development groups. “We pay millions and millions of dollars in tax. The thing that stung us [about the criticism] was the accusation of hypocrisy for my work as an activist,” the singer says.
I'm whipping out the world's smallest violin for Bono and the band.
Narcissist of the year
Just how much of a narcissist is The Messiah?
More...
When Barack Obama met with TV anchors at a White House lunch last week, he assured them he likes being president. "And it turns out I'm very good at it," he added.
More...
Four more years of Bush
From the AP
More...
Suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali Al-Marri is now facing criminal charges, but the Obama administration is refusing to rule out the future use of indefinite detention for terrorism suspects picked up in the United States. The administration urged the Supreme Court Friday to dismiss al-Marri's challenge to the president's authority to detain people in the U.S. indefinitely and without charges
More...
Battle of victims
In what should be a surprise to no one, the democratic party is a conglomeration of a series of perceived victim groups.
Workers victimized by owners
Blacks by whites
Woman by men
Old by young
Young by old
Polar bears by people
So if you see yourself as the perpetual victim in life, the democratic party is a home to you.
Except what happens when one victim group victimizes each other; who wins?
The WSJ on the fight in the democratic party.....
Workers victimized by owners
Blacks by whites
Woman by men
Old by young
Young by old
Polar bears by people
So if you see yourself as the perpetual victim in life, the democratic party is a home to you.
Except what happens when one victim group victimizes each other; who wins?
The WSJ on the fight in the democratic party.....
This is the Democratic Party's moment, its power now greater than any time since the mid-1960s. But do not expect smooth sailing. The party is a fractious group divided by competing interests, factions and constituencies that could explode into a civil war, especially when it comes to energy and the environment.Broadly speaking, there is a long-standing conflict inside the Democratic Party between gentry liberals and populists. This division is not the same as in the 1960s, when the major conflicts revolved around culture and race as well as on foreign policy. Today the emerging fault-lines follow mostly regional, geographical and, most importantly, class differences.
Gentry liberals cluster largely in cities, wealthy suburbs and college towns. They include disproportionately those with graduate educations and people living on the coasts. Populists tend to be located more in middle- and working-class suburbs, the Great Plains and industrial Midwest. They include a wider spectrum of Americans, including many whose political views are somewhat changeable and less subject to ideological rigor.
So here's what you can expect in a battle between a northwestern union logger and a spotted owl.
That owl is going to win.
Between a union oil platform worker and a manatee.
Manatee
Between a union oil driller in the arctic and a polar bear.
Sorry, bear wins.
Those upper west side quiche eaters didn't vote for Obama just because he likes arugula. They voted for him because he doesn't give a hoot about some gun clinging UAW hunter who's worried about NAFTA.
more....
Friday, February 27, 2009
Who did they vote for? #449
There's nothing more ridiculous in life than smug, arrogant rich kids who's parents pay $60,000 a year for them to be a smug arrogant douche bags at NYU (or Antioch for the matter).
Some give these cry babies a juicy box.
Watch the video and tell me who these little twerps voted for this past November.
Being charitable
Obama wants to eliminate a tax deduction on charitable donations for people making $250,000 plus.
Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years."Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.
Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic giving.
"This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've behaved in the past," he said. "We've already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving."Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.
First off, don't we already know that rich, greedy, people never give to charity?
None the less, let me make sure I have this right. Let's say that as a result of this law change, charities receive 1 billion less than they would have with the deduction. The gain in tax receipts will be about $333 million (33% of one billion).
But somehow the charities will be better off because the government will be giving them a billion, 667 million they don't have? HUH?
Are these people in the same universe of common sense?
Look, I believe in the flat tax. None the less, why would you take away deductions for people who give to charity if you want to encourage generosity and discourage greed? These people are not only socialists but they are ignorant as well.
Sorry, maybe that's redundant.
Where's mine?
Yesterday was a rough one for me. Somehow, people seem to think I'm a therapist as opposed to a CPA. Although for some of these folk's tax situations, I can see why they'd need therapy.
None the less, I was struck by a conversation I was having with the daughter of one of my clients.
The mother is now in a nursing home. So I started my meeting with the daughter (by the way she drives a Prius with a rainbow sticker in the back) by asking how her mother was.
"She's doing a great job spending my inheritance."
So as our meeting starts, her first question of me was how to shelter her mom's assets so that medicaid will pick up her nursing costs, which now run about $100,000 a year.
I referred her to an attorney who specializes in Medicaid law.
But the whole day, it bugged me about the implications of her comments.
