Obama on Redistributing Wealth
[Guest post by DRJ]
From Hot Air:
“Seven years ago, Obama told Chicago Public Radio that the Warren Court was too conservative and missed its opportunity to redistribute wealth on a much grander scale.”
Here’s the audio at YouTube:
Obama’s opinion comes across loud and clear to me: Since the Supreme Court can’t or won’t redistribute income, that leaves Congress or the President. What Senator Obama couldn’t accomplish, President Obama will.
— DRJ
Can’t wait to hear the spin on this one how he “didn’t mean it that way” and “Sarah Palin ordered Dominos Pizza WITHOUT USING A COUPON!” and “John McCain’s first name is John like John Wayne Gacy” and finally, an oldie but a goodie, “Bush sucks.”
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:23 pmIt’s too bad that McCain can’t just come out with an ad that labels Obama as a Socialist ‘because it will turn off too many moderate and left-leaning voters’. Call a spade a spade, and a Marxist a Marxist, I say.
Icy Truth (1468e4) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:31 pmRacists
JD (5b4781) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:34 pmI’m pleased this broadcast was finally released so that we can delve into more of what Obama’s definition of his real economic policy will be. I know Patterico deals a lot with the LA Times, I wasn’t surprised to hear today that they, the LA Times, have a video of Obama toasting Rashid Khalidi at a going away party where he talks about having dinner nights with the Khalidis and speaks very fondly of Mr. Rashid. The LA Times has chosen not to release the video, and when asked to, denied the request. So we know there are more damaging videos/audio out there being suppressed.
TheNephew (149675) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:35 pmCan’t wait to hear the spin on this one how he “didn’t mean it that way” and “Sarah Palin ordered Dominos Pizza WITHOUT USING A COUPON!” and “John McCain’s first name is John like John Wayne Gacy” and finally, an oldie but a goodie, “Bush sucks.”
I believe that the DNC-approved meme for this final week is “Look at how desperate the GOP is getting, having to bring up old, misleading tidbits such as that.”
Obama’s opinion comes across loud and clear to me: Since the Supreme Court can’t or won’t redistribute income, that leaves Congress or the President.
The other half of this equation, DRJ, is that Obama will seek to appoint jurists who have no problem with redistributing income. After all, why leave it to the ordinary citizens acting through their elected representatives when you can just cut straight to your old Harvard Law pals?
JVW (f93297) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:48 pmGood point, JVW.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:51 pmJust remember, folks, that Ann Althouse says that Obama’s comments are perfectly okay, and we are just trying to demonize him.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-bombshell-redistribution-of.html
On the other hand, she is pretty much an Obama supporter. That couldn’t impact her decision making, I’m guessing.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:55 pm“Can’t wait to hear the spin…”
Why should they bother. Maybe for kicks. Does anyone think this will be anything other than a “vicious smear” and “dog whistle” if they do mention it?
The MSM wouldn’t cover a rape conviction if they thought it would hurt Obama.
Mike Johnson (a7da41) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:56 pmDear DRJ…
A comment of mine was just munched. It’s about Ann Althouse’s view of this. This happens when I post links, I think.
[Found it, and I’m sure it happens because of the link(s). — DRJ]
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 10/27/2008 @ 12:57 pmI’m going to spend more time on this a little later with a post of my own.
I’m not sure if the McCain campaign can cut through the media interference this late in the campaign, or if they can make this message meaningful and easy to understand. But, they need to make it very clear to the public that when Obama talks about tax cuts for the middle class, with the rich asked to pay more, that’s all sophistry.
This video, and other statements made by Obama during the campaign, show that his plan has NOTHING TO DO with a more progressive tax system.
The ideological basis of a progressive tax system is to have those better able to pay for the opertions of government do so at a higher rate than those less able to do so. But it’s based in the reality that a governmental organization/entity is a necessity of a democratic state, and that such an organization/entity takes money to run. A progressive tax system simply stands for the proposition that those in a position to shoulder this burden will do so in a disproporshionate share to those not in a position to do so. But the goal is not “fairness” as such, the goal is to have a funded and functioning governmental entity.
What Obama seeks is not a progressive “tax system” to support a govermental entity — but rather an entity that exists for the purpose of transfering wealth from those that have it to those that don’t have it. Its not about paying for government, its about economic “norming” across class lines.
This video shows that Obama believes there is a constitutionally derived “right” to equal economic prosperity — or some minimum level of economic prosperity — and that the Supreme Court should have moved to guarantee it during the Civil Rights movement in the same way it guaranteed the right to vote and the right to sit at any lunchroom counter and have a sandwich.
This is a radical re-examination of the fundamental of INDIVIDUAL liberty. The last two examples — voting and public accomodations — were aimed at eliminating overt racism being directed against members of racial minorities.
But, as for the concept of an economic “civil right” — what overt demonstration of racism is that aimed at?
Is the remedy for such deprivation of an economic civil right — in the same way handing someone a ballot or giving them a seat at a lunchcounter — reduced simply to handing them a check?
Is this remedy based on race, meant to counter past instances of institutional discrimination?? Or is it based on class?
Obama says — because he has had to in order to remain viable as a national candidate — that he’s against reparations for slavery.
This video makes that denial out to be a lie.
WLS Shipwrecked (26b1e5) — 10/27/2008 @ 1:06 pmPatterico,
I thought that YOU would be the guy that is all over the Obama-Khalidi tape that the LA Times’ Peter Wallsten is holding.
Do you have anything to add to the story?
JGlanton (499673) — 10/27/2008 @ 1:10 pm“that leaves Congress or the President. What Senator Obama couldn’t accomplish, President Obama will.”
That’s just internally inconsistent. Of what body do you think a senator is a member? And what did Obama endeavor to accomplish in the Senate, but couldn’t, that you think he will accomplish as president? Please cite Congressional session and bill number.
PG (d4b55a) — 10/27/2008 @ 1:14 pmTed STevens….
GUILTY!
Another Drew (cdf426) — 10/27/2008 @ 1:23 pmThe Constitution is an impediment to Obama’s redistributionist goals.
Obama’s handlers react by saying he was not talking about economics or taxes.
I call bullshit. Obama believes the Constitution is a flawed document that should be replaced. It does not allow him to redistribute whatever resources he believe shoud be redistributed – whether judicially, legislatively or otherwise – free of impediment.
Obama the socialist is becoming more and more evident, but the question is will the media report on it.
The campaign will blackball more stations and reporters if they do.
THE CHICAGO WAY!
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/27/2008 @ 1:43 pmdaleyrocks — The Constitution does not disallow it either. With a compliant (read: complicit) Congress he can do what he wants, at least for a little while.
Icy Truth (1468e4) — 10/27/2008 @ 1:49 pmOne reading of the situation suggests that there will be no wealth to redistribute. If only McCain had left the House Republicans to vote down the bailout bill.
Obama will, ironically, get the blame for the financial meltdown. He will serve one term and will poison the well for black politicians for a decade or more.
Mike K (531ff4) — 10/27/2008 @ 2:48 pmI honestly have no idea where y’all are coming from with this quote. It seems to me that you forget that Obama was talking about the civil rights movement. AL:
Russell (9fcb7a) — 10/27/2008 @ 3:16 pmOnly in a world where you get to go back and change the actual words, if not just the meanings of the words.
JD (5b4781) — 10/27/2008 @ 3:18 pm#7 Eric Blair-
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/27/2008 @ 3:19 pmNo, No dear madame Althouse from Madison claims she is of a mind of cruel neutrality toward the Potus election. Her California son was a Hillary fan, but seems to adore Obama now.
Seems lawyers want lawyers to rule the world. At least McCain and Pali spare us that legal mind crapweasel stuff.
14 daleyrocks-
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/27/2008 @ 3:28 pmblackball? racist. Chicago way? People harp on the black thing, but whiteys Daley and self-hating Jew Soros are pulling his strings. Yes, Obama will govern from the center. Thugs from ACORN will be content with that scenario. the 9% approval ratings Congress led by Reid/Pelosi will suddenly seek approval of the public and not push for tax hikes, military cuts, banning of offshore oil drilling, etc. We already know what Obama wants- let’s be more like the Eurotwats. Fossil fuels bad, partial birth abortion good and letting pba survivors croak is even better. Capital gain tax raise good in interest of “fairness” even though revenues go down. The forty percent paying zip in income taxes deserve welfare payments disguised as tax credits. mcetroirtha
“Obama’s opinion comes across loud and clear to me: Since the Supreme Court can’t or won’t redistribute income, that leaves Congress or the President. What Senator Obama couldn’t accomplish, President Obama will.”
Looks to me like he was talking specifically about the civil rights movement. Does anyone think its redistributive goals were illegitimate?
imdw (7ae49a) — 10/27/2008 @ 4:35 pm“Only in a world where you get to go back and change the actual words, if not just the meanings of the words.”
As opposed to one where a professor’s words from years ago are only heard to the extent they feed the pre-election frenzy.
imdw (7ae49a) — 10/27/2008 @ 4:38 pmimdw — he specifically mentions that it was a TRAJEDY that the Supreme Court didn’t take up issues of economic justice — redistribution of income — as part of its civil rights jurisprudence. He goes on to talk about how the current environment probably makes the courts an unappealing avenue to pursue “economic” justice, and that through community organizing and the political process, Congress and the President should pursue those issues.
WLS Shipwrecked (26b1e5) — 10/27/2008 @ 4:40 pm“imdw — he specifically mentions that it was a TRAJEDY that the Supreme Court didn’t take up issues of economic justice — redistribution of income — as part of its civil rights jurisprudence”
No he says the tragedy is the civil rights movement became so focused on the courts — which wouldn’t give them the redistribution they should have sought via other forms of organizing. Now, who here thinks that redistribution sought by disenfranchised and jim crowed blacks was illegitimate?
imdw (d8f4a2) — 10/27/2008 @ 4:52 pmI vote AYE!
Another Drew (cdf426) — 10/27/2008 @ 4:55 pmWhy are all of Obama’s shills in a lather about this if they don’t think it’s a problem?
Sunstein trying to dismiss it with a wave off. – Sorry don’t buy it Cass
Burton blaming Fox news rather than disputing the meaning of what Obama actually said – Typical Obama strategy – Not buying that either.
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/27/2008 @ 5:28 pmObama is for redistributing the wealth to grow the economy from the bottom up. That’s already been tried when ACORN and the Democrats forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue loans to people who couldn’t afford to repay those loans.
They already tried to grow the economy from the bottom up, and the market collapsed.
Save the Republic — vote McCain
LynZee (850cda) — 10/27/2008 @ 5:56 pmIn a later section of the same tape (at about 15:30 minutes in, well after the 4-minute snippet posted above) Obama compares the US to Nazi Germany:
“…just to take a, sort of a realist perspective…there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”
Official Internet Data Office (7800f2) — 10/27/2008 @ 6:08 pmI do. Redistribution is not an solution for social injustice. Further, it was not limited to those affected by Jim Crow laws.
This is basically the “If you don’t agree, you’re a racist” argument, and it isn’t going to work today either.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/27/2008 @ 6:31 pmComment by Official Internet Data Office — 10/27/2008 @ 6:08 pm
Isn’t that precious, being called a Nazi country.
Another Drew (cdf426) — 10/27/2008 @ 6:32 pmThat will convince a lot of Indies of your seriousness and gravitas.
Yeah, that’s why he said “I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.” Because he doesn’t want it, and he’s glad the Warren Court didn’t make it happen.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/27/2008 @ 6:35 pmLook at our little Pablo, pretending to understand legal musings, but instead trying to frighten all the other whitey Boomers into being afraid the scary black people coming to their gated communities and demanding 40 acres and a mule.
Imagine right-wingers trying to parse something more complex than “drill, baby, drill.” It reminds how Nixonian y’all still are.
One week from tomorrow, Pablo, your and Louise Day Hicks worst nightmare is coming! Busing, reparations….ooooh, it’s so scary. Better bury yourself in the warm comfortable folds of Goldstein’s taint. Maybe in California, you can get hitched?
timb (8f04c0) — 10/27/2008 @ 6:51 pmtimb, you know just because you can dial your incoherence knob to “11” does not mean you should.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/27/2008 @ 6:55 pmStop babbling, Timmah!
Pablo (99243e) — 10/27/2008 @ 7:07 pm#19, Althouse came out and blogged last week that she is voting Obama.
Obama believes there is a constitutionally derived “right” to equal economic prosperity
This would fall right in line with Obama’s overall philosophy that entitlement supercedes all else. When he stated at the debate that health care is a fundamental right he exposed his hand; the thinking behind the issues doesn’t vary, just the issues themselves. If the systems don’t yet accommodate this fundamental belief system, then it is the system that must be changed and made to accommodate. Scary stuff.
all the other whitey Boomers into being afraid the scary black people coming to their gated communities and demanding 40 acres and a mule.
You simply can’t be serious.
Dana (658c17) — 10/27/2008 @ 7:23 pmDana – I think timmah is teaching Fat Studies and Feminist Theory with Professor Caric ACORN Endowed Professor Of Nonsense at Morehead State. They both actually believe the shit they spew. Caric does a marvellous interpretation of Letter From A Birmingham Jail. Timmah reads it in blackface.
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/27/2008 @ 7:43 pmWhat Obama actually said was that the courts have historically refused to read redistributionism into the Constitution, and that the modern SCOTUS stuck to that refusal. Further, the civil rights movement chose to rely on judicial activism as its preferred method, and should not have–that redistributionist methods should have been advocated through standard political methods (IOW, elect legislators and officials who would adopt redistributionist solutions). He was criticizing the civil rights movement, not the courts, and also criticizing judicial activism (not because it was not constitutional, but because it didn’t allow the building of political support, rather like what’s happening now with gay marriage.)
Where British Catholic emigre bloggers suffering from uterus envy went astray was in ignoring other remarks that do back up the idea that Obama would appoint judges who would ignore the tradition adhered to by SCOTUS until now, and try to implement those same redistributionist programs in his capacity as an elected official.
But the quote here is meaningless without the context of those other remarks. All he said here is that the civil rights movement shouldn’t have tried the judicial activism route. And seriously, do any of you here object to that idea?
Oh, and btw, a candidate who supports the partial nationalization of banking and mortgages, and has no apparent problems with retaining the EIC, should be a little more careful in calling other people socialist and redistributionist.
(And, come to think of it, 40 acres and a mule is in fact a good example of a redistributionist program that didn’t work out, to the degree that it was actually implemented. (And wasn’t the party responsible for 40 acres and a mule the GOP?)
kishnevi (bf293c) — 10/27/2008 @ 7:52 pmHe also said that the ends, redistributionist change, should be pursued by other means, namely “political and community organizing and activities on the ground” and that the civil rights movements failure to do that was a tragedy.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/27/2008 @ 8:01 pmPablo continues down the road of silliness. “Obama is at the gate with a gang of toughs,” he warns. “He’s here for your flat screen! He’s a Communist!!”
Pablo couldn’t understand anything more involved than purple heart band-aids, because he’s just as stupid as this argument pretends to be.
In small words for you, Pablo, the US government has been re-distributing wealth from the middle class to the upper class for the last 8 years. Wages have remained stagnant, while the upper one percent continues to make more and more.
Here a nice link from the liberal rag known as the Wall Street Journal
I’m sorry is that arguments and Obama’s corollary argument is too complex for your reptilian brain to process.
Don’t worry, though, it’s not because your’re stupid; it’s because you’re stupid, mean, and you don’t have a clue as to governing policy.
Fortunately, you’re about to get 8 years to consider it.
timb (8f04c0) — 10/27/2008 @ 9:12 pmtimb, your link does not support your claim. Not that that is a surprise. The WSJ piece does not state that the US government has been redistributing wealth to the upper class.
Not least because that is not in fact true.
Tax foundation data shows that the weathiest have been paying increasing shares of the tax burden over the Bush administration. Not less.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/27/2008 @ 9:15 pmJust a few statistics from that chart to show how ignorant timb is.
In 2000, the top 1% of all filers by AGI paid 37.42% of the total income tax paid. In 2006, they paid 39.89%. The top 5% went from 56.47% to 60.14% over the same period.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/27/2008 @ 9:24 pmTimmah!, don’t put words in my mouth. You haven’t nearly the chops for that. And stop spilling all of those moronic ones out of yours. Go sell that drivel at Balloon Juice or Caric’s place.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/27/2008 @ 9:47 pmComment #35, 7:23 pm
This would fall right in line with Obama’s overall philosophy that entitlement supercedes all else. When he stated at the debate that health care is a fundamental right he exposed his hand; the thinking behind the issues doesn’t vary, just the issues themselves.
What’s worse, Dana, is that in that second debate Obama was TWICE given an opportunity to address the coming financial problems with current entitlements (i.e., Social Security and Medicare) and both times he glossed right over them. Add that to his desire to turn healthcare into an entitlement along with his continual hints that he thinks the taxpayer ought to pay for everyone’s education from preschool to graduate school, and we can see that we are headed into one of those realms where it will continually take more and more of our tax dollars to support the Dear Leader’s welfare state. The 25% cut in military spending and the annexation of everyone’s 401(k) dough will be just a start.
JVW (f93297) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:38 am“I do. Redistribution is not an solution for social injustice. Further, it was not limited to those affected by Jim Crow laws.”
Obama was talking about it being a part of the civil right movement. Segregation and racism kept blacks from their fair share. And Now McCain, who voted against the MLK day holiday, also has taken the line of attack that its somehow improper for the civil rights movement to seek for blacks their fair share.
imdw (e66d8d) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:44 amfrom #44
…seek for blacks their fair share.
Exactly who took the blacks “fair share,” and how do you measure “fair share?”
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:58 amAs WLS pointed out above, and imdw continues to ignore,
Make the argument in favor of economic justice and redistribution of income. But just quit lying about what was meant …
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:02 amWhat Senator Obama couldn’t accomplish, President Obama will.
I reread the post and noted this line. Of course, in mathematics, we’d say that the result of this equation – given Obama’s utter lack of accomplishment to date – is the infinite set.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:20 amAs long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton still get their cuts of the resultant pie. How much do luminaries such as Oprah, Tiger Woods, Obamba’s kids,Rev Wright, Farrrakhan, OJ, Mikey Jackson et al get from whitey?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:22 amWhat does that even mean, and what can you cite as an example of it? What line of attack? What civil rights movement? What fair share? Who has that fair share that was taken from blacks?
You do know that McCain voted for MLK Day, right?
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:35 amGood catch, Pablo, I forgot that imdw was reinventing history yet again.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:38 amtimb doesn’t read his/her own links:
The gap between rich and poor has widened over the past 20 years in nearly all the countries studied, even as trade and technological advances have spurred rapid growth.
The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said its 20-year study found inequality had increased in 27 of its 30 members as top earners’ incomes soared while others’ stagnated.
Income inequality is world wide. If you ever visit places like Monaco, you will be astounded at the wealth there. What it means is that, no matter the economic system of a country, the rich will find a way. Just like all the rich bond traders supporting Obama. They know something that timb doesn’t know (one of many things he/she doesn’t know); the redistribution plans of demagogues don’t affect their friends and supporters. Only us ordinary people.
I suggest reading Theodore Dalrymple’s “The Uses of Corruption” to learn what a society ruled by the Obamas of the world looks like. What we have now is a society in which anyone can rise and make a fortune (even a small one) by hard work. Obama will change that if he gets a chance so that the only way to wealth is by corruption or being a friend of those in power. America is unique in the world but Obama will fix that.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:18 amI would be interested in knowing exactly what this “line of attack” is that McCain is now taking.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:29 amExcerpts from the Spring 1996 meeting of the Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America
Combine this with spreading the wealth, and the argument that the trolls are making seems even more disingenuous.
Chicago Democratic Socialists
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:56 am“What civil rights movement? ”
You don’t know what this means? That’s what Obama was talking about. Look up some history and figure out what the civil rights movement was.
“What fair share? Who has that fair share that was taken from blacks?”
You don’t imagine that segregation, racism, disenfranchisement, lack of access to justice, and poor services such as education put blacks at a disadvantage economically, causing htem to have less income and wealth than people who did not face that adversity? This is what people are talking about when they’re talking about economic justice as part of the civil rights movement. Or you think the only unfair result they faced was having to go to the back of the bus?
“You do know that McCain voted for MLK Day, right?”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/04/mccain_apologizes_for_opposing.html
I guess he was for it after he was against it.
“I would be interested in knowing exactly what this “line of attack” is that McCain is now taking.”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/10/28/mccain_attacks_obama_on_redistribution/
imdw (e12dc7) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:03 amNow he is pointing out that Baracky wants to spread other people’s wealth, redistribute income … Baracky’s own words.
However, previously you wrote that McCain’s attack is that it is improper for the civil rights movement to seek for blacks their fair share. It should be easy for you to show where McCain has made this point.
And the idea that Baracky was talking about redistribution of income only in regards to civil rights is a point beyond laughable. Was he talking about civil rights with the skinhead Joe the Plumber? Was he talking about civil rights with the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America?
I link, you decide …
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:12 amHey Guys–
Courtesy Slate.com:
Since McCain has been labeling Obama a redistributor, it was certainly convenient that Obama used a version of that word in a sentence in an interview seven years ago. But it’s hard to see how the new attack is going to change the bleak political landscape for McCain.
One reason his attacks are not effective is that Obama’s remarks are simply not very subversive. Reading them in context, and trying to keep from napping, it’s clear that when Obama talks about redistribution, he’s not talking about taxing the rich to give handouts—as McCain would have us think. Obama’s talking about the Supreme Court’s reluctance to force school districts to spend money to provide equality in schools. Later in the same interview, when Obama again discusses redistribution, he also talks about the complexities of school funding after Brown v. Board of Education.
EPluribusUnum (01935e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:13 amJerrySpringer joins us again …
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:15 amYou’re not talking about history, idmw. You’re talking about now when you refer to McCain attacking Obama’s redistribution ethos…which, btw, Obama denies when asked about it. That has zero to do with the 50’s-60’s CR movement. You said McCain “has taken the line of attack that its somehow improper for the civil rights movement to seek for blacks their fair share.” and you use his criticism of redistribution (read: socialism) as evidence of this. I think you’re off your rocker.
You still haven’t answered who has the blacks’ fair share. We need to know that so we know who to take it from so we can give it to them.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:17 amThat’s exactly what he’s talking about when he talks about tax cuts for 95% of Americans, given that those getting “cuts” will include the 40% that don’t pay income taxes at all. That means they get checks that aren’t refunds, but other people’s money. That is a handout. That is redistribution.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:20 amAw, JD has gone all enigmatic on us!
Your anonymous post is by who?
And is put forward as “in evidence” of what?
EPluribusUnum (01935e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:22 amI linked it previously. If you did not bother to look, you forfeit the right to complain, Springer.
The “anonymous” post was from the Chicago Democratic Socialists in their newsletter, from Baracky’s speech to them, where he received their endorsement. But they must be racists since they call themselves Socialists.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:27 amIt would be easy if it were true. But it isn’t. Why do you suppose imdw feels the need to lie about McCain? It seems he wants to make people afraid of him.
O!
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:30 amScare tactics. Fearmongering. Projection.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:31 amIt is all so much easier, Pablo, when they get to attribute positions to you that you have never held, and then argue against those positions.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:36 amChange That Will Work For You, JD.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:47 amAnd can someone please explain to me John McCain’s
wealth redistribution plan?
You know the one where the government spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars buying up mortgages at the old, inflated value, thus rewarding the wealthy predatory lenders who helped create the real estate bubble?
How much does John owe on his 7 or is it 8 investment home mortgages–does he really need my taxpayer dollars for them?
EPluribusUnum (01935e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:47 amJohn doesn’t own any houses. His wife owns a bunch. I’m guessing she’s not carrying much debt on them.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:50 amAnd just in case you Titans of Capitalism missed it, let’s go through the steps of McCain’s plan:
Big Government (hundreds of billions of dollars) artificially introduces price fixing (mortgages at the old rates) into the “free” market–with your money—sounds like Socialism to me.
EPluribusUnum (01935e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:56 amMcCain’s plan, which I’m no fan of, involves renegotiating the mortgages at current rates and values, not fixing them at the old. Your criticism would work much better if you could manage to get a fact or two straight, EPlub.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:12 amHere’s a definition of Socialism put forward by Republicans:
Socialism
so-cial-ism
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Now is McCain’s plan of “governmental ownership” of mortgages at old, non-free market, fixed priced values not socialism?
EPluribusUnum (01935e) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:26 amApparently some around here aren’t familiar with the phrase “lesser of two evils.”
Chris (6733a5) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:29 amEPluribusUnum
How is McCain’s plan really any different then an FHA loan?
ML (14488c) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:38 amJerrySpringer assumes that we necessarily agree with John McCain on this issue.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:39 amYou boys sure don’t anything about taxes that you don’t hear on Limbaugh or Hannity, do you?
Gee, I suppose it’s just outrageous for the people who demand the government contracts, tax breaks, and increased public utilities to pay for it with their taxes!
The richest one percent of Americans own 70% of the country and bring home almost 80% of the income, BUT it’s outrageous they pay 39% of the taxes!?!?!?
Simply put, the rising tide which lifted all the boats (roughly 1950-1973) witnessed the greatest income equality since the Civil War, and rich people still made stuff (ask Paris Hilton and her family) and they were taxed between 70 and 90%.
Today, we see a total US debt of about $10 trillion, with at least 75% of that accumulated during the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations. Deficits are taxes on future generations, yet somehow the idea of not paying taxes is an important part of the Republican party platform. This takes irresponsibility to new levels.
Oh, and Doogie, you are not “an average American.” Median household income in this country is $50,233 (source) and I’m guessing a private practice doctor made a little more than that (which, by the way, bully for you, just don’t claim you’re “average.”)
The things not known by “laissez fair Pablo” and his gang of oligarchical toughs astound any rational person. For most of the last 30 years, conservatives demanded government spending, especially on bombs and fun stuff, yet they refuse to pay for it. The result of crony capitalism and laissez fair Pablo’s ideas are an economic collapse (which he, as usual, blames on all the evil brown and black people, despite all evidence to the contrary), two wars, an incompetent federal government, a decaying infrastructure, and an income gap which rivals Third world nations….yet he wants it to continue!
Today’s 538.com simulation puts your “stay the course” Maverick losing by almost 200 electoral votes and when your entire movement is based upon limitless anger and resentment, belief in the oppression of the white male and society’s prejudice against Christianity (despite every authority figure in that part of the world being a white, male Christian), passionate hatred of taxes combined with their ever increasing demand of high quality government services, and support for unlimited police authority and your only answer to Obama’s win is “ACORN and voter fraud,” then you are the Whigs of the 21st century
timb (a83d56) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:39 amIf McCain’s plan smacks of socialism, and you don’t like socialism, the only proper thing to do is vote for the outright Marxist. Is that about right, EPlub?
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:40 amLet’s see if you can grasp this.
There are no purely “capitalist” or “socialist” governments.
I don’t like McCain’s plan to buy up mortgages.
When I say I think Obama has socialist tendencies, I’m referring to confiscatory taxes which means high tax brackets and more people receiving money from the government than contributing to it. I’m also referring to huge government expansion in social programs, privacy, collectivism, health care, media, retirement, entitlements, etc.
Yes, McCain has proposed “socialist” programs.
Obama has proposed, will propose and will enact an order of magnitude more.
If my choice is “some socialism” or “a metric shit-ton of socialism” I’m going to choose “some socialism.”
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:42 amBTW, are mortgages “the means of production” or are they “the means of production” or “the distribution of goods”?
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:44 am…and, aren’t many of those mortgages that McCain proposed buying-up, already held by Fannie and Freddie?
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:59 amWould not that actually be considered “mark to market”?
Isn’t that what the financial community is supposed to be doing under the various reforms since, and including, Sarbannes-Oxley?
“However, previously you wrote that McCain’s attack is that it is improper for the civil rights movement to seek for blacks their fair share. It should be easy for you to show where McCain has made this point.”
In the link I gave you: McCain attacks obama’s comments at the 2001 interview. The comments there were about the civil rights movement.
“And the idea that Baracky was talking about redistribution of income only in regards to civil rights is a point beyond laughable.”
In the 2001 interview he was.
“That’s exactly what he’s talking about when he talks about tax cuts for 95% of Americans, given that those getting “cuts” will include the 40% that don’t pay income taxes at all.”
Have you noticed that there is a possibility that what obama says in 2001 interview can be completely different than what he says in 2008?
imdw (fe0de6) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:33 amPast is Prelude.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:38 amObama wants to “Redistribute wealth”. So?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:40 am82, Obama and you are Marxists.
PCD (7fe637) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:44 amA rare moment of clarity. Excellent.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:46 amI think part of the reason people are not really latching onto the meaning of this is that a lot of theory and academic discussion is taking place instead of relating it to paycheck impact.
I believe the message would be better framed as follows:
If they pass the suggestion to eliminate 401K exemptions and require and additional 5% from workers toward “government bonds” for retirement purposes this makes the ss contribution effectively 11.5%
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:49 amAdd in 9.5% federal withholding, 2.6% for state, and 1.5% for medicare and you have roughly 24.5% of your income taken out off the top.
When the Bush tax cuts expire your federal withholding is likely to go up a percentage point or 2.
Therefore; current net income after deductions 19.5% equates to 8050 for every 10,000 you make versus the projected net income of $7550. After the Bush tax cuts expire you will be getting closer to 7200 with expected increases.
If you are making 50K a year you have lost at least 2K and as much as 4Kper year in earnings – 80K means a net loss of 3K up to as much as 6400 in earnings power. Even with the 500 dollar “rebate checks” in the redistro scheme you are losing significantly.
Elimination of the 401K write off for employers means an additional loss of “free money” from your employer — whatever you are getting in matching funds will be no more.
82, Obama and you are Marxists.
Comment by PCD — 10/28/2008 @ 10:44 am
love2008 (1b037c) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:05 amAnd McCain is not? Get a grip.
Better a moderate Socialist than a fascist.
Conservatives have “Re-Distributed” the wealth the opposite way Obama has been talking about, in the name of pure greed.
We are in the throws of Capitalism purifying to the wealthiest Americans controlling the masses.
Can anyone here say that the wealthiest among us have not abused their powers?
The “Trickle down” theory works perfectly only if everyone holding the strings obeys the laws of economic morality.
Oiram (983921) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:07 amNo.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:10 amOiram…perhaps the trickle-down theory only works perfectly if everyone obeys laws of economic morality…but it still works, however imperfectly, if they do not. This is more than can be said for socialism, which only works if greed and laziness do not exist.
Chris (6733a5) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:24 amChris #89, Unfortunately trickle-down theory needs almost everyone to obey the laws of economic morality to function properly. I don’t believe as you do that “It still works”. I think we are seeing evidence in our stock market and current economy.
However good point on Socialism. Indeed it does work perfectly if greed and laziness do not exist, which we know of course it does.
The problem is that painting Obama as a socialist is quite the exaggeration.
Oiram (983921) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:31 amSo “non-trickle-down” theories don’t need everyone to obey the law?
Or is it that the government is so oppressive that they have no alternative?
I don’t think trickle-down economics has anything to do with the stock market or economy.
Utopian societies do work perfectly: in the classroom and in Utopia.
Not really.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:44 am“I don’t think trickle-down economics has anything to do with the stock market or economy. ”
Indeed.
imdw (bdcf72) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:48 amWhere can I find those “Laws of Economic Morality”?
Who wrote them?
They must be very powerful laws to compel adherence from those who denigrate any mention of morality when it is derived from The Creator.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:41 pmI think your local bearded, bespectacled, tweed jacket-wearing university professor has them written on a rolling paper in his pocket.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:56 pm#93 Mention of morality when it is derived from The Creator is a personal freedom and not one that is required by Law.
No one has written the “Laws of Economic Morality”, why do you think we are in the trouble we’re in?
You made my point Another Drew, you are not going to find the “Laws of Economic Morality” through religion. Government needs to intercede to insure fairness.
Oiram (983921) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:59 pm#94 “I think your local bearded, bespectacled, tweed jacket-wearing university professor has them written on a rolling paper in his pocket.”
You get funnier and funnier Desiato.
Oiram (983921) — 10/28/2008 @ 1:03 pmtimb, I already posted data obtained from actual IRS statistics that showed your claims that the Bush administration was transfering wealth from the middle class to the wealthy was a lie.
You just ignored it.
That’s what we expect from people like you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:04 pmHey ML,
I think you may find some of the crucial differences between McCain’s plan and the FHA in the following:
McCain intends to purchase mortgages at old inflated values.
The FHA insures lenders/borrowers before mortgage loans are made.
Glad to see at least JD is not blind to this McCain socialism:
…assumes that we necessarily agree with John McCain on this issue.
Problem here for all of us is that if McCain is elected and institutes this non-free market, Big Government, Tax-and-spend scheme he’ll basically send inflation through the roof, tank the dollar world-wide, etc., etc. And the only people he will have really helped will be the predatory lenders who got us in this mess in this first place–not forgetting having also given them a huge tax cut to reward their behavior.
We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars here guys.
Remember how George H. W. Bush said, “Read my lips–no new taxes!” during his campaign—-and then had to clean up the Savings & Loans Disaster?
If elected you think John McCain really won’t raise your taxes if he institutes this lunatic Government Mortgage Buy-Out scheme?
EPluribusUnum (01935e) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:07 pmEPluribusUnum, “predatory lenders” is a term that I got sick of long ago when I saw how much mortgage fraud the borrowers are willfully complicite in.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:09 pmIt’s, like, Socialism.
a;lkjsdhf (d079ec) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:14 pmThe state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.
Comment by a;lkjsdhf — 10/28/2008 @ 5:14 pm
One great difference is that socialist/communist governments keep all the money, and the citizenry shares the poverty.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:21 pmand another thing….
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:24 pmAlaska is set up on a capitalistic model, where the citizens are share-holders in the enterprise (Alaska), and received dividends from that enterprise when there is a profit.
In the case of the oil money, it is treated as a preferred stock dividend, whereby it is paid off of the top (sort of like Warren Buffett’s coup with his investment in Goldman-Sachs – he gets a 10% dividend as long as he holds that G-S preferred stock).
Alaska is handling a large amount of royalty revenue because so much of Alaska’s land mass is publically owned rather than private land
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:31 pmSpringer – I see that lying remains the only arrow in your quiver.
JD (5f0e11) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:33 pmJD, you missed where timb misrepresented the data in his linked article by multiplying it by 10?
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:36 pmI don’t think this is a major development. I also don’t think that the Obama campaign would be embarrassed about this coming out. The fact is that his current plan trumps this old interview, and that new plan cuts taxes to 95% of Americans. It will be tough for McCain to sell lower taxes to 5% of the population, while trying to pick up at least another 45% through the standard fear and smear routines.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:37 pmComment by SPQR — 10/28/2008 @ 5:31 pm
IIRC, about 70% of all Alaska land is owned by the Federal Government….No property tax revenue there.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:37 pmComment by truthnjustice — 10/28/2008 @ 5:37 pm
Except, just today, Sen. Biden said that the protected status ends at $150K, not $250K, when it comes to tax increases.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:39 pmJust yesterday, Obambi said it would be $200K.
How many different messages are they tring to float here?
His website is the most reliable source for that information.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:43 pmtruthnjustice, no actually Obama’s website is not reliable for anything. Its attempts at “truthsquadding” have been especially dishonest.
And Obama’s own explanations for his flip-flopping are especially unconvincing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:45 pmThat is your opinion, but I think it would be disingenuous for you to suggest he has been flip-flopping on a policy that has been in black and white on his site unchanged during the campaign.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:50 pmExcept, I heard the tape of his, and Biden’s, voice in making those remarks that contradict the website.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:01 pmtruthnjustice, exactly. Who am I going to believe? Obama or his website?
Guess what, I decided neither have any credibility.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:10 pmWhat tape? The radio interview that I already discussed? From his site:
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:11 pmComment by truthnjustice — 10/28/2008 @ 6:11 pm
If you watch Hannity & Colmes tonight (the repeat at 2400 Eastern/2100 Pacific) at approx 35 min after the hour, they run three tape segment:
1- Obama on 7/8 laying out the $250K standard;
2- Obama on 10/25 saying $200K;
3- Biden on 10/27 saying $150K.
As Al Michels used to say: Let’s check the tape!
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:39 pm“…they run a three tape segment…”
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:39 pmShould we believe Obama or his website? Maybe neither, since he’s been known to scrub his website when it conflicts with changes in his narrative. For instance, back in July 2008:
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:40 pmExcellant one, DRJ.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:41 pmBaracky ’08 – Rewriting history right in front of your lying eyes.
SPQR – I saw that, but it does not bear comment, in a dog bites man kind of way. Plus, stalkers make me uncomfortable.
Baracky has a new ad here in IN accusing McCain of doctoring audiotape of Bidens remarks about Baracky being tested.
JD (5f0e11) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:49 pmJD, that’s hilarious. Biden’s remarks did not need any doctoring to make him and Obama look stupid.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:50 pmI don’t think changing around your website is something that can be criticized. Websites change every day. The information that you cited, DRJ, has nothing to do with the tax information that we are currently talking about.
The website has stayed the same. I do not respect the integrity of the Hannity show enough to give any credence to the ‘splice and air’ job he plans to air. It has been a long campaign season, and I certainly trust you’re not applying standards of speech to Obama that you wouldn’t apply to McCain. You are all too bright for that.speech
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:58 pmYou’ll have to forgive me. This is the first time I attempted the imbedded link figure. Neat!
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:58 pm“Conservatives have “Re-Distributed” the wealth the opposite way Obama has been talking about, in the name of pure greed.
We are in the throws of Capitalism purifying to the wealthiest Americans controlling the masses.
Can anyone here say that the wealthiest among us have not abused their powers?
The “Trickle down” theory works perfectly only if everyone holding the strings obeys the laws of economic morality.”
Oiram @88 – The above @88 was especially sad to see coming from you.
With progressive taxation in plave for years in this country are you suggesting that we actually need to impose punitive taxation to punish success, the way Obama has suggested, to avoid further income or wealth distribution disparities? Why can’t the whole economic pie grow, as it actually has over time? Why are people such as yourself and Obama focused on a fixed size economic pie rather than a growing pie and also the mobility of people over time between income classes, a factor ignored by strict income distribution analysis. Time series analysis is a more appropriate tool for that and it indeed does show we have a very mobile society.
Who has decreed that unequal income and wealth distribution are a bad thing except marxists and socialists? Why are they per se bad things?
Oiram – What powers do you imagine the wealthiest wield over the masses? Is your use of the words capitalist and masses more marxist code? Until you define those powers, how can people decide whether they have been abused? Get with the program. Hopefully these powers are not
mythical such as Bush’s mythical shredding of the Constitution.
As other readers have asked, please define the laws of economic morality. I understand moral hazard and free riding.
I think you’ve drowned in the Kool Aid.
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:59 pmtruthnjustice, that’s pretty disingenuous of you.
The reality is that Obama has a long history of saying things in the campaign that don’t match his actual legislative history, nor any of his speeches in the past. Such as his attempt to rewrite his past positions on gun control.
Obama and his website lack credibility.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:00 pmI love the economic pie argument, because it is in direct conflict with the ‘your side of the bucket versus mine’ line that the GOP uses in tax analogies. You can’t use the ‘growing pie’ theory for the purposes of economic growth, then assume the same sized ‘bucket’ from which taxes are taken when it behooves you to do so.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:04 pmSPQR: It has been well documented that McCain has changed his position on the Bush tax cuts and abortion.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:07 pmActually, I don’t want to short-change the man. He has conveniently changed his positions on quite a few things.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:13 pmtruthnjustice, the difference is that Republicans don’t lie about McCain’s change in position.
Obama and his supporters lie about his policy changes.
And they lie about who endorses Obama’s faux tax proposals too it turns out.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:48 pm#126~
WTH? You are looking on the wrong side of the fence to find people making that kind of argument.
EW1(SG) (69c1db) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:58 pmEW1 – When they are not rewriting history, they just make it up as they go along.
This not-change on the tax levels reminds me of the primary season when Baracky was campaigning on one position in Pennsylvania, while at the same time, his economic advisor, Goolsbee, was telling Canada to ignore Baracky’s words, as it was just campaign rhetoric.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:11 pmHey guys,
Have you heard Sarah Palin’s description of collectivization in Alaska:
“Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
That sounds like lazy, good-for-nothin’s get as much as hard-workin’, god-fearin’ folk.
John McCain needs to add to his Palin endorsement:
Sarah Palin has more socialist experience than Obama/Biden combined!
Perhaps this is the reason a McCain advisor referred to her today as a
“Whack Job”
EPluribusUnum (01935e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:26 pmBaracky has a new ad here in IN accusing McCain of doctoring audiotape of Bidens remarks about Baracky being tested. Comment by JD — 10/28/2008 @ 6:49 pm
JD, that’s hilarious. Biden’s remarks did not need any doctoring to make him and Obama look stupid. Comment by SPQR — 10/28/2008 @ 6:50 pm
If it’s the same ad I saw for the first time tonight, Obama is the one who “cherry picks” and focuses on Biden’s remark that Obama will be found to have a “spine of steel” when tested.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:38 pmNo obvious truth that can’t be crafted to say what they want.
EPlub, has anyone ever told you that you’re utterly oblivious? Alaska, the state, holds massive assets that belong to Alaskans, the people. Palin is talking about capitalizing on those resources, which are unique, and distributing the revenues to those who own the resources.
What she’s not talking about is how everything Alaskans own belongs to everyone.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:44 pmMD – Same one. In isolating the steel in his spine remark, they engage in the exact same thing that they accuse Sen. McCain of doing. When they do it, it is truth telling. When McCain does it, it is dishonest.
EPluribus is JerrySpring, Pablo. It is a dishonest lying mendoucheous hack.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:49 pmComment by truthnjustice — 10/28/2008 @ 6:58 pm
You don’t trust “Hannity” to do a straight report?
I guess Colmes is a RW whacko also?
Ooppps! He’s a Liberal Democrat! OMGawd!
How long do you think they would have any credibility if they were caught doctoring a tape of a major figure (figuratively) hanging himself?
These are three snippets, all in context with date codes, all in the voices of Obama, Biden, and whoever is interviewing them or at a campaign stop, as I’ve noted above.
Another Drew (2f298d) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:50 pmWatch the damn tape!
AD – Facts are simply not relevant to them. Actually, they know that Baracky’s words quit having meaning the instant he utters the words, and they will be free to go back, and redefine and reinterpret the words to something more palatable, and the media will let them.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:54 pmComment by Pablo — 10/28/2008 @ 8:44 pm
I noted either here, or on another thread, that the best comparison is that Alaska is an enterprise, and the citizens of Alaska are the holders of a preferred stock.
They get a dividend distribution each year of a pre-set amount, and an additional distribution if the enterprise does especially well in royalty payments from resource extractors.
It is a very Capitalist enterprise!
Another Drew (2f298d) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:54 pmComment by JD — 10/28/2008 @ 8:54 pm
He is truly our first Orwellian candidate.
Another Drew (2f298d) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:55 pmI suppose that’s entirely possible, JD. I was giving it the doubt and assuming it was just really stupid, But it could be both, so win-win.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:56 pmI have figured out your formula, guys. You make sh*t up. I have heard the ‘opposite side of the bucket’ argument from McCain on many occassions, and earlier in this post I got the ‘growing pie’ economy argument. Which one is it, guys? Pick one and stick with it, otherwise you’re framing the argument like a photographer frames the family portrait with the felon (let’s call him Ted Stevens for anonymity) just a little too far away from the family to be in the shot.
136- You know as well as I do that that is Hannity’s show. Colmes is there to offer up his shirt sleeve if Hannity needs to blow his nose. Furthermore, Hannity is not above um… streeeetttcchhhinng the
truth.
I think my favorite post in response to mine is 129, which essentially sums up as: It is different when Republicans do it.
Yeah… of course it is.
truthnjustice (d99227) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:38 am