Obama, Bend Over Like the Buttboy You Are

Well, that’s what I wish the media would say, by way of finally, FINALLY asking Barack Obama meaningful, tough questions on major policy positions.  Peter Kirsanow has—OUCH!—come up with some real butt-stingers in his latest entry for National Review Online, on this page

The tax issue in particular grabs my immediate attention: Obama has indicated his desire to cornhole Americans who have the temerity to work hard and excel (Americans who, by the way, already pay a pirate’s ransom in taxes).  Steve Moore from the Wall Street Journal has calculated the consequences of Obama’s tax schemes: an increase to 39.6% in personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, 28% capital-gains tax, 39.6% dividends tax, and a 55%  estate tax.

How many times can a single dollar get taxed?  I don’t even know where to begin in describing the thievery that is already being perpetrated upon the American people by Congress, much less the unchecked piracy Obama proposes. 

These policies will not end poverty.  They will not transform the lives of people who make nothing but shitty life decisions that land them  (and keep them) in poverty; they will not create jobs for the jobless, and they certainly will not Save the World, as Obamaniacs relentlessly, and against all reason, continue to think.  What these policies will do is very effectively prevent ambitious, risk-taking achievers from reaching the pinnacle of their entrepreneurial and wealth-creating skills, and thereby creating opportunities for everyone else. 

To “make it” in America, you almost always have to be hard-working, determined, and willing to take on a shitload of debt.  Yes, you sometimes see prodigies who, through sheer talent, luck, and charisma, become millionaires or even billionaires.  But almost always, the people who make it big busted their asses for years while their peers were having fun and “finding themselves.”  They took out gigantic student loans because otherwise, they couldn’t get the degrees they  needed in order to become professionals and serve society by inventing brilliant shit or just grinding their way to excellence the old-fashioned way: step by step by excruciating, grey-hair-making step. 

Obama wants to take these people by the hair and slice almost half their income off the top, and that’s not counting state, property, and sales taxes.  Think an Injun scalping, without the cinematic gore appeal.

I’m an attorney with two advanced degrees.  I’ve worked my butt off (figuratively—I only wish it was literally) to earn those degrees, and on a personal level, I’ve not had an easy life by anyone’s standards.  Yet, because of the vast smorgasbord of taxation my income is exposed to each and every month, I still live hand-to-mouth.   

My goal when I began law school was to donate at least $100 a month each to the ASPCA and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, just for starters.  As of my second year in law school, I expanded that list to several Israeli and Palestinian human rights and missionary programs, as well as the Innocence Project.  Guess how much money I have left over to donate to those worthy causes, now that I am a “rich” lawyer according to Obama?

That’s right, zero.  Instead of donating money to private groups that will actually apply the majority of my donation to its intended target, I now forcibly “donate” over a third of my income to illegal immigrants, lazy welfare-program-exploiting baby factories, and every other sham charity front erected by the most shameless freeloaders in American society today: you know them as “Congress.” 

I wonder how many cents on every tax dollar actually make it to “the poor” or “the children” in this country.  Does anyone have the latest statistics?  I would look them up, but I’m in a bit of a passion at this point and I need to lie down.

I’m just going to think of that hot British soldier from the 20/20 program.  Aaaah, that’s the ticket.

Advertisements

~ by lewdandlascivious on March 3, 2008.

19 Responses to “Obama, Bend Over Like the Buttboy You Are”

  1. My loan repayment will be $1,400/month.

    Let’s also add in the $160,000 of lost opportunity costs that I incurred by going to law school instead of working as an engineer. I see no reason why my future salary (I’m assuming that I’ll be employed 🙂 ) should not be treated as the capital gains that it is – capital invested over many years, with associated losses. Once you’re done taking off about $3,000/month from my salary to compensate for the true cost of this law degree, then we’ll talk. Oddly, that’s pretty much what the average American makes.

    What really kills me: my student loan payments will be the approximate cost of a mortgage – and my tax dollars will be used to pay for other people’s home ownership while I live with my parents or rent a crappy apartment in a bad neighbourhood. Thanks, you financial rapists.

  2. Amen.

  3. To make matters worse, Obama is as bad as Al Gore and other phonies who barely give any of their money but have big plans for yours – http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/03/25/obama-typical-democrat-non-charity-giving-hypocrite/

  4. Hear, hear!! Wouldn’t it be nice if we had universal education and lawyers didn’t have to contend with this god-awful student loan debt?

    (runs away before I get clobbered) 🙂

  5. The United States has, arguably, the best universities in the world. I am absolutely certain that government-run universities would resemble our government-run public schools. I, for one, do NOT want the United States of America to sink into mediocrity, simply because a few pansywaists think that they are entitled to get things from God, whoops, the Almighty Government, for free – and fail to understand that everything comes with a price.

  6. Good to see Theobromophile commenting . . . still in denial over the Helvidius blog going on hiatus!

  7. Just to clarify, state universities are already “government-run”. We simply have a system now where students go into debt even at our publicly run universities — particularly for law school. Tuition at UC Berkeley isn’t substantially different from Stanford even though Berkeley gets a substantial amount of public money.

  8. Um, yes, that is true. So I’m not sure why we should change the system so that you eliminate schools like Yale (small classes, good interaction wtih faculty) and, instead, create a bunch of schools like Wayne State.

    Let’s be real. When the government runs things, NO ONE SAVES MONEY. The money still has to come from somewhere, and it’s not the Government Fairy who puts it underneath your pillow at night.

  9. Yeah, I love it when a liberal pops up and offers one of their bumper-sticker, self-contradicting ideas. Liberals seem to think that “universal” college education drops out of the sky from nowhere. Guess what, idiot? The people who would pay for “universal” college and professional education are the very same people who are in debt for it now.

  10. Lewd and Theo,

    Wow, such a reaction! Notice nowhere did I say “free education” but rather “universal”. Nor did I endorse banning private universities (something which I don’t believe in done in ANY country). I simply stated that we already make a public investment in higher education, and investment that we could an ENORMOUS return on. And yet, we still expect students to go heavily into debt knowing that it impacts that investment return. I believe it would be better to reform our system so that the indebtedness students have upon graduation is much more manageable. Presently, many lawyers are unable to practice in less-lucrative areas of law because of their heavy debt. Don’t you agree that this would serve the public interest?

  11. “simply because a few pansywaists think that they are entitled to get things from God, whoops, the Almighty Government”

    Just an FYI, this is a rather misogynist statement from a professed feminist. You might want to re-evaluate what language you use. People may get confused about your principles.

  12. I noticed now that there are a number of typos in my post. It should read “an investment that we GET an enormous return on”.

  13. ROFLMAO!!!!!!

    In what world is that misogynist?????

    Do you just repeat liberal talking points ad infinitum? Problem? Solve it with universal [fill in the blank]! Someone reacts? Misogynists!

    Oh, it’s because I mentioned God, right? Presumably, anyone who says the “G” word is a misogynist. The real feminists are the ones who talk about g-strings. Got it.
    /sarcasm

    Here’s a quick set of reasons why your proposal is stupid (sorry to be blunt, but I have little patience with those who cannot think through something):
    1. As stated above, it does NOT eliminate costs; it merely shifts them. You pay for in taxes what you don’t pay for in education.
    2. We shouldn’t create a class of professional students. People already go to school without having a definitive purpose for their education. Making it low-cost will just make the situation worse – you’ll get people who have no desire to be productive and will m mooch off of the societal freebie (or cheapie) of education. We already see this happening with the state university systems; some students simply refuse to graduate, and continue on their very-inexpensive educational missions for up to ten or fifteen years.
    3. It’s not the job of the government to fund my education.
    4. It is the job of a government which purports to tax people equitably to do so. If I buy a house for $300,000, then spend $50,000 renovating it, and sell it for $400,000, I will only be taxed on $50,000 of income, not $100,000. Nevertheless, if I give up a $60,000/year job for law school, take on $40,000/year in debt, and then make an extra $20,000/year when I graduate, I’ll be taxed on that twenty grand as if there were no costs that went into achieving that salary. That’s just dumb.
    5. “Serving the public interest” is a) not achieved by your proposal; and b) horrible policy. A person who goes into a $150,000/year job after graduation will have gotten subsidised education (although they’ll just get creamed on the taxes, right), which, last time I checked, does not “serve the public interest.” Public-interest jobs have better hours, quality of life, and offer more personal satisfaction than do law firms. It would then be the job of people in law firms to subsidise their classmate’s happy-fairy jobs through their increased taxes. We’ll have made a slave class and a beneficiary class. Not cool when it’s based upon race; not cool when it’s based upon ambition, the need for more money to provide for a family, or anything else. Oh, yeah, again – not the job of the Almighty God, whoops, Government to provide for people’s happiness. Want to be happy? Visit a freaking shrink, but don’t wreck my country with your quasi-communistic policies.

    QOS – compound time.

  14. By the way, Mikey boy, you might want to remember that, on the internet, everything you say previously in a conversation is right up there for the casual reader to observe. Consider these two, contradictory statements of yours:

    Wow, such a reaction!

