If you thought trickle down economics was bad, wait until you see trickle up poverty in action.

So long as there are people who believe they can have all their wants satisfied by a central government that confiscates the fruits of hard work of achievers to redistribute to non-achievers, this country will continue its long, slow march towards full Marxism.

And notice I make no mention of political party affiliation of the ones who perpetrate this since the idea of reaching into your neighbor's pocket to fund your wants crosses party boundaries in recent years.

Posted by obviously (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Loudoun County Republican Party really puzzles me. When Sterling residents came out this summer to deal with the issues occurring in Sterling Park, the Republican Party seemed to be missing in action most of the time (Supervisor Delgaudio being the exception). They should have been writing letters to the editors of local papers vocally supporting the citizens of the county and walking the community to speak with residents to see how they could get involved and help. They also should have been publicly engaging the Board of Supervisors, demanding action. Instead they didn't seem to respond at all to the needs of the residents. If that is how Repblican Party leaders perform across the county, no wonder Democrats are making inroads.

Posted by Rachelfriend (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't wait to be "healed" by Obama and the Democrats. I guess we (Republicans) have to go through the gloating and derision before we can get to the healing. P.S., don't forget to keep piling the hate onto McCain and Palin, for their audacity to dare to challenge "him" ...

Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

McCain and Palin ran a wonderfully race-neutral campaign and they did pretty well in an environment where 75% of the news media in America was collectively working for the Democratic ticket. The problem for Republicans is that there's a "Conservative Tax" that they have to pay, which means they have to be twice as good as their Democratic rivals. Republicans don't need to worry about the derision coming from the left, they need to worry about how they're going to find or grow stronger candidates. Get back to their conservative roots, excise any Republican representatives that don't honorably represent their constituents, and educate the consumer (the electorate) on the flaws in the opposition's positions. Above all, read the Constitution and know it well. The next time a Vice Presidential candidate mutters an incorrect statement about which article of the Constitution actually lays out the role of the Vice President, there should be a cry so great from conservatives that Thomas Jefferson himself comes back from the grave to defend it.

Posted by Rachelfriend (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Republicans have to be twice as good??? No, that's not why Republicans lose. The Republican party sold its soul to right-wing southern extremists and forgot its hardy, New England, individualistic roots. I want a party that is fiscally conservative and stays out of my private life. I don't care who marries whom, or how many babies a woman has or doesn't have. Stop telling people how to live their private lives and concentrate on the public good. Stay out of foreign wars, balance the budget, encourage individual privacy, and everyone would vote Republican.

Posted by octamatilda (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

octamatilda, sounds like you should have voted for Ron Paul ...

Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Octamatilda, Republicans forgot their conservative roots and tried to be a better Democratic Party than the Democratic Party. That leads to Vice Presidential nominees that don't even know the Constitution. That's not what true conservatives want. Your words belie your leaning. If this was 1862, you'd be telling Republican's not to worry about slavery and let those slaveholders live their lives the way they like, even though it negatively impacts others. I'm not buying it.

Posted by Rachelfriend (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Octamatilda, I forgot to address the "twice as good" issue and the "marries whom" issue you raised. When Senator Biden didn't even know the Article of the Constitution that defined his duties as Vice President he got a pass. When Governor Palin got the name of General McKiernan wrong, she was laughed at and dismissed. Not knowing the Article of the Constitution that actually defines your duties when you've been in the Senate longer than some of the people who will vote for you have been alive is a much bigger mistake than not remembering the name of a General. The differences in treatment between Democrats and Republicans is called a double standard and that's why a Republican has to be twice as good as a Democrat in this environment. I'm not surprised that this is the point that you especially took issue with. It's the most important one, which means it was bound to get pounced on by those who don't really want the Republican Party to regain its posture, or who want to mold the party in their own image.

Concerning the "marries whom" issue, Democrats in California helped to pass the gay marriage ban there. How does that jive with your statement? I don't think it does. Republicans can be pro-life, and pro-traditional marriage, and still win elections. Those issues don't lose elections for Republicans. I do however agree with you on your economic points (balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism).

Posted by Rachelfriend (anonymous) on November 8, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I for the life of me can't seem to understand how people in this area who commute back and forth to their over paid jobs mostly sucking off the tit of the government and call it "hard work," like no one else in the lower and middle class works hard??? Deserves a tax break???
McCain would like us all to believe that Bush's economic plan was status quo and working just fine. If recession and almost depression is working than I'll take my chances with Obama.
The problem is people in Western Loudoun County think that the world rotates around their churches,SUV's,McMansions,Costco, and their country clubs. Bush gave the rich huge tax shelters and that extra money never trickles down, just around. The tax code isn't really even the issue. To be honest I can't really ever recall a Republican President that didn't expand government and debt like Reagen and the 2 Bushes. Clinton reduced the deficit and actually shrank the government. I think Obama will actually make the government work for the people, not just a select few. The problem with western Loudoun is a more racial bias, and fear bias.
Because that trickle down and up argument doesn't really wash anymore, the Democrats have refined it and won.
Get used to people who run the world without tunnel vision and their eyes and ears open.
Yes We Can!

