Elections have consequences
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
On Nov. 6, I watched the election results come in from Arnold's precincts. The vote was overwhelmingly for President Obama. My slack-jawed expression revealed my amazement as the guy next to me said, “What'd ya expect? It's ‘DAUA' — Democrats as Usual in Arnold.”
I believe more than 47 percent of Arnold residents receive some sort of government entitlement — Social Security, Medicare, subsidized housing, government pension, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc.
Maybe city council, to balance its budget deficit, should tap those “rich people” in Arnold to pay “just a little more” as their “fair share.” Obama would contend, if they (the rich) are made to pay just a little more, Arnold could solve its financial woes.
Oops! I forgot! There are no rich people in Arnold. They left for better economic opportunities long ago.
Everyone who pushed that “D” button in November needs to remember elections have consequences. If you think circulating more cash from a government printing press and maxing out the credit card from the People's Republic of China bank is a good thing, remember this election. When your property taxes and utility bills take more money out of your fixed-pension pocket to pay for the big-government “free stuff,” remember your vote in November.
Someone has to pay for that free stuff, and there ain't no mo' money in that lockbox that you worked for. It was spent long ago.
David A. Scandrol
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Enslaving themselves
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Ukraine & history
- Metcalfe wrong
- Funding priorities questioned
- Proven success