Is Sarah Jessica Parker a typical American liberal hypocrite?

But the truly fascinating aspect of the remark is that I think Sarah Jessica Parker actually expected that her quote would make her appear compassionate. According to a story this past summer in the New York Times, she is worth about $4 million. Her annual income is certainly what most people would call a great deal of money. Apparently it does not occur to her that she might be an appropriate source of help for the less fortunate members of her family. In her mind, as in Gore’s and Winifred Skinner’s, struggling loved ones should be cared for by strangers. There is another possibility, suggested by the peculiar wording, “people in my family who depend on certain things from the government.” She did not say they were on welfare or food stamps or Medicaid. It is possible that they “depend on certain things from the government” such as agriculture price supports or cheap airwave frequencies to run radio stations or government-limited taxi medallions or export subsidies to favored companies and industries. Compensating relatives for these losses, should the government decide to cut back, might even challenge Sarah Jessica Parker’s monetary resources..."

“This November’s election will determine whether we get to keep moving forward, or if we’re forced to go back to policies that ask people like my middle-class family in Ohio to carry the burden — while people like me, who don’t need tax breaks, get extra help.”

Parker says of the event, “it should be fabulous.”

Earlier this month, the Obamas attended a similar event at the Los Angeles home of actor George Clooney. Ticket sales for the event and the online sweepstakes raised more than $12 million for the 2012 campaign. It was the president’s single most lucrative fundraiser ever.

The 150 tickets sold for the event went for $40,000 apiece. The online haul for the Clooney event alone was in the “millions,” an Obama campaign official said.

The campaign has regularly promoted contests to court grassroots cash, including chances to win an all-expenses-paid trip to have lunch or dinner with the president. The initiatives are reportedly highly lucrative.."

For those of you who can't read between the lines, Parker has basically said that she believes "the rich" should give money to government in hopes that government will in turn give money to Parker's relatives. Any shopper knows that if you cut out the middle man, you get a better deal. Yet Parker seems content to let the government decide what is good or sufficient for her poorer relatives. This is the same mentality that Obama holds in allowing his aunt to linger in our country illegally on welfare. They don't get it that when money passes hands through any government entity, the total amount is reduced because of the cost of providing agents and offices skims money from the top. I would suggest to you that if Obama and Parker and other liberals are oh so concerned about the money needed to run government, they can write a check at any time. There's even a form for it.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/sarah-jessica-pa...