Taxing the Wealthy

My dad's idea of poking fun at Democrats. Ah, Change We Can Laugh At...

Politics or Circuits: Taking a Stand Against Socialism

When faced with that daunting question, and a pile of homework, the question must be asked. Which is more interesting? I think that will be quite obvious.

I stumbled upon a CNN article a little while ago, and it's helping me choose a side. I've been generally raised conservative, and I've never really fully understood it. It's kind of like faith, where many people are born into it and accept it, except here, I never truly embraced politics like my parents. It's like one of my supervisors at work told me, "my kids won't listen to me, but if I tell you, I might have a bigger effect."

The article I came across was: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/joe.plumber/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

In case you don't want to read the article for yourself, let me summarize as briefly as I can: We have "Joe the Plumber" who is taking control of a growing small business. Under Obama's tax plan, however, he runs the risk of hitting a higher tax bracket (above $227,000) and will therefore have his income hacked to the point where he might as well just make under $227,000. (granted, he isn't a "typical" plumber, but plenty of other people share his situation)

Obama's take on all this is that while Joe the Plumber will lose money in the short term, it will be more than made up for by the fact that the lower income people will have more money to spend, and thus he will eventually benefit in the long run. It's like reverse Trickle-Down economics.

I know some of you hate rich people, and I don't plan on being in that higher tax bracket when I graduate, but you have to ask yourself: is it fair to stick them with an exponentially higher tax? We live in America and we've always assumed that gain is directly proportional to work, and sometimes luck. In this case, "Joe's" profit is being essentially capped. Let me put this in terms you (presumably my peers, and also students) can understand. Obama is going to stick the economy with a No Child Left Behind Plan. Now that just doesn't seem like change we should believe in. And it's not like you won't save money anyways, it's not like McCain isn't going to cut taxes for lower income people anyways, it's just not as much. But it's for you to decide whether or not instant financial gratification is worth the overall Socialistic oppression.

I know that this alone isn't merit to elect McCain + Palin Puppet Pal, but it should make you think twice, and look more closely at the "Change" that Obama is touting.

Facepalm of the Week

I haven't touched this blog in awhile, and since Circuits homework isn't all that appealing, I guess that means it's time to make a post. Today's pointless complaints will be... well... pointless, but I just feel the need to comment somehow about society... and unintentionally, in hindsight, about womens tastes.

Yesterday, I was dragged shoe-shopping. If there's any facet of shopping that raises an eyebrow for me, it's shoes. Shirts that don't cover enough, pants that drag on the floor, those I can kind of understand. But shaped pieces of leather that try to be more than practical, but fashion statements, are the strangest idea ever. And really, from my cultural history, I ought to at least not be so shocked (foot-binding and all), but it really is puzzling. Designers have this obsession with silly styles.

Unnatural tapers are one. Feet aren't the prettiest things in the world. Trying to make them look like spades isn't going to improve their aesthetics. The only reason I can see for making shoes pointy is to make kicks more painful. Thus, it can only be concluded that pointy-toed shoes are self-defense weapons to protect against theft and rape.

Then there are things that try to be a fad, but fail. And not only do they look ugly, but they're not all that practical either. Take for example Crocs, they really are ugly... I hadn't noticed before, but now I truly understand. They are my new golden standard for bulkiness and a nightmare from an efficiency standpoint. So much plastic for so little function... *shudder* I'll stick with $2 sandals from Chinatown tyvm.

And lastly, this was more of a study/observation, I tried finding a correlation between material used and price. In my infinite cynicism, I had postulated that the less material that went into a shoe, the more it would cost. I cruised an aisle, getting a feel for pricing and shoe styles but the evidence wasn't strong. There was no support for my hypothesis, but I did find a different correlation. Womens balance in shoes is inversely proportional to their price (heels, narrow bottoms, etc). It was an amusing conclusion, I thought, that designers made more money by making women trip more...

But I suppose my views are abnormal, seeing as these companies are still in business somehow. So just ignore me and my heretical views...


An on a completely unrelated note, since Marty's was closing out, they had like everything on a 50% discount. But then they had a price chart for what things cost after a 50% reduction in price... I stared at it for awhile in shock. The chart went all the way from like $1 to $150. It was the dumbest thing ever, in my humble opinion. Someone who can't divide by two doesn't deserve to take advantage of cheap shoes. This is why America is like dead last in education... -_-