Assume you drive 12,000 miles in a year in an old car that gets 12 mpg. In an average year you will purchase 1000 gallons of gasoline which at $3.50/gallon equates to $3,500 in fuel costs. Assuming you are a responsible driver and get your oil changed by the "pros" at Jiffy Lube every 3,000 miles ($29,95) you spend another $120 per year on minimum maintenance.
Assume your "clunker" is valued at $4,000, of which you pay about $50 in personal property tax for the "privilege" of owning a car.
Now, you decide to trade in this "clunker" which you own, free and clear, towards a brand-new, higher-mileage car. You get Kelly Blue Book top dollar for your trade-in, having kept it in immaculate, showroom condition all these years. You negotiate a great price on a 2013 Ford Fusion SE - $23,000. After taxes and tags you owe $24,380, minus your trade PLUS the extra grand you brought with you to sweeten the pot = $19,380 which you agree to finance on-site at a great rate of 2.9%.
Your new car payment is $594.59/mo for 36 months (three years). Not to worry, though, this new car gets 25 mpg around town and a staggering 37 mpg on the highway. Well, your commute is mostly highway miles and you never get caught in traffic, so you assume you average about 32 mpg per tank. Your driving habits don't change all that much the first three years, so you purchase 375 gallons of fuel at $3.50/gallon, totalling $1,312.50 in total fuel costs. Your new car has a smart oil feature and only requires oil changes every 6000 miles, and they're included at no charge with your new car service program. LUCKY YOU!
So, let's add it up. Your old car, over 36 months would have cost you $11,010 to own. Your shiny new car? Well it is taxed at almost $415 annually on top of your fuel and payment, $26,587.73 for a net savings... hey, wait a doggone minute! It costs over $15,000 MORE to own that new car ! And discounting basic maintenance (tires, filters, etc) for most vehicles as even-up, it would take EIGHT YEARS for the new car to begin to put you on the positive side of that equation.
And let's face it, by then you'll be wanting a new car again anyway. Sucker.
(Please, by all means, verify or refute my thought process.)
11 September, 2012
Obama -vs- Romney: Misinformation Showdown
In a recent flurry of campaign advertisements by the big-two candidates it has become evident, now more than ever, that both of these moral reprobates has no interest in facts or reasonable dialog regarding the economic state of this country.
Sure, there are other facets, but I am going to concentrate on two (2) disparate television ads which I had the unpleasant experience of viewing back-to-back last night.
First, let's explore Mitt Romney's patently ridiculous attack on what he refers to as the "Obama Plan". According to the Romney ad, Obama's defense cuts will strip Virginia of 130,000 jobs. He doesn't mention that under Obama, military expenditures have continued right on from George Bush's administration. What he goes on to claim is, at least in Virginia, that his administration will "create" 360,000 new jobs.
It does not require a PhD to conclude from this rhetoric that those jobs will be defense-sector jobs, jobs which do not produce wealth but rather subsidize militarism and are paid for by... tax dollars. These jobs, in essence, create welfare queens. Just like the public works projects of the New Deal, these jobs do not generate services or products for the private market. They generate new layers of government bureaucracy and further financial burden (including future liabilities) to a litany of critically unfunded federal programs.
Now, to be perfectly fair and bipartisan, let's take a look at Messr Obama's ad.
Obama claims that Mitt Romney is out of touch with the middle class. This is a middle class who Obama TWICE approved TARP bailout funds to private mega-banks while hundreds of thousands of private citizens were foreclosed on. With official unemployment stagnant near 8.3% (and real unemployment anywhere between 13 and 21%, depending on which source you quote on any given day; I prefer the BLS) this administration's M.O. has been to continuously blame George Bush and the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED House of Representatives for each and every failure of the past 45 months. All Obama needs is one more term and he can put it all right.
The ad claims that Mitt Rommey's tax plan would add an average of $2,000 in taxes to every middle-class household's annual liabilities. In the next breath the ad states that multi-millionaires would see up to $250,000 in tax breaks.
Obama claims Romney doesn't understand the middle class because of his relationship with Bain Capital, a resource and venture capital firms which buys and sells companies for profit. Obama, who has never held a real job and who, in just this past year, sent his own wife and children on numerous multi-million dollar vacations/excursions - whose very same wife wagged her finger at the American people condescendingly and said "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
Her vitriol and latent disconnect from the people of this country can only find its equal in the likes of a quote oft-times attributed (though likely exaggerated) to Marie Antoinette who said "Let them eat cake", an epithet of her royalty overshadowing good sense and common decency in a time when millions were scraping just to get by, yet the glorious leaders spared no expense for their own comfort.
At least they had an excuse - they were French. And we all know what happened to them: they were beheaded and the monarchy overthrown in one of the most bloody and brutal revolutions/coups in all of modern(ish) history.
What I want the reader to take away from this is that NEITHER of these disgusting people deserves to be president of the country envisioned by the founding fathers. The good news is that country was destroyed long ago...
Sure, there are other facets, but I am going to concentrate on two (2) disparate television ads which I had the unpleasant experience of viewing back-to-back last night.
First, let's explore Mitt Romney's patently ridiculous attack on what he refers to as the "Obama Plan". According to the Romney ad, Obama's defense cuts will strip Virginia of 130,000 jobs. He doesn't mention that under Obama, military expenditures have continued right on from George Bush's administration. What he goes on to claim is, at least in Virginia, that his administration will "create" 360,000 new jobs.
It does not require a PhD to conclude from this rhetoric that those jobs will be defense-sector jobs, jobs which do not produce wealth but rather subsidize militarism and are paid for by... tax dollars. These jobs, in essence, create welfare queens. Just like the public works projects of the New Deal, these jobs do not generate services or products for the private market. They generate new layers of government bureaucracy and further financial burden (including future liabilities) to a litany of critically unfunded federal programs.
Now, to be perfectly fair and bipartisan, let's take a look at Messr Obama's ad.
Obama claims that Mitt Romney is out of touch with the middle class. This is a middle class who Obama TWICE approved TARP bailout funds to private mega-banks while hundreds of thousands of private citizens were foreclosed on. With official unemployment stagnant near 8.3% (and real unemployment anywhere between 13 and 21%, depending on which source you quote on any given day; I prefer the BLS) this administration's M.O. has been to continuously blame George Bush and the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED House of Representatives for each and every failure of the past 45 months. All Obama needs is one more term and he can put it all right.
The ad claims that Mitt Rommey's tax plan would add an average of $2,000 in taxes to every middle-class household's annual liabilities. In the next breath the ad states that multi-millionaires would see up to $250,000 in tax breaks.
Obama claims Romney doesn't understand the middle class because of his relationship with Bain Capital, a resource and venture capital firms which buys and sells companies for profit. Obama, who has never held a real job and who, in just this past year, sent his own wife and children on numerous multi-million dollar vacations/excursions - whose very same wife wagged her finger at the American people condescendingly and said "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
Her vitriol and latent disconnect from the people of this country can only find its equal in the likes of a quote oft-times attributed (though likely exaggerated) to Marie Antoinette who said "Let them eat cake", an epithet of her royalty overshadowing good sense and common decency in a time when millions were scraping just to get by, yet the glorious leaders spared no expense for their own comfort.
At least they had an excuse - they were French. And we all know what happened to them: they were beheaded and the monarchy overthrown in one of the most bloody and brutal revolutions/coups in all of modern(ish) history.
What I want the reader to take away from this is that NEITHER of these disgusting people deserves to be president of the country envisioned by the founding fathers. The good news is that country was destroyed long ago...
22 August, 2012
Evolutionary "Theory"
Some people say that "evolution" has been proven by science. I am not sure what that means, exactly. The "theory" of evolution states that the earth formed from a molten ball of gases and that through photo- and chemical synthesis of INORGANIC components over millions (billions?) of years eventually developed into bits of organic material which in turn transmogrified into single-celled organisms, and then combined to create more and more complex lifeforms - millions of different ones which all developed and evolved independently - through a series of upward-trending mutations until eventually they produced an organism capable of reason and rational thought.
Never in any controlled experiment conducted under laboratory conditions has an upward-trending mutation been observed.
"They" say that the fossil record proves evolution. Comparing independent samples of similar organisms which may or may not have lived simultaneously or concurrently with one another is their source of validation.
And even if this theory was true, is it to say that there wasn't a great force working as a catalyst? Of course not. In order for ANY evolutionary theory to be true one would still have to discount the LAW of conservation of mass.
Let us not also forget that several MILLION years ago, nearly all life was supposedly wiped off of the earth by a cataclysm that has heretofore never been repeated. 99% of all living things save a few mammalian ground-dwellers and relatives of the Palmetto Bug were completely eradicated. Respectfully, evolution was given a clean slate about 65 million years ago. If the earth is considered to be 4.5 billion years old, that would mean that the evolutionary chain which produced ONLY reptiles in the first 4,435,000,000 years magically ACCELERATED that process to produce humans from what amount to rats and lemurs in one tenth of the time, and on a planet which would spend the next ten million years or so recuperating itself from asteroidal devastation.
I mean, that is really miraculous if you stop to think about it. It almost defies reason.
Oh, wait. It does defy reason. It absolutely and completely defies reason and continues to baffle scientists who have been unable to discover the "missing" link between our species and the one they desperately need to be our predecessor for even a fraction of their theory to begin to be viable.
Evolutionary theory is just that: theory.
Never in any controlled experiment conducted under laboratory conditions has an upward-trending mutation been observed.
"They" say that the fossil record proves evolution. Comparing independent samples of similar organisms which may or may not have lived simultaneously or concurrently with one another is their source of validation.
And even if this theory was true, is it to say that there wasn't a great force working as a catalyst? Of course not. In order for ANY evolutionary theory to be true one would still have to discount the LAW of conservation of mass.
Let us not also forget that several MILLION years ago, nearly all life was supposedly wiped off of the earth by a cataclysm that has heretofore never been repeated. 99% of all living things save a few mammalian ground-dwellers and relatives of the Palmetto Bug were completely eradicated. Respectfully, evolution was given a clean slate about 65 million years ago. If the earth is considered to be 4.5 billion years old, that would mean that the evolutionary chain which produced ONLY reptiles in the first 4,435,000,000 years magically ACCELERATED that process to produce humans from what amount to rats and lemurs in one tenth of the time, and on a planet which would spend the next ten million years or so recuperating itself from asteroidal devastation.
I mean, that is really miraculous if you stop to think about it. It almost defies reason.
Oh, wait. It does defy reason. It absolutely and completely defies reason and continues to baffle scientists who have been unable to discover the "missing" link between our species and the one they desperately need to be our predecessor for even a fraction of their theory to begin to be viable.
Evolutionary theory is just that: theory.
26 July, 2012
Atheism as Religion
Ah, the belief that there was nothing and then nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything.
Until and unless the existence of the much ballyhooed "Higgs Boson" (also known as the "God") particle is confirmed and qualified as being a truly self-regenerative and non-depletive source of sub-sub-sub atomic energy, it should be a foregone conclusion to anyone with an elementary understanding of the most fundamental concepts of physics and chemistry this:
The law of conservation of mass ("laws" in the science world are accepted as immutable truths, absolutes) is that matter (energy) can neither be created nor destroyed. To accept this truth is an invitation to paradox, the greatest known catch-22:
As such, atheists are much like a religious cult and science is their deity. Whenever a Christian proclaims his heart to the Lord or rails against immorality or unChristian behaviours, the atheist invariably takes one of two paths - they either trudge right to the book of Leviticus to show that while we believe homosexuality is immoral, so is eating shellfish; or they defer to science as proof that God does not exist, Jesus was not crucified, dead and buried and then rose once more.
The first group of atheists hates Christianity. They hate that our morality directs us to eschew behaviours which God has instructed us to avoid. We are not always successful, but we try, knowing that our Salvation comes not from being perfect, but for asking forgiveness of our imperfections. Atheists LOVE to cite Leviticus against Christianity, because if homosexuality is wrong then having intercourse with a woman who is menstruating is also wrong. The argument falls flat because I do not know of one Christian who will deny this. It is merely folly, fanciful hyperbole, to use one example of an immoral behaviour to defend the practice of another. This atheist hates that their immorality is not "tolerated" by Christians and seeks to defame Christianity by citing religious pretext. This atheist is a hypocrite of the highest order.
The second group of atheists are practically a religious movement themselves, somewhere in the neighborhood of the Heaven's Gate cult.
The second group has such absolute faith in science, regardless of their knowledge, understanding or even personal experience with the subject, that they believe if they science something long enough, they will PROVE that there is no God. The only problem with their belief system is that every time they think they have the ultimate answer, that they have solved the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Poincare conjecture, it takes them further down the rabbit hole.
It takes an awful lot of faith to continue a belief system in which every answer issues forth its own new set of questions... don't you think?
Until and unless the existence of the much ballyhooed "Higgs Boson" (also known as the "God") particle is confirmed and qualified as being a truly self-regenerative and non-depletive source of sub-sub-sub atomic energy, it should be a foregone conclusion to anyone with an elementary understanding of the most fundamental concepts of physics and chemistry this:
The law of conservation of mass ("laws" in the science world are accepted as immutable truths, absolutes) is that matter (energy) can neither be created nor destroyed. To accept this truth is an invitation to paradox, the greatest known catch-22:
If matter cannot be created or destroyed, then where did matter come from?Scientists herald the "discovery" (rather, the act of identifying) of the higgs-boson to be tantamount to discovering the origins of the universe. Atheists laud it as proof that God, the God of Abraham and the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, does not exist, does not need to exist and that human frailty is the result of a complex array of miracle-like coincidences which occurred over hundreds of billions of years. Miracle-like, because calling it a "miracle" would imply the existence of a higher power and that violates the atheist's sensibilities.
As such, atheists are much like a religious cult and science is their deity. Whenever a Christian proclaims his heart to the Lord or rails against immorality or unChristian behaviours, the atheist invariably takes one of two paths - they either trudge right to the book of Leviticus to show that while we believe homosexuality is immoral, so is eating shellfish; or they defer to science as proof that God does not exist, Jesus was not crucified, dead and buried and then rose once more.
