Monday, February 25, 2013

Oh No! The Sequester! Shhh! We're Spending.

Oh no! The sequester would cut $1.325 billion to the Department of Education! It would hurt Head Start, which doesn't work. Teachers, aids, and other staff could lose their jobs. Why? Why is the federal government spending money on teachers? The states pay their salary. Didn't we learn from the collapse of the Soviet Union that centralized planning doesn't work?

Obviously not because Obama and other politicians want to stop the sequester and keep this centralized spending.

But do you know what is really interesting? The post before this story on the Department of Education's site talks about spending money in a NEW GRANT!
Yes. Amidst the tragic sequester there is still yet a NEW GRANT! Are you kidding me!?

What is it for?
$15 million in public funds over three years to reinforce and accelerate intervention efforts in the nation’s lowest-performing schools.
But we have already spent a lot of money on low performing schools. In fact, again from the post, here is what we have done:
Since 2009, the Department has invested $4.5 billion at more than 1,300 of the country’s lowest-performing schools.
So why are there still low performing schools?

But $15 million across 3 years is small compared to $1.325 billion in one year. However, the point is that while the left hand cuts the right hand spends. How many more instances are there of this happening?

But let's run with the number of $1.325 billion. How does that stack up with numbers from 2012? We will look at the financial details document.

Page 3 (numbered as 41) the total assets are $796.927 billion. $673.488 is Net Credit Program Receivables. That is money owed to the DoE. See page 12 (numbered as 50).

Page 4 (numbered as 42) the total costs for special programs is $63.773 billion. Not regular operations, but special programs.

Page 6 (numbered as 44) has "Budgetary" and "Non-Budgetary Credit Reform Financing Accounts." Respectively the total budgetary resources are $104.710 billion $270.274 billion for a combined total $374.984 billion.

That $1.3 billion is looking pretty insignificant.

Page 17 (numbered as 55) what was the end balance with the Treasury? $121.993 billion.

Page 34 (numbered as 72) is the debt. Total for 2012 was $715.303 billion.

We have $715.303 billion in debt with the DoE and the politicians don't want to cut less than 1% of the spending?

I do not fully understand all the numbers that are in the document because accounting and the terms are confusing if you are not an accountant or well versed in the subject. However, it is easy too see that the numbers dealt with in the DoE's budget are huge. So huge that the sequester's effect is minuscule. So what's all the fuss!?

1 2 3 4 5

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

WTF is this?

Hot linking to an ad and wtf is that on her head? It looks like it is a mortarboard beret. It has corners but is floppy. Sounds like the U.S. immigration policy. But seriously, someone approved this ad. Why? It is eF'd up!

How long?

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

How many sides are in a government built triangle?

The Department of Commerce blog has a post about the Federal Triangle Partnership hosting a National Black History Month event. Reading the opening line of this post is like a concept lifted from Douglas Adams and his five book trilogy. Adams loved to skewer bureaucrats and their red tape love nests but this is like shooting fish in a barrel. The Commerce's post's first line is as follows:
Earlier this week, the Federal Triangle Partnership, consisting of the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Agency for International Development, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, hosted its annual program commemorating the 2013 National Black/African American History Month.
Only Adams and the government would use four entities to make a triangle. One to make fun of bureaucracy and the other because it is a bureaucracy.You've also got to love how the first line mentions Black/African American History Month as an after thought of "Oh crap. We might offend someone by writing black. Shove that politically correct term in there." Meanwhile the headline just uses the insensitive "Black History Month."

I could be wrong on the politically correct concept. Maybe the Department of Commerce only wants to celebrate black people from Africa. If a black family emigrated here from Europe maybe the Department of Commerce just wants them to go back to their wine swilling cheese chomping continent. Maybe the Department of Commerce wants blacks from Asia to go pound rice up their ass. I don't know why they qualified "Black."

However, I dare them to make the article more appealing to Hispanics by using the Spanish translation "Mes de la Historia Negro."

Monday, February 11, 2013

Dept. of Energy brags about spending our tax dollars

A recent post from the Department of Energy announces the exciting opportunity for companies to compete for $150,000,000 in clean energy tax credits. Well, it turns out this money is unused funds from previous awardees.


We are broke. We have seen "Green Technologies" that the government has funded go under. This is money from the 2009 stimulus for $2,300,000,000,000 for green technologies. Can you imagine that? Instead of returning it to the general fund they are continuing to try to fund failing technologies!? It might be minuscule in the budget sense, but really!? WTF!? Pay off some debt instead!

FU DOEnergy. FU!

Stop pissing away our money! Most of the DoEnergy's post is about how good it is to fund these failing technologies. I cannot believe they slipped and told us "Hey! We eFed up. Here's $150 mil. Give it back? Why? Take it."

Now, as a bit of a teaser, "green success."

Can you guess the green success story? It is coming. There's nothing wrong with green energy. The wrong is the government's push. They cannot pick winners.

Feel good capitalism green a comin'!

The President's Weekly Address Lie

Interactive Transcript

Move you mouse over the highlighted line for a response.

Hi, everybody. Over the last few years, Democrats and Republicans have come together and cut our deficit by more than $2.5 trillion through a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.Really!? A lie as bold as that!? The deficit has not been cut! If it was he wouldn't argue about the need to RAISE the DEBT ceiling! That’s more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties say we need to stabilize our debt.Democrats don't want to end any spending, and I'd like to say the same about Republicans but ... well let's face it. Republicans turn over quicker than a five dollar whore.

I believe we can finish the job the same way we’ve started it – with a balanced mix of more spending cutsThere are none. and more tax reformHe means raising taxes ... on the rich. Class warfare. What a freaking great uniter in this jerk.. And the overwhelming majority of the American people agree – both Democrats and Republicans.There is no agreement here! Half the country wants the government to tax and do (spend) more while the others wants less!

Now, my preference – and the preference of many Members of Congress – is to do that in a balanced, comprehensive way, by making sensible changes to entitlement programsNo one is willing to do that. Everyone talks the talk but when it comes down to it they are worried about their political skin and won't touch the issue. and reforming our tax codeAgain he means raising taxes on the rich.. As we speak, both the House and Senate are working towards budget proposals that I hope will lay out this kind of balanced path going forward.

But the budget process takes time.No kidding. The past three fiscal years went without a budget. The deadline for the budget has already been missed this year. And whom is supposed to submit the budget?[HINT] And right now, if Congress doesn’t actCongress? Again. Who is supposed to submit the budget? [HINT] by March 1, a series of harmful, automatic cuts to job-creating investments and defense spendingAt this point not cutting is worse than indiscriminate cutting. We are broke. And how weird is it that a Democrat is against defense (military) spending? We can cut the military spending. We still have nukes. If Obama is willing to "drone" the enemy, go ahead and "nuke" them. The only difference is acreage. Put the fear of retaliation back in them. – also known as the sequester – are scheduled to take effect. And the result could be a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole.No. It is a blow to the federal government. We don't need the government to spend money for us to make money. The more money the government spend the more money it needs. The more money it needs the more it taxes us without respect to the Laffer curve.

If the sequester is allowed to go forward, thousands of Americans who work in fields like national security, education or clean energy are likely to be laid off.Government workers. Firefighters and food inspectors could also find themselves out of work – leaving our communities vulnerable. Programs like Head Start would be cut, and lifesaving research into diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s could be scaled back.Lie. This is private industry. Remember how demonized the pharmaceutical companies are? Coming up with life saving drugs and they charge for it. How dare they! All those doctors and scientists need to work in poverty! Just because you are smart and paid for (maybe) an education doesn't mean you can charge for your services! Truthfully, if we scale back on cancer and Alzheimer's research who is going to complain? Half of them will be dead and the other half will have forgotten we cut it! Small businesses could be prevented from getting the resources and support they need to keep their doors open. People with disabilities who are waiting for their benefits could be forced to wait even longer.Hopefully small businesses aren't going to the government for loans but instead their bank. And anything they might look to the government for is a tax break, but spending cuts doesn't mean tax breaks go away. All our economic progress could be put at risk. [Overall Comment]Note how Obama believes government spending drives the economy. This is why there is no "agreement" among parties. People spending drives the economy, not government spending. He is trying to snake charm the public into government spending.

And then there’s the impact on our military readiness. Already, the threat of deep cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf. As our military leaders have made clear, changes like this affect our ability to respond to threats in an unstable part of the world. And we will be forced to make even more tough decisions in the weeks ahead if Congress fails to act.[Overall Comment]I refer back to my "nuke" comment.

The good news is, there’s another option. Two months ago, we faced a similar deadline, and instead of making deep, indiscriminate cuts that would have cost us jobs and slowed down our recovery, Democrats and Republicans came together and made responsible cuts and manageable changes to our tax code that will bring down our deficit.No they didn't. They kicked the can. If they came together on this problem we wouldn't have to worry about the budget for another year. What a freakin' liar! This time, Congress should pass a similar set of balanced cuts and close more tax loopholes until they can find a way to replace the sequester with a smarter, longer-term solution. [Overall Comment]I think he means kick the can again but tax the rich.

Right now, most Members of Congress – including many Republicans – don’t think it’s a good idea to put thousands of jobs at risk and do unnecessary damage to our economy.As if there are people that would willfully damage the economy? And yet the current Republican plan puts the burden of avoiding those cuts mainly on seniors and middle-class families. They would rather ask more from the vast majority of Americans and put our recovery at risk than close even a single tax loophole that benefits the wealthy.How odd it is how he has gushed on all of the agreement and cooperation between Democrats and Republicans then blames Republicans. If they were cooperating then aren't Democrats to blame too!? Anyways, the major concept that has been floated to soak it to the rich or the "tax loophole" has been capital gains. The idea has been to make it the same as income tax. What is wrong with that? Nothing if you don't mind punishing seniors. That 1% Obama wants to pay more would affect seniors which is what percent? How does it affect them? Retirement plans. If they are not a union or government retiree then it means they invested their money in mutual funds and stocks. So the plan is to tax capital gains which is mutual funds and stock investments and tax the 1% at a higher rate than normal and dragging the retirees along with them.

Over the last few years, we’ve made good progress towards reducing our deficitThere has been no progress. More people on food stamps and disability. Obama care. The deficit is rising. The collapse is in site unless we do something real. in a balanced way. There’s no reason we can’t keep chipping away at this problem.WHAT!? Chipping away is not good enough! We need to hack off huge hunks and haunches. And there’s certainly no reason that middle-class families and small businesses should suffer just because Washington couldn’t come together and eliminate a few special interest tax loopholes, or government programs that just don’t work. At a time when economists and business leaders from across the spectrum have said that our economy is poised for progress, we shouldn’t allow self-inflicted wounds to put that progress in jeopardy.[Overall Comment]All of Obama's GODDAMN solutions are spending. How about leave the eF'ing economy alone. Get out of the freaking way! And self-inflicted wounds? You did that you eF'ing bastard. Green mutha-eF'ing energy. Getting the EPA to shut down coal. Wasting money on solar companies that fail. You are inflicting the damn wounds.

So my message to Congress is this: let’s keep working together to solve this problem. And let’s give our workers and our businesses the support they need to grow and thrive. Thanks, and have a great weekend.

1 2

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Has Obama Become Prolife?

At first glance of this post on Obama's site I thought Obama was becoming prolife!

Wrong! That is an antigun post.

Diminishing your ability to protect yourself is a way to save your life. No one is harmed by abortion.

There are people that believe it too. Sigh.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Google Flags Breitbart as a Malicious Site

We are at the one year anniversary of Breitbart's passing and how does Google celebrate it? By labeling his site as malicious.

Okay. Maybe I am late to the party on this, but I didn't find anyone else writing about it. If there is, please comment and add a link below. Let's give credit where credit is due.

I was doing research to see if anyone had written about something a bit absurd I read on a dot gov blog. Indeed people had. One place I found this topic I was researching was at

If I were to use the results of just one search to besmirch a search engine would be wrong. However, Google can crawl a site per keyword protocol. So let us try a keyword site protocol. Go to Google and crawl the whole site with So, as you see, the results are EVERY page is malicious.
This is be a better closeup.
So, what does it mean to be deemed as a malicious site? It means Google will not give you a simple link. They give you this warning page instead.
The only way to get to the page is to copy and paste the URL out of the alert text. Otherwise, Google does not give you a simple point and click interface to

Yeah. No search engine bias here. Google couldn't possibly have a liberal bias.

UPDATE Feb 4th, 7pm

This entry was posted Sunday night and was accurate. Sometime Monday morning Google corrected the issue. is no longer marked as a malicious site.

UPDATE Feb 4th, 9pm

Possible explanation of why was marked malicious. I just visited the site and one of the ads pushed the page off of the site to one of those "You might be a winner" ads.

1 2