A new hero arises . . . . (Here we go again)

Okay, ENOUGH of the politically pushed praise articles about Elizabeth Warren praising her (FINALLY) common sense, no fear approach to the class warfare argument.  Please.  It's the same punish the rich song and dance just sugar-coated for the masses.  YES, the rich company owners/founders built their empire "moving their goods on roads the REST OF US paid for" (Did you see that?  Them vs. us?  What is that?  YOU used US? And oh, yes, those of us who AREN'T rich also use the roads WE and THEY paid for.)  "Safe IN YOUR FACTORY because of the police and fire forces THE REST OF US paid for."  I've heard that last bit before, word for word.  Oh, yeah, just the line before, and last I checked, the police and fire forces protected THE REST OF US as well.  In fact, they protect us ALL. Including the factory owners who ALSO paid taxes for that.  See, that's the point.  They DO pay taxes, and they DO pay a higher rate than MOST of us.  It's just that Obama, Warren, and their like minded politicians feel that they must be punished for being TOO successful and pay even MORE so they (the politicians) can give away more money to their own designated recipients.  Which probably DON'T include MOST of the "rest of us".

Now.  I'm probably going to be instantly and automatically classified by most of the folks who blindly go along with whatever their party or favorite political personality say I should be classified as.

Well, you're wrong. Completely.  I guarantee it.

While I don't think ANY tax increases are appropriate at this point in time due to the economy, that also DOESN'T mean I feel that "the rich" (Sorry for the quotes, but I'm fairly certain I don't agree with the current Administration and Power Structures definition of rich) should not pay taxes.  However, I also don't feel that it should be up to politicians to decide what the official dollar amount you become "the Rich" and what the "fair share" is.  Please.  from their perspective, the more money THEY get, the more votes they can buy. (Note:  I didn't mention political party here.  One party or the other MAY be more or less guilty at one TIME or another, but they BOTH do it.)

I'm nearly getting sidetracked.  Okay.  She's NOT saying anything that hasn't been said before regarding rich vs. poor.  She just says it more politely, and maybe even a bit less masked.  Still.  It's the same song and dance.

My thoughts?  (Not that EITHER side will go this way).  Leave the taxes exactly where they are.  If you want to TRULY cut the deficit, then STOP spending more than we take in.  Even with the 1.2 TRILLION tax increase Obama proposed and Warren is (Nicely) agreeing with, it's basically STILL increasing taxes AND increasing spending.  The proposed cuts are merely cuts in the amount of increased spending.  Not a true cut.  Heck, a FREEZE at current spending levels would be better.  But of course, it wouldn't create more GOVERNMENT SEIU jobs, thereby creating MORE dues revenue, thereby creating more money for political donations.  Connect the dots.

And yes.  The dots are there for the other side as well.  I'm working on those.

I just wish I didn't have to DO dot connection for either party.

I've come to the conclusion that in reality, the Washington politicians are (Most, not all) only intrested in job creation/saving for their OWN hide/party.

A friend posted a link to a "Rich" person's thoughts that AREN'T Buffet's own self serving rants. (Want to pay more taxes, there's a form for that that DOESN'T involve raising them for everyone.  Go ahead and fill it out for your OWN self. :)  )  While I don't agree with all of it, it's more reality based than anything Buffet, Warren, and Obama could even think.  Here it is (Thanks Dave!):  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-cuban/mark-cuban-government-taxes_b_974009.html

New challenges, new perspectives.

Life has a way of making you appreciate things in a new way.  Especially starting up a new job in a field you haven't been in before.  It's enough to think "Wow, I haven't done this before but they believe I can do this. (Not factoring in your OWN thoughts that you MIGHT be able to handle this, otherwise you wouldn't have applied).  It's that rush after the first day that you've gone through both stumbles AND successes that you see that  "Wow.  I thought I MIGHT have it in me, but it turns out I really DO!"   Sounds like an insignificant thing, but sometimes the direction you're headed is so far from what you've done it's more of a milestone.  It gives validation to the saying that if you believe in yourself, you can accomplish what you set your mind to and do it successfully.  I didn't do everything perfectly, heck, I stumbled MAJORLY in the first "trial by fire", but I held together, regrouped, and nailed the second one.

Never give up.  Push yourself.  If you want, TAKE a different path.  Experts will judge you both fit and unfit.  That's their opinion.  If you want to try the path, persevere and work.  Maybe it's ultimately where you don't want to go, maybe it is.  At least you put your full effort into it.

One day down.  Several successes and one "face plant".  Day two is coming up.  I believe it'll be a full success.   Confidence in learning from both the successes and stumbles.  That's the way to make the most of the challenge.  After all, life is boring without challenges.  And THAT'S really what people look for.  EVERYONE is going to trip up somewhere along the line.  It's how you learn and adapt to that that determines the true long-term successes.  Also, if I don't believe in success, I must be expecting FULL failure.  Really?  Is THAT any way to live?  It's the mistakes that make us stronger and better.  Be thankful when they are few and far between, but also, take note when they happen and learn from them.  Don't give up because of them.  Adapt.  Learn.  Improve.  Strengthen.  My GOD, I sound like one of those motivational "gurus" on that last one.  Still.  There's truth in those words.

Bottom line.  Stay with it for as long as you can.  You may surprise even yourself. :)

Okay, Roster settled, Championship season commences!

Well, okay, got the over the top fan hopefulness out of the way quickly.     The preseason CERTAINLY spotlighted a few, shall we say, WEAKNESSES.  I'm hoping the O-Line gels quickly.  Jackson can scramble and make plays that way, but come on, give the guy a break or two.  And as for his backup, well, Whitehurst looks better than before, but still, unless that line solidifies, he's toast too.  Nothing like finishing a season with your third-stringer (no matter how promising he is) to get that High first round pick!

I'm actually hopeful that while these guys probably aren't Super Bowl ready yet (HUGE understatement), being based in the NFC West, they could certainly make some noise.  Repeat division champs?  Maybe.  All the teams in there have issues.  I think some people will be surprised by the Hawks.  Obviously they're building for the future.  So are the other teams in the division.  They aren't the strongest division in the NFL by a long shot CURRENTLY, but I'd say look out in the next season or two.  The teams and their evolving coaching staffs are making for an interesting future.

And it's starting this coming week!

Go Hawks!!

Names and Labels

So.  What makes someone rich?  What makes someone "Evil rich"?  Are they one and the same?  Is it a specific dollar amount?  Does it change with the economy?  IN a good economy, is someone "Filthy, evil rich" if they make $500 Million?  $500 Thousand?  In a poor economy does that number drop?  Down to $250Thousand even?  IF so, WHO is the person or group that decides this?  IS it people in DC that themselves make MILLIONS?  IS it everyday people like US? (Already answer this one: NO, it isn't)  Why is it that the answer to ALL the economic woes is to go find out who's making the most and try to take as much of it as we can from them so we can continue to spend more than we bring in.  Always, the answer for the debt problem is to FIRST tax the rich, THEN (If we still need to) cut only the increases in the budget.  And if it's NOT enough top continue the increases, go back and tax the rich even more.  I mean, hey, it's safe, the poor and middle class WANT to stick it to the rich.  Right?

Problem is, it's also the rich who provide the jobs for the middle and low income folks.  Tax them enough and they themselves have to start adjusting things.  Stopping expansion plans for small to mid level businesses. Maybe hiring only 5 people instead of the 10 they though they needed.  And how does this effect the people who raised the taxes?  Well, not a bit financially.  They still get their congressional, senatorial, and Presidential salaries, no matter how many businesses slow hiring, stop hiring, or even shut down due to the business climate.

And when it's time to get "rehired"?  Out comes the class warfare saying it's all the "rich" hogging the money that's causing the joblessness.  Or blaming a previous administration that's been out of the White House for nearly three years.  We're WELL into the time frame where the CURRENT administration's policies are directing the economy, so there can and should be NO more finger pointing.  If things aren't working, own up to it and change direction.   It's called adapting to the current situation.  It's what intelligent people do.  Recognize successes AND failures and make necessary changes.  Sometimes they might not be what you wanted, but they MAY be necessary.

Why is it we're asked to understand that the ONLY way out of this mess is if the government is allowed to borrow more solely to be able to SPEND more, instead of trying to make REAL cuts.  And by REAL cuts I don't mean in decreasing the amount of the increase.  I mean first freezing things at the current level (Like a corporation suspending pay increases to get through a tough time)  and then, CUTTING those areas that aren't "Mission Critical".

Defense?  Sure, there's probably some stuff that's non-essential, or can be put off for a few years til we get our feet under us. Military pay is NOT one of those, and there are probably some development programs we need to keep.  But probably not ALL of them.

Government agencies?  Most likely plenty of those that can be eliminated or at least mothballed for a while  (This IS a debt CRISIS, according to the President, isn't it?)  Federal Dept of Education, for example.  Don't all the States have one of those?  I think the States have more of a handle on the local needs of students than the DC folks do. (Except, of course, for the DC schools, but that shouldn't be Fed either).  That's the problem.  The farther away you get from the details, the less you actually KNOW about the situation.  I'm pretty sure if you poll the 100 senators, at best TWO MIGHT be able to tell you who the Superintendent of a given city's school district is, yet they are making global decisions that directly effect that district. THEY feel they know best.  And then they say now that we've implemented this, we need to pay for it.  But don't worry, we'll only raise taxes on the rich.  You know, those evil folks that do nothing but roll around in their ill gotten gains every night and laugh at you poorer folks.  We'll make sure they pay their "fair share"  As soon as WE decide what that fair share is.  At least, for THIS week.  And manage to get OUR wealth the heck out of here or hidden before it takes effect.

It's ridiculous.  We elect them to represent us. (ALL of us, poor AND rich).  Why is it that their answer to everything is to sell HALF of that equation out?

Okay.  I'm done venting.  For now.  At least until people start telling me how much and who I should start hating and punishing next.

Budgets, credit, spending, saving, . . . . . . . INSANITY!!!!

Wow.  For supposedly a bunch of smart folks we elected to "REPRESENT" us in Washington DC, well, we apparently need to collectively check our work.  Revenues are short of covering everything, we're at our credit limit, income is NOT likely going to increase anytime soon, and the answer is . . . . . "More credit please!"  Oh, yes, and make sure it's high enough to cover us through this next election so we can not only CONTINUE to pay for all the unnecessary crap we promised you to get here in the first place, but so we can do it and NOT be bothered by it (or YOU) during our campaign to get back here.  There's a LOT of you unemployed right now, so you can, of course, understand why we wouldn't want to be bothered by questions that probably would end up with US unemployed.

What is going through their heads.  Yes, I'm a political conservative at heart, but that means I'm oriented towards minimizing government (Gee, think a reduced government would be cheaper to run?) and keeping them out of our personal business.  My DEMOCRAT wife agrees on this point.  They seem to think we need them for everything and require the tax (and credit it seems) to keep them that involved.  When WE'VE undergone some job losses, and hence an decrease in revenue, we didn't go to the remaining job provider and say "Well, since you've cut hours to save YOU money, you need to pay us MORE per hour so we maintain our income level"  I guarantee the least result of that would be to be laughed out of the office.

Well, maybe that's what we should start doing to them:  laughing (Or rather, voting) them out of office.  What's WRONG with a balanced budget amendment.  Heck, Harry Reid wanted one before it went against what he wants now.  What's wrong with making it a requirement that we don't spend more than the revenue we get in?  If we think we need more money to spend?  Put it to a vote, and get the required majority to agree, both on the amount of an increase AND what the increase would be designated for.  That SHOULD better reflect what the PEOPLE at large want, since THEY are the ones who elected the senators and REPRESENTatives to vote the way WE feel.  After all, it's NOT really about keeping THEM employed as much as it is about keeping this a REPRESENTATIVE government OF, BY, and FOR the people.  I think a LOT of them have forgotten about that.  THEY work for US.

Well, that got resolved quickly!

Okay, no more QB speculation.  Hmmmm.  Tarvaris Jackson, Matt Leinart in and Hasselbeck is out.  I guess we're officially in moving on mode.  Whitehurst is gonna have to earn the spot, and this is DEFINITELY going to be an interesting year.

WooHoo! Football Lives!

Finally, they got it figured out.  Now, let's hope the 'Hawks get the QB situation figured out. Right now given the timeframe especially, I'd make sure to keep Hass on staff.  He knows the stuff and wouldn't need a learning curve.  Plus, we've beefed up the line a bit more.  Get Whitehurst some serious preseason workouts and then make sure to get him some (maybe) late gametime reps during the season. If the game's in hand, he's proven he probably WON'T lose the game and he DOES need some real gametime experience.  Then, plan for a serious draft move next year to maybe get the QB of the future who can sit and learn for a couple seasons.  Heck, maybe Whitehurst IS that guy and we just need to see more.  Anyway, I wonder how much of this labor stuff could have been worked out a month or two ago and how much of this getting done now was due to the fact that the preseason/training camp schedules were about to get seriously affected.

Couple other bits . ..

I've set up links to the wife's blogs. Chef Lorrie. (Yes, she's a REAL chef, not playing one on TV.) She's got a cooking blog AND starting one on couponing. (No, NOT the extreme stuff. Most of us DON'T have the time or space to buy 5000 packs of toilet paper and/or Cheerios) But she HAS already started to save us a BUNCH of money just doing a bit of research and planning using the thing they send out every week in the Sunday paper. AND she's been finding the stuff online too. I'm starting to be impressed by this. I've watched several $80 totals drop to about $28. Not too bad.

Gotta stop the gaps. Hell, I post, post a cleanup/reset, and then wait nearly another year. Okay. It's blog fear. Must be. Never considered myself a writer, but I think things have gotten to the point I need to try. Politically, maybe. Definitely observations. Social issues? Again, these days, anything is a good topic. MOSTLY, always a sucker for a good, DECENT, well thought out conversation. Matching AND opposing viewpoints allowed, provided it stays respectful. If I post something, remember, it's just my OPINION. Not carved in stone. If you disagree with something, just make sure you can back it up with clear facts, not talking points. I can find those easy enough from BOTH sides of any argument. I'll listen to other sides, sometimes I can convince them I'm right and sometimes they convince me they are. The beauty of free speech and independent thought. And during these times, THAT'S something we all need to see. And yes, topics that are PURELY entertainment may (Okay, probably) will pop up here and there. (DAMN I wish I had made it to ComicCon this year. Say that every year! Geeks Unite!) So, How 'bout them Seahawks? (Now that it looks like the league will actually get down to PLAYING the season?)

Okay, the door is open again, I'll try to keep the coffee flowing.