U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 03, 2009 04:34 PM UTC
96 Comments
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
Now there is just something fundamentally wrong with “luring”, “kids” and “school”. Why are our students afraid of school, of testing, of success? Why are the administrators resorting to luring children?
What on Gods green earth is going on that would make a child afraid of testing … it can’t be their parents indoctrinating them in a vast conspiracy to avoid the nasty CSAP like a man in a van offering candy, can it?
http://www.denverpost.com/brea…
that you think telling kids that their test scores count for something might count as “threatening” them. Yeah, whatever.
I’m not believer in standardized testing; at least not when it’s used as a weapon against the public school system the way it is in most states these days; but as long as that’s the order of the day, schools will try to get kids to make a good effort, both in entirely reasonable ways, and in dumb ways which still appeal to kids.
Not sure what your point is with the can-can dance. Yes, it would have been hideously embarrassing to be one of the teachers asked to do it; but if you’re implying something more nefarious here, I think you’re completely off your rocker. Men dressing up in women’s clothing as part of comedy routines is a staple of entertainment. Do you think we need to assign an R rating to Mrs. Doubtfire?
of 86% of Libertad’s postings…
This is the leadership legacy he left behind at DPS?
Threatening students with limited choices based on performance?
Male drag dancers in elementary school?
32″ TVs, Xboxes and iPods for the 50% – 70% that haven’t dropped out of school?
WTF has Bennet left in his wake at DPS?
It wasn’t for kids who “haven’t dropped out” it was for kids with perfect attendance.
I agree with the essence of what you were saying (we shouldn’t be trying to bribe our kids to go to school) but you go about it in such a way that turns everyone off to your argument. You’re just so shrill.
And your “drag dancer” comment is just stupid. It sounded pretty damn hilarious to me, and I’m sure the kids got a kick out of it. Don’t make it sound like they were corrupting the kids or something. They’re just trying to make them laugh and maybe get them excited.
The fake outrage and indignation, the shrillness, and the stupidity–these are thine enemies Libertad. Learn to write without the ad hominem attacks and the bullshit and you might turn into a legitimate contributor to the political discourse of this state.
This arrangement wasn’t put planned and approved yesterday. This goes back to the culture Bennet created.
Its a sad display of leadership; worse its be conducted at the k-12 level.
And yes, CSAP scores are part of what they use to place kids in classes (regular, remdial, advanced). His teachers tell them this, and so do I. Because I give a shit about how well he does in school.
And then, Libertad, there’s this:
Which you didn’t see as important enough to highlight. Testing has such high stakes now that, hell yes, you want every kid to show up. So, yes, you’ll do everything in your power to get those kids to school for those damn tests. To do otherwise would demonstrate incompetence.
And last, I find it beyond ironic that you of all people seem to feel that rewarding performance with higher pay is somehow evil!
Oh yeah, they test too.
You bet I do. This is an incredible abuse of students – both mentally and emotionally. Exactly what kind of behavior and values are these people instilling in Denver’s school children?
The drag queen crap speaks for itself.
…pretty soon schools will assigning “grades” to students and “grade point averages,” which will undoubtedly be used against them in an abusive way.
But, I support all drag queen-related skits.
How’s that wide stance working out for you Libertad?
You absolutely berated me when I was questioning the logic CSAP a few months ago. Now you’re against it? I wonder how much wider your stances can get.
What I am against is teachers threatening students with performance pressure on the CSAP.
Better yet, rewarding a 16 year old with a flat screen TV … just for attendance.
90% of life is just showing up, that’s proven daily at any union shop.
Dosen’t he have better things to do ?
Where’s that Andrew Romanoff primary announcement? We’re still waiting.
with Ritter’s Ambassadorship nomination announcement. 🙂
It seems like the wall street journal and market investors don’t think he does.
http://conservativeforchange.b…
Is the market a child that needs to be coddled and told how smart and pretty and important it is? No? Then fuck it.
I hate to break it to you but the president’s job is not to increase stock prices, it’s to fix the economy. And those are two very distinct things.
Best example – what we really need to do is take over these giant bankrupt companies. And when that happens the market will go down because those companies will then have a stock value of 0.
And trust me, I really don’t want to spend all day re-hashing this, but the market is part of the equation. It does affect real people for one, and it is a measuring stick that has been used by multiple administrations to show the economy is healthy. Remember how the talking points coming out of the Clinton years was “the economy is booming, look at the market?”
Eventually, the market will recover. I would like it to do it on its own because that would mean that we’ve made improvements in other areas. If Obama “fixes” the market, we lose our barometer.
Just don’t be fooled by thinking that we can just “f**k” the market, because we’ll pay for it one way or another. (I’m not saying you are David, this comment is kind of a response to you, Ari, and sxp151)
In the long run the market is a very strong indicator of the economy and people depend on it for their retirement. But right now when no one truly knows what makes the most sense for the government, using daily swings of stock prices is probably one of the worst measures.
is thank god Bush never got Social Security privatized. It wasn’t going to happen, but can you imagine what would be happening right now if he had succeeded?
Yes and no…I’d say that the daily swings in the market as a whole is more important if it is based on government action, because a positive reaction there could restore investor confidence. The argument could be made that given the fact that “no one truly knows what makes the most sense for the government”, one should expect nothing less then continued losses. If that is the case, couldn’t short term movements reflect the market’s confidence in leadership? If so, it could be a very good short term indicator.
And if you need that many “could”s, it’s probably not great as an indicator of anything in particular.
Cuz you know it all could be because today is 3/3/09, i.e., a square root day. Everybody knows those are bad luck.
X-1 day?
Someone’s always got a silly idea for something…
http://teachers.net/mentors/ma…
But a real inverse day should look something like what you’d really want to see: the digits in the inverse of the month appearing on the day and year.
So I will define this year’s RECIPROCAL DAY to be 11/09/09, since
1/11 = .09090909…
Mark your damn calendars.
It comes with my line of work. You usually don’t want to say something “will” be some way, except for the times that you do. In short, it’s an industry standard thing that has spilled over into my personal interactions.
Life is a pain.
Sometimes.
You never want to say something is true unless you can prove it; in many other fields the standard for “true” is a lot lower. Sometimes it leads to me being pedantic in discussions with other people.
But though I understand your position, I still think there’s way too much uncertainty in daily fluctuations to say what specifically caused them, or to read much meaning into them.
If I ever make it to one of these meet ups, I’ll have to buy you a drink to repay the sins I’ve committed on previous math teachers. I was a hard student to have….
I don’t think that it’s hard to figure out what moved the market, there are reports to that effect every day. Some news is somewhat predictable-we know when about companies release their earning statements, or that the Fed will meet to discuss interest rate cuts or hikes, which mean certain things on their own. Other news isn’t predictable, such as a CEO getting arrested for insider training. But the news drives the market, the market doesn’t just go up or down on its own. Check out Bloomberg.com or even yahoo finance to check on the stories driving the market that day.
But it’s OK. I tend to forgive difficult students, since I was also difficult for my teachers at various times.
I’m well aware of the various stories that are found to rationalize the daily behavior of the markets, but they always have a sort of magical “just-so” quality to them.
Here’s an example I found while looking for something else.
It wouldn’t bug me so much except that I’ve seen the same explanation offered for two opposite movements. And my background suggests that the large-scale movement is often somewhat random.
Why did my class do worse on the second exam than the first exam? Well, Bill had a toothache, and Sarah had another exam to study for at the same time, and Ted took this course before but this was the part where he gave up, and Joan’s parents just got divorced, and on the whole the average moved, and I think it’s because today’s square root day.
Everyone has individual reasons for what they buy or sell, but when you average all the buyers and sellers and all the stocks, you end up looking for “one big theory” to explain any movement when there really isn’t one. And if you look hard enough, you can find such a theory. But then you end up having to make lots of exceptions since it was only created to fit one particular situation, and never quite applies elsewhere.
It seems like it’ll take a long time to read through financial articles to find a good example of what I’m talking about, so I’ll just have to leave you with my general impression.
So specifics won’t be necessary. The only thing is that my point would take a long time to find examples too, so how about we just go with impressions.
The difference in your example regarding the math class and the stock market is the pyschological component. For that example to work, it would have to be more along the lines of:
“Why did your class do worse on the second exam?
“Well, Bill had a toothache and Sarah had another exam, and since the class knew this they knew that Bill and Sarah’s poor performance was going to drag down the collective class score so everybody decided that their individual performance was no longer important.” Or something like that. 🙂
The news comes through during the day and investors act on it. It’s not like traders operate in a bubble where they have no access to the day’s news. So if some news lends itself to the preception that the economy is somehow shaky, they’re going to react. Likewise, if the overall news is good, or there is some significant nugget of good news, the investors will react positively.
True, a lot of the action is based on the expectations of other people’s actions. And I guess there’s no good mathematical theory for modeling that (as far as I know).
It would seem to imply that investors don’t so much react to news as predict how others are going to react to news. So for example, once most traders understand that a lot of other traders are Republicans, the rational response to any piece of news from Democrats is to be negative. Not because one personally cares, or because one personally thinks Democratic policies will hurt the economy (whether one does is irrelevant), but because you believe that’s what all the Republicans on the floor will think.
So based on this theory, the relative importance of any bit of news will be ridiculously exaggerated, and the response to it won’t necessarily have anything to do with how good a policy is for the public or even for business.
Interesting. So you’ve convinced me: I have to modify my theory. I’ve actually always been curious about a lot of this stuff, especially the question of where the value actually is in a stock: lots of illegal investments are also based on “confidence,” like Ponzi schemes, so at what point do stocks actually become any different from those? Probably better to address this over a beer some time, though. These posts are getting ridiculously long. Nice debating you though.
We can discuss it further sometime over drinks-just be warned that mine will probably be a soda. 🙂
Free market types are always quick to sing its praises when things are going well, but when the economy and stock market tank, it’s all “Government isn’t doing enough for the markets!”
Give me a break.
Funny how 40%+ losses make people rethink their position… But once the market/economy recover, people will regain faith in some sort of free market system.
I am one of the people who think that a free market system has the optimal balance between governmental regulation combined with the greatest amount of economic freedom. I do not subscribe to this line of thinking that the market can take care of everything on its own. At best, government is a necessary evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that it has some sort of role. The trick is finding the smallest role it can have while still doing what it needs to do.
I’m sure Ari disagrees with you, but you present your argument in a way that engages your opponent instead of demeans them.
I mean, Republicans admitting that alone would bridge a significant portion of the divide that the two parties have over this issue. Instead they want some sort of Ayn Rand fantasy land where there is no regulation and the invisible hand cares for all. After what has happened to the economy and the market the last 18 months, that’s just not going to happen.
The more we have conversations like this (where we can disagree respectfully and not cross the line into pettiness) then I have hope for the future of this country and this economy.
Because Haners isn’t the kind of capitalist I mean when I talk about “free marketers.” I mean the laissez-faire types who believe government is at best an obstacle and at worst a taker of hard-earned gains (or maybe they imagine gov’t to be even worse than that). Haners is more grounded in reality and acknowledges that there is a constructive role for government in the equation, even if his description of “necessary evil” is a bit over the top. We may actually be real close to each other on this topic.
My jibe is more at the “free market uber alles” types who illogically (but conveniently) find fault with the Obama administration in this instance. It’s an unintended acknowledgment that the market can’t get itself out of this mess.
But I don’t see how it is that much of an admission. The free market is a wonderful place-people can enter it with a great idea and make money. They can invest their hard earned money and make money. Free markets provide more jobs then the government can create and provide many opportunities for people to better their lives.
On the flip side, free markets didn’t end child labor, hasn’t ended human trafficing (s/p?) and in other ways have taken advantage of people who didn’t have a realistic avenue of either fixing the problem or being aware of potential risks. I would assume that any student of history would recognize that at times government has had a positive and needed role in economic matters.
Also, history would show that over involvment has yielded equally distrubing results.
That is why I don’t like higher taxes-from an economic standpoint, it comes at a cost. Call the dentist in Boulder an idiot all you want, but if she cuts a job, that is still another person in the unemployment line. If our corporate tax rate is too high, that’s a company that might like our work force but not the tax rate, so they settle for their second choice. If we have so much red tape and regulations that a person with a great idea would rather not go through a seemingly endless process of doing XYZ to fulfill some politician’s social engineering program, that’s another edge in the world economy that we’ve lost out on.
Hence, we need to strive to find the right balance between a free market that yields a child labor work force and a Soviet type “economy” that will eventually collapse under its own weight.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs…
From the quoted article:
was a wash. It was just the right amount to put me in the next tax bracket, so my check came out to about the same as pre-raise. Maybe I was just stupid (being 18, that seems reasonable), but I just worked harder for another raise. I guess I should’ve asked for my original rate? What a lesson. That dentist has the luckiest kids ever!
When you move up a tax bracket it’s only the money over that amount that is taxed at the higher rate. Even Bill Gates pays the lowest rate on his first N dollars of income.
What you claim is impossible so you’re either stupid or a liar.
What was that you were saying about people posting under their own names being more polite? Or did I misunderstand that?
That was a pretty damn rude way of saying that. Especially since droll isn’t some random sock puppet or something.
But economic stupidity got us into this mess and we need people to instead be economically literate if we are going to fix things.
You’re sorry but only if you were overly harsh, which you don’t admit to being.
Anyway, I thought droll was agreeing with the point that the Boulder dentist was being daft. Maybe I misread droll’s post.
What I wrote was totally out of line – sorry droll.
j/k
🙂
which is obviously to go into dentistry. This chick is working to stay below $250,000? Seriously, can you think of another job, with so little stress, that pays that much?
some kind of closet anti-Dentite? 🙂
Anyway I was agreeing with sxp that the dentist is dumb.
I had the job while taking 18 credits at UCD. I was making $9/hr, about 20 hrs a week. My raise was to $10. The difference in the paycheck was minimally higher. When you’re dealing with small numbers the difference is more pronounced.
The bigger point, like you’re always saying, is that I didn’t cut my hours to make less. I kept taking classes, worked more hours, and got more raises.
your taxes wouldn’t have been substantially higher just for being in a higher tax bracket.
As a simple example, imagine you get taxed at a rate of 10% of your income if you make $9/hr or less. But if you make $10/hr your marginal rate becomes 20% of your income. Your first thought might be that your taxes went from 90 cents an hour to $2.00 an hour, so your real wages actually went from $8.10 an hour to $8.00 an hour and you lost money.
Except that’s not how a marginal rate works. Instead you would be charged 10% of the first $9.00, so 90 cents there, and then 20% of that one additional dollar (so 20 cents there). Your total tax would be $1.10, so your real earnings actually went from $8.10 to $8.90. Your raise isn’t quite as much as you thought it was, but you could never possibly end up the same as where you were after a raise. The system is explicitly designed that way.
Your other point about it being silly to cut hours even with all else being equal is true, but it’s important to be clear about how the math actually works, which is why I (and I think David) got so pissed off at the people in this stupid article.
This seemed like a teachable moment, so I teached. Oh well.
…but I kept thinking that the 80 cents you identified as droll’s raise (after the new taxes) was similar to what droll already said, i.e.,
So, I was still struggling to find room between your position and droll’s. But then my little head exploded, so I gave up.
which is a very different thing.
My numbers are based on hourly wages, so of course an 80 cents-per-hour raise looks small if he’s only working one hour per week, but it’s similar to the $1.00-an-hour raise he would have gotten without taxes and the 90 cents-per-hour raise he would have gotten under a flat tax.
But you’re probably not reading this with your head all exploded and everything.
I pulled the stubs and they were about the same, but the YTD is higher than I remembered. Probably the 8 1/2 months working overtime to save for tuition? Anyway, it wasn’t much and only an idiot would have said, “Fuck it, I’m staying home.” Jam Jam’s right, we agree. Let it go.
Nice math though.
That’s the only reason I care; wasn’t trying to pick a fight or anything, just want to make sure people understand math when it’s applicable. Sorry about the gender mixup.
Was if you were working 20 hours/wk and you got an additional $1.00/hr, that’s $20.00/wk before taxes or roughly $14.00 even if your tax rate did not change.
I don’t think it was the tax rate, just the fact that it is small numbers to start with as you said.
Welcome back. Your insightful comments have been sorely missed the last few weeks.
That might also improve the quality of dental care for her patients. A rested and non-overworked professional is a more competent professional.
working poor, who face federal income taxes, state income taxes, earned income tax credit phase out, FICA or self-employment taxes, and sometimes government benefit means test phase outs in addition, all at the same time.
Facing an “Earned income tax credit phase out,” sounds pretty good. Must be earning more.
Payroll don’t hit the hedge fund guys, but they are not marginal. In fact, that’s upside down. Low income is taxed at a lower rate.
If you make $25,000 and a have a spouse and two kids, your next dollar may increase your aftertax income by about 30-40 cents.
30-0 odds (on the Big Line for Governor for Don Marcostica) violated sacred principals of mathematics that even Colorado Pols has never before dared to abridge.
Given that Don Marcostica is not dead and is eligible to run for Governor unlike many residents of Colorado due to age or lack of voter registration, and that at least have a dozen people in the history of the U.S. have been elected while dead, he ought to have odds of at least 500,000 to one, which would be much more likely than 30-0, to the extent that this is even defined. 😉
I feel stupid for not noticing that. Usually I’m the first one to point out others’ mistakes!
In particular, for governor, Tom Tancredo is given 8-1 odds, while Penry is given 25-1 odds? I understand that Penry has been in the news recently with some pretty poor decision making. Penry is inexperienced and making some poor and inconsistent decisions right now. Tancredo is completely $%@!ick insane. There’s just no comparison.
The fluff piece on Penry in the Post last week was necessary because nobody knows who he is. You don’t see pieces like that on Tancredo because he’s been in the limelight as a Congressman and Presidential candidate.
Also, if it came down to a primary, don’t you think tank would take Penry to the cleaners? He has a lot potential to raise money from his big time national $%@!ick insane Republican supporters.
are a taste high in spite of his name recognition. The people who hate him REALLY hate him. A lot of his recognition is negative.
My experience canvassing for his opponents in CD6 is that, outside of a hardcore bigot base, even most of those who voted for the guy aren’t all that crazy about him.
R is just the default choice in this CD, especially since we’re not competitive enough to be targeted and by election day, your average CD6 voter doesn’t know anything about the Dem candidate, may be aware of seeing the name for the first time on the ballot.
Statewide is a different thing entirely. No far right xenophobic wacko is going to win in 2010.
So if, in fact, the odds are higher for Tancredo to win in a primary, then we run into a fascinating question of what the Big Line is supposed to measure. The fact remains that Tom Tancredo stands about zero chance of winning a state-wide general election. So it may be that Tancredo is likely to get further (i.e., through the primary and then get trounced worse than Beauprez in the general), but Penry stands a better chance of actually winning (since non-zero is always higher than zero). In that case, should Penry or Tancredo have the better odds? Depends on what you are measuring, I guess.
The long odds against Don Marostica (30-0 is presumably is a typo and should be 30-1) really only pertain to his chances of winning the GOP nomination. In the general election, he’s probably the most likely to beat Ritter out of the four Repubs listed.
THE RITTER REICH HAS TAKEN FAKE TRANSPARENCY TO A NEW LEVEL!
