atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#3323: Somebody just f-ing shoot me. WTF.

This morning I went through the CD for the musical twice in a row and was doing a pretty fair-dinkum job of it, especially the second time. Not perfect, but not bad.

...get to rehearsal this afternoon and ROYALLY STUFF IT. I blew about half my f-ing lines; and when I finally did get something right--my second solo for the song about Noah's Ark--the f-ing CD player screwed up and skipped right past it so we had to stop and go back and start over.

I'm really, really, unhappy--frustrated--with myself right now. This isn't that goddamned difficult so why the hell can't I do it?

Anyway, I think this is the last time I'm doing one of these. I naturally won't back out of this one, but I won't agree to do another.

* * *

So as I was waking up from my nap I heard, on the radio, that the Illinois Demokrat Machine wants to raise the state tax on cigarettes.

Now, the statistics say that it's primarily lower-income people who smoke, but here's what you will never hear anyone on the left say about this kind of regressive tax increase:

THEY'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE POOR!

Raising the tax on a product which is predominantly consumed by poor people is nothing but.

* * *

Related: New Zealand's government wants smokes to cost $40 per pack.

That's $4 per cigarette. Another version of this scheme raises the price of the things to $10 per cigarette.

No, that won't lead to a black market in cigarettes and tobacco products! Not at all! Of course the proles will go right along with the intention of the plan and stop smoking if we make it cost too much! Of course that'll be how it works! That's what always happens when we pass laws aimed at social engineering! There are never any UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES like increased smuggling and crime and....

*rolleyes*

* * *

I agree with Karl Denninger: this shit is fraud.

Okay, if you say you're giving someone financial aid to help them pay for their child's education, most people think that means "I'm giving you money so your kid can attend this school."

But when Drexel (and plenty of other universities) say that, what they mean is, "We're helping you get enough loans to cover our tuition."

In this case, specifically, the college offered an "aid package" which includes the kid's parents taking out some $42,000 in loans.

PER YEAR.

...and if something goes seriously wrong and the family can't pay off those loans, it's too bad for them, because student loans can't be discharged through bankruptcy.

A four-year undergraduate degree costing $252,000 had better guaran-god-damn-tee an amazing job. I mean a job where you get up in the morning and get a hummer from a supermodel before taking a leisurely shower and driving your Ferrari to work. You work for a couple of hours in extreme comfort, have a relaxing lunch, a massage, and a nap, and then work for a couple more hours before going home to the supermodel and mind-blowing sex followed by a fine dinner. After dinner you get a text message telling you that your day's wages of $1,000,000 after tax have been deposited into your checking account.

...okay, perhaps not quite that amazing. But if your degree costs a quarter of a million dollars to obtain it had better ensure you're going to live a life of luxury and leisure.

Student loan debt should be--must be--treated exactly the same as any other kind of debt, and be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Even if a bunch of law school graduates will use the law to their advantage--which is what led to this shit in the first place.

* * *

I'm not going to Bible study tonight. Too f-ing tired and pissed off at myself.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments