Last night, after keeping jobless Americans in suspense thoughout the first two and a half years of his administration, a lengthy vacation in Martha's Vineyard, and an emergency Camp David vacation last weekend, Barack Hussein Obama finally revealed his all-new, mind-blowing "American Jobs Act."
And it is...(drum roll, please!)...Shovel Ready Jobs and Higher Taxes!!! (Cue "Happy Days are Here Again" as confetti and balloons shower down on the president, while Democrats leap to their feet in the House, barking like seals and smacking their flippers together.)
Seriously, folks - that was it. Although Professor Obama made sure to change up the rhetoric a little, to distract from the fact that this same plan has now failed repeatedly on his watch. For instance, the "shovel ready" jobs that failed to materialize last time will now be work on roads and bridges and highspeed railroads and airports...absolutely all of which can be started immediately without the need to do environmental impact statements, secure the land to build on, or actually do engineering design. Nope, these projects are ready...just not shovel ready. In fact, no digging of any kind will be allowed for any of these projects, just to deny Fox News any talking points.
Barack Obama will also be creating jobs by extending unemployment benefits yet again! And while some people might not quite follow the logic of how paying people not to work creates jobs, the Democrats in the audience war-whooped, fist-pumped, and set off Roman Candles about the president's brilliance.
The president also dedicated himself to making Social Security more "secure" by saying that he was going to wipe out the employers' portion of Social Security tax. Because cutting Social Security revenue by half will somehow reassure everyone that when they need their retirement money, it will be there. No doubt because Timothy Geithner is still using TurboTax to calculate the numbers.
Barack Obama then declared that his Jobs Act would pay for the refurbishment or building of 35,000 schools across America, because "every child deserves a great school!" Although technically, it would seem that the kids only deserve a great school building, because Obama and his party are still 100% opposed to letting kids choose to attend schools that give great education.
Of course, all of these "new" ideas won't be cheap...with cost estimates running as high as $450 Billion dollars. Fortunately, the president assured the now foaming, orgasmic Democrats that it will all be paid for!
But...how?
"I'll give details in about 10 days," Mr. Obama said...making us think that if he'd used the 10 days in Martha's Vineyard working on our business, he could have been prepared in time for last night's speech.
But the president at least hinted broadly that his clever funding plan would involve two major components. The first: asking a cost-cutting committee to find more costs to cut, because that's always worked so well in the past. And the second: jack up taxes on the Evil Rich.
Although Obama isn't calling them the "Evil Rich" anymore. Nope - now he just wants to squeeze the "fair share" out of "our most fortunate citizens." Which rather strongly implies that people in upper income brackets don't work or create anything, they just happen to be "winners of life's lottery," as a previous Democrat once said.
In other words, if the means by which "billionaires" earn $200,000 a year isn't fair, then it's impossible for any plan to take the money away from them to be un-fair.
All in all, the president didn't present a single new idea in this speech which required an unprecedented Joint Session of Congress. But he did debut a new phrase, which he shouted endlessly and sternly: "YOU SHOULD PASS IT RIGHT AWAY!"
He was referring to his alleged Jobs Plan, of course, although it sounded like he just might be referring to a singularly large kidney stone.
They're both about equally welcome...equally painful...and both equally useless in ending the Obamaconomy's nightmarish level of unemployment.
-
In life, there are wastes of time, complete wastes of time, and last night's speech.
-
46 comments:
So, the long and short of it is that I didn't miss a thing by not watching last night and...we'd better stock up on K-Y. We'll be needing it.
Love the doctored photo...SCOAMF!
You forgot the cheerful way he leveled a threat at those in attendance about how he was going to take his plan to the American people.
@ My Dog Brewski - Damn, you beat me to it!
What an awesome idea!!! Have those rich bastards pay people not to work for another year. Brilliant! Why didn't he think of this before? And building more indoctrination centers... oops, I mean SCHOOLS... Also brilliant! My wife Ilene and I are also looking forward to the extra 12 bucks I will be getting in my paycheck each week. This is going to more than make up for the thousands I lost when the stock market tanked... again... Thank you, thank you, thank you president Obama!
AHD, I may need to borrow some of that K-Y jelly.
Ben and Ilene Dover
Stilt, I would never want to diminish the amount of time & effort it takes to create these great cartoons, but am I wrong in thinking that on days like this, the cartoons just kind of write themselves?
While watching the speech to end all speeches given by the “One” last night I was reminded of a preacher at an old style tent revival. All that was missing was after each time he proclaimed "YOU SHOULD PASS IT RIGHT AWAY!" was HALLELUJAH and AMEN from his loyal subjects while rolling in the isles and trembling and speaking in tongues.
@Angry Hoosier Dad- Of course you didn't miss anything. I only watched in the event that Barry would unexpectedly deliver a surprise or, even more unexpectedly, show some leadership. Neither happened.
@My Dog Brewski- Glad you enjoyed the photo and Boehner's choice of reading material!
@Anonymous (four above)- Yes, his "threat" to take all of this to the American people was not only laughable, but was also quite clearly the sole point of the speech: to throw out a jobs program which would cost another half-trillion, wait one week for the Republicans not to pass it, then hit the old campaign trail with the narrative that "obstructionists" are deliberately keeping unemployment high. The little rat bastard.
Another point I didn't put into the commentary (I ran out of space and interest) is his plan to give tax credits to companies who hire the unemployed. He had to get in the word "unemployed" because it turns out that of the relatively small amount of stimulus money that went to actual hiring, a very high percentage did not go to hire the unemployed, but rather to hire people who were already working and offer them higher wages.
The Bamster also promised us that our money would be well and wisely spent this time, because there would be "no earmarks or boondoggles." But does this mean he's admitting his last stimulus was full of earmarks and boondoggles? Has he taken any action on that to recover the money? Of course not.
@Ben Dover- You get $12 a week "from the government," and KY Jelly gets $12 a week from you. It's like a big, well-lubricated system.
@Alan Markus- Whether cartoons like today's "write themselves" is sort of a yes-and-no proposition. Frankly, I was hoping that Obama would present something substantive enough for me to really sink my satirical teeth into, instead of a long laundry list of warmed-over talking points. Since he didn't, my commentary was unavoidably sort of long and meandering. Mind you, I hope is was still interesting and entertaining, but humor works best when you can keep it short and to the point. But last night's speech was so pointless that I might as well be throwing punches at a fog bank.
On the bright side, I'm probably the only political cartoonist who used a dung beetle to represent last night's event.
@Anonymous (immediately above)- Clearly the purpose of this Joint Session was to bring in the Democrat "hallelujah chorus" to whoop it up. An embarrassing and shameful waste of time and resources for a purely political campaign event.
I still don't get it.
His speech was filled with most wonderful things, with absolutely nothing new and zero details of what or how. Is this like the Health Care bill where we're supposed to pass this thing so we can find out exactly what's in it?
When the hype clears, it will be clear that this is nothing more that as @Stilton says it is; Porkulus ][.
Then he says it will be "free". And exactly how will it be paid for? Well, seems he doesn't know. I guess this will be in part 2 to be delivered in 10 days. It will be up to the "supercommittee" will figure that out for us! We'll pass the fun part, and let the experts figure out the hard part later? Yeah, that's always worked!
Which begs a question for my Keynesian friends: If massive government spending is the only thing that will save our economy, and Obama's half-trillion dollar "jobs" plan will be paid for by cutting a half-trillion dollars of spending from elsewhere in the economy, won't the net benefit to the economy be near zero? Aren't you just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
Much of what he did expose about his plan is that it will rely on more temporary changes to the tax code. This is exactly what we do not need! Our economy is stalled exactly because everything already is so temporary! Business now needs more certainty! All "temporary" fixes do is encourage people to "game" the economy instead of honestly investing in it.
And let's not forget what this really was; a salvo launched for the 2012 campaign. He needs to shore up what is left of his base. (government dependents and union members) He knows he's lost the bulk of his "Hope and Change" coalition (many of which are now Tea Partiers) and they will not be coming back. His real enemy is the Tea Party, which is naturally going to oppose another half-trillion of pork spending and phony tax manipulations. He's going to have to break them up.
So expect this narrative to be coming from the spokesholes and MSM hacks soon: The Tea Party is going to deprive our poor schoolkids decent schools and our veterans jobs.
@John the Econ- Your Keynesian question is a good one, and I've often wondered why a magical "Keynesian dollar" which does more than a dollar's worth of good when put into an economy doesn't therefore create more than a dollar's loss when it is forcefully ripped from someone else's pocket? "Deckchairs on the Titanic" is right.
And your last line again reminds me of how we could actually dissect this speech line by line and even word by word to get to the real core of Barack Obama's cynicism. Stressing that the veterans "who fought overseas shouldn't have to fight to get a job when they get home" is yet another case of Obama using our military people as political cannon fodder.
Keep in mind, this is the same guy who just overruled every general we've got to say that troops will be cut to just 3,000 in Iraq by year's end - a force barely large enough to simply defend themselves. Obama is willing to throw out the sacrifices of every soldier who has served (or been injured or killed) in Iraq to forward his own career.
This "president" is a skidmark in the BVDs of the body politic.
The definition of insanity - doing the exact same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!
Since Mr. Odumbass is apparently insane isn't there some way he can be removed from office legally on medical grounds before he destroys the rest of the economy and with it the country?
Obamacare= unwanted by most of the voters and of questionable constitutionality
Stimulus 1 = waste of money, time, effort
Jobs Bill (Stimulus 2) = more of the same and for free?
Only in their wet dreams.
@Stilton, you ask "...why a magical "Keynesian dollar" which does more than a dollar's worth of good when put into an economy doesn't therefore create more than a dollar's loss when it is forcefully ripped from someone else's pocket?"
Because Keynesianism is the "global warming" of economics. It's based entirely upon complex theoretical models that are a fantasy of reality, and are completely malleable to the needs of the statists. After the end of the Depression and WWII and before his death, Keynes himself was re-evaluating his hallmark theories re stimulus and it's overall effects. By late '90s (when supply-side theories in practice achieved the seemingly impossible by accidentally producing a federal budget surplus) Keynsianism was dead as serious economic theory.
But it was never dead in the hearts of statists.
Whereas supply-side theory deprives politicians a role in managing the economy, Keynsianism is the perfect pseudo-intellectual cover for what politicians really want to do: Spend money, buy votes, and expand political power over the economy. Theoretically the more spending, the better. As long as there are politicians seeking power, there will be Keynesians in some form. And they will always have a plan to spend other people's money in a way that is better than what they think other people would spend it on.
We shall need the patience of a Job, alright, to get through the plaque visited upon us. Amen.
And don't sweat the K-Y fellas; you'll like to have it as the Democrats (and face it, quite a few RINOs) perform their radical wealthectomy on the country.
John the Econ:
"Keynesianism is the "global warming" of economics."
Love it. Consider it stolen.
I guess "power over the economy" is certainly one way to gain power over the people, but you know they aren't stopping there. Anyone think his regulatory czars exist to make our lives more free?
Grey Lady:
...wet dreams? Really, dear, you make me blush.
@Readers- Fine comments above! I just want to throw in one additional rant while it's on my mind...
I read an article a short while ago (AP, I think) attacking Perry's use of the term "Ponzi Scheme" for Social Security. The article was heavily weighted to prove that this isn't accurate. Their main premise was that Social Security can't be a Ponzi scheme because eventually people stop contributing to such a scheme and it collapses. But the government has the power to compel people to continue contributing, ergo the scheme will never collapse.
I'm sure they were quite pleased with their logic, but they left out a HUGE and important piece of the puzzle. For a Ponzi scheme to continue, there always has to be a growing, pyramid-like structure of more people coming in (to pay benefits to the early adopters). But in the case of Social Security, there aren't enough people to make it work. Lacking enough warm bodies, then the only choice is to increase how much the current round of victims have to pay. But what happens when 100% isn't enough? And what will happen to the system when, far before that time, the taxpayers revolt?
And what the hell ever happened to journalists who can do simple math, or report an issue honestly?
Keynesian spending = global warming. I love it.
The Ponzi scheme analogy isn't perfect but it captures the criminality of the embezzling from the 'trust fund' for general government spending. The temptation was as irresistible as it was predictable. So now the Boomers are retiring (and the USA has a policy welcome mat out to anyone on the planet to move here illegally and apply immediately for SSI, a huge strain and drain on SS), and the weekly SS tax income from the minority still employed is shrinking steadily.
The criminal tragedy is that, although never perfect, SS didn't have to become a Ponzi scheme. Had the funds actually been kept in trust and managed, the buying power of that gigantic investment fund would have dwarfed Warren Buffett (who we could have hired to manage it). Even with market ups and downs, the results today would be mind boggling.
Instead, those decades of income were just whizzed away.
As to last night's speech, Captain Smith has assured us that the way to get the Titanic through this iceberg field is to SPEED UP and rearrange those deck chairs until we get those deck chairs right.
Hey guys, it's been a while. Just thought I would share a link with you.
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779/
It's a little history about the GOP's 40 year plan to destabilize faith in government institutions for the sole purpose of their own gain, regardless of whether or not our constitution calls for a federal government. Gotta love them "conservatives", right?
Oh, and thanks for your insightful coverage of the Repub debates Stilt. As always, you really take on the big guys with your rhetoric : )
@StupidLiberal- I checked out your link, and it's no "history" - it's an absurd opinion piece. The thrust is that Republicans (enlisting their close personal pals, the media) deliberately try to lower the public's opinion of government, because this theoretically aids the party that claims to be against big, blundering, stupid, inefficient government.
Put another way, the government is really small, lean, efficient, caring, and cost-effective thanks to Liberals... and the widely held perception of government ineptitude is a carefully crafted illusion!
I considered just nuking the post as troll-bait, but will leave it up for now because it's sometimes interesting to look at the delusions of the other side.
StupidLiberal, you ask why I didn't take on the "big guys" in the Republican debates on these pages. Simple: in this Obamaconomy I'm being stretched a little thin, and so only publish cartoons on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The debate was on Wednesday night, so there was no cartoon Thursday about anything. Today's cartoon, however, was reserved for the president's big "Hey, everybody I've got some great new ideas!" job speech.
So as long as we have a visiting StupidLiberal, would you care to let me know what I might have gotten wrong in my analysis of his speech? Or perhaps would you share with us - specifically - what you found to be either new or a good idea for energizing the job market in that speech?
Or is the lack of new ideas (and lack of successes with old ones) why you're posting links to obscure opinion pieces about conservative conspiracies instead of championing the accomplishments and visions of the SCOAMF?
I think we can guess.
A Ponzi-scheme is a very accurate description of Social Security. Progressives can argue until the cows come that it's not because there is no "criminal intent" involved. But the fact remains that it is a pyramid that is dependent upon new contributors entering into the scheme to pay back previous contributors.
To me, the only difference between a typical criminal Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that at least with the criminal enterprise I actually get a choice not to participate. I get no such choice with Social Security.
And @Stilton, Social Security will collapse for this simple reason: As that article stated, in order to remain viable the government can continue to keep raising my contributions. However, at some point, those contributions are going to reach a point to where it no longer makes sense for me to work. Liberals are either ignorant or are in denial that we are already sliding down the back side of the Laffer Curve.
It's almost as though @StupidLiberal has never been to the DMV or a post office, or watched C-SPAN.
Social Security was known to be a Ponzi scheme from the very beginning and was called such by the Republicans of the mid-1930s. Our then-most-wonderful president FDR used typical tactics to buy the necessary votes to pass it, and we've been stuck with it ever since. SS MIGHT still be viable if good ol' LBJ hadn't managed to expand eligibility for SS funds to people who had never paid anything in (i.e., he bought votes with tax dollars). But the money proved too tempting and now it's gone. Who'da thunk it?
And does Stupid Liberal somehow think that the news media is on the side of the Republicans? After they covered for/did their best to elect both Slick Willie Clinton AND Barack Hussein? There are none so blind as those who will not see....
Glad I did not watch it, his dumb speeches are a waste of our time, guys
The fact that we, across the broad spectrum of the people that we represent, are having this conversation in these terms, coupled with the fact that such conversations are widespread beyond our little group, all over the country, well-informed, and carried out in sober earnest, indicates the deep trouble in which our government kleptocracy presently finds itself. We the people are terribly stirred. Vast numbers of us are not embracing or even tolerating the delusion anymore. I recall John Adams saying that it was about one-third of the American people who actually carried out the revolution. We're well past that point. There is no foreseeable course in which we all just go back to accepting the continuing outrages and allowing them to endure. At least a little revolution is now inevitable. It will be carried out at the ballot box, but it will still be a very ugly thing.
@John the Econ- Frankly, the whole debate over whether Social Security is an actual Ponzi scheme is sort of like debating whether a violent death was murder or manslaughter. The semantics don't mean a darn thing to the victim.
@JustaJeepGuy- Yes, it's pretty hilarious to think that the mainstream media is colluding to make the government look bad. I think for many of us, it's not what we read that makes us think poorly of big government...it's what we've seen with our own eyes and experienced in our lifetimes.
@Pryorguy- Anything that comes out of Obama's mouth other than a resignation is a waste of our time. Still, when duty calls, I'll watch his speeches and "take one for the team."
@Doctor Paulie- You're absolutely right. Tea Party people aren't happy, and they aren't treating this as some sort of political fad - even though the media desperately wants to believe that. In fact, I have to laugh when I hear media reports that the Tea Party is losing steam, or falling out of favor, or infighting, or whatever crap the media is pushing. I know it's not true because I know what's in my own heart.
We're going to hear more and more news stories saying that the Tea Party is somehow unraveling. None of them will be true, and I hope that (like me) when you hear these stories you'll only smile and revel in the fact that the media is confused and scared.
Stilt, I agree, I think we reasonable-thinking folks have them on the run a bit, maybe more than we think, maybe less, though. I am a bit encouraged, though, as I watch the lefties getting so desperate!
So, has the weather cooled a bit lately down your way? Very nice here in ne ok for a whole week now!!!! Keeping my fingers crossed!
Is Obama smart? I never thought so...and neither does this guy in the Wall Street Journal...makes sense...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576495932704234052.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
Ah friends, I'm sitting in Chilo's Mexican restaurant in South Houston, having finished some really good camarones (shrimp), a Negra Modelo in one hand a margarita in the other, among good friends, my .45 in my vest (might need it before I get to the car), the mariachis blasting away! How Sweet It Is! Come join us sometime. Obama and the lefties think they can defeat THIS!?
What gets me is that the media is going nuts about Perry's "Ponzi" statement, like the idea is something totally new that nobody has considered before. Really.
Honestly! How can you people watch that trash? Really...
@Pryorguy- Weather has cooled just a tad here in North Texas, but it's supposed to heat up again soon. Still, having days under one hundred has put some spring back into a lot of people's step!
Regarding the WSJ article you linked, it's a GREAT piece and I recommend it to everyone. I love the Wall Street Journal, and I strongly suggest watching "The Journal Editorial Report" each week (I think it runs on Sunday) on Fox News. Very smart, frequently funny, and never any screaming.
@Doktor Paulie- South Houston is a bit of a haul from my neck of the woods, but you paint such a pleasant picture that I'll seek you out if I ever get down there. (I could find out how many Negra Modelos it takes to make jumping out of an airplane seem like a good idea.)
@John the Econ- I agree! Frankly, I thought everyone had already agreed that it's a big, failing Ponzi scheme. Like you, I was blindsided that anyone could find this controversial!
@Emmentaler Limburgher- It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
@Stilton, perhaps this is an eye into the liberal psyche; Many honestly think (contrary to what their intellect may be forced to conclude) that if they repeatedly tell themselves and others that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, then it will not be. But I think just as many also are perfectly aware that it is, and that when it ultimately fails (like ObamaCare, Medicare, the pension plans, etc) that it will finally provide the opportunity to convert America into the Marxist paradise they know would be much, much better.
As for Perry's statements, he is dead-on. Everyone under the age of 50 (or even perhaps older) should be pissed as hell about the >15% of their income that is taken from them that they will likely never see any of ever again. Those that aren't pissed either don't get it, or have just given up with the assumption that high taxes are just a reality.
But the bigger problem is going to be the generational divide that this is going to create in our society when the system finally goes critical enough for force drastic tax increases on younger people to sustain the older. Normally, Democrats seek to create these kids of divides to create constituencies. But this divide will directly pit one core constituency against another. The old folks will demand higher taxes to pay for the benefits they've been told they've paid for, and the young folks will say "screw 'em" when they realize that even after paying higher taxes, they'll be stuck in the same situation when they get to retirement age. (or at least the smarter ones will; hire those people, not the others)
Personally, my entire working life I have always assumed that I'd never see that money. I get depressed when I think of the kind of retirement I might have had if I had been able to invest all of that money independently.
