I don’t think I’ll vote for Sarah Palin in 2012

September 17th, 2010

Not because she’s crazy. Or radical. Or unelectable.

(Although, viagra canada treatment she clearly thinks she’s electable.)

But I’m not enthusiastic about voting for someone for President who resigned her Governorship after less than two years.

We definitely don’t need another neophyte in the Oval Office.

Entry Filed under: Observations

21 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Nick  |  September 17th, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Of course, the fact that she’s crazy and radical are pretty good reasons not to vote for her too.

    Added: And when a LIBERTARIAN calls a candidate crazy and radical… then you know something is wrong.

  • 2. Elliot  |  September 17th, 2010 at 9:40 am

    You’ll notice I didn’t express an opinion on that.

    I honestly don’t follow her closely enough to have my own sense of whether she’s crazy or not and I don’t trust the press to make that evaluation for me. ;)

  • 3. Debunked  |  September 17th, 2010 at 9:40 am

    For a neophyte, Obama has accomplished quite a bit.

    I mean, government has taken over the bank and automobile industry. We have socialized health care. We are taxing the rich into poverty. We’ve given free abortions for all and we’re giving all those aborted fetuses to stem cell research.

    He’s been a completely effective left wing crazy nut-job. Typical Democrat.

    And he’s been in office for only 18 months! Imagine what a neophyte like Palin could do with only two years before she decides to move on to bigger and better things.

  • 4. Elliot  |  September 17th, 2010 at 9:57 am

    She’d probably start by undoing all those things. ;)

    Oddly enough, I’ve rarely blogged my own opinion on most of what Obama’s done. Mostly, because I have some really conflicted thoughts.

    The bank thing is too big for me. I’m not qualified to know what was the right or wrong thing to do.

    I’m torn about the automobile bailout. Capitalism only works if companies and people are allowed to benefit or suffer from their own actions. GM should have went under. Chrysler has been bailed out twice in my lifetime. How is propping them up fair to Ford who would have survived on its own and then been rewarded for its good decision-making?

    On the other hand, I know how deeply the roots of big manufacturers lead into our economy. GM’s implosion would have been devastating to all of us. It’s a close call for me.

    I think I actually hate the healthcare bill more than I would have disliked socialized medicine. With real socialized medicine, I could get the costs off the back of my company (it’s our single biggest expense next to payroll). All the people who lost their jobs could still see a doctor. Instead, we basically got a giant giveaway to the insurance companies. Right now, there are MORE people uninsured. Rates are rising faster this year than last. And the 1099 reporting requirement buried in the bowels of the bill is nearly insanely stupid.

    Should the rich pay more? In principal, I HATE taxes. My skin crawls when someone talks about tax breaks “giving” people money. It was already their money. The government is just refraining from taking more of it. That aside, I think the “rich” could afford to pay a little more. On the other hand, I think the poor could afford to pay some, too. Supposedly, there are a large number of people who pay no income taxes at all. Everyone should feel some sting from the government. Otherwise, there’s too much incentive to just vote yourself more of other people’s money.

    As to abortion…THAT I have written enough about already. ;)

  • 5. John Foust  |  September 17th, 2010 at 10:56 am

    If everyone was supposed to pay the same amount of taxes (flat rate, progressively tiered, VAT, whatever) and the government carved out special exceptions for one class or another, then yes, why isn’t that like the government giving them money? It’s like subtracting a negative. It’s still a net gain.

  • 6. Elliot  |  September 17th, 2010 at 11:37 am

    First principals. You try to circumvent the nature of taxation by defining the circumstance(“If everyone was supposed to”), but the bottom line is that when it comes to “taxes” the government is always the taker. (In the case you described, the government is just an uneven and possibly unfair taker. ;)

    Of course, not all government-related monetary transactions are taxes. Some are transfers. So it is indeed possible for the government to GIVE someone money directly. But I’ve never seen that sort of transaction described as a tax cut.

  • 7. Debunked  |  September 17th, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Except income taxes are not an “uneven and possibly unfair taker.”

    The bracket system ensures this.

    If I am single and make $1,000,000 in 2010, I am in the 35% tax bracket.

    However, I don’t pay 35% of that $1,000,000 in taxes. I only pay 35% on the amount I make over $373,650.

    For the first $8,375, I only pay 10%. And then I pay 15% on the amount from $8,375 to $34,000.

    In other words, everybody pays the exact same taxes. Some people just owe more money when they make more money. Which makes perfect sense.

  • 8. Elliot  |  September 17th, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    I said “possibly unfair” because fairness is a subjective judgement.

    As to “even.” The only way I could see the taxes being “even” is if we all paid either the exact same amount of tax or if the percentage we all paid was exactly the same. Since we do neither, taxes are clearly uneven.

    (Although I might agree subjectively that the bracket system actually makes the uneven nature of the taking more fair. ;)

  • 9. John Foust  |  September 20th, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    I’ll give Elliot a pat on the back for an open and honest self-assessment of his political thoughts.

  • 10. La gallina  |  September 20th, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    You don’t seem to realize that the person who sits in the head chair is the one who picks the cabinet members and staff who carry out the plans. Bush surrounded himself with far better people than Obama has. As much as Cheney is bashed by the media and Dems, there is a deafening silence about all of Obama’s socialist and communist friends he is surrounded with. We are in deep shit here folks, and you’re too dumb to know it!

  • 11. John Foust  |  September 20th, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Go ahead, La Gallina. Tell us who’s on your list of known communists in the White House.

  • 12. TerryN  |  September 20th, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    Yea La Gallina, the openly communist Van Jones, picked for a ‘green jobs” post by Obama was thrown under the bus.

    I’m sure he was just an errant pick by Mr. B. Hussein Obama.

  • 13. Roland Melnick  |  September 24th, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Yeah…where would you get such crazy ideas, La Gallina? Was it because you’ve seen these comments:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2j7iIG7wII

    What that video shows is that it’s not just the BHO Administration, but also esteemed Congressmen like Jim Moran who think it’s a simplistic notion to believe that whatever wealth you have, you’re entitled to keep and how dare they have antipathy towards the government redistributing it for ya’.

    Mr. Foust, when you someday decide to retire and sell your I.T. business, would you prefer to leave the windfall to your children or would you prefer the government to seize it and redistribute it for you?

  • 14. Roland Melnick  |  September 25th, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    John, I thought my question was pretty straightforward, no?

  • 15. John Foust  |  September 25th, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    By my measure, I retired in 1986, shortly after college. I enjoy what I do and I do what I want. I’ve had the pleasure to cash out several businesses since then. The system I live under was created before I was born. Paying taxes is part of it. I’ve benefitted greatly from its infrastructure since then. You’d prefer a pay-more-as-you-go system, as opposed to paying more at the end? If you’ve been paying attention, I think it’s clear the nation’s taxation system was written by and for people far more wealthy than me.

    I am far more capitalist than you might imagine. I went to Galt’s Gulch once. I told John the place smelled of a personality cult. He handed me a big bag of gold coins, slapped me on the shoulder, said I won the prize, and said I was free to go but also welcome to visit him any time.

    On the other hand, once I stood before my City Council at budget time and asked them to raise my taxes. It seemed like a reasonable solution to the problems they faced. Another $200 a year wasn’t much to me.

  • 16. Roland Melnick  |  September 25th, 2010 at 9:23 pm

    As usual, you say a lot with answering the actual question. I suppose you think it noble to invite your local govt. to raise your taxes. If $200 is no big deal to you, why not just cut a check? A tax hike effects more people than yourself. While you were standing there with your nose in the air, did you point to your neighbor and say “while you’re at it, raise his too”?

    If your nose was sharp enough to catch a mere whiff of a cult of personality in the Gulch, why haven’t you noticed the stench from those followers who put Obama in office?

  • 17. John Foust  |  September 25th, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    Not noble. Just novel. Lots of people whine and ask for their taxes to be lowered without specifics of cuts they’d like to make, much less the political wherewithal to make that cut happen. You might as well wish the weather would change. I thought it would be fun to stand up to say, yes, go ahead and raise my taxes. They are content to raise taxes without anyone standing up to say that, right?

    Since then, the local Council has come up with different schemes for finding that extra $200 a year, like making garbage collection a new fee. And yes, I do recognize the effect of increased taxes on those with lower incomes.

    Why get upset at all the people who were so tired of Bush, and not excited by McCain/Palin? With all the pain and screw-ups created by Bush, it does not surprise me that “hope and change” won. The cult of personality for Reagan lives on. The cult of Bush is still so strong, only a few brave Republicans are willing to admit his errors. And to get back to the topic at hand… there’s a strong cult of Palin. What’s it based on? Facts? Accomplishments?

  • 18. Roland Melnick  |  September 26th, 2010 at 1:56 am

    “Since then, the local Council has come up with different schemes for finding that extra $200 a year, like making garbage collection a new fee.”

    That’s not a scheme…it’s playing in semantics. Fee-based government services or taxes for specific services is a great idea. The reality is those funds never seem to be spent exclusively for their intended purpose.

    Topic at hand? I don’t get the Palin fervor either. I lost respect for her after she quit the Governor’s job to go on tour. If she wants to be a celebrity, fine. But a four year book tour does not qualify as relevant experience for President, in my opinion.

    “You might as well wish the weather would change.”

    No…all you gotta’ do is vote Scott Walker in a few weeks.

  • 19. John Foust  |  September 26th, 2010 at 10:16 am

    It’s not just semantics, if the fee was added and the other spending not reduced. It’s effectively a tax increase. Don’t make me find quotes from fee-happy Republicans who call such tricks a tax reduction, or who claim they lowered taxes.

  • 20. Roland Melnick  |  September 27th, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Perhaps I didn’t catch your sarcasm. I’m saying a tax increase and a fee increase are the same thing. Find all the quotes you want. It’s not a scheme limited to Repubs. Here in the City of Milwaukee, they instituted fees for snow removal and garbage drop offs. As you say, if they institute a fee and do not lower taxes along with it…it’s a tax increase. I’m also saying that the semantics, or word games, are being played by the pols.

    Barrett hasn’t once lowered the tax levy. Even when property value assessments dropped…my tax bill rose. Only now, after realizing he is falling behind in the Governor’s race, does Barrett seek to hold the line on taxes.

    OMG…I think I just agreed with John Foust.

  • 21. La gallina  |  October 5th, 2010 at 8:34 am

    What a dumb reason to bash a politician…because they didn’t stay in office until the cows come home! It’s the perfect thing for one to do! Get elected, do the job, and move on to solve other problems. You don’t seem to know that the head of the government only signs the bills that come to him/her for approval or veto. Palin would have a team of the best and brightest to guide policy, and with a decent Congress would turn us around. There are plenty of Republicans that need to be booted out, but almost all of the Dems need to go. We need a Congress that will only approve Constitutional judges, and will impeach those who make law. I, for one, would vote for Sarah!

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta