Friday, December 31, 2010
Over the years, I met some great guys; Bartman, Rick, The Unabomber, Vernon, Dana, Dave, Dan, Joe, Bob, Grif, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mizz among others.
We lost one of those in the group yesterday. Jim Miller. Jim was the Dan Fielding of Willies, Never shy about discussing his kinky sexual proclivities.
Jim died of liver cancer yesterday.
I didn't know Jim that well since he was more of a happy hour guy; I usually showed up for dinner later in the evening. None the less, Jim was a funny guy who was always good for a story you never heard before. He will be missed.
I just hope heaven is full of ball gags and leather chaps.
Now the last I checked my map, Phoenix wasn't along the east Coast. But, of course, that won't prevent the Branch Gorevidians from predicting how snow got to Arizona after the fact.
In fact, let's play a game and come up with a nonsensical reason to explain the phenomenon proving yet again how global warming exists.
As a result of cow flatulence in the plain states of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, the air currents rise above the current jet streams. As this stinky air rises, it provides sort of a buffer to the jet stream which gets nauseated by the smell.
The jet stream then reverses course and heads back to the West Coast where it hopes to avoid the stench of cow farts, taking with it all the cool moisture that would have been dumped on the plain states.
Given the length of the trip and the fact there are no good roadside rests along the way, the jet stream has no choice but to dump its cool liquid across the west coast.
And that my friends is how global warming causes snow in Phoenix.
Feel free to add your own in the comment section.
If it's good enough, the government will give you some money to prove it.
Unfortunately, a bunch of dumb ass conservatives refuse to make rich people give up their wealth to a government, so these guys came up with a brilliant idea......
Give your "tax cut" to charity!
Seriously, they have a calculator that will compute your tax cut and then you can forward it to charity.
In all honesty, it's probably necessary for liberals to suggest that they can give their money to charity since so few understand what that means in the first place.
Last week, Ann Coulter detailed that lack of charitable giving among notable democrats and this is what she found.....
On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more -- and 50 times more to secular charities -- than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.
Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as "insufferable blowhards.") These "bleeding-heart tightwads," as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.
Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent, less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also "significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier." (Count Nancy Pelosi's change carefully!)
Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That's up 7 percent from last year!)
Maybe Joe Biden can fork over a few bucks more than the $350.00 he gave to charity last year. Someone just needs to forward him this site so he realizes that he can actually do that.
Meanwhile, as a conservative, you know what I think you should do with your tax cut? 1) You can save it 2) You can spend it on anything you damn well please 3) you can give it to a relative or charity or 4) give it to me.
Regardless of what you, do you'll get no criticism from this blog....... you earned it.
Meaning that you could predict some future event based on the nature of your hypothesis.
So how does that apply to global warming?
Let take the time machine back ten years ago and see...........
THE earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.
All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.
Here's a piece noting other predictions that haven't borne fruit.
And these Branch Gorvidians wonder why there are skeptics?
Thursday, December 30, 2010
One by one they have revealed what life was like behind the glittering façade of the Playboy Mansion. According to them, it disguises a grubby world where some girls feel they are no better than prostitutes, paid pocket money by an octogenarian obsessive who funds plastic surgery to turn them into his physical ideal, and yet must still take huge amounts of Viagra to manage sex with them.
Now Direct TV is rerunning the series and I have to say that that my friends were right. If you get a chance to watch the series do so. Buy the DVD's if you can't catch them somewhere else.
I'm currently into season two that focuses on the illegal activity on the Baltimore Docks. What's incredible to me is the out and out graft that goes on in our ports. Whether it's human trafficking, drugs, out and out theft of cargo, the port is polluted with people gaming the system. It just makes you wonder how you can get a TV at Best Buy for under $10,000.
Yet, I had to find it hilarious when Frank Sobotka, the union head of the port, starts telling the guys that they need to clean up all the graft because companies are moving their shipments to other ports of entry and soon there won't be any jobs at the Baltimore port.
See even union guy Frank understood that everyone operates on a cost/benefit principle. Something our politicians can't seem to get their arms around.........
Heading into the new year, there's plenty of optimism about the stock market rising, corporate profits recovering and companies hiring. There's just one problem on that last jobs item: Many will be overseas.Article here....
On those rare occasions when it's not demonizing businesses as bastions of corporate greed, the White House and all its supporting players spend their time pondering why U.S. businesses, with mountains of cash, won't use at least some of it to hire workers. A mere 900,000 jobs were created in 2010, while U.S. companies sat on $1.1 trillion in cash.
Last week, President Obama went so far as to meet with 20 CEOs for several hours over this, "asking the attendees to dialogue with him on a shared agenda focused on moving our economy forward," according to a White House statement.
We don't have any inside lines as to what was said, but news is trickling out the Obama administration is starting to think about doing something big to end the jobs drought in the U.S.
The something big would be to lower the U.S. corporate tax, which at 35%, stands as the second-highest in the developed world. President Obama only told NPR that he discussed "simplifying the system, hopefully lowering rates, broadening the base."
