I'm sorry to do it.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Because we get along so chummingly and I can't stand the thought of losing some of you. But based on reader feedback, I know that the majority of you come back to my blog because of my honesty. To that end, I need to share with you a political something, because honestly the below pisses me off to no end. I hope that if it offends you, it still challenges you and that you will respect my opinion.

From the Wall Street Journal:
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.


Now I would stand to gain from this plan, and yet I oppose it. Why? Our country is filled with far too many who feel that they are entitled to a better life without the effort. In all honesty, that is why we're sitting in the economic crisis that we are, due to those who felt they had a right to a home, regardless of their ability to pay for it. And the lawmakers who made it basically discrimination for banks to refuse a mortgage to those they knew were unqualified, in the name of equal access.

Peg me as a conservative Christian voter, because that's what I am, but this isn't about a one issue or even two issue vote, this is about government handouts that I do not support. Many would say I'm disillusioned as a young white Christian female from a "stable" family and I'm not going to try to pretend to say that I know what it's like in all the parts of our country, but I have worked 2-3 jobs to make ends meet, studied my butt off in high school to fight for scholarships and am now working my patoot off again to pay off my college loans and mortgage payment because that's what I took responsibility to do. I've worked hard for the life that I have and am prepared to apply myself in ways I can't even dream of in order to maintain it, because that's the work ethic that my Mom as a single mother instilled in me.

Now I'm not saying I love McCain, because I don't even like him. But I dislike him a little less than Obama, and that's enough.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald R Ford

37 comments:

Abby said...

Leah, I agree that it is infuriating the amount of people that have the entitlment mantality!! Whatever happened to working hard for what you get?? My parents always instiled in me that I needed to go to school, work hard and then I would be able to afford the nicer things in life. They didn't tell me to wait for the government to bail me out and give me freebees!!

Chelsie said...

Leah--Thank you for speaking honestly about this. Being in a very liberal setting the majority of the time, I find myself always feeling in the minority and having to hold my tongue for fear of being a conservative Christian and having "old fashion" ideals and values. Like you, Obama is so far off on many of the things I believe in that I am forced to vote for McCain because I dislike him less.

So thank you for speaking your mind!

abby said...

From one "disillusioned" young white Christian female to another - well said :)

Bekah said...

I dont write about this on my blog, because I dont want to come off from the "pity me" standpoint, I came from a background where we most definitely would have qualified for welfare, and would have been well below what most people consider poverty. We were poor, but I NEVER EVER knew it, I loved the way we lived, it was simple but I never kenw what I was "missing". My parents worked their butts off to provide for us AND NEVER ASKED THE GOVERNMENT FOR ASSISTANCE, and I had the happiest childhood imaginable. It makes me so angry to see people feel that they are entitled to this mon ey that they havent earned. I too would gain from Obamas tax credits, but I felt that this? This is socialism. I just reread the Communist Manifesto last night (for school) and I was struck by how much Obamas plans sounds like socialism. Which is not all bad, but it is also not America, and it doesnt work.

Sorry...ill get off my soapbox now! I dont love McCain either, but I cant vote for Obama.

Leah said...

This makes me sick to my stomach.

The sense of entitlement is completely disgusting. But, of course I'm not surprised. Obama himself said we need to "spread the wealth."

And I am frustrated with the McCain campaign for not calling B. Hussein Obama out on his misleading "tax cuts."

kari said...

I hear ya Leah.

CageQueen said...

So true on so many levels.

kpapa said...

Okay, I will bite.

I agree with you on the entitlement thing. People get lazy, selfish, and feel they deserve things they can't pay for. Hence the sub-prime meltdown. But that is human nature, and having a Republican in office with a conservative fiscal policy (not even talking about McCain here) won't change human nature, and this will still exist. However, NOT ALL people are this way. Many legitimately hardworking people just need a hand. Do you advocate not assisting them, because the nature of the assistance will mean that some undeserving people get a leg up, too?

