It sure sounds like these guys are ready for productive diplomatic 'talks' with the US/President Obama:
Iran - Ayatollah """The occupiers are preparing the ground for their long-term stay in Iraq which is a great danger and the Iraqi authorities should be aware of this danger,""" Reuters Article
Venezuela - Chavez """"Is there a new government in the United States or is it Bush still in power? Obama seems to be a continuation of the Bush era. But it doesn't matter to me. Regardless of US imperialism, this revolution will continue its course....... Obama, you take care of your business and I'll take care of mine. Don't mess with me, Mr Obama," he added.""" And in case you like to check other sources, the Associated Press has an article on it too.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
America Again!
I saw this on the Mike Church website and thought some readers might be interested in checking it out.
AMERICA AGAIN
""We citizens of these 50 sovereign States of America do consecrate this first annual effort to restore American self-government on this Independence Day, 2009. May God bless this formerly godly Republic, that we may live to be America Again!""
AMERICA AGAIN
""We citizens of these 50 sovereign States of America do consecrate this first annual effort to restore American self-government on this Independence Day, 2009. May God bless this formerly godly Republic, that we may live to be America Again!""
Just For Fun...
This is a look at what happened in parts of New Brunswick Canada a few days ago. The reason I am showing them here is to just have people sit back and think for a few minutes - how are electric cars going to work in weather like this? Maybe one of them is buried somewhere in these photos ;) But seriously.. wow that's a lot of snow and it happens in various regions around the world, not just Canada (we really don't live in igloos ya know). I live in an area that's pretty rural and some of the roads are pretty scary in the winter. How is my little putt-putt elec car even going to start let alone plow through this stuff? I haven't seen snow like THIS in Alberta for a very long time, but I have had over a foot of snow in my backyard since December and we are having another week of -30C weather. It was in the -40s in Dec and Jan. So I am just asking - is the push to force people to conform and drive such vehicles even plausible in many regions? Where I live, it takes an hour to get to the next decent-sized town. It's very spread out. My bf drives 30 minutes out of town to get to work every day and trust me, a little wee car isn't going to cut it on those roads even if they were fixed up. Just food for thought because some people have this idea that everyone in the world is going to be bootin' around in Smart Cars someday in the near future and they are just sadly misguided. They tend to think inside the box, in their city limits, and not think about how the rest of the world actually works. I had someone not too long ago tell me that Albertans just don't want to conform! LOL! omg,,, yeah okay Mr Toronto Inner City - you bring your little car-car out here for the winter and tell me how you feel afterwards. Or maybe you should go visit New Brunswick right now and if you can even find your car in the morning, just try starting it and get back to me ;)
It's always fun when you have to dig yourself OUT of your house.
Howdy Neighbours! Love the new roof!
Shall we have a patio party?
______________________
It's always fun when you have to dig yourself OUT of your house.
Howdy Neighbours! Love the new roof!
Shall we have a patio party?______________________
Now to be fair, it's difficult or next to impossible for regular cars to go anywhere in this mess either. But guess what can? Those dreaded 4x4 vehicles. When I was a kid this kind of snow did happen in Southern Alberta and the farmers would hop in their big trucks and go around to check to see if all the neighbours were okay. I remember a huge one pulling up my driveway like it was a tank lol. Our GMC Yukon loves snow :) There are a few Smart Cars in my city but I have not seen them on any of the bad icy days. Why not? Oh right - because they are crap in weather like this. But we have snow and ice for up to 6 months of the year so...... feasible? I don't think so.
Wind Turbines
Update:GoneBattyI lived near the area of Pincher Creek for 3 years. The number of wind turbines has grown enormously, so much so that the area's views have been permanently changed. I am not sure how this is supposed to be environmentally friendly?? It baffles me. There are roads built all around these 'farms', wires and cables sprawling underground, not to mention the ENERGY used to build them, transport them, and run them. It's a strange concept to me. Sure I think we should always always always be looking for better ways to capture and store energy, but covering the countryside with giant wind mills just doesn't seem right. I would like to know how much power these things can make on a good day, how many would be needed to power a small town, and a large city. I have an awful time trying to find that very vital information. It's a bit strange since you can look at a car ad and know how much horsepower it has, how many miles to the gallon, etc - but not a clue on these wind turbines. Here are some photos of the Pincher Creek Alberta area where a lot of the testing has been going on (funded by Canada and America, if not other countries as well). Now imagine having these everywhere you look, covering NATURAL areas....
"This Is Going To Be Some Trick!!"
That title is actually a line in a Wall Street Journal article (thanks for sending it to me, Cloud). Since it is about paying for the famed Stimulus Package, I think you can guess what the gist of the article is.
If you are one of those people who are still on board with the package, still say you trust the new president, you have hope for change, etc -BUT you haven't actually taken the time to read and learn about the president's claims, I strongly suggest you TAKE THE TIME to read this article.
Here are some highlights copied from the article just for the heck of it:
""Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.""
""These combined increases [Note: higher taxes on top earners, increasing capital gains and dividend rates] won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.""
""A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 [Note: 2006 was chosen because it was a good year for incomes] would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion""
""Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion...Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000."" [Note: here is a NYTimes article speaking of the same thing. My own observation is the shock at seeing the DOW below the TSX! Is the DOW going to be at 6000? That is my bf's projection.]
""The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion.""
""On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy.""
[Note: If people are happy about saving a few extra dollars in the middle-low income brackets, how are they going to feel when they get their utility bills with a higher increase than they got 'back' from the 'tax cuts'?].
""...the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.""
If you are one of those people who are still on board with the package, still say you trust the new president, you have hope for change, etc -BUT you haven't actually taken the time to read and learn about the president's claims, I strongly suggest you TAKE THE TIME to read this article.
Here are some highlights copied from the article just for the heck of it:
""Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.""
""These combined increases [Note: higher taxes on top earners, increasing capital gains and dividend rates] won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.""
""A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 [Note: 2006 was chosen because it was a good year for incomes] would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion""
""Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion...Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000."" [Note: here is a NYTimes article speaking of the same thing. My own observation is the shock at seeing the DOW below the TSX! Is the DOW going to be at 6000? That is my bf's projection.]
""The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion.""
""On that point, by the way, it's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy.""
[Note: If people are happy about saving a few extra dollars in the middle-low income brackets, how are they going to feel when they get their utility bills with a higher increase than they got 'back' from the 'tax cuts'?].
""...the reality is that the only way to pay for Mr. Obama's ambitions is to reach ever deeper into the pockets of the American middle class.""
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Update on the prev post
Well I just got back from Day One of the inspection for accreditation and let me tell you, what a gong show! I found out that the heads sent 12 full binders of papers to our center, even though we only needed one. PLUS they sent out two more new versions of it, which I did not fill out because they were the same as the one I had already filled out (50 or so pages), just slightly different page format. THIS IS WHAT YOUR TAX MONEY GOES TO.
This is what happens when too much govt control is going on. You can pass it off if you want, but don't complain about it in years to come. The amount of money it must cost to produce the CDs, binders, paper, etc and then for it to be misused throughout the province (and across the country for various programs)has to be huge. How many other centers were mistakenly sent much more than they needed? We have a box of 12 books we will never need because they are already 'out of date' even though only printed in July 2008. I thought we were supposed to be trying to CONSERVE? Maybe the govt needs to start showing that they are going to conserve too before citizens are forced? Is that really an 'out-there' idea?
As well, we were informed of new policies we have to do, daily, which wastes even more time and paper. I thought my job was to be working with children and taking good care of them while their parents are at work, so they have the peace of mind their children are safe and happy. Instead, I am spending time doing reports, filling out checklists, signing paperwork, etc. Technically that takes me away from paying attention to the kids. So... is that not Wrong? Or are we supposed to hire 2 more support staff purely for these new things, and then charge the parents more for daycare fees to pay those staff members? I'm sure that idea would go down like a lead balloon. OR maybe my boss can toss in the towel after over 20 years of providing excellent quality care to young children, and leave 21 families a year without a place to put their kids (the waiting lists in my city are often longer than how many spaces a center even has!!).
This might seem minor but think about how there are thousands of centers/dayhomes in Alberta alone. Think about the paperwork each center must fill out in order to get the funding that your tax dollars are supporting. Think about the Accreditation team who arrived yesterday ONLY for my centre, stayed in a hotel last night, will stay in one again tonight, and come back to the centre tomorrow before heading home. Gas, hotel, food, Validator wages x 2 - ALL of that is covered by your tax dollars. We passed a different inspection 2 weeks ago, so what is this even for? Now times that by how many centers there are in Alberta, and then figure in how many people are running the program itself from Edmonton.
I'll remind you - it is for making centers perform over and above the basic licensing requirements. Sounds good right? I'm sure it was a great idea when it started - only giving the best centers the funding. But I ask you to sit and think about how much money is eaten up before the funding finally gets to the center.
On a slightly different topic, we learned of a new basic rule as well. We have to put an After Hours Emergency number on the door of every center. That means the PERSONAL HOME PHONE NUMBER of at least one staff member. Our inspector could not even explain why we have to do it, she just said it's a directive from Edmonton. And guess what? People from there are going to go to each and every single center in Alberta to make sure they have the number on there. We apparently can't email a photo, they are physically going to check each and every one. How much tax payer money is going to fund that little trip around the province?
Now,, we sat and wondered why we have to do this. Surely if a parent is not going to come the next day, they don't need to phone us at night, they can call in the morning when the center is open.
But then it hit me ---- I remember a news story from a year or two ago where a woman went to pick up her child (in Calgary I believe) but the center was locked and dark. Her child was IN THERE all alone. Perhaps she could not get hold of anyone and that is where this idea came from.
I get that - BUT - it is another case of One Bad Apple spoiling the bunch. Because one or two centers had a major infraction like that, EVERYONE has to conform. My boss does not want her personal home number on the outside of the building. Should that not be her choice? It's her HOME number. But she is being forced.
My thought was this - how about sending out letters to every center, and a follow up phone call, detailing that what happened at that center is NOT ACCEPTABLE and if it happens anywhere else, they will be closed down immediately and not allowed to re open. How about making the bad places accountable instead of forcing everyone else to comply, and then gobbling up tax payers' money at the same time to followup. How about sending out a reminder yearly for centers to be sure to adhere to their rules at all times. That shouldn't need to be done, but punishing thousands of other centers for ONE or maybe two centers using gross misconduct is not fair. But mainly, I am thinking of how much of the funding is going to be used up while some people drive all around Alberta checking out daycare and dayhome company signs to make sure an extra phone number is written on there. Wow.
There is so much wrong with this whole system, it's not even funny. I am only rambling about this because it goes on in EVERY socialized program and don't fool yourself into thinking it doesn't. It's no wonder our country and others are starting to drown in debt. We cannot keep up with these systems, and adding more and more people (or Czars lol) to head the programs is NOT helping. It is a massively sickening drain on resources. There really needs to be some severe shakedown.
Here is another little bonus though - not all of the funding comes from tax payers, to be fair. At the start of this in 2005, we had to pay $200 a year to be part of the Accredited Center program. This year it went to over $400. Licensing fees were $45 a year for many years, this year they were over $200. BUT guess what? Those 2-4X fees hurt the centers, which in turn hurts the children and their families. $600 is the cost of a whole space for centers in my city, which means that much less to pay staff and buy food, cleaning supplies, etc. So that's just another thing to note. My small center is not a money maker, believe me, so don't assume this is whining about profits. 65% of parent fees goes straight to staff wages. Then after paying utilities, food, etc the center is left with maybe a 15% profit at the absolute MOST. Throwing in extra costs and fees for all of these special social programs to distribute funding, and it DOES hurt the center(s). I wouldn't be surprised if my boss just decides to close down. That saddens me after how much work she put into it, but if I was her, I would not want to do this anymore.
____
*** A little point to note, most of this program was put into place during the Paul Martin/Liberal time. When Harper took the helm in 2006, he changed where the remaining money was supposed to go. Instead of lining up tons and tons of red tape for people to jump through, he decided it should go straight to every family with a preschool child, so they can decide where they want to put their children. $100 a month per child under 6 for every family no matter their earnings. This seemed to be the fastest and most efficient way to get the funds flowing. All you need to do is have your child registered on your income tax, or send in one short form when you have a new child. All done,,, auto payments until they turn 6 years old. The 'red tape' set up under Harper was one piece of paper, no need to renew every year, and probably a very small amount of people at the computer screens making sure all goes as planned. Quite a difference from what we have to go through for the former funding set up before he became PM. Just some food for thought.
This is what happens when too much govt control is going on. You can pass it off if you want, but don't complain about it in years to come. The amount of money it must cost to produce the CDs, binders, paper, etc and then for it to be misused throughout the province (and across the country for various programs)has to be huge. How many other centers were mistakenly sent much more than they needed? We have a box of 12 books we will never need because they are already 'out of date' even though only printed in July 2008. I thought we were supposed to be trying to CONSERVE? Maybe the govt needs to start showing that they are going to conserve too before citizens are forced? Is that really an 'out-there' idea?
As well, we were informed of new policies we have to do, daily, which wastes even more time and paper. I thought my job was to be working with children and taking good care of them while their parents are at work, so they have the peace of mind their children are safe and happy. Instead, I am spending time doing reports, filling out checklists, signing paperwork, etc. Technically that takes me away from paying attention to the kids. So... is that not Wrong? Or are we supposed to hire 2 more support staff purely for these new things, and then charge the parents more for daycare fees to pay those staff members? I'm sure that idea would go down like a lead balloon. OR maybe my boss can toss in the towel after over 20 years of providing excellent quality care to young children, and leave 21 families a year without a place to put their kids (the waiting lists in my city are often longer than how many spaces a center even has!!).
This might seem minor but think about how there are thousands of centers/dayhomes in Alberta alone. Think about the paperwork each center must fill out in order to get the funding that your tax dollars are supporting. Think about the Accreditation team who arrived yesterday ONLY for my centre, stayed in a hotel last night, will stay in one again tonight, and come back to the centre tomorrow before heading home. Gas, hotel, food, Validator wages x 2 - ALL of that is covered by your tax dollars. We passed a different inspection 2 weeks ago, so what is this even for? Now times that by how many centers there are in Alberta, and then figure in how many people are running the program itself from Edmonton.
I'll remind you - it is for making centers perform over and above the basic licensing requirements. Sounds good right? I'm sure it was a great idea when it started - only giving the best centers the funding. But I ask you to sit and think about how much money is eaten up before the funding finally gets to the center.
On a slightly different topic, we learned of a new basic rule as well. We have to put an After Hours Emergency number on the door of every center. That means the PERSONAL HOME PHONE NUMBER of at least one staff member. Our inspector could not even explain why we have to do it, she just said it's a directive from Edmonton. And guess what? People from there are going to go to each and every single center in Alberta to make sure they have the number on there. We apparently can't email a photo, they are physically going to check each and every one. How much tax payer money is going to fund that little trip around the province?
Now,, we sat and wondered why we have to do this. Surely if a parent is not going to come the next day, they don't need to phone us at night, they can call in the morning when the center is open.
But then it hit me ---- I remember a news story from a year or two ago where a woman went to pick up her child (in Calgary I believe) but the center was locked and dark. Her child was IN THERE all alone. Perhaps she could not get hold of anyone and that is where this idea came from.
I get that - BUT - it is another case of One Bad Apple spoiling the bunch. Because one or two centers had a major infraction like that, EVERYONE has to conform. My boss does not want her personal home number on the outside of the building. Should that not be her choice? It's her HOME number. But she is being forced.
My thought was this - how about sending out letters to every center, and a follow up phone call, detailing that what happened at that center is NOT ACCEPTABLE and if it happens anywhere else, they will be closed down immediately and not allowed to re open. How about making the bad places accountable instead of forcing everyone else to comply, and then gobbling up tax payers' money at the same time to followup. How about sending out a reminder yearly for centers to be sure to adhere to their rules at all times. That shouldn't need to be done, but punishing thousands of other centers for ONE or maybe two centers using gross misconduct is not fair. But mainly, I am thinking of how much of the funding is going to be used up while some people drive all around Alberta checking out daycare and dayhome company signs to make sure an extra phone number is written on there. Wow.
There is so much wrong with this whole system, it's not even funny. I am only rambling about this because it goes on in EVERY socialized program and don't fool yourself into thinking it doesn't. It's no wonder our country and others are starting to drown in debt. We cannot keep up with these systems, and adding more and more people (or Czars lol) to head the programs is NOT helping. It is a massively sickening drain on resources. There really needs to be some severe shakedown.
Here is another little bonus though - not all of the funding comes from tax payers, to be fair. At the start of this in 2005, we had to pay $200 a year to be part of the Accredited Center program. This year it went to over $400. Licensing fees were $45 a year for many years, this year they were over $200. BUT guess what? Those 2-4X fees hurt the centers, which in turn hurts the children and their families. $600 is the cost of a whole space for centers in my city, which means that much less to pay staff and buy food, cleaning supplies, etc. So that's just another thing to note. My small center is not a money maker, believe me, so don't assume this is whining about profits. 65% of parent fees goes straight to staff wages. Then after paying utilities, food, etc the center is left with maybe a 15% profit at the absolute MOST. Throwing in extra costs and fees for all of these special social programs to distribute funding, and it DOES hurt the center(s). I wouldn't be surprised if my boss just decides to close down. That saddens me after how much work she put into it, but if I was her, I would not want to do this anymore.
____
*** A little point to note, most of this program was put into place during the Paul Martin/Liberal time. When Harper took the helm in 2006, he changed where the remaining money was supposed to go. Instead of lining up tons and tons of red tape for people to jump through, he decided it should go straight to every family with a preschool child, so they can decide where they want to put their children. $100 a month per child under 6 for every family no matter their earnings. This seemed to be the fastest and most efficient way to get the funds flowing. All you need to do is have your child registered on your income tax, or send in one short form when you have a new child. All done,,, auto payments until they turn 6 years old. The 'red tape' set up under Harper was one piece of paper, no need to renew every year, and probably a very small amount of people at the computer screens making sure all goes as planned. Quite a difference from what we have to go through for the former funding set up before he became PM. Just some food for thought.
Here We Go Again
Well it's time. Time to go into work for 2 days to receive the Accreditation Visit for the daycare. The reason it irks me is that the govt inspection was just two weeks ago and they passed with flying colours, again, like they always have since the center opened in 1989. The only infractions ever received were for very minor things like a lightbulb being changed during center hours (apparently it is classed as maintenance work and therefore not to be done when it's open), and then another time for a lightbulb burning out (classed as improper lighting). So yeah - how do you change a bulb that blows during the day in order to avoid an improper lighting citation, when you can't change the bulb because it's maintenance? Hmmmm? Anyway the others were about parents not signing their kids in or out properly (but we can't stand by the book to make sure because then we are considered 'out of count' if we aren't sitting with our group of kids). Yeah, rules are Way Fun!
But my point is, we have had glowing reports from 99.9% of every inspection over the past 20 years. We also have observers come to do other types of inspections and we always pass those by far (not just the minimum). But for the past 3 or 4 years, in order to get the govt funding, we have to have MORE inspections by different people. A team of 2 called Validators (there are several teams) visit every center in Alberta. Can you imagine how much that costs? Wow. Anyway, they will come for 2 days and go over all our books (you know, the ones already inspected 2 weeks ago) and observe staff working with the kids (like 2 weeks ago for the licensing inspection), and interview parents (if they have time, cos you know, if your kid is at daycare, you probably have to go to WORK), interview staff (which the director already did when hired and periodically throughout every year), etc etc etc. It's actually unbelieveable. Not to mention the fact that the center has to pay out money for this inspection, on top of registration fees, because replacement staff have to be hired to cover the rest going in to be interviewed. I have to go in even though I am on maternity leave and have to choose to do it unpaid, or take pay and then jump through hoops to claim that legally in conjunction with my parental leave pay.
Yes it is important to make sure children are cared for properly. I'm not stupid lol. But I am listing all of this as an example of what happens when the govt gets too many fingers in the pie. Whether it's federal or provincial, it's more and more tax payer money going towards paying more and more inspectors, their gas mileage, their hotels, the papers printed out and sent to thousands of centers in Alberta, then finally the funding the centers actually receive (which is a buck or two per hour for each staff member as Wage Enhancement, and maybe a couple thousand a year for upgrading things, and up to $1000 for staff professional development). I understand that they want to make sure worthy centers get the cash, BUT what is the point of the inspection we had two weeks ago? Why do they have to be separate? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the same person do it?
No, apparently not. Why? Because this is a whole separate new wing that was born in 2005 or so. All new people throughout it, and kept separate from licensing. Can you see your dollars flying into their little nest? I can. Where I can't see it flying is into the centers it is supposed to be! Yes we get some, but how much more could be going directly to the centers for the benefit of the children and their parents, as well as staff? Instead, a hell of a lot of it is going to these Validators, their expenses, and all of the people sitting behind computer screens and going over the paper work we send in a few times a year. Millions of dollars are diverted there every year, with a trickle going to the centers. THIS is what happens when too much govt is used to 'make sure the money is going where it's supposed to'. They take a chunk of your tax dollars for themselves first. Perhaps if we got more of the funding, we could LOWER parent fees for a change and really help families out in these difficult times (which are only going to get worse for us soon). But nope, we can't. And instead we have to raise fees because of new regulations being put on us all the time that we are forced to comply with. Thanks for the funding! Woooo!
But my point is, we have had glowing reports from 99.9% of every inspection over the past 20 years. We also have observers come to do other types of inspections and we always pass those by far (not just the minimum). But for the past 3 or 4 years, in order to get the govt funding, we have to have MORE inspections by different people. A team of 2 called Validators (there are several teams) visit every center in Alberta. Can you imagine how much that costs? Wow. Anyway, they will come for 2 days and go over all our books (you know, the ones already inspected 2 weeks ago) and observe staff working with the kids (like 2 weeks ago for the licensing inspection), and interview parents (if they have time, cos you know, if your kid is at daycare, you probably have to go to WORK), interview staff (which the director already did when hired and periodically throughout every year), etc etc etc. It's actually unbelieveable. Not to mention the fact that the center has to pay out money for this inspection, on top of registration fees, because replacement staff have to be hired to cover the rest going in to be interviewed. I have to go in even though I am on maternity leave and have to choose to do it unpaid, or take pay and then jump through hoops to claim that legally in conjunction with my parental leave pay.
Yes it is important to make sure children are cared for properly. I'm not stupid lol. But I am listing all of this as an example of what happens when the govt gets too many fingers in the pie. Whether it's federal or provincial, it's more and more tax payer money going towards paying more and more inspectors, their gas mileage, their hotels, the papers printed out and sent to thousands of centers in Alberta, then finally the funding the centers actually receive (which is a buck or two per hour for each staff member as Wage Enhancement, and maybe a couple thousand a year for upgrading things, and up to $1000 for staff professional development). I understand that they want to make sure worthy centers get the cash, BUT what is the point of the inspection we had two weeks ago? Why do they have to be separate? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the same person do it?
No, apparently not. Why? Because this is a whole separate new wing that was born in 2005 or so. All new people throughout it, and kept separate from licensing. Can you see your dollars flying into their little nest? I can. Where I can't see it flying is into the centers it is supposed to be! Yes we get some, but how much more could be going directly to the centers for the benefit of the children and their parents, as well as staff? Instead, a hell of a lot of it is going to these Validators, their expenses, and all of the people sitting behind computer screens and going over the paper work we send in a few times a year. Millions of dollars are diverted there every year, with a trickle going to the centers. THIS is what happens when too much govt is used to 'make sure the money is going where it's supposed to'. They take a chunk of your tax dollars for themselves first. Perhaps if we got more of the funding, we could LOWER parent fees for a change and really help families out in these difficult times (which are only going to get worse for us soon). But nope, we can't. And instead we have to raise fees because of new regulations being put on us all the time that we are forced to comply with. Thanks for the funding! Woooo!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Someone I Know lol
This is a woman I have known for almost a year. She got to be the first Chrysler Employee (US) to ride in the new Dodge electric car. While I'm not so sure about the feasibility of electric cars at the same time wind and solar energy are in their baby stages, etc etc etc, this was so cool to watch and I can say I KNOW HER!! lol
PS= Hi Lisa ;)
PS= Hi Lisa ;)
Tee Hee, Joe's so Funny
Yeah, yeah I know - everyone makes mistakes. I look back at my old posts and cringe at spelling errors, grammar mishaps, etc that I missed despite reading things over a couple of times before publishing. Sometimes I wonder what the hell point I was trying to get across... But after seeing gaff after gaff of former Pres Bush displayed across the media, I can't help but giggle at VP Biden's own mishaps. LIKE THIS ONE that just occurred this morning when he was on CBS's The Early Show and forgot the name of the website recovery.org and asked someone else what the website 'number' was. Tee Hee. Hey, I'm allowed to laugh because I too laughed at some of the crazy duhhhhhhhh things that Bush said over the years. But Biden (and even his wife) have already given enough bloopers to fill an archive. Imagine how much fun the next 4-8 years is going to be! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
If you don't want to read through an archive, try some fun youtube Blooper Mixes:
ONE
TWO
Sorry, have to throw in an Obama one too just to be fair, and maybe ONE More
I know there are kazillions of Bush Bloops out there, but since we have seen them already for several years, I am not going to relist them here. They are very easy to find ;)
If you don't want to read through an archive, try some fun youtube Blooper Mixes:
ONE
TWO
Sorry, have to throw in an Obama one too just to be fair, and maybe ONE More
I know there are kazillions of Bush Bloops out there, but since we have seen them already for several years, I am not going to relist them here. They are very easy to find ;)
Enticement and Manipulation of Facts
On a little trip around the web, I have found so many people speaking of the Glorious Speech by the president last night. Everyone talking about a positive outlook, hope for America, amazed by the charisma of the new Prez, and so on. But that's not quite what I got out of it, as I had to turn it off after Pelosi's continual gymnastics. It was very distracting. I noted many general comments (such as assuring the people that America will come through this [recession]) - general because there was nothing to say that THESE plans are going to do it. If you say something general like that, it could mean 'sure, one day America is bound to come out of this, but I don't know if it will be 5 years or 20 or 50 years'. But people I have talked to took it to mean HE will bring them through this asap. That is not what the president said. I also heard some interesting twisting of words, such as the 'every 30 seconds, someone goes bankrupt because of health care costs' remark that stirred the audience to their feet. I tried to find info on that direct statement of 'facts' this morning and what I discovered was a anything from a clever manipulation of words to the realization that the figure would mean over 1 million bankruptcies because of health care costs each year, when the TOTAL number of filings was 1 million (or less). Perhaps many of those people cited medical costs as ONE of the reasons for filing, but his speech directly said ""And for that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care. This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds. ""
Does it 'cause' or 'contribute'? Those are two very different words. That is why I suggest that this is a clever manipulation of words designed to entice people into supporting a nationalized/universal health care program. If you make people who are not struggling, or not struggling 'too badly' feel guilty that others are going bankrupt 'because of' medical costs, they will be more willing to have their tax dollars diverted. But this is where the deception comes in. Even sites that are supportive of the 'every 30 seconds' rhetoric leave little clues about the misrepresentation of facts. 'Facts' such as ""Health care costs contribute to an estimated 25 percent of housing problems."" for example (taken from the provided link). Does that factor in people who bought a house that was outside of their means? Is it really a health care issue if the family bought a home that they could not actually afford, and therefore if they purchased within their means, they may actually have been able to afford the medical treatments? Or ""Health costs are a factor in half of personal bankruptcies. Since 2000, an estimated 5 million families have filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of serious medical problems."" - I have also seen stats that say anything from 5% to 17% cited medical costs as a factor, but let's go with 'half'. That also does not take into account what their lifestyle was before the medical costs became an issue. What if they had a boat, new car, new house, new furniture, making payments on all of the above and then whammo, they were hit with a huge medical bill? What if they were already stretched to the hilt with paying for luxuries? Does that change your mind about their ensuing medical costs? It also does not take into account that often times, SEVERAL reasons for the bankruptcy are listed - gambling debt, job loss, lack of insurance (which is NOT always because a family can't afford it, there are also people who simply don't get it because they don't think they will need it, and then eat their words later). That is why the president's words were misleading and don't tell me he didn't know that!!!
I have had people tell me this morning that many do not have insurance because they can't afford it. Granted, some of the costs are ridiculous in my opinion! Atrocious amounts to pay each month (like a married friend with no children who pays over $300/month), but people also need to take into account WHY the premiums might be rising. Is it because of greedy insurance companies alone, or is it also because there ARE a large number of people who get their treatments for free or never pay their bill to the hospital/medical professional, and then the rising costs are spread throughout the system to those who ARE paying? It always makes me think of the signs in stores that say Shoplifting Hurts Everyone - Prices Will Rise to Compensate for Loss. When I was a teen, I didn't understand that, but as I have gotten old and crusty, I see that a business cannot run on losses all the time and therefore the prices rise in response to the loss. So you have to really think about the wording of reports you read and speeches you hear. Look up the information for YOURSELF. If you still agree after doing your own investigating, that is of course your Right. But if you blindly follow another's words, that is dangerous business.
