Ramblings from the Marginalized

The decision of Republican Senator Arlen Specter to return to the Democratic Party after 28 years as a Republican is the best thing that could have happened for Republicans and the worst for Democrats. What do Democrats get out of this deal that they didn't already have? What do the Republicans really lose? The answer is the same for both questions, nothing.

One of the reasons cited by the Senator for swapping his party affiliation has to do with the polling numbers showing that he would likely not win a Republican primary in his home state. Not wanting to lose his job in the next election he went to the Democrats who offered to let him run as a Democrat in the next election in exchange for his crossing over now.

It has been said that Obama agreed to campaign for him and that he might be allowed to sail through the primary without a serious challenge. Why would Democrats want to do that? What do they gain? Why would they want to take someone into their party who is so quick to change party affiliation when a hard primary approaches? Can you count on such a person?

What did Republicans lose? Many on the right have long wanted Arlen Specter gone from their party. Challenging an incumbent is a hard thing to do. Incumbents traditionally have the support of the national party in the primary on the off chance they are challenged. With Specter running as Democrat the party is free to have a primary with no incumbents running. The state party members get a real chance to elect someone they want as opposed to fighting against the status quo.

I would like to point out the recent case of Senator Joe Lieberman. Joe was targeted by the extreme left wing of his party because he dared to support the Iraq war. Much like Specter he was often seen as a problem by members of his own Democratic party. Lieberman faced a primary challenge in the form of one Ned Lamont. After being defeated in the primary (where only the fringe members vote according to Specter) Lieberman saw all of his long time Senate friends move their backing to the party favorite. Knowing that he had the support of the majority of CT voters he ran as an independent and won.

That's right. Joe Lieberman found himself in nearly the same position Arlen Specter finds himself in right now, facing a tough primary that he may lose. Joe did not give up. He knew the voters would support him so he ran in the general election and he was proven right, defeating both the Democratic and Republican challengers!

What do we learn from Joe? We learn a lesson that Arlen Specter has not learned. We learn that if the people respect and believe in you they will vote for you no matter what party you belong to. Even when your party sends a primary challenge your way that appeals to your parties 'fringe' base and not the electorate at large you can still win. Joe did it.

• Nintendo Shop Channel Slows Down
• NARUTO on Nintendo DS?
• Virtual Console releases for October 29, 2007
• GTA IV Has Nothin on THQ’s Nickelodeon Game Line
• Gaming From the Past: Pool of Radiance

Yes, we voted for this man, Mr. Not-Quite-Prez, Obama. This country does need change and our new prez has been peddling that very thing, but don’t expect your taxes to decrease; it’s very possible they will go up, and sharply.

One of Obama’s projects is health care reform, something this writer holds dear because I work in that field. Universal Health Care is his plan, which is really nothing more than socialized medicine, and anyone who has ever lived in Europe can tell you, this plan doesn’t work. For one, the government pays for it, which means your taxes will increase. Also, the best health care will go to the healthiest people. This is TERRIBLE for Americans, because, let’s face it, we are a very FAT, SICK, AND MENTALLY UNBALANCED NATION. Hey, I could be wrong about all of this, and I hope that I am, but if I am not wrong....ouch! I can’t afford higher taxes, how about you?

So, my advice for you is simple: slim the Hell down, drink your orange juice, and read all the self-help books you can get your fat fingers on.

• Spotback is out of beta
• How the Democrats can win in 2008
• MySpace Unveils First ”Impact Presidential Poll”
• Truemors - Rumors, News, Gossip and more
• Movie Review: Enchanted

We've all heard about "Joe the Plumber" by now. The guy out in Ohio who asked Obama about the ramifications of purchasing the plumbing business from his boss.

Obama's answer about "sharing the wealth" allows his opponents to further paint him as a Marxist. Coupled with the Obama campaign's "95% of Americans get a tax cut" (only about two thirds pay income tax) line and we find Obama in a situation where he comes off sounding like a guy who is trying to paint wealth distribution (Marxism) as a tax cut.

Now the rabid dogs on the left are going all out to discredit Joe Wurzelbacher. They point to him having tax liens on his property, not being a licensed plumber and possibly even being related to the Charles H. Keating, Jr. behind the Keating Five Scandel. The one thing they are not doing is discussing what Obama said to the man. (I'd link to these accounts but you can find them all by doing a Google search on your own.)

It does not matter if Joe Wurzelbacher was a plant or not. What matters is the answer Obama gave him. An answer that many are trying to ignore by attacking the questioner. It's as if some people think that discrediting the man who asked the question will somehow remove the question (and its answer) from the political debate.

Further reading:

Did Barack "Spread the Wealth" Obama Just Blow the Election?by James Pethokoukis
Searching for Obama's 95 Percent by Philip Klein

• When did Jenny become a plumber?
• What I’m Playing These Days
• What’s with all the error messages?
• Windows 7 + AOA Fan = Ear Damage
• Everything is all right now

According to data on the National Taxpayers Union Foundation website the top 1% of wage earners in the USA pay about 39.89% of the income taxes collected (I'm using 2006 numbers). These folks have an Adjusted Gross Income of $388,806 or more. The bottom 50% of wage earners who do pay income taxes account just under 3% of the income taxes collected.

I don't know about you but I think I could live very well on $388,806. In fact, that amount is equal to more than four times my annual gross income. If I made $388,806 this year I could keep my present lifestyle intact and not work for the next few years without a single worry about money.

It is important to remember that some wealthy folks do not pay income tax at all. These folks pay Capital Gains taxes instead. Yes, those "amazing" CEOs who say they want a salary of $1 per year while raking in millions on stock options are moving their executive compensation away from the (higher) income tax rate to the (lower) capital gains rate.

Imagine if you will a world where the top 1% are forced to pay an even larger portion of their earned income in taxes. Do you think they will pay more without complaint? We have already seen corporations move their offices off-shore to circumvent corporate taxes so why not individuals?

Unlike the rest of us the top 1% people can easily afford to take a year off or even drop their salary to $1 and work out a stock option pay plan. Those of us who make under $100K per year can survive a few months without an income but not much longer.

So, think for a moment. What would happen if the top 1% decided to "go on strike" against paying income taxes? How would we make up for that 40% in taxes that is not being collected?

• I’m sick, entertain me!
• Lost… and found?
• How To: Use a cron job to backup your databases
• Raising an Only Child at Dinnertime
• A few tips on throwing a party when your parents are away

I just got the following email from the Ron Paul campaign:

November 5, 2007

What an incredible day to be a supporter of Ron Paul!

You have raised over $2 million so far today, putting us closer to our $12 million fourth quarter goal. This is more than any Republican has ever raised online in one day!

So far in 2008, the biggest day belongs to Mitt Romney. On January 8th, he raised just over $3.1 million. Will you help us beat Mitt Romney and raise more in one day than anyone has this year?

Please ensure Ron Paul's place in the record books with your most generous donation: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate. Tell your friends to donate today, too!

Jonathan Bydlak
Fundraising Director
Ron Paul 2008

Two million dollars on one day for Ron Paul??? That is just amazing considering most of his donations are in small amounts.

• Speed Linking for Friday March 16, 2007
• The Digg Effect Part 4: Netscape vs. Digg vs. Stumbleupon
• Queen + Paul Rogers Concert At Your Movie Theater
• The Baddest Halloween Costume in Town!
• Writers

1. This is not a debate for the anti-war vs pro-war discussion
2. Please try to stay on topic.

One thing that has been bugging me for a while is the anti-war slogan, "support the troops by bringing them home." Let me start off by saying, as a former soldier, no one wants to be in a war zone. No one wants bullets whizzing over their head (better than through your head though) or artillery dropping left and right. However, a soldier's job is to kill people and break things.

When I hear people say, "support the troops by bringing them home," I can't help but think how misguided that statement is. Would you apply the same statement to police officers or fire fighters?

"Hey California fire fighter, those wild fires are real dangerous! I'll support you by telling you to go home and let that fire burn out."

"Hey New York City police officer, it's dangerous on those streets why don't you just hang out in the police station where you will be safe?"

Doesn't have quite the same feel to it does it? It sounds almost parental in the way it gives the impression you lack faith in the person and want to protect them rather than let them do their job.

I don't see how supporting the troops can be anything but arming and feeding them. This whole "support the troops by bringing them home" feels like a backhanded slap in the face to me. When I hear it I can't help but think that the speaker lacks any and all faith in the troops and considers them to be a bunch of kids that need protecting.

Well, am I right or wrong? Please add to the discussion and feel free to bring up other slogans used on both sides of the argument. Slogans only please.

• TI-86 Art: The Eye [photo]
• TWiT is NOT Going Away
• T-Mobile and Samsung Introduce New Hotspot @Home Phone
• Nintendo Has another Banner Year!
• Nintendo and the Seattle Mariners Team Up to Offer Baseball-related Content via DS

What do you do when you are a Democrat and you hear good news coming from Iraq? Why you get depressed...

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

source - Washington Post

When asked about what will happen if Gen Petraeus's September report shows that the surge is working Clyburn responded that it would be bad news for Democrats! I was not able to find a transcript on line so I'm paraphrasing here.

If Gen. David Petraeus delivers a September progress report showing real gains, instead of the mixed report many have expected, it would "be a real big problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.

Why would American success in Iraq be "a real big problem" for Democrats? Oh, yeah. They've already called the war "lost" (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), have tried seven times this year to end it, and have staked their majority in Congress and their hopes for winning the White House on an American failure there.

source - Union Leader

We have long suspected that the Democrats were invested in "retreat and defeat" but I'm shocked to actualy here one of them admit to it!

"Winning the war on terror may be politically inconvenient for Jim Clyburn, but losing the war on terror is incomprehensible for those who fight and die defending freedom," said Dawson. "Democrats politically invested in U.S. failure have deliberately sought to tie the hands of our troops by denying them resources needed to win in Iraq. The actions of Democrat leaders constitute a breech of public trust and disregard for our safety and security."

source - Campaigns and Elections

I'm glad Clyburn has come clean on this. Any bets that this story gets buried by the main stream media?

If you read the Washinton Post article alone (not watch the video or hear the audio) you might not think that there is much of a story here. The true weight of this story is what is in the audio recording. That is where Clyburn admits that what is good for America (winning in Iraq) is not good for Democrats.

It's time for many Democrats to look at the party that they belong to and look who is in control of that party. Do these people have the best interests of you and America in mind or only there own? I gladly support politicians who put America above their own personal ambitions, do you?

Anyone who sees victory in Iraq as a bad thing should not be in the United States Federal government.

-- Danny Mc Guire

• Democrats may have won the House, but they did not win the Senate
• The Specter of Defeat
• How Silly String saves lives on the battlefield
• My Obssessive Thoughts
• Ask Marsha: Cleaning

I know this has been floating around the Internet for many years but it is such a great illustration of how the American tax system works that I would like to share it.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
The arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said,

"I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

"Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the
paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share,
then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not
show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.

- Author unknown

• What If The Top 1% Stayed Home?
• We Voted For This Man
• You call that a drink?
• Internet tax time is almost upon us again
• Why I hate my iPod