Do any families balance their budgets anywhere other than the kitchen table?
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
No.
When I balance the family budget I have to drag a table into the kitchen, and then lug the computer over to the table. It’s pretty labor intensive, but it’s the only way to do it.
On the other hand I usually balance the budget for my hedge fund in the aviary or the library. Ha! Just kidding, I never balance the budget for the hedge fund! Hedge funds don’t even have budgets!
This post discriminates against those of us that don’t have families!!!
Kidding of course.
Balance the family budget? Why bother? I can always get a loan against the ever-increasing value of my house, right?
Don’t worry, guys, the GOP has effectively rendered the entire concept of money essentially meaningless. Their idea is they will have it all, and you will have none.
When Republicans talk about “freedom” what they really mean is they want the freedom to pick your pockets without hindrance. Their concept of a “liberty” is living in bandit society in which they get to be the bandits, and there is no government, no regulation, and no law enforcement to interfere with their banditry.
It’s much easier to balance your family budget if you don’t borrow any money and don’t spend any money. Sorry, banks, but I don’t need you. And I don’t need you Republican business owners, either. You have nothing I want.
I use finance software and the Internets. Much easier.
Too many people work at jobs they hate to earn money they don’t need to buy things they don’t want to impress people they don’t like. I don’t see any sense in that.
@8
Roger, do you have any friends?
@8
Hey, RR stop ripping off Carlin!
Pelletizer your party is in charge, remember?
We have more to fear than WA’s unbalanced socialist budget itself. We also have an unemployment rate that’s movin’ on up with socialist Oregon’s. Ours is high, higher than the national average, and Oregon’s is even worse, almost up to the level of socialist France.
So riddle me this: Two years ago scholars asserted that, compared to reactionary Idaho, WA had a better business climate. Despite our socialism, despite our B&O, despite our unprecedented minimum wage, conservative whimpers about our impending doom were unhinged. WA, compared to backward Idaho, was a great place to do business and to get a job.
So Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! Why is Idaho’s rate of unemployment almost 25 percent lower than ours? Almost 40 percent lower than Oregon’s? Why is red-white-and-blue Idaho kicking our pink commie asses?
Toljah. About the minute Rush started ragging on our crashing Dow, the Dow promptly jumped for the stars. Almost made it to Dow 36000. But every Dead Rabbit Bounce Bounce Bounce has to end end end, so here we go again, unless Rush repeats his riff from last week about the Obama Crash of 2008.
One throw-away line on NPR this morning, in the top-of-the-hour muddle before they got to the main event, Evil & AIG. The throw-away line was about one throw-away line in the recent Democrat stimulus package, AKA the Rush/Cynical Porkulus Package.
It seems that the porked-up partisan stimulus bill contains a line that guarantees payment of previously contracted retention bonuses to TARP corps that are too big to fail. Ergo:
– Granny Pelosi, the chimp, wrote the stimulus bill that guarantees AIG’s multi-million bonuses;
– Democrats (NPR says they had no time to read the bill before passing it) passed the bill;
– Democrat Obama, who promised transparancy and ample time for review of the legislation, gave mere hours instead of promised days for public scrutiny of Pelosi’s 1000+ pages;
– Democrat Obama signed chimp Pelosi’s stimulative bill, and was subsequently stimulated. So was AIG. It got Obama’s green light to go ahead with contract6ual bonuses, paid with our money.
Makes me proud to be a taxpayer and a jackass Democrat.
Puddy–
Pelletizer’s KLOWNS double the speed of the money printing press…and blame the R’s.
Hey Rog—America ain’t buying it.
Dodd drafts the Bill allowing AIG bonuses…jams it thru,,, Obama gladly signs it.
Then the contractual bonuses get paid and the 2 KLOWNS jump up and down feigning anger??
What a bunch of…….KLOWNS!
Too Damn Funny!
I can’t balance my budget in the kitchen I no longer have. I now use a steam grate on 3rd Avenue to review my finances.
Cynical, it’s even worse.
www . salon . com /opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html
“That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible — including writing and advocating for an amendment — which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd’s proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed . The exemption for already existing compensation agreements — the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments — was inserted at the White House’s insistence and over Dodd’s objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption”
And here is the latest on kos kook-aid. To them everything is a right-wing smear. You see were the maggot infested brain of HAs clueless wonder gets his daily maggot infestation.
” the WH, not the RW blamed Dodd (0+ / 0-)
It wasn’t a RW smear, they didn’t need it:
The administration official said the Treasury Department did its own legal analysis and concluded that those contracts could not be broken. The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place.
What we do know is that a handful of congress people and an agreeable administration put this through and are now lying about it, and alternately covering up for each other and casting blame at others. so, who really ares if Dodd or someone else actually inserted the amendment? THEY know and they aren’t telling. Screw ’em all. Besides Dodd’s other behavior with countrywide is enough for me to call him a corrupt has been.
by Mister T on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 08:26:36 AM PDT”
www . dailykos . com /story/2009/3/17/709636/-Dodd
Democratics – masters of the blame game…
12: If you check out the various states, you will find that the more rural they are, the lower their unemployment numbers. Of course, if you check out their income numbers, you will see that their per-capita earning levels tend to be very low. Since these two trends tend to go against one another, I did a little investigating a few months ago to try to reconcile these figures.
First of all, you have to realize that in order to be counted as “unemployed”, you have to be counted as someone “looking for work”. The way the government does that is that it counts the number of people currently collecting unemployment benefits (who are required by law to be looking for work). So this excludes quite a few people: those who weren’t covered by unemployement insurance for one reason or another: church employees, part-time jobs, insufficient # weeks previously employed, just entering (or re-entering) the work force, previously self-employed, working in a family business such as a family farm, or those who’s unemployement benefits have simply expired. You also have people who don’t even try to find a job because they are discouraged by the economic situation in general. These people are still unemployed, they just aren’t counted.
In rural areas, those “not counted” tend to be the rule, rather than the exception. In rural areas jobs paying a regular wage or salary are rather few and far between, and the way to get those jobs is to know somebody who can get you hired there. Otherwise, you end up working on the family farm or in the family business, or you go into business yourself and try to live off whatever you can make in the process.
Now, anyone can register with the state employment offices to look for work, regardless of whether they are collecting benefits. If they did so, they would be counted as “unemployed”. But very few people actually do so. Most employers don’t use the state employment offices to look for employees anyway, and those seeking work don’t have to “register” unless they see a job listed to which they can be referred. So this category doesn’t significantly increasse the number of people counted as looking for work.
The end result is that due to the general shortage of jobs in rural areas and their comparitavly low wages has resulted in a steady migration of workers from rural areas to the more urban ones. You can see it throughout the state and the country, regardless of tax policies or rates. Rural areas have seen a steady decline of population, especially among children and young adults, resulting in quite a bit of contraction in the rural school districts. This migration is aggravated when economic hardships make it apparant that there simply aren’t any jobs available in the rural areas, and there aren’t likely to be any available in the foreseeable future.
Go to page 50 of Elizabeth Kolbert’s book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, and you’ll see a graph that Al Gore would love. It shows an armageddon spike in Greenland temperature, a spike that began … 8000 years ago. That’s about 7750 years before the carbon-based Industrial Revolution.
ArtFartBlossom, who is really Karl Rove, questions my solicitude for Kolbert’s context. He/she/it should look at Kolbert’s book, and should check text and context at the source. Will gladly lend my copy.
Art Rove questions my credentials. No atmospheric science/climatology degree here, and probably not there, either. Doubt that Kolbert, a Gorebasm cheerleader, is credentialed. Nor is Gore. Word on the street is that he flunked out of law school and dropped out of God school.
Bjorn Lomborg isn’t a climatologist, so perhaps that’s why he asserts that there’s measurable anthropogenic global warming, but not enough to justify the diversion of resources to its amelioration. (And who/whom did Scientific American select to refute Lomborg’s refutation of fashionable Gorebasm hysteria? Paul Ehrlich who, I believe, has a degree in bugs.
Roy Spencer is a credentialed climatologist. He helped put climate-measuring satellites in space, and he says there’s a slight blip in warming since the catastrophic global cooling of the 1970s, and that there’s more CO2. But there’s no measurable link between the two. In fact, it’s likely that warming happens first, due to the usual cycles, and then CO2 shows an increase, probably due to roiling carbon sinks we call oceans.
Faith-based Democrats — many of whom have a fanatic faith in sciences they don’t understand — are pushing the orthodoxy of warming because the orthodoxy is a Marxist wedge in a post-Marxist world. But that’s just my opinion, and I don’t have a degree in Marxism. I’m a born-again Democrat, though, and I know how we play the game
Thanks for your thoughtful thoughts. Ich verstehe the current regime for putting together unemployment stats … that’s why I rather recently mentioned the ‘chronics’ who don’t get counted. The chronically unemployed, who’ve run out their 13/26 weeks, fall through the cracks.
So maybe there is a little rural bias in the chronically uncounted.
But wouldn’t that bias have been working two years ago when cheerleaders for WA’s socialism and for WA’s unprecedented minimum wage were doing a compare and contrast side-by-side between us and Idaho? And finding that WA was winning the comparison?
Here’s a better question for you: Thomas Woods Jr, a conservative Hayak libertarian, and Geov Parrish, a diz-brain radical, have recently mentioned an unrecent change in calculating unemployment. Both aver that, using the formulaa of the 1970s, current unemployment would be about 16 percent.
What changed?