But back to the article - I am no economist or tax accountant. But this article clarifies several of the WSJ claims. (Written by actual economists, btw, not Obama campaign aides).

My biggest take-away from the article is this:
The WSJ says "Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers." This is almost certainly false, by any reasonable definition of "low-income worker." This Tax Policy Center table shows that under Obama's proposals, average effective tax rates would go negative, meaning that they would actually receive get money back from the government, only for those making less than $10K a year.

Damn. Less than $10K a year? I'm just fine with giving my tax dollars for some relief to people making less than $10K a year. And I am a Christian too... which is why I don't really get why the democratic vote is not really associated with the Christian vote. Jesus always taught us to give unconditionally - like the homeless man on the corner. Do I give him a dollar or a sandwich, or do I just keep driving past him because he's probably on drugs and put himself in that situation in the first place? To be cliche, WWJD? Drive on by or give the man a helping hand??

_________

I once heard it said that if you are a Democrat, you have no brain, and if you are a Republican, you have no heart. It might be better for my wallet to vote McCain, but I'm not voting with my wallet. I'm voting with my heart.

Let the struggling people (and those freeloaders we can't avoid) get a hand up. I'd rather help that group than any other demographic or tax bracket you can come up with.

kpapa said...

Okay - to the other Leah up there who played the B. Hussein Obama card:

1) There are many good Americans with the name Hussein.
2) There are many good Americans of Arab descent.
3) There are many good Americans of the Islamic faith, many of whom have Arabic names, such as Hussein.
4) Obama is not one of them, but so what if he was??

NONE of these things means they are bad people or bad Americans or terrorists. And using Obama's name in that manner is purely ridiculous, because everyone knows you are doing it to instigate something and imply a "fear factor". You needn't be so childish. You can express your opinions while still remaining respectful.

And for the record, last time I checked, having a white or non-foreign sounding name isn't a requirement for being President.

mrs.leah.maria said...

Kpapa - thank you for sharing the link and providing your challenging perspective.

AmberDenae said...

Income redistribution.

Great post and yes, I oppose this as well for the very same reasons you do. It is absurdity to "hand out" money to those who do not put forth the effort to earn it and who use "discrimination" as a means to gain what they do not deserve.

I love the quote you posted by Gerald Ford. How true.

Leah, you're my kinda gal!! I think we'd be great friends in real life!

I do love your blog and yes, your honesty is intriguing and your writing methods and subjects always bring me back for more!

=)

AmberDenae said...

Oh and also in response to another comment that was posted on here...

Jesus did teach us to give and to help the needy, but the Bible also very clearly teaches us to be diligent with what we are given and it even tells us to "Look at the ant, you sluggard, observe her ways and be wise" Proverbs 6:6

The ant is God's creation, born to work hard and receive accordingly.

We should be more apt to earn our keep and work for our earnings than even the ant.

We can learn a lot from those little guys.

I understand what you mean when you say "WWJD" as it pertains to those who are in need. I too am a Christian and I too have compassion on those who are less fortunate. However, sadly there are so many out there who take full advantage of these "freebies" or "easy ways out" in order to opt out of working or utilitzing their God given abilities of which God clearly speaks about using.

We are called to be good stewards

In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus taught the parable of the talents. In this story, a man gave each of three servants varying amounts of money to take care of while he was on a trip.

When he returned, two of the servants reported that they used the money wisely and earned more money. The master rewarded them for their faithful service.

The third servant, however, said he buried his money. He did not make a profit or earn any interest. He was severely punished.

Jesus taught this parable about money to illustrate a spiritual truth, not to give a lesson in financial management. Yet by using this illustration, he also let us know we are to use his possessions in a trustworthy way. We will give an account to God about our stewardship.

So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own? (Luke 16:11-12).

Work is a blessing. It enables us to provide for ourselves, our relatives and the work of the Lord. When we work diligently, we are good stewards. We also are a positive example of Christianity to those around us.

When we are lazy, we are a bad example and hurt the cause of Christ.

Work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12).

Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth (Proverbs 10:4).

If a man will not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

And there are my 2 cents, for what they are worth =)

Katie said...

its really scary...wolves in sheep's clothing - that is what politicians are. that whole article sounds like classical socialism.

it looks like our country is in deep BS...we have too many factors to fix and not enough legal and working americans to fix em.

maybe I could live in grand cayman?

Erin said...

I love you, girl. I read this article, too, and was OUTRAGED. It just doesn't add up, and if I hear "I'm cutting taxes for 95% of Americans!" one more time I might throw up.

I, like you, am often seen as the "solid middle class white girl" who's never had to struggle for anything in my life. Yes, I may have been born to a solid family, but that's where it ends. I've worked since I was 14 years old, I'll have student loans til I'm 45, I've gone after opportunities when they've presented themselves, and I haven't been lazy at all - I've earned where I am today.

I understand that we all start out in different places, but I do believe we all have opportunity - it's what makes America great. And the lower income people in this country have a lot offered to them already, I don't think we need Obama's SOCIALIST policies doing more.

And you're right - his policies would benefit me, too. I certainly don't make $250K/year, nor will I probably ever. But my boss and the businesses I frequent - they make that much, and if they're taxed to hell, that will affect me. It will affect us all. He just doesn't understand that these policies hurt the economy and thus hurt everyone.

You should read the article I shared in a Note on Facebook today - it's incredible.

Madeline said...

I'm biting too...(remember I voted for Bush both times)

(And side note: I like this dialog. It makes me research and learn more about what is going on in this election. It makes me really be more informed about what I am talking about instead of blanketed statements. So thank you my friend! )

I am going from a Non partisan website (Factcheck.org)
Who's a "Taxpayer"?


Furthermore, the Journal's editorial misstated a key fact in its "welfare" argument. It said that anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is not a "taxpayer," which is simply incorrect. Here's what the editorial said:

Wall Street Journal editorial, Oct. 13: [Refundable credits] are an income transfer – a federal check – from taxpayers to non taxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare." ... Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The fact is, a worker can be a "taxpayer" whether or not they owe any income tax. Just about every worker is subject to federal Social Security and Medicare taxes totaling 7.65 percent on every dollar of earnings, up to $102,000 per year. (For earnings over $102,000, only the 1.45 percent Medicare tax applies.) Low-income workers, and retired and jobless persons as well, also pay federal excise taxes whenever they buy gasoline or pay a telephone bill, for example. Obama and other Democrats argue that for low-income workers, refundable tax credits are not “welfare” but, in effect, a reduction in their overall federal tax burden, counting payroll taxes.

Congressional Budget Office figures show that even those in the lowest-earning fifth of households pay an effective federal tax rate, on average, of 4.3 percent of their income, despite benefiting from existing federal refundable tax credits to a major degree. This group had average income of $15,900 in 2005, the most recent year for which CBO has done the calculations. But despite receiving "a federal check" through the income tax system that boosted income by an average of 6.5 percent (this shows up as a negative tax rate in the CBO tables), they still paid an average of $600 in federal taxes. That's true even after subtracting the effects of refundable tax credit "welfare."

I think sometimes we forget that we are all taxpayers. When we buy gas, pay a phone bill, buy groceries, we are paying taxes to the government/state.

Oh and some more food for thought
"Welfare" or "Reform"?


The "welfare" claim rests on the argument, made in an Oct. 13 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, about refundable tax credits. Obama proposes to grant a number of refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income workers. For example, he would give a $500 tax credit ($1,000 for a couple) for workers, which would phase out for single workers making $75,000 or for couples making $150,000 per year. As the Journal editorial says: "You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability." That's true enough. Whether or not that makes them "welfare" is a matter of interpretation, however. As the Journal editorial also says in its headline, "It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."

Fair enough. But McCain himself is proposing refundable tax credits of up to $2,500 a year for individuals, or $5,000 for families, as part of his health care plan. McCain doesn't call his credits a "tax cut" but he doesn't call them "welfare" either. He does call it tax "reform," right there on his own Web site:

McCain Web site: John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code . . . [E]very family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance.

McCain makes his tax credit refundable to make it worth just as much to low-income workers as to high-income workers. If it were not refundable, it would be worth $0 to anyone who makes too little to pay any federal income taxes. A non-refundable credit would be worth the full amount only to individuals who owe at least $2,500 in federal income taxes, or couples who owe at least $5,000. Obama makes his tax credits refundable for the same reason – so they will benefit workers who earn too little to pay federal income tax.

AJ said...

::stands on chair and applauds::
Well said, Leah. I must admit I didn't read the whole article, but I think I pretty much know what it says, and I agree.

One note...I'm all for giving money to those who absolutely need it. But it's MY choice who my hard-earned money goes to; not the government. If I want to give to charity, I will seek out a needy family or person myself. God knows I was once unemployed. But I struggled through and made it, just like many other Americans out there. Everyone should have the feeling of financial struggle at some point in their lives so they truly appreciate the times when they are financially stable. Then they won't take it for granted.

ka1t_lyn said...

Wow Leah, nice post! I was just assigned this article in my Economics class to read, weird.

I agree with you on the "handouts" issue. My single mom qualified for food stamps and work-to-welfare programs for most of my young childhood. She took the Medicare/caid (I'm not sure which) so that my (very) ill brother and I could be o.k. But she never, ever took handouts. Her checks were $300 a week- so about $15k a year. Granted, it was the early ninties and a dollar went further. No I'm not sure how she did it, but she did it for us. One of the craziest memories of being young for me is the ONE bag of potato chips I got my ENTIRE childhood. Life is about working hard and glorifying God, not about hardly working to get whatever you can!

"Peg me as a conservative Christian voter"... well peg me too!

AmberDenae said...

Haha, I find it a little funny that by writing "B. Hussein Obama" is "ridiculous" and "childish". It is the man's name, is it not? Everyone knows that already. No one gets upset when we say "George W. Bush". Obviously there is a huge difference and it's apparent that a simple name would disqualify you for presidency. However, no matter who you are, or who you are voting for- you can not neglect the fact that it is a bit ironic that he shares a name with "Sadam Hussein" and "Obama" rhymes with "Osama". Of course this is certainly not the reason I am not voting for Obama but there can be no denying that his name has caused controversy as people want to know and deserve to know why a man of Kenyan descent would have a name such as this? In school he was registered as a muslim and kept that faith for 31 years. It's just a name and by calling him his name is not "childish". It's his name! haha He better get used to it!

Sorry. Not trying to start a fight here. I just wanted to pitch my two cents on that as well.

Joi said...

Leah, I love that you put it all out there.

There's not enough room/time for me to state the reasons why I disagree with McCain/Palin.

And I will be voting for Obama, but I still respect your views and thanks for the article!

kpapa said...

There is no denying that Obama rhymes with Osama? You are right. God must be telling us, through the semantics of his name, that he is the devil. WHAT was I thinking.

I just threw up a little.

We will have a Muslim president one day, and it won't be the end of the world, and it won't be because the terrorists have taken over. You need to educate yourself on the Islamic faith before you make yourself look more ignorant.

Having a president of Kenyan descent will be something for our country to be proud of, seeing as we are the melting pot nation. All of us, save for Native Americans, are immigrants to this land in one way, shape, or historical form. He is an American, fair and square.

Obama rhymes with Osama? Are you shitting me?

Mrs. A said...

well said Leah I admire your courage to post this I could never do it. I agree with what you had to say and feel as well that I'm voting for the one I dislike the least. Your courage of conviction, and strong faith are refreshing in times when so many are afraid to speak out.

AmberDenae said...

Haha, I wasn't writing that because i think it is a scare tactic- it's just a fact. There can be no denying that it has caused controversy, because IT HAS.

Thankfully, we do live in a great nation of opportunity and I have absolutely no problem with the pigment of someones skin and as a matter of fact I have studied Islam religion and I do have a problem with an array of their beliefs. Radical Islamists would love to see our country destroyed...point blank.

I do not appreciate you calling me ignorant- I was simply stating something that MANY americans (myself NOT included) concern with his name and past. There was really no need for that.

But it's cool. I won't hold it against you :) We have freedom of speech and while I was not saying anything even remotely close to "Obama rhyming with Osama" having to do with anything as far as him being a candidate- i just find it ironic. Simply put.

Now before you go around calling people ignorant, make sure you know who you are calling "ignorant".

I'm not mad, just wanted to explain. Thanks :)

(Leah, I'm sorry that this has taken a completely different path than you intended =/)

Jen said...

While I don't agree with you, I respect your opinion and I found the article interesting. I don't support giving handouts, but something needs to be done to actually help people who need it (and are trying to work to get ahead). Neither Obama or McCain seem to really have a adequate plan to put the tax cuts into the right area.
McCain's education policy is what really concerns me more than anything.

Joi said...

As a teacher, Jen, I couldn't agree with you more.

Jen said...

Check out some more information on the truth behind both Obama and McCains plans.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_welfare.html

Ashley said...

Hahaha. You are so much like me. I'm very opinionated about my beliefs and voting tendencies, but on my blog I don't want to start World War 3. So I understand why you were debating putting your opinion "out there" but I'm so thankful you did; it's so nice to hear a like-minded opinion once in awhile.

Kurt and I have had this discussion a million times. Here's the problem: The government was never intended to be the provider for the genuinely needy people in the world. That was supposed to be the church's job. Remember when Jesus said "Care for the widows, etc.?"

However, the church has completely lost its calling. Truly, we are supposed to have a discerning spirit in who we help, but the church has gotten so self-consumed that we don't take our responsibility anymore.

As harsh as it may sound (and I don't mean for it to), I still hold to the belief that it's not the government's job to constantly bail people out. I think someone earlier referenced that it's human nature to want things we can't afford and having a Republican in office wouldn't change that. That's so true. But along the same lines, we have a sinful human nature, and Democrats tend to want to give people the "benefit of the doubt" all the time---they're just hard-working people who need a hand. Realistically, constantly giving people money will only continue the cycle, because motives are not always pure.

All of this boils down to a spiritual issue. People are trying to fill the voids in their lives with "things." People are insecure in who they are and they want to "keep up." And like I said before, the church, which is supposed to be the center of ministry and care, has lost its focus. I know this is not the "political" response that a lot of readers have given you, but here's my bottom line: In short, people just need the Lord.

The Long Haul said...

Amen sister. It gets me so riled up when I am expected to give my money (that I work HARD for) to help people who won't help themselves. Like you, I worked hard in school to get scholarships, and now I am working hard to pay of school loans, in addition to saving and earning things that I want..

I am all for helping people who really need it and will work for it, but there's no way I want to help people who sit on their butts when they could go across the street and get a job like the rest of us do.

Meredith said...

Leah, you really sparked a debate here!

I'm a Sociology major at heart, and definitely have a soft spot in my heart for a true socialist society. I've heard all about the myth of the American Dream ("work hard and you will prosper, if you fall, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps").

That said, I also work in social services, and have seen first hand the number of people who abuse the system. The number of people who choose not to work even though they're able-bodied because it's easier to receive a check from the gov't. The number of people who receive a check from the gov't AND work under the table in order to circumvent the system and still appear to earn less than $10,000 a year.

On the other hand, I see single mothers who are working as hard as they possibly can, and who stay on WIC for the shortest amount of time possible, and only to make sure that they are able to pay rent AND have their children eat without having to go back to dealing drugs in order to make ends meet. These moms will do ANYTHING to avoid using welfare, but occasionally have to resort to using it for the benefit of their children.

Biblically, I'm not sure where it all fits in. I'd like to support the latter, but not necessarily the former. But then again, I'm not one to judge a person's true need. I still haven't figured out how to reconcile this politically.

Anyway, thank you for sharing Leah.

All Things Today said...

Thank you Leah! I fully agree and actually the hubs and I were just discussing this the other night. It's hard to tell who's deserving of assistance and who's not...where is the line drawn? We too have worked hard for our money and I want to be able to give it away as I see fit...not what the gov't thinks is best.

Jennifer said...

I am in the same boat: I would profit from Obama's plan, but I strongly disagree with it!

Sarah said...

While I respect your opionion, I could not disagree more. To others who have commented: Politicians maybe, but first and foremost like the rest of us, they are human. So please watch what you say about either candidate and the sometimes underlying hurtful correlations you make regarding their names. The name is what is is but you made it taboo. While religion makes me uncomfortable at times I firmly believe in WWJD. He would help those in need, erroring on the side of bailing out even those who abuse the system on in order to take care of those who are struggling and doing their best but simply do not have luck and a good support system on their side.

Leah said...

The B. Hussein Obama thing was a joke (although it is his name) and it has nothing do with the many reasons that I'm not voting for him.

Didn't mean to get everyone all worked up. (And sorry, Leah, for stirring things up on your blog).

All Things Today said...

I know this isn't/wasn't the topic of your post - and I wasn't going to do/say anything...but I just can't stop myself (feel free to delete if you want). I find it interesting that people are so compassionate to those who are struggling financially, but seem to not care about the ProLife/ProChoice issue. If you're asking WWJD regarding giving to those in need financially, you should definitely be asking yourself WWJD for those lives who don’t even have a choice.

Ashley said...

To "all things today"---

Extremely well-said. I wasn't even going to get into that, but I couldn't agree more. Excellent point.

Megan said...

Let's be honest here - McCain and Obama both suck, but I'm with ya... I dislike McCain a little less, which is the reason I am also voting for him.

half of vamh said...

I may not agree with you but I respect your opinion, it is an educated opinion, which is rare.

I think the "trickle" down theory has failed the American people miserably. In general the majority of Americans are too greedy to pass their wealth onto the needy. One example, the average CEO makes on average 262 times (2006 data) more than their employees.

I'll forgo my wealth if I can help make the dreams of so many others. What about those people that did work as hard as we did, or had as much ambition as we do but one incident turned their life to shit? A parent with cancer, a car accident, laid off, etc. Not everyone on welfare or receiving government aid is a lazy freeloader. There are just as many lying people on the other end of the spectrum ripping you off, believe me. We (the taxpayers) just paid for a $400,00 spa retreat for AIG, talk about freeloading.

Sigh. Is it November 5 yet?

November 5th, 2058.

Sarah said...

Hey Leah,

I think this was posted before I started reading your blog, but I am so glad I found it thanks to your post today! Being only 22 (only 19 at the time of the election), I had a hard time speaking with anyone about my age about my beliefs.

I lived with three "democrats" at the time - not sure they actually knew what that meant, and I remember them pounding on my door the night Obama was elected cheering and telling me to come out. They didn't know that I was praying myself to sleep - so scared of what was to come of our country and all the hard workers that live here. I never shared my beliefs with them.

I agree with you 100%. Sometimes I feel that people try to push the values you wrote against as being the true moral thing to do and sometimes it even makes me feel like a bad Christian for being against it, but everything you wrote resonated with me and now I don't feel bad anymore. Even though I'm reading this post years later, I am very glad because it gives me hope for the next election that I am not the only one who has these beliefs! I'm so glad I will no longer be in college where many people vote for someone without knowing the facts during the next election!

-Sarah Syhakhoun

 

Blog Design by Nudge Media Design | Powered by Blogger