Showing posts with label family planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family planning. Show all posts

Friday, February 6, 2009

What are you worth?

Once the "stimulus (read giving more money to failing businessmen who buy private planes and go on $400,000 retreats) package passes our national deficit will hit 11 Trillion Dollars!!! Which, if you break it down over the roughly 300 million Americans equals approximately $40,000 for every man, woman and child. I have a family of 3, that means I am on the hook for $120,000. Isn't that the price for an entry level home these days? Awesome. Good job government. Thanks so much.

Unemployment is up to approximately 7.6%, something like 598,000 jobs lost last month (No, Nancy Pelosi, not 500 million jobs lost each month - are we all working 2 jobs now?). Good news is more Americans are changing their spending habits - saving more, using coupons, incurring less debt, not speculating on rising home values (there's a big one). Now if only we could get the boys in Washington to do that. What am I talking about, of course they have our interests at heart.

Seriously though, could I just get the 120K I am on the hook for?

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Should Stay-At-Home Mothers Get Paid?

Here's a thought. Stay at home mothers should get a paycheck. What if the government paid these hard working women (and men for you stay at home dads) a small stipend for their hard work? $5,000 non-taxable dollars for each child up to the age of 18. You would have to apply for the program, and that could be done at the same time you fill out paperwork for your child's birth certificate. There would be required drug testing, and if you fail you are barred from the program for 12 months and can reapply at that time. I know that is a stricter policy than any sports program here, but it's for the kids. Should the program only apply to married women with children? What about wives who do not have children? I have not worked out the kinks yet, and let's face it, this would never make it to the President's desk. It is not very much money, but it could be enough to encourage more mothers to stay home and raise their children instead of sticking them in (disease infested, overworked and understaffed) child care centers. Wouldn't this promote a more cohesive family unit, and therefor better adjusted children? I believe it would, and who's going to turn down some extra cash to help with the bills and family vacations? Some would ask, "who's going to pay for this (taxpayers)," and some would say "that will only increase our national debt." Hey, at least this way you know where some of your tax money is going (and it just might make it back your wife), and with the amount of debt our government is racking up, don't make me feel guilty for wanting a piece of the pie. When I see the Pentagon and Congress working on a (limited) budget, that is when I will drink that kool aid.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

How Green is Too Green, and Why Isn't it Easier?

I read (can you really believe everything you read?) that environmentalists are encouraging families to limit their number of offspring to 2 children because it is better for the environment. The logic is, the more children you have, the larger your carbon footprint. Would the same logic suggest that at some point we should kill ourselves to minimize our overall carbon footprint? I mean, if you are dead, you are not consuming fossil fuels, you are not encroaching on the habitats of endangered species and you are not contributing to global warming. In fact, as you decompose you should actually be giving back to mother Earth!!! Perhaps that is a bit too green for me. Does that make me an energy hog?


Sometimes I wonder if it is too much trouble to try being green. We have to pay to have our local trash company recycle our trash (you know, the little red recycle boxes you can put out with your trash?), any hybrid vehicle is grossly overpriced, as is anything organic. In general, it is more easier to be Ungreen. Why is it easier to be harmful to the environment? You would think that our world leaders (not just the United States, so listen up China, India and Europe), would want to encourage more environmental responsible behavior. Not to mention global warming (which is of course, a joke born from the mind of weed-smoking tree sitters in Oregon and California). It should be easier.


One more thought: As the national average has topped the $4 mark, has anyone actually been to visit ANWR?