JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL

The Set Up:
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal."  Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California . 

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes  $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number,  and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table."


Ready? Now pay attention ...
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00  per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for His family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now Has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or Welfare. Joe Legal pays $500..00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal Still has $ 31,200.00.


Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.



Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.



Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.


Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after School ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay .. but does Jose still vote and even if not, Jose illegal is still illegal.

Get It.

~ contributed via BB

Those Murdering Quakes

From AFP ......

On Wednesday, Obama ordered a "swift, coordinated and aggressive effort to save lives," in Haiti following the murderous quake, as a massive US aid mission swung into action, using troops, naval forces, aircraft and rescue teams. [emphasis added]

Yeah - let's bring those earthquakes up on criminal charges before the world court and then stick them in gitmo for their murdering ways. This is how the soft mind of a liberal works, take a word and misuse it.

What's next? An attempt to define marriage as being something other than the definition of marriage with its  man+woman requirement? Or, maybe an attempt to say that people don't murder people, guns do?

Racism - Alive and Well in America

Just looking to get my daily dose of arrrgggg and I ran across this

" ....The impending vote on Sotomayor has confronted the GOP with a political dilemma. Many senators are torn between their desire to please a conservative based (sic) that opposes Obama's nominee and a fear that doing so could alienate Hispanic voters, a fast-growing part of the electorate."
~Rueters

____**_____
Wow, what an idea. Let's create, and then pander to, voter blocks. Right On, Right On, Right On. Let's get people thinking of themselves first as Blacks, Mexicans, Hispanics, Germans, short, fat, handicapped, males, straights, homosexuals, etc ..... and then we can pit them against each other so they vote their separate identities. Now, if we can just couple this with getting the various "groups" to grovel and grunt and use the political system to get "their" piece of the pie, then we will really be able to manipulate things.

So, then, is this is what we have been reduced to? We have Supreme Court nomination decisions being based on race, not on qualifications or espoused ideology? What? If you are Hispanic you get a free pass???

Wouldn't want to alienate the Hispanics?? If that would indeed alienate the Hispanics, then sounds to me like the people being alienated are racist in that they think that race matters. Also sounds to me like the people that do not want do do any alienating are being racist too in that their decision about a nominee is indeed race based.

What's next, having to put a handicapped person on the SC because they are handicapped? After that, a demand for a justice that has red hair and freckles? I mean, it is clear that redheaded freckled people are discriminated against in judicial appointments.

Talk about the dumbing down of America.

Property = Freedom

~ by Cato

I was thinking about the government’s increasing encroachment on my economic choices and wondering how to protect my property from the government. Suddenly, I woke up and smelled the coffee as my brain was animated to think "Wait a minute! Wasn’t our government set up to protect property rights? Indeed, can not freedom, and life, and indeed many of the other "rights" that we had to embody in a Bill of Rights be considered "property" - in the abstract at least.

At any rate, when I feel that I must protect my property, my life, my liberty, my freedom, against the government that is supposed to protect it, then something is very wrong. Indeed, I realized that the more I fear the government’s threat to my property, the farther along we are on the path from safety to danger, from republic to statism, from freedom to tyranny.

Then I read this from Barney Frank at the National Press Club today:

"I've had people come to us and complain, "Well, if you do that, I can't make any money." The answer is that's not my job. We're not here to help you make money. We are here to help have a system in which you will make money as an incident of your providing funds to those who will use it productively."

Huh? I am supposed to make money for someone else? And double Huh? You get to dictate that I use MY property in a manner YOU consider productive?

So you say. Sorry, but no. Your job is to safeguard my property rights, not decide who gets my property.

___**___
Seneca's Addendum:

#1 This then causes the bumper sticker I saw the other day to come into clear focus, for it said, "Fear the Government that Fears Your Guns" .... And all the little kiddies think (or are taught) that the 2d amendment was/is about hunting and target practice.

