Wednesday, March 11, 2009

I know that real numbers are liberals strong suit...

Are 'Hope' And 'Change' Still Tax-Deductible?
While liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don't want talked about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.

At the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" -- which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as "working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for $300,000 a year."

It's impossible to argue with Ann Coulter because she's right. I mean, I suppose you could argue but you'd just look foolish.

Giving away someone elses money to "the poor" is not charitable or a virtue, it's theft.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just pay your taxes, what little you do on your shabby delivery job, and shut up.

Anonymous said...

I know that real numbers are liberals strong suit...

Only a full-blooded Miglavian would dish up such a stupid comment as sarcasm after remaining silent for eight years while Bush left $600 billion for the Iraq war "off the books." Real bright, Miglavs. ;-)

Kaelri said...

Last time I checked, the Republican party supports a progressive tax policy that hits the upper-class tax brackets much, much harder than the poor. There is no fundamental distinction between the Democrats and Republicans on this issue; they only disagree on the numbers. If you're proposing a uniform tax rate for all income levels, you are completely alone.

Anonymous said...

WTF? You believe we live in a country "with no class barriers"? Are you serious?

Anonymous said...

Note to self: Check back in here in a few decades to read Miglavs' post about how he's tearing up his Social Security checks because he doesn't want to be a "thief."

DAVE01 said...

Anon 11:38 AM, don't worry. Social security will be long gone by the time Daniel retires. Hell, it is already running on fumes. The government will need to take everyone's 401k (what's left in them) to pay SS, medicare and medicaid. They may call it free health care, but somebody has to pay the tab.

Stevie said...

Daniel, you wrote:

“To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.”

But wait. Don’t right-wingers (including and especially Anne Coulter) consistently tell us that this nation was founded on Christian values? And doesn’t Christianity indeed view poverty as a virtuous state? I mean, doesn’t the first of the Beatitudes state, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”? And what of Matthew 19, which attributes the following quote to Jesus: “I tell you, tis easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

It seems like Anne Coulter (and perhaps you, Daniel) suffer from a bit of intellectual inconsistency here. You can’t simultaneously claim that we are a nation built on Christian values, and then put forth the un-Christian argument that poverty is not deemed virtuous in Christian doctrine. (And maybe YOU have not claimed this has always been a Christian nation, Daniel. But Coulter for damn sure has.)

But wait...we can't argue with Coulter because she's right, huh???

Man, do you guys on the political right ever get dizzy from all the cognitive dissonance you breed?

Stevie said...

Kaelri, once again you are spot-on.

While Daniel singles out the Democrats in his post, he seems to forget that the Republican Party fundamentally believes the exact same thing. They only differ by a couple of percentage points on the exact number.

Daniel's post reminds me of all the Republicans currently griping about the earmarks in the recently passed budget bill. What those Republicans WON'T tell you, however, is that 40%+ of those earmarks came from them! LOL!

Bobkatt said...

Divide and conquer works every time. Dems fighting Reps while the bankers steal the entire wealth. Focus the attention on Ann Coulter or Rush or etc. etc. War goes on, rights continue to be taken away by both sides.

Anonymous said...

Great. A right-wing idiot in Oregon who is incapable of thinking quoting a right-wing bimbo pundit who is also incapable of thinking. You make a great pair. May you live happily ever after.

Scottiebill said...

The thing that makes the libs so successful today is their ability to know who to blame for their failures.

That will always be, at least for the next 100 years or so, President Bush, Dick Cheney, and, after them, any and all conservatives. But never one of their own.

Stevie said...

Scottiebill said, “The thing that makes the libs so successful today is their ability to know who to blame for their failures.”

I respectfully disagree, Scottiebill. The thing that makes “libs” so successful today is that their opposition had complete control of this nation’s government from 2000 to 2006, and screwed things up SO bad, that said opposition will need to spend the next 20 years trying to regain the credibility they lost during those previous six.

In other words, for the most part, the “libs” aren’t successful because their own ideas are so great. The “libs” are successful because their opposition is so stunningly incompetent. (Some of the conservative responses on this board are great proof of this.)

The reason you see a lot of blame being deflected towards Bush, Cheney and the like right now, is because a lot of the troubles we’re in right now can be at least partially traced back to their tenure in office.

And speaking of blaming others for one’s own failings, I love that old quote from right-winger Bill Kristol about how conservatives like to blame “the liberal media” for their own failures. According to Kristol, “The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”

But you knew this already, right Scottiebill? Surely you're not one of those partisan hacks who thinks his own party's shit don't stink.

Scottiebill said...

No, St3vie, I am not one of those that you describe. There is plenty of blame to go around for all the country's problems. But President Bush has been blamed for just about everything from the global warming myth to halitosis and all that is in between. He was not the best president the country has had nor is he the worst. Thew worst president the country has ever had was Woodrow Wilson. But as for modern times, until Obama came along Jimmy Carter held that dubious distinction. Unless things change dramatically in the next four years, provided, of course, that Obama lasts that long without being impeached, he will takek the title of "Worst President" away from Carter.

One point of my argument here against Obama: He has spent about $1-billion a minute since the was crowned in January. No other president can make that statement. Quite a legacy he is building, is it not? But never fear, it will get worse as long as Obama is the resident "pro tem" in the White House.

And he is not alone in his culpability here. He also has the backing of his puppet-masters, Tsarina Nancy Pelosi and Scary Reid.

Anonymous said...

I remember recently, Scottiebill got his hackles up because "us liberals" resorted to "typical liberal" namecalling after one of the evil Anon's started calling him Scottieshill. Of course, he put on the most sanctimonious snivelry he could muster and insisted he never participated in such immaturity. Hmmmmm.... "Tsarina Pelosi" and "Scary Reid?" Nice, Scottieshil. How (ahem) dignified and conservative of you.

Wonder how long it will take Scottieshil to come up with an excuse and/or rationalization for his hypocrisy.

Stevie said...

Scottiebill, you’re correct that Bush gets blamed for a lot. Where I think your perspective is incomplete, however, is in not acknowledging that the exact same thing was true with Bill Clinton. For eight years, conservatives blamed anything and everything on Clinton…no matter how absurd, credulous or flat-out false the accusation. (In his book “Blinded By The Right”, David Brock details the organized, systematic efforts to discredit Bill Clinton by concocting all sorts of false stories and allegations about him. According to Brock, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to get Bill Clinton really did exist, and he was a willing participant in that effort.)

But conservatives seem to have short memories, and have either forgotten or will simply not acknowledge that the unsavory tactics they accuse Bush-bashers of engaging in, were actually perfected by conservatives during the Clinton years. And in this regard, it’s a little amusing to listen to conservatives cry “that’s not fair!” when Bush is attacked. Because many of those same conservatives didn’t seem too concerned about fairness when the target of such attacks was a guy named Bill Clinton.

Now, with regard to spending, I agree that the current Administration is spending too much money. But I think you need to check your math, big time. If Obama had spent $1 billion a minute since he was elected, that would be $105 trillion he’s spent so far. You realize that number is not even remotely accurate, correct? Where on earth do you conservatives get such garbage? You do realize that making such claims hurts your credibility, no? I bet you just heard this somewhere, and started parroting it without so much as bothering to check if it’s actually true. Let me give you some advice: Don’t believe everything you hear on talk radio or read on the Internet…especially when it comes from people with a political axe to grind. This number you just threw out is so laughably impossible, I have to wonder if you are this easily duped all the time.

And BTW, when talking about culpability, you forgot to mention any Republicans. You do realize that 40% of the pork in the latest budget belonged to Republicans, no? In this regard, you’re right that Obama is not alone in his culpability. The Republicans also continue to spend like drunken soldiers. (BTW, it’s interesting how right-wingers are now all of the sudden concerned with government spending, when they largely remained dead-silent about it when THEIR guy was in the White House. Funny how that works, isn’t it?)