Monthly Archives: December 2009

This Will Soon Be US

As we slip further and further into the cluthes and dangerous mindset of the Government nanny state, we will soon find ourselves in THIS siutation:

A SHOPKEEPER has been fined £180 by Southend Council for NOT producing commercial rubbish.

Mr Howard was astonished when a council official visited to check his waste disposal credentials. The officer refused to believe he did not produce any waste and he was issued with a £180 fixed penalty notice…

Awesome.

Now that I think of it, this is EXACTLY where the Leftists are sending us.  If you DON’T use our Health Care system, we will fine you!

Hat Tip: Kids Prefer Cheese

The Most for the Least

If you aren’t careful, you will be told that American’s have it pretty bad; especially right now.

Unemployment is up, health care is up.  All of it, is up.  Except wages, and they are down.  It’s all bad news.

Except, well, maybe it’s not from Mark Perry:

when you factor in the fact that the typical new home built today (average of 2,519 square feet) are more than 50% larger than the typical new home in 1973 (1,660 square feet, see bottom chart above, data here), Americans have never had it better when it comes to housing costs.

Just another example that we are living in the best to live.  Ever.

Average Monthly Mortgage

Compared to:

Average New Home Size

When Down is Up

Let’s say that you are running a lemonade stand.  You buy your cups, your ice, sugar and lemons.  All in, it costs you $0.10 to make a cup of lemonade.  Include your time and risk plus the profit you need and you sell it for $0.20 a cup.  Anything less and the risk of running the stand forces you to pack up shop and go back to work at the local grocery store.

Now, let’s say that the friendly neighborhood HOA comes over and says that some of your customers are kids who are thirsty because they are mowing lawns for the old ladies on the block.  They can’t afford the 20 cents you are asking but it’s just not fair that these kids don’t get to drink lemonade when they are so so thirsty and so so deserving.  You shake your head and kick your toes….you know what’s coming.

If you wanna keep selling lemonade on this street you have to sell lemonade to the kids for a nickel; a stinkin’ nickel!

What happens to your lemonade business model?  Well, you either:

  • Quit
  • Raise the price such that you compensate for the reduced price to kids
  • Move to another street so that none of your customers, including the poor deserving yet thirsty kids have ANY lemonade.

Right?

So how is that different than this?

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of lawmakers hopes to finally win a long struggle to ease curbs against importing low-cost prescription drugs…

Same thing, right?

Drug companies have a market that they sell into.  The prices currently are set such that they make the profits they need to exist.  In fact, those prices might ALREADY be higher than they would because foreign nations are already forcing prices below market levels.

Well, guess what will happen when/if this becomes law?  Our fearless reporter gets to it.  In the SIXTH paragraph:

…the billions of dollars drug companies would lose if Americans began buying large amounts of lower-priced pharmaceuticals from other nations — has prevented the proposal from being implemented for about a decade.

Good for our young reporter!  Finally he gets what might happen.  See, if the drug companies lose billions of dollars they are going to have to …. Ahh, what?  What did you say?  Our fearless reporter is continuing in ANOTHER direction?

“Does the pharmaceutical industry have a lot of clout? The answer is they sure do,” Dorgan said Wednesday. He said when it comes to a vote, he hoped “the interest of the American consumers will have as much clout in this chamber.”

Heh.  I should have known.  But lucky for us we can spot the key phrase:

the interest of the American consumers

And that means that this bill is a bunch of:

You Know What This IS

The Dangers of the Left

Over at The Progressive Pulse Chris is talking about Medicare and how Medicare is playing a role in the Health Care debate.

One of the Republican talking points about the latest health care reform proposal is that it slashes Medicare benefits. It’s not true of course, but that doesn’t matter when you are trying to scare seniors.

I find the irony rich.  The whole point of Chris’ post is how hard it is to keep up with the right and how hard it is to separate truth from fiction.  I think Chris is both right and wrong.  I think he is right when he correctly points out a flaw in the Right’s tactics:

…Tea Party activists shouting “keep government’s hands off my Medicare,”…

However, he is completely wrong when he claims no shenanigans surrounding Medicare.

One of the tricks employed by the Democrats during this whole debate was that one which brought the Heal Care bill in under $1 trillion.  See, the Dems wrote the bill to include reduced Medicare spending.  A reduction such that the entirely of the bill would come in less than the politically unattractive trillion dollar mark.  The way around this?  They then would submit a SEPARATE bill that would delay such spending for 10 years.

So take your pick Chris.  Either the bill is a pig well over what the Dems are advertising or Medicare spending will be slashed.

Getting it Done the Right Way

I am a firm believer that education dramatically shapes the adult life of a child.  Take two children from similar backgrounds and have one graduate high school and the other drop out–the graduate will see dramatic social and economic benefits.  Further, the society around him will be better off as well.  High school drop-outs cost us, all of us, millions of dollars a year in physical damage and management.

And so, of course, it makes sense to have a system of public education.  What I find interesting is how each side of the political spectrum would explain such an entitlement program.  For example:

  1. The Left.  This one is easy.  The Left clearly feels that wealth and accumulation is something that springs up from the ground and is obtained by the “lucky” or “greedy” by muscling and elbowing out the less fortune or the week.  The Left would gladly take from the rich and distribute to the poor so that everyone had an equal chance.  Predictably, this typically make me lose my belly whenever I think about it.
  2. The Right.  This one is harder.  The Right, you see, is against entitlement programs almost all of the time.  No government provided health insurance.  No government provided mass transit.  No government provided welfare.  All of it.  “Man is free; let him obtain that which he needs” is their mantra.  While acknowledging that the Right could use a marketing approach that vastly improves the tone of their message, I emphatically agree with this take.  It is one of Individual Liberty that necessarily acknowledges Individual Responsibility.  The subtle and yet critical distinction is that in almost ALL cases, children in our society are incapable of expressing their Individual Liberty.  They either are lacking the intellectual capacity to express that Liberty [they are children after all, incapable of crossing the street in many cases] or they lack the legal status to exert that Liberty.  As such, it becomes incumbent upon us to restore to that child a reasonable course of action, which, through no fault of their own, they have been prevented from following.  In other words, just because Johnny’s mommy and daddy are fools who don’t take care of their child by sending him to school, does not make it Johnny’s fault.

And so it is that I agree with both the Left and the Right.  But I feel that the path each takes to their respective positions is wrong and illogical.  Further, because I believe as I do as expressed in #2 above, I do NOT agree with the right that we Ought take public monies meant for Public Education and dispense it in the form of vouchers for private education.  The monies collected and spent is for the general public, not for the individual child or family.

The way to make sure that kids get the education they need?  By doing it the right way:

Durham, N.C. — Family income should not determine a child’s destiny. That’s the premise behind Union Independent School, a new private school that opened this year in Durham.

Thanks to private donations and contributions, including $2 million from Union Baptist Church, the school has 74 students in kindergarten through second grade. The students are chosen by lottery and attend for free.

Thanks to private donations and contributions, including $2 million from Union Baptist Church, the school has 74 students in kindergarten through second grade. The students are chosen by lottery and attend for free.

This, ladies and gentlegerms, is how things get done in the real world!

Maybe Capitalism Isn't ALL Good

But then again, it sure sounds good.

Hat Tip: Kids Prefer Cheese

UPDATE:

This is beyond “sounds good”; it’s hilarious.

Finally

This I can understand.  I may not agree as to the degree, but I can understand it.

Thomas L. Friedman has an op-ed article in the NY Times.

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

This I can understand.  This I can accept.

See, there is a chance that I am going to get into a car accident and perhaps die.  Maybe just become paralyzed.  I get that.  And to that extent, I do –I really DO–  buy insurance against that.  To protect against my car and my health.  Heck, I even protect against my income; even my death.  ALL of this is understandable to every one of us.

Well, NOT every one of us.  I mean, there are still people out there who refuse to buy even the most basic health insurance and then, when they DO become sick, expect me to go to work for them in order that I pay their bills.

But I digress. Each of us can understand the concept of insurance.  And we innately have a sense of the chances of bad things happening to us and then of how much we are willing to sacrifice in order to protect against that.

With that said, I am not aware of a SINGLE person who wouldn’t acknowledge that the world is warming right now.  And that, further, it could be caused by or contributed to by humans.  Key word could.  The question now is, how much are you willing to pay for that insurance policy.

Me?  Well, let’s just say that I continue to get in my car, with my kids, at LEAST twice a day.

One and Done

Using this graphing tool we are seeing that “The ONE” can’t even beat Carter.  This may be the ONLY good news concerning Obama.

Here is a graph showing Obama’s approval rating so far:

Obama's Approval Rating to Date

This graph shows Obama AND Carter for the same time periods:

Obama vs. Carter Approval Rating to Date

Let’s only hope for change.

California: Part IV

I just got done posting on some crazy talk coming out of California.  Not 10 lines down the page and I saw this gem:

Tenant advocates got a win at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Tuesday with initial approval of a plan to extend eviction protections to rental housing built within the past 30 years…

Supervisor John Avalos, chief sponsor of the legislation, said the change is needed “to assure equal protections for tenants in all rental units, in San Francisco. This legislation’s really about fairness.”

Avalos – responding to concerns raised by tenant advocacy groups – said he drafted the legislation after seeing the growing number of evictions of tenants living in properties foreclosed on by banks. Foreclosure is not considered a just cause for eviction.

Look, whenEVER a politician says anything related to “This legislation’s really about fairness” run.  Run far far away.

But there is hope; albeit ‘prolly pretty small:

Colin Gallagher, who owns a condo with his husband in the city’s South of Market, said they would not have purchased their home had they known the rules would be changed after the fact. Their plan is to rent out their condo some day and they don’t want to be restricted with eviction controls. “We certainly feel this would negatively impact our investment,” said Gallagher.

Strange that, huh?  Rules implemented that affect the ability to realize return on investment might reduce said investments?

But hey, don’t let economics get in the way:

Proponents’ message: “In a city with 60 percent renters, a severe housing shortage and an economic crisis, this fix in the law should be a no-brainer,” said Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco.

Gentle Miss Sara.  “No brainer”  You have NO idea.

They Say This With a Straight Face

Turns out about 22.1% of households in the 10 county Bay area are struggling to make ends meet:

Whereas the federal poverty level would be $17,170 a year for a family fitting that description – no matter where they lived in the United States – the self-sufficiency standard estimates that it would take $54,590 for such a family to live comfortably but without frills in San Francisco County, $49,823 in Contra Costa County and $63,871 in San Mateo County.

Are you kuckin’ fidding me!?!

Now granted, this is for a family of two parents with an infant child.  BUT STILL!  We are talking about an income north of 63 large.  $63,000!  And they are struggling to make ends meet?  I read the article twice.  I regret to inform you, gentle reader, that these people are DEAD serious.

Okay, okay.  So…so what?  So, like, what is the conclusion?

“This report raises important questions about how we can better serve the thousands of low-wage workers and families who were already struggling before the recession, whose situations are undoubtedly more precarious now,” said Anne Wilson, chief executive of the United Way of the Bay Area.

How we can better serve people who make about 55k?  Un-be-liev-able!

Check this out:

Annual Salary to be Considered Below Standard

Two things:

  1. Anyone making about $55,000 has the ability to move.
  2. Anyone else think these numbers are just made up so that about 20% of the population will fit?

No wonder California is broke.