Posted on 03/05/2013 3:58:20 PM PST by bestintxas
He’s using “their” language because he’s one of “them”.
He's using their own rhetoric against them saying the gap they always decry is growing under Obama.
You're wrong.
You are wrong. He didn’t just say income disparities are undesirable. He called then “Un-American”.
Income disparities are inevitable in a free economy run by free people. To say income disparities are Un-American is to say a free economy is Un-American.
That makes him one of then ipso facto
Disparities due to socialist policies of increased taxes, regs, and entitlements are very "un-American".
Lack of freedom which causes poverty and keeps the poor down is "un-American". There is little social mobility now...exactly what Bush says here.
I have been saying for years that disparities under Obama are "un-American" and wrong. Go ahead and defend them if you like but it's very telling that you defend the current disparity under Obama IMO.
Obviously we don’t have a free economy. If we did there would still be income disparities. Mr. Bush does not draw any distinction between income disparities cause by our crony capitalism or income disparities that evolve out of a free economy. According to him it is simply Un-American to have income disparites.
He is wrong. You are wrong.
LOL. He wasn't giving a philosophical treatise on economic models and the effects of various policy in political systems.
He was commenting on today's lack of social mobility in America.
And he is correct; Obama is greatly increasing income disparity and the lack of freedom has decreased social mobility.
I guess we have an example of the legendary inability of Bushs to express what they “REALLY REALLY” mean.
It takes a synchophant to decipher if for us.
Thank you for that service.
I ain’t buying it.
You've deciphered it that way even though Bush never governed according to those principles, never said anything in the past to imply he believes in equality of outcome, and does not belong to the party (communist) which espouses that.
Bizarre.
The Bushs governed like big governement statists. Jeb talks the same talk.
If you can’t see that THAT is bizarre.
He governed to that end? Really?
If people who are born poor, stay poor, it’s because they can’t rap!
He said income disparity is un-american. If he doesn’t want to eliminate it then I guess he is in favor of un-americanism.
People every day on FR recognize that. But apparently you're in favor of it.
As I am in favor of free markets, I accept income disparity.
As I oppose socalist statism, I oppose the nostrums of socialist statists.
And yet you oppose Bush when he says this:
"You have people that are born poor and there's a higher and higher probability that they're going to stay poor. And you have people that are born rich and there's a greater probability that they'll stay rich. It's just so un-American."
Under Obama, Bush is right. The probabilities are growing that people will be locked into their economic levels and social mobility will decrease. This is due to Obama's socialist policies and in indeed un-American. For some reason you seem to think the increasing lack of social mobility is A-OK.
You are pretending that Bush said income disparity is always un-American. He, in fact, did not say this and did not even utter those words. What he decries is the higher probabilities that people will remain locked in poverty, not the fact that there are income disparities.
You are telling us what Bush "really really said" instead of what he said which was decrying the increasing lack of mobility which Obama's policies are causing.
It is true that our education system is in the pits and it is true that it can not be reformed. Unless he’s talking about scraping and replacing the public education system with something wholely new and modern, he flapping his gums to entertain the stupid.
Second, there are few and fewer middle class jobs because globalism rushes to the bottom of the globe’s gutters. If you can hire a Chinese slave for five cents and a bowl of rice a day to do what a middle class American would do for 80k a year, you are going to the Utopian slaveland with your jobs. It is not a flexible outcome and is guarenteed.
Globalism works to employ and provide a minimal existence to the overpopulated third world nations, while leaving the West high and dry. It serves the profit and total power of a few corporate globalists and screws Americans and Europeans out of existence.
Social mobility is crucial. Income disparity is inevitable, and NOT un-American.
And no one said it wasn't, including Bush.
Social mobility is crucial.
If by "crucial" you mean essential to maintaining the American way of life then you are actually in agreement with Jeb Bush who had this to say:
"You have people that are born poor and there's a higher and higher probability that they're going to stay poor. And you have people that are born rich and there's a greater probability that they'll stay rich. "It's just so un-American,"
Well, under Jeb Bush Florida was the first state to offer vouchers so he may be talking about something new.
There are people who insist that Jeb governed like a statist but the FL voucher system does not offer evidence for that.
Yes, Bush will use the government to help make the poor into the rich.
That is why he says we need ‘immigration reform’ so badly, because after the poor become rich they wont want to clean our houses or cut our lawns anymore, they will want some poor people to do that for them.
So we need more poor immigrants to do that, till they get rich too, then we need more, then more, then more, till everyone who is poor lives here and is rich.
\
Jack Kemp's doctrine.
Where could this go wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.