Here’s Your Wealth Redistribution

Eric Cantor found the courage to speak at the University of Michigan to an audience limited to 250. And he boldly spoke out in favor of being fair to his owners the rich.

“Social justice is about fairness. Fairness is making sure that we afford opportunities for everyone to pursue their happiness,” Cantor said. “There are several folks that have stood up to say tax the rich. That that’s somehow fair.”

“That all we have to do is redistribute the wealth and we can create the American dream for more.” he continued. “That doesn’t work… wealth distribution doesn’t work.”

Interesting if he really said “wealth distribution” instead of “redistribution,” and James Fallows shows us that wingnuts are no slackers when it comes to wealth distribution.

6 thoughts on “Here’s Your Wealth Redistribution

  1. I’m sure that Chicken-sh*t Cantor, a typical Republican, only had the “courage to speak” because he had a carefully handpicked audience.

    No OWS people there.

    Not unless they were the right OWS people – the OWSFACO:
    “Occupy Wall Street From A Corner Office.”

  2. And on the subject of tax cuts, looking at those charts, I have a suggestion for our rightie friends:

    Don’t try to sell us the old “Trickle-down” bullshit anymore. It ain’t worked for us yet.

    With tax cuts like this for the rich, I suggest you call it “Gusher-down” economics. Where, when we stuff THAT much money into the rich folks already full pockets, they’re just going to ‘gusher’ us with cash in gratitude.

    “Gusher-down” economics!

  3. The rhetoric gets more and more orwellian. Only a Republican could fail to see anymore that “creating the American dream for more” and “redistributing the wealth” are precisely and coextensively the same thing. Newspeak, after all, is about enforcing strict rules on language that have the effect of limiting what can be thought. So let it be known that henceforth no concept of the American dream shall take any notice of the distribution of wealth, however grotesquely unequal it may be.

    And these are the same people who insist that allowing same sex couples to wed would violate the sanctity of the current definition of the word marriage!

  4. Stephen,
    They have a ‘broad’ definition of marriage:

    If you’re a guy, you gotta marry a ‘broad’ – and if you’re a ‘broad,’ you gotta marry a guy!

    A ‘broad’ definition of marriage!

  5. Wealth distribution doesn’t work

    All the evidence I’ve seen says it works just fine. Wingnuts just say stuff, without any supporting argument, because there is none.

  6. The “re” in front of distribution asserts that there is natural order of distribution that we are “re”-distributing from. There is no natural order to how the rewards of an economy are distributed, only laws and rules and customs and circumstance. When congress passed the Taft-Hartley in 1947 the power, and thus the distribution share, of unions and labor regressed. When we tax capital gains at a lower rate than that of people who work, we further diminish the rewards of labor. Those are decisions we have made, not a result of Cantor’s imaginary natural order in which he thinks rewarding the very rich is “fair” while people who work die of illnesses they cannot buy insurance for or from lack of food that their labor no longer rewards.

Comments are closed.