My closing argument against Barack Obama...

I know what most conservatives think of the reasons Obama supporters have. I think most think that they're simplistic and ill-informed. In part that's true, but I choose to give voters a little more credit either way. Of the reasons for supporting Obama, These are the two that I'll choose to dignify.

1) "Punish" the incumbent presidency
2) "Punish" the rich in tough times

If you fall in this category I want you to consider this piece from The Wall Street Journal last September.

If you don't read it, they key points are.

1) While the rich are making more money, they are paying even more in their share of the total taxes the IRS collects (in a sense still "soaking the rich" even with lower rates).
2) When taxes get cut across the board the goverment still takes in more money, just a smaller share of the overall larger GDP.

I've heard it eloquently put that the choice between McCain and Obama is the difference between trickle down economics, and trickle-up poverty. This about it, don't automatically assume the "rich can afford it." The truth is while the "rich can afford it" if profits get cut into that easily could mean one less job offered (and one less taxpayer). If dollars get taxed to a point where it's not worth the risk to expand, jobs will be created slower over and over again.

This is why this phenomenon of cutting taxes across the board grows the economy (and also expands the governments revenues as well!). And yes while it is true that the rich will get richer, the poor will as well. Whereas if we get into this 12-year-old-girl jealousy of hurting those just because we hate that they have more than us, will ultimatly lead to more jobs overseas, and more people looking for a welfare system they will soon bankrupt if we chase away the taxpayers at the top.

My Point is this, "spread the wealth" is a romantic notion, but does unfairly punish the job creators an economy needs. It's a romantic notion that if you're below the OWL you may not have to worry. However, that now may need to be redefined as low as $150K/yr (which would include, yes, "Joe the Plumber"). However the OWL is defined should Obama be elected, we may soon find our nation in a situation where the poor majority will vote to abuse a rich minority. How long before they look at losing 60% of their money and find a country where the labor is cheap and the taxes far friendlier. Europe is starting to get away from such policies at a time we seem to be heading there.

If you really think about "spread the wealth" it is a pretty childish thought, one you would have before you dad has to point out that "life isn't fair." When you're alone in the booth, don't fall into the jealousy trap, don't vote for the politics of rich versus poor. Vote for the thing that does all americans good, even those that don't "seem to need it," cause maybe someone needs the job that isn't there, because the goverment took it for themselves.

Anyway if you are thinking about voting for Obama because you think he's better on the economy I hope I've given you reason to re-think that, if you have other reasons, I don't think I can help you...

Joe the Plumber (Can we fix it, yes we can)...

AAL 2:

This is a little Limbaugh Echo Syndrome here, but I do want to ask, "What if the media investiaged Sen. Barak Obama the same way they've investigated Joe the Plumber?"

The SCUM seem to be very selective who they go after. They've turned Sarah Palin's life upside down within a couple days of her selection, they've done the same now with Joe the Plumber (who knew he would be the October Suprise).

But there's no way you can say CNN has been that in-depth on Obama. Otherwise, Rev. Wright would've come to light a year ago when radio host Sean Hannity was beating that drum, or more people would know about mobster Rezko giving Obama a sweetheart deal (I'm not going to use "bribe" in two posts in a row, oops too late) on his house. Or Biden, caught plagerizing a speech from the British parliment, if you are hearing these things for the first time, you're a victim of the SCUM.

Even a columust at Slate (no bastion of conservative thought mind you) admitted Biden is getting very different treatment than Palin.

http://www.slate.com/id/2200302/

We pause here for a couple asides:

* For the Record, Fox is reporting that Joe the plumber isn't expected to earn above the OWL (new blogword, Obama Wealth Limit, slang for $250,000, sample sentence: New York Ranger Aaron Voros now earns 4 OWLs a year since leaving the Minnesota Wild), and reporting that he has tax liens and may not be licensed. I got all that without having to watch a SCUM network like CNN or MSNBC.

* This post was originally going to be added thoughts from the debate, I did want to say Schieffer did the best job of all the moderaters. I liked his question formula "You said, such and such and you said such and such, why are you right and why does the other guy suck."

Back to the post:

All I wanted to establish is the right never get a fair shake, those that disagree with the right seldom go after the ideas (there are exceptions), they go after the person. I get it that with regular politicans, they put themselves in the public eye. But if the personal attacks aren't backed up by policy relavance it's sounds flat.

I do find it disturbing that the SCUM have gone after a voter for just asking the politican a legitamate question. If every voter gets scrutinized this heavily for asking questions I weep for the 1st Amendment (much I like I did after McCain-Feingold passed, but that's another issue).

Does the fact that Joe the Plumber is still below the OWL mean that he's not allowed to believe in not screwing those above the OWL? This is certainly the implication of Obama's condesending question "How many plumbers do you know that make $250,000?" As if that disqualifies Joe from having an opinion about those above the OWL?

Does the fact that Joe the Plumber isn't licensed mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?

Does the fact that Joe the Plumber owes taxes mean he's not allowed to ask Obama about the OWL?

If you answered yes to any of those questions you have a serious 1st amendment problem. Joe the Plumbers alleged problem probably mean he's too checkered to run for president, but remember there was only one guy running for president in that conversation, and it wasn't Joe.

The guy that answered the question gave the "share the wealth" answer, that's an answer american on all parts of the political spectrum don't like. That is now a problem for the Obama campaign. And to cover the fact they need to run from that answer, they are attacking the questioner.