Here at Hope n' Change, we've struggled mightily to come up with an eloquent, accurate, and analytically incisive description of yesterday's "debt reduction" speech by Barack Obama. And in essence, the president's plan is this: "Communism and lots of KY Jelly."
In a style that alternated between folksiness and professorial disdain, the alleged budget cutter said "most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys." And he's right; most people like the perks and pork the government doles out to buy their votes. So what's the problem? "Trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts...tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country."
Of course, the tax cuts also went to every other taxpayer in the country...but admitting it wouldn't really work with his overall theme of inciting hatred and class warfare. Nor would the fact that Barack "spread the wealth" Obama routinely describes people earning $200,000 as "billionaires."
And let's pause to consider the nonsensical phrase "unpaid-for tax cuts." That presumes that politicians are powerless to spend less money (including money they don't have)...and any unpaid bills just mean someone out there just wasn't being taxed enough.
But just what, exactly, will happen if Mr. Obama allows these greedy, miserable, capitalist bastards to hang on to their filthy stolen loot? The alleged president explains, "50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care."
That's right: the Evil Rich are basically amassing their fortunes by killing people's grandparents and screwing over withered children in wheelchairs. Which is why it's not just okay to hate the Evil Rich, it's practically a patriotic duty.
And that's why the nation's wealthy will be getting off easy if they're only stuck with higher taxes instead of the scalding tar and feathers which they so richly deserve.
It must be true, or the Communist-in-Chief couldn't say so.
-
Fun Fact: The Evil Rich have solid gold jacuzzis filled with orphan's tears!
-
I didn't get to see the speech as I was at work. But I don't need to see it to know that it was a pure "re-elect me" speech. And thank you Stilt for calling him what he is, The Communist in Chief.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it - it's not MY fault that the grandparents can't afford a nursing home, nor the kids w/ Autism or Downs that need 24 hour care - why the hell am I being taxed to pay for them? Now, if you want to set up a charity, and play on my heart strings to get a donation, that's different. But holding a gun to my head to force me to pay for this, wtf?
ReplyDeleteAnd can we PLEASE stop w/ the "unpaid tax cuts" meme? Tax cuts (done properly) ALWAYS generate revenue, eventually. Revenue *doubled* during Reagan's term - problem is, spending went up x 2.25... In 2000, Clinton's last year, revenue was $2T. in 2004, after Bush's cuts (and 9/11, etc) it was $2.4T.
We do NOT have a taxation / revenue issue, we have a spending issue.
Period.
And if the Bozos in DC don't 'get' that, and fix it, well, there's always new Bozos..
It cracks me up that some of the most "evil rich" are politicians. Obama and his cronies would like for us to hate rich people....but he is a "rich people" himself, as well as most Washington politicians!!!! He goes on vacations the rest of us cannot afford, he eats places the rest of us cannot afford, his girls to go a school the rest of us cannot afford....so I wish he'd just shut up about the "rich" unless he plans on becoming one of "us" anytime soon. I'm not jealous of the "rich" because most of them have earned their money with a lot of hard work and brains...but I get tired of the hypocrisy from our government leaders...as if they are somehow NOT rich...huh? And the idiocy of the people to believe that these politicians are not rich, and are on their side? Duh. RIGHT.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the source, but I've always liked this:
ReplyDeleteSuppose that every day, ten men go out for a drink and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily drinks by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men --- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start "drinking" overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
*** For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. ***
Stilt, every morning I look forward to reading your latest post. I sit down with my coffee and eagerly go to this site to see what recent happening has caught your attention and was deemed worthy of your wit. More and more I find myself laughing out loud.... Then quietly crying for the depths that our leaders, and our country have fallen to. But, at least I have those few moments of happiness. Thank You.
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't think communists use KY. I think they use a wire brush.
ReplyDelete@JimH. OUCH!!!!
ReplyDeleteDo note that Obama's speech was scheduled not during prime-time, but while most "working Americans" were working, and not-working Americans were not. Translation: If you were a productive citizen, this speech was not for you. This was for the "looters".
ReplyDeleteAlso keep in mind that for the most part, the taxes that Obama has in mind don't hurt the truly "rich" (people who have already amassed wealth and don't really need to work) but people who aspire to be wealthy, and are actively working to be there. The ugly reality is that progressive taxation mostly keeps the "elite" elite and exclusive by denying admission to nearly all but lottery winners. The Kennedys get to keep being the Kennedys, but it's going to be harder for you to be one. Ironic, eh?
But the looters will be paying too. Cheap dollars and the printing of money means inflation, which hurts "poor" asset-less people far more than it hurts "the rich". So the poor ignorant boobs who buy into the President's class warfare rhetoric are going to get raped just as brutally as the productive citizens they think will be exclusively getting raped.
Jim H. >>>>
ReplyDeleteThe way I hear it, the Obummers of this world like to tell you how much they are for "helping and protecting us all", by using a condom.
They just conveniently forget to tell us they are using one made of Sandpaper!
So the sheeple line up and say to themselves, "Yea, I might get screwed a little, but it is safe and ultimately a small price to pay for fun, security, and happiness".
BUT, sooner or later ... they feel the sandpaper!
A LOT are feeling the snadpaper now ...
@Robert- I debated about the "Communist in Chief" line but used it because I believe it to be accurate and far more honest than anything Obama said.
ReplyDelete@Pete(Detroit)- Sure, those old people and crippled children and illegal aliens and welfare queens aren't your fault, but Obama declared that they're your responsibility because "Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security."
Translated, that "connection" means you can't shirk responsibility for people who are totally unrelated to you or your life choices, and "basic measure of security" means that everyone is entitled to a home, medical care, food, air conditioning, a color TV with cable, high speed Internet, and some "walking around" money provided by taxpayers. In other words, gross redistribution of wealth.
@Suzy- Obama cleverly uses his personal status as a rich guy as a straw man, to say "I don't need a big tax break." And it's true, he doesn't - because (unlike other "wealthy" people) the taxpayers pay all of his bills, he's got a guaranteed income for life whether he works or not, and he's got a history of taking bribes from political sharks like Tony Rezko.
@Chuck- I love the whole beer-drinking analogy. It's perfect...but unfortunately so is your comment that those who most need to understand this never will. In one of my earliest Hope n' Change Cartoons, I made the point that complaining that tax cuts only go to "the rich" is like complaining that chemotherapy only goes to people with cancer.
@Anonymous (three above)- I'm glad you're here every day, even if the laughing/crying dichotomy is part of the package (as it is for me). It's my personal belief that laughter of any kind helps inoculate against hopelessness. And that's never been more important for the people who truly care about our country's future.
@Jim Hlavac- Not only do the commies use a wire brush, they only get a new one every five years.
Of course, we only get a new one every four years.
@John the Econ- Good analysis. I feel like Captain Obama of the Titanic is promising the enthusiastic rabble below decks that he plans to teach a lesson to all of the rich snobs in the staterooms. But he skips the part about doing it by ramming an iceberg.
@Doc - N. Nevada- Let's see, today we've had the Deliverance "squeal like a pig" analogy, KY Jelly, wire brushes, and sandpaper condoms. The Wall Street Journal is an intellectual lighthouse (and has a tremendous opinion piece about Obama's speech), but Hope n' Change doesn't take a backseat to anybody when it comes to descriptive language!
I particularly liked "solid gold jacuzzis filled with orphan's tears!" The evil rich sure know how to live large.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, Stilt, but you can tweet the descriptive language to many twits, and they'll begin to understand (we hope.) While all the erudition of the WSJ is lost to the masses who can barely read due to the school system which has dumbed them down to piglet brains.
ReplyDeleteUmmmm...
ReplyDeleteAren't the Obamas millionaires? Doesn't that make THEM the evil rich?
Stilt, don't feel bad about the Communist in Chief label. Prior to '08 the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) had a candidate on the presidential ballot for the last 4 elections (or so). In '08 they didn't run anybody. They endorsed king hussein! Both of their platforms were virtually identical!
ReplyDeleteWe the taxpayers need to start asking, "Who is John Galt?" That is to say, we the taxpayers need to stop working and thereby paying taxes. Let's see what happens when the Communist-in-Chief doesn't have any more Other People's Money to spend. Will Barack Hussein realize that maybe taxPAYERS are more important than the taxPARASITES of the entitlement class? Don't hold your breath...
ReplyDeleteAtlas has already started shrugging...
ReplyDeleteMany have already fled our pitiful economy for greener pastures, and if Barry and Harry get their way, there will be nobody left to pay for their bullshit socialism.
Things are gonna get nasty now, and I got a disturbing email which I hope does not come true...I will share just this...Why Obama cannot lose in 2012...
ReplyDeleteObama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:
1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us,
2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that,
3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope,
4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coattails will carry them to victory nationwide,
5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party,
6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics,
7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda,
8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist,
9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly,
10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012. -- Dr. Walter Williams
I should mention Dr Williams is black, and a conservative economist.
Pryorguy. Those are very plausible statistics and Walter Williams is not dumb. With Obama already starting a war of words, this is going to get very ugly. I take slight optimism in the fact that he has started demagoguing so early. A lot can happen between now and November 2012. Maybe he'll get his base riled a little too early, but at the same time, his words are sure riling up this tea party fan. And I'll never forget or forgive his lies.
ReplyDelete@Ben Dover- Speaking of Atlas Shrugging, I'll be seeing that film on Friday (it's appearing near me, fortunately). I have no idea if the film itself will be good or not...I just want to cast a vote at the ballot box that America is waking up.
ReplyDelete@Pryorguy- All of those things sound frighteningly believable, but I refuse to give up hope. After Obama's election, pundits were saying that conservatism was dead. Two years later, the Tea Party was a raging and powerful political force that dramatically affected elections. Keep the faith!
@Earl- Looks like we were posting at the same time...and are on the same page.
Here in the small town where I live, we have a signigicant amount of people on welfare, receiving food stamps and all kinds of stuff...they are very shrewd and have learned to work the system to their benefit...Obama reminds me of these people; he has learned to work the system to his benefit, and just like these folks here on the dole (who almost all drive a newer car than I do!), he's getting ahead at the mercy of other people. just an observation.
ReplyDeleteThe media knows exactly what he is and what he intends. They dare not speak the truth because so many will ask "where were you in 2008". Besides, they share his "vision" for what America will devolve into under his jack boot.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't look to Boehner for leadership. He's proven himself a most worthless coward and feckless bumbler.
Actually @pryorguy, all blacks may not vote for Obama. For one thing, unemployment hurts them just as much as it does everyone else. Also, the reason that Obama has spent millions keeping his birth certificate under wraps isn't because it says he's not a citizen, but because it says that he's white!
ReplyDeleteJohn, he *is* white.
ReplyDeletePrecisely ONE (Great?) grandparent was "African" - the rest of his father's ancestors were arabic / persian... His mom, of course, was all white. He grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, went to private schools, and Harvard - how 'black' is any of that?
But no, try to point out that in NO meaningful way, OTHER than the color of his skin, is he 'remotely' "black" and I get called a racist...
@John the Econ- I'd bet good money that "Caucasian" is the word Obama is hiding on his birth certificate.
ReplyDelete@Pete(Detroit)- You're quite right, Barack HUSSEIN Obama is far more Arab than African. I believe the word "Octaroon" was once used to describe such a family pedigree, but the term was finally dropped because an educated and enlightened citizenry kept confusing it with a coconut cookie.
Which educated and enlightened citizenry could confuse Barack Hussein with something useful like a coconut cookie?
ReplyDeleteSilly me, Stilt, I thought you said "Coconut Wookie" and nearly spewed!
ReplyDeleteFortunately, I spellchecked (how come that word fails?) my eyes, and saved my lovely LCD the insult of being crumbed w/ chips...
What a macaroon! (I almost was)