Are You Satisfied Part 2

Four months ago I asked if all were satisfied with BO. Most posters had a problem or two. So, I’ll ask again.  For those who voted for him, are you satisfied with the results?  Unanswerable Commissars, Three initiatives a day, Rahmed through and unread 1000 page legislations.  Soon to be hopefully for BO, Rahmed through Health Payment Reform. Probably another unread thousand pages.  Soon to be Higher Taxes.  Bait and Switch programs.   Buddy-buddy with Castro, Chavez and the like.

http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=5085

30 Comments

  1. How about asking if we are satisfied with any one of our elected federal representatives. That would be a fair question would it not?

    It’s taken both the parties, Democrats and Republicans, in congress and in the White House and the fools that keep electing new stuck in the past carbon copies and reelecting them decade after decade to get this nation in the wreck it’s in.

    Blame? If you (generically) vote either Democrat or Republican, go look in your mirrors and you’ll find the persons to blame for this mess. Shitcan the whole bunch and start over I say, with people that actually have common sense, no politically affiliated party bias and demonstrate it by action and deed rather than campaign lip services eyeballs deep in fantastic, undeliverable promises.

    There has not been one fresh, viable, practical idea come out of federal government where representatives can’t even burp for under a billion dollars per burp anymore, or any other level of government for that matter in thirty years. And those of us with any real age under our belts has watched the spending numbers over the past five decades go from millions, to hundreds of million, billions, hundreds of billions, ultimately ending in trillions and tens of trillions of wasted taxpayer dollars and both the Democrats and Republicans are responsible for it and noone else because only democrats and republicans have been there to do it. Any democrat or republican party members care to deny this two party only run amok spendthrift responsibilty? Well this is what happens when a people allow if not put their government representatives on pedestals living so far above the average citizen; a representation that act like lords and kings and will eventually become our lords and kings if no legal estop is enacted by the citizenry.

    I find the very idea of anyone having any faith left in Democrat and Republican party representation at any level of government apalling.

    But then again what else can one expect from a nation wide divided joke electorate in the two major parties that vote for movie stars and wrestlers as governors and presidents, comedians as their congressional representatives and vote for a total business flop from Texas that gutted every business that was in his direct operational control not once but twice to be their president.

    That’s my rant for today…folks may now continue with your right wing left wing blame games….be sure to not overlook a single mistake or error in judgment the other guy makes and vividly point them out….enjoy it while it lasts and by the way it’s lookin’ and the way time is wasting, games time is just about up.

  2. The Texan wrote:

    How about asking if we are satisfied with any one of our elected federal representatives. That would be a fair question would it not?

    Certainly fair. Art Downs has mentioned his congressman, Representative Mike Castle (R-DE) with something less than admiration many times, and I’ve complained about my own, Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA 11th) and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) on more than one occasion.

    Perhaps I’d point you in the direction of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) as one of the good guys. He isn’t perfect — no one is — but he works harder than anyone in the Congress against ridiculous programs and spending.

  3. Yorkshire wrote:

    For those who voted for him, are you satisfied with the results?

    Guess this question wasn’t intended for me, ’cause I sure didn’t vote for him! But it would be interesting to know how much disappointment there is among people who did vote for Mr Obama.

  4. This may or may not attract the target audience. The last time I posed it, it had some interesting comments for March. Now that we are at the six month mark. It would be interesting. For me, the disappointment I didn’t figure this much mess. The disappointment is the use of BO’s Community Organizing tactics of Alinsky and Cloward-Piven where you just overwhelm your opposition with many initiatives a day and use the Chicago strong arm tactics to move things along. I felt I saw some of this coming, but not the tidal wave of unread 1000 page Bills being Rahmed through Congress where nobody has a clue as to what is in them. What is the rush? If someone read it and found out what was in it, it wouldn’t pass?

  5. I sure as hell didn’t vote for Obama either, and I don’t really know how disappointed those who voted for him are, or are willing to admit. What I do know is how long it took those of us who voted for GW Bush to express our disappointment in his performance. Way too long.

    Sure, Dems and their MSM house organs were overtly unfair and in consequence Bush’s supporters rallied to defend him against trumped up charges, which of course served to insulate GWB and delay public expressions of disappointment least they be misused to further malign him.

    After all, the nation was at war, democrats were hard at work assisting the enemy, and the NY Times was openly revealing intelligence secrets for the benefit of terrorist organizations.

    It wasn’t till the Harriot Miers nomination that I was willing to publicly oppose GWB. It’s on me that I looked the other way too many times and gave Bush the benefit of the doubt when I should have been taking him to task. It was clear, I see now, that his collaboration with Ted Kennedy on “No Child Left Behind” should have sounded the initial alarm. I guess it did, but I tuned it out and ignored the implications.

    So, back to the issue, if Obama’s supporters are as stupid and wrongheaded as I was, it’s going to be a while before they express their disappointment. Given their track record for independent thought, my guess is that we’ll still be waiting some time after the Second Coming.

  6. It’s taken both the parties, Democrats and Republicans, in congress and in the White House and the fools that keep electing new stuck in the past carbon copies and reelecting them decade after decade to get this nation in the wreck it’s in.

    I disagree with this, at least in part. Like it or not, we have the gov’t we seem to want, one that will give us lots of “Free” stuff, and the deficits are because no one wants to pay for any of it.

    On a recent thread, several bemoaned the lack of willingness to fund additional manned space exploration, the kind of feats we saw 40 years ago with the Apollo program. Well, with entitlement spending sucking up most of the budget, and stuff like the “Stimulus” plan sucking up most of what’s left, well, we couldn’t afford another Moon (or Mars) program even if we wanted to!

    Ultimately, this is democracy in action. As a wise Scotsman pointed out two centuries ago, democracy can only last until the people figure out they can vote themselves free benefits out of the public treasury. And that’s where we’ve been now for the past few decades.

  7. I don’t know.

    I voted for President Obama twice, mostly because I did not want his opponents – Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain – to be elected.

    So I think you’re actually really asking two questions:

    (a) am I satisfied with President Obama in the sense that I think he’s doing a good job?

    (b) am I satisfied with President Obama in the sense that I think he’s doing a better job than either of his major opponents would have?

    ——–

    in the case of (a), while I think six months is too early to judge, I would put forward a tentative ‘no’. I feel betrayed by the lack of action on DADT. I’m outright angry over the abandoning of the promise to post bills online for five days before signing or vetoing them. I think the administration’s backing off on state secrets policy is contemptible, and will permanently enshrine in American policy an approach to executive power which I am convinced will be used by a tyrant at some point in the future. I think the stimulus package was mismanaged.
    And yet there are things I like; the approach to environmental rules and regulations, a shift in power over domestic policy back towards Congress (where I think the framers intended it to rest); a depoliticization of the justice department; and a rhetorical tone with respect to foreign relations which I consider greatly improved.

    So .. i’m disappointed; President Obama has not been all I wished him to be, and on certain issues I’m angry.

    In the case of (b), I think he’s doing a better job than Sen. McCain would have. With respect to Sen. Clinton, it’s much harder to make that determination; it’s very tempting to project onto her all of the things I wish President Obama were doing but isn’t … and yet there’s no real way of knowing.

  8. Dana Pico: He isn’t perfect — no one is

    Dana, for once you couldn’t be more perfectly dead center on the bullseye.

    I don’t either seek out, or expect, perfection in politicans to represent us but I do expect myself and all others in the electorate even when I am disappointed, to seek out and vote for the best they can find and by about ninety five percent the Dems and Reps just simply haven’t done that in especially the past decade and a half.

    The fact is Dems and Reps aren’t seeking out very much at all for their national level representatives on their own, each of their national party pundits do their candidate choosing for them among the whose who.

    I was right with Ron Paul, I was in fact one of his delegates…that is I was right with Ron right up to the point where he chose loyalty to party over and above the nations citizens and their interests, especially his million of backers he deserted, while he was running for president and party loyalty far far and above running as an independent where Paul had a damned good chance of being elected. Plus the goodoleboy righties made damned sure RP and his common sense messages got swept up by a wave of worn out right wing extremism still popular with their ever shrinking base and under the rug….but that’s done and over so be it.

    There are currently, including the two major political parties, 153, count em 153 (hope I didn’t miscount) recognized as legitimate active national, regional, and local political parties a pot full of them formed since year 2000. This has to provide at least a little insight that millions of our citizens are sick and tired of the status quo…..and for doubters here is just one website where anyone that can add all those parties up…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States …..how many or few active members each of those parties have could be anyone’s positive optimistic or negative pesimestic guess.

    What further appalls me is this constant everything in opposition to every damned thing….like the fight between the left green green green and right drill drill drill about energy…when in fact COMMON SENSE dictates we should be drilling, mining, building windpowermills, nuclear power plants, using deep ocean currents with submersible power generators, flying goddamned kites with keys if we have to, to generate power, and fuels and do whatever it is necessary to become as energy independent
    as the foreign nation highway robber assholes that have been stealing us all blind for the past forty years.

    Oops…I think I just described a form of unity in that last paragraph…I vaguely remember a bit of that citizens being mutually beneficial united on a few things from my youth.

    But hell no…..not today….it’s not even shake hands, just come out swinging…..and what makes me laugh is all this just one armed left/right swinging. Is it any wonder why it takes forever for our government representation to get anything done with an electorate as divided as it has become between parties and within parties.

    That link to political parties I gave above is quite interesting for left right and center.

    If I advocate anything politicianwise anymore it’s no more professional status quo business as usual politicians with party/corporate ties and no matter who it is gets elected serves no longer than four years period just like presidents. Then maybe just maybe we could get some people representing us that actually has fresh ideas and actually has run a nonprofit corporation. But I’m smart enough to know as long as there is just two political parties rule in this nation that will NEVER happen and quite frankly I think we’re stuck with the totally divided two major party bags of mixed nuts status quo and we have only our individual selves to blame for it. Well not myself heh heh… there’s not enough money floatin around to bribe me into joining up with the Dems and/or Reps again. Nuthin else out there at this time worthy of joining up with either from where I sit. So I remain a political party of one.

  9. aphrael

    Well written intelligent post…congrats.

    You seem a bit like myself….a patient wait and see sit down fellow in an instant graification fast food world.

  10. aphrael:
    I don’t know.

    I voted for President Obama twice, mostly because I did not want his opponents – Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain – to be elected.

    So I think you’re actually really asking two questions:

    (a) am I satisfied with President Obama in the sense that I think he’s doing a good job?

    (b) am I satisfied with President Obama in the sense that I think he’s doing a better job than either of his major opponents would have?

    Best honest answer I have seen.

  11. Eric said: Like it or not, we have the gov’t we seem to want, one that will give us lots of “Free” stuff, and the deficits are because no one wants to pay for any of it.

    Eric…..I appreciate any disagreementm but tell me if you will just exactly what the “lots of free stuff” is? And tell me who wants to pay anymore than their directly proportionate fair share for anything?

    TANSTAFFL baby….TANSTAFFL….one way or another everyone pays some price even be it their dignity.

    However as far as government is concerned, as I see it anyway, one party wants to give everybody something and think everyone should be able to come and live here and work legally or not and the other party wants to give something to a few of their own but still let everyone come here and live and work as long as they can be exploited….neither option either fair or proportionate to anyone period.

    As I further see it, it is our out of control have no conception of what money is and with the EXCEPTION of the bureaucratic employees especially federal employees just, how hard it is to earn spendthrift congress primarily compromised of lawyers and colleged trained political science majors and the pack of sharks on feeding frenzy ie government contractors they feed hundreds of billions of our tax payer dollars each quarter of each year decade after decade. The reason I took a swing at federal employees is because I have had twenty six of my blood relatives, all federal employees, laugh and brag about what a racket it is being in federal employment and how it can be a virtual license to steal or so said by two realtives that worked in procurement.

    Furthermore I don’t see any private sector U S Citizen workers union or non union voluntarily putting their jobs up for bid to foreigners saying I’m an overpaid spoiled American worker take my job please…I don’t see them crying out for their taxes and cost of living to be raised every damned year or saying “I don’t deserve to have all the credits and other dodges off my income tax like businesses have either…..but I sure as hell see their employers saying and being afforded just those things and by the way those employers are Democrats and Republicans and I imagine independents as well! Makes ya wonder why if labor is so damned cheap in China why our federal government doesn’t farm out some federal jobs to China. Now that’s an interesting work at home over the network thought. Why pay some GS-13 federal computer operation seventy thou a year when they could get the same job done by a Chinese for a buck fifty a week like Wal Mart does in their Chinese plants.

