Greg Sargent and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post are out front praising the Obama "income inequality" speech from yesterday, touting it as "important" and "the best speech Obama has given on the economy."
For, if you aren't for equality, you are a jerk, don't ya know.
As usual, I have a question. What if Greg had saved $80 to spend for Christmas gifts for his friends and family, and Ezra had saved $2,900? Now, I don't know if they celebrate Christmas, but let's just do a "what if."
Any way you look at it, the difference between $2900 and $80 is pretty significant, especially if you are going to use the money to give presents to many people, and making sure everything's fair for everyone - you know, "equal."
Greg and Ezra both work for the same institution, they are both men, they are both writers, and they are both ideologically oppressive, er, progressive. Why don't they have the same amount of money for Christmas? It's not fair! Somebody ought to do something; there ought to be a law!
So the question is, do we give poor Greg $2,820 or do we take $2,820 from rich Ezra? Everything must be equal. If we take the money from Ezra, both Greg and Ezra have an equal amount of money to spend. If we give Greg money, he and Ezra will have the same amount of money to spend, but the problem is, we can't afford to give all the Gregs of the nation the kind money Ezra is flaunting.
How about we take half of Ezra's money and give it to Greg, and in order to avoid Greg coming out on top, let Ezra keep an initial $80. Now Ezra has $1,490 and Greg has $1,490 and Greg is now a much bigger fan of equality than Ezra. Greg has been able to keep all of his money, and Ezra has not. Greg's family is going to benefit immensely and Ezra's is going to still have twice the average American family allotment spent on them. Breathe in, breathe out, equality.
Ezra would have to be very stupid to come show-boating with his $2,900 next year.
Now you might ask, how did I come up with the numbers $2,900 and $80? All I did was look at the net worth of Oprah Winfrey and Roseanne Barr, and then I lopped off six zeroes.
According to celebritynetworth.com, Barr is worth $80 million and Winfrey is worth $2.9 billion. Holy inequality!
Although Winfrey has never grabbed her crotch while singing the National Anthem, that we know of, they are both women, both in the entertainment industry (yes, that evil word, “ industry”), they are both celebrities, known to every household in the U.S., and are regressives, er, progressives. Yet, they have a very unequal amount to show for it.
So, should we spot Oprah $80 million and steal half of the rest of her money to give it to Barr? I personally think we should, with maybe the stipulation that in order for the deal to go through, Barr has to keep her mouth shut. On that, I think we can all agree.
Of course, none of this would happen, because half of the participants would get royally screwed and they have platforms that they can use for protest, yet that is what they and Obama, as progressives, advocate for the rest of us.
Every single one of us has special qualities and talents, gifts from God. When we are in high school, we search for what it is we wish to become in our dreamy, starry-eyed future. Some of us know early on what we want, and some of us sort of go with the flow until we end up somewhere, but none of us dream of making minimum wage for the rest of our lives.
Nobody goes into college thinking, "If only I could make a living wage for the rest of my days, I'll be ok, and it'll totally be fair." We, instead, walk in the door, proud and ready to "show 'em what we got." We strive to stand out, and emphasize our own unique abilities.
We are created equal, but it is up to us to get where we need to go, where we want to go. We make individual decisions every day that affect our future. Unfortunately, so does the government.
When Obama and the rest of the oppressors talk about inequality, they are talking about taking from one to give to another. They are interfering with human nature, building up and playing off the selfishness of people who believe they are entitled to getting something for nothing, only because it's just not fair. It is oppressive because it diminishes a good job done well, and exalts the mediocre, which in the end leads to poor quality for all - which is, in fact, the definition of Big Government.
The fight to right the wrongs of inequality is a fight for the mediocre. Somehow, I don't think they'll be chanting, "Mediocrity Now!" at their equality demonstrations, but it would be accurate. In the meantime, you can pick four of your favorite leftists and play this fun inequality game. It's a lot more fun at parties than Obama’s boring Thanksgiving conversation about getting covered.