Oh, and when I engage in conversations with "older people" on this topic, I'll tell them straight on that I really don't care what happens to their Social Security. They spent their entire adult lives voting for the politicians who refused to deal with this problem while actually making it worse by increasing benefits all the while promising that it would be okay in the end. Now they want me to pay more to solve their problem while still not guaranteeing that it will be any better when it's my turn to collect?
I've long since written off the money I've "invested" in that system, so I don't have any vested interest left in it, other than the new taxes I am likely to be made to pay to prop it up a few more years.
Can you tell that this topic pisses me off?
Interesting Social Security trivia: http://www.smartmoney.com/retirement/planning/10-things-social-security-wont-tell-you-1314999788631/?mg=com-sm
If you're under 50, part 3 should be of particular interest to you. Even if it doesn't go bankrupt, Social Security will be paying you a negative rate of return! Just imagine if you would be allowed to invest that $400k in interest and dividend paying instruments. Even conservative investments would leave you with literally millions of dollars after 30 years.
@John the Econ- There's a good piece in the Wall Street Journal today in which Penn Jillette (who I think is great) compares modern politics to magic tricks. It only works when the audience/taxpayers agree not to question the illusion, and to rigidly obey the rules set forth by the magician (you can "pick any card," but you can't see what's in my pocket, up my sleeve, or behind my back). Jillette says that a magician, who is faking miracles, would be undone by anyone who breaks the rules of what they can see or what questions they can ask.
To me, that's a beautiful analogy for the Tea Party mindset. We're not accepting the political magicians' directions and misdirections. We're not willing to restrict ourselves to the questions which are "allowed." We don't even accept the premise that anything like "magic" is going to happen. We're a performer's worst nightmare, and politics is certainly performance art.
Per your followup post, I've always paid double into Social Security because I've always been self-employed. And I've always assumed that I'll never get a nickel back out of the system. Ironically, that's why I've also scrimped and saved for my own retirement privately...but owning that personal retirement account will automatically knock me out of receiving Social Security benefits when they institute means testing...the better to make sure that the money I put into the system will only go to people who spent every cent they had, while I was saving.
So the topic pisses me off, too.
@John and Stilton, very well said. We must not let ourselves fall for the generational divisions the Dems are trying to create/exploit/demagog.
I'm in my 50s, like Stilt I've made much of my income independently so been penalized with the 15% SS self-employed surcharge tax for decades, and hell yes I could have and would have made income-perpetuating investments with all that lost money, and my finances and my life (not to mention eventual retirement) would be drastically different now. Most people's would. Instead, all that money from all those millions of people was literally whizzed away without our consent...on wasteful military spending, on useless Federal cubicle bureaucrats' make-work salaries, on the societally suicidal policy of paying millions of teenage welfare girls to be paid career welfare baby factories, pumping out tens of millions of little Federal liabilities each of which must be expensively fed (Food Stamps), housed (HUD/Section 8 etc), 'educated' (DoE, homeowner taxes), doctored and prescribed (Medicaid), policed, incarcerated etc until they are old enough (13,14,15) to begin their own welfare baby factory careers and yes, eventually Social Security, even though they've never worked a day in their lives and never paid a dime in toward anything. We don't differentiate between contributing citizens and noncontributing citizens, we allow the lifelong non's to vote equally, which largely explains our current crisis.
John, when you say you don't care about older taxpayer's rights, remember those taxes were taken from them involuntarily and by threat of force. Many of them, probably most, would have gladly opted out of the system if they could; the realization that you could invest your own money better than the Feds is not new.
As for voting for those corrupt fools who've brought us to this sorry pass, many, maybe most, did not. (I've voted all my life and only once seen my candidate become POTUS)
Those taxpayer's votes have been steadily canceled out and overruled by the products of that Federal baby factory program. The stupid irony is that all that ruinous spending was undertaken on the off chance that some tiny fraction of that liability population could be counted on to board a church bus to a polling place and vote Dem once every four years.
It's coming down to Taxpayers versus Liability People. When the US finally defaults it's not going to be pretty. But it's not about SS...although the Kool-Aid chemists will be distributing that formula to a thirsty population seeking a scapegoat.
Andrew, et al...
Makers, and Takers
Sooner or later, the makers *will* stop the takers. Whether by denying them a voice (originaly, to vote, in the US Constitution, you had to be a land owner. Also male, white, etc, but if we rolled that back to be TAXPAYER we'd be hugely ahead...) or denying them breath (the coming 'zombie apocalypse' that many write of - "Zombie" being a 'code word' for 'member of the useless ravening horde'... )
Ya know, if we just sterilized welfare recipients, the issue would take care of itself fairly quickly...
Oh, DokP -
1) yes, please, I'd love to see your citations - but fear we'd bore / annoy others. Do you have a site I could pop by and check? Faced/Spaced page?
2) Negra and Margs sounded REAL good, until you invited your little friend. Dunno what the rules are where you live, but around here 'legal' limit is .02 - like less than one beer for most folks. And if you're over the limit to carry, it's illegal possession - regardless of if it's a 'good' shoot or not.
So, I'll have fervent hopes that you'll not need to resort to that.
You, or any of the rest of us
Even tho I built an EBR "Zombie Killer" last year.. (hoo-AH that is FUN!)
@Andrew- I tread on dangerous ground when I attempt to speak for John the Econ (gulp), but you mentioned: "John, when you say you don't care about older taxpayer's rights, remember those taxes were taken from them involuntarily and by threat of force."
I don't think it's so much that John doesn't care about their actual "rights" so much as he's acknowledging that the money has all been stolen and spent already. So the only way to honor their "rights" is to steal the money from someone else. That's a pretty poor plan for victim restitution.
@Pete(Detroit)- Considering your description of the "Zombie Apocalypse" and who the zombies really are, it makes it ironic that some dipstick just released a game in which conservatives (in politics and the media) are considered to be the zombies who need a good, bloody killing. Seriously, this game has an armed gunman traveling through the headquarters of Fox News. Want to put a machete in Britt Hume's head? See Michelle Bachmann in just her bra...and kill her for good measure? Honestly, this stuff makes me sick.
Stilt, the thing that's really strange is the people who show up at protests (see Scott Walker, et al) dressed AS Zombies...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/zombie-protesters-interrupt-special-olympics-event-to-protest-wis-gov-walker/
http://www.wisconsinreporter.com/zombie-protesters-lurch-for-voter-student-rights
NOT to be confused w/Zombie of Zombietime - s/he is a reformed liberal protester, once (apparently) very active (and therefore recognizable) in the 'community' in SoCal (SF area, I think?) who has taken to documenting protests, and the utter absurdity thereof. Site goes back for years. Warning - some graphic content, though Rule #1 wrt nudity DEFINITELY applies - mostly, those who ARE nude, you REALLY wish were not. Especially Inflated Scrotum Guy. Just sayin..
http://zombietime.com/
@Stilton, Penn's "magician" analogy is brilliant. After all, isn't "Political Correctness" all about restricting the comments that can be made, and the questions are allowed to be asked?
This week's media panic about Perry's "Ponzi" comments perfectly illustrates the point. Nobody in the establishment is supposed to say things like that, so they all react like it's something shocking and from left field, even though most of them have to know it's true.
And this is why the Tea Party must be discredited, marginalized, and divided. The establishment simply cannot afford to have these questions asked and points made.
And yes, being responsible for your own retirement will ultimately kick you off the system. But I know I don't have to ask you why you still do it. Because you'd much rather be responsible for your own fate than be a slave to the politicians and Federal government as you'd be under Social Security, which even if it were to survive would be providing you at best a standard of living below the poverty line.
My biggest fear is the knowledge that there are people in Washington eyeballing the money we have saved for retirement, who honestly believe that:
A) It's really their money.
B) It's not "fair" that I have that much money saved up for retirement when so many other people do not.
C) They could do far more "good" things with it than I could/would.
D) When they can't borrow anymore at 1.2%, they'll need it to be able to keep spending.
@Andrew, I've never said that I don't care for anyone's "taxpayer rights". (whatever that is - we barely have Constitutional rights anymore) I hate to tell you this, but no where in law does anyone have any "right" to their Social Security. There is no "lock box" or "account" for you. There's just a "formula", and Washington can change the rules (and have) at will.
What I did says is that I can't care about their situation in life any more than I care about mine. (Reading a few decades of AARP propaganda will do that to you) The AARP and liberal position is basically, "There are millions of us; we vote, and we couldn't care less where the money comes from". I don't care any less about them than they care about me. Except they should care about me because once people like me quit, they are totally screwed!
Yes, I know that "many" did not vote for the morons who brought us to this point. But the fact remains that most of them did, and too many of those who did not were not politically active enough to influence and educate the "moderates" who are ultimately the ones who decide elections. Now they're discovering the price for that complacency.
@Stilton and the sick "Zombie" game: Not a surprise. Historically, most of the political violence in the west (real and imagined) comes from the left. That it's the right that is violently dangerous is another one of those "illusions" that we're not supposed to question.
Re: Makers/Takers and Taxpayers/Liability People...
Yes it's insane that warm bodies who contribute nothing and expect/demand loudly that other adults provide their livelihood ( and a NICE livelihood, or else) are allowed to presume to be entitled to vote. Much less qualified to vote on how the adults arrange things.
When (no longer 'if') our Borrow-from-the-Chinese-for-30-years-to-mail-this-month's-Liability-People's-checks house of cards collapses (talk about Ponzi schemes), it won't be because the taxpayers rose up and said no,
it will be because the Chinese strategically decide the Long Game time is right to trigger our collapse and fall. After which, 'recovery' plans will involve work camps, rigid rationing of everything from food to medical care, triage starvation and all the other simple facts of daily life familiar to billions under Mao, Stalin etc. Won't matter much whether it's dictated by our own native Statists or foreign Statists we owe trillions to. With real luck, it won't involve nukes.
It's ugly, and every day that passes on our present course brings it one day closer. Doesn't have to happen, and the Titanic never had to race full speed through an ice field at night. But past performance predicts future outcomes.
The funny thing about the widespread appeal of Zombieland scenarios is, that's so much more attractive an escapist scenario than the actual bleak inescapability of the doom we can all feel coming way down in our ancestral DNA. That DNA remembers going through this many times before.
Stilton, let me know what you think of 'Alas, Babylon'.
@John I always enjoy your posts including the latest, we agree 99% on most issues so this isn't personal. We both agree people should be allowed to provide their own retirement (as all else) freely investing their own money and would have far better results and a far healthier economy if so. What I disagree with in your posts above is the generational us/them concept I hear, which is one of several misdirection Kool-Aids being served up as part of the one-constituency-versus-another dogfall c/o the Libs. That road requires one group to be fed to another, and then another. The Kool-Aid deception is that this is some kind of well deserved comeuppance...until it's your turn to be sacrificed.
And yes, government genuinely believes all our money is theirs, and they have plans for it. Our 401Ks, IRAs etc are sitting ducks, as is everything else we 'own' until the government decides to relieve us of it. Which is why returning retirement planning to private control is pointless so long as we have an all-powerful socialist State that can only grow hungrier and bolder.
Just a side note: it was "Flav-or-ade" (or however they spelled it), not Kool-aid. I read a book by a guy who was at Jonestown in Dec. '78, and he noted the packages all over the place.
@Pete(D) Sorry, don't have a webite handy, and, as you say, I don't want to annoy others with a theological discussion, so in the interests of the separation of Church and blog I will put two references for you in parentheses which everybody else can ignore (Romans 1:26-27 and 1Corinthians 6:9).
On the other matter, golly, are you saying that where you are it's illegal to have even one beer in a public place since that would put nearly everybody over the legal limit? Thank God I live in Texas! =D Now, your basic point is well-made but you'll either trust me to know what I was doing and believe me when I say I was acting responsibly, or you won't. I reckon we'll both continue to do just fine either way.
'Ware the Zombies!
@Andrew, I didn't engineer the "Us versus Them" situation. In fact, I've spent my entire adult life trying to warn people about it. Now that it's almost here, there isn't much anyone can do about it. All I see is the "them" now targeting my wealth and well-being only for the sake of sustaining their wealth and well-being, which they long ago allowed to be squandered as they whistled away.
It's my hope that the generation behind me will learn this lesson before it's too late for me, and for them.
Thx, Dok, I'll check 'em.
And to be clear, that's the legal limit to carry, driving is still .08, same as everywhere else. And yeah, back in my Aggie days, when it was still legal to drink *while* driving in TX (so long as you were not over the limit - which has always made sense to me.. if I can have one / two in the car, as opposed to stopping for a pitcher...)I fondly recall when a 'photomat' kiosk was turned into a drive up 'daiquiri hut' - two flavors, two sizes, and made $$ hand over fist, iirc..
Gawd, it was good to be a Texan.
Post a Comment