The answer to our young equestrian's question is, of course, that a horse's digestive system is long, complicated, and not designed to create applesauce. Similarly, the governmental system is long, complicated, and not designed to create jobs. In fact, the government system produces exactly the same thing that a horse does...but in greater quantity and at far higher cost.
But that hasn't stopped Barack Obama from saying that his "American Jobs Act" will cause the government to magically start excreting jobs ("topped with cinnamon!") if he's just given another half-trillion dollars to feed into the beast.
And where is that half-trillion dollars going to come from? If you said those "evil millionaires and billionaires" who earn $200,000 a year running businesses, you'd be partially right. But surprisingly, with the nation's poverty rate at new, shocking highs, you could just as accurately say that Obama wants to take that money from the poorest people in America. But how?
Simple. Despite claiming in his alleged jobs speech that his plan would be entirely funded through spending cuts, almost 90% of the president's plan would be funded by eliminating deductions for charitable giving. Which means the poor won't get the efficiently (and privately) administered money, benefits, and services they desperately need...and Obama will use their money to buy votes, "creating" short term jobs at an average cost of over $250,000 each after the money has worked its way through the system.
And if that's not horseshit, we don't know what is.
-
35 comments:
@SJ -- I disagree that those jobs will cost $250K each. At least, that won't be the final cost of those jobs. It may be the initial outlay -- but by the time the government is done, I optimistically hold that the price will be closer to $2.5M each ... not counting the job holder's compensation package.
Still, optimist that I remain, I'm with the kid in the room full of you-know-what, throwing it around gleefully, fully convinced that "There's a pony in here someplace!"
Hell, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around "controlling spending in the tax code". Now I have to discern the true meaning of "fully paid-for" too? Is there an Obama-to-English dictionary I can buy?
The whole exercise is a waste of time, really. Turdboy doesn't expect the "bill" to pass. It's nothing but a cudgel with which to beat the Republicans he knows will oppose it. Another desperate attempt to say "see, I'm the reasonable one but those bad, bad Republicans are stopping me from saving you". Contemptible and pitiable is not an attractive combination in anyone, especially a president.
So begins Obama's 2012 campaign, and you're all invited to play or pay!
Of course, his big "jobs" speech was really a campaign speech. Everyone in Washington knows there's no way in Hades that a GOP-controlled congress with the Tea Party at its heels is going to sign off on another half-trillion pork boondoggle. So pretty much everything he's spewing now is between fantasy and an attempt to shore up a new, less-hopey-changey base.
At the core of that base will be government and union workers. He's tossing the "financing" portion of his plan to the "supercommittee", with the full expectation that they will come back with cuts to America's lesser-unionized sectors, such as defense.
Of course, that this plan as presented could even be called "Keynesian" is itself a fraud. The whole point of Keynesian stimulus is gross spending and the theoretical job & tax revenue "multipliers". If this "plan" is to be paid for by cuts elsewhere, then just what is the point? Can anyone seriously argue that community organizer jobs or unemployment benefits have a better "multiplier" than defense sector jobs do?
(The President has asked that I contact my representative regarding his plan, which I plan to. Since my representative has Pelosi's hand so far up his $#@ that he sees her fingerprints through his eyeballs, you can imagine what my suggestions will be)
As for his attack on charity, I am not surprised. Democrats have been floating this trial balloon for decades. After all, Democrats don't understand charities beyond their PR value. Just a casual look at the giving of high-profile Democrats (before they become high-profile) gives you a clue as to how they really view charity. They view charity in America as either activities that the government should be doing, or things that shouldn't be happening at all.
It's also interesting to note that since "red" states tend to give more to charity than "blue" states, that such a policy shift would punish the more generous, but less correct states.
IMHO, most people do not give to charities because they get a tax deduction; they do so because they believe in the causes that they are giving to. Most legitimate charities will likely suffer, but not fatally.
The big looser will the the sham charities; the kind that high-profile celebrity donors give to in order to throw lavish parties for themselves lauding their charitable wonderfulness at "giving back", which net a small percentage to the said charity once expenses for the party are paid off. That will not be a big loss to society.
I'd like to thank all the people who said fine things about yesterday's post. Made me feel better.
And I'd like to thank the moron in the White House for having given me the opportunity for us to meet each other here.
And when such strange and disparate bedfellows such as us all meet to organize our American community, regardless of how different we all may seem, I dare say the man behind the curtains days are numbered.
OK, then, I'm off to a "Sissies for Sarah" meeting; for we pay taxes too, we are not one issue voters, and more and more of us are asking "what on earth is that man doing?" Enjoy your day. :)
You are a comedic genius!
The final panel should show Obama digging through a pile of horse poop saying "I know there's a job in here somewhere!"
The Demons have been after the charitable donation deduction for decades, as pointed out above. Currently, they have managed a requirement for explicit acknowledgement from the recipient charities which has both increased the operational expenses of the charities as well as incur a "chilling effect" on casual donors. You see: it is, in THEIR view, the role of the Government to extract from each of you to give to the "less fortunate"; not an individual initiative. Unfortunately, using the Government yardstick, "less fortunate" translates all to often to "less motivated" and "less productive" (read: "societal leeches")...
There was a bit of good news, though. I think that "Hope and Change" may have been finally defined, and it shows 0bama is not the communist we all believed him to be. He's a conservative plant, only pretending to be the most socialistic, left-leaning, inept president in history to enliven the conservative camp and restore the Constitution and rule of law to the US! He Hopes to Change all Democratic districts to Republican! And he's being relatively successful with it! In point: last night, Weiner's district elected someone with an "R" next to their name for the first time since 1922. Way to go, apparatchik Barry! Oops! Shhhh - shhhh! Don't blow his cover!
And please remember: Democrat and Demolition don't share the first two syllables out of sheer coincidence.
@John: loved the sock puppet analogy, as evidenced by all the coffee sprayed on my monitor! I'll have to remember that one for later use...
Need to Kill the Prez's bill on sight, and pass out one w/ permanent tax cuts for all business, then see what happens.
Bwahahhaha!
(Contact my representative - right.... John Conyers barely knows if it's day or night, much less listens to me...)
This cartoon gives new meaning to "shovel-ready" jobs.
Apples in, road apples out! Obama's work is complete!
@Jazz- The old adage for optimists was that "there must be a pony in here someplace." But now we're told otherwise... there must be a unicorn!
@Angry Hoosier Dad- Like you, it makes me crazy to hear that raising taxes is considered a "spending cut" because the government isn't "spending money" by allowing people to keep it. It's semantics like that which make me think that the best way to explain economics to the Left is with a baseball bat.
But as you say, Obama doesn't really intend for his "bill" to pass, nor does he want it to. He wants Republicans to shoot it down, which is why it includes cynical perks for veterans, the demonstrably unemployed, and schools...as well as free circus tickets for blind orphans.
@John the Econ- You're right that many of the people who donate to charities will still do so out of the goodness of their hearts. Which, of course, is puzzling to the Left since any conservative with $200,000 to their name is by definition an evil billionaire.
@Jim Hlavac- Just as "a rising tide floats all boats," a lot of different demographic groups find themselves being flushed down the same toilet by this administration. Personally, I'd love to see the Left shocked by losing some of the core constituencies they think they can take for granted. And a good example is what happened in New York yesterday, when the Jews decided they'd had enough of Obama's anti-Israel stand. They helped create a Republican victory in an area with 3 times as many registered Democrats as Republicans. Sweet.
@Anonymous (five above)- I can't imagine Obama digging through anything that looked like poop, or doing manual labor of any kind. After all, that's what peasants are for.
@Emmentaler- Interesting theory. When the Bamster was elected, pundits were saying that conservatism was dead. A short time later, the most dynamic conservative political movement we've seen in generations came roaring to life. I suppose we may eventually have to thank Obama for that. Or not.
On a side note, you might want to go easy on the HTML code for "bold" in your comments. Between plain text, bold, and italics it gets a bit difficult to read (which I discovered a long time ago myself, and is why I restrict myself to just italics for emphasis).
@Pete(Detroit)- Obama's bill is going nowhere. Sadly, any genuine and sincere effort to empower businesses to create jobs will also go nowhere until we clean house in 2012.
@Earl- Good point. It also suggests the actual meaning behind Timothy Geithner's claims that his policies will create a "stable economy"...
@Proof- "Road apples" are soooo last century. Obama wants "High-speed Rail apples!"
I'm expressing my feelings: I love this! Such horse sense!
www.kissingtheleper.com
First off, this country's definition of poor is called wealthy in much of the world. TV's, air conditioning, cars and an X-Boxes are pretty standard items, but how did the "poor" get them? Probably from the government through tax credits, entitlements, subsidies, etc. The liberals call someone poor, raise their standard of living artificially with other people's money, still call them poor and have voters for life. Just continually lower the bar to ensure the poor never become middle class, which does a disservice to the people that actually need help.
Secondly, eliminating charitable deductions almost guarantees the government will take over most of what private charities do now. Fewer wealthy and middle class folks will donate money, time and goods (I know I won't be carting old electronics, toys and books to the charity drop off as often, I'll sell them on Craigslist). More people will do without and the government will swoop in and rescue them with other people's money, thereby insuring even more people vote democrat.
As for the "jobs" bill, its an obvious retread of old ideas designed to not be passed so Obama can blame Republicans and call them all manner of derogatory terms next fall. If it does happen to pass it will allow Obama to funnel even more money to his buddies in the public sector and construction unions. Hopefully, this campaign literature is transparent enough that even the disengaged voters can figure out is a POS.
@Stilton: Ah, but it's so much fun :o)
Looking back at it, though: point taken.
Here's an interesting chart demonstrating how well you can do being "poor" in America:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255012/why-work-veronique-de-rugy?page=1
Basically, someone making $15k does better than someone making $60k, when you factor in the value of all of the benefits the "poor" get from the government that the family making $60k has to pay for. With "billionaire" now starting at $200k, it's only a mater of time until inflation sees to it that most of us are making close to that, and making more than that will become pointless to impossible.
This is what the Progressives have been fighting for for the last 80 years; everyone with the same standard of living regardless of how much they actually make.
Funny one as usual, Stilton!
Yep, BO and his cronies know damn well this bill is gonna fly like a lead balloon, and they are busy polishing up their pointing fingers, but wait! Something tells me this is going to backfire. I just have a sneaking hunch the House is going to write their own jobs bill and plop it on Barry's desk (amongst the caca de caballo) and place the shoe firmly on the other foot. I think the election in NY yesterday is proof that people are finally waking up. If president Urkel gets the Jewish community after his butt, horse poop will smell nice by comparison.
@Colby. Just heard on Rush that a Republican Texas Rep. just filed a jobs bill using the same name as Obama's still unfiled bill. Wonder if it includes green jobs for dingle berry pickers. Not.
Earl,
Ooooo! Dingle-berry pickers! This is probably more a brown job, not green; but you can bet it would pay big bucks if it falls under BO's plan.
I think it is funnier than crap that this guy from Texas used the same name for his bill. Damn!
After the House votes BO's jobs bill down.....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qI3s3Re9mP0/R4T73y0beoI/AAAAAAAAA5c/cAMlONkl6-g/s400/clinton_invasion.jpg
Was talking with a coworker earlier this afternoon about all this...my feeling is, as I told him, the president is really stupid, thinking that after 3 years or so since he has been in the picture, that thinking folks would not start seeing through his crap! I mean,,,the guy is really duummmmbbbb, and only hard core unionists, caring only about their paycheck, and others who EXIST off the government, and actual MORONS will still vote for this loser! Got nothing against folks in a union, been there myself.
My son works in ER dept. here, and he met a man who came in one night...said he moved here from California because he heard Okla's welfare was much more lucrative than California's. It's an underground culture thats sucking this country dry! Just an example of SOME of the things wrong with many govt systems in place!
@pryorguy, the Democrats will always own those people, and will always pander to them. And it's compromising "squishy" Republicans who have allowed their numbers to slowly grow over the last 40 years at the expense of the producers they've pretended to represent. And if true Progressives are anything, they are patient. And now after all these years, they are close to achieving their next-to-ultimate goal; a permanent voting majority of looters.
@Readers- Excellent comments above, but I don't have time to add to the discussion right now (just a busy work day). Wanted to say that I'm reading and enjoying the remarks, though!
@Earl- Speaking of dingleberries, you reminded me of a rough site I built some time ago and haven't been able to touch for years (in other words, it's very unfinished). But YOU readers are invited to exclusively visit Dingleberry Farms. They're big and plump and "Grown Where The Sun Don't Shine!"
As to Pres Obama's Robin Hood-like view of wealth redistribution...let us see what Ben Franklin had to say about all this...when he refers to 'farmers', it is the equivalent of a 'corporate fat cat' today...
Ben Franklin's essay, "On the Price of Corn and the Management of the Poor"...
Are we Farmers the only people to be grudged the profits of honest labour? And why? One of the late scribblers against us gives a bill of fare of the provisions at my daughter's wedding, and proclaims to all the world that we had the insolence to eat beef and pudding! Has he never read that precept in the good book, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; or does he think us less worthy of good living than our oxen?
The Farmers live splendidly, you say. And pray, would you have them hoard the money they get? Their fine cloaths and furniture, do they make them themselves, or for one another, and so keep the money among them? Or do they employ these your darling Manufacturers, and so scatter it again all over the nation?
Having yourselves thus lessened our encouragement for raising sheep, you curse us for the scarcity of mutton!
You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. Possibly. But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn?
But, it seems, we Farmers must take much less so the poor may have it so much cheaper. This operates, then, as a tax for the maintenance of the poor.
Yeh, this from one of the men who founded the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH!!!
re: Dingleberry Farms...holy dingleberries!!! Hilarious! Thanks!
Dingleberry Farms - I may have to get me one of them mugs!
Too funny, Stilton. Unlike today's comic which is too true to be "funny" (but it is great, too!).
@pryorguy - Obama does not see himself the way we do. He sees obama, the god. He has surrounded himself with people who either worship him the same way he worships himself, or at least pretend to. He does not see the latest election in NY as a negative for him: the Whitehouse has said that the democrat lost because he was distancing himself from obama!
And I hope they go right on deluding themselves!
Me, too, buddy, me, too!!
Really enjoying the blog and comments today Friends and the Dingleberry Farms site, but very tired after work so I will only say that I would report you all to Attack Watch if I weren't so pooped. Talk about a joke! If you're on Twitter, search on michellemalkin for some hilarious comments on same. President Zero really IS seriously dummmmmbbbbb. Hold fast.
If Ben Franklin could say this
"Having yourselves thus lessened our encouragement for raising sheep, you curse us for the scarcity of mutton!"
200+ years ago, WHY CAN'T THE DEMO_RATS UNDERSTAND IT YET?? What will it take for them to "get it"??
But if we loved Obama we'd help him get this bill passed. He said so. What does that sound like to you?
DingleBerry Farms: You're a sick, sick man, Cousin. Of course, that is exactly what I respect about you...
@John the Econ- VERY interesting piece you cited about the real economic comparison between a person "in poverty" versus "middle class." For readers who didn't follow the link, here's the punchline: A one parent family of three earning $14,500 a year will get $37,777 in combined earnings and benefits. A family earning $60,000 will (after taxes and identical expenses) get $34,366 in earnings and benefits. Shocking, especially when we remember the simple dictum that the government taxes what they want less of (work), and rewards what they want more of (poverty).
@Pryorguy- Wise words from Benjamin Franklin. Who, in the words of Firesign Theater, was the "only US President to have never been President."
@Chuck- Glad you enjoyed the Dingleberry Farms stuff. I actually had a pretty elaborate plan for a much broader approach and larger website, but my plans got sidetracked when Barack Obama got elected and I suddenly found my time being used up by (ta-da!) Hope n' Change Cartoons. Although when you think about it, I guess I'm still focusing on a dingleberry.
@Doktor Paulie- Ah, yes...ATTACK WATCH! The latest bit of insanity and unvarnished evil from the Obama camp. I'd turn myself in, but I'm pretty sure that my name is already on the list from when I entered it on "Flag@Whitehouse.gov" during their last snitch & destroy campaign. The rat bastards.
@JustaJeepGuy- They aren't ever going to "get it," which is why we need to figure out how to move the country ahead without them.
@My Dog Brewski- To me, it sounds like a whiny high school boy trying to get laid.
@Emmentaler- I've got to admit that revisiting Dingleberry Farms has made me wish I had time at present to return to it. I'm not sure that picking politics instead of picking dingleberries is really a step up...
Stilton. Is that Johnny Optimism on a last visit to Dingleberry Farms? Luckily, he apparently didn't die.
@Earl- That wasn't Johnny, but it's obviously someone he knows.
@AHD — The closest thing to an Obama-to-English dictionary is the Newspeak Dictionary at newspeakdictionary.com. Of course The Big Zero reserves the right to change and/or add meanings at the drop of a teleprompter.
@J-the-E — re: Charity Deductions. You are, of course, spot on. Who was the president who got the IRS code changed so that charitable deductions could no longer be taken as a 1040 line deduction (for those who didn’t make enough to itemize)? ...not that it really matters who that was. I remember Jimmy Carter was the one who was going to balance the budget by taxing waitresses’ tips!
@Stilton — Right. A unicorn! That gives a whole new level of meaning to BOHICA!!! (for the uninitiated: Bend Over, Here It Comes Again)
@flyfish — According to “Administrative Law” judges, the poor do have a right to all those electronic toys, plus the cable/satellite system that makes them worthwhile. I can’t afford them (and do just fine without them, thank you). But, not being on any “entitlements” other than my military pension, for me they are an option rather than a “right”! Thank God!!! "Rights" that are just wrong sometimes are turned into requirements by the Left ... and that’s just not right.
@pryorguy — In my former life (when I lived in California), I worked with the “Welfare Population” in a program to help them get off the dole. One of them asked for bus tickets to relocate to — you guessed it — Oklahoma, so she could get “better” entitlements. That was about the time when, when asked about my job, I started responding that I worked as a piano player in a whorehouse.
@Stilton-2 — Dingleberry Farms. Being a “Mick” myself, I’m proud — proud, I say — that a co-ethnic was the founder of that enterprise!
@all — I’ve enjoyed the repartee, today ... even if this has been my first chance to get back to the site since my original entry.
@Jazz- Regarding being a "Mick," my grandfather was a piano-playing Country Cork man with flaming red hair and a way with the ladies. Mind you, he never became my legal grandfather, but the fact that I'm here proves he did have a way with the ladies...including my Grandmother.
Now that's funny lolol
LINKED:
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post_6938.html
Post a Comment