KJV Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The first verse of the Bible gives us the fact that God created the heaven and earth." , NASV says heavens and the earth.
It is interesting that God does not even attempt to define where He began or that he even exists. It is a simply understood fact that God exists and He is beginning the history of our heavens and earth so that we humans have a correct record of our beginning.
Current scientists differ as they theorize how the earth and heavens came into existence, but they have to have an element or two to make their theory somewhat believable. I find it easier to believe that God exists and that he created the heavens and earth than to believe that an element or two existed and over millions of years they exploded and or came together to form our universe.
It is clear that the word faith comes into play for either God creating or man's theories to be believed. It is clear that even modern day scientists must ignore the fact that humans did not exist prior to the earth's existence and thus no one was around to witness the event, but God on the other hand clearly claims to have been in existence and also claims to have created our universe.
If we examine the two "theories" further we find that modern day scientists clearly deny the existence of God. If their theory of how the world came into existence is correct, then the first verse of the Bible is clearly a lie and if the first verse is a lie than how could we believe any other verses within the Bible?
Some theologians have tried to reconcile the Bible to the beliefs of modern day scientists and developed a "GAP Theory" which allows them to accept both the scientists theories and the Bible by saying that God used the methods described by scientists to "create" the world, how ever this does not change the premise that if God's word is not clear and correct then He is a liar and none of His word can be trusted.
If God did not create the earth and heavens, then has he really created a place called Heaven? or a place called Hell? Was Jesus really God's son? or just another remarkable man? All of Christianity is made relevant by the acceptance of this first verse in the Bible. God exists and He created the heavens and the earth and thus it was the beginning of human history.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Democratic "Simulus Bill"
It has often been said that to state a politician is "an honest politician" is an oxymoron. This past year we have seen multiple cases of this very fact. In Illinois we have the former "beloved" Governor Rod and then nonsense that is carried on in the Illinois House and Senate where almost every member has his hand out wanting to be rewarded.
On the Federal level we have imbeciles being elected to make imbecilic decisions supposedly for "the good of the American people". No matter what your political affiliation the line up is loaded with power brokers and want-a-bees that couldn't make it in the real world and chose politics. They are so adept at speaking out of both sides of their mouth's that even they don't appear to recognize the lying.
This is my blog and I have a Conservative view point on how things should be run in this country. Admittedly my views may not always be right, and my opinion can be changed as reason enters my brain. Others may differ, and that is okay, sometimes the differing brings better logic, but differing with my opinions does not prove them right.
My mind was blown this past week as I watched the blundering idiots in Washington purpose and approve a supposedly "Stimulus Bill" which may or may not have been what President Obama wanted. I have heard that normally the Administration proposes this kind of bill, but Obama has somewhat indicated that Nancy Pelosi was in charge of this development. Maybe it is too early for the inexperienced Obama to put together a complex bill, or maybe he realized the laughable inclusions and decided not to risk his name in case "Stimulus Bill" did not work.
The questions that have bothered me about this whole situation are:
1) Why was there such a hurry to get this passed? I have always been taught that anything worth doing is worth doing well. Could it be that a political agenda was more important than actually stimulating the economy?
2) Why was the President out campaigning for this proposal and making meaningless statements like "doing nothing is not an option". President Obama certainly encouraged us to be fearful of the future and to prepare for economic bad times, even greater than those that currently exist. Wow, I need to watch every penny and start looking for ways to hoard money to meet the future hard times coming to us. Anybody, even the politicians, know that the economy has tanked and that stimulating the economy can only be done by encouraging citizens to spend a little of their savings so that business will be encouraged to bring back laid off workers as the desire for goods increases. It doesn't take a genius to see that fact.
3) Why would this package cover such a long period of time where more spending of government money was done two to three years down the road instead of being used to stimulate the economy now? All I can say is DUH? This smells fishy?
4) Why are multiple costly new programs being started that will only drain the government of money instead of stimulating the economy which would increase government revenue to provide the cost of the desired new programs? I fail to see any common sense in this decision.
Dan's conclusion:
The Administration really believes that the economy will recover on its own, this is just a cycle and doing nothing probably is the right thing to do instead of public bail outs. Since the economy will take care of itself, then the agenda of the Democratic Party and Administration must use this "crisis" to accomplish the party goals before the economy swings back to functional. Scare the daylights out of the "dumb electorate" and pass the bill quickly and without defining how the funds will be spent. Then use the proceeds scheduled for two to three years down the road to enhance party goals for the next election. In the long run, the "dumb electorate" will forgive and forget. We Americans can only hope that this truly is not a "crisis" and that the economy will recover on its own, because if that assumption is incorrect the "Spending Bill" just passed will certainly sink the good ship USA as I see nothing that will stimulate the economy.
On the Federal level we have imbeciles being elected to make imbecilic decisions supposedly for "the good of the American people". No matter what your political affiliation the line up is loaded with power brokers and want-a-bees that couldn't make it in the real world and chose politics. They are so adept at speaking out of both sides of their mouth's that even they don't appear to recognize the lying.
This is my blog and I have a Conservative view point on how things should be run in this country. Admittedly my views may not always be right, and my opinion can be changed as reason enters my brain. Others may differ, and that is okay, sometimes the differing brings better logic, but differing with my opinions does not prove them right.
My mind was blown this past week as I watched the blundering idiots in Washington purpose and approve a supposedly "Stimulus Bill" which may or may not have been what President Obama wanted. I have heard that normally the Administration proposes this kind of bill, but Obama has somewhat indicated that Nancy Pelosi was in charge of this development. Maybe it is too early for the inexperienced Obama to put together a complex bill, or maybe he realized the laughable inclusions and decided not to risk his name in case "Stimulus Bill" did not work.
The questions that have bothered me about this whole situation are:
1) Why was there such a hurry to get this passed? I have always been taught that anything worth doing is worth doing well. Could it be that a political agenda was more important than actually stimulating the economy?
2) Why was the President out campaigning for this proposal and making meaningless statements like "doing nothing is not an option". President Obama certainly encouraged us to be fearful of the future and to prepare for economic bad times, even greater than those that currently exist. Wow, I need to watch every penny and start looking for ways to hoard money to meet the future hard times coming to us. Anybody, even the politicians, know that the economy has tanked and that stimulating the economy can only be done by encouraging citizens to spend a little of their savings so that business will be encouraged to bring back laid off workers as the desire for goods increases. It doesn't take a genius to see that fact.
3) Why would this package cover such a long period of time where more spending of government money was done two to three years down the road instead of being used to stimulate the economy now? All I can say is DUH? This smells fishy?
4) Why are multiple costly new programs being started that will only drain the government of money instead of stimulating the economy which would increase government revenue to provide the cost of the desired new programs? I fail to see any common sense in this decision.
Dan's conclusion:
The Administration really believes that the economy will recover on its own, this is just a cycle and doing nothing probably is the right thing to do instead of public bail outs. Since the economy will take care of itself, then the agenda of the Democratic Party and Administration must use this "crisis" to accomplish the party goals before the economy swings back to functional. Scare the daylights out of the "dumb electorate" and pass the bill quickly and without defining how the funds will be spent. Then use the proceeds scheduled for two to three years down the road to enhance party goals for the next election. In the long run, the "dumb electorate" will forgive and forget. We Americans can only hope that this truly is not a "crisis" and that the economy will recover on its own, because if that assumption is incorrect the "Spending Bill" just passed will certainly sink the good ship USA as I see nothing that will stimulate the economy.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Where will we be after the coming Presidential Election?
What a Different 60 Years Makes
This may anger you, hurt you or sadden you, one thing for sure it'll get your attention.
I know everyone has a different opinion on the war and our current President. But, this article makes a lot of sense, and I hope you will take 2 minutes and read it and give it some thought. I have never seen the "situation" expressed any better in words!
When electing the next President, "the only decision you have to make is who you want sitting in that seat in the White House when - not if -WHEN we get hit again and millions of American lives are put at risk!"
This is from : "You ain't gonna like losing." Author unknown.
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.
Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.
And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And, imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices .
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause... Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits. So... We either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
My Heroes Wear Combat Boots!
This may anger you, hurt you or sadden you, one thing for sure it'll get your attention.
I know everyone has a different opinion on the war and our current President. But, this article makes a lot of sense, and I hope you will take 2 minutes and read it and give it some thought. I have never seen the "situation" expressed any better in words!
When electing the next President, "the only decision you have to make is who you want sitting in that seat in the White House when - not if -WHEN we get hit again and millions of American lives are put at risk!"
This is from : "You ain't gonna like losing." Author unknown.
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.
Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.
And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.
Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.
Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.
You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And, imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!
Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.
A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being 'tortured' by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crack heads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 9/11, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices .
We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause... Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits. So... We either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
My Heroes Wear Combat Boots!
Saturday, April 12, 2008
A Politically Correct American?
This is a very good letter to the editor. This woman made some good points.
For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. NOT printed in the Orange County Paper Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it will get published via cyberspace!
From: 'David LaBonte'
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to 'print'it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is
made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear
down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't
being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and
other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like
Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind
of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all
areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to get off a
ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented . Some
would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.
They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in
good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new
American households and some even changed their names to blend in with
their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a
new life and did everything in their power to help their children
assimilate into one culture Nothing was handed to them. No free
lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were
the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a
future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My
father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from
Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation
Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had
come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the
Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as
one people.
When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for
the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The
people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that
represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have
thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to
> >
represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their
> >
parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly
knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into
one red, white and blue bowl. And here we are in 2007 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card
and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry,
that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the
immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve
better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising
future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those
legally searching for a better life I think they would be appalled
that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens
to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte
FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL
MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET!!
LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!!
I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people
For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. NOT printed in the Orange County Paper Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it will get published via cyberspace!
From: 'David LaBonte'
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to 'print'it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is
made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear
down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't
being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and
other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like
Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind
of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all
areas of Europe to come to the United States , people had to get off a
ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented . Some
would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.
They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in
good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new
American households and some even changed their names to blend in with
their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a
new life and did everything in their power to help their children
assimilate into one culture Nothing was handed to them. No free
lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were
the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a
future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My
father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from
Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation
Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had
come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the
Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as
one people.
When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for
the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The
people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that
represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have
thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to
> >
represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their
> >
parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly
knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into
one red, white and blue bowl. And here we are in 2007 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card
and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry,
that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the
immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve
better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising
future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those
legally searching for a better life I think they would be appalled
that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens
to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte
FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL
MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET!!
LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!!
I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Bar Economics Lesson 101
I received an email from a friend. The message was to straight forward and to the point to delete. Thanks to the friend and the good professor that purportedly wrote this lesson.
Bar economics lesson
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on e day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that’s right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!'
'That's true!! shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
Bar economics lesson
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on e day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that’s right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!'
'That's true!! shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Don't dump your garbage on me!
I picked this up from another web site. The message is good and I wanted to share with others.
"How often do you let other people’s nonsense change your mood? Do you let a bad driver, rude waiter, curt boss, or an insensitive employee ruin your day?
However, the mark of a successful person is how quickly he/she can get back her focus on what’s important. Sixteen years ago I learned this lesson. I learned it in the back of a New York City taxi cab.
Here’s what happened. …… I hopped in a taxi, and we took off for Grand Central Station. We were driving in the right lane when, all of a sudden, a black car jumped out of a parking space right in front of us.
My taxi driver slammed on his breaks, skidded, and missed the other car’s back end by just inches! The driver of the other car, the guy who almost caused a big accident, whipped his head around and he started yelling bad words at us. My taxi driver just smiled and waved at the guy. And I mean, he was friendly.
So, I said, “Why did you just do that? This guy almost ruined your car and sent us to the hospital! And this is when my taxi driver told me what I now call, “The Law of the Garbage Truck.
Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they need a place to dump it. And if you let them, they’ll dump it on you.
When someone wants to dump on you, don’t take it personally. You just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. You’ll be happy you did.
So this was it: The “Law of the Garbage Truck. I started thinking, how often do I let Garbage Trucks run right over me? And how often do I take their garbage and spread it to other people: At work, at home, on the streets? It was that day I said, “I’m not going to do it anymore.
Well, now “I see Garbage Trucks. I see the load they’re carrying.
I see them coming to drop it off. And like my Taxi Driver, I don’t make it a personal thing; I just smile, wave, wish them well, and I move on."
"How often do you let other people’s nonsense change your mood? Do you let a bad driver, rude waiter, curt boss, or an insensitive employee ruin your day?
However, the mark of a successful person is how quickly he/she can get back her focus on what’s important. Sixteen years ago I learned this lesson. I learned it in the back of a New York City taxi cab.
Here’s what happened. …… I hopped in a taxi, and we took off for Grand Central Station. We were driving in the right lane when, all of a sudden, a black car jumped out of a parking space right in front of us.
My taxi driver slammed on his breaks, skidded, and missed the other car’s back end by just inches! The driver of the other car, the guy who almost caused a big accident, whipped his head around and he started yelling bad words at us. My taxi driver just smiled and waved at the guy. And I mean, he was friendly.
So, I said, “Why did you just do that? This guy almost ruined your car and sent us to the hospital! And this is when my taxi driver told me what I now call, “The Law of the Garbage Truck.
Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they need a place to dump it. And if you let them, they’ll dump it on you.
When someone wants to dump on you, don’t take it personally. You just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. You’ll be happy you did.
So this was it: The “Law of the Garbage Truck. I started thinking, how often do I let Garbage Trucks run right over me? And how often do I take their garbage and spread it to other people: At work, at home, on the streets? It was that day I said, “I’m not going to do it anymore.
Well, now “I see Garbage Trucks. I see the load they’re carrying.
I see them coming to drop it off. And like my Taxi Driver, I don’t make it a personal thing; I just smile, wave, wish them well, and I move on."
Friday, November 9, 2007
Schools 1967 compared to Schools 2007
Thanks to "Blindsodusbay"! Known also as Don from Rockford.
Those of us old enough to remember our school days back in the 1960's can relate to this and only look in amazement at the 2007 version. The question is what has happened during this 40 year time span?
SCHOOL 1967 vs. SCHOOL 2007
Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into high school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1967 - Vice principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, the police are called, Jack is hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors are called in to assist traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1967 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2007 - Police are called, SWAT team arrives and arrests Johnny and Mark. They are charged with assault and both are expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario: David won't sit still in class, disrupts other students.
1967 - David is sent to the principals office and given a good paddling. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - David is given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra state funding because David has a disability.
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1967 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario: Mark has a headache and takes some Aspirin to school.
1967 - Mark shares Aspirin with the school principal.
2007 - Police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario: Pedro fails high-school English.
1967 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by local human rights group. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that making English a requirement for graduation is racist. American Civil Liberties Association files class action lawsuit against school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover 4th of July firecrackers, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up an anthill.
1967 - Ants die.
2007 - Police and the Hazmat Team are called and Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. FBI investigates parents, siblings are removed from the home, computers are confiscated, and Johnny's dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario: Johnny falls during recess and scrapes his knee. His teacher, Mary, finds him crying, and gives him a hug to comfort him.
1967 - Johnny soon feels better and goes back to playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in federal prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.
Those of us old enough to remember our school days back in the 1960's can relate to this and only look in amazement at the 2007 version. The question is what has happened during this 40 year time span?
SCHOOL 1967 vs. SCHOOL 2007
Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into high school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1967 - Vice principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, the police are called, Jack is hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors are called in to assist traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1967 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2007 - Police are called, SWAT team arrives and arrests Johnny and Mark. They are charged with assault and both are expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario: David won't sit still in class, disrupts other students.
1967 - David is sent to the principals office and given a good paddling. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - David is given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra state funding because David has a disability.
Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1967 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.
Scenario: Mark has a headache and takes some Aspirin to school.
1967 - Mark shares Aspirin with the school principal.
2007 - Police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is searched for drugs and weapons.
Scenario: Pedro fails high-school English.
1967 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by local human rights group. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that making English a requirement for graduation is racist. American Civil Liberties Association files class action lawsuit against school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.
Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover 4th of July firecrackers, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up an anthill.
1967 - Ants die.
2007 - Police and the Hazmat Team are called and Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. FBI investigates parents, siblings are removed from the home, computers are confiscated, and Johnny's dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.
Scenario: Johnny falls during recess and scrapes his knee. His teacher, Mary, finds him crying, and gives him a hug to comfort him.
1967 - Johnny soon feels better and goes back to playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in federal prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)