How funny that The Prez refers to his unlimited power of destruction to make a joke about the Jonas Brothers. Nothing like predator drones to eliminate some unwanted elements.
I guess it’s already been a while since Obama ordered his first murder. We can joke about that too, I bet.
Presidential Joke: Murder The Jonas Brothers Read Post »
With the U.S. displaying characteristically Third World national stats, and average households deep in financial trouble (see below),
…
The graphic display of U.S. financial health Read Post »
With the news breaking today that “Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option,” many of my fellow libertarians are going to pat themselves on the back while (cynically) claiming that the President has broken yet another campaign promise and is, therefore, a liar. They’re wrong, of course. Politicians don’t lie. They speak precisely. Libertarians need to pay closer attention to what politicians actually say instead of misinterpreting what was said. Remember too that all language is metaphorical and definitions can vary for any word. Here’s master-linguist William Jefferson Clinton explaining it much more concisely than I:
Eat your heart out, Derrida.
Libertarians will tell you that Obama made a firm pledge not to raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000 per year. This is false. Here is the actual video:
He chose his words precisely.
Transcription: “And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
Let’s take a look at the language there: “He can make a pledge” that no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” Note that he didn’t make a pledge; rather, he said he can make a pledge. Simple statement of fact. I believe him. It’s not difficult to make a pledge. All he has to do is say, “I pledge…” followed by the pledge. He didn’t say that. If that’s not enough to settle the issue for you, he said “no family”. Well, what’s a family? Don’t even try to define family. I could present you with 40 different definitions for family off the top of my head. It’s impossible, therefore, precisely to know whom he was referring to in this non-pledge. Not convinced yet? Well, he said “making less than $250,000 a year.” But, see, my father (a brilliant economist) taught me when I was a child that it’s imprecise to talk about “making money”. You know who makes money? The Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing and other counterfeiters. What productive people do is “earn money”. Understand the difference? Finally, the non-defined families which counterfeit “less than $250,000 a year” that he’s describing in his non-pledge won’t “see” any form of tax increase. They might “experience” it. They’ll certainly pay it. They just won’t “see” it.
Parsing Political Language: Is Obama an Inveterate Liar? Read Post »
The President and his wife made about $5.5 million and paid $1.8 million in federal taxes in 2009. This does not include an estimated $59,639,899 in benefits that he receives annually for being president. Being the generous couple that they are, they gave $329,100 to 40 charities. That’s an average of $8,227.50 per charity. Moreover, $329,100 is also about 6% of their total income for 2009. He did donate the $1.4 million he won for the Nobel Peace prize, although it’s debatable whether he really earned that reward. Nevertheless, Obama had no problem pledging $100 million of taxpayer money to help Haiti. He also pledged $475 million of taxpayer money to rescue the Great Lakes; $3.5 billion of taxpayer money to help Africa; $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to help underwater homeowners and the unemployed; $900 million for schools; $8 billion of taxpayer money on high speed rail; and as much as 3% of GDP, which is about $415 billion of taxpayer money, on scientific research. Perhaps this is why he only donates 6% of his own income. Why be generous with your own money when you can be magnanimous with other people’s money?
Remember when President Obama told Joe the Plumber: ”I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”? The President was not talking about his wealth.
Our Generous President Read Post »
Co-blogger Ryan McMaken is quite right to give President Obama credit for cutting the space program.
Sadly, however, it looks like Obama is already backing down on those cuts.
No surprise there. If Obama thinks it’s okay to spend trillions on everything else, how can he justify cutting this? It’s not like budget constraints have meant anything to him otherwise. In Obama’s world, if something is important, then you spend government money on it without regard for the budget (much less the impropriety of spending other people’s money). So when he comes under fire, what can he do? Say that he doesn’t think space travel (or science) is important? Of course not.
Under a new proposed compromise, the government will still build the Orion rocket that it had intended to use for new moon missions — it just won’t send it to the moon. Instead, the Orion will go to the space station and then just sit there in case we ever need it as an “escape pod.” (Really.) That way we can still show our commitment to space and science and stuff, and the military-industrial complex and NASA employees will still get paid.
But what about all the expense? Not to worry. The WSJ informs us that by not scrapping the Orion program, Obama “will help Lockheed and the government avoid significant termination costs associated with shutting the Orion project down.”
Phew! Glad we taxpayers (and especially Lockheed Martin!) will now avoid all those costs of… not spending anymore.
(Cross-posted at LRC.)
The Perils of Giving Presidents Credit Read Post »
