search
top

Letter to the Editor from Someone Who Votes. Be Very Afraid.

The Florida Today newspaper ran a “Your Opinion” letter to the editor from a John Cunningham pf West Melbourne.

Cunningham starts by saying:

As we approach the 2012 election season, the right wing has trotted out its time-tested bromide of “class warfare” to decry the notion wealthy people should pay their fair share to ensure we have a functioning society.

We wanted to make sure we represented Cunningham’s ideas fairly, so we looked up the word “bromide.” According to dictionary.com, a “bromide” is a a platitude or trite saying.” Right off the bat, Cunningham launched into a unsubstantiated attack in framing the message as “trite.” Yet later on, as we will see, he agrees liberals are engaged in and should support”class warfare.”

Liberals typically run from this intended slur, when we should embrace it. Of course, it’s class warfare, and the right has been annihilating us for 30-plus years.

We guess saying “class warfare” wasn’t a “bromide” after all.

FLORIDA TODAY’s pompous columnists moan that a substantial portion of Americans pay little or no federal taxes. That’s what happens when the top 1¤percent control 24 percent of the wealth. They think it would be swell for the working poor to cough up a little more in addition to the payroll tax, sales tax and other and taxes everyone pays.

Cunningham needs to be introduced to facts instead of rhetoric.

The “rich” or top 1% pay 38.02% of all income taxes collected. So over 1/3 of all taxes are paid by 1%. Expand that a little and the top 5% pay 58.7% – well over half of all income taxes collected. The top 10% pay 69.94%

So 10% of all income earners are paying 70% of all taxes.

Entry into those hallowed ranks? Well to be in the top 10%, your adjusted gross income need merely be $113,000. “Rich”, right?

Of course not, in fact, most who understand what it requires to live realize that $113,000 is working class. The top 5%’s income threshold is $159,000. And the top 1% is $380,000.

So what Mr. “It’s not class warfare” [Obama] is recommending is raising taxes on those who already pay 38% of all taxes.

How much more does Cunningham want to people to pay? At what point in time is enough enough? How can Cunningham, or anyone, defend the idea that it is fair to tax people that are paying the vast majority of the taxes more, while continuing to assert that those who do not pay any taxes should continue to do so?

How is that “fair?”

Or as J.E. Dyer writes:

If any of us doesn’t deserve to keep everything he has earned, then that man is a slave. Alternatively, he is less than human; he has no moral standing, and no unalienable rights inhere in him. He is like a farm animal.

Of course we all deserve to keep our own money. If it is ill-gotten – stolen, swindled – then it’s the crime that deprives us of it, not any inherent function of the armed authorities to prowl the land in search of “undeserved” bank balances.

The question of what we “deserve” boils down to which came first, the individual human with rights, or the state. America was founded on the principle that the individual human with rights comes first. Any idea that violates that principle is counter to our founding idea. It is not possible to reconcile with our founding principle the idea of collective schemes in which we make some modification to “what we deserve.” We either deserve to keep all our own earnings – money – wealth – goods – or we do not have unalienable rights.

Now, what we decide to do with our own money will inevitably involve government functions of some kind. People have to have a government in some form. A certain minimum set of public services is essential to corporate human life. The American founding idea is that we the people decide what government will do, and we decide how much money government will have to do it with. Then we contribute out of what is inalienably ours.

The core of Cunnungham’s argument comes down to his last few sentences:

Tea party Republicans are very loud, but it’s heartening to know almost 70 percent of Americans think the wealthy have a responsibility to pay more and the middle class has sacrificed enough.

Redistribution of wealth? Darn right. The rich have benefited greatly from the commons — roads, other infrastructure, police, fire and the courts. It’s time for them to step up.

Cunningham is actually advocating the stealing of people’s property because the majority thinks it is “okay.” That is really what he is saying. He wants the money that other people have earned through their hard work and sacrifice. He wants the fruits of their labor.

He is making the claim that he has the right to those fruits.

But there is not only an ideological flaw in Cunningham’s way of thinking, there is a economic flaw as well. And its a doozey – the money from taxing the rich into oblivion won’t make a difference:

So taking half of the yearly income from every person making between one and ten million dollars would only decrease the nation’s debt by 1%. Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation’s deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent. There’s simply not enough wealth in the community of the rich to erase this country’s problems by waving some magic tax wand.

Finally, to put everything in perspective, think about what would need to be done to erase the federal deficit this year: After everyone making more than $200,000/year has paid taxes, the IRS would need to take every single penny of disposable income they have left. Such an act would raise approximately $1.53 trillion.

Yet Cunningham is happy to wage in “class warfare.” He, like many on the left, are willing to point the fingers at others and say “pay more!” while protecting what he feels is rightfully his. It is another case of “don’t do as I do, do as I say.”

Clearly Cunningham does not understand the American ideal. He does not understand the American dream.

More than anything, Cunningham does not understand freedom.

America was founded on the principle that individual rights precede and constrain the state. As far as government is properly concerned, we all deserve to keep 100% of our money. The question of what we decide to do with it, and how the functions of government figure into that, is a separate and subordinate topic.

It is impossible to live as free men and women otherwise.

The scary thing is people like Cunningham vote. They actually step into a polling place and pull a lever. Their ideas are those designed to kill America, and they vote that way.

Facts and logic never matter to people like Cunningham. What used to be called the moral sin of “jealousy” is now advocated as “class warfare.”

Be afraid of the green-eyed jealousy monster in the form of people like Cunningham.

They must be stopped.



Share the Hoecakes

12 Responses to “Letter to the Editor from Someone Who Votes. Be Very Afraid.”

  1. AAfterwit says:

    That assertion is ridiculous because no where in your post above you have shown how Cunningham, or “The left,” engaged in such hypocrisy.

    Except for the fact he admits it.

    Redistribution of wealth? Darn right.

    It is typical of people such as yourself to try and shift the goalposts away from one area of discussion to another. That is what you do when the facts are against you.

    You see people calling for smaller government while receiving monies as some sort of hypocrisy. The fact of the matter is that representatives are fighting for the money their constituents put into the pot and they want it back. Or is it your assertion that people should pay taxes without any benefits to them at all? The key is to reduce the size of the government and let the average person keep more money in their pocket. That is what freedom is about, Kara. When the government starts to take so much from people they become slaves to the government.

    That is what we are fighting for.

    You, on the other hand, want more and more money from people. You are happy to advocate more people paying more for less services. While you are thrilled with such a thing, we are not.

    And yes, we do call out sexual scandals when they happen on both sides of the aisle. The main stream media doesn’t but that won’t matter to you either.

    As our conversation indicated Kara, you have an ideological hatred of anything from the right. You refuse to hold the left accountable for anything. Your passion is applauded. The direction of that passion is misplaced.

  2. AAfterwit says:

    How is that an admission of anything?

    I can’t help you read. If you don’t see it, that is fine. It is just more evidence of the type of blinders you wear when it comes to certain things.

    Both sides ask for more money and assistance from the government, but only one side do so while excoriating the government while taking more money than they pay. How can I not be disgusted by such cynicism and ingratitude?

    I don’t know. Why don’t you ask your liberal friends who are doing the very things that you say you hate?

    You and I both know why you won’t.

    The sad thing is that you take the position that people should be happy at the amount of money the federal government takes from them. Your post indicates that you believe the federal government is above the people. It is not.

    You and I see this differently. You see people living free and making their own decisions as being evil. In your world, the government is who should decide what people do.

    I am more of a person who believes in freedom.

    • AAfterwit says:

      Can you name just one liberal politician in House or Senate who asks for money from government, and also criticize government for spending more money on social programs?

      Amazing how you want to limit your hypocrisy as if you are the arbiter of such actions.

      However, just off the top of my head, take a look at Diane Feinstein who railed against the banking industry while her husband was profiting from the bailout for banks.

      Start there and get back to me.

      The desegregation thing is important because that’s when the liberals and conservatives flipped parties.

      Flipped parties? When did that happen?

      This is another of your attempts to rewrite history. Our good friend Stsve Bussey does a good job of destroying that myth:

      A Conversation About Race.

      But we do appreciate your failed attempt to inject racism into the conversation where there was none. We do appreciate your attempt to rewrite history. And we do appreciate your attempt to play the race card, even though that card is trumped by the truth.

      Can you quote any part of my comment which indicates that I believe federal government is above the people? Can you quote any part of my comment which indicates that I believe people living free and making their own decisions?

      Your position on ObamaCare is one such example.

      You believe government exists to enforce something on people. I believe the government exists solely to protect the rights of the people.

      • AAfterwit says:

        You reply with something that has no relation whatsoever with what I ask. I take that as a sign you have no such example.

        Sorry. You asked for something that was more specific to the topic. I answered the question based on the topic. The fact that you are once again willing to excuse hypocrisy says much about you.

        I can refute Mr. Bussey and your attempt of historical revisionism with one name: Strom Thurmond. And I’m not playing the race card; the GOP is the one who did with southern strategy.

        You think that the southern strategy had overtakes 50 years of Democrats trying to keep people of color “in their place?”

        That is ignorance, Kara.

        And if you want to trade names, I can do that. Try Robert Byrd. Try George Wallace. Try Maxine Waters. Try Al Sharpton. Try Jesse Jackson. Try Sheila Jackson Lee. Try Barack Obama. Try Mary Berry.

        You attempt to label the GOP as racists doesn’t fit the facts.

        That is an even more ridiculous assertion than Palin’s “Death Panel” smear against Obamacare.

        Here you go again, shifting the goalposts. While Palin’s terminology was wrong, her accusation was not. The health care bill does contain provisions for end of life “counseling” as well as panels to decide in some cases, what care will be given. In other words, who will live or die.

        If supporting Obamacare means I think free people who make their own decisions are evil,

        Once again, another shift. The assertion was that you believe the government is above the people. In our conversation on health care (you remember that, don’t you? The one where you lied about the costs?) you said the government had the right to force their beliefs on the people. You said the government had the right to force people to buy something against their will.

        Are you backing away from that now?

        think gay people should have less right.

        I was unaware that being against changing the definition of “marriage” and allowing people to marry anyone of another gender would fit into your definition. It doesn’t of course, but that is who and what you are.

        Thank you for such ridiculous assertions, straw man, attempt of history revisionism, projection and “Tu Quoque.”

        The only problem Kara, is that I keep backing up what I say. When you run into a fact, you simply change the subject, run away, or make some ridiculous charge that has not basis in reality.

        • Suranis says:

          ” That is an even more ridiculous assertion than Palin’s “Death Panel” smear against Obamacare.

          Here you go again, shifting the goalposts. While Palin’s terminology was wrong, her accusation was not. The health care bill does contain provisions for end of life “counseling” as well as panels to decide in some cases, what care will be given. In other words, who will live or die.”

          Ok here’s where I step in. That’s a bare faced lie, which if you had bothered to look into the ACA you would have found out

          Here’s proof

          http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp

          The portion of bill in question (Section 1233) reads as follows:
          Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

          (A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

          (B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

          (C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

          (D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizatons.

          (E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

          (F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include …

          What the referenced portion of the bill actually describes is a modification to Section 1861 of the Social Security Act to add an “advance care planning consultation” to the list of services covered by Medicare. This provision would allow patients (if they so choose) to prepare for the day when they might be seriously ill and unable to make medical decisions for themselves by engaging in consultations with doctors to discuss the full range of end-of-life care options available to them, and to have the cost of such consultations covered by Medicare. These consultations might involve topics such as the development of living wills, directives to accept or refuse extreme life-saving measures, selection of hospice programs, appointment of relatives to make health care decisions on their behalf should they become incapacitated, etc.

          These consultations are not mandatory, and they have nothing to do with encouraging or pushing “euthanasia” on seniors — they’re about providing patients with information they can use to make informed choices about their future treatment preferences. In fact, as the Associated Press noted, the bill “would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option”:”

          So, rather than death panels, the act actually assists people in making living wills and specifically rules out suicide counseling. And Palin also decried “death Panels” in the UK, which were panels set up to approve cost of care over the £20,000 per patient PER YEAR thats allowed under the NHS.

          20 grand per year for your care, and then they have a panel to approve over that. If only care in the richest country in the world was as good, eh?

          “You attempt to label the GOP as racists doesn’t fit the facts. ”

          Of course it does, and I’ll throw in some history and a name to prove it, Dixecrats.

          http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Polsby/polsby-con4.html

          “Let me give you the forty-second version. It went this way. In order for the House to liberalize, it was necessary for the majority of the majority party to find its voice. The majority of the majority party could not find its voice when the Democratic caucus, the Democrats, were in the majority. The Democratic caucus was moribund, could not meet and could not act because it had so many Dixiecrats in it.

          Conservative Democrats from the South.

          From the South. All right, now, what happened? Well, the Dixiecrats disappeared. Why did they disappear? So then we moved backward. They disappeared because of the rise of the Republican Party in the South. Sooner or later, conservatives, instead of being Dixiecrats, became Republicans. Now why did they become Republicans? Well, because a sufficient number of people who were Republicans moved to the South from the North. And the question is, why did they move South? This Dixiecrat phenomenon is 100 years old.

          That is, the phenomenon that put the Dixiecrats in their positions of power?

          Yes, it’s 100 years old. From the Civil War and the Reconstruction, onward. So why did that finally break down? Why do Republicans suddenly appear down there? And the answer is, they migrated down there. Why did they migrate down there? Well, basically, a fair number of them had spent winters down there, but with the introduction in the early 1950s of residential air-conditioning, people began to stay down there. It was interesting to me that the first safe Republican seat in the South, outside of the ones up in the Appalachian Mountains — there are only four or five of those — but the first safe Republican seat under the new dispensation was St. Petersburg, Florida, which was a winter resort, and it happened in 1954. And then Dallas, Texas.

          That was Bruce Alger’s seat.

          Bruce Alger. That’s right, you’re a Texan, so you remember those things. But anyway, that seemed to be it. Now, how did I verify this? Well, there is some demographic material, which seems to show this, and, also, of course, I went around and talked to some Southern Republican congressman. They told me some wonderful stories about how they had become Republican, or their parents had become Republican. And it was all about Northerners moving down and making it possible.

          And an example would be Trent Lott, who originally was a Dixiecrat, right?

          Trent Lott was originally a Democrat. He worked for a congressman from Pascagula, Bill Comer. When Bill Comer retired in 1972, Trent Lott went home, switched parties, ran for a seat, and won. So that was short.”

          Have a read of the rest of the article, it’s pretty good. But the short answer is the Dems were racist back then but the new people who would have become Dixiecrats became republicans instead because the Dems, despite bieng racist, passed Civil Rights Legislation and ESPECIALLY anti-lynching laws. The anti-lynching laws were the final straw. So new politicians joined the Republican party and corroded it from the ground up.

          So its now a racist party, and pointing at the 60s to prove otherwise is missing the elephant in the room, and dodging the question.

          I never cease to be amazed as how someone from across the Atlantic ocean can know more about your countries history than you do.

          Suranis (which is a mangling of the Irish words Sur and Anios, which means roughly “Be Sure of Now”)

          • AAfterwit says:

            Ok here’s where I step in. That’s a bare faced lie, which if you had bothered to look into the ACA you would have found out

            It is not a lie, my point was. admittedly badly written. While I left the impression that the review of end of life care and the panels to determine levels of care are one in the same, they are not. I apologize for the bad wording. However, there are in fact panels that will determine what level of care a person can get. That’s that point.

            So its now a racist party, and pointing at the 60s to prove otherwise is missing the elephant in the room, and dodging the question.

            The Dixiecrats were are wing of the Democrats in 1948. They actively campaigned on a segregationist platform. After losing the election they returned to the Democratic party where they were welcomed back with open arms. That continued until 1964 where Goldwater ran on a platform that included the return of Federally usurped authority to the states. In the late 50’s it was the Republicans who pushed for a Civil Rights Act and were rebuffed by the Democrats. This rebuttal continued until 1964 where Republicans despised the “new deal” aspects of the Civil Rights bill, voted for it. As it turned out, the Republicans were correct in the damage the “New Deal” part of the bill contained. That part has kept minorities depressed for the last 60 years, and the Democrats are intent on keeping that oppression in place.

            Once again, I can point to the current members of the Democratic party who use race – and racism – as part and parcel of their strategy.

            I never cease to be amazed as how someone from across the Atlantic ocean can know more about your countries history than you do.

            Lucky for us, you don’t.

          • Jerry says:

            Why oh why would racist Dixiecrats join the Republican Party? With the Rebublican Party’s history of supporting black Americans and civil rights, what refuge would that Party have offered a racist Southern voter a mere four years after supporting the 1964 Civil Rights Act and eight years after writing and passing only the second modern civil rights bill?

  3. Jerry says:

    The federal goverment was not meant/intended to be a nurse-maid to the people!

    “Do as I say, not as I do” ex:(paraphrasing Mr. Cunningham)
    ‘You Mr. Ritchie Rich, pay more in taxes! Me? I pay my ‘fair’ share.’

    It’s hypocrisy because one very simple reason. They and their constituents receive more money from the government than what they pay in tax.

    First, where is the data to back up that statement?
    Second. You are wrong. It would be hypocritical for one to call for smaller goverment while at the same time demand the same or more goods and services from the goverment.

    • AAfterwit says:

      I agree and that’s not what we ask the government to do. We just want the government to help sick people so that they don’t have to pay exorbitant health insurance premium, and protect them against unfair rescission.

      It is exactly what you are demanding the government do. You are demanding that it take money from people for others without a benefit to the origin person.

      As for the “exorbitant” accusation, if that is your true goal, then why does ObamaCare cost more than the plan currently in place? Why does it cost more than projected? Why will it cost more than it was sold to the people on? In other words, if you are against the current system because of the costs, why are you advocating higher costs? You have a disconnect when you say “high costs” and they want to promote a program that will increase costs even more.

      “Yo Mr. Richman let’s both pay our fair share in taxes so that the government have the money to help more people.”

      First, what is “fair” and who decides that? Why it “fair” about almost 50% of people not paying taxes? What is fair about the top 10% of earners paying for the remaining 90%? To any rational person, that is not fair.

      Tell us all, Kara, if your neighbor has a nicer car than you do, do you have the right to the same car? Do you have the right to take his car? After all, what is “fair” about him having more than you do? That is what you are saying. If someone has more than another, it is “fair” that the person with less demand more of the person with more.

      Now that your ridiculous straw men have been demolished.

      Bull. In actuality you destroyed your own argument.

      In the first section of this reply you wrote:

      I agree and that’s not what we ask the government to do.

      And now:

      so that the government have the money to help more people.”

      In one statement you say you agree the government is not a “nurse maid,” and then in the second statement, you want the government to be nursemaid.

      I shall back up my contention that red states receive more welfare than blue states.

      I thought you were going to back up your contention that red states receive more welfare? That chart certainly doesn’t prove it.

      How do you feel about someone who preens about how he’s such a moral and religious person only to be caught in sexual scandal?

      You mean like Representative Weiner? You remember him, don’t you? He was the one that after the scandal broke, lied about his account being hacked, saying he had never done any such thing. The left lined up and started to attack everyone that said “he should step down.” You guys, on the other hand, wanted him to remain.

      How long did the Rangel scandal on taxes to get swept under the rug by Democrats? And how is that Maxine Waters ethics investigation coming along? You remember, the one that has constantly been tabled and set aside.

      It is amazing that you rail against hypocrisy, but when the hypocrisy of Feinstein (who has railed against banks, but yet arranged for her husband’s bank to receive bailout money,) you said you didn’t ask about that. You then said you were talking about “welfare,” and to try and “prove” your point, you offered a simplistic map that didn’t cover welfare, but all federal expenditures such as the Feinstein bailout.

      In other words, you were either being ignorant, stupid, or deceitful.

      And that should disgust you, (but it won’t.)

      • AAfterwit says:

        The people who have to pay more tax are also benefited from Obamacare, because they also receive the same protection from unfair rescission and less premium from bigger pool of insurance participants.

        I just want to make sure that I understand your point. Currently people that have and pay for insurance will benefit from a large influx of people that will not be contributing to the premiums at all? Do you really believe that lower benefits, higher costs, and people paying for those who do not have insurance is a gain? That is a good thing in your world?

        Because it’s still in the early years of implementation. As more people participate by having health insurance, the bigger pool of insured would eventually lead to lower premium.

        We’ve discussed this before. You were proven wrong before and you repeating the same lie doesn’t make it any more true.

        You’re right that it’s not fair; fortunately that’s not what Obamacare entails.

        Another shift of the goalposts from you as the passage dealt with taxes, not ObamaCare. However, I am glad you have finally come to the idea that raising the taxes on those who already pay the vast majority of taxes is not “fair.” That ends that part of this discussion. However, I noticed you failed to state who decides what is “fair?” I wonder why that would be.

        I said that the government should have more money so they can help more people.

        Which is the government being a nursemaid. That is another point of yours that you now agree with us on.

        Tea Partiers who are opposed to Obamacare can be falsely portrayed as cold blooded selfish people who believe people without health insurance should just die.

        No, the Tea Partiers believe ObamaCare is outside of the legitimate scope of government. That is the opposition, Kara, and you know it.

        You not just destroy your own credibility with that spin. You also destroy the credibility of this blog as well IMO.

        Frankly Kara, I care not one iota of your impression of this blog. You are free to post here or not. That is your choice. I am sorry the facts go against you, but I am now used to that from you.

        You can deny it, just like you deny GOP racist tactic in the 60s.

        I missed the part where you denied the current racism from the left today. Right now.

        Oh that’s right, you don’t hold people of your ilk accountable for anything.

        And by the way, it is clear that you are missing the distinction in your assertion and your “proof.” We have pointed it out to you several times, but you still keep railing against the wind. Hunt windmills much?

        I don’t recall Weiner ever preened or portrayed himself as a paragon of family value and moral virtue, and I don’t recall ever contested nor denied that Democratic Party can be immoral either. What I contested is your contention that Democratic Party is just as hypocritical as GOP.

        As I said, you are willing to accept hypocrisy from Democrats. We agree again.

        No, the amazing thing is how you try to use “Tu Quoque” fallacy to defend GOP hypocrisy

        Really? Where have I done that? You won’t find me defending hypocrisy here at all. (Which is why I cannot defend your hypocritical positions.) Why is it that you still can’t condemn they hypocrisy from the left?

        That’s why I cut more slack for Democratic Party, that’s why I find GOP to be loathsome. Both sides are flawed and immoral but the Democratic Party still want to help and protect unfortunate people. Whereas the GOP preened as party of values and independence, while engaged in the same immorality and took more money from the government.

        Your premise is flawed, Kara. The states don’t “take” money from the government as the government has no money other than what the people give it or is taken from them. You would rather see the unfortunate “helped” (and by “helped” we mean kept in perpetual poverty due to Democratic policies) than allowing people to donate and help others on their own.

        Once again, you believe the government is a nursemaid. That is your belief and to deny it is a lie.

    • Jerry says:

      I agree and that’s not what we ask the government to do.

      I call BULLSHIT! That’s what progressives demand that government does. Until such a time, God forbid, that they get complete control. Then they won’t give a damn about the ‘people’ just as long as the people/serfs know their place and provide their overlords’ wants.

      We just want the government to help sick people so that they don’t have to pay exorbitant health insurance premium, and protect them against unfair rescission.

      You mean those same health insurance premiums that are ‘exorbitant’ because of Federal government regulations? The federal government regulating what insurance providers must cover regardless of what the consumer requires.
      What unfair rescission?

      Actually what we ask is:
      “Yo Mr. Richman let’s both pay our fair share in taxes so that the government have the money to help more people.”

      If you bothered to noticed I put ‘ ‘ marks around the word ‘fair’. I put them there for a reason.
      Who? Who gets to decide what is fair? Mr. Cunningham? You? Me? Progressives? Conservatives?
      “It’s not fair!!!!!!” The sound of children whine.
      It is not the job of the federal government to ‘help’ anyone. The federal government, established by the Constitution of the United States of America, is delegated limited enumerated powers.

      Now that your ridiculous straw men have been demolished. I shall back up my contention that red states receive more welfare than blue states.

      ‘buzzer sound’ Wrong! Thanks for playing…Cited reference was for federal spending not welfare…play again? (Y/N)

      How do you feel about someone who preens about how he’s such a moral and religious person only to be caught in sexual scandal? How do you feel about such hypothetical person if on top of his moral hypocrisy he also boasts about his financial independence from his parents, when his business is still supported by them and he would have gone hungry were it not for their help? Don’t you feel disgusted?

      I didn’t realize that we were discussing hypotheticals.
      Wouldn’t you rather have your elected representative be a moral rather than an amoral or immoral person?
      What is wrong with a person’s parents supporting his/her business? One can be financially independent whilst their business receives support from investors.

      Kara, are you a citizen of the United States?

  4. AAfterwit says:

    After a great deal of thought, we have decided to close comments on this thread.

    We have decided this for two reasons:
    1) The comments have wondered a considerable distance away from the original post.
    2) It is clear that the participants will never change the others minds.

    Thank you.

top