1) That her mother was spending her inheritance for her own medical care. Her inheritance is no more hers than it is mine. Her mother's money is her mother's money. Period.
2) That somehow her mother shouldn't pay for her own health care but Medicaid should pick up the tab.
3) That when and/if medicaid starts paying, who do you think pays medicaid? If you guess you and me, you would be correct. So somehow people should expect you and me to pay for what they won't pay for. Sounds like a deal doesn't it.
While I'd like to rip this woman a new a-hole, the fact remains. Why shouldn't she expect someone else to pick up the tab for what ails her?
After all, her taxes are going to pay for kids she had no say in. Her tax dollars are being used to bail out banks she didn't manage. Her tax dollars are going to bailout yahoos who bought bigger better houses than she lives in.
So in fairness to her, why shouldn't she be able to get some feed at the trough like every other dead beat American out there?
This is the problem when government takes the very first dollar from one person to give to another. I don't care what benevolent purpose you have in mind, you have just established a moral relativism that's it's OK to steal from one to give to another as long as you can justify it as a better cause. From that point on, you now have a system where people are moving money from one to another and the people who aren't in the loop feel like they're out in a game of Musical Stimulus Chairs; even though they're the ones who fund it.
Watching everyone run to the trough of "free" government money, aka stimulus, is disgusting and really unbecoming of an American. Is it too late to turn back the clock when every American used to care for themselves and their families or are we in the middle of an overdose of stimulus gluttony that will ultimately ruin, what used to be, a great country?
None the less, I was struck by a conversation I was having with the daughter of one of my clients.
The mother is now in a nursing home. So I started my meeting with the daughter (by the way she drives a Prius with a rainbow sticker in the back) by asking how her mother was.
"She's doing a great job spending my inheritance."
So as our meeting starts, her first question of me was how to shelter her mom's assets so that medicaid will pick up her nursing costs, which now run about $100,000 a year.
I referred her to an attorney who specializes in Medicaid law.
But the whole day, it bugged me about the implications of her comments.
1) That her mother was spending her inheritance for her own medical care. Her inheritance is no more hers than it is mine. Her mother's money is her mother's money. Period.
2) That somehow her mother shouldn't pay for her own health care but Medicaid should pick up the tab.
3) That when and/if medicaid starts paying, who do you think pays medicaid? If you guess you and me, you would be correct. So somehow people should expect you and me to pay for what they won't pay for. Sounds like a deal doesn't it.
While I'd like to rip this woman a new a-hole, the fact remains. Why shouldn't she expect someone else to pick up the tab for what ails her?
After all, her taxes are going to pay for kids she had no say in. Her tax dollars are being used to bail out banks she didn't manage. Her tax dollars are going to bailout yahoos who bought bigger better houses than she lives in.
So in fairness to her, why shouldn't she be able to get some feed at the trough like every other dead beat American out there?
This is the problem when government takes the very first dollar from one person to give to another. I don't care what benevolent purpose you have in mind, you have just established a moral relativism that's it's OK to steal from one to give to another as long as you can justify it as a better cause. From that point on, you now have a system where people are moving money from one to another and the people who aren't in the loop feel like they're out in a game of Musical Stimulus Chairs; even though they're the ones who fund it.
Watching everyone run to the trough of "free" government money, aka stimulus, is disgusting and really unbecoming of an American. Is it too late to turn back the clock when every American used to care for themselves and their families or are we in the middle of an overdose of stimulus gluttony that will ultimately ruin, what used to be, a great country?
Street Cars for everyone
So what does the city of Cincinnati see as it's greatest priority in spending billions of federal loot.
With their nose at the trough, they're looking for money on street cars.
With their nose at the trough, they're looking for money on street cars.
Mallory covered a range of topics during the 45-minute address, from recycling efforts to the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence to the need for a more accurate Census in 2010 (Cincinnati's "true and accurate population," he said, is 378,259, not the current official count of around 331,000).But the mayor was the most animated and forceful by far while talking about what he considers an imperative - pushing ahead on the the controversial $185 million streetcar project, which he said will have a "dramatic and lasting impact on the future of Cincinnati."
Anybody who doesn't heed the "All aboard!" on streetcars, Mallory implied, is simply a "naysayer." It was an unequivocal statement from the mayor, full of fight.
OK Mayor Mark; call me a naysayer. But let me ask this question... The city of Cincinnati had street cars at one time all built and running the routes your plan has. Why did all those wonderful, delightful street cars go away?
Maybe you or one of these trolley car lackies can put a comment on this blog as to why the original system is gone and why this new one is going to be so much better.
Obamunists
David Limbaugh on the Obamunists
Remember when liberals were wringing their hands and accusing President George W. Bush of being a dictator and a king? Of course, that was breathtakingly absurd, but what's really ironic is that these people actually want a king, provided they get to pick him.More...As Barack Obama feverishly presses forward with his socialist agenda, one wonders whether any act of executive overreaching might cause the compliant, nay, conspiratorial Democratic congressional majorities to pause or, better yet, to resist.
I think not. Every assault Obama inflicts on the budget is met by Congress with: "Thank you, sir. May I have another?"
I realize liberals take umbrage at the pejorative terms "Marxist" and "socialist," but in invoking them, my purpose is neither to exaggerate nor to provoke. If the terms bother you, could you please tell me how Obama would be behaving differently if he were a socialist or Marxist just elected in this country?
Better yet, given the policies Obama and Congress are cramming down our throats, please tell me why you even mind those terms? Why not wear them proudly?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Volker on Team Obama
At Jake Tapper.....
"There is an area that I think is, I don't know, shameful is the word," Paul Volcker said this morning at a Joint Economic Committee hearing. "The Secretary of the Treasury is sitting there without a deputy, without any undersecretaries, without any, as far as I know, assistant secretaries responsible in substantive areas at a time of very severe crisis. He shouldn't be sitting there alone."
Volcker is chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
"Now various things have contributed to this, I guess, inlcuding vetting procedures, but it really is an unfortunate situation."
Democratic corruption du jour
Today's corruption du jour.
Tax evasion....
More....
Tax evasion....
The son of embattled Sen. Roland Burris is a federal tax deadbeat who landed a $75,000-a-year state job under former Gov. Rod Blagojevich five months ago, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.
Blagojevich's administration hired Roland W. Burris II as a senior counsel for the state's housing authority Sept. 10 -- about six weeks after the Internal Revenue Service slapped a $34,163 tax lien on Burris II and three weeks after a mortgage company filed a foreclosure suit on his South Side house.
A spokeswoman for the Illinois Housing Development Authority indicated Wednesday there was nothing improper about Burris II's employment by the agency, whose mission includes overseeing mortgage programs for low-income home buyers and anti-foreclosure initiatives.
More....
Another victim of the financial collapse
It's really a shocker to find media outlets going down the toilet. Especially when they fire out these Pulitzer type essays......
Once again, I'm still waiting for a newspaper profile of someone who I actually sympathize with.
And, once again, I'm still waiting for a reason to think that all newspaper shouldn't go by the way side.
more here if you can keep your lunch down....
See the tall, gregarious young man in the Eighteenth Street Lounge, moving easily toward a group of receptive women as the floor vibrates with reggae music? He's dressed in a sharp Hugo Boss suit, and he knows that the minimum for a table is $240.But he's not offering to buy the drinks. And the suit? He bought it a year ago, when he had a six-figure salary.
Dating in the time of the pink slip means feeling the squeeze of the drastically reduced paycheck, the sudden sting of the layoff. From investment bankers to real estate developers to construction workers, no job means no buying rounds of $15 martinis for a pretty woman and her girlfriends. No hosting parties in the bachelor loft. And often, no idea how to present one's new self on the dating market.
"It's been incredibly stressful for me," said Neil Welsh, 27, the guy in the suit, who until last year was marketing director for a booming real estate company. "I was so used to using my financial situation to leverage my dating."
For many affected by the recession, dating is the least of their worries. But the market crash has had a particular impact on young adults who developed their dating skills in fat times, the twentysomethings who spent lavishly to show that they could afford the finer things. Now, with national unemployment rates at 8.8 percent for people 25 to 34, they are looking for more creative ways to attract partners -- and reassessing what all that big spending really meant.
Once again, I'm still waiting for a newspaper profile of someone who I actually sympathize with.
And, once again, I'm still waiting for a reason to think that all newspaper shouldn't go by the way side.
more here if you can keep your lunch down....
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Biden
Check out this video of Joe Biden.
How this idiot ever got into elected office says a lot about the collective intelligence of voters.
How this idiot ever got into elected office says a lot about the collective intelligence of voters.
ACORN Breaks Into Baltimore Homes WJZ.com
Michelle Malkin has a great piece on Donna Hanks and the Brownshirts who broke into this place. What most people don't know, this house was own by a new buyer....
So much for transparency
From the Defense News.....
The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government.
In an undated non-disclosure agreement obtained by Defense News, the administration tells defense officials that "strict confidentiality" must be practiced to ensure a "successful" and "proper" 2010 defense budget process.
I wonder how much of this would be reported if the Bushies required this directive?
J. Edgar Moyers
More on the sanctimonious a-hole, Bill Moyers, in Slate.
Once again, it's liberal projection at its best.
Once again, it's liberal projection at its best.
Obama - salesman of the year
Last night, I was taking to Garrett (not his real name). I like to refer to Garrett as my arms dealer. The guy is an encyclopedia on all things firearms.
In any event, Garrett told me that at a gun show he went to last weekend, the dealers were referring to Obama as saleman of the year.
The prices of guns have tripled at the shows. In addition, Garrett told me that right now it's almost impossible to find 9mm rounds inside the city. He's gone to 6 Walmarts, two Dick's and a Bass Pro Shop where he was finally able to buy up their last 900 rounds.
The manager at Bass told Garrett they cannot keep a skid of ammunition in stock for longer than a day.
So congratulations to The Messiah, he's single handedly turning around the economy; albeit just the gun sector.
Follow up......
Today's Reuters
In any event, Garrett told me that at a gun show he went to last weekend, the dealers were referring to Obama as saleman of the year.
The prices of guns have tripled at the shows. In addition, Garrett told me that right now it's almost impossible to find 9mm rounds inside the city. He's gone to 6 Walmarts, two Dick's and a Bass Pro Shop where he was finally able to buy up their last 900 rounds.
The manager at Bass told Garrett they cannot keep a skid of ammunition in stock for longer than a day.
So congratulations to The Messiah, he's single handedly turning around the economy; albeit just the gun sector.
Follow up......
Today's Reuters
The election of President Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress has been a boon to U.S. handgun makers, with sales of one pistol manufacturer climbing enough that an analyst Wednesday upgraded its stock to "Strong Buy" from "Accumulate."
CL King & Assoc. analyst Jim Barrett upgraded shares of Sturm, Ruger & Co. after the Southport, Conn.-based company reported its firearm revenue soared 81 percent in the fourth quarter.
"We are raising our rating, recognizing that sales are benefiting from what is clearly a one-time surge in gun sales due to the arrival of the new Democratic administration," Barrett said.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
More democratic corruption II
Taxprof on the tax consequence of a town house used by Rahmbo Emanuel for five years.
More.....
Something tells me that if this were Tony Snow, we'd be hearing more about it.White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's Washington lodging arrangements, a rent-free basement room in a Capitol Hill home owned by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) and her pollster husband, have inspired debate among tax experts and in Republican-leaning parts of the blogosphere.
Tax experts are divided about whether Emanuel would have an IRS liability for the free room. The issue has aroused unusual online interest among tax experts, perhaps because arcane points of tax law rarely intersect with mainstream political events, said Paul Caron, an associate dean at the University of Cincinnati Law School and author of the TaxProf blog.
Caron said Greenberg's polling work for Emanuel and the DCCC muddies the argument that the room is a gift and thus either tax exempt or subject only to limited taxation. "The courts have been very clear. It's very hard to claim something is a gift when you have a business context," said Caron.
Joseph Dodge, a professor at Florida State University College of Law, argued that the room is not subject to tax either as a gift or as income. It's not a gift because it doesn't effectively cost DeLauro and Greenberg anything, Dodge said. Nor would it be taxable as income to Emanuel because of the couple's motive in making the room available, "which would be friendship or generosity," Dodge said.
More.....
More democratic corruption
From Fox news....
A fund of hedge funds run by two members of Vice President Joe Biden's family was marketed exclusively by companies controlled by Texas financier R. Allen Stanford, who is facing Securities and Exchange Commission accusations of engaging in an $8 billion fraud.
The $50 million fund was jointly branded between the Bidens' Paradigm Global Advisors LLC and a Stanford Financial Group entity and was known as the Paradigm Stanford Capital Management Core Alternative Fund. Stanford-related companies marketed the fund to investors and also invested about $2.7 million of their own money in the fund, according to a lawyer for Paradigm. Paradigm Global Advisors is owned through a holding company by the vice president's son, Hunter, and Joe Biden's brother, James.
Something tells me that if this were Cheney's kids owning Halliburton, we'd hear more aboout this.
Produce the note
Here's a clip where ABC News identifies a process call " produce the note" where people can delay their foreclosure procedures. (thanks reader Mark)
Gary at rightrunner also has a rundown.
