really, really out of touch.
I'm reading this article at Hot Air about the OWS peeps having things stolen (who would of thought.) A girl complained about her Mac worth 5K being snatched. Whoa - wait a minute. FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a computer? I had to go to the Mac site to see that, yes indeedy, you can purchase a Mac Pro for $4,999,00. This gal who had her wealth "redistributed" is 18 years old and she has a FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR (sorry for shouting) computer lifted while complaining about rich people. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Here's the deal. I don't have a Mac Pro, and my husband doesn't have one, either. We deserve to have Mac Pros. So in the interest of equality and fairness, we demand that the occupiers dip into their 300k stash (where did that money come from and how is it going to be used and, good Lord - is it in a bank?) and buy us Mac Pros. And while you're dipping, we could use an iphone, a Kindle, and some new clothes.
Meantime:
Harry Reid thinks it's a good idea to throw out another 35 billion or so to hire teachers. Why? Simple. Give a load of taxpayer money to a bunch of union members. They pay their union dues and the union gives the money back to the Democratic party. It's called money laundering, and your taxes are nothing more than "paying the vig."
Cato sums it up nicely:
Obama-Reid ‘Jobs’ Bill Soaked in Greece
Showing posts with label Jobs Bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jobs Bill. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Obama: You don't raise taxes during a recession...
unless you only target the "rich" - or something.
August, 2009
August, 2009
Raise taxes to "save" money?
Since when did raising taxes constitute a "savings?" And notice the planned cuts - Medicare and Medicaid. How about eliminating the Department of Education or the EPA?
Obama’s debt-reduction plan: $3 trillion in savings, half from new tax revenue
Discussion at Memeorandum:
Obama’s debt-reduction plan: $3 trillion in savings, half from new tax revenue
Discussion at Memeorandum:
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
More about that jobs bill...
otherwise known as Son of Stimulus
As a follow up to "About That Jobs Bill:
How much will each "job" cost? Check this out from Bungalow Bill... Oy vey!!
As a follow up to "About That Jobs Bill:
How much will each "job" cost? Check this out from Bungalow Bill... Oy vey!!
About That Jobs Bill...
Here's the way a bill like this works using a real-life example. During the Carter administration the same tactic was tried while I was working as an optician. My former manager, also a licensed optician, had been fired from his job and was receiving unemployment. A large box store needed a manager for its optical department. I'm sure many, many qualified opticians applied for the job.
However, since the government was handing out a tax credit for hiring someone who was receiving unemployment, guess who got the job? Was he qualified? Sure, as far as having a license he met the qualifications. Was he the best person for the job? Probably not. He was a poor manager, lax in his work habits, and none too honest. Did the company care? Nope. They made their decision based on that tax credit.
The next thing to realize is the company in question would have hired someone regardless of any credit offered. In most states the manager of an optical store must have a license. It's a case of a business reaping a reward for something they were going to do anyway. No business is going to hire people they don't need and can't afford just to get a tax break.
This is nothing more than the people form of Cash for Clunkers - reward a company or an individual, with our money, for something they were going to do anyway.
Update:
By way of Memeorandum: Senate passes $15 billion jobs bill on bipartisan vote
However, since the government was handing out a tax credit for hiring someone who was receiving unemployment, guess who got the job? Was he qualified? Sure, as far as having a license he met the qualifications. Was he the best person for the job? Probably not. He was a poor manager, lax in his work habits, and none too honest. Did the company care? Nope. They made their decision based on that tax credit.
The next thing to realize is the company in question would have hired someone regardless of any credit offered. In most states the manager of an optical store must have a license. It's a case of a business reaping a reward for something they were going to do anyway. No business is going to hire people they don't need and can't afford just to get a tax break.
This is nothing more than the people form of Cash for Clunkers - reward a company or an individual, with our money, for something they were going to do anyway.
Update:
By way of Memeorandum: Senate passes $15 billion jobs bill on bipartisan vote
Related:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)