Click here for 100.7 WFLA's Optimum Health, Naturally
Below is from inside the belly of the beast. I have pasted two e-mail I received last week. They come fromt he same person. I put them both there because my response is in reply to both notes. I have redacted the name of the listener/writer.
WARNING: This is long.
I listen to you every morning on my way into work. That’s right, I work and I voted for President Obama. I connected with what you said the other day about writing emails and not sending them. I do the exact same thing! However that actually spurred me to finally send one of those and here it is. I, like many other hard working, educated and informed professionals are offended by the right’s continued attack on Obama voters. You inaccurately echo the right’s assertion that everyone who supported President Obama is lazy, uninformed or receiving government assistance. That is simply not the case.
I follow politics and world events very closely. I am a 50 year old married, college educated professional male and non-affiliated voter earning a six figure salary. I paid off my student loans within ten years, I have never taken public assistance of any kind (I didn’t even receive a stimulus check), I pay all of my taxes (I wish at the 14% rate!), run a small business, own my own home and pay my mortgage on-time (and we are not upside down because we bought what we could afford). I have no other debts and I have worked my entire life since high school and through college.
The main reason I and many other people in Tallahassee and elsewhere voted for the President is the strong belief that it took George W. Bush two terms to get us into this mess and Obama should be given two terms to try and get us out of it. I was as shocked and disappointed then, as you are now, that Bush won a second term after the mess he actually created. You and other Republicans are angry with the President because he couldn’t fix the mess in one term but did everything possible to make sure he did not succeed, not caring at all about the Country. I saw what happened when the Bush tax cuts where implemented and then two unfunded wars started (one completely unnecessary). President Obama was handed a severe recession (heading towards depression) and a 1 trillion deficit on day one, while Bush had a surplus and booming economy when he came into office. The great tax cut experiment is over. Now is NOT the time for another huge tax cut for the rich and a huge military buildup neither of which we can afford or need. The majority of Americans sorted out the truth for themselves.
Glad I got that off my chest! Sincerely, Mike
Sorry again (I’m sure this will thrill you) but I am Jewish but not a blind supporter of Israel. Israel already has nuclear weapons and we send way too much money their way for the little influence we have towards real peace negotiations. They have fist line American (tax payer funded) weapons and the “aggressors” have rocks and slingshots. I do not believe Iran is a true nuclear threat to them or anyone else. I think Pakistan is a much graver, immediate and proven threat yet we actually send them millions in “aid”. Iran would cease to be a country and would be obliterated if they tried to use chemical or nuclear weapons against anyone. Would we even care if they didn't have oil? Can’t you see it’s just an excuse to start another war we don’t need and can’t afford? Why is there always money for war? I think in many ways Ron Paul has it right.
One last thing to get off my chest in honor of “free stuff Friday”. I find it a bit amusing and strange that Republicans are claiming that Obama ran a dirty and negative campaign to win re-election. Isn’t Karl Rove the founder and father of negative and dirty politics? I remember the John Kerry campaign and the swift boat attack ads. Republicans called Kerry a rich and out of touch elitist. Put aside you blinders for a moment. Don’t you find that just a bit on the hypocritical side? Are you claiming that team Obama “swift boated” poor defenseless Mitt Romney? Also, John McCain saw ten years of Romney’s tax returns and decided not to pick him for his running mate. Think there was anything interesting in there during the Bain years? Obama had to show his “papers” but past tax returns are off limits? Again, see any hypocrisy there? Any at all? The funny things is, if McCain had picked Romney as his running mate instead of Palin, I would have voted for that ticket and I think McCain would have been running for a second term and not Obama.
I guess this was my second political email! I’ll keep listening. I listen to Sean and Rush too…
My reply is a monster...
First, thanks for writing the note. It's my turn to weigh-in since you took the time I owe the courtesy of a response.
You wrote quite a bit and I have great difficulties with much of it. So, bear with me. It may not be an exhaustive answer to each point, but I assure you I have one for each point. I just HATE typing. I will work from the bottom up, so it makes as much sense as I can muster.
First, good for you on your financial discipline, hard, work, etc. Your story is like many in our nation; it used to be the norm. It is not any longer. It creates, to me, an even greater puzzlement as to why you would ever vote for Obama. First, never, ever confuse George W. Bush for a conservative. Second, you spoke a remarkable point, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not, that almost makes the entire argument against your voting logic. Bush certainly did some damage; did not cut spending, expanded government intrusion and programs, started the "stimulus". He was wrong and I properly pointed it out. But, as you stated his racking up of additional debt took eight years. Obama eclipsed the horror in just four. In half the time he has raised our debt by an even greater measure. He has presided over the largest single year deficits in our nation's history and he did so in four consecutive years.
The President knew full well what he was getting into. W. Bush asked for and received the first round of boneheaded stimulus; the second, while W. was in office was at the request of Obama. It was a Presidential favor, from one to the other. It was a colossal mistake. W. was finished with what was he felt was needed without spending all of the first round, but he went ahead. Bad mistake. Can you honestly tell yourself that it has worked? The GM bailout has failed, not succeeded. The only reason GM is afloat is because the government is buying their cars/trucks/fleet vans, etc. Regardless, the best gauge is the stock price. Taxpayers have lost more than .50 cents on the dollar. The President, with full knowledge of the economic condition of the nation, promised unemployment numbers that would never reach the levels they did and that, buy now, would be below 5.4%. He promised ObamaCare would lower premiums; just the opposite has happened. He promised no lobbyists; he hired a ton of them. He promised better times, the average middle-class worker has $4,000 less in annual pay and more are food stamps than ever. The fiscal numbers do not lie. Additionally, he promised transparency: ObamaCare passed in violation of a pledge to allow it to be read first and it was passed without ONE single Republican vote in the middle of the night bipartisan?); Fast and Furious was an illegal act and should be prosecuted; Benghazi is an utter catastrophe.
As for the Republicans...you are simply wrong. The President could do anything in his first two years. ANY-THING. Heck, they can't even get a budget passed. Not one single Democrat voted for the President's budget over the last few years and the Democrats in the Senate have not passed a budget of their own. Just what are Republicans to do? He shoves through the largest tax increase (dare we even go through the whole "It's not a tax" argument? - He flat lied about that, didn't he?) in history w/o one vote or consideration from the GOP, no budget, by-passes Congress with executive orders and you think it was the GOP?
For the record...tax cuts bring record revenues to government coffers. It is not an experiment, it is a fact codified by JFK himself.
Now, let's talk about the "rich". First, who are you or anyone to tell another person how much of their money they should keep? Remember, the government has no money or assets. All of it, every darn penny came from taxpayers. No, not from evil business because business (not even yours) pay taxes. People do. Tell me, how do you define "fairness"? I think fairness is equal sacrifice. Because if there is equal sacrifice, everyone has skin in the game and the people that have more offer more in dollars, but the same sacrifice. THAT is fairness. The definition of your chosen leader is what he deems to fair. If you buy into that notion, then you are lost. Then you believe in the concept of punishing success. Feel free to check out the socialist nations of the world and tell me how that is working out. I am far from rich. However, I will never, ever begrudge a person their success. The Warren Buffetts of the world are so sorry..instead of simply writing a check to the government, since they feel so guilty for paying too little (even though they go out of their way to grab every single tax break they can find) they whine about the rich not paying their "fair share". Right now, the "rich" pay anywhere from 70-80% of the nation's federal income tax bill. What, and that is fair? Delusional is the apt word.
The irony of Buffett complaining about his poor little secretary having to pay 35% is the amount the woman had to make in order to be in that ridiculous tax bracket. She's not some minimum wage typist. She's pulling down up to $500K a year. Good Lord, does no one consider that to be a bit outrageous? The guy dodges paying more taking every deduction in the book, being paid through capital gains instead of a normal salary and he has the temerity to complain. Typical of liberals...he wants everyone else to pay for his guilty conscience.
You give "people" way too much credit. There's not one financial indication of success. I submit that few did any thinking whatsoever. No one has ever been reelected under such dismal economic realities. The majority of the electorate are completely unaware. When nearly half of the nation pays NO federal income tax, have no skin in the game, and enough others have no problem with that simple fact; we have the result of the election.
The "wealthy" pay a ridiculous sum of their income to the government. 35%, give or take. Why? Why should a person's hard work, innovation, and industry require that they give more of it away? Why, because someone else says, "It's too much!" Let me tell you Mike, one day that line of thinking will step on something you hold near and dear, then you might understand. But, by then it will be too late. If, we are going down that path, why stop at 35-38%. Why not 45%? Maybe 55%? Let's really roll back the clock and tell people that they cannot keep any of it? You work and produce; all goes to the state; the state will determine what you should be paid. You may think that's ridiculous but that is EXACTLY what you are advocating. What frightens me more than I can express is that you likely do not see it. You will, I promise you that you will.
It's already started...businesses are beginning layoffs and firings due to ObamaCare's certainty. Yeah, those evil business owners...wanting to make a profit. How dare they, right?
As for the Middle-East...I would be more inclined to your position (with the exception of always, repeat, always standing with Israel) if we would develop our own resources. So, we'll leave that alone since Obama has publicly stated that his goal is to make energy obscenely expensive. In the short-term, without changes in the EPA and energy policy in general, we are screwed.
As for the campaigning...you mistake me for someone who thinks highly of Karl Rove. I think he's a troll. As for the campaign...Obama's campaign was effective and Romney was too nice of a guy. He did not fight fire with fire. He lost. He was not, is not a conservative. He's a heck of a lot more accomplished than Obama ever was, is, or ever will be, but that's beside the point. We could care less about the required skills for the job at hand. We hired a guy as President who has voted "present" more than he has ever voted "yay" or "nay". Romney's tax returns is another smoke screen you bought into. It's about principle. He released everything that was required to be released. Why in the world should he allow himself to be bullied into releasing anything more? Because Harry Reid says so? McCain was a weak candidate; Romney infinitely better, at least for the times we find ourselves in, but not the best either. I think there is a vast difference in the requests for records...but the bottom line is that the President wrote books about his accomplishments and there is simply no proof. I think there is ample evidence of Romney's success.
Sorry for the "manifesto", but since you wrote to me; I wrote back. Any future notes will be brief, I promise.
I really appreciate your note, though I clearly disagree. I also appreciate you listening to the program. My job is to present information, my opinions, and hopefully, provoke some thought.