Previous 11 - 20 Next
They should just consider it a teaching moment and move along.
In response to:

Gas Myths

Cynical Mike Wrote: May 29, 2013 10:04 AM
Notice that when the media and the government want to vilify the oil companies, they state their profits in dollars rather than as percentages. Thus, the evil oil companies "made record profits of $6 gazillion dollars last quarter", or "oil company profits up 25%" (without saying 25% over what). The fact that these profits represent $0.07/gallon isn't stated, because that doesn't sound so bad.
However they felt about his politics & policies (I abhor them), most people, myself included, gave Obama credit as being a pretty smart, intelligent guy. But, based on what? We have no idea how well he fared in college, and his work experience was nil. On the other side of the coin, he sure could talk the talk. I've changed my mind; he might be innately intelligent, but smart he isn't. What has he done in 5 years to display any grasp of issues across the spectrum - with the exception of politics? The only thing he has proven to be adept at is campaigning, so that's how he spends a good portion of his time. I might also assume that his golf game has improved tremendously, apparently at the expense of his prowess shooting a basketball.
I'm not surprised at all, but who wants to bet that the initial "investors" who started dealing in a commodity that doesn't exist (carbon credits) have made their fortunes. Think Al Gore might be one of them?
Yea, right, she's stupid, as was George Bush and Ronald Reagan. Is that the best you can do? BTY, wonder-lib Obama is touted as being very intelligent, but no one can see his school records, and, in 5 years as president, the only talent he has shown is campaigning. Everything else he has touched has turned to you-know-what.
In response to:

Bouncing Ball Politics

Cynical Mike Wrote: May 07, 2013 10:00 AM
Another "bouncing ball" scenario is coming to light as a result of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The proponents were either ignorant or refused to see the economic reality of a small business employing 35-or-so employees and a few 32-hour-per-week (4-day) part-timers. They are actually surprised now that such an employer would change employees more than 30 to part-timers, and reduce their hours from 32 to 30, rather than have to provide health insurance. What a shock! people act in their own self-interest - which is what makes our system such a great one.
Another instance where the liberals see a situation, figure out how to tax and/or control and/or regulate it, and firmly believe that the situation they're addressing is cast in stone and won't change as a result of what they're doing. I doubt if most of them even considered that if you employ 35 people, plus a few part-timers who work 32 hours per week, that you would actually convert five to part-time and change to a 30-hour week. Liberals don't think that there are any consequences to their actions, hence the need for a "committee of Unintended Consequences" to independently review and report on all legislation prior to any vote (yes, I'm being cynical & facetious).
... and no one ever gets fired. The people in charge claim they didn't know about such important things, yet ... no one gets fired. Is this any way to run a government? What a joke!
Let's not forget for a minute Nixon's Wage & Price Controls fiasco.
The man-caused global warming brigade lost me forever when they got the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant. As far as I remember, we need CO2 to survive, as do all plants and vegetation. A pollutant - at least in my quasi-logical mind, means we don't want any of that stuff. Well, how long would we survive with no CO2? The alternative to no CO2 is the government and their "consensus scientists" determining what a "safe" level is. Really? As if we could change the level anyway; our vanity as a species knows no bounds: we can control the composition of the atmosphere to the extent required to affect long-term climate? Right!
Eventually there will be some impact from the sequester cuts, but isn't that simple economics? Despite such a large portion of government spending being wasteful, misdirected, foolish, etc, etc, etc ... of course someone is going to be affected when that spending is eliminated or reduced. That someone might be a useless bureaucrat or a welfare cheat, but pain is pain. When I have to cut my household budget, the same thing happens. Yes, maybe I eat out too often, but it still "hurts" a little bit when I can't. The point is, (and I hate to be trite but it's apropos) ... "no pain, no gain. Let's hope the CR carries forward all of the cuts, then let's concentrate on the new budget.
Previous 11 - 20 Next