Tea Parties

[Archon]

Here are a few reasons I don’t want the government in charge of health care:

I’ve got some really good friends who currently serve in the military, and though they love it, they will be the first to tell you that for all the positives, the military is terribly inefficient. This is no big secret. The tales of military bureaucracy, wasteful spending, redundant programs, and limitless paperwork are the stuff of legend.

FEMA didn’t exactly do a stellar job in New Orleans. Granted, they were tasked with a job that was outside the scope of their capabilities and they were hampered by a corrupt local government and a city full of people who were simply waiting for the government to solve their problems. But that’s just another example of a government trying to help.

Most of the intelligence agencies exhibit territorial behavior and an inability to work together. I understand that perhaps this mentality is changing, but it’s one more example of government mucking things up and being needlessly stubborn.

The government does run some health care programs, specifically for veterans. Maybe you remember the scandal about a year ago over the horrible conditions and poor treatment at several government run medical facilities like Walter Reed. And don’t forget, we do have some aspects of universal health care already. No one is turned away at public hospitals. If they don’t have insurance, tax payers pick up the tab.

I work for a non-profit organization that does a lot of work with public school so I’ve got some first hand knowledge about the current state of our public education system. It’s jacked up, especially for inner-city schools. Good teachers often can’t tenured because of asinine rules, bad teachers can’t be fired because of powerful unions, kids can’t be disciplined because of litigation happy parents, and in many schools even rudimentary teaching happens much less than you would expect.

So, no, I don’t want the same organization in charge of these programs and agencies in charge of my health care.

Moving along...

I really don’t think it’s the government’s job to “solve problems that individuals cannot solve on their own.” I’m just going to respond very briefly to these. I can go into more detail if you would like.

Natural disasters: like New Orleans? I’ve been though a few hurricanes and private citizens, private companies, and charities, were vastly more effective than the government. Most people don’t know this, but the Southern Baptist Convention actually has the second largest relief agency in the US (behind the Red Cross). I’ve seen their work first hand and they are much more efficient, effective, and compassionate than the government run agencies. And our tax dollars don’t pay for any relief work they do. Same for the Red Cross. I’ve got great respect for organizations like that.

Health care: see above.

Global warming: the world has been cooling for the last several years. The climate works in cycles. Man made global warming is myth. The truth is out there.

Helping the poor: these numbers may be a little off, but if you want, I can look them up: Obama gave about 1.5% of his income to charity; Biden gave less than 1%. If liberals are so egalitarian, why don’t they give more to charities? I bet if we did some digging, we would find that conservative give a much higher percentage of their incomes to charities than liberals. I can look into that, but I’m pretty sure I’m right on that one. Again, private organizations carry the lion’s share of the work with the poor. In the course of my job, I’ve worked with clothing exchanges, food banks, job assistance centers, homeless shelters, rehab facilities, literacy programs, and other such organizations. All of these are privately funded and are doing really great work. They are really making a difference in their communities.

Survival in economic crisis: the current economy was caused by government interfering with the free market system. Did you know that policies were passed under Clinton requiring banks to make loans to people who could not afford to repay them? And now we’re reaping the fruit of those well-intentioned, but ultimately disastrous policies. Bush made some unwise fiscal decisions and now Obama is trying to spend his way out of a recession. This is only going to grow our national debt to levels never before imagined. Recessions are painful, to be sure, but they are one way the market corrects itself.

I don’t believe there any problems so big that we the people can not overcome them. I say, let the government protect us from enemies foreign and domestic, create an economic atmosphere that rewards hard work and entrepreneurship, and then let us do our thing.

Whew! This is turning into a lot more than just discussing the tea parties! Oh, by the way, I thought it was pretty immature (or at the very least highly unprofessional) how some news organizations apparently could not refrain from making all sort of sexual jokes regarding the tea party. We don't need to stoop to those levels to have a good debate.

 

[Prophet]

On the Health Care thing.. I had a personal run in with all of this a few years back. I had a lapse in my insurance due to a move and in that time, my appendix ruptured and I had an emergency surgery to remove it..

$15,000 later, I had no insurance and was stuck with a bill. I applied for help from the hospitals and anything else that I could apply for and got no help whatsoever. So after trying to make the monthly payments for not ONLY my surgery but for the anesthesiologist, the MRIs, the hospital stay, etc. which I couldn't afford at all only now to be sued by the hospital because I haven't fully paid my bill yet.

It's a ridiculous situation for something that I had no choice as to whether or not I wanted to have this surgery. I either had it.. or you know.. I could have died. After that experience I just feel like there ARE certain things that I shouldn't have to worry about if it arises. That I pay my taxes and I work hard and if I have an emergency like THAT, then my government SHOULD take care of that.. It just doesn't make sense to me that I had to have an operation, key word being HAD to have an operation and because I had a lapse in insurance I am stuck with a bill for +15,000? I just feel like my government should be taking care of me and in that instance, it did NOT.

All I am saying is that is VERY easy to comment on things that which you have NEVER experienced or went through and this is the problem with conservatives. It's the whole walk a mile in someone else's shoe theory in my case.

When you MAKE enough to never have to worry about your insurance lapsing or your rent or mortgage being paid or not feeling the economic crisis as much as MOST americans are, it's easy to not understand the problems that aren't being fixed in this country.

It's ridiculous to me that Obama has been in office for what TWO months and it's almost as if everyone is BLAMING him for not fixing everything. Conservatives are pissed off that it's not fixed but for the last eight years they have been supporting a president who only helped further our debt and problems. It just makes no sense at all to me.

What I think is.. look at the world around us. they have universal health care, their education is paid for, they have gay marriage, and yes they too have problems, but for me, I would be willing to be taxed WHATEVER to ensure that my children chose a career based on what they really wanted to do not what was going to make them money, and didn't have to worry about how to pay for their education, where my children could marry WHOEVER they wanted, and that if they were HURT, I wouldn't be out of my HOUSE trying to figure out how to pay for their bills.. I am sick of all the materialism in America and how nobody wants to help anyone unless it benefits themselves.

 

[Flashforward]

Here are a few reasons I don’t want the government in charge of health care:

I’ve got some really good friends who currently serve in the military, and though they love it, they will be the first to tell you that for all the positives, the military is terribly inefficient. This is no big secret. The tales of military bureaucracy, wasteful spending, redundant programs, and limitless paperwork are the stuff of legend.

After everything we've gone through with Blackwater and the wasteful spending on their end, I don't think that suggesting that we contract out our military operations is the most sensible thing in the world. When exactly did our country approve of hiring mercenaries to fight our wars for us? If you hate the job that the US military is doing, this is the alternative. We've already tried it, and it's even worse than the wasteful spending of the DOD and State Department, mainly because it allows for war profiteering and even greater waste.

FEMA didn’t exactly do a stellar job in New Orleans. Granted, they were tasked with a job that was outside the scope of their capabilities and they were hampered by a corrupt local government and a city full of people who were simply waiting for the government to solve their problems. But that’s just another example of a government trying to help.

It was run by George Bush. He scrapped the program that Clinton had running in the 1990s, that actually responded very well to a number of disasters. I would advise you to look further back than just Katrina when assessing FEMA's efforts.

Most of the intelligence agencies exhibit territorial behavior and an inability to work together. I understand that perhaps this mentality is changing, but it’s one more example of government mucking things up and being needlessly stubborn.

Ron Paul has suggested an independently run CIA. Remember what happened the last time they had near total autonomy back in the 1950s and 60s? Overthrow of Arbens in Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba, the overthrow of Allende in Chille in the 70s, etc. The last thing we need is a rogue operation funded by the government to conduct our intelligence operations for us.

The government does run some health care programs, specifically for veterans. Maybe you remember the scandal about a year ago over the horrible conditions and poor treatment at several government run medical facilities like Walter Reed. And don’t forget, we do have some aspects of universal health care already. No one is turned away at public hospitals. If they don’t have insurance, tax payers pick up the tab.

Again, when you don't fund programs, they fall apart. I don't see how your point refutes this. Also, you ignored my argument about the efficiency of Medicare.

I work for a non-profit organization that does a lot of work with public school so I’ve got some first hand knowledge about the current state of our public education system. It’s jacked up, especially for inner-city schools. Good teachers often can’t tenured because of asinine rules, bad teachers can’t be fired because of powerful unions, kids can’t be disciplined because of litigation happy parents, and in many schools even rudimentary teaching happens much less than you would expect.

Actually, as a teacher, I can tell you that I abandoned working in the public school system because it doesn't pay enough. It has nothing to do with the unions, but rather has everything to do that teaching does not provide you with a living wage in this country. It also has to do with the fact that schools are falling apart due to the fact that we short change them in order to fund gigantic military expansions that only serve to decimate our nation's educational infrastructure. The problem is not that the government is in charge. Instead, the fact that there is no funding and resources to do things like emphasize information literacy and expose students to disciplines like math and science is what is driving down standards in this country. Teachers today have to make something out of nothing, and as an educator, I take great offense at the fact that there are so many people from the outside looking in, telling us how to do our jobs when they have no idea what the hell is going on.

So, no, I don’t want the same organization in charge of these programs and agencies in charge of my health care.

Moving along...

I really don’t think it’s the government’s job to “solve problems that individuals cannot solve on their own.” I’m just going to respond very briefly to these. I can go into more detail if you would like.

Natural disasters: like New Orleans? I’ve been though a few hurricanes and private citizens, private companies, and charities, were vastly more effective than the government. Most people don’t know this, but the Southern Baptist Convention actually has the second largest relief agency in the US (behind the Red Cross). I’ve seen their work first hand and they are much more efficient, effective, and compassionate than the government run agencies. And our tax dollars don’t pay for any relief work they do. Same for the Red Cross. I’ve got great respect for organizations like that.

Private organizations do not have the resources to step in and help individuals immediately after a natural disaster. There's a reason why governments are the first on the scene when catastrophes strike. After all, when the Indonesian tsunami hit, were charitable organizations the first ones on the ground? Did they fund search and rescue operations with their privately-owned aircraft, and did they provide the displaced individuals with housing and employment? What about the earthquakes in Pakistan? See, relief organizations do a great job as a second wave of support after a natural disaster, but they're hardly the people that you want there immediately after it hits. Also, the volunteers are often untrained and unprepared to deal with the immediate fallout of what has occured (large numbers of dead and injured), and while their hearts are in the right place, they really can't do the things that need to be done immediately in order to get people back on their feet.

Health care: see above.

Global warming: the world has been cooling for the last several years. The climate works in cycles. Man made global warming is myth. The truth is out there..

This is another debate entirely, and it's far too long to go into here. However, when the vast majority of the world's most prominent scientists say that global warming is a significant threat to the safety of the world, and at the same time, the polar ice caps are melting at a rate unprecedented in modern history, I'm inclined to believe that global warming is real.

Helping the poor: these numbers may be a little off, but if you want, I can look them up: Obama gave about 1.5% of his income to charity; Biden gave less than 1%. If liberals are so egalitarian, why don’t they give more to charities? I bet if we did some digging, we would find that conservative give a much higher percentage of their incomes to charities than liberals. I can look into that, but I’m pretty sure I’m right on that one. Again, private organizations carry the lion’s share of the work with the poor. In the course of my job, I’ve worked with clothing exchanges, food banks, job assistance centers, homeless shelters, rehab facilities, literacy programs, and other such organizations. All of these are privately funded and are doing really great work. They are really making a difference in their communities.

Do some digging and provide me with hard numbers. Also, you just noted that you are only working off your own opinion, so how can you state so boldly that private organizations carry the lion's share of the work with regard to this issue when you don't actually know if that is the case?

Survival in economic crisis: the current economy was caused by government interfering with the free market system. Did you know that policies were passed under Clinton requiring banks to make loans to people who could not afford to repay them? And now we’re reaping the fruit of those well-intentioned, but ultimately disastrous policies. Bush made some unwise fiscal decisions and now Obama is trying to spend his way out of a recession. This is only going to grow our national debt to levels never before imagined. Recessions are painful, to be sure, but they are one way the market corrects itself.

Actually, it was caused by easing Depression-era regulations designed to prevent a financial collapse like the one that occured in 1929. Economists agree that the only way to get out of a recession is is stimulate the economy through spending. If we exercised fiscal discipline now, we would spiral into a depression, mainly because the economy would come to a standstill. It's simple economics.

I don’t believe there any problems so big that we the people can not overcome them. I say, let the government protect us from enemies foreign and domestic, create an economic atmosphere that rewards hard work and entrepreneurship, and then let us do our thing.

The robber barons of the 19th century believed the same thing. If we went back to that system, you would be working 12 hr days, 7 days a week, you'd have no benefits or retirement account, child labor would be legal, you would only be getting paid $1.00 an hour, and you'd have no vacation or sick leave. I really wish that conservatives would go back and learn the lessons of history.

Whew! This is turning into a lot more than just discussing the tea parties! Oh, by the way, I thought it was pretty immature (or at the very least highly unprofessional) how some news organizations apparently could not refrain from making all sort of sexual jokes regarding the tea party. We don't need to stoop to those levels to have a good debate.

I find this laughable coming from someone whose party basically mocked France for years by changing the name of French Fries to "Freedom Fries." If you want liberals to get "serious" about these topics, then you need to live up to your own standards. If you've forgotten, you're also the ones who childishly call us the "Democrat" party instead of the "Democratic" party, and you led the cause to impeach a president for getting a blowjob in the 1990s. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Archon]

After everything we've gone through with Blackwater and the wasteful spending on their end, I don't think that suggesting that we contract out our military operations is the most sensible thing in the world. When exactly did our country approve of hiring mercenaries to fight our wars for us? If you hate the job that the US military is doing, this is the alternative. We've already tried it, and it's even worse than the wasteful spending of the DOD and State Department, mainly because it allows for war profiteering and even greater waste.

I don't disagree. My point was just that the military, for all its strengths, is known for its inefficiency.

I find this laughable coming from someone whose party basically mocked France for years by changing the name of French Fries to "Freedom Fries." If you want liberals to get "serious" about these topics, then you need to live up to your own standards. If you've forgotten, you're also the ones who childishly call us the "Democrat" party instead of the "Democratic" party, and you led the cause to impeach a president for getting a blowjob in the 1990s. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Actually Clinton was being impeached for lying under oath, you know that. And do you even know anyone who actually called french fries, freedom fries? I don't. As you might suspect, most of my friends are conservative and we all found that idea laughable. So don't say "my party" was mocking France in this way just because you heard some talking head on TV suggest this. Also, I do not currently consider myself Republican. If you need to call me something, call me Libertarian or simply conservative. I am glad that you agree that much of the media is liberal, but I still believe they should have shown a modicum of professionalism when discussing the demonstrations.
Let me do a little research tonight and I'll come up with some of those numbers about charitable giving.

 

[Archon]

Not very long ago Arthur C. Brooks (registered independent), a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." Much debate has ensude over his findings. You can draw your own conclusions.
Here are some of his findings:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George W. Bush.

Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

For the record, I found other sources that claimed Conservatives have a higher househould income than Liberals. Also there are more people who consider themselves Conservative than there are Liberals, so the blood donation stat probably won't hold up (unless it was very skewed in the direction of Conservatives).
As I figured, much of the giving is tied to religious beliefs:

From the Boston Globe:
...the book, Brooks insists, isn't really about partisan politics, but rather the "values" underpinning charitable giving. In his telling, no driver of charity compares with religion. "Religious people are more likely to give to every single kind of charity than the nonreligious," he said at AEI. "It's the single strongest claim I can make."

Ninety-one percent of people who attend a house of worship weekly donate to charity, he finds, compared with 71 percent of non-observers. Even when it comes to nonreligious giving, the observers come out ahead, with 66 percent giving, compared with 61 percent for secular types. (Evidence Brooks isn't in the tank for the Republican Party, he says: He finds that secular conservatives are even bigger skinflints than secular liberals. They're just a smaller group.)

From the same article:
Another important factor spurring charitable giving is one's attitude toward the redistribution of income. Citing the 1996 edition of the General Social Survey, Brooks finds that the 30 percent of Americans who think the government should do little or nothing about economic inequality gave away, on average, four times more of their income than the 43 percent who said the government should do something.

I also found this, from Liberal columnist Nicholas D. Kristof (New York Times).

Arthur Brooks, the author of the book, "Who Really Cares," cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.
A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
The "generosity index" from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while the Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

Presients Obama's personal giving was abysmal until 2005, and it's still not great: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
Biden is much, much worse (0.05%? Really Joe?): http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/09/bidens-charity-aversion.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/12/10/who_gives/
http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7784
http://thinkingonthemargin.blogspot.com/2006/12/conservatives-more-compassionate-than.html

 

[Flashforward]

I don't disagree. My point was just that the military, for all its strengths, is known for its inefficiency.

You mean fiscally, and not tactically, right? We've been talking about the economics of it up until this point, but this statement makes it seem like you're talking about inefficiency in terms of operations, so I just want to clarify.

Actually Clinton was being impeached for lying under oath, you know that. And do you even know anyone actually called french fries, freedom fries? I don't. As you might suspect, most of my friends are conservative and we all found that idea laughable. So don't say "my party" was mocking France in this way just because you heard some talking head on TV suggest this. Also, I do not currently consider myself Republican. If you need to call me something, call me Libertarian or simply conservative. I am glad that you agree that much of the media is liberal, but I still believe they should have shown a modicum of professionalism when discussing the demonstrations.
Let me do a little research tonight and I'll come up with some of those numbers about charitable giving.

You're right, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, ABOUT a blowjob that will haunt him till the day he dies. Conservatives caught him with a technicality because they knew that Clinton didn't want to lose face by admitting that he had an affair, so they used his own penchant for promiscuity and his personal faults against him. It had nothing to do with pursuing justice. It was simply a petty and divisive act perpetrated by a party that desperately wanted to get back into the White House.

I didn't see Democrats mocking France. Based on your beliefs, you struck me as a radical right wing Republican. If you prefer to be considered a Libertarian, my apologies, however, that still doesn't change the fact that you took the time call out one act of immaturity while ignoring another. That's still a double standard.

Actually, the media is more conservative than liberal. Add up every single right wing pundit and compare that to the number of left wing pundits out there and the numbers aren't even close. Right wingers rule talk radio and Fox News has more viewers than any other cable news station. Ever notice the outcry against liberal media bias when a talk show host like Rachel Maddow gets hired, but no one cares when Glenn Beck gets recruited by Headline News or Fox to attract the crazies? There's an obvious double standard here, and if nothing else Fox News is now the official propaganda machine for the Republican Party. After all, they were promoting the "teabagging" as if it were their event. No other news network was, primarily because it's not the job of the stations to make news, but rather to cover it.

BTW the Daily Show did a great piece the other night exposing the double standard with which Fox News covered the anti-war protests in 2003 compared to the way they covered these. In 2003, apparently it was perfectly fine to mock those who demonstrated in the streets of New York against the war, calling them everything from kooks to traitors, but apparently the teabagging was a divine expression of genuine American sentiments that should not be mocked, but rather taken very seriously (despite the secessionist talk from Texas, the stupid costumed people, the offensive, racist signs, and the pictures comparing Obama to Hitler even though he's only been in office for a few months).

 

[Flashforward]

Not very long ago Arthur C. Brooks (registered independent), a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." Much debate has ensude over his findings. You can draw your own conclusions.
Here are some of his findings:

For the record, I found other sources that claimed Conservatives have a higher househould income than Liberals. Also there are more people who consider themselves Conservative than there are Liberals, so the blood donation stat probably won't hold up (unless it was very skewed in the direction of Conservatives).
As I figured, much of the giving is tied to religious beliefs:

I also found this, from Liberal columnist Nicholas D. Kristof (New York Times).

Presients Obama's personal giving was abysmal until 2005, and it's still not great: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
Biden is much, much worse (0.05%? Really Joe?): http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/09/bidens-charity-aversion.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/12/10/who_gives/
http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7784
http://thinkingonthemargin.blogspot.com/2006/12/conservatives-more-compassionate-than.html

I'd be interested to learn exactly what specific organizations these individuals are giving money to, as well as the methodology that Brooks utilized while conducting his research. It seems like the implication is that conservatives are giving more money to churches and groups affiliated with their religion, while liberals are giving money to other charities that are associated with secular causes.

Although, I guess it makes sense, seeing as how liberals feel that government should help people, and therefore we already pay it for to be done with our taxes and see no need to donate to charity, while conservatives feel the opposite way. Personally, I donate a fair amount of my income (although probably not more than 10%) to charities I have a personal investment in, as well as alumni organizations that hit me up for money every single year.

I guess I would be open to donating more of my money if I felt that charities and independent organizations could actually accomplish things on the kind of scope that the government can, which as of right now, they can't. After all, why donate so much money to fight cancer when you're already paying the taxes that fund the grant that the American Cancer Society gets for their research every year? Plus, it doesn't help that studies have shown that when you donate to these charitible organizations, the bulk of the money you contribute actually goes toward paying off a celebrity or to fund staffing, meaning that a much smaller percentage of your money actually goes to the people who need it most. I've always seen charities as less efficient than government, and that's one reason why I'm more hesitant to give to causes like Jerry's Kids (where Jerry Lewis gets a huge cut of the proceeds that are raised each year).

Additionally, I don't mean to undermine the effort you put into this, but I don't know how comfortable I feel about the fact that every single article is basically a write-up about the results of a single study conducted by Brooks. Are there any other non-partisan studies that verify or contradict your claims?

 

[Archon]

You mean fiscally, and not tactically, right? We've been talking about the economics of it up until this point, but this statement makes it seem like you're talking about inefficiency in terms of operations, so I just want to clarify.

Yes, I mean they are fiscally (and bureaucraticly) inefficient. I thought that was the clear from the context. Sorry for the confusion.

Additionally, I don't mean to undermine the effort you put into this, but I don't know how comfortable I feel about the fact that every single article is basically a write-up about the results of a single study conducted by Brooks. Are there any other non-partisan studies that verify or contradict your claims?

This is a non-partisan study. The author is a registered independent. In fact, the author asserts that this isn't really about partisan politics. There are liberal leaning blogs that offer their critiques of the book. The only other info I found was the Google study and the "generosity index" from the Catalogue for Philanthropy, both of which are non-partisan. Interestingly, I found both of those in a column by a self-proclaimed liberal. Tax returns for the Republican candidates are also available and their charitable giving is substantially higher (but still less than even 10%).

It seems like the implication is that conservatives are giving more money to churches and groups affiliated with their religion, while liberals are giving money to other charities that are associated with secular causes.

One of the articles mentioned something about this, but I don't recall. Keep in mind, though, that most churches also support or host non-religious programs such as soup kitchens, shelters, food banks, home building, literacy programs, rehab programs, etc. Beyond giving, one article mentioned that conservatives also volunteer more time.

Plus, it doesn't help that studies have shown that when you donate to these charitible organizations, the bulk of the money you contribute actually goes toward paying off a celebrity or to fund staffing, meaning that a much smaller percentage of your money actually goes to the people who need it most.

That's a fair criticism, but a little research can help you decide which charities will spend your money in a way that seems appropriate to you. When I pay taxes, I get no say in how that is spent, but when I give to a charity, I can make sure I give to one doing work I believe in, one that has accountability.

I guess I would be open to donating more of my money if I felt that charities and independent organizations could actually accomplish things on the kind of scope that the government can, which as of right now, they can't.

I disagree with you on this point. Shocker, I know. Obviously this is just a personal anecdote, but I've worked with dozens of private relief agencies both locally and globally and many work on a very large scale. Certainly there are some tasks that are beyond their ability, but probably not as many as you would think.

Actually, the media is more conservative than liberal.

What? I watch the news. CNN and MSNBC were two of the networks that could not seem to stop snickering (literally) about the sexual connotation of the tea bag protests. And I'm not saying FoxNews isn't biased. Of course they are, but they're the only network with a conservative bias.

I didn't see Democrats mocking France. Based on your beliefs, you struck me as a radical right wing Republican. If you prefer to be considered a Libertarian, my apologies, however, that still doesn't change the fact that you took the time call out one act of immaturity while ignoring another. That's still a double standard.

Just for clarification, how would you define a "radical right wing Republican"? I might fit your definition. Also, the impeachment (ill concieved though it may have been) was based on an actual legal infringement. The two parties will always go after each other, that's the nature of the game. That is not at all the same as the media (clearly in the liberal corner) doing the old nudge nudge wink wink every time they say "tea bag." It just struck me as really sophmoric and petty.