The U.S. today has announced that Muskrats are now part of the 'Axis of Evil' nations. The president announced that the 'Muskrat Nation' has been under secret surveillance for years, but that after the harrowing attack by muskrats that caused the levee in Missouri to break, a new public crusade against these monsters will begin.
Secretary of defense Robert Gates said 'We will send in the Navy Seals to decimate these terrorist Muskrats'.
The coach of the Miami Dolphins was heard to say that 'we would go in ourselves to help, but we only like salt water'.
The Department of Homeland Security has called a special session to include a new 'rodent' level to the department's current 'terror threat level'.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated 'We will do all we can to thwart this new danger. We can not afford to have a Muskrat Gap!'
In the meantime, the clothing store 'The Gap' has announced they will start carrying Muskrat Fur clothing in the near future.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Damn the Queen
I can't believe it. Queen Elizabeth is going to revoke President Robert Mugabe's honorary knighthood. Here I was, packing my bags to go to Zimbabwe to seduce Sir Robert. Could you imagine me being Lady Mugabe? The honor and prestige? How could she do this to me? Here's a man who is a self-centered, power-hungry, ruthless, megalomaniac. I mean, what else could a girl want? But now his knighthood is being revoked. I guess I will just have to unpack and start looking for someone else. Sigh.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
GOP + Religious Right = Theocracy
The Texas GOP have adopted their 2008 Republican Platform. The Texas GOP and the Religious Right have been merging for many years, and by the look of their platform, they are almost one in the same.
Reading through their platform sent chills down my spine. Here is just a sampling:
1> teaching of creationism/intelligent design and downplaying evolution and science,
2> teaching only 'abstinence until heterosexual marriage',
3> stripping courts of their authority to uphold the First Amendment’s prohibition against government officials promoting and endorsing religion,
4> Legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians, etc.
The Texas Freedom Network has two excellent posts on this:
1> an overview and
2> a briefing paper.
Both are must reads.
I find it amazing that the GOP will proclaim 'less government intrusion' (let corporations and [Christian] religion run amok), but then try to add laws that would force their theocracy down the throats of others (constitutional amendment against all marriages but heterosexual, etc.).
They claim religious freedom for all faiths, but after reading this platform, it is obvious that what they mean is for all Christian sects. But that won't last either, as each sect (Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Fundamental, etc.) all have their own agendas and beliefs.
What is the worst case scenario if this platform spreads? Simple, we become the Christian version of the middle east. Throwing science away, teaching [Christian] religion in the schools, massive censorship, witch hunts against gays and lesbians, burning Muslims at the stake, civil war between [Christian] sects, and in the end, probably Armageddon as we nuke everyone that are not Christians. In other words, the second Spanish Inquisition (but with much more powerful weapons).
God Help Us All!
Reading through their platform sent chills down my spine. Here is just a sampling:
1> teaching of creationism/intelligent design and downplaying evolution and science,
2> teaching only 'abstinence until heterosexual marriage',
3> stripping courts of their authority to uphold the First Amendment’s prohibition against government officials promoting and endorsing religion,
4> Legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians, etc.
The Texas Freedom Network has two excellent posts on this:
1> an overview and
2> a briefing paper.
Both are must reads.
I find it amazing that the GOP will proclaim 'less government intrusion' (let corporations and [Christian] religion run amok), but then try to add laws that would force their theocracy down the throats of others (constitutional amendment against all marriages but heterosexual, etc.).
They claim religious freedom for all faiths, but after reading this platform, it is obvious that what they mean is for all Christian sects. But that won't last either, as each sect (Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Fundamental, etc.) all have their own agendas and beliefs.
What is the worst case scenario if this platform spreads? Simple, we become the Christian version of the middle east. Throwing science away, teaching [Christian] religion in the schools, massive censorship, witch hunts against gays and lesbians, burning Muslims at the stake, civil war between [Christian] sects, and in the end, probably Armageddon as we nuke everyone that are not Christians. In other words, the second Spanish Inquisition (but with much more powerful weapons).
God Help Us All!
Friday, June 20, 2008
Economy Links
Before I change subjects and leave the economy behind for awhile, I thought I would give out a few more links.
Government Accountability Office
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Tax Policy Center
Economists For Obama
Happy Hunting.
Government Accountability Office
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Tax Policy Center
Economists For Obama
Happy Hunting.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Political Economics - Part II
Or, 'How to respond to right-wing pundits/morons/officials on the Economy'.
This was basically covered my last post, but here I'll use specific items and do some recapping with updated numbers. My previous post also has lots of links.
GNP = Gross National Product ($14 trillion)
Budget = what congress has authorized to spend ($3 trillion)
Receipts = actual tax revenues received (approximately 18.5% of GNP - $2.7 trillion)
One of the ways politicians like to muddy up the waters when it comes to the economy, is to compare one item to the GNP, then comparing another item to the budget. Of course, these comparisons become talking points that are handed down the line, and no one seems to question them. Why? Well, they are valid facts, and they've been used so often. The right wing will compare military spending to the GNP (giving it a very low %), while comparing domestic spending to the budget (giving a high %).
