I may decide to use some of it for the purposes I assign to government
This is being framed as a deeply silly public argument, because it is being argued on the terms of the left. It’s being argued, in other words, the way kindergartners argue such things. “I deserve…” “You don’t deserve…” “It’s not fair…” “MOM!!!!!!! Billy’s touching me!” “Am not!” “Are too!” Etc, etc.
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.
Great post and very well said! But unfortunately how we ever get back to the basic beliefs of limited government when the opposing belief of more, and more government as the answer to all problems. That with every law that the government has passed, and will continue to pass laws that only erodes “the individual rights”. There lies the problem though. The opposite side believes that we as humans not only deserve the chance at success, but that success, safety, no risks, and cradle to the grave security must be mandated by the government. I don’t think they see these issues as “deserve”, but that those are mandated rights to them. The right to free heath care, a good job, the right to be protected from bad choices on their part for whatever the reasons, and somehow, someway they have perverted the old belief that we all “have the right as an American citizen to pursue our dreams and ambitions” but that right entails sacrifice and risks in everything we do with no guarantees. So now we have a government which tries unsuccessfully to protect us from everything and anything. And their answer has been and will always be more laws which will only continue to erode our basic rights as humans in exchange for mandated guarantees with fewer and fewer choices for the responsible individual/citizen.
So if this suggestion was the case, and we determined how much and to what uses tax contributions were made, we would definitely be a banana republic own by Mexico.
Thanks, Curt, for the link to the posting by Tina Korbe. I confess, I was pleasantly surprised by Ms.
Korbe’s treatment of the issue, which was to be candid far more rational and fact based than yours. I don’t know whether that website – or Ms. Korbe in particular – is liberal or conservative. In fact, it doesn’t matter; she was pretty much spot on in her analysis:
“ …as appealing as it is to equate government taxing and spending with stealing, in a constitutional republic like ours, it’s simply not.”
She goes on to spell out the details of why this is so, concluding with an equally compelling lament that our government doesn’t spend the money it gets more wisely or effectively. It’s hard to argue with any of that, but you apparently try. Your last sentence asserts that “we contribute out of what is inalienably ours.” As Ms. Korbe demonstrated: no, it’s not ours. By continuing to live in this society we voluntarily surrender not only our claim to a part of what we earn, but also our right as individuals to determine just how much the government takes and how it will be spent. You live in a democracy, Curt. I’m sure you know this, but you apparently haven’t yet made peace with what that entails.
In his comment Gary pursues the same topic that he has addressed in other posts: that is, the supposed evils of the “nanny state” (although he doesn’t use that particular wording here). In doing so he repeatedly belabors the same straw dog: that our government is some kind of alien power structure imposed on us against our will or at least alterred in ways that “we” disapprove. In fact, the government is essentially what “we” have made it or allowed it to become. Much as he might like to, Gary can’t entirely divorce himself from the polity in which he lives. Any individual who dislikes it faces a stark choice: he can either change what he abhors if possible, go somewhere else, or pipe down and make the best of it. I heartily recommend any of these choices to Gary.
Regarding the “nanny state”, this is one of the silliest of the right’s attempts to criticize by relabelling. In Europe, especially Britain – where it originated, I think – “nanny” is not a term of opprobrium. In fact, nannies are expert and respected caretakers to whom well to do Brits entrust their most precious possessions: their children. To call our society a nanny state is actually to give it an involuntary and backhanded compliment. If it actually fulfills its role in caring for people in time of need, then it’s doing exactly what a substantial and reliable majority of Americans expect it to do. I’m always amused, when conservatives cite Europe as a cautionary example. Failed economies like those of Spain and Greece are invariably mentioned, while the success stories of Scandanavia and other socialist democracies are pointedly overlooked. People who believe this nonsense generally have no idea of reality. If they like Social Security or Medicare (and most Americans do!) then they would probably love to live in a country where citizens are provided with government financed education, healthcare, retirement, unemployment insurance, paid vacation, sick leave, maternity and paternity leave, childcare … Yes, they pay a lot in taxes (redistributing the wealth!) but they lead a very comfortable and carefree life in exchange for that. As one Norwegian noted in a televised interview recently, while Americans spend their weekends working second jobs (or looking for work!), “we go sailing.”
