Why Mr. Roads and Bridges Hates Suburbia
He resents that people have left the cities. He resents, in his world view, we’re not really talking about the rich. The middle class leaves the city, and they leave the stench and whatever is behind. It’s not fair they should be able to do that. They ought to have to stay there, like everybody else does. And so we’re gonna stop investing any more roads and bridges, suburbs. Don’t need that. We need to put that money into the cities, invest in minority-owned businesses and so forth, so that the people who stay in the city, ’cause they have no choice, get a little fair treatment.
Remember now, in Obama’s world, if you’re successful or if you’ve achieved, it’s not because of you. It’s because of a stacked deck. It’s because of an unfair set of advantages that you’ve had, however he wants to define it: your family, your race, who you know. Your success is not legitimate, and the proof of that is that there are still poor people. And you’re only successful because you’ve taken what the poor were entitled to. You’ve taken more than your share. This is exactly who he is. And when you’ve taken more than your share and then you use that to flee the city, well, then you are held in contempt. And you have to be gotten even with. So we’re gonna raise your taxes, and we’re gonna stop building bridges and roads for you to get easily back and forth, and we’re gonna take that money, that you’re essentially stealing, and we’re gonna keep it here in the city with these people. And maybe not the city, but really talking about populations here, groups of people. The disadvantaged, the victims of capitalism.
The suburbs stole the wealth of the inner city. That’s the point. The inner city is the inner city because suburbs stole it. People fled, people left, they took the money with them, and it wasn’t theirs. They’ve got more than their fair share. Folks, I’m not making this up. I’m simply telling you what he says. I’m not speaking philosophically here.