Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
Advance your career by earning a masters degree
online.
The truth about Avesil
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
The truth about Avesil
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Monday, October 27, 2008
What is wrong with Obama's approach to "redistributive change"
Bill Whittle breaks it down for those who don't immediately recoil when hearing the man favored to be the next president of the United States talk about "redistributive change" for economic justice.The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.Whittle then goes on to point out that it was one individual not associated with the media who found this clip and posted it on youtube.
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.Since they didn't find it - will they cover it? Or will it be the digital tree that fell in a forest of conservative commentators and bloggers?
I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.
I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.
I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.
We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
18 comments
Bill Whittle breaks it down for those who don't immediately recoil when hearing the man favored to be the next president of the United States talk about "redistributive change" for economic justice.
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.Whittle then goes on to point out that it was one individual not associated with the media who found this clip and posted it on youtube.
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”
There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”
I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.Since they didn't find it - will they cover it? Or will it be the digital tree that fell in a forest of conservative commentators and bloggers?
I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.
I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.
I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.
We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
Socialism is more his style.
Fact: all governments involve redistribution of wealth. The money comes in from taxpayers, and goes out according to the policies and priorities of the government.
Are you in favor of public funding of education? That is a redistribution of wealth.
Do you support a national army? That is a redistribution of wealth.
Can we talk about actual issues, like how long it will take to fix the economic mess created by failed GOP policies?
I'd argue that much of what passes for the above is rent-seeking by unions and powerful interest groups but that still isn't what most people would refer to as re-distribution of wealth.
Progressive income tax isn't re-distribution but is more based on "fairness" or, for the more educated, "marginal utility" arguments. Thus sales taxes, which are levied equally but not felt equally, are considered regressive. But not really discussed as "redistributive" or "non distributive."
Sending someone a tax rebate check when they don't pay taxes, well, that is classic redistribution of wealth.
-XC
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-bombshell-redistribution-of.html
and for godssake please rejoin us here on planet reality.
The provision of a public education is a power ceded to the government by the people of each of the states. It is in each state's constitution in one form or another.
The provision of funds for a military is a power specifically delegate to Congress.
The difference between these "distributive" policies and programs is that they are
a) power specifically delegated by the people to the government, and
b) entail the types of activities that we cannot do ourselves.
Well, education could be done at home, but certainly defending our nation against our enemies is not something we can do ourselves.
But also keep in mind that the reditributive politics Obama is talking about is taking money from rich taxpayers (which under his tax scheme would be a minority of Americans) and "redistributing it" to other Americans or non-americans in a quest for "economic and social justice." That is not a power that is ceded to the government under any state or Federal Constitution I have read.
It is one thing to tax a population to provide for services individuals cannot and should not do for themselves (i.e. police, military specifically, but other things as well). It is a far different thing to tax a minority segment of the population for the purposes of redistributing wealth in pursuit of economic or social justice.
It's almost as if you neocons are deliberately missing the point, to whip your fellow travelers into a bigger froth.
Please show me the policy proposal of Obama that proposes send checks to people who don't pay taxes. Go ahead. Show me.
You won't of course, because it is an invention that only exists in your mind, and those of other regressives ready to lie for the cause.
Fact: Obama's policy is to arrange a tax cut for 95% of workers.
If you are not a worker, you won't get a tax cut. Period. If you are a worker, you are paying taxes, and if you earn less than Joe-the-Plumber's $250K fantasy, you will get a tax tax cut.
When you have to lie about someone's position, to argue against them, you have already lost. Inaccurate hysteria like the post I am replying to, is the reason why Obama is up 10% on McBush is some polls. Nov 4 can't come soon enough, so we can put the hysteria behind us.
that is not a fact that is a /b LIE /b, there is no other way to explain it. remember Obama is in the senate, at any time he wanted if he wanted to he could have authored a bill to make the 95% tax cut law, where is it?
Actually neither Obama, nor any senator has the power to make a law unilaterally. That takes the agreement of both houses, and the President. As little as Bush is doing these days (basically just signing a timetable to get out of Iraq), he is not going to sign off an Obama taxcut.
So you are the one who has the credibility problem, Ron. I suggest you do some catch-up reading on the way laws are made.
Let's see, he wants to increase the capitol gains tax ... so no, that won't hit everyone, but okay -- 95% get a tax cut. The number is designed to give the impression the top 5% of wage earners are going to finally get what's coming to them. Well, the top 5% of earners know about tax shelters and other things ... do you really think they are going to pay enough to "redistribute"?
Nope, so let's moved down to the people below that top 5% into the next highest paying wage earners to get the fund to "redistribute". See the pattern?
Example: Free healthcare in Hawaii lasted how long? If you give to people without them having to earn any portion of it, they will suck you dry.
It's irrelevant that some of those working taxpayers may be below federal income tax limit. We pay a lot of other taxes too. A Federal rebate balances that out, and is a great way to boost the economy.
Sending tax cuts to the elite richest, as Bush has done, does not work. Send the tax cuts to those who need it most, and who will spend it. It's not rocket science. It just takes a president who knows what life is like for those who are near the bottom of the pile. Thank goodness we are about to get a president like that.
The Federal Government can not give a Federal Tax Cut to people who have no Federal Tax Liability. What's confusing about that?
you really need some reading lessons, I never said he could pass a law I said he could author a law, you need to read up on how the methodology of congress your self and please take some reading comprehension lessons.
