Very cogent argument. I'm convinced. Sign me up for whatever they're selling. The jabs at soldier's families living on food stamps really brought it home. I mean stealing 50% of someone's life worth is definitely required when people are actually getting free food. There goes my inheritance. Selling my parent's shop and their house so the little bastards can afford better than their food stamps is just a labor of love at gunpoint I suppose.

I think that the article is right about deficits and fiscal responsibility but don't sign me up for a national health care plan or food stamps. The cost of health care will keep going up until people stop demanding more care than they can pay for. The problem with a national health care system is that the health care demands of everyone are treated equally while the payment i.e. allocation of resources (labor, coal, iron etc.) are not allocated equally. They are dumped on the society as a whole so some people pay a very disproportionate amount. If everyone has roughly the same cost in medical care then the idea of insurance doesn't work and is in fact inefficent because of the added overheard of collecting the insurance. It would be much better if everyone paid as they went. So allowing insurance rates to go up until people start accepting lower levels of health care is the proper approach. Ineqaulity is a rather dubious concept if it means that everyone is the same because some people will always be smarter, richer, better looking, etc. than others. Equality means that the government should not treat those accused of a crime inequally and that the government should not show economic favoritism. Giving state contracts out to women contractors first or proving that there are no women contractors available is economic favoritism and unconstitutional. Favoring white males for presidency of the United States is not equality. Giving rich people a get out of jail free card is criminal favoritism. Mandating a blind quota system based on race, gender, religion etc. when such groupings are not relevant is not equality.

I think socialists should be ridiculed as much as republicans because at best they drag everyone down to a mediocre level that is only slightly better than the previous mean all the while preventing innovation and progress. Does the constitution say promote or ensure the general welfare? Because they are two different concepts.