Adeimantus RSS Feed
Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your My Yahoo Page
Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your MSN Page Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed in NewsGator Online


Conservative Political Commentary

Quote of the Day

Lady Liberty

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Monday, August 09, 2004

The Family that Works Together Resents Together (If They're Democrats)
posted by Tom

I concluded a long time ago it’s not worth the time or the energy pressing a liberal Democrat to explain the difference between the rich and so-called working families.


A successful OB/GYN earning $500,000 per year (a third of which goes toward malpractice insurance premiums thanks to John Edwards, but that’s another story) is married to a junior partner in a prestigious law firm where she earns $250,000 per year. They are both employed – i.e., they work. They have a child and are therefore a family. They are, by the Democrats' own logic, a working family entitled to a tax cut.


But they have to be. Even though they make a lot of money, unfortunately for the Democrats, they are not rich. Because if, as Kerry, Edwards, and every other Democrat with the exception of Zell Miller believes, the country is divided between the rich and those who work, then we can only conclude that those who are rich do not work, so that anyone who works, irrespective of how much he earns, cannot by definition ever be rich. This holds true no matter how narrow or broad the Democrats draw their Marxist categories. Even if the family of a Wallace Edwards-type textile mill worker earning in the low 30s were entitled to a tax cut, the Democrats still could not exclude the professionals above as they are still by definition a working family.

Then again, maybe the Democrats mean that an entire family needs to be out working in order to receive its tax cut, which would lead to even worse inequities. Suppose the same doctor-husband lawyer-wife team have a 23 year old law school graduate son living at home and working as an associate in another prestigious law firm that pays him $90,000 per year. The whole nuclear family is working and is therefore entitled to a tax cut. Now, suppose the Wallace Edwards type is toiling away in the mill and his wife works at the post office or runs a shop, but their children range in age from six to infancy. Uh-oh, no tax cut, unless Democrats repeal child labor laws. Even if they did, the toddlers and infant, physically and mentally incapable of even working in the post office, would still disqualify the entire family.

Democrats could also clarify whether one’s immediate family is required to work in order to earn the tax cut, or one’s entire clan, from grandparents through fourth cousins. Under this prerequisite, only Asian families would be entitled to a tax break.

Or perhaps working family has nothing to do with employment, and the Democrats mean that only non-dysfunctional families are entitled to a tax cut, in which case the government will run a surplus in no time.

Okay, I’m kidding. Sort of.

Workers of the world relax! John Kerry, consort of billionaire Teresa Heinz,

…won't raise taxes on the middle class. You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. So let me say straight out what I will do as President: I will cut middle class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year …
Look closely, though, and you find nothing to prevent billionaire-by-marriage Kerry, if elected, from taxing those earning $200,000 per year or less. Kerry does not define what he means by “middle class” (because he can’t, but more about that in a minute), and says he will roll back the cuts for the “wealthiest individuals” earning more than $200,000 per year. I don’t think those earning at or below that amount feel all warm and fuzzy without having the magic number that puts them in what the Democrats would call the “middle class” and precludes higher taxation. Put it this way: Suppose you’re a blonde held hostage by terrorists along with six brunettes. How comfortable would you feel if the terrorist leader tells you, “You’ve heard false allegations that we kill all hostages. Let me say straight out we will shoot the brunette hostages.”

Rest assured that California delegates Kris and Moonbeam Birkenstock on the convention floor caught the non-promise promise and soiled their smocks over the prospect of another Democratic administration increasing taxes on those who earn above what the Birkenstocks deem morally justifiable, which is pretty much anything above what the Birkenstocks earn. Granted, the Birkenstocks were also wondering why in the hell they were cheering wildly for a guy who admitted committing “atrocities” in Viet Nam, but politics and war and all that.

Anyway, another convention, and another parade of zillionaire liberals telling a bunch of idiots that they are the party of working families and a middle class they will defend to the death against the rich. Positively wild-eyed in their conviction that George Bush’s tax policy ignored them – i.e., the people who got the biggest tax break were the people who paid the most in taxes, i.e., i.e., the so-called rich – the numbskull working stiffs who gravitate to the Democratic Party salivated over every silly promise billionaire-by-marriage Kerry (and multi-millionaire-by-lawsuit Edwards) made to roll back tax cuts and redistribute wealth.

Time was the upper-, middle-, and lower-income brackets had fixed definitions in dollars and cents and we had functional economic categories like "upper class", "middle class", “working class”, and "lower class" that clearly delineated who owned the mining company, who worked in the company offices, who worked in the mine itself, and who got the shaft. The “upper” and “lower” class designations have been absent from Demospeak for years now, replaced for the most part by the rich, working family, working poor, and poor. Mr. Heinz-Kerry and other filthy rich standard bearers of the Democratic Party still refer to a middle- and working class, but these are tropes and do not reflect any fixed income level. Kerry implied in his acceptance speech at the National Moron Convention in Boston that their taxes will be cut even further than Bush has already cut them, but you can probably get Zsa Zsa Heinz-Kerry to give up her 1040s before learning exactly what income level is safe from the tax increases that must necessarily be imposed lest the liberal welfare state and the government bureaucracy that administers it collapse. Because nowhere does the hero of the Mekong Delta tell us that only those who earn $200,000.01 and above need sew their pockets shut if he and Opie Taylor are elected.

Splitting income into "brackets" doesn’t blame anyone for the alleged disparity in the distribution of wealth, and without someone to blame the Democrats would cease to exist. The taxonomy of upper, middle and lower classes and the connotation of superiority and inferiority gives liberals nightmares. To reflect their boneheaded Marxisn and make explicit the victimization of the workers and the poor by the wealthy in our capitalistic society, while eliminating the “class” hierarchy that perpetuates the American capitalist myth that the upper classes are not only something to simultaneously envy and aspire to, but are achievable without government assistance, the Democrats have divided the country into the rich and everyone else. This is a defense mechanism more than anything else. For close to half of the last century they expanded the modern welfare state that in turn increased the ranks of the lower class. They knew that sooner or later the lower class would grow skeptical of an upper class that encouraged dependency on the government, turned unemployment into a permanent paid vacation, rewarded one for having multiple illegitimate children, and even revised the criminal justice system so that the worst among them could stay on the streets to prey upon their neighbors, because they were not felons, after all, but victims of the poor environment upper-class liberal Democrats created. Thus, multi-millionaire liberal Democrats like Kennedy, Kerry, and Edwards rhetorically distance themselves from the superior economic position they occupy vis a vis those they keep locked in the economic cellar by claiming the idle, non-government affiliated (and indefinable) rich victimize everyone simply by keeping more of their own money from the government.

Kerry’s entire appearance at the convention was a hoot, not to mention the best impersonation of Nixonian flop sweat to come along since the great man himself passed on, but the middle-class tax cut part of his routine really necessitated a change in underwear among the intelligent part of the population that votes Republican. Be honest, when you sit back, watch one multi-millionaire after another take the stage during the Democratic National Convention to denounce the “rich”, and watch the audience cheer itself hoarse, don’t you grudgingly concede it’s far easier being a Democratic politician because you have a constituency lacking the brains God gave an aardvark?

Like all language overhauls performed by liberals that are meant to create bogeymen, the new terms have no fixed definition, can encompass anything and everything, and therefore mean nothing. For instance, we all know “racism” applies equally to the white men who dragged James Byrd to his death and to anyone who questions the effectiveness, let alone the constitutionality, of racial quotas in hiring and college admissions. “Homophobia” applies equally to the heterosexual men who murdered Matthew Shepard and anyone against legalizing gay marriage. “Hatred” applies equally to the two previous examples as well as to skepticism about John Kerry’s “heroism” in Viet Nam.

“Middle class”, “working family”, “poor” and “working poor” are totally meaningless in Demospeak because like the other knee jerk terms mentioned above, they either have no fixed referent or refer to anything the Democrats, like Humpty Dumpty, want them to. For instance, add up the financial and other benefits that go along with the liberal welfare state – free housing, free education, free medical care, aid to families with dependent children, etc. – and depending on the region, they translate into the equivalent of a working-class $40,000 – $50,000 per year income. Try pointing this out to liberal Democrats unarmed. Even more dangerous, ask a liberal what he means by “the poor” and, rolling his eyes, he will respond, “Someone who is not rich.” Ask him to define rich and after an exasperated sigh, he will respond, “Someone who makes a lot of money and has a lot of property and other possessions.” Ask him to define “a lot” and he will scream, “You’re an insensitive racist who just doesn't get it!”

Spend as much time as I have among liberals in the media, academia, corporate (yes, corporate) America, and government, and you find out that they acknowledge a “middle class” only in terms of values, not income, and only to disparage those values. When it comes to economics and politics, there are only the haves and the have-nots, and those who have anything they managed to earn on their own and not as wards of the state are not only suspect, but ripe for the picking. This includes the Democrats’ own constituency of working families, except those families are too dense to realize it.

When a Democratic working family comprising, say, a Teamster husband earning $55,000.00 per year and his kindergarten-teacher wife earning $35,000.00 per year listen to a billionaire gigolo and his multi-millionaire ambulance chasing running mate rant and rave about “two Americas”, what they hear is an echo of their own petty resentment over the fact that they drive a Ford Explorer and Dodge Neon, respectively, while somewhere out there a Republican working family drives a Cadillac Escalade and a BMW 5, and they feel not only validated, but vindicated. Perhaps some of the Teamster husbands and teacher wives that swarm around the Democratic Party like flies around excrement actually believe billionaire Kerry and multi-millionaire Edwards are going to take more from the OB-GYN and attorney earning above $200,000 and mail it out to Teamster husbands and teacher wives rather than sink it into the welfare state from which they derive their real power. If they do, then it’s easy to see why they are Teamsters and kindergarten teachers rather than OB-GYNs and attorneys. But we know it goes deeper than that. Democratic working families depend on billionaire gigolos and their multi-millionaire ambulance chasing running mates to punish Republican working families for being a lot smarter and for working a lot harder so that they and their kids can live a lot better. So long as Kerry and Edwards promise to do this, the Democratic working family promises not to notice that Kerry and Edwards are richer than most working families, Republican or Democrat. It’s a pathetic and perverse arrangement, sure, but one that has served the modern Democratic Party well for over 40 years.

posted by Tom | 8/09/2004 07:24:00 AM
Email this link to a friend

Post a Comment

Blogger Rob said...


11:44 AM, August 09, 2004  
Blogger DaveSplash said...

Congratulations! You now qualify for a radio talk show. You have passed the Hannity school of economics rigid entrance exam, and are on your way! If you had an original idea in your head, perhaps I'd say more. What's the point. A person as ignorant as you appear to be would never listen anyway. Better make sure your refill of heart medication is ready on November 2. Wouldn't want you to have a coronary on election night. I mean, since doctors will all be going out of business because of John Edwards.

Three more months! Three more months!!

12:56 PM, August 09, 2004  
Blogger Tom said...

Thank you, Dave.

I'm curious, who read it to you?

1:51 PM, August 09, 2004  
Blogger ~Jen~ said...


6:40 PM, August 09, 2004  
Blogger DaveSplash said...

The guy in India who was helping me with my computer. Apparently he's real happy about his new job.

8:50 PM, August 09, 2004  
Blogger Tom said...


Did you intend to offer an argument for outsourcing in that last comment, or did the clever remark you were trying to make get away from you? If there aren't enough literate people here, we better start recruiting elsewhere, don't you think?

You wanna stop the pissing contest now and get down to business? Why don't you set aside your knee-jerk responses that only serve to validate what I say in the post about liberalspeak? You may fantasize that comparing someone to Hannity or Rush is an "argument", but I assure you that all it does is make you look like an ass, as does trying to hide your own lack of ideas by accusing someone of not saying anything worth responding to. Were that the case, why would you post a comment at all? I don't know about you, but when I encounter something that I find isn't worth responding to, I don't respond. Perhaps you don't find anything inherently contradictory in writing a response that states you don't want to bother writing a response, in which case it's easy to see why you're a Kerry supporter.

Anybody with an iota of intelligence will read your initial response and be struck by the fact that in the time and space it took to write silly comparisons to talk radio bogeymen and other such insults, you could have easily attempted to refute at least one point I made in the post if a.) you truly believed it could be refuted; and b) you were intellectually capable of refuting it. For instance, if you disagree with my contention that there is no fixed definition to the liberal democratic concept of "the working family", that it is nothing more than one of the many empty rhetorical tropes liberals employ, and that it lends itself to the many absurdities I describe in my different scenarios, then by all means demonstrate the error of my ways. It shouldn't be hard for someone who has so many counter arguments that he doesn't know where to begin. Your claim that you don't want to offer them because I'm too stupid to grasp them is another feeble attempt at blowing smoke up everyone's ass, because assuming for the sake of argument that I am too stupid doesn't necessarily mean that others who have read the post wouldn't be impressed with your "well thought out" opinions, unless you believe EVERYONE is stupid and incapable of comprehending your brilliance, in which case you have my sympathy. It must be difficult, not to mention lonely, going through life with the only functioning intellect.

Personally, I think you're a typical product of the liberal education system that has hijacked this country. Conservative challenges to left wing (ahem) thought are shouted down with ad hominem accusations like those I mention in my post. Of course, no "enlightened" person would challenge knee jerk liberal concepts like "working family", "rich", "poor", "racist", "homophobe", etc. Anyone who does has to be so stupid that he would never understand even if we were to explain it to him. This is why you and others of of your ilk come out into the real world and unless you find yourself surrounded by other androids who share your same programmed thought patterns end up looking like fools by expressing the same meaningless gibberish that used to get you laid in college. Knee-jerk liberalism may have compelled Ms. Earthy-Crunchy to spread her legs after the "Stop American Imperialism" rally on the quad, but it's only good for a laugh here.

8:22 AM, August 10, 2004  
Blogger DaveSplash said...

You: "a.) you truly believed it could be refuted; and b) you were intellectually capable of refuting it."

Me: You forgot "c" -- I don't give a shit. Trying to deprogram a conservative who is only capable of spouting talking points on every issue is like trying to toilet train a dog. Maybe it's possible, but who has that kind of time to waste. You'll just keep going on the floor anyway.

Go ahead and waste a few more hours thinking up a clever comeback, and make sure to say that I cower at your intellectual genius. Sorry, Tom, I find you mildly amusing, but have zero interest in going tit-for-tat with you on every point. Besides, I could just hear it firsthand on the radio. Only those guys deliver their bullshit with a little humor, something you are sorely lacking.

6:13 PM, August 10, 2004  
Blogger Bathus said...

For a nanosecond my mouse pointer hovered over the little trashcan icon beneath DaveSplash's last comment.

But that split second was more than enough time for me to realize that the better choice would be to allow all DaveSplash's comments to persist as the best ever example of how not to demonstrate either rhetorical skill or rational substance.

As to the substance, there's not a line of rational argument, much less original thought, in any of DaveSplash's comments on this blog. (Lest you think that lack of susbtance a momentary aberration, surf over to "that 'dave' guy's" blog where you can slake your thirsty mind on his probing recap of the hours and hours he spent watching the boob tube Sunday night.)

As to DaveSplash's rhetoric, he reaches his apex with the line, "I don't give a shit." In describing his own mental processes, poor Dave could find no better metaphor than an unsuccessful bowel movement.

If Dave had discovered that charming fact about himself in the first line of his first rejoinder, and then simply left it at that, we could have credited him at least for the rapidity with which he came to know his own mind, such as it is. But it took "that dave guy" three posts and almost thirty hours perched on the pot to come to the realization that, metaphorically speaking, he does not "give a shit."

So far as it conveys the final fruits of his intellectual strain, Dave's crude metaphor is undeniably apt. But to describe the process through which he reached his depleted condition, a scatalogical analogy at the other extreme is required: DaveSplash messed all over himself, and then he rolled around in it.We can only hope that Dave pays more scrupulous attention to his bodily functions than he does to his mental ones.

10:09 PM, August 10, 2004  
Blogger Tom said...


In other words, your reach exceeds your grasp. We could have told you that a few weeks ago and saved you the embarassment.

6:41 AM, August 11, 2004  
Blogger ALa said...

Did you check out the 'rab' guy that was on my site the other day...the A.N.S.W.E.R./Mumia Rules dude that called me a repugnant blonde fascist...I almost trashed his stuff too, but decided against it...
I am so sick of hearing the 'Hannity/Rush' stuff --obviously a talking point of their own... Forget Sean & Rush...I'd like them in a room with Michael Savage for an hour! I found a site last night where the guy had "This site isn't anti-american or pro-terrorist" in his description --do they ever stop to think that there may be a problem if they actually need to verbalize that!?

8:47 AM, August 12, 2004  

Links to this post:

<< Home