Well, the Mrs. and I are headed out on vacation tomorrow to the great state of North Carolina. I'll try to twitter some of the action for anyone who cares. In the meantime, I leave you with this article that provides a pretty good summary of Obama-style unity and bipartisanship. Enjoy and I'll be back soon.
A Brief History Of White House Thuggery
Friday, July 31, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Simple Lesson in Economics
Let's say you win some kind of odd lottery and you have two options for payout:
(1) You can have 50 people pay you $1,000 a year for the next 10 years
or
(2) You can have 100 people pay you $750 a year for the next 10 years
Which one would you take? The answer is pretty simple, right? Apparently not for our government. They would rather take $1,000 a year from a few people than smaller amounts from a lot of people.
Can someone please point me to one time in history where a tax increase stimulated an economy? Just one. Saying a tax increase brings in more money for the government ignores everything except for the fact that you have an immediate, short-term, temporary increase in revenue.
Amanda and I own a small business. By small, I mean we have 5 employees. If our sales start to pick up and we have more and more customers coming in, we'll need to hire an additional person to keep up with the pace. Now, let's assume the government increases our taxes to help pay for something it wants to do. It also increases taxes on our 5 employees. Does the government get more money initially? Sure it does. It gets the difference between what we and our employees were paying collectively and what we're collectively paying now. The drawback is that with increased costs, we can't afford to hire anymore employees.
Wouldn't it make more sense to either decrease our taxes or leave them alone? In doing so, we could afford to hire an additional employee and the government would then be getting additional tax revenue from that new employee in addition to the same revenue it was getting before from us and our 5 other employees. If the government actually decreased our taxes, we might even be able to hire more than one new employee to try to grow our business rather than just keeping pace with current business. Extrapolate this across America, and it's easy to see why a broader tax base is a much better way to increase tax revenue than increasing taxes on existing tax payers.
The honest truth is, the democrats know all this, but they would rather punish the successful than require everyone to chip in. History shows that when you raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, jobs suffer. When jobs suffer, people suffer. It really is a simple concept that gets largely ignored by our government. I, for one, am sick of it. Why should I seek to excel in my job if I'm only going to be punished by higher taxes? Socialism kills innovation and hard work. Just look at the former Soviet Union. In just a few more years, we might be able to say, "just look at post-2009 America."
(1) You can have 50 people pay you $1,000 a year for the next 10 years
or
(2) You can have 100 people pay you $750 a year for the next 10 years
Which one would you take? The answer is pretty simple, right? Apparently not for our government. They would rather take $1,000 a year from a few people than smaller amounts from a lot of people.
Can someone please point me to one time in history where a tax increase stimulated an economy? Just one. Saying a tax increase brings in more money for the government ignores everything except for the fact that you have an immediate, short-term, temporary increase in revenue.
Amanda and I own a small business. By small, I mean we have 5 employees. If our sales start to pick up and we have more and more customers coming in, we'll need to hire an additional person to keep up with the pace. Now, let's assume the government increases our taxes to help pay for something it wants to do. It also increases taxes on our 5 employees. Does the government get more money initially? Sure it does. It gets the difference between what we and our employees were paying collectively and what we're collectively paying now. The drawback is that with increased costs, we can't afford to hire anymore employees.
Wouldn't it make more sense to either decrease our taxes or leave them alone? In doing so, we could afford to hire an additional employee and the government would then be getting additional tax revenue from that new employee in addition to the same revenue it was getting before from us and our 5 other employees. If the government actually decreased our taxes, we might even be able to hire more than one new employee to try to grow our business rather than just keeping pace with current business. Extrapolate this across America, and it's easy to see why a broader tax base is a much better way to increase tax revenue than increasing taxes on existing tax payers.
The honest truth is, the democrats know all this, but they would rather punish the successful than require everyone to chip in. History shows that when you raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, jobs suffer. When jobs suffer, people suffer. It really is a simple concept that gets largely ignored by our government. I, for one, am sick of it. Why should I seek to excel in my job if I'm only going to be punished by higher taxes? Socialism kills innovation and hard work. Just look at the former Soviet Union. In just a few more years, we might be able to say, "just look at post-2009 America."
