Disqus - Latest Comments for mkoby

Re: Question Your Government

mkoby — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:15:24 -0000

Well said sir. While this post is about more than just the healthcare debate, you make some very valid points.

My issue with the healthcare issue is not necessarily socialized healthcare because I think we'll get there no matter what (I'm still against it because it increases the size of government), but its more that the terms "socialized healthcare" and "health insurance industry reform" have become almost synonymous. Our president has sold a large percentage of this nation that we can't get reform without the socialized healthcare, and that just isn't true.

Granted I don't have the answer, though my proposal is to regulate the industry into having to find ways to ensure everyone can get health care regardless of pre-exisiting conditions, age, and wage. There are other solutions than to bring socialized healthcare and by forcing compliance on the citizens by MAKING it a law that they have to have health coverage (what happened to personal choice?).

I think that everyone should be looking at all the issues and questioning their leaders. Bringing the issues to the front of the media. Making it known where we as the voters stand and what we will/won't tolerate.

Re: Verizon’s Droid: $15 Per Month Extra For Exchange Support

mkoby — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:31:11 -0000

Unless they've changed things, AT&T does have an additional charge for "exchange" support on their BlackBerry plans (there's a BIS plan and BES plan). But's it's not called "Exchange Support" rather it's an additional charge to connect your BlackBerry to a BES server (which MOST companies use to connect their corporate BlackBerrys to the exchange server).

Edit: I should note that you can connect a BlackBerry on a BIS account to an Exchange server via POP or IMAP, assuming the IT department of your company allows this.

Re: C# Partial Keyword

mkoby — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:13:14 -0000

Funny that you mention that I should probably move stuff out of the Twitter
class, as it's something I've been considering for a while but haven't come
up with something that makes sense to me. It'll happen eventually, but
whatever I do, I need to make sure I understand it and why there's value in
it rather than just doing it because it' simply "better".
But again, I agree, the Twitter class is most definitely doing too much and
needs a better design.

Re: ShortenURL Application Website

mkoby — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:39:04 -0000

I moved all my projects to Github in the last few months. Try

http://github.com/mkoby/shortenurl-csharp

--
Michael Koby
(281) 738-2255

Re: Push Gmail Comes to iPhone and Other Mobiles

mkoby — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:43:15 -0000

The same stipulation exists in Outlook, you can only have 1 Exchange account per Outlook profile. You can however have multiple profiles on a computer and switch between them, but it requires closing outlook EACH TIME you want to open a different exchange account).

I agree though, I'll be glad when I can have multiple Exchange accounts set up on my iPhone, allowing me to add my work's Exchange account as well.

Re: Is The Exclusive Deal Between Apple and AT&T Anticompetitive?

mkoby — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:36:35 -0000

Because my response would have been too lengthy to post here, I have written a response to this post on my own blog at

http://www.mkoby.com/2009/07/08/short-term-excl...

Re: Socialize Health Care in the United States

mkoby — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:46:55 -0000

You are correct, Medicaid coverage varies state to state. And you are also correct in stating that it is not a perfect system and doesn't help everyone. But in my original article I mention that Medicaid is not perfect. What I suggested in my original article is that instead of spending trillions of dollars on a NEW health care system, why not spend a lot less money and overall the existing system (Medicade). This would be both cheaper and more effective. Not to mention be ready a lot sooner than a new system would be.

And the tax numbers I have had nothing to do with the actual discussion of socialized health care, other than that the previous commenter had stated that "The rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes" which I proved to be blatantly false, in 2 instances.

Now, to look at your argument that "you have to have a good job" to get healthcare, There are a lot of people that would argue working at Wal-Mart is not a "good job" but Wal-Mart provides their full time employees (which at Wal-Mart is like 36 hours/week) with decent health coverage. My father-in-law worked at Wal-Mart for years and was able to provide decent health coverage to his entire family. Was it the best health coverage? No, but it was coverage. So 1) the phrase "good job" is relative and 2) your argument's logic is flawed. Another is example is that my friend runs a business where his only employee is himself, and he pays for his own health coverage for his family of 5. Yes it's expensive, but its 1) the cost of being in business for himself and 2) he passes that cost on to his customers.

I want you to pay careful attention to that second point. If the government starts providing health care, the cost HAS to be passed on to someone. That's an economic fact. We do live in the real world here. The point I made above is that, with Obama's plan it will be "the rich" who get taxed more (who already pay 70% of all the taxes collected by our government), they are the ones least likely to use socialized healthcare. The people that will be using government provided health care won't see their taxes go up.

I never said that the current system is not broken. But the fact remains that government provided health care already exists, regardless of it's state, it does exist. I'm simply arguing for spending less money (which means less tax), and fixing an existing system to work better and help more people. So, basically what I'm arguing for allows both sides to win.

Re: Back to Blogging Week (no FriendFeed/Twitter for a week?)

mkoby — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:47:41 -0000

I actually think this is neat. Sometimes you have to "return to your roots" so to speak to find out why things are better/worse. While I'm just kind of rediscovering FriendFeed myself, I still think blogging has a huge place in the future of the internet. I think the question will be how and what one blogs about.

Re: iPhone: The First Week

mkoby — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:21:50 -0000

I read the article and the one they did for the original iPhone. While the
FSF is something I support in theory, I think they in general go about it
the wrong way. While I agree that the iPhone needs to play Ogg files (why
it doesn't since it wouldn't cost any money to license the tech is anyone's
guess), the inclusion of DRM on movies is not the choice of Apple but rather
the content providers. You have DRM on your movies if you get them from
Amazon, or any other movie download site. If you stream a movie from
Netflix you're limited to (mostly) Microsoft technologies. So DRM is NOT
limited to Apple and Apple products. I'm sure most sites and content
sellers would love to move to DRM-Free since that makes their wares playable
on more devices.

Another point is that the iPhone does NOT expose your location without your
knowledge. In fact anytime a turns on that can do location based things, a
little dialog pops up that says "[APPNAME] would like to use your location.
Do you want to allow this" so I'm not really sure where they get that whole
"without your knowledge" thing.

Also, Fairplay has NOTHING to do with the applications. That is all the
media DRM. The applications are limited though so they are right about
that. But they are limited only in what can(not) be approved by the App
Store people. As long as an app is approved, it will be available.

The FSF does a decent job of cutting through most FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, &
Doubt) but it's articles like this one that really bug me because it creates
FUD as well. While I'm not here to say the iPhone is the best phone on the
market (in fact, far from it), it is a decent one. The FreeRunner they
mention, I researched thoroughly (and even attempted to get a review unit
when I was on Power of Information), the problem with the device is that
it's limited to GSM (no Edge, no 3G) and at last check was only available
when purchased with a development kit. So the phone isn't even available to
purchase except in a development edition. Doesn't sound "consumer ready" to
me. But I do like the idea behind FreeRunner and the company creating it.

And while I'm not hear to defend all of Apple's policies and technology, I
do think the iPhone is a nifty device (always have). It has flaws, some of
which are being addressed in the 3.0 OS update. But even then it's still
not perfect. And as long as the content makers want to "protect" their
content, there will be DRM, regardless of Apple or not.

Re: The Death of Satire

mkoby — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:01:33 -0000

There's nothing saying that the congress-person that the monkey represents
isn't black. There is something to be said about the inherit racism
displayed by some police officers (see "American Skin" by Bruce
Springsteen). I'm definitely not saying that racism isn't an issue, but
rather, like you said, in this particular instance it was blow out of
proportion.

Re: Socialize Health Care in the United States

mkoby — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:04:20 -0000

Brad,

I'll give you the first part of your response. It is up to the citizens to dictate policy in a republic/democracy. However, I will remind you that just because the majority says it's okay and that's what they want, it is always right. Remember, for a nice chunk of U.S. history, the majority found slavery completely acceptable. But again, I agree that we the people should vote what and how our government protects and betters its citizens.

However, I want to look more closely at your argument that taxing the rich is okay because "they can afford it" and that they "pay a lower % of income than the poor and middle classes" because I find that hard to believe. So using the 2008 tax tables and formulas in the 2008 1040 Instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf) here is what I discovered. For reference I used the "Single" numbers on both sides of this. This just straight tax without any deductions, credits, etc.

A person who had $250,000 of taxable income (which means they made MORE than $250k), pays $68,250 in taxes which is basically 27.3% of their taxable income. The average salary for a white household in 2007 was $54,000 (found on this table). At $54k/year that person pays $9,850 in taxes which is 18.2% of their income.

Numbers don't lie, the lower income person pays a smaller percentage of their income to taxes. Again, this is not taking any credits, deductions, donations, etc into account. Both sides of this demonstration have the same access to those options. And yes, I realize that the rich folk do things to bring their taxes down by donating to charities, giving things away, gifting money, and so on. But tax laws limit how much a person can gift in a year and charitable donations only help so much on a person taxes. So even with all of that the rich person is still going to pay a higher percentage of tax because they made more.

Just to further demonstrate my point, lets take someone who had $95,000 in taxable income. They'll pay $20,585 in taxes which is 21.6% of their taxable income. So the more you make the higher percentage of your income you pay in taxes.

What a person can or cannot afford is completely subjective. And what you or I think a rich person can afford is probably a lot different than what they actually can afford (when you consider that most of America lives on credit).

Re: America & Foreign Oil

mkoby — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:27:15 -0000

I've heard those same estimates and for the most part, they're very true.
Starting to drill today would not have an immediate affect on our oil supply
here in the states. The point is, those same people that claim "it won't
help" are the same people asking to "decrease our dependency on foreign oil"
and so they are essentially telling us we need an operation but refusing to
start the surgery.

You have to start somewhere. If you want to decrease our foreign oil
dependency, you have to take steps to do so. You can not tell us we need to
decrease the dependency but tell us that drilling on our own land in in our
own waters is not a solution. It just doesn't add up.

I have a friend who is just as concerned about the environmental impact and
I agree that it is an issue when it comes to drilling (especially in an
offshore environment). However, no one wants to take the time to research
ways to to improve the situation because they're too busy saying "we need to
use less foreign oil but drilling ourselves won't help"

I simply want people to make a choice. If you're for decreasing the United
States' dependency on foreign oil then shouldn't any steps that will help
that long term be looked at and highly considered? If not, they are then
they are just spouting propaganda and need to consider their opinion moot
because they are truly not contributing to the conversation at all.

Re: Watermarking DRM-Free Music Files

mkoby — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:19:46 -0000

No system is going to be perfect, however limiting the customer's ability to
use something they purchase as they need to use it is not the answer in any
way. In my opinion, watermarking the files probably gives the best middle
ground.

Re: The Death of Common Sense

mkoby — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:30:26 -0000

I have edited to post to note that you have commented and I have linked to
the original article you've linked to in your comment as well as your blogs
main page. I left my original post intact as I like to keep my posts the
way they are once they are posted.

If this is not satisfactory, please let me know :-) BTW, this is such a
great piece, my father forwarded to me via email originally and it just
screamed to be re-posted.

Re: Mp3 Tagging Best Practices

mkoby — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:21:33 -0000

While you are correct in that most albums will be a single disc, I
personally can't stand seeing a bunch of empty tags in iTunes (drives me
bonkers). Your digital music is yours to tag and label as you please,
that's the beauty of it all.

There is really no such thing as an absolute "best practice" so those listed
here are really more of my personal practices than anything else.

Re: Olbermann Kind of Misses the Point

mkoby — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:52:17 -0000

Actually, it doesn't go against it. Both were amendments to the
constitution, the only way to amend the constitution is for it to be voted
as such. Article V of the constitution states as such (abbreviated to
conserve space)

*"*...shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof...*"* (complete
text can be found on wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_th...)

The only way for an amendment to actually become an amendment is for it to
be voted for by 3/4's of the his country's states. So again, no, my "idea"
does not go against how women and non-whites got votes and rights (see the
19th and 15th amendments respectively).

What you are suggesting is that the minority rule the majority. You are
also further arguing that it is okay to for people to go to court and
forcibly take what they want regardless if it will cause people's vote to
not count. Basically saying, "Hey, it's okay if those people feel like
their votes don't count as long as i get what I want" and that is just not
fair to those that took time out of their day to go and vote their stance on
an issue.

I'm not arguing if the current system is right or wrong. That's not what
this post was about. The current system is flawed and I have never once
stated that it was perfect. However, the system as it stands is the system
that we must deal with. Why should gays be different than women or
non-whites and get what they want by judicial interpretation (which is what
it is if the courts in CA rule against the passing of Prop 8) when women and
non-whites had to work with in the system to achieve their goals? Are you
arguing that gays are some how different than women or non-whites and thus
should be treated with even more special care?

You argue that it is wrong and unfair for the minority to have to wait for
the majority to see their point of view. However, that's exactly what women
and non-whites had to do. And you know what? It worked for them. They
have rights to vote now. I'm sure that if the gays want to marry that
badly, they can get a new proposition on the next ballot and have it pass.
But they should still work within the system as it currently stands not find
loopholes that cause millions of voters to feel like their vote didn't
count.

Also, as of Nov. 4th I am in a minority. I'm in a minority of people who
don't believe Obama was a good choice for president. I am 1 of a VERY small
number among my friends, peers, and co-workers. In this case, the system
did not work the way I wanted it to. But you know what? That's the way it
goes sometimes. I have to deal with 4 yars under a leader i neither voted
for or wanted. You don't see me throwing a "world class hissy" do you?
Why? Because in 4 years I get another chance to vote against Obama, and
I'll do it again. Just because the system doesn't work the way one wants it
to, doesn't give a minority of people the right to forcibly take what they
want. Regardless if you like the system's results, you still live within
that system and should abide by it until such time the system can be modifed
and made better.

Re: Olbermann Kind of Misses the Point

mkoby — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:27:06 -0000

If a large number of people voted on how I could or could not practice my
religion it would further prove my theory that this country has lost it core
values. However I doubt that would happen.

My "scum" reference was very specifically focused on those that are fighting
something in court that was voted on "by the people" and how getting that
passing vote turned over would cause more people to believe that the voting
system in this country does not work. We already have a good chunk of the
population believe that their vote doesn't count. If the passing of
proposition 8 is overturned in court then it just goes to prove to those
that don't vote because they believe it won't make a difference that they
are right.

Why vote for something if it's only going to be turned over in court when
the people who voted didn't vote the way everyone thought they should. This
is exactly what's happening in California and find it to be a great
disservice to all those that took the time on Nov. 4th to vote. The PROPER
way to handle this would be to get a motion on the next ballot to overturn
the passing of Proposition 8. Since it was voted on and passed the
systematic and democratic way for those people that voted NO on it to get
what they want would be to have it on the next ballot, call a special
election, or something similar. NOT to have the fact that it passed turned
over in court of law.

The ending of black and woman's sufferage were amendments to constitution, which
means, they had to be voted on. If gays want their right to marry, then
should they not go through the same process as blacks and women?

After all, isn't that what democracy is about?

Re: links for 2008-11-12

mkoby — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:05:29 -0000

Yea, I bookmarked it because I plan on writing something about it when I get some time to sort out my thoughts.

Re: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…

mkoby — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:57:22 -0000

Fred,

Regarding the bailout, I just don't believe that the answer to the problem
is MORE debt at the taxpayer's expense. I never said NOTHING should have
been done, just that the bailout was not the solution i desired.

Really? I don't agree with your world view so I'm a right wing nut and a
plagiarist? At least I'm a "creative" plagiarist (I guess). I think I've
more than proven that I can think for myself. For the record I dislike
Limbaugh, O'Riley, and most other right-wing talk radio. About the only
political program I listen to with any kind of regularity is KCRW's "Left,
Right, and Center" (http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/lr) because its fairly
balanced and looks at ALL viewpoints. Also, if I was a "nut" I would have
deleted all comments that did not agree with MY world view. But I didn't
because I think open discussion is important when it comes to politics.
Also, I have zero intention of changing your world view (while it looks like
you are working desperately to change mine). You can rarely change
someone's world view, and you definitely can't do it on blog. I'd also like
to note that the title of this post is essentially "Why I Won't Vote for
Obama" not "Why You Shouldn't Vote for Obama" because I'm not here to tell
someone how they should vote. There are a couple of places where I somewhat
attack the other side (but lets face, compared to what the rest of the
internet is doing to people that share my views, my "attacks" were tame at
best), but it also incited debate, which is good.

Let's make this whole argument incredibly simple. If you can show me, in
the constitution where it says that the rich shall make the lives of those
less off than themselves better, I will concede. If you can show me where
it says that those that make more than everyone else are duty bound to give
their money to the poor via government intervention, I'll concede. Problem
is, you won't find it. Doesn't exist. The constitution was written with
the idea that the government would have VERY limited authority to do
anything. It was meant as a way to tell the government what it could and
could not do to its citizens. The general idea was that if the citizenry
was free of mass government control they could control their own destiny.
This has happened, for the most part anyway. The constitution says that the
basic rights of man are "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness" which
means that you can pursue happiness, doesn't mean you'll get it. There is
nothing in the constitution about making life fair for everyone. Life isn't
fair, never has been and it never will be.

Now, with all that in mind, I do believe that you should help your fellow
man. But government intervention, in my opinion at least, is not the
solution to helping out your fellow man. You want to help those less
fortunate than yourself, there are charities for that, you can donate to you
local church, you can physically walk down the street and give the homeless
guy some cash. Relying on the government (which is effectively slow at
accomplishing just about anything) to help out those less fortunate is "a
long wait for a train that don't come"

Re: Allow Me to Clarify

mkoby — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:06:21 -0000

Yes, I'm all for helping ones neighbor, but I don't believe that doing it via government redistribution is the way to get it done.

For example, you have helped me by teaching and educating me how to be better in my field. You're helping another friend of yours by educating them on their trade.

Helping your "brother" doesn't mean having the government do it.

Re: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…

mkoby — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:13:13 -0000

The bailout is a completely separate issue altogether. I wouldn't say it's
socialism so much as just a bad idea all around. And for the record, I was
against the bailout. The bailout will only fix a symptom, not the
underlying issues.

So how is only taxing the rich, helpful? The rich already pay most of the
taxes collected by this country every year (why does everyone completely
ignore this point). So, my argument that Obama is going to "punish success"
by only taxing the rich, still stands. No matter which way you slice it,
taxing the rich further and taxing companies just because they made a lot of
money is punishing the rich.

"Oh look, you made a ton of money this year, please pay up. Oh and by the
way I'm going to give this money to those that didn't make as much as you."

That's what Obama is saying behind all his pretty words and "wonderful"
speeches. Which means he's taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Obama clarified that his tax plan will only affect the rich. Meaning he is
only going to raise taxes for the rich. Then he has a TV ad that says
something like "Working single mother? Well under McCains plan you'd only
get a hundred dollars. Under Obama's plan you'll get a thousand."

BTW, single working mothers (depending on how much they make) already get a
nice tax credit (I did my wife's taxes for 2 years BEFORE we got married).

That sounds like redistribution of wealth to me. That sounds like taxing to
rich to give it to the poor to me. There might be an arguement there if the
rich (those that make more than 250K) didn't already pay the most in taxes
every year. This is not Nottingham where the poor are overly taxed. The
rich pay a ton in taxes every year. It's not like they aren't paying. Sure
their probably cheating the system some, but their still paying.

The arguement that Obama's tax plan is only going to raise taxes for those
that make more than 250K/year only further proves my point that he wants to
punish success.

Re: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…

mkoby — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:30:34 -0000

Fred,

Always nice to hear from you.

My statement about how the economy "works" was more in reference to Obama's
tax the rich and profitable corporations more than they already are. Sadly
taxing the rich further is not going to fix anything. The rich already pay
most of the taxes collected by this country. You can hide a lot of cash
donate to charity, but the rich still pay.

Also, no, I'm not entirely happy with the current system. However I don't
believe that the current system, is as bad as folks like Obama make it out
to be. There are a lot of hard working people in this country. And I've
avoided mentioning it because it wasn't overly relevant but my father worked
in a mechanic shop for over 20 years in the Texas heat. And shops get hot,
they trap heat. Plus there are running vehicles with hot engines adding to
that heat. My first "jobs" were sorting parts in the shop, doing oil
changes, and washing cars at that same shop. So while I didn't work on a
farm or work on roofs, I'm up on hard work and physical labor. I watched my
father sweat is butt off in the sumer to provide for me and my siblings.
And my father would be someone I consider successful. He ran his own
business successfuly for around 20 years.

I think that some of what I am talking about is getting lost in
translation. So I might need to reword and reiterate. My issues are with
those that wish to:

1) Punish success (which is essentially what Obama wants to do). Obama was
to tax "highly profitable corporations" and give the middle class (who pay
some of the smallest amounts in taxes) larger tax credits. So he's going to
take more money from those that are already having the most money taken from
them, and give it to those that aren't paying the most?

2) Have entitelment issues. They feel the government SHOULD do this and
SHOULD give them that. My main point is, no one is entitled to anything.
You work for what you have, period. I fail to see fault in this extremely
simple logic. I work very hard for what I have. So did my father and so
did his father. You worked very hard for what you have. I don't feel I'm
owed anything by anyone (except payment for services rendered: I do work for
you, you pay me for it in some form or fashion). I'm not going to sit
around and WAIT for the government to give me what I think I deserve, nor
should anyone else for that matter.

Also, I never argued that low wage = unskilled. I simply refuted an
arguement that people make less or don't have a job because they didn't have
the "same opportunities as me" or were "not as smart as me" because I feel
that those arguments don't really hold water. There are a lot of low wage
jobs that require skill (farming, roofing, construction, and even machining
are a few examples). Like I stated previously intelligence is not something
one is born with it is something learned/taught/cultivated. As children we
all do unintelligent things. My father is one of the smartest men I know,
no college education, but he reads like a bat out of hell (and retains a lot
of it too).

I don't think that the current system is perfect. But I'm officially
against giving handouts just because someone is too lazy to get off their
butt and work. You want to help the hard working, that's one thing. But
redistribution of wealth doesn't discriminate on WHO gets the money, it's
just redistributed. Obama himself said "I believe that when you spread the
wealth around it's good" so can you tell me how that doesn't mean
"redistribution of wealth?"

Re: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…

mkoby — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:15:16 -0000

Also keep it coming, I love a good debate :-)

Re: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…

mkoby — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:14:17 -0000

1) Intelligence is not something you are born with. We all grabbed stuff
off the floor and put it in our mouths at 1 and 2 years of age.
Intelligence is something you gain through experience, reading, learning,
etc.

2) I was laid off during the tech bubble burst of '01, guess what I did. I
found another job. Granted it was pushing pizzas in a town outside of
Austin, but point is I didn't sit around and expect the government to take
care of me. I got another job (one I didn't particularly want to return
to). I also went to technical training at New Horizons in Austin and
received 3 Microsoft certifications. So, while you are correct that I could
be outsourced tomorrow, for no reason, my confidence stems from the fact
that I know I'm an intelligent individual, with a good head on my sholders
and because of that I am capable of still providing for my family and
myself.

3) I never said I was rich nor did I mean to imply it. But just because I'm
not rich does not mean I'm not hard working. I also understand that in
order to get to where I want to be and to make more money, and eventually
become rich, I will need to work harder, learn more, become smarter, and
look for opportunities as they present themselves.

So, if my intelligent, hardworking self is unemployed tomorrow (which,
admittedly could happen given this market we're in), I'd have a job
tomorrow. Would it be one that I want? No. Would it be what I'm making
now? Probably not. Would I probably have to take 2 of them? Yes. Would I
take unemployment? Yes (see how I pay INTO that unemployment, it's my
money). Because you see, I understand that I need to work to provide for my
family and myself.

I understand people fall on hard times. That's a completely different thing
than what we're talking about here. What I'm talking about is
redistribution of wealth. Which means that those that work hard for what
they have are expected to give some of it to those that don't. Sorry, but
nothing you argue is going to convince me that this is okay. Someone
falling on hard times is one thing. They worked hard, stuff happened.
Enron would be a perfect example of that. Many of those that lost their
jobs at Enron were hard working people who got cheated by a bunch of
crooks. So when they sued the pants off the executives, I found no problems
with that. They were essentially robbed. But when you talk about people
who DON'T work, don't try to get ahead, and don't make efforts to improve
their situation but rather expect politicans to give them a handout, it's a
totally different line of questioning, logic, and arguments.

Regarding those that aren't as smart or didn't have the same opportunities I
had: Like I said in my previous comment, just about EVERYONE has the ability
to goto college these days. There are several books in bookstores that list
the thousands of scholarships that are out there for the taking. Some of
those same books even give detailed instructions on how to better one's
chances at landing those scholarships.

So no, not everyone had parents like me that did everything they could to
ensure I had a fairly easy existence growing up. My parnets worked their
tails off to ensure I had every possiblity open to me. They did the same
for my siblings. Key word there is "worked" (and its an important one).
Not everyone is as smart as me, you, or those that we might know. But that
doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to work to get ahead. It doesn't mean
they aren't capable of learning and educating themselves (library cards are
free). It just means they have to work harder, potentially longer, and deal
with more barriers.

This idea of "well they didn't have it as easy as you and I so we should
give them an hand out" is ludicrous. Everyone in this country has every
opportunity to get an education, to learn a trade, and to become better than
what their social-economic status dictates. They don't want to go to the
bookstore or library to find out how to get some of those college
scholarships to get an education, how is that my fault? My issue with this
whole concept of entitlement is with the very idea of the word entitlement.
No one, is entitled to anything. Not you, me, the guys sitting next to us
on the bus or in our favorite restaurant. You work for what you get,
period. You want more, then you figure out what you need to do to get
more. A large percentage of the population things they are entitled to
something without having to do anything for it. And the problem is, people
like Obama want to give those people what they feel they are entitled to. I
have a problem with that because, it is showing those people that if they
complain loudly enough they will get want they want. They won't have to
work for it, they'll just get it. I find error with that way of thinking.

Why is it wrong for me to expect people to work for the things they have?
Why is it wrong to think that people shouldn't be given handouts? Why is it
wrong to believe that if "a man does not work, he shall not eat?" Why, as a
someone who works hard to get ahead in life, must I be made out to be a
villian because I believe that others should do the same? I worked hard to
get where I am today why should I be expected to give to those that don't
want to do the same?

Re: I Won’t Vote for Obama Because…

mkoby — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:37:20 -0000

Now this of course is all based on who you perceive where each class
begins/ends...

The idea/concept that we, as people whom are educated, hard working, and
intelligent need to support/help those that won't help themselves is
ridiculous. Why should I pay more so the guy who is just too lazy to get an
education or learn a trade can have a better life? To pay more taxes so the
lower/middle class can have a better quality of life is essentially
rewarding laziness and/or ignorance.

You make comment of it's like "what, 100 bucks a check" but even if it was
one single dollar that would still be too much. That's my money. I worked
for it. I got my rear out of bed, got dressed, went to work, and worked for
it. Not to mention I read, study, and practice to further my craft/trade so
that I can eventually earn more. Why should money be taken out of my check
for those that won't bother.

There are literally thousands of scholarships available for those that will
simply take the time to fill out a form or write an essay. There is enough
money out there that just about anyone can goto college for pretty much next
to nothing (or really close to it). They just need to take the time to
research, request, and jump through some hoops. They don't want to do
that? How is that my problem or responsibility? It is not the
upper-classes responsibility to provide for the lower/middle class. To help
those that will not help themselves (notice I said "won't" not "can't") is
more specifically not MY job. My "job" is to provide for my family and
myself. Why people some people feel that I should provide for anyone
outside of that, I will never know.

Just because I'm intelligent and hard working doesn't mean I need to give my
money to those who are not. It also doesn't mean I should give MORE of my
money to a government that will give it to them for me.