Hell hath no fury like a former liberal woman.
Remember when I “joked” about a Green Police on the horizon. Well, apparently the ad team at Audi are fans of this blog – WHO KNEW!
Color me shocked when I saw this ad during the Super Bowl last night (via Ace of Spades). As if it weren’t bad enough that Peyton had to choke it like a little bitch during the game, my predictions are being taken for a ride from right under my nose!
Get the Idea Police on this case, biyatches!!!! Mama needs a new pair of government-required recycling bins to pay for with her new royalties. Although, they didn’t use my dream of Lt. Dangle in skimpy green shorts so I’m willing to at least cut a deal – I’ll settle for the amount cap and trade will cost so I can give that money back to the taxpayers who will be robbed of their income to support it. Because you know if cap and trade becomes a reality, it’s a slippery slope to life imitating art in this ad.
So one of my friends posted this article that was mailed in by Paul Krugman to his NYT editor. Basically Krugman is frantic that people are complaining about Captain Kool-Aid’s plan to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! With unemployment at 10% (and really I hear it’s more like 17%), well, geewilikers color me shocked that people aren’t on the spending-spree band wagon!
On one hand Krugman has a point – what does fear mongering really do to address an issue AND does it really just make a mountain out of a mole hill. But I love how he also didn’t have this attitude toward fear mongering on the 2008 campaign trail when Democrats, Captain Kool-aid in particular, were fear mongering about how we were headed toward the Great Depression-style recession. OR when Dems were shouting about how we had to pass the “stimulus” bill because if we didn’t take more than a week to review the darn bill we’d see unemployment go up past 8%…(as it now is at 10% – ummm OOPS!).
To paraphrase his brilliant article, the federal govt. spent nearly $1 trillion more than Bush projected for FY2009 AND that’s after you remove the stimulus out of the equation. Plus the two wars only account for 1/5 of that over-spending – what was the remaining 4/5 spent on that was justified??? Nine years ago, spending for FY2011 was projected at $2.7 trillion. Obama and Orszag’s plan now calls for $3.8 trillion in FY2011, a 41% projection increase.
Plus I’m more concerned about govt spending-to-GDP ratio which is encroaching up to 50%. When the govt. takes more from the economy than what the economy produces that is a major cause of economic concern – this is what Mankiw (Krugman’s nemesis) argues. Also economic studies put holes in economic theories supporting increase govt. spending. For instance, they show in application every $1 spent in govt. equates $1.40 in GDP (Ramey study), while every $1 in a tax cut or break equates $3.00 in GDP (Romer study). Now that doesn’t mean make our taxes zero, but under this real-world logic how is record-level spending justified. To me, it’s not.
Our govt. cannot continue on this path. It’s not time to burn our money like firewood but it’s certainly time to pull the plug on the federal govt’s imaginary lines of credit.
A classic case of racism going too far from a liberal – Shockaaaaah!
In case you live under a rock, in Corporate America we typically have to deal with these monthly celebrations of “This Month’s Diversity Awareness Event to Put on the Face that We’re All the Same Yet Different Because if We Don’t Do This Some Lazy Idiot Could Sue our HR Dept on Baseless Grounds of Discrimination/Diversity Insensitivity and We’d All Be Up Shit Creek Without a Job”
During February it’s Black History Month, a celebration of American historical figures/events of those who are from the black (oh, how racist of me), er, African-American ethnicity. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about honoring ancestry and acknowledging our differences in culture. I’m just irked when we see an entire month devoted to “you better celebrate our unique cultural attributes” but the other 11 months of the year if you point them out then you’re a direct target for the racist label.
Case in point – the latest “scandal” in racism over at NBC (via HotAir). Apparently at NBC, the company chef (WHO IS BLACK, btw) decided to fix the following menu in honor of this diversity month celebration. Read the rest of this entry »
Seriously, this guy loses $150 million of Illinois citizens’ hard earned money (for their kids’ college funds no less!!!!), lies about it and has the audacity to run for the fucking Illinois Senate seat this coming November. The sad part about it is he got over 250, 000 votes in the primary. 250,000????? How’d this mofo get 2?
HE LOST $150 MILLION – HOW WAS HE NOT FIRED and sent into exile from Illinois politics???? But instead he’s running for the senate and practically has a chance no less???? Geesus the people in this state are brain-dead sometimes (no offense to those who are actually brain-dead!).
HillBuzz, a new favorite blog is having a photoshop contest. I sent over my latest contribution so I’m hoping the boys get a good ol’ laugh (or Lizzing – if they are friends of 30 Rock!).
Scott Brown pulled it out and showed America that you work hard, have a positive attitude and ultimately show people you’re willing to work WITH THEM for the things you want - that in the end you can achieve anything. Even ending a near 40-year monopoly of a Senate seat by Dems in the bluest of blue states. Via HotAir:
I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or interest, answering only to my conscience and to the people. I’ve got a lot to learn in the Senate, but I know who I am and I know who I serve.
“I’m Scott Brown,
“I’m from Wrentham,
“I drive a truck, and I am nobody’s senator but yours.”
As for Martha Coakley, this pic captures it all:
All this week I’ve been reading on the details of the new book Game Change – which is a look inside the presidential campaigns of 2008. I’m totally ordering this today from Amazon because it will make an excellent read during my maternity leave. I mean you have to take everything you read with a grain of salt, but man does this book not bode well for Democrats who are facing enough of an uphill battle come the 2010 elections (which I don’t feel sorry about because they are their own worst enemies and not the Republicans or those “nutjob” tea partiers as they would have you believe in the media).
And if you thought the latest Harry Reid fiasco from this book was bad, oh just wait….
I read this latest excerpt on the Metra last night about John “Silky Pony” Edwards and his wife Elizabeth (via NYMag). Man, are these political marriages a bunch of shams. And for what – some lavish parties and access to inner circles. Human nature is so self-centered. Anybody tells you differently, they’re just in denial. Here’s one of my favorite parts where a typical ego-maniac politician blames everyone but himself for his own indiscretions:
A few days later, in October, Brumberger flew from New York to Chicago to join Edwards for a trip to China. “Hey, I need to talk to you,” Edwards said abruptly when they met in the terminal at O’Hare. They walked together to the airline’s premium lounge, where Edwards had reserved a private meeting room for their conversation. “Sit,” Edwards said and then tore into Brumberger.
Stuff from the road is getting back to people, and it’s obviously you who’s doing it, Edwards said angrily. You didn’t recognize who you work for. You don’t work for Nick and Peter. You work for me. I trusted you like a son, but you broke my trust. I can’t have you around me anymore. You’re not coming to China, and you’re never working for me again.
Brumberger’s heart sank. “I’m sorry you feel that way,” he said. “I always thought my goal in all of this was to do everything I could to help you become the next president of the United States.”
“Why didn’t you come to me?” Edwards asked.
“I did come to you! I came to you in Ohio. I called you after Labor Day! I tried!”
“No,” Edwards said. “Why didn’t you come to me like a fucking man and tell me to stop fucking her?”
They were both yelling now at the top of their lungs, red-faced and teary-eyed. (“You’re a 27-year-old kid, and I’m a grown man!” Edwards railed. “Don’t you think I’ve thought about this?”) But when Edwards finally regained his composure, he seemed to recognize the implications of sacking Brumberger. Let’s talk about all this when I get back, he said.
But Brumberger had had enough. Crushed and mortified, he was finished with Edwards.
Brumberger’s firing sent shock waves through the campaign. Baldick, Rubey, and longtime communications adviser David Ginsberg followed him out the door that autumn of 2006. All three gave Edwards pretexts for quitting, but for them there was no escaping the conclusion that the candidate was diddling Hunter and that he was hell-bent on resisting the efforts of the people closest to him to save him from himself.
Also, I just received a link to another excerpt showing how Game Change doesn’t do Hillary Clinton any favors either.
Exit question: Remember when Obama said on the campaign trail how people would say not to vote for him because he has a funny name, he’s black, and that his face wouldn’t look like the guys on the dollar bill, etc.? He was trying to insinuate that Republicans or those not voting for him were only racially-motivated in not voting for him. Too bad it looks like he was talking mainly about people within his own party. But anyone who’s a former liberal knows that the most racially-insensitive people you’ll meet are liberals themselves. Game Change is a book really shedding the sunshine on things most of us already know.
If anyone ever took Andrew Sullivan’s mental delusions about Sarah Palin’s conspiracy pregnancy seriously, I’d automatically deem them a part of the Village Idiot Club.
But throughout the last 7 months, with this thing called pregnancy, I’ve experienced various times shaking my head in disbelief at how anyone could pose doubts about Palin’s pregnancy w/ Trig during the 2008 election. I’m convinced now more than ever that this kind of dribbling proves those who even questioned her pregnancy (with grand fables lacking evidence no less) were so desperate to defame her that their conspiracies do more to slander their reputation than hers.
Case in point, Sullivan claimed that because some “sources” from Palin’s administration couldn’t tell she was pregnant until she told them at 7 months was clear “evidence” that he was justified in dragging her family through conspiracy-laddened mud – oh that and three questionable photographs….ZING! Move over, RDJ…we’ve already got our generation’s Sherlock Holmes.
