« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama and O’Reilly talk taxes

...and it doesn't make me too happy

By: chuckie (Diary)  |  September 9th, 2008 at 12:17 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

**Apparently, Obama’s main message is that when the Government has soooooo very many things to pay for, they have to get the money somewhere…..

Obama wants the Government to pay for health care, mortgages, college education, “pay your bills,” and apparently whatever else anyone can think of.

I don’t know about you, but when I was a child, my parents paid for my health care. They paid for my dental care, and they paid for my glasses. I suppose that it’s my fault that we have had union insurance the rest of my life….

I don’t know about you, but since we have had a mortgage, we have had to pay it ourselves. There were plenty of times when that was not easy, but we never asked anyone else to pay it, even when it was at 19% interest.

I don’t know about you, but my kids are not going to college on the federal dime either. If we -or they – can’t pay for it, then they won’t go. Our youngest is a freshman this year, but he got there by way of Baghdad.

I don’t know about you, but I have had bills to pay all my adult life. Guess what? We paid them. Nobody helped. We didn’t ask anybody to help. They were our bills, we paid them. End of story.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t when it became the job of the federal government to pay for all this stuff. I’m not too much bothered by the fact that if I ever win the lottery, the government will take a really really big bite out of my winnings. But when someone works really hard, or invents things, or just makes a lot of money by using their brains, I really think the fruits of their labor belong to their own selves, not to all us “less fortunate” people who envy their success.

And I don’t know about you, but it seems to me, that this is really all it’s about,that people in this country – who are rich by the standards of most any other country – are always and constantly watching those who are better off, and saying to themselves:

“It’s not fair, why should they have more than me?”

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • kweiss01

    I think the government can and should provide a basic social safety net for those in dire need. The question of course, is what is “basic?”

    There are many examples in Western Europe of unemployment schemes that go to far and create a tremendous disincentive to getting a job — it’s more profitable and easier to live off the government, i.e. the taxpayers.

    Then there are examples of governments trying to provide all (e.g. healthcare) and doing a rotten job, as I witnessed in the former Soviet Union. Healthcare may have been “free” there, but you got what you “paid” for.

    In both instances cited above, the governments went beyond “basic” and mucked things up. As Republicans, must we take an all or nothing approach, as the most radical libertarians do? Can we draw a line in the sand and be prepared to constantly defend it as folks try to push beyond what’s basic and necessary and stray into socialism?

    • Moe_Lane

      Note tense.

  • JaGuAr3529

    …but the ability to pay for all the things you listed is not 100% contingent on hard work. This seems to be a prevalent myth of the Republican ideology. The myth ignores the crucial ingredient of luck in any success story: There are always elements involved that are out of one’s power to control.

    You and your family have obviously done well, and that’s great. Everyone should strive to be financially secure, and I hate those who would rather sit on their asses and leach off the government. But there are people in this country who are dirt poor who work their asses off, pursue every opportunity to improve their situation, and still struggle to put food on the table and pay their bills.

    What do Republicans say to these people? Screw ‘em? Tough luck? Wait your turn? That’s a serious question, by the way.

    NOTE: I’m a Democrat, and I’m here to learn more about opposing views.

  • David_Hinz

    but what do YOU expect the government to do about “bad luck.” I know people who started out dirt poor who are now millionaires. I remember going with them to raid the neighbor’s cornfield of fieldcorn for their supper. They worked hard, got an education while raising a small child and made something of themselves.

    Bad luck? There are people who have been flat broke a dozen times — they started over and became successful — lost it all, and then did it again.

    The idea that the government has to do it for you is flat out wrong. There are stutterers who have become top salesmen or even VP candidates — veryone, I mean EVERYONE has some talent that they can use in life. It is up to them to find it — not for the government to find it for them.

    Your “lottery of life” outlook is nothing more than class envy rhetoric and it doesn’t feed the cat.

  • kweiss01

    I think the government can and should provide a basic social safety net for those in dire need. The question of course, is what is “basic?”

    There are many examples in Western Europe of unemployment schemes that go to far and create a tremendous disincentive to getting a job — it’s more profitable and easier to live off the government, i.e. the taxpayers.

    Then there are examples of governments trying to provide all (e.g. healthcare) and doing a rotten job, as I witnessed in the former Soviet Union. Healthcare may have been “free” there, but you got what you “paid” for.

    In both instances cited above, the governments went beyond “basic” and mucked things up. As Republicans, must we take an all or nothing approach, as the most radical libertarians do? Can we draw a line in the sand and be prepared to constantly defend it as folks try to push beyond what’s basic and necessary and stray into socialism?

  • Martin_A_Knight

    The prevalent myth in Democratic/liberal ideology is that the machinery of state can be used to correct for those instances where luck made a difference, and in effect, make it all “fair“.

    First of all, I question the ability of any government to even be able to determine whether or not one’s success or failure is as a result of luck, much less determine how to rectify the situation.

    For example, some people are born with greater physical ability/beauty/means than others. How do you “correct” for that bit of luck for those who are rather ordinary in that department?

    This could mean that Jamal gets offered a football scholarship into a good college while Bilal is not. Lucky Jamal, right? Jamal gets drafted into the NFL for a few million dollars in his sophomore year, and suddenly his knee gives out and he’s let go. And he still has to pay bills and taxes on his stupidly bought mansion, cars, etc.

    Jamal ends up broke and back in his Mom’s house with a weak knee and no degree.

    However, Bilal happened to be born into a two-parent home which pounded the importance of education into his head from the time he could talk. That’s luck as well. So he finishes high school, goes to community college, gets good grades and transfers to a tier 2 school where he finishes with a good degree.

    Bilal ends up getting a good job, buying his own house and getting on in his life.

    How do you “correct” for Jamal’s situation? At what point? Jamal could make the decision to go to school … but what if his upbringing didn’t impart that value into him? How do you help him using the bureaucracy of the state?

    Conservatives believe in giving people the opportunity and safeguarding their right to make their own decisions and suffer the consequences on the assumption that people are each competent to make those decisions. If the state gets involved, the right to make decisions would inevitably get taken away in the name of protecting us from consequences.

    It simply is not the role of the state to correct for the rolls of the dice in life. It’s using a broadsword when a scalpel is needed. That’s why we have charity and private giving … which is why (consistent with our philosophy) we tend to donate more to help the underprivileged.

  • JaGuAr3529

    …but they aren’t common. For every rags to riches story you can come up with, there are many, many more people out there who have done everything right and still can’t catch a break. They will work just as hard as anyone else and still struggle.

    These are the people I’m worried about, not freeloaders. No one is suggesting that the government buy your success for you. That’s ridiculous.

    But I do believe a government shouldn’t abandon its citizens. If my neighbors are suffering from dehydration in the desert, and I have a lot of water, then I won’t mind giving them some of it. I think any decent person would do the same. I also think it would be wholly unproductive to instead whine about how they should get their own damn water.

    The notion that anyone and everyone with the will can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and lead a successful life through hard work alone is idealism at its most ignorant.

  • Martin_A_Knight

    If my neighbors are suffering from dehydration in the desert, and I have a lot of water, then I won’t mind giving them some of it. I think any decent person would do the same. I also think it would be wholly unproductive to instead whine about how they should get their own damn water.

    Your providing them with water is something every conservative/Republican would do and applaud you for doing. But this is a bad analogy. Governments (for example in Nevada) have rescue services that roam the desert looking for people lost in the desert – something Republicans approve of.

    What exactly are you trying to say?

    And if you don’t want the government to use money i.e. buy success, for someone you consider deserving, what exactly do you expect the Government to do about it?

    By the way, David is not saying “Rags to Riches” stories are common, if they weren’t they wouldn’t be on the news. However, contrary to liberal conventional wisdom, “Rags to Middleclass” is the most common story in America … and usually, at the “Rags” stage the person is living at home with his parents or with a group of friends and pooling resources.

    In 2006, the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, conducted a comprehensive and comparative study to determine how the poverty line is defined. Based on research on living conditions reported by those classified as poor, the findings were quite revealing.

    One of the clearest and most easily definable factors in determining daily living conditions around the world is whether a person has enough daily food and a minimum quality of food. According to the 2006 Heritage report, ?Survey data shows that nutriment density (amount of vita?mins, minerals, and protein per kilocalorie of food) does not vary by income class?In reality, government data show that most poor households do not suffer even from temporary food shortages.?

    Overall, 98% of U.S. households reported that they always had ?enough food to eat? during the past four months (although not always the types of food they would have preferred). Some 1.8% of all households reported they ?sometimes? did not have enough food to eat during the previous four months, while only 0.4% said they ?often? did not have enough food.

    In other words, although a small few of those considered poor reported there were ?temporary shortfalls? of food availability, there was no discernable difference in the quality of food available. The only real difference, when compared with those with higher incomes, was in food choices.

    Ironically, the biggest problem facing America?s poor is obesity?or over consumption?which is reaching near epidemic proportions.

    Also included in the Heritage report findings for those defined as poor:

    • 43% own their homes.

    • The ?average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.?

    They have significantly more ?living space? than does the average citizen living in affluent international cities such as London, Paris, Vienna and Athens. Only 6% of those living below America?s poverty line reported their living conditions as being ?overcrowded.?

    Next, consider that most today take pleasure in amenities that were considered luxuries just a generation or two ago. For instance, of the 37 million labeled ?poor? in the U.S., 80% enjoy the comforts of air-conditioning, as opposed to only 36% of the entire population in 1970.

    America?s ?poor? are also swimming in technology-related goods and services:

    • 97% own color televisions (over half have two or more)

    • 63% have either cable or satellite access
    • Over 99% have refrigerators
    • 73% own microwave ovens
    • One in three households have automatic dishwashers
    • One-third have cell phones, landline phones and telephone answering machines?less than a paltry 10% ?survive? without telephone service at all.
    • Almost three-quarters own a car and?more surprisingly?over 30% own two cars or more!
  • zroxx

    If my neighbors are suffering from dehydration in the desert, and I have a lot of water, then I won’t mind giving them some of it. I think any decent person would do the same.

    Then why don’t you let those decent citizens keep a heck of a lot more of their money so that they can decide to make good decisions about who to help in their local community, instead of sending it off to central planning bureaucrats who have never met your neighbor and aren’t in a position to judge need or priority?

    How about you do some community organizing with like-minded individuals to provide such assistance?

    You see, I agree with you on this point – American citizens will give generously, whether it’s time, money, expertise, use of property… but the extent to which they give is limited by their own resources. When government forcibly takes those resources, because presumably, government thinks it knows best how to direct them, then there’s far fewer means to do what otherwise might be a natural outcome of local community organizing.

  • Joanie

    Sorry to go off subject but I am a real 65 yr. old woman and I was a Hillary supporter. I did not like the way the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign plus the media treated Hillary.
    I for for one am real and I am voting for McCain and Palin.
    The best action would be for the RNC to go across party lines and put her in the Director of Health and Social Services Department after McCain becomes President. This woman really cares about health issues and seems to understand the issues.
    As an Alaskan, I think Palin was a wonderful selection.

  • Strelnikov

    …is that somehow a society of Republicans/Conservatives equals a dog-eat-dog pound devoid of basic Christian charity, where people pass by the beggars with a smug comment of: “Get a job!”

    It has been proven, in fact, that conservatives are more generous, probably precisely because they are religious and believe in Christian charity.

    The difference is: conservatives tend to believe that people affected by bad luck – either random or because of their own bad choices, in which case it is NOT bad luck – can be helped by the churches or private charities, supported by freewill donations.

    The left-wing believes charity begins with the government supported by forced taxes.

  • Joanie

    Katrina proved that most Americans will help their neighbors. It was mostly a variety of different denominations of churches that helped the people on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. There were small communities and individuals that brought goods to these areas before the government did anything. Their giving was impressive and shows that we help our fellow man when it is needed.

  • kyle8

    It is try that many of the best success stories in history also contain an element of luck or happenstance to go along with the hard work and talent.

    I also agree that there are some who might have what it takes to become very successful at something who did not have the good fortune to be at the right place at the right time, or know the right people.

    But that is only HIGH fortune, Real wealth, fame and riches which are hard to come by.

    If, on the other hand by success, you are talking about just being a solid middle class citizen with a comfortable home, and the respect of friends and neighbors then I say you are all wrong.

    I ought to know because I have had zero good luck it seems in my life, and I started very poor. Now, after a long struggle I am doing just fine as a middle class slob. So if this dyslexic, asthmatic ,A.D.D. rural Cajun can do it, then anyone can.

  • kyle8

    As a libertarian I should be opposed to this in principle, but I am not, because if a modern society does not have it, then the cry from the media and socialists will be too great to overcome. It only takes a few sob stories of grandma dying in the cold to create a huge backlash.

    Then you are saddled with a huge program. So a social safety net, geared as much as possible to helping people help themselves, is seen by me as a sort of inoculation against real socialism.