Obama a Marxist......what is going on in this interview?

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Like the poor I dont think a govt handout is going to really foster the type of behavior which gets people ahead. All you are doing is applying the same idea we did 40 years ago to the poor(if we give them some money they will surely pull themselves out of the shitter easier) as you are with the middle classes. Over the past 40 years the war on poverty has cost us trillions and we still have a good % of our population unable to pull themselves up.

I am not worried about McCain's plan because there is no way in hell it will get passed by a majority Democrat congress. He will be a lame duck on day 1 through his last. Which is fine by me. Gridlock in govt is good.

I'm sorry, but the war on poverty has been a fantastic success. The poverty rate now is approximately half of what it was when it started, and the standard of living that is determined to be 'in poverty' is hugely higher than it was in the 60's. Since poverty is a relative measure, there will always be people we consider in poverty. The question is the number and the severity, and in both situations things are much, much better.

 

[winnar111]

http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rasep01.asp

?The Constitution reflects deep flaws in American culture ... the Constitution reflected enormous blind spot of those days which continues to this day...?

?There are fundamental problems (in the Constitution which) ... we?re still grappling with today ...?



Hmm.....

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Topic Title: Obama a Marxist......what is going on in this interview?

What on god's green earth is Obama talking about here? Redistributing wealth to blacks during the Civil Rights movement is something we should have done? Wow....I don't know what to say about this.

Say the last 8 years has been a disaster under Republican rule, how much worse can Obama be?

Was that so hard?

We have seen what happens when the check/balances between the executive and legislative branches are removed.
Any single party controlling both will lead to unchecked abuse of public oversight (lack of).

With the Dems chomping at the bit due to 6 years of Reps blocking their agenda, it will be like Xmas all year round. After all, the public has already gotten used to raiding the treasury; so a little morewWill not hurt, and more next month, etc.

 

[umbrella39]

This is from the link I posted above and after listening to the tape a 2nd time to make sure why I wasn't hearing the same words the the GOP bloggers around the country are hearing.

"In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement ? and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says. "Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama?s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It?s just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign."

Burton continues: "In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama?s point ? and what he called a tragedy ? was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country.

"As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up ? not from the corridors of Washington"

I guess people hear what they want to hear with only 8 days to go.

 

[StageLeft]

It's not a very good interview. I'd rather not have to try and defend it. I get from it that he feels reparations should have been paid during civil rights. I dunno, maybe back then they should have been.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Like the poor I dont think a govt handout is going to really foster the type of behavior which gets people ahead. All you are doing is applying the same idea we did 40 years ago to the poor(if we give them some money they will surely pull themselves out of the shitter easier) as you are with the middle classes. Over the past 40 years the war on poverty has cost us trillions and we still have a good % of our population unable to pull themselves up.

I am not worried about McCain's plan because there is no way in hell it will get passed by a majority Democrat congress. He will be a lame duck on day 1 through his last. Which is fine by me. Gridlock in govt is good.

I'm sorry, but the war on poverty has been a fantastic success. The poverty rate now is approximately half of what it was when it started, and the standard of living that is determined to be 'in poverty' is hugely higher than it was in the 60's. Since poverty is a relative measure, there will always be people we consider in poverty. The question is the number and the severity, and in both situations things are much, much better.

That number was falling quickly before the legislation was even enacted. And you are right poverty is a relative thing. However I would argue private enterprise which brought the price of goods down had more to do with advancements in the standards of living for the poor than a govt handout. As well a stronger economy will do more for the poor than govt ever will by employing more of them.

 

[OrByte]

I'm stumped at what Obama is trying to say. Mind you I've only read the verbage that PJ provided in one of his earlier posts.

Am I understanding this correctly? that, according to Obama, the civil rights actions didn't go far enough and that the courts could have (should have) looked into economic ways that would impact the black community by way of reparations? Basically is he talking about reparations?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I just want to know what the fuck he's trying to say here.

Look at this quote
"the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. "

What he is saying is that our society is unfair and that the courts should have done something about it.

Google 'economic justice' and start reading. There are tons of web sites.
It is a pretty left idea that says we need to 'fix' or 'rebuild' our society in to one that is more 'fair' for everyone. In other words: the rich and the corporations have too much money and the poor have too little therefore we must take from the former and GIVE to the later.

Here a typical view of 'economic justice'

Economic justice means building a fair economy that works for everyone. It means fair trade policies that protect workers' rights to organize and to receive a living wage for their work at home and abroad. It includes budget and tax policies in which corporations and wealthy individuals pay their fair share, and which support good schools and childcare, affordable healthcare and housing, retirement security, and a safety-net for those in need. It promotes the common good by funding public services. It means calling for new national priorities that reduce wasteful military spending and redirect tax dollars to helping our children, elders, and communities meet their needs. It includes notions of a social contract in which society and individuals fulfill their mutual responsibilities to each other.

In other words, tax the rich and GIVE to the poor.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: OrByte

I'm stumped at what Obama is trying to say. Mind you I've only read the verbage that PJ provided in one of his earlier posts.

Am I understanding this correctly? that, according to Obama, the civil rights actions didn't go far enough and that the courts could have (should have) looked into economic ways that would impact the black community by way of reparations? Basically is he talking about reparations?

No, that isn't what he is saying, they already have their own version of cherry picked parts and [snips] to make it seem like it though.

Obama in that interview said, "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I?d be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn?t shifted."

Obama said "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing 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 stuffer from that."

A caller, "Karen," asked if it's "too late for that kind of reparative work economically?? And she asked if that work should be done through the courts or through legislation.

"Maybe I?m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor," Obama said. "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn?t structured that way."

Presumably McCain will go after Obama in ways some on the conservative bloggosphere are today, accusing Obama of calling it a "tragedy" for not venturing into "the issues of redistribution of wealth" -- though Obama's campaign says that's a twisting of his words.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I just want to know what the fuck he's trying to say here.

Look at this quote
"the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. "

What he is saying is that our society is unfair and that the courts should have done something about it.

Google 'economic justice' and start reading. There are tons of web sites.
It is a pretty left idea that says we need to 'fix' or 'rebuild' our society in to one that is more 'fair' for everyone. In other words: the rich and the corporations have too much money and the poor have too little therefore we must take from the former and GIVE to the later.

Here a typical view of 'economic justice'

Economic justice means building a fair economy that works for everyone. It means fair trade policies that protect workers' rights to organize and to receive a living wage for their work at home and abroad. It includes budget and tax policies in which corporations and wealthy individuals pay their fair share, and which support good schools and childcare, affordable healthcare and housing, retirement security, and a safety-net for those in need. It promotes the common good by funding public services. It means calling for new national priorities that reduce wasteful military spending and redirect tax dollars to helping our children, elders, and communities meet their needs. It includes notions of a social contract in which society and individuals fulfill their mutual responsibilities to each other.

In other words, tax the rich and GIVE to the poor.

coming from PJ I'd take all of this with a truckload of salt.

time to do some independent research

 

[winnar111]

'Although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bring about economic change through the courts.'

 

[Atheus]

Neither Obama, or any other western leader (many of whom are far more left wing then Obama), is anything within a million miles of Marxism. Anyone suggesting this has about as much credibility as someone suggesting that moderate conservatives are fascists, or even Nazis, just becasue they veer to the right.

Also, Marx was a philosopher, not a leader - in fact I don't think he ever held an official position in any government. All he did was write down his ideas. OK, much of it has proven unworkable in practice, but many of the principles are accepted by almost all of us to this day, for example the idea that class (as in upper/middle/lower class - the class you are born into) should not determine your job or level of success. What modern conservative, socialist, or liberal could disagree with that?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: OrByte

I'm stumped at what Obama is trying to say. Mind you I've only read the verbage that PJ provided in one of his earlier posts.

Am I understanding this correctly? that, according to Obama, the civil rights actions didn't go far enough and that the courts could have (should have) looked into economic ways that would impact the black community by way of reparations? Basically is he talking about reparations?

Yes, he's talking about reparations. He uses the term "redistribution of wealth".

No, (from what I can tell) he doesn't think the courts are the proper vehicle for redistribution, but rather legislation.

Fern

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I just want to know what the fuck he's trying to say here.

Look at this quote
"the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. "

What he is saying is that our society is unfair and that the courts should have done something about it.

Google 'economic justice' and start reading. There are tons of web sites.
It is a pretty left idea that says we need to 'fix' or 'rebuild' our society in to one that is more 'fair' for everyone. In other words: the rich and the corporations have too much money and the poor have too little therefore we must take from the former and GIVE to the later.

Here a typical view of 'economic justice'

Economic justice means building a fair economy that works for everyone. It means fair trade policies that protect workers' rights to organize and to receive a living wage for their work at home and abroad. It includes budget and tax policies in which corporations and wealthy individuals pay their fair share, and which support good schools and childcare, affordable healthcare and housing, retirement security, and a safety-net for those in need. It promotes the common good by funding public services. It means calling for new national priorities that reduce wasteful military spending and redirect tax dollars to helping our children, elders, and communities meet their needs. It includes notions of a social contract in which society and individuals fulfill their mutual responsibilities to each other.

In other words, tax the rich and GIVE to the poor.

JHC you are so full of shit...

 

[smashp]

If you read the Whole transcript it appears to me that they were discussing the merits of economic Change through the judiciary Branch vs change through the legislative branch and how it applied to the civil rights movement.

The judicial approach accomplished many of the social changes but was ill set up to make economic changes as that was not the courts mandate and the Warren court decided not to delve into that arena. The Economic changes that were desired with the civil rights movement would have to be fought for from a legislative standpoint.


Since the movement became so Courts focused, they lost out on making changes on the legislative end.



I just think the conversation is just too intelligent for many here.

Thats why you are missing the point.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: OrByte

I'm stumped at what Obama is trying to say. Mind you I've only read the verbage that PJ provided in one of his earlier posts.

Am I understanding this correctly? that, according to Obama, the civil rights actions didn't go far enough and that the courts could have (should have) looked into economic ways that would impact the black community by way of reparations? Basically is he talking about reparations?

I think he said the courts didnt touch the issue of economic redistribution or justice, only created a set of formal rights. While working within the court system the ground work for redistribution via the legislatures was forgotten or set aside. But from now on we can change that via our legislature.

I dont know if he is talking about reparations as much as redistribution of wealth. Like many times when he isnt reading a speech he becomes long winded and not terribly easy to understand.

I'd also like to hear the full recording or transcript. While this is pretty damning, it is cut and edited for the person who created it viewpoint. So context and full disclosure would be nice.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Genx87


His tax plan for the middle class isnt just rolling back taxes for the wealthy. It gives refundable tax credits to households under 250K in income. Refundable means if I make 18K a year and effectively pay 0 in income tax I get a check for 500 bucks from the govt.

I keep hearing this... How can anyone make 18k per year and pay no taxes? When I was young and just starting out I made 10, 12, 15k per year the first 3 years and I paid a couple thousand in taxes, most of it federal.

Serious question: Who are these people that reportedly pay zero tax and where is the proof that they dont pay? I mean I hear it, but see nothing that proves its real.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87


His tax plan for the middle class isnt just rolling back taxes for the wealthy. It gives refundable tax credits to households under 250K in income. Refundable means if I make 18K a year and effectively pay 0 in income tax I get a check for 500 bucks from the govt.

I keep hearing this... How can anyone make 18k per year and pay no taxes? When I was young and just starting out I made 10, 12, 15k per year the first 3 yearws and I paid several thousand in taxes.

Serious question: Who are these people that reportedly pay zero tax and where is the proof that they dont pay? I mean I hear it, but see nothing that proves its real.

Payroll taxes is all you pay under a threshold. I believe right now that threshold is ~30K. My wife for instance when she was living on her own cleared about 25K\year and when all was said and done got nearly all of what she paid in federal income taxes back from the govt.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87


His tax plan for the middle class isnt just rolling back taxes for the wealthy. It gives refundable tax credits to households under 250K in income. Refundable means if I make 18K a year and effectively pay 0 in income tax I get a check for 500 bucks from the govt.

I keep hearing this... How can anyone make 18k per year and pay no taxes? When I was young and just starting out I made 10, 12, 15k per year the first 3 years and I paid a couple thousand in taxes, most of it federal.

Serious question: Who are these people that reportedly pay zero tax and where is the proof that they dont pay? I mean I hear it, but see nothing that proves its real.

Well, if you file your taxes, and earn below a certain level, you get your federal withheld back. State and SS you don't get back obviously.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87


His tax plan for the middle class isnt just rolling back taxes for the wealthy. It gives refundable tax credits to households under 250K in income. Refundable means if I make 18K a year and effectively pay 0 in income tax I get a check for 500 bucks from the govt.

I keep hearing this... How can anyone make 18k per year and pay no taxes? When I was young and just starting out I made 10, 12, 15k per year the first 3 years and I paid a couple thousand in taxes, most of it federal.

Serious question: Who are these people that reportedly pay zero tax and where is the proof that they dont pay? I mean I hear it, but see nothing that proves its real.

Probably because if you're trying to live on 18k a year any money taken away from you is gonna hurt you.

Not everyone in live can make 100,000+ like everyone on this forum.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rasep01.asp

?The Constitution reflects deep flaws in American culture ... the Constitution reflected enormous blind spot of those days which continues to this day...?

?There are fundamental problems (in the Constitution which) ... we?re still grappling with today ...?



Hmm.....

hmmm what? You don't think sanctioning the personal ownership of a race of people based on their skin color is a deep flaw? that women's right to vote wasn't established until the 1900s wasn't a deep flaw?

Do you contend the Constitution was perfect as written and remains perfect today? The genius of our constitution is that it does not claim to be infallible, it is not the bible or gods word, and it explicitly provides for change as the people demand.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...howthread.php?t=108007

What on god's green earth is Obama talking about here? Redistributing wealth to blacks during the Civil Rights movement is something we should have done? Wow....I don't know what to say about this.

Better question, is what you are talking about. All I see is a reprise of the Civil War promise of forty acres and a mule for the freed slaves which they never got.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
About time you open your eyes.

Look at who the guy pals around with.
Ignore the fact that Ayers was a terrorist and look at his other views. Look at the work ACORN does etc etc.

Obama wins and it is the return of big government.

Hey PJ, it is YOUR PARTY that expanded government more and faster than any in history. Ayers and ACORN are garbage 'issues' and you know it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87


His tax plan for the middle class isnt just rolling back taxes for the wealthy. It gives refundable tax credits to households under 250K in income. Refundable means if I make 18K a year and effectively pay 0 in income tax I get a check for 500 bucks from the govt.

I keep hearing this... How can anyone make 18k per year and pay no taxes? When I was young and just starting out I made 10, 12, 15k per year the first 3 years and I paid a couple thousand in taxes, most of it federal.

Serious question: Who are these people that reportedly pay zero tax and where is the proof that they dont pay? I mean I hear it, but see nothing that proves its real.

My sister and her husband don't pay any income tax. they actually get more money back from filing federal tax returns than they paid in federal income taxes.
4 kids, she doesn't work, he works as a church camp director(making jack squat).

Know why I know? I've done their taxes... I do it for free but they have to sit through my lecture on how it's wrong they get more than they pay in. I am a big believer in "NET ZERO" for income taxes.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I think your premise is flawed. I don't see people getting hooked on a $500 tax refund at the end of the year. And I don't see that being as some sort of incentive for middle class workers to not want to continue to earn higher salaries.

I don't see this as a govt handout at all.

How about people hooked on a welfare check?
Hooked on EBT (Food stamps)?
Hooked on low income government housing?


Have you ever worked in a low income area? The system we have no traps many people in it. It is the whole cycle of poverty and it seems that Obama wants to extend it through well meaning, but ineffective government programs.