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Great Hunter
So, as you've seen from one of my earlier posts, I recently stumbled onto a way to give Bailey a decent amount of exercise that fits my limited athletic ability. Yesterday morning I ventured back to the pond again thinking since it's 380 degrees outside, Bailey might enjoy a swim in the pond. To my surprise, she found something more exciting than swimming--hunting butterflies.
For those of you who don't know, Bailey is a Brittany. Brittanies are specifically bred for bird hunting and are pointers by nature. Bailey has never had any pointer or bird hunting training, but she certainly knows how to point. When she sees something she wants to hunt, she will freeze in place and watch for an opportunity to pounce. It's a very majestic sight.
Anyway, back to the story. As I'm pacing Bailey back and forth by the pond trying to get her to jump in, she sees something and freezes into the point position. I was able to get my phone out and take some pictures before she pounced on her prey--a tiny yellow butterfly/moth which she proceeded to chase around for the next 20 minutes or so. I'm so proud!
For those of you who don't know, Bailey is a Brittany. Brittanies are specifically bred for bird hunting and are pointers by nature. Bailey has never had any pointer or bird hunting training, but she certainly knows how to point. When she sees something she wants to hunt, she will freeze in place and watch for an opportunity to pounce. It's a very majestic sight.
Anyway, back to the story. As I'm pacing Bailey back and forth by the pond trying to get her to jump in, she sees something and freezes into the point position. I was able to get my phone out and take some pictures before she pounced on her prey--a tiny yellow butterfly/moth which she proceeded to chase around for the next 20 minutes or so. I'm so proud!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Title VII "Sex" Discrimination
Without getting into what I really think about all the extra-marital affairs going on in national politics right now, I wanted to bring a snipit from this article to everyone's attention.
Ethics Watchdog Files Complaint Against Ensign Over Affair-Related Activities
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") has filed a complaint against Senator Ensign because the lady he had an affair with and her husband were terminated from their positions in Senator Ensign's campaign organization. CREW thinks the terminations were possibly related to the affair. An affair is certainly no laughing matter, but here is a quote from the article and CREW that made me laugh:
CREW alleges in its complaint that Ensign may have terminated the Hamptons from their staff positions for reasons related to the affair, which began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008.
"If true, the senator likely engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, and Senate Rule 42, which incorporates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Senate employees and prohibits discrimination based on sex," the group said in a press release Wednesday.
Someone needs to tell CREW's law school dropouts that Title VII's "sex" discrimination prohibition refers to gender, not whether one has had sex. And since the lady's husband was fired too, CREW is going to have an uphill battle trying to convince anyone the firings were related to gender.
Ethics Watchdog Files Complaint Against Ensign Over Affair-Related Activities
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") has filed a complaint against Senator Ensign because the lady he had an affair with and her husband were terminated from their positions in Senator Ensign's campaign organization. CREW thinks the terminations were possibly related to the affair. An affair is certainly no laughing matter, but here is a quote from the article and CREW that made me laugh:
CREW alleges in its complaint that Ensign may have terminated the Hamptons from their staff positions for reasons related to the affair, which began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008.
"If true, the senator likely engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, and Senate Rule 42, which incorporates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Senate employees and prohibits discrimination based on sex," the group said in a press release Wednesday.
Someone needs to tell CREW's law school dropouts that Title VII's "sex" discrimination prohibition refers to gender, not whether one has had sex. And since the lady's husband was fired too, CREW is going to have an uphill battle trying to convince anyone the firings were related to gender.
Barney Frank Cracking Jokes Again...or Just on Crack?
My friend Mark passed this article on to me and I couldn't help but blog about it because either Barney Frank is joking or he's an even bigger idiot than I once thought (if that's possible).
Fannie, Freddie asked to relax condo loan rules
Fannie and Freddie got into a boat load of financial trouble because, at the insistence of Congress, they were insuring mortgages with little to no proof from homeowners that the mortgages could be paid off. This was all in the name of helping people achieve the American dream of home ownership even if they only had a snowball's chance in hell of ever paying off that obligation. These subprime borrowers began defaulting in droves causing Fannie and Freddie to go down with the ship.
So, in response to mistakes made in the past, Fannie and Freddie tightened up some of their mortgage insuring standards. For instance, we all remember the recent condo project collapses in places like Miami that sparked a lot of the housing market bust. Investors were paying ludicrous amounts of money to buy condos that had not even been built yet, much less occupied, with the hopes of flipping them for a quick buck. It worked for a while, but when the prices reached a certain level, no more buyers were available and these stupid investors were left holding the bag. This is called the "greater fool" theory of investing--you buy when prices are high and hope there is a greater fool than you willing to pay more than what you paid. There's my short lesson on supply and demand in case you weren't paying attention in high school and college economics.
