I Give Up!

During his press conference Obama explained, apparently with a straight face, that making it more expensive for people to donate to charity by reducing the value of the charitable tax deduction will not affect the level of charitable donations.  He further insisted that he was basing this counter-intuitive claim on "the evidence".  Really?  It will be interesting to watch Obama's apologists within the reality-based community defend this.  While we wait, allow me to report back on evidence gathered from the planet with the yellow sun.

First, here is a meta-analysis from 2005:

The Price Elasticities of Charitable Contributions: A Meta-Analysis by John Peloza and Piers Steel

The authors compile and contrast the results of a vast number of studies looking at the interplay of tax rates and charitable giving.  Although people have many motivations for their philanthropy the conclusion of almost all of these studies points in the same direction - on net people give less when it costs them more.  (Table 1 on p. 5 and Figure 1 on p. 6 show negative price elasticities in almost every study.)

The interplay of tax rates and charitable giving was also an issue during debates on reforming or repealing the estate tax.  Parenthetically, I should note that we are about to shift gears - when it comes to the estate tax, lefties are adamant that a high estate tax coupled with a commensurate charitable deduction promotes charitable giving and that an estate tax repeal "would substantially reduce charitable giving".  In that arena they recognize that Obama is talking nonsense.  Yes, it can get confusing; I am long resigned to the fact that I am not smart enough to be a lefty.

That said, this is from 2003 in support of the unsurprising notion that people pay attention to their money:

Effects of Estate Tax Reform on Charitable Giving by Jon M. Bakija and William G. Gale

Here are two relevant snippets:

Econometric analysis that relies on timeseries variation like that depicted in figure 1, undertaken by economists Wojciech Kopczuk and Joel Slemrod (2003), also finds charitable bequests are sensitive to price.

And here:

Recent work by Treasury Department economist David Joulfaian (2000), based on a sample of 1992 decedents, exemplifies this line of research. His preferred estimates suggest that a 1-percent increase in the price of a charitable bequest reduces such bequests by 1.7 percent,
and a 1-percent increase in aftertax wealth raises charitable bequests by 1.2 percent—that is, he finds that charitable bequests are more sensitive to price than to wealth.

As people have more, they will give more, and as giving costs more, they will give less - thank heaven for economists! 

Of course, in the current context, Obama is raising taxes on high earners, thereby reducing their net worth, and reducing the value of the charitable deduction, thereby raising the after-tax cost of donating.  The net effect of these changes on giving by "the rich" will be unambiguous and bad for charities, although to be fair, the effect will be swamped by the wealth effect of the current market wipe-out.

Oh, well - Obama is certainly not describing the motivations of charitable donors based on his own experience - he and Michelle were virtually unaware of the concept until he became a Presidential candidate.  But that said, he did have good success getting people to write non-deductible checks to his campaign.  (Here's a stray thought - totally eliminating the charitable deduction would put politicians on an equal footing with charities.  That would be a boon for activists, but eliminate the middleman in the case of Planned Parenthood, the NRA, and so on.  What side is Obama on here?)

Here is the relevant exchange from the presser:

QUESTION: It's not the well-to-do people. It's the charities. Given what you've just said, are you confident the charities are wrong when they contend that this would discourage giving?

OBAMA: Yes, I am. I mean, if you look at the evidence, there's very little evidence that this has a significant impact on charitable giving.

I'll tell you what has a significant impact on charitable giving, is a financial crisis and an economy that's contracting. And so the most important thing that I can do for charitable giving is to fix the economy, to get banks lending again, to get businesses opening their doors again, to get people back to work again. Then I think charities will do just fine.

If his point is that the wealth effect will is more important in the current environment, well, nobody disagrees.  But that is not what the charities are worried about; their point is that this is one more problem for them in an already brutal environment.

[end of charities as we know them]

Comments

[bad]

Obama doesn't understand that when more money in a household goes to the government there is less money for charitable giving. Household financial resources, unlike governments, are not unlimited.

[hit and run]

TM:
During his press conference Obama explained, apparently with a straight face, that making it more expensive for people to donate to charity will not affect the level of charitable donations. ... It will be interesting to watch Obama's apologists within the reality-based community defend this.

Yay! I get to play Obama Apologist, at least partially, if not completely ingenuously.

For you see, to Obama personally, the cost of giving, whether affected by taxation or anything else, is not anywhere near the number one factor in his charitable giving.

It's not even close.

The biggest factor in Obama's charitable giving, rather, and by a country mile no less, is the http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/charitable_to_obama.html>proximation of a run for national office.

[Thomas Collins]

Obama is willfully ignorant of the impact of taxes on the behavior of actual human beings. When asked at a debate about the impact of tax rates and the economy, Obama went off on fairness and didn't even address the basic question. Obama is not alone among politicians, especially "progressive" ones, who are in a tax fantasy world in which raising rates and curbing deductions "socks it to the rich" without any adverse impacts on the folks the "progressives" supposedly care about (workers who would have better opportunities in an expanding economy, or charities benefitting from the charitable contribution deduction).

[Jack is Back!]

Wasn't there a poll or survey or even study somewhere where American's are the most charitable of all major countries with individual donations? Also, IIRC, there was a study that showed that Republicans were more charitable than Democrats by something like 3 to 1. So again, this is aimed at making those Republican fat cats who give significant amounts to charity end up being the scrooges of the community since they will now give less or nothing. NIce little ploy here - kill off the John Galts by shunting.

[Thomas Collins]

Whoops! Change that to "impact of tax rates ON the economy."

[bad]

The Obama's income and charitable giving prior to a run for president:

YEAR AGI Charitable giving
2000 $240,505 $2,350
2001 $272,759 $1,470
2002 $259,394 $1,050
2003 $238,327 $3,400
2004 $207,647 $2,500

[clarice]

Actually, I think that Republican vs Democrat charitable giving was all based on zip code political demographics. And, in a way that supports TM's argument, one might argue that it is not that conservatives are more generous spirited, it's that they tend to live in areas where the tax bite is less and so thay have more to give.

The bottom line ,of course, is that leftists would like to eliminate all private charities and have the state over which they have power be the arbiter of who shall live and who shall die.

[MayBee]

2000 $240,505 $2,350
2001 $272,759 $1,470
2002 $259,394 $1,050
2003 $238,327 $3,400
2004 $207,647 $2,500

Oh, but it gets better:
According to an Obama spokesman, the couple’s miserly charity until 2005 “was as generous as they could be at the time,” given their personal expenses.

I want to issue a quick reminder that these are the years for which the Obama's have pled poverty. The years they struggled to pay student loans and save money for their daughter's college.

[hit and run]

Clarice:
The bottom line ,of course, is that leftists would like to eliminate all private charities

Well, I can see it now. Treasury, in conjunction with the President's Advisory Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (praise God we got rid of Bush's theofascist Office of Faith-Based Initiatives) proposes bailout money to some church/denomination/ministry/religious organization. One condition of such a bailout, buried deep within the Executive Order authorizing the disbursement of funds, is that any organization agreeing to participate in the bailout will be under compulsion to have an ACORN designee placed on their board. Buried even further in the E.O. is the condition that organizations refusing to participate will have two such designees placed on their board.

[Porchlight]

The Bidens' giving is pretty skimpy, too, isn't it?

[bad]

Well, Porch, the Biden's claim for their charitable giving LOOKING so skimpy is because they gave cash to the church.

Our church can handle a cash donation and record it properly for tax records but perhaps the Biden's church isn't that modern.

[lily]

Yep, I noticed that too. Until he started running for president, Barak and his wife gave almost nothing to private charity. So how in the world could he understand the motivations of the true charitable givers?

[clarice]

Beats the Clintons who once even took a deduction for a donation of Bill's used underpants.

[Jane]

The bottom line ,of course, is that leftists would like to eliminate all private charities and have the state over which they have power be the arbiter of who shall live and who shall die.

I just can't wrap my head around this. Hell I can't wrap my head around anyone wanting government to control anything - but charity seems like such an odd thing to pick on.

[lily]

Were the Obama's giving all cash or was some of it old used stuff?

[gus]

Obama's inexperience and incompetence includes his lack of charitable giving.
He's a fraud and a big eared dummy,

[bgates]

Jane, you must not be enough of a sociopath.

Eliminating the charitable giving deduction does several things: it increases the need for government services by removing alternatives, obviously, but it also makes it easier to demonize the rich by claiming they were never really interested in helping the needy in the first place, they just wanted to "benefit from a tax loophole". On top of that, it generates a little extra income for our beloved government, the neediest cause of all.

[Porchlight]

Aha, bad, the old "cash donation" excuse. Yeah. Funny how they wouldn't have gotten a receipt for that.

If that is really Biden's claim couldn't that put his church at risk for audit, to see if they reported that income?

[Extraneus]

Why doesn't he just consider asking Congress to give the HHS secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of charities?

[Jane]

Jane, you must not be enough of a sociopath.

I'll have to work on that in this age of the sociopath.

The government can't possible do as good a job as charity, so the real bottom line is that the government wants to eliminate those needing charity - or something like that. It's just nuts.

[glasater]

He's a fraud and a big eared dummy

And he's CHEAP!

My motto when I was much younger was--never hang out with a cheap man--you always end up paying the bill--forever.

[Jim Ryan]

does several things

...helps destroy civil society, one of the statist's goals

...frustrates more conservatives than statists because the former are giving more than the latter.

[PD]

Obama's own defense of his argument blows his argument to smithereens. He said, after defending the change in deductibility that one thing that *does* have an effect on charitable giving is a shrinking economy.

Okay. So if having less money due to a shrinking economy reduces giving, why doesn't having less money because of higher taxes have the same effect?

[bad]

Okay. So if having less money due to a shrinking economy reduces giving, why doesn't having less money because of higher taxes have the same effect?

Because it doesn't suit O's agenda.

[hit and run]

Jane:
The government can't possible do as good a job as charity, so the real bottom line is that the government wants to eliminate those needing charity

No, no, no.

Dems want to increase the number of those needing charity and to perpetuate their neediness, while eliminating the sources of charity other than the government.

Whether they are good or not at charity is irrelevant, if needy voters see the government as the only game in town.

[clarice]

Jane, it's very European--hardly anyone there gives much to any charity--because it has become the government's responsibility to meet all needs.

It truly puts us all at the mercy of the bureaucrats and pols.

I expect at this moment lobbyists representing every eleemosynary institution in the US are on the phones to their congress critters.

Listening to O's economic arguments though you can be sure of one thing: Harvard Law School is losing its credential power very fast. Most high school kids in prep school know more about economics than he does.

[PMII]

2012 campaign sloan will be

"CHANGE BACK"

[bad]

PMII, LOL

[glasater]

Maxine Waters working over Geithner

[Barry Dauphin]

Yes, the consumers have too much personal debt, so by all means let's make sure the banks are lending again (oh wait they are already). I wonder if Obama has read any of Arthur Brooks' works on who gives the most(hint... not liberal Dems).

[PeterUK]

Whilst all the above,and no doubt below,rationalisations are interesting,the most obvious explanation is,Obama is a prat.He has spent his life winging it with post-modern waffle,now it is coming back to bite his bum.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

My favorite moment:

blockquote>In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize -- when I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some -- a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent -- he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.

I hope Larry Summers enjoyed that.

[DebinNC]

Per bad's link on another thread, Orszag mentioned collecting "all the taxes that are owed" by removing as many loopholes as possible. BO repeatedly claims tax rates will be the same as during the Clinton years, while assiduously eliminating as many tax shelters available then as he can.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Oops! Shudda been:

My favorite moment:

In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize -- when I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some -- a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent -- he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.

I hope Larry Summers enjoyed that.

[MDinMO]

Biden made ~$2.5 million in the 10 years ending in 2007; he gave ~$3,800 TOTAL to charity over that decade, for a donation rate of 0.15%. Unlike most Americans, he did not have to pay for his health insurance or fund his retirement accounts.

The science is clear, the greater the tax on charitable giving, the less is given to charity. President Obama is allowing his politics to overrule scientific evidence - and common sense.

[MayBee]

PRS- Gibbs made the same example a few weeks ago. It's an argument they obviously like.

It does take a certain genius to make the higher earners' higher tax rate sound unfair to the lower income earner.

[bad]

Hey MDinMO, hairplugs ain't cheap, ya know...

[Mustang0302]

OT: Change!

BHO expected to nominate registered lobbist/former union boss (ALPA) Randy Babbitt as next FAA Administrator.

Hope his taxes are all paid up.

[clarice]

Biden even got others to pay his commuting bill.
PUK:"Obama is a prat.He has spent his life winging it with post-modern waffle,now it is coming back to bite his bum."

There's a reason I l.o.v.e. PUK...

[ROA]

Am I correct in thinking that Obama in effect said, currently when people in high tax brackets give $100,000 to charity their net cost after the tax deduction is $61,000. After my plan is implemented their net cost will be $72,000 but this will have no impact on how much they donate.

[ROA]

Am I correct in thinking that Obama in effect said, currently when people in high tax brackets give $100,000 to charity their net cost after the tax deduction is $61,000. After my plan is implemented their net cost will be $72,000 but this will have no impact on how much they donate.

[Soylent Red]

charity seems like such an odd thing to pick on.

I understand what Obama is up to perfectly.

Not only do you increase the level of immediate dependence on government to take up the slack, and increase the rationale for the argument against "the rich", but it fulfills a couple of other fundamentals of liberalism.

Government aid to the poor negates the need for individuals to do charitable things, over the long-term. This plays into the selfish "thee, not me" attitude most liberals espouse by shifting the moral burden of charity to the amoral act of writing a bigger check to the gubmint. The purpose is to indirectly attack the moral superiority of the charitable individual, in favor of the collective.

Likewise, once you eliminate the individual responsibility of charity, you accept the premise that government is the cure for some or all social ills. This creates an atmosphere in which the existence of social problems is proof of insufficient government oversight and control. That, I believe, is the true goal of this whole thing: to create an atmosphere in which resistance to government intervention and expansion is generally accepted as evil.

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

If that is really Biden's claim couldn't that put his church at risk for audit, to see if they reported that income?

Porch,

Churches, unlike other non profits, don't have to report income (yet).

[Fresh Air]

I've got another interesting result of this stupidity: political action committees will be on the same footing as charities. Take the money you would have given to the United Way and give it to the RNC. It's only fair.

[PeterUK]

"That, I believe, is the true goal of this whole thing: to create an atmosphere in which resistance to government intervention and expansion is generally accepted as evil."

Sorry Mr Red.Obysmal isn't that smart.Somebody would have had to think that for him.

[Soylent Red]

Ah I forgot one other element...

The shift in the burden of social ills to the massive middle class, and away from the elite.

As much as they may argue the opposite, making charity dependent upon tax driven government programs moves the financial burden from the rich (liberal elite rich who subscribe to "thee, not me" and the collective mindset) to the middle class taxpaying schlub who can't afford the kinds of people and methods that shelter and hide money from taxes.

[MayBee]

He isn't specifically targeting charity.
He is going to limit the amount of total deductions people can take.
It's just that charity is the only deductible item that is discretionary, so that's where people will cut back. If I could cut back on my property tax bill and give more to charity, I'd do it!

My guess is it just never occurred to him and Turbo that this would be a byproduct of their tax manipulations. So now better to deny than admit it.

[clarice]

Exactly, Soylent--and it diminishes the power of the unfavored charities--i,e, churches-- vs. Planned Parenthood whom the govt will continue to fund one way or the other;boy scouts vs the Jugend; private schools vs state sponsored dummy making institutions..

[Appalled]

I am going to register a dissent to the Obama bashing on this particular policy. If taxes are to be raised, phasing out deductons is a smart way to do it. If you do it by the traditional method of hiking the tax rate, all you do is cause the tax code to distort economic behavior more than it already does.

Yes, some charities will receive less. But, somehow, I don't mind that a left-leaning mega rich guy from Silicon Valley will now have to put more of his cash in the collective pot (for national defense, debt reduction, and the like), and will have less money to put in his pet projects.

If Mr. Silicon Valley values his cause, let him pay for it with after-tax dollars, rather than have me fund his tax-break for investing in sving the habitat of the wild cannabis plant.

[narciso]

It's a monstrous thing, that he's doing, Eureka,

[bad]

When charities and churches tank it will be the fault of the rich who previously only donated for the tax deduction.

Nast, Nasty rich people....

[narciso]

I meant for getting out of the TypePad prison, not this social engineering

[narciso]

So we curb the deduction for charity, we make community service mandatory through the GIVE act, newspapers are going to have non profit status, the world is more insane than it was a month ago, right

[Porchlight]

Churches, unlike other non profits, don't have to report income (yet).

Thanks, Ignatz - learn something new, etc.

[MayBee]

I don't mind that a left-leaning mega rich guy from Silicon Valley will now have to put more of his cash in the collective pot (for national defense, debt reduction, and the like), and will have less money to put in his pet projects.
===============

Mega-rich seems to have taken on a new meaning if it starts at $250,000.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Whilst all the above,and no doubt below,rationalisations are interesting,the most obvious explanation is,Obama is a prat.He has spent his life winging it with post-modern waffle,now it is coming back to bite his bum.

Bingo. he doesn't actually even remember what he said last: he just says what sounds good now.

[Jane]

Dems want to increase the number of those needing charity and to perpetuate their neediness, while eliminating the sources of charity other than the government.

I was thinking it would be easier to let them die. But you are right, that wouldn't constitute a sufficient emergency.

[pagar]

the world is more insane than it was a month ago

Obama has ended the war on terror-------

In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department's office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'"

[bad]

I was thinking it would be easier to let them die.

That's covered under the "kill granny" provision.

Comprehensive plans you know...

[Soylent Red]

Maybee...

I disagree on two points. First, the mega-rich have the means and knowhow at their disposal to avoid taxes. The mega-rich lefty will default toward tax avoidance because he believes that he is either above paying, or because he is fundamentally a hypocrite. SO while some may get soaked, I believe most will not.

Also, while Obama may not be specifically targeting charity, he is acting with specific intent to diminish the the monetary lifeblood of charity. I don't know how much closer you can come to "targeting" that that, without specifically using the word.

All in all, whether consciously or unconsciously, Obama is increasing the grip of fear, ignorance and dependency. Intent is irrelevant

[clarice]

Appalled still doesn't get it..the supra rich have ways of avoiding taxes almost no one else does. Soros and the Kennedys and Buffett and Gates will decide (alongside the govt) who shall live and who shall dies..the rest of us bunched more or less near the middle will be unable to do much to help.

[PeterUK]

Chaco,
Tony Bliar was a past master of policy making on the hoof,say something that rolls off the tongue and pleases the current audience.It is somewhat like those boozy parties where outrageous ideas fly about.Usually people have either forgotten or are too embarrassed to mention these things the following day.Unfortunately for Presidents,like Prime Ministers,there are staff dedicated to putting all the balderdash which spews forth from the great personages mouth into action.
Hence there are countless innitiatives petering out like rivers into the desert.

[clarice]

Of course, part of me looks back at the number of schools, churches and synagogues who hailed this turkey and supported him and says, "Don't call me..."

[MayBee]

Soylent-
First, the mega-rich have the means and knowhow at their disposal to avoid taxes. The mega-rich lefty will default toward tax avoidance because he believes that he is either above paying, or because he is fundamentally a hypocrite. SO while some may get soaked, I believe most will not.

It was Appalled that brought up the mega rich. I made lines like this ==== but forgot to italicize.

I agree, the mega rich find ways to avoid taxes. I don't for one minute think "mega-rich" starts at $250,000/year.

[matt]

Obama's definition of charity is the government giving away your money to the people they choose to give it to.

[Old Lurker]

"First, the mega-rich have the means and knowhow at their disposal to avoid taxes."

Soy, I know that is the usual comment and it never gets challenged. I wonder how exactly they avoid taxes? When one sees the tax payments by income category, the top 1% sure don't seem to be avoiding very much...

[Soylent Red]

My bad maybee.

Just a question to the assembly...

I am too young to have a good memory of it, but was it this bad during Carter or is Obama going further?

[Soylent Red]

OL...

Is that by choice or by coercion? Some people actually may feel obligated to paying more taxes.

Hard to know, but when you consider the dissolution of the Kennedy family, you know that bootlegger money would have run dry years ago if they were paying the full rate.

[Bill in AZ]

I'm thinking The Won makes Carter look like Goldwater.

[Old Lurker]

Carter took a lot longer to show his gross incompetence.

[PeterUK]

The original quote is lost in the ether,but to paraphrase.
A nation,its culture,polity and constitution are like a magnificent old building that has taken centuries to build.Putting your nation in to the hands of Obama is akin to entrusting the building to a window dresser whose concern is only the fashion of the moment.Folks,you have handed the Vatican over to a condo developer.

[PeterUK]

"I am too young to have a good memory of it, but was it this bad during Carter or is Obama going further?"

Obama hit the ground fumbling.

[clarice]

Soylent, the Kennedy money is safe--in a non taxable trust in Tahiti. Otherwise, they'd actually be working by now.

[Old Lurker]

"you know that bootlegger money would have run dry years ago if they were paying the full rate."

Perfect example of a barn door closed. I believe (maybe somebody here recalls the details) that family moved their money offshore a number of years ago, as did some other families, but thereafter the tax code was changed so that folks doing that now are required to disclose it and pay tax on it all and all of the earnings. Including the estate tax that gets it all in a couple of generations.

The truth is it is pretty hard to avoid (legally) taxes on income and gains these days.

[Old Lurker]

Clarice IS quick.

[DebinNC]

Bank of America studied the evil rich and their philanthropy.

[PeterUK]

"Soylent, the Kennedy money is safe--in a non taxable trust in Tahiti. Otherwise, they'd actually be working by now."

Ted wouldn't earn much as a life guard.

[bad]

PUK, don't you dare make me think of that picture.

[verner]

Clarice, agree with you 100% Socialists like Obama think that charity is degrading to the poor. Better for the guvment to diss out rich people's confiscated money to the disadvantaged--and the lazy, criminal, drug addled, drunken, triffling and just plain won't get up off their fat asses and go to work--than to have individuals and orgs. decide who is deserving.

Indeed, the entire notion of the "deserving poor" is a bourgeois social construct! Haven't any of you read your Marx!!!

Besides, with this new move, we get a twofer! All those megachurches are going to be hearing the baskets jingle with the loose change generated by hope instead of the usual quiet big fat tithing checks.

[hit and run]

matt:
Obama's definition of charity is the government giving away your money to the people they choose to give it to.

...after taking its cut.

[Ignatz Ratzkywatzky]

Soy, I know that is the usual comment and it never gets challenged. I wonder how exactly they avoid taxes? When one sees the tax payments by income category, the top 1% sure don't seem to be avoiding very much...

With capital gains and dividend rates at 15% and the top income tax rate at 35% there is considerably less incentive to avoid taxes.
The various residents of Monaco demonstrate how taxes can be avoided by the top 1% in a high rate environment.

[PeterUK]

"Clarice, agree with you 100% Socialists like Obama think that charity is degrading to the poor."

"Socialists" like Obama,couldn't give a toss about the poor.The poor are their power base,curing poverty is the last thing they want,they represent poverty.That is why "socialists" always try to destroy the middle classes,to create more constituents.As for Obama,I don't think he has a principled bone in his body.

[verner]

Hey PUK, have you seen the VID of Gord getting the business from that conservative member of the EU. WOW, just WOW.

[Karl]

Read your Gramsci, esp. The Long March Through Culture. The Left is all about empowering the State by weakening other societal institutions -- family, religion, education, charity, healthcare, etc.

[clarice]

We already know some people voted for him because they think govt funds are somehow diconnected from tacpayers--that is there is a giant pool of cash sitting in govt vaults and all it takes is a sweet young genius to open the doors and pay everyone's mortgages and fill up their gas tanks. If charities flourish, peopl clealy understand that the benefit did not come from Obama but from your fellow citizen, especially those nasty "rich" people.

[bad]

Did anyone notice O tossing in boat references last night? Oceanliners vs speedboats.

Cashill must be getting to him.

[PeterUK]

Verner,
I've not seen it,but have read the transcript over on EUReferendum.Problem is the MSM here have completely ignored it,the BBC,like a fart in a gale.

BTW,The Czech Prime Minister said Obama's fiscal policy THE ROAD TO HELL.

[hit and run]

PUK:
BTW,The Czech Prime Minister said Obama's fiscal policy THE ROAD TO HELL.

And yet it isn't paved with good intentions.

Wow, Obama really is transformational.

[bad]

Tonight's Sacrifice and Austerity party at the WH:

PARTY TIME: There are about 200 guests at the WH Greek Independence Day celebration tonight.

And guest chef Michael Psilakis, of NYC’s Anthos restaurant, is cooking up some Greek fare in the White House kitchen.

The menu, according to a WH aide, includes the following:

- Raw Meze of tuna with feta dust, and pickled, raw and dehydrated watermelon
- Open Goat Moussaka
- Braised Snails with rabbit confit, trahana in a rabbit jus with dehydrated Halloumi
- Roasted Octopus with pickled morel mushrooms, aby fennel and leeks

per Politico

[verner]

PUK you have GOT to see it! I think you can get the Youtube link via Drudge, or do a google video search and it should pop up.

The look on "Brownie's" face is priceless.

Yeah, and not only the Czech PM, also several prominent French pols as well.

It is an utter irony of history that just as Europe is shedding it's OBAMAs, we elected one.

[bad]

Another one bites the dust:

Jon Cannon, President Obama's nominee to become deputy chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, withdrew from consideration today with a veiled reference to "scrutiny" of his association with America's Clean Water Foundation (ACWF) -- a group that the EPA inspector general cited in 2007 for steering federal grant money to the livestock industry.

OOOOOO scrutiny, who'd a thunk...

LUN

[PeterUK]

"The menu, according to a WH aide, includes the following:

- Raw Meze of tuna with feta dust, and pickled, raw and dehydrated watermelon
- Open Goat Moussaka
- Braised Snails with rabbit confit, trahana in a rabbit jus with dehydrated Halloumi
- Roasted Octopus with pickled morel mushrooms, aby fennel and leeks "

Where is PETA,the wildlife are dropping like flies.
All those wickle wabbits!

[verner]

PUK, Youtube link LUN

Dan Hannan. He uses nautical metaphors--how British.

The Tories need to dump Cameron and go with this guy. He kicks ass and takes names.

All we need to do is change PM for President, British for American, and Pound for dollar.

[Pofarmer]

I haven't read this whole thread. But, it's important to understand that what Obama intends, and what he says, are often at odds with one another. Hell, you could say generally, or, almost always, at odds with one another.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I am too young to have a good memory of it, but was it this bad during Carter or is Obama going further?

Obama is definitely a bigger fool than Carter.

[verner]

Po, I would say intentionally always.

[verner]

Yeah Charlie, but at least his kids are cute.

[PeterUK]

Verner,
Must I? I'm an old man,I've not been well.If you knew how many pictures of that dysfunctional,incompetant, meglomaniac we get,grinning like an android with a broken circuit.

[verner]

If you knew how many pictures of that dysfunctional,incompetant, meglomaniac we get,grinning like an android with a broken circuit.

I assume you mean Gordon and not young Dan.

Yeah, you pretty much summed up his smirking visage, but there was only 3 seconds of it.

I'm telling you, it will make you feel better seeing him get it in such an artful manner.

[PeterUK]

Verner,
Watched it,put me right off my black cherry jam on wholemeal butty.
The dreadful truth is,prior to stealing the Premiership of the other shyster,Gordon had a set of Hollywood teeth installed.The poor bugger cannot help it. No matter what the event,those teeth make him grin like a ventriloquists dummy.A bit like going to a fancy dress party and dscovering it's a funeral.
Now if you will excuse me,I have a bout of political noro-virus coming on.