May I have your attention please

The sub-text tells the story

  A headline is supposed to "grab" your attention, some work better than others, some may get attention but have little to do with the story; and some are downright funny.
  That "squirrel" headline above was intended to get attention, I think it worked but it sure didn't tell the story in a nutshell, you had to read the article to be the complete story - which is what the Editor wanted.

And this is about?

  To be honest you probably wouldn't have a clue, well a clue maybe, what the story was about.  The story (I've never read it) is about Bartolo Colon (ca-loan) pitched against the Texas Rangers and struck out (whiffed) a lot of batters.  The Editor probably waited a long time to use that headline, he finally got his chance - I think it funny, original and terrific word play.

An example of poor writing, not to mention imagination

  A headline should state the obvious, most of the time, it should also let readers wonder what the story is. The column heading tell what the story is, but it's so obvious most people won't read the column to find out what it's about (they already know).

This is the winner

  Did this headline get your attention?  Did it make you wonder what the story was about?  This is a very good, if odd, headline.  We don't have the story here but I can guess that a lesbian couple went to a masquerade party that was in a bar.  One woman, who was dressed as a Sumo Wrestler became angry after her girlfriend waved at a male friend who was dressed as a candy bar.  That there, my friends, is a funny and attention getting headline.

Who's Fault?

  It's interesting isn't it?  Now that S&P has downgraded the country's Credit Rating - all of a sudden it's Obamas fault, or Geithners fault.  All this immediately after the President caved in to Republican demands.
  Here are some items I found this morning on "The Hill"(http://thehill.com/):
Boehner blames Democrats for S&P downgrade.  Whoever is at fault (hint: who did not want any revenue items?) we are all going to pay.


“Republicans have listened to the voices of the American people and worked to bring the spending binge to a halt," he said in a statement. "Unfortunately, decades of reckless spending cannot be reversed immediately, especially when the Democrats who run Washington remain unwilling to make the tough choices required to put America on solid ground.


"It is my hope this wake-up call will convince Washington Democrats that they can no longer afford to tinker around the edges of our long-term debt problem," he added.


While S&P dismissed the recent deal to raise the debt limit while cutting into the deficit as insufficient to protect its credit rating, Boehner touted the cut-heavy package as a "positive first step."


S&P downgrades US credit rating


The United States has suffered the first downgrade to its credit rating in history, as Standard & Poor's has reduced the nation's rating from AAA to AA+.


The credit rating firm said the recent plan to raise the debt limit while reducing the debt "falls short" of its expectations, but also offered broader condemnations of America's political process.


S&P said it was "pessimistic" about the ability of Congress and the White House to reach a broader plan to rein in the deficit "any time soon."


Boehner wants Geithner out at Treasury


"The President should demand that Secretary Geithner resign and immediately replace him with someone who will help Washington focus on balancing our budget and allowing the private sector to create jobs," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said in a statement Friday.


"For months he opposed all efforts to reduce the debt in return for a debt ceiling increase. His opposition to serious spending and debt reforms has been reckless and now the American people will pay the price," DeMint said.

All words in purple are not mine



The Markets won't like it.



Tax Cuts it turns out are not so good



Makes me wonder

  Today I've taken excerpts from two news sources, and of course, some of my own comments.  I decided the subject matter was good for people to know, and it fits right in with some of the stuff I've put in in the past couple of days.

Huffington Post Aug 5 2011

New tax data from the Internal Revenue service shows that in 2009, incomes fell, unemployment claims rose, and the U.S. economy shed nearly two million taxpayers.
 And of the 235,413 taxpayers who earned $1 million or more in 2009, 1,470 of them paid no taxes.
 According to the data, the average income for American taxpayers fell to $54,283 -- a drop of $3,516, or about 6.1 percent, between
 2008 and 2009. Not only that, but the overall number of taxpayers -- that is, individuals or married couples filing with the IRS -- fell by almost two million. (unemployment

Now let's take a look see at what those millionaires are spending:

What Recession: Rich People Buying Lots Of $860 Shoes, $9000 Coats


The NY Times is continuing its ascent into "what rich people do with all their stinking money besides $50,000 playhouses, chartering private planes for their kids to go to camp, home bartenders, and clubs for multimillionaires" with this important information: "Nordstrom has a waiting list for a Chanel sequined tweed coat with a $9,010 price. Neiman Marcus has sold out in almost every size of Christian Louboutin “Bianca” platform pumps, at $775 a pair [pictured]. Mercedes-Benz said it sold more cars last month in the United States than it had in any July in five years." Yes, the rich are spending more, because as a retail consultant says, "If a designer shoe goes up from $800 to $860, who notices?"


Gilt Groupe general manager Jyothi Rao says, "You just can’t buy a pair of shoes for less than $1,000 in some of the luxury brands, and some of the price points have gone to $2,000. There’s absolutely a customer for it." And one facial cream has raised its price $300 since 2008—16 ounces of Crème de la Mer is now $1,650.

There's some bizarre timing, because the article says, "The rich do not spend quite as they did in the free-wheeling period before the recession, but they are closer to that level... What changed? Mostly, the stock market, retailers and analysts said, as well as a good bit of shopping psychology. Even with the sharp drop in stocks over the last week, the Dow Jones is up about 80 percent from its low in March 2009. And with the overall economy nowhere near its recession lows, buying nice, expensive things is back in vogue for people who can afford it." Maybe the global stock markets wanted to give a nice eff-you to the rich by taking a big dump today?
http://gothamist.com/2011/08/04/what_recession_rich_people_buying_l.php


Now, do you think Congress should have raised the taxes of people with very high incomes?  It seems to me they could afford it, if this is how the "Job Creators" do things!

But, tax cuts are good for the country, or are they?

Scary!