Friday, October 31

Don't Redistribute the Wealth - Redistribute the Work!

The poor don't need handouts or even to move as I have suggested before. The poor simply need to get off their asses and get a job, just like the rest of us have.

What kind of job you ask? Well for starters, every city probably needs more garbage men. A quick check of the DC jobs pages shows that DC is in need of garbage men.
Job Title: SANITATION WORKER TASK GROUP (Read: Garbage Man)

General Job Information
"Pay Plan, Series & Grade: RW-3501-05
Salary Range: $16.44 - $21.58 Per Hour
Opening Date: October 21, 2008
Closing Date: November 3, 2008
Tour of Duty: 6:45 a.m. - 3:15 p.m., Monday - Friday
Area of Consideration: Special Area (Solid Waste Collection Division)
Promotion Potential: None
Number of Vacancies: Several

Brief Description of Duties: Incumbent serves as a member of Waste Collection Crew providing trash and recycling collection services. Picks-up or roll cans to rear of the compactor and deposit trash in hopper of truck. Pushes buttons on rear of packer truck, or orally signals driver when refuse is in place, and crew members are clear of truck. Uses care to avoid injuring other employees and self. Cleans refuse spilled in performance of duties. Performs other related duties as assigned.

Qualifications
Element #1: LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS IN ASSIGNMENTS WHICH REQUIRE INTEREST, MOTIVATION, AND READINESS TO DO SIMPLE WORK
Job Element #1: Ability To Handle Weights and Loads;
Job Element #2: Ability To Follow Oral Directions; and
Job Element #3: Dexterity and Safety
--- DC Jobs listing
There is nothing wrong with being a garbage man, especially at over $16 an hour and especially if it is a choice between that and unemployment/welfare. The city also has job openings for garbage truck drivers starting at $18.57 an hour. That's over $36,000 a year excluding any possible overtime and on top of that you are done by 3:15 in the afternoon. How is it that these jobs are unfilled while at the same time DC has loads of unemployed people, many of whom are not qualified for any other jobs, kicking back collecting unemployment and welfare? (While others have to go and collect their garbage!)

Don't want to be a garbage man? There are many more jobs available on the city pages. Hell, DC's mayor was just in the news for getting rid of hundreds of unfilled city jobs as a budget-saving measure, many of them for the police force, which also happens to have many unfilled positions and is also a group that actively trains applicants. (They also actively recruit from other cities since they have such a hard time filling openings from the pool of locally unemployed. Just why is that???)

Of course many of the available jobs require skills that the unemployed don't have. However, that is not an excuse especially since millions in Government aid has supposedly been spent on training and re-training the unemployed. Not only that, but shouldn't they have all sorts of free time to get this training...

This country is full of jobs that the poor and unemployed can do. Some of them are in their own backyards. Sure, many of these jobs suck, but be that a lesson to the children, that an education is important, because without it you will have to rely on other abilities to earn a living as in the case of a sanitation worker, strength and the ability to follow directions. (Not meant as a put-down on those who are doing those jobs now. I bet many of them are well-educated and do this work by choice.)

Not for anything but Christmas is coming. UPS is looking for all sorts of seasonal help. As a bonus, you won't have to deal with smelly garbage and they will also hire part-time help, in case you don't see yourself pulling a full-time shift. It is these jobs that should be the welfare that the poor should be getting, not redistributed money from jobs that other people are working.





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

P.S. Here is a small part of an open letter to Senator Obama (and Democrats in general) that fits in with what I have said before, that Democrats need the poor, to stay poor:
America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach of every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture. - Link
Go read the whole letter. Its all good stuff and all true. Not only that, I too have had to deal with these people who just do not want to work. It is such a problem that we find permanent employees by first hiring people through a temp agency, this way we can just not call back the ones who are not qualified to hold even a simple clerk's position. We have even had some walk out on us before lunch because all they wanted to do was answer the phone, despite knowing that the job they agreed to fill was a clerk's position. And silly us even tried to convince them to stay, pointing out how willing we were to train them to do the job that we were asking them to do. But no, even that was too much for them, because as one lady put it, she didn't need the job.

Previous:
Don't Redistribute wealth. Redistribute the poor. - 29 Oct 08
One Fact Not Mentioned About All Those Factory Jobs Moving Overseas - 10 Sept 08
Failed policy - Rent 'Control', Causing Poverty? - 22 Sept 08

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Halloween Jack-o-Lanterns (Nautical)

Here are pics of this year's carvings. Each has a face on the front and on the back something nautical:


- The Anchor Pumpkin -



- My daughter's own design -



- My design for the 1-yo and the sailboat my daughter wanted on hers -


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Thursday, October 30

"Where's My Bailout?"

I posted before that I was looking for the next bailout and suggested why a Government bailout of credit card debt would be great for the economy and 'the little people.' It would even be good for me since I actually have some credit card debt at the moment. I am just waiting for the right 'smoke signals' from Congress so that I can run up to the limit!

Remember, you can't be in on any bailout if you have no debt!

With that in mind, enjoy the following video: "Where's My Bailout?" (Found on Instapundit)



See, this is what bad behavior breeds. Even more bad behavior.
--------------------
Note: All kidding aside, remember, that at the end of the day, you are ultimately responsible for your actions, at least until you die or the Government relieves you of that responsibility. This is my way of sarcastically responding what I consider to be bad Government. Want advise, talk to a lawyer or accountant!

Previous:
Lining Up For The Next Bailout... - 13 Oct 08

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Even WiFi Can't Escape the Obama-Trons

Back here at Fred Fry International Global HQ, this is what I recently was confronted with when logging on to my wireless network; another network named 'GoObama'

I was tempted to rename my network in response but quickly dismissed the idea even though I was sure that I could figure out a name that would have really pissed off this anonymous supporter.

Anyway, if the dude really believes in Obama's message then he should get with the program and free up his internet access and distribute it to those behind him! After all:

'Security-enabled wireless network's are racist

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Wednesday, October 29

Don't Redistribute wealth. Redistribute the poor.

Barack Obama has been caught spouting some of his socialist thoughts. Too bad he is close to the right idea, he just has it backwards. Instead of calling to redistribute wealth to the poor, the poor should be encouraged to move to where the jobs and money are today.

Don't Redistribute wealth. Redistribute the poor.

Think about it. Businesses and their related jobs move all the time. Sure, some go away due to advances in technology and others move out of the country entirely. Still, the United States has more manufacturing jobs than any other country on the planet, including China. (There were reports that China will overtake the US in 2009, but I doubt that now that the credit crisis has struck China.)

The poor are to a degree the victims of local government. Local governments fail to keep businesses, but they manage to keep many local residents from moving away, mainly with promises, handouts and programs such as rent stabilization and rent control.

How bad can things get in a state? After all, every state is not suffering. Take Ohio:
One thing that has not come up while Senators Obama and Clinton have been blaming Ohio's problems on NAFTA, is that perhaps, that Ohio's problem are more the result of poor State Governance. You see, if NAFTA is such a bad deal, then why isn't the whole country suffering? Why is Ohio ranked so poorly?
Since 1970, Ohio's share of the nation's personal income has declined from roughly 5.3% to under 3.8% today. In the first quarter of 2005, Ohio had the fifth highest unemployment rate in the U.S. at 6.2% versus the overall unemployment rate of 5.3%. Meager Ohio employment growth of 0.3% through the first quarter placed the state third-to-last nationally, far behind the U.S. overall rate of 1.7%. With falling relative incomes, high unemployment and poor job growth, it is no wonder that people are voting against Ohio with their feet. State-to-state migration shows Ohio losing residents, while total population growth of 0.2% ranks it a dismal 47th in the nation. - Opinion Journal, July 2005
I still think that Ohio's problems are mainly the state's and not the Federal Government's responsibility to fix. Really, should Ohio get preferential treatment over the other states?

Should the Government waive Federal income tax for corporations that relocate to Ohio in an attempt to bring jobs there? How would other states like that? Not very fair is it? However, what can be done is for Ohio to waive their state income tax for new businesses that relocate there. Or better yet, why not reduce business taxes in Ohio to attract new businesses as well as give those currently there an incentive to stay. This in itself is much better than redistributing wealth directly to the poor.

Even better is using the money to help people move to where the jobs are. And there are many jobs out there. Look at all the immigration raids where they detain hundreds of illegal aliens at a single factory. The poor can relocate to take those jobs.

One group sure to oppose this suggestion is the Democrat politicians. By keeping the poor where they are, they have trapped a very reliable voting block and allowing them to move will put their own careers, and reason for wasteful socialist spending programs at risk.

The rest of us move around the country for work all the time. Migration of the workforce is one reason why the US traditionally has a low unemployment rate. As it states in the quote above, many Ohioans are 'voting with their feet' moving out of the state to greener pastures. The poor should be encouraged to move as well. This would not only help them escape a life of poverty, but would also help them escape high crime areas. That is something much better to assist them with, instead of trying to train them for work that does not exist in their part of the country anymore.

Don't Redistribute wealth. Redistribute the poor.

Previous:


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Tuesday, October 28

Mortgage Deadbeats Protest For More Money!

My sister-in-law and her husband were off in Manhattan last Friday and ran across this protest across the street from the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street.

These people were protesting that banks were getting a bailout and they were not.


(Poor President Washington!)

To put this whole protest into proper perspective, here is a simple explanation of one reason why there is a credit crisis:
  • People borrowed money from banks to buy houses
  • People borrowed more money from banks to buy:
  • --- Home furnishings for their mini-mansion
    --- Home electronics including an entertainment system
    --- New Cars
  • People then borrowed more money to reward all this hard work with vacations
  • People then failed to repay the money they borrowed
So the banks had all this money that they have lent out to a bunch of deadbeats. The deadbeats stiff the banks. The banks then ask the Government for a bailout, which one can think of as having the Government pay the deadbeats bills off. What is the response? The deadbeats are pissed off that nobody is interested in giving them more money. You would think that they were asked to repay their loans by how mad their were...

P.S.

Here is what the stopforeclosuresandevictions.org group noted on the signs above has to say on their website:
The stock markets are crashing, the world economy is headed into a deep recession or even depression, and the U.S. government and its top bankers, along with their counterparts around the world, are giving what’s going to amount to trillions of dollars to bailout the richest 1 percent of the people WHILE DOING NOTHING TO RESCUE ORDINARY WORKING AND POOR PEOPLE!

We must stand up and say no to this injustice! NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. - Link
Why should the 'poor people' get more? They already got their money, either in an initial mortgage, refinancing and 'cashing out' some equity, or otherwise taking money out of their house like it was an ATM. It is the banks and Wall street that lent them this money only for this group to stiff them in return and cry VICTIM!


Here are some more comments from someone who has been burned by these 'victims' who wrote in 'A Wall Street Trader Draws Some Subprime Lessons: Michael Lewis' some thoughts about the poor:
...1) They're masters of public relations.

I had no idea how my open-handedness could be made to look, after the fact. At the time I bought the subprime portfolio I thought: This is sort of like my way of giving something back. I didn't expect a profile in Philanthropy Today or anything like that. I mean, I bought at a discount. But I thought people would admire the Wall Street big shot who found a way to help the little guy. Sort of like a money doctor helping a sick person. Then the little guy wheels around and gives me this financial enema. And I'm the one who gets crap in the papers! Everyone feels sorry for the poor, and no one feels sorry for me. Even though it's my money! No good deed goes unpunished.

2) Poor people don't respect other people's money in the way money deserves to be respected.

Call me a romantic: I want everyone to have a shot at the American dream. Even people who haven't earned it. I did everything I could so that these schlubs could at least own their own place. The media is now making my generosity out to be some kind of scandal. Teaser rates weren't a scandal. Teaser rates were a sign of misplaced trust: I trusted these people to get their teams of lawyers to vet anything before they signed it. Turns out, if you're poor, you don't need to pay lawyers. You don't like the deal you just wave your hands in the air and moan about how poor you are. Then you default.

3) I've grown out of touch with "poor culture.''

Hard to say when this happened; it might have been when I stopped flying commercial. Or maybe it was when I gave up the bleacher seats and got the suite. But the first rule in this business is to know the people you're in business with, and I broke it. People complain about the rich getting richer and the poor being left behind. Is it any wonder? Look at them! Did it ever occur to even one of them that they might pay me back by WORKING HARDER? I don't think so. - Bloomberg
Go read the whole thing.

As for bailouts, the one group that never gets bailed out is the group that never needs bailing out as they have acted responsibly. Well how about giving them more money for them to responsibly inject more capital into the economy.

One of the more ridiculous suggestions that the Democrats have made and that these people are demanding is for Congress to stop these deadbeats from getting foreclosed on. How about giving the rest of us free money to buy these houses? We win for not getting into this mess. They get punished by losing their homes as they should, but otherwise are no longer stuck with a mortgage they cannot afford. The banks get some money back, but not all as home prices need to drop before many of us will buy, even with free money. However, they don't get stuck with a bunch of bank-owned properties or mortgages with non So they are punished for their stupidity as well, but in the end we all win/lose together.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

The Clinton Budget Surplus - Money That Would Have Been Better Spent

Barack Obama and Democrats have been blaming President Bush for destroying the great budget surplus his predecessor President Clinton handed to him. Of course the Democrats make no mention of the September 11th attacks or of the two wars we are fighting as a result as one reason the budget surplus is history.

I wrote this back in September:
We shouldn't just remember the attack. We should also understand the events that led up to this attack being a reality. No, I don't mean that somehow American's actions around the world brought this about. That is just liberal BS. I mean how our own Government's stupidity (Under President Clinton) failed to see the threat and stop it. President Bush has been unfairly blamed for being handed a country that already had terrorists operating inside it. The seeds of this attack were planted when Clinton was in office and his administration, pandering to liberals, enacted barriers to prevent proper investigation such as 'the wall'. But you don't hear about that. You only hear about the huge tax/budget surplus the Country had under Clinton and how wonderful the country was back then. Well maybe he should have spent some of that surplus to better protect the country. - FFI
In line with my comments the Wall Street Journal has an editorial titled 'Will Obama Gut Defense? Capitol Hill Democrats want to target the Pentagon.' which includes another reason for the Clinton budget surplus:
Maybe it seems odd that the Pentagon, whose budget for 2009 runs to well over $500 billion -- not including the supplemental $165 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- should struggle to afford the equipment it needs.

But it's not odd. We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%. - WSJ
So once again Democrats are touting something that sounds great on the surface but in reality is a big black mark against the last Democrat President who somehow keeps managing to shift blame for his mistakes to others.

Unfortunately, with calls to cut Government funding, Obama is probably looking at cutting back on military spending, just like Clinton did. That in itself is another reason to vote against Senator Obama being the next President.


(Video found/posted at The Jawa Report)

As it stands, a President Obama would probably need to raise military spending, not cut it. Good luck getting him to commit to that!

All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary. - WSJ


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, October 27

Maritime Monday 133 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.


You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 83 here. (Published 5 November 2007).








Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98


gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110 - 111 - 112 - 113 - 114 - 115 - 116 - 117 - 118 - 119 - 120 - 121 - 122 - 123 - 123a - 124 - 125 - 126 - 127 - 128 - 129 - 130 - 131 - 132 - 133 - 134 - 135
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Friday, October 24

California Appeals Court: San Francisco must end its sanctuary policy

Not that its any surprise, but a California Court has ruled that San Francisco's Sanctuary Policy for illegal aliens is illegal, at least as far as those illegals suspected of drug crimes. Too bad that San Francisco pays no attention to court rulings (and laws) that they don't agree with.

Washington, DC -- October 23, 2008

City Must Follow State Law Requiring Police Officers to Report Suspected Aliens Arrested on Drug Charges to Feds

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the First District Court of Appeal for the State of California has ruled in a Judicial Watch taxpayer lawsuit that the San Francisco Police Department must comply with a state law requiring police officers to notify federal authorities when they arrest a person for various narcotics offenses whom they suspect to be an alien, legal or illegal [Fonseca v. Fong, Case No. A120206]. - Judicial Watch

This is a good start. No word yet on how San Francisco will respond. Part of the reason we have a massive illegal alien problem is that even when these people are caught, misguided people (DEMOCRATS) protect them. Michelle Malkin has been following the Sanctuary City problem, here.


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Tuesday, October 21

Oil Drillers Prefer McCain 68% to Obama's 13%

The Military is not the only profession that heavily prefers Republican John McCain over Democrat Barack Obama.

Here is a good poll of another set of professional workers, those who work in the oil drilling industry. The poll was conducted by Drilling Contractor Magazine. It is good for a number of reasons.

First, in the US, Oil Drilling professionals prefer a President McCain by 68% to Obama's 13%. Obama does so poorly, that a donkey scores higher than he does, by a full 3%.

Obama does not even score 1% with Canadian drillers. Otherwise, US-friendly Canada's results match the US when it comes to a McCain preference.




I suspect that Senator Obama's position/message that 'ExxonMobil is evil' certainly didn't do him any good in the US and Canada where I bet many a driller saw his position (and the position of Democrats in general) on oil and oil companies as a threat to their livelihood. I would think that Obama's tax position is not so popular either, even if most workers make less than $200,000 a year. After all, the possibility of making much more certainly goes down if Obama manages to tax the companies they work for much more.

Obama's anti-oil position might also partly explain why Obama is so popular with drillers in other parts of the world. Countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, etc. because they don't exactly have the best interest of the US in mind. Also, workers in these parts of the world might be bitter against the US and US oil workers for earning much more than they do. I would also dare say that Obama's popularity increases with oil works as the oil production productivity of the country they are in decreases.

And whether these workers are pro or anti Obama, you can surely bet that none of these people are too concerned about global warming that they are wishing a President Obama upon their industry to force them to cut back on drilling.

Previous:
Fairplay: Obama 'would kill US coal trade' - 17 Oct 2008
Look Where Much Of the New Oil Is Being Found - 28 Aug 2008
Obama 2008 - Talking to Big Oil bad - Talking to Terrorist Regimes Good - 6 Aug 2008
CO2 Capture to Result in Improved Oil Production - 29 Jan 2008
Exactly Who is the Global Warming Villain? - 10 Jan 2008
How to Pervert Global Warming Activists - 7 July 2007
Conservation Basics for Global Warming Carbon Rookies - 23 March 2007
EU's Strategy to Combat Global Warming: Billions for BS - 15 Jan 2007
Impending Ethanol Shortage?: Update - 23 May 2006
Impending Ethanol Shortage? - 9 May 2006
Offshore America Off-Limits to Oil Drilling - 23 Apr 2006
How Much Gasoline do 12 Million Illegal Aliens Consume? - 26 Apr 2006
Are Record Oil Company Profits all that Bad? - 14 Sept 2005
Would Europe go to war over oil? - 21 Aug 2005


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Update: Ohio's Problem

Back in March I wrote "'Free Trade' is Not Ohio's Problem" as the Democrat candidates were pandering to voters in Ohio blaming NAFTA and free trade for Ohio's high unemployment. I placed the blame of Ohio's problems on Ohio (The Ohio State Government):
One thing that has not come up while Senators Obama and Clinton have been blaming Ohio's problems on NAFTA, is that perhaps, that Ohio's problem are more the result of poor State Governance. You see, if NAFTA is such a bad deal, then why isn't the whole country suffering? Why is Ohio ranked so poorly?
Since 1970, Ohio's share of the nation's personal income has declined from roughly 5.3% to under 3.8% today. In the first quarter of 2005, Ohio had the fifth highest unemployment rate in the U.S. at 6.2% versus the overall unemployment rate of 5.3%. Meager Ohio employment growth of 0.3% through the first quarter placed the state third-to-last nationally, far behind the U.S. overall rate of 1.7%. With falling relative incomes, high unemployment and poor job growth, it is no wonder that people are voting against Ohio with their feet. State-to-state migration shows Ohio losing residents, while total population growth of 0.2% ranks it a dismal 47th in the nation. - Opinion Journal, July 2005
I still think that Ohio's problems are mainly the state's and not the Federal Government's responsibility to fix. Really, should Ohio get preferential treatment over the other states?

Should the Government waive Federal income tax for corporations that relocate to Ohio in an attempt to bring jobs there? How would other states like that? Not very fair is it? However, what can be done is for Ohio to waive their state income tax for new businesses that relocate there. Or better yet, why not reduce business taxes in Ohio to attract new businesses as well as give those currently there an incentive to stay.

However, the Governor, Democrat Ted Strickland, does not plan to do any of that. Instead, he wants to increase the tax burden on his citizens:
STEUBENVILLE, OH -- Ohio Governor Ted Strickland wants the state’s supreme court to reinstate a tax on groceries that was struck down by an appeals court. - WTRF
For a state whose population is suffering from high unemployment and high expenses, this is an odd path for the Governor to try and increase State Revenue. Just think who this tax is going to hurt the most, not the rich, it will hit the poor the most. Taxes that have the greatest effect on those earning the least are called regressive taxes:
A value-added tax or other sales tax on food and other essentials such as clothing, transport, and residential rents can be regressive. Since the income elasticity of demand of food is usually less than 1 (see Engel's law), it tends to take up a higher percentage of the budget of a person or family with a lower income. - Wikipedia
Here is where Senator Obama's socialistic 'spread the wealth' comes into play in that this tax will take money away from the poor, and then redistribute it back to the poor as the Government (In this case Democrats) sees fit. Unfortunately, money is lost in the process through inefficiency and provision of the wrong types of services. So why not just let people keep this money to use as they think they need to use it? Maybe the Governor didn't get Senator Obama's message that they only intend to tax the rich. Or is this a Democrat bait and switch?

Either way, it stinks and this is one reason why Ohio has problems. (Bad State Government) And I truly doubt that a President Obama would fix Ohio's jobs problems. On the bright side, there are many jobs available in this country. However, families need to accept that to get them they will need to move out of Ohio to follow where the businesses have gone. Mainly to friendlier US States. Those states also happen to be friendly to new residents as well.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, October 20

Maritime Monday 132 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.


You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 82 here. (Published 29 October 2007).










Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98


gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110 - 111 - 112 - 113 - 114 - 115 - 116 - 117 - 118 - 119 - 120 - 121 - 122 - 123 - 123a - 124 - 125 - 126 - 127 - 128 - 129 - 130 - 131 - 132 - 133 - 134 - 135
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------