Think about the complaints about GW Bush over the past several years. People called him arrogant, said he was a liar, said he twisted words to trick people into believing his plans would work, spent the country into oblivion, the Iraq War, etc - and he left office with a 20% or so 'approval rate'. But those same people are now excusing Obama for his own 'lies' (no earmarks), twisted words (every 30 seconds), excessive spending (Stimulus), sending troops to Afghanistan instead and have his approval rating ranging between 69 and 59% (noting it has dropped 10% since taking office). It is very frustrating.
I think it's also interesting to look at the Market Reaction. If this was supposed to be an inspiring and hopeful speech, why aren't the markets showing it yet? I think youshould also take some time at the WSJ site and punch in random dates on the DOW chart page because if you look at the stock market while Clinton was in power, it is considerably lower than when GW Bush was in, then it gradually climbs under Bush, and the starts to drop in the last year or so and has now been dropping lower and lower since Obama was inaugerated. Is that Bush's fault? The market LOOKS FORWARD, from my understanding, looking at what is happening right now and what it's effect is going to be in the future. Does it look Back at Bush who is now gone along with the Republican control? I thought it was supposed to look Forward and see the light, see the hope, see the fantastic change that America needs. People invest their money in hopes of making more, getting a good return. If investors see a bright future, why are stocks hitting as low as they were in 1997 and worse? Why was the dow at over 13,000 in May 2008 and now it is barely 7000? It looks FORWARD and it does NOT like what it sees.
Does it 'cause' or 'contribute'? Those are two very different words. That is why I suggest that this is a clever manipulation of words designed to entice people into supporting a nationalized/universal health care program. If you make people who are not struggling, or not struggling 'too badly' feel guilty that others are going bankrupt 'because of' medical costs, they will be more willing to have their tax dollars diverted. But this is where the deception comes in. Even sites that are supportive of the 'every 30 seconds' rhetoric leave little clues about the misrepresentation of facts. 'Facts' such as ""Health care costs contribute to an estimated 25 percent of housing problems."" for example (taken from the provided link). Does that factor in people who bought a house that was outside of their means? Is it really a health care issue if the family bought a home that they could not actually afford, and therefore if they purchased within their means, they may actually have been able to afford the medical treatments? Or ""Health costs are a factor in half of personal bankruptcies. Since 2000, an estimated 5 million families have filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of serious medical problems."" - I have also seen stats that say anything from 5% to 17% cited medical costs as a factor, but let's go with 'half'. That also does not take into account what their lifestyle was before the medical costs became an issue. What if they had a boat, new car, new house, new furniture, making payments on all of the above and then whammo, they were hit with a huge medical bill? What if they were already stretched to the hilt with paying for luxuries? Does that change your mind about their ensuing medical costs? It also does not take into account that often times, SEVERAL reasons for the bankruptcy are listed - gambling debt, job loss, lack of insurance (which is NOT always because a family can't afford it, there are also people who simply don't get it because they don't think they will need it, and then eat their words later). That is why the president's words were misleading and don't tell me he didn't know that!!!
I have had people tell me this morning that many do not have insurance because they can't afford it. Granted, some of the costs are ridiculous in my opinion! Atrocious amounts to pay each month (like a married friend with no children who pays over $300/month), but people also need to take into account WHY the premiums might be rising. Is it because of greedy insurance companies alone, or is it also because there ARE a large number of people who get their treatments for free or never pay their bill to the hospital/medical professional, and then the rising costs are spread throughout the system to those who ARE paying? It always makes me think of the signs in stores that say Shoplifting Hurts Everyone - Prices Will Rise to Compensate for Loss. When I was a teen, I didn't understand that, but as I have gotten old and crusty, I see that a business cannot run on losses all the time and therefore the prices rise in response to the loss. So you have to really think about the wording of reports you read and speeches you hear. Look up the information for YOURSELF. If you still agree after doing your own investigating, that is of course your Right. But if you blindly follow another's words, that is dangerous business.
Think about the complaints about GW Bush over the past several years. People called him arrogant, said he was a liar, said he twisted words to trick people into believing his plans would work, spent the country into oblivion, the Iraq War, etc - and he left office with a 20% or so 'approval rate'. But those same people are now excusing Obama for his own 'lies' (no earmarks), twisted words (every 30 seconds), excessive spending (Stimulus), sending troops to Afghanistan instead and have his approval rating ranging between 69 and 59% (noting it has dropped 10% since taking office). It is very frustrating.
I think it's also interesting to look at the Market Reaction. If this was supposed to be an inspiring and hopeful speech, why aren't the markets showing it yet? I think youshould also take some time at the WSJ site and punch in random dates on the DOW chart page because if you look at the stock market while Clinton was in power, it is considerably lower than when GW Bush was in, then it gradually climbs under Bush, and the starts to drop in the last year or so and has now been dropping lower and lower since Obama was inaugerated. Is that Bush's fault? The market LOOKS FORWARD, from my understanding, looking at what is happening right now and what it's effect is going to be in the future. Does it look Back at Bush who is now gone along with the Republican control? I thought it was supposed to look Forward and see the light, see the hope, see the fantastic change that America needs. People invest their money in hopes of making more, getting a good return. If investors see a bright future, why are stocks hitting as low as they were in 1997 and worse? Why was the dow at over 13,000 in May 2008 and now it is barely 7000? It looks FORWARD and it does NOT like what it sees.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tsk Tsk Tsk
I heard about a little tax idea problem in Houston Texas while listening to Sirius satellite this morning, and eventually found THIS ARTICLE in the chronicle. It looks like since the city council's plan reached the media, and they were flooded with phone calls and letters from citizens expressing their concern, the Mayor went ahead and pulled the plan from tomorrow's meeting.
But I pose this to you - what would have happened if the media had not gotten wind of this, and news didn't spread like wildfire across the net and airwaves? Would the council have discussed this idea tomorrow? Would Houston residents have found out too late that their tax dollars were going to help pay off others' credit bills? Or would council have said tomorrow what they said today, AFTER receiving multi-thousands of complaints?
I guess we will never know, but it's just worth a pondering thought or two, isn't it? If it is so ridiculous and embarrassing like council members and the Mayor stated later on today, why did it even receive clearance to be on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting? ""White's decision to pull the idea from Wednesday's City Council agenda came after the proposal hit the national news media, the Houston Chronicle reported in its online edition Tuesday.""
Do you think this will be the first and last of these kinds of stories while people try using tax payer's money to help pay off credit debt?
Sorry, what was that stimulus bill about again?
____________
Sidebar - did it not look like Nancy Pelosi was about to implode at one point during the president's speech tonight where he claimed yet again that there are no ear marks in the stimulus package and you could clearly hear some remarks of disapproval (aka disbelief) in the background? It was the only time I saw Nancy without a crazy grin on her face. It took her a couple of minutes to recover and rebuild her plastercine face back into some semblance of a smile (aka grimace). But the old gal managed to rein in her anger eventually and was back to leaping to her feet (much to the chagrin of poor VP Biden) at every pause in the president's speech. Poor Joe, I think he is going to need an extra smear of RubA535 after his aerobics class!
But I pose this to you - what would have happened if the media had not gotten wind of this, and news didn't spread like wildfire across the net and airwaves? Would the council have discussed this idea tomorrow? Would Houston residents have found out too late that their tax dollars were going to help pay off others' credit bills? Or would council have said tomorrow what they said today, AFTER receiving multi-thousands of complaints?
I guess we will never know, but it's just worth a pondering thought or two, isn't it? If it is so ridiculous and embarrassing like council members and the Mayor stated later on today, why did it even receive clearance to be on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting? ""White's decision to pull the idea from Wednesday's City Council agenda came after the proposal hit the national news media, the Houston Chronicle reported in its online edition Tuesday.""
Do you think this will be the first and last of these kinds of stories while people try using tax payer's money to help pay off credit debt?
Sorry, what was that stimulus bill about again?
____________
Sidebar - did it not look like Nancy Pelosi was about to implode at one point during the president's speech tonight where he claimed yet again that there are no ear marks in the stimulus package and you could clearly hear some remarks of disapproval (aka disbelief) in the background? It was the only time I saw Nancy without a crazy grin on her face. It took her a couple of minutes to recover and rebuild her plastercine face back into some semblance of a smile (aka grimace). But the old gal managed to rein in her anger eventually and was back to leaping to her feet (much to the chagrin of poor VP Biden) at every pause in the president's speech. Poor Joe, I think he is going to need an extra smear of RubA535 after his aerobics class!
Alberta Taxes
I found this Jan 09 article in the Edmonton Sun and I must say, I was surprised. The article calls for adding Sales Tax for the Province. How do you feel about that? In light of the abuses of the system that I have seen personally, I do not want to fund them more. Even given the fact I did not want the Alberta Health Care Insurance premiums to be stopped, I also don't want to turn around and pay sales tax instead. It's the principle of the whole thing. It is also important to note that each province has it's own income tax level plus the federal level, and these are then added together on your pay slip (at least they are on any that I have ever had) so you don't really see what you are paying for provincial and federal taxes already. THIS CHART shows what the 2009 tax rates are per province (bottom of page). If you notice, Alberta has a straight across the board 10% income tax where 8 of the other 12 provinces/territories have LESS than 10% for their first tier of taxation (ranging from 4% to 9.8%), so while we don't penalize people for earning higher wages (ex 17.95% in NB for those earning over $116,000/yr), we do tax 10% on 'taxable' income for every level. Do we have to raise that? Should we start penalizing higher wage brackets when the federal govt already does that? Should we force people to pay more taxes to help those who do not earn 'enough'? What about the people peppered through that group who can't be bothered to work? There has to be a huge upheaval of the 'helping' systems before I want to contribute even more to them. Sorry, but it is true. Don't forget that I have worked for over 14 years with low income families and I have seen first hand how most of them were fiddling the system in one way or another. That is a fact, that is not me being a bitch. I was a low income parent myself for a decade, so I am NOT trashing all low income families - take that idea out of your head right now.
With utility and just about every other bill cost rising, that takes up more of my money as it is. Take away more tax by adding 3-7% and I just might not purchase bigger ticket items that I have been thinking about. How does that help the economy? The gist I hear from people who suggest tax hikes is that people soon get used to it and don't even notice it anymore... Is that not a cop out? Of course we get used to it - because we HAVE to get used to it. We don't have a choice. Alberta has managed to stay afloat without sales tax, enough so that the govt decided to remove health care premiums (stupid idea in my opinion)... so I refuse to listen to anyone who suggests we are in trouble and need to pay more taxes. We need to gather up our programs and re-evaluate them. We need to demand changes that actually make sense, and we need to get rid of this Robin Hood 'take from the rich to give to the poor' attitude. I know a few people that make disgusting amounts of money lol, it's practically coming out of their ears, but I do not think they should pay more so that I can have more. That never ever crosses my mind, and I do not understand why it crosses others' minds. All that has ever crossed my mind is wishing that the people who are scamming the system would get caught and be charged with fraud, and pay back the money they stole from the programs/tax payers. But now, people are calling for us to pay even more into various programs and systems that are already stifled by too many 'regulators' and too many abusers.
You know, like the guy who hurt himself at work and was off on worker's comp here in the city, but then he went to play LACROSSE, and hurt himself even more and wanted the govt (aka You and Me) to pay for extended disability leave. Then had the audacity to freak out when he was denied (thankfully he was denied, but he did still receive disabilty for a problem that couldn't have been that bad since he was out playing a very physical sport while collecting your tax money). That happened last year and he is still bellyaching about the injustices of life. Oh BOO HOO. How about how I still went to work when I had pneumonia and a partially fluid collapsed left lung because I had two kids to feed. Did I ask the govt for money? Ummm no. I figured I was getting enough already with daycare subsidy and a bit of help with my house, so I wasn't going to drain the system of even more money, even though I could have.
Or the woman we hired at the daycare one year who waited for her 3 months probationary period to be over, then she literally walked out on her lunch break and never came back. She filed to collect unemployment because she was 'fired' (perhaps my boss' mistake for putting that on the form instead of 'quit' but we did not receive official notice from the woman, and in order to hire a new worker we had to officially fire the old one). She is a habitual EI collector, only working jobs for the past 10+ years until she can be fired (by doing something ridiculous on purpose) and then collect more money yet again. Over and over. THIS is what needs to be sorted out before I want to lose more of my children's food money, more of my rent money, to help pay into those kinds of systems.
Or how about we discuss my family. My dad died in 1996 at the age of 49, after working for the federal govt (as a soldier) and then the provincial govt for over 30 years. These lovely taxes took half of his pension before my mother got to use it. And she gets taxed AGAIN every year as income on it. What's this? The same amount of money taxed 3 times? Her income from his pension will NEVER increase, so what happens if sales tax gets added? Sure she is 'saving' $44 a month right now from health care, but what's the point of removing that if a sales tax is considered? What would sales tax be applied to? All food or just some? Gas (like we don't pay enough already!!)? Utilities? Her condo fees? How much more would sales tax have a FIXED INCOME individual paying? Mom is not 65 yet but unable to work (and when she did after dad died, the govt made her PAY IN on income tax. Dad's pension is less than $1500 a month, it was not a gigantic amount in the slightest). By our country's standards, my mom is below the poverty level, so isn't this who the sales tax would hit most? Not just low income families also having to pay more money for the items they desperately need, but for fixed income people, spouses of dead tax payers who contributed to the province for decades, etc. THAT is who a sales tax would hit hardest, would it not? So for all the blah blah about putting money into important programs, I know it's all baloney. It's not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it's taxing EVERYONE, even the lowest earning bracket. Is that responsible? Just because everyone else is doing it we have to as well? Whatever.
With utility and just about every other bill cost rising, that takes up more of my money as it is. Take away more tax by adding 3-7% and I just might not purchase bigger ticket items that I have been thinking about. How does that help the economy? The gist I hear from people who suggest tax hikes is that people soon get used to it and don't even notice it anymore... Is that not a cop out? Of course we get used to it - because we HAVE to get used to it. We don't have a choice. Alberta has managed to stay afloat without sales tax, enough so that the govt decided to remove health care premiums (stupid idea in my opinion)... so I refuse to listen to anyone who suggests we are in trouble and need to pay more taxes. We need to gather up our programs and re-evaluate them. We need to demand changes that actually make sense, and we need to get rid of this Robin Hood 'take from the rich to give to the poor' attitude. I know a few people that make disgusting amounts of money lol, it's practically coming out of their ears, but I do not think they should pay more so that I can have more. That never ever crosses my mind, and I do not understand why it crosses others' minds. All that has ever crossed my mind is wishing that the people who are scamming the system would get caught and be charged with fraud, and pay back the money they stole from the programs/tax payers. But now, people are calling for us to pay even more into various programs and systems that are already stifled by too many 'regulators' and too many abusers.
You know, like the guy who hurt himself at work and was off on worker's comp here in the city, but then he went to play LACROSSE, and hurt himself even more and wanted the govt (aka You and Me) to pay for extended disability leave. Then had the audacity to freak out when he was denied (thankfully he was denied, but he did still receive disabilty for a problem that couldn't have been that bad since he was out playing a very physical sport while collecting your tax money). That happened last year and he is still bellyaching about the injustices of life. Oh BOO HOO. How about how I still went to work when I had pneumonia and a partially fluid collapsed left lung because I had two kids to feed. Did I ask the govt for money? Ummm no. I figured I was getting enough already with daycare subsidy and a bit of help with my house, so I wasn't going to drain the system of even more money, even though I could have.
Or the woman we hired at the daycare one year who waited for her 3 months probationary period to be over, then she literally walked out on her lunch break and never came back. She filed to collect unemployment because she was 'fired' (perhaps my boss' mistake for putting that on the form instead of 'quit' but we did not receive official notice from the woman, and in order to hire a new worker we had to officially fire the old one). She is a habitual EI collector, only working jobs for the past 10+ years until she can be fired (by doing something ridiculous on purpose) and then collect more money yet again. Over and over. THIS is what needs to be sorted out before I want to lose more of my children's food money, more of my rent money, to help pay into those kinds of systems.
Or how about we discuss my family. My dad died in 1996 at the age of 49, after working for the federal govt (as a soldier) and then the provincial govt for over 30 years. These lovely taxes took half of his pension before my mother got to use it. And she gets taxed AGAIN every year as income on it. What's this? The same amount of money taxed 3 times? Her income from his pension will NEVER increase, so what happens if sales tax gets added? Sure she is 'saving' $44 a month right now from health care, but what's the point of removing that if a sales tax is considered? What would sales tax be applied to? All food or just some? Gas (like we don't pay enough already!!)? Utilities? Her condo fees? How much more would sales tax have a FIXED INCOME individual paying? Mom is not 65 yet but unable to work (and when she did after dad died, the govt made her PAY IN on income tax. Dad's pension is less than $1500 a month, it was not a gigantic amount in the slightest). By our country's standards, my mom is below the poverty level, so isn't this who the sales tax would hit most? Not just low income families also having to pay more money for the items they desperately need, but for fixed income people, spouses of dead tax payers who contributed to the province for decades, etc. THAT is who a sales tax would hit hardest, would it not? So for all the blah blah about putting money into important programs, I know it's all baloney. It's not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it's taxing EVERYONE, even the lowest earning bracket. Is that responsible? Just because everyone else is doing it we have to as well? Whatever.
Sea Ice Musical Chairs
I got the following article after listening to the Mike Church show this morning, so thanks King Dude & Co for bringing this to our attention:
Global Warming Hoax article
excerpt: ""So what did George Will say?
1979 1980. If there is “global” warming it certainly is hiding very well. Perhaps it has gone underground, either shy of all of the media attention, or nervous about being found out that it's nothing more than a fraud.""
Global Warming Hoax article
excerpt: ""So what did George Will say?
“As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”George Will's point remains, there is as much sea ice today as there was in
More on the Hughes Family
Remember THIS STORY from a prev blog entry? More info has crept out of the closet, which I found while trolling the web this morning on various blogs:
Dust my Broom
Grant Rants
Web of Deception
and I am sure many, many more. As I said before, this does not surprise me as I have encountered it myself countless times over the years. I still remember the newly single mom I met who owned her own business, had just bought a house in a very nice neighbourhood, drove a gigantic Ford Expedition, and was ranting that she could not get subsidized daycare for her son. She actually complained to ME about it, while I was renting a community housing duplex that was butt-ugly inside, working full time to feed my two kids on my own with only $125 a month in child support to help out. She meanwhile was receiving $800 a month in support for her son. She was angry that she did not get subsidy, but I did. Umm.... okay I was working for $2 above minimum wage and she OWNED a business that was doing pretty well. Please explain to me why she was ranting and crying about having to pay for her son's daycare (which incidentally, her ex husband would have had to pay about 75% of if she took him to court for it).
Dust my Broom
Grant Rants
Web of Deception
and I am sure many, many more. As I said before, this does not surprise me as I have encountered it myself countless times over the years. I still remember the newly single mom I met who owned her own business, had just bought a house in a very nice neighbourhood, drove a gigantic Ford Expedition, and was ranting that she could not get subsidized daycare for her son. She actually complained to ME about it, while I was renting a community housing duplex that was butt-ugly inside, working full time to feed my two kids on my own with only $125 a month in child support to help out. She meanwhile was receiving $800 a month in support for her son. She was angry that she did not get subsidy, but I did. Umm.... okay I was working for $2 above minimum wage and she OWNED a business that was doing pretty well. Please explain to me why she was ranting and crying about having to pay for her son's daycare (which incidentally, her ex husband would have had to pay about 75% of if she took him to court for it).
Get Our Spending Under Control
Just a random thought to throw out there, while I'm listening to Pres Obama speaking about the economy and thinking about other things he has said over the past few months. I heard things like 'the past 8 years', 'the deficit I inherited', etc - putting the blame on the last administration.
Well here is your thought for the day - Obama has been in the Senate since 2005, and in 2006 Democrats gained control of both Congress and the Senate. So these deficit-growing bills that were passed in the 2 years before Bush left office were voted in by whom? Hmm? What's that? Who's that? I wonder how many irresponsible spending bills Obama signed as a Senator, staking his own claim to being partially at fault for the very spending he is ridiculing now. And how many others in the Democratic party also voted those bills in (gee obviously a majority of them did)? Even during the times that they did not hold the majority - how many of them signed these spending bills over the 'past 8 years of failed policy'?? The information is out there but time consuming to wade through, HERE IS A LINK to bills that were sponsored/co-sponsored by Obama. It's just a thought for you to ponder because if people are going to say Obama is the New Hope, and put their dreams and faith into his presidency, then they also need to take a peek into the not-so-distant past to see what part HE played in the current deficit (then add on everything that has been happening since Jan 20th). And then also keep in mind that Pres GW Bush vetoed over 400 BILLS in his 8 years, many because of pork spending snuck in.
Well here is your thought for the day - Obama has been in the Senate since 2005, and in 2006 Democrats gained control of both Congress and the Senate. So these deficit-growing bills that were passed in the 2 years before Bush left office were voted in by whom? Hmm? What's that? Who's that? I wonder how many irresponsible spending bills Obama signed as a Senator, staking his own claim to being partially at fault for the very spending he is ridiculing now. And how many others in the Democratic party also voted those bills in (gee obviously a majority of them did)? Even during the times that they did not hold the majority - how many of them signed these spending bills over the 'past 8 years of failed policy'?? The information is out there but time consuming to wade through, HERE IS A LINK to bills that were sponsored/co-sponsored by Obama. It's just a thought for you to ponder because if people are going to say Obama is the New Hope, and put their dreams and faith into his presidency, then they also need to take a peek into the not-so-distant past to see what part HE played in the current deficit (then add on everything that has been happening since Jan 20th). And then also keep in mind that Pres GW Bush vetoed over 400 BILLS in his 8 years, many because of pork spending snuck in.
Monday, February 23, 2009
I'll Huff and I'll Puff....
I happened to pull out a Calgary Sun paper from April 10 2001 because I was looking at pics of the U2 concert I attended that year lol... but we ended up looking at the prices of homes at the time, only 8 years ago. A NEW 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom, 1700 sq ft house in Chestermere was $189,900. I just went to MLS.ca to see what the same type of house costs there today and 4-5 yr old 1800 sq ft with 3 bedrooms and 2 bath is $359,900. I could not find a similar newly built detached home, so unsure if the cost would be even more. But the general price was almost $200,000 more than only 8 years ago. Is that even remotely rational?
But this is what I have talked about before - people who bought homes in the past few years and are now upset about the value creeping downward... well what did you think was going to happen? My parents bought a house in 1985 for $72,000. Mom sold it in 2002 for $142,000 (so it took almost 20 years to double in price). I saw the house in the paper in 2006 selling for $260,000 (almost doubled in only 4 years) and again it was selling for $280,000 in 2007. WHAT? I lived in that house for many many years and even with some improvements (new driveway, flooring, and paint job indoors), it was NOT WORTH almost $300 grand! How much did people think the houses in our small city were going to go up? Did they think a house built in 1974 would eventually cost $500,000 in Medicine Hat? Are they crazy? But I know several people who purchased homes in the past few years, with intent to sell again and make money. Now they are crying out that their homes are not valued as high as they thought. Well I'm sorry but NO KIDDING. I have no formal training in real estate or economics or any form of banking, but I could see a bad deal from a mile away. All over Alberta, house prices sky rocketed and people fell for it, thinking they were richer than they really were, because they used No Money Down and 40-50 year mortgages to get their dream home. When I grew up, you EARNED your dream home over time and hard work. You didn't just get a job and a few months later land the big house. Now, everyone seems to think you need to Keep Up With The Joneses and are frantic that their plans did not work out. You do not need a degree in anything, only common sense, to see that prices were horribly inflated and it was not a good time for a regular family to buy. I don't want to hear the sob stories of people who purchased beyond their means. And I certainly don't want to pay for them to be bailed out either.
I chose to rent because I flat out refused to pay through the nose for a home that was not worth anywhere near what the current real estate market said. No way. So, if times do get harder in Alberta, I should still be able to keep a roof over our heads without begging someone else for money. If my landlord decides to put rent up to a ridiculous amount, then I say SEE YA and wish him luck finding someone else responsible enough to pay on time every month. Meanwhile, you can see that prices almost doubled in only a handful of years, when previously it was taking 10-20 years for prices to double. Then ask yourself why it would have been a good plan to buy one of those grossly inflated homes and risk higher, longer payments overall through the schemes lenders offered. Then ask yourself why you should help pay to bail out someone else, if it comes to that here like it has in the US.
But this is what I have talked about before - people who bought homes in the past few years and are now upset about the value creeping downward... well what did you think was going to happen? My parents bought a house in 1985 for $72,000. Mom sold it in 2002 for $142,000 (so it took almost 20 years to double in price). I saw the house in the paper in 2006 selling for $260,000 (almost doubled in only 4 years) and again it was selling for $280,000 in 2007. WHAT? I lived in that house for many many years and even with some improvements (new driveway, flooring, and paint job indoors), it was NOT WORTH almost $300 grand! How much did people think the houses in our small city were going to go up? Did they think a house built in 1974 would eventually cost $500,000 in Medicine Hat? Are they crazy? But I know several people who purchased homes in the past few years, with intent to sell again and make money. Now they are crying out that their homes are not valued as high as they thought. Well I'm sorry but NO KIDDING. I have no formal training in real estate or economics or any form of banking, but I could see a bad deal from a mile away. All over Alberta, house prices sky rocketed and people fell for it, thinking they were richer than they really were, because they used No Money Down and 40-50 year mortgages to get their dream home. When I grew up, you EARNED your dream home over time and hard work. You didn't just get a job and a few months later land the big house. Now, everyone seems to think you need to Keep Up With The Joneses and are frantic that their plans did not work out. You do not need a degree in anything, only common sense, to see that prices were horribly inflated and it was not a good time for a regular family to buy. I don't want to hear the sob stories of people who purchased beyond their means. And I certainly don't want to pay for them to be bailed out either.
I chose to rent because I flat out refused to pay through the nose for a home that was not worth anywhere near what the current real estate market said. No way. So, if times do get harder in Alberta, I should still be able to keep a roof over our heads without begging someone else for money. If my landlord decides to put rent up to a ridiculous amount, then I say SEE YA and wish him luck finding someone else responsible enough to pay on time every month. Meanwhile, you can see that prices almost doubled in only a handful of years, when previously it was taking 10-20 years for prices to double. Then ask yourself why it would have been a good plan to buy one of those grossly inflated homes and risk higher, longer payments overall through the schemes lenders offered. Then ask yourself why you should help pay to bail out someone else, if it comes to that here like it has in the US.
Exasperation
UGH. I get so frustrated with people who do not understand that the concept of 'free' government help is NOT actually free. I listened to an excellent segment on Andrew Wilkow's Sirius Patriot show today and for the first time ever, I was even brave enough to call in lol. Was I a nervous fool? Yes lol. But anyway he had been talking about how when the govt gives money to someone, such as raising taxes to put into programs for others, the people end up footing the bill (yes, even those who accept the program funds). So many do not seem to understand that. Some of Wilkow's examples were if taxes on a business are raised, the business may cut staffing (so someone loses their job), or raise product/services costs (for all consumers including those receiving the benefit money), etc. So I called in to agree and give my example:
Backtrack - about 10 years ago my daycare centre was providing a hot lunch for children every day (our choice), but it was quickly becoming a money drain (higher food cost, minimum wage rose, etc) as well as having to throw out about half of everything made because so many kids did not eat it, no matter what it was. We asked the parents to vote on whether they wanted us to continue hot lunch and they paid a higher fee, or axe hot lunches and they could provide a bag lunch for their children instead. The majority of parents chose BAG lunch - so to further balance with the few who wanted hot lunch, we decided to do hot lunch for everyone on Fridays. It was a diplomatic process where EVERYONE had a say, and EVERYONE benefitted.
Fast forward to today, and the Alberta govt wants to force all centres to provide a hot lunch every day. The only way the daycare can afford that is to charge the parents a higher fee - something they voted against years ago. I called Wilkow to speak on that point, to say that the program is forcing us to do this but it is going to come back on the very people it's supposedly helping - parents.
Someone suggested to me months ago that if a parent wants to pack a bag lunch, that is their choice and maybe the daycare could waive the fee-rise. Problem - we are not allowed to have a two-tier system. We are supposed to charge one price across the board and not have different fees for different services (unless it's simply part time and full time care diferences). So the govt already stopped us there years ago. We cannot have one fee for those who want hot lunch, and one for those who send bagged.
The other choices for the business - cut staff pay (when already only just above minimum wage) or cut into their own profits (which is no more than 20% and more like 5-10% of intake). Staff at my center cannot be let go because we already work at the minimum so at least no one will be fired to help pay for the govt-forced program. But that's about the only thing that is safe.
And just a point to note - which I have mentioned before - the reason the govt is going to dictate this is because some parents do not feed their children properly (do not put enough food groups in their bag lunch or send junk food), so the centers have to pick up the slack. So not only is the govt telling parents they can't be trusted to provide nutrition for their children, it's also telling them that they have to pay the centers more so we can decide what's best for them to eat.
This exact same thing happens in program after program. When I lived in community housing as a single parent, they inspected my home more often than a landlord would. But they didn't just check for any damage, they would look at the general upkeep of my home to make sure I wasn't letting my kids live in squandor. If you sign up for these programs, you can be at their mercy for all sorts of intrusive inquiries which are actually AGAINST YOUR RIGHTS!!! It took me 4 years to find out from a lawyer friend that information the housing agency asked me for was NOT within their rights to ask for. How do govt programs get away with this stuff anyway?
So just think about these 'free' programs or govt involvement and decide how much of it you think is actually good. Even if 85% of parents feed their kids properly every day, everyone is going to pay real cash for the 15% that don't. Why is that fair? What if I don't want my child to have a big hot lunch every day and then not eat supper when they come home later? I still have to pay the higher fee because the GOVT forced it, not the center. It takes away choices people, it really does, and you have to open your eyes to that before it's too late.
***UPDATE to my long winded rant: I attended a meeting at the school today to discuss nutritional needs. The School Board has passed some new rules taking all junk foods out of the schools. That includes not doing any more chocolate bar fundraisers, etc. That's $10,000 a year gone from our school's funds right off the top, let alone other fundraisers like Cookie Dough, or schools that do Nutter's Trays, etc. Anyway, it also includes any classroom parties, special events etc that parents donate food to - no junk allowed. So if my kid is having a birthday, I can't bring in cupcakes to share with the class. I don't normally do that anyway because my kids have summer holiday bdays (woohoo!), but still - the board said they can't dictate what parents are sending their children in their lunches, but it really is dictating some parental choices by axeing anything not on the canada food guide for all class parties, etc. Teachers are also not allowed to eat anything not in the Guide for their own lunches because they have to set an example for the kids.
Okay, I get that - but come on seriously? Teacher can't even eat a choco chip cookie on her BREAK in the school? I forsee a lot of teachers and support staff hiding in the bathroom stalls to get a chocolate fix lol. Anyway, I'm not retarded - I 'get' nutrition and eating healthy but there are other consequences to this as well. The high schools operate cafeterias (along with one elementary). These are fundraisers in themselves but they can no longer serve a heap of stuff on their menu. If high school kids can't get what they want, they will just head over to the stores instead. The cafeterias (one for sure that I know of) are actually staffed by an outside service, so if they do not wish to conform to the board's new policy, they will just pull out. What happens for funds now? We got given a big list of Fundraising Ideas but it looked like something you pull off the net - Game Show Nights, etc. Those are all a lot of work to set up, and very little in return for funds. Since schools have had programs cut left and right, some of these chocolate bar fundraisers, etc, are their bread and butter. We can send the whole Grade 6 class to camp for less than what we make in those 'non-nutritional' fundraisers. And many teachers have been at this for 30 years and have already 'been there done that' several times with other types of fundraisers and know what works and what doesn't. Almost every idea in the big Healthy Eating Fundraiser Ideas falls into the 'doesn't' category.
My thoughts are, the choco bars are not sold to students to eat in the school, they take them home and sell to friends and family who wish to buy them for eating at home or work. Very few of the bars come back in kids' lunches because for one thing, the bars are big and cost $3 each. My point is, they are not being injested on school property very often, and if parents are supposed to have the right to decide what their children eat, why is the school board forcing the end to these fund raisers? We were also given a huge list of approved items to include for things like hot dog day (which is run by Grade 6 volunteer parents -me included), because we aren't allowed to do bags of chips anymore. We also have to change to whole wheat buns - get ready to see the garbage cans over-flowing.
Again, I understand about nutrition and the school's role in being a good example and setting kids on their way to eating right, but I remember the principal's words today when he told me the board can't tell parents what to put in lunches, so they will tell us what to serve at school. I told him what is happening at the daycare and that for years already we have been told we CANNOT let the kids eat candies, chips, chocolate, etc from their own lunch bags. We have to leave the item in there with a note to parents explaining we cannot serve them and to please not send unhealthy items anymore. He looked very surprised, to know that the govt actually IS dictating what goes in a packed lunch in other sectors of childrens' services. I thought it was best to give him a head's up in case it comes in the future. Because a few people don't feed their children 'properly', everyone has to conform.
Backtrack - about 10 years ago my daycare centre was providing a hot lunch for children every day (our choice), but it was quickly becoming a money drain (higher food cost, minimum wage rose, etc) as well as having to throw out about half of everything made because so many kids did not eat it, no matter what it was. We asked the parents to vote on whether they wanted us to continue hot lunch and they paid a higher fee, or axe hot lunches and they could provide a bag lunch for their children instead. The majority of parents chose BAG lunch - so to further balance with the few who wanted hot lunch, we decided to do hot lunch for everyone on Fridays. It was a diplomatic process where EVERYONE had a say, and EVERYONE benefitted.
Fast forward to today, and the Alberta govt wants to force all centres to provide a hot lunch every day. The only way the daycare can afford that is to charge the parents a higher fee - something they voted against years ago. I called Wilkow to speak on that point, to say that the program is forcing us to do this but it is going to come back on the very people it's supposedly helping - parents.
Someone suggested to me months ago that if a parent wants to pack a bag lunch, that is their choice and maybe the daycare could waive the fee-rise. Problem - we are not allowed to have a two-tier system. We are supposed to charge one price across the board and not have different fees for different services (unless it's simply part time and full time care diferences). So the govt already stopped us there years ago. We cannot have one fee for those who want hot lunch, and one for those who send bagged.
The other choices for the business - cut staff pay (when already only just above minimum wage) or cut into their own profits (which is no more than 20% and more like 5-10% of intake). Staff at my center cannot be let go because we already work at the minimum so at least no one will be fired to help pay for the govt-forced program. But that's about the only thing that is safe.
And just a point to note - which I have mentioned before - the reason the govt is going to dictate this is because some parents do not feed their children properly (do not put enough food groups in their bag lunch or send junk food), so the centers have to pick up the slack. So not only is the govt telling parents they can't be trusted to provide nutrition for their children, it's also telling them that they have to pay the centers more so we can decide what's best for them to eat.
This exact same thing happens in program after program. When I lived in community housing as a single parent, they inspected my home more often than a landlord would. But they didn't just check for any damage, they would look at the general upkeep of my home to make sure I wasn't letting my kids live in squandor. If you sign up for these programs, you can be at their mercy for all sorts of intrusive inquiries which are actually AGAINST YOUR RIGHTS!!! It took me 4 years to find out from a lawyer friend that information the housing agency asked me for was NOT within their rights to ask for. How do govt programs get away with this stuff anyway?
So just think about these 'free' programs or govt involvement and decide how much of it you think is actually good. Even if 85% of parents feed their kids properly every day, everyone is going to pay real cash for the 15% that don't. Why is that fair? What if I don't want my child to have a big hot lunch every day and then not eat supper when they come home later? I still have to pay the higher fee because the GOVT forced it, not the center. It takes away choices people, it really does, and you have to open your eyes to that before it's too late.
***UPDATE to my long winded rant: I attended a meeting at the school today to discuss nutritional needs. The School Board has passed some new rules taking all junk foods out of the schools. That includes not doing any more chocolate bar fundraisers, etc. That's $10,000 a year gone from our school's funds right off the top, let alone other fundraisers like Cookie Dough, or schools that do Nutter's Trays, etc. Anyway, it also includes any classroom parties, special events etc that parents donate food to - no junk allowed. So if my kid is having a birthday, I can't bring in cupcakes to share with the class. I don't normally do that anyway because my kids have summer holiday bdays (woohoo!), but still - the board said they can't dictate what parents are sending their children in their lunches, but it really is dictating some parental choices by axeing anything not on the canada food guide for all class parties, etc. Teachers are also not allowed to eat anything not in the Guide for their own lunches because they have to set an example for the kids.
Okay, I get that - but come on seriously? Teacher can't even eat a choco chip cookie on her BREAK in the school? I forsee a lot of teachers and support staff hiding in the bathroom stalls to get a chocolate fix lol. Anyway, I'm not retarded - I 'get' nutrition and eating healthy but there are other consequences to this as well. The high schools operate cafeterias (along with one elementary). These are fundraisers in themselves but they can no longer serve a heap of stuff on their menu. If high school kids can't get what they want, they will just head over to the stores instead. The cafeterias (one for sure that I know of) are actually staffed by an outside service, so if they do not wish to conform to the board's new policy, they will just pull out. What happens for funds now? We got given a big list of Fundraising Ideas but it looked like something you pull off the net - Game Show Nights, etc. Those are all a lot of work to set up, and very little in return for funds. Since schools have had programs cut left and right, some of these chocolate bar fundraisers, etc, are their bread and butter. We can send the whole Grade 6 class to camp for less than what we make in those 'non-nutritional' fundraisers. And many teachers have been at this for 30 years and have already 'been there done that' several times with other types of fundraisers and know what works and what doesn't. Almost every idea in the big Healthy Eating Fundraiser Ideas falls into the 'doesn't' category.
My thoughts are, the choco bars are not sold to students to eat in the school, they take them home and sell to friends and family who wish to buy them for eating at home or work. Very few of the bars come back in kids' lunches because for one thing, the bars are big and cost $3 each. My point is, they are not being injested on school property very often, and if parents are supposed to have the right to decide what their children eat, why is the school board forcing the end to these fund raisers? We were also given a huge list of approved items to include for things like hot dog day (which is run by Grade 6 volunteer parents -me included), because we aren't allowed to do bags of chips anymore. We also have to change to whole wheat buns - get ready to see the garbage cans over-flowing.
Again, I understand about nutrition and the school's role in being a good example and setting kids on their way to eating right, but I remember the principal's words today when he told me the board can't tell parents what to put in lunches, so they will tell us what to serve at school. I told him what is happening at the daycare and that for years already we have been told we CANNOT let the kids eat candies, chips, chocolate, etc from their own lunch bags. We have to leave the item in there with a note to parents explaining we cannot serve them and to please not send unhealthy items anymore. He looked very surprised, to know that the govt actually IS dictating what goes in a packed lunch in other sectors of childrens' services. I thought it was best to give him a head's up in case it comes in the future. Because a few people don't feed their children 'properly', everyone has to conform.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Repossesions on the Rise
Repossessions a busy business
Ken Gousseau
Medicine Hat News
Repossessions are on the rise in Medicine Hat as some residents struggle to pay debts during the global economic recession.
Kelly Beresowsky, a civil enforcement bailiff in the city, has recently seen his business increase 50 per cent.
“I’m a heck of a lot busier than I was six months ago,” he said.
Most of the vehicles Beresowsky has been repossessing lately are souped-up trucks belonging to young oilfield workers.
“A lot of the oil guys are travelling further to get the work,” he said. “Those that aren’t willing to are the ones I’m paying visits to.”
But the current economic turmoil is beginning to take its toll on people who aren’t stereotypical big spenders, Beresowsky noted.
“Unfortunately you are seeing a lot more of the hard working people having a tough time,” he said. “Through no fault of their own, they end up losing their job or getting a reduction in pay.”
Provincially, Prairie Bailiff Services has experienced a 15 per cent increase in civil enforcement actions launched by landlords and a 60 per cent rise in vehicle and equipment repossessions compared to last year.
“Medicine Hat and Lethbridge have increased a bit but not as close to the dramatic increase that the rest of the province is seeing,” said Travis Piercuy, a bailiff with the company. “Companies out there are a lot more stable.”
As repossessions rise in the province, bankruptcies have followed suit, increasing 24.8 per cent in between 2007 and 2008, according to Bankruptcy Canada.
___________________________________
Hmm, perhaps this is the line of work to get into!! I have a feeling they are going to be some of the most secure job spots in North America!
Ken Gousseau
Medicine Hat News
Repossessions are on the rise in Medicine Hat as some residents struggle to pay debts during the global economic recession.
Kelly Beresowsky, a civil enforcement bailiff in the city, has recently seen his business increase 50 per cent.
“I’m a heck of a lot busier than I was six months ago,” he said.
Most of the vehicles Beresowsky has been repossessing lately are souped-up trucks belonging to young oilfield workers.
“A lot of the oil guys are travelling further to get the work,” he said. “Those that aren’t willing to are the ones I’m paying visits to.”
But the current economic turmoil is beginning to take its toll on people who aren’t stereotypical big spenders, Beresowsky noted.
“Unfortunately you are seeing a lot more of the hard working people having a tough time,” he said. “Through no fault of their own, they end up losing their job or getting a reduction in pay.”
Provincially, Prairie Bailiff Services has experienced a 15 per cent increase in civil enforcement actions launched by landlords and a 60 per cent rise in vehicle and equipment repossessions compared to last year.
“Medicine Hat and Lethbridge have increased a bit but not as close to the dramatic increase that the rest of the province is seeing,” said Travis Piercuy, a bailiff with the company. “Companies out there are a lot more stable.”
As repossessions rise in the province, bankruptcies have followed suit, increasing 24.8 per cent in between 2007 and 2008, according to Bankruptcy Canada.
___________________________________
Hmm, perhaps this is the line of work to get into!! I have a feeling they are going to be some of the most secure job spots in North America!
This is who we pay to help run this city??
Locals wouldn't have predicted recession a year ago
ANGUS HENDERSON
Medicine Hat News
Three local business experts agree they would never have thought that nine months or so ago that they’d ever see Alberta headed for a $1 billion deficit and technical recession.
But now that’s it’s happened, they’d prefer to be in Alberta with it’s combined $22 billion in reserves — the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund (approximately $14 billion) and the Alberta Sustainability Fund (approximately $8 billion).
Jacquie Penner, dean of business at the Medicine Hat College, told the News Thursday that given the world economic situation right now, it’s not a surprise to her at all that Alberta is feeling the pressure from the global economic downturn.
“I think on the other side of it though, that here in Alberta, we have the kind of economy that yes we’re going to do some suffering, and yes we’re going to lose some jobs, and yes unemployment is going to go up,” she said.
“But we’re going to be so much better off than everybody else, and I think we need to remind ourselves of that.”
Penner credited the provincial government for having undertaken numerous initiatives that she says really are designed to help Albertans fare as well as possible through the present ordeal.
Those include the recently announced infrastructure initiatives and, on the post-secondary education side, a commitment to follow through on its nine-point plan to diversify the economy through technological development, the commercialization of technology and entrepreneurship in technology.
Alderman and acting mayor Ted Clugston just hopes the present downturn will be a short-lived one.
“I never thought six months ago that it would happen this quickly and I’d have said that it absolutely wouldn’t happen. So I’m hoping in a year from now that I’m not still having this discussion with the News,” he stressed.
“Locally, Medicine Hat seems to be weathering the storm, but that doesn’t take away from the reality that there are people here who have already lost their jobs.”
Clugston said he was somewhat heartened Thursday to hear that the price of a barrel of oil had moved up 12 per cent, and that one reason was that supplies are going down because there’s much less drilling going on right now.
As for an estimated 15,000 job losses throughout 2009 in Alberta, Clugston feels unfortunate that many are people who are probably new to the province and now may have to leave.
The city’s business development officer, Keith Crush, said that although the city has a pretty diverse economy, the local energy sector will continue to be a challenge for the foreseeable future.
Like Penner, he appreciates the province’s commitment to new technologies and related initiatives.
“I appreciate that it’ll take awhile to work its way through, but the fact they they’re putting investment into technology development probably bodes well in the longer term,” he said.
“In the short-term, it probably won’t stimulate a lot, but it will keep those local firms that are maybe at that point right now, a good kick-start and the opportunity to grow their businesses.”
_____________________________
How sad it is that bloggers across Canada have been talking about this for about 2 years, if not longer, and yet the so-called experts had no idea? UN FRICKEN REAL. We pay these goofs... that is sad.
ANGUS HENDERSON
Medicine Hat News
Three local business experts agree they would never have thought that nine months or so ago that they’d ever see Alberta headed for a $1 billion deficit and technical recession.
But now that’s it’s happened, they’d prefer to be in Alberta with it’s combined $22 billion in reserves — the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund (approximately $14 billion) and the Alberta Sustainability Fund (approximately $8 billion).
Jacquie Penner, dean of business at the Medicine Hat College, told the News Thursday that given the world economic situation right now, it’s not a surprise to her at all that Alberta is feeling the pressure from the global economic downturn.
“I think on the other side of it though, that here in Alberta, we have the kind of economy that yes we’re going to do some suffering, and yes we’re going to lose some jobs, and yes unemployment is going to go up,” she said.
“But we’re going to be so much better off than everybody else, and I think we need to remind ourselves of that.”
Penner credited the provincial government for having undertaken numerous initiatives that she says really are designed to help Albertans fare as well as possible through the present ordeal.
Those include the recently announced infrastructure initiatives and, on the post-secondary education side, a commitment to follow through on its nine-point plan to diversify the economy through technological development, the commercialization of technology and entrepreneurship in technology.
Alderman and acting mayor Ted Clugston just hopes the present downturn will be a short-lived one.
“I never thought six months ago that it would happen this quickly and I’d have said that it absolutely wouldn’t happen. So I’m hoping in a year from now that I’m not still having this discussion with the News,” he stressed.
“Locally, Medicine Hat seems to be weathering the storm, but that doesn’t take away from the reality that there are people here who have already lost their jobs.”
Clugston said he was somewhat heartened Thursday to hear that the price of a barrel of oil had moved up 12 per cent, and that one reason was that supplies are going down because there’s much less drilling going on right now.
As for an estimated 15,000 job losses throughout 2009 in Alberta, Clugston feels unfortunate that many are people who are probably new to the province and now may have to leave.
The city’s business development officer, Keith Crush, said that although the city has a pretty diverse economy, the local energy sector will continue to be a challenge for the foreseeable future.
Like Penner, he appreciates the province’s commitment to new technologies and related initiatives.
“I appreciate that it’ll take awhile to work its way through, but the fact they they’re putting investment into technology development probably bodes well in the longer term,” he said.
“In the short-term, it probably won’t stimulate a lot, but it will keep those local firms that are maybe at that point right now, a good kick-start and the opportunity to grow their businesses.”
_____________________________
How sad it is that bloggers across Canada have been talking about this for about 2 years, if not longer, and yet the so-called experts had no idea? UN FRICKEN REAL. We pay these goofs... that is sad.
Gee, What A Surprise...
Yeah so I b*tched about how Alberta stopped charging it's residents a premium for basic health care in Jan 2009, because I worried what the sudden stoppage of funding would do. From program cuts to crappier services... and it is happening already.
The Alberta Health Services are talking about a fast-moving axe to the neck of cytology labs in 3 cities, in order to centralize in Calgary and Edmonton. The following appeared in the Medicine Hat News (I do not have a link but I assure you it is an unaltered copy/paste):
Medicine Hat News
Local - Thursday, Thursday, February 19, 2009, p. A3
Concern for jobs with further health service centralization
Chris Brown
TENILLE TELLMAN
ttellman@medicinehatnews.com
Centralizing health service supports does little for community development or quality care for Alberta patients, the provincial Friends of Medicare said Wednesday.
Alberta Health Services (AHS) plans to consolidate gynecological cytology laboratory services for the entire province. Almost 20 providers of laboratory services are listed as having the capability and experience to submit applications to a request for proposal (RFP) issued earlier this month.
At least one local lab is engaged in a proposal and cannot publicly discuss their application.
A memo sent to all AHS lab administrative and medical directors says the consolidation would move ahead as soon after April 1 as possible. Decisions on proposals are supposed to be made on March 20.
A few cytotechnologists are speaking out on the issue through a Facebook group because they want the public to be informed about this move. They also suggest quality control could be compromised if all pap smears were observed at a central lab.
David Eggen, executive director of the Alberta Friends of Medicare (FOM) questions what impact the centralization will have on the timeliness of returning test results to Alberta patients and how many jobs it will take from Alberta communities.
"The economy runs up against best practices for health. This is a common problem and it highlights again the fact that health care is not just a commodity that you can use the same economic principles on as selling pizzas or building things," said Eggen. "It's a human resource that must be developed close to all population centres, you can't just centralize it for the sake of the economy."
AHS should be providing Albertans with a full picture of this initiative and state whether or not other lab testing services will also be centralized, he says. Decisions to move services from communities are being made without public knowledge and the FOM is concerned about this lack of transparency.
The comment was echoed by Alberta Liberal Leader and shadow health minister Dr. David Swann. He says it's hard to support the changes when there is no explanation of who made the decision, why they made it or who will benefit.
It also raises questions whether private labs would end up being more accessible and monitored as closely as public labs to ensure quality.
However, a slight increase of costs is not a bad thing if government is prepared to show there is a real benefit to the patients.
"One could argue that you could put up a little bit of extra cost for transport if you're getting better quality and better affordability otherwise," said Swann. "It's not at all clear that's the case."
Category: News
Uniform subject(s): Health and social services
Length: Medium, 360 words
© 2009 Medicine Hat News. All rights reserved.
Okay so what's next eh? Are the people out there who cheered about not paying the miniscule premium of $44 or $88 a month happy now? I knew that things would be chopped and axed and it is NOT WORTH IT. It is not worth the risk to patients for longer wait times, not to mention relying on slides to be transported 3 to 5 hours away safely and not be compromised, resulting in incorrect analysis. The list goes on for why this is not a good idea. There are over 60,000 people in this city, not to mention all of the outlying small towns and rural area, and each program that gets centralized pushes us back to even longer waiting times. Is that a responsible way for the govt to work on 'our behalf'? But anyone who was thrilled with not paying a premium - this falls on your shoulders too. I did not want this for free because I knew that free meant running out of funding, and cuts to programs. And here we are in February learning of at least one cut, affecting hundreds of thousands of people in and around 3 'smaller' cities. Nice one!
The Alberta Health Services are talking about a fast-moving axe to the neck of cytology labs in 3 cities, in order to centralize in Calgary and Edmonton. The following appeared in the Medicine Hat News (I do not have a link but I assure you it is an unaltered copy/paste):
Medicine Hat News
Local - Thursday, Thursday, February 19, 2009, p. A3
Concern for jobs with further health service centralization
Chris Brown
TENILLE TELLMAN
ttellman@medicinehatnews.com
Centralizing health service supports does little for community development or quality care for Alberta patients, the provincial Friends of Medicare said Wednesday.
Alberta Health Services (AHS) plans to consolidate gynecological cytology laboratory services for the entire province. Almost 20 providers of laboratory services are listed as having the capability and experience to submit applications to a request for proposal (RFP) issued earlier this month.
At least one local lab is engaged in a proposal and cannot publicly discuss their application.
A memo sent to all AHS lab administrative and medical directors says the consolidation would move ahead as soon after April 1 as possible. Decisions on proposals are supposed to be made on March 20.
A few cytotechnologists are speaking out on the issue through a Facebook group because they want the public to be informed about this move. They also suggest quality control could be compromised if all pap smears were observed at a central lab.
David Eggen, executive director of the Alberta Friends of Medicare (FOM) questions what impact the centralization will have on the timeliness of returning test results to Alberta patients and how many jobs it will take from Alberta communities.
"The economy runs up against best practices for health. This is a common problem and it highlights again the fact that health care is not just a commodity that you can use the same economic principles on as selling pizzas or building things," said Eggen. "It's a human resource that must be developed close to all population centres, you can't just centralize it for the sake of the economy."
AHS should be providing Albertans with a full picture of this initiative and state whether or not other lab testing services will also be centralized, he says. Decisions to move services from communities are being made without public knowledge and the FOM is concerned about this lack of transparency.
The comment was echoed by Alberta Liberal Leader and shadow health minister Dr. David Swann. He says it's hard to support the changes when there is no explanation of who made the decision, why they made it or who will benefit.
It also raises questions whether private labs would end up being more accessible and monitored as closely as public labs to ensure quality.
However, a slight increase of costs is not a bad thing if government is prepared to show there is a real benefit to the patients.
"One could argue that you could put up a little bit of extra cost for transport if you're getting better quality and better affordability otherwise," said Swann. "It's not at all clear that's the case."
Category: News
Uniform subject(s): Health and social services
Length: Medium, 360 words
© 2009 Medicine Hat News. All rights reserved.
Okay so what's next eh? Are the people out there who cheered about not paying the miniscule premium of $44 or $88 a month happy now? I knew that things would be chopped and axed and it is NOT WORTH IT. It is not worth the risk to patients for longer wait times, not to mention relying on slides to be transported 3 to 5 hours away safely and not be compromised, resulting in incorrect analysis. The list goes on for why this is not a good idea. There are over 60,000 people in this city, not to mention all of the outlying small towns and rural area, and each program that gets centralized pushes us back to even longer waiting times. Is that a responsible way for the govt to work on 'our behalf'? But anyone who was thrilled with not paying a premium - this falls on your shoulders too. I did not want this for free because I knew that free meant running out of funding, and cuts to programs. And here we are in February learning of at least one cut, affecting hundreds of thousands of people in and around 3 'smaller' cities. Nice one!
Friday, February 20, 2009
PM Harper on CNN
Thank you to Sort of Political for posting this vid because I was having trouble finding a good copy of it lol.
Harper on the Stimulus, NAFTA, World Trade, Protectionism....
Harper on the Stimulus, NAFTA, World Trade, Protectionism....
So So Tired of...
I am so tired of people that can't use their own words and jump on the nearest bandwagon to spew their muck. For the past 1-2 weeks, almost every time I listen to CNN, someone on there tells republican or conservative speakers to 'stop listening to Rush Limbaugh'. I just mentioned this in a previous blog post about Bill Maher, and again in the post about Rush/Bush Derangement Syndrome. What happened? I guess a couple of weeks ago someone first started suggesting that anyone who is against the stimulus or calling for caution about the new president must be listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, and someone heard it and used it the next time they got a chance to talk on National tv, and now it has spread like a disease?? I've also heard Sean Hannity named more often, after Pres Obama has named him directly as well.
I just watched the former Republican advisor to Bush commenting on CNN about how the President should be speaking to the people with more optimism, and this other dude (no clue who the heck he was), literally interrupted and guess what he said? He challenged that the former Advisor must have got his words from,,,, you guessed it,,, Rush Limbaugh. OMG I am going to throw up. I should start counting how many times I hear people talking about Rush and blaming him for all the supposedly mindless people who speak out against the President's actions or the stimulus. Honestly it is getting SO ANNOYING.
I loved the advisor's reply though - he said "no, actually, I am speaking as someone who used to work IN the white house and from personal experience about how a President should be speaking to people and inspiring them". That is paraphrased, just so you know. But mannnnnnnnn this other guy was saying the fmr white house advisor got his words from Limbaugh? These comments are really getting old!
I just watched the former Republican advisor to Bush commenting on CNN about how the President should be speaking to the people with more optimism, and this other dude (no clue who the heck he was), literally interrupted and guess what he said? He challenged that the former Advisor must have got his words from,,,, you guessed it,,, Rush Limbaugh. OMG I am going to throw up. I should start counting how many times I hear people talking about Rush and blaming him for all the supposedly mindless people who speak out against the President's actions or the stimulus. Honestly it is getting SO ANNOYING.
I loved the advisor's reply though - he said "no, actually, I am speaking as someone who used to work IN the white house and from personal experience about how a President should be speaking to people and inspiring them". That is paraphrased, just so you know. But mannnnnnnnn this other guy was saying the fmr white house advisor got his words from Limbaugh? These comments are really getting old!
There Are NO Words....
I've watched this maybe 10 times and I just cannot figure out what the hell she was doing. How was she planning to dry out the car? How was she planning to get home without having soaking wet clothing? Did one of her kids Exorcist-Vomit all over the entire inside including the hatch? Did the car have one of those really bad Mystery Smells and she got desperate? I guess we will never know.... At least it looks like she remembered to roll the windows up...
Thursday, February 19, 2009
3 Bags or Else!!
Random local rant: Automated Garbage removal will be starting later this year. According to our local TV news, this is being done because 'It's what the people want'. What people? So far I have not found a single person in my friends and family who heard this was happening, let alone had the chance to voice their support or concerns.
To backtrack, over the years, the City had toyed with the idea of enforcing a 2 or 3 bag limit for weekly household garbage pickup. The idea was always pushed down because citizens' concerns were not met, such as differing family sizes (IE - why should a family of 5 have to put out the same amount of bags as a single person). But now it appears the City found a way around the issue. They have already puchased the new bins we will all HAVE to use. The bins fit 2-3 bags and will be picked up by an automated truck that has a mechanical arm to pick up the bin and dump it. There are rules to go along with this such as the bins have to be put on the street, handles facing towards the home, and there must be at least one metre clearance on either side of each bin. I went to the City website to find information on what was reported on the news and I will post the link later (but it does not say anywhere that I could find when this will start, it just talks about the Pilot project). The local news says the bins and trucks are purchased and will start by this Fall.
Anyway here are my concerns - While I think reducing waste is always a good idea, I don't think other problems have been addressed. The photo accompanying a leaflet on the City site shows a typical newer neighbourhood with large lots and no cars to be seen. But what about older areas of town or townhouses? They have to park on the street but will have to move their cars every single week on garbage day - move them where??? No driveways, garages, and often no back alley parking. Where are people in areas such as the Flats going to park their cars? My bf lived down there until last year and the cars were bumper to bumper on his street because the lots are small. He did not have a garage large enough to fit his vehicle, no driveway, and absolutely impossible to put his bin a metre away from the next door neighbour's car (also no driveway or garage) without moving his truck somewhere else, perhaps around the block (but then possibly blocking someone else's bin). Where these issues addressed? It is clearly stated on the website that they will not pick up your bin if it is not in the right place. So what happens if you put your bin out before you go to work, but then your neighbour comes home and parks to close, so the truck skips you? Is that fair?
I am all for waste reduction, but there also has to be a practical means employed to do so. If my boyfriend still lived in that area, he has no idea what he would have done with his truck, or what his neighbours would have done with their cars, once a week. Even the few times a year that steet cleaning is done, it's been a huge problem down there! So now it's going to happen weekly??
Was this a way to force people to do 2-3 bags with no further thought put into the logistics? And I still fail to see why I should have the same amount of garbage with a family of 5 as my single neighbour does... My whole basement is filled with recyclable items as it is because the bins to take them to are always full and we have not had another chance to take the piles of cardboard, glass, newspaper, and drink containers. We try hard to do our part, only to be thwarted again and again by the City. I can see things getting really messy around here soon.
I also should note that since moving back here in 2004, we have had the garbage collection rules changed 3 times so this will be change #4 in less than 5 years. Fun stuff!
To backtrack, over the years, the City had toyed with the idea of enforcing a 2 or 3 bag limit for weekly household garbage pickup. The idea was always pushed down because citizens' concerns were not met, such as differing family sizes (IE - why should a family of 5 have to put out the same amount of bags as a single person). But now it appears the City found a way around the issue. They have already puchased the new bins we will all HAVE to use. The bins fit 2-3 bags and will be picked up by an automated truck that has a mechanical arm to pick up the bin and dump it. There are rules to go along with this such as the bins have to be put on the street, handles facing towards the home, and there must be at least one metre clearance on either side of each bin. I went to the City website to find information on what was reported on the news and I will post the link later (but it does not say anywhere that I could find when this will start, it just talks about the Pilot project). The local news says the bins and trucks are purchased and will start by this Fall.
Anyway here are my concerns - While I think reducing waste is always a good idea, I don't think other problems have been addressed. The photo accompanying a leaflet on the City site shows a typical newer neighbourhood with large lots and no cars to be seen. But what about older areas of town or townhouses? They have to park on the street but will have to move their cars every single week on garbage day - move them where??? No driveways, garages, and often no back alley parking. Where are people in areas such as the Flats going to park their cars? My bf lived down there until last year and the cars were bumper to bumper on his street because the lots are small. He did not have a garage large enough to fit his vehicle, no driveway, and absolutely impossible to put his bin a metre away from the next door neighbour's car (also no driveway or garage) without moving his truck somewhere else, perhaps around the block (but then possibly blocking someone else's bin). Where these issues addressed? It is clearly stated on the website that they will not pick up your bin if it is not in the right place. So what happens if you put your bin out before you go to work, but then your neighbour comes home and parks to close, so the truck skips you? Is that fair?
I am all for waste reduction, but there also has to be a practical means employed to do so. If my boyfriend still lived in that area, he has no idea what he would have done with his truck, or what his neighbours would have done with their cars, once a week. Even the few times a year that steet cleaning is done, it's been a huge problem down there! So now it's going to happen weekly??
Was this a way to force people to do 2-3 bags with no further thought put into the logistics? And I still fail to see why I should have the same amount of garbage with a family of 5 as my single neighbour does... My whole basement is filled with recyclable items as it is because the bins to take them to are always full and we have not had another chance to take the piles of cardboard, glass, newspaper, and drink containers. We try hard to do our part, only to be thwarted again and again by the City. I can see things getting really messy around here soon.
I also should note that since moving back here in 2004, we have had the garbage collection rules changed 3 times so this will be change #4 in less than 5 years. Fun stuff!
THANK YOU!!!
**I am reiterating my end comment at the start. Obama did not WRITE the stimulus (which is what the cartoon was about), so is the cartoon really saying that the stimulus bill is akin to the work of a crazed chimpanzee perhaps, which is actually poking fun at ALL of the writers (who are predominantly WHITE are they not??). Is it actually about Obama at all? He signed it, he did Not write it. Think about it people and realize that if you saw Obama as soon as you looked at the cartoon, you are the one with a problem, not the artist!!!**
I want to thank the author of the Dust My Broom blog for a reminder about political cartoons (see link in right column). You may already have heard or read the uproar about a political cartoon allegedly satirizing Obama as being a chimp in the NY Post... I am not going to repost the cartoon here but you can just imagine the fall-out. However, while venturing over to DMB's blog, I was faced immediately with an array of photos of former President George W Bush alongside countless Chimp photos. To do some of my own homework after remembering the MANY MANY times I have seen Bush-Chimp cartoons over the years, I simply headed to google.ca and typed in "Bush + chimp" , and whaddya know... a whole whack of choice images came up. So, knowing that, does it change your mind about the cartoon depicting Obama in the same manner (although I do not think it's depicting Obama at all)? Is it a racial issue to you anymore? Sure, I still think it is in bad taste but honestly, if one man can be portrayed as a chimp for several years over and over, why can't another? Are WE making it a racial issue all by ourselves? Here are some examples of what I found on the first google results page:
I will add again that I still think the cartoon was in bad taste, the chimp laying there dead, and so on - but I have a different reason for my distaste than I have seen anyone else talk about so far...But let's say it was about Obama - if the artist wanted to depict something like that, what should he have drawn instead? Obama himself laying there? Is the issue that the artist should not have displayed something like that at all, whether it was a chimp or an Obama-likeness or not? But if the above images can say that Bush looked like a chimp... well I will leave that open ended. Can I just say here that I looked at the offending cartoon several times today and do not see how it looks like Obama at all. If everyone looking at the picture automatically assumed that the chimp was Obama, who is the real racist?
The cartoon says 'They'll have to find someone else to WRITE the next stimulus bill'. Did Obama write it? Ummmm no, he did not. So who is the chimp really? Is it Obama or is it a reference to the lawmakers, Senators, Congressmen and whoever else had a hand in WRITING the bill? Obama signed it, but he did not write it.
May I also point out that the cartoon was done in direct reference to the chimpanzee who was shot and killed by police after literally tearing a woman to pieces??? If anyone should be offended, it should be the family of the victim who is still in hospital in very serious condition.
I want to thank the author of the Dust My Broom blog for a reminder about political cartoons (see link in right column). You may already have heard or read the uproar about a political cartoon allegedly satirizing Obama as being a chimp in the NY Post... I am not going to repost the cartoon here but you can just imagine the fall-out. However, while venturing over to DMB's blog, I was faced immediately with an array of photos of former President George W Bush alongside countless Chimp photos. To do some of my own homework after remembering the MANY MANY times I have seen Bush-Chimp cartoons over the years, I simply headed to google.ca and typed in "Bush + chimp" , and whaddya know... a whole whack of choice images came up. So, knowing that, does it change your mind about the cartoon depicting Obama in the same manner (although I do not think it's depicting Obama at all)? Is it a racial issue to you anymore? Sure, I still think it is in bad taste but honestly, if one man can be portrayed as a chimp for several years over and over, why can't another? Are WE making it a racial issue all by ourselves? Here are some examples of what I found on the first google results page:
I will add again that I still think the cartoon was in bad taste, the chimp laying there dead, and so on - but I have a different reason for my distaste than I have seen anyone else talk about so far...But let's say it was about Obama - if the artist wanted to depict something like that, what should he have drawn instead? Obama himself laying there? Is the issue that the artist should not have displayed something like that at all, whether it was a chimp or an Obama-likeness or not? But if the above images can say that Bush looked like a chimp... well I will leave that open ended. Can I just say here that I looked at the offending cartoon several times today and do not see how it looks like Obama at all. If everyone looking at the picture automatically assumed that the chimp was Obama, who is the real racist?The cartoon says 'They'll have to find someone else to WRITE the next stimulus bill'. Did Obama write it? Ummmm no, he did not. So who is the chimp really? Is it Obama or is it a reference to the lawmakers, Senators, Congressmen and whoever else had a hand in WRITING the bill? Obama signed it, but he did not write it.
May I also point out that the cartoon was done in direct reference to the chimpanzee who was shot and killed by police after literally tearing a woman to pieces??? If anyone should be offended, it should be the family of the victim who is still in hospital in very serious condition.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
CO2 Regulation
EPA Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide and other Heat Trapping Gases (NY TIMES, link courtesy of The Drudge Report)
**********
Financial Times.com - rush to withdraw money from banks in Venezuala and Antigua
(this is totally a side note that I don't put much weight to for personal reasons, but 2 months ago my mother called me to tell me to watch the banks. She is in a large Christian ministry and one of their leaders claimed to have a 'vision' where major banks in a European country and in South America would crumble, along with possibly an Asian country. The leader warned that in his vision, people in other countries like the US suddenly found their banks were frozen as well and they could not withdraw any money for about 6 months. Again, this is not something I tend to believe in or follow (biblical vision claims), but I did make a mental note to watch and see what happens around the world just for the heck of it, so I thought I would pass that on).
**********
Financial Times.com - rush to withdraw money from banks in Venezuala and Antigua
(this is totally a side note that I don't put much weight to for personal reasons, but 2 months ago my mother called me to tell me to watch the banks. She is in a large Christian ministry and one of their leaders claimed to have a 'vision' where major banks in a European country and in South America would crumble, along with possibly an Asian country. The leader warned that in his vision, people in other countries like the US suddenly found their banks were frozen as well and they could not withdraw any money for about 6 months. Again, this is not something I tend to believe in or follow (biblical vision claims), but I did make a mental note to watch and see what happens around the world just for the heck of it, so I thought I would pass that on).
Bridging the Gap?
I am just wondering how replacing an old bridge at the cost of $8.5 million is going to stimulate the economy? The project will employ 25-30 people for 1-2 years. Is that stimulation? I thought perhaps it was a major trucking route that has been detoured around in the past and companies could then use the new route to shorten their trip and perhaps pay their truckers more, but it doesn't appear to be so from the reports I have read so far. Yes, the suppliers of the equipment and materials will have some work for a short time, the employees will be paid maybe up to $3 million all together for 2 years of work which they can then use to put back into the economy (only partially of course because union dues and taxes will be taken off). But.. that's about it. By sometime next year the bridge will be finished and then what? Apparently there are a few other plans in the works for that state, using the Stimulus package money - road resurfacing, passing lanes, and other pavement repair. Those are very short term projects and once they are finished, that's it - the money is gone, no more supplies are needed, the road workers are done, the equipment no longer needs to be run... so what's that? $50 million dollars spent on 1-2 years of work for a few hundred people at best in that State.
When I first heard about money being pumped into infrastructure by the billions, that was my reaction - "It only takes a couple of years to build these things, so what happens after that?". Now here is proof - a state proudly announcing it's immediate plan to hire 25-30 people for a job that is projected to be finished sometime in 2010. Is that long-term economic stimulus? It might help if all 30 employees happen to be in the mortgage crisis and this saves their homes, but what are the chances of that? It seems to me that infrastructure like road repairs and bridges are supposed to be covered by the state, not the federal govt. Tax payers in Missouri will be paying for all this twice, don't you think? They have already been paying property and state taxes that are supposed to fund these projects, and now they might well be paying more to cover the Stimulus bill on top. Something is not right here...
Maybe THIS can explain a few things.
When I first heard about money being pumped into infrastructure by the billions, that was my reaction - "It only takes a couple of years to build these things, so what happens after that?". Now here is proof - a state proudly announcing it's immediate plan to hire 25-30 people for a job that is projected to be finished sometime in 2010. Is that long-term economic stimulus? It might help if all 30 employees happen to be in the mortgage crisis and this saves their homes, but what are the chances of that? It seems to me that infrastructure like road repairs and bridges are supposed to be covered by the state, not the federal govt. Tax payers in Missouri will be paying for all this twice, don't you think? They have already been paying property and state taxes that are supposed to fund these projects, and now they might well be paying more to cover the Stimulus bill on top. Something is not right here...
Maybe THIS can explain a few things.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Committments
"No More Secrecy"
"when there's a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have 5 days to look online, to find out what's in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doin'"
-Barack Obama [quote from the above video clip]
Today's multi-billion dollar bill was signed 4.5 days after it was passed. The "most sweeping economic recovery package" in US history, was not available for the promised 5 days.
The $32.8 Children's Health Initiative bill was signed by the President just a few hours after it was passed.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed by the President without it being released online at all (not until after the signing).
So far, the only bill I can find that was signed after the promised campaign platforms was the Digital TV Bill, which was signed 6 days after being posted online for public comment. Was that as important as the economic stimulus package? Or the Children's Health Inititiative? Or the Fair Pay Act? The least important was given 6 days, the most important less than 5 days, and others either not posted at all or only posted for a few hours. Is it really too much to ask for politicians to keep up the promises they made to the very public who voted for them?
"when there's a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have 5 days to look online, to find out what's in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doin'"
-Barack Obama [quote from the above video clip]
Today's multi-billion dollar bill was signed 4.5 days after it was passed. The "most sweeping economic recovery package" in US history, was not available for the promised 5 days.
The $32.8 Children's Health Initiative bill was signed by the President just a few hours after it was passed.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed by the President without it being released online at all (not until after the signing).
So far, the only bill I can find that was signed after the promised campaign platforms was the Digital TV Bill, which was signed 6 days after being posted online for public comment. Was that as important as the economic stimulus package? Or the Children's Health Inititiative? Or the Fair Pay Act? The least important was given 6 days, the most important less than 5 days, and others either not posted at all or only posted for a few hours. Is it really too much to ask for politicians to keep up the promises they made to the very public who voted for them?
Derangement Syndromes
I have heard the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" many times over the years and understood the whole reasoning behind it - hating Bush just 'because', and pretty much hating him for everything he did or said no matter what it was. What I don't understand is how some people were so vocal about him in various blogs and forums, but are clamping their mouths shut tight about Obama so far. I read in a forum I have been a member of for years no end of anti-Bush talk over the 700 billion dollar bailouts he signed last year, but NOT ONE of those people has said a single word in the forum about the current package, or the 'next legs on the stool' that Pres Obama has been mentioning lately. NO ONE. Why not? If Bush was wrong to sign for 700 billion a few months ago, why isn't Obama wrong now? Why were those people bashing Bush left and right but keeping mum about Obama? Could this be further proof of Bush Derangement Syndrome? Or could it be that people are quietly thinking "oh oh, what did we do?" and are too embarrassed to admit it. I hear people now saying 'Give the guy a chance'. Really? Then why didn't they give Bush a chance a few months ago? Was it Bush Derangement Syndrome because it didn't matter anymore what Bush said, people were going to oppose it?
I was reading on Michelle Malkin's blog today and there is some pretty interesting stuff to go through over there, in reference to BDR and also Rush Derangement Syndrome.
I was reading on Michelle Malkin's blog today and there is some pretty interesting stuff to go through over there, in reference to BDR and also Rush Derangement Syndrome.
At The Mercy of 'Studies'
Many years ago, perhaps decades, people were told to be careful of how many eggs were included in their diets, due to the high cholesterol levels. New products featuring 'egg whites only' were put on the market to help people lower their cholesterol. I bought some of the Break-Free products myself because while my cholesterol has never tested high, I wanted to be careful. I used egg whites in cooking, scrambled egg breakfasts, etc. But several years ago I stopped doing that because I thought about how many thousands of years people have been eating eggs and I wondered if yet another study would eventually come out that says 'whoops, you can eat eggs safely, they don't actually increase cholesterol'. Well perhaps that time has arrived. A year ago, the Mayo Clinic website told people to use egg whites, avoiding the high-cholesterol yolks. Will more studies be done and every healthy eating site will have to change it's warnings about eggs?
This reminds me of how milk became another 'fat' source to be avoided years ago. I remember going for 1% and skim milk because I heard endlessly about how high-fat milk isn't good for you. But over the past year I have seen ads on tv suggesting that drinking milk helps you LOSE weight! What? The actors have nice thick milk moustaches that you can't get from watery skim milk... so what is going on?
It also reminds me of the study years ago that initially linked the MMR vaccine to Autism, but was later refuted numerous times. That study came out over 10 years ago but was heavily refuted more than 5 years ago, and I am still hearing parents say they don't want the vaccine because it 'causes autism'. Are childrens' health and lives at risk because of ONE study that made it's findings known irresponsibly?
How at risk are we of 'studies' that are not properly performed, so health warnings and dietary advice is given out, only to find out years later that it was wrong?
Now think about other 'studies' that are coming out and forcing us to change the way we are living, costing billions of dollars (Climate Change for example), while there has been no definitive proof to support the theories. Entire countries are changing their environmental laws based on studies that thousands are refuting, and we are paying for it out of our own pockets. There needs to be more accountability and less fear-mongering!
This reminds me of how milk became another 'fat' source to be avoided years ago. I remember going for 1% and skim milk because I heard endlessly about how high-fat milk isn't good for you. But over the past year I have seen ads on tv suggesting that drinking milk helps you LOSE weight! What? The actors have nice thick milk moustaches that you can't get from watery skim milk... so what is going on?
It also reminds me of the study years ago that initially linked the MMR vaccine to Autism, but was later refuted numerous times. That study came out over 10 years ago but was heavily refuted more than 5 years ago, and I am still hearing parents say they don't want the vaccine because it 'causes autism'. Are childrens' health and lives at risk because of ONE study that made it's findings known irresponsibly?
How at risk are we of 'studies' that are not properly performed, so health warnings and dietary advice is given out, only to find out years later that it was wrong?
Now think about other 'studies' that are coming out and forcing us to change the way we are living, costing billions of dollars (Climate Change for example), while there has been no definitive proof to support the theories. Entire countries are changing their environmental laws based on studies that thousands are refuting, and we are paying for it out of our own pockets. There needs to be more accountability and less fear-mongering!
Greenies
OH HOW I LAUGH at things like this. Do you know how many hours some people play WoW??? How about promoting saving home energy by having the game automatically switch off after 2 hours? See how well THAT green idea is accepted. The game totes some bullshit about possibly targeting groups of people in order to make them work as a team to use less energy in the game world? WHAT A CROCK. Meanwhile in the REAL world, their computer systems are running and draining REAL energy. Hello? Seriously?
*********
I realllllllllllly realllllllllly get tired of watching and listening to people who are pushing the 'stop using oil' campaigns. Yes I believe we should continue to find safer and cleaner ways to use oil, but have you noticed that a great many of the loudest activists are hyporcrites? Why would I say that? Because oil is used in pretty much every single solitary thing we use every single solitary day. Not to mention many activists flying or driving around the country to reach their destinations to speak out against oil manufacturing. That is so hypocritical it's not even funny. I have seen endless stories over the past few months where people are angry about, for example, CEOs arriving by jet to attend 'bail me out please' meetings. Endless reports of bailed-out companies going on retreats and spa days, wasting money. Well I'm sorry, but if the green activists arrive at a conference in any vehicle, are wearing clothes, carrying around a water bottle, etc then they are just as bad. Seriously, just think about it. Oil is used to make everything and then to transport everything we use. Computers, clothing, shampoo, televisions, radios, cameras, pens, paper, eye glasses, shoes, you name it - it was made or consists of oil. THIS LINK shows a partial list of petroleum products but also keep in mind that any food we eat (unless we grew it all in our own back yard) was also made using oil in some way - whether it was the machinery to collect it, process it, and transport it, or the utililties used to process, store, and keep it fresh. EVERYTHING we use today has come in contact with or contains oil.
That is why I am so tired of seeing people on the news, dressed in their suits, carrying a briefcase, driving a car, speaking into a microphone, using the media, etc to shout out that we need to stop using oil and find other ways and means for fuel. According to the above link and others that I checked, less than half of each barrel of oil is used for fuel, the rest is used for the clothes on our backs, the plastics we use every day, the microphone the speaker is yakking into.... So even if we did come up with an amazing form of green fuel to put into our cars, what about the other half of that barrel? And while you're at it, think about what fuel, equipment and supplies are used to make THAT green fuel. Hmmm.. could it be products made from the dreaded OIL? The whole thing is a farce to me. I have read so many blogs on the net from people who are screaming about alternative oils, and then another day they write about their FLIGHT to go on holiday. What? How dare they polute the very air they are trying to save. How dare they criticize others and then hop on a plane to contribute to the polluted skies. HYPOCRITES.
I saw a t-shirt a few months ago that said "If you Bought it, a trucker Brought it" and that reinforced my thinking even more. If you shop at a grocery store, how did the food get there? How did the packaging get put on? How was the food processed? How was it collected in the first place (ie: gas and diesel guzzling farm machinery for wheat crops)? How was the shopping cart you are pushing made? Every single thing comes from oil or is available because of oil. Until I see a prominent activist walking to a conference, wearing a hand-made from scratch ensemble instead of a suit, chewing on a carrot he picked from his own garden, wearing hand-sewn hemp boots (no machinery involved), and refusing to enter the oil-infested conference room in favour of the grassy lawn out front, I will feel no respect for them.
Yes we need to keep working on greener ideas but the answer is not to stop it's use all together is it? What would the world look like right now if oil had not been discovered and manufactured? Mud huts with thatched roofing? Cobblestone walkways, loin cloths, bark sandals? It is repulsive to me that leaders will FLY to world confernces on Save The Planet. It is revolting to me to listen to musicians cry out about saving the earth while using God only knows how much electricity to run their concerts and who the hell knows how much oil for their cds, equipment, homes, clothing... REPULSIVE and HYPOCRITICAL to say the very least.
*********
While trolling the net for links on 'ending our dependence on oil', I really only ran into things related to transportation (automobiles, etc). So I ask again, what about the OTHER HALF of every barrel of oil? Is it 'ending our dependence' when every other friggin thing is made with oil in some way or another? WAKE UP. It's important to note that I could only access this information by using a Computer (made with oil, transported to me with oil, using up precious utilities also run by oil), or I suppose I could hop on the bus (made with oil) to the library (built with oil) and find a paper copy (made with oil) instead? It's pretty damn cold out so I better put on my parka and boots (made with oil) before I leave my house (made with oil).... It's not just emissions that some people are talking about, they are talking about halting drilling, stopping the use of oil and our dependence on it. Listen to their wording - some say 'reduce' our dependence, some say 'end' our dependence.
**********
Ethanol... still a mystery to me.
I watched a 20 minute long program recently about an ethanol plant in Ontario. It talked endlessly of the environmental benefits, using wheat and sometimes corn, to create the fuel. But not once did it mention HOW MUCH of those crops was needed to make a substantial amount of fuel. I went to the Govt of Canada website for Ethanol and ran into the same problem. And again with the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association site. I noticed a few interesting things tho - it announces that Canada is 'well on it's way' to reaching the 5% renewable fuel standard, but also says it is now producing 1 billion litres per year (across Canada with numerous plants). If 1 billion litres a year is not even 5% of the fuel we use per annum, how much would we need to make a huge impact? Apparently this amount is equivalent to removing 1 million cars from Canadian roads (regarding enviromental impact). According to Stats Canada there were almost 17 million cars registered in Canada in 2000 and over half a million trucks, so that would be about a 6% change in emissions. Not that it's a bad thing, but if we are only at 5-6% change after all these years of increasing Ethanol production, is it really plausible to even reach 20% or 50%, let alone 100% like some people call for?
What I want to know is, how many crops are razed for Ethanol production???? If you were a farmer and had to feed your family but also sold your crops for Flour processing (to be used in countless foods around the country), and someone came along and offered you more money if you sold your crops for Ethanol, would you do it? What if this Clean Fuel business comes down to choosing between feeding people and reducing emissions? It gets called a renewable resource, but a bad year for crops cripples foods as it is, so add Ethanol fuels to that and what happens? Is it saving us at all? Is it really? It's a good idea at heart but is it REALISTIC? Long drought or extra damp weather and suddenly this renewable resourse isn't all that great. Then what - do you choose between making the wheat available to citizens for food, or do you send it off to the ethanol plant so we can all drive around? How expensive would food AND fuel be during and after a rough crop season? Why don't I hear people asking these questions??? All I hear is 'oh wow, that is great, Save the Planet'.
*********
I realllllllllllly realllllllllly get tired of watching and listening to people who are pushing the 'stop using oil' campaigns. Yes I believe we should continue to find safer and cleaner ways to use oil, but have you noticed that a great many of the loudest activists are hyporcrites? Why would I say that? Because oil is used in pretty much every single solitary thing we use every single solitary day. Not to mention many activists flying or driving around the country to reach their destinations to speak out against oil manufacturing. That is so hypocritical it's not even funny. I have seen endless stories over the past few months where people are angry about, for example, CEOs arriving by jet to attend 'bail me out please' meetings. Endless reports of bailed-out companies going on retreats and spa days, wasting money. Well I'm sorry, but if the green activists arrive at a conference in any vehicle, are wearing clothes, carrying around a water bottle, etc then they are just as bad. Seriously, just think about it. Oil is used to make everything and then to transport everything we use. Computers, clothing, shampoo, televisions, radios, cameras, pens, paper, eye glasses, shoes, you name it - it was made or consists of oil. THIS LINK shows a partial list of petroleum products but also keep in mind that any food we eat (unless we grew it all in our own back yard) was also made using oil in some way - whether it was the machinery to collect it, process it, and transport it, or the utililties used to process, store, and keep it fresh. EVERYTHING we use today has come in contact with or contains oil.
That is why I am so tired of seeing people on the news, dressed in their suits, carrying a briefcase, driving a car, speaking into a microphone, using the media, etc to shout out that we need to stop using oil and find other ways and means for fuel. According to the above link and others that I checked, less than half of each barrel of oil is used for fuel, the rest is used for the clothes on our backs, the plastics we use every day, the microphone the speaker is yakking into.... So even if we did come up with an amazing form of green fuel to put into our cars, what about the other half of that barrel? And while you're at it, think about what fuel, equipment and supplies are used to make THAT green fuel. Hmmm.. could it be products made from the dreaded OIL? The whole thing is a farce to me. I have read so many blogs on the net from people who are screaming about alternative oils, and then another day they write about their FLIGHT to go on holiday. What? How dare they polute the very air they are trying to save. How dare they criticize others and then hop on a plane to contribute to the polluted skies. HYPOCRITES.
I saw a t-shirt a few months ago that said "If you Bought it, a trucker Brought it" and that reinforced my thinking even more. If you shop at a grocery store, how did the food get there? How did the packaging get put on? How was the food processed? How was it collected in the first place (ie: gas and diesel guzzling farm machinery for wheat crops)? How was the shopping cart you are pushing made? Every single thing comes from oil or is available because of oil. Until I see a prominent activist walking to a conference, wearing a hand-made from scratch ensemble instead of a suit, chewing on a carrot he picked from his own garden, wearing hand-sewn hemp boots (no machinery involved), and refusing to enter the oil-infested conference room in favour of the grassy lawn out front, I will feel no respect for them.
Yes we need to keep working on greener ideas but the answer is not to stop it's use all together is it? What would the world look like right now if oil had not been discovered and manufactured? Mud huts with thatched roofing? Cobblestone walkways, loin cloths, bark sandals? It is repulsive to me that leaders will FLY to world confernces on Save The Planet. It is revolting to me to listen to musicians cry out about saving the earth while using God only knows how much electricity to run their concerts and who the hell knows how much oil for their cds, equipment, homes, clothing... REPULSIVE and HYPOCRITICAL to say the very least.
*********
While trolling the net for links on 'ending our dependence on oil', I really only ran into things related to transportation (automobiles, etc). So I ask again, what about the OTHER HALF of every barrel of oil? Is it 'ending our dependence' when every other friggin thing is made with oil in some way or another? WAKE UP. It's important to note that I could only access this information by using a Computer (made with oil, transported to me with oil, using up precious utilities also run by oil), or I suppose I could hop on the bus (made with oil) to the library (built with oil) and find a paper copy (made with oil) instead? It's pretty damn cold out so I better put on my parka and boots (made with oil) before I leave my house (made with oil).... It's not just emissions that some people are talking about, they are talking about halting drilling, stopping the use of oil and our dependence on it. Listen to their wording - some say 'reduce' our dependence, some say 'end' our dependence.
**********
Ethanol... still a mystery to me.
I watched a 20 minute long program recently about an ethanol plant in Ontario. It talked endlessly of the environmental benefits, using wheat and sometimes corn, to create the fuel. But not once did it mention HOW MUCH of those crops was needed to make a substantial amount of fuel. I went to the Govt of Canada website for Ethanol and ran into the same problem. And again with the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association site. I noticed a few interesting things tho - it announces that Canada is 'well on it's way' to reaching the 5% renewable fuel standard, but also says it is now producing 1 billion litres per year (across Canada with numerous plants). If 1 billion litres a year is not even 5% of the fuel we use per annum, how much would we need to make a huge impact? Apparently this amount is equivalent to removing 1 million cars from Canadian roads (regarding enviromental impact). According to Stats Canada there were almost 17 million cars registered in Canada in 2000 and over half a million trucks, so that would be about a 6% change in emissions. Not that it's a bad thing, but if we are only at 5-6% change after all these years of increasing Ethanol production, is it really plausible to even reach 20% or 50%, let alone 100% like some people call for?
What I want to know is, how many crops are razed for Ethanol production???? If you were a farmer and had to feed your family but also sold your crops for Flour processing (to be used in countless foods around the country), and someone came along and offered you more money if you sold your crops for Ethanol, would you do it? What if this Clean Fuel business comes down to choosing between feeding people and reducing emissions? It gets called a renewable resource, but a bad year for crops cripples foods as it is, so add Ethanol fuels to that and what happens? Is it saving us at all? Is it really? It's a good idea at heart but is it REALISTIC? Long drought or extra damp weather and suddenly this renewable resourse isn't all that great. Then what - do you choose between making the wheat available to citizens for food, or do you send it off to the ethanol plant so we can all drive around? How expensive would food AND fuel be during and after a rough crop season? Why don't I hear people asking these questions??? All I hear is 'oh wow, that is great, Save the Planet'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)