Oh yeah baby! Look at those numbers! They're getting smaller and smaller each day! And no I'm not talking about the "stimulus" package.
Thank you Congress. You have once again proven your ability to ignore both common sense and the American people. You passed a BIG bill. So big in fact that few if any in Congress actually had time to read the bill before it was passed.
But the market never lies. The market expressed it's feeling about the ability of Congress to act wisely. Basically the market gave Congress the raspberries. A nearly 300 point loss is nothing to sneeze at. But hey Congress didn't have any trouble spending 3/4 of a trillion dollars that we DON'T HAVE.
Our government has really lost touch. Better start digging a hole for your money. It's the only safe place left.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Construction phase II
You may have noticed the political tirades of my recent posts. If you haven't figured it out, I've had it with our government. So I'm going back to one of the original reasons for starting this - our project(s).
Phase II has begun. In this phase we've gutted the main bathroom and blown out the wall between the bath and Vicki's new room. We will be putting in a roll-in shower, heated floor, and a track lift to get Vicki from the bed to the bath.
Here's a glance at the last bath and it's current state of "guttedness."
Phase II has begun. In this phase we've gutted the main bathroom and blown out the wall between the bath and Vicki's new room. We will be putting in a roll-in shower, heated floor, and a track lift to get Vicki from the bed to the bath.
Here's a glance at the last bath and it's current state of "guttedness."
Stop the Bleeding II
They just don't get it. Billions or trillions it doesn't seem to matter.
The "stimulus package" is nothing more than the appropriations bill that is passed in every congress. Well actually it is something more. It has a LOT more in it and it has been spun so many ways the words are falling off the pages of the bill.
The new prez is now ticked because the love fest he received during the campaign is now turning hostile. His critics are saying that throwing all this money down the toilet is a bad idea. After all a LOT of the bill is not stimulus at all, but pet projects that involve *government* facilities and programs.
The prez thinks "If we do not move swiftly to sign [the act] into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe," he said.
Here's one more example of really backward thinking by our new 'savior of the world.' Doing SOMETHING even if it's a really bad idea is better than doing nothing.
Let's make that personal. My kid needs a new pair of shoes. He doesn't have the money right now. I'm going to "stimulate" his economy by getting him a credit card. After all, what kind of a father would I be if I didn't get him new shoes. Let's say he's fairly responsible with that card and finds a pair of shoes for $100. No big deal right? It's only $100. Since he doesn't have any money he can't pay the bill for 6 months. After six-months the $100 grows to $117 with interest ~ 17% more.
He gets a job taking care of the neighbors cat for a while. He gets his $117 and pays the bill. Case closed, no harm, no foul right? Wrong. He LOST $17 because I "stimulated" his economy. The actual money didn't hit the economy for 6 MONTHS. There was no stimulation and my sons shoes cost him more than they should have.
Go back to the billions and trillions of dollars. Give the people their $1,000 checks out of money WE DON'T HAVE (i.e credit). Add a simple 17% interest and you have $1170 for the $1k check.
Again no big deal right? Wrong. First of all that's 17% simple interest. There's no such thing when it comes to debt. Your interest will be more than that if you don't pay the bill. And now we multiply the $1k check by 100,000,000 (a rough estimate based on 300 million Americans. Now we have 100 BILLION dollars in "stimulus." Add the interest and we have $1.7 BILLION dollars in interest alone. And that assumes it gets paid off immediately.
Remember now, that money isn't real. It will come from "deficit" spending - borrowing money we don't have. The interest alone will be difficult if not impossible to pay back - not to mention the principle.
I have 1.7 billion reasons to disagree that doing "something" is better than doing "nothing."
Good bye America, it was nice knowing you.
The "stimulus package" is nothing more than the appropriations bill that is passed in every congress. Well actually it is something more. It has a LOT more in it and it has been spun so many ways the words are falling off the pages of the bill.
The new prez is now ticked because the love fest he received during the campaign is now turning hostile. His critics are saying that throwing all this money down the toilet is a bad idea. After all a LOT of the bill is not stimulus at all, but pet projects that involve *government* facilities and programs.
The prez thinks "If we do not move swiftly to sign [the act] into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe," he said.
Here's one more example of really backward thinking by our new 'savior of the world.' Doing SOMETHING even if it's a really bad idea is better than doing nothing.
Let's make that personal. My kid needs a new pair of shoes. He doesn't have the money right now. I'm going to "stimulate" his economy by getting him a credit card. After all, what kind of a father would I be if I didn't get him new shoes. Let's say he's fairly responsible with that card and finds a pair of shoes for $100. No big deal right? It's only $100. Since he doesn't have any money he can't pay the bill for 6 months. After six-months the $100 grows to $117 with interest ~ 17% more.
He gets a job taking care of the neighbors cat for a while. He gets his $117 and pays the bill. Case closed, no harm, no foul right? Wrong. He LOST $17 because I "stimulated" his economy. The actual money didn't hit the economy for 6 MONTHS. There was no stimulation and my sons shoes cost him more than they should have.
Go back to the billions and trillions of dollars. Give the people their $1,000 checks out of money WE DON'T HAVE (i.e credit). Add a simple 17% interest and you have $1170 for the $1k check.
Again no big deal right? Wrong. First of all that's 17% simple interest. There's no such thing when it comes to debt. Your interest will be more than that if you don't pay the bill. And now we multiply the $1k check by 100,000,000 (a rough estimate based on 300 million Americans. Now we have 100 BILLION dollars in "stimulus." Add the interest and we have $1.7 BILLION dollars in interest alone. And that assumes it gets paid off immediately.
Remember now, that money isn't real. It will come from "deficit" spending - borrowing money we don't have. The interest alone will be difficult if not impossible to pay back - not to mention the principle.
I have 1.7 billion reasons to disagree that doing "something" is better than doing "nothing."
Good bye America, it was nice knowing you.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Stop the Bleeding
To our federal lawmakers:
What don't you get about the word "deficit"? Who cares if it's 819 Billion or 888 Billion. Why do you continue to spend money the United States doesn't have? Here's just a few examples I received from the American Family Association:
" * $20 million "for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers." (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "20,000,000 for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers)
* $25 million to rehabilitate off-roading (ATV) trails (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration")
* $34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce HQ (Pg. 15 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: $34,000,000 for the Department of Commerce renovation and modernization")
* $70 million to "Support Supercomputing Activities" for climate research (Pgs. 14-15 of Senate Appropriations Committee Report: $70,000,000 is directed to specifically support supercomputing activities, especially as they relate to climate research)
* $150 million for honey bee insurance (Pg. 102 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "The Secretary shall use up to $ 50,000,000 per year, and $150,000,000 in the case of 2009, from the Trust Fund to provide emergency relief to eligible producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses due to disease, adverse weather, or other conditions, such as blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the Secretary")"
Don't like these examples? How about this list from the Wall Street Journal:
"There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects."
This is akin to me saying that I need a vacation, but I don't have the money so I'll take out a loan to finance this 'trip of a lifetime.' And then when I return, I'll want to buy a baseball stadium, so why not increase that debt again. After all it'll only be a small percentage of my budget. Never mind the fact that by borrowing money I can't pay back I'm not only paying more than if I had saved my money for it.
Of course it's absurd that I would act this way, not to mention buying a baseball stadium that I'll NEVER afford.
It's equally absurd that you our government leaders want to spend money on honey bee insurance and remodeling a government building with money WE DON'T HAVE.
Now I'm not saying that debt is 100% wrong. After all, I have a mortgage. But I've structured the debt in such a way that I won't be in trouble even if I lose some income. There are good and wise uses for borrowing money. But it has to be part of a plan where there are good solid returns for such investments.
When does it stop? When will common sense prevail? My guess is when the world stops spinning and all of us fall of this rock, then and only then will you stop your stupid way of thinking.
What don't you get about the word "deficit"? Who cares if it's 819 Billion or 888 Billion. Why do you continue to spend money the United States doesn't have? Here's just a few examples I received from the American Family Association:
" * $20 million "for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers." (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "20,000,000 for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers)
* $25 million to rehabilitate off-roading (ATV) trails (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration")
* $34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce HQ (Pg. 15 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: $34,000,000 for the Department of Commerce renovation and modernization")
* $70 million to "Support Supercomputing Activities" for climate research (Pgs. 14-15 of Senate Appropriations Committee Report: $70,000,000 is directed to specifically support supercomputing activities, especially as they relate to climate research)
* $150 million for honey bee insurance (Pg. 102 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: "The Secretary shall use up to $ 50,000,000 per year, and $150,000,000 in the case of 2009, from the Trust Fund to provide emergency relief to eligible producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses due to disease, adverse weather, or other conditions, such as blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the Secretary")"
Don't like these examples? How about this list from the Wall Street Journal:
"There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects."
This is akin to me saying that I need a vacation, but I don't have the money so I'll take out a loan to finance this 'trip of a lifetime.' And then when I return, I'll want to buy a baseball stadium, so why not increase that debt again. After all it'll only be a small percentage of my budget. Never mind the fact that by borrowing money I can't pay back I'm not only paying more than if I had saved my money for it.
Of course it's absurd that I would act this way, not to mention buying a baseball stadium that I'll NEVER afford.
It's equally absurd that you our government leaders want to spend money on honey bee insurance and remodeling a government building with money WE DON'T HAVE.
Now I'm not saying that debt is 100% wrong. After all, I have a mortgage. But I've structured the debt in such a way that I won't be in trouble even if I lose some income. There are good and wise uses for borrowing money. But it has to be part of a plan where there are good solid returns for such investments.
When does it stop? When will common sense prevail? My guess is when the world stops spinning and all of us fall of this rock, then and only then will you stop your stupid way of thinking.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Blame Game
Haven't even finished the oath of office and 'The Blame Game' begins. You saw this, right?
Here's how Tuesday's oath went:
Chief Justice: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully ...
Prez elect: ... that I will execute ...
Chief Justice: ... the off -- faithfully the pres -- the office of president of the United States ...
Prez elect (at the same time): ... the office of president of the United States faithfully ...
It was reported that the oath was done again because the Chief Justice messed up. The way I read it, the Prez elect didn't finish the first line. It's right there. He didn't finish the line. Then the Chief Justice had to recover because he was expecting the Prez elect to do it right. He had to back peddle because he was ready to move on to the next line.
But the Chief Justice got the blame for screwing it up. Here we go folks, we're in for a fun ride!
Here's how Tuesday's oath went:
Chief Justice: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully ...
Prez elect: ... that I will execute ...
Chief Justice: ... the off -- faithfully the pres -- the office of president of the United States ...
Prez elect (at the same time): ... the office of president of the United States faithfully ...
It was reported that the oath was done again because the Chief Justice messed up. The way I read it, the Prez elect didn't finish the first line. It's right there. He didn't finish the line. Then the Chief Justice had to recover because he was expecting the Prez elect to do it right. He had to back peddle because he was ready to move on to the next line.
But the Chief Justice got the blame for screwing it up. Here we go folks, we're in for a fun ride!
How's your portfolio?
Inauguration plus 1.
Did you look at your investments yesterday? After all, the 'savior of the world' was inaugurated. They should have skyrocketed. They didn't though, did they? Nope, mine either.
You see when we base our 'salvation' on a man, we find very quickly that a *man* can NOT be our salvation. Salvation can only be found in the *perfect* man.
Your portfolio isn't your salvation either. It may pay some bills or get you a vacation somewhere, but it won't keep you from eternal agony. It won't get you to eternal joy.
Perhaps your portfolio will change, maybe it won't. Where is your security? Where is your future? Is it in the newly elected 'savior of the world'? It is in your portfolio?
I'm not happy to see my hard earned money dwindle either, but my security isn't there. If it was, I wouldn't be sleeping at night.
My security is in the perfect man. His name is Jesus. I hope yours will be too. Trust me, you'll sleep better.
Did you look at your investments yesterday? After all, the 'savior of the world' was inaugurated. They should have skyrocketed. They didn't though, did they? Nope, mine either.
You see when we base our 'salvation' on a man, we find very quickly that a *man* can NOT be our salvation. Salvation can only be found in the *perfect* man.
Your portfolio isn't your salvation either. It may pay some bills or get you a vacation somewhere, but it won't keep you from eternal agony. It won't get you to eternal joy.
Perhaps your portfolio will change, maybe it won't. Where is your security? Where is your future? Is it in the newly elected 'savior of the world'? It is in your portfolio?
I'm not happy to see my hard earned money dwindle either, but my security isn't there. If it was, I wouldn't be sleeping at night.
My security is in the perfect man. His name is Jesus. I hope yours will be too. Trust me, you'll sleep better.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
What color was your vote?
Have you read the stories?
Have you heard the sound bytes?
"Why I voted."
People have a myriad of reasons for voting. "I hate the current administration." "I can't stand that candidate." "Throw the bums out." "Let's have change." "He was black." "I don't like her dress."
Wait a minute, hold the phone - "He was black?" Are you serious? You voted for a man solely because of the color of his skin? I thought I heard you say the other day that those white folks are racist. Doesn't it run both ways? Aren't you a racist if you take an action *solely* on the basis of the color of someone's skin?
It's absolutely amazing to me that one group of people can claim that another group of people are racist and then in the same breath admit that they voted for our new "savior of the world" because he was black. Sounds like racism to me.
I get it that some groups of people were treated horribly in the past. I get it that racism and lots of other isms are alive and well in our country. But can you look in the mirror and say that you are not a racist if you vote for someone because of his skin tone?
Do we really need to keep this battle of the skin shades alive by voting based on color?
Here's my take. I did not vote for the current Prez-elect. It had absolutely nothing to do with his hue. It had to do with his ideas, thoughts and plans for this nation. I don't like them. I don't trust them. I don't think they'll work. This time I was in the minority - more people voted for him than the other guy. And even though I don't like it, I accept it. It's called democracy. You can bet that I'll be working hard to see that guys (or gals) who have ideas, thoughts and plans that I do support will be victorious next time.
And I won't really care about the skin tone.
Have you heard the sound bytes?
"Why I voted."
People have a myriad of reasons for voting. "I hate the current administration." "I can't stand that candidate." "Throw the bums out." "Let's have change." "He was black." "I don't like her dress."
Wait a minute, hold the phone - "He was black?" Are you serious? You voted for a man solely because of the color of his skin? I thought I heard you say the other day that those white folks are racist. Doesn't it run both ways? Aren't you a racist if you take an action *solely* on the basis of the color of someone's skin?
It's absolutely amazing to me that one group of people can claim that another group of people are racist and then in the same breath admit that they voted for our new "savior of the world" because he was black. Sounds like racism to me.
I get it that some groups of people were treated horribly in the past. I get it that racism and lots of other isms are alive and well in our country. But can you look in the mirror and say that you are not a racist if you vote for someone because of his skin tone?
Do we really need to keep this battle of the skin shades alive by voting based on color?
Here's my take. I did not vote for the current Prez-elect. It had absolutely nothing to do with his hue. It had to do with his ideas, thoughts and plans for this nation. I don't like them. I don't trust them. I don't think they'll work. This time I was in the minority - more people voted for him than the other guy. And even though I don't like it, I accept it. It's called democracy. You can bet that I'll be working hard to see that guys (or gals) who have ideas, thoughts and plans that I do support will be victorious next time.
And I won't really care about the skin tone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)