|SC: "I'll take 'The Rapists' for $400, 'Puter." |
GP: "Uh, Mr. Connery? That's 'Public Sector Unions,' but
I can see how you'dmake that mistake."
Awakening from this Kafkaesque bete noir, 'Puter stumbles to the keyboard bare-assed nekkid, where he sweatily bangs out this post with his stubby, nicotine stained fingers.
The New York Times' editors dutifully answering the White House's call to explain away President Obama's gaffe issued this howler of an editorial today: The Beleaguered Middle Class. The editors ought to have titled their steaming pile of verbiage We'll Say Anything Obama Tells Us To Say, No Matter The Reputational Cost. At least 'Puter's proposed title has the advantage of being true.
President Obama informed the nation's assembled press luminaries on 8 June 2012 that:
The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we’ve created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government -- oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.You see? If only Republicans would fund state and local government jobs that states admit they cannot afford, then the entire economic crisis would fade into nothingness, no more real than 'Puter's recurrent night terrors involving Joy Behar, a bushel of carambola and turpentine.
And so, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is, how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry. Because the recipes that they’re promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.
The New York Times, in its aforementioned weak attempt to cover The One's rear end, lays it on thicker than a whore layering on pancake makeup to cover her sores, which, if seen, would render her "services" unmarketable. That's a fairly apt, if graphic analogy, as the New York Times has proven time and again it's nothing more than a cheap, convenient whore for Obama's press flacks. Here's what the Painted Gray Lady has to say for herself:
The layoffs will mean larger classes and an end to public prekindergarten in the city. Many special-education students will lose their mentors. A city where only 8 percent of the residents have a bachelor’s degree (compared with the national average of 28 percent) will fall further behind, largely because Pennsylvania’s Republican governor, Tom Corbett, chose not to find state money to replace $900 million in federal aid that ran out after the stimulus expired. Instead, he further drained his public coffers by cutting business taxes by $250 million this year.And this is why 'Puter has nightmares. People actually listen to the President and see his words affirmed in the New York Times, and believe them, despite the utter incomprehensibility and illogic of the ideas.
Across the country, many states like Pennsylvania that happily accepted stimulus money to pay for existing employees are laying off those workers now that Congress has turned off the spigot. Over the last three years, at least 700,000 state and local government employees have lost their jobs, including teachers, sanitation workers and public safety personnel, contributing a full percentage point to the unemployment rate.
Here's a few thoughts from 'Puter's childlike (childish) mind for the New York Times' editors and their johns in the White House to chew on:
- States cannot afford the workers they have due to years of outsized pension and health benefits agreed to by compliant politicians by both parties, in exchange for public union reelection assistance. The New York Times admits as much in its editorial.
- Public workers generate exactly zero dollars' worth of wealth. Taxing money from "the rich" and giving it to public workers creates not one dime's worth of wealth.
- Taxing "the rich" to retain unneeded and unaffordable public workers only drives "the rich" from the state in question, exacerbating the problem. Just ask Maryland and New York.
- If redistributing money from "the rich" to public workers truly worked, why not put everyone on the dole? Then our economy would surely be humming along. Taking more and more from "the rich" is just as deadly to the economy as putting everyone on the dole at once, it just takes longer to die.
- When you take money from "the rich," to pay for unnecessary, non-wealth-generating public workers, you prevent "the rich" from spending that money on hiring private workers who actually do generate wealth, which in turn increases taxable income, which means there is more money to pay for liberals' overly-valued unnecessary public workers.
Look at Europe, which is chock-a-block full of bureaucrats and people on the dole. Pretty much everyone on the continent has a government job or is otherwise reliant on the government. And how are they doing? That's right. Aside from Germany and the tough-to-kill-as-a-cockroach British, they're circling the bowl. The flushing's started, and it's all over but for passing the u-bend.
'Puter's glad he got that off his chest. Since 'Puter's wasted most of the night writing this, he might as well rouse Dat Ho and order him to commence delousing and depilating 'Puter.
The Plateau of Leng's zoning code enforcement officers insist 'Puter be de-furred and free of critters once a year, minimum. If Czar hadn't negotiated this compromise, the zoning board never would have issued The Castle's required zoning change to permit a multi-dimension, existing outside of time and space structure.
And, as we all know from the New York Times and President Obama, government workers are the solution to every problem, hairy or not.