WELL SPOKEN, Mr. VICE-PRESIDENT.

America needed more of that.

The hoopla or uproar or backlash of what Vice-president Joe Biden said the other day was completely superfluous, with some scholarly black ivy league gentlemen going on TV and addressing the issue in the media as something unheard of before in American history.

Thank G.., he did not use the "n" word; or it would have been "all hell breaks loose" for those, who were assailing him for his "put y'all back in chains" comment in his speech to a predominantly African American audience.

Many people would agree that Joe Biden was such an independent person, he seldom spoke for anyone else; and he was used to parodying with his political statements, they sometimes went past ordinary rhetoric to be more like pure "slapstick comedy" on many occasions.

However, if one would take the trouble to look closely, he used the phrase or term that his critics were so angry about metaphorically. His emphasis was not on "slavery" or even on black people. It was on Wall Street and the kinds of policies that the Republican Party ticket candidates, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, would pursue, if they succeeded in getting elected in the 2012 presidential election.

... and he was damn right, that the prime investment companies in the country would be catered to by a team like that. There was no doubt that Romney represented the private equity sector and Ryan was a quintessential right-wing conservative, who would listen to nothing, but his base.

If those young men, who were on the media trying to distant or exonerate themselves from Joe Biden and condemning his statement knew the people behind the campaign in the forthcoming election, with President Barack Obama and he, Joe Biden, on one side, and the Republican pair on the other, they would think twice before they uttered a single word to show their indignation against his (Obama's) vice-president.

Biden's motive was a very simple one; and that was to point to the fact that huge sums of money was involved in the campaign that could throw the election wide open for someone or a group of people "to buy it".

It was a warning, not just for the sake of race or color. It was one for the whole nation; and he had previously written about the issue of the type of money changing hands in the campaign only a day or two before on the Internet, and he knew what he was talking about.

Now, how would that kind of warning be received, if it came from a low level campaign operative than from the vice-president? He was only alluding to the seriousness of the situation, that if the middle class and working people allowed the election to go the other way, they would have a long time to wait, before the opportunity they presently have came by again.

He was just saying the same thing that Obama has been saying all along, that if there should be a really strong economy that the country needed so much, there must be a reversion in regard to "the system".

Only a few privileged people have control over it (system), and if the voting masses were going to give them more power, then where would any kind of change come from?

The vice-president had the economy, more than just race or ethnicity on his mind; and as outspoken as he was, he might have used a gaffe to help him to get his message across. Yet, if that message was heard loud and clear, he would have done his job; and that was all that he wanted to do.

He might be involved in some outbursts that were rough and even derogatory in a characteristic fashion, once in a while; but he wanted his listeners to hear him well before it was too late.

Those men in smart suits, and appearing on the media, chastising him and showing their outrage did not really know what was going on; but he (Biden) did, and therefore, he must be listened to.

"Put y'all back in chains," was an after thought; and if this was not a case, when the real emphasis was forgotten, but the after thought was getting all the attention it did not deserve, then nobody knew what the whole hullabaloo of Biden's statement was about.

Comments 4 comments

Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey

You stated, "It was on Wall Street and the kinds of policies that the Republican Party ticket candidates, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, would pursue, if they succeeded in getting elected in the 2012 presidential election." AND "that was to point to the fact that huge sums of money was involved in the campaign that could throw the election wide open for someone or a group of people "to buy it"."

What specifically are these "kinds of policies"? And, did Biden also mean the political money given to Democrats or ONLY those given to Republicans?


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi Mitch Alan,

Millions of dollars are reaching the coffers of the Republican Party more than those of the Democratic Party.

If you did not know that, then you might be hibernating, even during the Summer; and I would not blame you, because many people were the same as you. They would fall sound asleep, until a cinder block was dropped on their heads before they knew what was really going on.

By the time they woke up, the damage to whatever they had would have happened.

The two Republican guys were as ignorant as a couple of dodo birds, when it came to foreign policy; and besides, there would be no change of any kind in the economy. The reason being that there was nothing wrong with it (economy), except that the Congressional Republicans would not allow it to work as it should.

They have made it difficult for President Barack Obama, since his inauguration; and that was why the economy has remained stale and unemployment kept rising.

What they, Romney and Ryan, would do would be to remove the all the trade regulations that were restricting Wall Street, and then things would go back to "normal", with the hiding of corporate profits that were needed to be taxed and the proceeds to be put to better use, like updating the infrastructure, for the benefit of all Americans.

Obama's plan would be to change the nature and the operation of the financial sector completely, and capitalism, as we knew it, would never be the same again.

The economy would be stronger, and more taxation revenue would become available for the needs of the country, such as National security and defense, among others.

Off-shore and Swiss accounts would be taxed, and every citizen would be forced to pay his or her fair share in taxes.

That would be in the best interest of America as a whole.

That change, which was more equitable, must come; and it would only be the Obama administration that could bring that about.

Romney and Ryan were capitalist/conservatives, and they would stick to the "old system", which was gradually driving the nation to the ground, with recessions and near depressions.

The middle class and working people would be sharing in the prosperity that a strong economy would produce under Obama.

Capitalism would be altered beyond recognition; and as the financial direction the U.S. would take would be more progressive, so would the rest of the world go. It (world) would be a very happy place than at present.


Mitch Alan profile image

Mitch Alan 4 years ago from South Jersey

Again, What specific policies that either candidate has actual proposed are you talking about. Don't give vague generalities, but cite actual policies.

And, I am aware and awake...I didn't say that in recent months the Republican candidate hasn't raised more than his Democrat opponent. What I am asking is that considering both candidates have raised enormous sums of money and will continue to do so, do you agree that if one side can be bought, that so can the other...or are you saying that if Obama gets re-elected that he wont be "bought"...

You claim that the Republicans held Obama back from accomplishing his "fundamental transformation of America"...He had a Democrat controlled Congress for 2 years and he passed most everything he wanted. And we now have higher unemployment, higher deficits and national debt, higher gas/energy costs etc etc etc...

What policies (specific) that he wanted to pass didn't get passed?


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi Mitch Alan,

You still don't get it; and like a great many Republicans, including Mitt Romney, the presumptive candidate for the party in the 2012 general election, you are struggling with the notion that the "status quo" needs not to be changed.

Romney has said so himself. "My plan does not change; it will remain the same," he told his audience on the campaign trail.

President Barack Obama has been interrupted by the 2010 mid-term elections that brought "the tea party" into being under the accusation of overspending by the government. That made the opposition to his policies to increase.

Yet, his main aim was (and still is) to alter the financial system called "Capitalism". He was not going to destroy it; but he would correct it, so that the economy would not be under the control of a few wealthy people on Wall Street.

Trade regulations would make it possible to establish a strong middle class entity in American society to steer the progress and direction of the standard of living for all citizens.

In other words, the working people would have more spending power in the market place, instead of corporations and banks sitting on large sums of money and giving their executives huge bonuses they did not deserve. Prosperity would be widespread as a result of a strong economy generated from "main street" (meaning the middle class and ordinary working people).

As far as policies were concerned, you were damn right; Romney and Ryan have none, except to go back and dismantle the strict regulations (as mentioned before) for business on WS to be conducted in an honest fashion by financial houses, corporations and their subsidiaries.

The credibility in the business world has waned beyond description; and that has resulted in a weak economy that the country was experiencing now.

They (Romney and Ryan) would disembowel the Social Security Trust Funds in such a way that the program would become ineffective. More senior citizens would be living in poverty, as their benefits would be overshadowed by high cost of living and inflation.

The National debt has been rising, because of two wars; and as for the rate of unemployment, he has proposed several programs to deal with that, but the Republicans in the U.S. Congress have made it impossible for them (programs) to materialize.

With higher gas/energy prices he has no control over them. You should be old enough to know that.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working