The first group of atheists hates Christianity. They hate that our morality directs us to eschew behaviours which God has instructed us to avoid. We are not always successful, but we try, knowing that our Salvation comes not from being perfect, but for asking forgiveness of our imperfections. Atheists LOVE to cite Leviticus against Christianity, because if homosexuality is wrong then having intercourse with a woman who is menstruating is also wrong. The argument falls flat because I do not know of one Christian who will deny this. It is merely folly, fanciful hyperbole, to use one example of an immoral behaviour to defend the practice of another. This atheist hates that their immorality is not "tolerated" by Christians and seeks to defame Christianity by citing religious pretext. This atheist is a hypocrite of the highest order.
The second group of atheists are practically a religious movement themselves, somewhere in the neighborhood of the Heaven's Gate cult.
The second group has such absolute faith in science, regardless of their knowledge, understanding or even personal experience with the subject, that they believe if they science something long enough, they will PROVE that there is no God. The only problem with their belief system is that every time they think they have the ultimate answer, that they have solved the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Poincare conjecture, it takes them further down the rabbit hole.
It takes an awful lot of faith to continue a belief system in which every answer issues forth its own new set of questions... don't you think?
06 June, 2012
Secession Declaration for Scotland?
In a recent article on The Independent Institute the upcoming Parliamentary consideration for the recognition of a free and independent Scotland is being discussed. Personally I could not be more supportive of any movement, with the sole exception being a free and independent South.
You see, what the Scottish people have been struggling for for over 600 years is the same thing Southern Americans wanted in 1861. They want to make their own decisions. They want to be governed by a government of their own choosing, they want their resources to be expended on their own interests and they want to enjoy the fruits of their own labours, rather than being legislated into poverty by the mandates of people with who their only bond is being hoarded under the same federality.
An excerpt from the Declaration:
If you have the literal skills, you could EASILY substitute the word "Dixie" for the word "Scotland" in the above passage and it reads EXACTLY THE SAME. The argument for independence is nearly spot-on identical. The South is blessed with talent, resources and creativity. Without the union hegemony we would have the opportunity to make our country a better place to live for this and future generations. We could build a greener, fairer and more prosperous society. We could speak with our OWN VOICE and make our own unique contribution to the world. Our future would be in OUR HANDS.
Who wouldn't want that for themselves? Their families? Their countrymen?
In far-flung corners of the world, the united State sends legions of soldiers to aid other countries in securing independence from governments or regimes that oppress and subjugate their people, but when you mention it here people immediately think you want to reinstate chattel slavery and live on cotton plantations.
Nothing could be further from the truth - and seeing Scotland vying for liberty from the British Crown (and doing so both politically AND peacefully) gives great hope to the potential for a similarly successful venture in the South, or ANYWHERE where people do not wish to continue under the government which they suffer.
You see, what the Scottish people have been struggling for for over 600 years is the same thing Southern Americans wanted in 1861. They want to make their own decisions. They want to be governed by a government of their own choosing, they want their resources to be expended on their own interests and they want to enjoy the fruits of their own labours, rather than being legislated into poverty by the mandates of people with who their only bond is being hoarded under the same federality.
An excerpt from the Declaration:
I believe that it is fundamentally better for us all, if decisions about Scotland's future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is, by the people of Scotland.
Being independent means Scotland's future will be in Scotland's hands.
There is no doubt that Scotland has great potential. We are blessed with talent, resources and creativity. We have the opportunity to make our nation a better place to live, for this and future generations. We can build a greener, fairer and more prosperous society that is stronger and more successful than it is today.
I want a Scotland that speaks with her own voice and makes her own unique contribution to the world: a Scotland that stands alongside the other nations on these isles, as an independent nation.
If you have the literal skills, you could EASILY substitute the word "Dixie" for the word "Scotland" in the above passage and it reads EXACTLY THE SAME. The argument for independence is nearly spot-on identical. The South is blessed with talent, resources and creativity. Without the union hegemony we would have the opportunity to make our country a better place to live for this and future generations. We could build a greener, fairer and more prosperous society. We could speak with our OWN VOICE and make our own unique contribution to the world. Our future would be in OUR HANDS.
Who wouldn't want that for themselves? Their families? Their countrymen?
In far-flung corners of the world, the united State sends legions of soldiers to aid other countries in securing independence from governments or regimes that oppress and subjugate their people, but when you mention it here people immediately think you want to reinstate chattel slavery and live on cotton plantations.
Nothing could be further from the truth - and seeing Scotland vying for liberty from the British Crown (and doing so both politically AND peacefully) gives great hope to the potential for a similarly successful venture in the South, or ANYWHERE where people do not wish to continue under the government which they suffer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)