@AJ Hill: Sir, you speak as if you are a true communist/socialist! So I would expect nothing less just because I disagree with you on the ills of our nation, and who and why are responsible for those ills that you think I need to pipe down and or bug out. What is the basic premise of socialism/communism? That the government will take care of its citizens, in return for the citizens giving up their own freedom of choice and responsibility in all areas so the government can decides what is best for its citizens. That also entails that the citizen will give as much of his/her salary as the government dictates.Why do all socialist states fail? Simple really. They promise cradle to the grave security like I have mentioned several times as you have said. What has led to our own nations massive budget deficit? We have made the same mistakes as all the other failed, and failing socialist states by trying to be everything for everyone. It’s not possible and never will be. I can’t speak for you sir, but I was raised to believe that the state owes me nothing, but that I owe the state. I owe the state taxes from my salary, and that when needed I will answer the call for military duty to protect the state so the state can provide myself, and fellow citizens basic and limited government. And it will in return let me and my family have the right to take risks, and to suceed and or fail. That there will be a basic social net for the old, disabled, and others. But that of utmost importance is my own individual responsibility, and freedoms. What I have learned from history and government in school and outside of school is that every society will eventually have the battle that we are currently engaged in our own society at the present time, and have been as a natural progression since our nation was formed. The basic questions since time began has been and will be “How much freedom is too much freedom.” How much government is too much government?” Why do all societies have this internal battle? And why do they all fail? And or become so mutated that they no longer even resemble the original society? One answer is that the citizens in the society in question has a dramatic change of beliefs over decades, and generations. Some of them cast aside the old values, morals, and traditions of the society, and realize that they can “have it all” with-out the sacrafice and perseverance of the older generations. That the values, and morals which led to the society being formed in the first place are diluted, and or made obsolete. Could this present mess had happened in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s etc……? No. The changes in individual beliefs about the powers, and functions of government were still changing until those old enough could gain positions of power to implement their so called enlightened, and progressive beliefs. Its why the traditional politicians kept their mouths shut for fear of being labeled and or losing their jobs. Kinda like how you wish I would just go away and let you continue to tell me and others how good slavery really is. I know slavery has its good points, never worry about the food, health care, jobs, unsafe products, killer diseases, dangerous highways, think what the state tells you, I mean the list is endless! But I was raised that utopia if it exists is after this life, not while I am in it. And I am not mocking slavery. I despise big government. Call it communism, socialism, slavery, they all mean the same thing to me. But you did bring up an excellent point, if you liberals love Europe so much why don’t you folks go there and live large, rich, and famous! Not that I want you too mind you. But I find it odd how just the movie stars, and the rich liberals go to live part time in Europe.
But really what is so bad about freedom!
@AJ Hill… just to give you a heads up, this is a “Most Wanted” post. Curt didn’t pen a word of it. The original article is by J.E. Dyer at HotAir, and the link inside Dyer’s article is to Tina’s, also at HotAir.
The “Most Wanted” posts are those six in the fields, and are generally just news stories penned by others, offered up for debate.
Now that we’ve squared away that going after Curt for these opinions is pretty darned unobservant (after all, bylines appear at the top of the linked articles), two points to this in particular. I’m not much dwelling on it because as I’ve repeatedly said to you, this chasm of belief is far too wide to traverse for any fruitful discussion because we start from two different places.
I’m not sure on what mountain top you live that isn’t part of the US, but I live in a Republic, not a democracy. This, of course, goes back to your personal, and erroneous, interpretation of that document you think has outlived it’s usefulness, the Constitution.
Secondly, our right as individuals to control how much the government takes, and what it’s spent on, is revisited every election year. Every couple of years, some one is up for federal office somewhere. So I have yielded NO rights to cast my ballot of disapproval.
Obviously, the US of A I live in is nothing like the US of A you live in.
MATA, great, and hail to the REPUBLIC of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
LET IT BE KNOWN ON THE 4 CORNERS OF AMERICA, let the young remember it forever
this is the the TRUTH, and let no one forget it; let no one diminish it’s power of CAPITALIST GREATNESS,
which has been the model and envy of many COUNTRIES of the WORLD, where so many of their citizens came from COMMUNIST, MARXIST, SOCIALIST dictatorial regime, to find the GOLDEN FREEDOM, at last ,
to create for the future of generations to be embellish and find wealth from those pionneers
of the beginning of the REPUBLIC.
@Gary G. Swenchonis: The problem I have with you, Gary, is not that you disagree with me. I come to this site anticipating disagreement and debate. I’m bothered by the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about and even more by the fact that you obviously don’t care about the truth.
Consider your statement that I suggested you (1) pipe down or (2) bug out. That’s in your second sentence. Did I actually say that? Let’s see. Here’s the direct quotation from my post:
So I actually suggested three possibilities, Gary, not just the two that you mention. Right? They are:
(1) change what you dislike, if possible, (2) bug out (to use your quaint wording) and (3) pipe down and make the best of it.
You misrepresented what I said, Gary. You left out an important option that I suggested. Why did you do that, Gary? Can’t you argue your point without lying about what I’ve said? I’d like an answer, please.
Why did you change what I said?
I won’t address the other problems in your post, because I know what will happen. You’ll duck this question, but I really want an answer. Why did you change what I said? Why did you leave out one of the three options I suggested? Do you think that was an honest thing to do?
Why did you change what I said?
AJ Hill, let me address your problem, the best thing for you is to pipe down and change your grammer and text, and the whole rhetoric that is so stinking for everyone here , you are like the rat that nobody want to touch in case they get the desease.
@AJ Hill:
Whilst you’re awaiting Gary’s response I’d like to invite you back over to the thread where you smeared and maligned US forces by claiming that they “have killed far more innocent people, Muslim and otherwise,than the terrorists have “ sans any evidence.
In fact, the only reasonably reliable source material you provided directly refutes your claim.
Strangely, you haven’t been able to find your way back over there to clear things up.
I’m bothered by the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about and even more by the fact that you obviously don’t care about the truth.
AYE,
HI, I just love the cool and collect way you always show to fix the problems here,
bye
I think it’s fascinating that you’ve seized upon the same misapprehension that so many right wing talk show hosts have, which is the assertion that we live in a republic, not a democracy. In point of fact we live in a democratic republic! The distinction isn’t moot. A republic is defined as a state in which government is conducted by a representative body like our Congress or the Roman Senate, but not all republics are the same. In the Roman Republic Senators were chosen by wealthy families. A similar system prevailed in Carthage. Centuries later the Italian city states of Florence, Siena, Pisa and others were technically republics, but not democratic. In the Soviet Republic representatives to the Supreme Soviet were chosen by influential members of the communist party. Then there are the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China. Clearly, if you imagine that our form of government is adequately defined as merely “a republic”, then you live on a strange mountaintop indeed. Ours is a democratic republic where every citizen gets to vote for representation. Any other characterization is simply inaccurate.
Regarding taxation and spending by the government, we have indeed surrendered our ability as individuals to make that determination. The fact that we vote as individuals is entirely different. Your second point is no point at all.
You’re right about the chasm between us. It’s a moral divide and those are seldom bridged by rationality. Fortunately those on your side of the chasm are vastly outnumbered by those on my side; it’s one of the reasons this is such a great nation. My side won the debate in the thirties. Battle lines are being drawn again on the same moral issues, and even though we lack another FDR to lead the fight, I have faith that we’ll win again.
I won’t be here, however, on this site or any other to celebrate the victory. The light of my life is going out and I have no heart for anything else.
A “moral” divide? Desperate attempt at some personal redemption there. However I believe most of us are used to your snide, condescending remarks by now. Your constant attempts to insult… masking it as credible debate… are always laughable. And you’ll excuse me if I dismiss your assertions as to the form of government, founded in this nation, as nothing more than wishful thinking. A perfect example of a democratic republic, as self described, was East Germany. Perhaps you’ll be happier there.
On the flip side, I do hope you savor every moment, and every cherished memory, with your love before she exits this world.
BTW, AJ… there is no comparison between the Roman Republic and the US republic. Another little feature of our republic you so like to diss and ignore… the authority of the States. Provincial governors and provincial laws of the Roman Empire bear no resemblance to the structure of the US as sovereign states, united under a central authority with (used to be) limited powers.
And yes.. you and cronies won the battle in the 30s. And for that, you may look around and revel in your welfare legislation accomplishments – both in ’35 (SSA) and ’65 (Medicare) – that is tanking the US economy. You did such a wonderful job… /sarc
@AJ Hill: What is all that gobbledegook you just said? Are you falling back on that old-time favorite liberal technique(one of many) to change the debate? Give me a break! Cry me a river!
Ok, let me explain what “bug out” means, it means go someplace else! Or to get out. I paraphrased ok? Did you not say go someplace else? And yes i do agree that if someone does not like something they have options, my option to our nation becoming a nanny state was to form a group to stop it where ever and when ever we could. By peaceful means, and through the power of the ballot box. Which I think we have. We also call, mail, email congresspeople, senators, representatives, go to their offices, attend meetings at the community level, etc…. to get our man/woman in office. We also don’t care if that person is a republican(Rhino) he/she has to go if they don’t start standing up for conservative values. Also, I don’t care what Europe is doing. I love American, or I should say the old traditional America. If I wanted to have what they got, I would live over there if it was so darn good. Which it is not. Why are you people always preaching cultural diversity to us? You want to wreck and destroy everything American, and to remake American into something she is not. Yet tell us that we are not diverse enough? Your so diverse yet yall don’t respect your own countrys traditions, values, and morals?We always hear how openminded liberals are supposed to be, but whenever someone disagrees with you people yall start screaming how we need to be taken off the air, or how unfair it is, or tell the individual in person to leave, and or pipe down. Just look at how angry your kind is right now at us Tea party people! And why? Because someone is actually standing up and fighting back now, and not alone either. But in groups. For years our politicians caved in to many of yalls hair brained ideas, or pie in the sky stuff. But now that things as are not going as smoothly for yall anymore the the stuff has hit the fan. Disclaimer: I know many republicans are standing up and fighting back too and respect that. I separated TP from republican because some republicans don’t want to be associated with the TP. I respect that as well. Thats one of our major weakness’es right now too in my opinion. A weakness which could hurt all of us. But its still evident in the polls that show many Americans are still looking for that right person. And that many people are turned off by professional politicians.
Gary G. Swenchonis,
I must in the future make you mad, because you give the best text to respond the opponent;
that was the most patriotic comment of you’res
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Thank-you Bees. I was extremely frustrated that’s for sure. And if AJ is reading its my hope that you return, I was not angry, but just frustrated with your needing me point out what you had previously stated. I argue with liberals in person quiet often, it’s a good anger management for me. I know that my views and beliefs may differ in some areas Bees, but if there is one thing I can agree on is that the disease of liberalism needs not to be contained, but stopped completely before it destroys this nation completely, and or remake it into something that neither you, nor I would even recognize as America. On the other posts by Skooum, and I think Curt was about forced vaccines, which I disagree with. But if someone ever developed a vaccine against the disease of liberalism I would make an exception for that one. Thanks again Bees. Your posts always give me hope that maybe we have not yet reached the point of no return in the battle against liberalism.
Gary G. Swenchonis,
I see you as my friend, and I too get frustrated when a troll attack my friend,
same as what you all did for me, even not long ago,
and your comment are very precious here at FA,
BYE
@MataHarley: Friend of mine tells me I should check out this web site. Says I won’t believe it. That aint half of it. What kind of nutty idea is this about the U.S. being a republic and not a democracy? Honey, it’s both. Don’t you know that? Who do those Congressmen and women represent? “We the people”, that’s who. There’s all kinds of republics where the people don’t get to choose. Like the Roman Republic. Like communist China. And like you say, East Germany, the Deutsche Demokratische Republik. That was no democracy, no matter what the name said. So AJ’s right, when he says that the U.S. isn’t just a republic and I’d say you’re just confused.
BTW, what do you think a “moral divide” is anyway? You get up on your high horse, when someone says there’s a moral divide between you, say he’s trying to insult you. That tells me you got no idea what those words mean. You think it means one person’s morally good and the other’s morally bad? Get yourself a dictionary, girl, before you start fighting over something like that. A moral divide is when people choose different sides because of their moral beliefs, like a legal difference is based on beliefs about the law, not necessarily who’s right or wrong. No wonder you come off sounding all angry.
@Jasmine:
Oh! …Jasmine!… Thank goodness you stopped by to help AJ out…
You see…he’s been really struggling since he arrived here.
For example, AJ besmirched and smeared US forces (#16) on this thread and then, once his leftist talking point was soundly refuted (#32) through the very source material he presented to support it…well, the strangest thing happened…he ran off.
Yep, that’s right.
He didn’t bother to stand and defend his position. Nor did he do the honorable thing and withdraw his scurrilous accusation.
I even reminded him in #9 of this thread that he had unfinished business to tend to.
Why he would avoid doing the right thing on that?
I’m bothered by the fact that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and even more by the fact that he obviously doesn’t care about the truth.
It’s almost like he’s trying to run a bluff to avoid admitting that he was wrong. Again.
While the two of you are awaiting Mata’s response, perhaps you could assist him with this piece of unfinished business…feel free to lead him by the hand if you must…
@Jasmine:
Jasmine/AJ Hill….either cease the sockpuppet act or you will be banned. First and last warning.
I see that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree when it comes to understanding the Founders and Framers intents and creation of the Constitution in the AJ Hill household, Jasmine. And assuming AJ was referring to you when saying he was losing the light of his life, I am sorry for your medical woes.
That said, I hardly think the vast emotions you must be feeling allow me to give you a pass for your attempt to tag team your hubby in misinformation. Nor do I believe I should necessarily find myself extra benevolent with your insulting attitudes. But then, the apple doesn’t fall far from the household tree in that aspect either.
Perhaps while you two are trying to twist the history of this nation’s creation into something that fits your socialist Bernie Sanders’ vision for the country, you might want to consider the Constitution itself… specifically Article 4, Section 4 INRE authority of the States.
The authorities of the States, and the powers of the citizenry for local legislation outside of the central government and opinions of citizens that live outside of each state is why the Framers and Founders intended for a Republic of states that were united by a central government with VERY limited powers.
You might also want to ponder this from a legal dictionary:
But let’s go back to where your hubby needed to be schooled. In addition to railing against Curt for a post he didn’t write (easily discernible by both linked article bylines and blockquote text), he said this:
We do not live in a democracy. Never have. And if you want to oversimplify the various versions of both Republics and Democracies into something as simple as the citizens choosing their elected representatives, you are even less bright than your husband on American History, and the intent and structure of our government in general.
William H. Huff (aka Lexrex) has put it quite well with this vague starting point in using such terms when not stated as “types” vs “forms” of government.
In the way your other half used the word, “democracy”, he was unarguably incorrect. It’s also incorrect to describe our complex political structure in such elementary terms… i.e. democracy… simply because citizens have a ballot box.
Nor can any single states’ citizens, or the nation at large, dictate to another single state what laws there should be for their locality. There is not only a separation of powers at the central and state level, there is also guaranteed States’ authority that is reserved unto the states solely… away from the federal authority.
Were this nation a pure and direct democracy, elections would be national, not state. Populated areas would hold sway over less populated areas. The Founders realized that not only is this detrimental to the rights of minority populated areas, but that the concentration of power would swing to heavily into urban areas. Thus the reason that Francis Bellamy penned the first 1892 Pledge of Allegiance with the original language of:
It’s bad enough to consider “a democracy” on a national level when we can already see the lessening protection of individuals in many States that are dominated by two to four large cities – running roughshod over the rest of the state’s population. Urban sprawl is not healthy for rural denizens when it comes to politics. Oregon is one of those, with the heaviest concentration of population in Salem, Portland and Eugene. Your Colorado state is dominated by Denver and your yuppie suburbanites (ahem…) in the surrounding hills, with perhaps Grand Junction and Colorado Springs adding on. I daresay that those in the smaller towns on the west side of the Rockies, or north towards Colorado Springs don’t feel they have much power compared to your Denver metro area because of the sheer numbers of city dwellers.
Ponder this… to consider a direct democracy at the national level, it would come down to 7-12 heavily populated states – most on the eastern seaboard – ruling the entire nation. Just how “democratic” is that? 7-12 states choosing for 50?
But that question always inserts a bit of a hair up the butt for the purists when asked.
As for the power of “we the people”…. that power comes around only during elections. Once elected, the representatives are under no obligation to vote outside of what they believe best. Were we the “democracy” you and hubby claim, the Social Security Act would never have passed. Neither would O’healthcare. Both of these bills were wildly unpopular with the citizens, yet Congress and the Admin branch passed them over the nation’s objections. In a pure and direct democracy, where “we the people” control government with majority rule, O’healthcare would have been repealed.
So much for “we the people” and majority opinions. Then again, the only way a genuine majority opinion can be obtained is by a nationwide vote of every eligible voter on any given issue…. rather like an encompassing referendum. Federal laws preclude a national referendum.
So I’d say if you want to now soften the blow of your spouse’s lack of knowledge, and erroneous statement, by watering down the specifics of the nation’s creation into something as simple as “hey, we vote!”, then do so if it makes you happy and makes for a calm and congenial household. On a higher level of debate, you and your husband are incorrect.
Oh yes, Jasmine…. the debate of the structure of the US Constitution and our founding is not based on “morality”…. it is based on study of American History and sundry documents left to us, revealing the intents and debates of the day.
Whether the US of A was created as a republic or democracy is not a “moral” argument, debate or divide… unless, of course, someone feels that anything less than our founding as a pure and direct, majority rule, democracy is immoral.
I have no problems with language. You, however, do.
@MataHarley: You say AJ and me are married? And Curt says we’re the same.? Yeh, AJ told me what sock puppet means. You should get your detective acts together. Or not. AJ thinks you’re funny. I think you’re creeps. Go screw yourselves.
If you’re the “light of AJ’s life”, that explains a lot about his social skills, Jasmine.
Clue, dearie… Curt, Aye and I are authors. We all know your IP address, which happens to be identical to AJ’s. Thus why Aye and Curt believe you to be AJ the sock puppet. I just happen to remember him mentioning his sadness in his personal life. Therefore, you are either someone who he allows to use his computer, or a member of his family. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as to being the love of his life. If you are, it almost makes me feel sorry for him…. almost.
BTW, nice comeback to debate points. Perhaps you’ll return on AJ’s computer when you can actually focus, and perhaps gain control of your emotions. Or not… I don’t care. One of you in the Hill family is one more than I find inviting in any fashion.
who is talking about moral divide?
THE REPUBLIC was not founded on MORAL DIVIDE, this just started since the 2008 ELECTION,
and the MORAL DIVIDE degenerated into a multiple moral divide coming straight
from THE CRUMBLING DEMOCRAT PARTY!!!
you just have to hear the words they use in their speeches,
take for instances the hell with those TEA PARTY, which are made up from AMERICAN FAMILY VERY RESPECTABLE who gather to expose the DEMOCRATS BEHAVIOR WHICH IS ACTING AGAINST THE POSITION WHICH THEY WHERE ELECTED FOR BY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN LIED TO,
AND the same people use their legitimate RIGHT to gather and publicly educate the one who lost the reason why they are in the WHITE HOUSE UNDER A BIG SALARY AND PROTECTED BY MANY LAWS OF NONE OF THE PEOPLE EVER WILL BENEFIT, THOSE ELECTED TO SERVE HAS BECOME DICTATORS OF THE PEOPLE INSTEAD, AND BRING SO MUCH RESTRAINT UNDER THE MANY NAMES THEY USE AS EXCUSES TO FOOL THE PEOPLE WHILE THEY ENRICH THEIR POCKET WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING BACK AT THE FAMILIES UNDER STRICK BUDGETS, WITHOUT LOOKING BACK AT THE BUSYNESSES UNDER SO MUCH CONTROL to choke them into impotence of functionning fully, and those in GOVERNMENT HAVE THE GALL TO BE IN BED WITH THE POWERFULL UNIONS WHICH HAVE EXTENDED THEIR POWER WAY OUTSIDE THEIR BOUNDARY OF THEIR INTENT OF THEIR BEGINNING, REVERSING THEIR ACTIONS MEANT TO HELP THE LABOUR FORCE OF THEIR SOURCE INTO A VERY DESTRUCTIVE FORCES THAT IS NEFARIOUS FOR AMERICA ‘S FREEDOM OF ALL CHANCES TO ACHIEVE THE SUCCESS OF THEIR CREATIVE DREAM.
YES THAT MORAL DIVIDE SPLIT AMERICA IN MANY PARTS THAT WAS NOT MEANT BY THE FRAIMERS WHO NEVER EXPECTED THE PEOPLE TO LET IT SLIDE SO LOW INTO THE OPEN VOID
COMING IF NOT STOP ABRUPTLY BY THE PEOPLE ON 2012