    Why is it these U S employers can’t manufacture and sell their products and services here and compete with importers….it all falls right back where blame belongs…in the laps of the very people “WE” voted for and the same people that stupidly fell into their own agreed to totally out of balance trade agreements GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, et al ux and let’s not forget the SHAFTUS trade agreements. I know a moron with a 83 IQ that wouldn’t have signed off on a single one of those loads of crap. May get her to run for congress.

    Is anyone right wing or left reading this willing to work for what a Chinaman in China, or Mexican in Mexico is willing to work for? Of course not. Why do you think illegal aliens are flooding over our borders and shores for….it sure as hell ain’t because they want to work cheaper here than where they came from, is it….duh. So why should anyone expect to work for the same LOWER wage they pay Mexicans after they arrive here.

    Sure it’s bosses the start companies but it’s their employees that make the companies large companies unless the boss stays mom and pop. And I agree that the bosses have the most to gain because as a rule they have the most to lose…but four hundred, five hundred, or more times what their employees make…..I may be wrong and will certainly be disagreed with….but those amounts are streching the hell out of sliding from honorable bigwig down to greedy screw the employees, enough is never enough moneyslut.

    So Eric, to the contrary I will say….that this isn’t the government that anyone in their right mind wants no matter which party has control of congress or White House, not for the past twentyfive. The only people that want it as it is alternatively are Democrats and Republicans…..it’s obvious cuz nobody else is getting elected.

  12. this book may be worth reading:

    The most important issue rarely mentioned on the campaign trail this year is the gap between rich and poor in America. It is important for two reasons: The gap has been growing, and the choice between John McCain and Barack Obama likely will affect whether it narrows or expands.

    That is the conclusion of Unequal Democracy, a provocative new book by Princeton professor Larry M. Bartels, one of the country’s leading political scientists. His most significant finding is that there is a partisan pattern to the size of the gap between the rich and the poor. Over the past half-century, he concludes, Republican presidents have allowed income inequality to expand, while Democratic presidents generally have not.

    Lest anyone think this book is a partisan hit job by a left-wing academic, Bartels goes to great pains in his introduction to preempt the counterattack he expects from critics on the right. “I began the project as an unusually apolitical political scientist,” he writes, noting that the last time he voted was in 1984, “and that was for Ronald Reagan.” He adds that in doing this work, “I was quite surprised to discover how often and how profoundly partisan differences in ideologies and values have shaped key policy decisions and economic outcomes. I have done my best to follow my evidence where it led me.”

    In Bartels’s analysis, the period from the late 1940s to the early ’70s was one of “rapid and remarkably egalitarian” growth in real incomes: Every group, from the richest to the poorest, experienced growth of between 2.4 percent and 2.7 percent per year. Since 1974, the pattern has skewed significantly toward the rich. Overall income growth has slowed, and it has slowed far more for those at the bottom than at the top.

    Bartels acknowledges that there can be many explanations for growing income inequality, from globalization and structural changes in the U.S. economy to technological and demographic shifts. But he argues that it is wrong to assume there is no cause-and-effect relationship between government policies and income distribution. In fact, he asserts, “economic inequality is, in substantial part, a political phenomenon.”

    Bartels comes to this conclusion by examining what happened to income inequality from President Truman to President George W. Bush. “Under Democratic presidents,” he writes, “poor families did slightly better than richer families (at least in proportional terms), producing a modest net decrease in income inequality; under Republican presidents, rich families did vastly better than poorer families, producing a considerable net increase in income inequality.”

    He concludes that the income gap increased under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bushes, while it declined under four of the five Democratic presidents who have served during this period — all except Jimmy Carter. That pattern, he asserts, “seems hard to attribute to a mere coincidence in the timing of Democratic and Republican administrations.” Rather, Democratic and Republican presidents have pursued different economic policies, with Democrats generally focused more on raising employment and output growth, which disproportionately benefit poor and middle-class families. Republicans have worried more about containing inflation, which has “negligible” effects on real income growth near the bottom of the income distribution but “substantial effects at the top,” Bartels says. On tax policy, Republican presidents, especially since Reagan, have pushed tax cuts that have disproportionately helped the wealthiest Americans.

    Bartels uses the election of 2000 to illustrate, with a hypothetical example, how much difference presidential leadership realistically may make in the distribution of income in America. In Bush’s first four years, families in the top 95th percentile of income received a 2-percent cumulative increase in real income. Middle-income families saw a decline of 1 percent, while poorer families saw a decline of 3 percent. Based on historical data for Democratic presidents, Bartels estimates that if Al Gore had been elected instead of Bush, the working poor would have seen an increase of about 6 percent, while the wealthy would have seen essentially no gain.

  13. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    this book may be worth reading:

    Very interesting commentary. I take it you read the book or had a good synopsis at your Library. I’m curious about how the author treats the timeframe of the late 60′s going into the early 70′s. The reason on the curiosity is that was the time frame of implementing the Great Society/War on Poverty programs. Up to then, welfare was used in extreme cases, but welfare became a new right of the people. Given that the Government would sustain “you” (in the generic sense, not Pho), did that create a disincentive among the poor?

  14. Should income distribution be a function or even a concern of government? I don’t think so. The last thing I want is a government which is going to decide that one person has too much, and his property and industry should be redistributed to someone who has less.

  15. Dana Pico:
    Should income distribution be a function or even a concern of government? I don’t think so. The last thing I want is a government which is going to decide that one person has too much, and his property and industry should be redistributed to someone who has less.

    Everytime I read about re-distribution, I think back to the movie Dr. Zhivago. The good doctor had a rather nice house with maybe 12-15 rooms in Moscow. At the beginning of the Russian Revolution, the good Doctor was “appropriated” by the Army. When he returned to his house, the “Authorities” had appropriated the house just by saying it was the “Peoples” property. Zhivago was allowed to live in his own house, but he was limited to two rooms, and the rest of the house was used to house other families. Now that was redistribution Marxist Style. Dana, is that the type you are thinking about?

  16. Dr Zhivago is a great movie — I’ve never read the book — but, no, that isn’t quite the income redistribution that I think even the far left of our Democratic Party would try for . . . because it would impoverish too many of them!

    To me, income redistribution is just plain theft. When you seize one person’s money or property to give to someone else, that’s theft, regardless of how much the recipient “needs” it.

  17. Dana, not to be provocative or anything, but were either of these theft?:

    (a) the enclosure as private property of formerly communally owned farmland in early modern England;

    (b) the abolition of slavery.

  18. Very interesting commentary. I take it you read the book or had a good synopsis at your Library.

    That was a quote from teh Amazon cite, an editorial review.

    I noticed the book in my local library, but I haven’t picked it up yet. I’m currently reading research on knowledge management, a history of stupidity in military battles (including an Austrian army that managed to rout itself before the Turks even showed up), going through a RPG supplement, and sorta picking at three or four sf books.

    Um, I should probably work on my focus.

  19. Should income distribution be a function or even a concern of government? I don’t think so. The last thing I want is a government which is going to decide that one person has too much, and his property and industry should be redistributed to someone who has less.

    Income inequality is certainly a concern of government. You’ll notice that the quote I gave doesn’t mention redistribution at all – I quote:

    Democrats generally focused more on raising employment and output growth, which disproportionately benefit poor and middle-class families. Republicans have worried more about containing inflation, which has “negligible” effects on real income growth near the bottom of the income distribution but “substantial effects at the top,” Bartels says. On tax policy, Republican presidents, especially since Reagan, have pushed tax cuts that have disproportionately helped the wealthiest Americans.

    I’m curious about how the author treats the timeframe of the late 60’s going into the early 70’s.

    Take a look here.

    Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s,[9][10][11][12][13] whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century.[14][15] As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[16] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.[17]

    It’s clear that this is due to policy decisions, not due to economic drivers – other advanced nations have had inequality reduce. You are collectively making decisions that increase inequality in your society, usually due to Republican favouring of the rich and Democrat unwillingless to address the issue. This growing inequality leads to slower economic growth overall, social disruption and lack of cohesion.

    Not off topic at all – the CEOs of the top 23 health insurance companies were paid 560 million dollars in 2005. Meanwhile note this thread…

  20. Aphrael, I’m pretty much in agreement with you here, at least with respect to a). My standard line (which I heard somewhere, not sure where) is that Obama is bad on the things we knew he’d be bad on and mediocre on the things we thought he’d be better on. So while I’m disappointed at the massive deficit, I’m not surprised by it. Ditto with the Great Greenwash of 2009 (cap-and-trade). What I am surprised and dismayed by is the lack of any effort to reform our amoral, extralegal terrorism policy. And while I understand the political motivations behind that move, I’m still annoyed by it.

    The lack of action on DADT is inexcusable as well. Not only is it a smart policy move – we can’t be in the business of firing soldiers when recruitment is down and we’re involved in two shooting wars – but it’s a political winner as well (roughly 70% of Americans favor its repeal, last I checked). I don’t really understand what’s holding it up, either in Congress or in the administration. What I fear is that he’s holding off until 2010 and planning on repealing it close to the election as a cynical attempt at getting the gay community motivated during the midterms.

    To answer Yorkie’s question, though – no, I’m not satisfied. Too much fiscal irresponsibility, not enough respect for civil liberties, bad priority setting. I was close to voting for Barr in 2008 – given the chance, right now I’d say it’s a tossup, and then only because it’s tough to judge a presidency by the first six months.

  21. Jeff:
    right now I’d say it’s a tossup, and then only because it’s tough to judge a presidency by the first six months.

    I think Clinton was about in the same boat six months in. So, that’s a valid remark.

  22. Eric…..I appreciate any disagreementm but tell me if you will just exactly what the “lots of free stuff” is? And tell me who wants to pay anymore than their directly proportionate fair share for anything?

    The “Free stuff” is government entitlements of various sorts, and the deal is that, if you can persuade at least 51% of the voters they can get this “Stuff” at the expense of no more than 49% of the rest of the voters, well, you’ve got a recipe for staying in office virtually forever!

  23. Not off topic at all – the CEOs of the top 23 health insurance companies were paid 560 million dollars in 2005.

    Funny how the libs never complain when some lefty celeb like Matt Damon makes $20 million a movie …

  24. Eric,

    I respect your views and at least you have a view on this issue but I still say from my personal point of view nothing is free.

    The poor and indigent and helpless pay in tears and mental pain whether the situations they are in are self induced or from extraneous sources beyond their control.

    I agree with your last posted comment….movie stars, sports stars and their league owners just aren’t worth their multi year multi eight and nine figure income contracts. Strictly as P’sOI, I’ve often said that I wonder how much talent those six foot five and up basketball pros would show if the basket was raised up about two more feet which would compare to us average height people’s perspective of current height of basket. Even pro golf money has gone beserk….check out how much dough the guy in 125th place “?EARNED?” three years ago, $660,898 in 2006, on the PGA tour in just prize money not even to mention endorsements. I owned a mid sized construction company for over twenty years creating something substantial and long lasting and never ever came close to earning that much. But their fans, ie fanatic sports adherents endorse them and support them if not outright worship them…It’s a sign of our times and I accept it as one more no skin off my nose thing. I can’t help but giggle a bit when I think about all these solid citizen North Texan’s will be paying for just parking and tickets to go and wave their rubber number one fingers at Jerry Jones new palace less than four miles from my house. Jones was decent enough at least, to thusfar, unoffically, call the new stadium the Tom Landry stadium.

  25. Eric…..I appreciate any disagreementm but tell me if you will just exactly what the “lots of free stuff” is? And tell me who wants to pay anymore than their directly proportionate fair share for anything?

    There are all sorts of examples. School breakfast and lunch programs, tutoring services, educational programs for the unemployed, free English classes, free concerts (particularly of the symphony variety), free or low-cost vaccinations, WIC, food stamps, unemployment benefits, home health aid available through Medicare, SSI, aides for special needs students and so on and so forth.

    You will certainly argue that some or all of these things “should” be done by a caring society, but they are all “free stuff” that somebody else has to pay for and doesn’t use. I love my local library and the interlibrary loan system which doesn’t cost me anything extra (besides the city taxes I already pay), but it is “free” in some ways because I use it far more than most people, probably. Free breakfast and lunch programs? I don’t use those programs, but I’m sure I pay for them somewhere else. And when my father was sick and dying, I discovered a variety of things that Medicare “paid” for (well, we paid for through taxes) that made his and my lives easier.

    We all pay more than our “fair share” for things we don’t use and, most likely, less for things we do, which is why the system keeps adding more of those feel-good freebies.

  26. Funny how the libs never complain when some lefty celeb like Matt Damon makes $20 million a movie …

    Matt Damon gets paid because he attracts people to see his movies.

    He doesn’t get paid for taking peoples money and then tearing up their tickets and locking them out of the cinema.

Comments are closed.