The $374,000 Debate
I told myself I wasn’t going to discuss politics anymore. I don’t like talking about it, and I tend to avoid it like the plague. Unfortunately, in this volatile political environment that we live in, I don’t have much of a choice anymore. So, with that in mind, here are a few things that have caught my attention:
Mitt Romney is clueless. A few days ago, Mitt Romney was quoted as saying that receiving $374,327 was “not very much.” This was in response to people asking him to inform what his tax rate was. He didn’t actually say what his tax rate was, but he said it was probably closer to 15%. To quote from this article, Romney said his tax rate was “closer to the 15 percent rate than anything. For the past 10 years, my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income or earned annual income. I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away. Then, I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much.” Now, I don’t care if you make a metric ton of money; I couldn’t care less. But, please realize that what you consider “not very much” is more than most Americans will make in a lifetime. It’s a good thing that he gave his book income away, but I think “not very much” was a poor choice of words.
Speaking of poor choice of words, let’s discuss Newt Gingrich. Forsaking the jokes about his name (who names their child Newt anyway?), Newt is under fire from none other than Jimmy Carter. The 39th President gave an interview to Piers Morgan (which will be on CNN tonight) where he accused Gingrich of – and I quote this article by Jim Galloway – of “purposely using code words of the old segregated South when he talks of a ‘food stamp president’ and the need for the poor to learn how to hold a job.” I would continue to quote, but it’s in the article; I recommend reading it. I was having a conversation with one of my conservative friends on Twitter on Martin Luther King Day, and I mentioned how I have qualms with both Gingrich and Rick Santorum (more on him later), and he asked why I had a problem with Gingrich. I mentioned the fact that he was talking about the “food stamp president” vs. being the “jobs creating president” dynamic, but I wasn’t quite sure why that bothered me so much. Well, now I know. There are certain comments that can be made that seem okay on the surface, but are really bothersome just underneath. This is one of those statements.
Now, good ol’ Rick Santorum. The man who has a depraved sex act named after him (click here if you just wanna know – be warned, it is definitely NSFW). This man has been classified as a homophobe, as well possibly having racist tendencies. I’m sure you remember the flak, but just in case you don’t, here’s what happened: while stumping in Iowa, he was quoted as saying, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” Okay, here’s the thing, and Gingrich is just as guilty: black people do want to work; we’re not just sitting at the liquor store stumping for spare change. Times are hard for everyone, and to single black people out is idiotic and flat-out wrong. This article on Slate.com goes into greater detail, but they don’t speak to the bigger problem. My thing is this: I don’t have a problem with people speaking their mind…in fact, I wrote a blog about everyone having freedom of speech. The thing that everyone MUST remember is that there is a such a thing as retribution, and that retribution (as long as it’s verbal) is protected by – guess what? – FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
So, I’m practicing my freedom of speech and saying that Mitt Romney lives in a bubble and doesn’t even have the pretense of getting out, Newt Gingrich is a moron who is far out of touch with regular people – what with his wife having an expense account at Tiffany’s, after all, and Rick Santorum is an insensitive idiot who doesn’t know how to shut up and get out of his own way.
