The liberal feminists are pulling their hair out. They've been wanting a woman on the ticket since Geraldine and when one finally comes along, she's a gun-totting, moose-hunting, anti-abortion mother of five and, worst of all, a Republican. And she's the biggest sensation to hit American politics since what's-his-name. It's enough to make you burn your bra.
Speaking of What's-his-name, he keeps saying he's going to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans. Leaving aside the fact the the President doesn't have the power to give anyone a tax cut, it's hard to reconcile that promise with the fact that 38% of households paid zero income taxes in 2006 (latest IRS data available). What he really is putting forward is a plan to take money from taxpayers and give it to non-taxpayers. Of course, we already do this with the Earned Income Tax Credit.
He calls these income transfers Refundable Tax Credits, but what it amounts to is a $648 billion, 10 year welfare program. What he's really saying is, "I will use the power of government to do something you can't do legally: I will steal from your neighbor and give the money to you." This is what democracy comes to when you have 10% of the people paying 70% of the income tax and 50% paying 3%.
4 comments:
Economic figures show that in 2005, the wealthiest 0.1 percent of the country’s population had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the lower economic half of the country. Of each dollar people earned in 2005, the top ten percent got 48.5 cents, the highest percentage since 1929, just before the Great Depression.
As for Palin, Feminist didn't just want a skirt in the Whitehouse, they wanted a voice. Someone who would prove that women are just as good leaders as men. Someone who would champion women's issues, making as much money as a man for the same job, the right to do with their bodies what they believe to be right. Not just someone who pulls the party line to the right of Dr. Farwell.
I haven't read anything to date about Sarah Palin being against equal pay for women, but I feel the right to life / to choose debate should be based on people's "right to believe", and should not be judged by "who's right".
The country is split on this issue, so I think the arguement that a woman should be able to do as they wish their bodies is just as valid as the people who believe that life begins at conception.
I believe in pro-choice, but I can understand and be tolerant of where the pro-life camp stands on this issue. Being raised catholic, may make that easier for me.
There is a lot of discussion these days about acceptance, diversity, openness, etc., but it only seems to count if you think the exact same way of the people who are speaking the loudest.
Regarding post #2... If the "feminists" wanted a person in the Whitehouse to be their voice and champion their issues, then they are sadly misunderstanding what the role of anyone in the Whitehouse is. The purpose of someone in the Whitehouse is to be a leader. I guess they are upset because Sarah is not woman enough to be a woman? Weird.
They should be delighted that she is able to stand up to and with anyone, male or female. But they are not.
Once again Lou, great post, good boiling down of the point.
Post a Comment