My tendency was always to obsess about every possible scenario that might possibly happen, assume the worst, and then try to plan for it. To some extent, it’s a smart way to plan. But not if it makes me have a stroke.

As you know from my past musings, we are having to pay back the unemployment that we’ve been paid the past few months. If you didn’t know that, go back a couple of posts. But that’s a big chunk of change, and of course, we already spent it on bills.

That introduces a cash flow problem. I still have all of the same bills to pay, but now Kansas wants several thousand dollars. And they want it now, they want it all at once, and they want it in large, non-sequential bills. Seriously, they want it all now.

Add to that April is coming up and IHS had a better year than expected, so i will also owe several thousand dollars to the IRS and frickin Kansas then, too.

That’s a LOT of cash to come up with between now and April 15th. And I have to do it without the unemployment Jenna still should have been getting through this October.

So basically, cash in has gone to zero, and cash out has gone to about ten thousand dollars.

I’m not imagining the circumstances. That is reality. But I am probably not helping the situation by making myself stroke out. It is what it is, and at the end of the day, the government can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. They can’t have what I don’t have.

If that’s the case, then the worst thing that can happen is I get nasty threatening letters from the IRS.

How bad can that be?

For that reason, I’m going to demonstrate my deductive prowess by listing off what Obama said last night, with no actual knowledge of what he said. Let me know if I miss anything or I mention something he didn’t actually say:

1. At least 5 references to how the economy already sucked when he was elected
2. At least one dig at the Republicans for blocking his Obamacare plan, cleverly disguised as a call for bipartisanship
3. He will HAVE TO talk about why Americans don’t trust the government, and he will claim it’s because Americans voted for change and they aren’t delivering (he won’t mention the fact that most Americans think his specific plans are insane)
4. He will talk about returning to the awesome budget surplus that always gets credited to Bill Clinton (in spite of the fact Republicans were running Congress when that was happening). He will do this while maintaining his position that the government is going to a) keep the country safe, b) give insurance to millions of miscreants, c) keep social security and medicare going, and d) only taxing the bejeezus out of people making over 250k. He will cleverly fail to mention that most small businesses make over 250k and fall into that category which will undoubtedly result in more layoffs
5. He will make nicey nice comments about Michelle Obama that will make people realize that he’s just a cool, regular guy
6. He will make multiple calls for getting rid of partisanship, and will NOT mention the fact that Republicans were completely shut out of the drafting of Obamacare by Pelosi and Reed
7. He will talk about how his administration is transparent and ethical, and will use as evidence the fact that he publishes White House visitors on the website, keeps lobbyists out of policy jobs… not mentioning that basically his entire staff was part of the lawyers’ lobby
8. He will definitely talk about the evil earmarks, which will be pointless since Democrats are responsible for most of them in the first place. He will mention it because he knows he has no influence over it, but it makes him look like a man of the people to say it
9. He will say that the loss in Massachusetts is because people “don’t understand” the health care bill, because it’s easier for him to believe that Americans are stupid than for him to believe that the bill is a steaming pile of crap.

Let me know what I missed or got wrong.

Discuss.

Why is federal funding of abortion wrong?

Imagine if you will a Republican majority in Congress that decided federal funds should be used to prevent homosexual couples from adopting children. Republicans are generally opposed to homosexuals being allowed to adopt, and Democrats are generally supportive of it. Democrat’s conscience tells them that this is discrimination and that it’s wrong, and they CERTAINLY shouldn’t have THEIR tax dollars going towards such an initiative.

Hmmmmmm.

Republicans, and more importantly, Christians, believe that abortion is murder of a baby. In fact, ALL scientific fact and evidence supports this belief. There is not one single scientific argument that could ever be used to prove that a “fetus” is NOT a baby. Separate blood types, DNA, heartbeats, brainwaves… fetuses don’t share any of those things with the mother. It’s a seperate entity. And by genetic definition, it is HUMAN. If it’s a seperate HUMAN entity scientifically speaking, then how can anyone think it’s ok to kill?

Well, that’s irrelevant to the Democrats, because they’ve made it a PRIVACY issue, something that has virtually nothing to do with anything. We can’t prevent abortion because that violates the mother’s privacy? What? So by that logic we shouldn’t be allowed to prevent animal cruelty or serial killing so long as it’s occurring on private property.

Regardless, abortion goes against the conscience of a MAJORITY of Americans. THUS, we shouldn’t have to PAY for it.

End of argument.

Whatever else can be said about the foolhardy healthcare reform bills they are planning to vote on at 1:00 AM the week before Christmas when everyone’s asleep (hmmm again), we can say for sure that it will change our country forever.

Those of you who are for it, are you REALLY confident that this cloak-and-dagger bill is going to make things BETTER?

First, fire everyone in Washington. They simply aren’t needed anymore with my system.

