clintpatty (clintpatty) wrote,

> In a local restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, I laughed as
> he had given away his political preference--just imagine the
> coincidence.
> When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him
> that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood
> there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to
> redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless
> guy outside.
> The server angrily stormed from my sight.
> I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server
> inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was
> grateful.
> At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I
> realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but
> the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even
> though the actual recipient deserved money more.
> I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in
> concept than in practical application.

Interesting is all I would give it. I don't think it's very accurate. A server that was more of an Obama supporter would have explained that it's more like giving the homeless guy $1 out of that. But it's the same $1 that's been taken from the server for the past years. Obama wants to take $15 instead of $12 from the restaurant owner who gets $100 and $33 instead of $18 from the realtor who owns the building the restaurant is in and makes $500, or something more like that. At least that's more like Obama's redistribution of wealth concept than taking all $10 and giving it to someone else. We'll see how that actually works out if the polls are right. But I already know how redistributing our wealth more and more to the ultra rich who are involved with government like Haliburton/Exxon/etc and to Iraq has turned out, so I don't want that redistribution of wealth.

Bush talked about tax cuts for businesses and the rich after 9/11 to bolster the economy. He never repealed those tax like he talked about. That means spending extra money on Iraq, taking money from the non-rich to give to those businesses that the government contracted to, and not taking money from businesses to fund Iraq and domestic spying and such. Now we have huge debt. At the same time the administration encouraged more consumer spending and home buying. They turned a blind eye to bad mortgage practices that helped to cover up the greater recession that would have happened after 9/11 in a free market. How many of those companies figured on a government bailout if it didn't work out? The ultra-rich have grown farther and farther away from the middle class in wealth in the past 8 years. How much of that has been fake money based on our future dependence on them? A lot of non-existent money has been used for mortgages and Iraq, among other things. It is catching up to us. Cutting taxes more but not cutting spending by at least a trillion a year will get us further into play money and control by the people who already have money. Expect trillions more to be spent on 'homeland security'' on the contrary. That includes domestic spying and Iraq. It also *might* mean more money being stole from other Americans and given to Huntsville for defense contracting and BRAC and such, but you might not be hurt if your job is in that area and Obama is elected. Either way, that is redistribution of wealth when the government contracts something to this area.

How will Obama's policies hurt the middle class more the McCain's? How will McCain be restoring a Reagan economy with more spending and less taxes? The Reagan and Clinton administrations had favorable economic situations anyway, and the economy during that time can't be blamed on those administrations only. Just like the dot com bubble bursting and 9/11 gave the Bush administration a bad situation to start, but they sure haven't handled it well. How is Obama killing small businesses? If more money is put back into the business and employees instead of into the pocket of the owner, those taxes can be avoided. The wealth has been getting redistributed more and more to the ultra-rich, and it's time for that to end. They can make less money. They used to make less money and were still rich when the middle class was doing better. This could be through tax increases. They can make less money instead of cutting jobs. Wal-Mart executives can make less money and buy less stuff from China. They would still have plenty of money and plenty of wealth even with tax increases. The difference between $18b and $20b for a Wal-Mart executive makes no difference in their lifestyle. It's just a number. The Wal-Mart worker making $8 instead of $6 per hour and having health care changes something. And IMO makes America better than the executive having the extra $2b.

You may not support Obama, but I really can't see supporting McCain. Much of that campaign is based on fear mongering about Obama's background and proposed policies. Sarah Palin will be President if McCain dies. I believe all that fear is on a false basis and won't come true. When you consider redistribution of wealth and how you may not like that, don't forget how we've been doing that lately and how we'll do more of that under a McCain administration. The Republican Party won't point out the redistribution that they have been facilitating, but it has been happening, and it is not good for America. It will make us more like central and south American nations and erode the middle class more. If you don't support Obama, there will be 3 minor party candidates on the ballot in Alabama. You can probably find at least 1 of those that represent your views better than McCain or Obama. And probably all of them would run the country better.

If you consider all these things and other reasons to not vote for McCain/Palin but still choose to based more on thinking that they will run the country better than feeling that they are better Christians, will not support black people rioting and claiming reparations from the white man, wanting to vote the same as your family, and liking how they talk or look, that's fine. But please take the blinders off that the Republican party wants you to have first. It could be sort of like your faith in God being challenged and strengthened. If you find you don't want a greater divide between the ultra-rich and regular person, not voting for McCain isn't like rejecting your religion. The Republican Party does not represent Jesus better than all others. Regardless of his claimed Christianity, Bush and his administration have had many policies and actions that I cannot possibly see from Jesus if he had been President.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded