 |
| Clearly these are deep and crippling cuts |
February 28, 2013
February 27, 2013
The sky is falling!
This is the new standard of governing.
If we cannot find a measly 2% to cut from the budget today, when can we start to reduce spending?
 |
| The Obama Method |
If we cannot find a measly 2% to cut from the budget today, when can we start to reduce spending?
Dang it all
I hate making mistakes. I especially despise mistakes when it comes to work.
I put in a request for quote for a customer and put down the wrong part number. Thus we quoted the wrong thing. Luckily, I caught the error before I sent it to the customer. But now I have to let various marketing types know I screwed up, and they have to duplicate work due to my mistake.
The only bright side of this mistake is the the discovery of my own error led to an impressive string of profanity on my part. It should have been recorded for posterity.
I put in a request for quote for a customer and put down the wrong part number. Thus we quoted the wrong thing. Luckily, I caught the error before I sent it to the customer. But now I have to let various marketing types know I screwed up, and they have to duplicate work due to my mistake.
The only bright side of this mistake is the the discovery of my own error led to an impressive string of profanity on my part. It should have been recorded for posterity.
...pants on fire
 |
| h/t Doug Ross |
I always thought the government was pretty wasteful. Based on what the President is claiming, I was clearly wrong in that assessment. For a mere 2% of the budget, we are funding police, fire, teachers, the National Guard, two aircraft carriers, 800,000 defense contractors, programs for disadvantaged children, battered women, Head Start, air traffic controllers, border patrol,, the department of Homeland Security, access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings, and the TSA* -- naming just a some of the stuff in DIRE STRAITS over DEEP cuts in the rate of growth. That 2% sure gets us a lot of bang for our buck.
I am not sure what the other 98% of the budget is paying for.
* this is all stuff the Executive branch has claimed will be hurt by the sequester.
EDIT: Damn it all to hell. Thanks Nathan. This is turning into a regular clusterfuck of a day. I may have to take the afternoon off and go to the smoke shop.
February 26, 2013
I will not quote that effing song, even though it would make a perfect title for this post
It is said that some pioneers were driven crazy by the relentless winds as they slowly crossed the northern plains in their wagons and carts. I had a friend who lived in Gillette, Wyoming and he said the wind blew constantly.
This has been a windy winter. We have not had a great deal of snow, but we have had some remarkably windy days. Steady blows of 25 and 30 mph (or more) have not been unusual this season. Fortunately, I have yet to detect signs of wind madness in my spouse. Me, I set the standard for normal, so who can tell? I am after all, an Average Joe.
Last night the siding squeaked and the shingles creaked as strong winds buffeted the eaves. This morning we are gifted with horizontal rain to go with the wind. Oh, but that I had put gas in the car last night! Such is life.
The rain may or may not change to ice and snow later in the day. I vote rain. I can live with snow. I do not like ice, Sam-I-Am. Not in a car, not in a bar. I do not like ice. Not with lice, not with mice. I do not like ice, Sam-I-Am.
Shaddup. Dr. Suess' birthday is Saturday.
This has been a windy winter. We have not had a great deal of snow, but we have had some remarkably windy days. Steady blows of 25 and 30 mph (or more) have not been unusual this season. Fortunately, I have yet to detect signs of wind madness in my spouse. Me, I set the standard for normal, so who can tell? I am after all, an Average Joe.
Last night the siding squeaked and the shingles creaked as strong winds buffeted the eaves. This morning we are gifted with horizontal rain to go with the wind. Oh, but that I had put gas in the car last night! Such is life.
The rain may or may not change to ice and snow later in the day. I vote rain. I can live with snow. I do not like ice, Sam-I-Am. Not in a car, not in a bar. I do not like ice. Not with lice, not with mice. I do not like ice, Sam-I-Am.
Shaddup. Dr. Suess' birthday is Saturday.
February 25, 2013
It occurs to me that
Tuna was much better back in the days before the environmentalists insisted dolphin be kept out of the can.
