Original article published here.
Following a 'shooting' at the White House, GOP candidate Herman Cain is now being protected by the Secret Service. He says that he has received numerous threats. This has been confirmed by both Homeland Security and Cain's campaign. Having read the comments on articles about this, it seems the biggest problem citizens have with this is that it is funded by the government. In other words, tax-payer dollars.
Many comments on CNN's article sing the same tune:
- "I resent that my tax money is being spent this way. Let him pay for his own protection; I think he can afford it."
- "our tax dollars at work. All this for someone that doesn'thave a clue. They can keep an eye on him so he won't be able to throw himself at women."
- "Cain, using government resources. I thought the GOPers were for less government, next thing you will here is that he is using one of our highways or relaxing in one of our government owned parks."
- "The guy is a multi millionaire! Why are we the tax payers paying for his protection!?!"
- "I understand why a major presidential candidates need Secret Service protection but considering how Republicans keep talking about "government spending"... It seems to me that his wealthy self can afford security out of his pocket..."
These comments are interesting on their own, but when the next article is about Congress' Super Committee, still in a deadlock... well, they become more credible. The super committee is attempting to create a plan that will reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Their deadline? Monday. Although the actual deadline is Wednesday, this plan must be publicly announced on Monday to be "evaluated for its fiscal impact by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office..." And they are still butting heads over it as I type, because they have pledged to work over the weekend. The super committee is evenly split between the Democratic and Republican parties. In light of this, it is unsurprising that we as a nation are once again in a position of hanging off of our seats, praying to everything holy that we do not miss the deadline. This is not the first time - as everyone knows. Isn't it the third, this year alone? - nor will it be the last.
Republicans are fighting to make the Bush tax-cuts permanent - the Democrats struck it down, and it is currently set to expire in 2012. Democrats are fighting for this budget cut to include increasing taxes on the wealthy - the Republicans are refusing.
This is basically 'same thing, different day'. This follows Thursday's blame-the-other party, in which Republicans slammed Democrats for being unreasonable because they would not bend further in regards to spending cuts, and Democrats slammed Republicans for being unreasonable because they would not tax the wealthy.
Can we stop for a moment and figure this out? For the 90% of Americans out there who do not make millions of dollars a year, I'd like you to stop screaming your party's name in blind cheer and think. When you're old, when you're 70 and older, it is Social Security that is going to be paying you to live. Even if you've managed to save up a big chunk of money, even if you're satisfied because you'll be able to leave a decent inheritance -- Social Security can help take care of you, while you worry about your children. Medicare is what is going to be paying for you to stay healthy.
Somehow it baffles me that people do not see this. These programs were designed to keep our elders happy, healthy, and living decently. Once you're at 65 or 70, you've lived your life, and most just want to relax for the next decade or two, and play with their grandchildren.
An increase in taxes for the wealthy serves everybody. Yes, even those being taxed. How does it serve them? By bolstering our economy. By strengthening the programs that help America be America. When the economy is stronger and more people have more money to buy things, you will make up what you lose in taxes. And really, how many millions or billions do you need to be happy? Your goal shouldn't be to make as much money as you possibly can - it should be to make enough money to keep you, your family, and your future family happy. You don't need to be able to buy a country to be happy.
President Obama is not a brilliant President. He is not JFK, he's not FDR, he's not Abraham Lincoln, he's not even Bill Clinton. He has failed in fixing our economy. Why? My personal view is because he's a wimp. As Jesse LaGreca says, as well as well-known Sociologists, the current Democratic Party is simply caving to the Republican Party. Obama is, in layman's terms, a wimp. However, he is fighting more for the people than the GOP candidates are. The GOP are serving the rich and wealthy. The upper 1%.
Listen to Occupy Wall Street's message. Listen to their cries for accountability, for equality. Who are Occupy Wall Street? They're not the hippies or the drug-addicts. They're you and me, they're American citizens, fed up with government bail-outs. They're fed up with being fed the short stick simply because they weren't born wealthy. In OWS, I met with a MIT PhD graduate. Do you think he's poor? Probably not. I met with a Wall Street exec, who was protesting WITH Occupy Wall Street. Is he poor? Definitely not. OWS is not made of poor people, or people who are too lazy to get a job. It's made of people who have jobs. It's made of people who are exactly like you and I. But these people are willing to fight for their country, rather than sit at home and watch the Jets game, claiming that someone else will do it for you.
No one will do it for you if you don't do it yourself.