Yellowstone to Erupt Late December

     Not sure if the eruption is going to occur this coming late December from the date of this posting, or if it's going to occur during the next late December, or the late December after that, or even the late December after that, etc.; but this "psychic impression" I received about a week ago suggested that something BIG is going to happen in "late December."  I am thus entertaining what amounts to an educated guess at this point that the "something" in question here is going to be the mega-eruption of the Yellowstone super volcano. 

Again, it could be that I'll end up winning the national lottery jackpot in late December (not sure), since the suggested "psychic impression" was not specific as to just exactly WHAT is going occur in late December.  On the other hand, the only thing I had been preoccupied with thinking about during the day when the impression hit me was all the rhetoric about the bison and elk that were seen fleeing the Yellowstone National Park area.

So my best guess is that the thing will likely erupt during late December, even if the December in question is a million years from now.  You can put it on your calendar of events to look forward to if you like.  In the meantime, here's a collection of Yellowstone pictures showing the current-day visage of the park area as of April 2014.  These pictures (once clicked upon and opened to view the full-sized images) will serve nicely as background images for your 'puter if you like.  Enjoy!

Fort Yellowstone Visitor Center

Grand Canyon Yellowstone River

Old Faithful Geyser

Old Faithful Lodge

Steamboat Geyser

Upper Yellowstone Falls

Yellowstone Bison Grazing

Yellowstone Bison in Snow Blizzard

Yellowstone Bison in Snow

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout

Yellowstone Elk Grazing

Yellowstone Grand Canyon Lower Falls

Yellowstone Grand Loop

Yellowstone Grand Prismatic Hot Spring

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear

Yellowstone Hayden Valley

Yellowstone Lake

Yellowstone Lamar Valley

Yellowstone Mammoth Hot Springs

Yellowstone Roosevelt Arch

Yellowstone Snow Coach

FreeVector.com Offers Quality Clip Art

     If you're a clip art buff like I am, then you won't be able to get enough of FreeVector.com! Let's face it, there are a lot of clip art sites out there (like the one you're on here right now reading this post), and I don't think there is any such thing as a "bad" clip art site. It's just that many clip art sites are less sophisticated than others not so much in terms of the categories of clip art being offered, but more in terms of the styles of clip art being offered.

For instance, with some clip art sites, you can look at an image of a house and one of a car side by side and the artistic feel of the two separate clip art images remains largely unchanged. In this way, we're talking about the necessary differentiation (or lack thereof) in lines, angles, shadows, colors, depth and so forth.

Appreciating an artistic difference between a clip art image of a house and that of a car is much like appreciating the difference between an oil painting of a flower and another oil painting of a snow-capped mountain created by two different artists. As it turns out, this latter ideal is exactly what you will find when you scroll through the various clip art categories being offered at FreeVector.com.

The other great thing about FreeVector.com is that all of their images are free of charge for your personal use and for use on your website. Although you don't have to sign up for an account through FreeVector.com in order to locate and save clip art images of your choice, it is otherwise recommended that you take the time to create a free account so that you can take full advantage of the many benefits of membership that you won't have as an unregistered user.

The sampling of clip art images shown below have all been taken from FreeVector.com and is intended to give you an idea of the broad range of vector images being offered when you visit the site.

Cheers!

The Federal Debt 062011

I'll be the first to admit that math was by far never my strongest suit in school.  I still sometimes count on my "fingers" to this day.  On the other hand, I'm pretty sharp when it comes to adding up 1 plus 1 and also subtracting 1 from 2.

Keeping the ideal of extremely simple math in mind, the standing argument on Capitol Hill is that the Republicans won't accept a recently proposed raise of more than 2 trillion dollars to the national debt ceiling without inclusion of significant federal spending cuts on the other side of the denominator to effectively cancel out the difference of the spending increase.  That recently proposed raise to the debt ceiling is said to have been adopted with a sum total of ZERO spending cuts on the opposite side of the math equation, which Republicans oppose.

According to some scholarly information I read awhile back, the concept of ZERO is apparently a very complex distinction to make when it comes to mathematics as a whole.  The scholarly information went on to state that the ancient Mayan civilization had mastered comprehension of the ZERO denominator (or the "delimiter," or whatever it is).

You couldn't prove it by me, though, which just goes to prove how bad I am with math:  As far as I'm concerned, the sum of ZERO is pretty darned simple, as in for instance when 1 minus 1 equals ZERO no matter how you look at it.

So someone please tell me where I'm wrong with this sampling of extremely simple math:

If the government raises the so-called federal debt ceiling by two (2) trillion dollars on the one hand, but on the other hand turns around and CUTS (i.e., also known as SUBTRACTS) two (2) trillion dollars from federal spending programs (e.g., medicare, social security, food stamps, etc.), doesn't the SUBTRACTION of the two (2) trillion dollars effectively CANCEL OUT the difference of the two (2) trillion dollar raise that was given in the first place?

For purposes of illustration, let's use a simpler mathematical sampling that has the same exacting effect as the foregone conclusion:

If I am working in a factory and my boss gives me a $5.00 an hour raise, but then the government turns around and TAXES me an additional $5.00 an hour, isn't that the same as me not getting a $5.00 raise in the first place?  I think so anyway.

So if the government ADDS two (2) trillion dollars to the national debt, but then turns around and SUBTRACTS two (2) trillion dollars from its spending budget, doesn't that mean that the balance of the mathematical equation ends up being - ZERO?  

Does anyone remember the definition of a "Ponzi" scheme?  The simple definition of a Ponzi scheme is when you -- borrow from John to pay Paul, or otherwise Paul doesn't get paid.

Am I missing something here???

Could Donald Trump Go Broke

Could Donald Trump Go Broke?  Or is Donald Trump possibly worried about going broke?

More specifically, is Donald Trump possibly interested in becoming the next president of the United States so that he can force a halt to an impending collapse of the U.S. financial markets and the U.S. dollar?

You keep hearing Donald Trump talking about the poor state of the U.S. economic condition and about how he is evidently pissed off at how America is effectively being railroaded and taken advantage of with one economic compromise after another.  I believe he is sincere about his concern for the state of the U.S. economic condition; and I also believe that he would probably more than love to be able to fix those problems to the best of his ability.

However, I perceive there is likely something running much deeper in the veins of Mr. Trump that is troubling him:  In fact, I believe he may actually be worried about losing his vast financial empire to a total and complete meltdown of the U.S. financial system in the form of future massive hyperinflation and an ensuing collapse of the value of the U.S. dollar.

