I was chatting with a blue dog democrat the other day although this person did not realize that is exactly what they believed. Of course, Obamacare came up as did the problems with radical conservatives, especially those in the media.
One political show had drifted a bit too far to the right and in my view was messing up their message. The blue dog said that they spend time tearing down the other side and that does not help them raise themselves up. I happened to agree with that sentiment.
Then we moved on to other topics including the poor and again we agreed that there should be some sort of system in place to help those in need - true need. We also agreed that the gap between rich and poor had gotten unacceptably wide. Blue dog though taxing the rich was a good idea to help the poor.
I did not respond but thought to myself, so you want to tear them down (financially) to help close the income gap? But you just said that tearing someone down does not help raise other higher.
Yes, the income gap is bad but wouldn't it be better to raise the poor higher to close it? Tearing down the rich does not make poor people better off.
I will leave it there because this is not a political blog. The financial implications are rather obvious, well, to me anyway.
1 comment:
The question of whether to verbally "tear down" an opposing party is just a matter of taste. But as to whether the rich should pay more taxes, the answer is clearly yes. So if that's also "tearing down", then "tearing down" is a good thing.
The scale of judgment is supposed to tilt toward its heavier side. Taxation is a much heavier issue than the antics of the MSM.
Post a Comment