The other day, I was having an online debate with a gentleman that I do not know. He was a liberal. I am a conservative. Oil. Water.

He asked me to define “small government.” I told him that the subject was too broad but that the abolishment of the federal leviathan known as Obamacare would be a step in the right direction.

Appalled that I would even suggest that citizens take personal responsibility for their healthcare needs minus total government intervention, he typed these letters, “FYGM.”

Now, I had never seen these letters typed together like this but I knew exactly what he meant and the online “Urban Dictionary” verifies it; “Forget You, I’ve Got Mine,” except the ‘F‘ didn’t actually represent “Forget,” if you catch my drift.

This is a very common refrain oft repeated by liberals and is fraught with lies and false insinuations. But it matches their narrative about conservatives and so, if it is repeated often enough, it will become true in the minds of many who hear it or who desire it to be true.

It is similar to the liberal’s tactical defamation of the Tea Party. They call them “Tea Baggers,” a vile and disgusting nickname but they have successfully convinced the masses that they are highly racist, homophobic and bigoted… despite zero evidence to back up the claim. It is the go-to tactic in the liberal playbook.

Allow me to dissect “FYGM” and set the record straight.

“Forget” you.

No… Conservatives do not forget the needy. In fact, many bipartisan studies show that conservatives are more charitable than liberals with both their time and money.


Dr. Thomas Sowell, in a September 12, 2012 NewsMax article references one such study. “When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities. Conservatives also donated more of their time to philanthropic activities and donated far more blood than liberals. What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results. What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more compassionate.”

It’s easy to be charitable with other people’s money. Like the late Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

LBJ thought more government was the answer when he declared war on poverty in 1965. He implemented a plan that would grow government with confiscatory taxes upon those who needed to pay their “fair share” and the redistribution of that wealth to the “poor” and “less fortunate.”

15 trillion dollars and 50 years into that “war” and it not only has it failed to ease the plight of the poor, it has proven to be an unmitigated disaster that has created more and more government dependency and generational poverty. And yet, liberals think the solution is even more taxation that will pump more money into the failed system. They target corporations, the wealthy and conservatives as the reason Johnson’s plan hasn’t worked. Can you say “delusional?”

Remember, liberals want you to judge them by their intentions while ignoring the results of their misguided plans.

Prior to the federal government deciding that they were the best suited entity to provide a safety net for the poor and down trodden, this task was handled by family, friends, private organizations and local churches. Was it a perfect system? Of course not. Is the current government entitlement system an effective one? Far, far from it.

The efficiency and functionality of that system was that the recipients were held to account for their efforts, or lack thereof, in getting their financial house in order. The donors were more intricately involved in the lives of those who struggled. They were the “boots on the ground” in the lives of those in need of aid. If they weren’t making an effort to improve their economic situation, the funds would most likely dry up.

That is a level of accountability that the government cannot provide and frankly, I don’t think they want to provide. The more they can enlist into the various entitlement programs, the more that will become dependent on the government and ultimately, the more votes they generate for the political party that provides the most “stuff,” revealing that it is less about demonstrating compassion and more about maintaining power.

Liberals tend to judge the success of entitlements on the increase to the welfare rolls whereas conservatives measure success by the shrinking of government dependency. Give a fish / teach to fish. Liberal / conservative.

The system which encourages the most personal responsibility and accountability will ultimately be better for those temporarily in need and for society in general. More citizens will be employed and confiscatory taxation will ease.

So, the narrative that conservatives thumb their nose at those in need is patently false.

“Got mine.”

I have my little pot of gold and that’s all that matters. That’s how liberals view those who have financial security.

They promote suspicion and hatred towards those who have attained any level of financial security. They toss out inflammatory phrases such as “big business” and the “one percent.” The more money you earn, the deeper your level of “greed.” Recently, I saw a post on Facebook that stated if you make more than $60,000 a year, then you are driven by greed. You have to love that some have actually determined the specific income level that pushes you into zip code of greed.

One of the more disturbing aspects of their fallacy of thought is that they seem to think that if you have obtained any level financial security that you must randomly be a winner in life’s lottery or you have achieved this success deceptively or on the backs of the poor. They cannot bring themselves to the more logical conclusion that you have educated yourself, worked hard and have continually made yourself more valuable as an employee and thus, can draw a higher salary that the free market offers one with your particular education, experience, work ethic and skill set.

Wall Street Protests Fort LauderdaleThis delusional mindset is the catalyst for a growing, socialistic movement that is being championed by none other than President Barrack Obama, which calls for a federally mandated wage leveling. The operative phrase that is oft repeated is “income inequality.”

The wealthy have come upon their monetary largesse via greed and deception. The poor are too honest and righteous to employ your evil, money grabbing tactics, therefore, big brother must, by government mandate, move toward equalizing incomes. I mean, it’s only fair.

Dean Kalahar, in a January 2014 piece in the American Thinker stated it this way:

“This theatre of the absurd has three acts. First, confuse economic worth with self-worth and say that pay rates must be equalized to reflect the “equal worth” of every person. Second, say wealth is distributed unevenly, as if by some grand conspiracy. Third, demonize businesses for manipulating pay and degrading human dignity. As this melodrama gathers steam, the liberal curtain call is made to end the injustice of income inequality.”

History is replete with examples of governments that attempt to engineer income equality and in each and every case, they failed miserably.

Maura Pennington described it this way:

“Socialism entails nationalization, the state management of the means of production and resources. The state is the main employer and therefore the main benefactor. People are reliant on the whims of leaders and technocrats to determine a fair compensation for their labor. Because the state sets prices arbitrarily, rationing inevitably follows. Black markets become a necessity. Socialism is an economic system that requires a shadow economy to operate. It is at every level inefficient and global history more than proves this by now.”

The wealthy, typically, are the achievers, the risk takers and the job creators. I have never been offered a job by a poor man. Have you?

FYGM? Sorry, your attempt to shame and defame is not going to work with me. The truth and evidence are on my side.

I don’t have much but what I have, I’ve worked very hard for. “Got mine?” No… EARNED mine.

Proverbs 6

6Take a lesson from the ants, you lazybones.

Learn from their ways and become wise!

7Though they have no prince

or governor or ruler to make them work,

8they labor hard all summer,

gathering food for the winter.

9But you, lazybones, how long will you sleep?

When will you wake up?

10A little extra sleep, a little more slumber,

a little folding of the hands to rest—

11then poverty will pounce on you like a bandit;

scarcity will attack you like an armed robber

You May Also Like

Abraham Kuyper on Secularism

From Abraham Kuyper’s opening address to the First Social Congress in Amsterdam,…

Pulse 99.5 Is Vital To Central Iowa

I used to work at Q99.5 KZZQ. I really enjoyed working there…

Abortion a Blessing?

It is according to the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, the new President…