Spam- a- rama ding dong
This is a spam comment I got yesterday on a post from April of 2009
I deleted that nonsense along with about 80 others.
Now the spammers are hitting closer to home. Like you, I get their worthless attention on the blog. I find their roach tracks in emails asking if I can lend a Nigerian brother a hand getting millions out of his country or asking if I need a loan. Certainly I am going to give my financial info to a person with an AOL or gmail address -- first thing the day after never.
Saturday I got a hand addressed / hand stamped envelope at home telling me I won 2 airline tickets. The letterhead was clearly photocopied (it was a major airline) and I was instructed to call an 877 number. A quick google search failed to find the owner of the phone number .The letter came from Arizona. I am seriously thinking about taking it to the Post Office for mail fraud.
No one can seem to stop those sons of slug farts from calling me ten times a day regarding lower interest rates on my credit cards, so I doubt these amateur frauds will get much attention. Besides, when it takes eight days to send a letter 73 miles*, I suspect the Postal Inspectors will get to this in about 2018.
* Yes, I could walk the distance faster than the US Post Office can send it via truck.
Whoa! This blog looks just like my old one! It's on a entirely different topic but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Superb choice of colors! Feel free to surf to my homepage...He/she likes all of the colors on my homepage? Is there anyone with a sense of color who would label this blog o'crap as anything but stark?
I deleted that nonsense along with about 80 others.
Now the spammers are hitting closer to home. Like you, I get their worthless attention on the blog. I find their roach tracks in emails asking if I can lend a Nigerian brother a hand getting millions out of his country or asking if I need a loan. Certainly I am going to give my financial info to a person with an AOL or gmail address -- first thing the day after never.
Saturday I got a hand addressed / hand stamped envelope at home telling me I won 2 airline tickets. The letterhead was clearly photocopied (it was a major airline) and I was instructed to call an 877 number. A quick google search failed to find the owner of the phone number .The letter came from Arizona. I am seriously thinking about taking it to the Post Office for mail fraud.
No one can seem to stop those sons of slug farts from calling me ten times a day regarding lower interest rates on my credit cards, so I doubt these amateur frauds will get much attention. Besides, when it takes eight days to send a letter 73 miles*, I suspect the Postal Inspectors will get to this in about 2018.
* Yes, I could walk the distance faster than the US Post Office can send it via truck.
February 24, 2013
weekend funny
Like I said, Quake was for losers. You Quake fans probably thought Ken was way cooler than GI Joe.
February 23, 2013
February 22, 2013
What is good for the goose...
As we discussed yesterday, Obama says we cannot afford the "devastating" cuts the sequestration will bring about. Now truth be told, this plan was Obama's, and in fact the "cuts" are really just reductions in the planned increased spending.
Leaving those facts aside, isn't it interesting the government cannot afford these "deep cuts" amounting to about 2% of the budget, yet each and every working taxpayer took a 2% pay cut starting January 1 when the payroll tax holiday was allowed to expire?
You can afford to cut 2% from your budget. The bloated Federal Government can't.
Go ahead, keep voting the same bastards back into office.
Edit: Who is really killing the economy? Hint, it is not the sequester.
Leaving those facts aside, isn't it interesting the government cannot afford these "deep cuts" amounting to about 2% of the budget, yet each and every working taxpayer took a 2% pay cut starting January 1 when the payroll tax holiday was allowed to expire?
You can afford to cut 2% from your budget. The bloated Federal Government can't.
Go ahead, keep voting the same bastards back into office.
Edit: Who is really killing the economy? Hint, it is not the sequester.
Darden [restaurants] isn't the only company saying the higher payroll tax has cut into its business. On Thursday Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said higher taxes, along with rising gas prices and delayed income tax refunds, were also crimping spending by its customers.
On Jan. 1, Social Security payroll taxes rose 2 percentage points after a temporary tax cut expired. That sliced about $1,000 from the annual take-home pay of a household earning $50,000. source
Are you with me?
I am sure sick of winter. How about you? What say we take a trip to the islands? We can go musically, if not in person.For your Friday Music enjoyment:
You can never have too much Bob Marley:
Think warm!
You can never have too much Bob Marley:
Think warm!
February 21, 2013
House cleaning
"Wear gloves. Body Fluids. Need I say more?"
Anyway, I cleaned out my blogroll. If I made you disappear and should not have, leave me a comment and I will put you back on the roll post haste.
Gloria Gainor has no comment on this post
Want ot play a "what if" game? Too bad, we are playing anyway.
Imagine you are paid $360 every week. Times are tough at your workplace, and your boss says you have to take a reduction in pay. You will now get $8.60 less every pay period. That means, for those of you who are like me -- math challenged -- your check every week will be $351.40.
Will you miss that eight bucks? Maybe. Will it necessitate a different lifestyle? Will you call that 2.3% decrease a devastating reduction? Add about ten zeroes to the back of those numbers and you will find the budget numbers represented by the Sequestration "cuts". Yes, that is right. Sequestration. will cut $86 billion from a $3.6 trillion budget. To make the President's (and John Boehner's) hyperbole even more ridiculous -- these cuts come from automatic spending increases of 5-8%. Our politicians are crying about "cuts" that are simply reductions in increased spending!
To go back to our imaginary scenario, you are not getting a reduction in your check, you are really getting a 3% raise instead of a 5% raise. The horror! How will you survive?
I keep waiting for the liberal women's rights types to make a comment on certain a Democratic Senator and his penchant for making the beast with two backs with underage prostitutes. Chirp, chirp. Bob Packwood must be asking WTF?
I also am interested in the liberals position on rape as defined by Colorado Democrats who think the best defense for rape is urinating on the attacker or trying muster up some vomit to scare him off. Isn't that approach akin to the "rape is inevitable" position? Perhaps the NOW supporters used up all of their rage decrying Republican Senatorial candidates back in November. Fighting for the cause in the famed War on Women must have worn them out.
Imagine you are paid $360 every week. Times are tough at your workplace, and your boss says you have to take a reduction in pay. You will now get $8.60 less every pay period. That means, for those of you who are like me -- math challenged -- your check every week will be $351.40.
Will you miss that eight bucks? Maybe. Will it necessitate a different lifestyle? Will you call that 2.3% decrease a devastating reduction? Add about ten zeroes to the back of those numbers and you will find the budget numbers represented by the Sequestration "cuts". Yes, that is right. Sequestration. will cut $86 billion from a $3.6 trillion budget. To make the President's (and John Boehner's) hyperbole even more ridiculous -- these cuts come from automatic spending increases of 5-8%. Our politicians are crying about "cuts" that are simply reductions in increased spending!
To go back to our imaginary scenario, you are not getting a reduction in your check, you are really getting a 3% raise instead of a 5% raise. The horror! How will you survive?
I keep waiting for the liberal women's rights types to make a comment on certain a Democratic Senator and his penchant for making the beast with two backs with underage prostitutes. Chirp, chirp. Bob Packwood must be asking WTF?
I also am interested in the liberals position on rape as defined by Colorado Democrats who think the best defense for rape is urinating on the attacker or trying muster up some vomit to scare him off. Isn't that approach akin to the "rape is inevitable" position? Perhaps the NOW supporters used up all of their rage decrying Republican Senatorial candidates back in November. Fighting for the cause in the famed War on Women must have worn them out.
February 19, 2013
Raise the minimum wage
It is time for the quadrennial push to increase the minimum wage. The Obama called for it in his State of the Union address, and progressives across the land are taking up the banner. There was even a he said/she said op-ed in my local fish wrap this morning debating the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage.
I could bore you with facts and figures explaining how raising the minimum wage increases inflation, thus defeating the purpose. I could cite stats that show a raise in minimum wage increases unemployment. I could demonstrate that the young and minorities are hurt disproportionately by this increase. I could present case studies showing how many minimum wage workers are entry level positions and few families live and are supported by minimum wage earners. I could just use logic and point out that increasing wages above the poverty level will just move the poverty line upward, not eliminate it.
Your average liberal Democrat type does not care. We have to raise minimum wage for the children. In America's land of plenty there should be no one working for sub-poverty level wages. That position is the only one that carries weight with a progressive.
OK, how about this compromise. I will agree we should raise the minimum wage to make sure a single provider for a family of four working for minimum wage earns more than the poverty line. The editorial I read this morning stated that "living wage" was around $11.00 per hour. I'll even go $11.50. Do it and damn the consequences, I say.
Of course, since no one is in poverty any more we can scrap the food stamp program, WIC, the housing assistance programs, Obama phones, medicaid, and every other government poor-relief program. We will no longer have to give Planned Parenthood hundreds of millions in subsidies to provideabortions women's health care. The feds spent an estimated $746,000,000,000 on welfare in 2011*. We should be able to cut at least 50% of that figure immediately, since no one lives below the poverty level anymore.
I cannot wait for my tax cut. I'll need it since a hamburger will cost $9.00 and a pizza $27.00.
* this equates to spending more than $2,000 for every single man, woman and child in the US. Are you getting value for your tax dollars?
I could bore you with facts and figures explaining how raising the minimum wage increases inflation, thus defeating the purpose. I could cite stats that show a raise in minimum wage increases unemployment. I could demonstrate that the young and minorities are hurt disproportionately by this increase. I could present case studies showing how many minimum wage workers are entry level positions and few families live and are supported by minimum wage earners. I could just use logic and point out that increasing wages above the poverty level will just move the poverty line upward, not eliminate it.
Your average liberal Democrat type does not care. We have to raise minimum wage for the children. In America's land of plenty there should be no one working for sub-poverty level wages. That position is the only one that carries weight with a progressive.
OK, how about this compromise. I will agree we should raise the minimum wage to make sure a single provider for a family of four working for minimum wage earns more than the poverty line. The editorial I read this morning stated that "living wage" was around $11.00 per hour. I'll even go $11.50. Do it and damn the consequences, I say.
Of course, since no one is in poverty any more we can scrap the food stamp program, WIC, the housing assistance programs, Obama phones, medicaid, and every other government poor-relief program. We will no longer have to give Planned Parenthood hundreds of millions in subsidies to provide
I cannot wait for my tax cut. I'll need it since a hamburger will cost $9.00 and a pizza $27.00.
* this equates to spending more than $2,000 for every single man, woman and child in the US. Are you getting value for your tax dollars?
February 18, 2013
President's Day
I am pretty sure a significant number of egomaniacal current and past Senators and Representatives are seething in envy that the Presidents get a eponymous federal holiday, while the Congress gets no recognition at all.
February 16, 2013
Friday Music -- Saturday edition
Suffer through the ad -- the music is worth it. I was too busy posting rants yesterday to get to music.
You likely don't care either way.
February 15, 2013
Feed the beast
Democratic Senator Tom Harkin is the latest in a line of Democrats who maintains we do not have a governmental spending problem in the United States.
Your neighbor may be rich, but you might still be maxed out on your credit cards. His money is not your money. My money and your money is not Washington's money.
Wealth belongs to the individual. Democrats of Harkin's ilk believe they allow you to keep your wages. Conservatives like me believe the government takes my money. Read that again. There is a clear difference.
Digging a little deeper, can we assume it is OK in Harkin's mind to lower the standard of living, to reduce the per capita income in order to feed an ever-growing government? Is it perfectly natural to reduce the standard of living to Cuba. Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea levels in order to spend, spend , spend until Daddy takes the T-bill away?
History has shown us multiple times that the economic model espoused by your average progressive is a total failure. The French Republic, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba -- all resulted in a lower standard of living and poverty for all. The poor are never lifted up, the rich and middle class are brought down.
What leaves me dumbfounded is not hat Democrats like Harkin are economically illiterate, rather that so many voters clearly are too.
