So national defense is the only thing for which the federal government was intended? Why not break a habit and actually examine the facts? The Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents that you pretend to understand and revere, puts it explicitly: governments are created to ... provide for the common defense AND promote the general welfare. You libertarians prefer to ignore the latter phrase out of egotism, arrogance, and short sightedness. You convince yourselves that you do not need public assistance and never will, ignoring the example of your hero, Ayn Rand, who eventually applied for the entitlement benefits that she had spent her life derogating.

Open your wallet, Andy, and take out the currency in it. Are those greenbacks "money"? No, they're IOUs. Do you think that your bank has what you consider your money safely squirreled away like gold ingots in a vault? If you do, than you're a fool. Your account is basically another" form of IOU. Your bank has only a small fraction of its total assets (deposits) in the form of cash reserves. The rest is no more "real" than the assets of the Social Security Administration. How can you function and be so shamefully uninformed?

I agree with you: it's reprehensible for politicians to commit the country to spending "boatloads" of money without providing responsible sources of financing. Among the most significant recent expenditures of such "borrowed money" are: the 2001 federal tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans; the 2003 tax cuts, also to the wealthiest Americans; an undeclared war on Afghanistan; another undeclared war on Iraq, the Prescription Drug Act, the 2010 bank bailout. Taken all together, these amount to tens of trillions of dollars in debt, and ... But wait! You attributed irresponsible spending to "Libs", didn't you, Ms. K, while the debts I've listed were all incurred by Bush and the Republicans. My bad! So what, exactly, were you talking about?

The obsession that you right wingers have with Obama is really amazing. (Of course, I realize there's absolutely nothing racial about your antipathy!) You obviously think that by insulting Obama you antagonize liberals. Sorry to burst your bubble, but most liberals don't like Obama either. His policies have done as much to hurt our agenda as those of any Republican president. If you knew what you're talking about (a big leap, I know) you'd praise Obama instead of insulting him.

So, let's see. You imply that the air in other parts of the world is filthy, while ours is clean. Then you claim that most of our air comes from those other places. Does that make sense even to you? Are there secret "air scrubbers" on our borders to purify all that tainted air on its way across? No. Our clean air and water (such as it is) are the result of decades of environmental legislation and implementation that right wing know nothings (like you?) opposed at every step. If it were up to your kind, we'd have to breathe and drink the same filth that third world peasants have to imbibe.

Unassailable, that is.

I doubt Mr. York will say anything, since your critique is unasailable. Right wingers never mention that income taxes constitute only 40% of federal tax income. While the poorest 40% of the population pay no income tax (because they have no money!) they do pay FICA and fedeal excise taxes, and these are heavily slanted in favor of the rich. (FICA taxes are capped at incomes of $106K.) It's astounding to me that conservative voters, most of whom are hammered just as hard by right wing economic policies, are such adamant supporters of those same policies. Is it ignorance that drives them or some kind of weird self hatred?

Disingenuous even by Townhall standards. York claims the Bush tax cuts applied to everyone. They did, but the top 20% received two thirds of the cuts. Inequality was reflected in other ways. While income in the top 20% rose significantly during Bush's administration - skyrocketing for the top 1% - median household income declined for the first time on record and job growth was the lowest since WWII. (FYI: this is known as "wealth redistribution" - from the bottom to the top!) Did total federal revenues go up, as Mr. York claims? Yes, they did - it's an expanding economy - but they obviously didn't go up enough, because Bush ran deficits every year (unlike Clinton) and doubled the national debt!

I rest my case: you clearly have nothing to offer but empty insults and you're too pusillanimous to engage in open debate.

Interesting that you know so much about me, Thomas. You're right, however; I'm not rich, but I did retire at age fifty with a six figure income and have lived happily in my million dollar home in the Rockies ever since. Your recitation of Horatio Alger stories doesn't change the fact that the majority if Americans work hard, and are honest, energetic, and dedicated, but remain part of the middle class. If the characteristics you cite were all it took, the country would be populated exclusively by billionaires. It also takes considerable luck, timing, as well as the support of a peaceful, democratic society. Rich parents will also do, as the examples I cited show, allowing selfish pr_cks to achieve spectacular success too.