Posts tagged ‘government’

Email This Post Email This Post

November 1, 2011

FW: The Governor’s Wife

There is a cute story told about the Governor of Texas, then Mark White.

Governor White and his wife were driving through the open Texas countryside one-day, out for a relaxing drive and talk.

The couple happened to be around the area where Mrs. White grew up, and as they pulled into a gas station to fuel up and check out the car, Mark noticed a little nervousness with his wife. He didn’t say anything, but when the gas station attendant came out to their car, Mark began to notice what was really going on. Both his wife and the attendant looked surprised to see each other, and they acted with that awkwardness that two people have when they’ve been close in the past, but weren’t anymore.

Governor White pretended not to notice this. They finished at the gas station and continued back down the highway. The car fell silent and neither said a word. For a long time they remained silent, and all the while Mrs. White kept looking out the window, staring off out into the distance. Mark was considerate and patient with this silence, and he continued to drive in the silence. But after the silence had gone on for almost an hour, he interrupted, trying to break the silence.

“Honey, I couldn’t help but notice how you and that gas station attendant looked at each other. You were involved with each other at one point, weren’t you,” he asked?

“Well, yea,” She responded, quietly.

“Well, I guess I know how you feel. You were probably thinking about that and needed some space, right,” he continued?

“Yea,” she said again.

“I guess you were probably thinking about how different your two lives had become. I guess you were thinking that if you had married him, then you’d be the wife of a gas station attendant now, instead of my wife. Right,” he said?

“Well, No. Actually I was thinking that he’d be the governor now.”

Related Posts:

Email This Post Email This Post

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of “tough decision!” Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore, I Propose We:

  • Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
  • Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Then, reduce their remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting. Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

  • $44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)
  • $437,100,000 for elimination of their staff (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
  • $108,350,000 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
  • $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel earmarks each year (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country! We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few).

Note:
Congress does not hesitate to head home for extended weekends, holidays, recesses, even when the nation needs to fix real economic problems. Interestingly, we had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all accepted full pay. Minnesota survived very well with only one senator for the first half 2008. These facts alone support a reduction in senators and congress.

Summary of opportunity:

  • $44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
  • $282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
  • $150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
  • $70,850,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
  • $37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
  • $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
  • $8,084,558,400 per year, estimated total savings. (That’s 8-BILLION just to start!)

Also, if Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could save a bundle. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

Corporate America does these types of cuts all the time. There’s even a name for it. “Downsizing!

 

Related Posts:

Email This Post Email This Post

February 13, 2011

FW: The Tiny Cabin

A social worker from a big City in Massachusetts Recently transferred to Mountains of North Carolina and was on first tour of her new territory when she came upon the tiniest cabin she had ever seen in her life. Intrigued, she went up and knocked on the door. ”Anybody home?” she asked.

“Yep,” came a kid’s voice through the door.

“Is your father there?” asked the social worker.

“Pa? Nope, he left afore Ma came in,” said the kid.

“Well, is your mother there?” persisted the social worker.

“Ma? Nope, she left just afore I got here,” said the kid.

“But,” protested the social worker, “are you never together as a family?”

“Sure, but not here,” said the kid through the door. “This is the outhouse!”

Related Posts:

Email This Post Email This Post

August 19, 2010

FW: Doctors vs. Gun Owners

Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that’s 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

Statistics courtesy of FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT Almost everyone has at least one doctor. This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.’

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on Lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

Related Posts:

Email This Post Email This Post

A lot of folks can’t understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country.


Well, there’s a very simple answer.

~~~

Nobody bothered to check the oil.

~~~

We just didn’t know we were getting low.

~~~

The reason for that is purely geographical.

~~~

Our OIL is located in:

~~~

ALASKA

~~~

California

~~~

Coastal Florida

~~~

Coastal Louisiana

~~~

North Dakota

~~~

Wyoming

~~~

Colorado

~~~

Kansas

~~~

Oklahoma

~~~

Pennsylvania

And

Texas

~~~

Our dipsticks are located in DC

Any Questions?   

NO?

Didn’t think So.

Related Posts:

Email This Post Email This Post

Editor’s Note: This is a true story, but as it has been forwarded around the Internet the details have changed a little (it happened in Michigan not Pennsylvania). The background and accurate facts of the article can be found on snopes.com.

The Dam

This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries regarding a pond on his property. It was sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, State of Pennsylvania. This guy’s response is hilarious, but read The State’s letter before you get to the response letter.

State of Pennsylvania ‘s letter to Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ
File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. DeVries:

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.

A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity.. A review of the Department’s files shows that no permits have been issued Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations.. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2010.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action..

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division.

Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries:

Re: DEQ File
No.. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. Price,

Your certified letter dated 11/17/09 has been handed to me. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane , Trout Run, Pennsylvania .

A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood ‘debris’ dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natures building materials ‘debris.’

I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.


These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.the

My first dam question to you is:
(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or
(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request?

If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. (Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.)

I have several dam concerns. My first dam concern is, aren’t the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation — so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer.

The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names.

If you want the damed stream ‘restored’ to a dam free-flow condition please contact the beavers — but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read English.

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers’ Dams).

So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/2010? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice by then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real environmental quality, health, problem in the area It is the bears! Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your dam step! The bears are not careful where they dump!

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

THANK YOU,
RYAN DEVRIES & THE DAM BEAVERS

Related Posts:

Email This Post Email This Post


I am STILL laughing!! I think we need to quit saving our $2 bills and bring them out in public. The younger generation doesn’t know they exist.

On my way home from work, I stopped at Taco Bell for a quick bite to eat. In my billfold are a $50 bill and a $2 bill. I figure that with a $2 bill, I can get something to eat and not have to worry about anyone getting irritated at me for trying to break a $50 bill.

Me: “Hi, I’d like one seven-layer burrito please, to go.”

Server: “That’ll be $1.04. Eat in?”

Me: “No, it’s to go.” At this point, I open my billfold and hand him the $2 bill. He looks at it kind of funny.

Server: “Uh, hang on a sec, I’ll be right back.”

He goes to talk to his manager, who is still within my earshot. The following conversation occurs between the two of them:

Server: “Hey, you ever see a $2 bill?”

Manager: “No. A what?”

Server: “A $2 bill. This guy just gave it to me.”

Manager: “Ask for something else. There’s no such thing as a $2 bill.”

Server: “Yeah, thought so.”

He comes back to me and says, “We don’t take these Do you have anything else?”

Me: “Just this fifty. You don’t take $2 bills? Why?”

Server: “I don’t know.”

Me: “See here where it says legal tender?”

Server: “Yeah.”

Me: “So, why won’t you take it?”

Server: “Well, hang on a sec.”

He goes back to his manager, who has been watching me like I’m a shoplifter, and says to him, “He says I have to take it.”

Manager: “Doesn’t he have anything else?”

Server: “Yeah, a fifty. I’ll get it and you can open the safe and get change ”

Manager: “I’m not opening the safe with him in here.”
Server: “What should I do?”

Manager: “Tell him to come back later when he has real money.”

Server: “I can’t tell him that! You tell him.”

Manager: “Just tell him.”

Server: “No way! This is weird. I’m going in back.”

The manager approaches me and says, “I’m sorry, but we don’t take big bills this time of night.”

Me: “It’s only seven o’clock! Well then, here’s a two dollar bill.”

Manager: “We don’t take those, either.”

Me: “Why not?”

Manager: “I think you know why.”

Me: “No really, tell me why.”

Manager: “Please leave before I call mall security.”

Me: “Excuse me?”

Manager: “Please leave before I call mall security.”

Me: “What on earth for?”

Manager: “Please, sir.”

Me: “Uh, go ahead, call them.”

Manager: “Would you please just leave?”

Me: “No.”

Manager: “Fine — have it your way then.”

Me: “Hey, that’s Burger King, isn’t it?”

At this point, he backs away from me and calls mall security on the phone around the corner. I have two people staring at me from the dining area, and I begin laughing out loud, just for effect. A few minutes later this 45-year-oldish guy
Comes in.

Guard: “Yeah, Mike, what’s up?”

Manager (whispering): “This guy is trying to give me some (pause) funny money.”

Guard: “No kidding! What?”

Manager: “Get this .. A two dollar bill.”

Guard (incredulous): “Why would a guy fake a two dollar bill?”

Manager: “I don’t know. He’s kinda weird. He says the only other thing he has is a fifty.”

Guard: “Oh, so the fifty’s fake!”

Manager: “No, the two dollar bill is.”

Guard: “Why would he fake a two dollar bill?”

Manager: “I don’t know! Can you talk to him, and get him out of here?”

Guard: “Yeah.”

Security Guard walks over to me and……

Guard: “Mike here tells me you have some fake bills you’re trying to use.”

Me: “Uh, no.”

Guard: “Lemme see ‘em.”

Me: “Why?”

Guard: “Do you want me to get the cops in here?”

At this point I am ready to say, “Sure, please!” but I want to eat, so I say “I’m just trying to buy a burrito and pay for it with this two dollar bill.

I put the bill up near his face, and he flinches like I’m taking a swing at him. He takes the bill, turns it over a few times in his hands, and says, “Hey, Mike, what’s wrong with this bill?”

Manager: “It’s fake.”

Guard: “It doesn’t look fake to me.”

Manager: “But it’s a two dollar bill.”

Guard: “Yeah?”

Manager: “Well, there’s no such thing, is there?”

The security guard and I both look at him like he’s an idiot, and it dawns on the guy that he has no clue.

So, it turns out that my burrito was free, and he threw in a small drink and some of those cinnamon thingies, too.

Made me want to get a whole stack of two dollar bills just to see what happens when I try to buy stuff. If I got the right group of people, I could probably end up in jail. You get free food there, too.

Related Posts:

Email This Post Email This Post

January 17, 2010

FW: Two Cow Philosophies

TWO COWS (POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES)

A CONSERVATIVE: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

A LIBERAL: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You write to your congressman, demanding that he or she passes legislation for more government programs to help your neighbor get a cow. Your congressman taxes your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. Your congressman takes your tax money and buys your cow and gives it to your neighbor. You feel vindicated.

A PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair “Cowgate.”

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows and you give one to your neighbor.

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows, the government takes both and gives you some milk.

A FASCIST: You have two cows, the government takes both and sells you some milk.

A NAZI: You have two cows, The government takes both and shoots you.

MILITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

A TOTALITARIANIST: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

A BUREAUCRAT: You have two cows, the government takes both, shoots one, milks the other and throws the milk away.

AN ANARCHIST: You had two cows, but they were killed when everyone rioted and overthrew the government.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with (the concept of “ownership” is a symbol of the phallo-centric, war-mongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.

TWO COWS (CULTURAL PHILOSOPHIES)

A COUNTER CULTERIST: You have two cows. They eat your hemp. You drink their milk for medicinal reasons.

A SURREALIST: You have two cows, but you paint two giraffes to depict what your subconsciousness might think are cows. For your efforts the government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

A FEMINIST: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf.

AN ENVIRONMENTALIST: You have two cows, but the government bans you from milking or killing them.

A FATALIST: You have two cows. You know they will die, so you don’t feed them. They die, which you knew would happen.

A ZENIST: Cows happen, sometimes twice.

TWO COWS (BUSINESS PHILOSOPHIES)

A TRADITIONAL CAPITALIST: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You outsource one to India, and inhouse the other and force it to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the outsourced cow is still producing milk and the inhoused cow dropped dead.

A CANADIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but due to a 1965 treaty you can’t produce your own milk and you must buy it exclusively from the United States.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called Cowkimon and market them worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You break for lunch.

AN EUROPEAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but everybody is buying cheaper milk imported from an east European country. You receive financial aid from the European Union to subsidise your cows. You sell your milk to some government-owned distributor, which then dumps your milk onto the market at east European prices to make Europe competitive.

AN IRISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You ask for an EU subsidy for your failed breeding program.

A FINNISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have to kill one of them due to European Union stating that there is an overproduction of milk in the Netherlands.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You drink some vodka and count them again. You have five cows. The Russian Mafia shows up and takes however many cows you have.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have two cows. Others bring you their cows to avoid taxation, which you charge them for. Now you have 5,000,000,000,000 cows, but still only two belong to you.

A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship both and milk the outsourced American cow.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad.

A MEXICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You make menudo soup out of them, and then take a siesta.

AN EGYPTIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are voting for Mubarak!

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1,000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No one believes you. They bomb and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy.

A TALIBAN CORPORATION: You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two. You don’t milk them because you cannot touch any creature’s private parts. Then you kill them and claim a U.S. bomb blew them up while they were in the hospital.

A SINGAPORE CORPORATION: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed animals in an apartment.

A HONG KONG CAPITALIST: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows’ milk back to the listed company and proceeds from the sale are deferred. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the feng shui is bad.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION: You have two cows. One cow is probably Tangata Whenua and therefor feels the other cow should not be considered a New Zealand cow.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. So, you kill one and put it on the barbie to celebrate.

BERNARD MEDOFF: You have two cows. You tell your clients you have 20 cows. You sell one cow to show revenue, leaving you with nineteen cows. The annual report says that the company increased in profit to twenty-eight cows, with an option on ten more. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.

Related Posts: