"In a radio interview revealed today, he said that one of the quote – 'tragedies' of the civil rights movement is that it didn’t bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society. He said, and I quote, 'One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change,'" McCain said.
"That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else." (CNN.com)
What's so bad about that? He's talking about how the Civil Rights movement could have gone differently as a society focused change, not just a court ordered change. This quote was not all about redistribution of wealth...unless by "wealth" you mean social status, equal treatment, and opportunity. This focus on taking your money and giving it to others is a scare tactic that fuels fire for bigotry and racism. Anybody can train a dumb monkey by appealing to primitive scares and tactics. Do you KNOW the history of the civil rights movement? Do you understand what subtle racisim devices like redlining are? Are you a woman? Do you make as much $$ as your male counterpart? Why not? Shouldn't that wealth be redistributed to create fairness as one of your civil rights?? Or maybe you're ok being the "little woman" making 20% less than your male coworker because that will "take money away" from that man.
Geez......No one can "take my money and give it to someone else". And if they could, why the hell do I need that much money anyway when others aren't as lucky as me to begin with?? This isn't "A Brave New World", it's America. That's the thing that has continuously amazed me about conservative people, especially right-winged. Many are focused on making money and many of them give tons of money to charity....that's nice, but if you were truly concerned about the less fortunate, you wouldn't get your tights all twisted over redistribution of wealth (taxing heavy on high-end earners and less on low-incomes). It's kind of hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
I really don't get the paranoid, mine, Mine, MINE attitude some people have about socio-economic issues and this redistribution of wealth hoopla. I can't take the money with me when I die -and even if I had heirs, they can earn their own damn money -nobody's willed anything to me of much value and I'm doing pretty well, I'd expect the same fortitude from my kids. I think you'd find that "ordinary" people will gain more benefit from a redistribution of wealth than they are being told right now. "Ordinary" people do not make a quarter of a million dollars or more. They are making less and less and less because those who do are making more and more...and getting to KEEP that more and more because of current tax laws. That's not fair, in my opinion. I don't care if they "earned" it. That's greedy. And don't give me that "well people on welfare are so LAZY!!". People will be lazy whether they're on welfare or not. And how many really rich kids who've inherited their $$ are lazy or "never worked for anything in their life". It goes both ways.
But really, I don't care. Cry and complain about the economy all you want and the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have very good points and very bad points. I'm voting for leadership and intelligence. Not cheap shots, backpedalling, scaremongering (or, simply pandering to fears), or soccer moms.
4 comments:
"That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else." (CNN.com)
Oooo that just pisses me off. Is he so stupid to say things so blatantly racist only a week before hand? How is not making the socioeconomic playing field more level related to his greedy followers?
He's fostering a sense of distrust and hate and dividing people over a very old idea.
BTW, did you read the last post on Margarent and Helen about the grandparents who tore up their ballots because they didn't want to vote for a "black guy"? I love that woman.
Excellent excellent points. I hear a lot of people grumbling about the "redistribution of wealth" idea. After hearing them speak for 30 seconds, it is painfully obvious they have no idea what they are talking about or what Barack Obama's plans are.
They make it sound like he wants to take money away from hard working middle and lower class people and give it to the wealthy. Honestly, that is going on right now. Percentage-wise, rich people pay less in taxes than poorer people. Quite a bit less.
Obama's plan is that people earning less than $250,000 per year would see a tax break. Why should rich people pay less taxes than everyone else?
Obama 2008! One more week to go!
Good post! I do not favor a progressive tax system that essentially punishes you when you make more money. It's not about being greedy, and it's not about igniting class warfare. I think the entire system is broken. There are too many incentives that the rich and the poor can exploit to avoid paying their fair share.
I favor a consupmtion-based tax system where you are taxed on the goods and services you choose to buy. If you only make $25,000, you can control your taxes by saving and not purchasing things. IF the guy making $1.5 milion wants to buy expensive cars, big houses, trips, etc.... tax those items.
Yellojacketphoto (aka flashlight tag buddy!), that sounds like a good solution. I like it! I would definitely go for that. That sounds much more like a capitalistic/free market society than what we've got and what we've been hearing from our prez/vp candidates. Are there any countries that follow a consumption-based tax system? I'd like to move there. :-)
Good input!!!
Post a Comment