However, you are off on your assessments. I would like some data or credible sources to back up your claims. I give my sources. I give data to back up my claims. I expect the same of you.

Your premise is skewed. Your neighbors would not be on Section 8 or Housing Assistance, if they inherited their homes and do not owe any money on them. You have made a lot of vitriol claims reminiscent of the Reaganeer type rhetoric perpetuating the myth of the welfare queen.

Furthermore, many low-income families benefiting from Section 8 funding, including HR-3221 and HR-1851, help Iraq veterans and their family upon their return from the illegitimate and illegal war in Iraq. Each program you discussed is a separate program. I think you must be confused.

And where do you live that a decent home goes for $140,000? The median cost of a home in the U.S. is $215,000 (National Association of Realtors) and the lowest median in the country is in the Midwest at $180,000. These are the depreciated values currently being seen due to the economic and mortgage crises. I would venture to say any home under $140,000 is going to be a fixer-upper, first-time buyer home in a not-so-great neighborhood.

What I have learned is that Republicans talk about the spending habits of the Democrats and the social welfare and the social spending programs. What they don’t talk about is their own spending habits: corporate welfare (i.e. tax breaks for the rich and the corporations).

Look, we have a progressive tax system in this country. If you make $100 you pay X amount. If you make $1,000,000 you may Y amount. Everyone is supposed to pay their fair share. With Republicans, most people still have to pay taxes but the corporations and those earning the most in the country do not pay. They receive tax cuts and breaks, shirking their responsibility and reducing the money going into the public purse. This is not even addressing the money they shuffle overseas to offshore mailboxes to avoid having a taxable US address and again shirking their tax responsibilities.

So, if in any given year the very wealthy and the corporations paid their FAIR and LEGAL share, then we would have more money in the public purse. But since they get these tax cuts and can afford ridiculous tax attorneys and accountants to find every loophole for the taxes not already cut for them, there is less to spend. Certainly, Republicans can talk about spending less. But do they really? Sure, they don’t support social programs for the people. They don’t want to help the majority of people. They want to help the corporations and the obnoxiously rich. There is no difference as far as the bottom line. The money gets spent one way or another.

Whether you skim the money coming in or going out, isn’t it all the same? At least Democrats want to take care of the majority of the people rather than only the top 10% and the corporations who are shirking their patriotic duty by NOT paying every single dime they owe in taxes in the first place. Much like a storekeeper who skims the till in the morning, Republicans simply sneak their spending in, in a different manner. Democrats say what they are going to spend their money on and it is the majority of the people.

The spending is done with both parties. It is simply a matter of where and how. Democrats focus on spending it on we, the people….you know the first three words of the Constitution. Republicans focus on this because they sneak the money out before it even reaches the records and thusly they “seem” not to be spending much. They are also not collecting what they should.

I am neither a hardcore Democrat nor fixed. What I am, is a free-thinking, researcher who likes to separate the truth from the rhetoric. You have done neither. I challenge you to give me solid information.

This article is rather interesting, and clearly you only crunched enough numbers to justify the Obama plan. There was quite a bit extra but that was still only three items on the national budget. I wonder how much a dull analysis would find for use.

Tom Humes