Michael Koby: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…
Erick
· 1 year ago
To your footnote: There are more than 2 candidates...however since most people are uninformed or uneducated about the candidates (other than what MSNBC, Fox and CNN report), they will not even consider what else is out there...and with A LOT of people dissatisfied with the "2 evils", you would think this would be the year that someone other than an R or D is voted into office.
Unnamed Co-Worker
· 1 year ago
Not really one to comment on blogs that often, but here goes. Socialism? Honestly, who cares? You and I are going to do well in any system of government because we are the intellectual elite, knowledge holders of a requisite ingredient of the modern age, and we don't make 200k, so alot of this doesn't affect us.
My main reason for looking at Obama as a viable candidate is that he has a history of looking at society from the bottom up, he is genuinely concerned with the lower classes. Trickle down economics is a farce. The theory, and practice is that if a company is doing well, they will spread the wealth down, over time, slowly to the underclass which will slowly grow in economic power.
The reality is that with the power at the top like that, the minute it is expedient, the trickle of economic good coming down from the top turns into a flash flood of devastation in the form of layoffs, plant closings, outsourcing etc. It's a bullshit system of economic redistribution to the upper crust, period. Business exists for a single reason, profit. If it were not profitable, it would be called charity or something.
I think that LBJ was probably the last president we had who really did anything for the underclass, and it's about time we started focusing on those issues again. What's it been, 45 years? According to legend, his plans won't cost you anything, but even if they did....what...100 bucks a check? Big deal, we can afford it. Imagine working for $6.50 an hour, or $10 an hour, wtf? There are people out there doing it, and we actually need those people in the low end jobs to make "our" lives better, cut 'em some slack my man, cut em some slack.
Michael Koby
· 1 year ago
Now this of course is all based on who you perceive where each class begins/ends...
The idea/concept that we, as people whom are educated, hard working, and intelligent need to support/help those that won't help themselves is ridiculous. Why should I pay more so the guy who is just too lazy to get an education or learn a trade can have a better life? To pay more taxes so the lower/middle class can have a better quality of life is essentially rewarding laziness and/or ignorance.
You make comment of it's like "what, 100 bucks a check" but even if it was one single dollar that would still be too much. That's my money. I worked for it. I got my rear out of bed, got dressed, went to work, and worked for it. Not to mention I read, study, and practice to further my craft/trade so that I can eventually earn more. Why should money be taken out of my check for those that won't bother.
There are literally thousands of scholarships available for those that will simply take the time to fill out a form or write an essay. There is enough money out there that just about anyone can goto college for pretty much next to nothing (or really close to it). They just need to take the time to research, request, and jump through some hoops. They don't want to do that? How is that my problem or responsibility? It is not the upper-classes responsibility to provide for the lower/middle class. To help those that will not help themselves (notice I said "won't" not "can't") is more specifically not MY job. My "job" is to provide for my family and myself. Why people some people feel that I should provide for anyone outside of that, I will never know.
Just because I'm intelligent and hard working doesn't mean I need to give my money to those who are not. It also doesn't mean I should give MORE of my money to a government that will give it to them for me.
UnNamed-CoWorker
· 1 year ago
wow... Some folks are not as smart as you.
Some folks honestly don't have the opportunities you did.
If all you had to do was work hard, why are you not a millionaire, or retired?
You can be outsourced in a second, for no reason. Your'e not as secure as you sound like you think you are. Were you working after the tech bubble burst in '01? Did you watch friends lose houses? Did you watch people in OUR industry take 6 figure paycuts? People who were smarter than either one of us were living on unemployment for months, unemployment funded by tax dollars.
I would bet from your comments that you are probably making more money than you ever have in your life, you probably feel like you are upper middle class, or that your'e wealthy. Got some news for you, you really aren't in the group of folks that would be considered wealthy if you are working as a consultant at our company....comfortable, but not upper middle class or wealthy.
You're young and probably feel pretty powerful at this point in your life. I sounded alot like you several years ago, was making more money than you will probably ever make (no offense, it was just the times) and I took a paycut that is probably more than you make right now. I'm not bragging, just trying to give you some perspective, and possibly generate some empathy. You (we) are not impervious to forces beyond our control. Market forces, terrorism, storms, the unknown, they all influence the strength of the little bubble that we software developers live and feed in.
I.T. is a cost center, it is a cost center in most companies that produce products other than software, and when companies need to cut costs....there ya go, flushed.
Talent doesn't count when directors, V.P's, and folks you have never met send down word that heads need to roll, at that point, it's usually just a lottery. If your number is up, your intelligent, hardworking self will be unemployed, and on the public dole.
Just sayin. Free your mind brothah.
Michael Koby
· 1 year ago
1) Intelligence is not something you are born with. We all grabbed stuff off the floor and put it in our mouths at 1 and 2 years of age. Intelligence is something you gain through experience, reading, learning, etc.
2) I was laid off during the tech bubble burst of '01, guess what I did. I found another job. Granted it was pushing pizzas in a town outside of Austin, but point is I didn't sit around and expect the government to take care of me. I got another job (one I didn't particularly want to return to). I also went to technical training at New Horizons in Austin and received 3 Microsoft certifications. So, while you are correct that I could be outsourced tomorrow, for no reason, my confidence stems from the fact that I know I'm an intelligent individual, with a good head on my sholders and because of that I am capable of still providing for my family and myself.
3) I never said I was rich nor did I mean to imply it. But just because I'm not rich does not mean I'm not hard working. I also understand that in order to get to where I want to be and to make more money, and eventually become rich, I will need to work harder, learn more, become smarter, and look for opportunities as they present themselves.
So, if my intelligent, hardworking self is unemployed tomorrow (which, admittedly could happen given this market we're in), I'd have a job tomorrow. Would it be one that I want? No. Would it be what I'm making now? Probably not. Would I probably have to take 2 of them? Yes. Would I take unemployment? Yes (see how I pay INTO that unemployment, it's my money). Because you see, I understand that I need to work to provide for my family and myself.
I understand people fall on hard times. That's a completely different thing than what we're talking about here. What I'm talking about is redistribution of wealth. Which means that those that work hard for what they have are expected to give some of it to those that don't. Sorry, but nothing you argue is going to convince me that this is okay. Someone falling on hard times is one thing. They worked hard, stuff happened. Enron would be a perfect example of that. Many of those that lost their jobs at Enron were hard working people who got cheated by a bunch of crooks. So when they sued the pants off the executives, I found no problems with that. They were essentially robbed. But when you talk about people who DON'T work, don't try to get ahead, and don't make efforts to improve their situation but rather expect politicans to give them a handout, it's a totally different line of questioning, logic, and arguments.
Regarding those that aren't as smart or didn't have the same opportunities I had: Like I said in my previous comment, just about EVERYONE has the ability to goto college these days. There are several books in bookstores that list the thousands of scholarships that are out there for the taking. Some of those same books even give detailed instructions on how to better one's chances at landing those scholarships.
So no, not everyone had parents like me that did everything they could to ensure I had a fairly easy existence growing up. My parnets worked their tails off to ensure I had every possiblity open to me. They did the same for my siblings. Key word there is "worked" (and its an important one). Not everyone is as smart as me, you, or those that we might know. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to work to get ahead. It doesn't mean they aren't capable of learning and educating themselves (library cards are free). It just means they have to work harder, potentially longer, and deal with more barriers.
This idea of "well they didn't have it as easy as you and I so we should give them an hand out" is ludicrous. Everyone in this country has every opportunity to get an education, to learn a trade, and to become better than what their social-economic status dictates. They don't want to go to the bookstore or library to find out how to get some of those college scholarships to get an education, how is that my fault? My issue with this whole concept of entitlement is with the very idea of the word entitlement. No one, is entitled to anything. Not you, me, the guys sitting next to us on the bus or in our favorite restaurant. You work for what you get, period. You want more, then you figure out what you need to do to get more. A large percentage of the population things they are entitled to something without having to do anything for it. And the problem is, people like Obama want to give those people what they feel they are entitled to. I have a problem with that because, it is showing those people that if they complain loudly enough they will get want they want. They won't have to work for it, they'll just get it. I find error with that way of thinking.
Why is it wrong for me to expect people to work for the things they have? Why is it wrong to think that people shouldn't be given handouts? Why is it wrong to believe that if "a man does not work, he shall not eat?" Why, as a someone who works hard to get ahead in life, must I be made out to be a villian because I believe that others should do the same? I worked hard to get where I am today why should I be expected to give to those that don't want to do the same?
Michael Koby
· 1 year ago
Also keep it coming, I love a good debate :-)
UnNamed-CoWorker
· 1 year ago
And I was just about to go back to coding...
I think you also look at things in strictly a welfare frame of mind. I do agree with you that the lazy should not have it easy, but folks who are struggling, working hard, delivering pizza maybe to make it happen for their family, and their son comes down with liver disease. Screw em?
The phone support girl making 12 bucks an hour and needs daycare assistance so she can work.
The dude who gets his arm crushed while he's working as a sub for a construction company. Starves?
Programmer who goes blind?
It's not all about welfare mothers, and crack addicts. There are other programs and services the gov't offers.
Healthcare for the pizza delivery dudes, why not? They bring me food so i can clog my arteries and enjoy my employer provided healthcare that i work for. Help his liver sick kid, why not?
Pay for daycare so a parent can work their way up the ladder while their kid is safe....I like the idea that kids can be safe, even if their parents are poor. Do you?
What if you died, and your wife paid off the mortgage with your insurance money, and had to work, and take care of the kids, and couldn't afford daycare, would it piss you off if I called her lazy and didn't want my taxes to pay for it?
How about federal arts grants? Money for public tv? Head start programs? Free lunch at schools in poor neighborhoods? It's all in the redistribution equation. Just thoughts. it ain't all welfare for crack addicts.
Fred Lundgren
· 1 year ago
Michael,
With all due respect, I know how the economy "works". With that said, I am very disappointed in your short-sighted and apparently selfish world view, as it can lead to great harm if sold to others who will gain political power in mid-life and cause your wrong-headed ideas to be perpetuated as public policy.
First of all, and obviously, as more and more wealth is concentrated at the top, it results in fewer people paying income taxes from their annual gains but, income taxes are just the tip of the iceberg. In almost all cases, working people who pay no income tax must pay many other taxes that can quickly invade their ability to pay for necessities. Income taxes, especially at the level of earnings beyond 250k a year, are paid out of surplus earnings. These taxes reduce the elective expenditures of the taxpayer, not the taxpayers necessary expenditiures.
This is the reason for a graduated income tax, a tax that must fall chiefly on the upper level tax payer who benefitted the most from the economic system. A much higher top-end graduated tax system is essential to prevent too much wealth from getting concentrated at the top and held by fewer and fewer citizens. Today. the bottom 1/3 of the American population has less combined total wealth than Bill Gates! This stack of wealth at the top of our economy has serious ramifications for future generations who will find themselves unable to acquire enough "means of production" to start and own their own businesses and are forced settle for becoming low wage slaves to a system that strips them of all their earnings before they can be stored as savings or to produce more wealth. A graduated income tax, which I'm sure you interpret as socialism, is the only sure way to prevent the super rich from controlling almost all the wealth, which will lead to a destruction of the capitalist system, a situation our society is fast approaching today; a situation where the blind parasite is allowed to kill the host.
Michael, it appears you are happy with the current system, a deregulated system that has eroded wages, a system that awards the exploitation of labor and further enrichens the rich. Your conclusion that anyone who has a low paying job should learn a "trade". Young man, do you consider the person who picks up your trash as being skilled? Could you operate their machines safely and drive their trucks in, and around every neighborhood? How about the persons on the farm who have been raising your food? Do you consider them skilled? Could you raise your own food in case it was necessary? Michael, you don't even understand the language of the land! How about the framing carpenter, the roofer, or the person who works on the highway construction crew, or the person who drives the early city bus that takes the low wage service workers to their jobs? Are all these people unskilled because they earn a low wage? Would you do these very necessary jobs? Consider where you would you be in this city without them. These people, especially the older workers who take the early bus to work and have no health insurance that you disregard.
Michael, in my opinion, you need a long-term personal experience with low wage work. Work one full year as a roofer in the Texas sun, followed by one year on the farm with my oldest son, followed by a third year on the back of a garbage truck, followed by a fourth year as service worker at a cafe, and finally a fifth year as a child care provider at a Day Care facility. At the end of the five years, let's review your world view and your thoughts on issues such as health care, minimum wages, fair housing, immigration, and according to you, one of the most horrible terms in the English language... (The Redistribution of Wealth)
Sincerely,
Fred Lundgren
Michael Koby
· 1 year ago
Fred,
Always nice to hear from you.
My statement about how the economy "works" was more in reference to Obama's tax the rich and profitable corporations more than they already are. Sadly taxing the rich further is not going to fix anything. The rich already pay most of the taxes collected by this country. You can hide a lot of cash donate to charity, but the rich still pay.
Also, no, I'm not entirely happy with the current system. However I don't believe that the current system, is as bad as folks like Obama make it out to be. There are a lot of hard working people in this country. And I've avoided mentioning it because it wasn't overly relevant but my father worked in a mechanic shop for over 20 years in the Texas heat. And shops get hot, they trap heat. Plus there are running vehicles with hot engines adding to that heat. My first "jobs" were sorting parts in the shop, doing oil changes, and washing cars at that same shop. So while I didn't work on a farm or work on roofs, I'm up on hard work and physical labor. I watched my father sweat is butt off in the sumer to provide for me and my siblings. And my father would be someone I consider successful. He ran his own business successfuly for around 20 years.
I think that some of what I am talking about is getting lost in translation. So I might need to reword and reiterate. My issues are with those that wish to:
1) Punish success (which is essentially what Obama wants to do). Obama was to tax "highly profitable corporations" and give the middle class (who pay some of the smallest amounts in taxes) larger tax credits. So he's going to take more money from those that are already having the most money taken from them, and give it to those that aren't paying the most?
2) Have entitelment issues. They feel the government SHOULD do this and SHOULD give them that. My main point is, no one is entitled to anything. You work for what you have, period. I fail to see fault in this extremely simple logic. I work very hard for what I have. So did my father and so did his father. You worked very hard for what you have. I don't feel I'm owed anything by anyone (except payment for services rendered: I do work for you, you pay me for it in some form or fashion). I'm not going to sit around and WAIT for the government to give me what I think I deserve, nor should anyone else for that matter.
Also, I never argued that low wage = unskilled. I simply refuted an arguement that people make less or don't have a job because they didn't have the "same opportunities as me" or were "not as smart as me" because I feel that those arguments don't really hold water. There are a lot of low wage jobs that require skill (farming, roofing, construction, and even machining are a few examples). Like I stated previously intelligence is not something one is born with it is something learned/taught/cultivated. As children we all do unintelligent things. My father is one of the smartest men I know, no college education, but he reads like a bat out of hell (and retains a lot of it too).
I don't think that the current system is perfect. But I'm officially against giving handouts just because someone is too lazy to get off their butt and work. You want to help the hard working, that's one thing. But redistribution of wealth doesn't discriminate on WHO gets the money, it's just redistributed. Obama himself said "I believe that when you spread the wealth around it's good" so can you tell me how that doesn't mean "redistribution of wealth?"
Fred Lundgren
· 1 year ago
Michael,
Your economic god is dead. WAKE UP! Even the greatest of your prophets, Alan Greenspan has admitted his world view was flawed. Why do you support a defrocked world view!
How did you ever get caught up in this mentality? Your blog entries are nothing more than creative plagiarism you assimilated from the blind guides of the past.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
Your response to Linda regarding the 750 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street s side-bet losers leads me to conclude you are lost in a vortex of right-wing propaganda. You are either brainwashed or worse, it appears you have been hypnotised. This may have happened if you repeatedly went to sleep at night while listening to over night rebroadcasts of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Until you awaken, their is little more I can do or say.
Michael Koby
· 1 year ago
Fred,
Regarding the bailout, I just don't believe that the answer to the problem is MORE debt at the taxpayer's expense. I never said NOTHING should have been done, just that the bailout was not the solution i desired.
Really? I don't agree with your world view so I'm a right wing nut and a plagiarist? At least I'm a "creative" plagiarist (I guess). I think I've more than proven that I can think for myself. For the record I dislike Limbaugh, O'Riley, and most other right-wing talk radio. About the only political program I listen to with any kind of regularity is KCRW's "Left, Right, and Center" (http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/lr) because its fairly balanced and looks at ALL viewpoints. Also, if I was a "nut" I would have deleted all comments that did not agree with MY world view. But I didn't because I think open discussion is important when it comes to politics. Also, I have zero intention of changing your world view (while it looks like you are working desperately to change mine). You can rarely change someone's world view, and you definitely can't do it on blog. I'd also like to note that the title of this post is essentially "Why I Won't Vote for Obama" not "Why You Shouldn't Vote for Obama" because I'm not here to tell someone how they should vote. There are a couple of places where I somewhat attack the other side (but lets face, compared to what the rest of the internet is doing to people that share my views, my "attacks" were tame at best), but it also incited debate, which is good.
Let's make this whole argument incredibly simple. If you can show me, in the constitution where it says that the rich shall make the lives of those less off than themselves better, I will concede. If you can show me where it says that those that make more than everyone else are duty bound to give their money to the poor via government intervention, I'll concede. Problem is, you won't find it. Doesn't exist. The constitution was written with the idea that the government would have VERY limited authority to do anything. It was meant as a way to tell the government what it could and could not do to its citizens. The general idea was that if the citizenry was free of mass government control they could control their own destiny. This has happened, for the most part anyway. The constitution says that the basic rights of man are "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness" which means that you can pursue happiness, doesn't mean you'll get it. There is nothing in the constitution about making life fair for everyone. Life isn't fair, never has been and it never will be.
Now, with all that in mind, I do believe that you should help your fellow man. But government intervention, in my opinion at least, is not the solution to helping out your fellow man. You want to help those less fortunate than yourself, there are charities for that, you can donate to you local church, you can physically walk down the street and give the homeless guy some cash. Relying on the government (which is effectively slow at accomplishing just about anything) to help out those less fortunate is "a long wait for a train that don't come"
Linda Lundgren
· 1 year ago
Michael, your taxes won't be affected if Obama is elected unless you and your wife make more than $250,000 annually. One of the things McCain and Palin are leaving out of their oft-made talking points is this fact. Obama directly addressed it a couple of days ago. For an individual, your adjusted gross income level must be over $200K and $250K for a married couple. In the McCain/Palin campaign, they are using scare tactics by repeatedly using the terms "socialism" and "spreading the wealth" in derisive tones, but not mentioning the income level that must be exceeded before any change takes place. Btw, the recent Wall Street 750 billion dollar bailout was spreading the wealth. Is that also socialism? love, "Mom"
Michael Koby
· 1 year ago
The bailout is a completely separate issue altogether. I wouldn't say it's socialism so much as just a bad idea all around. And for the record, I was against the bailout. The bailout will only fix a symptom, not the underlying issues.
So how is only taxing the rich, helpful? The rich already pay most of the taxes collected by this country every year (why does everyone completely ignore this point). So, my argument that Obama is going to "punish success" by only taxing the rich, still stands. No matter which way you slice it, taxing the rich further and taxing companies just because they made a lot of money is punishing the rich.
"Oh look, you made a ton of money this year, please pay up. Oh and by the way I'm going to give this money to those that didn't make as much as you."
That's what Obama is saying behind all his pretty words and "wonderful" speeches. Which means he's taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
Obama clarified that his tax plan will only affect the rich. Meaning he is only going to raise taxes for the rich. Then he has a TV ad that says something like "Working single mother? Well under McCains plan you'd only get a hundred dollars. Under Obama's plan you'll get a thousand."
BTW, single working mothers (depending on how much they make) already get a nice tax credit (I did my wife's taxes for 2 years BEFORE we got married).
That sounds like redistribution of wealth to me. That sounds like taxing to rich to give it to the poor to me. There might be an arguement there if the rich (those that make more than 250K) didn't already pay the most in taxes every year. This is not Nottingham where the poor are overly taxed. The rich pay a ton in taxes every year. It's not like they aren't paying. Sure their probably cheating the system some, but their still paying.
The arguement that Obama's tax plan is only going to raise taxes for those that make more than 250K/year only further proves my point that he wants to punish success.
Erick
· 1 year ago
Linda, you're right...my taxes won't be affected because I actually make less than $100,000 a year. However, as a small business owner I do have a vendor that makes about $1.5 million a year in his business (silk screen printing) and he will be taxed by Obama's tax plan...both on his corporate taxes and probably his personal taxes.
He is like MOST every other American, in that his lifestyle is reflected by his income, and he isn't going to be able to squeeze more tax into his profit margin (I know because I have seen his numbers...almost bought his business). If he takes a personal paycut in order to keep more profit in the business, then he may not be able to pay for the commitments he already has (mortgage, car note, etc). He could let someone go in his company, but seeing as he's a loyal employer...he'll hold on to everyone that he can for as long as he can. His only other option is to raise prices. You know what this means don't you. Instead of paying $5.00 per printed shirt, I'll be paying $6.00, which means my customers will be paying $10 instead of $9 and that could mean the difference between selling them 72 shirts and 144 shirts, which means less money in my pocket, thus lower income. Of course I could keep my prices the same, but then I am making less profit in my company.
Effectively, Obama's tax plan has just affected me (indirectly) and it did take money out of my pocket. This scenario is no different than speeding 5 mph over the speed limit. Most people would think that's stupid because after an hour of travel, you're only 5 miles ahead of your counterpart going the speed limit. But let's run through the fact that you being 5 mph faster allowed you to catch a green light instead of red. Now you're NOT waiting for another 1 minute for the rotation of the light to turn green so you can go. That 1 minute delay means you are now behind an accident and have to wait 30 minutes for it to clear, vs. your 5 mph faster counterpart who missed the accident by 30 seconds and made the meeting on time. If all variables are the same except the fact that you're going 5 mph faster, then no harm done and you got to your destination about 1 minute sooner (whoop te doo), the opposite however is devastating to your commitment to your destination. All that to say that while you were not involved in the accident nor did you ever break the law (you did the speed limit, you stopped at red lights, etc), you were still a victim of cause and effect.
Cause and effect will trickle down and in the end those at the bottom will still be hit by things that happen at the top. So I would reconsider your argument of "...your taxes won't be affected if Obama is elected unless you and your wife make more than $250,000 annually...", because while the actual TAXES may not be affected, other aspects of my life WILL be affected...you can bet on that.
Maybe you can help me understand something too...if 70-90% of Americans were against the bailout, why did it pass? Are the people in Congress supposed to represent us? By passing that, did they NOT represent us properly? Just curious if you know the answer to that...or have an idea?
Erick
· 1 year ago
I've been reading these posts for quite a bit and I have to say that I see some things missing and it's not the fault of the government, it's the fault of the people.
1. Political Complacency - People as a majority have really just stopped caring about their government or don't make it a priority to learn what is going on at the local, state or federal level. When this year could possibly produce a 50% voter turnout...is that really helping to create a gov't for the people, by the people? The opinions of the minority (meaning...less than a majority of the US Population...not meaning minority races) are still controlling the lives of the majority. If the country goes to hell in a handbasket...it's our own damn fault.
2. People should be helping people. The principles of Christianity (whether you believe or not) is built around loving and helping people. The only 2 commandments that Jesus said we should keep is "Love your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Now considering that 85% of Americans consider themselves "Christian" we've got 1 of 2 things going on...either they are Christian and they aren't following the commands of Christ, or they are lying to themselves and think that because they go to church on Sunday, they're a Christian (which couldn't be further from the truth). If it's the former, then the problem lies with the people for not living their faith. If it's the latter, then the problem lies with the people in thinking it's the gov't responsibility to help clothe, feed, medicate and educate people. None of those things are guaranteed in the Constitution (last time I checked).
So all that to say that really the blame lies in the people, not the gov't (although power hungry politicians on both sides of the aisle are not exactly helping the situation any). The solution to any of our problems is not in what the gov't is or isn't going to do...but its the responsibility of the people to grow up and act their age, be responsible for themselves first and then with their own abundance on their own accord, help others who are helping themselves and just can't make it.
All Comments
My main reason for looking at Obama as a viable candidate is that he has a history of looking at society from the bottom up, he is genuinely concerned with the lower classes. Trickle down economics is a farce. The theory, and practice is that if a company is doing well, they will spread the wealth down, over time, slowly to the underclass which will slowly grow in economic power.
The reality is that with the power at the top like that, the minute it is expedient, the trickle of economic good coming down from the top turns into a flash flood of devastation in the form of layoffs, plant closings, outsourcing etc. It's a bullshit system of economic redistribution to the upper crust, period. Business exists for a single reason, profit. If it were not profitable, it would be called charity or something.
I think that LBJ was probably the last president we had who really did anything for the underclass, and it's about time we started focusing on those issues again. What's it been, 45 years? According to legend, his plans won't cost you anything, but even if they did....what...100 bucks a check? Big deal, we can afford it. Imagine working for $6.50 an hour, or $10 an hour, wtf? There are people out there doing it, and we actually need those people in the low end jobs to make "our" lives better, cut 'em some slack my man, cut em some slack.
begins/ends...
The idea/concept that we, as people whom are educated, hard working, and
intelligent need to support/help those that won't help themselves is
ridiculous. Why should I pay more so the guy who is just too lazy to get an
education or learn a trade can have a better life? To pay more taxes so the
lower/middle class can have a better quality of life is essentially
rewarding laziness and/or ignorance.
You make comment of it's like "what, 100 bucks a check" but even if it was
one single dollar that would still be too much. That's my money. I worked
for it. I got my rear out of bed, got dressed, went to work, and worked for
it. Not to mention I read, study, and practice to further my craft/trade so
that I can eventually earn more. Why should money be taken out of my check
for those that won't bother.
There are literally thousands of scholarships available for those that will
simply take the time to fill out a form or write an essay. There is enough
money out there that just about anyone can goto college for pretty much next
to nothing (or really close to it). They just need to take the time to
research, request, and jump through some hoops. They don't want to do
that? How is that my problem or responsibility? It is not the
upper-classes responsibility to provide for the lower/middle class. To help
those that will not help themselves (notice I said "won't" not "can't") is
more specifically not MY job. My "job" is to provide for my family and
myself. Why people some people feel that I should provide for anyone
outside of that, I will never know.
Just because I'm intelligent and hard working doesn't mean I need to give my
money to those who are not. It also doesn't mean I should give MORE of my
money to a government that will give it to them for me.
Some folks are not as smart as you.
Some folks honestly don't have the opportunities you did.
If all you had to do was work hard, why are you not a millionaire, or retired?
You can be outsourced in a second, for no reason. Your'e not as secure as you sound like you think you are. Were you working after the tech bubble burst in '01? Did you watch friends lose houses? Did you watch people in OUR industry take 6 figure paycuts? People who were smarter than either one of us were living on unemployment for months, unemployment funded by tax dollars.
I would bet from your comments that you are probably making more money than you ever have in your life, you probably feel like you are upper middle class, or that your'e wealthy. Got some news for you, you really aren't in the group of folks that would be considered wealthy if you are working as a consultant at our company....comfortable, but not upper middle class or wealthy.
You're young and probably feel pretty powerful at this point in your life. I sounded alot like you several years ago, was making more money than you will probably ever make (no offense, it was just the times) and I took a paycut that is probably more than you make right now. I'm not bragging, just trying to give you some perspective, and possibly generate some empathy. You (we) are not impervious to forces beyond our control. Market forces, terrorism, storms, the unknown, they all influence the strength of the little bubble that we software developers live and feed in.
I.T. is a cost center, it is a cost center in most companies that produce products other than software, and when companies need to cut costs....there ya go, flushed.
Talent doesn't count when directors, V.P's, and folks you have never met send down word that heads need to roll, at that point, it's usually just a lottery. If your number is up, your intelligent, hardworking self will be unemployed, and on the public dole.
Just sayin. Free your mind brothah.
off the floor and put it in our mouths at 1 and 2 years of age.
Intelligence is something you gain through experience, reading, learning,
etc.
2) I was laid off during the tech bubble burst of '01, guess what I did. I
found another job. Granted it was pushing pizzas in a town outside of
Austin, but point is I didn't sit around and expect the government to take
care of me. I got another job (one I didn't particularly want to return
to). I also went to technical training at New Horizons in Austin and
received 3 Microsoft certifications. So, while you are correct that I could
be outsourced tomorrow, for no reason, my confidence stems from the fact
that I know I'm an intelligent individual, with a good head on my sholders
and because of that I am capable of still providing for my family and
myself.
3) I never said I was rich nor did I mean to imply it. But just because I'm
not rich does not mean I'm not hard working. I also understand that in
order to get to where I want to be and to make more money, and eventually
become rich, I will need to work harder, learn more, become smarter, and
look for opportunities as they present themselves.
So, if my intelligent, hardworking self is unemployed tomorrow (which,
admittedly could happen given this market we're in), I'd have a job
tomorrow. Would it be one that I want? No. Would it be what I'm making
now? Probably not. Would I probably have to take 2 of them? Yes. Would I
take unemployment? Yes (see how I pay INTO that unemployment, it's my
money). Because you see, I understand that I need to work to provide for my
family and myself.
I understand people fall on hard times. That's a completely different thing
than what we're talking about here. What I'm talking about is
redistribution of wealth. Which means that those that work hard for what
they have are expected to give some of it to those that don't. Sorry, but
nothing you argue is going to convince me that this is okay. Someone
falling on hard times is one thing. They worked hard, stuff happened.
Enron would be a perfect example of that. Many of those that lost their
jobs at Enron were hard working people who got cheated by a bunch of
crooks. So when they sued the pants off the executives, I found no problems
with that. They were essentially robbed. But when you talk about people
who DON'T work, don't try to get ahead, and don't make efforts to improve
their situation but rather expect politicans to give them a handout, it's a
totally different line of questioning, logic, and arguments.
Regarding those that aren't as smart or didn't have the same opportunities I
had: Like I said in my previous comment, just about EVERYONE has the ability
to goto college these days. There are several books in bookstores that list
the thousands of scholarships that are out there for the taking. Some of
those same books even give detailed instructions on how to better one's
chances at landing those scholarships.
So no, not everyone had parents like me that did everything they could to
ensure I had a fairly easy existence growing up. My parnets worked their
tails off to ensure I had every possiblity open to me. They did the same
for my siblings. Key word there is "worked" (and its an important one).
Not everyone is as smart as me, you, or those that we might know. But that
doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to work to get ahead. It doesn't mean
they aren't capable of learning and educating themselves (library cards are
free). It just means they have to work harder, potentially longer, and deal
with more barriers.
This idea of "well they didn't have it as easy as you and I so we should
give them an hand out" is ludicrous. Everyone in this country has every
opportunity to get an education, to learn a trade, and to become better than
what their social-economic status dictates. They don't want to go to the
bookstore or library to find out how to get some of those college
scholarships to get an education, how is that my fault? My issue with this
whole concept of entitlement is with the very idea of the word entitlement.
No one, is entitled to anything. Not you, me, the guys sitting next to us
on the bus or in our favorite restaurant. You work for what you get,
period. You want more, then you figure out what you need to do to get
more. A large percentage of the population things they are entitled to
something without having to do anything for it. And the problem is, people
like Obama want to give those people what they feel they are entitled to. I
have a problem with that because, it is showing those people that if they
complain loudly enough they will get want they want. They won't have to
work for it, they'll just get it. I find error with that way of thinking.
Why is it wrong for me to expect people to work for the things they have?
Why is it wrong to think that people shouldn't be given handouts? Why is it
wrong to believe that if "a man does not work, he shall not eat?" Why, as a
someone who works hard to get ahead in life, must I be made out to be a
villian because I believe that others should do the same? I worked hard to
get where I am today why should I be expected to give to those that don't
want to do the same?
I think you also look at things in strictly a welfare frame of mind. I do agree with you that the lazy should not have it easy, but folks who are struggling, working hard, delivering pizza maybe to make it happen for their family, and their son comes down with liver disease. Screw em?
The phone support girl making 12 bucks an hour and needs daycare assistance so she can work.
The dude who gets his arm crushed while he's working as a sub for a construction company. Starves?
Programmer who goes blind?
It's not all about welfare mothers, and crack addicts. There are other programs and services the gov't offers.
Healthcare for the pizza delivery dudes, why not? They bring me food so i can clog my arteries and enjoy my employer provided healthcare that i work for. Help his liver sick kid, why not?
Pay for daycare so a parent can work their way up the ladder while their kid is safe....I like the idea that kids can be safe, even if their parents are poor. Do you?
What if you died, and your wife paid off the mortgage with your insurance money, and had to work, and take care of the kids, and couldn't afford daycare, would it piss you off if I called her lazy and didn't want my taxes to pay for it?
How about federal arts grants? Money for public tv? Head start programs? Free lunch at schools in poor neighborhoods? It's all in the redistribution equation.
Just thoughts. it ain't all welfare for crack addicts.
With all due respect, I know how the economy "works". With that said, I am very disappointed in your short-sighted and apparently selfish world view, as it can lead to great harm if sold to others who will gain political power in mid-life and cause your wrong-headed ideas to be perpetuated as public policy.
First of all, and obviously, as more and more wealth is concentrated at the top, it results in fewer people paying income taxes from their annual gains but, income taxes are just the tip of the iceberg.
In almost all cases, working people who pay no income tax must pay many other taxes that can quickly invade their ability to pay for necessities. Income taxes, especially at the level of earnings beyond 250k a year, are paid out of surplus earnings. These taxes reduce the elective expenditures of the taxpayer, not the taxpayers necessary expenditiures.
This is the reason for a graduated income tax, a tax that must fall chiefly on the upper level tax payer who benefitted the most from the economic system. A much higher top-end graduated tax system is essential to prevent too much wealth from getting concentrated at the top and held by fewer and fewer citizens.
Today. the bottom 1/3 of the American population has less combined total wealth than Bill Gates! This stack of wealth at the top of our economy has serious ramifications for future generations who will find themselves unable to acquire enough "means of production" to start and own their own businesses and are forced settle for becoming low wage slaves to a system that strips them of all their earnings before they can be stored as savings or to produce more wealth.
A graduated income tax, which I'm sure you interpret as socialism, is the only sure way to prevent the super rich from controlling almost all the wealth, which will lead to a destruction of the capitalist system, a situation our society is fast approaching today; a situation where the blind parasite is allowed to kill the host.
Michael, it appears you are happy with the current system, a deregulated system that has eroded wages, a system that awards the exploitation of labor and further enrichens the rich. Your conclusion that anyone who has a low paying job should learn a "trade".
Young man, do you consider the person who picks up your trash as being skilled? Could you operate their machines safely and drive their trucks in, and around every neighborhood? How about the persons on the farm who have been raising your food? Do you consider them skilled? Could you raise your own food in case it was necessary? Michael, you don't even understand the language of the land! How about the framing carpenter, the roofer, or the person who works on the highway construction crew, or the person who drives the early city bus that takes the low wage service workers to their jobs? Are all these people unskilled because they earn a low wage? Would you do these very necessary jobs? Consider where you would you be in this city without them. These people, especially the older workers who take the early bus to work and have no health insurance that you disregard.
Michael, in my opinion, you need a long-term personal experience with low wage work.
Work one full year as a roofer in the Texas sun, followed by one year on the farm with my oldest son, followed by a third year on the back of a garbage truck, followed by a fourth year as service worker at a cafe, and finally a fifth year as a child care provider at a Day Care facility.
At the end of the five years, let's review your world view and your thoughts on issues such as health care, minimum wages, fair housing, immigration, and according to you, one of the most horrible terms in the English language... (The Redistribution of Wealth)
Sincerely,
Fred Lundgren
Always nice to hear from you.
My statement about how the economy "works" was more in reference to Obama's
tax the rich and profitable corporations more than they already are. Sadly
taxing the rich further is not going to fix anything. The rich already pay
most of the taxes collected by this country. You can hide a lot of cash
donate to charity, but the rich still pay.
Also, no, I'm not entirely happy with the current system. However I don't
believe that the current system, is as bad as folks like Obama make it out
to be. There are a lot of hard working people in this country. And I've
avoided mentioning it because it wasn't overly relevant but my father worked
in a mechanic shop for over 20 years in the Texas heat. And shops get hot,
they trap heat. Plus there are running vehicles with hot engines adding to
that heat. My first "jobs" were sorting parts in the shop, doing oil
changes, and washing cars at that same shop. So while I didn't work on a
farm or work on roofs, I'm up on hard work and physical labor. I watched my
father sweat is butt off in the sumer to provide for me and my siblings.
And my father would be someone I consider successful. He ran his own
business successfuly for around 20 years.
I think that some of what I am talking about is getting lost in
translation. So I might need to reword and reiterate. My issues are with
those that wish to:
1) Punish success (which is essentially what Obama wants to do). Obama was
to tax "highly profitable corporations" and give the middle class (who pay
some of the smallest amounts in taxes) larger tax credits. So he's going to
take more money from those that are already having the most money taken from
them, and give it to those that aren't paying the most?
2) Have entitelment issues. They feel the government SHOULD do this and
SHOULD give them that. My main point is, no one is entitled to anything.
You work for what you have, period. I fail to see fault in this extremely
simple logic. I work very hard for what I have. So did my father and so
did his father. You worked very hard for what you have. I don't feel I'm
owed anything by anyone (except payment for services rendered: I do work for
you, you pay me for it in some form or fashion). I'm not going to sit
around and WAIT for the government to give me what I think I deserve, nor
should anyone else for that matter.
Also, I never argued that low wage = unskilled. I simply refuted an
arguement that people make less or don't have a job because they didn't have
the "same opportunities as me" or were "not as smart as me" because I feel
that those arguments don't really hold water. There are a lot of low wage
jobs that require skill (farming, roofing, construction, and even machining
are a few examples). Like I stated previously intelligence is not something
one is born with it is something learned/taught/cultivated. As children we
all do unintelligent things. My father is one of the smartest men I know,
no college education, but he reads like a bat out of hell (and retains a lot
of it too).
I don't think that the current system is perfect. But I'm officially
against giving handouts just because someone is too lazy to get off their
butt and work. You want to help the hard working, that's one thing. But
redistribution of wealth doesn't discriminate on WHO gets the money, it's
just redistributed. Obama himself said "I believe that when you spread the
wealth around it's good" so can you tell me how that doesn't mean
"redistribution of wealth?"
Your economic god is dead. WAKE UP! Even the greatest of your prophets, Alan Greenspan has admitted his world view was flawed. Why do you support a defrocked world view!
How did you ever get caught up in this mentality? Your blog entries are nothing more than creative plagiarism you assimilated from the blind guides of the past.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
Your response to Linda regarding the 750 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street s side-bet losers leads me to conclude you are lost in a vortex of right-wing propaganda. You are either brainwashed or worse, it appears you have been hypnotised. This may have happened if you repeatedly went to sleep at night while listening to over night rebroadcasts of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Until you awaken, their is little more I can do or say.
Regarding the bailout, I just don't believe that the answer to the problem
is MORE debt at the taxpayer's expense. I never said NOTHING should have
been done, just that the bailout was not the solution i desired.
Really? I don't agree with your world view so I'm a right wing nut and a
plagiarist? At least I'm a "creative" plagiarist (I guess). I think I've
more than proven that I can think for myself. For the record I dislike
Limbaugh, O'Riley, and most other right-wing talk radio. About the only
political program I listen to with any kind of regularity is KCRW's "Left,
Right, and Center" (http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/lr) because its fairly
balanced and looks at ALL viewpoints. Also, if I was a "nut" I would have
deleted all comments that did not agree with MY world view. But I didn't
because I think open discussion is important when it comes to politics.
Also, I have zero intention of changing your world view (while it looks like
you are working desperately to change mine). You can rarely change
someone's world view, and you definitely can't do it on blog. I'd also like
to note that the title of this post is essentially "Why I Won't Vote for
Obama" not "Why You Shouldn't Vote for Obama" because I'm not here to tell
someone how they should vote. There are a couple of places where I somewhat
attack the other side (but lets face, compared to what the rest of the
internet is doing to people that share my views, my "attacks" were tame at
best), but it also incited debate, which is good.
Let's make this whole argument incredibly simple. If you can show me, in
the constitution where it says that the rich shall make the lives of those
less off than themselves better, I will concede. If you can show me where
it says that those that make more than everyone else are duty bound to give
their money to the poor via government intervention, I'll concede. Problem
is, you won't find it. Doesn't exist. The constitution was written with
the idea that the government would have VERY limited authority to do
anything. It was meant as a way to tell the government what it could and
could not do to its citizens. The general idea was that if the citizenry
was free of mass government control they could control their own destiny.
This has happened, for the most part anyway. The constitution says that the
basic rights of man are "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness" which
means that you can pursue happiness, doesn't mean you'll get it. There is
nothing in the constitution about making life fair for everyone. Life isn't
fair, never has been and it never will be.
Now, with all that in mind, I do believe that you should help your fellow
man. But government intervention, in my opinion at least, is not the
solution to helping out your fellow man. You want to help those less
fortunate than yourself, there are charities for that, you can donate to you
local church, you can physically walk down the street and give the homeless
guy some cash. Relying on the government (which is effectively slow at
accomplishing just about anything) to help out those less fortunate is "a
long wait for a train that don't come"
love, "Mom"
socialism so much as just a bad idea all around. And for the record, I was
against the bailout. The bailout will only fix a symptom, not the
underlying issues.
So how is only taxing the rich, helpful? The rich already pay most of the
taxes collected by this country every year (why does everyone completely
ignore this point). So, my argument that Obama is going to "punish success"
by only taxing the rich, still stands. No matter which way you slice it,
taxing the rich further and taxing companies just because they made a lot of
money is punishing the rich.
"Oh look, you made a ton of money this year, please pay up. Oh and by the
way I'm going to give this money to those that didn't make as much as you."
That's what Obama is saying behind all his pretty words and "wonderful"
speeches. Which means he's taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
Obama clarified that his tax plan will only affect the rich. Meaning he is
only going to raise taxes for the rich. Then he has a TV ad that says
something like "Working single mother? Well under McCains plan you'd only
get a hundred dollars. Under Obama's plan you'll get a thousand."
BTW, single working mothers (depending on how much they make) already get a
nice tax credit (I did my wife's taxes for 2 years BEFORE we got married).
That sounds like redistribution of wealth to me. That sounds like taxing to
rich to give it to the poor to me. There might be an arguement there if the
rich (those that make more than 250K) didn't already pay the most in taxes
every year. This is not Nottingham where the poor are overly taxed. The
rich pay a ton in taxes every year. It's not like they aren't paying. Sure
their probably cheating the system some, but their still paying.
The arguement that Obama's tax plan is only going to raise taxes for those
that make more than 250K/year only further proves my point that he wants to
punish success.
He is like MOST every other American, in that his lifestyle is reflected by his income, and he isn't going to be able to squeeze more tax into his profit margin (I know because I have seen his numbers...almost bought his business). If he takes a personal paycut in order to keep more profit in the business, then he may not be able to pay for the commitments he already has (mortgage, car note, etc). He could let someone go in his company, but seeing as he's a loyal employer...he'll hold on to everyone that he can for as long as he can. His only other option is to raise prices. You know what this means don't you. Instead of paying $5.00 per printed shirt, I'll be paying $6.00, which means my customers will be paying $10 instead of $9 and that could mean the difference between selling them 72 shirts and 144 shirts, which means less money in my pocket, thus lower income. Of course I could keep my prices the same, but then I am making less profit in my company.
Effectively, Obama's tax plan has just affected me (indirectly) and it did take money out of my pocket.
This scenario is no different than speeding 5 mph over the speed limit. Most people would think that's stupid because after an hour of travel, you're only 5 miles ahead of your counterpart going the speed limit. But let's run through the fact that you being 5 mph faster allowed you to catch a green light instead of red. Now you're NOT waiting for another 1 minute for the rotation of the light to turn green so you can go. That 1 minute delay means you are now behind an accident and have to wait 30 minutes for it to clear, vs. your 5 mph faster counterpart who missed the accident by 30 seconds and made the meeting on time. If all variables are the same except the fact that you're going 5 mph faster, then no harm done and you got to your destination about 1 minute sooner (whoop te doo), the opposite however is devastating to your commitment to your destination. All that to say that while you were not involved in the accident nor did you ever break the law (you did the speed limit, you stopped at red lights, etc), you were still a victim of cause and effect.
Cause and effect will trickle down and in the end those at the bottom will still be hit by things that happen at the top. So I would reconsider your argument of "...your taxes won't be affected if Obama is elected unless you and your wife make more than $250,000 annually...", because while the actual TAXES may not be affected, other aspects of my life WILL be affected...you can bet on that.
Maybe you can help me understand something too...if 70-90% of Americans were against the bailout, why did it pass? Are the people in Congress supposed to represent us? By passing that, did they NOT represent us properly? Just curious if you know the answer to that...or have an idea?
1. Political Complacency - People as a majority have really just stopped caring about their government or don't make it a priority to learn what is going on at the local, state or federal level. When this year could possibly produce a 50% voter turnout...is that really helping to create a gov't for the people, by the people? The opinions of the minority (meaning...less than a majority of the US Population...not meaning minority races) are still controlling the lives of the majority. If the country goes to hell in a handbasket...it's our own damn fault.
2. People should be helping people. The principles of Christianity (whether you believe or not) is built around loving and helping people. The only 2 commandments that Jesus said we should keep is "Love your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself".
Now considering that 85% of Americans consider themselves "Christian" we've got 1 of 2 things going on...either they are Christian and they aren't following the commands of Christ, or they are lying to themselves and think that because they go to church on Sunday, they're a Christian (which couldn't be further from the truth). If it's the former, then the problem lies with the people for not living their faith. If it's the latter, then the problem lies with the people in thinking it's the gov't responsibility to help clothe, feed, medicate and educate people. None of those things are guaranteed in the Constitution (last time I checked).
So all that to say that really the blame lies in the people, not the gov't (although power hungry politicians on both sides of the aisle are not exactly helping the situation any). The solution to any of our problems is not in what the gov't is or isn't going to do...but its the responsibility of the people to grow up and act their age, be responsible for themselves first and then with their own abundance on their own accord, help others who are helping themselves and just can't make it.