These are some of them:
Item ------ % of...... GNP......Budget...... Receipts
federal deficit......... 1.5%....... 10%..........11.3%......($300 billion)
federal debt ............ 35%...... 176% ........ 200%......($5.4 trillion)
military spending... 3.6%...... 16.3%....... 18.5%......($500 billion)
middle-east war..... 1.2% ....... 5.6% ........ 6.3%......($170 billion)
military+war.......... 4.8% ..... 21.9% ...... 24.8%......($670 billion)
subsidies................ 0.3%........ 1.6%......... 1.8%......($ 48 billion)
scienc/tech/space... 0.2%........ 0.8%......... 0.9%......($ 25 billion - estimate)
As you can see, 25% of current taxes (22% of the budget) goes to the military/war. This does not include homeland security, retirement benefits, etc., so my tables may be different than others.
The latest gov. tables can be found here and here.
The crux of this is that comparing anything to the GNP, is nothing more than a 'red herring'. The government does *not* pay its bills from the GNP, it pays them by it's receipts. The GNP is used as a measure of how the country is doing economically, and gives an estimate of the receipts that the government can expect, but has no real bearing on expenditures (except as a comparison to other countries or historical comparisons).
So the next time a right-wing pundit/moron/official says we spend less than 4 cents of every GNP dollar on the military, turn the 'tables' on them and give them the real comparison/figures that effect actual income vs. expenditure by comparing it with the budget or receipts.
Please note: I am not an economist, but most of the info is out there if you look. Here's some starters:
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Office of Management and Budget
Congressional Budget Office
This was basically covered my last post, but here I'll use specific items and do some recapping with updated numbers. My previous post also has lots of links.
GNP = Gross National Product ($14 trillion)
Budget = what congress has authorized to spend ($3 trillion)
Receipts = actual tax revenues received (approximately 18.5% of GNP - $2.7 trillion)
One of the ways politicians like to muddy up the waters when it comes to the economy, is to compare one item to the GNP, then comparing another item to the budget. Of course, these comparisons become talking points that are handed down the line, and no one seems to question them. Why? Well, they are valid facts, and they've been used so often. The right wing will compare military spending to the GNP (giving it a very low %), while comparing domestic spending to the budget (giving a high %).
These are some of them:
Item ------ % of...... GNP......Budget...... Receipts
federal deficit......... 1.5%....... 10%..........11.3%......($300 billion)
federal debt ............ 35%...... 176% ........ 200%......($5.4 trillion)
military spending... 3.6%...... 16.3%....... 18.5%......($500 billion)
middle-east war..... 1.2% ....... 5.6% ........ 6.3%......($170 billion)
military+war.......... 4.8% ..... 21.9% ...... 24.8%......($670 billion)
subsidies................ 0.3%........ 1.6%......... 1.8%......($ 48 billion)
scienc/tech/space... 0.2%........ 0.8%......... 0.9%......($ 25 billion - estimate)
As you can see, 25% of current taxes (22% of the budget) goes to the military/war. This does not include homeland security, retirement benefits, etc., so my tables may be different than others.
The latest gov. tables can be found here and here.
The crux of this is that comparing anything to the GNP, is nothing more than a 'red herring'. The government does *not* pay its bills from the GNP, it pays them by it's receipts. The GNP is used as a measure of how the country is doing economically, and gives an estimate of the receipts that the government can expect, but has no real bearing on expenditures (except as a comparison to other countries or historical comparisons).
So the next time a right-wing pundit/moron/official says we spend less than 4 cents of every GNP dollar on the military, turn the 'tables' on them and give them the real comparison/figures that effect actual income vs. expenditure by comparing it with the budget or receipts.
Please note: I am not an economist, but most of the info is out there if you look. Here's some starters:
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Office of Management and Budget
Congressional Budget Office
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Lesson in Political Economics
Before we get started, just a quick reminder:
The 'deficit' is the yearly difference in income vs. spending (ie: when you spend more than what you make).
The 'debt' is the money borrowed to pay for these continuing deficits.
Also, please note that as far as I can surmise, none of these numbers include the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. These numbers are also a few months old, but the basic statistics remain the same.
The Federal Government:
The total GNP (Gross National Product) of the U.S. is approximately $14 trillion dollars (http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls). The Feds receive around 18.5% in taxes (chart #3 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf), or about $2.7 trillion.
Now, the total national debt is approximately $9.2 trillion, but to be fair, we'll only use the public debt, which is $5.1 trillion (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np).
Even using the lower (public) debt number, that puts the debt to income ration at close to 190%. Again, these are unsecured loans. It would be like someone making $100,000/yr, with a credit card debt of $190,000. Pretty sad, to say the least.
