NO GAY SEX! (unless you have a LOT of cash to fork over)

So here I am, sitting here at the computer wasting time on Facebook, and going back and forth looking at other pages. Along with Google, my spam mail is promising money left and right. Payday loans, bad credit loans worth more than I've ever had at any one time, free grants the government is just going to pay me to sit here on my ass.

So sure, I can definitely use more money. Not at 3500% interest or whatever, and I'm certainly not sending in $45 (normally $245, but I'm getting a special deal! they must know how awesome I am) to get my free information kit on how to make $1000s a day just like this guru with his fancy webpage and video of him driving nice cars. The whole thing on facebook of bill gates or some random ass lottery winner saying they will give you free money if you share the post and just ask for it...talk about a joke.

First off, Bill Gates isn't giving me money. Secondly, despite being part of the Giving Pledge thing a bunch of billionaires put together as their own little charitable club they belong to (I suspect mostly to make them feel better about themselves in a public relations sense), these guys aren't giving money away to regular people. They are looking at "legitimate" charities. I suspect they have a hand in running some of those charities to begin with, which is almost ridiculous if you ask me. That's more like a tax write off without actually losing a penny.

I tend to peruse the job ads from time to time, and I've found out hard work often pays less than everything else. A 16 year old ditz in high school speaking on the phone using a pre-written script to work from actually makes more money than most jobs I see where manual labor is actually involved for some guy just trying to support his family. And it's also amazing how many jobs now require a college education just to get some job that pays less than $30,000 a year! What the hell is THAT? Is the state of our public education system so bad that you need college just to get you closer to a simple wage that's high enough to pay the bills of a mediocre lifestyle? And what's with all the staffing companies? Every corporation out there is working with a bunch of $10-$15/hr workers who aren't really working FOR the company. Don't get me wrong, a lot of those people do great work, and for some that's the only way to get work. I guess it's better to float the CEO's pay when you underpay everyone and don't have to offer them perks...

Now, I don't have much in the way of job skills. I was the 16 year old ditz on the phone, I sided houses for awhile, I did security work, and I've worked in restaurants. None of which paid all that well. Sometimes I worked very hard at those jobs, but a lot of the time I kind of slacked off and just did what needed to be done without anything extra. Why? Because it didn't really matter much. Months of hard work resulted in me making no more than some guy who spent his entire day jerking off. Sometimes I made even less than those guys who didn't know their head from their ass, and I was picking up their slack. But it seemed my low wage was barely able to be afforded by the boss, so no raise for me or anyone else. Now don't mind me, I'm just venting, the entire point of this article isn't to complain, I just lost focus for a bit...and I'm too lazy to delete all that wasted effort.

These days I'm still trying to figure out how to make more money. A substantial amount to be exact, not just something to get me by for the next week or so. I'm talking about random ass jobs for good money. And I've decided I have VERY FEW caveats. You pick the job, task, etc- minus the caveats listed below- and we'll talk.

1) I will NOT kill anyone for cash (although I might maim someone for the right price- which also means you footing the lawyer fees). If you want me to be your killing dummy, we do the cash ahead of time of course so I can get the money to the wife and kids first. Then I'll be your huckleberry.

2) I will NOT let a bull charge me and ram me right in the gonads...or take a baseball bat there. Plain and simple: no nut shots that could result in permanent damage!

I mean c'mon, I'm pretty dumb, I'll admit that. But I'm not COMPLETELY insane!

3) NO GAY SEX (unless you're coming with something like a million bucks or more, I'm thinking closer to $10 million, but we can negotiate- AND that gets no publicity- save that for Dallas Cowboy fans)

Other than that I'm pretty much game. I'll drive you around town, do your shopping, you name it. You want your house demolished, re-drywalled or burned down, I'm your guy. You want me to clean your house in some odd looking outfit (or no outfit at all) while you videotape it? You're a special kind of odd, but I'll still do it! You want me to play a real life game of Frogger on the freeway, wrestle wild herds of feral cats, whatever your fetish might be, I'm your man. You tell me what game you want me to play, we'll discuss a price tag and then I'll do whatever it is you want for that price. Proof of funds are required and I get paid that day. Don't get me wrong, I still have every intention of continuing working a job, short of winning a big lottery I just want to raise about $100,000 so I can wipe my debts out and get a good down payment for a house. Although I would definitely take more money than that if the jobs just keep coming. Every man has his price, and I'm no different. It's all a matter of negotiation with me. I CAN be bought!

So pass this on to all your friends that actually have money they are willing to part with in order to be entertained by directing my antics and help me make some real friggin money.

A Citizen's Message To Those In Washington D.C.

WARNING: VERY ADULT LANGUAGE, Listen at your own risk.

Here's a guy with a simple, non-partisan message regarding our budget issues as a nation. He basically says to hell with social decorum and playing nice here. I think he says what a lot of people are thinking in their minds while talking with a lot less expletive language. Enjoy:

My Ego Has Turned Me Into A Superhero

Well, sort of. Let's see where to start. This year I've changed out my first ever electrical outlet in a friend's apartment as well as assisted in car repair duties. I've moved heavy stuff up to 3rd floor apartments for 3 different sets of friends this year already (it seems none of my friends can do the whole 1st floor thing, they want me to work waaay too hard I guess). I even mowed a friends lawn for them while they were at work. You know, MANLY stuff.

I recently returned to my blog, having been given access to the internet within my compound from a friend's WIFI access. While I regard this as a laudable achievement to be greeted with much fanfare, it's not just me boosting my ego. Below is a comment from another blogger who's site I have always been a regular visitor prior to "unplugging" from this interweb thingy for a few months:

◦MOOKIE!!!

Welcome back!!! I can’t tell you how good it is to hear from you. I’m just getting back to writing on something resembling a regular basis myself. June and July were pretty dismal but I just didn’t have the need to say anything. By the time I started writing again I lost so many regulars. I thought I lost you as well. It’s really good to see you back. My world is saved already!

Peace

Comment by brotherpeacemaker |

See, even in suburban Des Moines, Iowa, I am saving some people's world by merely being back on the internet. Mookism has extended its power to reach all the way to St Louis, Missouri. On top of that, it has stretched the other way all the way across the Pacific Ocean to Taiwan, where a cousin of mine lives. She has stated her quality of life improved now that she doesn't have to rely strictly on email (we used to Skype with each other regularly prior to my internet-less world) and me getting my lazy butt up the road to the library every once in a great while (also read as RARELY).

So you see, it is not me just praising myself. But there really are other people in the world who think highly of me. My oldest kid is 12, So in about a year or so, I'm sure his opinion of me will go down dramatically as he goes through his teenage years. The youngest, still finds me amusing in a good way. But he's 7, so I can only enjoy that about another 5 years or so before he turns to the dark side as well.

Now in the meantime I need to figure out how to capitalize on this popularity. Politics is not the route I intend to go. I'm eligible for the Presidency for the 2016 elections, when I expect to garner enough support to get myself elected to El Dictator for 4 years, when I shall relinquish my dictatorship having solved the world's problems by telling everybody how it is, in between a few ego-crushing butt kickings from my father... They'll be scheduled for Thursdays at 3pm, and available on pay per view for $29.99 where all proceeds go toward our national debt. I'm sure he'll throw in a few extra whoopings just because he's my dad, and a few more because he thinks I'm being a bit too much of a jerk about things. I'd threaten to cut out his retirement package entirely and donate it to someone else, but he'd probably find a way to ground me anyways, and take away my allowance. And he'd make me believe it really was for my own good, rather than his own sadistic amusement at having more power than the duly elected Dictator Mookie.

In the meantime, I have ideas and plans for an economic experiment on a micro scale to ensure real job creation and economic stimulus, including debt reduction across the nation. So SCOTT ERB...if you're reading this, you need to email me so I can fill you in and ask for some help on this secret issue. (you'll be compensated handsomely) If it works, I see no reason why I wont be made Dictator of the United States (DOTUS) for 4 years.

If it doesn't work, then I need to come up with a plan to make the Powerball Lotto people cooperate with me so I win a big jackpot! Those damn retailers keep selling me faulty tickets!

Mythological Jobs Created and Saved in Mythological Places

Some of the mythological places these jobs have been saved and/or created are hidden in some alternate universe that overlays our very own United States. The other mythological places are brought into existence in the real world through a budget line, yet by admission of some in charge of these jobs, the saved jobs were never in danger even without the stimulus. The jobs created were also found to be duplicate jobs in the form of pay raises to current employees. Others yet, are just plain ludicrous no matter what angle you wish to find them. The following two sub-posts here are courtesy of Dan McLaughlin at RedState.com.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Tax Dollars At Liesure
Posted by Dan McLaughlin (Profile)

Monday, November 16th at 12:55PM EST

19 Comments
The Washington Examiner spots the pattern from multiple news reports:

More than ten percent of the jobs the Obama administration has claimed were “created or saved” by the $787 billion stimulus package are doubtful or imaginary, according to reports compiled from eleven major newspapers and the Associated Press.

Based only on our analysis of stimulus media coverage in the last two weeks, The Examiner has created this interactive map to document exaggerated stimulus claims. The map, which will be updated as new revelations appear, currently reflects an exaggeration by the Obama administration of about 75,000 jobs, out of the 640,000 jobs supposedly “created or saved.”

Read the whole thing, and don’t miss clicking on the link for the map. Ah, well, it’s only $787 billion, I’m sure there’s more where that came from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART TWO

Unicorns, Leprechauns and Jobs Created By the Stimulus
Posted by Dan McLaughlin (Profile)

Monday, November 16th at 4:17PM EST

Somewhere in these 57 states, there exist Congressional Districts between sight and sound, in which Barack Obama is “creating jobs” that do not exist for constituents of Congresspersons who do not exist either,reports Jonathan Karl of ABC News:

Here’s a stimulus success story: In Arizona’s 9th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that’s what the website set up by the Obama Administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There’s one problem, though: There is no 9th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight Congressional Districts.

There’s no 86th Congressional District in Arizona either, but the government’s recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there.

In fact, Recovery.gov lists hundreds of millions spent and hundreds of jobs created in Congressional districts that don’t exist.

Read the whole thing (did you know the Northern Mariana Islands had 99 Congressional Districts? Neither did I.)

I can’t wait for these guys to run the Census, can you?

A Consensus On Government Intervention In Our Economy? Depends On Who You Talk To.

First there was TARP, the initial bailout plan. The government approved and distributed hundreds of billions of dollars, taxpayer monies either printed out of thin air or borrowed from other countries with a nice interest rate attached to our new and growing debt, piled onto an already enormous amount of debt that we seem so fond of building upon. As recent history has noted, we basically wasted that money on a whole lot of nothing. We stuck money into the hands of already rich people, who basically decided to hold onto the money for themselves. Instead of loosening the credit markets and rebooting the economy, we added a big pile of debt that we'll be paying on for decades, despite having seen any real benefit. So, government intervention is good? Not in this case, but chalk the government up for a score. Government: 1 The People: 0

