ACORN

[kandrathe]

So a congress member had to learn the meaning of your Constitution from someone working in the fields, who used words like 'legitimate purposes'? Isn't it more likely that the man was just envious about the money used for the people in Georgetown?

Probably not. Back then, in school, they used to memorize the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Gettysburg Address. Other notable works of the founding fathers were required reading, like Washington's farewell address and the Federalist papers. My mother, born on a farm, was taught in a one room school house, then went to one of the most prestigious secondary schools before attending college. I still have her school books, and their curriculum was tough. Twice as tough as the current low bar pablum our children are taught. Maybe that is a difference between Europe and America, as there is no class difference between the professor and the farmer. Some of my farmer relatives are among the wealthiest people in the state.

He was right in one thing, though. It's not about the amount, but about the choices that must be made. When there are many needs, who is going to decide where the money is spent?

Yes, and also where the limit would be as well. It seems there is an insatiable appetite by the government to separate people from their wealth and distribute it as "they" see fit.

It would be nice if the Constitution provided a useful list of priorities, but this is not the case. And even then, such a list would be probably be out-dated by now. Then again, I never read the Constitution.

You should read it, and it does make a list of priorities, being to support a citizens rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Does it mention freeing the people of Iraq from dictators?

Only if one misconstrues that invading Iraq was done to defend America.

That's where politicians get in. Someone has to do the ungrateful job of taking decisions that will never make everyone happy, like figuring out what to do with tax money. You can blame them for making 'bad' choices, but at least they have the courage to make them.

Is it courage that diverts more debt money for home state pork projects? I think it is more akin to graft and corruption. Is it courage to get elected by promising hand outs for everyone? In this regard I am very against Barrack. He says "I'm only going to increase taxes for those making over $250K". Why? Because they are not taxed enough? It is also a deception, since he is pushing for increasing the social security tax on everyone and removing the cap (currently you are only taxed on the first $102K). Since they spend social security as a part of the general budget, it exists only as an illusion so that people do not realize their taxes are actually 15.3 percent higher.

I think courage would be a person who stepped in and challenged the concept that governments have the right to become involved in any activities unrelated to the protection of individual rights. A courageous person would act to return the US to a government that would exist only to ensure the right to free speech and action, the right to own property, and the right to engage in voluntary contractual arrangements with other individuals. Courage would be to take a firm stand that no individual should be forced by the State, or another person, to relinquish any portion of his or her life or property for the benefit of another person.

I want to vote for the person who will go in and cut the federal budget in half. To blazes with balancing the budget. Let's move straight to paying off the debt.