Tuesday, January 29, 2013
There is no Social Contract
Yaron from the Ayn Rand Institute is awesome. He always cuts through the B.S. and states things the way they are.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
It's Global Warming, NOT!
The Department of Commerce. Yeah, you heard me. The Department of Freakin' Commerce.
Global warming? Bite me.
The Commerce blog does tend to get off topic sometimes. So just like my previous post I want to tell you the title of the post I am going to rail on, which is "By a Wide Margin, 2012 was the United States’ Warmest Year on Record."
Wow. Scary. Wide margin. How can you argue that?
Sampling.
And the blog post itself. So even though I have linked to the post, I am reposting the whole blog post since it is so short:
It took 14 years to set a record warm year. That means we had to have a yardstick before the year 2000 to judge this past year as the warmest. On a geological scale mankind's presence on the earth is small, and mankind's accurate measurement of weather on the scale of mankind is small.
Why do so many people freak out about a blip of measurement in our existent which is a blip in the existent of the Earth which is a blip of the existent of the Universe? Well, our politics is freaked out and up. No one talks about the benefits of things getting warmer like the ability to expand growing seasons or further northern farming.
The sampling for alarm in the post is freaked, and the freakiest part is only a 3 month cycle.
If given a choice, would you rather the globe ten degrees warmer or colder? That is a huge swing but we could live in a swing that hotter, but that colder would destroy agriculture. That means much less food.
So even though the statistics are not definitively "Oh my Freakin God" warming, why aren't we striving to make it? Do you hate plants so much you want to reduce a critical food source in CO2 and warmth? Do you hate vegetarians so much that you want to kill off their only food source?
Yeah. I'm saying it. If you want to stop global warming you hate vegetarians. You hate animal lovers you sick bastard!
Global warming? Bite me.
The Commerce blog does tend to get off topic sometimes. So just like my previous post I want to tell you the title of the post I am going to rail on, which is "By a Wide Margin, 2012 was the United States’ Warmest Year on Record."
Wow. Scary. Wide margin. How can you argue that?
Sampling.
And the blog post itself. So even though I have linked to the post, I am reposting the whole blog post since it is so short:
According to the latest statistics from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature for the contiguous United States for 2012 was 55.3° Fahrenheit, which was 3.2° Fahrenheit above the twentieth-century average and 1.0° Fahrenheit above the previous record from 1998. The year consisted of the fourth-warmest winter, a record-warm spring, the second-warmest summer, and a warmer-than-average autumn.Are you kidding me!? For a record warm year only one season, Spring, was a record high and yet another season, Autumn, wasn't even stated as a ranking but just above average.
The map shows where the 2012 temperatures were different from the 1981–2010 average. Shades of red indicate temperatures up to 8° Fahrenheit warmer than average, and shades of blue indicate temperatures up to 8° Fahrenheit cooler than average—the darker the color, the larger the difference from average temperature. Full release
It took 14 years to set a record warm year. That means we had to have a yardstick before the year 2000 to judge this past year as the warmest. On a geological scale mankind's presence on the earth is small, and mankind's accurate measurement of weather on the scale of mankind is small.
Why do so many people freak out about a blip of measurement in our existent which is a blip in the existent of the Earth which is a blip of the existent of the Universe? Well, our politics is freaked out and up. No one talks about the benefits of things getting warmer like the ability to expand growing seasons or further northern farming.
The sampling for alarm in the post is freaked, and the freakiest part is only a 3 month cycle.
If given a choice, would you rather the globe ten degrees warmer or colder? That is a huge swing but we could live in a swing that hotter, but that colder would destroy agriculture. That means much less food.
So even though the statistics are not definitively "Oh my Freakin God" warming, why aren't we striving to make it? Do you hate plants so much you want to reduce a critical food source in CO2 and warmth? Do you hate vegetarians so much that you want to kill off their only food source?
Yeah. I'm saying it. If you want to stop global warming you hate vegetarians. You hate animal lovers you sick bastard!
You're Not Helping
The Department of Energy has a blog entry titled "Keeping America Competitive: Bringing Down the Cost of Small Wind Turbines."
So how does the blog describe the way to accomplish this? The government is going to "invest" in two projects that will help upgrade manufacturing processes for wind turbines. And of course "invest" means that our tax dollars are given to these projects which means the government subsidizes the companies.
Remember how bad it is that we subsidize oil companies? Then again, I am still fuzzy on that fact. I think they get tax breaks, not subsidies. Very different.
Basically, in the end the government is not making wind energy cheaper. The government is making us pay for it regardless of whether or not we want to pay for it. So if we have paid for it to make it cheaper so that we can buy it then we really haven't made it cheaper. We will just be buying it because we've already paid for part of it.
So how does the blog describe the way to accomplish this? The government is going to "invest" in two projects that will help upgrade manufacturing processes for wind turbines. And of course "invest" means that our tax dollars are given to these projects which means the government subsidizes the companies.
Remember how bad it is that we subsidize oil companies? Then again, I am still fuzzy on that fact. I think they get tax breaks, not subsidies. Very different.
Basically, in the end the government is not making wind energy cheaper. The government is making us pay for it regardless of whether or not we want to pay for it. So if we have paid for it to make it cheaper so that we can buy it then we really haven't made it cheaper. We will just be buying it because we've already paid for part of it.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Still on the Rails
Eventually Jor jumps off the rails, except, well... this time he sees the destination. His thought is not tangent but online with what the current misdirection is.
Monday, January 7, 2013
How To Not Pay Your Student Loan
Want to pay as little as possible back on your student loan? Well the first step is to make sure you got your loan from the government. Did you do that?
Check!
Well guess what. The government has practically done the rest for you! With the introduction of Income Based Repayment, or Pay As You Earn, up to 1.6 million borrowers could have their payments capped at 15% of their discretionary income.
So what is discretionary income?
So, if a single person was lucky enough to get a $20,000 a year job in this economy, their discretionary income would be $8,830. This means they would not owe more than $1,324. That is a real slow start to paying off a large college loan. When interest gets figured in it could take decades to pay off a loan.
Or not.
Once again the government steps in and makes it possible that after 25 years the debt can be forgiven. Isn't that nice? But still, 25 years is a long time.
Guess what! There is an express lane to debt forgiveness!
Debt can be forgiven after 10 years if the borrower has been employed full time to a public service organization. What sort of job is that? You guessed it, a state job!
So the state takes our money and lends it to a student. The student then pays as much as they can for 25 years and then doesn't pay us, I mean the government, back the remaining balance.
Let us not forget. If the student instead works for the state and gets paid from our tax dollars, after 10 years they don't have to pay us, again I mean the government, back the remaining balance.
1.6 million students that don't need to pay back the full amount of what they borrowed? But the government thinks that the solution to the fiscal cliff is to tax some people more money!?
Really!?
Check!
Well guess what. The government has practically done the rest for you! With the introduction of Income Based Repayment, or Pay As You Earn, up to 1.6 million borrowers could have their payments capped at 15% of their discretionary income.
So what is discretionary income?
Your adjusted gross income minus the poverty guidelines for your family size.Here's a chart for the poverty guidelines [chart].
So, if a single person was lucky enough to get a $20,000 a year job in this economy, their discretionary income would be $8,830. This means they would not owe more than $1,324. That is a real slow start to paying off a large college loan. When interest gets figured in it could take decades to pay off a loan.
Or not.
Once again the government steps in and makes it possible that after 25 years the debt can be forgiven. Isn't that nice? But still, 25 years is a long time.
Guess what! There is an express lane to debt forgiveness!
Debt can be forgiven after 10 years if the borrower has been employed full time to a public service organization. What sort of job is that? You guessed it, a state job!
So the state takes our money and lends it to a student. The student then pays as much as they can for 25 years and then doesn't pay us, I mean the government, back the remaining balance.
Let us not forget. If the student instead works for the state and gets paid from our tax dollars, after 10 years they don't have to pay us, again I mean the government, back the remaining balance.
1.6 million students that don't need to pay back the full amount of what they borrowed? But the government thinks that the solution to the fiscal cliff is to tax some people more money!?
Really!?
Stop Gambling With Companies! You Can't Pick Winners!
The government is at it again.
How long have we lived in houses? How long have we striven to weather-proof our homes to keep our energy bills down? There is a vibrant market for making a house energy efficient, is there not?
Then why is the Solyndra debacle being repeated? Why is the government "investing" in companies of their choosing to create efficient heating, cooling, and weatherizing technologies? Of all the companies that do this sort of development the government has given $9.5 million to 6 companies/universities to develop products.
What is even worse is that the products invested in are predefined. Not only has the government interfered with the market by giving a few companies in a large market money, but they are deciding what should be developed instead of letting the market decide. If the end products do not meet the stated goals then people will probably not want them. Even if the products do meet the stated goals the people still may not want them.
Basically, the DOE is gambling in the market again with $9.5 million dollars picking companies and products they want in an industry that has been around for a long time. How did they not learn from Solyndra? How can they not realize that "if you build it they will come" is just a fantasy from a movie!?
How long have we lived in houses? How long have we striven to weather-proof our homes to keep our energy bills down? There is a vibrant market for making a house energy efficient, is there not?
Then why is the Solyndra debacle being repeated? Why is the government "investing" in companies of their choosing to create efficient heating, cooling, and weatherizing technologies? Of all the companies that do this sort of development the government has given $9.5 million to 6 companies/universities to develop products.
What is even worse is that the products invested in are predefined. Not only has the government interfered with the market by giving a few companies in a large market money, but they are deciding what should be developed instead of letting the market decide. If the end products do not meet the stated goals then people will probably not want them. Even if the products do meet the stated goals the people still may not want them.
Basically, the DOE is gambling in the market again with $9.5 million dollars picking companies and products they want in an industry that has been around for a long time. How did they not learn from Solyndra? How can they not realize that "if you build it they will come" is just a fantasy from a movie!?
Financial Assault
One of the weapons wielded against terrorism is financial assault. Once a terrorist's or a terrorist cell's bank account is discovered the assets are frozen. Lack of assets makes it difficult to purchase the necessary materials to meet the desired ends.
But what if a bank independently decided to do this? What if it wasn't against terrorists but businesses that they didn't like?
Well, this has happened. Bank of America has decided that they do not like gun manufacturers and decided to freeze the accounts of American Spirit Arms.
Can you see the havoc this nation is descending into? When the tax policies and the forced purchasing of insurance becomes an incentive to lie about profits, when arms manufacturers are pushed into a cash only situation, can you not see the formula for "Going Galt" taking place? Is it not the logical conclusion?
But what if a bank independently decided to do this? What if it wasn't against terrorists but businesses that they didn't like?
Well, this has happened. Bank of America has decided that they do not like gun manufacturers and decided to freeze the accounts of American Spirit Arms.
Can you see the havoc this nation is descending into? When the tax policies and the forced purchasing of insurance becomes an incentive to lie about profits, when arms manufacturers are pushed into a cash only situation, can you not see the formula for "Going Galt" taking place? Is it not the logical conclusion?
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Guns are EVIL! Please don't look at the data!
Every time there is a shooting the press and politicians freak out about guns. Should we let a sensational event override a sobering look at data?
His math is not perfect. The violent crimes are down 49% and murders down 49.5% in the U.S. since 1992. Basically about 50% as he stated.
Other than that, spot on.
His math is not perfect. The violent crimes are down 49% and murders down 49.5% in the U.S. since 1992. Basically about 50% as he stated.
Other than that, spot on.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Happy New Year
More taxes, Obama care, more laws, and more regulations.
Happy Freakin' New Year!
Too sarcastic?
Happy Freakin' New Year!
Too sarcastic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)