That's what Barack Obama said in a radio address in 2001: he praised the work of the Supreme Court in the civil rights movement, but lamented that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth".
Is this really the "Change We Can Believe In" that has been (loudly) touted for nearly a year? That we rob from the rich and give to the poor? Is this kind of governmental "Robin Hood-ism" a good thing? Isn't this an attempt to institute a society with no poor and no rich? No Lower Class and no Upper Class?
Hasn't that been tried already? I'm almost sure I read about that once or twice. Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung...yeah, I thought so. The central tenant of Socialism (and therefore Communism) is the elimination of the classes.
From the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:
"All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly".
From Obama's (very) widely-publicized conversation with "Joe the Plumber" a few weeks ago:
"When you spread the wealth around it's a good thing for everybody."
A lot has been made of McCain's ads calling Obama a Socialist. But in reality, these ads are completely accurate. If voters want socialist reform, then Obama is obviously their man...but let's call things as they are, okay? The heart of Obama's "redistribution of wealth" statements are the tenants of socialism. And I'm done for now...my game's on:)
2 comments:
I completely agree. I feel almost like history is repeating itself. I worry that while the economy is down, we'll kick it by voting in a socialist just like we did in 1932.
100% agreement. The only real consolation: our government is designed so that no one person can screw it up quickly.
Of course that means no one person can FIX it quickly either, contrary to Obama's campaign ads...
Post a Comment