A few thoughts I'd like to offer on the piece and the foreclosure process in general.
In the first case, ABC News shows a woman who can't even afford her utilities. Exactly how long would this woman be allowed to live in a rental unit before the landlord evicted her? Is it the bank's fault she can't even afford utilities? How long should someone be allowed to live in a dwelling when they can't even afford utilities?
The second case might even be worse. A woman paid $39,000 for her home but after subsequent refinances owed over $140,000 ON THE HOUSE. When was she going to alter her lifestyle to get her living expenses in line with her income?
I think a few things need to be pointed out in the foreclosure process.
1) Banks are about as eager to foreclose on an owner as I am to schedule my first colonoscopy. The market on foreclosed properties is horrible. Most banks will do almost anything to keep someone in a home. There's almost no upside for a bank to take over an abandoned house.
2) Before being foreclosed on in this environment, you have to not pay anything on your mortgage for well over a year. How long should someone be able to live anywhere without paying one red cent? I knew of a situation where a guy lived in a house for almost two and a half years before the sheriff actually put his crap on the lawn. He lived in the place almost a year after the foreclosure began before he had to leave. That was before this whole foreclosure mess began.
Should someone be allowed to live rent free for two years before you can kick them out?
I have no problem with a "produce the note" legal proceeding. After all, it is a legal proceeding and a bank should have to produce documents at that proceeding.
But I'm still waiting to watch just one of these bleeding heart pieces where I have some kind of sympathy for the people involved. Way too many of them could have been avoided if the borrower involved would have managed their finances appropriately.
Gary at rightrunner also has a rundown.
A few thoughts I'd like to offer on the piece and the foreclosure process in general.
In the first case, ABC News shows a woman who can't even afford her utilities. Exactly how long would this woman be allowed to live in a rental unit before the landlord evicted her? Is it the bank's fault she can't even afford utilities? How long should someone be allowed to live in a dwelling when they can't even afford utilities?
The second case might even be worse. A woman paid $39,000 for her home but after subsequent refinances owed over $140,000 ON THE HOUSE. When was she going to alter her lifestyle to get her living expenses in line with her income?
I think a few things need to be pointed out in the foreclosure process.
1) Banks are about as eager to foreclose on an owner as I am to schedule my first colonoscopy. The market on foreclosed properties is horrible. Most banks will do almost anything to keep someone in a home. There's almost no upside for a bank to take over an abandoned house.
2) Before being foreclosed on in this environment, you have to not pay anything on your mortgage for well over a year. How long should someone be able to live anywhere without paying one red cent? I knew of a situation where a guy lived in a house for almost two and a half years before the sheriff actually put his crap on the lawn. He lived in the place almost a year after the foreclosure began before he had to leave. That was before this whole foreclosure mess began.
Should someone be allowed to live rent free for two years before you can kick them out?
I have no problem with a "produce the note" legal proceeding. After all, it is a legal proceeding and a bank should have to produce documents at that proceeding.
But I'm still waiting to watch just one of these bleeding heart pieces where I have some kind of sympathy for the people involved. Way too many of them could have been avoided if the borrower involved would have managed their finances appropriately.
What are things economists agree on?
Greg Mankiw with a list of things economists agree on.....
Do you think government would look different if economists ruled over lawyers?
More....
- A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. (93%)
- Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare. (93%)
- Flexible and floating exchange rates offer an effective international monetary arrangement. (90%)
- Fiscal policy (e.g., tax cut and/or government expenditure increase) has a significant stimulative impact on a less than fully employed economy. (90%)
- The United States should not restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries. (90%)
- The United States should eliminate agricultural subsidies. (85%)
- Local and state governments should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises. (85%)
- If the federal budget is to be balanced, it should be done over the business cycle rather than yearly. (85%)
- The gap between Social Security funds and expenditures will become unsustainably large within the next fifty years if current policies remain unchanged. (85%)
- Cash payments increase the welfare of recipients to a greater degree than do transfers-in-kind of equal cash value. (84%)
- A large federal budget deficit has an adverse effect on the economy. (83%)
- A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers. (79%)
- The government should restructure the welfare system along the lines of a “negative income tax.” (79%)
- Effluent taxes and marketable pollution permits represent a better approach to pollution control than imposition of pollution ceilings. (78%)
Do you think government would look different if economists ruled over lawyers?
More....
Miracle on Ice
I forgot to post this Sunday the anniversary of Miracle on Ice.
I still get chills hearing the call...
Life in "Progress City" or out of it.
One reason I against government is that government's appetite for money is voracious.