I keep this in mind as today at work I had not one, not two, but three people give me the side eye because they had no idea I was pregnant. The difference was that today I wore a form fitting top that emphasized a belly resulting from either someone preggoing my eggo OR from me going on a massive beer binge in celebration during the Patriots loss over the weekend – if you know me, you know either is possible. The responses could have been just nice formalities, but most small talk doesn’t result in “You hid it so well,” “I had no idea,” “You’re telling me when I saw you three weeks ago that you were pregnant???”
So I say to Sullivan – SIT DOWN with your “knowledge” of how Palin faked her pregnancy. SIT DOWN and quit watching that Paulie Walnuts confession episode from the the Sopranos – SPOILER ALERT: It’s FICTION!
Because here’s the news flash that you might not have figured out – Some women don’t look pregnant even at six or seven months. I was at a labor class last night and some chick was due in two weeks and she looked all of four months pregnant. I’ve never understood where Sullivan got off acting like an authority to make such exagggerated claims about Palin.
Hell, even my baby doctor will tell you every woman and even every pregnancy with the same woman is carried different.
So that’s my rant on smug elitism of Sullivan for the month. Funny how self-experience sheds new light on “justified” accusations. And I’m not beating a dead horse by any means. As of October, Sullivan was still beating himself with the crazy stick according to Ann Althouse.
If at all. I’m a firm believer in compensation that based on market rate, industry, job position, work experience, and finally both time and performance on the job. I don’t believe in cherry picking one industry you designate as “too rich” or “evil and greedy” as a means to then use the tax code for market engineering by the government.
For instance, you’ll hear a lot from liberals about how the executives at health insurance companies are overpaid and shouldn’t be making that much while people suffer. Of course, they ignore the facts of profit margins and actual compensation package details when making these claims. But they are liberals so for them using facts is me having too high of an expectation. As Trying To Grok has noted in a couple posts, you’ll never hear anything from liberals for the government to tax, regulate or engineer the market-dictated salaries or profits of Democrat-aligned companies such as Google. Hmmm, funny how that goes.
But let’s take a look at who’s making what in these industries. For the purpose of this example I’ll use Cigna since they are a major company in the health insurance market that’s come under fire during the topic of healthcare reform.
First, what were the salaries of the CEOs of Cigna vs. Google.
- Edward Hanway, CEO Cigna - 2008 Total Compensation: $12,236,740 (including a base salary of $1,142,885)
- Eric Schmidt, CEO Google – 2008 Total Compensation: A base salary of $1; and other compensation of $508,763; Oh, and let’s not forget his stock options in Google which have allowed him to amass $5.5 BILLION in his past compensation package of 12.5 million shares. Schmidt currently no longer accepts stock options in Google, but he’s set as one of the world’s richest men.
It’s not that Hanway hasn’t amassed some degree of wealth over the years as Cigna’s CEO. The last few years his compensations have been $22 million in 2007 and $15.2 million in 2006.
But the issue is IF you’re going to start taxing executive pay, which executives do you tax? What industries do you tax – the ones that accrue the most wealth from the economy? Who gets to make those taxation classification decisions? Why do they get to make those decisions? And since those decisions will be subjective in manner anyways, isn’t that a reason for them not to be made at all (and thus salaries shouldn’t be engineered by the government)?
I mean if we just look at the years between 2006 – 2008, CEO Schmidt of Google has a wealth that far surpasses even the majority of companies in this world. He certainly seems like he can afford to be taxed more on his wealth more so than Hanway.
But a liberal may say Cigna profits too much from their own industry. Well, what about market share – shouldn’t that show how much Cigna is really the one taking America to the cleaners. Ummm, not so much.
- Google has a near majority in some of the services it provides. In the industry of Search Engine Marketing, Google owns around 70% of the SEM market share. SEM is roughly around a $20 billion industry in terms of revenue, set to move upwards of $26 – $30 billion by 2013.
- Cigna on the other hand covers around 11.7 million people with its health insurance plans. If you figure 165 million people are currently under a form of private insurance, 11.7 million of those people equate to around 7% of the industry market share.
And to those liberals who say that healthcare is a right. Well, Cigna doesn’t offer healthcare. It offers a risk policy aka insurance. And a service of providing an insurance policy should not be held to a higher moral ground in service retention than a search engine’s services. Sorry, I have a heart – I just don’t let it bleed for unnecessary, illogical sentiments.
Also, let’s look at net profit margins to see how much of America’s hard-earned dollars is being hoarded between Cigna vs. Google:
- For 2008, Cigna’s net profit margin was 1.51% (profiting only $292 million out of $19.1 billion in revenue)
- And guess what Google’s was – 19.39% (profiting more than $4.3 BILLION out of $21.8 BILLION in revenue)
Gee, it sure seems like Google is a dominant monopoly with more greed to be taxed. 70% vs. 7% market share? 1.51% vs. 19.35% profit margins? Makes someone wonder why liberals are fussing so much over companies like Cigna when they could get more $$ for their tax out of companies like Google.
This article in the Washington Posts does due diligence for calling out liberals who are getting the big old letdown from their Messiah.
But at least as much blame for the disillusionment goes to progressives who simply expected too much of him. Some are disappointed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner proposed even higher defense spending than George W. Bush did — but Obama never said he would cut the Pentagon’s budget. Many liberals are disappointed that he isn’t pushing the “public option” more forcefully in the health-care debate — but it was never something Obama emphasized during the campaign.
I know why these liberals are suddenly shocked – because they WILLINGLY (again, emphasis on WILLINGLY) ignored that Obama was an ambition politician, an empty-suit who would say anything to get elected. Seriously, this was a politician who threw his pastor of 20-years under the bus in order to present himself as more mainstream and less controversial, and NOW you want to question his inability to stick to campaign/ideology promises, Michael Moore? Wake up and smell the false rhetoric you bozo! And get a Q-tip to clean out yo ears while you’re at it – because you obviously have some listening issues.
I think liberals and many youths got swept up in their own personal agendas not realizing the politician they voted for would underneath it all would have an agenda of his own – which was being ELECTED President. Not being President, just getting elected as one. If you really paid attention to the context of what Obama said during the campaign, looked at his historical voting/position records, and still voted for him, you wouldn’t be shocked here today. But if you kept boozin’ it up on Kool-aid like a sorority girl at a fraternity kegger (I speak from experience), you have nobody but yourself to blame for not paying attention to the glaring obvious signs.
For a politician whose main stance has been ‘present’ on many issues, it’s not then surprising to see him play the back-and-forth shuffle on issues that require strong executive leadership. For a politician who has a repetitive history of making political decisions based on self-ambition goals, is it really surprising that he’s not fulfilling far-left campaign promises when a 2012 re-election is within his perception (as delusional as it may be)?
When I was 25 I found a lump in my breast. It was a scary time – I had just moved to a new city, was on my own and 1,000 miles away from my family.
Luckily, I was able to get tests done that turned out to show the lump was nothing, even the test that found the lump in the first place. That’s why I’m AMAZED when I hear people defending the rationing of things like mammograms, etc. when it comes to healthcare stating that age is a factor in whether these tests are effective or not (and thus justifying their rationing). Also, a sidenote – I didn’t have health insurance at the time because I was between grad. school and a new job but I was able to pay for my tests on my own.
I was 25!!!! Nowhere near the average statistic of women who find lumps in their breasts. Now for me, my lump was not cancerous but what if it had been and I had been denied that testing. That’s what HotAir.com asks in two of its recent posts – the first an address from Carly Fiorina who also had a personal stake in these types of breast cancer-related tests, and another post citing how the state of California is now rationing breast-cancer tests due to failed govt.-run healthcare engineering.
And now what we get is rationing, because the government created these programs based on rosy revenue projections that can’t be met.
HotAir.com states the failure (and following ration recommendations) were the result of California’s poor planning/funding from their tobacco tax. Here in Illinois they’ve done the same thing with S-CHIP, believing that tobacco taxes will help those programs that affect the “less fortunate,” when in fact if they took 2 seconds at the research they’d see the tobacco tax burden affects the poor more and doesn’t have the success rate to continually fund these types of govt.-run entitlement programs.
Check this out then from HealthCare BS Blog.
The study shows that elasticity of demand for tobacco products depends largely on socioeconomic status. As prices go up, better off smokers tend to quit. However, for smokers further down the ladder, price doesn’t have the same effect.
It’s only a matter of time before these govt. programs use the tax code further for more failed social-engineering OR start to ration other necessary illness-preventative measures. Gee, govt.-run programs sure are GRRRRRRRRRRRRREAT! And then liberals wonder why there are millions of taxpayers who DON’T want a government-run or single-payer system for healthcare. Good grief, their ignorance amazes me.
The ranting and raving of a woman formally brainwashed under the liberal agenda. Through investigation, commentary and sarcasm about government, this woman is breaking free of the hypocritical liberal party that tries to manipulate women into believing only they can represent women’s rights. Get informed, get free, get Un-Liberaled! This blog does not endorse any particular candidate or party - although if I did, I most likely wouldn’t endorse a liberal candidate. For instance, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) or as I like to call her Smancy Pelotox would not get my vote. Comprende? Good. Hope you enjoy the rants! :)