“Nobody” repercussions

My friend Lucille sent me that first “Letter from a Nobody.” I wrote an abbreviated version of the above blog post and did one of my only ever “reply to all”s. I received two emails in response. Here's the highlight of one of them and my response.

(This is from my own guiding principle since 1994: don't put anything in email that you wouldn't want on the front page of The New York Times, or Motormouth)

Mark wrote:

Wake up and smell the roses! If you think that Obama will give you a helping hand up, you are wrong. If you review the history of the mess we are in you'll see that it is from those very policies of the people that think that the government can do better for you than you can do for yourself! You are right that he will take from the rich and give to the poor…that is called socialism! It's awfully interesting that when Ronald Reagan became president we were in a mess from the Carter years. One of his main strategies was to reduce taxes for ALL not for the rich. It was called the trickle down theory. And guess what? It worked! If you review the history of the mess we are in you'll see that it is from those very policies of the people that think that the government can do better for you than you can do for yourself!

I'm struck nearly mute by the vitriol and condescension of your response… nearly.

First off, I too am a Christian and a Republican. And I don't think the government can do better for me than I do for myself. Well, *this* government hasn't, and John McCain votes with Bush, though he won't say so. That's why I have three jobs; I'm not getting help from anyone, and frankly, I don't expect any.

I'm not looking for a president who takes from the rich to give to the poor, but I do think that those with more should pay more to fund our government, its war, etc. Ten percent from someone who makes 300,000 is a whole lot more than 10% from someone who makes 30,000. It isn't socialism; it's math.

That economic stimulus check? The majority of people spent it on their debt, which didn't stimulate anything; actually, what's the opposite of stimulate? Yeah. That.

Oh, and even though I make about 30 grand a year, I tithe. So I'm used to sharing, and wouldn't mind sharing a little more if it means that kids get vaccinated and maybe a little help toward a college degree. It's good business to have a healthy, smart workforce.

(also , its=possessive. it's=it is. No “e” in judgment. Socialism=when banks get bailed out by the government. That's just off the top of my head)

Additionally, Obama is not a Muslim. Obama did not have anything to do with the Kenyan elections.

Obama's associations? The judge who convicted Ayers (when Obama was eight years old) has complimented Ayers on the way he's turned his life around into that of an upstanding citizen.

Last week John McCain himself said of Obama that “He's a decent family man, citizen.”

Is it Christian to hold people to the standard of who they were decades ago? I mean, in the '70s McCain was a tortured POW. Now he supports waterboarding. People change.

7 thoughts on ““Nobody” repercussions

  1. I disagree with your assessment that “isn't socialism; it's math”. While the effect on the person is certainly different, it's the philosophy that is the problem.
    In a recent rope line, Obama told a plumber, who claimed Obama's tax plan would negatively affect him, that he wanted to “spread the wealth around”.
    This is classic socialism. Now, if you're comfortable with that, fine. Don't be ashamed of it. But let's not pretend that he wants to do anything other than redistribution of wealth.
    Obama wants to tax the most successful and give the efforts of their work to the less successful. Somehow this is “fair”, to use Biden's words.
    Let me put it this way. Let's say, after years and years of hard work and schooling, you become a moderately successful author or playwright. Is it fair that the fruit of your labor, skills and creativity (income) should be taken by the government (taxes) and given to others (government programs) who haven't met some arbitrary definition of “successful” that the government creates? Rather than your money being left in your pocket for you and your family? That's taxation.
    Note, this is in direct contrast to you keeping your money and having the CHOICE to do with it as you please, including giving it to the poor, if that is what you felt was the best use of your money. That's charity.
    Your money, you earned it, your choice. That's the key difference. And the scary implication is that by having a higher tax rate on increased earnings, the government is basically saying, “The more successful you get, the more we're going to take”.
    That doesn't seem fair to me at all, nor do I think it's a good message to inspire citizens with.

  2. I don't think there's any shame in expecting people who make upwards of a quarter million bucks/year to help heat the homes of the indigent. Isn't that in the Bible somewhere? Treat your neighbors as yourself?
    Bank bailouts from the government are a heck of a lot more socialist. Frankly, THAT's where our taxes are going to go.

  3. I just figured it out. Republicans aren't conservative. They're anarchists! That's hillarious. So, you're against taxes period? Is that right? How special.
    Let me fill you on something, Herr Republican, we're in a depression. Someone is going to have to help us out of it. Not you. US. See, that's the idea behind the government. Every man for himself is anarchy. The opposite of that isn't socialism. It's called a government, and it needs money to go on. You see, the problem is that you think of the poor as those people over there. They aren't. They're you. Your a member of the United States so on the world market your stock is headed for the toilet. You're so used to refusing to give out a helping hand that you can't even see your own stake in this thing. What will it take? The economic collapse of the nation? Evidentally, not even that.
    To use your analogy, say you're the best person at thing X in a third world nation. Do you rise to the top? No. See you live in a third world nation and so the money just isn't there. It's held up by some power mad family who doesn't care how many people starve. But you're really good, you say. Who cares? In other countries, where the money is, they pay a lot for services like what you perform, but for you nothing. But why won't the other countries play fair? Because they don't give a crap about you and your petty…whetever it is you do. Besides, they pretty much think less of you because you come from place X. Okay, now follow me. Do you really think our economists and businesses are going to be respected across the world stage after this? Do you really think, even for a minute, that the rest of the world marvels at our humanitarian attitudes after Abu Ghraib and the strength of our economic models after Fannie Mae. If you do, you're deluded. You can't rise to the top of a broken system, you have to fix the system.
    Right now, our money means nothing because we actively support and encourage criminals (like McCaine given his role in the Savings and Loan scandal). Money is a measure of trust and no one trust us. You want change, you're going to have to bail out the economy in some way that does not involve handing more money to criminals. That's simple. Also, you can't have the state run the banks–that's called socialism. Look it up. How does one bail out the economy like that? You have to tax the people who are stockpiling money and you have to redistribute it. You call this socialism, actually its the definition of economics. Again, look it up.
    But here's the real question: why are people so willing to believe these things about Obama? Why are thy so willing to defy logic and vote Republican after the debacle of the last eight years that has dealt grievous harm to civil liberties, embroiled our nation in endless war, and set off an economic depression to rival that of the 1930s. Aftter that, why would anyone in their right mind vote Republican? Because Obama's a black man. That's it, isn't it? Why not just say it? Blogs are fairly anonymous–just use the N word and get it over with. You know you want to.

  4. Helping our neighbors is ABSOLUTELY in the Bible. But show me ONE PASSAGE that places the responsibility of helping others on anyone other than individuals or the church.
    The government is not supposed to be charity. And when it tries to be, it is pretty much the most wasteful charity that isn't actually corrupt. I would much rather take the same amount of money the government would take to help people and give it to them myself or a local charity rather than lose who knows how much of it in bureaucratic waste.
    Here's what Wikipedia's entry on the powers of Congress say:
    “The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. These include the powers: to levy and collect taxes, provide for common defense and promote the pursuit of liberty; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, and make laws necessary and proper to execute the powers of Congress.”
    I see the government's job as to create opportunity, not results. It is society's responsibility to help the needy.
    Don't try to confuse my position on less taxes with being opposed to helping people. I'm ALL for helping people. In fact, studies have shown that conservatives give more to charities than liberals, so don't think they're the big loving party. They just want the government to go it instead of the individual.
    (On a side note, I think the church has failed miserably in this area. We've given our responsibilities as helpers to the needy and lost. But that's another topic.)
    And for the record, I think the bailout is a big mistake, too.

  5. A couple of things.
    1) I'm not against taxes, as my above reply shows. Raising taxes for the Constitutionally supported reasons is totally cool.
    2) I don't know why you're talking about the bailout and global trust and McCain (who was completely cleared of any wrongdoing in Keating, btw). I'm not.
    3) I think your wife (I'm assuming you're the same Monstro) said it best in the original post: “I'm struck nearly mute by the vitriol and condescension of your response…”
    I tried to post nicely, thoughtfully, and without condescension. In response, I get accused of being a racist. I see no reason to continue commenting here if that is the way I can expect to be treated.

  6. Point of order: Doug's second comment had not yet posted when Monstro posted his comment, although when you look at the comment thread, Doug's second comment now appears before Monstro's, which is not how it happened. –Motormouth

  7. What, did someone call you on something there Doug? Well I'm sorry I guess. It's just that I've grown tired of hearing how the current regime should continue to be supported even though they've initiated a campaign against human rights, the economy, and the environment. If it were just you're opinion, that would be one thing, but it isn't, you vote. You're dangerous. Who cares if you post nicely? What are you going to nicely starve my children? How polite of you. If McCaine votes like Bush, then McCaine is like Bush. Get over it. Posting nicely, seriously Doug, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
    By the way, I haven't heard word one on why anyone would so much as vote in a Republican dog catcher (much less a Republican president) given the economic depression that this party has CAUSED by banding together on extremely bad policies. I see that you weren't talking about that. Too bad about that denial then. I can't help you there. Keating five? OJ got cleared too, man. How hard is it to get cleared when you're a rich senator. Are you serious?
    Constitionally supported reasons? My god. Don't invoke the constitution. You're a Republican and your leadership has been wiping with the constitution for the last 8 years.
    So let's back up. No one can (or will) give adequate reason why they vote Republican, they don't own up to responsibility. They're main claim is that Obama will tax. So, by the way, will McCain. I get email after email telling me that Obama is a terrorist, an Arab, and a muslim, all of which are not true, and you all are out there voting: what pro-torture, pro-listening in on people's telephone conversations, pro-economic disaster? Wtf. I'm sorry, maybe you aren't racist. But if not, maybe you can explain to me exactly why you're voting for these things, because the alternative to racism as a motive isn't much better. Be the first Republican on your block to stand up and be accountable for your opinons I'll be busy over here working my three jobs. By the way, my parent's are Republicans too, they lost fifty thousand dollars last month. If you could please phrase your response in such a way that tells them why they should fear Obama and a tax hike. Oh, I'm sorry, is he going to raise everybody's taxes by fifty thousand.
    Doug, look around. You're one step from a bread line and your walking papers are signed by a Republican. I don't care if you're rich. Mervyns just went the way of Freddie Mac and WaMu. Where do you work that's safer than that? Who do you think the Republicans are going to be helping out?
    “I tried to post nicely.” That kills me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *