A blog about living, hunting, and whatever else I want.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Over $101,000 just for food and alcohol over a two year period. I wonder if she drank all that herself.
That $101,000 is not for the military jets. It's just for the booze and munchies. According to Judicial Watch she spent $2.1 million of your dollars on flying around in air force jets.
I'd like to think I could come up with something to add to that, but I'm at a loss for the moment.
Where are the tar and feathers?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Here is your link.
From the article:
In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.That's great. Wonderful. Let's pour more money down that silly rathole and make al gore even richer.
Here is another good bit:
They also said that the White House plans to extend the life of the International Space Station to at least 2020.Let's pour money into that orbiting menace. Lovely.
Meanwhile India is planning on going to the moon.
Friday, January 22, 2010
I think the injury on the front leg was from attempts to escape.
Check out the size of that paw.
Here is the business end.
You can see how close she came to pulling a chicken right through the side of the pen. Note how the mesh is bowed out and the staples at the bottom are almost pulled out of the wood.
Here are some assorted views.
Time will tell if I have any more of these to deal with.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
So it is with socialized medicine.
They haven't given up. They may have to settle for a little less this time around but they'll be back.
People are hurting financially so they don't fly as often. No surprise there. People also don't like being fondled and strip searched and having strangers going through their stuff and stealing it, not to mention long lines at the airport.
I think that at some point airline travel will be much more limited than it is now. Lot's of government people will fly at our expense of course, but other than that the only people flying will be either fairly wealthy or they will be traveling for essential functions for their job i.e. execs making big business deals or people doing on site installation or maintenance.
That's my prediction.
From the article:
Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion.
Well isn't that just what we need.
Here is a good one:
A White House policy statement said the increase "is critically important to make sure that financing of federal government operations can continue without interruption and that the creditworthiness of the United States is not called into question."LOL.
Let me get this straight. If you are beyond broke you should go get another credit card and max it out so that your creditworthiness will not be called into question.
I think I'll ask my kids if they think this is a good plan.
In a related story, Russia is diversifying into Canadian dollars.
A little bit from that article:
Alarmed at the plummeting value of the dollars in its holdings, Russia has been at the vanguard of countries calling for the US authorities to stem the fall of its currency. Last year, along with China, Russia urged the creation of a new supra-national currency to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
The dollar has fallen more than 12 per cent on a trade-weighted basis since March. Commodity-linked currencies have rallied strongly, however, with the Canadian dollar up 24 per cent against the US dollar over that period and the Australian dollar 40 per cent higher.
This has prompted Russia to diversify its holdings. Indeed, in addition to its plans to buy Canadian dollars, Sergei Ignatiev, chairman of the Russia’s central bank, said last month that its was “discussing the possibility” of buying Australian dollars.
I fear that future historians will look back at us, shake their heads, and say "What were they thinking!!?"
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
At this rate I may end up with enough to make a coat.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
If it won't come back to it's previous kill that I wired into the trap I may take a tip from Paladin and build a box to hold a live chicken in the back of the cage as bait. I've got some 3/4" plywood that would be perfect for that use.
This would make my daily commute much easier.
However, I don't have 1700' flat and level enough for a runway and the nearest airport to my work is a 20+ miles away.
It's still a neat idea and I wish the developers great success.
Monday, January 18, 2010
I'm hoping that since the critter came into the trap and made off with the bait once that it will not be cautious now and will be easier to catch.
Wish me luck.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Yesterday I wasn't successful at catching another bobcat. However, I did catch two opossums at the same time. I figure that their smell is probably good for the trap because predators won't be alarmed by that.
One of the opossums kindly decided to stay in the trap as bait, while the other volunteered for fertilizer duty.
I'll see what happens.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
I doubted it was a coyote because there were no attempts at digging under the pens.
I put out my large live-catch trap that looks like a have-a-heart trap and wired the remains of one of the dead chickens in as bait. I only had to wait two nights to catch something.
It was fairly small. About 25 inches from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail and about 17 inches high at the top of the shoulders.
It is in the freezer right now awaiting a trip to the taxidermist.
I moved the trap and reset it figuring that the rate of loss of my birds was more than this one critter could account for. I guess I'll find out.
I've got videos of it growling and hissing in the cage when I get the chance to upload them but they are kind of large and I don't want to wait.
Moral of the story: traps are handy things to have around when it comes to eliminating pests of this sort.
Here are the videos.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
I seem to recall that the clinton administration floated the idea of a "one-time tax" on 401k plans. That was shot down. Now, since the markets have largely been in the toilet, it looks like the government's plan to take our 401ks is back again.
Here is a link to another article.
From this article:
U.S. investors oppose federal initiatives that would force them to give up control over their 401(k) accounts, the Investment Company Institute said.
Seven in 10 U.S. households object to the idea of the government requiring retirees to convert part of their savings into annuities guaranteeing a steady payment for life, according to an institute-funded report today.
I couldn't figure out how 3 out of 10 households could NOT oppose this insanity. My better half pointed out that they are probably the people who don't contribute to a 401k or IRA.
From the market-ticker.org article:
You can bet this won't be good for you, the ordinary American.That is a true statement and you can take it to the bank, so to speak.
One last bit:
This "proposal" can only mean one thing - Treasury smells smoke. Maybe you should pay attention to what they're huffing!Not exactly a rosy prediction.
Things to think about:
1. Do you know the procedure to withdraw money from your 401k and IRA?
2. Do you know the withdrawal limits on your 401k?
3. Will we have enough warning to pull that money out or will the government take steps to shut that option down?
Don't forget the penalties on early withdrawals and the income taxes you'll have to pay.
One last thought on this:
I don't see 403b mentioned anywhere in the article. Does that mean that teachers will get a pass on this?
Hold on tight, this could get a little rough.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
From the article:
Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress.I guess if you are going to trash the Constitution then you may as well launch another attack on our society as well. I guess the results of this will be used to justify forcing working people to pay for abortions for irresponsible people.
Here is a bit more:
The built-in "marriage penalty" in both House and Senate healthcare bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say "I do."
The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single.
I LOL at this:
People who get their health insurance through an employer wouldn't be affected.The only people who won't be bent over a chair by this are government officials and employees and people who don't have jobs. The people who don't have jobs right now will be bent over a chair when they get one.
You'd have to be an idiot to think that this sorry attempt by the government to drive private health insurance companies out of business won't affect people.
The article goes on into the details of how people who make more money will have to pay more for insurance and married people will have to pay more than unmarried couples.
If I make $25k per year and go back to school and get a job making $50k per year why should I pay more for the same insurance? Who thought up that brilliant plan? The same criminals that thought up the "progressive" income tax no doubt.
I also don't see how you can possibly justify charging married couples more for insurance than unmarried couples. I suggest the government should have to do an impact study on this and find out the health care costs of married couples compared to unmarried couples. They should not be able to hide data on things like abortions, STDs, and injuries due to drinking and taking drugs. I'll bet that married couples on the whole cost less as far as health care expenses than unmarried couples.
I realize that the purpose of all this nonsense is not to provide healthcare for anyone or improve healthcare for anyone. The purpose of this is to increase the power and size of the federal government. This current bill will simply make private healthcare more expensive and less profitable and drive companies out of business. That will be used to justify more government control and more taxes and the cycle will continue until we have full socialized medicine.
Back to the article:
In any progressive system of taxes or benefits, there are trade-offs between how well-targeted a subsidy is and how equitable it is, said Stacy Dickert-Conlin, an economics professor at Michigan State University.
"You might like to have it be progressive, equitable and marriage-neutral. But you have to decide what your goals are, because you can't accomplish all three," she said.
Why are we even discussing this nonsense? The Constitution does not authorize the government to do any of this.
Where did my country go? I'd like to know.
No surprise here. If the government has to compete with a private industry in any way the standard response is to make the private solution unprofitable and drive it out of business. Then present more government as the solution to the problem that the government created in the first place.
According to the article, Hussein "signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans." Included in that are lots of people that don't want to pay for health insurance and of course illegals.
Here is a good one from the article:
House Democrats want to raise income taxes on high-income individuals instead and are reluctant to abandon that approach . . .No kidding that marxists want to raise taxes. The article got it slightly wrong though because marxists want to raise taxes on everyone except themselves. The article makes it sound like only "the rich" (whoever they are) will be taken to the cleaners on this. LOL you poor dumb schmucks will figure it out one day soon.
The truth is that eventually the only private health insurance will be limited to people who truly have a lot of money like Bill Gates. The rest of us will be stuck with low quality socialized medicine being administered by people that today would fail out of medical school. Of course elected government officials and their families will have the high quality health care that Bill Gates will have and you and I will pay for it.
I will say it again:
Health Care is NOT a Right!!!
This story of phantom zipcodes might be enough to get one or two people to notice that corruption. Getting people to do something about corruption is another story. I mean, doing something about corruption would mean giving up your own goodies and giving up your power to bother other people.
My question about this story is: Is anyone surprised by this?
- Pelosi likes the good stuff - at your expense of c...
- A New Emphasis for NASA
- A fair sized kitty
- What do you do if you can't get the whole pie at o...
- How about "Government Airlines"?
- What to do when you're broke? Borrow More!!
- Pics of the thief
- trap update
- No update on the bobcat
- I've got to get one of these!
- Another cat
- Nothing in the trap in a couple of days
- Trap, part 2
- I caught a chicken thief
- Hold on to your 401k!!!
- On a happier note
- Of course married people will get the shaft under ...
- President Hussein OK's taxing insurance plans to f...
- Where is my wealth transfer money? Phantom Zipcod...
- Ignorance is an excuse
- ▼ January (20)