A VERY REAL PROBLEM

A VERY REAL PROBLEM
Check out this article in the Suffolk News Herald,

http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/news/2009/apr/28/shelters-struggle-house-more-homeless/

Part of this situation is caused by the economy and lack of funding. At one end of the Suffolk city adventure in providing us with “culture” we have nearly half a million dollars going annually to our SCCA. At the other we have the Homeless Shelter. How much do you suppose they get?

BIG CHANGE IN ASSESSMENT ???

Two years ago a “waterfront” lot in our subdivision sold for $65,000. Norfolk actually owns a 25’ strip around the entire lake but our assessor still calls it waterfront. It is covered with scrub pine and will not perk. The new owner put it up for sale at $325, 000 and the current assessment is $251,000. Recently it sold for $165,000, $86,000 less than its assessed value. Can we rightfully assume it will now be assessed at the sale price of $165,000? And can we assume that all land values in the subdivision will also be lowered by the same 34 percent? If the sale of an overpriced home and property can cause all assessments in a subdivision to skyrocket, this sale should bring land values down. Any arguement?

LETTER FROM THE BOSS

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go. So, this is what I did...I walked through our parking lot and found six 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change, I gave it to them. I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

HISTORY REPEATS

Franklin Roosevelt gave us the New Deal. John Kennedy gave us the New Frontier. In a major domestic policy address at Georgetown University this week, Barack Obama promised — eight times — a “New Foundation.” For those too thick to have noticed this proclamation of a new era in American history, the White House Web site helpfully titled its speech excerpts “A New Foundation.” As it happens, Obama is not the first to try this slogan. President Jimmy Carter peppered his 1979 State of the Union address with five “New Foundations” (and eight more just naked “foundations“). Like most of Carter’s endeavors, this one failed, perhaps because (as I recall it being said at the time) it sounded like the introduction of a new kind of undergarment. Undaunted, Obama offered his New Foundation speech as the complete, contextual, canonical text for the domestic revolution he aims to enact. It had everything we have come to expect from Obama:
• The Whopper: The boast that he had “identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.” It takes audacity to repeat this after it had been so widely exposed as transparently phony. Most of this $2 trillion is conjured up by refraining from spending $180 billion a year for 10 more years of surges in Iraq. Hell, why not make the “deficit reductions” $10 trillion — the extra $8 trillion coming from refraining from repeating the $787 billion stimulus package annually through 2019. • The Puzzler: He further boasted of his frugality by saying that his budget would reduce domestic discretionary spending as share of GDP to the lowest level ever recorded. Amazing. Squeezing discretionary domestic spending at a time of hugely expanding budgets is merely the baleful residue of out-of-control entitlements and debt service, which will increase astronomically under Obama. To claim these as achievements in fiscal responsibility is testament not to Obama’s frugality but to his brazenness.

ANY COMMENTS ON TORTURE

We have been hearing a lot lately about prosecuting the higherups who told the lowerdowns they must administer unpleasant methods to get terrorists to reveal what they could about what we wanted to know. I remember being in a war where not all captives even made it to a stockade or camp where they could be questioned. But times have changed; now even kid gloves are too much. Certain liberals would enjoy a special hearing and I can easily imagine Nancy Pelosi grilling Rice and Bush. That would look good for the country; but Presidential Obama appears to want none of that, depending upon which day he is asked. I guess waterboarding is torture of a sort, like when I was a kid my friends tossed me off a dock to see if I could swim. But water leaves no torn flesh or contusions. What say you about methods of torture we used in Iraq and should there be a thorough liberal quiz?