My first guess is that most people would suggest it’s crazy to think that Donald Trump could actually go broke.  When I say “broke,” I mean flat broke, effectively without much more than a dime to his name. 

Could a man like Trump lose everything?  I don’t mean could he lose everything because he lacked the business skills to protect his wealth under any normal or expected circumstances, but rather could this happen due to exigent circumstances beyond even his control that would leave him powerless to halt a rapid devaluation of his wealth?    

I also don’t mean could Donald Trump go bankrupt in the contemporary sense of the word, since one of his casino groups already went bankrupt a few years back.  Even under any assumption that the Trump Company is close enough to being debt free that he could never run the risk of having to pay more than what his mortgaged holdings are worth (e.g., like the “upside-down mortgage” crisis being faced by millions of home buyers today), could he still effectively lose everything he owns?

The thing is that many people in the general wealth category of Mr.Trump have lost everything to economic collapses throughout history for many hundreds of years.  In the four years prior to the end of World War II, the value of the German mark was about four marks to one U.S. dollar; then four years later Germany was experiencing a rate of inflation at 200-million percent.  In other words, it is common knowledge that people in Germany who had been literal billionaires just a few years earlier were suddenly relegated to being worth nothing at all. 

Even in this most current economic crisis being faced by the world today, it was during 2009 when a former longtime billionaire from Europe appearing to be in his late 60s or early 70s age range was said to have lost all but about four million dollars – and so he committed suicide.

No doubt Donald Trump is a smart man and a savvy business investor.  He also undoubtedly knows a lot more about the intricate workings of worldwide banking and financing schemes than he is taking public: Namely, he would have to know that the monetary systems of the world are highly rigged and engineered systems that are based on a tool-of-leverage principle in which the rich are destined to become richer while the poor are destined to become poorer.  He furthermore would know that the scenario here is quite literally no different than with the Parker Brother’s Game of Monopoly board game whereby the ideal is to financially leverage out the other players in the game.

This is all nothing new: The monetary systems of the world have never been intended to work as a fair and equitable proposition for everyone.  Donald Trump would also know the truth in this sense.  To that full extent, Trump has always maintained his understanding that life really is not fair to most people and that there are far more losers than there are winners in the game of life.  He even said as much on a recent episode of his “The Apprentice” show just before he fired one of the contestants.

Donald Trump has had his financial fingers into a lot of different pies: Most notably, his is a real estate tycoon, but he has also dabbled in selling vitamins; he’s been involved in the World Wrestling Entertainment circuit; he has or does own one or more major beauty pageants; and he also owns golf courses and casinos, which are really just another variation of his real estate holdings.

The one thing that Donald Trump does not have his fingers into is the banking industry, which probably is not due to a lack of interest on his part.  Getting to own a chunk of the banking industry is considerably difficult to do even for many of the wealthiest Americans, since it is so tightly controlled by the U.S. government and the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, probably including Europe’s World Bank for that matter.

Among the most recent, and possibly even the most current, U.S. billionaires to gain a foothold in the banking industry was Mr. Bill Gates of Microsoft Corporation fame.  As I recall, though, even Mr. Gates had a reasonably difficult time getting approved for business under U.S. banking regulations.  In making the cut, though, possibly that means that Gates is worth a great deal more money than Trump, including that the actual worth of Gates is likely greatly underestimated at a mere $50- to $100-billion.  (If you want my personal guess, I believe it is quite possible that Bill Gates is worth upwards of one trillion dollars, but you can call me crazy if you like.)

The thing about the value of real estate is that it is directly and proportionally hinged to the whims and discretions of how the banking system operates.  This fact is easy enough to point out whereby millions upon millions of home buyers have – and still are – losing their homes due to the most recent collapse of the U.S. banking system and other large financial groups.  (Those banks were, of course, reimbursed by the U.S. government in the form of the famous bailout package, but there are no average Americans being bailed out.)

Whether we are talking about a house, a multi-million dollar hotel or a golf course, the value of the real estate is directly tied to the stability of the financial infrastructure in view of the so-called health of the banking system.  This literally means that both the current value and ongoing appreciation of everything Donald Trump owns in the way of real estate holdings is entirely dependent upon the health and welfare of the U.S. banking system, which also assumes the health of the U.S. dollar.

For the first time in American history, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded about a week ago from stable to negative by the Standard & Poor’s group, thus threatening the apparent real possibility that also for the first time in history the United States stands the potential of losing its coveted triple-A (AAA) credit rating.

Here is the real argument:  The U.S. debt ceiling has been raised more than fifty (50) times since George Washington was president.  It was raised seven (7) times alone during the last George Bush administration.  However, simply continuing to raise the debt ceiling is not going to be any guarantee that the U.S. will maintain its “AAA” credit rating.  If the U.S. continues to borrow substantially more than what it takes in from outside revenues, then the monies it pays back out to its debtors is invariably going to become worth less and less.  At some point, the U.S. would be unable to pay its creditors due to a severely devalued currency no matter how far it decided to raise the debt ceiling.

In short, anytime a country ranks with a substantially poor credit rating, the same thing happens to the country’s borrowing power that happens to you and I when we have bad credit:  We end up paying a whole lot more in the way of interest; and so, too, would the United States end up paying out a whole lot more in interest payments if – or when – it ends up with a bad credit rating.

When the bad credit rating scenario comes into play, then the government is forced to ramp up the money printing presses and flood the market with devalued cash under the theory of working to keep pace with the increased interest rate payments.  The same basic situation happens when you and I end up with bad credit and then we are forced to earn more money in order to pay off our monthly bills; and the first time we are not able to earn more money, then we go bankrupt.

The problem with a government simply printing more and more devalued money to pay its interest payments is that the vicious cycle ends up as one for which the value of each new dollar printed becomes decreased on a continuing exponential level.  At some point, the consequence of hyperinflation kicks into gear, such as with the aforementioned hyperinflation scenario involving the collapse of the German mark in World War II.

A more recent example of truly austere hyperinflation was with the Zimbabwe currency (also called a “dollar”) that occurred between 2003 and 2009 leading up to its inevitable full-scale economic collapse at the end of the hyperinflationary cycle.  It’s been estimated that at the height of its hyperinflationary cycle, Zimbabwe was experiencing an annually adjusted rate of inflation of more than six (6) quadrillion percent.  To put that number into perspective, first comes million, then comes billion, then comes trillion and then comes – quadrillion.

The Zimbabwe government was made somewhat famous for its printing a $100-trillion (100,000,000,000,000) currency note, which was the first of its kind in world history.  An image of the famous bill is pictured here…

If the United States fails to raise the national debt ceiling come September 2011, then that would certainly hasten the destruction process of the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy.  At the same time, raising the national debt ceiling will not cure anything; and not raising the national debt ceiling will also not cure anything.