If so, and if there are no accompanying sleights of hand to extract cash from businesses some other way, as some reports have it, it's good news. Nothing inhibits the creation of U.S. jobs quite like high corporate taxes and their accompanying regulatory regime.
The fact is, companies sitting on cash aren't doing nothing. They're hiring overseas, creating 1.4 million jobs in 2010 alone, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
That's not because they prefer foreigners to Americans, but because the bad business climate here pushes them to do so.
The rest of the world is a vastly different place from Obama's U.S., which is characterized by high taxes and protectionist set-asides for politically connected unions that shut out free trade.
In places like Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan, India and Thailand, nobody demonizes business or blasts trade. Instead great efforts are made by the state and the private sector to draw in foreign investment by becoming more competitive than their rivals.
U.S. multinationals go to these places not because labor is cheap but because these policies also create boomtowns with lots of customers. Incredibly enough, sometimes overseas profits and jobs provide a lifeline for troubled U.S. companies back home. Take GM — today, its Brazil and Korea operations help keep it afloat.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
It’s looking increasingly likely that California will get bailed out by the federal government. The Golden State is $70 billion in the hole. Analysts expect that figure to reach $150 billion within four years — and that’s not including the state’s $500 billion unfunded pension liability. Spending needs to be cut dramatically, but it won’t be; the state is too politically dysfunctional to do that. And the election of big-spender Jerry Brown will only make things worse. (Incidentally, Governor-elect Brown recently described his state’s budget problems this way: “It is much worse than I thought. I am shocked.”)
Most conservatives are adamantly opposed to bailing out any state, especially California. They argue that Californians in particular don’t deserve a bail out, that a bailout would set a bad example for other states, and that it would cost too much.
But these arguments assume that a bailout of California would come with no strings attached. That may be what ends up happening, but it doesn’t have to. It’s possible to make the bailout contingent on Sacramento making drastic budget cuts and passing constitutional amendments that radically reform the state’s political system.
Seriously? Is this writer a moron? How could you possibly structure any debt guarantees that would force the state to do what a total fiscal collapse wouldn't motivate them to do.
The City of Cincinnati is currently working to cut $60 million from a 2011 budget deficit. It has to be done by 1/1/11. These clowns are still pissing in the wind as the clock strikes 12 Friday. I would put up my life savings and wager that if the feds guaranteed anything for the city (regardless of the attached contingencies) the city would have even more incentive to kick the can down the street.
These governments need to come to grips with the fact that the credit card is busted and it's time to real it in. Allowing them any sort of wiggle room is the space they'll slime into.
See, in so many ways, the Blue State Exodus mirrors the Biblical account of Moses leading the Jews from the Pharaohs.
Think about it. Taxpayers in NY, OH, MI, NJ etc. work so that the pharaohs of these state and local governments can seize the fruits of their labor, by force, to do what these please.
The plagues of locusts, frogs, death, etc. have been largely self induced pain caused brought about by the pharaohs own arrogance and defiance to truth. If you think about it, even the liberal abortion laws in these states has resulted in the death of the first born to many couples.
People fleeing the Pharaohs, need only cross the Ohio, the Hudson the Delaware to find freedom in the Promised Land.
Do you think the Pharaohs will be smart enough to give up their arrogance to avoid further migration out of town?
Let's just say we'll let Mike Bloomberg turn off the lights when he leaves.
I wonder when the feds are going to crack down on their own for allowing students to rack up debt to obtain worthless degrees and never achieve the earning potential to pay the loans back. It seems kind of predatory to me..........
Once again, when the government subsidizes you get more of it. Look forward to bailing out some young Women's Studies graduate soon.
When the government subsidizes something, we wind up with more of it. When it subsidizes something heavily—and combines that subsidy with an aggressive campaign encouraging consumption of that thing from the presidential bully pulpit—we wind up with a lot more of it.
Oceans of federal money gush into higher education every day, and every administration promises more to come. That gush obscures the real demand for educated workers. The result is lots of cashiers and waitresses with B.A.s, and lots of people with student loan debt that's tough for them to repay. For most students, the federal subsides geared toward nudging them to consume more education actually result in the acquisition of more education debt.
On the corporate side (and the non-profit side, for that matter) the subsidy encourages institutions to shape their practices around grabbing as much of that "free" money as possible. As critics of for-profit education never fail to note:
Most colleges receive 75 percent of more of their revenue in federal loan funding; at others, like the University of Phoenix's parent company, Apollo Group, federal dollars comprise upwards of 90 percent of the revenue. (The legal limit is exactly 90 percent.)
The government makes the loan getting process easier and faster, and then the schools that live off loan money figure out ways to make the process smoother still. In fact, the getting of education loans has become so seamless that some of the less scrupulous actors out there have figured out ways for students take out and/or retain loans without realizing that they have done so:
Monday, December 27, 2010
At the time, I thought that was a stupid statement. But I'm willing to own up to being wrong (according to her that was all the time).
Let's take credit availability to low income households. See, do gooder types thought it would be a great idea to change credit card laws so poor people wouldn't get locked into a mess of credit card debt.
Banks quit issuing credit cards to low income people. So if you need a quick $200.00 to cover your car payment, what do you do? Of course, you roll into your neighborhood paycheck lender and pay an even higher rate of interest than a credit card.
Of course, the do gooders, not done doing good for the poor, are attacking HR Block for Refund Anticipation Loans (RAL's). Now, for the record, these loans are a total rip off. But I've told the stories before of people who have contacted this office and asked for one of these because they couldn't wait the 7 - 10 days a normal efile refund would take to get to them.
Frankly, I don't need this kind of client. They're idiots. But even idiots need service too.
So HR Block was more then willing to take $400 to do a tax return with one of these RAL's attached to it.
But Nanny Dogooder apparently doesn't want HR Block to service your neighborhood idiot, so this is how they took care of that.........
So what's going to be the end result of Nanny Dogooder and her minions who want to protect the poor?
Tax prep company H&R Block announced on Friday that it had lost a contract with HSBC after a federal regulator told HSBC to stop offering refund anticipation loans. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency prohibited HSBC (HBC) from offering the loans, which forced the bank to end its long-term contract providing loans to H&R Block (HRB) customers, H&R Block said in its release.
H&R Block shares fell 8% in pore-market trading.
“As a result of the OCC’s decision, millions of taxpayers will be deprived of credit, or they will be forced to use higher-priced alternatives, without the slightest benefit to the solvency of HSBC or the banking system in general,” said Alan Bennett, H&R Block’s president and CEO.
H&R Block says refund anticipation loans (RALs) are much cheaper than other credit options — just $46 on a $1,500 loan. But the OCC has said that RALs are often unnecessary and costly.
“Although a refund anticipation loan may offer easy access to funds on a short-term basis, a RAL can be costly, and paying for a loan may not be necessary given how quickly you can get Office of the Comptroller of the Currency your refund from the IRS,” the agency said in a recent consumer advisory. ”These loans also may cost substantially more than other sources of credit that may be just as appropriate to your needs.”
They're going to push these people towards Carmine, the neighborhood loan shark, who's not all that interested in trivialities like usury laws, collection laws, and the like.
All the while, legitimate companies will shrivel up in the process.
I guess I owe my ex-wife yet another apology.
Chances are really, really, good that a democratic mayor will be at the helm..........
Have a gander at America’s 17 most-bankrupt cities, and consider the party variable: Two Republican mayors, two independents, one city so bankrupt that it is in state receivership — and twelve Democratic mayors, meaning the Democrats lead 70.5 percent of the most-bankrupt cities, by my always-suspect English-major math.
And you thought their record was bad in Congress.
And get a load of the size of these budget shortfalls: Camden, N.J., at 15 percent, Hamtramck, Mich., at 17 percent, Paterson, N.J., at 24 percent, Central Falls, R.I., at 22 percent.
The state of California cannot afford to bail out San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose; the state of Illinois cannot afford to bail out Chicago and Joliet; New Jersey cannot afford to bail out Camden, Patterson, and Newark. The outstanding municipal-bond obligations are huge. Vero has some thoughts here, and here’s one sleep-disturbing fact:
But municipal bonds have not yet lost their low-risk reputation. According to the Investment Company Institute, $84 billion went into long-term municipal bond mutual funds in 2010, up from $69 billion in 2009. And the 2009 level represents a 785 percent increase from the 2008 level of $7.8 billion. Artificial incentives have lured investors into thinking that lending cash to bankrupted cities will be profitable.
New Jersey already has been accused of fraud for running what amounts to a muni-bond Ponzi scheme.Questions: Why do city voters continue to elect these mayoral specimens? .....
Nice to see that the Queen City of Cincinnati made the list.
That's been the genesis of this blog. While I have some chicken/egg theories, I'll probably keep doing this blog until someone answers the question. Is it the lack of intelligence voters who keep putting democrats in office or is it democratic policies that create ignorant democratic voters?
As Charles Barkley would say "how is it that poor people keep voting for democrats and they stay poor?"
We should ask all the mayors with felony charges waiting for them.......
I'd hate to be accused of Schadenfreude during the holidays, but I feel I must mention five recent news articles that tie in with my previous mentions of Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns civilian disarmament pressure group:
- Port St. Lucie Mayor arrested for misappropriation of campaign funds
- Ex-Morristown Mayor Cresitello will pay state $11K over alleged campaign finance violations.
- White Plains Mayor Adam Bradley Convicted of Attempted Assault and Other Crimes
- Mayor accused of ethics lapses
- Inglewood Mayor Dorn pleads guilty to conflict of interest, resigns
The number of mayors in Bloomberg's group that are facing felony and lesser charges is simply astounding. Come to think of it, I have roughly the same number of friends as Bloomberg has members on the roster in his little hoplophobe club. But I couldn't imagine having a dozen of my friends facing felony charges. Oh well, I guess that's because I don't move in the same lofty circles as Mayor Bloomberg.