Showing posts with label Government Tyranny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Tyranny. Show all posts

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Government Efficiency At Its Best: USPS Removes Clocks From Post Offices

Just a reminder of how efficiently the government operates: The US Postal service has found a way to decrease long waits, by removing clocks from all post offices.

Tell me if this makes sense to you:

"We want people to focus on postal service and not the clock," said Stephen Seewoester, Dallas spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service.
Does it scare you that these are the same people who want to run every aspect of your life? As the Consumerist notes:
The USPS has removed clocks from 37,000 post offices as part of a "retail standardization program." Um, correct us if we're wrong here but:

• People carry timepieces.

•The post office is not a casino. People aren't going to lose themselves in the fun and mail more letters than they'd originally intended.

Is this the best they can come up with?

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Who's Really Looking Out For 'The Poor'

By: Shane

Since LBJ first had the idea of a Great Society and began to implement massive socialist reforms, the Left has vastly redefined poverty to further their socialist agenda and welfare policy.

As the Washington think tank The Heritage Foundation points out, a rich man used to own a horse, and a poor man had to walk. These days a rich man owns a BMW and a poor man makes due with a used Buick. The difference between rich and poor in America has become merely aesthetic. When we think of poverty, we imagine people who are homeless and starving to death. This just isn’t the case. Liberals and the media have redefined poverty to include anyone who can’t afford to buy the luxury items that the average working American enjoys.

The Heritage foundation's data shows that “Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.” On top of that, 76% of “poor” households have air-conditioning, 75% own cars, 97% have colored televisions (more than 50% own two or more colored TVs), 78% have VCRs or DVD players, 62% have cable or satellite, 73% have microwaves, more than 50% have stereo systems, and 33% have dishwashers.

Welfare isn’t just going to people who could actually use it - the people who are starving on the streets with no place to sleep at night. A vast majority of it is going to people who are simply too lazy to find work. And why would they want to work when they can have a higher quality of living than the average citizen of Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe without lifting a finger?

The Left thrives on creating class warfare; convincing people that they are victims who need the government’s help. This is how they get votes, basically buying them by promising people who feel a sense of entitlement government paychecks for doing absolutely nothing. While the Left is exploiting the poor to gain power, you and I are paying for it through the countless taxes the Left has placed on practically everything, including sales tax on the things we buy, sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, taxes on services such as auto repair and movie tickets, and taxes on our income, among many others.

If you want a government handout, you’d better actually need it, and not just be sitting in a nice house with the AC blasting watching your TV or driving to the mall to pick up some new clothes (and grabbing some groceries with your food stamps while your out). When a vast majority of welfare recipients have a better standard of living then most Europeans, you know the system is no longer helping those in need, but has become a means of redistributing wealth that's so sneaky Lennon, Marx and Mao would be impressed.

If the Left really cared about the poor they would stop stifling economic growth in America with their incessant taxes and regulations. Cutting taxes not only increases government revenue, but it allows the private sector to flourish, creating more high paying jobs, effectively reducing poverty. Government enforced minimum wage laws lead to an increase in unemployment, hurting the poor. Instead of making $5 an hour like they would before a minimum wage increase, many low skill workers would be fired by employers who couldn't afford to pay the new higher wages. Then they make no money at all; how does that help them? By attempting to restrain an increasingly intrusive government from hindering the free market, conservatives are the ones who are really looking out for the poor. Liberals have simply locked America's poor in a vicious cycle of poverty, and all so they could get a few more votes. Ask yourself; who's really helping the poor?

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Digg This!

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Court Rejects Philip Morris' $79 Million Penalty

Bad news for all of the morons out there that think they should be paid for there own stupid decisions:

WASHINGTON -- Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit Tuesday won a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to a $79.5 million punitive-damages award made by an Oregon jury.

The high court voted 5-4 to overturn the jury verdict, ruling it violated earlier high court decisions on limits to punitive damages. The decision could further curb the size of product liability awards against companies beyond new limits the high court outlined in its 2003 State Farm ruling.

Good news however for those of us participating in the free market who don't want to pay higher prices because of people who were unable to notice that smoking made them cough up blood.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

'My City Was Gone'

I almost forgot to post a conservative song this week! Anyway, this week I've picked "My City Was Gone," by The Pretenders. It qualifies as a conservative song just for being Rush Limbaugh's theme song, but it also rips on large, command governments grabbing up land and selling it to the highest bidder:



Here're the lyrics:

I went back to ohio
But my city was gone
There was no train station
There was no downtown
South howard had disappeared
All my favorite places
My city had been pulled down
Reduced to parking spaces
A, o, way to go ohio

Well I went back to ohio
But my family was gone
I stood on the back porch
There was nobody home
I was stunned and amazed
My childhood memories
Slowly swirled past
Like the wind through the trees
A, o, oh way to go ohio

I went back to ohio
But my pretty countryside
Had been paved down the middle
By a government that had no pride
The farms of ohio
Had been replaced by shopping malls
And muzak filled the air
From seneca to cuyahoga falls
Said, a, o, oh way to go ohio

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Evil Profit Hungry Big Tobacco

I was just looking out how evil big tobacco is, putting profits before their costumer's health. But then again, who's really making a gross profit off of cigarettes? And people wonder why the government won't just get around to banning them. Here's where profits go in my state:

The image “https://www.rjrt.com/legal/graphics/mi-pack.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Smokers' Oppression In The EU

Bad news for smokers in the EU: law makers there are trying to make the entire EU a "smoke-free zone."

If you live in Europe, smoking should be the least of your worries, what with crazy "youths" rioting, Muslims blowing things up, an aging population, and a monstrous health care system.

Drunk In Public ... Schools

Screw the family. Screw the village. It takes a public school:

The test, which will be given randomly to students at Pequannock Township High School, can detect whether alcohol was consumed up to 80 hours earlier. The legal drinking age in the United States is 21.

Other districts already use the test. Middletown began using it last spring for students suspected of using drugs and alcohol. This month, the district expanded it to include a random pool of about 1,800 students.

Pequannock Superintendent Larrie Reynolds said the policy approved last week should be a deterrent to students who feel peer pressure to drink.

After all. The government knows how to raise your children much better than you do. This story wouldn't bother me so much, if it weren't for the overwhelming, sissy liberal solution for problem students in the next paragraph:
Under the program, students who test positive will not be kicked off teams or barred from extracurricular activities, Reynolds said. Instead, they will receive counseling — and their parents will be notified.

Monday, January 29, 2007

IRS Kills Dream - Duh.

The IRS crushes another American dream:

Brian Emmett's childhood fantasy came true when he won a free trip to outer space. He was crushed when he had to cancel his reservation because of Uncle Sam.

Emmett won his ticket to the heavens in a 2005 sweepstakes by Oracle Corp., in which he answered a series of online questions on Java computer code. He became an instant celebrity, giving media interviews and appearing on stage at Oracle's trade show.

For the self-described space buff who has attended space camp and watched shuttle launches from Kennedy Space Center, it seemed like a chance to become an astronaut on a dime.

Then reality struck. After some number-crunching, Emmett realized he would have to report the $138,000 galactic joy ride as income and owe $25,000 in taxes. Unwilling to sink into debt, the 31-year-old software consultant from the San Francisco Bay area gave up his seat.
You just can't get away with having any fun without giving the government their pound of flesh, can you?

Friday, January 19, 2007

Another Reason California Sucks

Only in California:

The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.

"I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. "Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?''

What the Hell is this psycho talking about? I'd bet quite a lot of money that it's already illegal to whip and beat children in California. That's not what this bill is about. It's about some liberal obsession with stopping all forms of punishment for any crime - whether it be a murderer being jailed or a disobedient toddler being spanked, they can't stand it when justice is served.

This is also another case of liberal hypocrisy. Is it just me, or is this a case of liberals "legislating morality"? If Congress bans gay marriage, or tries to save Terri Schiavo's life, or Texas outlaws the disgustingly unclean act of sodomy, or some other state bans birth control or - Mother Earth forbid - abortion, these liberals go off on conservatives for "legislating their morality," but they're allowed telling parents how to discipline their children? Hypocrisy you can only find on the left.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Global Warming in Congress

Didn't Al Gore already do this? Anyway:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created a special committee Thursday in an effort to jump-start long-delayed government efforts to deal with global warming.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said the committee would hold hearings and recommend legislation on how to reduce greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuels, that most scientists blame for a gradual warming of the earth's climate.

I was just thinking how raising our taxes can only cripple the economy so much. If the Democrats really hated America, they'd throw some sufficating environmental restrictions on our businesses too. And then they did it. Way to go Dems.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Surprise of the Day: Dems To Raise Taxes

Flopping Aces has an article from a subscription-based website about how the Democrats have begun (like they weren't already planning it) discussions on implementing new taxes:

Senate Democrats are considering a step in the politically sensitive direction of tax increases, but only to offset an $8.3 billion package of new tax breaks.

Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., proposes to limit deferred compensation to business executives to $1 million annually in the Senate version of a measure (HR 2) that would increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour and provide small-business tax breaks.

The Finance panel is scheduled to mark up the legislation Wednesday.

House and Senate tax writers are at odds on the small-business tax provisions. New York Democrat Charles B. Rangel, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, wants to keep the minimum wage bill free of tax cuts.

The House has a new pay-as-you-go rule that requires offsets for the cost of any new tax cuts or entitlement spending.

According to lobbyists and aides in both parties, a list of offsets circulated by Baucus includes the plan to raise $806 million in revenue over 10 years by capping the amount of compensation that can be deferred annually. Pay above the amount that could not be deferred would be subject to the top federal income tax rate of 35 percent.
Why can't Democrats wrap there sometimes bizarrely shaped heads around the idea that lower taxes leads to higher government revenue?

As mentioned above, the rest of the article is pay-to-read, but Flopping Aces has been kind enough to post the whole damn thing.

Also, congratulations to Flopping Aces for the "Obvious Headline of the Day":
Democrats Consider Tax Hikes

While I'm talking about Flopping Aces, they've found a great liberal conspiracy about Donald Rumsfeld being responsible for bombing the Pentagon.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

New Breakfast Epidemic

Beware:

It's not unusual for Dee McKinsey to have three cans of Coke before she leaves the house each morning for her job as the regional director of boards and volunteerism at the American Cancer Society in Chicago.

"There is nothing better than the feel of Coke on the back of your throat in the morning," said McKinsey, a morning pop drinker since the 1970s, savoring the cold, stinging sensation that coffee drinkers just don't get.

But these days, more people are enjoying that chilled morning jolt as they increasingly turn to soft drinks instead of coffee, flaunting mom's no-pop-for-breakfast rule many had in their youth.

Consumption of soft drinks at breakfast eaten outside the home has nearly doubled in the past 15 years, while coffee consumption with breakfast outside the home has fallen nearly 25 percent, according to data compiled by New-York based consumer research firm NPD Group, which has offices in Rosemont.

Not that I'm looking forward to the inevitable nanny-state reaction that will follow this new "epidemic," but come on Dee; three Cokes before you even go to work?

More Smokers' Oppression

Another instance of smokers not being allowed to smoke in their own homes.

I swear, all of this smokers' oppression is making me so angry I feel like I'm going to throw up a hippo:



And yes, that last line was a horrible segue used as an excuse to post a video of an anaconda throwing up a hippo...

Thursday, January 11, 2007

More Smoker's Oppression - In DC

Nancy Pelosi is starting her effective run as House speaker, by banning smoking in the Capitol Building. Now if legislators want a smoke break during votes (more likely with the stress of having to listen to Pelosi's inane rambling) they'll be forced outside to a freezing balcony (but not within 25 feet of an entrance, that's forbidden!)

Pelosi cites "unquestionable" scientific evidence that second hand smoke kills, probably about as accurate as "unquestionable" scientific evidence that global warming exists. So as long as we're using fuzzy logic, here's some that is at least common sense (via Cigars & Theology):

All claims of the EPA and anti-smoking crowd depend for their general acceptance on the credibility of those disseminating them and upon the inability of the typical listener to perform simple sanity checks using common sense and arithmetic.

The simplest check is this: it takes 20 years or more for damage (cancer, emphysema, etc.) to manifest itself in a smoker. ETS is hundreds of times more diluted than the smoke that enters the smokers’ mouth (unless you happen to perform mouth-to-mouth for some reason). Non smokers would have to live with ETS for upwards of 2,000 years to incur the same damage.

Here’s another easy test of truth: Smoke from charcoal contains many of the same components as those most feared in tobacco smoke (carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, carcinogens and so forth). A ten-pound bag of charcoal produces as much smoke (and harmful chemicals) as 160 packs of cigarettes. Are you going to quit barbecuing? Probably not. Yet the slightest whiff of tobacco smoke gives many anti-smokers apoplectic fits. Are they being hysterical?


Once again, libs are cracking down on people's rights based on their flawed, "scientific" logic.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

More On Smoker Oppression

Apparently Bangor, ME has banned smoking in one's own car when children are present. They're not the first, either. Of course, it's common sense not to smoke in an enclosed car with children present, but the government figures it better step in and be everyone's parent. Thanks nanny state!

More Stomping Of Smokers' Rights

More fascist stomping of smokers' rights in the UK: "UK Couple Faces Smoking Probe In Own Home." Apparently the neighbor alleges she can smell smoke in her living room. Cry me a river!

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

NYC Bans Trans Fats

More rights fly out the window in NYC, where trans fats have now been banned in restaurants. Can someone say "slippery slope?" First smoking, now trans fats. What next? Candy, full-contact sports, or anything else enjoyable that the government could deem too dangerous is at risk. But hey, it's all for our own good...

Monday, November 27, 2006

Colorado Homeowners Association Bans Hanging Of 'Peace Wreath'

A Colorado homeowners association has forbid a woman to hang a Christmas wreath shaped like a peace symbol. This all seems ridiculous to me. You have homeowners associations banning everything US flags, to political signs, to smoking, to peace wreaths. Just let people live.

However, it is worth noting that the media (and no doubt the courts) will give this their undivided attention. Where were they when homeowners associations were banning the flying of US flags because it could "offend" someone? Liberal double standard alert!