Thursday morning links

Re: cheating

My brilliant and lovely wife says the same thing (unfortunately for her she has experience in that, fortunately for me, it was a previous relationship).

Re: Capitalism vs the environment

That intersects nicely with the UN climate dweeb who claims that Communism is a better solution for the environment. She even referred to China as a model! (why are we still in the UN?)

Re: Obummer's deadly pens and phones

Boehner recently countered Obummer pen and phone line with the fact that we have a Constitution. Pretty quaint. Is somebody going to sue Obummer every time he skirts the Constitution? How long with that take? By the time one of those cases makes it to the Supreme Court (you don't think they'd take the word of a Federal Court do you), the damage would still be massive. What do you do with a president who flouts the Constitution???

Re: Kerry's root cause of terrorism

Stupid? He certainly SOUNDS intelligent (if you don't listen to his words). Maybe he spent too much time with that other genius, Patty Murry, who informed us of all the day care centers the Taliban were building.

Re: GOP AWOL

Is that new?

Re: Obummer's proposed caps on charitable giving

It's all about competition. Only the giverment is here to help you.

#1 mudbug on 2014-01-16 09:15 (Reply)

"Is he that stupid? I doubt it "

I don't. Not at all.

#2 Formerly known as Skeptic on 2014-01-16 11:42 (Reply)

Yes, he is that stupid. Which is why some call him John F. Kerryman. Except that compared to our Secretary of State, the Kerryman in those jokes comes off as an Einstein.

Funny that at the Vatican, the home base of the Roman Catholic Church, John F. Kerry would claim economic causes for terrorism. To make it even better, he should have said it at Mecca, the home base of Islam, centered in oil-rich Saudi Arabia. As many people not named John. F. Kerry know, oil-funded affluence in Saudi Arabia hasn't stopped Saudis becoming terrorists.

Or maybe it isn't that John F. Kerry is stupid, but that he assumes that most people are stupid enough to believe him. After all, this is the guy who tried to sell himself as both the loyal Navy officer "reporting for duty" and the anti-war activist who compared our troops to Genghis Khan. He almost pulled that off.

#2.1 Gringo on 2014-01-16 12:08 (Reply)

Why should there be any tax deduction for "charitable" giving? It is nothing more then a powerful special interest getting their way in a system that has too much crony politics. It is a subsidy levied on all taxpayers for the benefit of a few. End it all.

#3 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-01-16 11:48 (Reply)

As Sam L. points out, eliminating the charity deduction means that the government, not the individual taxpayer, decides what organizations deserve charitable funding.

Given the lefty orientation of government bureaucrats, this is not a good thing.

#3.1 Gringo on 2014-01-16 12:17 (Reply)

If your point is that some people will reduce or eliminate their charitable contributions I would agree. But some people will still give. But I don't see how that directly translates into the government deciding which charities get funded. I would only add that I don't think the government should be in the charity business either.

#3.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-01-16 21:29 (Reply)

I would only add that I don't think the government should be in the charity business either.

But with the lefties in the government- you know, the ones who want to drop the charitable deduction- the government will be in the charity business- the charities which the lefties decide deserve government largess.

#3.1.1.1 Gringo on 2014-01-17 00:17 (Reply)

re: charitable giving

Feds want a monopoly on charity and they want more taxes, so lowering or eliminating the charitable deduction meets both goals.

They discourage private charitable giving, and so increase the power of "governmental charity". Even though they already have a 2:1 advantage ... since the charitable deduction is generally limited to 50% of the gift. (or less, for some forms of charity).

They really can't stand individuals deciding what charities should receive the gifts ... they want to control the money, so they can exert political "quid pro quo". So much easier to tell a charity to shut up if you control their funding, or to speak up they way you want them to. It's Chicago politics in action.

Why should there be a charitable deduction? Maybe there shouldn't, but then we ought to get government out of the "charity" business too, and reduce our taxes accordingly.

#3.2 ruralcounsel on 2014-01-16 22:14 (Reply)

Why People Fail: Sultan K says, "The left insists that people are interchangeable. They are not. It insists that their failures and successes belong to the guiding hand of the state. " I think the left says people fail on their own or for other reasons, but NOT because of the state. The state being perfect, gummint being perfect, can't be the state's fault.

Government itself: Top 3 are all gov't, and 5, 6, & 9.

Caps on charity: Taking food out of the mouths of gov't, and not letting gov't select the "correct/proper" recipients.

#4 Sam L. on 2014-01-16 11:49 (Reply)

Thanks for plugging Gatto's book, The Underground History of American Education. I've been mentioning it at every opportunity for over five years. This book unravels the dysfunction of government schools and makes the purpose plain for the reader.

#5 WalkingHorse on 2014-01-16 12:29 (Reply)

FWIW: This Black Man Appreciates Omaha Police Exposing Black Toddler Cursing Video

"Insistent on viewing everything along racial lines, liberals fail Insistent on viewing everything along racial lines, liberals fail to realize that the disturbing video is offensive to all decent Americans. One could call it a bit racist for liberals to assume that Omaha blacks would be more offended by the police than by black parents abusing their child."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/this_black_man_appreciates_omaha_police_exposing_black_toddler_cursing_video.html#ixzz2qaRjJx5F

#6 feeblemind on 2014-01-16 13:21 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 16. 2014

Thursday morning links