Michele Bachmann Wants To Raise Taxes, But Not On The Wealthy

Michele Bachmann, billed as a “Tea Party star,” appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America this morning and said some amazing things.  But before I get to those amazing things, I want to show how George Stephanopoulos set up the interview. 

It began with these revealing graphics created from the newest ABC News/Washington Post poll:

Let’s talk about these poll numbers,” Stephanopoulos began, “that seems to be very strong support for President Obama’s position in this budget fight and a rebuke of the House Republican position.” 

Bachmann responded:

I think if you look at those numbers that would be accurate, but I don’t think that totally reflects where the American people are coming from.  First of all, if we tax 100% of what everyone made who make $250,000 or more—everything they made—that would get us about 6 months worth of revenue—

STEPHANOPOULOS: Every bit helps, doesn’t it?

BACHMANN: Well, but it wouldn’t be enough.  I think that’s what’s shocking. We could take 100% of all the profits of every Fortune 500 company and that would give us 40 days worth of revenue. We could also take 100% of everything that the billionaires in this country own and that wouldn’t be enough to solve the problem.  So it’s really a matter of having everyone involved. Part of the problem, George, is that 47% of all Americans pay virtually no federal income tax.  So, we need to broaden the base.

Let’s stop here and analyze what she has said so far:

♦ The ABC/Post poll numbers aren’t accurate because they don’t fit her view of what the American people believe.

♦ She dodges the issue of the wealthy paying more taxes by turning the conversation to an absurd idea of confiscating all profits and all wealth (no matter how accurate her numbers), a typical Rush Limbaugh trick.

♦ She argues for a tax increase on all Americans.  Yes, she did, my teapartying friends.  She just sat there in front of God and George Stephanopolous and said,

“We need to broaden the base.”

What base?  The income tax base.  Those deadbeat Americans who aren’t paying any federal income tax need to cough it up.  How else do you “broaden” the income tax base without making people who aren’t paying income taxes pay them? 

Let’s be clear: In response to a question about widespread support among Americans for raising taxes on the wealthy, a popular Tea Party Republican (potential) candidate for president insisted that instead of the wealthy, the non-wealthy ought to pay more taxes!

Nevermind that most of those who don’t pay federal income taxes are among those with low or moderate incomes, who nevertheless pay Social Security and Medicare and sales and property taxes.

But she wasn’t done:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say that everyone has to be involved and I think that’s reflected also in those numbers. A lot of Americans look at those numbers and say it’s wrong for seniors who rely on Medicare to get cuts when wealthy people get tax cuts extended.

BACHMANN: Well, and I think that again President Obama was the one who was behind the tax cut extension bill in December. That was his position.  And I would agree with senior citizens. We’re very concerned.  And I think that’s why a better name maybe for the Paul Ryan budget would be the “55 and under plan.”  Because no one 55 years of age or older will see any change whatsoever to Medicare. That’s an extremely crucial piece of information.

So, we don’t want any senior citizen to feel, or near senior citizen—I’m 55 years old, and so it wouldn’t apply to me either—and so there are no changes to people who are 55 years or older…

Besides the disgusting chutzpah of blaming Obama for the tax cut extension for the wealthy—when Bachmann and her Republican friends were holding hostage the unemployed and the economy last December—here we see, as Bachmann laid it out, the strategy for attacking Obama during the 2012 campaign season and defending the Republican “kill-Medicare and maim-Medicaid” budget plan:

♦ Claim Obama agrees that cutting taxes for the wealthy helps the economy since he signed off on those tax cuts.

♦ Claim that the Republican Party is really the party looking out for seniors since the GOP plan would leave a relatively generous Medicare benefit package in place until those seniors die, no matter how much hurt it places on those under 55.  Thus, Bachmann labels this “an extremely crucial piece of information.” 

It’s “crucial” because those 55 and older show up and vote in droves both in mid-term elections (around 60%) and presidential elections (around 70%).  And those who show up tend to vote for Republicans (in 2010, 59% of them). In fact, in 2010, even though voters 65 and older make up only 13% of the population at large, they accounted for a staggering 21% of the 2010 electorate. 

And the wealthy, of course, are part of the mix, too. A Project Vote study reported that in 2010:

The number of ballots cast by Americans from households making over $200,000 a year increased by 68 percent compared to 2006.

It’s not hard to understand how Republicans are planning their path to victory in 2012.

But despite Bachmann’s extremely crucial piece of information, Democrats have their own, which they need to broadcast night and day:

Republicans will stop at nothing to defend their rich constituents and they want to solve all of our budget problems on the backs of the poor, the disabled, and the working class.

Just think about this: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that those unfortunate folks under 55 today, if the GOP has its way with its budget plan, would be expected to fork over more than two-thirds of the cost for their health care by the year 2030, even while paying current Medicare benefits for those currently 55 and over.

If that crucial piece of information doesn’t get the young and non-wealthy out to vote next year, then nothing will.



  1. Jim Hight

     /  April 20, 2011

    If only many of the electorate were intelligent enough to realize what the Republicans have in store for them….but they would vote Republican no matter what the party of the wealthy did to them.


  2. Call me a nerd, but note her point only a few months of revenue from confiscating income means that no one but the “wealthy” as she defines it pay any taxes. In otherwords she’s demonstrating that a tax the rich only system couldn’t fund the government. Kind of an absurd point.

    This comes originally from the Iowahawk blog. Blogs do get attention.


    • Bruce,

      I don’t know what Iowahawk blog is, but I agree with you about the absurdity of her position. I bet I heard Rush Limbaugh use that line a thousand times.



  3. ansonburlingame

     /  April 21, 2011

    To all,

    And thus the energizer bunny just keeps on going. Tax more (but only the “rich”) or cut more (off the backs of the “poor”).

    Is anyone other than me tired, very tired of this endless debate?

    Who has stood tall in public in the last 10 years and said we have to do BOTH, tax more (hopefully everyone) and cut more (again hopefully everyone). The only public pronoucement along such lines was the Debt Commission. And 3 months after that call to arms Obama submitted a budget to RAISE the deficit. And Reps pushed a budget to cut MORE spending.

    Has anyone called for a constructive mix of both raising more and cutting more in real and substantial proportions so EVERYONE suffers to a degree?

    Each side picks their constitutents and calls for MORE for their constitutents and LESS for the other sides constitutents.

    And thus the energizer bunny keeps on going, deficits continue to go UP, debt goes UP, the poor suffer MORE and the rich get RICHER.

    Now go fix that other than a call to arms for class warfare. That happened around 1919 in Russia and look who won the “war” and what happened some 70 years later. Then consider the unbeliveable suffering during that 70 year reign of terror in Russia.

    And then on a smaller scale of suffering look at the plight of Europe today after following a similar though less violent struggle for now 50 years.

    And then we can look at a different but still very authoritarian model of “change” in China today and for the last 30 or so years therein.

    And then look at America today in comparison to Russia, Europe and China today.

    Then take your pick where to live.

    But we could reject all of those societies and pick say Egypt. They are supposedly going to wipe the slate clean and start anew with Allah probably as their guide. Well if that works we can all go to Iran and live happily ever after I suppose.

    Holy Cow.

    But getting back to the point of this blog. Can any of you on the left really tell me that taxing the rich and keeping medical care at government expense alone is going to even make a dent in our debt and deficits? And then tell me that Obamacare in its final form as envisioned by the left today will fix those issues as well?

    But then take it one step farther for those on the left that want to junk or substantially change Obama care for a uinversal, single payer medical system.

    Are you kidding me.

    And then I go back to a recent challenge on these pages for left and right to meet half way to achieve a balanced budget at around $2.8 Trillion a year. One side cuts down about $750 Billion and the other side increases revenue by the same amount.

    We had about a two day dispute over definitions and then went right back to our own enerizer bunnies just keeping on keeping on.

    Is anyone else sick of this debate as it remains to stand at top or bottom dead center?

    And as far as polls go I only know one thing. Americans want “theirs” not to be cut and someone else’s to be taxed out of sight to protect others “theirs”.

    So much for public sentiment I suppose. Americans are scared and confused for sure and each side keeps fanning the flames. I wonder when those flames might consume us ALL. Fire could care less if the fuel is rich or poor, it just seeks more fuel at any expense. And I see NO ONE holding a fire hose. (except the short lived debt commission which got badly burned to a crisp by everyone).



    • Anson,

      Republicans don’t want to cut defense or raise taxes (they’ve proposed yet another cut!), yet Democrats are supposed to meet them in the “middle.” Huh?

      If you really want to fix the problem, you should go to Billy Long townhalls or Roy Blunt gatherings and insist that they get serious about the debt: raise revenues AND cut spending. It’s not a one-sided solution.

      Here’s how unserious Republicans are: Ryan’s budget plan actually increases the national debt over the next ten years yet Republicans are threatening no to raise the damn debt ceiling! That would be goddamn hilarious, if it weren’t so irresponsible.

      I don’t know how you expect Democrats to compromise with Republicans who don’t even understand—or ignore—the basics.

      And your view of the class war is rather skewed. It’s as if you say that after the investor class has taken most of the stuff, that now you want to call a truce and leave the status quo in place. That might work for them, but not for the rest of society.



      • Duane,

        Benen highlights the lunacy of GOP “budget” proposals.



        • Juan,

          Benen and Ezra Klein have it right: the Republican strategy is incoherent. Hopefully, their incoherence extends also to their strategy of counting on Democrats to cave in and agree to something rash. Perhaps this time our side will not blink. By the way, when I clicked on to Benen’s site, this scary pop-up ad appeared:

          The Internet is a strange place. You go to a place to read a liberal writer and up pops a Randian ophthalmologist.



          • Duane,

            Even though I risked losing $2.33, I opted out of allowing Google ads after noticing Ann Coulter’s face displayed on a regular basis. If you’re not selling the ad space there’s no telling who or what will appear. Coulter falls into the what category.

            I haven’t read local Obama critics champion Ryan’s ironic Path or Prosperity; nor have I read how the Boehner/Cantor Pledge to America has created jobs. I thought that was the big selling point. Perhaps once NPR, Family Planning clinics and Sharia law no longer pose a threat to the country’s financial “cliff”, paid lobbyists will roll up their sleeves and drag Billy Long away from the Capital Hill Club’s generous buffet bar. Obviously southwest Missouri’s favorite Tea Party auctioneer wasn’t as “fed up” as he claimed to be.

            It was nice to see Ryan’s conservative constituents boo the blue-eyed wonder’s recent town hall meet-and-greet. Taking away a stranger’s socialized medical care is okay, but eliminating their socialized medical care is not acceptable. The going will only get tougher for the GOP once the “us” wake up and realize that they’re the “them.”


  4. ansonburlingame

     /  April 22, 2011


    Not a bad link if one is already partisan over the current debate for 2012. Now do you have a similar link for someone taking shots at what Obama has proposed. I am serious in so asking of the “linkmaster” in these pages.

    I will ask of you the same as just asked of Duane to read my latest blog with real, not fake questions about what has been going on over debt and deficits for the last six months.

    I firmly believe it has been all politics with the usual smoke and mirrors with little of any substance, one way or the other actually achieved, one way or the other.

    Any answers to my posed question would be appreciated.



  5. ansonburlingame

     /  April 23, 2011


    And there you and I disagree wholeheartedly. Taking shots at the President is NOT what I consider to be my “job”.

    Expressing opinions about what I view as wrong in America (and correct, when I see it) is why I write. I also try to provide suggestions (opinions) how to correct those situations.

    I was not writing publicly during the Bush II years. There was plenty to criticize in hindsight for sure and I have done so when I consider it appropriate.

    But here we are today, in the midst of so many “messes” that I feel like the one legged man in a foot race, trying to keep up.

    In their zeal to protect Obama many on the left do not acknowledge some of our current “messes”. And when they do see a “mess” they invariably blame it on Republicans. See Lyon’s column in today’s Globe as yet another example.

    Here are a few examples.

    We have 50,000 troops still in Iraq. Why, and when are they coming home and who must make that decision?

    We have a 10 year war in Afghanistan and have gone through mulitple commanders in that war. The only U.S. combat leader with any possible success over those ten years is now leaving Afghanistan. Why? Read the editorial on how his replacement decision seems to be going. Why? When and how do we bring the now longest war in American history to a close? Who must make that decision?

    And now we have assuredly a stalemate in Libya. Why, and who made the decision to fight there in the first place with American lives and treasure?

    And I don’t care who we blame for our current financial mess, probably the greatest crisis in American history. We have a mess on our hands of historic proportions. Now who should lead us out of it? How are we doing so far in that effort? Go answer my questions posed in the blog and my suspicions are the answer is NO ONE.

    I have repeatedly said that taxing or cutting our way out of debt a deficits alone, just doing one or the other, will never work. Other than the Debt Commission, NO ONE in power has accepted that simple view it seems to me.

    Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest threats to economic survival today in America. Democrats are just panting to take pot shots at anyone that suggests changing either of those systems to any degree.

    For interesting blog pages in a newspaper having such partisan blogs can be interesting. But as long as those blogs and the American people continue the same endless back and forth, look where we are. Top dead BOTTOM in my view, spinning our wheels and like education now for decades plunging ever downward.

    Democrats had every opportunity in the world to institute “change” in 2008. And like it or not those “changes” were soundly rejected by American voters in 2010.

    Oh well, Democrats say, we will keep pressing ahead with advocacy for “change”, even mildly chastize the President for failing to call the Rep bluffs, blame only Reps for the current game of chicken, and are now stocking the campaign chest for another round in 2012.

    Forget doing anything constructive for the next 18 months Dems seem to say and let’s win another round in 2012. In the meantime we will use very smoke source and mirror available to stalemate any attempts at change proposed by Reps. Again see my suspicions expressed in my last blog.

    And Reps are now makin excuses that real change is not possible yet. We ONLY won the House. We must actually wait for 18 months to get both the Senate and White House back in our hands before REALLY lowering the boom.

    And you know as well as I do that IF Reps sweep in 2012 and assume control of all three seats of government, they will probably do no better than Democrats have done since 2008.

    Well hell, why do I waste my time and yours with such a comment here. I’ll just copy this, hit send, and write a blog with these thoughts and others in mind.



  6. @Anson

    “And thus the energizer bunny just keeps on going. Tax more (but only the “rich”) or cut more (off the backs of the “poor”).

    Is anyone other than me tired, very tired of this endless debate?”

    I’ll bet the poor are tired of hearing it. No one on the left is advocating bankrupting the rich. Every American citizen should be taxed within their means. When we have corporations such as GE making in excess of $14 billion while paying not a dime in taxes there’s something terribly wrong with our tax laws. Then to make matters even worse they claim a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, no doubt on the backs of the poor.

    “And thus the energizer bunny keeps on going, deficits continue to go UP, debt goes UP, the poor suffer MORE and the rich get RICHER.”

    Now that’s the truth, but if it’s true then shouldn’t the poor suffer less and the rich get a little less richer, after-all the rich will still be getting richer.

    “Now go fix that other than a call to arms for class warfare.”

    You do know of course that historically in every nation on earth where there’s been a “call to arms for class warfare,” there’s been a permanent shift in governance to the detriment of the wealthy? Wouldn’t it be easier for the wealthy to pay a fair share based on their incomes?

    “That happened around 1919 in Russia and look who won the “war” and what happened some 70 years later.Then consider the undeliverable suffering during that 70 year reign of terror in Russia.”

    What you’re missing is that the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 came out of suffering. The people of Russia where starving because food was scarce, and freezing with no way to heat their homes. At the same time the aristocracy was taxing the poor for what little they did have. In the end the “70 year reign of terror in Russia” on hurt the wealth, because the poor were already suffering. The same is true of the Chinese revolution, the French revolution, and even our own revolution.

    “”Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana

    Plato believed that all Democracies would in time become oligarchies.

    “While the class war in Athens was not quite as gruesome as, for example, in Corcyra, where the democrats butchered almost the entire oligarchic ruling class, it was nevertheless bloody at times.” Plato


    There is absolutely no reason why the wealthy in this country can’t pay the taxes they owe to this country which made their wealth possible in the first place, and largely on the backs of the poor.

    We don’t need to have the same experiences as Russia and China, because we have the means to avoid it.


  7. ansonburlingame

     /  April 24, 2011


    I would only add my observation that the “poor” in America today have NOTHING in common with the real poor in Russia in 1917, or China after the war, or anywhere else in the world today.



    • Anson,

      I guess I don’t understand your point, or the point of putting quotes around the word “poor.” America is supposed to be, in the borrowed words of Ronaldus Magnus, a shining city on a hill. You seem to think that because our poor are ostensibly better off than the poor in 1917 Russia, that ought to be good enough. That’s some shining city you got there, Anson.



  8. maine liberal

     /  April 26, 2011

    So, we need to broaden the base.
    Teaparty speak for raise taxes.

    Has backmann completely lost it. I would think she would be applauding the 47 percent. they are doing what ron paul wants reduce taxes to zero.

    I guess if your in the TP world of bachmann only the wealthy deserve not to pay taxes.


    • Maine liberal,

      I was surprised at the fact that her comments on broadening the tax base—raising taxes on those not currently paying them—got so little attention. It just shows you that in its current mode, our national media is focused more on things like the birther issue—on which her comments in that same interview got a lot of attention—and not on important things like taxes.



  9. ansonburlingame

     /  April 27, 2011


    Hmm, shining light compared to what? A match in a cave of total darkness is a shining light is it not and we for sure are much larger than a match.

    Compare our “poor” to any other really POOR in the world today.

    My guess is your “poor” have electricity in their homes and refrigerators and even TV sets run by that electricity. How many “poor” freeze to death in the cold in America today compared to probably any other country where temperatures fall below freezing for a few days or weeks at a time?

    Know why the homeless poplutation is much larger in warm weather cities than say Minneapolis?

    How many “poor” people in Joplin starve to death, freeze to death of have NO shelter of any sort provided to them? Now compare such numbers to any small city in the world?

    Take the most impoverished citizens anywhere in America and almost all of them have food, clothing, shelter and probably a TV set to watch. Now go stroll the streets anywhere in the Mideast (except Israel) and see what exists.

    I am all for “taking care of our own” for sure. The argument is over how much “care” is needed from the federal government.

    Geez for sure.



    • Anson,

      It’s a funny thing, but your comments validate the liberal social safety net in America. You’re right. Our poor are different from the poor of other countries. Thanks.



  10. Anson

    “I would only add my observation that the “poor” in America today have NOTHING in common with the real poor in Russia in 1917, or China after the war, or anywhere else in the world today.”

    Then I guess Joplin must not have people standing on street corners with signs stating that they are homeless.

    “According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, there were 643,067 sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons nationwide on a single night in January 2009. Additionally, about 1.56 million people used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program during the 12-month period between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009.”


    On top of the homeless we have millions of Americans who live below the poverty line.

    “Approximately 43.6 (14.3%) million Americans were living in poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million (13.2%) in 2008.”


    Here’s a list of some of your poor suffering corporations.

    “Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 10 worst corporate income tax avoiders.

    1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. (Source: Exxon Mobil’s 2009 shareholder report filed with the SEC here.)

    2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion. (Source: Forbes.com here, ProPublica here and Treasury here.)

    3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice here and The New York Times here. Note: despite rumors to the contrary, the Times has stood by its story.)

    4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. (Source: See 2009 Chevron annual report here. Note 15 on page FS-46 of this report shows a U.S. federal income tax liability of $128 million, but that it was able to defer $147 million for a U.S. federal income tax liability of $-19 million)

    5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year. . (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here and Citizens for Tax Justice here.)

    6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction. (Source: the company’s 2009 annual report, pg. 112, here.)

    7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department. (Source: Bloomberg News here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

    8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. (Source: Paul Buchheit, professor, DePaul University, here, ProPublica here, Treasury Department here.)

    9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2006 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction. (Sources: Profits can be found here. The deduction can be found on the company’s 2010 SEC 10-K report to shareholders on 2009 finances, pg. 127, here)

    10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent. (Source: The New York Times here)”


    There is absolutely no reason why anyone should live in poverty in the wealthiest nation on earth. There is no reason why the wealthy or profitable corporations shouldn’t pay taxes within their means.


  11. ansonburlingame

     /  April 28, 2011


    Only one point about your homeless concerns.

    Somewhere between 50% and 80% of the people that are homeless are addicts to drugs and/or alcohol and remain homeless simply to be allowed to feed their addiction. It becomes THEIR choice to drink/use instead of live a more normal life.

    And yes, HLG, there is a cure and it does not cost a penny. But it is tough as hell and therefore becomes another choice.

    If you give a “guy” holding a sign on the street $5 would you like to guess where, in all liklihood, that $5 will be spent?



  12. Anson

    ” Somewhere between 50% and 80% of the people that are homeless are addicts to drugs and/or alcohol and remain homeless simply to be allowed to feed their addiction.”

    You do know of course that I provided you with a link on homeless demographics in my previous post? It’s never a good idea to make up your own statistics in a debate, but I’ll deal with the homeless who are indeed drug addicts and alcoholics at the end of this post.

    Here are some real statistics for you:

    “ As many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week.[17] Most were homeless temporarily. The chronically homeless population (those with repeated episodes or who have been homeless for long periods) fell from 175,914 in 2005 to 123,833 in 2007.

    Familial composition
    40% are families with children—the fastest growing segment.
    41% are single males.
    14% are single females.
    5% are minors unaccompanied by adults.
    1.37 million (or 39%) of the total homeless population are children under the age of 18.[18]
    22% are considered to have serious mental illnesses, or are disabled.
    30% have substance abuse problems.
    3% report having HIV/AIDS.
    26% report acute health problems other than HIV/AIDS such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, or sexually transmitted infections.
    46% report chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer.
    55% report having no health insurance (compared to 27% of general population).
    58% report having trouble getting enough food to eat
    23% are veterans (compared to 13% of general population).
    25% were physically or sexually abused as children.
    27% were in foster care or similar institutions as children.
    21% were homeless at some point during their childhood.
    54% were incarcerated at some point in their lives.
    38% have less than a High School diploma.
    34% have a High School diploma or equivalent (G.E.D.).
    28% have more than a High School education.

    44% report having worked in the past week.
    13% have regular jobs.
    50% receive less than $300 per month as income.
    70% work on street corners, pan-handling or prostituting themselves.

    80% of those who experience homelessness do so for less than 3 weeks. They typically have more personal, social, or economic resources to draw upon.

    10% are homeless for up to two months. They cite lack of available or affordable housing as responsible for the delay.

    10% are so called “chronic” and remain without housing for extended periods of time on a frequent basis. They typically struggle with mental illness, substance abuse, or both.

    Drug addiction and alcoholism are largely the result of underlying mental health conditions. Most of those who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are in effect self-medicating. Many don’t have health care plans and that along with a lack of public mental health services leaves no one to catch them when they fall. In effect the use of drugs and alcohol is far easier for many to deal with than a severe mental depression, and going “cold turkey” actually increases the intensity of that depression. There are a number of people who succumb to drug use and alcoholism who are not severely depressed, but they’re generally not homeless, and they are also the ones that we hear about who’ve managed to licked it. Now prove to me that “50% to 80%” of the homeless are addicts and alcoholics.

    The substance that is really costing us money (more than all drugs and alcohol combined) and is avoidable is tobacco.


    It’s so easy for members of the right to disregard everything as personal behavior

    Read this wiki!



%d bloggers like this: