|
Barack Obama is Making Me Rich!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
Found this article amusing (and probably true...)
| quote: |
Barack Obama is Making Me Rich!
by Phillip Ellis Jackson | February 17th, 2009
Thanks to our new president, I have seen the error of capitalism. I will make do with what I have, and nothing more, and for this I will be richer in many, many ways. And those ways are already paying dividends to my bottom line.
Like most Americans watching the so-called Stimulus Bill weave its way through the pork-laden halls of Congress, I was horrified at the thought of what the Democrats in Congress and the White House were doing to the economy. In the name of "saving jobs" they were killing the very mechanism that created this country's prosperity. Nothing in their package is designed to help the capitalist system recover, and prosper. Instead, it's a thinly-disguised effort to solidify government's control over the very people on whose behalf it is supposed to work, but who will now become a wholly owned subsidiary of organized labor, left-wing interests, and the Democrat Party.
Everything I was taught about free-enterprise, and the risks and rewards of individual initiative, vanished in the single stroke of a pen when President Obama signed the "bi-partisan" (hey, three Liberal Republicans voted for it!) stimulus package. You know, the one that is supposed to stimulate the non-stimulated economy that wasn't actually stimulated by the most recent "Rescue/Bail-Out" package, that didn't actually rescue anything . . . thus prompting the need for a Stimulus Package.
But — and here's where the lights have suddenly come on to re-shape the thinking of my narrow capitalist mind — as I've stood back to survey the wreckage of this socialist takeover of the U.S. economy, I've come to realize that maybe things aren't so bad after all.
No, it isn't that I've come to realize that the Stimulus Package will indeed work as advertised. Even in the dark I can still use my nose to smell a bag of sh*t, so nothing has fundamentally changed in my evaluation. Rather, what has changed is the way I now view myself in relation to the government, the economy, and the public at large. It's this change in perception, brought about by one-too-many "Obama's gonna pay my mortgage" or "Obama's gonna fix my car" bursts of insight from my fellow citizens, that has made me re-think the flaws in my own archaic thinking.
Where before I thought about myself as part of something larger (the country, a fellow American, or just a person who actually practices the acts of private charity that he preaches), I've now come to recognize that none of this really matters any more. If all I am is a walking ATM machine for the government because I happened to spend a lot of time educating myself in an effort to be successful, and spent a lot of my own money taking risks to increase my income (at times successfully, at other times not), then I've come to recognize that I am the problem, not the solution.
If my being well off is a sign of disregard for those who didn't work as hard as I did, or sacrifice as much as I have, then by God I'm quite willing to see the error of my ways. I will no longer participate in a never ending drive to increase my wealth and possessions, but instead will learn to live entirely within my present means. I will, in short, make do with what I have, and nothing more, and for this I will be richer in many, many ways.
And I can think of several right off the bat.
First, by understanding that the government is there to take care of people I was foolishly supporting in the past through my own income, I will be able to save several hundred dollars a month. I have a fairly large commitment to certain charitable organizations like Christian Children's Fund, where I am among their top donors nationally. Those commitments will continue unchanged. But — and here's where the savings come in — there's no need for me to entertain any more "special requests."
By this I mean, instead of writing a one-time check to the Red Cross for flood relief, or dropping some extra change in the round-it-up basket at my supermarket checkout to aid a local food bank, or responding to an appeal to help some family I don't know whose possessions were lost in a fire, I now understand that Obama and the government are there to do it for me. So, while my core charitable commitments will remain because, well, because I want to keep doing this even though it makes no financial sense for me to do so, I will henceforth operate under the "Biden Rule", and give no more money to charity than the Vice President did last year as a percentage of his income. Instead, my "charitable contributions" will take the form of public service work, just like Joe. Where he tirelessly ran for office, I will tirelessly write about people who ran for office. Besides, who needs Phil Jackson when we have FEMA, or HHS, or state or local government which knows how to do these things best anyway?
As you can see, with this new perspective I've already chalked up a hundred dollar a month savings at a minimum, which goes directly to my bottom line. This is increased by another new rule I've imposed on my in-laws and other distant relations that have routinely tapped the BOPJ (Bank of Phil Jackson) to pay for a new water heater, missed a mortgage payment or five, car repairs, medical bills, or any one of an endless number of non-tax deductable requests I've acceded to in the past. Now, when a request for cash has been made (as has happened twice already in the last two weeks), I ask a simple question: "Whom did you vote for?" When the question comes back "Barack Obama" I point them to the nearest social welfare agency. When it comes back "some third party candidate," I point them to the nearest social welfare agency. And, when it comes back "I didn't vote," I point them to the nearest social welfare agency.
Notice the pattern? If these people to whom I am embarrassingly related think Obama or some Losertarian candidate is the best guy to solve this country's problems, then that's the guy they should be soliciting, not me. If they liked the guy who best represented my interests by picking a VP nominee who best represented my interests, but they couldn't quite bring themselves to actually vote for that ticket, then I will support their request in principle, but like them find myself unable to actually put my name on the requisite check or money order. Just averaging the last couple of years of similar requests, I'm looking at a $5-7,000 annual savings. Split the difference and call it $6,000, to which we'll add the $1,200 I mentioned before, and I'm already $7,200 in the black.
But it doesn't stop here. I drive a 6-year-old car. It works perfectly fine, but I was thinking about getting a new one this year. Instead, I just spent $1,800 fixing it up. Since a new car would have cost me about $600/month, that's a net savings of $5,400 a year. True, the local car dealership won't get my business, and that means one less car to keep the unions busy in Detroit, but this isn't my problem. It's Obama's. I just added $5,400 in savings to my previous total of $7,200, which brings me up to $12,600 annually.
But it still doesn't stop here. The kids are all grown up and the wife and I were thinking about downsizing our house. However, I've got a great interest rate on a 30-year mortgage, so maybe we'll just stay put a few more years. If I do, there's no need to fix up my existing house to make it more attractive, no commission I must pay to a real-estate agent on the sale of my existing house, no need to build a new home so no need to hire construction workers or secure building materials, no moving costs for my family, no need to do any of this stuff. Even conservatively speaking, I'm saving at least $15,000 here, which added to the $12,600 now brings me up to $27,600.
But wait, there's more! Because we're not downsizing our house, my wife can still work another couple of years instead of having to retire because we left the area. Her retirement income, at best, would be 60% of her schoolteacher salary. Let's just pick a round number for someone with 30+ years of experience teaching in the South, and say she'll save $30,000 in salary and medical insurance costs by remaining employed. Add that to the aforementioned $27,600 and we're at $57,600. Sure, this is offset by some new teacher who won't get a job to replace my wife, and a school system that will have to pay her twice as much as a new hire, but once again this is not my problem. It's Obama's.
But it gets even better. My business partners and I have invested in at least one new business activity every 18 months for the last 10 years. Some of these efforts have been very successful. Others have cost us a ton of money. In 2006 we invested well over 6 figures in a business that ultimately proved unsuccessful, and again put over $70,000 into a business in 2008 that went down the drain, so there are no guarantees of success. But today, the rules are changing, and rather than selfishly fight it, I will simply acknowledge this. While the government still won't replace my losses (that's my risk gone bad, not theirs), I now understand that anyone making over $250,000, or $200,000, or $180,000, or whatever number the Obama Administration finally settles on will be declared officially "rich." And rich people have an unfair share of the country's resources, so they need to be taxed aggressively.
If my partners and I do things to dramatically increase our current financial position — and by doing this spend our money on goods, services, and to employ other people to help us — even if we succeed, we fail. All we are doing is drawing a bigger target on our backs. So, rather than kick my portion into any such effort, I choose to decline (as have my partners). I'll keep the $10-20,000 or so that could have come out of my own pocket as the junior partner in this enterprise. Let's be conservative and say that only $10,000 would have been at risk, which brings my increased bottom line up to $67,600.
But it's not quite over yet. Finally, the one thing I can do today that I've never done before is actually incorporate as an LLC, instead of operating my business activities as a private consultant. Doing this, my accountant has informed me, could mean another $10,000 savings to my bottom line. I don't pretend to understand the arcane nuances of tax law, but I do know my accountant won't entertain a deduction on my personal forms unless I've got the cancelled check, receipt, or other back-up documentation to substantiate it. So, let's go with the suggestion and assume that forming an LLC in 2009 isn't a corrupt tax dodge but a legitimate tax strategy, and will have the corresponding salutary impact on my taxes that I noted before. This brings the total up to $77,600.
That's $77,600 directly to my bottom line, thanks to President Obama. By letting the government do things for strangers and my relatives that I foolishly assumed as my own obligation in the past, by not flaunting my money on a new car or new home or other consumer items that keep people employed, by not using my own money to grow the economy when the government will do it for me, I've just become Obama-rich! This is real money with real value, until the hyper-inflation comes from simply printing money because Obama's policies have killed the capitalist goose.
But hey, until that time comes, I'll do quite well just taking care of myself and my family. And when it does come, I'll be in a better position to weather that storm because, like most successful people who aren't born Kennedys and have their wealth handed to them, I had to use my wisdom and talents to get this far. I'll use that same wisdom and talent to assess the situation in later years, and take the necessary steps then to protect my income and other resources as I am doing today.
Obama and the Democrats can kill capitalism, and the economy with it. But even in a fiscal cesspool there will be some people closer to the top than others. I didn't get where I am in life by waiting for the government to give me something, and I won't maintain what I have by painting an economic target on my back. So I'll always be okay, relatively speaking, because I'm smart enough to increase my disposable income without increasing my actual income if that's what I need to do to succeed.
And that, my friends, is the calculation shared by small businesses and hard working people everywhere, who may not have the political power to stop this insanity in government, but have no intention of being the ones to pay for it.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| atbell |
But Bush killed capitalisim, Obama just took over a dead system.
There was a great show on PBS last night about the crisis. It talked a lot about Paulson and how he had to break his own ideology in order to keep the system going. At some points you can almost see his mind snaping in two...
"but ... the markets ... they must .... be .... free?????" |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
But Bush killed capitalisim, Obama just took over a dead system.
There was a great show on PBS last night about the crisis. It talked a lot about Paulson and how he had to break his own ideology in order to keep the system going. At some points you can almost see his mind snaping in two...
"but ... the markets ... they must .... be .... free?????" |
I don't blame Bush on this one; if anything he simply didn't help.
I believe the inherit flaw was there way before him. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| what a load of self-important horse. beneath you firestarter :/ |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
But Bush killed capitalisim, Obama just took over a dead system.
There was a great show on PBS last night about the crisis. It talked a lot about Paulson and how he had to break his own ideology in order to keep the system going. At some points you can almost see his mind snaping in two...
"but ... the markets ... they must .... be .... free?????" |
Frontline rules. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| All I got from this article is Phillip doesn't like Obama and therefore decides to become a less altruistic person and makes financial matters even more difficult for the country all because of a stimulus package...what? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| I pity those who think Clinton is responsible for this, I truly do...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what a load of self-important horse. beneath you firestarter :/ |
So what about the article specifically don't you think is plausible?
Obama certainly is coughing up the dough to everyone so why should anyone bother spending money on failing companies if he's only going to bail them out anyways? |
|
|
|
|
