Patterico's Pontifications

9/24/2012

Turns Out Obama Was Talking About Redistribution of Wealth After All

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:27 am

Recently, a YouTube clip emerged that appeared to show Barack Obama supporting the concept of “redistribution”:

Then NBC News came up with the next sentence, and Media Matters and other partisan fact checkers started claiming that the clip had been taken out of context. At the Washington Post, Glenn Kessler gave the Romney campaign four Pinocchios — four Pinocchios — for saying the clip was about redistribution of wealth. Declared Kessler:

But now NBC News has obtained the rest of Obama’s comments, and it is clear his remarks were taken completely out of context. Obama is not talking about redistributing wealth at all — instead, he speaks about competition, the market place and innovation in an effort to improve government services in Chicago.

Now Charles C. Johnson (the “good Charles Johnson,” not the crazy one) at the Daily Caller provides the full audio of the entire Obama appearance. And the full context shows Obama was talking about redistribution of wealth — not in the sense of a direct and naked transfer of money, but in the more indirect but still very real sense of using government money (coming from richer taxpayers, obviously) to redistribute resources and services to the “working poor.”

As a public service, I have transcribed the entire relevant portion of Obama’s discussion surrounding the redistribution remark. At the Daily Caller’s clip this is from 24:40 to 31:28.

What you are about to read initially looks like gobbeldygook. But here’s the argument Obama is making. He says that although he disagrees with the 1996 welfare reform law, that law was fortunate because it desegregated the class of people needing government benefits. That group used to be just poor urban blacks, he said, but now it’s a larger group of “working poor” spanning different races and geographic areas. Obama sees this as an opportunity to build “coalitions” and do “organizing” to build political support for a wide range of government services for this group.

Put simply: Obama is saying that he wants to help the people who are considered black and therefore “undeserving,” by lumping them together with non-blacks into a group he can call the working poor. In this way, he can get enough votes to use government to redistribute resources to the whole group.

As part of this discussion, Obama says that he is trying to counter what he considers a “propaganda campaign” against the use of government to solve the problems of the working poor. It is in this context that Obama speaks of the need to “pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution — because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”

How Glenn Kessler thinks that pooling resources to “make sure everybody’s got a shot” has absolutely nothing to do with redistribution of wealth (four Pinocchios!!) is a mystery that only Kessler can explain.

For now, though, I am content to give Kessler FIVE PINOCCHIOS for his lazy and deceptive criticism.

One very important point in the transcript below: Obama makes repeated references to “Aurie” and the wonderful work she was supposedly doing on “organizing” and “diversity.” For example:

I think that the wonderful work that Aurie and many of you do in the areas of diversity is absolutely vital and there are some significant policy questions around housing and desegregation that have been intractable but have to be addressed.

As the full audio makes clear, “Aurie” is Aurie Pennick, an “affordable housing” guru who championed the idea of moving Section 8 housing recipients into wealthier areas to better their lives. The idea was to destroy the housing projects and give Section 8 recipients vouchers, and developers low income tax credits to build “affordable housing” in more racially “diverse” areas, so that welfare recipients would not be confined to the slums. You hear Obama make direct reference to the idea near the end of the transcribed remarks, where he contrasts building “Robert Taylor” Homes, a Chicago housing project, with the idea of “low income tax credits that are being provided to community development corporations to build scattered-site low-rise housing in mixed income communities.”

The problem with these ideas is that this particular type of redistribution of wealth — giving money to poor people for government-sponsored housing in wealthier areas — arguably increases crime in the neighborhoods where Section 8 recipients move. The evidence for this proposition has been criticized, but I challenge the authors of the criticism to move to the communities where Section 8 recipients are abundant, to put their criticisms to the test.

Any way you slice it, it’s redistribution, isn’t it, Mr. Kessler?

Without further ado, here is the transcript:

24:40 to 31:28:

Let me just move to I guess what technically is substance but is still an issue of process. What I think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant serious policy work around what I will label the working poor, although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage but it’s also families of four who are making $30,000 a year. They are struggling. And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward.

One of the good things about welfare reform — which the 1996 legislation I did not entirely agree with and probably would have voted against at the federal level — but one good thing that comes out of it is that it it essentially desegregates the welfare population, which presumably is black and undeserving and urban, versus the working poor, which are the other people. Um, now you just have one batch of folks. Folks who are working but don’t have health insurance, aren’t making much money, can’t figure out day care, don’t, spend an hour and a half trying to commute to the jobs that do exist, don’t have much opportunity for enhancing their skills so they could actually move up into an income bracket that would support them — that is increasingly a majority population.

And so to the extent that we have policy systems that are thinking about how do we provide effective health care to those populations, how do we provide job training so that people could upgrade their skills when they are in these jobs, how do we provide effective child care, and of course how do we educate the children in these families in such a way that they are able to access economic opportunity, I think those are going to be the critical policy questions that we face in the coming century.

And I don’t think, by the way, that that is just a problem for urban areas, for the inner city, or particular populations. I think that cuts across issues of race and geography. And as a consequence becomes a useful means for coupling policy with politics.

I think that the wonderful work that Aurie and many of you do in the areas of diversity is absolutely vital and there are some significant policy questions around housing and desegregation that have been intractable but have to be addressed.

Nevertheless I am actually a strong believer that if we organize policy around issues of economics that diverse populations have in common, we will have the basis and the conversation will have taken place and the coalitions will have been formed around which we can address some of the issues that Aurie has so effectively organized.

Just to give you an example, I went to an Indian organization dinner, service organization dinner, last night, and I was told that within the Indian community they’re seeing a significant departure from what used to be a so-called “model minority” that was coming over, and they were all professionals and moving out to Hinsdale or wherever these places are — I don’t mean to sound ignorant, I know where they are, but (laughter) — the, uh, but she pointed out that actually the new immigrant population is much less skilled, is much more apt to be in this category of working poor that we talked about, is having the same problems that folks who have been here for a while are already having, and what that means is, that gives us an opportunity then to do some organizing that we couldn’t do before.

Let me just close by saying, as we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named, policy research for the working poor, broadly defined, I think that what we’re going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic, I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign, against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. The Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither necessarily have been the Chicago public schools.

What that means, then, is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking how, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live. And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick — and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues — I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution — because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot — how do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at a local level and can be tailored to particular communities.

And so, just a quick example of that would be the difference between Chicago public housing and building Robert Taylor, versus low income tax credits that are being provided to community development corporations to build scattered-site low-rise housing in mixed income communities. So I think that’s the direction that we’re going to need to move in, on a whole host of issues. I think I went over time, I apologize.

142 Comments

  1. “the full context shows Obama was talking about redistribution of wealth — not in the sense of a direct and naked transfer of money, but in the more indirect but still very real sense of using government money (coming from richer taxpayers, obviously) to redistribute resources and services to the “working poor.”

    - Patterico

    That’s the same redistribution of wealth that presidents have been engaging in for the last 80 years. It’s absolutely unremarkable.

    Comment by Leviticus (612bca) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:33 am

  2. What did Jan “Let’s all work together to question Romney” Crawford have to report about this? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

    Comment by Paul A'Barge (f558d4) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:40 am

  3. Imagine for one minute if this statement came out of Mitt Romney’s mouth — in a tape that was actively hidden for years:

    “… [reform] essentially desegregates the welfare population, which presumably is black and undeserving and urban, versus the working poor, which are the other people.”

    Obama is endorsing the cliche that the majority of the welfare population is black. And he compares them unfavorably (being undeserving) with the “other people” (presumably white) who work rather than being on the dole.

    Am I missing something, or is that what Obama said? Do you think the MSM would ask the Romney campaign about this if that sentence came out of his mouth? I believe we’d see nothing else on MSNBC for at least two weeks straight, and it would be the first question in the first debate.

    Comment by Jim (c88acc) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:42 am

  4. Jim – he was just channelling those that would dare disagree with him.

    Comment by JD (89e14d) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:45 am

  5. Buck Bradley is a Moby.

    Comment by JD (89e14d) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:46 am

  6. JD — True enough. But the MSM doesn’t let that kind of sensible context get in the way of attacking Republicans. Hell, look what they have done with the 47 percent remark, which was a sloppily stated comment on political reality, not a “writing off” of nearly half the country if he’s president.

    Comment by Jim (c88acc) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:48 am

  7. I call b.s. on Obama. If he was in Congress when the bill came up, there is no way he would have voted.

    Comment by pwr (bcac38) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:50 am

  8. I sold my apartment building after I could no longer manage it. A real estate person bought it.

    I could have gone Section 8 a long time ago, letting a real estate person manage it for me. I did not do it.

    Section 8 pays about 150% market rent — a cash cow. And makes it unsafe to walk out your door. And destroys a neighborhood, bringing crack w****s (literally women who sell themselves for $10.00 for a hit) in the interest of desegration and perpetuating degradation.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:52 am

  9. “Turns Out Obama Was Talking About Redistribution of Wealth After All”

    So…frickin’…what?

    The Republicans have been hell bent on redistributing wealth UPWARD for 10 years now….it’s the American Way.

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:53 am

  10. Liar

    Comment by JD (89e14d) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:54 am

  11. And another thing, isn’t this really Obama’s “47 percent” moment? Or, more to the point, isn’t he really just validating Romney’s statement?

    Obama says there is “an increasingly majority population” of takers in American society, and it’s vital for the left/liberal/Democratic coalition to lock them up as constituents. Isn’t Romney’s statement that he can’t get those guys to vote for him merely a tip of the cap to the left for doing what Obama urged?

    Comment by Jim (c88acc) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:55 am

  12. *desegragation*

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:56 am

  13. In tillman’s world, one becomes wealthy at the expense of the poor.

    Comment by JD (89e14d) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:56 am

  14. Everybody sing! Great green gob of greasy grimy gopher guts….La La La

    Oh, and squirrels!!

    Comment by elissa (2a7e0c) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:57 am

  15. Sigh, Patterico.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:59 am

  16. “That’s the same redistribution of wealth that presidents have been engaging in for the last 80 years. It’s absolutely unremarkable.”

    There is a vast difference between a program which transfers funds from a private individual to a public good which both the paying individual and the nonpaying individual can share – say a park, a road, public transit – etc., and those that transfer money directly from one private individual to another. The former is often an acceptable and defensible use of public funds. The latter however – whether it is welfare for an individual or the subsidization of a business – creates the dangerous notion that it is acceptable to use tax monies for private purposes, as if those that recieved public monies were medieval aristocrats recieving what is their due.

    Comment by Celebrim (7c33fa) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:00 am

  17. elissa,

    My favorite wife kept the house in forested village by Brookfield Zoo. She points out dead squirrels to the daughter, telling her “They’re dead because they were not careful”.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:03 am

  18. Leviticus, if this is the “same redistribution” as has been the 80 year norm, why is Obama even talking about it if not to increase it, and revert to the pre-1996 give-aways, which he has done extra-legally, or at least contrary to the legislation.

    Comment by Hank W (1d7837) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:08 am

  19. Loyola is not the best place to talk nonsense, BTW. It’s focus is mainly on trial, and training to detect bs.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:09 am

  20. _______________________________________________

    arguably increases crime in the neighborhoods where Section 8 recipients move.

    That’s an interesting article and is pretty much an illustration of the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

    It also exemplifies the way that the media often avoids not mentioning the elephant in the corner of the room. Namely, a part of American society where over 90 percent of the populace is of the left, over 90 percent always votes like dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrats. Mindlessly, foolishly, self-destructively of the left.

    The nice thing about being a “limousine liberal” — and in this case, referring to a liberal who truly has some economic advantages — is when such a person makes a mess of things, he or she can leave behind the junk pile — or never have to deal with it in the first place — get in his car and wave bye-bye. Such people can move to a place where security is relatively good, where crime isn’t an issue, and where they’re able to send their kids to local schools that are relatively stable and functional.

    Still, researchers around the country are seeing the same basic pattern: projects coming down in inner cities and crime pushing outward, in many cases destabilizing cities or their surrounding areas. Dennis Rosenbaum, a criminologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told me that after the high-rises came down in Chicago, suburbs to the south and west—including formerly quiet ones—began to see spikes in crime; nearby Maywood’s murder rate has nearly doubled in the past two years. In Atlanta, which almost always makes the top-10 crime list, crime is now scattered widely, just as it is in Memphis and Louisville.

    If replacing housing projects with vouchers had achieved its main goal—infusing the poor with middle-class habits—then higher crime rates might be a price worth paying. But today, social scientists looking back on the whole grand experiment are apt to use words like baffling and disappointing. A large federal-government study conducted over the past decade—a follow-up to the highly positive, highly publicized Gautreaux study of 1991—produced results that were “puzzling,” said Susan Popkin of the Urban Institute. In this study, volunteers were also moved into low-poverty neighborhoods, although they didn’t move nearly as far as the Gautreaux families. Women reported lower levels of obesity and depression. But they were no more likely to find jobs. The schools were not much better, and children were no more likely to stay in them. Girls were less likely to engage in risky behaviors, and they reported feeling more secure in their new neighborhoods. But boys were as likely to do drugs and act out, and more likely to get arrested for property crimes.

    ^ And the couple currently in the White House — not so foolishly of the left that they’d be almost demented—and so they’re able to skillfully talk out of both sides of their mouth — happily sends their precious 2 kids to private schools, first in Chicago and now in DC.

    Comment by Mark (dd745b) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:19 am

  21. Leviticus,

    Obama wants to increase the rate of wealth redistribution—that’s why it is a remarkable statement. Yet he denies that’s what he actually wants to do—that’s why it is an even more remarkable statement.

    The man has spent his entire life in the incubator of Marxism and “boo, hoo, life isn’t fair !” politics.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:22 am

  22. Isn’t it also kind of newsworthy that Obama calls Indian immigrants a “so-called model minority” that increasingly is “much less skilled”? And, hey, voters in the suburbs! Obama mocks where you live as unimportant — such an afterthought he barely remembers the town names.

    Comment by Jim (c88acc) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:22 am

  23. I don’t understand the use of the term “redistribution of wealth.” Wealth was never distributed to start with. It does not exist unless it is produced. Its owner had to produce it. From that point on, one can only discuss the confiscation of wealth.

    Comment by willis (dee9e7) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:26 am

  24. Maywood has been “black” for a very long time, Mark. It is neither a project nor a Section 8. It simply has a majority black population. And one of the best hospitals, Loyola and McDonald House, in the country. And an artillery base –304?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:27 am

  25. One can judge the veracity and on-targetness of every thread post here by how many trolls and obvious mobys show up almost immediately to chatter excitedly and fluff their tails.

    Comment by elissa (2a7e0c) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:27 am

  26. What part of “The Cloward – Piven Strategy” are people not getting?

    Comment by Constitution First (f0d6ab) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:30 am

  27. Redistribution can go one way or the other. Progressive taxation, school loans etc go one way. But over the lat 30 years wealth has been redistributed upwards.
    “Trickle down”. It began with Carter.
    Workers are paid less, managers are paid more.

    And yet US crime rate is at lowest point in decades.

    Comment by sleeeepy (b5f718) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:33 am

  28. sleeeepy, you were the one that falsely claimed that the whole tape vindicated Obama as not being a redistributionist.

    Yet again, your spin fails and demonstrates you’ve no clue.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:37 am

  29. The Republicans have been hell bent on redistributing wealth UPWARD for 10 years now….it’s the American Way.

    Comment by P. Tillman — 9/24/2012 @ 7:53 am

    Lets look at the accuracy of this statement

    Reagan reduced taxes to 28% but to get that the Democrats were allowed to raise taxes on the middle class with a much greater 7.65 % flat SS/Medicaid tax.

    The SS medicaid tax has risen in cap every year for the middle class to encompass nearly 100% of their income a 1/6th taking

    Bush eliminated this 1/6th taking of the lower middle class and the poor (which is nearly 60% of the country) by raising the EIC benefit, introducing EIC for childless couples and having the child credit

    I thonk you are not aware of this – Republicans have done more for minorities and the poor than anyone.

    Sorry but you have been lied to and there are many sources including the SS administration itself

    Comment by EPWJ (e83e82) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:38 am

  30. elissa,

    I hate to apologize twice. Did you accept the one I made on JD’s Love Story thread?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:40 am

  31. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”–Karl Mark Obama

    How many different ways does the guy have to say it?

    He’s a socialist.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:48 am

  32. this particular type of redistribution of wealth — giving money to poor people for government-sponsored housing in wealthier areas — arguably increases crime in the neighborhoods where Section 8 recipients move.

    But it reduces greatly the amount of crime the Section 8 recipients themselves experience.

    Massive housing experiment finds those who moved to less-impoverished neighborhoods were happier

    For example, the prime reason that families reported for entering the lottery was the desire to flee gangs and drugs.

    Because they don’t completely cut off their ties with people in the old neighborhoods and schools, and some people are bad already, some of the crime moves with them.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:54 am

  33. 1. More telling is another day comes and passes without the truth leaking out of Ogabe’s mouth.

    You’d think with all the unguarded moments he’d say something like, ‘water is wet’, ‘the sky is blue’, ‘the Pope is Catholic’, something.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:55 am

  34. ______________________________________________

    Maywood has been “black” for a very long time, Mark.

    I’ve long wondered what would happen if black America suddenly — instantaneously, miraculously — became 90-plus percent centrist to conservative instead of 90-plus percent liberal. It would be a fascinating demonstration of how people’s socio-political attitudes can either help or hinder their community.

    I know surveys indicate Jewish America also is similarly overwhelmingly of the left, although perhaps a bit less so. So the prevailing ideology of a community isn’t the only factor that shapes how it turns out. But all things being equal, I bet so-called black America, if much of it suddenly became less mindlessly liberal, would begin to stabilize and progress (socially and economically) in a rather dramatic fashion.

    BTW, I’d be leery of even a community that was a flip side version of black America, or where a monolithic 90-plus percent of a huge sub-section of a society were dyed-in-the-wool conservative and Republican. That’s why I consider it not a healthy thing — not in the least — that such a huge percentage of blacks is into liberal group-think.

    Comment by Mark (dd745b) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:56 am

  35. See also:

    Intangible Dividend of Antipoverty Effort: Happiness – New York Times Sept 20, 20012

    You have to really search for it to find the connection to less crime, because this is something they really don’t want to find.

    They use code words.

    Here is the key sentence I am looking for in the New York Times article, which uses euphemisms for crime.

    Researchers said that though they did not know why people felt happier after moving, it probably had to do with feeling safer and less stressed. Nearly three-quarters of the families who signed up for the program said they had done so to get away from violence in dangerous neighborhoods.

    About the general findings – they should have been predicted:

    there was little evidence that the new neighborhoods made much of a difference in either income or education, a disappointment for social scientists, who had hoped that the experiment would lead to new ways of combating poverty.

    What researchers did find were substantial improvements in the physical and mental health of the people who moved. Researchers reported last year in The New England Journal of Medicine that the participants who moved to new neighborhoods had lower rates of obesity and diabetes than those not offered the chance to move. Beyond the increase in happiness, the new study found lower levels of depression among those who moved….

    …Professor Wilson said it was not surprising that education levels did not change significantly because many of the children who moved remained in the same school districts. And Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard and one of the study authors, said that the preference for educated workers was so strong that changing neighborhoods did not do much to improve job options for the participants, who were mostly African-American women without college educations….

    …Even more startling, researchers said, was the finding that families who moved into new neighborhoods that were just as racially segregated as the ones they came from, but were much less poor, reported much larger gains in feelings of well-being than those who moved to much more racially integrated neighborhoods that were nearly as impoverished…

    So moving them out helps them very much but slightly hurts others.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:56 am

  36. It doesn’t help them economically, if you exclude not getting robbed, and they exclude it. They look only at income, not expenses.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/24/2012 @ 8:58 am

  37. Comment by pwr — 9/24/2012 @ 7:50 am

    7.I call b.s. on Obama. If he was in Congress when the bill came up, , there is no way he would have voted.

    Members of the U.S. Congress don’t avoid voting. It becoimes an election issue. Instead they fiund a way to be on both sides of the issue. Vote for an amendment but then against the bill. Or have procedural objections.

    Or the leadership avoids votes.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:04 am

  38. Q. Does Barack Obama – even once! mention the words “crime” “gangs” or “drugs” in that entire tape?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:11 am

  39. Seriously, it’s not just transfers through taxes but everything he can lay his hands on. Like the auto bailout where the bond holders were screwed and the unions rewarded instead.

    Richard Epstein said that Obama knows a 1000 ways of redistributing wealth but has no idea of the bad effects of government seriously interfering with capital flows.

    And Obamacare seriously moves money around in ways that the private market surely would not.

    Comment by Syl (b97017) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:13 am

  40. Every president from every party from every era in our country has presided over a REDISTRIBUTION of “wealth”…or, treasury monies.

    It’s hilarious that the only thing you can find to try to pin on Obama is the same thing every other president has done…but that’s your MO from the get go…blame him for doing the same things Republicans do or did.

    Oh wait, he’s taking money from hardworking Americans and giving it to the lazy MINORITIES, right?

    Romney/Ryan would continue to redistribute upwards by lowering taxes for the top and increasing them for everyone else.

    LOL. That dog don’t hunt simps.

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:27 am

  41. “In ROMNEY’s world, one becomes wealthy at the expense of the poor.”

    There, fixed that fer ya…couldn’t have said it better myself…

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:29 am

  42. River Forest, the richest, whitest town, in Cook County, is right next to Maywood. I mean bordering. No town in-between, just a forest preserve, the Des Plaines River and Route 171. ;)

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:30 am

  43. P.Tillman, your fantasy world is quite bizarre. It would worry a sane person that so many of your beliefs are objectively false.

    You substitute your fantasies for reality, you’ve been caught at it multiple times, and you persist.

    That’s not a good sign.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:33 am

  44. The Marxists evidently feel we’re doing just peachy on the road we’ve taken.

    After all we’ve exited the ditch and we’re making good time.

    Everyone redistributes, destination and performance is irrelevant.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:42 am

  45. The troll’s fake signature bothers me a lot. Can we find his IP and forward it to B Battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:48 am

  46. “Romney/Ryan would continue to redistribute upwards by lowering taxes for the top and increasing them for everyone else.”

    Petey – An erroneous description of the Romney/Ryan tax plan as Democrat talking point does not make anything true.

    Plus lowering marginal tax rates so the government confiscates less money at all level does not redistribute anythi9ng. It lets people keep what is theirs.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 9:59 am

  47. _______________________________________________

    which uses euphemisms for crime.

    That is a glaring, daily reminder of how biased or absurdly subjective the media is. IOW, on a regular basis the “who, what, when, where and why” is modified to purposefully avoid mentioning — beyond the most vague description possible — something as fundamental and basic as the “who” and “what” of a news report.

    Q. Does Barack Obama – even once! mention the words “crime” “gangs” or “drugs” in that entire tape?

    No, he’s too busy finding decent, wholesome schools for Sasha and Malia. That such campuses just happen to have non-predominantly black student bodies and not be trapped in the typical vise-grip of the public-school system and its teacher unions (who are among Obama’s biggest fans) is merely a coincidence.

    Comment by Mark (dd745b) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:00 am

  48. That’s the same redistribution of wealth that presidents have been engaging in for the last 80 years. It’s absolutely unremarkable.
    Comment by Leviticus — 9/24/2012 @ 7:33 am

    – Speaking of gobbledygook . . .
    For those seeking translation, Leviticus agrees that the left-media “you took it out of context” spin is bogus, but so what?

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:03 am

  49. _____________________________________________

    Romney/Ryan would continue to redistribute upwards by lowering taxes for the top and increasing them for everyone else.

    Meanwhile, Obama has allocated $500 million to the IRS, which ironically enough will make it harder for the various people in the his administration — including his Secretary of the Treasury (who also is head of the IRS) — who are known to be late in paying their taxes or are outright cheats — to keep fudging their tax returns.

    P. Tillman, if you’re at least employed by the government, then your naivete and greed (for grabbing tax monies left and right) at least will be somewhat understandable to me. At least you’ll be getting something out of such a bargain of fake do-gooderness and graspy self-entitlement, which people in countries like Greece and Spain have been making for years, but to, uh, limited success.

    Comment by Mark (dd745b) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:08 am

  50. Petey – The left takes the position that 100% of your income belongs to the government and that you are lucky to be allowed to keep whatever the government chooses to allow you to keep.

    Obama’s position is to take what is already the most progressive tax system in the developed world, where the highest income earners pay the highest share of taxes relative to their share of income, and make it more progressive, because of some undefined concept of fairness.

    Will Obama and the left define their concept of fairness – No they will not.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:09 am

  51. Every decent parent wants the best for his children, Mark. I do not blame Barack and Michelle, in the least, for the way they care for their daughters.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:11 am

  52. “Every decent parent wants the best for his children, Mark.”

    nk – The problem I see with Obama is that he fails to recognize the same impulse in others when he kow tows to unions on the issue of school reform or charter schools or environmentalists in the area of energy, which prevent the immediate creation of thousands and thousands of jobs.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:15 am

  53. As a side matter for Mark, we all learned during Carter’s presidency that the President’s kids cannot go to a public school. It is an impossible security situation amongst other things. Amy Carter started in the public school as per her father’s campaign promises but had to be yanked as problems arose.

    Feel free to gank on Obama for putting his kids in private school in Chicago. :0

    Comment by luagha (5cbe06) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:18 am

  54. ______________________________________________

    I do not blame Barack and Michelle, in the least, for the way they care for their daughters.

    I don’t blame them too. However, I just wonder if he sees the two-faced nature (and purposeful disingenuousness) of his saying, on one hand, that if had a son, that son would look like Trayvor Martin, while, on the other hand, avoiding sending his own two daughters to a school where much of its student body would look like his son, if he had a son.

    I also wonder if liberals like him ever ponder the way that monolithic leftism in black America has affected that community, and whether the ludicrously one-sided nature of that tilt is a good or bad thing?

    Comment by Mark (dd745b) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:19 am

  55. “Feel free to gank on Obama for putting his kids in private school in Chicago. :0″

    laugha – Or for having a personal chef, which everybody can relate to, right?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:20 am

  56. _______________________________________________

    Or for having a personal chef, which everybody can relate to, right?

    In the meantime…

    sweetness-light.com, January 28, 2009: The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

    “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

    Thus did a rule of the George W. Bush administration — coat and tie in the Oval Office at all times — fall by the wayside, only the first of many signs that a more informal culture is growing up in the White House under new management.

    caranddriver.com, June 2008: At a speech in May 2007 before the captains of industry at the Detroit Economic Club, Obama scolded: “While foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology…American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars… The auto industry is on a path that is unacceptable and unsustainable.”

    Soon after that, the press revealed that Obama was driving one of the “bigger, faster cars,” a 340-hp Chrysler 300C. The Chrysler soon disappeared from Obama’s driveway, to be replaced by “the candidates’ choice,” a Ford Escape hybrid.

    “Let them eat cake.”

    Comment by Mark (dd745b) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:37 am

  57. The kids in a private school in Chicago was a fringe benefit of Michelle being a University of Chicago employee. It is available to every University of Chicago employee, janitors and groundskeepers included. The kids have to pass an IQ test to get into UofC’s lab school. If they don’t pass, UofC pays (part of) their tuition for another school. Can we keep the kids out of this conversation, please? Please?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:40 am

  58. The Republicans have been hell bent on redistributing wealth UPWARD for 10 years now….it’s the American Way.
    Comment by P. Tillman — 9/24/2012 @ 7:53 am

    – Is this another “lowering tax rates redistributes wealth away from the greedy paws of the government and into the savings accounts of those that actually worked in order to earn it” screed?

    Every president from every party from every era in our country has presided over a REDISTRIBUTION of “wealth”…or, treasury monies.
    – Oh, I see; it’s a simple semantic argument. Okay.
    Oh, by the way, if this was never a big deal, then WHY all of the vehement denials issued by the left? What’s their problem?

    It’s hilarious that the only thing you can find to try to pin on Obama
    – Yeah, this is the “only” thing. [That "Middle East catching on fire" thing is sooooo LAST news cycle. Right?]

    is the same thing every other president has done
    – Yep. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has sought to expand and increase welfare under the guise of ‘fairness’. Sure. In fact, all of your lib friends should have roundly condemned Kanye for saying “President Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Did they?

    Oh wait, he’s taking money from hardworking Americans and giving it to the lazy MINORITIES, right?
    – The only people playing the race card here are Barack Obama . . . and you.

    Romney/Ryan would continue to redistribute upwards by lowering taxes for the top and increasing them for everyone else.
    – Leaving aside, for the moment, that you are being factually inaccurate about the taxes, keeping the government’s greedy paws off of the public’s wealth DOES NOT “REDISTRIBUTE” A GOD**** THING!

    “In ROMNEY’s world, one becomes wealthy at the expense of the poor.”
    There, fixed that fer ya…couldn’t have said it better myself

    – It’s the scandal of the century! Every.single.company.Bain.bought.and.turned.around.did.it.on.the.backs.of.children.in.third.world.sweat.shops.

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:51 am

  59. We’ve elected an internet troll as president. I used to think he was just a leftist dilettante, but I’ve soured on him.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:55 am

  60. I don’t understand the use of the term “redistribution of wealth.” Wealth was never distributed to start with. It does not exist unless it is produced. Its owner had to produce it. From that point on, one can only discuss the confiscation of wealth.
    Comment by willis — 9/24/2012 @ 8:26 am

    – Yeah but, it’s the confiscation of wealth for our own good, don’t ya see? ’cause they’re gonna redistribute it, away from those that earned it, to those that didn’t.
    [SEE: Everybody gets a trophy]

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 10:57 am

  61. Tillman: In ROMNEY’s world, one becomes wealthy at the expense of the poor.”

    Only a moron thinks capitalist economics is zero sum. Oh, and Marxists but that’s redundant.

    To quote Thatcher, you would accept “the poor being poorer if only the rich were less rich.” You would refute Kennedy who knew that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” And you would continue to demonstrate your utter ignorance of economic systems.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:03 am

  62. With any luck, Obama is just a bump in the road.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:14 am

  63. “The kids in a private school in Chicago was a fringe benefit of Michelle being a University of Chicago employee.”

    nk – How long did Michelle work for the hospital, two years?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:14 am

  64. Democrats ending the Washington, D.C. school voucher system did not represent giving parents who wanted the best for their children a black eye, it was just another compassionate act by Obama and his cronies who had the put best interests of the kids first because the parents are stupid.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:19 am

  65. sleeeeepy:
    Redistribution can go one way or the other.
    – ONLY if the treasury actually gives money to the wealthy. You, of course, will now respond with some examples . . .

    over the lat 30 years wealth has been redistributed upwards.
    – Yeah, I hate it when the guvmint takes my hard-earned middle-class income tax payments and turns around and just gives it to people like Mitt Romney! I mean, sure, Mitt Romney paid in more money in income tax just last year alone than I will pay during my entire working life, but — but — his effective tax rate was only 14%, while poor little me had to pay 17%. Oh, the horror! The gross UNFAIRNESS(!!!) of it all. *sob*

    Workers are paid less, managers are paid more.
    – Are you calling for the implementation of The American Socialist Party’s wet dream of a national “maximum wage”? OR, Are you calling for a top income tax rate of 75% to keep ‘the greedy rich’ from keeping what they earn? OR, Are you calling for an unsustainable increase in the minimum wage that will drive us right back into recession?

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:27 am

  66. ==just another compassionate act by Obama and his cronies who had the put best interests of the kids first because the parents are stupid==

    …and also because unions contribute generously to Democrats so that the higest quality public school teachers can be retained.

    Comment by elissa (2a7e0c) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:28 am

  67. Icy, there are plenty of examples … Solyndra pops to mind …

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:34 am

  68. Just discovered this in the glossary to one of Obama’s books (“Choom Dreams From My Father”, “The Audacity of Dope”, “Forward The Marxist Foundation”; I forget which . . .)

    citizenshipthe government tells you what to do, and you do it.

    racismthe government tells you what to do, and you question it.

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:40 am

  69. Obama, like most American Leftists, is in love with the idea of using the state not so much to transfer wealth as to buy votes.

    Lets say you have a voter named Bob who works for a living, but struggles to do so. He has a job, but he doesn’t make very much money because Bob does not possess knowledge or skills that would qualify him for jobs that pay well. Bob has a job where he uses his back to earn his keep. He doesn’t get paid much because his services are not very valuable. That being said, he does work hard. Unfortunately for Bob, an E for effort alone doesn’t count for much. To Bob, a few measly dollars a month in food stamps or some other “entitlement” is more than enough to purchase his enduring support for whichever leftist politician gives him that money. This is especially true if that leftist politician feeds Bob’s resentment of those who earn more by telling him that his lot in life is not due to his own shortcomings, but the predations of those others who have somehow held him back, kept him down, or deprived him of income that would otherwise be his. An entire pop ideology has evolved amongst the Bobs of the world which tells them precisely that, which the leftists of the world tap into and encourage.

    Contrast this with another Voter named Dave who also works for a living. Unlike Bob, Dave has taken the time and trouble to develop valuable knowledge and skills. Dave has a job where he uses his brain to earn his keep. Dave also works hard, but is paid far more than Bob because Dave’s services are more valuable. Dave feels secure in himself and in his abilities. He doesn’t want any handouts and he doesn’t need anyone to blow sunshine up his arse or tell him that his own shortcomings are the fault of someone else.

    Then we have yet another voter named Tod. Tod is the scion of a well to do clan whose influence in his home region is pronounced. He counts amongst his relatives many prominent citizens. Tod possesses the appurtenances of achievement, but he does not feel that he has earned them, even when he has. He feels guilty and believes that the circumstances of his own birth have provided him with unfair advantages that would have been better bestowed upon other, more deserving, individuals. These feelings and self doubts are exacerbated during his time as a college student, where Marxist professors ply him with the sophistries of socialism and convince him beyond a doubt that his life of privilege is a crime he must atone for by being an advocate and ally of the disenfranchised proletariat. Tod takes these lessons to heart and practices them religiously….provided that his own wealth and position are not threatened.

    Bob and Tod are Democrats. Dave is a Republican.

    Any questions?

    Comment by Lee Reynolds (2252ef) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:43 am

  70. I’m a-thunkin’ that Solyndra had NO wealth until some of ours was redistributed their way.

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:43 am

  71. And the Obamas had no wealth until ours was “redistributed” their way, Icy.

    We elected the welfare-recipient-in-chief.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 11:56 am

  72. ICY, the US government just saved the banks and the bankers bonuses. It did much less for homeowners. Loaning money to banks at cut rate interest was a policy decision. Corporate tax breaks are a policy decision. Right to work policies… 1 factory worker equaling 1 factory owner…EQUALITY!… is a question of policy. Workers making less while investors earn more is not the result of a “natural” process. The overvaluation of the dollar is a policy decision. Patents are government intervention in the market. Patent extension is a policy decision.

    The top 1 percent of earners in the United States control more than 40 percent of the wealth. That’s the result of policy.

    Comment by sleeeepy (b5f718) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:03 pm

  73. sleeeeepy– do any of the “99%” work at banks? For corporation? In factories? Just curious.

    Comment by elissa (2a7e0c) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:14 pm

  74. What,pray tell, profession do you work at, sleepy? Mattress tester? If you say “teacher”, I’d have to guess you teach recess!

    Comment by ∅ (721840) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:18 pm

  75. [...] here: Turns Out Obama Was Talking About Redistribution of Wealth After All [...]

    Pingback by Turns Out Obama Was Talking About Redistribution of Wealth After All | Liberal Whoppers (cf3ed2) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:27 pm

  76. The top 1 percent of earners in the United States control more than 40 percent of the wealth. That’s the result of policy.
    – Really. They don’t just earn 40% more than the rest of us?

    ICY, the US government just saved the banks and the bankers bonuses.
    – Don’t look at me. It wasn’t my idea!

    It did much less for homeowners.
    – Interet rates are at rock bottom. It’s a buyer’s (and re-financer

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:34 pm

  77. You can’t believe The Dear Leader’s words, as that would be Racist.

    Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:37 pm

  78. “I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney said. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.”

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:40 pm

  79. Sleeeepy,
    The top 1% control 100% of their own wealth. It’s not “ours” as a nation. We aren’t a communist country.

    Comment by Ghost (6f9de7) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:44 pm

  80. LOL…even ROMNEY believes in redistribution rubes!

    Pelley: What would the individual federal income tax rates be?

    Romney: Well, they would be the current rates less 20 percent. So the top rate, for instance, would go from 35 to 28. Middle rates would come down by 20 percent as well. All the rates come down. But unless people think there’s going to be a huge reduction in the taxes they owe, that’s really not the case. Because we’re also going to limit deductions and exemptions, particularly for people at the high end. Because I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people. What I would like to do is to get a tax reduction for middle income families by eliminating the tax for middle income families on interest, dividends, and capital gains.

    [...]

    Pelley: You’re asking the American people to hire you as president of the United States. They’d like to hear some specifics.

    Romney: Well, I can tell them specifically what my policy looks like. I will not raise taxes on middle income folks. I will not lower the share of taxes paid by high income individuals. And I will make sure that we bring down rates, we limit deductions and exemptions so we can keep the progressivity in the code, and we encourage growth in jobs.

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:48 pm

  81. Here is a great set of charts about government (federal income taxes and spending).

    The top 1 earn 17% of the income and pay 37% of the fed income taxes.

    The bottom 50% earn 13% of the income and pay 2% of the fed income taxes.

    Adjusted–If the lower taxed folks paid the same rate as the “fat cats”, then they would be paying:
    13%/17% * 37% = 28% “the bottom 50% share of taxes”

    Or over ~14x what they are currently paying on “equal/adjusted” income.

    Isn’t it right that everyone pay their fair share?

    You ~triple the taxes on the top 1%, you are probably pretty close to 100% tax rates.

    You increase the income taxes on the bottom 50% by a factor of ~14x, they are at the “Warren Buffet pays less tax rate than his secretary” person.

    Which do you think would bring in more revenue by raising tax rates by 14x?

    Do you think the bottom 50% would “care more” about government spending if they had more skin in the game (no such thing as a free lunch)?

    Comment by BfC (fd87e7) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:49 pm

  82. The top 1 percent of earners in the United States control more than 40 percent of the wealth. That’s the result of policy.
    – Really. They don’t just earn 40% more than the rest of us?

    ICY, the US government just saved the banks and the bankers bonuses.
    – Don’t look at me. It wasn’t my idea!

    It did much less for homeowners.
    – Interet rates are at rock bottom. It’s a buyer’s (and re-financer’s) market. What the hell else do they NEED to do?

    Loaning money to banks at cut rate interest was a policy decision.
    – But NOT a “redistribution of wealth”. Hence, the word “LOANING”.

    Corporate tax breaks are a policy decision.
    – A decision that does not redistribute ANY Treasury money, whatsoever. You act as if the government is a Mafia loan shark, telling corporations “Hey, ya know that money you owe us? Fuhgeddaboudit.”

    Workers making less while investors earn more is not the result of a “natural” process.
    – Oh, by all means, please “explain” this one.

    The overvaluation of the dollar is a policy decision.
    – A decision that ‘helps’ us all in the short term, and harms ALL of us in the long term.

    Patents are government intervention in the market. Patent extension is a policy decision.
    – WHO made the claim that the government doesn’t intervene in the marketplace? It certainly wasn’t me!

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 12:56 pm

  83. Comment by P. Tillman — 9/24/2012 @ 12:40 pm

    – Is there ANY point to that posting, whatsoever?

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:01 pm

  84. P. Tillman really needs to be outed. Except it will turn out to be a spammer in Bangalore paid by MoveOn.org so what’s the point.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:02 pm

  85. No, it’s a fully ‘Billy Madison’ exercise

    Comment by narciso (ee31f1) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:03 pm

  86. [...] the original post: Turns Out Obama Was Talking About Redistribution of Wealth After All ← Answers to All the World's Problems: These People Are Doing What I [...]

    Pingback by Turns Out Obama Was Talking About Redistribution of Wealth After All | Wealth Building Tips (31b3de) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:08 pm

  87. I am figuring that sleeeepy and P.Tillman have no clue regarding the difference between and wealth – and the different exposure to taxation. Nor the excessively progressive tax rates already in existence. Ignorant twits.

    Comment by SPQR (5884a8) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:17 pm

  88. My child’s future well-being is just a bump in the road.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:28 pm

  89. Comment by P. Tillman — 9/24/2012 @ 12:48 pm
    LOL…even ROMNEY believes in redistribution rubes!

    – Followed by quotes from Romney’s 60 Minutes interview that don’t say ANYTHING AT ALL about redistribution of wealth. Good job. Your ultra-simplistic “unless Romney believes in a flat-tax, then he’s FOR redistribution” philosophy has been noted.

    If you ever find a quote of Romney saying “We need to increase the amount of revenue collected from the wealthy, so that we can redistribute it to those that pay no income taxes at all,” you let us know, m’kay?

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:29 pm

  90. “If you ever find a quote of Romney saying “We need to increase the amount of revenue collected from the wealthy, so that we can redistribute it to those that pay no income taxes at all,” you let us know, m’kay?”

    Okey dokey Icy, how about you do the same when you find a quote from Obama saying that….

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:31 pm

  91. “I will not raise taxes on middle income folks. I will not lower the share of taxes paid by high income individuals.”

    Interpretation for the hard-of-thinking:

    “I will not change the current tax rates/code from it’s current REDISTRIBUTIONIST form.”

    LOL.

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:32 pm

  92. How many HUNDREDS of times does President “Fair Share” need to say it? And did you read the transcript above?

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:34 pm

  93. “Nor the excessively progressive tax rates already in existence. Ignorant twits.”

    Yes, because only “ignorance” can explain why the current progressive tax structure is not progressive enough, and why nobel laureate economists believe it is unfair and self-destructive in its current form.

    I’ll take the company of those folks over you simps any day.

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:35 pm

  94. “How many HUNDREDS of times does President “Fair Share” need to say it? And did you read the transcript above?”

    And yet you can’t provide a SINGLE example of him saying:

    “We need to increase the amount of revenue collected from the wealthy, so that we can redistribute it to those that pay no income taxes at all,”

    And, thats exactly what ROMNEY is supporting if he doesn’t plan to change the tax code…another dirty REDISTRIBUTIONIST!

    LOL.

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:36 pm

  95. Obama, in one of the few candid exercises that Charlie Gibson was allowed, admitted that he would raise capital gains, even though you would lose revenue, this is on par, with his opposition to welfare reform, another point where he clashed with Clinton, a reasonable successful Democrat

    Comment by narciso (ee31f1) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:36 pm

  96. Interpretation for the hard-of-thinking:
    “I will not change the current tax rates/code from it’s current REDISTRIBUTIONIST form.”

    – Oh, Good Allah! Can someone else play whack-a-troll for awhile? I feel like I just lost a few I.Q. points.

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:41 pm

  97. I’ll take the company of those folks over you simps any day.

    Don’t tease us.

    Comment by JD (89e14d) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:51 pm

  98. Do you remember that troll from before on other threads who used a different name but said “LOL” all the time? Yeah. I remember him too. Saaaaay—you don’t suppose….

    Comment by elissa (2a7e0c) — 9/24/2012 @ 1:53 pm

  99. “Pelley: You’re asking the American people to hire you as president of the United States. They’d like to hear some specifics.”

    Petey – Romney should have said I’ll get more specific about what I’m proposing as soon as Obama starts getting specific about his plans for a second term.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 2:06 pm

  100. Icy,

    I feel your pain.
    Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballsFools.com wrote a blog post last week debunking this videotape by saying that Obama was advocating for the redistribution of government resources, rather than the redistribution of wealth.

    It is all so Orwellian.

    It would never occur to a fool such as Charles Johnson that before the money becomes “a government resource” that can be distributed to welfare recepients and government social programs, it must first be confiscated from productive taxpayers.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/24/2012 @ 2:09 pm

  101. “Interpretation for the hard-of-thinking:

    “I will not change the current tax rates/code from it’s current REDISTRIBUTIONIST form.””

    Petey – Almost. First, it confirms you were lying about his proposed plan earlier in the thread. Second, I will simplify and broaden the tax code in a revenue neutral basis is nothing like what you describe above.

    Zero points again for honesty or intelligence.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 2:11 pm

  102. Petey and sleepy leaving here and taking their acts back over to ThingRegress would raise the collective IQ of both places.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 2:15 pm

  103. Isn’t it cute curious how all three of our left-leaning visitors — Leviticus included — in one way or another parroted the “a progressive income tax IS ‘redistribution of wealth’, regardless of where the money is spent” meme?

    It’s like they all know that we’re talking about an increased tax on the wealthy for the express purpose of expanding social welfare programs, and since they cannot deny that reality they’re reduced to flailing about with the “progressive tax = redistribution” charge — as if the question of how the money is spent is a separate issue of no importance.

    Comment by Icy (af6561) — 9/24/2012 @ 2:15 pm

  104. Every child today owes $55K on being born.

    That up from $35K when BootBlack was elected.

    I think that degree of redistribution is egregious.

    I want and stop put to it, means by which that occurs a matter of complete indifference.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/24/2012 @ 2:18 pm

  105. We simply don’t punish the successful enough. They should not be allowed to keep the money they have earned at such regressive rates. The top 2% should pay at least 80-90% of income taxes.

    Comment by JD (89e14d) — 9/24/2012 @ 3:51 pm

  106. ” … why nobel laureate economists believe it is unfair and self-destructive in its current form.

    I can only assume that P.Tillman is refering to the long discredited Paul Krugman, who did not obtain his Nobel for any work related to the progressivity of income taxes.

    But since Paul Krugman has been caught in his columns (whoever writes them …) directly contradicting his own academic work, then I can see why P.Tillman would prefer such a discredited, dishonest hack columnist.

    Comment by SPQR (8134d6) — 9/24/2012 @ 4:03 pm

  107. This is why our nation is in trouble. This is why the economy has not recovered and why our foreign policy is in shambles. The president is an unserious man. Michelle and Barky go on The View and he refers to himself as “eye candy”.

    NEW YORK, Sept 24 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Monday sought to woo women voters at a taping of the daytime talk show “The View,” by flirting with his wife and bearing gifts for the hosts, but he could not escape tough questions on the economy that have dominated the election.

    When host and veteran journalist Barbara Walters kidded Michelle Obama about bringing the president as her “date,” Obama quipped, “I’ve been told I’m just eye candy here.”

    Comment by elissa (4cf3a6) — 9/24/2012 @ 5:27 pm

  108. I’m struggling to keep my dinner down.

    Comment by elissa (4cf3a6) — 9/24/2012 @ 5:30 pm

  109. ‘goggles they do nothin’

    Comment by narciso (ee31f1) — 9/24/2012 @ 5:31 pm

  110. Elissa – he diminishes the Office more every day.

    Comment by JD (89e14d) — 9/24/2012 @ 5:34 pm

  111. Presidentin’ is hard.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2012 @ 5:38 pm

  112. Eye candy? I suppose he is. But the gay vote is about 0.4%.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/24/2012 @ 5:41 pm

  113. The really funny thing is that US income taxes are among the most progressive, and corporate taxes are stiffer than any country most people could name. Since rich people indirectly pay the lion’s share of corporate taxes, this only adds to the already high degree of progressivity.

    Of course, some aren’t satisfied until they pay everything and more. Once upon a tine in England, income taxes + wealth taxes added to more than 100% of the rich’s income. And for some reason actual receipts fell like a stone.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/24/2012 @ 6:09 pm

  114. P. Tillman,

    While you’re sitting in your Aunt Helen’s basement, banging away on your keyboard, trolling at porn sites political blogs, there are disadvantaged youths in your community who are missing out on opportunites to be tutored by an older educated mentor such as yourself.
    Rather than redistributing your political talking points to people who just aren’t going to vote for your beloved Obamessiah no matter how loudly you bang your pots and pans, why don’t you instead invest your time and energy in helping disadvantaged youths ?

    That’s a good way to make a difference. Or whatever.
    These disadvantaged kids can’t wait around for another government program that is intended to lift them up—they need assistance in preparation for next week’s exam !

    How many disadvantaged youths are you willing to watch fall by the wayside before you finally put down the keyboard, and take action ?

    Do your fair share. Be the hope ‘n change that you demand of other people.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:25 pm

  115. [...] Patterico’s Pontifications » Turns Out Obama Was Talking About Redistribution of Wealth After…. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookEmailPrintDiggStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← The Captain’s Journal » Name Change For The ATF [...]

    Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Turns Out Obama Was Talking About Redistribution of Wealth After All | jamesbbkk (0d64fe) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:39 pm

  116. I get a kick out of liberal Californians complaining that the US tax code isn’t progressive enough……while California taxes at the same rate between $50K and a cool million. And we’re supposed to believe global warming will soon cause the oceans to rise, not in inches, but feet……while beachfront property in California rarely drops.

    Don’t listen to Californians, watch them. In practice they know where the money comes from – the middle class. In practice they know that the oceans might rise or fall and scientists have little clue as to which it more likely.

    Comment by East Bay Jay (a5dac7) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:47 pm

  117. The Republicans have been hell bent on redistributing wealth UPWARD for 10 years now

    Really? Please enlighten me on how this works. Which rich people have received anything from the federal government recently?

    Comment by Milhouse (15b6fd) — 9/24/2012 @ 7:55 pm

  118. That’s the same redistribution of wealth that presidents have been engaging in for the last 80 years. It’s absolutely unremarkable.
    Comment by Leviticus”

    Partly true, but with enough of a change in degree you end up with a difference in kind. This kind of redistribution used to be a fairly small fraction of gov spending, lost among other things that everyone agreed were proper gov functions, like defense, law enforcement, infrastructure. But it has grown so much that redistribution is now the primary function of gov, and is so large that it is more than all of our tax revenues. That is what must stop. This growth must be reversed, so redistribution is returned to the fairly small % of fed gov expenditures that it used to be.

    Comment by richard40 (19a56d) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:13 am

  119. Millhouse.
    If he is talking about crony capitalist bailouts and special interest corporate welfare, he should admit that both repubs and dems support that, with obama being one of the largest practioners, and only the Tea Party is firmly against it.

    Of course if he has the typical leftist idea that lowering overall taxes, especially if financed by closing special interest tax loopholes like romney has proposed, is somehow giving a subsidy to the rich, by allowing them to keep some of their own money, that is of course leftist nonsense.

    Comment by richard40 (19a56d) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:19 am

  120. “… youths in your community who are missing out on opportunites to be tutored by an older educated mentor such as yourself.”

    Hilarious…that’s exactly what I do. And I make sure they all recognize that society and government works best when it works for ALL people, not just the privileged and lucky few who are ungrateful and hateful.

    Easy lesson for kids to learn, believe me.

    Comment by P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/25/2012 @ 10:28 am

  121. Tillman knows all about ungrateful and hateful.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 9/25/2012 @ 10:41 am

  122. Meanwhile, actual experience with Obama’s promises? None carried out.

    His promise of lowering health care insurance premiums by the end of his first term? As effective as any promise made by Obama … as we see health care insurance premium costs rising faster than ever before.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/25/2012 @ 5:16 pm

  123. P.Tillman, in other words you do nothing of the sort. You are a fraud.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/25/2012 @ 5:18 pm

  124. Oh I get it, republicans hate the idea of using their wealth to help those who can’t help themselves. They should just suffer and die, who cares ? Hmmm. No wonder they are fast becoming the minority. Don’t tax the rich, rather let them keep their hard earned wealth. While the poor just find their way or perish. Got it.

    Comment by The Emperor (9ae02a) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:15 pm

  125. Oh I get it,

    Followed by proof that you do not, in fact, get it.

    Comment by JD (7e251a) — 9/25/2012 @ 6:38 pm

  126. Oh I get it, republicans hate the idea of using their wealth to help those who can’t help themselves.

    – Yeah, that’s why Romney gave $30 million to charity last year, and why Republicans in general give more to charity than Democrats. But, of course, you think the best way to help people is by means of the inefficiancy, red tape, and uncaring mechanism of government.

    Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:33 pm

  127. ==They should just suffer and die, who cares ? Hmmm. No wonder they are fast becoming the minority. Don’t tax the rich, rather let them keep their hard earned wealth. While the poor just find their way or perish==

    Right out of a Victorian Dickens novel, right, Emperor?

    Comment by elissa (5e1b7c) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:39 pm

  128. elissa – To be fair, Obama has helped a lot of families onto the rolls of food stamps and unemployment since he took office, so he’s got that going for him, as well as that big drop in median income since ObamaRecovery started, but hey, let’s keep the focus on Romney!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:50 pm

  129. Say, I have an idea for a perfect theme song they can play at Obamabot rallies.

    It’s actually a tune from the musical Oliver called “You’ve got to pick a pocket or two”.. Thanks for the inspiration, Emperor!

    Comment by elissa (5e1b7c) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:53 pm

  130. Oh, come on, you guys! The Magical Kenyan and his Klingon wife are the max of welfare. Pay up, suckers.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:55 pm

  131. Emperor is one of three or four spammers, elissa. It came here as Love08 and stayed as boy or girl. Just sayin.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 7:59 pm

  132. Another bit of snark from The Emperor that only shows that The Emperor is divorced from the reality of the world.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:01 pm

  133. Hey! Will Romney include Obama’s pension in the 2014 budget? Heck, will Obama include his pension in the 2013 budget? Should he ever submit one.

    What the f-word were we thinking when we picked McCain?

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:06 pm

  134. Love has never claimed to be a girl . . . act like one, sure, but he never said that he was one.

    Comment by Icy (145c49) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:09 pm

  135. Icy, actually The Emperor made some ambiguous comments long ago, that we’ve ridiculed him/her for since.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:11 pm

  136. Oh I get it, republicans hate the idea of using their wealth to help those who can’t help themselves.

    Whatever it is that you get, Emperor, you don’t “get” reality. In truth, Republicans donate a much higher percentage of their incomes to charity than do Democrats.

    It’s just that Republicans tend not to support government-forced benevolence. There’s no morality in a forced act, you don’t get any credit for forcing other people to give their money away.

    Comment by Chuck Bartowski (a72c35) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:18 pm

  137. ==Emperor is one of three or four spammers, elissa==

    Yes, I know. I was making fun of Emperor’s wildly vivid imagery and its silly conjuring of hopeless threadbare penniless orphaned urchins starving and dying in American streets ala Dickens– to be saved only if Dems are able to go ahead with their national pick pocketing (redistribution) enterprise.

    Comment by elissa (5e1b7c) — 9/25/2012 @ 8:28 pm

  138. People kept asking him to I.D. his gender, which gave him an opening to play with us. Whatever. He spouts the same lib talking points as the rest of them.

    Comment by Icy (ae47d2) — 9/25/2012 @ 9:09 pm

  139. Well intentioned but poorly managed “government program” exploits and screws both taxpayers and the poor at the same time. Winning!!!:

    The corner pantry didn’t have space for a lot of food — just packaged lunchmeat, drinks, chips and the like. But over the past 10 years, the store rang up sales like a big grocery.

    That’s because a succession of storeowners bilked the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars through food-stamp fraud. The theft continued even after the government twice removed the store from the program for fraud.

    It’s an example of the government’s difficulty in preventing storeowners from ripping off the multi-billion dollar program.

    The scam is simple: A person with a state-issued LINK card lets a storeowner withdraw federal food-stamp benefits, maybe $50. The money is supposed to pay for food for the poor. But the storeowner might hand the cardholder $30 and keep $20 for himself.

    Although the USDA wouldn’t comment on the Alfraihat case, department officials said they’re improving their efforts to root out fraud.

    That’s increasingly important because the program’s benefit payments have ballooned as the economy faltered.

    Nationally, about 100 USDA analysts and investigators reviewed more than 15,000 stores in fiscal year 2011 and conducted nearly 5,000 undercover investigations, the department said.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/15248686-418/name-owners-changed-at-south-side-store-but-food-stamp-fraud-continued.html

    Keep this story in mind when the subject of the still-to-be-passed new farm bill comes up. And when you read about government’s advertising outreach to make sure that “all who are eligible” sign up for food stamp assistance.

    Comment by elissa (ad7fec) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:00 am

  140. This is off-topic but the discussion reminds me of something I’ve wondered about. Is it possible to think of yourself as both a him and a her if, for instance, you’re a gay male who is the wife in the relationship?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:16 am

  141. ONLY if the woman he’s married to thinks of herself as the husband in the relationship.

    Comment by Icy (ae47d2) — 9/26/2012 @ 9:22 am

  142. [...] As Patterico has noted, those 1998 remarks were made in the context of Obama’s larger housing-policy agenda to promote government-funded private construction of low-income housing in wealthier areas, more or less for the purpose of allowing recipients of federal housing aid to free-ride off the communal benefits of the neighborhoods they’d be moving into – a policy that has ignited controversy over whether it also exports more crime into such neighborhoods, but which handsomely profited the politically connected housing developers who paid Obama’s salary, financed his campaigns and even helped him buy his house. [...]

    Pingback by Barack Obama: Corporatist Collectivist (Part II of IV) | Politics Dividing US (290c03) — 10/22/2012 @ 8:03 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4031 secs.