I should have quoted this entire blog post:

August 28th, 2008

It’s that good.

Here’s a small sample:

Obama talks about freedom. Freedom in the political sense means freedom from government coercion. It does NOT mean freedom from an employer, cialis sale buy cialis from a landlord, freedom from the laws of supply and demand, or freedom from the laws of nature. Laws which do not guarantee prosperity to every man.

Now go read the rest of it.

Entry Filed under: Blogs

24 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Debunked  |  August 28th, 2008 at 9:03 am

    …snip…
    “I replied “I AM. So that will mean I won’t get a $50 haircut, I’ll get a $11 haircut somewhere else, and less often, and forget the highlights and all the rest, I won’t be able to afford it any more with the increase in my taxes. So will most of your customers. So you’ll make half the money and won’t have money for gas to work. But Obama will get you free health care. Good luck on the eating thing”
    ————————–

    Please. So either the person writing this article controls $200,000 dollars per year (or more), meaning they can easily afford that $50 haircut even with Obama’s slight raise on taxes on anybody in that bracket or they’re making under $200,000 per year and they won’t see their taxes go up at all.

    And even if they do make over $200,000 per year, are they making over the half million per year to see their taxes increase by more than 1-2% annually?

    Hell, I could extremely easily afford a $50 haircut every single week and I don’t make $200,000 per year. Oh no. And if they are making over the half million per year, then I have no problems with them voting Republican. But don’t try and convince somebody who’s actually doing labor making in a year what you make in a month that Obama is bad for them. Because that is just plain political spin.

    Can we say extremely sensationalistic article? Sorry, not that great. That’s the mentality of the selfish or the ignorant. Or both.

  • 2. elliot  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Hey D,

    She was reacting to what the hairdresser said, not what Barack has said.

    Indeed, Barack says he’ll only raise taxes on couples making over $200,000 a year.

    But I know that you know there’s no way that’s going to be enough for free universal healthcare and child support like the hair dresser said she’s expecting.

    For that, you would have to raise everyone’s taxes. (Whether indirectly on corporations or directly on income.)

  • 3. Debunked  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am

    Yeah, I read through the article and know who she was reacting to. Hence my comment that she was “trying to convince somebody who’s making in a year what she makes in a month that Obama is bad for them.”

  • 4. elliot  |  August 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    I actually don’t think she makes that much. I THINK she’s a cop/sheriff’s deputy or something like that.

  • 5. RP  |  August 28th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    I know the lady, Law enforcement NOT rich, college expenses to cope with as a Mom, Child’s father dead. Elderly parents who she helps out a lot. And she said the total tax she was referring to was ALL taxes, for the household, gas, property, sales. It adds up to about half of what most people make. Redo the math. . that’s not even close to $100,000 , let alone 2.

    I think the point she was making was that there’s not going to be enough from taxing the “rich” to pay for all the overhaul that’s promised, it will come from somewhere, and people that rely on income from services such as hair, facials, massages, nails, etc, or other business where they work on commission and not salary are going to see cuts in spending that will impact their income if taxes go up or the economy tanks.

    A lot of people are worried, that doesn’t make them “selfish”. OR ignorant.

  • 6. Brigid  |  August 28th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    Actually the $50 was for cut, highlights and an updo as I was out of town to be in a wedding. Cheap compared to most similar services.

    As for the rest, I won’t even dignify that with a comment, the assessment of my life, my feelings and my income, being that off base.

    But, like myself, you are entitled to your opinion. That is part of what still makes this nation great.

  • 7. Anthony  |  August 28th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Hey debunked,

    Someone can spend however much they want on anything they please as long as they work hard for that money. Go read her blog, she is not “rich” but she works for everything she has and she works hard. She is like the rest of us who work hard, she wants what she deserves, nothing more and nothing less.

    If you want to foot the bill for someone else be my guest but do not advocate that the rest of us should as well. I am trying to make a life for me and mine and no one else. I’ll help people out anyway I can but I will not be forced to do it. If you want socialism so be it, but some of us know what this country was founded upon.

    Now shut up and get to work, you are going to have to pick up some more hours if you plan on supporting millions of others as well.

    Anthony

  • 8. elliot  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Welcome to From Where I Sit, Brigid. You are a lovely writer.

  • 9. Debunked  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    “A lot of people are worried, that doesn’t make them “selfish”. OR ignorant.”

    Read what I said again. I stated that if her taxes are going up under Obama, she (and/or her family) must control an income over over $200,000 per year.

    As she has responded in this thread, I will respond to her. My assessment of your income was off-base (even though I added the provision above that said IF YOU MAKE SAID AMOUNT) because your response to the hairdresser was off-base. You essentially responded stating that under Obama your taxes will go up. You may not have meant that, completely, but as you typed it that is essentially what you said.

    If you truly believed that your taxes were going up under Obama, and your income is nowhere near $200,000, then my last statement above stands. It was simply ignorance to claim to the woman that your taxes will be increased to pay for her benefits based on current policies – one of the two things I stated it would be.

    Now, that all said, the method of payment for these things is the core of what is in dispute. The response should have more appropriately been – do you think Obama will be able to deliver on these plans WITHOUT raising taxes on you or other workers for the middle class? The correct responds was NOT to go off on her and state that you are the one paying for her benefits; because, again, that is incorrect based on current policy statements.

    I personally believe there is quite a lot of excess and bloated government spending. It is a possible scenario that Obama can delivery on his promise to cut a lot of the fat there. That alone could save billions of dollars that can be directly transferred into health care, education, or any other number of aid programs.

    And if my tax bracket does actually happen to go up a couple of percentage points and education spending also goes up as a result – then I will happily pay those taxes as well.

    I have no problems with people being entitled to their own opinions. I took issue with you essentially snapping at a woman who was doing work for you because of her ideals and I took issue that the snap comments made were incorrect based on current candidate policies.

  • 10. elliot  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    For the folks who may be new here:

    Please, feel free to disgree with each other.

    I just ask that you try not to be disagreeable while doing so.

    That means I prefer that you attack the argument, not the person making it.

    I’ve never had to ban a commentor or remove a comment and I’d like to keep that record intact.

    Thanks for your cooperation and welcome to Wisconsin!

  • 11. Debunked  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    So, you’re saying I can’t respond to Anthony’s comment about me getting back to work with: “I’d like that to go, please.”

    Damn it.

  • 12. elliot  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Funny is always allowed.

    I’ve just seen people get really mean with each other in comment threads on other blogs and I never want anyone to feel like they aren’t welcome here.

    I like that folks from both the Left and the Right come here to tell me how wrong I am.

    It’s one of the few things there’s bipartisan agreement on. ;)

  • 13. AmericanMercenary  |  August 29th, 2008 at 12:27 am

    The top ten percent of wage earners already pay more than 50% of the taxes the Government takes in.

    How is it fair to take more?

    When an individual takes from someone who has more than they do, it is a crime called “theft”.

    When the “Government” takes from someone who has more and gives to someone who has less JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE LESS, isn’t that morally equivalent?

    Forced wealth redistribution is a crime against humanity. Then again, if the government is handing out the rich guys riches, I guess the individual taking from him would still be guilty of “theft” because Government hates competition.

  • 14. Geoffrey  |  August 29th, 2008 at 12:31 am

    I just wanted to mention two things that I believe Debunker seems to take as assumptions.

    One, that an increase in taxes on even one segment of a population will not negatively impact the rest.
    Two, that any government currently existing has the capacity to streamline itself.

    As to the first assumption, “the costs are always passed on to the consumer.” If the most affluent individuals in this country find themselves losing more in taxes, they are generally in a position to scale up their income to compensate for that extra loss, which means products are going to increase in cost. So even if the “average” person’s taxes don’t increase, their monthly bills will. There’s no realistic way to prevent this.

    As to the second, is it really plausible to expect a governing body to restrict itself? It would take one hell of an incentive to convince someone to give up a high-paying, privileged secure position. Historically, those incentives came down to being offered an even better position or threat of execution. In addition, despite how accountable they are to the people on paper, there is no way to force them into compliance without opening a doorway to the hell of armed rebellion, civil war, and potentially losing everything this nation has ever held dear. Honestly, I don’t think people are so outraged by a bloated government they feel no other options remain.

  • 15. Anthony  |  August 29th, 2008 at 12:33 am

    I wasn’t trying to be mean, really. My comment about getting back to work was simply a comment on an observation I made about the person in question.

    So I offer my apologies if I was being mean.

    I like the blog you have here. I’ll be sure to visit often.

    Anthony

  • 16. Speakertweaker  |  August 29th, 2008 at 6:17 am

    D,

    “You essentially responded stating that under Obama your taxes will go up.”

    Clearly she meant that. Because it is true. When Democrats (particularly in this day and age) start throwing around words like “free”, it is simply a precursor to tax hike for ALL. And if you think that the middle class might maybe see a “couple of percentage points” increase For The Children, you were living in a hole during the Clinton Administration.

    Universal Healthcare, especially the mandatory version Hillary keeps tossing up, is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Just taxing folks who make $200K ain’t gonna cover that. Furthermore, only taxing folks who make over $200K is an absolute injustice, one which will merely serve as a precursor to an Obama Administration’s being forced to realize they don’t have the $$$, and therefore tax the snot out of the rest of us.

    Hence Brigid’s post. Sharing the “pie” is just not what this country is all about.

    Like one of her commentors said: Want pie? MAKE YOUR OWN.

    tweaker

  • 17. elliot  |  August 29th, 2008 at 9:13 am

    I wasn’t trying to be mean, really.

    I know you weren’t, Anthony!

    When I get a lot of new visitors, I just like to preempt any incipient ugliness. ;)

  • 18. Carteach0  |  August 29th, 2008 at 9:30 am

    To ‘Debunked’…..

    I think Brigid has called it right on the nose. Socialism by any other name still stinks to high heaven, and is doomed to fail after destroying a lot of good people and families.

    After a long career in a service industry, and now a second one in education, I have seen the results of many administrations. In every single one…. those that promised a large swath of new and expanded social services have raised taxes. In every single case, the ‘less than rich’ took the hit. That means my middle class working family customers had less to spend on family needs because tax increases settled squarely on their shoulders.

    EVERY….. SINGLE….. TIME

    Sure… as you say… it’s technically feasible that Obama could find some way to override all his party mates in Congress and steal away their excessive spending power to pay for his vote buying promises, but is it likely? Has it ever happened before under anyone except Reagan?

    No…. possible maybe, but only as likely as my regrowing my hair and becoming a ballet dancer. In others words… it’s a foolish point to make. Far more likely the Democrats in Congress will laugh heartily and pay lip service, while they loot the pockets of Americas working people to line their own.

    Brigid speaks the truth… and it’s a truth that Socialists hate to have expressed where the masses can see. A Barak Husein Obama presidency will be a financial disaster for working people and families, not just ‘the rich’ such as Obama himself and every single Senator and Representative in and out of prison.

    Obama and his cronies refuse to define ‘rich’ because their idea of wealthy includes anyone who (a) works for a living, (b) doesn’t live off government wealth redistribution, and (c) vote the Democratic party line. Yes, BHO intends to raise taxes… yes he intends to tax the rich…. yes, his party in Congress are already writing the bills to do so….. and YES…. we are all ‘rich’ as far as they are concerned.

    Brigid spoke the truth to that hairdresser… who was probably too young and too unaware to know it as such. The middle class working people take it in the shorts every time someone like Barak Husein Obama comes along… and people like her are the losers every time. To say different is to deny all of history.

    If Obama wants to show how the ‘Rich’ need to pay more taxes, then he can open his financial records and show how he and his wife (both rich by any standard known) have paid more than they were required to under tax laws. Till then, he hasn’t got a truthful word to say.

  • 19. Debunked  |  August 29th, 2008 at 11:00 am

    Wow, I really stirred up the proverbial conservative hornets nest here, didn’t I?

    Anyway, I would like to thank you all for being here today. Oh and now that I have your attention, I only really have one more thing to say: Vote Obama 2008.

  • 20. AmericanMercenary  |  August 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Debunked,

    “Vote Obama 2008”? Your shining moment of glory with all eyes on you and that is what you chose to say?

    I am not a socialist or a fool, and I am neither ignorant nor naive. So what compelling argument do you have to persuade me to vote for a candidate that wants to Ban guns and Raise taxes?

    Resorting to quips is hardly the mark of a well reasoned argument. Then again resorting to name calling is hardly the mark of a reasoning individual. So if you get to be unreasonable, it is only fair that I get to be unreasonable.

    “He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.” – William Drummond

    The question remains then, Debunked are you a bigot, fool, or slave to the party line? When you can put forth a well reasoned argument for Obama then perhaps you won’t be considered a bigot, a fool, or unthinking slave.

    Until then, if the shoe fits….

  • 21. Debunked  |  August 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    First, that was a tongue-in-cheek comment meant to bring a lightened closure to the thread. I felt that was fairly obvious. I don’t feel the need to respond to every single post with a counter response, as both sides would converge into the common rhetoric we hear every day. And as this is blog is on the conservative side, and this thread had a few somewhat passionate responses, I would be writing counter responses for quite awhile to respond to everything of which I have no desire to do as it in the end gains me nothing, anyway, since I doubt many people will be swayed by random articles from a no-name individual on a fairly obscure blog in the shadowy recesses of the internet.

    That said, let’s address your points, shall we?

    —————————————-
    So what compelling argument do you have to persuade me to vote for a candidate that wants to Ban guns and Raise taxes?
    —————————————-

    First, I am not opposed to guns. I could care less if you want to own a hunting rifle. What I am opposed to is a lack of regulation on hand guns. That said, guns aren’t a primary or even a secondary issue for me and I would never make a decision for or against a president based on their gun control laws. So I’ll refrain from commenting on that subject’s policies.

    As far as raising taxes is concerned, I have stated repeatedly that Obama’s tax plan grants lower taxes on the vast majority of people versus McCain’s tax plan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

    I personally feel that we need to be lowering the national debt. I fully understand economic theory in the sense that country having a national debt, in itself, isn’t a bad thing. However, an excessive national debt is – and I feel we are currently at that state.

    People frequently ask how Obama will fund his programs without raising taxes on everybody. However, it’s hard to answer that question without conjecture, which is what people in this thread are using when they state he will raise taxes on them. Because based on his current policies, their taxes are almost certainly going down.

    The big debate, here, is his health care program (as that was the topic discussed between Brigid and said hairdresser). I don’t recall him every talking about a national free day-care program – if I’m mistaken show me where he discussed that. That could possibly tie into education, but only for children old enough.

    Obama’s health care program is not Hillary’s. He is not trying to set up a single universal mandatory health care system. He wants to integrate a national health care plan to help people who do not currently receive health benefits from their work. There is a difference there, and rather than type up the entire program I’ll just link you what his policies are straight on his website: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

    Pulling out of Iraq alone will also save billions of dollars per month.

    That’s additional money that can go to various programs or to finally paying down the debt to more manageable levels. Of course, that depends on his whole Afghanistan as well – though at least then, we would be pursuing those who did attack us on 9/11 as opposed to the accessible scapegoat pawn that was Saddam.

    Again, either way, his current program as it stands shows slightly lower taxes on the middle class and higher taxes (or, not renewing the tax cuts) on those who control the vast majority of the wealth and it is unfair to attack him based on what you think he will do.

    As a side note, I also find the whole “you’re a socialist” argument to be rather cliche and uninspiring. Let’s face it – neither Democrats nor Republicans are socialists. Both support capitalism in varying degrees and neither party support a complete Laissez-faire attitude toward business.

    One of my strongest concerns, really, is publicly accessible education. I think the strongest and most innovative economy and country come from having a strong, healthy and well-educated population. And, as a side note, a person is unlikely to be very innovative if they’re struggling with their health insurance provider to pay for the surgery they need to stay alive.

    Oh, and I wanted to respond to one of your earlier comments, actually, but felt it best instead to leave it be. However, this post has given me the opportunity to do just that.

    —————————————-
    The top ten percent of wage earners already pay more than 50% of the taxes the Government takes in.
    How is it fair to take more?
    —————————————-

    I definitely do not advocate taxing the wealthy into poverty. However, my fairness policy would be that it is fair to take the percentage equal to the amount of wealth said population controls. Sound good? Consider:

    “In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.

    In 2003, the most-earning 1% of the population in the United States, which has a system of progressive taxation, paid over 34% of the nation’s federal income tax; the most-earning 10% bore 66% of the total tax load”

    So 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth. And paid 66% of the total tax load. Sounds like they have a few percent left to go to meet my fairness doctrine as laid out above. And it is on that segment, and only that segment, of the population that Obama’s tax increases (which mainly are not renewing tax cuts) will land. And his current tax cut policy will grant more to the vast majority of people including the middle class than McCain’s.

    —————————————-
    Resorting to quips is hardly the mark of a well reasoned argument. Then again resorting to name calling is hardly the mark of a reasoning individual. So if you get to be unreasonable, it is only fair that I get to be unreasonable.
    —————————————-

    I assume you’re referring to my response to Anthony? As Elliot said, it was intended to be more of a joke / bring levity to a passionately written comment. Even he saw that.

    If you mean the usage of the term ‘ignorance’ then I only use that term in the sense of its dictionary meaning which, by the way, merely means being uninformed. By stating that Obama equals a raise in taxes on her income is uninformed based on his current policies.

    Outside of those two comments, one of which was obviously a joking response to being told to “shut up and get back to work” and the other, I’ll grant, could be misconstrued as an attack I fail to see where you are pulling me being “unreasonable” from.

    If anything, the only reason I made my original post in this thread was as I said above. Because I felt that Brigid was out of line in the way she snapped at the hairdresser. Perhaps she exaggerated somewhat in the manner she responded. But I ask why one would exaggerate a fairly aggressive tone taken to another human being doing you a service? Indeed, I even wrote exactly what I believed would have been more appropriate responses that, while disagreeable, would not have been quite as inconsiderate to said hairdresser in the situation above.

  • 22. Somerled  |  August 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    The Progressive movement is nothing new. Why anyone would associate its most recent orator, Sen. Obama, with hope and change escapes me. Sen. Obama hasn’t offered anything new. It is the same vagueness about taking a little from the exploiters to close the gap between them and the exploited for more than a century.

    The ignorant, arrogant journalists at the New York Times published an article Aug. 16, “Seeing Tougher Race, Allies ask Obama to make ‘Hope” specific.”

    ““I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message — even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,” said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. “It’s fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.”

    Sen. Obama will tax the excessive, windfall profits of “Big Oil” and use some of the tribute money to give exploited Americans a $1,000 rebate. But he doesn’t address how he can force foreign-based corporations such as Dutch Royal Shell and the huge oil companies in Saudia Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Iran, and China that dwarf U.S.-based energy corporations to pay taxes. If he can collect them, how will he keep “Big Oil” from raising prices or exporting the oil to friendlier harbors?

    Sen. Obama might turn out to be another Barbary pirate and be placed on trial at The Hague. At the very least, he will scramble when the Saudis and Chinese stop funding the national debt and launch a trade war with us.

    Americans have also invested in “Big Oil” and perhaps don’t even know it. Are you paying into a pension fund, saving to send your children to college, pay life insurance premiums, have certificates of deposit with a bank, or have a 401K plan? If you do, you are a stakeholder in “Big Oil.”

    Who do we expect to bail out financial institutions when they fail? Could it be the promise of a $1,000 rebate could keep us from retirement or our children from obtaining the American Dream?

    Republicans sleep through economics and history courses, too, and that is why that party lost control of Congress in 2006.

  • 23. Tam  |  August 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    I only really have one more thing to say:

    That was a lie…

    Vote Obama 2008.

    Not with your finger and someone else pushing.

  • 24. Tam  |  August 29th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

    PS: PALIN/mccain ’08. Suffer, hippie.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.