Every time I hear Obama talk about how the federal government has to “invest” in education, research, etc., and “spend” on the “social safety net” I wonder… Does he think we’re all a bunch of bloodless selfish pr*cks like him? That we wouldn’t organize locally to take care of our own? Why can’t the state / counties / towns take care of things? Why do the Feds have to do everything?
America is great because is America is good. Obama seems to not believe that. Listen to him and ask yourself: Why do you (the Feds) have to do it? I’m here. We’re here. We’ll do it. Just let us keep our damned money. If you’re really feeling generous, incentivize us by giving us a tax deduction. You want efficient use of American dollars to help people? Match charitable giving. Every kid who can handle one will get a college education. Every down & out person will get their “fair shot” locally…
We don’t want your crappy government handouts to be the first stop, we want it to be the last stop you moron! Don’t you know that?
h/t to American Thinker cartoons which are here.
If Obama is so concerned about wealth distribution, why doesn’t he fight for a 200% tax deduction for all charitable giving?
It’s so frickin’ obvious & sensible it’s inexplicable – unless you are the Sociopathic-Narcissist-in-Chief who want to control everything.
Look, does Obama have the first damned clue what the real needs are in your town? Of course not. People in Washington D.C. don’t step over the homeless or drive by the food pantry, or see the long line outside the Unemployment office in your town – you do.
America is great because America is good. The American people are the most generous people ever assembled under one flag in the history of human-kind, and are usually the first to offer that help. Remember the 9/11 families? The millions and millions of dollars raised to help those widows & widowers & their children? That’s not a check for some tsunami in a far-off land. That’s home. and just one, emblematic example.
The only way Obama’s ideas make sense is if you are operating on the assumption that the American people – those with means, anyway (‘fat cats’) – are not good. WIll not give. And are too witless to know where to give without Big Government telling them – cuz Big Government has such a long, sterling reputation for being efficient with the people’s money…
Uh – huh.
Charity is that which is freely given. Taxation is charity at gunpoint: ‘Do it or we will jail you.’ The local women’s shelter does not have that power. The charity in your town will not - cannot – deprive you of your liberty if you do not give to them, but Big Government can.
WRONG, my little commie friend.
Business exists to make a PROFIT. Without PROFIT, they don’t SURVIVE. NOBODY will INVEST in an enterprise whose stated aim is to tuck its employees in at night. That’s an ENTIRELY different PARADIGM. If you want a social service, then get/make/endorse a social service through LOCAL, STATE, CIVIC, or FAITH-BASED institutions, but NOT through some big-ass federal government program or on the backs of the nation’s PRODUCERS.
Liberals have this relentless and annoying impulse towards assigning church-type goals to capitalist enterprises. Grow up dammit.
It takes only 5 or 6 swings of the ax to knock down this morning’s New York Times OpEd by Jill Lepore, a Harvard historian whose scholarship I have more regard for than her politics. I actually watched her give a lecture on CSPAN over the winter; learned from it, and enjoyed her manner very much. Then she lost me with the slobbering mess below. The liberal drivel in “Poor Jane’s Alamanc” is so easily wiped up, I debated whether or not to spend a minute with it never mind an hour, but here it is. In short, Mizzzz Lepore laments Ben Franklin’s cherished sister’s life as a pitious example of what will happen to you if those evil-doers, the Republicans, get their way with the Ryan budget.
April 23, 2011 • Poor Jane’s Almanac • By JILL LEPORE • Cambridge, Mass.
THE House Budget Committee chairman, Paul D. Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, announced his party’s new economic plan this month. It’s called “The Path to Prosperity,” a nod to an essay Benjamin Franklin once wrote, called “The Way to Wealth.” Franklin, who’s on the $100 bill, was the youngest of 10 sons. Nowhere on any legal tender is his sister Jane, the youngest of seven daughters; she never traveled the way to wealth. He was born in 1706, she in 1712. Their father was a Boston candle-maker, scraping by. Massachusetts’ Poor Law required teaching boys to write; the mandate for girls ended at reading. Benny went to school for just two years; Jenny never went at all.
AF: Mizz Lepore, ‘Tis true. Women were not burning bras in the 18th, or even 19th century. Colonial America was inhospitable to women’s freedom, yes, but if applying contemporary standards to society in centuries past is the underlying structure of your thesis to follow, what’s next? A blistering essay on how evil Lincoln was for not inviting openly gay soldiers to fight in the Civil War? C’mon.
Their lives tell an 18th-century tale of two Americas. Against poverty and ignorance, Franklin prevailed; his sister did not. At 17, he ran away from home. At 15, she married: she was probably pregnant, as were, at the time, a third of all brides.
Continue Reading »