The Goat Pen

I see that Huckabee is not running for President. He seems like a nice guy, but I don't think America is ready for a Baptist minister/Arkansas governor/fitness enthusiast to be president.

So alcohol and dancing will remain legal.

Whew

George F. Will - pinion Writer

The Dreamliner nightmare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Last month — 17 months after Boeing announced plans to build here and with the $2 billion plant nearing completion — the NLRB, collaborating with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), charged that Boeing’s decision violated the rights of its unionized workers in Washington state, where some Dreamliners are assembled and still will be even after the plant here is operational. The NLRB has read a 76-year-old statute (the 1935 Wagner Act) perversely, disregarded almost half a century of NLRB and Supreme Court rulings, and patently misrepresented statements by Boeing officials.

------------------

The NLRB’s attack on Boeing illustrates the Obama administration’s penchant for lawlessness displayed when, disregarding bankruptcy law, it traduced the rights of Chrysler’s secured creditors. Now the NLRB is suing Arizona and South Dakota because they recently, and by large majorities, passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to secret ballots in unionization elections — ballots that complicate coercion by union organizers.

Just as uncompetitive companies try to become wards of the government (beneficiaries of subsidies, tariffs, import quotas), unions unable to compete for workers’ allegiance solicit government compulsion to fill their ranks. The NLRB’s reckless attempt to break a great corporation, and by extension all businesses, to government’s saddle — never mind the collateral damage to the economy — is emblematic of the Obama administration’s willingness to sacrifice the economy on the altar of politics.

Rich and Sort of Rich

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/weeki ... odayspaper

That seems to be the threshold. Under $250,000, you’re middle class; over it and you’re wealthy.

Where did this number come from? Is it based on a statistical metric of wealth in America — a true dividing line?

Empirically, these households are surely not middle income. Only 2 percent of households in the nation make more than $250,000, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But some economists and tax reform advocates are questioning whether those households are rich enough to be worthy of the same tax bracket as millionaires.

“The very round nature of it suggests that it’s arbitrary,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center and the deputy assistant director for tax analysis at the Congressional Budget Office from 1998 to 2006. “There’s nothing magical about $250,000 per year. It has no economic basis.”

Is there any wonder why CA is in the financial situation it is in???? More than 100k a year in salary and benefits worth another 100k? Retire after 30 years and get 90% of your salary for life?

.Brian Calle: Lifeguard '$100,000 Club' goes way beyond Newport

By BRIAN CALLE

Register columnist

.http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/-300428--.html

David Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson aren't the only Baywatchers bringing in the big bucks. As I reported last week, some lifeguards in Newport Beach are pulling in more than $200,000 a year in total compensation. And, it turns out, cities up and down the coast of California are paying similar compensation for lifeguarding positions.

After uncovering Newport Beach data on a tip from Jack Wu, a former Newport council candidate, it at first seemed like the practice of paying permanent, full-time lifeguards $100,000 to $200,000 – and allowing them to retire with 90 percent of their salary after working 30 years – was confined to Newport. But after further examination , it became apparent that high pay for this profession is common practice – at least in the Golden State.

A pretty thought provoking article on Afghan and repeating the Soviets in several areas...hell maybe we bug out and reserve the right to attack wherever we need if the situation arises or maybe we keep a smaller force in a few cities for that purpose, but largely let the tribal areas do wtf they want as long as it isn't supporting terrorist training etc?

Lessons from the Soviet Afghan experience

Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor From: The Australian May 14, 2011 12:00AM

.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6055564042

Jungle Rat wrote:Whew

Didn't wanna' hang up the ol' ballet slippers, 'eh?

George Will is correct, as always.

$100K/year lifeguards are so wonderfully superficial and insanely wasteful that they could only happen in CA.

Buddy, can you spare a spy plane?

We’re forced to BORROW one from U.S.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... z1MWkb6qVl

The Revolving Rich

By Neal Boortz

The Libs and the Progs would love you to believe that there is a set group of evil, filthy, disgusting evil rich people – the perfect target for demonization. But the fact is that being “rich” is mobile, and this should be a good thing! In ObamaWorld its OK for Americans to aspire to be wealthy so long as they earn their wealth in a manner approved by liberals. Non-approved methods of creating wealth are, to liberals, based purely on greed. But while these evil rich people make a great target for wealth envy on the campaign trail, here are some statistics you may find interesting …

*Every year, the IRS publishes data on the highest-paid 400 taxpayers . This year’s report shows that the average incomes of the top 400 fell by 21.5%, to $271 million from $345 million the year before. Their share of national income also fell, to 1.31% from 1.59%. As Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, wrote in Tax Vox, the majority of the drop was from a decline in capital gains …

*But the study showed that this is not a constant group, but rather a revolving door of riches. Since the list began in 1994, only 27% have made the list more than one year. Only four people have made it every year. That means that about three quarters of the Fortunate 400 are one-time wonders — most of whom probably made it into the group by selling a business …

*Williams has also studied churn among the top 1%, or those with income of more than $380,000 in 2008. He found that half of the group over a 10 year period made the cut only once.

You’ve heard that the rich keep getting richer, right? Well the truth here is that year after year some of the rich get richer, and some get poorer while the poor move in to take their place on the rolls of the rich. It’s called income mobility, and it’s a facet of the American free enterprise economy that liberals simply don’t want you to understand.

Got it - no need to envy the rich, since they're here today and gone tomorrow. Another gem from boortz.

"Well the truth here is that year after year some of the rich get richer, and some get poorer while the poor move in to take their place on the rolls of the rich."

Wow. The poor take over in place of the rich? Did somebody finally loan Neal a copy of Trading Places?
Cause I don't think he knows any REAL poor people that are knocking the rich off of their lofty perch.

bluetick wrote:Got it - no need to envy the rich, since they're here today and gone tomorrow. Another gem from boortz.

"Well the truth here is that year after year some of the rich get richer, and some get poorer while the poor move in to take their place on the rolls of the rich."

Wow. The poor take over in place of the rich? Did somebody finally loan Neal a copy of Trading Places?
Cause I don't think he knows any REAL poor people that are knocking the rich off of their lofty perch.

Mortimer Duke wrote:Turn those machines back on! TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK ON!!!

You and your Nobel Prize! You idiot!

Of course it was pretty hilarious seeing Mortimer and Randolph Duke in Eddie Murphy's next movie, Coming to America, when Akim gives them (now homeless bums) like $50,000 in cash.

Jesus tick. The point of it was that there is not some permanent ruling class of rich people that is always the same. There is mobility all throughout all income levels.

Got it - no need to envy the rich, since they're here today and gone tomorrow. Another gem from boortz.

And is this a slip here? Are you saying people should envy the rich?

puterbac wrote:Jesus tick. The point of it was that there is not some permanent ruling class of rich people that is always the same. There is mobility all throughout all income levels.

I agree. The ruling class of rich people is not permanent. Eventually they die and leave everything to their children, who thereby become the new ruling class of rich people.

http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-e ... ina-trinko

NRO wrote: Mitt Romney spent today in Las Vegas, as fundraisers for him worked the phones at the convention center. Team Romney announced the plan was to raise $2 to $3 million.

Instead, they raised $10.25 million, tweets the Boston Globe’s Matt Viser.

During the day, Romney also had a conference call with supporters and conducted a live q & a on Facebook.

During the Facebook event, Romney said that he would not make cuts in the defense budget. Instead, he proposed slashing discretionary spending and looking ways to reduce entitlement spending, while still ensuring the programs will be funded for future generations.

Massachusetts Romney-care or not, you are looking at the next President of the United States. The rest of the GOP candidates can pack it in, Mitt can raise the money to BUY the damn nomination.

Oh, and Trump said he wouldn't run today (not that any of us ever believed that the twice divorced, twice bankrupted man, ever would run.)

Romney can fund raise tens of millions while shaving in the morning. Big deal.

He's still a political chamelion and shameless political opportunist whom the non-country club republicans will treat like toxic waste in the primaries.

Professor Tiger wrote:Romney can fund raise tens of millions while shaving in the morning. Big deal.

He's still a political chamelion and shameless political opportunist whom the non-country club republicans will treat like toxic waste in the primaries.

I don't think so.

He is staying out right now until the herd culls itself a bit. By September or October of this year, he'll start appearing at the GOP debates and every single other candidate is going to want to debate Romney. They will go after him (for the same reason why you go after him) because he's the man to beat. No one else matters.

Did you even listen to what Chris Christie said on Friday about Romney's speech on Thursday?

By September or October of this year, he'll start appearing at the GOP debates and every single other candidate is going to want to debate Romney.

The best GOP debate should be between Romney and Romney. The pro-choice Romney can debate the pro-life Romney. The pro-gun control can debate the pro-2A Romney. The pro-government-run-health care Romney can debate against the anti-government-run health care Romney. That would be quite amusing.

They will go after him (for the same reason why you go after him) because he's the man to beat. No one else matters.

That's just what they said about Giuliani last election. He was a sure thing. He was DESTINED to be the nominee. And then a funny thing happened: Republicans started voting , and it turned out that nobody really liked him.

Did you even listen to what Chris Christie said on Friday about Romney's speech on Thursday?

No. I already know what Romney is, and would never vote for him even if Ronald Reagan said nice things about him.

Professor Tiger wrote:

By September or October of this year, he'll start appearing at the GOP debates and every single other candidate is going to want to debate Romney.

The best GOP debate should be between Romney and Romney. The pro-choice Romney can debate the pro-life Romney. The pro-gun control can debate the pro-2A Romney. The pro-government-run-health care Romney can debate against the anti-government-run health care Romney. That would be quite amusing.

They will go after him (for the same reason why you go after him) because he's the man to beat. No one else matters.

That's just what they said about Giuliani last election. He was a sure thing. He was DESTINED to be the nominee. And then a funny thing happened: Republicans started voting , and it turned out that nobody really liked him.

Did you even listen to what Chris Christie said on Friday about Romney's speech on Thursday?

No. I already know what Romney is, and would never vote for him even if Ronald Reagan said nice things about him.

Then you'll be voting for President Obama. Romney wins the GOP nomination.