Hitchens on Michelle Obama’s Minister
[Guest post by DRJ]
Christopher Hitchens wonders if Michelle Obama is responsible for the “Jeremiah Wright Fiasco.”
For several reasons, I think it’s likely that she played a large role in choosing and staying at Wright’s church for 20+ years:
She’s from Chicago and initially had more ties to and knowledge of the community, its churchs, and pastors than Barack had.
Fiancees, wives and mothers are often the moving force behind whether a family attends church, as well as which church a couple is married in, baptizes their children in, and attends.
As demonstrated by her Princeton thesis, Michelle Obama has long been interested in black-focused ideologies similar to the ideas preached by Jeremiah Wright.
Michelle Obama’s public statements suggest she is more disillusioned with America and thus more likely to be drawn to the message preached by Jeremiah Wright.
— DRJ
I completely agree with Hitchen’s. What seems to undergird these points is her immensely strong will. One wonders when Barack figured out that life was more peaceful if he acquiesced rather than challenged (her).
Dana (32bef0) — 5/5/2008 @ 6:17 pmMore bad news: If you can’t handle Michelle, you can’t handle the Presidency.
Apogee (366e8b) — 5/5/2008 @ 6:25 pmDana…
I’m thinking that would be “The 5th day he knew her…”
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/5/2008 @ 6:39 pmMichelle Obama. Very brilliant lawyer and speaker. She just needs to shut up!
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/5/2008 @ 7:28 pmNot just “drawn to,” but also wanting to stay.
The Obamas are still with TUCC, as far as I know, and Rev. Otis Moss III is preaching the same things as Rev. Wright.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 5/5/2008 @ 7:29 pmMore bad news: If you can’t handle Michelle, you can’t handle the Presidency.
Three words: Mary Todd Lincoln. Any problems Senator Obama is having with his wife sort of pale compared to the hell that ol’ Honest Abe lived through–and it didn’t keep him from being a great President.
This isn’t an Obama endorsement–I’m just keeping things in perspective.
M. Scott Eiland (b66190) — 5/5/2008 @ 7:34 pmDifferent era, Scott.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/5/2008 @ 8:19 pmis M. Scott suggesting that Michelle is utterly insane?
Because you know, I’d be willing to buy that…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/5/2008 @ 8:22 pmMaybe the Arab culture has something to offer Obama?
Alta Bob (934c6d) — 5/5/2008 @ 8:29 pmM. Scott – Speaking of perspective – A more appropriate comparison to Mary Todd Lincoln would be Jackie Bouvier (Later Jackie O), the daughter of wealthy and politically connected parents. Todd, also the daughter of prominent parents, so impressed Henry Clay with her educated conversations at the age of 9 that he invited her to his home as a regular guest. Todd was considerably more outspoken, but as a balance to Lincoln as Lincoln was far more pedestrian than JFK. Jackie, comfortable around all in the DC and New York power centers, was similarly situated to boost JFK’s career.
Much written regarding Mary Todd is inaccurate, and fails to explain her courtship by both Douglas and Lincoln, if she were actually so “crazy”. Lincoln also held his own in a time of lengthy separation due to travel times, and while he listened to Mary Todd, did not obey her every wish.
Sorry, Michelle is no Mary Todd, and Obama is absolutely no Lincoln.
Apogee (366e8b) — 5/5/2008 @ 8:36 pm#6
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/5/2008 @ 8:54 pmActually M.Scott, this an anti-Obama blog. They really get all worked up at the slightest attempt to cast the Obamas in any positive light. It gets them really upset. Since you are the new kid on the block I felt I should just fill you in. Keep those pro-Obama sentiments to yourself or you are gonna get hurt, really hurt. These guys mean business! I am really risking my neck to tell you this. Just watch the black eye I am gonna get now for not keeping my big mouth shut! LOL.
Hey, everybody, why don’t y’all just do Humanity a service and stfu: the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is merely a Simple Tool has exactly no chance at all of dissuading me from knowing in my brain-of-brains that He will do exactly what I want Him to do in order to bring me Heaven on Earth now!, regardless – now!
And to think all y’all actually thought that even Santa Claus didn’t exist! Sheesh – and, well, haven’t y’all ever heared of, Heaven’s Just a Sin Away, anyway?
J. Peden (93915b) — 5/5/2008 @ 9:30 pmlove2008,
M. Scott Eiland has been commenting here about 6 months longer than you have.
DRJ (a431ca) — 5/5/2008 @ 9:35 pmThis rings true. Ms Obama strikes me as one of these negative, highly educated, resentment-filled female liberals who would find Rev Wright’s rants to be music to her ears. Oh please America, do not vote this couple into the White House.
Jack (830204) — 5/5/2008 @ 10:36 pmThe prospect of a Barack Obama presidency alarms me. It part, that’s because Michelle Obama terrifies me.
Beldar (0ff58e) — 5/6/2008 @ 3:10 am#15
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/6/2008 @ 5:53 amThe prospect of a Barack Obama presidency alarms me. It part, that’s because Michelle Obama terrifies me.
Why does it scare you? Are you scared of new things? A new face? A different face. A different name? A different direction? Or are you just scared? Of the three remaining contenders, who scares you the most? Because they are all scary. We dont know who they are and we dont know what they would do as president. But inspite of our fears we must choose one of them and hope it turns out for the best. And sometimes doing the right thing can be scary, but we do it anyway.
In order, from most frightening to least, it would be Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain.
Obama’s policies are pure socialist, he’s anti-gun (his Illinois record tells us this), and he is either a) a fan of Wright’s views or b) was unable to cowboy up and leave a place that spouts such bile.
Either option leaves us in a very scary place, as the latter leaves one to wonder how he would be capable of a hard decision in the Oval Office…
I spent 8 years in the 90’s under a President who acted based on the polls, and I don’t wish for another.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/6/2008 @ 6:09 amAnd we don’t know anything about her astrologer.
stef (8bb588) — 5/6/2008 @ 6:18 amOh yeah, insinuate that Nancy Reagan was an evil baitch like Michelle Obama who hates America and is only proud that her dear Hussein will likely be dem standard bearer. I guess under Nancy’s urgings Ron Reagan was forced to lower taxes, aid immensely in winning the cold war and gave people (other than far left loons) a sense of pride, much unlike Jimmy Carter before him who enabled the terrorists, greatly weakend our intelligence capabilities and to this day aids our enemies.
madmax333 (af23d4) — 5/6/2008 @ 6:28 am#17
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/6/2008 @ 6:28 amScott, what scares you about Mccain? In your list he is the 3rd scariest. What scares you about him?
His stance on free speech (McCain-Feingold), and his pro-illegal immigrant stance.
There’s other, fairly trivial stuff, but those are the two big red flags for Sen. McCain.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/6/2008 @ 6:31 amI was going to link the original “Blues in the Night” — “my mama done tol’ me, when I was in kneepants … a woman’s a worrisome, troublesome thing … — but it’s amazing what you can find on Al Gore’s internets. It’s practically on topic.
nk (1e7806) — 5/6/2008 @ 6:48 amI love it when the left talks of a different direction. Just what direction are we discussing? I just want the Government to provide the services called for by constitutional law. They are not there for economic redistribution. The government is to maintain our borders, prevent attacks from foreign and domestic enemies and insure fair interstate commerce. Any change from that is a move away from the free nation we claim to be. There is no fair, no equal, only opportunity. If you do not like it here, move.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (e18128) — 5/6/2008 @ 12:23 pm“The government is to maintain our borders, prevent attacks from foreign and domestic enemies and insure fair interstate commerce.”
Article I has quite a bit more than that.
stef (8bb588) — 5/6/2008 @ 7:15 pmArticle I has quite a bit more than that.
Is that simply an observation, or did you have a point?
Paul (266a05) — 5/6/2008 @ 7:45 pm“Is that simply an observation, or did you have a point?”
Actually, its not just article I. There are also powers in the amendments. Quite a few more things the federal government can (and I’d argue, should) do per the constitution. Like the 14th amendment gives congress the power to pass laws that protect due process and equal protection. Several of the other amendments also give power to congress to enforce them.
stef (8bb588) — 5/6/2008 @ 8:30 pmActually, its not just article I.
I ask again: is that simply an observation, or did you have a point?
Paul (266a05) — 5/6/2008 @ 8:34 pm“I ask again: is that simply an observation, or did you have a point?”
Like I said, there’s quite a bit more the government can, and in my opinion, should do. I’d say our founders, and the writers of those amendments, thought so too. You?
stef (860987) — 5/6/2008 @ 8:42 pmLike I said, there’s quite a bit more the government can, and in my opinion, should do. I’d say our founders, and the writers of those amendments, thought so too. You?
This got started when you quoted Zelsdorf, glomming onto this line…
…when he already included what you bring up with this line:
So why are you discussing something he supposedy didn’t include when he actually did so?
Paul (266a05) — 5/6/2008 @ 8:52 pm“…when he already included what you bring up with this line:”
the first part you quote,followed by “Any change from that is a move away from the free nation we claim to be.” as well as the statement that there is “no equal.”
Makes me think that this dude has a wrong idea about what is in the constitution. Just because someone says they are ‘for the constitution’ doesn’t mean they understand what is in it, specially when they say “no equal.” Also, “if you don’t like it here, move” kind of ignores that the constitution also has an amendment process. Don’t like? amend it.
I get your point. You think that he’s thinking of all the splendor and glory and incredible powers that are in the constitution. But I think the rest of his comment makes it clear that he isn’t.
stef (e368a1) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:03 pmI get your point. You think that he’s thinking of all the splendor and glory and incredible powers that are in the constitution. But I think the rest of his comment makes it clear that he isn’t.
Wrong.
When he says…
…that means there is no equality of outcomes, not opportunity. This is made clear by this line:
Economic redistribution has nothing to do with equal protection or due process, or for that matter, anything to do with the Constitution.
As for this line:
Also, “if you don’t like it here, move” kind of ignores that the constitution also has an amendment process. Don’t like? amend it.
No it doesn’t ignore any such thing. Zelsdorf is tired of the “we should be like such-and-such country in every way” complaints uttered. If the complainers think “such-and-such” is so great, why are they still here? Why not move there and be happy?
For someone who complained about selective reading on another thread, you certainly engage in it yourself.
And what does this all have to do with Christopher Hitchens wondering if Michelle Obama is responsible for the “Jeremiah Wright Fiasco?”
Paul (266a05) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:22 pmStef – Why don’t you point out where income redistribution was an express goal of the founders.
Would it help confused idividuals such as yourself for people to refer to it as “the constitution as amended,” or is that too humiliating for the mentally challenged argument you were making?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/6/2008 @ 9:33 pm“that means there is no equality of outcomes, not opportunity”
Equality of opportunity isn’t really in the constitution either. Those born rich have more opportunity. Equal protection of the laws is what is in there. And in some ways it didn’t come from the founders — it came from those who didn’t like the constitution and instead of leaving amended it.
“And what does this all have to do with Christopher Hitchens wondering if Michelle Obama is responsible for the “Jeremiah Wright Fiasco?””
Good question. Dude seems to have a limited view of the constitution, and this is an odd thread to bring it up in. Me? I thought it was ok to point out he may be missing some things. But you believe he and I have the same views of the constitution. Odd.
“Stef – Why don’t you point out where income redistribution was an express goal of the founders.”
Congress has the power to set the value of money and foreign exchange. Economically this means setting interest and inflation rates and thus distributing wealth between debtors and creditors.
There was also an expressly redistributionist amendment that freed the slaves. But not from the founders. Also, regulating foreign and interstate commerce can clearly be redistributionist.
stef (d5dafa) — 5/7/2008 @ 4:57 amEver notice that liberals espouse income redistribution, but not out of their own pockets? And those with power, make sure to write and pass tax laws that protect their own fiefdoms and wealth. Do as I say, not as I do. Check out the energy pigs who want you to cut back on YOUR carbon footprint when their bleeding hearts are using 100 times as much as you do.
madmax333 (0f0906) — 5/7/2008 @ 5:22 amObambi earmarks $1 mil for a Chicago nonprofit hospital and his better half has a “job” making $400k with them, doing essentially nothing. Or that great American that fat Rosie D. agrees with, Wright….makes oodles of money all while castigating others for seeking more wealth. Hypocrisy rules.
“And those with power, make sure to write and pass tax laws that protect their own fiefdoms and wealth.”
Its called faction, and federalist 10 assumed it was possible in the powers of government, but instead proposed to address it structurally.
stef (861715) — 5/7/2008 @ 5:46 amCongress has the power to set the value of money and foreign exchange. Economically this means setting interest and inflation rates and thus distributing wealth between debtors and creditors.
There was also an expressly redistributionist amendment that freed the slaves. But not from the founders. Also, regulating foreign and interstate commerce can clearly be redistributionist.
stef – Creative attempt stef but intellectually weak when you start using live examples.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/7/2008 @ 8:11 am“stef – Creative attempt stef but intellectually weak when you start using live examples.”
Whats weak? The fed targets inflation when setting interest rates. Inflation clearly has a distributionist effect. A pre-Fed example could be the free silver movement, which aimed at helping farmers, debtors and silver miners.
Redistribution can also be done via foreign trade, by being protectionist of certain industries but not of others.
stef (48e229) — 5/7/2008 @ 8:26 amWhats weak? The fed targets inflation when setting interest rates. Inflation clearly has a distributionist effect. A pre-Fed example could be the free silver movement, which aimed at helping farmers, debtors and silver miners.
Redistribution can also be done via foreign trade, by being protectionist of certain industries but not of others.
Comment by stef — 5/7/2008 @ 8:26 am
stef – You really need to think your arguments through. Inflation affects everyone equally in terms of their current monetary holnings, there is no redistribution. If debt is denominated in foreign currency, exchange rates adjust to take into account inflationary pressures in the country experiencing inflation to devalue the currency. Trade restrictions to protect one industry may accomplish that, but how to they take away, or redistribute something from another industry?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/7/2008 @ 9:05 amStef, have you ever heard the old maxim “The Law is no respecter of persons”?
“Redistribution” of monetary vehicles impacts the dollar in your example, not the person who holds the dollar.
When an economic model attempts to artificially influence the PERSON who “holds” the dollar, rather than the dollar itself, as its goal…that social engineering has consistently had disastrous results. And consistently polar outcomes to what was intended.
Socialism/Communism has consistently produced negative trends in lifting up people,…but it has succeeded in bringing down people.
If what leftists want is more equality…not to make the underclass obtain a better standard of living, but to bring down those who have climbed to a level of comfort and make them less comfortable…then Socialism is your vehicle.
Trust fund leftists will hold onto THEIRS with both fists…in a sort of “let’s you and him fight” playground provocateur smarmy, smirking Teresa Heinz sort of way.
Everyone eles gets taxed to death to build more and more and more red tape, to fill the coffers of a bloated government that does little, bloviates much.
Redistribution for “persons” is the Orwellian nightmare, as the rules continually change to feed the beast.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 5/7/2008 @ 9:39 am“Inflation affects everyone equally in terms of their current monetary holnings, there is no redistribution. ”
So if we have different monetary holdings, we are affected differently. If I owe you a million dollars, and inflation hits, then in real terms I’ll owe you less. There has been a redistribution.
“Trade restrictions to protect one industry may accomplish that, but how to they take away, or redistribute something from another industry?”
By raising prices. If you protect, say, sugar, all sugar consumers pay more, and that wealth is distributed to sugar producers.
stef (8a983a) — 5/7/2008 @ 11:00 amSo you are redefining redistribution as it is used explicitly in connection with the tax code and government welfare programs. Why didn’t you say you were using different and nonquantifiable terms from the start stef?
When I drive to work instead of taking the train I suppose I am redistributing wealth from the federal government to the state by lowering the wear and tear on the state subsidized train line and instead placing it on the federally subsidized highway system. This is easy.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/7/2008 @ 2:50 pm“So you are redefining redistribution as it is used explicitly in connection with the tax code and government welfare programs.”
Zelsdorf talked about “economic redistribution.” And my examples address that. Broaden your narrow views, and notice how redistributionist policy can be.
“Why didn’t you say you were using different and nonquantifiable terms from the start stef?”
The effect of inflation upon the debtor/creditor relationship is quite quantifiable. Economists can also work on quantifying the effect of protectionism.
stef (8bb588) — 5/7/2008 @ 3:11 pmStef isn’t alphie, stef is Lewis Carroll.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/7/2008 @ 3:43 pmThe effect of inflation upon the debtor/creditor relationship is quite quantifiable.
Stef – And the fact that inflation was factored in to the rate negotiated for the transaction in the first place. Oh my!
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/7/2008 @ 4:32 pm“Stef – And the fact that inflation was factored in to the rate negotiated for the transaction in the first place. Oh my!”
Thats for future inflation when it is known. When inflation fails to behave according to expectations, that redistributes the original deal.
stef (b022b7) — 5/7/2008 @ 4:47 pmstef – I’m looking forward to reading the citations you produce from the Fed Open Markets Committee or other government source explicitly acknowledging the type of wealth redistribution you desrcibe as a goal of inflationary monetary policy they prepare to undertake, if and when they acknowledge undertaking inflationary policy.
I’m also looking forward to reading minutes of government meeting acknowledging the goals of protectionist trade policies being the redistribution of wealth from certain unprotected industries to the protected one and ones related ot it.
Otherwise, I think you are just grasping at unplanned consequences rather than policy and wasting everyone’s time as usual.
“Thats for future inflation when it is known. When inflation fails to behave according to expectations, that redistributes the original deal.”
And when do we know that inflation didn’t behave as expected? Why an economist who knows the precise terms of all the private contracts executed in the country over the past fifty years will tell us or maybe he has a really neat capital asset pricing model or maybe we will just be guessing again.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/7/2008 @ 8:37 pmHarry Truman said that he wished to meet, and employ, a one-armed economist, for he was tired of every presentation on economic theory being followed with the phrase: On the other hand…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/7/2008 @ 8:42 pm“stef – I’m looking forward to reading the citations you produce from the Fed Open Markets Committee or other government source explicitly acknowledging the type of wealth redistribution you desrcibe as a goal of inflationary monetary policy they prepare to undertake, if and when they acknowledge undertaking inflationary policy.”
Actually their goal is to avoid it. Who do you think runs the fed the debtors or the creditors?
“I’m also looking forward to reading minutes of government meeting acknowledging the goals of protectionist trade policies being the redistribution of wealth from certain unprotected industries to the protected one and ones related ot it.”
Thats not an unintended consequence: thats the entire goal of protectionism — transferring wealth to the protected industry
“And when do we know that inflation didn’t behave as expected?”
Uh, when after it occurs we see that it didn’t behave as expected.
stef (665bbf) — 5/8/2008 @ 6:12 amI’m glad you can’t answer direct questions again this morning stef. Your theories about CONGRESS explicitly using monetary and foreign exchange policy as a redistribution tool is bullshit absent an example in use. Protectionist trade policy typically is designed to transfer income from a foreign industry to a domestic industry. Adbsent a concrete example, your theory that it is explicitly designed to redistribute income from other domestic industries to the protected one is again more theoretical bullshit on your part based on an examination after the fact.
“Uh, when after it occurs we see that it didn’t behave as expected.”
Again, who is we and how do you know that their expectation were not met?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/8/2008 @ 7:49 am“Your theories about CONGRESS explicitly using monetary and foreign exchange policy as a redistribution tool is bullshit absent an example in use.”
I pointed to the free silver movement, which was about interest groups fighting over the money supply. Now its the fed that handles these policies, as a delegation of congressional authority.
“Adbsent a concrete example, your theory that it is explicitly designed to redistribute income from other domestic industries to the protected one is again more theoretical bullshit on your part based on an examination after the fact.”
How do you imagine protectionism working? Who do you imagine pays the protected industry? The protected industry gets to charge a higher price for its goods than if it wasn’t protected. The people paying that higher price are the ones who the transfer is from. This isn’t an unintended consequence, its the goal. its why some people are for free trade and others are not — because they know the distributionist effect it has will be for or against them.
“Again, who is we and how do you know that their expectation were not met?”
When you’re on the market for a loan, you’re seeing interest rates quoted. Those rates are based on several things, included expected future inflation. You can probably even look at futures markets to see what the current market expects future price levels to be. Several forecasters are out there predicting these. They’re not always right, and policy can always change. Suffice it to say that a policymaker can just assume that an unannounced policy change will be unexpected. Can you understand that? Can you understand how things dont’ always turn out as expected?
I’m not so sure why this is all such a problem. Congress has lots of powers to cause distributions of wealth. Clearly any sort of government that can enact economic regulations, and control the money supply will be able to. Federalist 10 recognized this fact. Interest groups fighting over policy recognize this fact. Why is this so controversial?
stef (e870b9) — 5/8/2008 @ 8:21 amstef – Do you use a personal aid for mental maturbation or do you go commando style?
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/8/2008 @ 9:50 am“stef – Do you use a personal aid for mental maturbation or do you go commando style?”
Take some basic economics courses, pay attention to things like public choice theory. Its quite easy and acceptable.
stef (8a38ef) — 5/8/2008 @ 10:20 amI mean “accessible,” not “acceptable.”
stef (8a38ef) — 5/8/2008 @ 10:21 amI have done this very thing, and I can’t help but notice that you appear to have only been paying attention during that 45 minute period where this one theory was discussed…
There ARE other theories, and there IS far more to economics than just this…
Though if you’re any indication, I might have just figured out why so few liberals understand a Laffler Curve, or why Warren Buffet was being HIGHLY misleading when he spoke about “never paying taxes again”…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/8/2008 @ 10:25 am“I can’t help but notice that you appear to have only been paying attention during that 45 minute period where this one theory was discussed…”
You’re weird.
“Though if you’re any indication, I might have just figured out why so few liberals understand a Laffler Curve,”
The Laffer curve is quite easy to understand. The main problem is figuring out its shape and where on it we are. I mean, when you have people trying to do this:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/yet-again-tax-c.html
Shows you things are effed up with the Laffer curve fetishists.
stef (8a38ef) — 5/8/2008 @ 10:35 amstef – This is your theory not mine. You claim policy makers take your theory into account. It shouldn’t be hard to find statements of policy makers reflecting that when making policy, should it?
Remember, you are the one who reframed or redefined the discussion away from using the income tax code, the current popular debate, from addressing income inequality.
I can find plenty of anecdotes too, especially with the benefit of hindsight. I’d like to see actual policymaker evidence to support your theories.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/8/2008 @ 10:51 am“You claim policy makers take your theory into account. ”
‘my theory’? Public choice theory just describes the rent-seeking behavior of interest groups, among other things. The fact that protectionism redistributes wealth isn’t “my theory” but plain old how it works. How else do you think it works? Who do you think pays for the protectionism?
“Remember, you are the one who reframed or redefined the discussion away from using the income tax code, the current popular debate, from addressing income inequality.”
I don’t understand this ‘redefining’ idea of yours, we’ve been talking about redistribution and rent-seeking is clearly redistribution. But if you want it limited to taxes only you’ll find in teh constitution that the government has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
stef (8bb588) — 5/8/2008 @ 11:14 amstef…
The clause in the Constitution says “to PROMOTE the General Welfare”…
It does not say to PROVIDE the General Welfare.
Welcome to the great Conservative/Liberal debate on the function of the Federal Government.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 5/8/2008 @ 11:26 amStef – Let’s focus on your inflation and money supply example. Can you find a Fed official on record saying something along the lines of “We are going to increase the money supply and raise interest rates in an attempt boost inflation to redistribute wealth between debtors and creditors?”
That is the example you started with above, not your trade crap that your are now researching and spewing buzz words about.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/8/2008 @ 3:32 pm“Can you find a Fed official on record saying something along the lines of “We are going to increase the money supply and raise interest rates in an attempt boost inflation to redistribute wealth between debtors and creditors?””
Of course not. In fact what they want is the opposite. They were created to avoid people doing things like the Free silver movement, to take politics and interest groups out of the money supply and put it in the hands of the member banks and insulated from political pressure. But they are created according to the congressional power to control the money supply — which necessarily entails the power to redistribute.
“That is the example you started with above, not your trade crap that your are now researching and spewing buzz words about.”
Buzz words. Like “public choice”? Fantastic. You’re a idiot.
stef (56628b) — 5/8/2008 @ 6:32 pmOf course not. In fact what they want is the opposite.
You were arguing they wanted to do it as policy above stef:
“Congress has the power to set the value of money and foreign exchange. Economically this means setting interest and inflation rates and thus distributing wealth between debtors and creditors.”
“The fed targets inflation when setting interest rates. Inflation clearly has a distributionist effect.”
It seems like you’ve come 180 degrees from where you started. Perhaps it might be useful for you to examine what your original objection to someone saying redistribution was not a recognized power in the constitution and then forcibly stretching it out of all recognition into an argument that congress indeed does have the explicit power of redistributing income or wealth through trade protection or monetary policy.
I would call your argument an around the corner, through the back door, hehind the back, underhanded attempt at explaining something with a degree of acceptability even the Russian judges wouldn’t contemplate.
You can keep trotting out you public choice theory and rent seeking behavior and other bullshit, but it’s off the mark from where the discussion started, airhead.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/8/2008 @ 8:37 pmSlick Barry and Mean Michelle Obama – a bitter pair. SlickBarry.com
Figueroa Slim (fb75cf) — 5/8/2008 @ 11:00 pm“It seems like you’ve come 180 degrees from where you started.”
No. Inflation has a distributionist effect. Congress has the power to both cause and stop it. They’ve chosen to tell the fed to follow a non-inflationary policy. They’ve made a decision of how to use their power. Distribution is a power they have, you just think that since they’re not using it, it means its wrong to say they have it.
“You can keep trotting out you public choice theory and rent seeking behavior and other bullshit, but it’s off the mark from where the discussion started, airhead.”
My friend, that stuff is not bullshit. Start here and go on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
Its quite interesting, and the founding works are fascinating. Libertarians tend to love it.
stef (56628b) — 5/9/2008 @ 5:37 amstef – I would wager that if you were asked the question on a college exam what policy tools the goverment had available to it to redistribute wealth and income between it’s citizens and you had answered monetary policy you would have flunked the exam. If you had answered protectionist trade policy and been able to explain all the effects on the indisty’s supply chain and then downstream customers and how that differed from the unprotected state, for all those affected, I would envision a grade between a C and a D.
You can think and live in a fantasy world as you do, or join the rest of us.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 3:14 pmWrong.
Obama met Wright in 1985. He met Michelle in 1988.
As a community organizer, he had to work with church like Trinity and St. Sabina that were active in trying to improve the community. That is how me met these people.
Have you read Obama’s books? Or are you simply following Hitchen’s lazy journalism.
RhondaCoca (8371e2) — 5/30/2008 @ 10:44 pm