Posted by keithlb28 (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

keith, this is why Republicans don't like Obama, and no, it's not a racial issue. The problem we have with Obama was exemplified in your first sentence: "...commute back and forth to their over paid jobs."
Who are you to call a job over-paid? How is that your right - to tell someone that they're making too much, and that you're now entitled to part of their paycheck? How much is too much? A dollar over whatever it is you're making?
Just because waiting tables or changing oil pays like crap doesn't mean that everyone else is overpaid... it means that they have knowledge in a knowledge-centric market, unlike you. No wonder Obama is your salvation - he's here to deliver you from the harsh truth known as "real life", and take you to a magical place where the gas station attendant and the IT engineer make the same amount of money.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OB will pay my rent and buy me gas.

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hogenshy, (I know I bust your chops on other threads But here you are dead on!!). One of the things that the current, and mostly recent group of Democrats who dote on Oboma fail to grasp is that just about everyone I know who they would place in the "OverPaid", or even well to do catagory has taken much personal risk, endured much family and personal burden to gain the postion that they have. Very few have had their circimstances handed to them, they worked, risked, and then worked somemore to gain what "advantage" they have. These people do live in the real world, have a solid grip on reality. Whether its changing oil, (orcalling out on the intercom at the local Sheetz), they do have jobs, and they are starting or maintaining their life syles. Life is not easy, you have to work for what you have, Novel concept.

Posted by beenaroundhere40ormore (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As an Eastern Loudoun resident who did not vote for President-elect Obama, and who works more hours than most of my "lower-paid" co-workers, I wonder what keithlb28 would have me do? Work fewer hours; drop down to 40/week? That won't lower my pay so that I'll fit in with my comrades, since our pay is not dependent on the number of hours we work. It would however set us back in terms of productivity.

Since I have more years experience and studied harder longer, under the old standards I was supposed to get paid more. Under the new standards, I guess my comrades will be getting raises so that we're all paid equally. Of course I'll still need to work harder, because somehow I was taking advantage of the system all those years I worked extra hours, but didn't get paid extra money. Go figure.

Keithlb8, what you're suffering from is jealousy. Plain and simple. You can wrap it up in whatever liberal message you want, but there's no other word for it. I started out very poor, and worked hard until I could at least purchase a home. Now, jealous people like you want to take more money from me so that they'll have more to spend on flat panel televisions, ipods, and movies. This is sickening. When President-elect Obama and Vice-President elect Biden spend an equal percentage of their salaries in charitable donations as most middle-class Americans who live in Eastern or Western Loudoun County and who voted for their opponent, then they can rightfully ask that we give more. Until that time, they're just money-grabbing, which is really, truly, ugly.

Posted by Rachelfriend (anonymous) on November 10, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

40ormore, I guess we have to agree to... well, agree on this one!
Dems desperately want to pin this on some sort of racial bias to sweep the fact that redistribution of wealth is un-American, no matter how "living" you claim to think the Constitution is. Do any of you honestly think that the intent of the founding fathers of this country was to make government a conduit through which wealth was transferred? Or is this the marvelous "change" we keep hearing about?
Remember, Cuba, Russia, Germany, and Korea all thought that they needed social change, too. Any government that subverts personal liberty and property - no matter how noble the intent - does not deserve to govern.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on November 11, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I become frustrated with the Democratic mindset. The way I was taught civics, and how the government should work, and the values I received when I was raised are sometimes (alright most of the time) in direct conflict with the “understanding” that the Democrats have. I was raised to work hard, pursue your dreams, take calculated risks (both personal and Financial) in your attempt to provide for yourself and your family. Take the time to help those that are less fortunate than yourself, provided they are willing to attempt to help themselves also. Time spent volunteering is better than a check. One of the core values I took away from my youth is that if someone is not willing to help themselves, then I have no time for them, If a person is on welfare, receiving unemployment, Food stamps etc. I have no problem with that until I find out they are able bodied, able to work, and choose not to. (as you have noted in other posts, I am all about the choices people voluntarily make). When I was younger and was having a difficult time I held as many as 3 jobs at one time to make ends meet. By the way none of the jobs was a career or even what I liked doing. But I did it because I was able to. Not because I wanted to. (Choices again). If the government or for that fact anyone else provides for the welfare of someone and does not expect something in return

Whenever and wherever this social change of providing for everyone with out the expectation of work in return has been attempted, it has failed. It will fail here also but at what cost. I truly believed the people of this great country were smarter than that.

Posted by beenaroundhere40ormore (anonymous) on November 11, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

keithlb28...I suppose it has never dawned on you...or any of the Obama folks...
That the top 10% of high earners actually pay 70% of all taxes, whereas the bottom 40% of lower earners actually pay... 2.8% of all taxes in the country.
But wait, it gets better. Now ANOTHER 55% of the lowest paid earners will get money back--despite the fact that they never paid in.
The crash is coming. "obviously" I'm glad that you coined the term "trickle up poverty".
I may title a blog entry with that.
http://thebulletproofmonk.blogspot.com

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on November 12, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)