Recently, I read the story of a Michigan woman who won the lottery and was still collecting food stamps. And while I understand the outrage over her egregious behavior, I was dumbstruck by the unreported story within the story.
Supposedly the woman won $1,000,000. Sounds good, but the reality is that she didn't receive $1,000,000 nor anything close to that. First, she opted for a lump sum payment which reduced the award to $700,000. Then the tax man came, and chopped that figure down to about $400,000.
Holy crap! $400,000 is a lot less than $1,000,000, and just to get the advertised prize she would have to win the lottery one and a half more times. Where's the outrage that people playing the lottery are being shafted? Seriously. That's false advertising and someone should be held accountable.
Someone who wins money playing the lottery is usually not well off. It's not as if every year they take home $700,000. Why tax them as if they did? It's one thing to ask Buffet to pay more, he makes $700,000 every hour. In addition, government runs the lottery!. Isn't it ironic that they sponsor the lottery, award you the money, and then demand that you pay them their "fair" share? Not even the mob can do shit like that.
The gap between $400,000 and $1,000,000 is ridiculous and as far as I'm concerned, she should keep the food stamps on principal. One good screw deserves another.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Fluke That!
Listening to Rush the other day and he's talking about this Georgetown law student and how she can't afford condoms because she's having too much sex. He was being hyperbolic of course, but I had to check this girl out for myself.
She is a very smart liberal hack who is basically lying to promote an agenda. Her first lie is to deliberately conflate non-reproductive medical issues with birth control. If you listen to her opening statement, she would have you believe that 99% of women who go to the doctor for birth control medication do so for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Really? I suspect that most women get birth control for it's primary use which is not a medical condition, but a lifestyle choice.Interestingly enough, according to Ms. Fluke Georgetown student medical insurance does allow birth control to be used for medical purposes.
Her next lie is that you can have your cake and eat it too. The woman's sense of entitlement is disturbing. To those who suggest she go somewhere else for law school, she retorts that she should not have to "choose" between a prestigious law education and her health. Really? Is that the only law school? The only prestigious one? Who says that she or anyone else has to be a lawyer? Is it a right? No, going to school is a privilege, one that you pay for. No one forces you to go to law school, no one forces you to go to a catholic law school, and no one forces you to have sex. The irony must be lost on Ms. Fluke that she and her ilk insist on forcing others to subsidize a life she voluntary chose to have.
Birth control costs about $1,000 per year, Georgetown about $40,000 per year. You do the math.
She is a very smart liberal hack who is basically lying to promote an agenda. Her first lie is to deliberately conflate non-reproductive medical issues with birth control. If you listen to her opening statement, she would have you believe that 99% of women who go to the doctor for birth control medication do so for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Really? I suspect that most women get birth control for it's primary use which is not a medical condition, but a lifestyle choice.Interestingly enough, according to Ms. Fluke Georgetown student medical insurance does allow birth control to be used for medical purposes.
Her next lie is that you can have your cake and eat it too. The woman's sense of entitlement is disturbing. To those who suggest she go somewhere else for law school, she retorts that she should not have to "choose" between a prestigious law education and her health. Really? Is that the only law school? The only prestigious one? Who says that she or anyone else has to be a lawyer? Is it a right? No, going to school is a privilege, one that you pay for. No one forces you to go to law school, no one forces you to go to a catholic law school, and no one forces you to have sex. The irony must be lost on Ms. Fluke that she and her ilk insist on forcing others to subsidize a life she voluntary chose to have.
Birth control costs about $1,000 per year, Georgetown about $40,000 per year. You do the math.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Break some eggs
Recently I read a Facebook post about global warming and it reminded me of the fundamental reason why I abhor Liberalism. When all is said and done, liberals believe that the ends justify the means and that is the most dangerous belief one can have.
Liberals believe nothing is off limits when it comes to saving humanity. Not even humanity itself. We know what's best, and we will do whatever it takes to make that happen. Nothing will block our way. Not the people and not some old flawed document known as the constitution.
The extent with which the Left routinely lies about what they will do and what they believe is illuminating.
The fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals is conservatives believe that there are certain lines that cannot be crossed for any reason whatsoever. Not for your own good or harm. That is a stance for freedom and liberty. Anything else leads down the Road To Serfdom.
Liberals believe nothing is off limits when it comes to saving humanity. Not even humanity itself. We know what's best, and we will do whatever it takes to make that happen. Nothing will block our way. Not the people and not some old flawed document known as the constitution.
The extent with which the Left routinely lies about what they will do and what they believe is illuminating.
The fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals is conservatives believe that there are certain lines that cannot be crossed for any reason whatsoever. Not for your own good or harm. That is a stance for freedom and liberty. Anything else leads down the Road To Serfdom.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Household slavery
My wife showed me a really interesting propaganda cartoon from Russia. The cartoon which was for International Women's Day (March 8th) featured a housewife buried under a mountain of chores and a free woman, a communist, offering an outstretched hand trying to rescue the housewife from domestic slavery.
I am not one to comment on whether the choice to become a housewife is good or bad. That's for her to decide. But what's interesting is that the ad is not about "rescuing" the trapped woman from a life of drudgery. The ad is about attacking that which threatens communism, and what threatens communism is to have its subjects value other things more than communism.
Whether it be G-d or the family, if a man or a woman places those first, if those are inviolable aspects to one's existence, then that creates a fracture in one's loyalty to the state and this is something the state cannot allow.
There shouldn't be any secret why religion was outlawed in communist Russia, religious conviction is a danger to the state. The communist desire to "free" women from the bonds of domestication is no charitable act, it's an act of self preservation. Like religion, the family is also a threat, and breaking the family bond makes the state stronger.
Throw off your old masters, so you can embrace your new ones. That's "freedom" to the Left.
I am not one to comment on whether the choice to become a housewife is good or bad. That's for her to decide. But what's interesting is that the ad is not about "rescuing" the trapped woman from a life of drudgery. The ad is about attacking that which threatens communism, and what threatens communism is to have its subjects value other things more than communism.
Whether it be G-d or the family, if a man or a woman places those first, if those are inviolable aspects to one's existence, then that creates a fracture in one's loyalty to the state and this is something the state cannot allow.
There shouldn't be any secret why religion was outlawed in communist Russia, religious conviction is a danger to the state. The communist desire to "free" women from the bonds of domestication is no charitable act, it's an act of self preservation. Like religion, the family is also a threat, and breaking the family bond makes the state stronger.
Throw off your old masters, so you can embrace your new ones. That's "freedom" to the Left.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Random Deflections
Krugman is at it again. Confusing lazy minds and wobbly hearts with his brilliance and derangement. He claims that Nobody Understands Debt except for him. Let's hear what he has to say:
As to his second point, think about what can happen when you loan the government $100.
1. The government tells you to jump in the river and doesn't pay you back.
2. The government taxes you $100 and gives you back your money.
Either way, you're out $100.
Government debt is nothing more than delayed taxation. The left sincerely believes that higher taxes and more government will help the economy. That's nuts, and so is Mr. Krugman.
Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.
This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t...
Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.Families don't have to pay back their debt either. They, like the government, can pay interest payments until the end of time. There is absolutely nothing sacred about government debt, other than the near religious belief that they will pay you back.
As to his second point, think about what can happen when you loan the government $100.
1. The government tells you to jump in the river and doesn't pay you back.
2. The government taxes you $100 and gives you back your money.
Either way, you're out $100.
Government debt is nothing more than delayed taxation. The left sincerely believes that higher taxes and more government will help the economy. That's nuts, and so is Mr. Krugman.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Something doesn't add up...
Here's a head-scratcher from the New York Times:
Color me skeptical, but I don't see 150 million or so Americans barely getting by. We are the richest nation that has ever existed, and apparently we are doing better than 1979. Yet this author would have you believe that half the country is basically begging for food. Ridiculous.
Oh, and why do you suppose the statistic starts in 1979 and ends in 2007? I'm curious to know how 3 years of liberalism have helped the bottom 20 percent.
An Associated Press report this week on census data found that “a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.” The report said that the data “depict a middle class that’s shrinking.”
Here's a dumb question, how can the middle class shrink when their earnings have increased? It can't. That's right folks, if everyone's household income goes up in real terms, then everyone is better off, including the shrinking middle class.An October report from the Congressional Budget Office found that, from 1979 to 2007, the average real after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest incomes rose 275 percent. For the rest of the top 20 percent of earners, it rose 65 percent. But it rose just 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
Color me skeptical, but I don't see 150 million or so Americans barely getting by. We are the richest nation that has ever existed, and apparently we are doing better than 1979. Yet this author would have you believe that half the country is basically begging for food. Ridiculous.
Oh, and why do you suppose the statistic starts in 1979 and ends in 2007? I'm curious to know how 3 years of liberalism have helped the bottom 20 percent.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Keynes makes a little sense
I was thinking about it the other day and the rationale for Keynesian stimulus spending hit me. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand the problem he was trying to solve.
The problem goes like this: say you have 3 people, 2 who are working, 1 who isn't. Real wealth is what the total economy produces. In our imaginary economy the actual wealth is the output of the 2 people, the third contributes nothing to the economy. He is under utilized. Say we could put this guy to work, whatever he produces is a net gain for the economy. It doesn't matter what he produces because he wasn't producing anything before.
That's it. Keynes saw a situation where the capacity of the economy wasn't being utilized and he attempted to create remedies for that situation. Now I don't know enough to criticize all the remedies, but there is one obvious caveat. This logic is only valid when one person is involuntarily out of work. If he is not, then diverting his work to some other task, is a net loss for the economy.
Another thing to consider is that in our imaginary economy all we see is the symptom. A person is out of work who could be producing something of value. What we don't know is why.
The problem goes like this: say you have 3 people, 2 who are working, 1 who isn't. Real wealth is what the total economy produces. In our imaginary economy the actual wealth is the output of the 2 people, the third contributes nothing to the economy. He is under utilized. Say we could put this guy to work, whatever he produces is a net gain for the economy. It doesn't matter what he produces because he wasn't producing anything before.
That's it. Keynes saw a situation where the capacity of the economy wasn't being utilized and he attempted to create remedies for that situation. Now I don't know enough to criticize all the remedies, but there is one obvious caveat. This logic is only valid when one person is involuntarily out of work. If he is not, then diverting his work to some other task, is a net loss for the economy.
Another thing to consider is that in our imaginary economy all we see is the symptom. A person is out of work who could be producing something of value. What we don't know is why.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
That's a lot of money
3,000,000,000,000 - 12 zeroes in a trillion, a million million, a lot of freaking money. Three trillion is about 10,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in this country. I don't know about anyone else, but the idea that we have a revenue problem is a joke. We need to control our spending. Right now we spend a trillion more than we take in. If we just held spending constant, revenues would eventually equal spending. And when revenues continue to rise, so can spending. One day we would have 4 trillion, then 5, then 6, then...does it really matter once you have that much money?
Politics is increasingly less and less about money, and more and more about psychology. Why does income inequality matter? Because it makes people unhappy to have less than the guy next to them, even when they have quite a bit themselves. Happiness is a psychological state, not a material one. Liberal politicians understand this; they point out happiness problems and offer "solutions" to those problems.
The reality is that we need to placate people whose only problem is their own greed and envy. Like it or not, but a problem in someones head is a problem we need to solve.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
No Brainer
Who should the Republicans run against Obama? Herman Cain, that's who. First, the guy is rock solid on economic policy and if anyone hasn't noticed, the country could use someone like that. Second, he's passionate, articulate, and smart. He's all the things Obama claims to be. Finally, he's black. He'd garner a huge proportion of the minority vote and give white liberals a way to ease their conscience for voting against Obama. The guy would win by a landslide and he would put this country back on sound footing until the next crazy liberal was elected. I like Cain, and so should you.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Can't give it away
Of all the ways to raise "revenues", i.e. increase taxes, none is more insidious than limiting charitable deductions. Private charity exemplifies the humanity we feel toward our fellow man. No one forces anyone to give their hard earned money and time to complete strangers. Nothing is expected in return, only the hope that the needy are lifted from need, and that one day they can be givers as well.
Charitable deductions are a way for government to encourage giving, to encourage humanity. When government takes away those deductions, it by definition discourages giving and humanity. For liberals, government is the ultimate benefactor of mankind. It's telling and sad, that liberals want to take from charity so they can give to the needy.
Charitable deductions are a way for government to encourage giving, to encourage humanity. When government takes away those deductions, it by definition discourages giving and humanity. For liberals, government is the ultimate benefactor of mankind. It's telling and sad, that liberals want to take from charity so they can give to the needy.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Mad Men
My soon to be wife and I are watching "Mad Men". It's a very entertaining, if not erratic show. Set in the 60's, it's at the forefront of social change in America; civil rights, social norms, you name it. I think what most people notice first about the show is the treatment of women in the workplace. Women are nothing more than spectacle for the men and treated as such. One of the main characters, Peggy Olson, is a women who is making it in a man's world, and we are led to believe that this is social progress. A woman being promoted to copy writer; a man's job being done by a woman.
It's an interesting social commentary on the progress of women in the work force, how they broke through the glass ceiling. But I find the insight to be only skin deep. Yes, women were treated badly, and yes it's remarkable for Peggy to achieve success as a copy writer. But what's more remarkable is that men are copy writers. Copy writing, advertising, is not a man's job. 50 years before, no man was a copy writer, the job didn't exist. Before men could keep women out of the copy writing business, there had to be a copy writing business.
Women's success in the work force is part of the same revolution that brought us male copy writers. Women didn't break through the glass ceiling, the glass ceiling rendered itself obsolete.
It's an interesting social commentary on the progress of women in the work force, how they broke through the glass ceiling. But I find the insight to be only skin deep. Yes, women were treated badly, and yes it's remarkable for Peggy to achieve success as a copy writer. But what's more remarkable is that men are copy writers. Copy writing, advertising, is not a man's job. 50 years before, no man was a copy writer, the job didn't exist. Before men could keep women out of the copy writing business, there had to be a copy writing business.
Women's success in the work force is part of the same revolution that brought us male copy writers. Women didn't break through the glass ceiling, the glass ceiling rendered itself obsolete.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Cuts, Cap, And Tax
Some things make me wonder, like the latest plan to forestall financial disaster. I read that the proposal is to institute 75% in spending cuts along with 25% in tax increases. Sounds good for the good guys, right? Maybe, but why make it so complicated? Let's do the math:
Reduce spending by 3 dollars, raise taxes by 1 dollar = 2 dollars net in reduced government spending.
Call me simplistic (read: skeptical), but couldn't we just have easily had a deal which reduced federal spending by 2 dollars and achieved the same result? Well...yes! So why don't we? It's really simple, the only reason to tie tax raises to spending cuts instead of simply agreeing on reduced spending is because you want to raise taxes and not cut spending. Keep it simple, stupid, and don't get snookered.
Reduce spending by 3 dollars, raise taxes by 1 dollar = 2 dollars net in reduced government spending.
Call me simplistic (read: skeptical), but couldn't we just have easily had a deal which reduced federal spending by 2 dollars and achieved the same result? Well...yes! So why don't we? It's really simple, the only reason to tie tax raises to spending cuts instead of simply agreeing on reduced spending is because you want to raise taxes and not cut spending. Keep it simple, stupid, and don't get snookered.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Whose money is it?
Recently my girlfriend and I were listening to liberal talk radio and unfortunately, she was hoodwinked. Not to worry, I set her straight, but it is an interesting lesson in economic fallacies and the liberal mind.
The topic du jour was executive pay, and its exorbitance, especially relative to the lowest paid worker. In the 1970's a CEO got paid roughly 30 times that of the janitor, but today, that ratio has skyrocketed to roughly 10 times what it was. Even I have to admit, that's a lot of money.
But here's the interesting point. The radio host effectively convicted CEO's because they made so much more than the rest of the employees. The CEO sits on his behind all day and steals from the janitor who works his behind off all day. It's just unfair.
To whom? Unfair to the janitor? Unfair to the other employees?
Who pays the janitor, the engineer, and the CEO? The owners, that's who. The owners decide to pay the CEO a lot of money, and they decide to pay the janitors and everyone else a lot less. And if anyone is getting ripped off, it's the owners. They are the ones whose profit goes down as CEO pay goes up.
Curiously, the radio host never cries for the owners. He will never cry for them, because in his mind, the profits don't belong to them either. His only goal is to incite envy and hatred in order to justify rage which he can channel. Yes, CEO's get paid a lot. But they didn't take it from you or me, and they certainly didn't steal it from the janitor.
The topic du jour was executive pay, and its exorbitance, especially relative to the lowest paid worker. In the 1970's a CEO got paid roughly 30 times that of the janitor, but today, that ratio has skyrocketed to roughly 10 times what it was. Even I have to admit, that's a lot of money.
But here's the interesting point. The radio host effectively convicted CEO's because they made so much more than the rest of the employees. The CEO sits on his behind all day and steals from the janitor who works his behind off all day. It's just unfair.
To whom? Unfair to the janitor? Unfair to the other employees?
Who pays the janitor, the engineer, and the CEO? The owners, that's who. The owners decide to pay the CEO a lot of money, and they decide to pay the janitors and everyone else a lot less. And if anyone is getting ripped off, it's the owners. They are the ones whose profit goes down as CEO pay goes up.
Curiously, the radio host never cries for the owners. He will never cry for them, because in his mind, the profits don't belong to them either. His only goal is to incite envy and hatred in order to justify rage which he can channel. Yes, CEO's get paid a lot. But they didn't take it from you or me, and they certainly didn't steal it from the janitor.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Atlas Shrugged
Went with my girlfriend to see the movie this weekend and I didn't think it would be very good, but like Star Wars, I had to see it. Anyway, it wasn't as bad as the critics said, but it wasn't very good either. The book the movie is based on is nothing more than a thin veil of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and unfortunately it doesn't come across as a very entertaining, nor comprehensible movie.
What the movie needed was a major rewrite. For G-ds sake, make the characters act and speak like human beings! Also, it might be blasphemy, but temper the philosophy to its essential and universally appreciated points. Maybe it wouldn't be "Atlas Shrugged" to the faithful, but so what? If people want the undiluted version of the book, read the book!
Most people, including myself, find the appeal of Ayn Rand in her unrelenting celebration of the individual. That Man doesn't exist for other men, but for himself. She believed that the philosophy of altruism/collectivism, where man is viewed as a sacrificial animal to others/society, is abhorrent.
I don't ascribe to Objectivism, and I am certain that the adherents of Objectivism would castigate those like me. But the reality is that there are tons of us out there who implicitly understand and celebrate, the message that individual achievement is moral and admirable for its own sake. Capitalism is moral, not because it's "Dog eat dog", but because it is the manifestation that what you produce is your achievement, and that others placing a claim on your life is immoral.
That's what inspires me about Atlas Shrugged, and I think that's what inspires others too. It isn't some philosophically consistent diatribe, but universal themes of individual achievement, freedom, and morality. One day, that will make a great movie.
What the movie needed was a major rewrite. For G-ds sake, make the characters act and speak like human beings! Also, it might be blasphemy, but temper the philosophy to its essential and universally appreciated points. Maybe it wouldn't be "Atlas Shrugged" to the faithful, but so what? If people want the undiluted version of the book, read the book!
Most people, including myself, find the appeal of Ayn Rand in her unrelenting celebration of the individual. That Man doesn't exist for other men, but for himself. She believed that the philosophy of altruism/collectivism, where man is viewed as a sacrificial animal to others/society, is abhorrent.
I don't ascribe to Objectivism, and I am certain that the adherents of Objectivism would castigate those like me. But the reality is that there are tons of us out there who implicitly understand and celebrate, the message that individual achievement is moral and admirable for its own sake. Capitalism is moral, not because it's "Dog eat dog", but because it is the manifestation that what you produce is your achievement, and that others placing a claim on your life is immoral.
That's what inspires me about Atlas Shrugged, and I think that's what inspires others too. It isn't some philosophically consistent diatribe, but universal themes of individual achievement, freedom, and morality. One day, that will make a great movie.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Medi-choice
"If you like your medical care, you can keep it."
As Neo correctly deciphered, the issue is choice. Obama-care passed because despite its obvious awfulness, it offered the false choice that nothing had to change. Why don't conservatives learn this lesson?
It's amazing listening to the Left and their attacks against completely reasonable proposals regarding health care. The proposal: instead of receiving government insurance, give people money to buy their own insurance. Sounds radical, right? No, but what's radical is the insinuation that conservatives want to destroy Medicare, rob old people, and give their money to millionaires and billionaires (who ironically happen to be quite old).
The logic behind the proposal is that by giving people money, they become conscientious consumers. You would be employing millions of people to act as fiscal watch dogs over health insurance companies. Right now, no one has any incentive to restrain their health care consumption because they don't pay for it. Like it or not, the logic is compelling and just makes common sense.
Of course there are people who disagree, so how can we sell this "experiment" and see if it actually works? Liberals, for all their open mindedness, will not allow the experiment to be run. So we have to get people on board by letting them keep what they have, and allowing them to try our proposal. If you like Medicare, you can keep it. But ours might be a better deal and the choice is yours.
Choice is always a political winner, which is why Obama so disingenuously employed it. We don't have to lie; we offer choice and that's how we should sell our ideas to the American people.
As Neo correctly deciphered, the issue is choice. Obama-care passed because despite its obvious awfulness, it offered the false choice that nothing had to change. Why don't conservatives learn this lesson?
It's amazing listening to the Left and their attacks against completely reasonable proposals regarding health care. The proposal: instead of receiving government insurance, give people money to buy their own insurance. Sounds radical, right? No, but what's radical is the insinuation that conservatives want to destroy Medicare, rob old people, and give their money to millionaires and billionaires (who ironically happen to be quite old).
The logic behind the proposal is that by giving people money, they become conscientious consumers. You would be employing millions of people to act as fiscal watch dogs over health insurance companies. Right now, no one has any incentive to restrain their health care consumption because they don't pay for it. Like it or not, the logic is compelling and just makes common sense.
Of course there are people who disagree, so how can we sell this "experiment" and see if it actually works? Liberals, for all their open mindedness, will not allow the experiment to be run. So we have to get people on board by letting them keep what they have, and allowing them to try our proposal. If you like Medicare, you can keep it. But ours might be a better deal and the choice is yours.
Choice is always a political winner, which is why Obama so disingenuously employed it. We don't have to lie; we offer choice and that's how we should sell our ideas to the American people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
