The year is 1947
Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little over 60 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico .. This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S.. Air Force and other federal agencies and organizations.
However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:
Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
John F. Kerry
William J. Clinton
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer
See what happens when aliens breed with sheep and jackasses?
I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It did for me.
Thanks to whomever collected this info and spread it around the internet. Not sure the birth years are even true, but it was good for today's laugh!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Pick a Dot...any Dot: Your Stimulus Tax Dollars are Not At Work
I have decided to lighten up on the weekends. But to me, weekends officially mean Saturday and Sunday.
So today being Friday, I get one more rant for the week. Today, we get to vist our federal government's proud website announcing the jobs saved/created with our hard earned money.
Just go to www.recovery.gov. On this website, you can click on any state to see how much has been committed so far and how much has been spent from the Stimulus package. But for more fun, click on your own state. It takes a minute to upload, but it's worth it.
You will see a galaxy of dots. Most of the ones I clicked on, are evidence of others who know a good thing when they see it. Free money. No accountability. Self-reported job creation numbers. Goodie goodie.
In ten random dot clicks, how many 'jobs' can you find that were actually created? (Wonder how many will still be around after the money runs out?)
Do a quick calc to see your average cost per job.
Sorry to turn your stomach at the end of the week. Current debt per citizen is around $360,000...This. Must. Stop.
So today being Friday, I get one more rant for the week. Today, we get to vist our federal government's proud website announcing the jobs saved/created with our hard earned money.
Just go to www.recovery.gov. On this website, you can click on any state to see how much has been committed so far and how much has been spent from the Stimulus package. But for more fun, click on your own state. It takes a minute to upload, but it's worth it.
You will see a galaxy of dots. Most of the ones I clicked on, are evidence of others who know a good thing when they see it. Free money. No accountability. Self-reported job creation numbers. Goodie goodie.
In ten random dot clicks, how many 'jobs' can you find that were actually created? (Wonder how many will still be around after the money runs out?)
Do a quick calc to see your average cost per job.
Sorry to turn your stomach at the end of the week. Current debt per citizen is around $360,000...This. Must. Stop.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
NYT editorial has me seeing RED!
There was an odd editorial in the New York Times yesterday which advocates Obama's idea to impose a windfall tax on those bad banks that made record profits, even those that have paid back the TARP funds. Here's an excerpt:
The White House is talking about levying a tax or fee on large banks to recover the $120 billion it spent to bail out the financial system. That is a good place to start, but it shouldn’t stop there. President Obama and Congress should also impose a windfall tax on the huge bonuses that bailed-out bankers plan to pay themselves over the next few weeks.
This is an issue of fairness and sound public policy. The Treasury needs the money. A fee may also get banks and bankers to rethink the way they do business — something the much-promised, far-too-delayed and increasingly watered-down financial regulatory reform effort is unlikely to do. A permanent tax or fee imposed on the nation’s largest banks could reduce future risks by discouraging big banks from getting even bigger.
How is penalizing the banks an issue of "fairness and sound public policy"? Let's say you are self-employed. If your uncle lent you $1000 to bail you out of a messy situation at work, and then you paid him back with interest (and in some situations, your uncle 'forced' you to borrow the money), then you went on to have a banner year the following year, wouldn't you hope that your uncle said "Bravo! Glad you turned your business around!"?
In our free market system, where does the government get off changing tax laws after the fact? How does making the rules of commerce completely unpredictable (and these days apparently dependant on friends in high places) make for "Sound Public Policy".
The kicker is the line, "The Treasury needs the money". Who doesn't? Is the NYT editor suggesting that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?" Seems like I heard that one before. Oh right, Lenin and Marx.
And just to make sure that banks realize how naughty they are to dare to be successful and outcompete other banks, the editor continues, let's penalize them and cap their ability to grow. That will teach them. Bad Banks!
The editorial continues to recommend coordinated global banking regulation and taxes on big banks. Let's just pooh-pooh that little thing called sovereignty.
And editor concludes by saying that a windfall profits tax on the big banks would be an excellent way for the Obama administration to start plugging the budget gap. Sounds like stealing to me. Like Capone, we gotta steal from where the money is.
What has this country come to when the supposed premier national newspaper spouts such marxist nonsense? I guess I shouldn't say nonsense, as these viewpoints appear to be widely held at the Whitehouse.
The White House is talking about levying a tax or fee on large banks to recover the $120 billion it spent to bail out the financial system. That is a good place to start, but it shouldn’t stop there. President Obama and Congress should also impose a windfall tax on the huge bonuses that bailed-out bankers plan to pay themselves over the next few weeks.
This is an issue of fairness and sound public policy. The Treasury needs the money. A fee may also get banks and bankers to rethink the way they do business — something the much-promised, far-too-delayed and increasingly watered-down financial regulatory reform effort is unlikely to do. A permanent tax or fee imposed on the nation’s largest banks could reduce future risks by discouraging big banks from getting even bigger.
How is penalizing the banks an issue of "fairness and sound public policy"? Let's say you are self-employed. If your uncle lent you $1000 to bail you out of a messy situation at work, and then you paid him back with interest (and in some situations, your uncle 'forced' you to borrow the money), then you went on to have a banner year the following year, wouldn't you hope that your uncle said "Bravo! Glad you turned your business around!"?
In our free market system, where does the government get off changing tax laws after the fact? How does making the rules of commerce completely unpredictable (and these days apparently dependant on friends in high places) make for "Sound Public Policy".
The kicker is the line, "The Treasury needs the money". Who doesn't? Is the NYT editor suggesting that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?" Seems like I heard that one before. Oh right, Lenin and Marx.
And just to make sure that banks realize how naughty they are to dare to be successful and outcompete other banks, the editor continues, let's penalize them and cap their ability to grow. That will teach them. Bad Banks!
The editorial continues to recommend coordinated global banking regulation and taxes on big banks. Let's just pooh-pooh that little thing called sovereignty.
And editor concludes by saying that a windfall profits tax on the big banks would be an excellent way for the Obama administration to start plugging the budget gap. Sounds like stealing to me. Like Capone, we gotta steal from where the money is.
What has this country come to when the supposed premier national newspaper spouts such marxist nonsense? I guess I shouldn't say nonsense, as these viewpoints appear to be widely held at the Whitehouse.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
PETN! Underwear Bomber Explosives Rock Coastal NC
Someone punctured a shipment of Panty Bomber explosives at our local port today.
Until a couple of weeks ago, I had never heard of PETN. Now it's everywhere. Even spilled a couple of miles from my house this morning.
The good news (a) no one really got hurt, and (b) I got a robo-call announcing the hazardous waste spill shortly after the accident that alerted me to avoid the area and which told me roads were anticipated to be closed for the day.
Turns out a forklift driver punctured the PETN container while off-loading. Could have happened to anyone.
This is the first real time example I ever saw of a potential disaster response from our local government. I think the system came about from dollars from either the Katrina fiasco or the War on Terror (I live near a major supplier of our warrior heros).
If ever they call to say a dirty bomb was released in our area, the duct tape and plastic sheeting they told us to buy might not do us any good, but I have to say I was impressed by the quick response from the little old Carteret County, NC government today.
Until a couple of weeks ago, I had never heard of PETN. Now it's everywhere. Even spilled a couple of miles from my house this morning.
The good news (a) no one really got hurt, and (b) I got a robo-call announcing the hazardous waste spill shortly after the accident that alerted me to avoid the area and which told me roads were anticipated to be closed for the day.
Turns out a forklift driver punctured the PETN container while off-loading. Could have happened to anyone.
This is the first real time example I ever saw of a potential disaster response from our local government. I think the system came about from dollars from either the Katrina fiasco or the War on Terror (I live near a major supplier of our warrior heros).
If ever they call to say a dirty bomb was released in our area, the duct tape and plastic sheeting they told us to buy might not do us any good, but I have to say I was impressed by the quick response from the little old Carteret County, NC government today.
O does not equal A in Transparency
It's ironic, but not the least bit funny, that just when organizations are gathering petitions to demand that President Obama stick to his campaign promise for open, transparent debate of bills on the Hill, and in particular with the 1/6th of our economy Health Care Bill, that the Whitehouse posts a Tweet bragging about an "A" grade for its transparency.
I looked into the three sponsors of the report: Common Cause, Democracy 21 and the League of Woman Voters. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that Tim Geitner's wife has been involved with Common Cause, and that these firms have heavy lobbying budgets. I would never accuse any non-profit of ulterior motives. Just happened to notice.
If you are interested in signing a petition to demand that C-Span be allowed to tape the deliberations of the Health Care Bill as promised by candidate Obama, please click here. Only takes a moment. The fight is not over until the Bill is signed, so keep up the pressure.
As a reminder of the "Change" we were promised, here's candidate Obama promising transparency. Or maybe he agrees with Pelosi, and thinks that what you say on the campaign trail doesn't really count. Check out her look that assures us that we must have been morons to ever think so.
I looked into the three sponsors of the report: Common Cause, Democracy 21 and the League of Woman Voters. I'm sure it's purely coincidental that Tim Geitner's wife has been involved with Common Cause, and that these firms have heavy lobbying budgets. I would never accuse any non-profit of ulterior motives. Just happened to notice.
If you are interested in signing a petition to demand that C-Span be allowed to tape the deliberations of the Health Care Bill as promised by candidate Obama, please click here. Only takes a moment. The fight is not over until the Bill is signed, so keep up the pressure.
As a reminder of the "Change" we were promised, here's candidate Obama promising transparency. Or maybe he agrees with Pelosi, and thinks that what you say on the campaign trail doesn't really count. Check out her look that assures us that we must have been morons to ever think so.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Who's the Putz with Obamacare?
I feel like a putz.
I have been self-employed for more than two decades, and thus have purchased my own health insurance. I always bought the highest deductible allowed to minimize my premiums, so in effect, self-insured for all but catastrophic illness or injury.
I have not filed a single health claim since the mid-80's -- until recently -- and boy did I ever get an education in the health care industry.
Typically I spent several thousand dollars a year on health care. A complete blood work up ran me close to $400. An unexpected injury visit to the doc could run $200-$250. Regular doctor visits typically cost $160 -$185.
To save everyone a lot of paperwork, I just handed over my credit card after each visit, figuring if I should ever hit my deductible one year, I would file everything then. In the meantime, look how considerate I was to save the doc's and insurance company all that unnecessary work.
I don't even remember why I finally handed over my insurance card, but did I ever get a "Stupid Tax" education. As a cash payer, with no paperwork to file, I paid full retail all these years. Now that I am filing, here are a couple of recent bills:
1. Annual checkup - Billed $225.00: Insurance company lopped off $87.62, paid $128.63 (which I didn't realize they would) and my bill came to $8.75. Savings: $216.25, or 96%.
2. Lab bill - $95.00: Insurance company refuses $62.32 and paid the $32.68 balance, though I don't know why since I didn't hit my deductible. Savings 100%.
Summary: last two medical bills totalled $320, which I would have paid back when I was the nice, considerate cash payer. Now that the doctors have to do all the paperwork and wait for the money, I only paid $8.75, or only 2.7%, even though I never came close to hitting my $3500 deductible last year.
Conclusions:
Let's set aside the lunacy of financially punishing the cash payer for a moment. Let's instead consider the fact that by using my insurance card, I felt virtually no financial pain for seeing the doctor. Sounds like what's being promised with the Obamacare bill. Everyone gets fabulous health coverage for less money. The only problem with the numbers, is that since everyone has to sign up, there won't be any putz's like me to subsidize the rest. The numbers simply cannot add up without either skyrocketing rates or rationed health care.
I have been self-employed for more than two decades, and thus have purchased my own health insurance. I always bought the highest deductible allowed to minimize my premiums, so in effect, self-insured for all but catastrophic illness or injury.
I have not filed a single health claim since the mid-80's -- until recently -- and boy did I ever get an education in the health care industry.
Typically I spent several thousand dollars a year on health care. A complete blood work up ran me close to $400. An unexpected injury visit to the doc could run $200-$250. Regular doctor visits typically cost $160 -$185.
To save everyone a lot of paperwork, I just handed over my credit card after each visit, figuring if I should ever hit my deductible one year, I would file everything then. In the meantime, look how considerate I was to save the doc's and insurance company all that unnecessary work.
I don't even remember why I finally handed over my insurance card, but did I ever get a "Stupid Tax" education. As a cash payer, with no paperwork to file, I paid full retail all these years. Now that I am filing, here are a couple of recent bills:
1. Annual checkup - Billed $225.00: Insurance company lopped off $87.62, paid $128.63 (which I didn't realize they would) and my bill came to $8.75. Savings: $216.25, or 96%.
2. Lab bill - $95.00: Insurance company refuses $62.32 and paid the $32.68 balance, though I don't know why since I didn't hit my deductible. Savings 100%.
Summary: last two medical bills totalled $320, which I would have paid back when I was the nice, considerate cash payer. Now that the doctors have to do all the paperwork and wait for the money, I only paid $8.75, or only 2.7%, even though I never came close to hitting my $3500 deductible last year.
Conclusions:
Let's set aside the lunacy of financially punishing the cash payer for a moment. Let's instead consider the fact that by using my insurance card, I felt virtually no financial pain for seeing the doctor. Sounds like what's being promised with the Obamacare bill. Everyone gets fabulous health coverage for less money. The only problem with the numbers, is that since everyone has to sign up, there won't be any putz's like me to subsidize the rest. The numbers simply cannot add up without either skyrocketing rates or rationed health care.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Real "Man-Made Disaster": Napolitano and Brennan via Obama
What kind of experience do you want as your head of Homeland Security during our War on Terror? Oh, excuse me, I forgot it's now "Overseas Contigency Operation".
Janet Napolitano does have government experience as former gov of AZ and previous Attorney General. But don't you think someone with a background in Intelligence might be better suited? Yes, she was involved in the OK bombing incident--after the fact-- but most of her work involved consumer protection and overall law enforcement. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about her capabilities.
I doubt the fact that she endorsed Obama early 2008, and was then named to his transition team had anything to do with the appointment, you know, as the person in charge of keeping America safe from terrorists?
Napolitano avoids using the word terrorism, preferring to call them "man-made disasters". Kinda like Obama never utters "Islamic radicals" or "extremists", or re-naming the war the "Overseas Contingency Operations". Maybe if we don't call them scary names, they will all go away?
Alongside Napolitano, we have John Brennan, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Brennan has considerable intelligence experience, and was once considered for the head of the CIA. Of course, he too was on the Obama transition team.
In yesterday's mea culpa about the Panty Bomber on Christmas Day, he admits that he needs to do better. You mean he didn't bring his "A" game to the task already?
Detroit Customs, during it's pre-arrival checklist, found the terrorist on a watch list and was prepared to do heavier screening when the plane landed. Too bad it never crossed their mind to notify the pilot that a potential terrorist was on the plane so that they could keep a better eye on him. It is Brennan's job to oversee plans to protect the US from terrorism.
So despite Brennan's experience, and closing in on a decade since 9-11, while under his watch, he didn't notice that the agencies weren't communicating effectively amongst themselves?
So instead of both parties losing their jobs for the "systemic failure" as would have happened in the real world outside of the Washington, they will no doubt be able to do a better job "if only they have more money and more power". Definitely. Let's reward the incompetent.
Seems to me that the only "man-made disaster" in this close call was Obama's appointments of these two.
Janet Napolitano does have government experience as former gov of AZ and previous Attorney General. But don't you think someone with a background in Intelligence might be better suited? Yes, she was involved in the OK bombing incident--after the fact-- but most of her work involved consumer protection and overall law enforcement. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about her capabilities.
I doubt the fact that she endorsed Obama early 2008, and was then named to his transition team had anything to do with the appointment, you know, as the person in charge of keeping America safe from terrorists?
Napolitano avoids using the word terrorism, preferring to call them "man-made disasters". Kinda like Obama never utters "Islamic radicals" or "extremists", or re-naming the war the "Overseas Contingency Operations". Maybe if we don't call them scary names, they will all go away?
Alongside Napolitano, we have John Brennan, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Brennan has considerable intelligence experience, and was once considered for the head of the CIA. Of course, he too was on the Obama transition team.
In yesterday's mea culpa about the Panty Bomber on Christmas Day, he admits that he needs to do better. You mean he didn't bring his "A" game to the task already?
Detroit Customs, during it's pre-arrival checklist, found the terrorist on a watch list and was prepared to do heavier screening when the plane landed. Too bad it never crossed their mind to notify the pilot that a potential terrorist was on the plane so that they could keep a better eye on him. It is Brennan's job to oversee plans to protect the US from terrorism.
So despite Brennan's experience, and closing in on a decade since 9-11, while under his watch, he didn't notice that the agencies weren't communicating effectively amongst themselves?
So instead of both parties losing their jobs for the "systemic failure" as would have happened in the real world outside of the Washington, they will no doubt be able to do a better job "if only they have more money and more power". Definitely. Let's reward the incompetent.
Seems to me that the only "man-made disaster" in this close call was Obama's appointments of these two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)