Navin: [to thieves in car] Hey guess what, you’re our 8th customer of the day, you’ve won a free oven mitt! I’ll go get it for you. [Runs to phone in office with police on the line] Yeah I’m back they’re going to be a while, don’t worry I’ve rigged it.

Phony Mr. Neusbaumn : [In car] You guys want to stick around for an oven mitt?

Thieves: Nah

The Jerk 1979

Benito took out papers.  The man snatched at them, but Benito backed away.  He read: “Dear Jon, I could understand your opposition to us last year.  There was some doubt about the process, and you expressed fears all of us felt.  But now you know better.  I have no witnesses but you told me you understood Dr. Pittman’s demonstration.  In God’s name, Jon, why do you continue?  I ask you as your sister, as a fellow scientist, as a human being Why?

Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle Inferno 1976

There is a certain point where you just aren’t getting the bang for your buck.

Newton’s 2nd law of motion states the acceleration of an object is equal to the Net force applied to it divided by the mass. Because we do not live in the vacuum of space once an object accelerates to a greater speed, say from 50 MPH to 60 MPH the amount of force necessary to maintain that new speed (generated by the gas you give your engine) is greater that what you needed to keep the old one.

But while you might be willing to burn that extra gas to get to 60 from 50 you might not be willing to do so to get from 60 to 80 & keep it there.

Maybe you can’t control the car well at 80 or maybe you’re worried about the state policeman who tacks on a greater fine for a ticket for every mile beyond 10 you are breaking the speed limit or maybe you just don’t want to burn the gas necessary to keep your car at 80. No matter what reason you have you figure that extra Yeah 1/3 of a mile per minute just isn’t worth it.

This is known as the law of diminishing returns and applies everywhere. It might be worth investing $200-400 on a robotic vacuum to keep your house clean but unless you’re Adrian monk it’s likely not worth spending $250 to $300 per square foot to convert your house into a class 100,000 clean room.

And even if Adrian Monk was willing to spend $300 per sq ft for that Class 100,000 clean room, he might not be willing to pay the extra $225 per square foot for a class 100 one.

Bottom line, there is a point where the amount of gain you are getting is not worth the time and expense or even the maintenance costs.

At least not to YOU, but what if you are a guy who make their living off those extra costs?

What if a guy sells gas for a living? The more gas you burn the better off he is.

What if you are in the parts business? If your crash your car speeding he makes a buck of the parts for the repair or maybe gets the parts from your totaled car at a deal for resale.

What if your small town makes it’s living off of speeding tickets? If that’s the case that extra $200 fine keeps you in clover.

What if you are in the business of selling clean rooms or their components? Wouldn’t you love to be selling them to 20,000 homeowners in a small city rather than the odd lab or two in the county?

That’s what happens with NGO. Many of them start out with the best of motives, to solve a crisis or problem, some of them huge and demanding, but once you’ve built that fundraising base, once you’ve secured that government spending, once you traveled to Prague, Sydney, Barcelona and LA to speak at conferences at five star hotels with the best of food, drink and companionship do you really want to give that up just because the problem is largely solved?

Maybe you can ask Al Gore, or Al Sharpton

If you’ve ever wondered why the environmental movement, the feminist movement, the civil rights movement the amnesty movement and all the other movements always seem to be moving from crisis to crisis it’s because of one thing.

You can’t make a living off of a solved problem and you certainly can’t convince people to give if your enemies are not about to destroy the world.

And yes I do get the Irony of my tip jar appeal at the end of this post but in fairness I don’t claim it does anything more than support me & pay my writers.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

Gerald R. Ford HwyBy John Ruberry

“Whether we like it or not, the American wage earner and the American housewife are a lot better economists than most economists care to admit. They know that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
Gerald R. Ford, August 12, 1974.

Forty years later, a woman from Plainfield, Illinois, Kelly Alsip, is proving that Ford was a wise sage in regards to the acumen of the average American in regards to federal spending.

The Chicago Tribune’s Jon Yates writes a consumer affairs column, What’s Your Problem, that attempts to solve purchasers’ issues, things along the lines of “I got in a car accident and my insurer won’t pay my claim.”

Two years ago Kelly Alsip accidently made a $500 federal student loan payment–but she had already completely paid off that debt. Alsip promptly called the US Department of Education–and six weeks later she received a refund from the Treasury Department.

But last month out-of-the-blue Alsip received another $500 Treasury Department check. She suspects that it was a second refund from her 2012 error. Alsip tried to get an answer as to why she received that check, ignoring advice from her friends to just simply cash it.

And not surprisingly, she got nowhere, so she emailed the Trib’s Yates.

The Problem Solver called a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education, who said she has no idea why Alsip received the check and her agency would have no way to find out. The spokeswoman suggested Alsip call the department’s National Payment Center or the Direct Loans Service Center.

Alsip tried both. She gave up on the first number after waiting more than 10 minutes without getting connected to a customer service agent. The second number was no longer in service, she said.

The Problem Solver also called a spokesman for the U.S. Treasury Department. That spokesman said he, too, had no idea and directed Alsip to call the Treasury Department’s Fiscal Management Service office in Kansas City.

After making another round of calls, she finally got a human being on the phone. That person instructed her to call another person in a different office.

The telephone number she was given was a general number, so she used the dial-by-name directory to find that individual. But that person’s name was not listed and there was no operator available to speak with.

“And the mystery of the $500 check remains,” Yates added.

Yeah, $500 is not a lot of money to the federal government. But it’s a lot to me. And how many more errant $500 checks have been sent by our leviathan of a government? Or $5,000 checks?

Or even $5 million checks?

Does anyone know?

Of course not.

********************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

A new week has come with a new $350 goal to be made to pay DaMagnificent Seven and the less than magnificent mortgage.

Yesterday was a great imitation of Gave 6 of the 1976 world series. With less that two hours to go a single tip jar hitter made up the shortfall and gave us a full payweek in the last three.

It just goes to show you that the game isn’t over, until the last out is made.

The day has already started with a few hits of DaTipjar and if we can get another dozen tip jar hitter at $25 we can have the goal made at the beginning of the week rather than in the closing hours.

It will be much easier on my hairline and I don’t have all that much to spare.

Olimometer 2.52

Just click on DaTipJar below

Now there is another reason to kick in on a more permanent way

DaGuy low rez copy-psd

Please consider being a subscriber. Only 57 subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis AND if you so at the $25 level
you can receive one of several Exclusive Original Chris Muir high Res Graphics of original members of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven Gang. like the one on the right

Beanie : $2.00USD – weeklyCap : $10.00USD – monthlyHat : $20.00USD – monthlyFedora : $25.00USD – monthlyGrand Fedora : $100.00USD – monthly

Low res tha lotPlease specify which of the eight hi res (including myself you wish to receive) Subscribe at $50 a month and receive all eight. Subscribe at $100 a month and get all 8 wanted posters high res graphics plus the high res version of all of us exclusively created for subscribers of DaTechGuy blog by Chris Muir himself!

On Friday my first post of the day talked about how the LOW figure of the Obama years that the left considers so draconian was an incredible increase in spending.

At noontime I pointed out that even if you adjust for inflation the low year of the Obama spending years (2010) compared to the low year of the Bush years (2001) represented a 34% increase in real spending.

However a REAL clever person of the left might look at this and say:

“You can’t fool me DaTechGuy, your figures are all before 9/11 and the war on terror, of COURSE the Obama years cost more because you are comparing them to a year where spending didn’t include all those horrible Bush wars.”

It’s a fair cop (and a point I often make myself) and yes I did it deliberately for two reasons.

1. I wanted to compare the low years of each president, and 2001 was the low Bush year

2. It’s a trap for you oh leftists

 

So let’s look at this using a different year, 2005, two wars going on, Bush re-elected and all that jazz. That 2005 spending adjusted for inflation comes up to

$2,874,464,591,191.35

If we compare that adjusted for inflation figure with the smallest Obama spending year EVAH! $3,456 Billion dollars we find it is 83.17% of What Barack Obama spent.

That means Barack Obama in 2010 spent over 20% MORE than George Bush did at the height of two wars in 2005.

Ok all you 18-30 year olds that’s only 8 years ago. You were all alive then. If you were born in 1995 or later you can relate to this.

Are we 20% better off than 2005?
Is your government doing 20% more?
Do we have 20% more roads and bridges?
If the government doing 20% more to help you find work?
Have we managed to do 20% more in all those things?

And yet if we went back to that figure, as far as the president, the Democrat Senate and the MSM is concerned, we would be having cuts so draconian that humanity might not survive.

How stupid do they think we are?  Pretty damn stupid, but the truth is we’re not stupid, just uninformed.

Not anymore.

———————————-

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Monday the $300 paycheck stands waiting to be filled.   Can we fill it today so I won’t have to worry about it on my 25th anniversary tomorrow?

Up to you.

In my first post today I talked about how the Obama administration low year of spending in 2010. A level of spending that apparently was so low that it is draconian compared to today. I also pointed out the difference between the size of Obama’s low figure and Bush’s low figure is more than the entire amount of money spent by Bill Clinton in 1995.

“But DaTechGuy”, I can hear our friends on the left say. “You didn’t adjust those Bush/Clinton era figures for inflation.”

You’re right I didn’t. And that was on purpose. Why? It was a trap for laid out for our friends on the left, hoping they would question the figures in question. So let’s make those necessary adjustments.

if we take the Bush Era spending of 2001 and adjust that for inflation to 2010 we get a new figure to compare with the current president’s spending

$2,296,899,840,018.02

So taking that figure instead of the unadjusted one and compare it to the Obama spending of 2010, the lowest spending of the Obama years of $3,456 Billion the difference is figure the difference is $1,160 BILLION dollars.  The Bush number is a mere 66.4% of the Obama spending.

This means the Obama spending of 2010 is an increase in spending AFTER INFLATION vs George Bush in 2001 of over 50%.

And that’s the LOW year of the Barack Obama years with a democrat congress and a democrat president.

If you are 20-30 years old, you are old enough to remember 2001. Tell me, is the Government 50% better than it was in 2001, Is your family doing better 50% better than it was in 2001 and think about this. Is spending 50% more that we did in 2001 really so draconian that it is a giant cut that people can’t survive with?

Answer that question honestly and then tell me just how draconian and how heartless the GOP budget plans are compared to the White House.

******************************************

Olimometer 2.52

No inflation adjustments are necessary to illustrate where my $300 paycheck stands

Only your tip jar hit will change it from where it is to where it needs to be.

I woke up with every muscle of my body aching after a ton of shoveling and overslept a bit so I rolled over and turned on Fox News Sunday to listen to Nancy Pelosi talk about how evil the Sequestration (that she voted for) and how draconian the cuts have ALREADY been in the government.

Let’s take a look at how severe these cuts have been via US Government Spending.com

federal spending

Just to put this in perspective World War 2 in 2013 dollars cost 3.7 Trillion (in 2013 dollars).

Unfortunately to the low information voter of today who re-elected this administration, those figures cause the eyes to glaze over so lets put it in two ways any American can understand: Football & Fries.

According to Forbes the entire combined value of every single NFL franchise is $26.014 Billion.

Using 2008 as a benchline from 2009 to 2011 Barack Obama has increased spending by enough to purchase every franchise in the NFL 61 times.

That’s enough to put 6 new NFL Franchises in EVERY CITY in the US with over 100,000 people.

And that’s not even counting 2012 If you add 2012 spending that’s enough to open 4 McDonalds Franchises in every single city town and Hamlet in the United states so people can eat after all those football games.

So the next time you hear Nancy Pelosi or another Democrat talk about how much the President has cut spending ask them what they want to name those 6 new NFL teams in San Francisco…

…and ask if she wants fries with that.

Update: The number of NFL franchises per US city of 100,000 Obama’s increased spending would pay for is is 6 not 9 (corrected above). So that of course makes it OK.

————————————————
[thermometer raised=0 target=300 height =200 ]
It’s a new week and I’m hoping for a new paycheck

Unlike the US government I’m looking for the same $300 baseline as last week.

If you think the work I do is worth that weekly $300 paycheck (minus Paypal fees) please hit DaTipJar





To those who have thanks again, to those who have not, I’ll keep trying to raise my game.

The costs of Obama and his programs are becoming more apparent. via five feet of fury) those who oppose him:

Even if you add in all possible “indirect” jobs that could be attributed to this subsidy flurry, it still works out to $1.63 million in subsidies per job created, according to the report.

Just to be clear, this isn’t some taxpayers federation or Republican Party group writing this scathing review. This is the US government itself.

Consider that $1.63 million dollar figure. Imagine a WPA style program such as busy work/cleanup that a city might normally not do because of regular budget. Say 3 ten man crews at $30,000 each plus another $10K in side expenses and taxes. Add a chief to run each crew, say $50K each with taxes and one guy to supervise the supervisors, let’s make him expensive: $100,000 counting benefits and taxes on say an $80K pay.

$1.2 million (work Crew 39 men)
$ .15 million (Three crew chiefs)
$ .1 million The supervisor

That adds up to $1.45 Million dollars, employing 34 people vs $1.63 million for one.

But we can’t have that can we? After all none of those 34 people are in a position to kick back money to the campaign.

Those figures are no surprise to us who oppose him but to those who support him (via Glenn) there is a surprise awaiting them as well

William Jacobson (Cornell) blogs the tax consequences of the Obama campaign’s Dinner With Barack fundraising raffle. Three winners and their guests will receive:

Roundtrip airfare (valued at $1,200)
One night in a hotel ($200)
Dinner with President Obama ($200)

The rules state that “all federal, state and local taxes associated with the receipt or use of any prize are the sole responsibility of the winner.” The $1,600 is includible in each winner’s income under § 74 — at the 35% rate, that results in $560 of federal income tax.

Imagine you are a retired black person who was so proud to see the first black president elected and decides to give that $3 from her fixed income to get him re-elected, Just imagine her face after winning that dinner with Obama her getting that $560 tax bill.

That image is the Obama administration in a nutshell.

Update: The DaTechGuy Fundraiser is in progress, our goal is $3000 and any help is appreciated. For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.





Investment

1. In finance, the purchase of a financial product or other item of value with an expectation of favorable future returns. In general terms, investment means the use money in the hope of making more money.

2. In business, the purchase by a producer of a physical good, such as durable equipment or inventory, in the hope of improving future business.

investing:

to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.

spending

to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of (money, wealth, resources, etc.): resisting the temptation to spend one’s money.

deficit spending

The amount by which a government, company, or individual’s spending exceeds its income over a particular period of time. also called deficit or called budget deficit.

I have had very little time to listen to Morning Joe lately as the Radio Show premiere is under 55 hours away and as the latest member of the 99 week club I have to be off selling ads or my mortgage will not get paid.

Today I had some time after dropping my son off at school and I had the displeasure of listening to John Kerry’s rant this morning.

In addition to boasting about the democrats win in Massachusetts (with a little help from their friends) John Kerry talked about how people have been decided by the republicans about taxes.

He repeatedly talked about government “investments” but then mentioned corporate “spending” on lobbyists to stop good things like carbon and energy taxes.

This is the height of liberal speak. So lets bluntly say aloud what needs to be said:

Government doesn’t produce anything. Every Dollar that Government has is collected in taxes or fees or fines from either the public or businesses. The only exception I can think of are leases of government (read the people’s) property.

Government doesn’t invest it SPENDS. It may spend on useful things , the Military, food inspections, the National Weather Service, but these are not investments it is spending.

Business however when it spends it does so for a return. That is a true investment. Even the use of lobbyists to effect a law is an actual investment with the expectation of a return.

I have one simple rule. If an official refers to spending as an investment, that tells me that they can’t justify it without wordplay.

Have some guts! If you think your spending is good and worthwhile and justifiable then call it what it is and defend it, but don’t’ insult my intelligence by calling it an “investment”.

Just a thought, since democrats keep talking about new spending as an “investment” does that mean they should have to run that warning whenever they talk about spending?

I think so.

Speaking of things that deserve a big warning label:

So, like Stimulus I, which was initially intended to put infrastructure spending first, but evolved into a multi-purpose slush fund that put infrastructure last, the “infrastructure bank” envisioned by progressives on Capitol Hill would be “looking at a broader base” to finance “green energy” and “other large-scale works” based on “social benefits” determined by a panel appointed by the president.

What could go wrong?