#2 There is a difference between the government belonging to the people, and the people belonging to the government. I think we know which of these philosophies the Revolutionary War was fought over. Shame on Mr Frank and shame on anybody that says "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

The real thing that needs to be said is, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for YOURSELF."

Global Warming Hoax Outrages Engineers

In a flurry of letters to their trade group president, members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), hurled invective and disdain at the association hierarchy for the self serving statements of political correctness made by their association's president, Wayne Klotz PE, concerning Global Warming aka "Climate Change".

Says member K Anderson "...I can’t believe you [ASCE President] as an intelligent person is being sucked into the fairytale of global warming..."

This should not be a foregone conclusion in the mind of any decent scientist. ~ J Greer

It is indeed a sad day when the figurehead of the foremost organization of my profession buys into the “sky is falling..or.. should I say the “seas are rising” hysteria. What does it say for “practical thinking and reasoning” we engineers are noted for when the leader of the ASCE spouts out this nonsense that has yet to be proven. This is an embarrassment to our profession. ~ P Purcell

For engineers to go along with this hoax is the biggest negligence I have ever seen. It is ALL about the money. Indeed there is Green (aka $$$$) in going green - THAT is why it is being pushed and supported as the latest emperor with no clothes. ~ A Koenig

Here is the link to the entire blog thread where you can read how rank and file engineers consider the global warming issue, essentially and overwhelmingly calling it a hoax and a sham made to order to make money and provide a basis for revenue extraction by an overweening government working in conjunction with industry.

http://blogs.asce.org/president2009/?p=137

Obama Wants the United States to Fail

Here is Obama, giving one of his daily pronouncements, this time in Egypt:

"Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail." Found at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23334_Page2.html

**************************************
Here is the commentary on this inane statement of Obama's ...

Is there no shame in this guy Obama, that he can say such things with a straight face? Any ordering of the world that does not allow that [elevation] to happen naturally will be an order that crushes liberty and crushes enterprise. The very thing that all the "less elevated" countries have is less freedom. And it seems a little naive to think that you, Mr Obama, can alter the world order, except by making the united States a ward of your new order where we all live in shared poverty and misery.

Want to bring this into focus? Apply the same maxim to individuals. Yep, that's what Obama is trying to do to us -- make sure no one has any more than anyone else, by taking away from some who have rightfully earned more, and give that excess to others who have not. Of course the decision as to what constitutes too much will be made on careful reflection while jetting to NY so as to attend dinner and a play all while talking about how America is arrogant. Ah yes, indeed it is true that "All Pigs Are Equal... Except that Some Pigs are More Equal Than Others."

By the way, Barak Hussein Obama, you are not the president of the world. Of course, I can see how you might think you are, since you identified yourself as a citizen of the world, not the United States. You sir, are instead, a sociopath of sorts, who just like Ted Bundy was all smiles and sincerity ....... up till the moment his victim was irrevocably ensnared.

It's finally clear to me -- Obama, you do not want America to be great. To you, any greatness is oppression, any advantage is wrong per se. I had not wanted to believe this of you, but I cannot deny it now. You are angry and have a chip on your shoulder - (In some places they call this "having a bug up your ass")

You simply do not understand that America is economically and politically influential (and is great), not because of oppression, but because of freedom and its founding values.

California Dreaming (for Gvt Bailout)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzI3OGZlMjlkMGMwY2I5Yzg4YjdkYTNlNTFiZmIxNmU#more

Great – now we are not only subsidizing irresponsible people who cannot pay their mortgages, but talking about subsidizing entire states that spend recklessly!

Oh well, all long as I can still get "mine" at your expense, then everything is OK by me. THAT is the mood of the day.

On Charitable Contributions

OK, I admit it, sometimes I am slow on the uptake, and I confess that it took me a while to understand the implications of the Obama proposal to eliminate the tax deduction on charitable contributions.

Here is the reason Obama wants to do this - Obama is a collectivist and he wants NOTHING to come but through the government. The entire thrust of his Administration is to complete the attachment of the people to the government so that the citizens are reduced to a people of the government, rather than a government of the people. For this reason, he must sever all connection of the people to any entity other than the government.

How Did It Get Like This?

5/15/09
Rush Limbaugh just finished asking the radio audience something along the lines of "How can it be that it has gotten to this point. " (The government involvement in health care and everything else.)

The short answer: Rush, it has gotten this way because the vast bulk of the people want it this way.

And when I say "the people", I do not mean commie-pinko-Russian flag-waving nut jobs. I mean the bulk of the American people. This includes Democrats and Republicans of almost all stripes.

You heard it here first folks: Obama will have a 2d term. So, then, go ahead and sip your sissy-man triple super latte as you watch the next 25 years of destruction of the country. And go ahead and vote for that "other guy' because you think he is different that those evil "other guys".

Folks, Statism is Statism - whether it comes from a Democrat, or whether it comes from somebody calling themselves a Republican, for both are for big government, just big government for different purposes.

To prove the point, try this test. Tell a Republican that we need to do away with the income tax, they will say "But what about...."; Ask a Republican how they would feel if the Chinese Navy decided to run naval war games in the Gulf of Mexico and point out the parallel to US ships in the Indian Ocean or the Gulf of Arabia and they will say "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that the American citizen should not be taxed to send money to Africa or elsewhere and they will say "But what about...."; Tell a Republican that people should pay for their own health care and not expect the governement to chip in one dime, and they will protest "But what about...." ; Tell a Republican that when their parents get old and they have to put them in a nursing home at $40k/year, that they should themselves be responsible for the cost, and they will say "But what about...." and proceed to tell you that it is just "too expensive" for them to pay, and that THE STATE should "help them out".

Go ahead. Just try it and you will find out exactly why we are in the situation that we are in.

America - Land of the Free?

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

Thus it is then that we now have in these United States the following:

car czar
energy czar
health czar
education czar
welfare czar
drug czar
food czar
security czar
finance czar
etc, ad nauseaum...

Plus all the assorted "Wars on This or That"

Am I the only one that is appalled at the fact that in these United States we have the existence of these departments, and, am I the only one that is appalled, and indeed frightened, that the term "czar" is so universally used in conjunction with discussions of them?

To me, the very fact,

a) that these positions exist,
b) that they are called "czars",
c) that "the people" are not appalled by the existence of these entities, and,
d) that the people, doubly, are not appalled at the use of the term "czar" in connection with them,

is proof of the tyranny that has spread, like a cancer, through these States. States, I might add, that united so as to overcome what was billed then as the tyranny of King George and the intrusion of his government into every aspect to the lives of the colonists.

Furthermore, I pause to point out the most Orwellian of terms "Homeland Security", the indifference of the people to both the existence of such an apparatus, and an indifference to the use of such appellation, indicating to me that the only thing necessary to complete the conversion to the collectivist despotism is the speaking of Russian.

Next thing you know we will have Bill O'Riley talking about how the government needs to "... do something about the economy". But wait ... that has already happened!

~Seneca

________________
PS - No, my dear reader - "the economy" is not the function of the Federal Government, and those of you that buy into such pap may as well enroll in Russian language class, for it is exactly that kind of uncritical thinking that leads to a government system that controls everything you do.

Obamunism 102

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014_pf.html

"For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is."

"We are toast", as they used to say around the Roman campfire.

~ Cato

Socialism/Collectivism For Dummies

Sent to me by a friend and it was too good to not post. It fits in exactly with my take on things ....

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "Okay, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around the average was an F.The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.Could not be any simpler than that...

The Epitome of Failure

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501870.html

At the link above, you will find the epitome of the liberal/collectivist failure and a harbinger of the future.

I have news for this poor sister -- she cannot keep up, and neither can Obama. This is what awaits the entire country: complete exhaustion, the destruction of the goose that lays the golden eggs. Why? Because the government simply cannot, nor should it, take care of anyone or everyone, meet all their needs, ensure that the house is not foreclosed, the gas bill gets paid, the job saved, that everybody uses energy wasting environment-destroying fluorescent bulbs, etc..

Liberals want utopia secured by the government, but want what can never be, and in trying to achieve their utopia, they destroy the very thing that created the wealth of the world.



P.S.

About 1/3 down the article says:

Now she sometimes wonders aloud to her husband, Charles: "When does it stop?"

Councilwoman, let me break it down for you. It stops when you and your kind move your eyes to the right hand side of this blog, read the "About Me" section, and start to understand that it is exactly the views and morality espoused there that built the country, and that government policies having their basis in your views, are leading to its very destruction.

It stops when you wake up and realize that that lazy brother of yours will suck you dry, exactly BECAUSE you are giving him a handout.

It stops when you realize that there is ALWAYS going to be a "lazy-brother" and that your handouts of MY money, do nothing but increase his number.

It stops when you realize that you could take all the wealth of all those evil rich people, distribute it to all those you deem "in-need", and raise the standing of "the people" by perhaps as much as only .00001% . (aka shared misery)

It stops when you tell that "friend" of yours that they need to pay their own "... $168 .. water bill".

From all of us that grew up on the farm and know that if you put out free cream for one cat that the next day there will be 3 more freeloaders, none of which will catch mice anymore, we tell you that you are playing with matches in the closet.

Burn Baby Burn

On Ponzi Schemes and You

~ from the Securities and Exchange Commission Site.....

....Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s. Ponzi thought he could take advantage of differences between U.S. and foreign currencies used to buy and sell international mail coupons. Ponzi told investors that he could provide a 40% return in just 90 days compared with 5% for bank savings accounts. Ponzi was deluged with funds from investors, taking in $1 million during one three-hour period—and this was 1921! Though a few early investors were paid off to make the scheme look legitimate, an investigation found that Ponzi had only purchased about $30 worth of the international mail coupons. Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" [emphasis added] principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.


Regarding that last part, "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul". Perhaps it would be a good use of time to go back and read the above while considering the recent "bail-outs," and the schemes of social security, universal health care, children's health insurance, welfare, free education, food stamps, set-asides, immigration "reform", global warming, carbon taxation, save the hungry, feed the whales, aid to Africa, aid to China, be kind to trees movements, and a host of other programs/causes.

Great schemes - all designed to "reach across the aisle" so as to get money out of your pocket and into somebody elses - and also to wrest control from YOU and install it elsewhere. But then, that is OK as long as, in the end, I am able to get more of "mine" at your expense, than you are able to get of "yours" at mine.

You Go Girl

April 21, 2009

Marriage ~ Noun
- the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

- the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

*****
I just saw Neil Cavuto's interview of Carrie Prejean (Miss USA 2009 Contestant) and was amazed that in this politically correct world someone ( Carrie Prejean ), in national spotlight and national forum, had the spine to tell things like they are, tell things like they should be, and not allow someone with an agenda use a particular forum cause her to waver in her conviction.

For those of you that have not heard of the incident, the politically loaded and leading question that was directed her way at the Miss USA Pageant was about homosexual marriage (a.k.a. the euphemism "gay" marriage). Her answer was that she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said on the live broadcast.





Of course, the responses are predictable .. For example ..

"I am personally ... hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement." Keith Lewis, co-director the Miss California competition

And then, of course, came the YouTube diatribe made by the deviant that asked her the question and was apparently humiliated when he got the unexpected answer [that did not support his cause] on live TV.

Says Prejean during her Cavuto interview, "It did cost me my crown ..... It is a very touchy subject and [Hilton] is a homosexual, and I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would've wanted me to be more politically correct. But I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything." .... "I feel like I won," she said. "I feel like I'm the winner. I really do."


I laud this young woman for standing firm. Speaking of standing, words stand for things and the word marriage is a character based (xyz are characters) symbolic representation for a relational and legal condition pertaining to a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, or a man and an animal, or a woman and another woman.

Just because somebody wants to say that 2 = 5, does not make it so, and the incessant histrionics and yammering of homosexuals over this term "marriage" is puerile, and indeed, is indica of thinking that is unstructured and imprecise, and evidence of thinking that knows no control or boundaries or limitations. Just as homosexuals are deviants by the very definition of the word (Hint - look it up in a book on statistics) and no amount of Orwellian speak can change that, they still persist in trying to shame and intimidate those straight thinkers among us through devices such as attempted national embarrassment as was done by that homosexual with an agenda (Hilton) to Miss Prejean. Well, Mr. Hilton, your attempts to humiliate someone into saying something favorable to your views backfired.

Get it through your grey matter that words mean things. Indeed, the fact that you can read this means that words mean things, for if they did not then you would not understand this writing.

So then, in keeping with the resolve of Miss Prejean - here are MY declarations:

- I refuse to allow YOU to dictate the meaning of words - words mean what they mean.

- I refuse to allow YOU to dictate the choices of words used in my speech. That homosexuals call themselves "gay" does not mean that they are not homosexuals, and that they are homosexual is why society, in the remote past, created a unique word to describe that relation which is different than an opposite-sex relation. Sheeesh, the reason we have the word dog is because a dog is a different thing than a cat. Don't tell me that because you want to yamer that you call what we call a dog by the name "jambjubwe" that I now have to call it a jamjubwee! No, it is you that need to call a dog a dog, instead of engaging in all the infantile finger-painting.

-As to the the word marriage, that is a word that was created long ago to describe the man-woman relation, and just because you now want it to mean something else is untenable. What then would you want to do, cause the man-woman relation to not have a word to describe it, or to have society have to create a new word for the man-woman relation because you have stolen the word marriage? No, methinks that the man-woman relation and the word to describe it, has staked "first claim" and it is YOU that need to find yourself new territory with a word other than the word "marriage", instead of trying to steal for yourself something that already belongs to another relation.

- I refuse to allow YOU to co-opt the words of the language so as to allow you to convert terms having one connotation into warm fuzzies so as to assist you in propagating your message. Not to put too fine a point on things- you are not gay, you are homosexual, and your attempts to co-opt this word "gay" is a transparent attempt to make things seem more palatable to non-homosexuals and is a sign of a misguided, but I do admit, clever, mind.

- Like Miss Prejean, I do not hate you.

- I believe that life is to short not to love somebody and have somebody love you. Yes, you read the implication properly. So, if you are a man and love either a man or a woman, that does not offend me. Knock your socks off. Again - Life is too short to not have somebody to love and have somebody love you.

- I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to join in a civil and legal state of relation and that it is even appropriate for us as a society to decide on a neologism to be the character based symbol set to convey that relation - perhaps "gayirage" or "garriage"; and "garried", to convey the idea of civil, spiritual, and other union. BUT, you cannot take an existing word and redefine it.

- Please drop the agitation to redefine the word marriage, for in persisting in this way, you shoot yourself in the foot. I suspect that half of the population that you think is "against" you, or against homosexuality is actually not against YOU or your preferred state of relation, but instead is against the corruption of the language that sends their minds reeling because if words do not mean anything and can be redefined at will, then they do not mean anything. Again, let's choose a specially created new word to refer to the special same-sex relation that you want to enjoy and that you want legal protections for.

Pirate Update 4/21/2009

Update - 4/21/09 - Now we learn that the Somali pirate that was not killed has been taken into US custody by the FBI [and has been brought to the US].

Just freaking great! Mark my word, this will set the stage for pirates now being treated as common criminals instead of as entities that thru their acts of attempted piracy are making war on the United States.

This then, in conjunction with the American Gitmo experience/precedent, will, within 50 years, result in all POW's being reclassified as "criminals" and their entry in to the civil justice system of the United States with all its protections.

This then, in turn, will result in a release of those that made war on the United States because they were not Mirandized on the battlefield or because we cannot prove our case that they were shooting at our people, etc.

There is a reason why the earlier nation-states took the stance they did on piracy. (That stance being that pirates are fair game to be killed on sight.) That reason was to eliminate these sorts of collateral "problems" if such a stance of "kill on sight" was not taken.

All of this new world order brought to you courtesy of those "touchy-feely" kumbaya folks that delude themselves into thinking that chicken comes from the grocery store, and in their minds can't, or won't, go to the place where chicken really comes from.

For those of you who care to think about things, there is another reason pirates are fair game. Hint: It has something to do with property.

Well Said

I found this on a website and thought it appropriate in keeping with telling it like it is.


http://www.aquafreelawns.com/american.html


In keeping with telling things like they really are then, if you consider yourself and/or call yourself a:

• Mexican-American
• German-American
• Afro-American
• Black-American
• Polish-American
• whatever hyphenated- American

you are not American.

A Letter to a Senator

October 1, 2008

Senator Cornyn,

Subject: Bailout/Help/Assistance
Hell No - Vote No

I am a businessman in San Antonio and the time is NOW for the chickens to come home to roost from their feeding frenzy in the pasture of 15 years of credit expansion.

I, too, have money in stocks and if they crater, big deal. And, if it is a big deal - big deal. I took the risk, and it was speculation on my part, but my loss is not a reason for me to want, or be allowed to, pass that to you or others. America is supposed to be about earning your own keep and not about expecting others to earn theirs - and yours too.

So then, I urge you to quit listening to the talking heads whether they be on FOX or CNN. It is not about jobs. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is provide me a job, or a cheap house, or "manage the economy". Only in Statist countries is this part of the government ... it is called Fascism or Socialism, or some other 'ism, ..... but certainly not capitalism.

It is not about saving the economy - the economy is trying to save itself by destroying that which should be destroyed. Get out of the way.

It is not about saving mortgages and mortgage bankers- they took a risk. Get out of the way.

It is not about saving the working man - they too took the risk when they put everything under the sun on their credit card, and bought a $150,000 house when they should have stayed renting. Get out of the way.

It is not about ME - or saving me. Get out of the way.

Summary - Time now to pay. Credit contraction will be a benefit in the long run, for it weeds out the weak, and acts to point out bad decisions that do not comport with the reality of things. Get out of the way.

____________________________
Want to know how he voted and how my representative voted and how the other Texas Senator voted??? Hummmm.....take a wild guess.

And "they" (the RNC) wonder why McCain did not get elected.

The "Poor"

I do not mind if you care about the poor .... as long as you do not do it with MY money.

~ inspired when I heard a woman lamenting about how she is " ...concerned about the poor " ..... all while she digs into her $400 Prada purse as she orders up her $4 super whompo vanilla latte at the local Sbuks.

The American "Poor"

This was sent to me by a friend and undoubtedly is floating around but it is too good to pass up. My understanding is that this is Michelle Obama serving up chow at a homeless shelter and that she brought along some of the things from the White House Staff kitchen.

Couple points here.

#1 - Mushroom Risotto??? What the ^%&# ... at a homeless shelter? And they say they are poor and helpless.

#2 - That cell phone ... yeah, taking the government handout but ya got yourself a cell phone. How the hell do you pay for that? I know exactly how you pay for it - you take money robbed from me to pay for stuff that you should be paying for on your own, and thus you have spare change to buy cell phones. I bet 10 bucks you have a color TV too .. out there in your homeless shelter.

#3 - Where do they send that phone bill to if you are so homeless. (spare me the comments about prepaid cell phones - this is a blog and being used to make a point)

#4 - This is the "American Poor" - the richest poor in the world.