There is no cure for this economy; and there never was a cure.  Like I said before, monetary systems are not built to be fair, and they certainly are not built to last forever.

This U.S. economy will fail, and I guarantee it.  No one can stop it from happening; and you can bet there are people who don’t want to stop it from happening even if they could.

Donald Trump can’t stop the U.S. economy and the value of the U.S. dollar from eventually collapsing, and I believe he is intelligent enough to know that he would be powerless to actually stop that from happening in the longer term.  On the other hand, I believe Donald Trump could quite possibly pull off a trick to keep the economy working for maybe another twenty years or so if he were the U.S. president.

I tend to like Donald Trump, and I believe he is a remarkably sincere person even up to and including affecting his own personal demise at times, although never with any serious consequences.  Beyond that, I will vote for “The Donald” if he runs for president.

My first guess is that Donald Trump would not be considering taking a run for president if he believed everything was “coming up roses” with the U.S. economic outlook. 

I really do believe Donald Trump thinks that the situation is serious enough with the overall economic picture that it could potentially cause him to lose ALL of his wealth in an ensuing hyperinflationary scenario of the U.S. dollar – and possibly sooner than later.

Trump for President 040811

I feel like I’ve watched Donald Trump “grow up,” even though he is considerably older than me.  I can still recall images in my mind’s eye of a much younger Mr. Trump from about 25 years ago when the television media began paying more and more attention to him in view of his real estate endeavors. 

I can also recall there was something about him that I didn’t like, but that ideal on my part was never clear even to me now that I think about it:  The best I can think is that I didn’t like his cocky attitude, which is the same attitude that he tends to portray even today.  My apologies, though, because not liking someone just because of a cocky attitude is actually more akin to being a bigot than anything else.

All I can say is that I must have been more cynical as a younger man than I am today (although traits of cynicism usually get worse as a person grows older), because I have quite frankly grown very fond of Mr. Trump in recent years.  If it was the fact of his endearing cocky attitude that caused me to generally dislike him in the first place, then the fact of the matter is possibly as simple as humbly acknowledging that I am also a cocky person in my own right (e.g., even a drunk doesn’t like seeing another drunk).  The thing is, of course, that I am not able to nearly afford to hold a cocky attitude the way Donald Trump can afford it.

Learning about how Trump started on his road to massive wealth by literally saving his meager earnings from a “newspaper route” and purchasing teeny-tiny row boats to rent to sightseers out on the river really impressed the hell out of me.  This guy was (and is) truly a self-made man; and I knew I had to bite myself in the rear in making the humble realization that I apparently had a lot to learn.

I know a lot of the reason why I have grown so fond of Mr. Trump is for the same reason that so many other people like him a lot:  He has proven himself to be a tremendous performer and entertainer in view of “The Apprentice” television program.  Apart from really giving cause to demonstrate his incredible intelligence in being an apparent master of human psychology, I personally have found where his performances on The Apprentice prove that he is also a wonderfully sincere person, albeit even if he is cocky as hell at the same time.

But should Donald Trump end up running for – and being – the President of the United States of America?

Absolutely, I think he should!  We need another Kennedy-type gentleman in office: a man is who very smart, who is both cocky and witty, and who isn’t afraid of marrying women more than 20 years his junior and then asking people something to the effect of, “Why do you care?”

First and foremost, though, Mr. Donald Trump is the apparent epitome of what it means to be a street-smart businessman.  He has proven his business talents beyond any doubt when you look at his profoundly humble beginnings from delivering newspapers door to door, to where he stands today at the forefront of American business, American real estate development – and American entertainment media.

There is no better “type of person” than a street-smart businessman to lead this country straight out of the doldrums of this economic depression that we actually started into during the time of the Reagan Administration back in the 1980s.

Donald Trump is that “type of person” without a doubt.  He will run this country “like a business,” which is the ONLY way to run a country – and he knows it.

We couldn’t ask for a more endearing, sincere, smart, witty, business-savvy and cocksure candidate for the position of President of the United States than Mr. Donald Trump (and he knows it).

BP Chief Doug Suttles Tells More Lies

 (They made fun of me in school for being a "Mama's Boy.")

When British Petroleum (BP) Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles - and other executives from BP - first spoke about the proposal for the latest capping device to be placed over the top of the gushing oil well head in the Gulf of Mexico, all they said was that the idea in mind was to saw the top portion of the riser pipe off before attaching the new cap.  Concerns were expressed about the need for a clean cut of the pipe in the interest of facilitating a snug fit for the cap; and that failure to produce a clean cut would result in a greater leakage of oil from out around the sides of the base of the newly installed cap.

But there was NOTHING initially stated by anyone from BP or elsewhere suggesting any so-called “VENTS” being implemented at the sides of the cap that would result in the subsequent leakage of oil.  But this is what Mr. Suttles is quoted as recently claiming when he was asked to describe why so much oil - in fact more oil than ever - is seen streaming from out around the sides of the newly installed cap.  In his effective words, he stated, “What you are seeing here is vents around the sides of the cap; and those vents will progressively be closed off to secure the flow of oil.”

 For one thing, Mr. Suttles is a bold-faced liar to no less a degree than British Petroleum and everyone else involved in this whole issue has been making up one lie after another and pointing fingers of blame at everyone else around them.  But there is an important and very simple observation in PHYSICS to show why the oil is VENTING from around the sides of the phony-baloney cap that has been placed over the top of the riser pipe, including why this situation could not have been prevented in the first place.

The simple analogy to make here is when you inadvertently shake up a bottle of soda or beer and then remove the cap too soon, only to have the pressurized and carbonated liquid foaming out the top of the bottle.  This problem has happened to most people at one time or another who drink enough bottles of soda and beer, including that many people will make failed attempts at applying hand pressure to the top of the bottle cap in an effort to stop the flow of liquid. 

By and large, though, this attempt will fail and the liquid will continue flowing out from the inside edges of the bottle cap to some degree until enough of the pressurized liquid has been released that it ends up creating a vacuum inside the bottle between the top of the remaining liquid and the underside of the bottle cap.  The typical solution that ends up occurring is where you find yourself running over to the sink and letting go of bottle cap to allow the liquid to spill out.

In simple physics’ terminology, this phenomenon is referred to as being “the path of least resistance,” in which any liquid will always follow that same path.  The path of least resistance in the case of the gushing oil well is that the amount of pressure being applied from the release of oil and gas is far greater than the amount of pressure being applied through use of the jury-rigged cap placed over the top of the riser pipe.

Another really stupid and retarded observation to make here is that if the new cap was going to work in the first place to choke off the flow of oil, then the last failed attempt of trying to force heavy mud down the riser pipe would also have worked.  The reason for the failed attempt at forcing mud down the pipe is the same reason why this cap is not working, which is due to the greater force of oil and gas escaping from the well. 

The central pressure of this particular oil well is estimated at being upwards of 170-thousand pounds per square inch (PSI); and in order for any form of capping or plugging device to actually work in overcoming the flow of oil and gas, then such device will need to create GREATER THAN 170-thousand pounds of pressure on a PER-INCH basis.

In order for Mr. Doug Suttles to be correct about the VENTING effect being closed off on any step-by-step basis, it would have to mean that pressure being applied to the top of the cap will eventually overcome the pressure of the well itself, but this WILL NEVER be accomplished simply by bringing some of the oil to the surface into a waiting cargo ship.  The apparent problem with the fact of transferring any amount of oil to the surface of the ocean that is LESS THAN the amount of oil and gas escaping from the well is that doing so is obviously not going to diminish the pressure at the source of the leak.

Neither Mr. Suttles nor anyone else has offered to explain HOW the pressure of the oil well is going to somehow eventually be overcome by a greater amount of pressure being applied to the new capping device.  This is because Mr. Suttles is telling more lies in a feeble effort to try and cover up all of his past lies; and he already knows pressurization of this new capping device is inherently DESIGNED TO FAIL just the same as trying to shove heavy mud and concrete down the riser pipe also failed.

Under these circumstances, the only way the pressure is going to become lessened is for the well itself to actually begin to RUN DRY over a period of time – maybe years or even decades from now – just the same as a bottle of soda pop releases all of its contained pressure. 

It is believed that the amount of natural gas under pressure in the well deposit is upwards of 10-thousand times greater than the amount of actual oil.  The well deposit is further believed to be either the first or second largest such deposit yet discovered on the earth at an estimated 25-thousand square miles, which is greater than the circumference of the earth itself at about 22-thousand miles.

The pressurization of the well deposit is not going to diminish anytime soon.  It could even take hundreds of years for the pressure to begin to dwindle down to any appreciable degree.  But by then, of course, there won’t be ANYONE around to tell the story one way or the other...

Oil Spill Clean Up Will Not Work

The apparent landmark – and admittedly “untested” – new theory currently under construction to try and collect the oil that is gushing out of the damaged well head in the Gulf of Mexico is to place a very large steel container over the top of the well with an inserted hose that is designed to recapture the oil from therein.  Generally speaking, the rhetoric going around is that the British Petroleum Company (BP) plans on “pumping” the oil out of the steel container for transfer into an awaiting tanker; but other rhetoric is suggesting that the oil will be “siphoned” out of the container.

A very important point to make here is that "pumping" and "siphoning" are two totally separate ideals.  A suction pump (including your mouth) can be used to start a siphoning process (also called “priming”), such as with siphoning gasoline out of a car gas tank; but once the cohesion of siphoning is actually completed then the pump is no longer used.

I have to assume that BP is not planning on siphoning the oil out of the container, since the physics of siphoning won’t work in that case.

The process of siphoning to drain a reservoir of liquid is accomplished by way of utilizing a continuous tube that allows liquid to drain from the reservoir through an intermediate point that is higher, or lower, than the reservoir.  In this way, the flow of liquid is being driven only by the difference in so-called “hydrostatic pressure” without any need for pumping.  However, the physics of hydrostatic pressure (also called “hydrostatics”) are the deciding factor here, since the phenomenon of hydrostatic pressure is actually considerate of the – "The Science of Fluids at Rest."

In short, a body of fluid at rest is just what it sounds like, an example of which is the gasoline resting in your car’s gas tank.  Oil that is clearly being forced out of the ground into a reservoir is clearly not a liquid substance that is at rest inside the reservoir, which is why a conversion of hydrostatic pressurization within the tube (or pipe) running to an awaiting tanker on the surface of the water would not be accomplished.

The other consideration is that they (BP) would be attempting to continuously pump the oil out of the tank and into the ship.  

There are two conceivable problems with this “pumping” theory that are based in simple physics:

1)  If the upward force of the suction pump is actually greater than the outward force of oil escaping from the well head, then a vacuum effect will automatically be created inside of the proposed steel container.  At such time (not very long afterward) that enough opposing vacuum force is exerted inside of the steel container, it would actually create a downward exertion of force against the outward pressurized effect of the oil escaping from the well head; and this effect would ultimately choke off the flow of oil out of the well head for as long as the greater opposing vacuum force is being exerted.  In other words, the next thing everybody would know is that oil would suddenly stop coming out of the well.

The simple analogy to this is to place a paper cup over your mouth that creates a seal by fitting the cup securely around your cheeks, your upper lip and chin area and then proceed to inhale.  The vacuum effect is created immediately; and if you inhale hard enough it will cause the walls of the cup to collapse inward, or to implode.

A more precise analogy to this scenario is to picture the same cup over your mouth, but instead with a straw inserted through the bottom of the cup that has water flowing through the straw into the cup receptacle.  Assuming the outward force of the water flow through the straw is at 5 pounds per square inch (psi), but you are alternately exerting an upward suctioning action equivalent to 10 psi, then your greater suctioning action will actually create a vacuum effect not only inside the cup, but also inside the straw, that will stop the flow of water through the straw.  In fact, if you were able to suck hard enough, you would ultimately succeed in collapsing (imploding) the walls of the straw itself.  In this latter illustration, first the walls of the straw would collapse and then the walls of the cup would collapse.

A real-world example here is to first note that I have been employed as a semi-truck driver for the past decade and that I used to drive tanker trucks that were filled with various liquids coming from those very large silo tanks that you see along the freeways at industrial plants (e.g., oil refineries).  The pumps used to transfer liquids from the tanks into the truck are on the semi-truck itself and not on the silo tanks.  When transferring liquids in all cases under this scenario, the truck driver must ensure that he vents the tanker on his vehicle before turning on his truck pump, or it will COLLAPSE THE WALLS of the silo tank.  This is because the silo tanks are pressurized and are not vented.  (So if you’ve ever been driving down the road and seen one of those huge steel tanks in a collapsed – or imploded – condition, the reason it happened is because the truck driver forgot to vent his tanker truck when he started the loading process.) 

The silo tanks are not vented for a very important reason, which is to prevent the displacement of air between the silo holding tank and the hose line running to the tanker truck, which would otherwise result in the pump mechanism of the semi truck to effectively end up “sucking air” and where either little or no flow of liquid would actually occur.  (NOTE: The other important – and perhaps obvious – consideration to make here is that truck drivers cannot offload liquid from a silo holding tank during those times when the silo is being refilled by railroad cars due to the fact that the tanks are not pressurized at the time when they are being refilled.)

2)  On the other hand, if the upward force of the suction pump is actually less than the outward force of escaping oil from the well head, then obviously the steel reservoir is going to fill beyond capacity.  What happens in that case?  Well, assuming that there is no floor (i.e., no bottom) on the dome, then the result is going to be that the oil will simply lift the dome off the ocean floor; and it doesn’t matter if that the dome is said to weigh an estimated 170 tons.  The dome will be lifted off the ocean floor in this case and tossed around, possibly being flipped over on its side, but otherwise clearly illustrating that no means of an effective seal will be accomplished at the base edges of the dome, as it would be designed to rest on the ocean floor.

In theory, the only way this pumping scenario could work is if the pumping mechanism were calibrated to pump the oil out of the dome at precisely the same rate that oil is escaping from the well.  My first assumption is that they (BP) would have no way of knowing how to adjust such a precise calibration, since first of all they are not even sure how much oil is escaping from the well at any given time.  But even if they could accurately adjust the calibration in this way, the other thing they would have to be prepared for is that the pump could never stop pumping at any time or the same above-noted scenario would occur where the reservoir would fill beyond capacity and thus end up being lifted off the ocean floor.

As a final note here, if the former scenario ends up being the case where a level of suction disproportionately greater than the outward flow of oil were to occur, then it is more than a fair bet to assume the greater likelihood where the reservoir would end up becoming imploded, and regardless of the fact that it is constructed of 170 tons of steel and concrete.

My personal suggestion here is that the quickest way to potentially repair and/or plug the leaking oil well head would be to use underwater FANS designed to clear oil away to one side, which would provide visibility of the well head.  With visibility, it may be possible to send manned submarines with robotic arms down to the area where a welding operation could be conducted to seal off the well.

Tiger Woods Conspiracy Theory

Tiger Woods is no idiot.  Anyone who can shoot a 4-under-par 68 after a 5-month layoff from a mentally grueling sport like golf must be the equivalent of Superman wielding a golf club.  Theoretically, even as emotionally challenging as the sport of golf can be, probably any reasonable person would have to assume that Tiger’s ordeal with his scandalous sexual escapades really should have caused him even more emotional stress than swinging a five-iron.

And that above-noted score, by the way, is Tiger’s best ever on a first day of play at any Master’s Tournament that he’s ever attended.  Additionally, having made eagles at the 8th and 15th holes, it marks the only time he’s ever scored multiple eagles in any Master’s round.  All in all, therefore, it certainly doesn’t appear as though Tiger is suffering from any means of post traumatic stress disorder symptoms related to his very recent sexual scandals when viewed in contrast to his steady hand at swinging a golf club.

Now, I know this sounds presumptuous, but how hard would it be for a super celebrity slash athlete – like Woods – to arrange for around 15 girls (or however many there were) to fraudulently claim intimate involvement in the interest of creating a social media scandal that would later prove to enrich the Woods’ bank account even more after everything was said and done?

Think about it:  The sport of golf in terms of both media attention and tournament purse payouts was never even close to where it has evolved to in response to the advent of Tiger Woods’ personal career.  I mean, football, basketball and baseball have always been big in the media and have consistently enjoyed a loyal following of throngs of fans; but the stellar popularity of golf is actually much more recent, with much – it not most or all – of the credit going to Tiger’s truly amazing athletic abilities at the sport.

With that being said, there may have been some concern brewing among Big Golf sponsorship and commercial endorsers alike that the level of attention being paid to the game of golf might be waning somewhat and would be in need of a massive publicity boost.  In theory to presume the general or specific psyche of the viewing public, the benefits of such a massive publicity boost, if carried out correctly, could potentially live on in view of the sport long after Tiger Woods actually ends up retiring his golf cart and golf bags into the recesses of his 8,000 square-foot garage.

Without question, the American public in particular enjoys nothing more than to become engrossed in a wild and wooly sex scandal centered on some high profile celebrity.  The peculiar nature of human psychology here (at least in this society) tends to follow suit with the lyrics to the 1982 Rock n’ Roll song, “Dirty Laundry,” written and sung by Don Henley.  But if you don’t know – or don’t remember – the solemn truth about human nature that is so accurately reflected by those lyrics, then I’ll invite you search the song out on the Internet so that you get my point here.

In the meantime, what I’m proposing is that Tiger Woods probably never cheated on his wife in the first place.  My first guess beyond that is that Tiger was probably a virgin before he met his wife and that he doesn’t have the sophistication to travel around the country having sex with strange women who work minimum wage jobs.  I also don’t think he’s stupid enough to assume that he could have possibly gotten away with sending out all those raunchy text messages to all those women into perpetuity.

Also, his wife is apparently still standing by his side despite the fact that she threatened to leave him at the outset of this purported scandal and move back to Switzerland, or wherever it is she emigrated from.  This consideration is also withstanding the fact that she is concurrently being spotted without wearing her wedding ring, which I am supposing is nothing more than a ploy to make the whole set up of a bereaved wife look believable to the viewing public.

The tricky part comes now that Tiger is back in the limelight with a golf club in hand, because now he needs to make sure that he wins the Master’s Tournament in order for this whole phony ploy of being an international playboy to work out as planned.  In short, if he wins the tournament, then popularity for the sport of golf is sure to rise to new heights never before seen; and conversely if he loses the game, then the popularity of the game may indeed sink to lows also never before seen.

The thing about it is that the history of Tiger’s game shows us where there is a very reasonable likelihood that he will win the game; and for which such reasonably assured speculation is clearly unlike that of any other golfer in past history.  Also, the caliber of any other professional players currently out there in the golf circuit really don’t come close to matching the caliber of Tiger at any time when he is in control of playing his best game.  It’s not like the sport has Tiger Woods playing along someone like Jack Nicholson.

The gamble here would be to place Tiger into this really poor publicity light of being a land-roving playboy who is eager to pull his club out of the sack on a moment’s notice and freely swing it around on a whim with any girl who happens to be within a club’s length away from him.  As far as anyone can see, he then jaunts off to this ritzy sex rehabilitation clinic to purportedly find a cure for his obsessive horniness, when in reality he is actually practicing his putting on an indoor putting green and holding teleconferencing sessions with executives of Big Golf, the Nike Corporation and other business interests.

With the exception of Beaverton, Oregon, based Nike Corporation, all these other endorsers are seen dropping off like flies from their support for Tiger, but that’s no big deal for a guy who is already a billionaire and hold a strong chance to win his sixth Master’s Tournament.  The end result is that they all collectively come up with this really sort of austere 30-second commercial for Nike that features Tiger in a kind of silent and staring trance while the voice of his father is heard in the background offering past words of reprimand to his son.

If all things work out as planned, then Tiger comes back and wins his sixth Master’s Title, which results in all hell breaking loose in terms of commercial endorsement possibilities on top of a burgeoning public enthusiasm for the game of golf on an overall basis.  The end result is that (providing Tiger wins this tournament) there will be those who love Tiger and then there will be those who despise him; but the pros and cons of a love and hate relationship among the viewing public won’t really matter simply because everyone’s eyes are going to be glued on the game of golf for one reason or another.

From the perspective of commercial value in terms of media attention, the reasons why people are watching the game of golf won’t matter as much as the fact that they are watching.  To sum up this equation in the effective words of Mr. Donald Trump when he was asked for his personal opinion on the most important issue at hand regarding Tiger’s long term career viability, Mr. Trump’s answer was: “He needs to win!”   

Shroud of Turin Fraud

Past DNA testing of the cloth makeup of the Shroud of Turin has suggested that the blood is in fact of a male human; but supposedly the DNA is degraded to the point that many specific performance tests related to DNA symbiosis cannot be quantified. However, I find this latter argument to be highly suspect in view of greatly advanced, modern-day DNA testing enhancements that can actually "recreate" a full DNA string model based on the availability of only a very small sampling of actual genetic material.
The compendium here for writing such a fully-encoded DNA string model with far less than a full set of DNA pieces to the puzzle is - as a matter of principle - nearly the exact equivalent measure of this 3-D computer generated imagery that produces a full image of a body underneath the Shroud otherwise lacking dimension.

The same basic scientific approach is used (and has been used for decades) to recreate full models of dinosaurs by way of assembling bits and pieces of fossilized dinosaur remains.  In short, you take a few pieces of the real puzzle and use those pieces as a reliably dynamic composite to assume the shape and configuration of the surrounding pieces that are missing; and then you artificially manufacture the missing pieces to create the whole model. 

With all the known flaws, pitfalls and apparent contradictions of carbon-dating methods set aside, there really are no known similar flaws when it comes to DNA testing.  So why aren't these scientists spending their efforts to build a full facsimile DNA model from the remaining DNA material that is said to have survived on the cloth material of the Shroud of Turin?  And while we're at it, why don't we ask this same question of Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, since it was about 10 years ago when he set out on a personal mission to fully map the billions of DNA code strings present in the human genome in much the same way that he invented the WINDOWS operating system for computers. (Leave it up to good old Bill, right?)   

My personal strong presumption is that Christ held highly specific DNA coding that was completely uncharacteristic of any other human being existing at any time either before, during, or after his lifetime; and excepting other than to assume his DNA could be shown to be of a human composite nature based on purely general characteristics.  One very simple reason to assume this ideal is given in view of the argument to suggest that Christ was conceived in the womb without the use of human sperm; and whereas that type of "Holy Birth" circumstance (I am assuming) would easily guarantee that the DNA composite of Jesus Christ is totally removed in terms of its broader organic characteristics and aspects when compared to the DNA of any other humans – and human remains – throughout the history of mankind. 

If I am correct, then to look at his DNA with the knowledge that the DNA is human would be the equivalent of a scientific discovery within the field of genetic research unparalleled by any other DNA-related discoveries.  Finding such a DNA sample (of the Lord) would be a hallmark discovery completely unlike any other.  And I certainly do believe that the scientists looking at such a sample WOULD KNOW that it did not come from any other known human DNA specimen that was ever previously scrutinized underneath a microscope.

I suspect there are about two (2) reasons why the scientific community is not concentrating its publicity efforts on the obvious question and answer scenarios surrounding accurate DNA testing in this case:

1) They have already discovered that the DNA sampling remaining on the Shroud of Turin is indeed unlike that of any other DNA sampling ever found, which would thus present a very strong argument that the blood is almost certainly that of Jesus Christ.  As such, they don't want to tell anyone about this fantastic discovery, because it would cause too much of a worldwide stir - both politically and socially - for a number of reasons.

2) They already know the DNA is nothing to get excited about; that it was the blood of a common peasant who was crucified on a cross, just like Christ and hundreds of other men were crucified during that period in history; and they are simply allowing this "myth" to survive and circulate for the benefit of Hollywood movie companies and everyone else who enjoy being amused with watching 3-D documentaries and other 3-D movies (e.g., AVATAR) dealing with supernatural curiosities.

Whatever the circumstances, my best overall assumption, both generally and specifically, is that the scientific community has a great deal more conclusive information regarding the DNA values found on the Shroud of Turin than is being released to the public.

Great American Health Insurance Tax

I don’t know how many people have made the connection just yet, but this thing with so-called “Health Care Reform” is apparently nothing more than a taxation mandate aimed at forcing people to either purchase health insurance, or to face being fined for failing to do so. Rhetoric at this point in the game is suggesting that such fines will range somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,000 for a family who fails to pay their health insurance premiums, which is assumed to become an act of law in 2014. No word yet as far as I know on what constitutes a “family” (e.g., 2 people; 3 people; head of household, etc.).

This is not the same as the requirement under law in most states that mandate the purchase of automobile insurance, since first of all there is no requirement to own a car. And a person can actually own cars without purchasing automobile insurance just so long as the vehicles are not driven along public roadways.

If a driver is involved in an accident in a state that does require automobile insurance and cannot provide proof of insurance following a collision, then that person will typically face a stiff fine. By the same token, if a person is detained by police during a routine traffic stop and proof of insurance cannot be shown, then the person will also typically be faced with paying a sizeable fine.

The above two (2) ideals both make sense: If a person is performing, or contributing to the performance of, a material action that is illegal (e.g., driving a car without insurance), then it can reasonably be shown where a physical transgression took place that is against the law. But that is NOT what we are talking about when we say that it would (or will) be illegal to not pay for health insurance, since a physical act would have never taken place.

