WUI (Writing under the influence)

Whenever a liberal says something I wonder if he doesn't mean the opposite or if he's projecting. When Obama talks about $300B in tax cuts he really talks about taxing people more and redistributing wealth. Most of these tax "cuts" will go to people who don't pay taxes or to businesses that lose money. In today's speech he said that hard work and responsibility had to be again rewarded. That's Orwellian! The housing bubble was caused by rewarding the exact opposite.

In any case, Obama will not raise taxes to pay for his tax "cuts" at first but because those "cuts" will not revive the economy, somebody will eventually have to pay for them. Oabama's is a genius plan. He will say in 2010, just before the mid-term elections, that tax "cuts" don't work as he has demonstrated and it's finally time to do what Democrats do best: raise taxes on the rich. In fact, that's what he said today: it's time to through away old ideas. No, he wasn't talking about taxing and spending as one of those ideas.

Of course, taxes will not work either but with complacent media he and the Democrats in the Congress will probably convince enough people (just as it happened for many years during the Great Depression) that it's not Democrats' fault and that they still have a lot of ideas to implement. So maybe Republicans will not be able to regain power in 2010.

On the other hand, if old media finally die by 2010 as I and many others hope, Democrats may not be as lucky as they were during FDR's rule.

Whatever Obama does it shouldn't be any of what FDR did if he really wants to help this country as opposed to keep Democrats in power at all costs.

And there is some hope that wiser heads will prevail.

The best thing to do is of course NOTHING. No, the best thing to do would be cut taxes and spending. But in absence of those two, the next best is NOTHING. Yeah, just like the Seinfeld show.

Even though I despise many government programs I still participate in them since my money is used to support them in the first place. For example, when I decide to buy energy-efficient appliances I ask for all applicable tax credits. I'd prefer if such programs didn't exist since they only raise prices for everybody and because it doesn't seem right for one person to pay for somebody else's stuff.

But there was one program so outrageous that I refused to participate in it: $40 rebates for digital TV boxes.

Fortunately, it seems I won't be tempted to change my mind since the money for the rebates is gone.

But I can make this prediction: if it turns out that so called poor who have not applied for the rebate yet are in large numbers, our local government will take care of them; and the usual excuse will be used to do so: "it's for the children."

Or, the switch to digital planed in February may not even happen.

Stupid Polak watch:
I see these losers often in convenience stores. The most annoying are the scratch-its purchasers who take long minutes to decide how they will waste their money today. On the other hand, we need those morons because in some states, like Oregon, that's the only way they pay taxes.

In any case, this guy should have spent the last 20 years learning english and wasting his money on the lottery.