Obama's Agenda (political, of course)

[Boxlicker101]

There has been some question as to what Barack Obama has in mind if Americans are so short-sighted to elect him. He told us a long time ago, but it wasn't general knowledge until now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

You might say this was a long time ago, which it was, but that just means he knows that this idea won't play outside of South Chicago, so he has dummied up about it since then.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

There has been some question as to what Barack Obama has in mind if Americans are so short-sighted to elect him. He told us a long time ago, but it wasn't general knowledge until now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

You might say this was a long time ago, which it was, but that just means he knows that this idea won't play outside of South Chicago, so he has dummied up about it since then.

He's talking about the end of the civil rights movement, Box.

Besides this country has ALWAYS redistributed its wealth. We've always had progressive income tax. All Obama is talking about is moving the tax breaks back to what they were during the Clinton years.

People who elect Obama will actually be quite future-sighted. It's the short-sighted folks who vote their own self-interests that will vote for McCain.

 

[sweetness6280]

He's talking about the end of the civil rights movement, Box.

Besides this country has ALWAYS redistributed its wealth. We've always had progressive income tax. All Obama is talking about is moving the tax breaks back to what they were during the Clinton years.

People who elect Obama will actually be quite future-sighted. It's the short-sighted folks who vote their own self-interests that will vote for McCain.

Thank you, Selena.

This is what really pisses me off right now. Instead of trying to win on McCain's platform, the campaign is running the "be afraid of Obama" end game. Tossing out the words "socialist" and "redistribution of wealth" and even the "Marx" references are only meant to scare people into not voting for Obama. This is not "vote for me, I have a better idea," it is fear mongering and the worst kind of politics.

Our entire tax system is based on redistribution of wealth. As Selena points out, we have always had progressive income tax, largely supported by Republicans. One of the best recent examples of this is the Earned Income Tax credit, started by.... wait for it.... Ronald Reagan.

This type of campaigning has done one thing for me. Solidified the connection between GWB and McCain. Maverick, my ass.

 

[off2bed]

Ahh, the "The other guy did it, so it's ok for Obama to do it even more" argument. When people use that with Clinton how does it sound?

Whether the US is already going down the Socialist road or not is not the question. It's the wrong road. Period. Driving down it faster won't make it the right road.

 

[impressive]

Not only have we always redistributed our wealth via income taxes, I would much rather my "wealth" (such as it is) be redistributed to the folks struggling to make ends meet than handed to the folks sitting at the top of the food chain just because they might, if the spirit moves them, be magnanimous enough to let some it trickle down to the unwashed masses.

In the first place, more of my "wealth" would reach its target. It wouldn't HAVE to trickle. It could flow without the grasp and clutch of greed. In the second place, the gutter is where it has the most potential to affect change, to make a real difference, and to improve lives -- not just for that individual, but for everyone that person touches. And, I believe the person who pulls him/herself out of that gutter is far more likely to reach back and give the next guy a hand.

 

[epiphany65]

FACT CHECK: McCain misreads 2001 Obama interview
By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer

Oct 28th, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- Republican John McCain is misreading seven-year-old comments by rival Barack Obama about "redistributive change" to argue that the Democrat's tax policy is built on "taking your money and giving it to someone else."

The McCain campaign and the candidate himself are pointing to Obama's comments during a Chicago public radio program in 2001 that dealt with the civil rights movement and the Supreme Court.

"It's always more interesting to hear what people have to say in these unscripted moments," McCain told a rally in Dayton, Ohio, alluding to Obama's now well-known exchange in Ohio with Joe the Plumber. "And, today, we heard another moment like this from Sen. Obama.

"In a radio interview that was revealed today, he said that, quote, One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society."

Obama never said that, according to an audio file circulated by Naked Emperor News, a Web site with many postings critical of Obama. Fox News also posted a partial transcript of the interview.

What Obama called a tragedy was the civil rights movement's focus on the court, rather than on "political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Obama did not define redistributive change in the interview, but he said one example of such change involves education, "how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity."

McCain and Obama have sparred repeatedly over taxes. McCain says Obama plans a "massive new tax increase." Obama proposes an income tax increase on families earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning over $200,000 to help pay for tax cuts for the 95 percent of workers and their families making less than $200,000.

The interview on Chicago's WBEZ had nothing to do with taxes. The discussion centered on the court and civil rights.

Obama asserted that, while the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren guaranteed rights to vote and access to public accommodations, it was not very radical because it "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth."

The Warren Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution," he said.

Obama, who was then both an Illinois state senator and law professor, said, "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts."


http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/10/28/D943LJ8G1_fact_check_redistributing_wealth/index.html

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The Facts
From the Washington Post Fact Checker:

"Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!" runs the YouTube headline from the conservative video blog Naked Emperor News. "This video exposes the radical beneath the rhetoric."

On closer inspection, the "bombshell audio" turns out to be a rather wonkish, somewhat impenetrable, discussion of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Obama, then a University of Chicago law professor and Illinois state senator, argued that the courts have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in income distribution questions. He suggested that the civil rights movement had made a mistake in expecting too much from the courts -- and that such issues were better decided by the legislative branch of government.

You can read the entire transcript of the interview here., courtesy of Fox News, but here is the passage in which Obama explains that courts are "not very good" at redistributing wealth:

Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.

In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:

One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.

Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."

While there are sharp differences between the two candidates on economic issues, they both favor a progressive income tax system in which people with high incomes are taxed at a higher rate than people with low incomes.
The Pinocchio Test

With very few exceptions, all American politicians, including both presidential candidates, are in favor of a progressive income tax system and welfare policies (such as Medicare and Social Security) that "redistribute wealth." Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about "spreading the wealth around" than his Republican rival. But that does not make him a "Socialist." The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview.

Rating: Two Pinnochios;

=======================

Obama is actually a fiscal moderate and always has been.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Whether the US is already going down the Socialist road or not is not the question. It's the wrong road. Period. Driving down it faster won't make it the right road.

How do you know it's the wrong road? The US already offers a lot of "socialist-type" programs. Unless you're blind, you can see the path we're already on. Just because some of the people in this country have a deathly fear of the idea of REAL social equality doesn't mean it's the wrong road. It very well may be the right road, that we've had to drag the OTHER half of you down kicking and screaming and whining about your own selfish interests.

 

[sweetness6280]

Ahh, the "The other guy did it, so it's ok for Obama to do it even more" argument. When people use that with Clinton how does it sound?

Whether the US is already going down the Socialist road or not is not the question. It's the wrong road. Period. Driving down it faster won't make it the right road.

You completely missed the point of the argument. No one is giving any proof that what Obama is proposing is socialism, they just toss out words in the hope of scaring voters who do not read farther than the headlines. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them. It is this type of fear campaigning that I abhore. Run on your ideas, on your own platform, but don't toss out unfounded accusations in a last ditch effort to grab the Presidency. There is no honor in that, and if he succeeds, no mandate for his platform.

We are a long, long way from "going down the socialist road," but we seem to have this irrational fear of anything with the word "social" in it. There is a difference between social programs and the Socialism to which the McCain campaign is referring. The only people who are linking Obama's plan to Socialism are Republican pundits. All other analysts have debunked the myth that electing Obama will lead us into socialism. Just calling something socialism, doesn't make it so, or make it wrong.

If you can prove it.... do it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

IMPRESSIVE

The only way I know for the poor to get anything is for you to give it to them yourself. I assure you, charities and government take care of people last when the money is handed out.

Once I saw how it was I stopped donating to charity. I give my money to real people in need.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Thank you, Selena.

This is what really pisses me off right now. Instead of trying to win on McCain's platform, the campaign is running the "be afraid of Obama" end game. Tossing out the words "socialist" and "redistribution of wealth" and even the "Marx" references are only meant to scare people into not voting for Obama. This is not "vote for me, I have a better idea," it is fear mongering and the worst kind of politics.

Our entire tax system is based on redistribution of wealth. As Selena points out, we have always had progressive income tax, largely supported by Republicans. One of the best recent examples of this is the Earned Income Tax credit, started by.... wait for it.... Ronald Reagan.

This type of campaigning has done one thing for me. Solidified the connection between GWB and McCain. Maverick, my ass.

I wouldn't call it fear mongering. I would call it pointing out what one candidate favors, and telling voters they can make up their minds using that info.

I'm aware of the progressive income tax. If I believe Obama, the taxable income of me and my wife is low enough that we would pay no income tax. The problem is that I don't believe him. It may start that way, but in a few years, we will be paying more than we are now.

That's the trouble with Socialism. It encourages sloth, rather than work and attempts by individuals to better themselves. At first, it's good, but as more and more people slack off, fewer and fewer people will be supporting them.

Why did Bell invent the telephone? Did he do it to benefit mankind? No, he did it so he could make a lot of money. Under Socialism, he wouldn't have bothered, because there would have been risk and hard work, and not much benefit after he succeeded. I think you can say the same for almost all inventors and innovators.

 

[Boxlicker101]

FACT CHECK: McCain misreads 2001 Obama interview
By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer

Oct 28th, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- Republican John McCain is misreading seven-year-old comments by rival Barack Obama about "redistributive change" to argue that the Democrat's tax policy is built on "taking your money and giving it to someone else."

The McCain campaign and the candidate himself are pointing to Obama's comments during a Chicago public radio program in 2001 that dealt with the civil rights movement and the Supreme Court.

"It's always more interesting to hear what people have to say in these unscripted moments," McCain told a rally in Dayton, Ohio, alluding to Obama's now well-known exchange in Ohio with Joe the Plumber. "And, today, we heard another moment like this from Sen. Obama.

"In a radio interview that was revealed today, he said that, quote, One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society."

Obama never said that, according to an audio file circulated by Naked Emperor News, a Web site with many postings critical of Obama. Fox News also posted a partial transcript of the interview.

What Obama called a tragedy was the civil rights movement's focus on the court, rather than on "political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Obama did not define redistributive change in the interview, but he said one example of such change involves education, "how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity."

McCain and Obama have sparred repeatedly over taxes. McCain says Obama plans a "massive new tax increase." Obama proposes an income tax increase on families earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning over $200,000 to help pay for tax cuts for the 95 percent of workers and their families making less than $200,000.

The interview on Chicago's WBEZ had nothing to do with taxes. The discussion centered on the court and civil rights.

Obama asserted that, while the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren guaranteed rights to vote and access to public accommodations, it was not very radical because it "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth."

The Warren Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution," he said.

Obama, who was then both an Illinois state senator and law professor, said, "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts."


http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/10/28/D943LJ8G1_fact_check_redistributing_wealth/index.html

People who want to can read this and listen to the tape and make up their own minds.

 

[sweetness6280]

I wouldn't call it fear mongering. I would call it pointing out what one candidate favors, and telling voters they can make up their minds using that info.

I'm aware of the progressive income tax. If I believe Obama, the taxable income of me and my wife is low enough that we would pay no income tax. The problem is that I don't believe him. It may start that way, but in a few years, we will be paying more than we are now.

That's the trouble with Socialism. It encourages sloth, rather than work and attempts by individuals to better themselves. At first, it's good, but as more and more people slack off, fewer and fewer people will be supporting them.

Why did Bell invent the telephone? Did he do it to benefit mankind? No, he did it so he could make a lot of money. Under Socialism, he wouldn't have bothered, because there would have been risk and hard work, and not much benefit after he succeeded. I think you can say the same for almost all inventors and innovators.

Where do you see that Obama wants to give to those who don't work????

Everything he proposes is for working people. Even the proposed tuition rebate requires community service. Obama is not for just handing out cash for people who refuse to work. This is what I mean. His plan IS NOT socialism.

Not liking his plan is one thing. Calling it something it is not, simply to scare others, is reprehensible. You are not "pointing out what a candidate favors." You are attaching an inflammatory label to his plan. If you really want to let others decide for themselves, don't exacerbate the situation with labels. Just put the information out there, and let them make their own inference.

But that wouldn't scare them enough... would it?

 

[cloudy]

I wouldn't call it fear mongering. I would call it pointing out what one candidate favors, and telling voters they can make up their minds using that info.

I'm aware of the progressive income tax. If I believe Obama, the taxable income of me and my wife is low enough that we would pay no income tax. The problem is that I don't believe him. It may start that way, but in a few years, we will be paying more than we are now.

That's the trouble with Socialism. It encourages sloth, rather than work and attempts by individuals to better themselves. At first, it's good, but as more and more people slack off, fewer and fewer people will be supporting them.

Why did Bell invent the telephone? Did he do it to benefit mankind? No, he did it so he could make a lot of money. Under Socialism, he wouldn't have bothered, because there would have been risk and hard work, and not much benefit after he succeeded. I think you can say the same for almost all inventors and innovators.

You're pathetic.

 

[Shwenn]

verything he proposes is for working people. Even the proposed tuition rebate requires community service. Obama is not for just handing out cash for people who refuse to work. This is what I mean. His plan IS NOT socialism.

I think the definition of socialism he is using is this:

Anything that you wouldn't expect to find between the covers of an Ayn Rand novel = Socialism

Is that clearer?

 

[sr71plt]

Obama is discussing exactly what's in his programs on extended commercials on TV now. Tomorrow he'll spend a half hour on TV discussing his program--and I'll bet the bulk of what he says will speak directly to what his program is. He's already amassing highly credentialed advisers to start putting meat on those bones, even though no one takes office to implement any of that until January.

McCain's still on TV badmouthing Obama and not giving any sort of indication of a program of his own at all. And he isn't doing anything about how to start on the ground running on 20 January--most of his time is being spent (halfheartedly) defending Sarah Palin against his own staff.

I'm particularly "impressed" with the currently running RNC commercial showing an empty executive chair and saying (cue the scary music) that did we realize that the first crisis Obama would have to face when sitting in this chair would be his first one as a crisis manager?

The joke is that it would be McCain's first try at being a crisis manager too.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You're pathetic.

Yeah but a hell of boxlicker. We all have our strong points.

 

[Liar]

Can everyone who keeps referring to redistibution of wealth as socialism please shut their pie-holes?

Socalism is basically state or community control and ownership of the means of production. You know, the way Chavez roll.

If you want to attribute an ideological label to redistribution of wealth (pretty hard since capitalists, commies and anyone but the most blowhard libretarian extremist favor some of it), I think the political movement most in favor of it is neo-pragmatic social democracy.

 

[Liar]

Everything he proposes is for working people. Even the proposed tuition rebate requires community service. Obama is not for just handing out cash for people who refuse to work. This is what I mean. His plan IS NOT socialism.

Handing out cash to people who refuse to work is not socialism either.

It's kind of communism, in a roundabout way.

 

[cloudy]

Can everyone who keeps referring to redistibution of wealth as socialism please shut their pie-holes?

Socalism is basically state or community control and ownership of the means of production. You know, the way Chavez roll.

If you want to attribute an ideological label to redistribution of wealth (pretty hard since capitalists, commies and anyone but the most blowhard libretarian extremist favor some of it), I think the political movement most in favor of it is neo-pragmatic social democracy.

I find it telling (and hilarious) that the people screaming, "Socialism!" the loudest are the very people that don't even know what socialism is.

 

[Liar]

I find it telling (and hilarious) that the people screaming, "Socialism!" the loudest are the very people that don't even know what socialism is.

Loudness is a great substitute for knowledge.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Loudness is a great substitute for knowledge.

As the past eight years have shown...

 

[Liar]

As the past eight years have shown...

I wanna tickle your pumpkin.

 

[Huckleman2000]

People who want to can read this and listen to the tape and make up their own minds.

And it's not going to change their vote unless they're pretty much divorced from reality.

Even if this charge made any sense, which it doesn't, how does a person make the leap in logic that Obama is some kind of socialist/Muslim time-bomb?

 

[Katyusha]

I find it telling (and hilarious) that the people screaming, "Socialism!" the loudest are the very people that don't even know what socialism is.

It like how some people scream "terrorist" at anyone who doesn't agree with Bush's policies. ANY of Bush's policies; doesn't have to his policy on actual terrorism. And I am SO SICK OF IT.