Tuesday, October 28, 2008

If You Like It So Much, Why Don't You Try It?

From Cafe Hayek:
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

h/t to John in IL

Friday, October 24, 2008

Hip-Deep in Hypocrisy

Today's latest whine from "Equality" California, the Democrat shill gay liberal group agitating against California's Proposition 8: people are being mean to our donors!
Yesterday, donors and supporters of Equality California began receiving threatening letters from the "Yes on 8" campaign leadership.

These letters threatened to "expose" the donors listed on our website if they don't donate to the "Yes on 8" campaign and refrain from supporting Equality California in the future.

That's how low the other side is willing to go. They are willing to threaten organizations and other donors who support efforts to protect youth and seniors, as a way to raise money in their effort to eliminate our right to marry.

Now keep in mind that these are the same people who:
-- Sent out donor lists from their opponents encouraging people to go find "dirt".

-- Organized publicity campaigns and boycotts against businesses that gave money to their opponents and not to them.

-- Set up websites publicizing the names and addresses of those who had signed voter petitions that they opposed in the name of "exposing" them.

But of course, when other people do the same to them, it's called "threats and blackmail".

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Consistency? Who Needs Consistency?

The most effective ad of the Yes on 8 campaign for California's Proposition 8 so far has been the one in which they bring up the likelihood that churches and individuals will be sued and personally harassed for their beliefs about homosexuality.

Therefore, the obviously intelligent and well-thought-out response by gay liberals has been.....to personally harass those religious people who express their beliefs about homosexuality.

So what am I asking you to do?

Some distributed research.

There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here's a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here's what I'm asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign--donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars. And, as you can see, there are a lot of them. It also indicates if they're Mormon or not.

If you're interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here's how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Interestingly enough, this is no garden-variety gay idiot; turns out he's a supporter of Barack Obama and rather well-connected in the California Democrat Party. It seems he's even been going door-to-door in Nevada telling people all about how the Democrat Party and Barack Obama respect their religious beliefs and their right to express them as they see fit.

All while he's calling for his fellow Obama supporters to carry out jihad against Mormons and the LDS Church.


Friday, October 17, 2008

Friday Schadenfreude

There's just something vaguely ironic about seeing those who argue for producing idiots reap the consequences of doing it.

Friday, October 10, 2008

The Other Options Were MUCH Uglier

Thank goodness they picked this one.

And of course I'm being obscure. You should click on links and broaden your minds. :)

Saturday, October 04, 2008

What Exactly Defines "Fairness"?

This is why, whenever I hear politicians whine about forcing the rich to pay their "fair share", I just laugh.
New statistics from the Internal Revenue Service show that the highest-earning 1% of taxpayers in America make 22.06% of all income reported to the government. That's almost twice the 12.51% of total income earned collectively by the lowest-earning 50% of workers. Yes, 1.4 million taxpayers claim 22% of income earned while 68 million share just 12.5%.

But get this: When it comes to taxes paid, an even wider discrepancy shows itself, in reverse. Those earners in the top 1% pay 39.89% of all federal individual income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay just 2.99% of those taxes.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Quote of the Day

From last night's debate:
"Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe."

Or, put differently, Obama supports people taking out mortgages they can't pay, then having a judge arbitrarily cancel the debt and force the bank to take a loss.

Aside from the ludicrousness of this from a financial standpoint -- as in, the reason why secured debt like mortgages and car loans from which you can't just walk away in bankruptcy have lower interest rates than do unsecured loans from which you can -- there's this whole other matter of what kind of behavior you're rewarding.

In other words, go buy that $400k house you can't afford; you can declare bankruptcy, ask a judge to reduce it to $200k so you can "afford" it, and have instant equity of $200k.

Meanwhile, that sucker next door to you with a similar house who pays his debts, well.....that's his fault for being responsible.

Update: Corrupt leftist Democrat Maxine Waters confirms even worse.
"When we buy up this toxic paper, we're in charge. We can do the kind of loan modifications we've been urging [the industry coalition] Hope Now to get done. ... We'll be able to set some standards," Waters said during the floor debate.

Put bluntly, what Maxine wants to do is to buy the mortgage the homeowner took out that they couldn't afford for $400k and reduce it to $200k so the homeowner can "afford" it -- meaning you, the taxpayer, eats that remaining $200k.

Again. You didn't overestimate your capabilities. You didn't take out the mortgage. You didn't start skipping payments. You didn't get in over your head.

But as a taxpayer, you are going to pay for all the people who did. They are going to get free equity, and you are going to get stuck with the bill.