So, Fannie and Freddie have decided not to insure loans to purchase condos if fewer than 70% of the units are sold, where more than 15% of the occupants are delinquent on their condo fees, or where a single person owns more than 10% of the units. It seems reasonable that these 3 factors could be an indication of lack of financial viability.
Apparently Barney Frank and his cohort Anthony Weiner were sleeping through the housing bust because they have fired off a letter to the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie complaining that the new standards are too prohibitive and might interfere with the housing market recovery.
It seems unlikely Barney would be using his Congressional letterhead to play a practical joke on Fannie and Freddie, so I have to assume he's serious. The article says Fannie and Freddie are preparing their response to lawmakers. I think my response to Barney would be, "get off the crack, idiot!" And for all the folks in Massachusetts who keep voting for this guy, you get off the crack too!
Fannie, Freddie asked to relax condo loan rules
Fannie and Freddie got into a boat load of financial trouble because, at the insistence of Congress, they were insuring mortgages with little to no proof from homeowners that the mortgages could be paid off. This was all in the name of helping people achieve the American dream of home ownership even if they only had a snowball's chance in hell of ever paying off that obligation. These subprime borrowers began defaulting in droves causing Fannie and Freddie to go down with the ship.
So, in response to mistakes made in the past, Fannie and Freddie tightened up some of their mortgage insuring standards. For instance, we all remember the recent condo project collapses in places like Miami that sparked a lot of the housing market bust. Investors were paying ludicrous amounts of money to buy condos that had not even been built yet, much less occupied, with the hopes of flipping them for a quick buck. It worked for a while, but when the prices reached a certain level, no more buyers were available and these stupid investors were left holding the bag. This is called the "greater fool" theory of investing--you buy when prices are high and hope there is a greater fool than you willing to pay more than what you paid. There's my short lesson on supply and demand in case you weren't paying attention in high school and college economics.
So, Fannie and Freddie have decided not to insure loans to purchase condos if fewer than 70% of the units are sold, where more than 15% of the occupants are delinquent on their condo fees, or where a single person owns more than 10% of the units. It seems reasonable that these 3 factors could be an indication of lack of financial viability.
Apparently Barney Frank and his cohort Anthony Weiner were sleeping through the housing bust because they have fired off a letter to the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie complaining that the new standards are too prohibitive and might interfere with the housing market recovery.
It seems unlikely Barney would be using his Congressional letterhead to play a practical joke on Fannie and Freddie, so I have to assume he's serious. The article says Fannie and Freddie are preparing their response to lawmakers. I think my response to Barney would be, "get off the crack, idiot!" And for all the folks in Massachusetts who keep voting for this guy, you get off the crack too!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Adventures with Bailey
Amanda and I have had our dog Bailey for about a year and a half now and we are constantly searching for a way to get her enough exercise so she's not uncontrollably hyper all the time. So we've done some thinking and here are the ideas we've come up with so far and the results.
First, I would take her jogging, but since I can't sprint at 20 mph for 2+ miles, that didn't work.
Next we tried buying a bike attachment thinking we would leisurely pedal through the neighborhood with our beautiful dog in tow. It didn't quite turn out that way. The feeling of a bike pulling back against her instantly turned her into a sled dog and she would pull us around the neighborhood at break neck speed. It was the one dog Iditarod without the snow. I'm serious...she would run at a dead sprint pulling me on the bicycle for over a mile before I ever had to start pedaling. This tactic wears her out for a little while, but I was a little concerned her heart might explode some day.
Then, I made a fascinating discovery about our neighborhood. As I was taking her for a bike ride last night (or was she taking me for a bike ride...I'm not sure), I discovered a grass road along the outside of our neighborhood. So, we took off down the grass road and half a mile later arrived at a drainage ditch with a nice little pond on the other side. I took her down to the pond to get a drink and she jumped right in. Luckily I still had her on the short leash or I probably would have had to jump in after her. I decided that the next day I would take her back and take a long leash with me so she could swim.
So, this morning after a 2+ mile sprint in just over 10 minutes, here's Bailey cooling off in the pond. Don't worry...I eventually helped her get out.
First, I would take her jogging, but since I can't sprint at 20 mph for 2+ miles, that didn't work.
Next we tried buying a bike attachment thinking we would leisurely pedal through the neighborhood with our beautiful dog in tow. It didn't quite turn out that way. The feeling of a bike pulling back against her instantly turned her into a sled dog and she would pull us around the neighborhood at break neck speed. It was the one dog Iditarod without the snow. I'm serious...she would run at a dead sprint pulling me on the bicycle for over a mile before I ever had to start pedaling. This tactic wears her out for a little while, but I was a little concerned her heart might explode some day.
Then, I made a fascinating discovery about our neighborhood. As I was taking her for a bike ride last night (or was she taking me for a bike ride...I'm not sure), I discovered a grass road along the outside of our neighborhood. So, we took off down the grass road and half a mile later arrived at a drainage ditch with a nice little pond on the other side. I took her down to the pond to get a drink and she jumped right in. Luckily I still had her on the short leash or I probably would have had to jump in after her. I decided that the next day I would take her back and take a long leash with me so she could swim.
So, this morning after a 2+ mile sprint in just over 10 minutes, here's Bailey cooling off in the pond. Don't worry...I eventually helped her get out.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Getting Older
I wanted to take a quick break from my political rants to talk about something else for a change. This past April I turned the ripe old age of 29. No, seriously, I am 29. I'm not one of those people who will stay 29 forever for fear of turning 30. I see nothing wrong with being 30 years old. It's just one more year.
But, I have to say, I'm starting to feel much older than my years. Life has a way of being exciting and exhausting all at the same time. About this time 2 years ago, Amanda opened up restyle and our lives have never been the same. Don't get me wrong, restyle has been an amazing adventure and something we feel strongly led by God to do, but it is a lot of work! Amanda has done an amazing job running the place and turning it into a successful business. But when you couple that with my 8:30 - 6:00 job plus a dog that no one can control, plus responsibilities and obligations at church, you have a recipe for disaster.
Slowly but surely over the past several years, I have seen my physical activity dwindle because it's more work than fun and there just aren't enough hours in the day for such frivolity. Now when I go out to the garage to work out, I do so with the knowledge that I'm going to be incredibly sore for the next 2-3 days. I also do it knowing full well that none of it will be easy or enjoyable.
I can remember the days that I could work out in the gym for more than an hour and never get sore. I could run the stands at the football stadium and be out of breath, but not barely clinging to life. I could play basketball in the driveway with my brothers for 5+ hours in 98 degree heat and be disappointed when we ran out of daylight. I could do all kinds of things that I either can't do anymore or can't do well anymore and it's a little depressing. I kind of thought this would hit around age 40, not 29.
So, anyway, I know this post kind of came out of nowhere, but it's just something I've been thinking about lately, so I thought I would share it with my loyal and avid followers. If you guys have any thoughts, send me a comment.
But, I have to say, I'm starting to feel much older than my years. Life has a way of being exciting and exhausting all at the same time. About this time 2 years ago, Amanda opened up restyle and our lives have never been the same. Don't get me wrong, restyle has been an amazing adventure and something we feel strongly led by God to do, but it is a lot of work! Amanda has done an amazing job running the place and turning it into a successful business. But when you couple that with my 8:30 - 6:00 job plus a dog that no one can control, plus responsibilities and obligations at church, you have a recipe for disaster.
Slowly but surely over the past several years, I have seen my physical activity dwindle because it's more work than fun and there just aren't enough hours in the day for such frivolity. Now when I go out to the garage to work out, I do so with the knowledge that I'm going to be incredibly sore for the next 2-3 days. I also do it knowing full well that none of it will be easy or enjoyable.
I can remember the days that I could work out in the gym for more than an hour and never get sore. I could run the stands at the football stadium and be out of breath, but not barely clinging to life. I could play basketball in the driveway with my brothers for 5+ hours in 98 degree heat and be disappointed when we ran out of daylight. I could do all kinds of things that I either can't do anymore or can't do well anymore and it's a little depressing. I kind of thought this would hit around age 40, not 29.
So, anyway, I know this post kind of came out of nowhere, but it's just something I've been thinking about lately, so I thought I would share it with my loyal and avid followers. If you guys have any thoughts, send me a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
