2001 obama: 'tragedy' that 'redistribution of wealth' not pursued
 

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

https://youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

man they are really reaching now. lose with some class

It's over man. Fight for some Senators or something.

Wut?

Someone calling Obama a Communist/Socialist again?

SO fucking sad desperate conservative retards. It's beyond Pathetic. THey need to learn how to lose with some grace and dignity.

They'll call him baby killer if thats what it takes.... dignity is something their campaign lost a long time ago .... :2 cents:

then when all hell breaks loose all these people they have been working up. They will say we did that?

Apparently no one in the thread listened to the audio. Its Obama being interviewed. Is it October? Surprise..

Asking me to listen to another Republican lie is merely humorous at this point.
THe fear novalty no longer phases me, the annoying factor merely makes me want to get to November 4th sooner so the bullshit divisive language the Republicans are spewing will just be put to quiet and shown to the door of history.

Boy people are sure stupid. First of all doesn't even sound like him. Ok assuming it is him he NEVER said take money from the rich and give it to blacks or the poor. You hear the word redistributive and think it means one thing when it means another. Typcial neo-con racist thinking.

STFU you POS bastard. No one likes you no one gives a fuck about you and your stupid ignorant opinions. Go steal more content.

Really? Please show where I stole content.

It doesn't sound like him eh? lol

Its a Obama interview from 2001. No republicans talking.

Does anyone have the full video clip to it? It seems like the interview is on the civil rights movement. How despite the Warren Court giving them rights, they didn't go far enough to make it fair. That's not a "radical" idea and many people believe that there should have been major changes following the decisions.

Btw I know no one likes me here. :uhoh Can anyone say they have met you in person? Does anyone here even know your first name?

These Obama sheep morons on here amaze me.


LISTEN TO THE FUCKING AUDIO

Is this the America you want?

Barack Obama on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ-FM, 2001: The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that... MORE...

Isn't he just talking about the civil rights movement here? The show seems to be about that.

What did he say that you didn't like?

ALL TAXES are a redistribution of wealth.

Progressive income tax is redistribution of wealth.

We've had progressive income tax in this country for the last 95 years. By the logic people are trying to apply to Obama, that means every President for the past 95 years was a socialist.

By the same measure, John McCain is a socialist, because he's not calling for a flat tax or an abolition of income taxes altogether, he just wants to keep the 35% top rate instead of raising it to 39.6%.

Apparently, in this country, you can go from being a capitalist to a socialist with just 4.6 cents on the dollar.

Gimme a fucking break.

It has been an interesting election when it comes to what people say being tossed back at them. You are right. Taxes simply are a redistribution of wealth only those on the bottom end get services and goods, not actual cash. Yet, when Obama actually calls it what it is, he is bashed.

Earlier in the year he said that many people won't vote for a president based on his economic plan because they feel like no matter what the president says they (the voter) will end up getting screwed so instead many people cling to issues like guns and religon (things that can have real effects on them and that they can control) and vote on those topics. This has been the reality in this country forever, but he points it out and gets bashed.

I actually applaud him for saying the truth on some of these things.

I don't know that I fully support some of his tax plans (for example if you pay zero in taxes I'm not sure you should still be getting money back), but he is calling a spade a spade taxes are a redistribution of wealth no matter how you look at.

In a word, yes.

I want to live in an America where someone with an obvious mental handicap like you can still have enough money to have internet access so they can drivel out their blatant stupidity for the world to see.

Remember, on November 4, when I vote for Obama, I'm doing it for you. :thumbsup

Most people using those words don't know what they mean. Socialist, communist, Marxist, etc. They are just repeating what they are told to think.

It shouldn't be a surprise though as many of these people are the ones that haven't opened a biology book to realize the Earth is older than 6,000 years and we have this thing called evolution.

lets just agree to disagree.

i give up, like i said before if obama was sipping lattes with osama bin laden you would probably want to dispute that he was discussing foreign policy.

its just pointless now.

Taxes we pay are supposed to goto maintaining road systems, our defense, paying our politicians, public education, etc etc. Its not meant to be taken from Joe the rich plumber and given as a "tax credit" to Danny the crack dealer. THAT is the difference. Taxes are redistribution of wealth? Maybe in their current form, and that is fucked up.

There is already a redistribution of wealth now.

It is called Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

If you support the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan or support the existance of the usa federal/state/city/county gov, then you support redistribution of wealth.

Just because the Drudge Report acts like it's a huge story by putting it in bold type, doesn't make it so.

This won't gain any traction with the American people firstly because it's a somewhat technical interview and most people won't be able to even get the tone or the context of it. And second, times are too tough and people aren't falling for this anymore. They know Obama is not looking to turn America into some Socialist state. Such a suggestion is fear mongering and totally absurd.

The funny thing is, the poor working class seem to get the most upset when it comes to this whole socialism thing when, hypothetically, it looks to help them the most. But that's why they are poor, because they don't look out for themselves like wealthy people do. But that's a whole different issue.

Well remember, there are alot more taxes in this country than just income tax.

There are alot of working people who don't have any income tax liability, but they still pay payroll tax (FICA) and medicare tax, plus all of the other taxes that they pay when they go out and spend their paycheck (and these are people who have to spend all of it just to get by)

It's not like he wants to raise taxes on the rich so he can increase welfare payments and food stamps, he just wants to give a break to the working people at the bottom of the ladder. People whose wages have gone down in real terms over the last 8 years, and who, because of their propensity to spend 100% of their income, will directly stimulate the economy with the extra money.



The reason McCain isn't making any headway with this current line of attack is because it's disingenous.
McCain voted for the economic stimulus package that gave rebate checks to people who had no income tax liability in the prior year. He's also proposing his own $5000 refundable tax credit for health care, and that $5000 would also go to people who aren't paying any income tax.

Besides, McCain has never been a Gingrich/Delay type of Republican. He has a hard time making this argument because he doesn't really believe it himself. (remember he voted against the Bush tax cuts)

If the nominee were Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani then at least this line of attack would be sincere, but McCain himself doesn't even believe it. Unfortunately for him, other than Jeremiah Wright, this is the only card he has left to play.

Lol bIraq Insain O'commie.. Does your socialism know no bounds?

You forgot about bailing out the billionaires in the insurance, banking, financial, and auto industries. That is what our taxes go to, right?

Reminds me of this republican talking head who was on hardball awhile back talking about "appeasment". He used the word a dozen times before Chris Matthews asked him what he meant by appeasment.
The guy couldn't answer. He went on to mention Chamberlain and the Nazi's, so Matthews asked him what Chamberlain did with the Nazi's.....again, the guy couldn't answer.
This was a professional political operative (or elected official) and he couldn't even define appeasment or explain the mistakes Chamberlain made in dealing with Hitler. So it doesn't suprise me that most of the people posting about this stuff on message boards don't really understand what they're talking about.

Don't presume to tell me what I would or wouldn't be ok with. If video surfaces of Obama having lattes with Osama, I assure you I wouldn't vote for him.
Saying I'm a sheep who believes everything Obama says is ridiculous. Did it ever occur to you that
1) I don't agree with everything Obama wants to do, and
2) I have my own opinions and ideas about what my government should and shouldn't do, and when I get involved in a discussion like this it's because I actually support the policy?

Read what I wrote above (if you actually care about the issue as opposed to just spewing out conservative propoganda)
He's not taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people. He's raising rates on the rich and lowering them and/or increasing the credit that lower class and middle class Americans already get. These are people who work and pay taxes (even if they're not "income taxes")
They're going to pay a little bit less, and the wealthy are going to pay a little bit more. (Also, last I checked, Danny the crack dealer probably doesn't file a tax return, so it's not likely that he would benefit from Obama's plan. If you're going to create a straw man, make it a little more realistic next time)

It's really not, nor will it be, a big story.

After they spent a month practically calling him a terrorist, I doubt calling him a socialist is really going to cause much damage.
Also, if you look at the cross tabs in the major polls, Obama is leading by a significant margin on the question of who would be better on taxes. So the republicans really aren't making any headway with this line of attack.

Correct. And that is a redistribution of wealth. The top 5% of earners in this country pay around 80% of the taxes. So the rich already pay most of the taxes collected by the government. The government then takes those taxes and uses them for some of the things you have mentioned. Without the rich paying into the system as they do there would be no public eduction, many roads would be in shambles, the military would be a shell of what it is and things like police and fire depts would be greatly reduced. So the poor, or for that matter even the middle and upper classes all benefit from things purchased using the wealthy's money. That is a redistribution of wealth. They take money from the rich and they use it to buy things for and/provide services for the non-rich.

Obama will further redistribute that wealth when he starts giving money to people who don't even pay taxes. For example if you earn say 20K a year and are married or have kid you will have zero federal tax liability. Those people pay nothing in federal taxes (although they do pay FICA/social security taxes) and they will actually get money from the government. The question then becomes is that a better economic policy than giving that money either back to the rich or just to the rich? You can argue that if you give a company or a wealthy person 100K in tax cuts or just free money they may invest it or do something with it that helps create more money and more jobs and it could help the economy. If you give 100 poor people 1K each in cash you can bet they will spend it and that money then creates demand for products and causes companies to grow and expand and helps the economy. Which is better? There are great arguments for both and the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. We have tried it one way for 8 years now, I guess we will be trying it the other for the next four and see what happens.

All that said, I still don't see the big deal in calling taxes what they are. They are redistribution of wealth, pure and simple.

All you have to do is ask a "conservative" on this board why they would be supporting someone who wants to put conservatives on the Supreme Court when they work in the porn industry. They will disappear from the thread fast. Yet to see a single one answer it, and yet to see one understand why it's bad.

I'd like to see a full transcript of his interview. There were several parts in the audio recording that sounds like it was only part of a line. It is pretty easy to do some editing and make a whole new conversation or take things out of context.

Pretty simple if Obama is so bad he'll be voted out in 4 years. So your issue is? As far as I'm concerned Obama can do a lot less damage than a president Palin in 4 years. McCain is 87 years old you know.

By the way tell me EXACTLY what you expect McCain to do be specific. Also remember that sicne he's the President and not Congress he can't enact legislation only CONGRESS can and remember that the democrats controll congress. Now after you think about all that please come back here and tell me what exactly McCain promissed that he will able to accomplish? Just remember in 4 years after all his prmoisses are broken and he's not liked by the GOP really. He will be defeated and you'll get at least 4 years of Hillary Clinton. Sometimes you need to look at the BIGGER picture. So go ahead vote for McCain.

Answer:

The industry we work in can die off. If it does then we'll all find other ways to generate income. Our country is more important than what I do for a living to me. Anyone that votes due to being in this industry is a moron. (no not a moran lol)

Porn goes through cycles. Internet is the hot ticket now, might not be 5 years from now. People used to think dvds were the huge thing. Dvd market is dying. What if they develop holographic lifesized images that can make you orgasm without you touching yourself? Guess what Kiss images and vids goodbye. Maybe they will invent robo sex slaves that you can change the skin, face, ass, boobs, pussy, etc on? Good bye to our biz.

Country first. This industry is just a flash in the pan in the overall scheme of things.

There is your answer. Like it or not.

Stupid fuck. First he says vote for your pocketbook then say don't. Fucking retard. YOU can't money in anything lese. Quit fucking fooling yourself loser. Country first? Then why risk a President Palin? You wouldn't vote for Jesus if he had a D next to his name. You make me sick. Good people die every fucking day and yet you ass still takes up space on this planet.

Haha, don't talk history with Chris Matthews unless you know your facts. He comes off sort of like he's full of hot air but he really knows his history.

Anyone who doesn't vote based on their family's self interest is a moron in my book. Why would you want to sacrifice your future survival and the life you can provide your family just to make some religious nutters happy?

Your statement is akin to a black man being against civil rights. Why produce porn if you feel it's bad for the country? You did say country first.

What does any of that have to do with your constitutional right to create content of consenting adults having sex? That is what the issue is here. Whether you believe the government has a right to tell you what you can and can't do with your body and mind.

So let me get this clear here. You don't believe we have a right to create pornography? You also believe that it would be better for our country if we didn't? That if you were arrested for obscenity, you would plead guilty for the sake of the country?

And perhaps I have this all wrong considering you did support the "liberal" Free Speech Coalition who presumably stand for everything you don't.

To be fair, most Americans should know what is meant by appeasement. On top of it a guy who has been touting it as a talking point for a week. I mean 5 minutes on Wikipedia before you head on national TV would have solved his problem.

I love them communists!!!


http://russianfun.net/wp-content/upl...ewuniform1.jpg

Not true... right now in the US, taxes are a form of military income. You pay taxes, it goes to the military.
Well, I should say that's how it was. Now your taxes will go the the military and to the rich banker and insurance giants.

It's the thought of taxes actually going back to the people that scares many Americans.
It's not borrowed to add to the deficit. It's not money going to the rich or military.
It's not the American way.

I'll give conservative judges in the sixth circuit some credit though for knocking down 2257 as being facially unconstitutional. I'll add this though and it's important; an Obama administration is less likely to have a activist DOJ targeting porn.

Wazzup 2008


https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE

lol

Quoted for truth.

Fact is most of you guys have no idea what communism and socialism is.

It's funny that every cent of everyones tax money is always redistributed among everyone else in the form of everything our government does with the money.

Another funny thing is Bush's "tax rebate" incentives. Literal redistribution of money. Literal, factual, indisputable redistribution of taxpayer "wealth" to all taxpayers. lol. What? Not socialist because it's a republican plan? Oh. Ok.

:error

THe problem with Sticky and I like Sticky alot and a whole lot of people is they listen to pundits. Sticky is voting against his own best interests and for the interests of very rich pundits.Like giving a hard working family a hand is welfare but Mccain wanting to give oil companies a 4 billion dollar tax break is acceptable or all the other corporate welfare that goes on.It makes no sense. Also Sticky if it wasnt for government funding there would be no internet.

I also like the whole latte line when John Mccains wife wore a 300k outfit to the convention.

All taxpayers who make less than $75k you mean.