The current spending is over $3 trillion, giving us a current federal deficit of $306 billion for the year, adding even more to the debt.
as of: 2007-Q3 (in billions)
Total receipts 2,712.8 (Fed gov't income)
Total expenditures 3,018.8 (Fed gov't spending)
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -306.0 (Fed deficit)
(these numbers are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis: http://www.bea.gov)
(the actual table: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=85&First...)
Remember, these numbers are adjusted every Quarter, so it may be a little more or less by the end of the year. In essence, they are like an estimate, with the final numbers coming at the end of the fiscal year.
Totals (as a nation):
If we look at the totals (as a nation: fed/state/local), we come to the higher number of $9.2 trillion.
Here we can see the total receipts and expenditures:
as of: 2007-Q3 (in billions)
Total receipts 4,231.1
Total expenditures 4,671.2
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -440.9
(these numbers are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis: http://www.bea.gov)
(the actual table for these numbers are at http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid).
Again, these are adjusted numbers, as above.
So, as a nation, the deficit is approximately $440 billion for this year, with a total national debt of $9.2 trillion.
At the current rate of debt accrual, well, I'll let you make your own conclusions, but as you can see, the financial outlook does not look promising.
Now, I don't want to get into a position of 'finger pointing', but the fiscal irresponsibility throughout the current presidential administration has been appalling. Let's hope that 'whoever' is in charge after the next election, will 'see the light' and work to stop the downward spiraling economy. My fingers are crossed.
Some personal thoughts:
I fail to see how we will ever be able to pay off the debt as long as we continue to have such large deficits.
Looking at the White House's 2008 budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf), I find that they are using 'Red Herrings' to make things look better than what they are. In particular, they like to show the 'deficit' (and other items) as a percentage of GNP. However, it's really the actual receipts (income) that the government makes that should be the deciding factor. It's this income that runs the country, not the GNP (although, generally speaking, the higher the GNP, the more the government makes). This makes for a truer picture: so instead of a deficit of 1.5% of GNP (Chart #1 - http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf), we would have a deficit of over 11% when compared to federal receipts (income).
Using GNP as a percentage would be like me using the company I work for as my basis of financial status. Here's an example (using the same basic percentages of the above 'federal' data): the company I work for makes $1 million. I make $185,000/yr. I spend $206,000/yr, or a deficit of $21,000/yr. My credit card debt is $351,500. Hmmm, of course, this would never happen. However, I could say that my deficit is only 1.5% of my company's gross income, when in reality, it's 11% of my true income. The same can be said about the my debt. Why, it's only 35% of the my company's gross income, but in reality, it's 190% of my actual income. (these numbers may be off by a little bit, but the basics still apply). Is this any way to run a country?
Hmmm, and I thought 'billions' (let alone 'trillions') were suppose to be 'astronomical' numbers. Now they're just economic numbers.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
$300 Billion Government Boondoggle
Want to know where some of your hard earned dollars are going? Interested in how our government works? Wondering why our national debt is over $5 trillion dollars (over $9 trillion for all debts) and growing?
American News Project has an excellent video on the mindless military spending that's going to the military industrial complex, and the waste of billions of dollars on worthless systems, cost overruns, scheduling delays, underbidding, and more.
This is your government at work folks. Add in the cost of the war, and it's easy to see why our national debt is spiraling up. Disgusting.
American News Project has an excellent video on the mindless military spending that's going to the military industrial complex, and the waste of billions of dollars on worthless systems, cost overruns, scheduling delays, underbidding, and more.
This is your government at work folks. Add in the cost of the war, and it's easy to see why our national debt is spiraling up. Disgusting.
The McCain Loyalty Oaths...
Planning on voting for McCain?
Don't forget to take your loyalty oath first. Katie Harper has several oaths for you to take (for Women, men, and gays). I bring you the 'Oath for Women'.
Courtesy of Katie Halper at 23/6.com:
The McCain Loyalty Oath for Women
Don't forget to take your loyalty oath first. Katie Harper has several oaths for you to take (for Women, men, and gays). I bring you the 'Oath for Women'.
Courtesy of Katie Halper at 23/6.com:
The McCain Loyalty Oath for Women
I _______________ pledge to transfer my support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. I agree to do all I can do to get McCain the vote. In order to achieve this noble goal I promise to support McCain's...
- fight to overturn Roe v. Wade and my right to choose.
- fight against equal pay for men and women.
- opposition to providing low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.
- opposition to sex education and support of abstinence-only education.
- opposition to insurance covering birth control.
- endorsement of women's rights more "in theory" than in practice.
- pet name for his wife.
As a woman I promise to apply McCain's principles to my own life and vow to...
- call myself and my female friends the C word.
- picket abortion clinics.
- not use contraceptives.
- drink bleach so I don't catch HIV and drink Mountain Dew so I don't get pregnant.
- give back part of my salary to male coworkers.
- not vote, but pursue education and encourage my father/husband/brother male friends to vote for McCain.
Once McCain is elected, I will continue to support him and I will not complain about my losing my right to choose, and other reproductive freedoms. And I will continue to refrain from pursuing equality for women.
Signature ____________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)