Obama 2001 Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

"We can't all be star business owners, incredibly successful entrepreneurs with that amazing idea that nobody seemed to think of. We can't all find the cure for cancer, develop cold fusion, or do a number of these other extraordinary things. Many of us get by with menial jobs, doing what we can do to make ends meet because we're more concerned with taking care of ourselves and our families." True, we cannot all be super successful, but should we resign ourselves to mediocrity to 'getting by'? No, I say! Do something about your position if you can; there are always ways to improve ones position. But do not become a weight others must carry; if you have ever carried a load for any time, it becomes tiresome...the same will happen here.
"This country is long overdue for enlightenment. It's not going to happen with McCain and the Republicans. They're interested in preserving the status quo and their fortunes, not in ensuring that America is prosperous and happy for all her people." Once again, from the left we get the attitude that you are somehow 'enlightened' and everyone else who does not believe as you do is ignorant. Typical arrogance I have grown to expect.
"If you want to talk about wealth redistribution, what about inflation? What about $700 billion bailouts that go to banks so they can buy other banks and horde the money? What about tax breaks to the upper classes, all while the middle class gets taxed the same or more?" Do you know what inflation is? It is the general rise in cost of goods and services, everybody gets hit by inflation. Yes, the bailout is outright theft from the taxpayer. Though I seem to recall a greater percentage of Republicans voting "NO" on the bailout bill than I saw Democrats...'enlightened' indeed.
"But, only in America is it considered foolish and stupid to put the health and happiness of your family and neighbors above the pursuit of wealth." How is working ones butt off to get ahead NOT helping ones family? Of course my family comes first...that is why I work hard, so they can be healthy and happy...your logic here is flawed.
"So while so many of us lose our homes, are unable to buy food, or have to choose between food or health care, transportation or heating oil" Many who are losing their homes shouldn't have purchased what they did in the first place. It was the 'enlightened' folks like you that made home ownership a right and pushed lenders to take on much more risk than normal. Here is some simple advice...DO NOT BUY WHAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD. My apologies though if you are one of the few that truly were deceived by fraudulent lending practices...there is no excuse for that. If you truly need help for your family (food, heat, etc.) by all means use it, but I have seen way too much abuse of the system to feel comfortable that anything of this nature would work. There are too many that would go along for the 'free ride'; when the numbers get big enough the $250k number will gradually decline until YOU/I, the middle class, see the same tax increase.
"If we're going to be redistributing wealth, I say let's put it out in the open, and have it benefit all of us, not just those who lie and cheat their way to the top so they can look down on the rest of us." Why is it that all the wealthy seem to have gotten there by lyings and deceivings? Because this is the only way YOU know how to get the same results?
In all, I would have to say, one of the weakest arguments for gradual socialism I have ever read. If you truly want to redistribute wealth, please start with yourself; take your next paycheck and sign it over to someone who REALLY needs it, but won't work to earn it, just wants to pop out more babies to increase the government check...then tell me how good it is, how 'fair' it is for you and your family.

Originally posted by Karlhungis
I am curious why so many republicans are so worried about this? Wealth is currently being redistributed from the working class to the upper class. Obama seems to want to give more to the middle class and below, by taxing the wealthy.

I don't understand why it is hunkey dorey to funnel the wealth to the rich, but it is blasphemy to even suggest the distribution of more of the money to the working people?

I couldn't possible agree with you more.

Originally posted by Raist
I do not feel I should have what I have worked hard for (no matter how little I have) just to give to someone who does not work as hard as I do. In that type of society what is the use in working hard when we all get the same treatment. Should hard work not be rewarded and laziness not be punished?

I haven't been able to understand this absolutism.

Just because you don't have a lot of money does not mean you're lazy.

Why is it that if you're not striving to be a millionaire you are worthless in this country? Why is it that there ARE people in this country who are working 2 and sometimes even 3 jobs and still can't seem to make ends meet.

Sometimes life's circumstances don't really go in your favor.

Some people are disabled and cannot work.

Some people who do own their own business are living their life's dream and work pretty dang hard to get where they are but struggle every day. Should they just give up and become part of the cog in the machine?

Some people simply find themselves in catch-22 situations.

We have single parents who are solely responsible for their child's care and finding a better job sounds really easy except you have to worry about day care hours and finding a job that pays better otherwise it's pointless.

Some people have sick children who need care but can't afford to pay someone else to take care of their child let alone pay the medical bills. The same goes for many people in this country who suddenly find themselves sick and can't work.

I mean, you're right. Don't get me wrong. Nobody is obligated to helping any one out who doesn't make tons of money.

I myself make a very comfortable living for being a single, healthy girl with no children. I have no desire to become wealthy because I see it as very pointless to have so much money you have nothing else to do with it but buy crap you absolutely do not need. Does that make me worthless?

The wealthy need to wake up and realize that much of the money they acquire is from the very lazy, worthless, deadbeats who have to purchase their goods and services in order to survive day to day life.

And if they keep taking that money and not using the excess to raise wages, give good health care, and instead use it to buy cars and houses then the lazy, worthless, deadbeats in this country will cease to even have any more money to give. And that's what's happening now.

Why do you think what is happening now with the economy is happening. It's happening not because these people are lazy and can't pay their mortgages it's happening because they had a very reasonable expectation that their HARD WORK would continue to be rewarded throughout the years with wage increases and better health care for their families. They had a reasonable expectation that they would continue to afford their lifestyle the cost of which is inflated every year.

Isn't this the very reason Bush gave those health cuts in the first place? To encourage the owners of various business to grow their business, raise wages, and give better health care?

What happened instead? They kept all the extra money for themselves. They now have even more wealth. Why do you think the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer? Because the poor keep giving up their money for goods and services and aren't seeing any type of return from these companies for being responsible for keeping them in business.

The tax cuts were meant to run out. All Obama is doing is letting that happen because he has seen, as do millions of others in this country, that those cuts did not benefit this country in anyway. So he is instead giving the cuts to the middle class. And basically, instead of having tax cuts the rich will see an increase in profits because people will use their extra money to continue to afford the goods and services they need to survive.

If you want to call that socialism then I guess I'm all in favor of it. I could really care less if you want to call me dirty names for having a point of view that is compassionate and not greedy.

*seriously edited to make my point clearer

[edit on 28-10-2008 by nunya13]

When listening to the audio of this...do you know what stands out to me the most? "Negative rights." What the hell is that? What is a negative right? What is he implying??

No one can deny his stance anymore...i just don't see how anyone can defend his socialistic views. Yep, people say that well this program is socialistic..that one is socialistic....yep...in terms they are. So we should continue on that path? Make the government even larger....even though they completely SCREW UP EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The government needs to be smaller. No one in this country wants to take responsibility for anything anymore. They just want Uncle Sam to molest them every day without really even knowing that it's happening.

A point that needs to be made, is that government is not the root of all evil, and the cause of all our problems. All those who insist that government is the source of all of our countries problems have been bamboozled by the neocon con game that has gotten us into our current fiscal crisis.

Government can be good or bad, effective or ineffective, the problem or the solution. The quality of the government is what separates the first world nations from the third world nations. Either we participate in our government and make it work for us, or those who do remain active in our government take it over and make our government for them, instead of the people.

The U.S. government has three primary purposes, protect our rights, secure our borders, and look out after the general welfare of the people.

Under the neocons, our government only looks out for the rights of the super rich, only protects the interests of the super rich, and only looks out for the welfare of the super rich, and that needs to stop. The super rich have been handed all the advantages while the rights of ordinary citizens, especially our 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments, are being ever more ignored. Corporate entities are allowed to walk all over the rights of individuals, and it is time our government started putting these out of control organizations in their place.

What we now have is a communist state for the super rich, and an oppressive state for the working class. The free market concept is nothing but right wing communism for the super rich, and I wonder how long before the free market worshipers wake up and realize how badly they have been conned.

That aside, Obama's comments about negative rights is very disturbing considering how close this guy is to becoming the president. Obama's liberal elite ideals are every bit as bad as the neocon ideals.

The government should not be redistributing the wealth. Unfortunately that seems to be the goal of both of our political parties, the liberal elites want to redistribute wealth to the poor, and the neocons to the super rich. McCain is the closest candidate we have to being interested in helping the average working joe.

reply to post by David9176


The Right, as in the Republicans, are negative, I would agree. Duh. I thought that was generally acknowledged as part of their disposition and strategy?

Since it's relevant, McCain's tact has been to be negative during the debates, for example.

The Right has a very negative stance towards the gay community, for example.

Meh, they always seem negative to me.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by stinkhorn
Communism only works for those that are on top, you my friend are just a pleebe and will feel the iron grip on your neck in short time, that is communism.

If it is really Communism, there is only the Commune. There is no people on top.

What you are talking about is a utilitarian dictatorship. When power hungry elitists combine Communism with autocracy.

Communism is intended to be truly democratic.

Originally posted by The_Supreme_Chancellor
reply to post by David9176

 

Ya, I agree. If the government didn't stick it's nose into everything, they wouldn't need as much money from taxes (I don't think they would let us know that they didn't need as much). Everybody would be happy if the government just "buzzed off". Taxes would be lower, and people who don't like the government breathing down their neck would be satisfied. Everyone would win except for some people in the government how just want power and money.

Well the only way the government is going to "buzz" off is if everyone would wake up and see that the government has NEVER stopped growing! And if the only 2 parties who its been getting fat on never have to worry about NOT getting elected then we will NEVER see it stop growing. Once again I have not beside for a few in here who have a clue seen anyone prove to me the difference in the two political parties?

I'm so sick of some in here pointing fingers back and forth and toss out hard line talking points. But the damn truth is it is EVERY ONES fault who has voted for these two parties. Cause the Republicans and Democrats are the ONLY ones responsible for the shape this nation is in RIGHT NOW!.
They have been in charge there is NO OTHER EXCUSE for the way our country is in than the people who have been in charge and that would only be Republicans and Democrats. And if you voted for these two parties then your just as at fault for digging yourself in this economic piss hole that effects everyone in this country so give yourself a big ssssslap on the back and roll your old lady over and shag'er for the wonderful star you get beside your name!

Here's a thought for those opposed to Obama's "redistribution of wealth":

Don't claim your Earned Income Tax Credit on your tax return from now on.


I got this from a forum I 'Stumbled Upon', it happens to be democratic underground. This poster posted a transcript from CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 (full transcript here).

He also points out what other presidents have supported a redistribution of wealth. I think those opposed to Obama's redistribution idea should also start condemning men like Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

www.democraticunderground.com... d.php?az=view_all&address=132x7635387" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Democratic Underground Forum

COOPER: It's certainly a question the McCain campaign has kind of been hammering at, portraying Obama as a socialist. You hear that on -- on the Palin campaign as well. Is it working?

GERGEN: They may be making some modest progress with it, Anderson. We did see some evidence of McCain coming up a point or two here and there. I don't think it's anywhere near close enough to win an election. And more importantly, I don't think the Democrats have really answered it appropriately.

You know, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was very much an advocate of what's called progressive taxation. Ad that is the rich pay more than the poor in terms of taxes.

Now, one of the most effective popular programs we've had in the last three decades. It's called the earned income tax credit. It's a program whereby, if you're a working person, a working couple and you're below the poverty line, the government will actually give you money. That's a redistributed program. It's a program which takes money from the upper classes and gives it to the lower -- to the working poor.

Now who started that program? The earned income tax credit? Ronald Reagan. It was one of the -- it was an achievement of the Reagan administration that Bill Clinton then built on.

So I think that these arguments are -- you know, some of them get so carried away that they don't recognize the realities of what we've been going through in public policy and the big arguments about why the wealth over the last 30 years has been redistributed. It's been redistributed upwards.


Other Republican Presidents who supported "redistribution of wealth":

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate.” - Theodore Roosevelt

“Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt. The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

In 1986, Reagan signed legislation greatly increasing the earned income tax credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels. When the credit is more than the amount of federal income taxes owed by an individual, that person receives a tax “refund.”

“It's the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” - Ronald Reagan

reply to post by stinkhorn


Was I supposed to respond to that? Why would I when you answered for me? Perhaps the next time you ask me a question you can wait for my reply and not vomit out words like they are mine.

From Reddit: The same Public Radio Station that Obama spoke with has publicly debunked the spliced audio as propaganda. Please see that this spreads. *THIS* is the McCain "October Surprise" see that it fails!


Typical GOP dirty tricks, slicing & dicing the ol' audio-tape:

apps.wbez.org...?

Pretty lame & totally on par for them... but the desperation is fairly pleasurable to behold




And on another point.. it was Karl Marx who believed that the State should nationalize it's banking industry... Sound familiar to anyone?

reply to post by CepheidVariable


You should make a thread about this immediately! Please. Thank you for posting this.

Originally posted by CepheidVariable
And on another point.. it was Karl Marx who believed that the State should nationalize it's banking industry... Sound familiar to anyone?

In the United States, the term "national bank" originally referred to the revolutionary era Bank of North America, its successor First Bank of the United States, or its successor the Second Bank of the United States. All are now defunct.

en.wikipedia.org...

...and I second that thread creation

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I love how far this 'redistribution of wealth' topic has gone, twisting and turning and getting everyone pissed off, yet the truth of what Obama was really pointing out is specifically being ignored. And that in itself is where the conspiracy theory lies. The fact of the matter is, if you do the research, you'll quickly see that the wealth upper and upper-upper class does NOT pay takes in the same manner as everyone else. Plain and simple. There are many ways to get around paying a large portion of what you earn to the government, like the average joe does (what feels like half). But should we be surprised by this? It's the wealthy who set it all up in the first place, set it up so that the average low/middle/upper-middle class can bear the tax burden. Once you see how far the scales are truly tipped, it's no wonder they're launching this campaign to make it appear that Obama will take from the working class and give it to the homeless/jobless. Wake up people.

Excellent find! I've been going back and forth whether I should even BOTHER voting this election, since both sides come off as nothing more than puppets for the globalists, but after listening to this I'm definitely voting Obama. Thanks! I hope your plan to sway us from voting for him didn't backfire.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is all more Republican BS. They edited the audio. It's all lies! Now wait for the Republicans on here who were screaming "This is why we need to assassinate Obama like those good ol boys in Tennessee!" to disappear.

reply to post by GamerGal


I am pretty sure this too will get blamed on Marx somehow.

**edit: there does not seem to be a consensus yet about it in that thread.... not sure what to think atm?...

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

The top 50% of tax payers have the highest tax burden. Anywhere from 35-45% of taxpayers don't pay taxes, they get a tax return.

do they get ALL thier money returned, or just part of it?? gee, I have them take more out of my paycheck in an attempt to make sure I don't end up owing at the end of the year....so, those few times that I actually have succeeded in this strategy...did I not pay taxes??
Saying that 45% of the taxpayers are not paying any income taxes is like saying 45% of the population is living on gov't handouts, since even the top earners who are recieving the handouts are paying taxes!
so, let's all sit here and gripe about these poor people are not paying any taxes while this lovely socialistic plan to redistrubute the money up to the top income earners becomes more and more threatening to the whole.
and next year...we can all hear how 60% of the taxpayers aren't paying any income taxes, or maybe it will be 70%, or 80%, whatever...,
if there wasn't such a push of the wealth by the government and businesses upwards....their wouldn't have to be a downward push. but now they are creating billions upon billions of dollars out of thin air to push at their buddies! such a policy does absolutely nothing to help that 45% or whatever get in a position where they might actually pay taxes. it just makes the possiblility more and more remote!

and the possibility of more and more people finding themselves getting pushed down into that group much more likely.

don't like that taxes?? then give the budget an across the board cut to make up the difference between the actual revenue brought in and the obscene amount of money that is being spent!
that includes bringing our troops home, that includes tax cuts for the big corps and loans for the new businesses, and that includes the tax redemption status of your 401k! not just the slicing up of the social programs. because well, you think that our economy is messed up now, well, think about a whole mess of employers faced with the option of either having their employees going hungry, homeless, and without healthcare or having to actual pay them something closer to a living wage, which in my area I think is around $10 an hour for a single person.

reply to post by CepheidVariable


You should make a separate thread of this. "Chicago Public Radio Debunks Obama 2001 Redistribution of Wealth Audio."

Excellent work!