Add to Technorati Favorites

Saturday, August 25, 2007

A quick note

Sorry I haven't posted recently but I've been preparing for a wonderful cruise to Alaska aboard the Radiance of the Seas (Royal Carribean). I am currently posting from their via wireless connection. I will post more in depth soon, but in the meantime I would encourage you to go to www.helium.com and check out some of my articles as well as meaningful discussions on almost everything in the world.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Politics today

It's an interesting day in the world of politics. We have Obama talking about "muddy waters", Thompson talking about federalism, and Giuliani not talking about much of anything. Of the three, I'm most disappointed in Fred Thompson. While I enjoyed him on Law & Order, I'm learning that he was a better actor than a politician. He seems to be turning out to be a little too far right for my taste.

Now on to Obama. He is chastising Clinton and ignoring Edwards on the issue of lobbyists and their influence. I find his remarks to be somewhat refreshing and honest (two words that you are unlikely to ever see in the same sentence as the name Hillary Clinton). He talks about how it is silly (at best) to pretend that lobbyists will go away. They make their money and continue to thrive because they do serve a purpose. Just as there are lobbyists for "big oil" who are working to monitor and influence legislation that will affect the oil industry, there are also lobbyists who work for various non-profits around the country. In fact, one of the more powerful lobbies in New Jersey state is a lobby for the volunteer ambulance corps of the state. Who would campaign against the protection of volunteer ambulance corps?

Instead Obama seems to be leaning toward more disclosure and some restrictions on the "buying" of elections through excessive donations. I will wait to hear more, but Barak seems to be the most reputable and decent of the Democratic candidates thus far.

Now, my personal favorite is Rudy Giuliani. He is involved in a skirmish with the press and some members of the public who feel that all aspects of a candidate's personal life are fair game. I, for one, disagree with this. I would agree that if the candidate is found drunk in a gutter, in bed with a prostitute (or another person who is not their spouse), beating their children, or any other sort of illegal activity, that is news. Whether or not Rudy Giuliani is speaking with his children after a divorce, or whether or not he is a practicing Catholic is personal and has no bearing on his candidacy. I feel that the candidate (regardless of who they are) should only be forced to answer such questions if the person asking the question is also willing to go "on the record" with their answer to such a question and one follow-up of the candidate's choice.

Thoughts anyone?

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

More hot air from Hillary

One of the most dangerous candidates in this year's elections is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her personal need for power and fame knows no bounds. She will make outrageous statements merely to be able to get the free press. As a Democrat, I cannot urge my fellow party members enough to select ANYONE ELSE as our candidate in 2008.

One of the big things that irritates me about her (and her predecessors John Kerry and John Edwards) is the haves vs. have not arguments. She continually talks about how the Bush Administration and his fellow Republicans have worked only for the benefit of the rich. She continually talks about how she will work for the middle class. My question to her is, how does she know what the middle class wants or needs? She is actually one of the "rich" that she claims benefitted most from the Bush tax cuts.

Here's my challenge to Hillary, John, and any of the other well-heeled Democrats who are going to claim to speak for me. GIVE AWAY (not put in a blind trust, get rid of) all of your personal wealth and start living on $75,000 - $100,000 annual income and THEN talk to me about understanding the needs of the middle class. At that point, you might find that an extra $20 in your weekly paycheck IS something to be happy about instead of complaining that someone else got more. Until you do that, shut up about the middle class, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

Thoughts anyone?

Saturday, August 11, 2007

They were wrong again

For the last several years we've heard from very rich Democrats (Hillary, Ted, John Edwards and Kerry) about how the Republicans are ripping us off and sending our government into an economic tailspin by cutting taxes across the board. As has been mentioned here several times, I've seen my federal taxes go down, so I don't care how much others' taxes go down, just make sure mine don't go back up!

Here's the other part of the story. In an article today from the Associated Press, it was announced that the projected federal deficit is going to be even lower than originally predicted. With just over a month and a half to go in the fiscal year, it seems that the deficit will end up somewhere near the $150 billion mark. While that is a truly unfathomable number to me, it is significantly lower than the $239.6 billion deficit of last year. Heading in the right direction, eh?

The REALLY interesting part is the revenue figures. This is the amount of money the federal government takes in.....FROM TAXES. Given the fact that Bush and the GOP cut taxes, given that the economy hasn't been the greatest, and given the fact that we hear how we aren't really better off than the glory days (?) of the Clinton era, you would expect that the government's revenue has fallen, right? Well guess what, so far this year, the US government has received $2.12 trillion, a new all-time record income!!!

