Used to be that I thought I’d seen it all. Nothing seemed to surprise me. But lately, I am simply amazed more often than not.
“I am not a witch”. Which witch?
Take for instance the candidate who denies she’s a witch. Why would anyone running for the governorship in the United States feel it necessary to do that. And just in time for Halloween. What kind of inference can you draw from that?
Say NO to a la carte government services
Then there’s the fire house that didn’t respond to a man’s burning house. He hadn’t paid his $75 fee. A rule is a rule but how shortsighted can it be? It might cost the county and the local government a whole lot more. The son was arrested and the county will have to pay the costs for incarceration and of course the legal and court time. If he gets convicted and has a record he may not be able to find work. He then becomes a welfare casualty costing the state even more.
The bigger problem may be that the insurance company refuses a claim based on the man not paying the fee. He still presumably pays real estate taxes which typically cover that service. If the insurance company balks the man will have to spend resources legally fighting the insurance company and paying for alternative shelter, resources that could be put to more productive efforts within the local community.
Having trouble how the city of South Fulton can justify this add on fee? Why wasn’t it mandatory? Isn’t it irresponsible of the county’s citizens not to have instituted a county wide fire department to handle these kind of emergencies? If they don’t have enough money to fight fires I trust they’re not spending it on lavish offices for the administrators that enforce the “rules”. The additional cost for the $75 billing and bookkeeping alone certainly makes it questionable.
Imagine a traffic light fee of $75 that a driver didn’t pay and now he refuses to pay attention to the red lights. He feels they’re “unnecessary”. No one should want discretionary a la carte government services of the human safety kind. I can’t believe how mortgage lenders are dealing with this as their collateral is being subjected to a big risk. This is true even for the homeowner that did pay as the neighbor of the man whose house burned down can now testify. His property, his home was in peril because there was a decision made to not fight the blaze next door.
Government’s main purpose is to provide for the safety of its citizens. And it should do so efficiently. Otherwise, there is anarchy.
OK, we don’t want kids anywhere!
Then there is the “mosquito”. A nasty little device that produces a series of high pitched beeps aimed at those aged between 13 and 25 year in a devious effort to disperse them from wherever the “mosquito” is placed. Places “like skateboard parks, tennis courts, and playgrounds — all spots where one would expect to find teenagers and young adults.” Where are we having all these young people go? Probably where we really don’t want them to…
Even though I already made a million…
The title of the article is misleading as it suggests these people had a million dollars of net worth. Not exactly.
According to U.S. Internal Revenue Service data, 2,840 households reporting at least $1 million in income on their tax returns that year also collected a total of $18.6 million in jobless aid.
What? Their incomes were north of a million so they probably had a net worth greater than a million. I imagine some of them didn’t work nearly a whole year before getting “laid off”.
More than 800 taxpayers additionally had incomes over $2 million and some with incomes over $10 million file for unemployment compensation. Isn’t there a better way to screw your old employer than to file for unemployment when your tax bill is bigger than 98% of most American’s income?
I wonder if these were some of the politicians who lost their seats in 2008 and had voted against extending unemployment benefits. Wouldn’t that just be dandy?
Still expecting that free lunch
“Yet there’s more than a little contradiction in the position politicians and voters alike seem to be taking. We invited Yahoo! readers to give their views on federal spending in Ask America, a nonscientific polling forum, and many expressed concern — in some cases outrage — about the deficit. At the same time, however, many also focused as much on what not to cut as they did on the hard choices that must be made.”
The old “not in my back yard” attitude. Want their cake and eat it too. “Cut spending, but not if it takes money from what’s nearest and dearest to me.” Cut taxes but I want the same level of services. Here, let me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Here’s the question that was posed to nearly 23,000 people: “Which is more important now — spending to keep the economy growing, or cutting back government spending to bring the deficit under control?”
And here are some of the telling replies:
“Unless of course you intend to cut back on anything my family needs. … This is an easy position to take until it impacts you.”
“Why not start by cutting some of the free housing in every town in America for the deadbeats along with Medicaid, utility assistance, free dental, free health, etc. Leave my Social Security alone”
Despite overwhelming consensus to cut spending there were other contradictions:
- 58 percent said they support government spending to develop new energy sources.
- 70 percent said they think new government investment in the country’s infrastructure will help boost the economy over the long haul.
- 68 percent said the government should fund job-training programs.
- 74 percent said it should support the manufacturing sector.
Increase spending like that and still cut spending. And oh yeah, cut taxes too. Time for another rabbit…
“Maybe it’s human nature to look for something — or someone — to blame when circumstances get difficult. But it doesn’t make the solutions any easier.” There’s plenty to blame our politicians for, whether they’re denying witchcraft or not. Sometimes its best to just look in the mirror and see who’s staring back.