Subscribe (
It's that time again... the time when we all get to hear about what the "right" direction for our country is and how corrupt the other party is. We also get to vote on a smattering of propositions submitted by law makers, councils, and last but not least our fellow citizens.
It's a great joy reading them because their writers have made sure to write them in the most easy to understand language and have been very careful not to be deceptive (snicker).
I spent some time reviewing the propositions and I thought I would share how I plan to vote on each of them and why. I live in Arizona, so if you don't, what follows will probably be of little value to you.
Proposition 100
Prop 100 is a proposal to amend the Arizona constitution so that a tax may not be levied on the sale or transfer of any real property.
What the supporters are saying:
Supporters are basically arguing that we are already taxed through property taxes and a sale or transfer tax would simply serve to reduce peoples equity in their homes which would be bad.
What the opposition says:
We shouldn't bind the hands of our government by taking possibilities for raising revenue off the table. And we need to have a more distributed tax base.
How I'm voting: Yes
I plan to vote yes on this proposition for several reasons. For starters I like simple taxes. Adding one more tax with all its special rules and caveats does not seem simple to me so all the more reason to prohibit it. The second big reason I am voting yes is because there is no alternative offering comprehensive tax reform; without that I am in favor of anything that restricts the governments ability to collect taxes.
Proposition 101
Prop 101 seeks to limit the legislatures ability to enact laws that would limit/prohibit an individuals ability to choose between private health care options or penalize them for declining medical coverage.
What the supporters are saying:
Basically preserves a patients right to choose the form of health care that works best for them and seeks to prevent socialized health care.
What the opposition is saying:
Constitutional amendments that limit the freedom of the legislature is dangerous because no one can predict what challenges the future may hold. The amendment is also not well defined which could force the judicial system to interpret what it means.
How I'mVoting: Yes
I believe that socialized health care is the wrong approach. All one has to do is to look at countries like England who have socialized plans to see what a mess it will truly be. In the end I think that more citizens will receive a higher level of care if the free market is ultimately allowed to regulate the system--not some state sponsored plan. This proposition is no where near what I would like to see in terms of restrictions but it's a start and that's why I will be voting yes on Prop 101.
Proposition 102
Prop 102 seeks to ammend the Arizona constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
What the supporters are saying:
Across the country legislature's and judges are redefining the traditional meaning of marriage. This amendment prevents that and keeps it in the hands of Arizona's voters.
What the opposition is saying:
A similar amendment to this one failed already in 2006, lawmakers should respect what the voters have already said. This bill does not protect the sanctity of marriage it just furthers the governments involvement in private citizens lives.
How I'm voting: No
I'm a religious guy and it's not that I agree or disagree with homosexuality; rather, it's that I don't want the government telling people how they should live their lives. This amendment fails my basic test for how I believe government should be: To secure the God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't believe the government should define what happiness is, just make it possible for individuals to pursue it in the manner that they see most fit. This amendment does the opposite--it tries to define and impose a viewpoint on someone; so I will be voting no.
Proposition 105
For any measure that increases taxes a majority of registered voters must approve the initiative not just a majority of those who actually vote.
What supporters are saying:
Supporters claim that this would prevent special interest groups from passing taxes in low turn-out elections.
What the opposition says:
The opposition says that this would make it nearly impossible to pass any kind of new tax measures because it effectively casts a no vote by all registered voters who don't vote.
How I'm voting: Yes
I have gone back and forth on this one. Ultimately it will make it nearly impossible to pass any new tax in Arizona; however, it will likely also make it impossible to change the tax code at all. I've considered that it may be better to have this on the books until such a time as comprehensive tax reform can be established and then propose a constitutional amendment that would remove the effects of this proposition. I want tax reform and I still have hope that it can happen; that's why I'm voting no on this proposition, because it will make that tax reform harder to reach.
Proposition 200
Remove the sunset clause in the current legislation that allows pay day loan services to operate in Arizona so they may exist indefinitely. Currently, unless new legislation is enacted they will have to close their doors in 2010. This proposal also trys to reduce some fees and introduce some industry reform.
What the supporters are saying:
This ammendment will help borrowers when they need it most by reducing fees and establishing flexible repayment plans.
What the opposition is saying:
This proposition allows a predatory industry to continue to keep the poor, poor and does little to reform their practices.
How I'm voting: No
I hestitated in my decision to vote no on this proposition. I don't think that the government should try and protect consumers from themselves. If someone believes that the best option for them is to take out an exorbitantly priced pay day loan then I think that is their decision and they should have the freedom to make it. However, I also don't believe in regulation that creates special interests. This proposition falls outside the bounds of what I think the government should do which ultimately caused me to vote no on this proposition even though the likely outcome will be that the payday loan industry will go out of business because of government regulation.
Proposition 201
Require home builders to offer a 10 year warranty on purchases of new homes and restrict the ability of builders to seek reimbursement of legal fees if they are sued.
What the supporters are saying:
Would protect home owners from defects in the new homes they have purchased and give them a say in selecting what contracters should be used in making the repairs. Allows homeowners to freely seek remediation in the courts without fear of being counter-sued for legal fees.
What the opposition is saying:
This proposition will create many frivolous lawsuits and will ultimately raise the cost of home owner ship for everyone.
How I'm voting: No
I plan to vote no on this proposition because I believe that builders should have the right to seek reimbursement for legal fees if it was a frivolous law suite. I also believe that the current law adequeltly protects homeowners and all this bill represents is the governement mucking with the free market to give an advantage to one party; which I fundamentally disagree with. No hesitation on this one!
Proposition 202
This proposition proposes new rules with respect to hiring of illegal immigrants. Specifically by changing the definition of "Knowing" in current law to that of an actual officer demonstratably knowing that an employee is an illegal alien.
What supporters are saying:
This proposition will reduce hiring of illegal aliens in our state and punish those who hire them.
What opponents are saying:
This proposition will make it harder to prosecute those who hire illegal aliens and will prevent the state from acting until federal action is taken.
How I'm voting: No
This proposition is very deceptively worded. It claims to be against the hiring of illegal aliens but in practice the things it wishes to do will make it easier to higher them; thus, I am voting no.
Proposition 300
Raise the legislatures salary from the current $24,000 per year to $30,000.
What supporters are saying:
The legislature deserves a raise and you shouldn't deny them this just because you are unhappy with the job they are doing. We have to pay them well to attract top talent to the job.
What oponents are saying:
Legislatures are already adequetly compensated as they are only expected to work in the legislature for less than 100 days of the year.
How I'm voting: No
Given that the legislature is only required to meet for about a 3rd of the year I believe that the level of compoensation that is currently offered is adequate. Honestly even if we were to raise their salary by $6,000.00 do you really believe we would get more competent legislatures? I don't, I think the hike would need to be much more substantial than that.
It's a great joy reading them because their writers have made sure to write them in the most easy to understand language and have been very careful not to be deceptive (snicker).I spent some time reviewing the propositions and I thought I would share how I plan to vote on each of them and why. I live in Arizona, so if you don't, what follows will probably be of little value to you.
Proposition 100
Prop 100 is a proposal to amend the Arizona constitution so that a tax may not be levied on the sale or transfer of any real property.
What the supporters are saying:
Supporters are basically arguing that we are already taxed through property taxes and a sale or transfer tax would simply serve to reduce peoples equity in their homes which would be bad.
What the opposition says:
We shouldn't bind the hands of our government by taking possibilities for raising revenue off the table. And we need to have a more distributed tax base.
How I'm voting: Yes
I plan to vote yes on this proposition for several reasons. For starters I like simple taxes. Adding one more tax with all its special rules and caveats does not seem simple to me so all the more reason to prohibit it. The second big reason I am voting yes is because there is no alternative offering comprehensive tax reform; without that I am in favor of anything that restricts the governments ability to collect taxes.
Proposition 101
Prop 101 seeks to limit the legislatures ability to enact laws that would limit/prohibit an individuals ability to choose between private health care options or penalize them for declining medical coverage.
What the supporters are saying:
Basically preserves a patients right to choose the form of health care that works best for them and seeks to prevent socialized health care.
What the opposition is saying:
Constitutional amendments that limit the freedom of the legislature is dangerous because no one can predict what challenges the future may hold. The amendment is also not well defined which could force the judicial system to interpret what it means.
How I'mVoting: Yes
I believe that socialized health care is the wrong approach. All one has to do is to look at countries like England who have socialized plans to see what a mess it will truly be. In the end I think that more citizens will receive a higher level of care if the free market is ultimately allowed to regulate the system--not some state sponsored plan. This proposition is no where near what I would like to see in terms of restrictions but it's a start and that's why I will be voting yes on Prop 101.
Proposition 102
Prop 102 seeks to ammend the Arizona constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
What the supporters are saying:
Across the country legislature's and judges are redefining the traditional meaning of marriage. This amendment prevents that and keeps it in the hands of Arizona's voters.
What the opposition is saying:
A similar amendment to this one failed already in 2006, lawmakers should respect what the voters have already said. This bill does not protect the sanctity of marriage it just furthers the governments involvement in private citizens lives.
How I'm voting: No
I'm a religious guy and it's not that I agree or disagree with homosexuality; rather, it's that I don't want the government telling people how they should live their lives. This amendment fails my basic test for how I believe government should be: To secure the God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't believe the government should define what happiness is, just make it possible for individuals to pursue it in the manner that they see most fit. This amendment does the opposite--it tries to define and impose a viewpoint on someone; so I will be voting no.
Proposition 105
For any measure that increases taxes a majority of registered voters must approve the initiative not just a majority of those who actually vote.
What supporters are saying:
Supporters claim that this would prevent special interest groups from passing taxes in low turn-out elections.
What the opposition says:
The opposition says that this would make it nearly impossible to pass any kind of new tax measures because it effectively casts a no vote by all registered voters who don't vote.
How I'm voting: Yes
I have gone back and forth on this one. Ultimately it will make it nearly impossible to pass any new tax in Arizona; however, it will likely also make it impossible to change the tax code at all. I've considered that it may be better to have this on the books until such a time as comprehensive tax reform can be established and then propose a constitutional amendment that would remove the effects of this proposition. I want tax reform and I still have hope that it can happen; that's why I'm voting no on this proposition, because it will make that tax reform harder to reach.
Proposition 200
Remove the sunset clause in the current legislation that allows pay day loan services to operate in Arizona so they may exist indefinitely. Currently, unless new legislation is enacted they will have to close their doors in 2010. This proposal also trys to reduce some fees and introduce some industry reform.
What the supporters are saying:
This ammendment will help borrowers when they need it most by reducing fees and establishing flexible repayment plans.
What the opposition is saying:
This proposition allows a predatory industry to continue to keep the poor, poor and does little to reform their practices.
How I'm voting: No
I hestitated in my decision to vote no on this proposition. I don't think that the government should try and protect consumers from themselves. If someone believes that the best option for them is to take out an exorbitantly priced pay day loan then I think that is their decision and they should have the freedom to make it. However, I also don't believe in regulation that creates special interests. This proposition falls outside the bounds of what I think the government should do which ultimately caused me to vote no on this proposition even though the likely outcome will be that the payday loan industry will go out of business because of government regulation.
Proposition 201
Require home builders to offer a 10 year warranty on purchases of new homes and restrict the ability of builders to seek reimbursement of legal fees if they are sued.
What the supporters are saying:
Would protect home owners from defects in the new homes they have purchased and give them a say in selecting what contracters should be used in making the repairs. Allows homeowners to freely seek remediation in the courts without fear of being counter-sued for legal fees.
What the opposition is saying:
This proposition will create many frivolous lawsuits and will ultimately raise the cost of home owner ship for everyone.
How I'm voting: No
I plan to vote no on this proposition because I believe that builders should have the right to seek reimbursement for legal fees if it was a frivolous law suite. I also believe that the current law adequeltly protects homeowners and all this bill represents is the governement mucking with the free market to give an advantage to one party; which I fundamentally disagree with. No hesitation on this one!
Proposition 202
This proposition proposes new rules with respect to hiring of illegal immigrants. Specifically by changing the definition of "Knowing" in current law to that of an actual officer demonstratably knowing that an employee is an illegal alien.
What supporters are saying:
This proposition will reduce hiring of illegal aliens in our state and punish those who hire them.
What opponents are saying:
This proposition will make it harder to prosecute those who hire illegal aliens and will prevent the state from acting until federal action is taken.
How I'm voting: No
This proposition is very deceptively worded. It claims to be against the hiring of illegal aliens but in practice the things it wishes to do will make it easier to higher them; thus, I am voting no.
Proposition 300
Raise the legislatures salary from the current $24,000 per year to $30,000.
What supporters are saying:
The legislature deserves a raise and you shouldn't deny them this just because you are unhappy with the job they are doing. We have to pay them well to attract top talent to the job.
What oponents are saying:
Legislatures are already adequetly compensated as they are only expected to work in the legislature for less than 100 days of the year.
How I'm voting: No
Given that the legislature is only required to meet for about a 3rd of the year I believe that the level of compoensation that is currently offered is adequate. Honestly even if we were to raise their salary by $6,000.00 do you really believe we would get more competent legislatures? I don't, I think the hike would need to be much more substantial than that.
I've been on a finance related theme lately. Yesterday I added this kind of cool debt clock on the right side of the page but quickly got depressed at the size of our over commitment. So what is it exactly that we get for our exorbitant taxes and huge national debt?
Well, first there's the big ticket items like: Social Security ... who would want our retirees to go hungry, National Defense ... gotta pay for those $700.00 toilet seats, Interest on debt ... people don't loan money for free, welfare ... we also don't want anyone too lazy to work going hungry ;), etc. But there's also a number of other pricey items that you may not have expected. Such as $10 billion for the IRS.. they're taxing us so they can tax us! There's also almost $100 million for unused plane tickets. If that's not enough we also have large amounts of dollars that are being spent that weren't budgeted. For instance, in 2003, nearly $25 billion was spent but not accounted for. Someone or several someones are sitting pretty with all of those tax dollars.
Well, first there's the big ticket items like: Social Security ... who would want our retirees to go hungry, National Defense ... gotta pay for those $700.00 toilet seats, Interest on debt ... people don't loan money for free, welfare ... we also don't want anyone too lazy to work going hungry ;), etc. But there's also a number of other pricey items that you may not have expected. Such as $10 billion for the IRS.. they're taxing us so they can tax us! There's also almost $100 million for unused plane tickets. If that's not enough we also have large amounts of dollars that are being spent that weren't budgeted. For instance, in 2003, nearly $25 billion was spent but not accounted for. Someone or several someones are sitting pretty with all of those tax dollars.
| Category | Amount Budgeted |
| Social Security | $608,000,000,000.00 |
| Medicare | $386,000,000,000.00 |
| Medicaid and SCHIP | $209,000,000,000.00 |
| Unemployment / Welfare / Other | $324,000,000,000.00 |
| Interest on National Debt | $261,000,000,000.00 |
| National Defense | $481,400,000,000.00 |
| War on Terror | $145,200,000,000.00 |
| Health and Human Services | $69,300,000,000.00 |
| Department of Education | $56,000,000,000.00 |
| Department of Veteran Affairs | $39,400,000,000.00 |
| Department of Housing and Urban Development | $35,200,000,000.00 |
| State & International Programs | $35,000,000,000.00 |
| Department of Homeland Security | $34,300,000,000.00 |
| Department of Energy | $24,300,000,000.00 |
| Department of Justice | $20,200,000,000.00 |
| Department of Agriculture | $20,200,000,000.00 |
| NASA | $17,300,000,000.00 |
| Department of Transportation | $12,100,000,000.00 |
| Department of Treasury | $12,100,000,000.00 |
| Department of the Interior | $10,600,000,000.00 |
| Department of Labor | $10,600,000,000.00 |
| Other | $90,800,000,000.00 |
Prices are definitely higher than they were a year ago; but I got curious as to just how much higher they had gotten. Then I found this cool little chart on at the NY Times. It displays the makeup of an average consumers budget and how the prices have changed over the last year in each of the categories.
There is an interactive version available at: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/05/03/business/20080403_SPENDING_GRAPHIC.html
Predictably, fuel costs have seen the largest increase over the last year with gasoline clocking in at 26% higher and heating fuel a whopping 48% higher. But, not everything has gotten more expensive; in fact, a number of things have gotten cheaper. Computers are -12% cheaper and fresh vegetables are -6.6% cheaper.
So how does this compare to my spending over the last year? Not surprisingly my biggest increase was also gasoline. Spending on gas shot up by 45%, nearly twice as much as the average. Nothing that I regularly spend in went down; electric was the closest with a measly 0.71% decrease.
There is an interactive version available at: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/05/03/business/20080403_SPENDING_GRAPHIC.html
Predictably, fuel costs have seen the largest increase over the last year with gasoline clocking in at 26% higher and heating fuel a whopping 48% higher. But, not everything has gotten more expensive; in fact, a number of things have gotten cheaper. Computers are -12% cheaper and fresh vegetables are -6.6% cheaper.
So how does this compare to my spending over the last year? Not surprisingly my biggest increase was also gasoline. Spending on gas shot up by 45%, nearly twice as much as the average. Nothing that I regularly spend in went down; electric was the closest with a measly 0.71% decrease.
I know that I haven't really kept up with this blog over the last year. There have been times that I have thought about writing but just haven't. I thought it was about time that I get back to it and since I wasn't happy with the old design; I figured we could start things off with a new look and feel.
I have heard this poem a number of times in sermons but it was not till today that I could remember who wrote it. It's called "The Hound of Heaven" by Francis Thompson. Thompson was an English poet that has often been compared to Milton, but he lived much of his life on the streets because he had a devastating cocaine addiction. Every time I hear this poem it is so beautiful.
I fled Him, down the nights and down the days; I fled Him, down the arches of the years; I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears I hid from Him, and under running laughter. Up vistaed hopes I sped; And shot, precipitated, Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears, From those strong Feet that followed, followed after. But with unhurrying chase, And unperturbèd pace, Deliberate speed, majestic instancy, They beat - and a Voice beat More instant than the Feet - "All things betray thee, who betrayest Me."I pleaded, outlaw-wise,
By many a hearted casement, curtained red,
Trellised with intertwining charities;
(For, though I knew His love Who followèd,
Yet I was sore adread
Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside.)
But, if one little casement parted wide,
The gust of His approach would clash it to.
Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.
Across the margent of the world I fled,
And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,
Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars;
Fretted to dulcet jars
And silvern chatter the pale ports o' the moon.
I said to Dawn: Be sudden - to Eve: Be soon;
With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over
From this tremendous Lover -
Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!
I tempted all His servitors, but to find
My own betrayal in their constancy,
In faith to Him their fickleness to me,
Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.
To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;
Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.
But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,
The long savannahs of the blue;
Or whether, Thunder-driven,
They clanged His chariot 'thwart a heaven,
Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o' their feet: -
Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.
Still with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat -
"Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me."Now of that long pursuit
Comes on at had the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
"And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!
Strange, piteous, futile thing!
Wherfore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I make much of naught" (He said),
"And human love needs human meriting:
How hast thou merited -
Of all man's clotted clay, the dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,
Save Me, save only Me?
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might'st seek it in My arms.
All which thy child's mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:
Rise, clasp My hand, and come."Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
"Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me."
A listing that showed up on Craig's list not too long ago:
What am I doing wrong?Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful
(spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy.
I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at
least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind
that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think
I'm overreaching at all.Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could
you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around
200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get
me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married
to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as
I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I
get to her level?Here are my questions specifically:
- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms
- What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my feelings
- Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?
- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?
- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY
Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest
way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front
about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't
able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a
nice home and hearth.
And the first response ...
Dear Pers-431649184: I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it.Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a
cr@ppy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you
suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring
my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my
money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely
that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't
be getting any more beautiful!So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy
and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense
to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case
you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were
to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's
as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So,
I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful"
as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to
believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K
hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then
we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of
lease, let me know.
And the second response ...
Dear Pers-431649184:Your also came across your posting with great interest. I am a 28 year old Wall Street trader who qualifies as an eligible suitor under your $500k/yr rule. In fact, I make over a million and can usher a woman into a comfortable, true middle class lifestyle (not like those 500k lower-middle class chumps who have to make do with the junior two-bedroom).
I am sympathetic to your goal in finding a rich man to marry. The milk needs to be sold by the expiration date. But since this is premium milk, why would you settle for less than premium prices? I would like to address some of the questions that were previously missed by the other gentleman and provide constructive advice on where to find your match.
I also do believe in the efficient market theory, and am surprised that $500k hasn't found you yet. There are plenty of rich lawyers, investment bankers and hedgies to go around in this city. What gives? I think the problem might be that you have not been sufficiently focused in your search efforts.
The culprit, I believe, may be that you are also looking for qualities aside from money - such as looks, personality, and a sense of humor. However, men who have those qualities learn at an early age that they do not need money to attract quality women. As the saying goes, if you can get the milk for free, why pay up for the cow?
What you need to look for is someone who is long money, and short the other aspects. They are not easy to spot, since you are biologically wired to overlook and ignore them. However, the next time that you are at a expensive black tie event, and you are introduced to the short, bald, overweight man who fidgets nervously whilst making conversation with you, pay special attention to him.
Here's an inspirational story for you. An acquaintance of mine who was also an classy and articulate woman as yourself was able to land that guy - who also happens to be one of the top ten guys at Google. This is the type of stuff that gold-digging moms read to their gold-digging daughters at bedtime. Perhaps you need to make a location change to Silicon Valley - miracles like these happen almost everyday in a land where you can randomly throw a rock and hit a rich nerd squarely in his Kim-jong Il glasses.
And as far as his deficiencies go, they turned out to be not so bad. With hundreds of millions in the bank, she's been able to clean him up and give him a little sophistication. Think of it as a fixer-upper project with a massive budget (and yourself as a visionary real estate developer!). Although, I must warn you, it is a fine line you are flirting with - you must not overdo it lest he begins to attract younger women who are hotter than yourself. The trick is, you need build him up enough to be presentable, while simultaneously manipulate him into believing you are the best that he will ever do! That and having kids will be your insurance against your depreciation (or as I prefer to use the term, milk going sour).
I wish the best of luck on your sales project. As for me, I am also available for a short-term lease. However, for marriage I wouldn't consider a woman unless she can bring beauty, brains and self-motivation to the table. I do not want to dilute my gene pool and end up raising a bunch of Paris Hiltons.
The funniest part about this post is her claim of, "I'm articulate and classy." Anyone who actually was classy would not be posting this message on Craig's list or anywhere else.
I'm not sure any of can say that we feel warm and fuzzy inside when we see our paychecks and see how much has been taken out in taxes every pay period. In fact, if I stop and think about it makes me sick to think of how much of my money slimeball politicians are spending. I don't want to pay for a bridge to nowhere. I don't want to subsidize illegal immigration. I don't want to pay for all this crap that they are signing me up for.
Recently I received a bonus of about $1300.00. Of that bonus I received just about $750! That's insane, nearly 42% or $550 of a bonus lost to taxes. I don't know about you but I think I know how to spend my money better than congress does and I'm tired of giving them so much. That's why I support the fair tax. It's an alternative tax system that is revenue neutral (meaning that no current programs will have to be cut) but promotes simplicty, and transparency over the current tax code. It also promises many economic benefits and the great hope that congress might be forced to lower taxes as a result of greater transparency. Now that's something I can get behind and would actually spend my money on to promote, so I signed up to support them financially... I really want to get the word out about this, you can read more on the website at http://www.fairtax.org/ and I have included the official short description below.
Here's the official description:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax -- administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
|
FACING UP TO THE
Nation's Finances |
||
|
Recent Comments