Iggy Rodham Clinton Makes An Appearance In Boston

I was starting to think that I would need a government bailout for the blog, but boy did the Witless Wonder come through for us. During a discussion about Obama's plans to cap charitable deductions, someone posed the question as to why a good socialist like Obama did not care about charities. Iggy whined that his messiah was not a socialist, and asked "When did Obama ever declare himself a socialist?" He then went on to claim that the Chosen One's socialist label is all a vast right-wing conspiracy. Yes, he actually used those exact words.

Iggy, when did Stalin ever declare himself a mass-murderer? When did Jimmy Carter ever declare himself an incompetent fool? When did Keith Olbermann ever declare himself a gratuitous, partisan hack? You judge people by their actions, not by what they say, or by what they call themselves. Obama wants to force one group of people to give up more of what they earn so that it can be given to another group of people. That is socialism. Obama wants the government to provide health care for all Americans, whether they want it or not. That is socialism. Obama is instituting government subsidization and control of American private companies on an unprecedented scale. That is socialism. Obama is overseeing the largest expansion of government in American history. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, its a duck Iggy.

Getting back to the issue of capping charitable contributions, of course that will directly lead to a decrease in charitable contributions. The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world will still give their millions, and Iggyots will pounce on those news stories as proof that people are still donating to charities. However, it is the people who contribute the largest percentage of total contributions, the people who give $100 or $500 or $1,000 dollars at a time who will give less, but again, facts are irrelevant when you're talking to a liberal. Obama knows this to be true, and he does not care because this is part of the plan. He gains twofold with this new tax policy. First, he will get his hands on more taxpayer dollars to disperse as he see fits, allowing him to buy more votes and more support. Second, he will reduce the amount of money charities will get to perform their altruistic works, thus creating greater need that can only be resolved by what else? More government assistance! It's the classic approach behind the mob's protection rackets. Create a problem, solve the problem, and then be thanked for it by the suckers you screwed!

We were then treated to a series of Iggyot callers (Chach must have been in the bathroom). John said that he supports Obama because he thinks that the government should "regulate greed". Yes, he said that. He also said that there's a point when people make enough money. John, who the hell are you, Obama or anyone else to decide what is "enough" for some else? Aside from the fact that there is no constitutional authority to allow the government to do that, what is enough? One million? Ten million? One hundred million? Who gets to decide what that magic number is? What happens when that Lord Torquemada decides to set that number at say $50,000? Of course the Iggyot's response to that question is "oh that's just stupid, that will never happen". Says who? Two years ago, the idea of a sitting president firing the CEO of a private company would have been laughed at as insane! Once you start down the path of arbitrary adjudication, the perceived line that is not supposed to be crossed gets moved a little further down the road with every decision made.

We then got to listen to Mike say that we are neither currently a socialist country nor moving towards being one. Mike, Obama just fired the CEO of GM! Even before that, even before Obama, we were a socialist country. You can not start a business to produce goods or services without government interference, and hence control. The government tells you how you can make something, where you can do it, when you can do it, whom you have to hire to do it, and forces you to contribute to a ponzi scheme disguised as a government-managed (their word, not mine) retirement fund. On top of that, they will tax your business at a confiscatory rate, and then tax any of the remaining money again should you decide to distribute it to shareholders or the owners of the company. Sounds like socialism to me.

We were then treated to the insights of Everett from Brighton. His first gem was that we are in this current mess position because of people in power without ethics doing the wrong thing. For once, I actually agreed with him; that's a perfect description of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. He than went on to insult us all, saying that most people, given the chance to make a million dollars by putting ten people they did not know in "financial burden" would do it. Your lack of eloquence aside Everett, I think that this is less a reflection of Americans in general, and more a reflection of the people with whom you choose to associate. Insert birds of a feather axiom here.