First of all, I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem. And when they talk about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we as a nation are broke. We can’t afford these things any longer. We’re too broke to invest in education and housing and things like that. Well look at it this way, we’re the richest nation in the history of the world. We are now the richest nation in the world. We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem? No.” linkBesides the fact that the Senator is clearly mathematically challenged, Harkin's statement belies the real truth of the Democrat position on spending. It may be true we are the richest nation in the world. It may be true we have the highest per capita income of any major nation. I will accept the Senator at his word. What the man fails to grasp is that wealth, that income, belongs to individual citizens. The riches of the United States is not Governmental wealth, doled out by the State. The government takes my money to spend.
Your neighbor may be rich, but you might still be maxed out on your credit cards. His money is not your money. My money and your money is not Washington's money.
Wealth belongs to the individual. Democrats of Harkin's ilk believe they allow you to keep your wages. Conservatives like me believe the government takes my money. Read that again. There is a clear difference.
Digging a little deeper, can we assume it is OK in Harkin's mind to lower the standard of living, to reduce the per capita income in order to feed an ever-growing government? Is it perfectly natural to reduce the standard of living to Cuba. Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea levels in order to spend, spend , spend until Daddy takes the T-bill away?
History has shown us multiple times that the economic model espoused by your average progressive is a total failure. The French Republic, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba -- all resulted in a lower standard of living and poverty for all. The poor are never lifted up, the rich and middle class are brought down.
What leaves me dumbfounded is not hat Democrats like Harkin are economically illiterate, rather that so many voters clearly are too.
White sheets and wheelchairs
History is a fluid thing. Facts come and go out of fashion. Today's popular narrative is that the Democrats are the party of Civil Rights. Somehow Lincoln and the radical Republicans who ended slavery are dismissed. The Republicans who passed the various Civil Rights Acts in the 1890's, 1950's and 1960's are overlooked and LBJ gets the credit.
Today's modern Liberal points to FDR as the end-all, be-all; the scion of progressive policy. He is the consummate Democrat. Current historical fashion paints a picture of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt as the defenders of the common man, the model uber-rich who democratized America, the author of Social Security, and pioneers in women's rights. Somehow, the fact that Roosevelt was a racist never enters the conversation. Despite recommendations of the Joint Chiefs, he kept the military segregated. It was Truman who opened up the military.
Perhaps you may not know that FDR only invited white Olympians to the White House following the 1936 Olympics. History tells how the black American Jesse Owens humiliated Hitler and his notions of Aryan Supremacy. It is reported Hitler refused to shake Owens hand. Yet FDR did not even acknowledge Owens' miraculous winning of four gold medals in a single Olympic Games.
It is too bad history is not taught in school any more.
Today's modern Liberal points to FDR as the end-all, be-all; the scion of progressive policy. He is the consummate Democrat. Current historical fashion paints a picture of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt as the defenders of the common man, the model uber-rich who democratized America, the author of Social Security, and pioneers in women's rights. Somehow, the fact that Roosevelt was a racist never enters the conversation. Despite recommendations of the Joint Chiefs, he kept the military segregated. It was Truman who opened up the military.
Perhaps you may not know that FDR only invited white Olympians to the White House following the 1936 Olympics. History tells how the black American Jesse Owens humiliated Hitler and his notions of Aryan Supremacy. It is reported Hitler refused to shake Owens hand. Yet FDR did not even acknowledge Owens' miraculous winning of four gold medals in a single Olympic Games.
"Hitler didn't snub me -- it was [FDR] who snubbed me," said Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals. "The president didn't even send me a telegram."
It is too bad history is not taught in school any more.
February 14, 2013
Get your romance on
Frank Sings a tune from one of my favorite movies.
Here is a link to a YouTube video from Holiday Inn depicting the Valentine's Day scene. This is the tune as Mr. Berlin envisioned it. Embedding is a no-no, so you have to click over. Go ahead, it is worth it.
Just do it.
Isn't that dress beautiful?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