WITH A PUTIN-LIKE STAGING, RITTER SHILL BUREACRATS ANNOUNCED THAT DURING UPCOMING COGCC TRAINING SESSIONS, THE PARTICIPANTS WILL BE PROHIBITED FROM ASKING QUESTIONS OF CLARIFICATION.
DOES BILL RITTER REALLY BELIEVE MEANINGFUL TECHNICAL TRAINING CAN OCCUR WITHOUT RECIPRICATION BETWEEN THE COGCC AND THE PEOPLE BEING TRAINED?
SO NOW WE HAVE THE MOST FAR REACHING DRILLING RESTRICTIONS IN AMERICA AND ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS!?
CAN YOU IMAGINE ANY OTHER PUBLIC PROCESS WHERE STATE BEAURACRATS PUT A GAG ORDER ON THE PUBLIC……
THE WORST PART IS THAT THEIR ANSWER IS SOME BS ANSWER WHERE QUESTIONS CAN BE SUBMITED INTO THE DIGITAL ABYSS ON THEIR WEBSITE. THIS IN NOT WAY REPLACES REAL HUMAN INTERACTION AND TRAINING.
THEIR ANSWER WOULD BE LIKE TRAINING PILOTS TO FLY A PLANE WITHOUT SPEAKING BACK AND FORTH.
THE FINAL CHAPTER OF BILL RITTERS’ KANGAROO COURT
and their precious lower-case letters. When will they learn? GET WITH THE FUTURE!!!
Do you have a link to the offending policy?
Ms. Baldwin is back, and she’s pissed.
Now, please.
There has been lots and lots and lots of opportunity for the oil and gas industry to provide comments, feedback, suggestions, lies, exaggerations, fear-mongering, and obstructionist tactics throughout the process. The public has not been shut out.
No. No it’s nothing like that at all.
Please provide some support for something in your rant, perhaps starting with this over broad generalization.
I am really sick of lame shills mixing their political metaphors. Third Reich or post-soviet Russia?
Sorry, you’re stuck with him and his Nazi Germany circa 1941/post-Soviet Russia circa 2005 (or do you mean as PM?) ‘Kangaroo
CourtTraining Session’ for another 21 months at the least, and that’s assuming that your masters’ attempts to dump millions into Ritter’s defeat is successful, and that the CO GOP’s attempt to find a candidate and relevancy is successful. Otherwise you’re stuck with Ritter for almost six more years so I don’t think its the last complaint that you’ll have.First, thanks for signing up less than thirty minutes before your mindless all-caps harangue.
Second, your title makes absolutely no sense. There is no “gag” on the COGCC staff. Indeed, the staff are scheduled to speak nearly continuously for seven hours per day over eight days.
Third, we all know what most of the questions would be: “This is going to be too hard. I’m going to tell Sen. Brophy and Penry this is too hard.”
Fourth, why aren’t you complaining that the state is spending all this money on training? Shouldn’t we just let these private industries figure out how to do this on their own? If these industry titans can’t figure out how to obey some new rules, maybe they aren’t smart enough to operate in Colorado.
Fifth, the New Mexico pit rules were, and continue to be, much more restrictive than anything Colorado has included in its new rules.
Sixth, it is quite obviously not the same as training a pilot. It appears it might be much more like teaching a neighbor’s child how to behave when visiting your home.
Frankly, I also have problems that no questions are allowed. But seeing some of these over the top responses by the industry shills, I have great sympathy for the COGCC staff who must work with these jerks and understand why they might not want to deal with more whining than they have to.
So Kate, what’s the going rate for shills? Clearly the industry needs some new ones. I’m just wondering whether it would be worth signing up? Would you be a reference for me?
Such a smackdown I can feel the reverberations from here.
Why doesnt the industry offer a grant to the COGCC to cover the costs associated with a 30 minute Q&A session.
While we know it would be very, very onerous and very, very, difficult: a brief Q&A might provide an already confused environmental compliance secotr with a better understanding of how to come into compliance with these onerous new regulations!
I was about to suggest the industry offer you a grant to buy a new one.
The little red hen called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, “If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?”
“Not I” said the cow.
“Not I” said the duck.
“Not I” said the pig.
“Not I” said the goose.
“Then I will do it by myself”, said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
“Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.
“Not I” said the duck
“Out of my classification” said the pig.
“I’d lose my seniority” said the cow.
“I’d lose my unemployement compensation” said the goose.
“Then I will do it by myself” said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last came time to bake the bread.
“Who will help me bake the bread?” asked the little red hen.
“That would be overtime for me” said the cow.
“I’d lose my welfare benefits” said the duck
“I’m a dropout and never learned how” said the pig.
‘If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination” said the goose.
“Then I’ll do it by myself” said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said “No, I shall eat all five loaves.”
“Excess profits!” cried the cow (Nancy Pelosi)
“Capitalist leech!” screamed the duck (Barbara Boxer)
“I demand equal rights!” yelled the goose (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted “Unfair!” picket signs and marched around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, “You must not be so greedy.”
‘But I earned the bread.” said the little red hen.
“Exactly” said Barack the framer. “That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.”
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, “I am grateful, for now I truly understand.”
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the “party” and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. “Fairness” had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared…..so long as there was free bread that “the rich” were paying for.
EPILOGUE
Bill Clinton is getting $12,000,000.00 for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8,000,000.00 for hers
That’s $20,000,000.00 for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn’t remember anything.
IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?
So what does that make Alberto Gonzales’ memoirs worth? $30 million? Shame Fredo can’t find work after doing all that forgetting and all that lying for the team.
(I assume it lost something in translation.)
who can imitate in every way any conservative pundit.
There’s a certain benefit to simple-speaking, I suppose, but at some point if your entire political viewpoint can be summed up in a story for 3-year-olds, it’s not a terribly deep one.
If I’d based my entire political philosophy on The Little Match Girl, I’d probably be a big Communist or something, and that’d be silly (even in Boulder).
First you are upset that liberals don’t do any work and then take the result of other’s work.
Second you’re upset that Bill & Hillary sold their book on the free market for an effort they themselves made writing it.
So liberals not working – bad.
And liberals working and getting paid for that work – bad.
Not that the Clintons were ever liberals. They were triangulating, slicing and dicing centrists. So anyone left of Limbaugh bad? Drug addled, multiply divorced blowhard hypocrites espousing family values and bragging about their support for a Constitution they clearly know nothing about good?
Then there’s poor Georgie. He’s being advised to wait on those memoirs since he probably doesn’t have enough family and friends to make a printing profitable at this point in time.
“The American people’s money must be spent to advance their priorities — not to line the pockets of contractors or to maintain projects that don’t work.
Recently that public trust has not always been kept. Over the last eight years, government spending on contracts has doubled to over half a trillion dollars. Far too often, the spending is plagued by massive cost overruns, outright fraud, and the absence of oversight and accountability. In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition. In others, contractors actually oversee other contractors. We are spending money on things that we don’t need, and we’re paying more than we need to pay. And that’s completely unacceptable.
This problem cuts across the government, but I want to focus on one particular example, and that is the situation in defense contracting. Now, I want to be clear, as Commander-in-Chief, I will do whatever it takes to defend the American people, which is why we’ve increased funding for the best military in the history of the world. We’ll make new investments in 21st century capabilities to meet new strategic challenges. And we will always give our men and women the — in uniform, the equipment and the support that they need to get the job done.
But I reject the false choice between securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. And in this time of great challenges, I recognize the real choice between investments that are designed to keep the American people safe and those that are designed to make a defense contractor rich.
Last year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, looked into 95 major defense projects and found cost overruns that totaled $295 billion. Let me repeat: That’s $295 billion in wasteful spending. And this wasteful spending has many sources. It comes from investments and unproven technologies. It comes from a lack of oversight. It comes from influence peddling and indefensible no-bid contracts that have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.”
You probably won’t get the connection to your bs story…but give it some thought.