You are truthful that you say my perception is my truth. But I did admit truthfully that I do not remember exactly what was said. But I what I said in terms of the gist of it is fairly accurate. But since you want to discuss it. Let's indeed go and let everyone see what he said, EXACTLY. In his own words. Let's see if can find it, because I really don't want to be unfair to him.
You know, I am going to give you some points for this. Although there may be a slight bit of contempt there, it is not what I thought. Good point! "A" for you brother! That's for pointing that out!
That said however, I do not think that what he said was totally true. My understanding is that one can pay no income tax for many reasons. Not simply because they are poor and need government assistance. That is one thing. The next thing is that he is inaccurate to assume that those people who want they government to do something for them, necessarily like for it to be that way. Of course he did not say that. But he does seem to imply that. What if they have been recently laid off? Of course, if you didn't have any source of steady income coming in, you would want to get government assistance if you were legally entitled to it. There is nothing wrong with that. But the contempt is this. There is the subtle, though not openly stated idea that is put forward that somehow, requesting and expecting government assistance is contemptible. I do get that.
That said, you point is well taken, and believe me, I appreciate you pointing that out because I did indeed distort it.
Indeed, I cheerfully accept your criticism of me here.