Posted on: November 4, 2008 2:32 pm
 

W2

No not the second coming of George W. Bush.  Your W-2 is the most important thing you need to think about before you pull the lever, punch chad, pencil the circle, or whatever device your board of elections might throw at you.  This election is about one thing boys and girls and Ruth.   And that is your taxes.  If you elect Obama and his promises become law all you folks with jobs will pay more in taxes.  All you folks without jobs will get more handouts.  If you elect McCain and his promises become law all you folks will pay the same or less in taxes.

It really is that simple.  Tax and spend or lower taxes and cutback.  What do you do when you run short of cash?  Do you cutback or maybe you get an extra or different job.  Or do you charge away your future?  Most of us cut back, some of us charge away.  Doesn't it make more sense to cut back the wasteful spending and give it back to the consumer to spend as they choose?  You know - freedom to decide how your nickels are spent.  Just my opinion.

But I will ask each of you to take out your W-2 form at the end of 2009 and compare it to this year's W-2.  I will be interested to find out how each of us does in Obamanomics.

For those who don't know what a W-2 form is go back to eating cheese puffs and surfing the net, the treasury will stop by soon to deliver your windfall entitlements.

Posted on: October 23, 2008 10:07 am
Edited on: October 25, 2008 2:04 pm
 

Shopping for lingerie in Paris, oui oui....

I was out yesterday enjoying some shopping.  I bought some wonderful lingerie to augment my collection.  Some was a little naughtier than normal but alas, why not. I stopped by a café to enjoy the sights and sounds of Paris. Ah shopping in Paris, new clothes, a wonderful cup of espresso can it get any better?  But then I picked up the Journal I purchased in the morning but had not gotten around to reading and I found this article in the Wall Street Journal by Adam Lerrick of Carnegie Mellon, a professor of economics (Oct 22, 2008).  It is the most frightening discussion I have yet read regarding our Country and its future tax system.  Before you read it I want you to remember the cornerstone reason for creating these United States of America.  For those who don’t recall, it was taxation without representation that drove the founding fathers to commit treason against the crown.  As you recall, England levied taxes on the colonies to the point of choking trade in the New World.   From Lerrick:  What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon know the answer.Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.  Obama is promising $500 and $1000 gift wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits.  These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of the voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending. In 2006 (the latest census data), 220 million Americans were elegible to vote and 89 million – 40% - paid no income taxes.  According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama’s cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls.  What’s more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimum amount of income taxes – less than 5% of their income. In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Obama’s plans and will gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of the income tax revenues. The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the “very rich” – the 5% that earn more than $250k and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill – will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.  What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts, those educated professionals who applaud “fairness” of their candidate’s tax plans – will soon see their $100,000-150,000 incomes targeted.  As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way down to households with $75,000 income. Calculating how far a society’s top earners can be pushed before they stop or cut back on producing is difficult.  But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners – at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country. Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and fount that reward without work is a recipe for decline. Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth in Great Britain. In Germany, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party’s dogma and loosened labor’s grip on the economy to end stagnation.  And more recently in France, Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.  The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big spending policies force the economy to lose momentum.  Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow.  Central Banks try to solve the problem by printing more money.  International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates.  And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power. -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
-------- Anyone feel like they are being taxed without representation yet?  I need to go back to the hotel and don my new clothes, maybe that will improve my mood.
Posted on: October 22, 2008 8:53 am
 

Biden: President to be tested, will appear wrong!

Please tell me how O'Bidens latest gaff is not front page fodder for every newspaper in America.  Let's see -

He can assure us that the Obama- Biden administration will be tested in the first 6 months by a global crisis like JFK was and at first his decision will appear wrong.His words - not mine though I did paraphrase abit because I don't have the exact quote here in Socialist France.  A history lesson - JFK was perceived as weak and untested by Kruschev (USSR) so the Russian leader decided to test him.  The result was the brink of nuclear war between the superpowers.  Cuban missile crisis, et al.  Do your own homework.

So back to Joe Gaffmachine.  Does he know something?  Is there an impending situation only he knows about?  I am sure the press is asking that question right?  No. 

How about this question, then.  Sen. Biden, are you saying that Obama is viewed as inexperienced and weak by the outside world? No question from the media, what gives here?

A follow up then.  Why are you so confident your decision will appear wrong? Please tell me that question was raised by the 4th estate?

This goes back to the primary season when Biden called Obama unqualified.  I can only assume he still believes that his future boss is unqualified given that ridiculous quote.

So to you folks seriously considering voting for the smooth polished Obama and Joe Gaff, stop and ask yourself the questions the media is not.  Do you really want an untested person running the country in a time of crisis?

And don't give me the Palin rhetoric.  She is not the top of the ticket like BHO is.

Back to my meeting....

 

Category: NCAAF
Posted on: October 18, 2008 1:29 pm
 

Lingerie ain't cheap, silk is getting expensive!!

Hi there.  I am Cyndi (real name - Americanized though).  I thought I would go through my budget with you.  To share my thoughts on my needs and wants, and to decide where do I cut to prepare for the coming economic doom.  To start, I do not make more than $250k per year, so I am looking forward to that tax cut BHO, and I am going to hold you to your promise. 

Where do I start?

My mortgage is $2343 on a thirty year fixed at 6.125 including taxes and insurance into a monthly escrow.  I suppose I could refinance to a lower payment to conserve funds.  I do have two roommates who throw in $500 each. Perhaps I could sell it, but then there would be a nasty loss in value.

Cellphone bill - $149.77 including all applicable taxes.  Hey, I 'm young and single and need all that texting to commune with my comrades.  But do I NEED it?

Utility bills are running an average of $327 in gas and electric w/includes applicable taxes, thanks Duke!  Could turn the thermostat in the proper direction except I already keep it cold in the winter and warm in the summer.

DirecTV costs me $169 a month including taxes.  Gotta have my sports channels right?

Starbucks is about $140 a month including taxes.  A girl's gotta have her coffee or else I might get bitchy, right?

I have an Audi TT but it's paid for but I could ride the bus except I work out of my house most of the time now because I live on the road but the company picks up that tab. So no real opportunites there.  Oh wait, I could get a tire gauge.

I give $233 per month to United Way because my company stresses how much I should give.  I guess I could keep that.

I give $1250 to a scholarship foundation I set up each month.  Since education is free in a socialist republic, I should be able to stopt those costs too.

The gym membership and my personal trainer.  That costs me $219 per month combined.  I guess I don't need to spend that kind of cash to look and feel my best.  What the heck, Im gonna have free health care to fix me up if I fall apart, so why take care of myself?  The government is signing up for that one.

Shoes - hmm.  Probably $200 a month average.  Silk things and other fine garments (my uniform) $400 a month including dry cleaning.

I suppose $750 a month in groceries is exhorbitant for a single lady.  But I do like to cook for my friends and my roomies.  I guess I can stop eating fresh fruits and veggies and move over to the preprocessed variety. 

Looks like I have some real opportunity to be more patriotic here and pay up my fair share in taxes.  Last year I paid $33,459 in federal taxes even with my foundation.  All I have to do is cut out my cell phone, my lattes, my directv, healthclub, my golf, vacations, going to the movies, cut back on my food bill, and I should be ready for my patriotic tax increase, uhhh I mean tax cut.  Notice I am keeping shoes and silk in the budget otherwise morale could sink to an all time low around my house.

-----------------------------------
-------------------

The point is folks I do have a means to cut and I will get by.  I know many of you will struggle to make the ends meet. And you will slash your expenses in the process.  But the problem is, if we all cut back we will further strangle the economy.  If we all drop our cable or sattelite, a bunch of big companies will take it on the chin and will likely layoff their workforce.  If we cut back on lattes or frapaccinos then Starbucks and a bunch of coffee houses drain their pots and close up shop.  If we stop purchasing cars, electronics, ipods, etc...we only serve to deepen the recession.  Keeping up deficit spending on the other hand is not the answer.  Use cash to buy stuff.  Break the cycle of credit. Otherwise you are not helping the economy grow, you are only borrowing from your future.

