For me, thatís a beautiful thing, Mr. Bob. Because: If you are able to define someone, you are able to confine them.
I think you have a point there, Regina. I wasnít, however, the one who was claiming to know the will of ďWe the People.Ē Itís difficult enough to know your own mind and heart, left alone try to speak for the Nation. You get into advanced Rhetoric when you try to do that. Kierkegaardís Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing sort of stuff, or, on the other end of the moral spectrum, and Hitlerís ďEin Volk, ein Reich, ein FŁhrer.
Many people outside this Nation can only dream of liberty.
Thatís very true.
Whatís also very true is that many people outside this country have it. Many people inside this country feel they have it as well. Some people inside this country feel they have it and that it is endangered for various reasons. I am among that last group.
don't like his redistribution of wealth dreams,
Iíve addressed most of the other statements in this familiar litany in other forums, Mike. You know that I disagree, and you know why I disagree. I lack the energy right now to rehash stuff that Iíve already addressed fairly directly. Perhaps another time. This accusation does seem a bit odd to me. It seems odd because you havenít stopped to think about it in a fairly obvious way. Most any tax bill is a bill about redistribution of wealth. Pretty much every state gets taxed by the same Federal codes, doesnít it? Yet some states get more than they pay in overall, and some get less. Which is Florida? As you a net gainer or are you a net loser? I donít know, though my guess would be that overall, you probably get more than you give in taxes. Perhaps Iím wrong. Itís that way with a lot of the Southern states.
Do you object to that?
Thatís redistribution of wealth and most of the old confederacy lies like an old gator at the bottom of a pond, dreaming of slavery and blood and killing yankees, and funds those reptile dreams on money supplied by the wealthier and more populous states. You donít complain about that sort of redistribution of wealth, Mike, do you? It builds your roads, and helps you with your poverty programs and with unemployment when they happen, helps fund schools and the VA and all sorts of stuff.
The tax cuts since 2000 massively redistributed wealth upwards, out of the pockets of the middle classes and the poor and into the pockets of the very wealthy. Those were Republican Redistributive dreams, and they borrowed lots and lots of money from China and from other places to help funs that tax cut. We are still paying for that tax cut, Mike. It was supposed to be a stimulus, remember, and instead of being a stimulus, it cost the economy initially twenty-five cents on each dollar we borrowed, and now we are paying the interest to china. As will our Grandchildren unless we can do something about it. Thatís where the debt came from. Now youíre upset about the money to pay that debt back? Where might you have been when the debt was being incurred, Mike? You were having a party, as I recall. You thought it was wonderful!
When I said that somebody would have to pay for it, you laughed at me. Now youíre rewriting history.
You not only didnít object to redistributing the wealth upward, you had the equivalent of a toga party while it was happening. You said that it would pay for itself. The wealthy folks didnít put the money back into the economy the way poor folks would have. Poor folks more or less have to put it back, because theyíre often a paycheck away from starving, so the money goes right back into cheese and crackers and beef and rent and stuff like that.
Money redistributed to them, Mike, tends to make the economy work. It makes money for the country. If the money we redistributed upward during the Bush years cost us twenty-five cents on the dollar out of the economy, the money we redistribute downward tends to generate about a buck twenty into the economy. It is an investment.
I wrote about the references for this the last time I gave details about redistribution and tax cuts.
About President Obamaís failure to act on Immigration, Iíd suggest that you check the Republicans who have refused to act upon it as well, and not simply during this administration. The last solid action we had on the subject was during the Reagan administration, and those actions would never be allowed during this administration. They would certainly not be allowed by the Republicans, who would howl at the very prospect, and certainly the Democrats would have terrible trouble getting legislation like that by these days as well.
I agree that the problem should be Federal, by the way.
The bill jointly suggested by Shumer and Graham a few weeks back in an op ed piece they both authored for the New York Times was scuttled when Graham backed out of it. I think it would have been a good start.