That's right, just as every other time in history, any time a government reduces tax rates, the government's income GOES UP. It happens because people spend more money and lift the general standard of living when the percentage of their hard earned money going to the government drops. People who make more money don't mind paying more taxes as long as the percentage paid remains even.

So why do we still have a deficit when the government is pulling in record income? You would have to ask the Democratically-controlled Congress because not only did revenue reach a record, these fiscally-responsible watchdogs in the Democratic House and Senate (who regularly tell us that the Republicans are cutting funds to those who need it) have spent a RECORD $2.27 trillion so far this year. The leading spender, NOT the military, but the Department of Health and Human Services at $1.7 trillion so far. The military is number 2 at $437 billion.

Thoughts anyone?

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Cell Phones and 9-1-1

Just a quick reminder today. Federal law requires that all cell phones, even those without an active service contract, be able to dial 9-1-1. This has an upside and a hazard to watch. The upside is that you can give a cell phone to an elderly or young family member to carry with them in case of emergency. It will only be able to dial 9-1-1 and it is no cost to you.

The hazard is the cell phone sitting around the house that is no longer used because you've upgraded can still dial 9-1-1. This means that it shouldn't be given to the toddler to play with because they can (and sometimes do) accidentally dial 9-1-1. While some agencies are able to trace cell phone locations to a specific point, most can't yet and that may result in dispatching units to an area in an attempt to locate someone who has dialed for help on a cell phone but won't speak to the dispatcher.

Thoughts anyone?

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

More Self-Serve Ripoffs

Having travelled to the midwest, I was able to disprove another myth of those who protect New Jersey's "need" for the "protection" of "full-service" (when was the last time an attendant washed your windshield, checked your oil, or tire pressure?). We've been told that we still have the cheapest gasoline around despite the ban on self-serve. That's no longer true. In St. Louis, I paid $2.59/gal for self-serve Shell regular (and a lot more in taxes per gallon) while here in Fair Lawn, NJ I would pay $2.61/gal for "full" serve regular (with the lowest fuel taxes in the country).

It is plain to see where the $.02/gal is going. Not that the extra $.26 per fill-up would break me (about $12 per year more), but why should I have to pay an EXTRA $12 per year to do something I can do myself just because the state legislators are being wined and dined by the NJ Gasoline Retailers lobby?

Thoughts anyone?

Monday, August 6, 2007

The United States?

As we travel the United States this weekend, it once again becomes obvious how huge the United States is. Frequently we forget that we are really a conglomeration of what, anywhere else, would be several different countries. It is important to know the the 13 countries that make up the origianl European Union would find handily between the US East Coast and the Mississippi River. This just gives you an idea of how big a country we are and how amazing it is that we have actually kept it together for over 200 years now.

This puts our internal squabbles into a different perspective. It's educational to hear how midwesterners and/or southerners talk about those who live in the "east" (actually the northeast, but everyone seems to know what they are talking about). It's also interesting, although sad, to hear those who live in the New York metro area talk about the farmers of the midwest as though they are country bumpkins with little or no intellectual ability.

The fact of the matter is, these farmers here regularly operate farms that have more moving parts than many small businesses operated by those sophisticated easterners. In addition, one piece of farm equipment is worth as much (or more) than some of the houses sold in our neighborhood. These farmers regularly have to know about hydroponics, weather, finance, futures, biology, geology, and a host of other disciplines. How many snobby "professionals" can say the same?

Thoughts anyone?

Friday, August 3, 2007

Thank you George Bush

I was just going over my year-to-date financial information and came across some interesting information. I've made about $900 more this year than last and yet I've paid $88 LESS in federal income tax. That's not a lot, but what other item has gone down in price (and yes, taxes are the price you pay for government services) this past year?

To compare, I've paid $295 MORE for gasoline, $134 MORE for groceries, and $176 MORE for my utilities. Also in comparison, I've spent $259 MORE in local taxes. The only thing that I've spent less on is my federal income tax. That's thanks to the Republicans and their "tax cut for the rich".

To be clear, I'M NOT RICH. I would have to more than double my salary to equal what an average autoworker makes. I would have to more than double my salary to raise my salary into what would be the next tax bracket. This, to me, is proof that the Democrats are full of crap when they say the tax increases only benefit the rich.

As I've said before, I don't care if people wealthier than me get more money back. All I care is that I'M PAYING LESS FEDERAL TAX THIS YEAR. I would thus encourage everyone to let Congress know that we want to keep paying less tax (even though government tax receipts are UP!!!) and have them make the tax cuts permanent.

Thoughts anyone?

Peapod - Lighten the Load this Holiday Season with $10 in Free Groceries (468x60)