You know there was a much lampooned President who said we should continue on with life and keep shopping after 9/11.  He was right.  But Obama has made that the punch line in campaign bumper sticker speech.  So now no one can utter it.  But it does not change the fact that we the consumer are the ones (not our government) who must spend our way out of a recession or else the entire economy - housing, autos, electronics, commercial, etc...- will fall on harder times than we see today.

Surely we must be responsible and only spend what we must (You, Me and the Government).  We should ask if we REALLY need that thing we have in our hands (or in our barrel.)  If the answer is no then don't buy it.  I am talking to you, politicians!

The question is....Do we vote in Obama who wants to spend $1 trillion AND raise taxes (and let's not kid ourselves, shall we, $250k is not the threshold is it BHO?)  Or do we vote for McCain who proposes a spending freeze and lowering all taxes? 

Both candidates say they will sift through the budget and look for waste.  IS that possible?  I wonder.  When my division's budget came across my desk this past week for next year, my pen made contact with the paper and crossed out many things we do not need to do, heck, it would be irresponsible to our customers, employees and shareholders if we did not.  Hey politicians, why don't you give it a try, it might make you feel like a leader instead of pretending.

Just my ramblings....I am out of the country next week so don't be sad, I will post again when I return.  Our European division is credit and cash strapped thanks to the economic turmoil.  The Europeans are looking for difficult cuts to help them get by.  Otherwise we may face job cuts across the globe in our company to remain afloat.  By the way, this is precisely the reason the government bailouts of the banks are happening folks.  Without it, corporate debt, a necessary evil to fend off takeover bids, cannot be refinanced which will force companies to tap into cash reserves to make payroll and other commitments.  IF you are not scared it is because you just don't understand, but you will be effected.  Count on it.

Do you think we can get BHO to add shoes and lingerie to the tax deductible list?  I will vote for him if he does.

 

Posted on: October 14, 2008 2:46 pm
 

Back in the USSA

Reporting live from here in the newly minted United Socialist States of America, I'm Katie Communist.  Everything is well.  Your government is pleased to inform you that lines in the healthcare system have reduced to less than 220 days to first treatment citing the noble deaths on behalf of the mother land by the capitalist folks in the New Moscow financial district due to the dreaded capitalist influenza virus.  There is no truth to the heinous rumour the government pushed any of the capitalists out of the window to their deaths.

In other news, your government thanks you all for agreeing to pay more rent for your apartments.  The Socialist Banks have agreed to accept your generosity and will use your funds for the betterment of all of your fellow comrades.

In the rebellious South, Nationalist forces have succeeded in gathering up over 1 million guns from religious seperatists opposing the new laws prohibiting worship in pagan religions.  Surveilance records showed several militant religious groups known as Baptists of the Confederacy were in violation of the National firearm and religious laws passed by the Politburo in Marxington last year.  Reports of fighting in the seizure were not true and no soldiers were injured in the event.

A newly minted currency will be introduced next year called the Socio.  It will replace the aging dollar which has fallen in value on the open market after being attacked relentlessly by evil capitalists.  The new Socio can be obtained at a rate of 1 S to every $1480.  Your government promises bread will not cost more than 1 S each in 2010.

Premier Obama announced yesterday that he intended to continue the will of the people by redistributing wealth from the capitalists who have an unfair amount of money. 

In sports, Japan won the Worlds Series over Cuba four games to two, with a 7-4 victory, yesterday. 

 

Wake up America, this nightmare can be prevented.

  • Government owns the banks
  • Government wants to control the healthcare system
  • Government controls schools/education
  • Government controls social security (etitlement)
  • Government has the Patriot Act and can look in on anything you do.
  • Barack said yesterday to a plummer he wants to redistribute the wealth in this country!

This is SOCIALISM !!!!!  No other word for it.

Category: General
Posted on: October 12, 2008 2:59 pm
 

Slipping the big one in tight spaces....

Usually pleasure follows that comment, but not this time. Looking at the pork installed in the bailout plan is reprehensible.  Where is the outcry from the Media.  Maybe they could take their lips off the Messiah for a little while and ask the question WTF were they thinking putting pork in a bailout bill?  Oh of course not.  That would mean they come off the campaign trail and go back to doing their job - asking the right questions and keeping the political whores honest.  But that is not possible given the Leftist press who has dropped all pretense about being neutral and just boldly tells of the the tingling feelings when Ob speaks.

