National

Jon, what exactly is your beef with Al Franken? Please tell me something he said that was terribly dishonest and offensive. Frankly, he's brilliant in my opinion, and uses humor cleverly to make his point. But I'm willing to listen to our objections with regard to him.

Of course he's humorous to you. You agree with his politics.

I could say the same thing about Hugh Hewitt from my perspective, Cathleen. What's the problem there?

And yes, I disagree (in part) with your relatives assessment.

"Democrats believe there is a sufficient amount to go around and believe everyone should have some of it."

The above statement is a liberal spin of reality. It should read as follow:

Democrats believe there is sufficient amount to go around by confiscating from the hard working people of this country and believe everyone with a sense of entitlement and not being responsible for themselves should have some of it.

Yeah. That's pretty much how I feel about it too.

However, there are some government funds that have helped me immensely. Federal Student Loans got me through college. Part of it I did not have to pay back because of Cal Grants, but I had to maintain a certain GPA to get as much as I did...and I still have to pay back the remainder of the loans. The point is that I have never received something for nothing, and I don't feel I'm entitled to it either.

On the corporate end, another good chunk of the money was paid for by my employer, who received tax credits as well, but I had to stay there at my job for a while to qualify. I worked one full-time job and two part time jobs, attended school at night, and basically didn't sleep for four years.

My wife did the same thing, and she was a single mother at the time!

Since I don't know who Hugh Hewitt is, I can't tell you any opinion on him. With regard to this notion that Democrats are in favor of entitlement...that's a mischaracterization. I worked my behootie off as well, Jon. And I did it with two degrees that I funded almost entirely with my own money while I worked full time and covered all of my own living expenses and left school with a grand total of 10,000 in student loands, the last payment I made this last year. But I'm grateful for the public university where I got my degrees and the opportunity to obtain student loans to fund my education. But I'm curious, what are the "entitlement" programs that Dems are in favor of that should be eliminated? I'm a rehab counselor...anyone that has a disability in California, regardless of their income, can apply for voc rehab services to go back to work. Once employed, the average consumer of services pays the state of california back within his/her first two years of working for the services received to return to work. Is this an entitlment program in your opinion (it isn't...must have a significant enough disability to be eligible). Social security has two programs to provide cash benefits to people with disabilities...SSI and SSDI, with medical insurance thrown in as well. Are these considered entitlement programs that should be eliminated? These are just two examples from my world. Please tell me more.

And still, what does Al Franken say that is a problem? What about what he says is offensive.

For you selfish bastards: In many civilizations, the needs of the few are taken care according to the means of the many. Societies which fail to make provision for the well being of the helpless, children, single mothers, the ill or disabled, are doomed.

Democrats do not advocate redistribution like Robin Hood, though that seems to give cover to those who do not recognize any legitimate social welfare activity at all. Those who say "let the churches do it" couldn't care less that the need far exceeds such a limited channel.

If the alternative to charity and compassion is self-interest over the public good, let's call it like it is. No matter how much money you make, you are expected to pay your share. This is, for all practical purposes, defined by your affinity group in congress. Thus, when the Republicans control 90% of government, we end up with a few companies vastly better off by virtue of illegal no bid contracts paying billions for shoddy service, most of which is being sheltered illegally off shore to evade taxation.

Only under such leadership do we have preferential tax breaks to only those extremely wealthy at the direct expense of those first mentioned. Balance is the key and we have all seen the demonstration provided by the minority party over the past decade of how they view their responsibility to our society. The democrats managed to reduce the size of government, balance the budget, reduce the deficit, provide for social security 50 years into the future and yet this is characterized by Bizarro World descriptions that have nothing to do with the facts.

The funny observation already made is some of the most vociferous advocates for privileged treatment by the tax code recieve no benefit from such favor. They argue against their own interests unwittingly, or knowingly due to aspirations of recieving public largess someday. So much for the entrepreneurial spirit.

We do have among us some very wealthy people who do not share the robber baron mentality. Unfortunately, most are small minded and disinterested in the larger social issues. It's all about how can I get or keep more than the chumps who actually contribute.

Gem says: "Democrats believe there is sufficient amount to go around by confiscating from the hard working people of this country and believe everyone with a sense of entitlement and not being responsible for themselves should have some of it."

Jon answers: "Yeah. That's pretty much how I feel about it too."

Gem and Jon, It is so good that you feel that you can speak for all Democrats.

Jon then goes on to cite one very liberal spending program that benefitted him personally and another that benefitted him, his wife, and his employer.

So provided that the confiscated money helps Jon directly. It's okay.

Democrats believe there is sufficient amount to go around by confiscating from the hard working people of this country and believe everyone with a sense of entitlement and not being responsible for themselves should have some of it.

This is a mind-bogglingly ignorant statement.

In the Republican era, there has been a huge wealth transfer from the lower 50% to the wealthiest 1%. The average non-supervisory worker earns less today in inflation adjusted dollars than was earned in 1970. In that time, CEO pay was 30 times the average worker pay. Today it is more than 300 times the average worker pay.

Inequalities of pay are roughly equal to what they were in the 1920s - all the gains of the middle class in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s have been wiped out. Income stratification is far more severe, and the chances of economic mobility (rising out of poverty to the middle class or out of the middle class to the strata above) are small and shrinking smaller.

Gem's ignorant comment about taxation and social spending reveals a belief that the rich have gotten all they have without the help of society and all the rules, regulations, infrastructure spending that created the wealth.

One isolated example -- the publicly funded airport that permitted Sam Walton's operation to go global. Another -- the civic eminent domain taking of the land GW Bush needed for his baseball stadium, and the taxpayer dollars used to build that stadium.

We're so used to everything being skewed in favor of the wealthy, that any attempt to even things out is considered theft.