Ya -- Abraham Lincoln and his "Social Justice", What a
@RedShirtUofU - really... you want to go into the full details of this extract?
I and my "ilk" well understand the law... we have these fancy little
papers that tell us so. Do you have one of those fancy papers that includes you
with my ilk? Different treatment based on social class - what do
you call that then? What does your ilk refer that as?You can try to
warp it as you may.... but social justice is about people getting fair treatment
under the law - and legal bias bias based on social status or class. It is
about equal opportunity. That social status does not predict or limit
opportunity. Guarantees to that extend do not require or need
"entitlements".Equal access to jobs or education - these
being huge issues when this topic arose in the 1800s - do not require
entitlements. I wish your ilk would stop redefining things to try breed
discontent between people.
""We will help them succeed"Okay, that's a far cry
from saying the poor CAN'T make it on their own. There is a huge difference
in saying I will help, and saying you can't do it without my help. But I
didn't figure you would be able to provide a quote, you were just making
stuff up. I notice conservatives are really good at that. Also,
expanding food stamp programs are not a declaration that poor people cannot
succeed without help. But again, ultimately, we ALL succeed ONLY
with government in place. Take away ALL government and only anarchy remains.
Have a weak government and those who would abuse and destroy will thrive. Have a
strong arm government and tyranny rules. Government is a balancing act, and
getting one to be responsive to the people is a constant struggle. But government IS the only way to assure civilization. Without it, we're
back in the trees. Government help of the poor is righteous. But the
only way the poor will get out of poverty is to work their way out. Including
working hard to make sure the system is NOT rigged towards the wealthy and
To "mark" Obama has said that the poor need government help to succeed
all the time. In talking about is "Promise Zones" in New York, he said
"We will help them succeed". In other words, they can't succeed on
their own, but need government help. As he continued his speech there he
pointed out numerous times how the government has to help. If the government
has to help, doesn't that mean that Obama doesn't think they can do it
on their own?Plus, I never said that was a direct quote. That is
what they say through their actions. Just look at the record number of people
on food stamps, and the record number of people on one form of government
assistance or another. When you have nearly 50% and growing of the US dependant
on the government, I think that says it all.To
"UtahBlueDevil" I hate to break it to you, but Aristotle never made that
statement about "social justice". That was part of his writings on
natural and legal justice. Your ilk has adopted it as part of social justice,
but Aristotle never had a concept of social justice.
"Social Justice includes using government to care for the poor, at the
expense of all others."No... that would then include every
program the government has where what one contributes is not equal to the
benefit they receive. Every single government program fits that definition. My
kids do not get a superior education because I pay 5 times what the average
person does in property taxes. I do not get better fire protection. My access
to transportation isn't better.Aristotle wrote of social
justice as an "account in the first instance of relations of inequality in
which individuals are treated in proportion to their worth and only secondarily
of relations of equality." Aristotle was hardly a liberal
promoting entitlements. The term has only been warped recently by those who try
to justify different treatment of people based on class. The concept predates
way before any of this modern none-sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with
Redshirt, the slave issue was very much an issue of industry vs individual
rights. At its very core, at the most fundamental level, that is what the issue
was. (And is.) "did you know that liberals tell the poor that
they cannot make it without government help."I challenge you to
provide this quote. The only way this is applicable is to recognize
that NONE of us can make it without government help. At least in any civilized
way. And this isn't liberals that say this, it's any thoughtful
person. The basic mistake conservatives make is to not understand
what government is. The ONLY thing the Founders did with the Constitution was to
set up a government. That is ALL the Constitution does, set up a government.
Without a government there would only be anarchy, the rule of the jungle.
Without government similar to ours the only thing there would be is tyranny.
BECAUSE of our government we are the successful country we are.
To "UtahBlueDevil" Lincoln did not fight for social justice. He was
fighting for equal justice. The difference between equal justice and social
justice is quite significant and often ignored. Social Justice includes using
government to care for the poor, at the expense of all others. Equal justice
does not do that.The civil war was not a fight between industry and
individual rights. It was a fight between state's rights and federal
rights.To "LDS Liberal" did you know that liberals tell the
poor that they cannot make it without government help. Isn't that like
telling them that it is their fault for lacking sufficient ambition or lacking
intelligence sufficient to pull themselves out of poverty?
I guess it just depends on how you define "social justice". The author
uses the typical conservative point of view that it is all about handouts. If
that were the real definition, much of what he says could be true.... problem is
social justice has nothing to do with welfare, nor entitlements.Real
social justice is what lincoln fought for, that a man can not be devaluated to
3/5ths of a person. That one man has no right to determine another's
potential in life. That your free exercise of your rights can not, and shall
not come at the expense of another's rights. Lincoln, and early
Republicans understood that. They fought that individuals rights should not
come at the expense of propping up industry - at that time Tobacco and Cotton -
which were claimed to be threatened if rights were granted to blacks.The civil war was fought between rights of an industry (plantations) versus
the rights of individuals. Those fighting were not lovers of blacks - but
rather haters of the notion a person can subjugate another's rights. Early
conservatives fought to protect the rights of all - not just those that were
@kargirlSacramento, CAExactly.Thanks for your
comment.Blaming the poor for being poor, is like blaming the
rape victim for being raped.Sad that some conservatives see it that
way.[poor because YOU are a sinner -- pathetic.]
Not a chance to reform unless they get the Eagle Forum and the other right wing
fanatics out of the party. I was always a moderate Republican, but I'm
ashamed of the way they treat my fellow man. They castigate the poor, they
condemn those who need help. They seem to be heartless.And yes Mike
Richards, Democrats do follow the Constitution! I think we are all getting
tired of the far right wing screaming "constitution" at every angle.
Your arguments don't hold water anymore. Also DN, stop quoting
Gayle. Her groups are going quiet for a reason. They have spewed so much hate
against so many citizens that people are finally tired of her group. Stop using
The Eagle Forum as you know all source.
So a major health issue, putting one in a position of not being able, is a sin?
Or finding one's job gone by the choice of the employer is one's fault
anyway, as is being born in poverty, or choosing a career that doesn't pay
well? Or having a family which includes a physically or mentally challenged
member? Or being frail? Elderly? These are sins, character flaws? And for those
who have had character flaws and done well, what of them? Why are they given
much, if those with character flaws who have done nothing deserved their fate?
What is the difference? Who decides the winners and losers in life's game?
Look at some of the winners--does anyone want their children or grandchildren
emulating some of them? Just some things to ponder...
"And we need to let the free enterprise system empower Americans everywhere
to match their passions and their skills with their personal and career
goals."Empowerment could occur only with worker managed and
owned enterprises. Such enterprises would exist to survive and provide
employment, not to make capitalist profits. Worker owned enterprise is the way
out of our economic morass.
"The left’s policies aren’t working." I am a leftist - we
haven't had a chance to try any of our remedies. Virtually nothing in
Obama's plan of action is leftist. Even Obamcare is a massive compromise
with the private insurance business.I hope Bernie Sanders runs for
president in 2016. Then you'll get a chance to examine the proposals of a
It amazes me how people like Brooks (conservatives) can place the blame for the
disappearance of opportunity on its victims. The wealthy own the means of
production. They have moved that production to foreign lands to take advantage
of cheap labor. American labor can have those jobs back only if they are
willing to put up with Bangladesh pay and working conditions. I
don't care how spiritual or self-motivated the poor are, if the jobs
aren't here, they aren't going to work.
2 bits - Like most Utahans, some of us will not, indeed, cannot separate our
religion and our politics. To do so violates promises to be valiantly, anxiously
engaged -- especially on a topics that are overtly religious, like social
justice. This is the religious person's sole mission, the one thing he/she
will be judged on and regularly addressed in plain language by our leaders and
throughout our scripture.
Surprised the author didn't cite school choice as exhibit A, only an
oblique reference about putting adult teachers wants before students needs.
Obama killed a popular and effective voucher program that gave motivated
inner-city DC kids the opportunity to attend private schools because the teacher
union opposed the program. School choice is one of the few examples of effective
social program because it equalizes access to education and allows bright
children to escape from failing schools systems. The measure of the
effectiveness of any broad program for the poor should be whether it changes
people and their potential as opposed to how much money it redistributes.
True social justice assumes a certain level of morality. Clearly knowing the
truth and right from wrong and society as a whole caring for others as much as
they care for themselves. We are way past the tipping point on this. It is only
going to get worse. as you can see by the responses to this article everyone is
more concerned about their own bottom line than anything else. Most people in
this country are either immoral or amoral and are more than happy to argue about
it all day long rather than actually do something to help others. As in most
other things the 80/20 rule is probably in effect. 20% of the people are making
positive improvements while the other 80% do nothing. and if you're
waiting for the government to take care of the situation don't hold your
breath. If this situation keeps on the only thing that will be is social
injustice and plenty more of it.
To "Happy Valley Heretic" why do you and your ilk try to twist truth
into a lie that fits your political beliefs?I was quite clear when I
said that may of the rich do good. Not all rich do good with their wealth, but
many do. Look at John Huntsman Sr., Larry H. Miller, Oprah, and many other
wealthy people that you have never heard of that quietly and selflessly go
around doing good.As the scriptures say, God will bless you with
wealth if you desire it to do good. The poor have many reasons why they are
poor. Some are poor because of sin, some are poor because they just don't
know how to handle money, some are poor because they lack ambition, some are
poor because of disability, some are poor because they don't care about
wealth, there are many reasons why people are poor.You can't
force charity. If you need help and are not a jerk, your neighbors will help.
People are typically good, we don't have to be forced to help.To "2 bits" it is called liberal hypocrisy. Agree with them or face
Samuel the Liberalite, LDS Liberal, LDS Tree Hugger, Open Minded Mormon,
airnaut... wow, another account and 4 more posts for you to get your voice out
there that many more times than people who play by the rules.... how nice. And
makes it look like a bunch of different people at the same time... but not
really.How is it that when you post your overtly religious
overtones, scriptures, lecturing on your Mormonism... nobody says anything?
Maybe they think you're just joking? Anybody else gets told to leave
preaching out.You don't hear other people lecturing people on
Mormonism here... so it would be nice if you didn't as well. Very few of
these topics is about your religion.... so leaving it out would be nice.On the rare occasion when the topic is actually religion... put it all
out there. But not on EVERY topic.What does Lehi's dream, the
"Large and Spacious Building", the World Trade Centers, etc, etc, have
to do with "Social Justice"? I got a spiritual message out of his
dream... not a political one...
RedShirt said: "Why hate the rich, when so many do so much good? Why ignore
the sins of the poor that seek to tear down those that are blessed by
God?"So the wealthy are blessed by God with money, and the poor
don't receive blessings of money because of their sins of want. Got it.J Thompson nobody's looking for a "Blessed Person" to pay
their way, they are saying spread the costs by everyone participating, easier
than begging your neighbors and hoping they won't judge you on their
It's curious to see that some people, who tell us that they and their
neighbors can't be expected to care for the people in their own community,
think that other communities are different; that other communities are mostly
made up of "rich guys"; that other communities should be forced by
goverment to pay for our poor, our unemployed, our sick and destitute. Well,
I've got news for them, here in Utah, we have some of the healthiest,
hardiest, and self-reliant people on earth. If we can't care for our
neighbors, no other community in America should be forced to do our job.Get on your bicycle and start traveling. Start talking to people in
Nevada, in Wyoming, in Idaho. If you're really adventurous, travel farther
from home and see just how many "rich guys" you can find. You'll
probably find that the highest concentration of "rich guys" are your
"public servants" serving in the White House and in the halls of
Congress. Why don't they work for minimum wage? Why don't they buy
ObamaCare? Social policies and justice start with us, not with
I don't know, which party or network supported by a party, has attacked
those on food stamps like no other suggesting that some slacker surfer dude is
the typical person on food stamps. Answer that question and get back to me...
To "Samuel the Liberalite" you realize that the people going into the
great and spacious building were going there to be part of the "cool
crowd". They are the people that say, I want what they have, I don't
want to follow God's plan. You know the types, the type that want to force
countries to do what they think is "good" through socialism, communism,
and other methods of force.Some of the people in the building were
those that had tasted of God's fruit, and decided that acceptance by the
world was more important. Your hatred of the rich goes against the scriptre,
but is currently a worldly accepted view.Why hate the rich, when so
many do so much good? Why ignore the sins of the poor that seek to tear down
those that are blessed by God?
Mike RichardsI contend that the second system of loving neighbors does not
work, and hasn't for some time.If it did then the government,
who are also my friends and neighbors, they are us, wouldn't have had
to.With more and more going to fewer and fewer, your community back up
won't be able to afford to help you.Or what if you need surgery that
is into the $100, 000 range, my neighborhood couldn't kick out that kind of
money.We need to go back to those golden days of conservative lore
after WW2 when the higher corporate tax rate insured that the wealthy trickled
it down since they've proven to be more greedy than good.
It's more like the "right" has gone so far right they're
actually on the verge of being in left field. That article was filled with the
same o'l Republic think-tank buzzwords used ad nauseam since the Bush days.
Job creators, cutting red tape. One the one hand the author points out that
since (Obama) took office the rich have got richer and not much else... yea well
that is due largely in part due to policies put in place by the previous
administration, nothing to do with Obama. He admonishes progressives for
wanting to tax more and a push for more entitlements, but what about the
right's push for more corporate welfare? What about entitlements to well
connected defense contractors for military equipment that is obsolete and/or in
surplus equal to the cold war era? Talk about government hand outs!
I'm somewhat shocked at the boldness of this article. Granted it is
entirely true, so it is largely a pleasant shock, but a shock nonetheless.
Samuel the liberalite/ Open minded Mormon/ airnaut/ lds liberal. Your only telling half the story. You choose to ignore the other half.
Happy Valley Heritic,Do you really want someone in government to
decide whether you deserve "social justice"? What ruler would he use to
determine whether YOU deserved some crumbs from his table? What political party
would he favor? Which campaign contributors would he put "first in
line"? Ms. Kathleen Sebelius already showed America what "social
justice" she would dispense when a little girl need "social justice"
just to stay alive. CITIZENS shouted at Ms. Sebelius in every media until that
government employee saw the light and realized that she did not have authority
to condemn that little girl to death by denying the little girl needed health
care.Is that what you want? Or, would you rather know
that your friends and neighbors, those people whom you work with in community
service projects, are watching your back; those people whom YOU have helped with
their problems by giving freely of your resources when they needed help; those
people that you visited; those people that you took meals to; those people that
you slipped $100 or $1,000 to cover unexpected bills?Or, should some
"rich guy" pay your expenses?
Mr. BrooksWhat did I tell you.
I don't want social justice. I want equal justice. The problem isn't
that conservatives can't come up with another government program, law,
regulation, or mandate to fix things. The problem is the government program,
law, regulation, and mandates.If you want businesses to start
hiring, stop dumping regulations on them. It really is that simple. Yes we do
need some regulations, but many of the regulations that are being added do not
protect the public nor do they benefit anybody besides their cronies.
In Lehi's dream, we read about the "Large and Spacious
Building".I have always thought it to be the World Trade Centers.Not some Mom & Pop down the street -- But buildings dedicated
to making a very small group of people extremely wealthy -- on a Global
Scale.It could also likewise be a metaphor to the Tower of Babel.The uber-Rich who opening mock the poor, and trample them under
their feet.Their PRIDE keeps them from helping the poor, and
feel that others get whats coming to them.They are Idle, They
worshop Idols, and Everything in my LDS beliefs - via
the example of the Savior - runs 180 degrees contrary to these people.These were the one's responsible for the destruction of the Nephites.I am saddened that the modern Nephites, have sided with these
Gadianton's.I'm not surpised -- it was prophesied.The entire Book of Mormon was written as a witness AND a warning.I
see it coming to fruition.The once great nation is ripened for
"Social Justice" is not a term that real Conservatives flock to.They believe in "Justice". But not so much in what has become
refered to as "SOCIAL Justice" in today's politics.So I
would not expect the Right to rally and fight to claim to be the purveiers of
"SOCIAL Justice"."Justice"... you would attract
them. "SOCIAL Justice"... not so much.===IMO... the term "SOCIAL Justice" has become hijacked by the left as
their new (more acceptable) term for "Socialism".So you
probably won't find the RIGHT becoming the promoters of
"Socialism". That's probably not going to happen any time soon.
Isn't "social justice" that phrase that Glenn Beck said if your
church preaches you should run away? Yeah, good luck reclaiming that.
Mike Richards said: "We, the people, are fully accountable and fully
responsible to handle all "social needs" in our community. We are to
care for the poor among us. We are to assist those who are unemployed or
underemployed. WE are to serve. It is OUR responsibility."...and
when the wealthy and religions fail to take responsibility? Stepping over the
dead, isn't the "American Dream"
Over the past 50 years we have tried many experiments that have made our people
more dependent on government only to find that we have helped to create a
dependent and irresponsible society.Many of our so-called
conservatives have joined with the progressives in perpetuating this dependency
perhaps for re-election purposes, but they have done their constituencies or the
country no favors. It appears that Arthur Brooks is correct in his assumptions
that we should begin to make some changes if we are remain a world leader rather
than merely the average we have eroded to.
Actions will always speak louder than words. If the radical right
wants to actually do something for the people rather than drive this country
over a cliff into Fascism, then they need to repent and change their actions.Until then, it's all just words.
re: Mike Richards"...I don't see that the Constitution
allows government to shape social policy. I don't see that the State of
Utah has the authority to shape social policy. I don't see that the cities
within Utah have the authority to shape social policy..."I
don't disagree. Though, people are being duped into thinking they need to
be instantly gratified w/ material goods to compensate for their shortcomings.
Its alot easier to let a large bureaucratic entity take care of the
mundane. That way, people have more free time to get bigger while on their way
to Disneyland, Vegas, Paris, The Bahamas, etc...
Mike Richards,"....When someone writes an "opinion
piece", he is entitled to be considered ONLY on what he wrote...."______________________________Someone who writes an opinion column
will agree with that whether or not what he wrote squares with his longstanding
public record. Anyone can say he is for social justice and everyone does when it
comes to political posturing. I wouldn't expect anything else from the
leader of a conservative think tank.
to airnaut"The Rich are solidly in charge now, and can rig any
election and bribe any politician... What more do you people want form the rest
of the 99% of us?"Everything we are clinging to that they
don't have..... yet.Case in point; Kelo v New London which
Govt's and their corporate paymasters the right to take whatever they want.
Glenn Beck said to quit any Church with "Social Justice".Rush
Limbaugh called Pope Francis a Marxist.So, once again -- we have
the Conservative in-fighting.Give it up.You guys won your
Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings.The Rich are solidly in charge now,
and can rig any election and bribe any politician.You've
destroyed the Middle Class, and have pushed us all into poverty while
taking 85% of America's GDP.What more do you people want form
the rest of the 99% of us?
The only thing I'm sure of about conservatives, is that they oppose social
Some people are so close-minded that they reject anything unless they approve of
the author, his background, and his peers. What utter nonsense! When someone
writes an "opinion piece", he is entitled to be considered ONLY on what
he wrote. I disagree with much of what the author wrote, because I
don't see that the Constitution allows government to shape social policy.
I don't see that the State of Utah has the authority to shape social
policy. I don't see that the cities within Utah have the authority to
shape social policy. Each entity of government is charged with
specific and very limited duties. Those duties do no include shaping social
policy.The 10th Amendment clearly states that any duty not delegated
to the Federal Government is to be left to the States OR TO THE PEOPLE. We, the people, are fully accountable and fully responsible to handle
all "social needs" in our community. We are to care for the poor among
us. We are to assist those who are unemployed or underemployed. WE are to
serve. It is OUR responsibility.
"....Conservatives should start by asking the downtrodden what they need
most. In the conversations I’ve had over the years, I’ve identified
three things: Moral transformation, material relief and opportunity...."______________________________I'm skeptical. Those three
sound fine in the abstract but the proof must be in how or if they translate
into substantive policy proposals. I don’t expect the far right to budge
off course. But at least the Tea Party is not the only faction doing the talking
on the GOP side. Let’s see if this tone amounts to anything more than
words and gamesmanship.
That's right. You get him guys! Look at how we overwhelmed this article!
Conservatives don't care about the poor! They hate women, minorities, and
public schools. We could have actually responded with some nuanced comments or
attempts to engage the right on social justice issues, but why bother? Hooray
for demagoguery! And to think, we could have used this time to think about why
the left isn't winning elections in Utah. It can't be our divisive
message posted daily on these comment boards. Nope.
As much as I like to read my own thoughts let me forgo that and act as editor
here and summarize my favorites. "The author asks why income
disparity has grown during Obama's term in office. It’s because of
INERTIA. Reagonomics is STILL in effect. The system is STILL rigged to favor the
rich. ""From the piece: "The simple fact is that
intentions don’t equal results"The simple fact is that the
left's policies haven't been tried. The right has managed to obstruct
them all. The minimum wage has not gone up. There is no financial transactions
tax. Glass-Steagall has not been reinstated. There was no jobs program. There is
no infrastructure bank. etc., etc., etc.Put these thoughts on top of
the worst recession in 70 years (inherited from a conservative administration)
and you have reality. A context that conservatives refuse to recognize.
"Social justice is the ability people have to realize their potential in the
society where they live."Social justice cannot work in a society where
there are no guidelines. A playing field and rules need to be in place. All we
have to do is look at third world countries to see the worst of examples.Social justice is the Conservative Right Wing's single greatest
FEAR! They fear an equal playing field where everyone has the same opportunities
to succeed. Equal opportunity employment on government funded jobs is another
sore spot with the Conservative Right Wing. If they had their way they would
hire only family, friends and illegal aliens. This is very true today is so many
ways. In the private sector of employment we see the best of nepotism.The Right
Wing Conservatives do not believe in equality. When confronted with equality and
fairness they scram foul. It is so sad that we live in a country
that is so wealthy and yet we have so many poor people.
Quote, "moral transformation of the poor is most important"That is a very telling statement isn't it? A window to the conservative
soul.Yet inmathew 19, "23 And Jesus said to His disciples,
"Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven. 24"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25 When
the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can
be saved?"…The only Christian reason to gain any wealth is
to have the ability to give it away and do good with it.
Nice try. Conservatives do not have any sense of social justice. The mere
concept violates their governing principles. They love saying "Lord,
Lord" yet their hearts are far from Him.
This piece is a remarkable example of Orwellian doublespeak. Mr. Brooks'
forces have conducted a war on the poor for 30 years and now maintain
they're the saviors of the poor? Who exploits the poor and creates
dependency more than Walmart? Who exported all the American jobs to the slave
quarters of Asia? Who nearly destroyed the US economy in 2008 out of sheer
greed? No, it wasn't Obama...As for Mr. Obama, every economic
indicator you can name is far better than it was under Mr. Job Creator Bush,
notwithstanding the bizarre claims of the "American Enterprise
Institute," an Orwellian moniker if I ever heard one. "American
Exploitation Institute" is more like it.
From the piece: "The simple fact is that intentions don’t equal
results. The left’s policies aren’t working — which means
it’s time for conservatives to step up to the social justice
plate."The simple fact is that the left's policies
haven't been tried. The right has managed to obstruct them all. The minimum
wage has not gone up. There is no financial transactions tax. Glass-Steagall has
not been reinstated. There was no jobs program. There is no infrastructure bank.
etc., etc., etc.We have a president who has governed more
conservatively than Richard Nixon ever did, and an opposition that calls him a
communist for it.
I'm guessing that one of these days, the DN will publish some letters from
left-leaning "think tanks." I won't hold my breath.
Mr. BrooksThat was so well stated (and true) that I predict you will
get a slew of personal attacks from the left. Or, they will say that all the
problems you pointed out that the progressive left have not been able to fix
will be the Republicans fault.
Does the Deseret News get PAID to run this stuff?, orDo they pay the
Lobby Groups to run this stuff?Either way, It's
propoganda.========= Arthur Brooks is President of --
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a
private, conservative, PARTISAN, not-for-profit institution dedicated to
research and education on issues of government, politics, economics and social
welfare think tank founded in 1938. Its stated mission is "to defend the
principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic
capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and
responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political
accountability, and open debate". AEI is an independent nonprofit
organization supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations,
COPORATIONS, and individuals.
Wow! What a convolution of notions!The author certainly did some
rearranging of reality to produce that piece of fiction, even coming up with
something he calls "real social justice" that bears NO resemblance to
real social justice.Right Wingers have NEVER promoted social
justice. Right Wingers ALWAYS support a status quo that strongly favors the
wealthy.For Right Wingers, the rich deserve to become richer at the
expense of everyone else because that's just the way it is. The author asks
why income disparity has grown during Obama's term in office. It’s
because of INERTIA. Reagonomics is STILL in effect. The system is STILL rigged
to favor the rich. The highest earners STILL don’t pay nearly enough in
taxes. It is the wealthy with all that extra money lying around who could afford
to buy under-priced properties, and then make billions when the market
recovered.And what makes him think that Conservatives have a
monopoly on “faith, family, community and work?” That’s a
conceit so ridiculous on its face that it serves best to demonstrate just how
out of touch with reality Conservatives really are.
"Since he took office, the wealthy have been the only ones to gain
ground."And they have complained loudly all the way to the
bank.Can someone point to any GOP proposals that will not insure that the
wealthy gain more ground?Perhaps, the system is built that in good
times, the wealthy will do very very well and the poor and middle class will
maintain. In bad times, the wealthy will just do well and the poor and middle
class will lose ground.
If conservatives hope to get people to believe that they stand for social
justice then they've got to do something other than double-down on their
fundamentally authoritarian and antisocial policy positions.Attacking our public schools, slashing services to the poor, the sick, the
unemployed and the elderly, weakening protections on our air, water and food,
denying women control over their own bodies, shamelessly embracing voter
suppression and claiming that even larger tax breaks for millionaires are
required - all of these things that embody today's conservative movement
demonstrate that genuine social justice is not remotely a conservative cause.
The right has gone out so far, I don't think it can come back.