Cheap liquor, Cheetos and a tax free boat?

Yea, so I have been on a bit of a hiatus. I can do that...this is my blog. Frankly, there is such thing as writer's block and sometimes you just lose inspiration. Luckly, as of late a few things have caught my attention and I feel like blabbing about them.

Let's go over a day in the news....that day being Wed, August 3rd.

I love how this article from the NYT opens with how great state-run liquor sales are. They say it's great because as a consumer you don't pay tax. Well guess what, you end up paying anyway becuase the prices are double in government-run states, than free market states. Refer to my earlier post (Straight up and with a twist) if you have any questions about that one.

Additionally, I don't think John Kerry should have to pay Massachusettes the tax on his big fancy yacht that he bought in Rhode Island. Is there someone in Massachusettes that sells the same boat? Doubt it. But you know, people are mad because John Kerry ran over to R.I. to buy a boat and in that state there isn't a tax, so people in Mass are expecting him to pay THEM the tax that WOULD HAVE existed if he bought the boat in Mass.

What the hell?? I'm not even a fan of John Kerry's, but this is ridiculous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/us/04newengland.html?ref=us


Another hot story.....obesity has risen in the past 3 years...9 states claim that 30% of its residents are obese.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/health/nutrition/04fat.html


Maybe it's becuase of all the Cheetos they're eating. This top-selling cheese puff in America generates $4 BILLION annually for PepsiCo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/nyregion/04cheez.html

And that's all for now....peace and love in the ghetto.

Yes, I know the last link is not working but again it's my blog and I am sick of trying to fix it. I am sure you've been there too.

Not on the fringe

An interesting op-ed article from the NYT. Not saying I agree with everything Frank Rich has to say, but these generally are the articles you should read anyway. See and learn all sides.....http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?src=me&ref=general

Columnist Frank Rich claims the current public rage from certain groups over healthcare is not all about the bill being passed. I say this is true in regard to the rage that seeps from the racist bigots that run amuk in extreme fringe groups, which Rich exemplifies in his article. It is an obvious assumption that true progressive steps like a black president and an openly gay man in office is what gets these loony toons all rageful and nuts-o.

However, there are a lot of *normal* people that are not jumping for joy over the new healthcare bill either and it has nothing to with race or feelings of rage.

My aunt, affectionately known as Ouiser (pronounced Weezer) said it just right.

"Here's the story kids. I always wanted the big, fancy chocolate cake at the bakery but I couldn't afford it so I didn't get it. So now the cake has been bought and I'm fine with everyone getting a piece, but the problem is we can't afford it. This healthcare bill was rushed through and shoved down everybody's throats and there was probably a better, more responsible way to get this bill passed."

I can't argue with this common sense knowledge. Can you? If so please start writing....now...start. Yes, now.

You know the last poll I saw on TV said that 56% of Americans disapprove of the bill. Not all 56% represents these psychos in Michigan trailer parks ie: that disgusting militia group called the Hutaree. So I want to learn more about the 56%. The fringe groups are getting a lot of coverage but they should definitely NOT represent all 56% who are pissed about the bill. Agreed?

What kind of party animal are you?

I am still trying to figure out who I party with. The libs or the righties. Actually I think I am a loner - I can't really find my groove at either party. On some issues I am throwin' the drinks back and saying 'cheers to that,' ie: gay marriage should be legal. So clearly I am diggin' the scene at the party the Democrats are throwing. On the other hand I don't think wealthy individuals or families should be taxed more just because they have more money than their neighbor and I do think that all states should privatize alcohol sales instead of monopolizing the state thus giving the government control (refer to Straight up and With a Twist posted on 2/19/10). I also believe in the free market. So now I am at a party where everyone is dressed up like an elephant and having a great time!

So I guess I can just run from party to party and hope I don't get arrested for open-container and public drunkeness.....???

All kidding aside, I can imagine there are many people, especially of my generation that feel this way. Is there any one political representative that represents all that we (any of us) personally stand for? Do you have one political figure that at least best fits your agenda? If so, please share.

I have a really good friend. We'll call him Sam. He likes cheese. I tend to have a more conservative view than him on many issues. Sam, if you disagree please utilize the comment space below. He and I had an interesting discussion on Tuesday, the day Obama signed a very important piece of paper. Our discussion happened via gchat. I simply messaged him "healthcare," his response: "finally." Our conversation continued and I sent him an article from the New York Times I found intriguing, headlined 'In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality." Find the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html. The rest of our conversation played out like so.....

Sam: I like that....rich people get off really easy

Me: how so?

Sam: a lot of rich people have entitlement issues just like some poor people they feel it's their RIGHT to be wealthy....also fucking people that own a business don't pay shit anymore....almost zero jobs pay a good wage...look at any wage info for the last 30 yrs, wages vs cost of living...it's fucking bullshit. You can thank American consumers...Walmart...poor trade agreements with China....put together by the VERY wealthy in their favor....to bring horribly low priced items...who gets rich at Walmart....00.2% of their overall staff. Blah anyways I have to clean now....xoxo

Now, Sam is one of my best friends of all time and to be honest, there is nothing he said that I disagree with, which says a lot because this doesn't always happen. However, I said earlier that I don't think the wealthy should be taxed just because they have more money than their neighbor, but I happened to leave out a very specific component to my statement. Seeing that Sam signed off to go clean I responded to him via email. It went like this.....

I am so thankful for a friend like you because we are soooo close, best friends, we can always count on each other but you and I often have different opinions or perspectives and we are constantly teaching each other new things. I totally get everything you were saying about the rich and how they get away with so much. Yes you are talking about these giant CEOs of multi- billion dollar corps, they do get away with a lot. I totally agree with you.

The annoying thing is....our parents are also considered "the rich" in political terms. Our parents are not swimming in millions of dollars. They are paying mortgages on their homes and helping out family/friends in financial crunches. My dad is in the "wealthy" income bracket, which means he is lumped in the same category as the CEO of Wal-Mart yet the two certainly have VERY different lifestyles. My dad is concerned about Social Security and Medicare running out by the time he and my mom hit 65. Doubt the CEO of Wal-Mart gives a shit about that. My dad is a self-made man and does not have a big corporate pension or lifetime health insurance plan to fall on. He works for himself along with a small team of accountants. Once he retires he only has Medicare and the money he saved throughout his career to count on. The brackets need to be redefined. Our parents should not be lumped in with multi-billionaires.

And Sam's response:

yah it is time for a bracket reset, they should bump it every quarter of a mill....it sucks to pay taxes....we could possibly lower taxes at some point but we have to finish up the wars...people forget we had a balanced budget under clinton. Bush made a bad mistake by cutting taxes and funding a war. You have to increase taxes when you have a war, he kept the cost of the war on another budget(shady)they are worth it but VERY costly....1millon a yr per troop....that's the cost of a war currently, so you add up everything and divide by deployed troops....it gets very expensive very quickly

so taxes suck...rich people do pay more.....wars are expensive

but its worth the money to live in america

True dat playa. See you at the party!

State of the Union - Part Deux (yes, I've been bad again)

Back from the [blogosphere] dead! I have been the perfect example of what NOT to do if you want a successful blog. I disappeared for weeks without hardly a note explaining why. Shame on me! Cue music please! "Bad girl, drunk by 6..."

Here is the reason though, COMPANY. I was home, on the ranch in Arizona with Daddy-o and Mrs. Steinman for about 8 days working on a very special, top-secret project, which you will know about one day, I promise. Then Mrs. Steinman and I hopped a jet to NYC where she proceeded to stay with Koosh and I for over a week. Did I also mention that Koosh's friend from college flew out from L.A. to stay with us as well? Yes, it was crazy, crowded, fun, but not the best environment for writing. However, QMT and my dear readers were always on my mind. I can't help but write, even if it is in my head or in conversations with people. I always think, 'that would be a great blog post. Totally writing about that.' So there are plenty of fun posts ahead, please don't get off this train.

Now that I have groveled and explained myself let's get to my latest rambling. Part two of our on-going dissection of the State of the Union Address from President Obama. While in Arizona me, Daddy-o and Mrs. Steinman enjoyed a nice dinner at CPK discussing what I am sure most neighboring tables were thinking, "how inappropriate - at the dinner table?! In public no less." Yes, politics. I give you the State of the Union Address, Part Duex, enjoyed over a Mai Tai, Margarita and Coke, respectively.

• Use the $30 billion Wall Street repaid the government and give that money to small, community banks so they can provide loans to small business owners. I say, no, no, NO! We never had that $30 billion in the first place, last time I checked our national deficit was somewhere in the TRILLIONS! So now, luckily we get that $30 billion back and instead of using it to pay OFF some of our debt or helping out Medicare and/or Social Security, we are spending it AGAIN. What kind of example is that? Society, media and the president himself have all agreed that Americans need to learn to save their pennies and live within their means - shouldn't our national leader be setting this example? Daddy-o's comment: Do these small banks even need the money? According to reports, no they don't. I pulled this from an article: Easily overlooked amid the crisis of big banks today, small-scale financial institutions are, for the most part, holding steady—and sometimes even better than steady. According to FDIC data, the failure rate among big banks (those with assets of $1 billion or more) is seven times greater than among small banks. Moreover, banks with less than $1 billion in assets—what are typically called community banks—are outperforming larger banks on most key measures, such as return on assets, charge-offs for bad loans, and net profit margin. Entire article is here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0811.longman.html
  

• Proposing a new small business tax credit to those that hire workers or raise wages. This sounds like a nice reward for business owners taking a risk, but really it's unnecessary and again, keeping the government from collecting much-needed taxes. I say let the free market play itself out. Daddy-o is a business-owner himself and he said that regardless of a tax-credit he will hire if he needs to hire and not hire if he doesn't need to hire. I pointed out that this tax credit will likely not even cover the expense/salary of bringing on a new employee so I think this incentive doesn't make a single difference. The government loses tax dollars and the business-owner's behavior is not swayed either way. He/she will continue to hire and fire as needed and possibly get a cushy little break out of it if he/she just happens to need to hire.
  

• Put people to work via infrastructure projects such as the high-speed railroad through Tampa, Florida which is funded by the Recovery Act. I smell a rat. High-speed railroad in Florida of all places?? Do we really need this? This project sounds like some lobbyist pet-project. I appreciate that we are putting people to work, but how about working on our already deteriorating infrastructure like our bridges. Remember the tragedy of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis? After that terrible collapse everyone was up in arms about how badly our bridges need to be repaired. Let's get to work on those bridges instead of creating a high-speed railroad that is better suited in Europe than Tampa.

• Put more Americans to work by building clean energy facilities. I don't know what these clean energy facilities are. Anyone have some insight out there? I can say it is good when jobs are available so I like that part of this.

• Give tax rebates to people who make their homes more energy efficient which will support the growth of clean energy jobs. You know, earlier I was bashing this idea mostly because I don't like the idea of tax rebates when we are soooo broke as a nation, but this move does help build the green market, thus creating jobs. However, I feel people should live more green because it is our responsibility as a society not because there is incentive. Koosh and I recycle everything and we even wash our ziploc baggies to reuse them instead of just throwing them out to sit in a landfill. So do we get a rebate? No? Fine. That's ok with me because I do all of this with a conscience (!) not because I want a tax rebate. Daddy-o had some insider info from a friend who bought solar panels for his house. According to his friend, it takes 50 years to even break even when factoring in the cost of the panels and the total amount of money you save on your energy bills. Ironically, the panels are generally busted by year 50 and it's time to buy them all over again. So for those who just want a tax rebate and don't care about being green - let's hope the rebate covers your expense. Otherwise, kudos to those who do it because they want to and now you'll enjoy a tax break.

• Slash tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in U.S.A. Now I may have read this wrong, but I had NO IDEA companies were getting tax BREAKS for shipping jobs overseas. What is that all about?? I thought we were all about creating jobs in America? If I did indeed flub up on my research, please let me know but this is how I read the text from the NYT. Anyhow, props to Obama for not rewarding people for shipping jobs overseas, I am happy to hear the tax breaks will end. As for the tax break part for creating jobs in America, you know how I feel about that. A tax break/rebate (it's all the same) for hiring people won't affect business owner's choices. What will affect their choices is supply and demand. If there is more demand for a company's product they will have to produce more and thus hire more employees. Now as consumers we want the cheapest price. Most of the times the cheapest price comes from overseas - why do so many people buy leggings from H&M instead of American Apparel? They are cheaper! Crappier, but cheaper and most decisions are made with regard to the bottom line. American labor costs more than Chinese or Indian labor so how can we level the playing field? Import tariffs. Forget tax breaks, let's impose some taxes with this one! So why don't we slap on a few import tariffs? Well, one reason is.....LOBBYISTS. Major business is done overseas making many a man/woman rich, rich, rich and in order to keep their business booming they rely on the cheap labor and American dollar. So they hire lobbyists to convince our government officials to not impose import tariffs thus keeping the imports cheap, which in turn provide a high supply and demand for international employees instead of our own employees on American soil. So chew on that folks.

Ok, so why don't you let those roll around in your head for a while and get talking! See what your friends and family think about these State of the Union initiatives that are taking shape this very minute. Come on, do what I did, make that cardinal sin - talk about politics on your first date. Shoot me in the foot - why did I do that again?? Was it all of the wine? Oh well, it was a great meal! Talk to you later kiddies.

Straight up and with a twist please

If feeling a little rowdy and in the mood for rap listen to this while reading the below entry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC--NX8252c

If feeling a little more old-school and chill, listen to this while reading: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cbX4DUACYU

If at work and you don't want to draw attention to yourself just read in perfect silence.

I always enjoy finding a little nugget of political news. It gets me fired up because there is always room for debate. I like reading different angles and then deciding which side I agree with and then of course I identify those that oppose my side and dance around saying "that guy is dumb." So adult of me, I know.

I have received feedback from some of my readers telling me they appreciate when I blog about these nuggets of news, because they feel the responsibility to stay up-to-date on the political news front. However, as is true for many, reading political news can be so boring. Especially when we can read about Britney Spears or Brangelina - that takes way less brain cells.

Keeping with the party theme here, there is a bit of news that I want to share. Before we get started, ask yourself this, do I live in a state where the selling of alcohol is privatized or government run? Do you know this answer? I don't. But I am going to find out right now....please stand by. No, New York is not a controlled or aka "monopoly" state where the government is in charge of selling me my Absolut and Tanqueray. Instead, the selling of alcohol is considered a private retail practice and the government does not sell to me. The same is true for Arizona and Indiana so I am yet to encounter the government controlled experience. However, a friend of mine does live in a controlled state - Idaho. I am currently waiting for her to get back to me and let me know what her experience has been.

According to wiki and several news reports there are 18 controlled states. Five of these states are currently considering a switch to privatization. What are the five states and why are they considering a switch? How does this affect tax-payers in those states? Who is for the switch and who is against the switch and what is their reasoning? Let's break it down folks....

The five states that are currently controlled and considering privatization: Virginia, North Carolina, Vermont, Washington and Mississippi.

These five states are considering a switch to privatization because the selling of government-owned distribution centers among other facets of biz ops would generate some major muhla, something local and federal government is in major need of at the mo. For example, if the state of Washington sold their 250,000 sq. ft. spirits distribution center to a private company that single sale would generate $33 million for the state.

Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) of Virginia just won his seat with a major part of his campaign pushing for the privatization of alcohol. McDonnell argues that liquor sales is not a top government function to be providing to tax payers, especially in a time where we are having to slash budgets. State Senator Rodney Tom (D) of Washington makes a good point saying that when money is tight you have to identify the difference between wants and needs, making tough decisions on what stays and what goes. He claims that he would rather cut government liquor jobs than cut teacher jobs. I can't argue with that point, which is good to keep in mind since the privatization of alcohol will cut about 800 union jobs. With those jobs out of the picture, the state will save $$ on long-term pension plans and health costs that will no longer cost tax payers. Instead, in my eyes, perhaps some of those 800 workers will take jobs with the new privatized companies that will sprout up now that they have been given the authority by the government to open shop.

Apparently Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) of Washington opposes the privatization saying that the state won't experience those savings until 2012. Personally, I feel that's not a long time to wait. Gregoire's opponents say that she is just trying to hold onto those 800 votes from the union members. What do you think?

More arguments from opponents of privatization come from Rick Garza, the deputy director of the Liquor Control Board. He says that controlled states have almost a perfect record for not selling to minors and he fears that the competitive practices of private businesses will keep them from following the law, thus selling to minors. PUH-leeeez! As I mentioned earlier, I have lived in three of the private states and NEVER in my minor years have I been able to waltz into a liquor store and pull on their private practice heart-strings. A minor buys alcohol from you and gets caught, talk about there goes your liquor license. It just doesn't work that way Garza. What does happen in the private sector though is competitive pricing. According to a reader of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer he was paying around $23 a bottle for Potters vodka. He drove a few hours into Northern California (a privatized state) and bought the same bottle for $9. So aside from saving your state budget on costs, ie: a chance to keep your taxes low, you will also experience direct out-of-pocket savings. Just sayin'.

Another argument for keeping monopoly states comes from the Virgina Assembly of Independent Baptists. Executive Director Jack Knapp says, "we oppose anything that we think would expand the sale and use of alcohol." I just can't even go there on this one. That takes me right to the beginning. Why was liquor government-controlled in the first place? I mean other consumer goods are not government controlled such as our clothing, food, cars, makeup, books, etc. so why booze?

Prohibition I say. For all you history buffs out there...in 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition. However, all those pols were still a little skittish about giving total control back to the "reckless" public so instead, the feds passed it off to each individual state and creating the controlled model. As society modernized, many of these states have privatized the booze biz in effort to save their tax payers money, except for the last 18. Those that are holding on for control are religious communities and lawmakers and union workers, the latter because the controlled model keeps them employed. I understand losing your job, it sucks, but as Senator Tom said - we've got to make some decisions and if privatization works well for 32 other states why not the last 18 who could stand to use the extra cash flow?I think to myself, there must be some valid points as to why states should remain controlled, but then I go back to the fact that 32 other states are operating under the private sector models so why not the last 18? I think the argument for controlled states all about power and money. People that have power and money don't like losing it, but right now the well-being of American citizens and the stability of state budgets is more important. So in summary - I am all for privatization.

Now, as always I WELCOME opposing point of views. I am always malleable and open to change my mind if someone provides me with a good argument. If I disagree with you do not worry. You are a valued reader and I promise not to dance around saying "that guy is dumb."

I'm watching you Obama

I just read an article about political conversations being a part of day time TV. Specifically, an LA Times article regarding The View. I love the View. My dream would be to serve as a regular co-host on The View...hear that Babs??? Apparently the ladies will be dissecting President Obama's State of the Union Address and discussing key initiatives he plans to implement in 2010. Well guess what Bill and Barb - I too dissected the SUA and have opinions and questions on many of the key points! I love to see that I am so on topic and ah hem, aligned with what the View is working on! I totally deserve a job there. The guy below clearly agrees.

Seriously though, I think it is fantastic that day time TV geared toward women is focusing on current events and politics. Women are not just interested in fashion and sex. Yes, those are high up there on our lists, but in these modern times we are just as entrenched in hard news items. Now as you probably can tell, Daddy-o is big on discussing politics. He is probably one of my most favorite people to sit down with and discuss the current estate of affairs. (And yes, if someone famous were to play my father in a movie it would WITHOUT DOUBT be Jack Nicholson). Since he still lives on the ranch in AZ with Mrs. Steinman, Daddy-o and I have a Skype date on the books to go through the points and decide what we want to happen, what we don't want to happen and then of course we will keep tabs on the President's progress. I am sure he and I will agree on many points and disagree on many points as well. Should be interesting......

Because I think every American citizen should be apprised of the President's goals I have listed my own little dissection of the SAU. It's 5 pages front and back, hand written, so can't promise I will include all of them in this post - believe me you will thank me for that one. So please look for future installments.

Now let's get started.

• Elimination of capital gains taxes on small business investment and provide tax incentive for large and small businesses to invest in new operation facilities and equipment. The first part sounds good to me, not sure how great the second part is. Insight from a professional please???? Or just a really opinionated person will do too.
  

• Asking Congress to enact a comprehensive energy and climate change bill. This encompasses a cap-and-trade model that may include incentives for companies that do the following: oil/gas development, accelerated construction of nuclear plants and new research for clean coal. What's the point you ask - to create green collar jobs and remain competitive on emerging clean energy technologies. I think this sounds good to me. Anyone that can provide further details or a solid example please share with us.
  

• Freeze spending on domestic programs and if Congress doesn't work to do this Obama will utilize executive power and veto anything. The day after the SAU, Obama announced that he was cutting federal spending on NASA. That's quite ok with me. Senators and other state officials from Florida are clearly pissed because some people will be losing jobs. How do you feel about it? Do you know of any other programs that have recently been cut? Or can you think of a program other than NASA that should have been cut first?
  

• Remove ALL combat troops from Iraq by August 2010. It still appears to be one big shit show over there so I am not sure how safe this will be. I think it's clear to many people that we should have never gone in the first place, however we went and we've made some things better but we have also made a big fat mess. Like in pre-school, you are responsible for cleaning up your own mess. Thoughts?
  

• Most troops in Afghanistan will be removed by 2011 and Afghan security forces will take control. Scary. Again, I believe in peace and feel for any family and friends that have loved ones over seas - you would always rather them be home, but Afghanistan is entirely unstable. How squeaky clean is the Afghan security force? Riddled with corruption or headed to a better place?
  

• To repeal "don't ask, don't tell" in the U.S. Military. I am an avid supporter of this. Please refer to this recent CNN article that really puts this law into perspective. If someone is willing to serve our country they deserve to be entirely themselves and benefit from the civil rights that every other American enjoys. http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/03/darrah.personal.history.gay.military.experience/?hpt=C1
  

• Propose a fee on the biggest banks. Ok, I need further information on this one. Does he mean only the big banks that accepted bail out money or every big bank? Additionally what criteria defines a "big bank?"

That's all for now kids. I hope to have more solid opinions on the next installment as Daddy-o and I will have had our Skype date by then. If you have strong opinions or questions you'd like me to ask Daddy-o, among other trusted sources, please let me know via the comment section. Look forward to a democratic dialogue!

Lessons from Papa

This one from Daddy-o. When not busting his 'hind at work he often times tries his hand at educating his children. This is done in the form of forwarded emails. [Sigh] The intimacies and personal bonds that are formed during parent-child lessons. Agree with the below point of view or not, I personally like this one:



Economics 101

An Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit . She realizes that
virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such,
can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she
comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink
now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed in a ledger
(thereby granting the
customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy
and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's
bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.

By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi
gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially
increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.
Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic Vice President at the local bank recognizes that
these customer debts constitute valuable future assets, and increases
Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since
he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these
customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These
securities are then bundled and traded on international security
markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities
being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of
unemployed alcoholics.
Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities
soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading
brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager
at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand
payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so
informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being
unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since
Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations, she is forced into
bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The
collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it
from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in
the community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions
and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND
securities. They find they are now faced with not only having to write
off her bad debt but also with losing over 90% of the presumed value of
the bonds. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a
family business that
had endured for three generations, and her beer supplier is taken over
by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150
workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective
executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar,
no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The
funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on
employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's
bar.

Now, I understand!

Earmark of the week

Ok folks, in my opinion if you are over 25 you should know who your state senators are. This age should probably be pushed to 21 or even 18, but since I am the conductor of this train and ruler of my universe I will push it to 25. Even though it wasn't until YESTERDAY that I knew who BOTH my state senators were. Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer.Something I like about Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: she posts all of her earmark requests online for US, the people to read. Something I don't like about Senator Gillibrand: she is requesting federal funding for broadband Internet in corn fields. Now I am OK with the Net having a strong presence in the corn fields, heck I am from Indiana so don't you be talkin' smack about corn fields, however I am not sure if we need to be spending $418 million on this little (pet) project. I mean aren't we dealing with some major issues: unemployment, terrorism, immigration a ginormous deficit, not to mention Daddy-o will be PISSSSSED if Medicare disappears. I wonder if these children of the corn have cell phones and laptops. Probably. Did you know you can get high-speed wireless Internet for $40 p/month from your cell phone provider? See, problem solved. If these people want the Internet they can go and buy it and instead, we can use the $418 million to pay off some debt. Just my opinion folks. You can see the earmark (also supported by the Prez himself) in a press release from Senator Gillibrand's office: http://gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=2c05b42f-0005-45a5-b06e-6abbff232a1a

And if you don't think this one is bad you should hear about the funding she wants for grape research. Yea you read that right. Grapes.