Then-- On October 15th, candidate Obama said:
[T]here is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments.
Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.
Now-- As summarized by
Gerald Warner in the February 15th Scotland on Sunday:
There is no terminology available to express adequately the appalling irresponsibility of this naked political banditry. To have squandered a fraction of the near-$1 trillion cost of Obama's pork barrel in days of prosperity would have been more than reprehensible; to do so at a time of financial crisis is unforgivable. Obama likes to pose as the heir of Abraham Lincoln: as this shameless bribery demonstrates, he is heir only to the Chicago Democrat political machine that spawned him.
(via
John Lott,
Don Surber, who says, "The gilded age greed is nothing compared to the political avarice of this raid.")
4 comments:
But he says encouraging things to people as he's taking their money, which the robber barons never did.
If only the 19th century capitalists had press agents!
> If only the 19th century capitalists had press agents!
They did. How do you think they passed off the scam that is Income Tax, which was sold on a "soak the rich" scheme in spite of laws already passed which produced tax-free "foundations" enabling them to continue controlling their vast wealth while not being touched by the "income tax":
Rockefeller Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Ford Foundation
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
J. Paul Getty Trust
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Lilly Endowment
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Notice anything about that list of names? All either "Rich Bastards" or the descendents of "Rich Bastards" (I use that term whimsically, not with ire)
Virtually all are members of the 25 largest "Foundations" in the world. When you have billions of dollars, you create a Foundation to shelter it from taxes.
> There is no terminology available to express adequately
Well, true, but
@#$%#$%#^$%&^$&$#%^#^%#$^#$%$%$%&$ %^*&%^*%*%&$%^#$^#$^$^$&%^*%*%*(^ &^%*$^$#%^$%&%$^*%*^*&#$$#$%%^*( %%$^#^#*%(%&^#$*&%*%^*%*$&##$$&&(^^$#$@#@#$%$^ *(*^%(%&#%^##$^
comes at least moderately close.
Post a Comment