Obama 2001: 'Tragedy' THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED

Discussion in 'Politics' started by DavidS, Oct 27, 2008.

  1. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck"]YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered[/ame]

    TRANSCRIPT:
    MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

    OBAMA: 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 the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But 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 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, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it 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. One of the I think 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 and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

    MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.
    KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?
    OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
    The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2008
  2. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    Drudge's October surprise?
     
  3. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    What do you think about it? Kind of changes the whole "Joe the Plumber" comment huh?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    will it get any traction?
     
  5. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    Spreading the wealth around, income reidstribution... basically you're telling 95% of the electorate, if you vote for them, they'll have more money in their pockets and pay less taxes. Yeah, I don't think that's gonna fly for McCain.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,559
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,973
    It is illegal to buy votes, one could make an argument that he is trying to do JUST that. If one wants to get technical.
     
  7. DiveCon
    Offline

    DiveCon gone

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    48,025
    Thanks Received:
    3,387
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +3,387
    wow, so you support Marxist ideals
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. jwervel16
    Offline

    jwervel16 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    Sigh. Obama is referring to the redistribution of wealth that was necessary between the time slavery ended and the time the civil rights movement got into full swing. In other words, this is a theoretical discussion mostly centered around the policies enacted over 40 to 140 years ago. Not a Joe The Plumber "gotcha".

    The running yellow commentary in the video is completely misleading and outright wrong at times. It’s pretty hilarious that you are actually taking it as fact, when you can hear how off it is as you’re reading it. The best part of this Youtube clip is that the creator can’t even spell the words he or she is typing. (If your news source didn’t even take the time to use spell check on his Power Point production, he might be a little less than credible.)

    What you McCain folks don’t realize is that the wealth has been "redistributed" for years. It’s being taken away from future generations in the form of loans in order to fund a war based on lies. The Bush economy has spent money at a prolific rate, almost unrivaled in the history of the modern world. The debt is now 10.5 trillion dollars, people. That’s $35,000 dollars per head. Instead of taxing you, GW has simply run your credit card up to 35k without telling you. And guess what? There’s interest! YOUR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO PAY THIS!

    Google our U.S. National Debt Clock. As of today, it's:
    $10,537,593,569,482.02

    You’re funding wars with your Social Security and your children’s tax money. Why are you so angry that a small percentage of very wealthy individuals might go back to paying the same tax rates that they were paying 8 years ago? Why are you so eager to fall on your swords so that Exxon Mobile can keep huge profits while you just spend a few hundred dollars a month filling up your tank for an entire summer?

    I’ve got to stop visiting these message boards. I must be as sick in the head as some of these Doomsday freaks I see up here. Please take the time to read facts instead of listening to lies and half truths spouted by people who can’t even spell at a 6th grade level.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Is there any more egregious wealth distribution system than legalized SLAVERY?

    We've got plenty of people right here on this very board who are shocked by the concept of wealth distribution TODAY

    But these SAME people are usually more than willing to defend the Southern Cause which seceded so they could continue their system of economic wealth distribution called SLAVERY.

    Smell their hypocracy?

    To them, that race based classism was perfectly okay, as long the Black people are getting screwed.

    As long as slaves distributed wealth to slave owners, that was perfectly okay CAPITALISM.

    But now when the decendents of those slave demand reparations, those people seeking repayment on that long overdue debt are SOCIALIST?!?

    What a wonderful double standard that is, eh?

    NOBODY who defends the Southern States RIGHT to succeed in defence of slavery, has any right to whine about anybody's wealth redistribution plans today, folks.

    Consider the total value of the slave labor that the redistribution of wealth given to the slave owners.


    Did those slave owners EVER repay that their victims for that THEFT?

    Of course they didn't. In fact they couldn't repay that debt. Their society was destroyed, and the debt was probably larger than the value of their society even before it was destroyed. Slavery is not only evil, it's a highly inefficient system of amassing weath, too

    So you racist jerkoffs ought to stop whining when Blacks ask to be paid for the value labors that were stolen from their families.

    We all know that the Blacks are never going to be repaid for that debt.

    But to suggest that these white racist have some high moral ground when they start talking about how evil the concept of wealth redistribution or socialism is, is freaking absurd.

    This nation has been redistributing wealth and has been socialistic since day one.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2008
  10. sparky
    Offline

    sparky VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +341
    Economic reconstruction

    Economic Reconstruction refers to a process for creating a proactive vision of economic change. The basic idea is that problems in the economy such as deindustrialization, environmental decay, outsourcing, industrial incompetence, poverty and addiction to a permanent war economy are based on the design and organization of economic institutions.[1] Economic reconstruction builds on the ideas of various institutional economists and thinkers whose work both critiques existing economic institutions and suggests modes of organizing society differently (cf. Veblen, 1998). Economic reconstruction, however, places much more emphasis on the idea of alternative plans and alternative organization.[2]

    The need for reconstruction occurs as fundamental problems plague the contemporary organization of the economic, political, and even "oppositional" spheres, such as the contemporary organization of social movements. These spheres each tend to support short term solutions that do not leave in their wake the organization of resources and power in a way that is responsive to citizen needs. Power, democracy and critical alternatives are not linked. In contrast to this state of affairs, economic reconstruction supports the creation of new institutions and the redesign of old ones. The basic idea is to create a new way to organize the economy and society so that institutions work for rather than against peoples' interests and needs.[3]

    Advocates of economic reconstruction advocate fundamental change related to key social problems related to environmental decay [4], militarism [5], parasitic globalization [6], unemployment and depressed living standards based on the social organization of work. [7] In the environment, a key challenge is redesigning "the technosphere" or the ways in which the means of production, transportation and distribution are designed on a relatively unsustainable basis.[8] When it comes to militarism, the key challenge is to support a demilitarized society through economic conversion, disarmament, alternative security, military budget reductions and related social innovations. When it comes to unemployment and depressed living standards, a key challenge is to promote economic democracy, through concrete institutions and actions such as cooperatives, worker participation and control, employee ownership plans, socially responsible firms, community procurement, and various initiatives to organize the economy on a decentralized basis.[9] In many cases, federations among local cooperatives or networks of such firms may prove essential to move beyond the problem of "economic democracy in one firm."[10]

    Economic reconstruction also extends to the ways in which housing or communities and media are organized. By reducing dependency on the automobile, by linking work and residence, we can limit the problems creating by congestion, pollution and commuting (particularly those problems based on petroleum based automobile transportation.[11]

    Some may argue that economic reconstruction can be reduced to socialism or economic democracy itself or perhaps principles found in various anarchist or radical writings. The problem, however, is that many of these plans lack operational details related to how alternative institutions would actually be designed. These details are essential for creating operational plans and actions. In addition, economic reconstruction is not limited to a specific challenge such as capitalism, but must also address other challenges, i.e. militarism, environmental decay, the sexual and ethnic division of labor, etc. A goal of economic reconstruction is to show the need for multiple, yet integrated solutions to societal breakdown.[12]

    The first generation of economic reconstructionists included Thorstein Veblen and John Dewey.[13]. The second generation included Lewis Mumford.[14] The third generation included Seymour Melman, Percival Goodman and Paul Goodman.[15] Key reconstructionists today include Barry Commoner, Gar Alperovitz and Marcus Raskin.[16] Key figures whose work informs the critique of contemporary society found in the work of economic reconstructionists include Stanley Aronowitz (in his writings about social movements, the state, universities and culture), Noam Chomsky in his writings about anarchist cooperatives and democracy, and John Kenneth Galbraith (in his writings about the economy and economists. Another important figure is Simone Weil whose writings about problems or limits attached to militarism, social science atomization, Marxism, the economy and political parties all resonate with an economic reconstruction agenda.
     

Share This Page