This article is in response to “Big government makes society more dependent.” The author seemed rather bewildered as to what I meant (or what he meant), so I thought I would elaborate.

First, I would like to say that we are all free to have our own opinions but facts are another matter.

Though the article was indeed eloquent, and I could tell the author was passionate about the topic, he was wrong in a lot of areas.

He began with talking about how “we are not the world,” and that “we should not try to police it.”

Well, I agree.

I said we needed to stop stretching our forces around the world. Currently we have a military presence in 135 countries. He also said that Bobby Kennedy was trying to “conquer the world.”

Perhaps what he’s getting confused on is that Kennedy was trying to create a peaceful “world,” rather than trying to force democracy militarily as the Republicans have fought so hard to do since the 1980s.

Before the “Great Society” established by Lyndon Johnson, 23 percent of Americans were below the poverty line. The hardest hit was Appalachia.

Now, I agree that churches should be a place of charity and giving to the poor, but apparently that wasn’t enough at that time. Even now with 12 percent of Americans below the poverty line it’s clear that we still have work to do. And you’re right, politicians in Washington shouldn’t have to worry about a hungry child in Ironton. But that doesn’t put food in his stomach.

Our biggest difference is that you believe that government should not interfere with “social Darwinism” in America but donate money overseas, while I believe our government should be used to help the poor and the hungry here.

While on taxes, I feel that any form of tax is “punishment.” I don’t believe that changing that made him rich. They should get a fair tax percentage compared to the extremely wealthy, not percentages by 5-8 percent. This isn’t punishing the rich for being successful or is not somehow going to make them poor.

It was the middle and lower classes that pumped the money into his product that brought in the revenue because they are “unable” to accomplish such a wealth, which is what the author believes. But perhaps they’re not as lucky or have not had the same opportunity of a decent education or upbringing.

So just as we should not “punish” the wealthy for being wealthy, we should not punish the less affluent for not having the same opportunities.

Your words on healthcare reform were almost contradictory. You brought up many bogus examples like GE and Ford running our healthcare system but refused to give any ideas on how to lower cost?

Roughly 47 million people have no health insurance, which means if they get sick they either have to go to the emergency room and be charged outrageously, or just pray the sickness will blow over.

Health insurance premiums have to be lowered, monthly costs have to be lowered because people simply cannot afford them. So do we stand by and do nothing or do we help?

The biggest point you made, what even made your title is that “Big government makes society dependent.”

Well, if you read my article the last point I made was “teach people a valuable career skill rather than giving away money to the unmotivated takers of our society.”

Never once in my article did I promote making government “bigger,” I suggested adding nothing, everything I suggested were improvements.

We do not need a bigger government, all of us can agree with that. We do, however, need a better government.

We need a better government so that the young minds of our generation, which I am, all have a chance to pursue what makes them happy, not just a select few.

Tony Burge

Ironton