Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 28 Oct 2008 12:33 Post subject:
That's not the entire tape and he did not say the word wealth.
The real deal is this:
"In that interview, Obama was discussing efforts, in the 1960s and 1970s, to redistribute resources through the federal courts. Obama said that the Warren Court was not so terribly radical, because it "never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." He complained, not that the Court refused to enter into those issues, but that "the civil-rights movement became so court-focussed,"
In answering a caller's question, he said that the court "is just not very good at" redistribution. Obama added, with approval, that the Constitution "is generally a charter of negative liberties."
Obama's principal claim--about the institutional limits of the courts--was made by many conservatives (including Robert Bork) in the 1960s and 1970s: Courts should not attempt to guarantee "positive" rights, or interpret the Constitution to redistribute wealth. Obama is squarely rejecting the claim that was made by many liberal lawyers, professors, and judges at the time--and that is being made by some today.
Apparently, though, some people are thinking that Obama is displaying his commitment to redistribution, at least in principle. We have to make some distinctions here. The word "redistribution" is easily politicized, but, in terms of actual policy, it seems to include the Social Security Act (which redistributes wealth), the Americans with Disabilities Act (which also redistributes), educational reform that would improve schools in poor areas, Head Start programs, statutes allowing parental leave, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the progressive income tax, and much more. Almost all candidates for public office (including Senator McCain) favor significant forms of redistribution. With his court-skeptical statements in 2001, Obama was referring to the sorts of claims being made in courts in the relevant period, for which the word "redistribution" has often been used. (Those claims involved denials of education and medical care, and discrimination in welfare programs.)"
Thank you Dragon Horse. Ideological fodder is so much more entertaining when it is based on misinterpretation. I haven't seen this kind of mental gymnastics in a while.
You can split hairs on whether taxing income is redistributing wealth, or whether it is right or wrong to tax, but it really comes down to what you value and what you want public money to be spent on.
There are tax-paying pacifists whose fundamental values are violated by the federal government when it spends money on "defense" (a misnomer if there ever was one, and for one of the largest expenditures of the federal government by far).
"Redistribution of wealth" is what happens when a government raises revenue for programs/entities created on the public's behalf. It doesn't matter for what purpose. It doesn't matter whether income, profits or investments are taxed. To portray the redistribution programs one is ideologically opposed to as "wrong" and the ones that one supports as "right" is understandable, but still disingenous.
Our elected officials are entrusted to distribute our wealth, as it were, for the larger benefit of the nation (or state, city, etc.). One may or may not agree on what constitutes a "benefit" or that the nation should provide it, but that is what the vote is for.
I sure would like to know how a nation of 350 million plus people could be effectively governed without 'redistribution of the wealth.'
Yes, he did. In fact, you went on to include the quote where he said it. Why would you lie and then disprove your own lie?
How many clues does one need to solve a mystery? You are saying Obama meant something else in this radio broadcast. Joe Biden is saying he meant something else when he told "Joe the Plumber",
Quote:
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
In trying to distance himself from his biracial/mulatto/multicultural background, Obama tells us that,
Quote:
“I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foriegn students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists.”
Either Obama is a Socialist and/or Marxist OR he admires and has adopted some of those principles OR he often "misspeaks", thus leading many to those first two conclusions.
I'm not saying McCain has no socialist bones in his body - he wants the government to buy people's mortgages! But, the truth is, out of the two candidates, those of us who abhor socialism are naturally going to choose the one less likely, less enamored, less pressured by his party and constituents, to implement more of the same 'ol socialism.
I sure would like to know how a nation of 350 million plus people could be effectively governed without 'redistribution of the wealth.'
We are the United STATES of America. Why not drastically reduce federal personal income taxes and drastically reduce the size of the federal government and, yes, as John McCain has stated, that might mean dissolving whole agencies? Then, we could put more power back in the STATES, where it was meant to be in the first place. By the way, even Barack Obama is now saying he will audit the federal government and possibly get rid of some programs. However, "programs" is not enough. There are whole agencies that could go. We need to do away with redundancy and other forms of waste. What is being wasted? Think about it. It is our tax dollars.
I'd rather take some of my own money, voluntarily, and use it to help a struggling family than to have my money taken from my salary and be used to pay some bureaucrat to play a paper work game on that struggling family to make sure they get little to no assistance.
I sure would like to know how a nation of 350 million plus people could be effectively governed without 'redistribution of the wealth.'
