In a cheap and obvious ploy to buy popularity and calm dissenting voices, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi has announced that he is giving away money.
Families will be receiving 500 dinars apiece, which is equal to about $450 US dollars...and equivalent to about two months' salary. Which just goes to show how much the average Libyan worker needs stronger, Wisconsin-style union representation. And the occasional phony doctor's note to skip work.
We assume that alleged president Barack Hussein Obama will find this move tacky and abhorrent, even though he basically did the same thing when he passed out $600 checks of "stimulus" money to American voters. And when, just before last November's elections (what a wild coincidence!), he announced $250 checks for senior citizens for no particular reason other than finding old people "cuddly." The fact that the seniors were pissed off Obamacare was cutting $500 billion from Medicare had nothing to do with it.
In fact, it seems that virtually all of Barack Obama's favorite programs involve giving away money (often in the form of services) in return for votes, either from the citizenry, or in the corrupt halls of Washington DC.
But all of that being said, Hope n' Change wants to make very, very clear that we're not equating Muammar Gaddafi and Barack Obama. After all, Gaddafi at least looks good in a uniform...but as far as we know, Mr. Obama has never worn one in his life.
-
22 comments:
Did Barack Hussein pass out "stimulus" checks? I know Dubya did, but I must have missed something... Perhaps I wasn't eligible...
"Looks good in a uniform"????
Dude, I must disagree - he looks like the backside of a diseased goat's scrotum regardless of what he has ON...
He does wear a uniform well, on the other hand, which was perhaps what you meant in the first place?
Yeah, Jeep, remember my W stim check - went out and bought me an American made rifle. Very sweet!
Like JustaJeepGuy said, I must have missed out or been eligible for that one...
I'm thinking it was amortized, and we got $12.50 a week 'extra' added to paychecks.
But, as always, I reserve the right to be mis-informed.
In 2011, there is a Social Security "tax holiday" in play. The usual deduction is 6.2%, for this year it is 4.2%.
Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Social Security is on track to go broke, massive amounts of boomer retirements pending, and now they cut the revenue coming in.
But, hey, at least this is a tax cut that doesn't add to the current budget deficit, so that must be a good thing, right?
A hallmark of our concept of civilian leadership of our armed forces is that the commander-in-chief does not have a uniform. That said, every time I'm reminded that this sh!t stain is our C-I-C I throw up a little bit in my mouth. At times I do imagine him in a uniform; an orange one with D.O.C. on the back.
Raiding the treasury in one form or another has always been a near-last resort for desperate politicians. Bush did do it, and Obama has done practically nothing but. The only question is if the citizens buy it.
When Bush did it, I though of it as one of those "payday loans" at 400% that was forced on me; sooner or later I knew that I'd have to pay pack several times what I had been forced to "borrow"...
Stilton, didn't you once post a picture of our proud leader in his Kenyan tribal uniform? At least he finally screw up the nerve to wear a flag pin. Not that it means anything.
alan markus said...
In 2011, there is a Social Security "tax holiday" in play. The usual deduction is 6.2%, for this year it is 4.2%.
With S.S. what you pay in reflects on what you get back so all he did was rip you off at age 67 or by the time I retire age 130. So one again you pay to make him look good.
Pete(Detroit)- As usual, you ARE correctly informed. That particular amount was amortized over time as a paycheck adjustment, the total being $600. I simplified (or perhaps over-simplified?) because "amortization" is never funny. So Obama gave out the $600, but not in the form of a single check.
Readers- As much as I enjoy spanking Barry, our country didn't get into the mess it's in because of the way he gives away money. Virtually all Republicans and Democrats have done the same thing, including Bush. I didn't like it then, and don't like it now. Politicians on both sides of the aisles have gotten elected and re-elected based on their promises to give away money (again, often in the form of goods or services). The Tea Party is the first to understand that the future depends not on giving to the citizenry, but on taking away from the government.
Rick - "what you pay in reflects"...
Perhaps, if you are of a certain age...
My grandmother, who lived to be 90, surely got 100x back than she ever paid in
*I* don't expect I'll ever get anything 'back'
Kind of the nature of a pyramid scheme..
Just sayin...
Plus ca change. History rhymes...
Richard Nixon rightly caught a hellstorm when he commissoned a vainglorious, fascistic new uniform for the White House uniformed guard staff. Google it: they looked like a cross between Hitler's palace guard, Kaiser Wilhelm on parade, and the Fredonian generals from 'Duck Soup'. Surreal. Certifiable.
In conjunction The Imperial President also commissioned himself a suitably impressive official uniform to be worn as Commander In Chief. Maybe to be worn on-air as he proclaimed emergency martial law and arrested the Watergate investigators. The CiC uniform was dutifully announced in the MSM, but wisely no photos were released. Watergate caught up with him soon after...about the time Al Haig found him wandering the halls conversing with Presidential portraits at 3 AM & decided that late stage alcoholics under stress shouldn't have access to the nuclear codes. For which IMHO we owe AH (then in uniform, but a real one) some permanent recognition.
Andrew- Now there's a trip in the Wayback machine. I remember those uniforms and you're right - they were hilarious. And not in a good way.
As far as the rest of your comment goes, at least Nixon had the decency to step down after committing impeachable offenses, unlike any Democrat to date.
Pete(Detroit) brings up a good point, and one that should have rung alarm bells like crazy w-a-a-a-a-y back in the 1940s. The first person to collect on Social Security was a woman from Maine (I think). She paid in $44 dollars or so, retired at the age of 65 (I think) and lived to be 100! SS was known to be a Ponzi scheme from the beginning, but good ol' FDR managed to get it done--by promising to give people someone else's money. Sadly, the Republican party decided that was the only way to get elected and followed along...
Stilton, thanks. Nixon resigned and fled the capitol like a deposed banana republic dictator because he rightly feared justice at the hands of Right and Left alike. We were still a nation of free, mostly educated adults in 1974. Nixon knew impeachment meant virtual arrest: immediate loss of power/authority, loss of freedom of movement, all sorts of potential personal humiliations/indignities (handcuffs?). The VP would become Acting President & a new Acting VP appointed.If convicted, Nixon feared he would do prison time; if convicted of lying about Vietnam/Cambodia and getting American boys killed, he could have faced treason charges, even a death sentence if the public became outraged enough. No wonder he fled.
Left us with the bitter precedent of appointing a completely unelected pardon-bargain President to serve out the term of the disgraced resignee.( Impeach Obama, he appoints Clinton ((either one, or both)) and resigns to accept the UN Presidency For Life.) Brrrr.
Clinton destroyed the impeachment process, our last-ditch check and balance, by treating it like a parking ticket and calling Congress' bluff.
For that alone he deserves undying contempt. We're an amazingly forgiving people to allow first Nixon, now Clinton to appear in public at will and not get torn to pieces by the kind of outraged mob that lynched Mussolini from the nearest lamppost. Just my .02.
Andrew- I'm not going to go out of my way to defend Nixon, though I certainly never wanted him dangling from a lightpost. Compared to some presidents I can think of (cough, cough) he wasn't all that bad. Or maybe it just seems that way now.
I think Ford was right to issue the pardon so we could all "Move On" (if you'll excuse the expression). Still, it was a messy and unpleasant time.
I agree that Clinton made a joke of the impeachment process. I daresay that fewer than 10% of people anymore even know that the sonofagun was impeached (albeit not finally convicted). The Democrats sang songs on the capitol steps, they said "everyone lies about sex" (especially under oath), and Mr. StinkyFinger taught the youth of our nation that fellatio isn't "sex" (and hey, thanks for the epidemic of throat cancer, Bill! "Lewinskys" now cause more of it than smoking does!)
Stilton, so many possibilities here. Bad as Nixon was, and I believe he became truly evil, as a pardoned but presumed felon he still retained some vestigial sense of having crossed some moral/legal line , and chose to present publicly as if he had a sense of shame/contrition, whether he did or not. Fleeing to California and laying low for years was a shrewd survival strategy.
In sharp contrast to Bill 'President Of The World!" Clinton. (I can't erase the image of Chris Matthews in kneepads and a blue dress, size 46 Husky).
The MSM was able to spin and defuse Clinton's impeachment at the time and the Right was not yet organized on the embryonic internet. Wonder if that's still the case. Wonder if we'll find out soon.
Btw, I ran into Monica at a restaurant in Santa Monica in 2002. Ouch.
Not so fast, are we sure that Obama did not wear a uniform while he was attending the Madrassas in Indonesia ?
Angry Hoosier Dad: Good one – laughed right out loud
The 2.2% SS ‘tax holiday’ almost too perfect. It was just in time to cover the 66% income tax increase signed by the Gov of IL on 1-14 & made retroactive to 1-1-11. Coincidence? We’ll never really know, but, let’s face it, the connections from Chgo to DC & back again are scary. I can’t wait for us to elect a new CIC. Wouldn’t it be great if it was someone that actually did wear THE uniform & believed in it.
SC- There are some good conservatives out there who have served in the military. The change would be refreshing, to put it mildly.
SC,
Wouldn't that "retroactive" tax increase fall under "No ex post facto" laws and therefore be null and void? Or is that only the US Constitution that has an ex post facto provision? Wait--Illinois? Never mind...
Pete(Detroit)
Yah I don't expect I'll get anything back either from SS. Odd how I get a statement that says I've earned $600 a month when I turn 65 but my sister-in-Law never worked and she is getting more then that on SSI and I know that there are many from the Middle East in Dearborn MI. who are fresh off the boat that are getting SS after never paying into it. If you wish to screw something up, put the government in charge of it.
Rick,
The reason people who never paid anything into SS are getting checks is, the Demo_rats under LBJ opened up eligibility in order to buy votes with tax dollars. LBJ obviously didn't give a hoot about financial accountability and probably expected everyone to die before age 67, like he did. Now we're stuck with LBJ's legacy.
Post a Comment