Why Unfortunately for Americans Hillary will be President

 ~ Rant ~ 

Here is why I think Hillary Clinton, unfortunately for America, will be elected President in 2017.

It's politically correct - she has a vagina.

Big banks and big corporations have paid for her pre-determined presidency.

And mostly because she has not yet been (and sadly, probably never will be) thrown in prison.

There has been several reports about Hillary Clinton's unsecured, home server, based on the cloud in Colorado, where classified, top secret, and beyond top secret (SAP - Special Access Programs) documents and emails passed through and resided. Violation of oath of office, violation of laws, and violation of national security; things that if any of us little people committed even a tiny fraction of, we would have been quickly tossed in jail for the rest of our lives or executed on the spot.

Given the Clintons' history, it would not be surprising that she sold to both foreign and domestic entities, state secrets and favors for "donations".

Geeks all over the world have setup automated systems to search and attempt to hack any IP address the programs find. China and Russia most definitely have hacked the server and probably more than a dozen other countries.

Here is an article from the New York Post, by Paul Sperry, "'This was all planned': Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying":
http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/

In the article, former Inspector General, Howard J. Krongard, points out several  things that should have sent up red flags years ago. He also explains that the FBI's criminal referral to the Justice Department will be watered-down and quietly brushed under the carpet because it would have to go through four, high ranking, Democrat-loyal women. The epitome of political correctness and political graft... the cesspool of American politics and law.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would be more proof that the United States of America is a banana republic where the laws only apply to the little people.



Comments
Please, keep your comments clean, civil and relevant. Cussing with foul language just for the sake of using foul language only proves the person to be an obnoxious, dull-witted fool.

TurboTax - Rubbing It In That You are Poor

 ~ Rant ~ 

I've used Intuit's, free, online version of TurboTax for years to file my income taxes. Eight years of being mostly unemployed or underemployed have left me solidly (and sadly) qualified for the free, tax preparation services.

By sticking with Intuit's, free, online version of TurboTax, my previous year's income tax information was readily available to automatically fill in a lot of parts in the many multiple forms.

As with previous years, TurboTax showed me my contact information, my previous employer's information, and a summary of last year's return. When I clicked on the "Continue" button, I was taken to a page listing three pricing categories. "Free", "Plus" for an extra $30, and "Upgrade" for more money that I did not want to spend (I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist of the titles).

What was different this year, from all the previous years that I had used TurboTax online to file my income taxes, was that after selecting the free option, TurboTax showed my previous year's information being slowly deleted, one-by-one, just to rub my nose into the fact that I am poor enough to have to chose the "free" option. For people in my situation, $30 is still a considerable sum.

I doubt my information was actually deleted. The amount of demographic and economic information that Intuit collects from these services is too valuable to delete. But Intuit purposefully put an animated depiction of all your data being slowly deleted just to rub salt into your impoverished wounds. Very uncouth Intuit. There are ethically better ways to market your wares than that.

After that bit of unpleasantness, I was taken to another web page where I went through the process of manually entering all the information that Intuit wanted an extra $30 just to have an algorithm automatically regurgitate my information from previous years. If another human being was doing the data entry for me, I could see reason for a small fee but when all this stuff is handled (and supposedly deleted) by an automated system, that's just gouging, in my opinion.

Several times throughout the process, TurboTax would bring up the three tier, optional fees screen, trying to milk as much money out of me as possible. I realize Intuit is trying to up-sell me on more products and services but the reason I am using the free service is because I am too poor to buy all the for-an-extra-fee stuff!

Filing income taxes is intimidating, worrisome, and frustrating enough as is without Intuit trying to bleed even more out of you.





Comments
Please, keep your comments clean, civil and relevant. Cussing with foul language just for the sake of using foul language only proves the person to be an obnoxious, dull-witted fool.

myRA - Government Confiscation of Your Money

 ~ Rant ~ 

Today I received an email from TurboTax promoting myRA accounts.

A myRA account is an IRA account managed by the government.

The same government that has been wildly, irresponsibly, insanely overspending for decades, has been incapable of passing (much less sticking too) a budget year after year, and is trillions upon trillions of dollars deep in un-payable debt.

And now that same government is proclaiming that it will be a good steward of my money!?!

I DON'T THINK SO!

myRA accounts are just the government's veiled attempts at confiscating what little, earned money is left in this country before the government's fraud and malfeasance completely destroys the economy and makes the US dollar utterly worthless.




Comments
Please, keep your comments clean, civil and relevant. Cussing with foul language just for the sake of using foul language only proves the person to be an obnoxious, dull-witted fool.

Beep Beep - Your Order is Invalid - Please Try Again

 ~ Rant ~ 

Tonight I stopped by a McDonald's and ordered twelve, regular hamburgers to be put in one, large sack and then two, regular hamburgers and an order of medium fries in a small sack.

They couldn't do it.

The kid behind the cash register was flustered while attempting to fulfill my order because the preset order-taking system McDonald's has in place didn't have buttons for processing and relaying my order in the configuration I had ordered it in (different quantities in two different sacks).

This kid was just the order taker. Someone else would prepare my order and then someone else would bag my order.

I told the kid not to worry, just put everything in a big sack and then give me a small sack and I'll separate out the food later.

They couldn't do that either.

So I then suggested doing whatever worked with their system. That gave the kid the leeway to process my order the way she had been trained to do so. We had finally got to the part where I paid and waited for my order.

After a moment, another employee asked if it was OK if all of the hamburgers I had ordered were put into one sack and the fries put in a separate sack.

I nodded in agreement.

Then a moment later another employee asked if it was alright if half the hamburgers I had ordered were put in one sack and the other half put in another sack along with the order of fries.

Again, I nodded and said, "Ok".

Minutes later I was handed two sacks of burgers and a medium fries and I went on my way.

Now it may surprise you to know that I was not upset or angry with the employees of McDonald's.

I have worked in jobs like this and sympathize greatly with the employees.

These kinds of jobs are lousy. You have to deal with some of the nastiest, most ridiculous customers you will ever have the displeasure of meeting and the pay is not even remotely close to being enough to put up with all of that.

So, no, I do not get upset with employees in situations like this.

This was during the dinner hour and they were under pressure to get the orders out. They were doing their jobs, as they were trained to do under McDonald's system, with the tools McDonald's gave them to do their jobs with.

Those last two parts are where the problem is.

These kids are too young to remember the days when your server would write down your order on a piece of paper (a ticket), along with any special instructions like "14 burgers, 12 in large bag, 2 in small bag", and then hand the paper to the short-order cook.

Even if the kid who took my order wanted to write down the special instructions, there was no pen or paper in the counter area. Everything is computerized.

These kids grew up in a world of automated systems and have been trained to function only within the parameters of those systems. Any deviation, such as writing a custom order on paper, is beyond what these kids are familiar with. Such an idea just would not occur to them and apparently it didn't occur to anyone who devised and approved the system McDonald's trains these kids to use and obey. Otherwise the terminal on the cash register might have had a "see written custom order" button to push, notifying anyone along the process line that this is a "special order", and pen and paper for the cashier to hand-write special instructions about the customer's order to pass along to the other members of the "team".

Another aspect of this was that, after McDonald's spent millions of dollars to develop an almost entirely automated system, that system failed to produce my order in the way I wanted it.

Someday soon, these jobs will be replaced by robots.

Robots that are operating off of the same inflexible system and are unable to prepare any order that deviates from the program.

If you think customer service is bad now, it will be worse when a robot rejects your order when you want something slightly outside of the programmed presets - like different quantities of the same product in just two, different sized, sacks.



Comments
Please, keep your comments clean, civil and relevant. Cussing with foul language just for the sake of using foul language only proves the person to be an obnoxious, dull-witted fool.

Four Excuses Why Minimum Wage Should Not be Raised

~ Rant ~

Whenever I read arguments against increasing the minimum wage to a livable wage, those arguments usually trot out four, general, excuses for slave wages as justification.

The following is a link to an article from SHTFplan.com that is an example.

I've brought over the four excuses for slave wages that I'm referring to, from that article, and then I've gone through them, one-by-one, with my comments written below each excuse for slave wages.

From SHTFplan.com, Mac Slavo: "What Prices Look Like Before and After A Mandatory Minimum Wage Increase"
https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/what-prices-look-like-before-and-after-a-mandatory-minimum-wage-increase_01042015

"1) Businesses will be forced to raise prices, which will essentially wipe out the benefit of any wage increase because while employees may make more money they’re now paying more for the same goods.
2) Businesses will have to cut back hours. If you force a business to pay 50% more per hour per employee and consider how much money that is, many will have no choice but to cut back hours, which effectively leaves the employee making the same amount of money.
3) Businesses will have to let people go. It’s simple. If their revenue stays the same but their labor costs go up a business has no choice but to consolidate its work force."
"One unforeseen problem is that many of the workers who will see a wage increase may be pushed into a higher income bracket causing them to lose access to public services like Electronic Benefits Transfer or other income assistance programs."

Ok, I'm going to take these on one at a time.

"1) Businesses will be forced to raise prices, which will essentially wipe out the benefit of any wage increase because while employees may make more money they’re now paying more for the same goods."

So what?

Prices have been rapidly rising while wages have stagnated for over 30 years now.

Prices will continue to rise and outpace wages, irregardless of an increase in minimum wage, because of inflation created by excessive money printing by the Federal Reserve, the out-of-control spending of the government, and the out-right greed of I've-got-mine-screw-you corporations and businesses.

"2) Businesses will have to cut back hours. If you force a business to pay 50% more per hour per employee and consider how much money that is, many will have no choice but to cut back hours, which effectively leaves the employee making the same amount of money."

Just what is it that the business are doing during those "cut back" hours that employees aren't there to produce the products and services of that business?

If a business cuts back it's minimum-wage employees hours, who's going to be there to do the work?

Are the businesses going to hire more minimum-wage workers, who work even less hours, to try to get the same amount of work done?

The wages are dollars per hour.

If the business need eight hours of work done, it's still eight hours at the same wage no matter if it's one employee working eight hours or eight employees working one hour each.

Yup. Eight people, working one hour each, to do the same eight-hour job that one person used to do.

Remember, the businesses are threatening to cut back hours but those businesses still need the work done so they are going to have to hire more part-time employees, working fewer hours, to get the same job done.

That means the businesses are still going to have to pay eight hours worth of wages, no matter how many hours they cut back from the employees.

And the more employees a business hires means the business has to cover more training and administrative costs.

Don't forget about Obamacare. That will limit how many employees a business will hire.

So, if a business cuts back employee hours but doesn't hire more employees to get the job done, then the business will have no choice but to cut back its hours of operation which effectively leaves the employer making less than if they had paid their employees a livable wage.

Ohhh. Right. Those businesses will just buy lots of robots to replace the employees.

Lots of expensive robots that will require the business to take out loans to be able buy those robots. Loans that will increase the overhead and therefor increase prices.

And since those robots replaced so many employees there will be fewer paychecks circulating through the community which will result in fewer customers to pay those higher prices to cover the loans taken out to buy those robots.

When businesses can't afford to pay off their loans they go out of business.

"3) Businesses will have to let people go. It’s simple. If their revenue stays the same but their labor costs go up a business has no choice but to consolidate its work force."

Again, so what?

Businesses today treat employees like disposable garbage and "let people go" at the drop of a hat.

Since the crash of 2008 businesses have let so many people go that those businesses are operating at or near skeleton staffing (they've already consolidated). That is why the labor participation rate is at record lows for so long. That is why chronic unemployment has lasted so long.

"But.. but.. the government says unemployment is 6%."

The way the government tallies unemployment figures is to not count the long-time unemployed people for political convenience.

Here's a hint. The Labor Participation Rate, as of January 5, 2015, pegs roughly 37 percent of able-bodied, working-age (16 to 64 years of age) people in the US as not having jobs. (Looking at the chart in the link, 100% minus 63 percent, equals 37 percent. A big difference from the 6% the government likes to trumpet.)

Thirty-seven percent unemployment.

37% unemployment!

There are roughly 300 million people in the US. Thirty-seven percent of 300 million is 111 million...  111 million unemployed, able-bodied workers.

Businesses have already been "letting people go" by the many tens of millions even at the current, sub-living standard, minimum wage.

Businesses will continue to "let people go" by the millions whether the minimum wage is increased or not.

"One unforeseen problem is that many of the workers who will see a wage increase may be pushed into a higher income bracket causing them to lose access to public services like Electronic Benefits Transfer or other income assistance programs."

What!?

You mean if minimum wage employees are paid more they may not need EBT cards and other forms of welfare?

Those employees might actually be able to support themselves!?

Imagine that. People getting off of welfare because they are able to support themselves with livable wages.

Oh. The. Horror.

We are told that there are too many people on welfare in America yet it seems that is exactly the way businesses and government want to keep things.



Comments
Please, keep your comments clean, civil and relevant. Cussing with foul language just for the sake of using foul language only proves the person to be an obnoxious, dull-witted fool.