Excerpt: "Santorum said, 'I'm not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality. There is income inequality in America. There always has been and, hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be.' Unbelievable. Maybe not, but stunning all the same."
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum recently told a crowd in Detroit that he 'hopes income inequality will always exist.' (photo: AP)
Santorum's Gospel of Inequality
19 February 12
"Santorum Praises Income Inequality."
That was Fox News's headline about Rick Santorum's speech at the Detroit Economic Club on Thursday. Santorum said, "I'm not about equality of result when it comes to income inequality. There is income inequality in America. There always has been and, hopefully, and I do say that, there always will be."
Unbelievable. Maybe not, but stunning all the same.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |








Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
It's quite another when the wealthy pull up the ropes after themselves to keep the less fortunate on the lower rungs, no matter how hard they work.
Massive income inequality is most certainly bad. It destabilizes societies in ways that have been historically proven over the years by revolution after bloody revolution.
It's like telling everybody else: there is no hope you will improve your situation. At best, you will remain at the same place in the economic ladder.
Those fools think they are going to heaven. They are every bit as fanatic as the Arab Taliban. There are a lot of these fundamentalists .
I saw a program some time ago and one woman, interviewed, said that she would like to see the world end, today rather than tomorrow, she would happily see her children die. We are seeing Jones town here folks. That is the Santorum followers, maybe not all, but an awful lot.
Then he has to identify with the angry, frightened, spiteful bigots that were ginned up by Rovarian 'division' politics. They demand, with 'thumbs down' that their half black President be drawn and quartered.
Lastly, there is Rick's compulsion to carry forward the righteous moral Crusades of his faith against unrepentant 'others'. Santorem's personal views have been meshed with carefully selected scripture to produce indignation, if not condemnation, against the 'evil' of those who do not agree with him on a significant number of issues of public policy.
That's a LOT of external baggage for a virulent partisan politician to balance against potential Presidential responsibility "...to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" on behalf of ALL the citizens of this nation. It may be we are expecting more of him than is fair or logical to assume.
Well said, Fred. Well said, Indeed!
Rick truly believes he is God. The last guy who thought this had a rather long descent. Rick your landing, nor those who support you, will not be a soft one.
Thanks for reading!
Remember Jimmy Swaggert?? Oh my God there was a grade A super jerk. Since I am a lady I can't write what I REALLY think of him. and Jimmy Baker, and Tammy Fay??
UNBELIEVABLE. How do you explain THAT??
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’? Matthew 25:-40
Kindness, comfort, sustainability, sharing, community effort, support and mutuality - that is heaven. What is the devil's hell, Mr. super christian? It is greed! It is self-serving righteousness that allows one to apply narrowly parsed, 2000 year old, thrice interpreted, politically correctED dogma as divine. It is the abomination of divisive "my faith is more better than yours" superiority. It is the primitive inclination to 'defeat' competitors rather than celebrate the act of competing.
Righteous, self-indulgent 'crap' was totally repudiated by the founders of the United States. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams would all be rejected by today's Christians for their failure to genuflect to current interpretations of Christ's teachings. To a man they demonstrated that one should learn and understand, not memorize and quote..
Jesus of course meant that you should help the poor ungrudgingly and not be tight fisted or moralising about it either.
Every once in a while I drift into the fantasy that these "social values" moralists actually BELIEVE the spittle and foam they project.
Then I sink back into the fetid reality of Donald Segretti, the 'patriotic' untruthiness of the Swift Boaters, false equivalency of SCOTUS simultaneous "free" and "corporate" speech, Rovarian division politics, and the Moral Majority, Tea Party or (How in hell DO or CAN you?) "Restore Our Future" ... what does that MEAN?
I guess superPACmen - Adelson, Friess, Simmons, the Koch Brothers and a few dozen other patrons - significantly influence virtually ALL of this ART of political propaganda. The "special" nature of their INTERESTS generally defines the direction, intensity and enthusiasm of their 'investments' in government. The impact of their voice does drown out the murmurs of those who OCCUPY the underclass.
Acceptance of this SURREALITY is problematic. It seems likely that righteous whores are not stupid. They know who they are screwing AND who is paying for it. They don't represent me and I have little respect for their 'pimps'. It is unlikely that ANY of them have a clue about "representative" democracy.
The fact that he wants to turn the clock waaaaay back and take away the rights of women, among MANY other sick ideas he has, and his way of using religion to divide the country makes us ANGRY.
I observed him when he was in the senate. (on C-SPAN). He was a piece of dirt, and I was really happy when he was thrown out. He lost by 18-19 points. That is thrown out, in my book.
Santorum is the one, who engineered the whole Terry Chiavo debacle. He called all the senators back in session, even Bush came back from cutting brush on the ranch....all to write a LAW to keep ONE brain-dead woman breathing.
That was UTTERLY disgusting, and THAT is why he was thrown out of the senate, and one of the MANY reason we all here hate his guts
Regarding his actions in the Schiavo case, why did he choose to get involved and do what he did? He acted because he values human life and saw an action on the part of Terri's husband to end her life. An effort to end another human being's life is also known as murder. Aside from all the legal twists and turns, I see that his value is that human life is worth something.
If we argue that human life is only worth something if it meets someone's definition of quality of life, (i.e. brain dead, or even preborn) whose definition do we rule by? And what if that authority determines that my life or yours no longer meets their definition of quality of life, then we could be labelled a burden on society and therefore eliminated by the will of another.
Life is sacred. And while some think he was meddling, I respect him for taking action on the principle of defending human life. And if by "taking away rights" you mean that Mr. Santorum is interested in taking away the right to an abortion, please consider this: My right to throw a punch ends at the tip of someone else's nose. And I believe that the right to have an abortion crosses the line in its effect of destroying another human life.
I regret that forums like these seem to degrade from intelligent conversations into rude and disrespectful rantings even among such highly educated people as those who frequent this site. And yes, conservatives are equally guilty of degrading speech. Though I may disagree with some of your views, I pledge to be respectful in intelligent discussion of the issues.
I hope he makes it into the White House.
RSS feed for comments to this post.