Again, the simple and realistic analogy here is one of – “TAXATION.” The fact of a person being found guilty for failure to pay state or federal taxes often times does not require an action to have taken place (e.g., such as with purposely falsifying tax receipts). A person may not pay the correct amount of tax in simple terms, in which case a transgression took place due to “inaction” on the part of the person to pay the tax that was due. Therefore, when it would come to a mandate aimed at forcing people to pay a health insurance premium, failure to do so can equally be said to amount to a fact of “inaction” the same as can be attributed to any inaction of failure to pay a state, federal or local tax debt.

In pondering this consideration in my mind that what we are seeing taking place here is nothing more than a tax initiative giving free reign on the part of health insurance provider companies everywhere to effectively put their hands straight into the wallets of the American people (both rich and poor) when it would come to forcing the payment of insurance premiums, it was subsequently on the evening of Monday, March 22, 2010, while I was watching the monologue performance of Mr. Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, that he offered a brief – albeit serious – remark to suggest that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will actually be the institution responsible for carrying out certain instrumental legal reporting requirements on the behalf of taxpayers everywhere who would be required to pay for such health care insurance.

Now why didn’t I think of that before? Of course, it was all making sense to me (after hearing Mr. Jay Leno make the comment) that the IRS should be responsible for the integration and implementation of this new “Health Care Tax Law,” since resolving any questions involving taxes – both generally and specifically – is what the IRS does best.

Mr. Leno’s comments were very brief, naturally, and although I am a faithful viewer of the Tonight Show who can easily tell when Mr. Leno is joking and when he is not completely joking, I still didn’t want to make mention of his comments here without first researching the subject on the Internet. In doing so, the following link from Fox News offers to provide some prima facie evidence of just how the IRS is going to be intimately involved when it comes to the implementation and ongoing legal maintenance requirements considerate of the Health Care Reform Act…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/22/irs-serve-health-reform-enforcer-lacks-authority-enforce/

At least one very big difference between the mandating of mandatory health care insurance and that of mandatory automobile insurance is that the latter form of insurance is not mandated under federal law; and it is at the discretion and responsibility of the respective states to either implement such automobile insurance requirements or to not implement them. In fact, according to a Wikipedia article on the subject, as well as one other article, apparently the State of New Hampshire still does not require motorists to carry automobile insurance, which frankly surprised me to a good degree. I had thought that all the states in the union were in on that particular insurance mandate.

As of the date of this writing, we currently have about 17 states that are in the process of serving lawsuits against the federal government for passage of the Health Care Reform Act. These states are filing suit under the premise that the Act is effectively unconstitutional in terms; and the suits are inclusive of presuming a violation of the U.S. Constitution itself to regard the 10th Amendment, as well as to presume or assume a violation of those respective states’ constitutional requirements. My first guess, therefore, is that if the federal government had attempted to mandate a federal requirement for motorists to carry automobile insurance, then we may likely have seen these same sorts of lawsuits way back about 30 years ago when those first state laws were passed regarding mandatory auto insurance coverage.

I fail to see a reasonable difference between a federal mandate for mandatory health care insurance and that of any presumed federal mandate that could theoretically have taken place regarding automotive insurance. I mean, in simple terms, insurance is insurance no matter what form it takes – or at least that is what I had always assumed.

So why not make “DENTAL INSURANCE” a federal requirement while we’re at it? After all, the condition of “periodontal disease” is a determined medical condition that can and does have serious health implications in many people; and there are an awful lot of people out there with really bad teeth. In fact, medical research has shown that the occurrence of unchecked and long-term periodontal disease in adults ends up leading to higher incidents of Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, stroke and other ailments that are clearly of a medical nature in the sense of peoples’ overall physical health. In short, when a person has rotten teeth, the fact of the rotting teeth tends to create a condition for which “poisons” are literally deposited into the affected person’s stomach; and poisons that are created because of rotting teeth are also deposited directly into an affected person’s blood stream by way of the gum tissue. (Have you ever noticed how people with chronically bad teeth almost seem to be mentally retarded even though they probably are not retarded in the true sense of the word? This is a truism. People with long-term, rotting teeth are not all there “upstairs,” so to speak.)

It doesn’t make any practical sense that the federal government would want to mandate this bill for mandatory health insurance, per se, without also mandating an identical bill for dental insurance.

One of the long and short arguments for this whole endeavor that I believe will quickly prove to become a genuine falsehood is of that regarding Mr. President Obama’s effective punch line statement in which he has apparently suggested that if a person – or a business – prefers to hold a current health care insurance plan, then such people are free to keep up with the current plan and that nothing needs to be changed.

But I don’t believe things are even remotely likely to actually turn out that way; and again, the simple analogous argument to this premise comes right back to the ideal of mandatory automotive insurance. That is to say, when states adopted mandatory automotive insurance practices, the next thing everybody knew is that they were faced with purchasing “MINIMIM AMOUNTS OF LIABILITY” insurance coverage. People could – and can – buy their auto insurance from any insurance provider they wish to, but they must conform to minimum standards of coverage (e.g., 100k; 300k, etc).

Conversely, I firmly don’t believe that we should expect to see any different sort of circumstances evolve when it would come to the procurement of health insurance coverage among Americans under such mandatory requirements. For one thing, the assumption of premium costs relative to ANY AND ALL forms of insurance have ALWAYS been based on risk factoring being taken into consideration; and there is no reason for anyone to expect that such diverse factoring is going to change.

If you are a driver who is constantly getting into accidents (even if those accidents are not your fault), then you can expect your car insurance rates to skyrocket. If you are a cigarette smoker, then you can expect the cost of your health insurance and life insurance premiums to be higher than if you were not a smoker. And by the same token, if you are 58 years old and paying for your “mandatory” health care coverage under the Obama plan, then there is absolutely NO REASON to expect that your health insurance is not going to be more expensive than if you were instead only 18 years old.

Also, I haven’t heard anyone even remotely suggesting that these age-old risk-factoring adjustments adopted by insurance companies are going to change just because health insurance coverage has become mandatory. The only thing it is likely to mean is that if you are 58 or 68 years old and are being forced to pay for your own health insurance, then there is every reason to believe that you will be paying an arm and a leg in more money than if you were 18 or 28 years old.

Among those other questions that seem to pose a quagmire of likely – and possibly unparalleled (at least in my view) – concern for how people are going to be held accountable for the payment of their “fair share” of health care premiums, one such good question to earmark would be the involvement of such unfortunate circumstances as when people get laid off from work, or even for people who are fired from their positions of employment.

As such, and according to my understanding for the new health care plan, you would not lose your health care coverage just because you lost your job. Okay, that is possibly great news to know, but if it was your employer who was paying your health care insurance while you were still employed, then who is going to be responsible for the payment of your insurance premiums after you lose your job?

You won’t be able to afford the cost of health insurance if you are subsisting solely on an unemployment benefits’ check payment of about $300.00 a week. Your former employer certainly won’t be able to afford the upkeep of your insurance premium payments if you are no longer working for the company. And the government isn’t saying anything about filling in the payment gap for you – or to fill in the gap for your past employer – until you can find a new job.

So what happens there? Could it be that YOU would be required to “retroactively” pay those monthly premiums at such time that you were to finally find another job? If that were the case, and let’s suppose you ended up being unemployed for a full six-month term, then you could easily owe MORE MONEY in retroactive insurance premium payments (e.g., at a rough estimated cost of $400.00 a month) than the total post-tax value of your weekly unemployment benefits’ payments. And wouldn’t that be wonderful news for you?

My argument here is that this governmental mandatory health care coverage amounts to nothing more than a new – and VERY HEAVY – form of taxation. However, the very notable difference between this form of taxation and that of employment taxes, for instance, is that if you are not working then there is no question in understanding that you will not be liable for owing any taxes, since you would not have earned any money. On the other hand, and with the understanding that you would still be receiving the value of health insurance coverage benefits in lieu of any premium payments being made to the insurance company for those benefits (i.e., because you are unemployed and because your former employer can’t afford to pay benefits on an unemployed person), then the math is simple enough to do in further understanding that SOMEONE is going to have to cough up that money from somewhere.

The thing that intrigues me is that no one (as far as I know) is saying anything about where completely lost revenues from delinquent and unpaid insurance premiums are going to come from; and again, Obama himself HAS NOT suggested that this type of money will be coming from the federal government.

But perhaps the final outcome will indeed be hinged on the ideal of Mr. Obama’s landmark remark made during his recent address, in which he stated, to the effect, “I guess we’ll all just have to look around for the next six months or so and see if ARMAGEDDON really does happen after all,” as a result of the passage of this truly historic new Health Care Reform Act being signed into law.

Business Tax Breaks NOT a Jobs Bill

It doesn’t take even an Associate’s Degree in economics to understand that offering tax break incentives to businesses if they hire new employees (and retain those new employees for at least 52 weeks under the terms of the proposal) is clearly not something that can reasonably be called a Jobs’ Bill Stimulus package. That type of arrangement is what has historically been known as a “tax break,” just like I wrote above.

Tax breaks can come in many forms, whether it’s lessening the tax burden on businesses for the purchase of new office equipment, or cutting the capital gains’ tax in view of profits made from real estate sales and the sale of stock. All manner of any one of a number of various tax breaks have been coming and going in this society for about a hundred years or so.

But who do you know that’s out there finding buyers for new homes enough to offset the millions of people who have already lost – and are concurrently faced with losing – their original homes, which could equate to a capital gains’ taxation equation? How many common people do you know who are out there buying and selling stocks for a profit that in turn would require them to pay capital gains’ tax?

There is virtually no one doing any of these things. More jobs are still being lost than are being created. There is no "new money" being created out there enough to offset the billions of dollars in "old money" that has already been lost and continues to be lost in the economy (e.g., depreciating home values and lost stock values).

On the morning news here yesterday, the official national unemployment figures were released for February where it was indicated that, “initial claims for unemployment are DOWN to 457 thousand claims.” So what’s the big deal there? The inflective tone in the commentator’s voice was obviously “trained” to make it sound like it was a good thing. Another half-million jobs LOST in February!

Good gravy, but what a joke that is; and the number works out to a rough average of 10,000 lost jobs per state of the 50 states. That doesn’t sound like something to be bragging about under any circumstances; and particularly not to brag about it when weighed against what has been happening in the national economy for about the past two (2) years now. However, it was interesting to note where the news’ commentator failed to explain the distinction of “down” when he said that initial jobless claims were down.

Down to 457 thousand from what number, man – 458 thousand perhaps? What a real joke.

Anyway, back to the ideal of what amounts to “elementary school level” economics: If businesses had new business coming in, and therefore were earning money, they would not have laid off some 25% of the nation’s work force in the first place. And offering tax break incentives to businesses that simply don’t have the resources to hire any new employees is the exact same as telling a homeowner with no money in his pocket that he can save his home from foreclosure if he comes up with 50% of his mortgage payment instead of 100%. No money means NO MONEY!

Credit card companies are scrambling around all over the country offering 20% or more in reduced buyout rates on delinquent and defaulting consumer credit accounts, but most of those efforts are failing right now. People simply don’t have 80% cash lump sums to pay off bad debts, or to even resume normal payments on those delinquent accounts, because they are out of work.

The point here is that these credit issuers offering reduced buyout rates to delinquent borrowers is – in principle – the exact same type of incentive that the Obama Administration is proposing for businesses who hire – and retain – new employees in consideration of a future tax break. It’s like saying, “Okay, were going to make the cost of labor less for you over the course of the tax year,” which is tantamount to offering a provision for a buyout incentive on the current, higher tax rates.

The only businesses who would be taking advantage of such a tax-break hiring incentive are going to be those businesses that are already financially capable of hiring new employees in the first place. And in view of any need for business expansion where a profit can be assumed, many of those same businesses would plan on hiring new employees either with or without a tax break.

If the idea (which is not an idea) was to simply hand over cash money to businesses and then say, “Okay, now use this money to hire new employees,” then that would obviously be an entirely different story. That scenario would again be – in principle – the exact same as if the government were handing over cash money to delinquent home buyers and delinquent consumer credit borrowers and then saying, “Okay, now use this money to pay off your home mortgage and to pay off all your other debts.”

Seeing the government handing over cash money to businesses and then telling them to use the money to hire new employees would also be the equivalent of buying jobs for the people. But that idea is a real moot point, since buying jobs for people in general is not part of any government stimulus plan.

The only cash monies being handed out like this are being handed to the likes of billionaire bankers and their failing multi-billion dollar banking institutions. Then, even after these institutions are effectively bailed out from going bankrupt, the down line borrowers who were defaulting on their obligations in the first place -- are still expected to pay off those debts if they want to keep their homes, to keep their cars and to avoid having to live in a cardboard box.

The other very obvious and looming fact to all of this nonsense when it comes to trying to paint a picture of business tax breaks as being a “jobs’ bill stimulus package,” is that none of these provisions are designed to free up business credit lending on the part of the banks who have been responsible for cutting off lending to much of the business base around the country and also around the world. Business credit lines continue to effectively remain just as frozen as they were last year.

In other words, and again, if a business doesn’t already have the financial resources to expand, then a tax break to supposedly create a viable incentive for expansion is not going to make any difference. It’s just as simple as that.