It's as strong as any capitalist, only they use the law to squeeze money out of people; capitalist can't.
Need evidence?
Just look at the efforts cities and state's are using to tax business activity outside of the jurisdiction....
I used to go to Chicago in the day but it's pretty clear that the hand in my pocket isn't interested in a happy ending for me.
So when the Gekko's go up to visit relatives this year. We'll stay in the 'burbs.
What's so "progressive" about screwing tourists?
More....
It's as strong as any capitalist, only they use the law to squeeze money out of people; capitalist can't.
Need evidence?
Just look at the efforts cities and state's are using to tax business activity outside of the jurisdiction....
How would you like to rent a car in Waukegan or St. Charles, only to be slapped with the 8 percent "transaction tax" that applies to Chicago car rentals?So it's not enough that a tourist will go into the city and pay their 10% sales tax, the highest in the nation. It's not enough that a tourist will pay one of the highest hotel occupancy taxes in the country. It's not even enough that they'll have to pay a garage parking tax for simply parking the car within city limits. Now you're going to pay a tax simply for renting a car..... not in the city!!!!!Brace yourself. With a burgeoning $50.5 million budget gap, Chicago is reaching into suburban pockets. And Enterprise Rent-a-Car has filed a lawsuit challenging the Daley administration's effort to collect the tax from drivers who rent cars in the suburbs.
The suit was filed last week in Kane County after an administrative ruling by the city's Department of Revenue that City Hall will "presume" that all car rentals in the six-county area are subject to Chicago's 8 percent transaction tax.
To be excused from the tax, the city is requiring rental companies to photocopy customers' driver's licenses and obtain a sworn statement from customers that they won't be spending more than 50 percent of their time driving in Chicago during the rental period. Without that, the city is demanding the companies collect the tax and turn the money over to the city. Audits will be conducted. At least one is already under way.
Enterprise is asking a judge to declare the city's action unconstitutional.
"Can you imagine if all municipalities did that?" said Stan Kaminski, an attorney for Enterprise. "We feel it's an intrusion of privacy to ask for a copy of the driver's license and a sworn affidavit signed under penalty of perjury on where they might hypothetically use the vehicle."
I used to go to Chicago in the day but it's pretty clear that the hand in my pocket isn't interested in a happy ending for me.
So when the Gekko's go up to visit relatives this year. We'll stay in the 'burbs.
What's so "progressive" about screwing tourists?
More....
News from the tax prep front
Our office just finished up preparing our 200th tax return this year.
Out of those 200 returns, we've had seven clients who received unemployment during the year. That compares to an average year of about 20-25 on 600-700 returns. That's a little surprising in a number of respects. First, I would expect people who've been out of work to be in early. Second, I have a number of clients who worked at the Ford Batavia plant which shut down this year. It appears many of those clients were relocated to the Sharonville plant.
What's been most surprising to me is the number of clients with debt forgiveness; and it's not poor or middle class clients. Most of the debt forgiveness was to people making well over $100,000. I've seen $60,000 plus in credit card forgiveness to some of my clients.
Investment income is taking a big hit. Expect Treasury receipts to be down big time because of all those "rich" people taking major hits on their security investments and, conversely, paying no taxes on them.
Finally, I've always preached to my clients that home ownership is a horrible investment in and of itself. Owning a home costs money. Most people look at the price the paid and then sold. They forget about all the roofs, water heaters, paint jobs, etc made on the property.
Home ownership increases wealth because it's signal of stability. If you look at my 20 wealthiest clients, you'll see that stability is the trait that they all share. No one gets rich quick. It's a process of slowly saving your money, living a long time in a modest home, and avoiding the dramas of life, (divorce, moving, buying cars, boats etc.).
If you want to see a financial mess, look for a family with five different last names in it. It doesn't matter if the family makes $20k or $200k; it's a family on the economic brink.
So far this tax season, that lesson has played out completely.
Out of those 200 returns, we've had seven clients who received unemployment during the year. That compares to an average year of about 20-25 on 600-700 returns. That's a little surprising in a number of respects. First, I would expect people who've been out of work to be in early. Second, I have a number of clients who worked at the Ford Batavia plant which shut down this year. It appears many of those clients were relocated to the Sharonville plant.
What's been most surprising to me is the number of clients with debt forgiveness; and it's not poor or middle class clients. Most of the debt forgiveness was to people making well over $100,000. I've seen $60,000 plus in credit card forgiveness to some of my clients.
