I usually brush off critical responses to my posts and columns I write for the STAR, but today I received one from a classmate who has always had a different view of politics than me and I have shrugged them off, but this one bothers me. What is more troublesome is I think a lot of people think like him.
Challenge #1 was he didn’t think the president was working for the middle class, that he was trying to control our lives. I guess that depends if you see the glass half full or half empty; I see it half full.
Granted there can be too much government, but I have always believed we can’t exist without government help. We couldn’t afford roads, the bridges we cross, school buildings, teachers, healthcare, Medicare, have social security without government help.
Sports stadiums are built with government money, businesses are lured to states with government money, dumps are maintained by the state and local governments. Yes, I know it’s our money, but are you going to be the one going around with a tin can collecting money and organizing all these necessities we enjoy, build and maintain them?
It was ok when Obama was running for office; the people after being cut short for 8 years seemed to like his idea of helping out the middle class. Now with no support from the Republican House he hasn’t delivered, suddenly he doesn’ support the middle class; really?
On the other hand my classmate is falling all over Republican candidates who: run out on their wives, wants an open marriage, was forced to resign as Speaker of the House for ethics violations; one who wants to banish condoms, the other who is among the rich 1%, pays less in income taxes than most Americans, has a Swiss bank account, and money in banks in the Cayman Island, all to avoid paying income taxes in this country that could produce jobs, and says he’s not concerned about the working man and he doesn’t see any need to change the tax structure; these are the people who are going to look out for the middle class?
I don’t think so; maybe my classmates income is up there with Romney’s. To his credit, many people are thinking the same as he, and I just don’t get it!
I find many who don’t have a love for Democrats are hung up on the abortion issue, especially in the Bible Belt of Sussex County. That’s their choice, the same as those who are pro-choice; I respect both side and have pros and cons on the subject.
My problem is Republicans don’t want to take care of the children of the unmarried mothers after the child gets here; they want absolutely nothing to do with single parents; no sex education, no birth control clinics, WICK, monies to send single parents to school so they can get off welfare and be productive, etc.
Nothing else matters; for many it’s a one-issue election, abortion or the fear the government is going to take your b-b gun away, which is another falsehood pushed by the NRA to keep their membership up.
You can’t have it both ways; you either allow the babies to come forth and take care of them or stop it; tough. The rich have ways to protect their children from an unwanted pregnancy, why not offer it to others. Or is it just a white-collar crime?
But this is another column.
Then my classmate suggests I have changed my tune not nailing Al Gore and John Kerry for their wealth when they ran for president. To my mind the wealth of both of them never came close to matching Romney. And wealth was never an issue in their campaign because they didn’t belittle the middle class, had proposed programs to help the middle class, and never stated the income tax standard was fair. I also don’ know of any off-shore bank accounts.
So, if you all think the abortion issue will put food on your table, get you a job, keep a roof over your head, take care of the infrastructure in this country, then by all means vote Republican, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this election.