    Which would seem to be rational, but for the previous statement:

    Hear, hear!! Wouldn’t it be nice if we had universal education and lawyers didn’t have to contend with this god-awful student loan debt?

    (runs away before I get clobbered

    So you’re either an immature troll who likes to piss people off because, well, the internet is a good forum for people like you, or you are like one of those kids who runs around irking people until they respond, then makes fun of them once the desired reaction has been achieved. Poor baby!

    Either way, totally immature. My only mistake was responding to you as if you were a rational, thinking person capable of intellectual debate.

  15. So, I take it you don’t think calling someone “panty-waisted” (as an insult) is misogynist? I’m actually surprised you are defending that statement, it is quite clear.

    And honey, your school, even though private, is receiving a large amount of federal money already. It supports financial aid packages for many of your fellow students. Even more, many of your undergraduate student loans (depending on your income) are being subsidized by federal tax dollars. So, essentially, you are already enjoying the benefits of public investment in higher education. You are also benefiting from our public institutions which have educated some of your faculty there. Remember, the US does dominate the Top Ten list of global universities, but many of those are public (UCLA, UC Berkeley, Univ. of Penn., etc., etc.).

    And yes, of course costs are not lowered by public investment in education. I don’t know where you got that from my posts. You are exactly correct about it shifting costs. It shifts costs to a larger number of people enabling others to pursue professional careers which serve the public interest but are not entirely “lucrative”. I’m thinking of lawyers who practice public interest law. Many of them finish law school with intentions of practicing there but are forced to take on more lucrative positions simply to pay off their student loan debt. This has a negative effect on our judicial system. Today in Texas, the state is scrambling to get qualified child advocate lawyers to deal with the polygamist compound there. They have a serious shortage because this field does not pay as well as others.

    And regarding your last post, no I have no intention of “irking” you or getting a “reaction”. In fact, I would have thought that being an aspiring lawyer you would welcome someone advocating for law students struggling with their mounting student loan debt.

    Best of luck to you!!

  16. So intellectually disingenous, so many places to start.

    1. I don’t have undergrad loans. I’m not sure why you think yourself an authority on my financial situation, but you’re obviously not.

    2. Why do you think I agree with the current state of subsidisation of education, and, even if I did agree to one type, would agree to more? Is it not possible to either disagree with the entire scheme, or to think it all a matter of degree?

    3. As an aspiring lawyer, I don’t think I owe it to someone who presumes to speak for me. In fact, non-misogynist that I am, I get pissed when men try to pat me on the head and tell me that I’m a good little girl who ought to listen to the big boys and let THEM talk for me. As a rational, articulate adult, I’m quite capable of speaking my own mind… a mind which is not yours. Clear?

    4. If you want to go to law school to be a public-interest attorney, then get a scholarship at a lower-ranked school, or find another way to serve the public need. It’s not my job to subsidise someone else’s hopes and flower-rainbow-pink-cloud dreams, nor is it the job of another to pay for mine. I simply ask that I not be penalised for investing in human capital.

    5. If Texas is having a tough time getting people to do a job, they should pay more for it. I fail to see why liberals cannot comprehend the basics behind supply and demand.

  17. Theo,

    Here’s a article in the Chicago Tribune that speaks to this very issue. You may very it interesting: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi-080406lawyerwoes-story,0,5547944.story

    I’m glad to hear that you don’t have undergraduate loans. That’s great.

    Regarding point #4, I disagree with your assessment. I think you’d agree that the law profession is different from others. There is a code of ethics and professional responsibility you are asked to adhere to as your job serves a critical public function. Accordingly, your professional motivation must be more than simply financial.

    Regarding point #5, I agree completely! Texas should be paying more for qualified child advocate lawyers. Yet, being that these individuals serve a vitally important need, and are not compensated as much as in other law fields, does it not make sense to make a public investment so that the supply can meet the demand? And if this is the case, wouldn’t that investment make the most sense with student loans by offering government-financed lower interest rates and so on? The federal government already insures the lending commercial banks do for undergraduate loans. This enables banks to offer lower interest rates as they take on added risk. Being that we do that for undergraduate work, why don’t we for law school?

  18. Oh also, I don’t have any intention of going to law school. I am still paying off my loans for med school. 🙂

  19. Then stop pretending to be a lawyer.

    No, it makes absolutely no sense to finance people’s education so they can go into public service, maybe, sort of, if they feel like it. It is less expensive and more sensible to pay people more money to do the jobs that need to be done.

    It’s startlingly obvious, and I’m sorry you are too much of a zealot to see it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: