To whom it may concern:
I've been paying close attention to you in the wake of President Obama's re-election and I'm a little confused. You say that the people voted for someone who would give them stuff, that the takers won this time. What exactly did you mean by "taker"? I'm rather curious because you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say that there should be programs to help the very poor, yet you also decry those programs as being wasteful. You seem to denigrate the poor because they are poor, and I thought that, as good Catholics, you were supposed to help take care of the poor.
You say you want us to have the chance to succeed on our own, yet when we ask for a hand up you slap that hand away. You talk about success and money as if it means a person is better for having them, while complaining that people who have a microwave or refrigerator aren't really poor. How are people supposed to store food without something to put it in? Are you really so full of baloney that you actually believe that?
You say that people should own their own health insurance, but you don't want the insurance companies to be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions. You say the very poor should just go to the emergency room. Well many people die doing that and I don't recall you airing a single story on those people and what should be done to help them. You want to cut Medicaid, or send it back to the states in the form of block grants. What happens when the block grant runs out? Currently the federal government pays when that happens but under your ideas it wouldn't. How would the people left out pay for their health care?
I am not a taker. I am a man who is in the position to need help. I'm currently on food stamps, Medicaid and SSI because of my health problems, both physical and psychological. I didn't ask for these problems, and I sure didn't ask to be demonized by you because I need the help, nor did any of the other people who legitimately need help. Are there people who abuse they system? Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean the program itself is bad.
John Stewart, in a debate with Bill O'Reilly, asked why it was that if you're rich and take advantage of government programs you're a smart business man, but if you're poor you're somehow a taker? (This is me paraphrasing obviously but the point remains the same).
You complain about the minimum wage and want to see it abolished. Let the Free Market tm determine people's wages. Well we had a period like that and wages were a pittance. People had to work three or four jobs to make ends meet. Is that really the model you want to go back to? One where the worker is at the mercy of his employer and has no recourse or protection from them? I suppose it is, since you are the voice of the employer in many cases.
You complain that 48% of the people don't pay any federal income taxes. How much of that percentage are people who make all their money on stocks and dividends? Of course those are the job creators so they don't count I suppose.
You complain about women wanting their health insurance to cover birth control. I'm sorry but many of these same companies will pay for a man's Viagra, and if insurance will pay for that it should also cover birth control. If you want to not pay for it for religious reasons I'm fine with that, provided you stop taking government money. If you take the government's money you should have to abide by the same laws as everyone else and that means insurance companies paying for birth control.
I'm fairly certain that you'll ignore this and go on demonizing the poor, but know that there will always be people like me who are here calling you out for it.
That's all for now
May God bless you and may God be gracious to you
End of line