Now we have TARP 2....the new stimulus package that is being hammered out into an agreeable plan between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The whole plan is being engineered by the same guys who engineered the first one. And like the first one, there is little to no accountability for any of the numbers. Who gets the money? How much do they get? What will these monies produce in the end? And to all three questions, I'll bet less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the populace in general, if not the same percentage of those voting on it, could give you a reliable answer. We're just set, regardless of public support, to start throwing money out at random ideas in hopes that something sticks and works. And while the government is supposed to work for us people, it is us people who are having the wool pulled over our eyes. The President has and does want this package passed as quickly as possible, with little to no debate, so that the money can start flowing into the hands of those the administration deems worthy. Now Our President and many "esteemed" members of congress, mainly democrats, are convinced that we as individuals, and businesses cannot solve our problems. Only the great and powerful U.S. Government, in all its inifinite wisdom (remember they already fleeced us for hundreds of billions once, and if your anti-war, Bush-hating people, the government was the ones behind confirming the intelligence and sending us to Iraq..pure geniuses on both counts, eh?), is the only entity capable of solving our problems. Nevermind the fact that some of our problems, economically speaking were forced on us, via government policy, as well as by example. How can the government tell us how to be fiscally responsible when they are in fact the greatest creators of debt and deficit the world has ever known. In fact, the majority of the major players involved in "solving our collective problems" were partly responsible for helping create some of these problems to begin with. Now maybe that last point can be a point of contention for some, but regardless of politics, it is those certain people of influence who helped shape policy in the past that got us to this point. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in the addage "You made the mess, clean it up", but spending outrageous amounts of money (especially on quite a few programs that do nothing for the economy other than throwing money around at nonproductive measures..uh, bike trails anyone? hellooooo?)
Many people voted President Obama into office, not over John McCain, but in response to George W Bush's 8 years of office. They called for the hope and change that Obama touted so greatly. And yet, here is Obama, doing the exact same things we tried under Bush, hiring the exact same people who have been running around Washington for years, some longer than Obama has even lived life on this planet. So, the change is nowhere to be seen, as of yet...other than the fact that our president has a different name than the one we had just a month ago. Oh wait, I'm mistaken..I just saw some loose change on the floor. As for the Hope issue...well here's to hoping we as a nation, or at least our powers that be, don't royally screw us up for an indefinite and unforeseeable future. I now plan to keep a jar of vaseline with me everytime I go to get my paycheck, because sooner or later the piper is going to want to be paid, and guess who he is gonna come to for the money..you and me, that's who. All because our wonderful "leaders" in Washington have the most brilliant of ideas that always end up costing us money, while they attend their cocktail parties and laugh at the rest of us poor folks who think we really have any power to stick it to them. Because afterall, its the special interest guru who's tending bar that night, and he's mixing up their drinks real special....they just gave his cause a tax break plus a few hundren million bucks. Lucky us!
Below is a quote from President Barack Obama, made in January, followed by an open letter from some economists who have some slightly different ideas than he does.

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
Douglas Adie, Ohio University
Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
James Bennett, George Mason University
Bruce Benson, Florida State University
Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
Alberto Bisin, New York University
Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
Donald Booth, Chapman University
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
George Brower, Moravian College
James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Henry Butler, Northwestern University
William Butos, Trinity College
Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
Art Carden, Rhodes College
James Cardon, Brigham Young University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
John Coleman, Duke University
Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
John Dawson, Appalachian State University
Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
James Dorn, Towson University
Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Francis Egan, Trinity College
John Egger, Towson University
Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
Peter Frank, Wingate University
Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
Rick Geddes, Cornell University
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
William Gerdes, Clarke College
Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Richard Gordon, Penn State University
Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
Ernie Goss, Creighton University
Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville
Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
Gailen Hite, Columbia University
Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
Daniel Klein, George Mason University
Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
Marek Kolar, Delta College
Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Deepak Lal, UCLA
George Langelett, South Dakota State University
James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
Robert Lawson, Auburn University
John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Dean Lillard, Cornell University
Zheng Liu, Emory University
Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
John Lunn, Hope College
Glenn MacDonald, Washington
University in St. Louis
Michael Marlow, California
Polytechnic State University
Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
James Miller III, George Mason University
Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Munger, Duke University
Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
Richard Muth, Emory University
Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
Seth Norton, Wheaton College
Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Evan Osborne, Wright State University
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Donald Parsons, George Washington University
Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College
Adriano Rampini, Duke University
Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
Mario Rizzo, New York University
Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
James Smith, Western Carolina University
Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
Shirley Svorny, California State
University, Northridge
John Tatom, Indiana State University
Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
Henry Thompson, Auburn University
Alex Tokarev, The King's College
Edward Tower, Duke University
Leo Troy, Rutgers University
David Tuerck, Suffolk University
Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
Charles Upton, Kent State University
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard Vedder, Ohio University
Richard Wagner, George Mason University
Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
Walter Williams, George Mason University
Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University
Additional economists who have signed the statement

Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University
William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa
Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University
Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College
Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
George Averitt, Purdue North Central University
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Timothy Bastian, Creighton University
John Bethune, Barton College
Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University
Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
Edwin Burton, Univ. of Virginia
Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware
Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami
Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama
Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware
Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont
Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
William Dewald, Ohio State University
Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia
Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho
Jack Estill, San Jose State University
Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Arthur Fleisher, Metropolitan State College of Denver
William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton
Joseph Giacalone, St. John's University
Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge
Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University
Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
Richard Hart, Miami University
James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University
Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
John Hoehn, Michigan State University
Daniel Houser, George Mason University
Thomas Howard, University of Denver
Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver
Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa
Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
Carrie Kerekes, Florida Gulf Coast University
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
James Kurre, Penn State Erie
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama
Henry Manne, George Mason University
Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston
W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University
Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie
James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida
Tim Muris, George Mason University
John Murray, Univ. of Toledo
David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia
Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron
Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami
Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota
Allen Parkman, Univ. of New Mexico
Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University
Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
Robert Prati, East Carolina University
Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage
Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University
Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast
John Seater, North Carolina University
Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Simmons, Greenfield Community College
Frank Spreng, McKendree University
Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University
John E. Stapleford, Eastern University
Courtenay Stone, Ball State University
Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA
Scott Sumner, Bentley University
Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University
William Trumbull, West Virginia University
A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University
Randall Valentine, Georgia Southwestern State University
Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa
Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
Gene Wunder, Washburn University
John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Entitlement? Yeah, Right.

Great Posting I stole..Hat Tip to The Godfather of theslowbleed.com for this great article:

I am amazed at the attitudes of people making their way into the workforce today. Frankly, given the current state of the economy I would expect people to be a bit more humble in their job demands.

I spoke with someone the other day that brought up the big “e” word…Entitlement. He actually felt since he finished college he was entitled to a good job with significant benefits.

I think the only people “entitled” to anything are royalty. Years of inbreeding, a careful selection of marriages, and century old rules could make one entitled to be king.

For example, I believe if 6,492 key people simultaneously disappear off the face of the earth I get to be a prince or something in Wales – I am entitled. If just one less person (6,491) disappears; I get a big cup of jack.

Let me see if I can clear up this misnomer for the newcomers to the job force. Here is a list of things you are entitled to and here is a list of things that you are not entitled to. Ready? Here we go…

A. List of things you are entitled to:



B. List of things you are not entitled to (otherwise knows as stuff you will just have to work for):

Everything not in list “A”



Any questions?

Millionaires, Tax Rolls and Tax Cuts

"Some 10 million households have a net worth above $1 million, excluding home equity, almost double the number in 2002."

So if in 6 years we can double the amount of seemingly wealthy households, how is it that ONLY the rich get richer, as many people seem to want to believe? Is it possible that people can actually find a way into this club, from a more moderate income bracket?

"Don Crane, a small-business owner in Santa Rosa, Calif., certainly sees the value of everyday saving. "We can afford just about anything," he says, adding that his net worth is over $1 million. But he and his wife both grew up on farms in the Midwest — where nothing was wasted — and his wife clips coupons to this day. In fact, most millionaires come from middle-class households, and roughly 70 percent have been wealthy for less than 15 years, according to the AmEx/Harrison survey"


"So how do you join the millionaires' club? You could buy stocks or real estate, play the slots in Vegas — or take the most common path: running your own business. That's how half of all millionaires made their money, according to the AmEx/Harrison survey. About a third had a professional practice or worked in the corporate world; only 3 percent inherited their wealth."

Hmmm....so most rich people went out and created their own wealth, and not having it all handed to them...interesting. Any particular trait that might be found amongst these people??

Millionaires are also seemingly undaunted by failure. Crane, for example, now runs a successful company that screens tenants for landlords. But his first business venture, a real estate partnership, went bankrupt, costing him $20,000 — more than his house was worth at the time. "It was the most depressing time in my life, but it was the best lesson I ever learned," he says.

When asked to list the keys to their success, millionaires rank hard work first, followed by education, determination and "treating others with respect." They also say that what they absorbed in class was less important than learning how to study and stay disciplined, says Jim Taylor, vice chairman of the Harrison Group.

Perserverance....a good quality to have if you want to be successful in this world. I suppose learning a lesson from your failures and moving on instead of complaining about how bad things are can be a big way to overcome the money trap many people fall into. Now a lot of business people may not be the nicest guys when it comes to putting their businesses together. Bill Gates, was ruthless in creating the largest software firm in Microsoft. John D Rockefeller, of Standard Oil, threatened his competition with bankruptcy, in order to buy them out and absorb them under his umbrella. These are a couple examples of how business practice isn't for the weak-hearted. However:

Most millionaires share the values of their moderate-income parents, says Lewis Schiff, a private wealth consultant and Prince's coauthor: "Spending time with family really matters to them." Just 12 percent say that what they want most to be remembered for is their legacy in business, according to the AmEx/Harrison study.

They are not all bastards in this bracket of wealth. And for those who say the rich don't pay their taxes, well most millionaires do pay taxes. In fact, the top 1 percent of earners paid nearly 40 percent of federal income taxes in 2005 — a whopping $368 billion — according to the Internal Revenue Service. On top of that, well, last year, individual Americans gave $306,390,000,000 to charity. No other country comes anywhere near us. Not as a percentage of income, GDP or actual dollars. Think about that for awhile....between PERSONAL charitable contributions and the top 1% of taxpayers, you're looking at over $700 Billion dollars that contribute to the services of our government, and to all the causes of those who have little and need help, sometimes these things overlap.

Meanwhile, during 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. As President Bush pushed through his two major tax bills in 2001 and 2003, opponents focused on the dollar amounts saved by high-income individuals. What many critics have ignored is the number of people who were removed from the tax rolls as a result of the expansion of the child tax credit, which was a key provision of the President's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. the number of tax returns with zero or negative tax liability has risen steadily over the past decade. However, it accelerated sharply between 2000 and 2004 due to the effects of tax changes during President Bush's first term of office. Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the “rich,” these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.

So increasingly now, we find that while the lionshare of tax rolls are held by the one singular set of Top 1 Percenters, the tax cuts, are now enabling exactly what many of the lower class people and democrats are calling for...that the rich pay their fair share...which we see, as they take on more and more of the total tax rolls. And not just the same people who have been paying for decades on their family wealth, but more and more new households add themselves to this "elite" status, from the not-so-elite ranks they came from...
They work hard to get where they are, and yet millions who have very little, if any at all, tax liability continue to complain how these producers aren't doing there part?
I find it all interesting....

Hateful, Selfish, and Conservative; Compassionate, Selfless, and Liberal?

Generally speaking, Conservatives are usually well off and are most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals.

-Quoted from earhtpal on a post by helenl (a great read which can be found at--http://helenl.wordpress.com/)

First question would be, what makes this assumption to be true or false?
Are we conservative because we are well off, or are we well off because we are conservative? Do the two even technically correlate with each other? (I'll get to the second portion later)

Let's say conservative are as a rule well off. Were we born well off, and naturally became conservatives, or because we were conservatives we were predestined to become well off for ourselves? Maybe, in order to gain more money, the only thing needed, is to become conservative. then we'll all have money, as a general rule. Instead of being rich, we'll just all be normal everyday conservatives. I have to say, I do not fit this mold. However if I end up CHOOSING to become rich, maybe I should blame it on the fact that I became conservative, and finally practiced what I preached. Yes, ten I too, could grow my own money trees, drink expensive champagne, and wipe myself with $100 bills, just because I can.

Of course, now you have to look at the opposite end of the spectrum: Liberals.
Liberals would, by this statement, be more likely to poorer. So, were they born poor and therefore liberal? Or did they choose to be liberal, and therefore become poor? Is it maybe, that liberals are poor because they CHOOSE to be? Maybe that they purposefuly avoid the high paying end of things. in order to go after the more societally-benevolent and low paying jobs. Of course, then this obviously means George Soros (Billionaire liberal) wouldn't fit the mold either. Maybe he should give all his money away toward actually helping the poor liberals and live like them, rather than creating more money machines, which only serve to enhance his own elitism, that pump messages out to captivate his liberal audiences, who meanwhile still find themselves in need of life's basic necesities, all which Soro's has in abundance, and amazingly enough doesn't share...but he's a philanthropist (which by some definitions just isn't the same)

In both cases, lets look at it as a matter of choice. If conservatives are choosing to become filthy stinking rich, while liberals are choosing to work for less money, then what's the argument? Let's say you got the choice everytime, that literally everyone got to choose whether or not they wanted to be rich, or be poor. (Funny, that sounds like the entire premise of the American Dream)
The liberals would have no right to complain because they took the very road that they knew would lead them to Poorsville. Yet, if they did complain and tried to force the conservatives to give up their money, wouldn't the complaints from Castle Richness be even more validated because they specifically chose to earn their money, knowing full well that all they had to do was pick the right path?

Today in America, everybody, and I mean EVERYbody, has an equal chance at great success in their lives, by whatever means they define it. The question is, do you want to work for it, or do you think everything you need should just be handed to you on a platter, whilst you lay about? And how do we define "need"?

1. Is it clean drinking water, and vitamins and minerals enough to keep you alive, maybe some bread for substance and carb-driven energy?

2. Is it top notch healthcare, plentiful food on your table everyday, and a big house with enough space to live comfortably? Is your food catered, do you go to the store to get it, or do you grow it all yourself? Does the Big house have enough bedrooms so everyone has their own, maybe even guest rooms, or is it just a simple abode with a couple bedrooms, a bath, a kitchen, a gathering place and a dining room, and maybe a yard? Do you really even need a yard? As a matter of fact, do you even really need a house? An Apartment? Maybe just a tent for shelter from rain?

If you answered yes to one....welcome to the work camps of the Nazi war machine. Was that really fulflling the "needs" of humanity?

The objective answer to needs really can't be objective, but rather subjective. For instance, I could take my rifle, shotgun, and a hunting knife, and trek into the wilderness. I could survive indefinitely and healthily. Could You? Or do you need more to live?

Now to the second half Generally Speaking,conservatives are... "most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals."

Conservatives donate to charitymore so than liberals do. By ratio and by sheer numbers of dollars. It was brought up that rich people donate to philathropic causes, poor people just share. Now if a poor person shares what they have, how many people benefit from it? Since it's person to person, I'd say a few to a dozen, rarely ever more than that. If a rich person donates to a charity, how many people benefit from it? I would say anywhere from one to several thousand. The charitable donation is often funneled through an organization that solicits donations from many, to help many. Be it for food, or clothing, or disease research.
But is one greater than the other? I would say no. I might even say the poor person sharing may mean more to the recipients, knowing that their helper didn't have much to give. But is the help received from the "sharing" anymore effective than say Joe Millionaire's $1000 "charitable contribution"? Again I would say no. It all helps the recipient the same. They all receive the same benefit regardless of who it came from, and how well off they were.

Consider also this. The well off pay more in taxes, while the worst of the poor will never pay dime one. In fact the latter would most likely be supported by the taxes paid by the former. Should the poor complain that his lifestyle is being paid for by someone else? I should hope so...I should hope that he has enough pride to let the complaint sink into his very consciousness, that he might work his way out of such a situation. And not that he should sit back and complain that the rich guy still isnt paying enough (despite giving up over 50% of his income to taxes in one form or another, often which never pay for much of anything he'll ever benefit from himself).

Less compassionate? This seems to be more conjecture than fact. For every mean-spirited conservative you can name, I can probably name 2 very compassionate conservatives that would make some of the most compassionate of liberals look like Scrooge. And if I wanted to turn the tables on liberals with the same statement, I'm sure anyone could do the same to me. People are people, political idealists on opposite ends of the same political ideology don't make the personality different. Compassion comes in many forms, just as hatred does. One could say that conservatives are nothing but warmongers, while one could say liberals are nothing but Godhaters. Both statements can be true when applied to select people, but when placed against the whole population, you would find the statements to be vastly false.
After all, for an absolute statement to be true, it must apply every time and without exception. But it only takes one example of falsehood to make the absolute statement false.

So with all that in mind, do incomes and political ideology truly coordinate? And if so, how can one argue with the other when it comes to economics?