Investment income is taking a big hit. Expect Treasury receipts to be down big time because of all those "rich" people taking major hits on their security investments and, conversely, paying no taxes on them.
Finally, I've always preached to my clients that home ownership is a horrible investment in and of itself. Owning a home costs money. Most people look at the price the paid and then sold. They forget about all the roofs, water heaters, paint jobs, etc made on the property.
Home ownership increases wealth because it's signal of stability. If you look at my 20 wealthiest clients, you'll see that stability is the trait that they all share. No one gets rich quick. It's a process of slowly saving your money, living a long time in a modest home, and avoiding the dramas of life, (divorce, moving, buying cars, boats etc.).
If you want to see a financial mess, look for a family with five different last names in it. It doesn't matter if the family makes $20k or $200k; it's a family on the economic brink.
So far this tax season, that lesson has played out completely.
The turd in the punch bowl
Here's a great piece on 15 reasons to dislike Obama already....
More...
6) Despite the fact that the Big 3 automakers have been so thoroughly destroyed by the unions that work for them that they have to come begging for billions per month just to survive, the Democratic Party is getting ready to try to ram a card check bill through the Senate that would expand the presence of unions all across the country. That's like finding a turd in the punch bowl and just tossing it into the lemonade.
More...
Monday, February 23, 2009
More "progressive" projection
The conventional wisdom is that conservatives think gays are some sort of freaks.
Well exactly how do liberals view gays.
If you are a voter in the academy, they must see homosexuality as some sort of affliction or disability.
Why?
Look at the list of previous winners. It's a who's who of various handicaps and afflications
Jack Nicholson, a neurotic, obsessive compulsive.
Jamie Foxx, a blind piano player
Geoffrey Rush, an albino
Nicholas Cage, an alcoholic drinking himself to death
Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump
Al Pacino, Blind
Anthony Hopkins, A sadistic serial killer
Daniel day Lewis, an artist with no hands
Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man
Jack Nicholson, a psychiatric patient
Of course, you must get bonus points for being gay. Apparently, that affliction must be real horrible in the minds of the academy.
Tom Hanks, Philadelphia
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Truman Capote
Sean Penn, Milk
So before you go about trying to persuade conservatives that gayness is no different than heterosexuality, you might want to convince a few liberals first.
Well exactly how do liberals view gays.
If you are a voter in the academy, they must see homosexuality as some sort of affliction or disability.
Why?
Look at the list of previous winners. It's a who's who of various handicaps and afflications
Jack Nicholson, a neurotic, obsessive compulsive.
Jamie Foxx, a blind piano player
Geoffrey Rush, an albino
Nicholas Cage, an alcoholic drinking himself to death
Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump
Al Pacino, Blind
Anthony Hopkins, A sadistic serial killer
Daniel day Lewis, an artist with no hands
Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man
Jack Nicholson, a psychiatric patient
Of course, you must get bonus points for being gay. Apparently, that affliction must be real horrible in the minds of the academy.
Tom Hanks, Philadelphia
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Truman Capote
Sean Penn, Milk
So before you go about trying to persuade conservatives that gayness is no different than heterosexuality, you might want to convince a few liberals first.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Politics of narcissism = liberalism
They called it paradise
The place to be
They watched the hazy sun
Sinking in the sea
An analysis on the fall of that "progressive" Utopia, California.
The place to be
They watched the hazy sun
Sinking in the sea
An analysis on the fall of that "progressive" Utopia, California.
To many longtime California observers, the inability of the political, business and academic elites to adequately anticipate and address the state's persistent problems has been a source of consternation and wonderment. In my view, the key to understanding California's precipitous decline transcends terms like liberal or conservative, Democratic and Republican. The real culprit lies in the politics of narcissism.California, like any gorgeously endowed person, has a natural inclination toward self-absorption. It has always been a place of unsurpassed splendor; it has inspired and attracted writers, artists, dreamers, savants and philosophers. That's especially true of the Bay Area—ground zero for California narcissism and arguably the most attractive urban expanse on the continent; Neil Morgan in 1960 described San Francisco as "the narcissus of the West," a place whose fundamental asset was first its own beauty, followed by its own culture of self-regard.
I think most sane people would identify "politics of narcissism" as liberalism.
See liberals know everything. They know so much they need to tell you everything you need to do with your life, your money, your kids etc. and of course it's all surrounded in some slight they received in life that they've never worked out with their therapist(s).
What Obama did for Chicago
How good is life in Chicago?
If you're a teenager, you should consider living in one of those hillbilly, gun lovin', Jesus fearin' small towns....