Next, put the entire tax system online. This should simplify things, and it allows us to automate my idea.

Now, put EVERY federal program in existence on the tax website. Taxpayers then get to choose exactly how much money they want to go towards any particular initiative. Taxpayers still have to pay their taxes, but we give them the choice of how it’s used.

Within one year, EVERY stupid, un-American program would be bankrupt. Popular programs would be funded out the wazoo. Semi-popular programs would have to tighten their belts.

Don’t like war? Use your tax dollars to fund the EPA.

Don’t like the EPA? Use your tax dollars to fund war.

Whatever. It doesn’t matter because it’s PURE democracy. People will vote for what they want with their checkbooks. What could be better? It’s introducing the free market into government.

It solves 100% of the problems in the country within one year. I’m not kidding. This is a great idea, and I challenge anyone to think of one reason why we shouldn’t do it (that isn’t a STUPID reason).

Discuss.

Congratulations on becoming the newest Midwestern terrorist target!

We always thought that terrorism was just for the coasts, but thank you Obama administration, bringing it to the Heartland…

…where all the Republicans are….

Coincidence? I think not.

Dear Treasury,

Best regards,
Citigroup
Too Big To Fail Since 1998

The House bill looks like it was written by Karl Marx, and the Senate version is much worse. Now even some Democrats are jumping ship, possibly out of principle, but more likely out of political expediency. The last person to attempt this type of “reform” was Clinton, but he was smart enough to let his wife tackle it… he knew it was a hot potato and he didn’t want to burn his political capital on it.

Obama, on the other hand, assumed he had the sauce to get it done (just by his good looks and charm, apparently).

In order to get 60 votes, the Democrats need ALL of the Democrats to vote for the bill, as well as a couple of the fake Republicans like Olympia Snowe. The more moderate and conservative Democrats don’t like what’s being tinkered with in the bill, including Medicare and abortion funding.

The Republicans are unanimously (except possibly for Snowe) opposed to the bill, because it is blatantly communistic. Just what we need… a chicken in every pot.

Obama has once again overestimated himself. This bill requires far too much political compromise to ever make any of the constituencies happy, and if you’re gonna tick off EVERYONE, you’d be best just leaving it alone.

All of Obama’s capital is getting burned on this topic, and his approval numbers are plummeting in the process. He has lower numbers at this point in his presidency than Jimmy Carter or George Bush had… (either of them).

Obama and the Democommunists had better be careful what they do here. If they manage to pass some form of healthcare reform, it will be 100% their doing, and therefore 100% of the consequences will belong to them.

My logic was that just 30 years ago, scientists were SURE that the Earth was about to freeze into a solid chunk of ice, and they were actively attempting to MELT the polar ice caps.

Global Warming Scientists Cooking the Books

As it turns out, some prominent scientists who advocate global warming have been busted basically cooking all the numbers, trying to stifle any opposing thought, and just all around politicizing global warming. Like I’m surprised.

CRU, University of Pennsylvania, and several other prominent global warming “scientific” research centers are implicated in the scandal.

Now, in much of the mainstream media, you won’t find much on this topic. You’ll have to type in “Climategate” into Google and you’ll discover that most of the articles have been published in the UK. Hmmm. Very interesting.

ANYHOW, the long and the short is, the “scientists” were fudging the numbers, actively trying to prevent anti-global warming scientists from being published in scientific journals, CHEERING the death of one of the prominent anti-global warming scientists, and talking about “just how in the heck are we going to keep people from finding out that global warming stopped several years ago.”

Not making this up.

If you still think global warming is bringing on the destruction of planet Earth, you should consider looking up gullible in the dictionary. I hear that Webster decided to remove it.

Well, one of that friend’s OTHER friends took offense and decided that a good response would be to call me a chump (which is defined as a “stupid or gullible person”).

Even if you took my Obama comment seriously, what person is so lame that they take offense to a comment by a complete stranger on SOMEONE ELSE’S Facebook page?

I told him I’d rather be a chump than a jerk, then my friend made us stop the conversation.

I was extremely curious as to what made him think it was a good idea to attack me personally, considering he does not know me, does not know my politics, does not know my sense of humor. My friend DOES know those things, which is why it was more than likely humorous to her.

Mr. Jerk decided to put his two cents in like an idiot.

It’s no secret to you, my loyal readers, that I think Obama is at best highly overrated and at worst, sinister. But he would have no way of knowing that.

To put this all into perspective, the offending party’s profile picture on Facebook is an AVATAR. The kind where you try to design a digital character that resembles yourself…

Clearly he’s trying to hide acid burns or his hideous freak show of a face. Or maybe just the fact that he lives in his mommy’s basement and plays D&D all day.

Anyhow, since he’s not my Facebook friend, I doubt he’ll ever read this, but if he does, I challenge him to a battle of wits. To the death.