I would love to know how much money is wasted in earmark and pork barrel spending each year.  In my company we know how much we spend on cell phones down to the individual, we know their travel expenses and we strive to keep them as low as possible, we know how much we spend on training, on paper, on community service, on benefits, on ink pens, on everything and with that level of oversight we control costs for our stockholders.  We are good stewardesses of their money.  You expect that CEOs and CFOs be held responsible with stockholder money, with your retirement dollars if you invested in them, to provide for the community and its customers, you hold them accountable.  How is that different for our politicians? They seem to lack oversight - that is until we start voting them ALL out of office.  We the tax payers are STOCKHOLDERS in AMERICA.  I want to know how much paper we use, how much we spend on ink pens, how much we spend on pork, I want to apply Lean Principles to our Government.  And that means no more BS programs that are nothing more than handouts.  STOP this CRAP!!!

I am "All of the Above" on energy and "None of the Above" on politicians.  Make it so.....

From the Wall Street Journal I found this quote....

"I have all I need to live on for the rest of my life, provided I am hit by a bus tomorrow."  That sounds hopeless. 

Back to the tight spaces........

Posted on: October 11, 2008 6:28 pm
 

The best JOB I'd ever given was....

Now cool your tools boys, drop the snakes, put the little thingies away.

Have you ever received a job from a poor person?  Seriously, you all have been given jobs by folks who have at least some money.  Perhaps they were born with it.  Perhaps they took a chance and worked very hard as a small buisness owner and now have money to hire folks to work for them.  And maybe they even pay a decent wage and provide some benefits as well.  So why is it we would want to tax the folks with money more to GIVE it to the poor.  Will that create one more job?  Or will it cause the wealthy to pull back their money.  Hire less, maybe fire more.  Cut costs and benefits.  My logic is having a difficult time seeing how taxing wealthy will save economy since that is done by putting folks back to work.

Since it appears the media has all but elected Obama and his socialist agenda, I want to know if the above paragraph rings true with anyone or am I all wet between my hmmm.  All I see happening is making people more dependent on the gov'ment. 

How can that be a good thing?

Maybe I am just wet....

Posted on: October 9, 2008 2:56 pm
Edited on: October 9, 2008 2:58 pm
 

You know what makes me HOT???

Sexy men sure do.  Sexy women absolutely.  People who lie to gain power makes me hot - but this under the collar not where I like it. But what really makes me HOT is when people are too blind to demand the truth and too stupid to ask the right questions.  If you have been paying attention you probably know there is a blame fest in Washington with regards to the credit and banking meltdown.  The other night I heard Obama blame McCain and Bush for the troubles.  I heard McCain blame Democrats.  Blame is not the answer folks.

In the banter and bickering the fourth estate, the press, has failed to ask the right questions.  Failed to get to the bottom of it.  In fact the New York Times has become a Democrat Rag regurgitating party doctrine as gospel and failing to perform any investigation into the mess. The New York Times is fast fading as a journalistic icon, a bastion on truth, they are less reliable than the National Enquirer!  But this is downright ridiculous.  The same paper that is ripping the Republicans for the mess ran this article in 1999.   Look it up, its there.

FANNIE MAE EASES CREDIT TO AID MORTGAGE LENDING By STEVEN A. HOLMES 
New York Times,September 30, 1999.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Now which is it New York Times?  Is it Bush's fault?  Is it the Republican's fault?  Is it the Democrat's fault?  You are irrelevant!! Americans- Stop expecting government to solve your problems.  Take responsibility for your actions.  Stop spending money you don't have.  Hold your politicians accountable for their spending. Vote them all out of office.  For everyone who added pork to the bailout bill - you should be recalled immediately for your reprehensible behavior and greed.  It was not that long ago when a poor person had too much pride to even ask for help.  In 2008 there is nothing a poor person is NOT entitled to and they have very little if any pride.  Work for your living. I think I am going to makes some love now. Smorgie
 
 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com