Let's think about that for minute. 51 kids gunned down in two years. That's what life under "progressive" rule looks like.
That's one school system, 51 kids.
So how do you liberals defend those 51 kids being gunned down in area where Dog the Bounty Hunter couldn't find a republican? Or is it Ok that kids are gunned down in the street as long as it's democrats doing the shootin' and the dyin'?
Instead of all these media outlets cryin' about shooting military caskets coming off of planes, how about some shots of all these kids at their funerals.
The good news is the Obamunists have done a great job of seeing that this lifestyle gets to spread throughout the country.
What the hell is so progressive about genocide?
More....
If you're a teenager, you should consider living in one of those hillbilly, gun lovin', Jesus fearin' small towns....
Saturday also marked a grim statistic for the city: Racheal Beauchamp, a 16-year-old girl from the South Side, became the 25th Chicago Public Schools student slain this school year. There were 26 students killed last school year
Let's think about that for minute. 51 kids gunned down in two years. That's what life under "progressive" rule looks like.
That's one school system, 51 kids.
So how do you liberals defend those 51 kids being gunned down in area where Dog the Bounty Hunter couldn't find a republican? Or is it Ok that kids are gunned down in the street as long as it's democrats doing the shootin' and the dyin'?
Instead of all these media outlets cryin' about shooting military caskets coming off of planes, how about some shots of all these kids at their funerals.
The good news is the Obamunists have done a great job of seeing that this lifestyle gets to spread throughout the country.
What the hell is so progressive about genocide?
More....
Obama's cutting pork? Now that's funny
So let me make sure I have this right.
Within a week of the Obamunists spending billions of dollars on condoms and various other non essential sundries, now we're going to get serious about the budget deficit.
Are you serious?
Within a week of the Obamunists spending billions of dollars on condoms and various other non essential sundries, now we're going to get serious about the budget deficit.
Are you serious?
Obama will touch on his efforts to restore fiscal discipline at a White House fiscal policy summit on Monday and in an address to Congress on Tuesday. On Thursday he plans to send at least a summary of his first budget request to Capitol Hill. The bottom line, said an administration official Saturday, is to halve the federal deficit to $533 billion by the time his first term ends in 2013. He inherited a deficit of about $1.3 trillion from former President George W. Bush.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president has not yet released his budget for the fiscal year 2010, which begins Oct. 1, said the deficit will be shrunk by scaling back Iraq war spending, ending the temporary tax breaks enacted by the Bush administration for those making $250,000 or more a year, and streamlining government.
"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."
You could have started by using some of that discipline on that boated pile of pork you signed. You know, that pile of pork the prisoners at Gitmo claim is an abuse of their human rights from the smell.
Doh!
Blame it on Reagan...
An Oregon woman finally received an invitation to her nephew's high school graduation in New Jersey, but she may be a little late — it was in 1987.
Theresa Schlossarek, of La Grande, found the invitation last week in her mailbox. The envelope, which had been opened, was postmarked June 2, 1987, from Toms River, N.J., where her brother, Hermann Ilnseher, lives.
Peter Hass, spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service's Portland district, called the delay "very unusual and very unfortunate."
An Oregon woman finally received an invitation to her nephew's high school graduation in New Jersey, but she may be a little late — it was in 1987.
Theresa Schlossarek, of La Grande, found the invitation last week in her mailbox. The envelope, which had been opened, was postmarked June 2, 1987, from Toms River, N.J., where her brother, Hermann Ilnseher, lives.
Peter Hass, spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service's Portland district, called the delay "very unusual and very unfortunate."
Walter E. Williams
The idea that even the brightest person or group of bright people, much less the U.S. Congress, can wisely manage an economy has to be the height of arrogance and conceit. Why? It is impossible for anyone to possess the knowledge that would be necessary for such an undertaking. At the risk of boring you, let's go through a small example that proves such knowledge is impossible.
Imagine you are trying to understand a system consisting of six elements. That means there would be 30, or n(n-1), possible relationships between these elements. Now suppose each element can be characterized by being either on or off. That means the number of possible relationships among those elements grows to the number 2 raised to the 30th power; that's well over a billion possible relationships among those six elements.
Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.
More...
Imagine you are trying to understand a system consisting of six elements. That means there would be 30, or n(n-1), possible relationships between these elements. Now suppose each element can be characterized by being either on or off. That means the number of possible relationships among those elements grows to the number 2 raised to the 30th power; that's well over a billion possible relationships among those six elements.
Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.
More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)