You’ve no doubt been hearing the argument that Obama’s Redistribution of Wealth comment to Joe the Plumber was just a slip. (Even so, a Freudian slip is still quite revealing.) But now, new startling evidence is surfacing that it wasn’t a slip. Rather, it was revealing of an ideology that has been reasoned out by Obama. After the fold, hear the 2001 interview with Obama concerning not if Redistribution of Wealth is right or wrong but how our activist might best achieve it. It’s a foregone conclusion for Obama that it must be done.
Month: October 2008
Judge throws out case challenging Obama's citizenship
Posted by – 10/26/08
I agree that this case should’ve been thrown out, but not on the grounds any harm from an ineligible candidate is “too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.” Considering such an event would be an egregious violation of the Constitution, I’d say having an ineligible candidate for the Presidency actually take the office would give any voter the grounds to challenge it.
An honest question for Obama voters
Posted by – 10/26/08
Now, I’m going to ask a question or two here, and I’m very sincere in doing so. All I ask is that commenters answer all parts to the questions and please refrain from grandiose assumptions or visceral reaction regardless of your position. Are we clear?
- Do you find hope in Obama? Why or why not?
- What kind of change do we need, and what is it about Obama that allows us to believe in it?
What we need in a leader
Posted by – 10/23/08
Found this great Time article (via The Redemptive Angle) in which the author details two things we need — and can’t seem to find — in a leader. Astringency and intelligence.
One attribute we don’t need, although commonly associated with greatness in a leader, is empathy. Politicians–including the two at the top–tell the great American middle class that its problems are not its fault. Or that, whoever may be at fault, the problems can be solved if only we can agree on a tax cut.
During the second debate, both candidates were given a chance to be honest and give an example of a way Americans would need to sacrifice. During hard times and times of great national need, our leadership has been known to call on us to sacrifice. Presented with the opportunity, we had both our future president and the runner-up tell us that they’d have to look into their programs. That’s not Americans sacrificing. That’s the government doing it’s damn job.
What we need instead from a leader is astringency. Astringency means telling people what they don’t want to hear and leading them where they don’t want to go. It’s not comforting people about their current situation and reassuring them it will get better. It’s telling them that the situation is likely to get worse and that only their efforts can determine how soon it will start getting better. Astringent leadership is Churchill calling on Britons to “brace ourselves to our duties.”
Times are bad right now. Newsflash: they’re going to get a lot worse before they get better. It’s time Americans individually and as local communities start to prepare. Any notion that the Government can somehow find the right magic wand in time is laughable.
Remember all the talk about how we have been “borrowing from future generations” with the federal deficit, consumer debt and so on? Well, it’s been going on for more than a generation, and the future is now.
Call it a doomsday mentality if you like, but there’s nothing wrong with heeding a sound warning. And honestly, it’s something every American should take seriously right now.
A second desirable quality of leadership, especially now, is toxic even to mention for its allegedly élitist overtones: intelligence.
Think about it. Wouldn’t that be fantastic? And I don’t think the author means that it can be evidenced by some kind of equivocating nuance or morally indulgent platitude. Intelligence isn’t in soundbites, folks.
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.In response to a debate on refundable tax credits
Posted by – 10/22/08
This blog is a response to a post on Facebook that simply grew too large to continue there. The original message, which was not made by me, touched on the hints of Socialism in Obama’s refundable tax credits. From there, a back-and-forth occurred with several different people, and the applicable portion of the latest comment is quoted below.
I definitely understand that Obama is not infallible and that some criticism of him is not baseless. In this case the criticism is misleading at best. All of the tax credits proposed are to go to people who work. For one, “welfare check” implies money from the government for those who don’t work. Those that do work still pay social security taxes and medicare taxes, as well as excise taxes on the gas you use or your telephone bill. These tax credits are designed to somewhat offset these taxes in particular. Currently, according to http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/813/, the government is giving nearly $53 billion in the same type of tax credits to some 57 million people who fall into the zero or negative income tax category. This has been supported strongly by republicans in the past because it helps to keep lower income people who work off of welfare and gives them more of an incentive to work. More…
Experience, in his own words
Posted by – 10/22/08
So Obama, what changed after you’d served only two years as a first-term junior United States Senator?
The Single Issue Voter
Posted by – 10/22/08
The discussion over the so-called single issue voter in this election cycle has certainly created tension within the church. The label describes a person who seemingly applies a litmus test on abortion to candidates to determine which candidate for whom they’ll be voting. A theologian and pastor I greatly respect, Greg Pinkner, argues that it is a prioritized issue rather than a single issue for voters. I’d excerpt his argument, but that would give away its brilliance. I strongly recommend you read it.
Taxes understood through a bar tab
Posted by – 10/21/08
A friend sent me this wonderful tax analogy:
Best explanation to share with your congressman, and any Democrats/Republicans who might be your friends, who clearly do not understand this “complex” principle of Obama’s Tax Plan.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like this:The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just
$80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.‘I only got a dollar out of the $20 declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man, ‘but he got $10!’‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar,
too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the
tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers
without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them
for even half of the bill!And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is
how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.Author Unknown
Keep this in mind next time you hear someone grousing about how the rich get all the breaks — or even more ridiculous, that the government is actually putting money into the rich’s pockets. Taking less of someone’s money isn’t giving them anything; it’s simply taking less of it. It’s still a net loss for them. Pay attention to the rhetoric used regarding taxes by the two different parties on the campaign trail. Have you noticed that the Democrats enjoy speaking in relative terms? The rich should pay more! How much more? Who knows, but more! There’s already an inordinate burden on “the rich,” so at what point will the populists stop shouting for the rich to pay more taxes? Allow me to pose a question, and we’ll suss this out in the comments:
Why should the rich have to pay more than they already do in taxes?
Obama's polling slips
Posted by – 10/20/08
Not that I’ve ever put much stock in polls, but some of you simply require them to be the center-point of your argument — as if the sheer popularity of a candidate disproves all his negatives. For you, I present this:
RCP Average on 10/14/08: Obama 50.2, McCain 42
RCP Average on 10/20/08: Obama 48.8, McCain 44
Only 6 days ago, Obama was up 8.2 points. His lead has since dropped by 3.4 points, putting him at a 4.8 point lead.
Not that I care about polls.