A new study shows that 1/3rd of Americans (more than 33%) have Bromodrosis -- stinky feet. Half of them have extremely stinky feet.
Stinky feet are not only a personal issue. They effect a person's career, social life, and in fact, their very existence.
It's a huge epidemic that is poised to destroy our civilization.
Surveys show that a large segment of Americans are prejudiced against people with stinky feet.
"A lot of people at work have stinky feet," said Lance, a computer programmer from Seattle. "I can't stand working with them. I do everything possible to avoid them".
Yet, only 9% of Americans will tell someone if they have stinky feet.
Sally, a marketing assistant in Chicago concurs: "Some of my best friends have stinky feet. I feel sorry for them, but I just can't bring myself to tell them".
Why is it fair that people with naturally odorless feet have an advantage in life over people who's toe cheese smells like a rotting dead skunk?
The rich can afford Order-Eaters, foot powers and other treatments. But what about the poor? How about the homeless???? What about the socially dysfunctional, who don't realize just how much their feet really stink?
Aren't these people entitled to the same odorless feet as the rich?
Who will hire a person with stinky feet? How can they earn a living? How can they find dignity in their lives???
A person with stinky feet cannot truly be free.
It's very clear that the heartless free market won't solve this problem.
Leaving our Bromodrosis brethren to fend for themselves is not what America is all about.
The government must take action. It must take action now.
First, the government must immediately create a Department of Olfactory Wellness that will declare a new war on stinky feet and eradicate this plague on society once and for all.
Second, the government must also immediately place a tax on people who have naturally odorless feet and redistribute it to the wretched refuse so that can they achieve foot odor equality.
Third, the government needs to outlaw all forms of discrimination against people with stinky feet. It's just not right for someone to lose a job opportunity, let alone a sexual encounter because his or her feet smell like a pound of fermenting cabbage.
Only when we solve this dire problem, can all Americans truly be free.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Obama's Tax on Soup Kitchens and the Poor
President Obama unveiled his Son of Stimulus bill this week.
For the most part, the bill was a lightweight version of his previously failed "stimulus" bill. It proposes to penalize productive people and hand the money over to support temporary jobs in the government bureaucracy.
As was the case with the first "stimulus" bill, the new bill features even more government micromanagement in the form of "targeted tax cuts" and government-centered spending initiatives.
However, what is really interesting in this bill is Obama's assault on charities that help that poor.
The President's new bill will phase out charitable contributions for couples making over 250,000 a year.
Obama likes to rail against millionaires and billionaires, but working couples that make $250,000 are not not millionaires or billionaires. Obama is so obsessed with harming these people that he is willing to sacrifice soup kitchens and other charities that help the poor and homeless in the process.
Obama's proposals will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most.
Who does Obama's program hurt most? The "rich" or the "poor"?
The answer is obvious. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't really care about the poor. Like all leftists, he only cares about punishing the successful.
For the most part, the bill was a lightweight version of his previously failed "stimulus" bill. It proposes to penalize productive people and hand the money over to support temporary jobs in the government bureaucracy.
As was the case with the first "stimulus" bill, the new bill features even more government micromanagement in the form of "targeted tax cuts" and government-centered spending initiatives.
However, what is really interesting in this bill is Obama's assault on charities that help that poor.
The President's new bill will phase out charitable contributions for couples making over 250,000 a year.
Obama likes to rail against millionaires and billionaires, but working couples that make $250,000 are not not millionaires or billionaires. Obama is so obsessed with harming these people that he is willing to sacrifice soup kitchens and other charities that help the poor and homeless in the process.
Obama's proposals will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most.
Who does Obama's program hurt most? The "rich" or the "poor"?
The answer is obvious. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't really care about the poor. Like all leftists, he only cares about punishing the successful.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Rick Perry is Right: Social Security Really is a Ponzi Scheme
Rick Perry's comments during this week's GOP debate at the Reagan library has caused quite a stir in the liberal media.
During the debate, Governor Perry defended the words in his book, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme".
After the debate, the "analysis" on MSNBC was truly fun to watch as every commentator sat shelled shocked over the fact that a politician would dare to use these words to describe America's most sacred welfare program.
The only person on the panel who had a clue about what might be going on was Ed Schultz who at one point questioned whether or not whether young people would stick with Obama or jump on the Perry bandwagon.
Unlike the political and media establishment in this country, young people understand that they are going to get the short end of the Social Security "inter-generational compact". Schultz surprisingly realized that Perry's message might resonant with young people.
Let's take a quick look at the Social Security system and see if Perry might be on to something.
The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. They got a great deal and were raving proponents of the system.
The people receiving Social Security benefits today are getting back on average 2 1/2 to 3 times what they paid in. They are also generally strong proponents of the system.
Today, Social Security is paying out more every year than it takes it. We are borrowing money from foreigners, like the Chinese and Saudis to pay current benefits. As the huge Baby Boom generation retires, the amount of debt we incur each year will quickly escalate.
So, what happens when my generation starts to retire in 15 to 20 years and what will happen to my kids?
We will all be left holding the bag.
There is a financial MODEL that describes this. The model is called a Pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme or a Bernie Madoff scheme. The people who get it in early make out like bandits and the people who get it late get screwed.
That is exactly how the Social Security system will play out.
The fact is that the Social Security is a pay-as-you-go welfare system that transfers money from young, struggling families to relatively well-to-do retired people. There isn't any "trust fund". The words "trust fund" are used to describe a mountain of debt. A mountain of debt is NOT a trust fund. It's a mountain of debt. Today, the mountain of debt in the Social Security system is so great that it cannot be paid.
Peel away the emotion, the Orwellian language about the "trust fund", and the other political rhetoric, and just look at the financial facts. Then this all becomes very clear.
Rick Perry is absolutely right and I am actually impressed that a politician would tell the truth about this. It's truly amazing.
The big question is what can be done?
Long term, people need to be able to save for their own retirements. Social Security needs to be taken back to it's roots as a program that supplements the income of retirees who are truly poor, through no fault of their own.
Today, 25% of people over 65 have pension or investment income that places them in the "wealthy" category. They still get Social Security benefits, so long as they don't work for their income. Why should young struggling families hand money over the wealthy retired people?
They shouldn't. Means testing Social Security will go a long way to make it solvent for the future.
When Social Security was implemented, the retirement age was 65. The average life expectancy was 59 for men and 61 for women. Most people didn't live long enough to get a check. Today, the retirement age is still 65. However, life expectancy is 73 for men and 78 for women.
The numbers just don't work.
We need to gradually raise the retirement age to keep up with life expectancy.
Bravo to Perry for telling it like it is. I certainly agree with Ed Schultz that a lot of young people will find this message appealing.
The other group who should find this message appealing are wealthy retirees who are stealing from their children's and grandchildren's future. Will they finally put their selfishness aside and say: "no more"? Probably not, but we'll see.
During the debate, Governor Perry defended the words in his book, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme".
After the debate, the "analysis" on MSNBC was truly fun to watch as every commentator sat shelled shocked over the fact that a politician would dare to use these words to describe America's most sacred welfare program.
The only person on the panel who had a clue about what might be going on was Ed Schultz who at one point questioned whether or not whether young people would stick with Obama or jump on the Perry bandwagon.
Unlike the political and media establishment in this country, young people understand that they are going to get the short end of the Social Security "inter-generational compact". Schultz surprisingly realized that Perry's message might resonant with young people.
Let's take a quick look at the Social Security system and see if Perry might be on to something.
The people who got into the Social Security system very early got back on average 15 times the amount of money they paid in. They got a great deal and were raving proponents of the system.
The people receiving Social Security benefits today are getting back on average 2 1/2 to 3 times what they paid in. They are also generally strong proponents of the system.
Today, Social Security is paying out more every year than it takes it. We are borrowing money from foreigners, like the Chinese and Saudis to pay current benefits. As the huge Baby Boom generation retires, the amount of debt we incur each year will quickly escalate.
So, what happens when my generation starts to retire in 15 to 20 years and what will happen to my kids?
We will all be left holding the bag.
There is a financial MODEL that describes this. The model is called a Pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme or a Bernie Madoff scheme. The people who get it in early make out like bandits and the people who get it late get screwed.
That is exactly how the Social Security system will play out.
The fact is that the Social Security is a pay-as-you-go welfare system that transfers money from young, struggling families to relatively well-to-do retired people. There isn't any "trust fund". The words "trust fund" are used to describe a mountain of debt. A mountain of debt is NOT a trust fund. It's a mountain of debt. Today, the mountain of debt in the Social Security system is so great that it cannot be paid.
Peel away the emotion, the Orwellian language about the "trust fund", and the other political rhetoric, and just look at the financial facts. Then this all becomes very clear.
Rick Perry is absolutely right and I am actually impressed that a politician would tell the truth about this. It's truly amazing.
The big question is what can be done?
Long term, people need to be able to save for their own retirements. Social Security needs to be taken back to it's roots as a program that supplements the income of retirees who are truly poor, through no fault of their own.
Today, 25% of people over 65 have pension or investment income that places them in the "wealthy" category. They still get Social Security benefits, so long as they don't work for their income. Why should young struggling families hand money over the wealthy retired people?
They shouldn't. Means testing Social Security will go a long way to make it solvent for the future.
When Social Security was implemented, the retirement age was 65. The average life expectancy was 59 for men and 61 for women. Most people didn't live long enough to get a check. Today, the retirement age is still 65. However, life expectancy is 73 for men and 78 for women.
The numbers just don't work.
We need to gradually raise the retirement age to keep up with life expectancy.
Bravo to Perry for telling it like it is. I certainly agree with Ed Schultz that a lot of young people will find this message appealing.
The other group who should find this message appealing are wealthy retirees who are stealing from their children's and grandchildren's future. Will they finally put their selfishness aside and say: "no more"? Probably not, but we'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