We are the United STATES of America. Why not drastically reduce federal personal income taxes and drastically reduce the size of the federal government and, yes, as John McCain has stated, that might mean dissolving whole agencies? Then, we could put more power back in the STATES, where it was meant to be in the first place. By the way, even Barack Obama is now saying he will audit the federal government and possibly get rid of some programs. However, "programs" is not enough. There are whole agencies that could go. We need to do away with redundancy and other forms of waste. What is being wasted? Think about it. It is our tax dollars.
I'd rather take some of my own money, voluntarily, and use it to help a struggling family than to have my money taken from my salary and be used to pay some bureaucrat to play a paper work game on that struggling family to make sure they get little to no assistance.
I am the first person to advocate the reduction of government and the elmination of waste and fraud. I spend every day of my professional life helping companies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their operations through various means, so I know that reform can work, and can also be hugely profitable, so I have become even more adamant about making government work again. I totally agree that the existence of some bureauracratic fat cat intercepting funds needed to help a family is unacceptable.
Barack Obama is the only candidate in this race who has spoken with rationality and pragmatism about what needs to be done to improve the way the government operates, no matter its size. His focus is NOT on size, but on effectiveness, on value. I cannot even convey how important the distinction is. A leader who makes value-driven decisions rather than relying on cost drivers is much more effective in the long run. Value-drive management surely results in cost reduction, elimination of waste/redundancy and process improvement, but the underlying focus is on getting more out than you put in.
I'm really sick and tired of the false dichotomy presented, that either 'government,' whether federal, state or local, is "evil" or it is the solution to all problems. A government is not especially different from any other organization, be it a for-profit multinational or a small elementary school. You can maintain an organization that does what it sets out to do efficiently and effectively while creating value, or you can maintain an organization that is suboptimal in some way, including one that is all about cost-cutting. Complexity matters, but all that means is that achieving optimal performance may require more time and money (but doesn't have to). Most of all it requires clarity - in strategic direction, prioritization, accountability and measurement (of results).
If the federal government employing 30 million people spent 200 trillion dollars and returned 800 trillion dollars in value, that's an obscenely huge government that I'd happily fork over ard earned cash for. It's about return on investment. I too have a problem with my tax dollars being wasted and directed towards nonsensical and even immoral activities, but that could happen with a teeny tiny government too.
It doesn't matter to me which entities take care of people as long as people are taken care of. The public and private sectors have roles to play. I wouldn't prefer one over the other as long as both are effective. The way I think about it, when basic needs are taken care of I can have a direct impact on "higher order" needs that the government isn't necessarily good at addressing. I'd rather help a single mother become a smarter investor or send her kids to camp than pay for childcare or food.
sagascend, If Barack Obama becomes President and does what he has SAID he'll do, then I'm sure our country will be just fine and probably improve. My concern is that Obama will do as he has DONE, instead. I trust more in his actions (and inactions) than in his words.
I agree. Obama may have good intentions, but he cannot live up to his own hype.
Example - Google the outcome of the nuclear plant controversy in his district. I'll try to find it and post it, but basically, he made promises that he just couldn't and didn't keep.
Last edited by Melani23 on Fri 31 Oct 2008 15:04; edited 1 time in total
Okay, found the article. And its from a source Saga won't question - Talk Left and NYT.
Quote:
Obama's Senate Record on Nuclear Leaks
By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:22:00 AM EST
The New York Times examines Barack Obama's record on nuclear leaks legislation in the Senate.
The background: Exelon Corp. did not disclose some nuclear leaks in Illinois. Residents in Ill. were upset. Obama introduced a bill to help them.
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
The Times reports, that's not quite true. [More...]
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.
Obama's willingess to compromise with Republicans makes me nervous.
“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”
His "working majority" is code for working with Republicans. I don't want compromise. The reason to get a Democrat elected is so we can get the Democratic agenda implemented , not so we can have our leaders agree to water down legislation until it's Republican lite.
Others may pick up on this:
Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator [is] one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.
I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on that one. I am not concerned about his character or ethics, they are both top-notch.
It's the casting of Obama as the top liberal I have a problem with. His record just doesn't seem to support it. I don't want a President who reaches out to Republicans when he should be fighting them.
Update: Barack Obama's website has this response to the New York Times article.
1. Obama can't live up to the hype because, in the past, he has had to compromise with legislators with other points of view
2. The example used to demonstrate that Obama isn't as liberal as people think he is demonstrates that, in working to compromise, "caved" to Republicans and industry interests
I think people need to decide whether Obama is a rogue liberal gone wild or a limp-wristed centrist. The metaphors are getting all mixed up in the rush to critique.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Why would you lie and then disprove your own lie?
But, the truth is, out of the two candidates, those of us who abhor socialism are naturally going to choose the one less likely, less enamored, less pressured by his party and constituents, to implement more of the same 'ol socialism.
