The Relevance of McCain's Houses - It's Emblematic of the New Gilded Age

[Yavin4]

We live in a society where almost half of Americans are either uninsured or underinsured. We're losing jobs and entire industries to foreign competition. We have a trillion dollar annual budget deficit. Our schools are failing. We have entire towns in the Midwest and in CA that are literally becoming ghost towns due either to the loss of mfg. jobs or the housing bubble bust.

Yet, we have one of the primary candidates for the presidency who is soo wealthy that he cannot even keep count of how many homes he has. Wealth is becoming concentrated in the hands of too few of us, and this is not healthy for a democracy nor for our economy.

Are there wealthy Dems as well? Yes, but here is the critical difference. Most Dems, esp. those in the majority, don't advocate economic policies that will only help the wealthy and the powerful. Most Dem politicians want universal healthcare at the very least. Most Dems want a higher min. wage. Most Dems want more funding for public education and re-training of workers.

There's nothing wrong with being wealthy, but there is something wrong with being ostentatious about it. There is something wrong with advocating policies that only help the wealthy like lowering corporate taxes or eliminating the tax deduction for healthcare benefits.

[TwilightGardener]

1. "Gilded", not guilded. And I agree--nobody needs ten homes.

[LSparkle]

2. Excellent point ... Dems want EVERYONE to do better, while Repugs

want it all for themselves (remember the Raygun-era
mantra, "Greed is Good"?). Hate to be a stickler but
I think the term is "Gilded Age," though ("gilded" as
in "golden").

[bushisanidiot]

3. GOOD post.

r&k