In an attempt to defend the Democrats’ idea of equity, which differs from equality, Vice President Kamala Harris is not exactly the wordsmith of our time—made some incoherent statements that once again showed she is completely out of her depth.
Making communist wealth redistribution seem rational while using word salads, laughing about Venn diagrams, and even about yellow school buses is quite another. Harris failed to get on base again.
Harris started in a defensive manner:
“Yes, equality is a topic we discuss. In fact, we think it’s a sound principle. notwithstanding what some so-called leaders may attempt to imply.”
“We are pleased that one of our driving values is equality. We are happy that although everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, not everyone does so from the same starting point.”
“So that seems like it may be correct; everyone receives an equal amount, after which they should compete, and the greatest thing will win, yet that presupposes everyone starts off on an equal footing. Equity considers the possibility that this might not be the case.”
Keep in mind that an 80-year-old man who can no longer make his way off the podium or into Air Force One without ending up falling down is the only thing standing between this lady and the office of president of the United States. Don’t mess up 2024; it’s important; but I digress.
Let’s analyze Harris’ justification of equality, then.
Kamala Harris, speaking in this instance on behalf of the Democratic Party, made it quite apparent that everyone — always — should “get started on the very same base.” Why, and how do you justify it?
What claim does “B” have to the generosity of “A,” and why, if Person A works harder and succeeds more than Person B? Why should “A” pay a fine to “even out the playing field” for “B” if “A” amasses a bigger wealth than “B”?
There are other instances, such as Biden’s socialist plan to raise mortgage rates for “A” borrowers so that “B” borrowers may pay cheaper rates. This is not only an outright transfer of wealth, but it also utilizes an inverted risk model, which essentially means that healthy individuals pay greater life and health insurance rates than ill individuals. I could continue, but it’s starting to bother my head as well.
In addition, you won’t ever alter their beliefs by debating “equity vs. equality” or any other left-wing idea with enraged liberals — which is something I avoid doing — but while you’re there, you may as well outline some of their faulty assumptions. The only thing equity does is put lipstick on the pig of wealth transfer.
Now, it’s possible that your left-wing friends (if you have any) believe wealth redistribution is a great, get-even idea. Given that “evil” affluent individuals and much more evil-large businesses trample on the middle class and the poor, you know.
Author: Steven Sinclaire