Obama talking about redistribution of wealth in 2001...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/

Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.

• Obama talking about redistribution of wealth in 2001... - sam
  • Redistribution of YOUR Wealth - Grumpy
  • WELCOME BACK SAM!!!!! You have been missed..by me at least. nm - MT and worn out
    • By me too - glad you're feeling better! - Zville MT

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I am fatigued with more and more of my paycheck going to the stockholders of the company I work for.  My benefits are being taken away, my line count has been "adjusted" several times in the last 10 years to make more profit for the stockholders. Meanwhile, the suits are given astronomical salaries and golden parachutes. 

Second issue.  It is very important to remember that the 3 remaining judges on the Supreme Court who are not conservative will be leaving very soon.  The pres who appoints their replacements will be impacting the nation for the next 30 to 40 years or so.  Think about it.   Can you imagine your 15-year-old granddaughter or great-granddaughter being forced to give birth to a horribly deformed baby because she made a  mistake?  Roe v Wade WILL be overturned if McCain is elected.  The court will be totally pro-corporate interests if mcCain is elected.  This is a much getter consequence that is not getting enough consideration amidst all the slogan throwing.

Redistribution of wealth is happening as I write this, except that it's all going to make greedy rich people richer.  Up to a trillion dollars now (and probably growing in the future), the Wall Street crooks are still earning their bonuses.

Why is it okay to redistribute the wealth to the WEALTHIEST while punishing people who are working hard and HONESTLY, just trying to feed their families?

The middle class has been diminishing in this country for a long time now, and it's almost extinct.  I'll never understand why people support rewarding those who are dishonest.

those who have gotten their piece of the American Dream are forced to give to those who can't/don't/won't achieve their own American Dream. We are on the way sheeple, wake up and do research, don't take leftist talking points as truth.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

FY 2007

Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:

1.     Individual income tax                  45%. 

Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.

2.     Payroll taxes                               35%

Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

Supplemental Security Income (SSI).   Individual's share of this is 17.5%.  

3.     Corporate Income Tax                 15%

4.     Excise Tax                                    3%. 

Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas. 

5.     "Other"                                          2%

So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    

If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.   

A couple of other points of interest: 

http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html

"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:

Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items. 

1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s

2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s   

3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 

4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 

5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s

6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s

7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.    

From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.  

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:

1.     Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues.  Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.

2.     Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues.  Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).  Employee's share of this is 17.5%.

3.     Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues. 

4.     Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues.  Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.

5.     "Other"  2%

So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.

http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html

"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.  Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:  Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items.

1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s

2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s

3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 

4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 

5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s

6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s

7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s. 

From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.

---

Redistribution of wealth is a basic socialism tenet...
and it is part of his platform. He leans very hard in the direction of government run health care...alnother socialism tenet. He used and taught the Alinsky method of organizing...hard left Marxist theory. Not overgeneralization. He went to a church preaching black liberation theology for 20 years....major Marxist overtones and "economic parity" part of that theology. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. And if you look at his associations throughout his career...common thread there. And for me, that is concerning. And yet another reason I am not voting for him. He is no change from any of the hard left liberals before him, except in one key area...he is harder left than any of them, if you look only at his voting record. He's not the guy for the job as far as I am concerned.

---

Does corporate welfare qualify as wealth redistribution
nm

---

Hope is not a dirty word....redistribution of wealth is,
in my books. Have you looked at the church he belonged to for 20 years? Divisive is a MILD way to describe it. He has no interest in uniting us. He has interest in forcing his view of how society should run down all our throats. I do not call that bringing unity. His whole life has been influenced by Marxists. That is how he wants to "unify" us. I am sure Cubans heard these same stories from Che Guevara and loved him just as much. And look how it turned out for them. Not great, not even the way Che wanted. He was off to Bolivia when he found out it wasn't going the way he hoped. The next socalist always thinks he will get it "right." And you know what? Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them...I just hope America is not the next failed socialist state. There is MY "HOPE."

---

talking about "redistributing the wealth" --
do you not think that is already being done? How about the earned income credit? Why should some people get back $5000-7000 on their taxes, never pay anything in, and all because their income is lower? That is definitely redistributing my wealth!

---

McCain is not talking about spreading the wealth either.
nm

---

obama's share the wealth plan

So Obama believes we should spread the wealth around. Here are his charitable contributions:

Too bad he wasn't spreading his wealth around these past years. Oh well he did give 800,000.00 to ACORN. You know them don't you? Do you suppose this is his idea of spreading the wealth?

---

Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'....sm
FYI: Last night, couldn't find this story on the Internet, as the "powers that be" in the liberal media, attempted to scrub this story clean off the Internet, much the way they changed that SNL skit that was truthful on the whole liberal democratic responsbility on the FM/FM mess. They took out the facts of the blame to the dems, and reposted it on the Internet. They are trying to rewrite history, and that should make us very, very upset.

Anyway, found this story again this morning on Fox, and very hard to find the "whole story" elsewhere on the web, as some of it has "been scrubbed clean"


Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'
Barack Obama tells a plumber in Ohio he wants to "spread the wealth around," eliciting criticism that his economic recovery plan is socialist in nature.

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 13, 2008


Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama's remarks drew fresh criticism on the blogosphere that the Illinois senator favors a breed of wealth redistribution -- as well as a rebuke from the McCain campaign.

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.

Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

However, McCain's aides and supporters argue that Obama wrongly wants to raise taxes on businesses in a time of economic distress.

Both candidates spent Monday discussing how they would resurrect the ailing economy. McCain again pointed to his plan to buy up cumbersome mortgages from homeowners and renegotiate them. Obama unveiled what he called an economic rescue plan for the middle class, which included a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures.



http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/

---

From 2001
EXTREMISM ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT
Many believe that leftist extremism in the United States was at its peak during the 1960s and 1970s and that right-wing extremism then became the major threat. While the
bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and a number of other incidents attributed to right-wing extremists indicate that the major threat is from the right, leftist extremism remains a concern within the United States.

---

I wonder if that settled down since 2001. nm
.

---

Something else happened in 09/2001........ sm
My 17YO stepson was killed in a motorcycle accident in which a car pulled out in front of him. He had been taught to safely ride a motorcycle, had a helmet on, and was traveling at a safe rate of speed. Was it his fault he was killed? Was it his parents' fault he was killed? Was it the City of Mesquite's fault he was killed?

No.

It was a tragedy, but there is nothing that could have been done to keep that accident from happening from our standpoint. The only person who could have prevented it was the driver of the car who pulled out in front of him.

Sometimes things happen that are beyond our control. Bush could not have stopped the 911 disaster. He was not the pilot of any of the planes. He could not personally marshall each plane and verify each passenger on the manifest. He could not keep those planes from crashing into the Towers or the Pentagon or in the field in Pennsylvania.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing the Dems bash Bush from everything from 911 to their own bad hair days. If you are going to blame anyone in the US for 911, blame the airlines who did not have proper security in place in the event that terrorists might try something like this. Blame Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden when he had 3, count 'me, THREE chances to do so. Or better yet, blame AL Quaida for sending their terrorists off in search of their 70 virgins. I'm not the biggest Bush fan in the world, but the man does not deserve to be blamed for things he had no control over. Oh, sure, he may have known that terroist activitis were brewing, but as I said, he could not have done anything to stop what happened.

---

Uh...the DATE was 9/11/2001
I do believe that was Dumb-ya's administration. Why don't you read a book? You need some education.

---

Who was Pres on 09/11/2001?
Why would anyone give him credit for PROTECTING us?

---

I was talking about Obama's

first two months in office.  What a joke.  If you haven't "learnt" by seeing what has been done in a short period of two months, you need to take your blinders off.  I don't believe Bush was right in what he did, but I don't believe Obama is the answer to our problems now either.  So I'm not the one drinking Kool-Aid because personally I think Bush sucked and I think Obama sucks.  So what say you to that cuz I sure as heck ain't drinking the Kool-Aid from either party.

---

Yes, my income grew after 2001...nm
Moved home, and I took my primary account home with me as an IC, and then promptly found two other accounts. I've always worked more than one job, and being at home is no different. And it's always been just me doing the work, no one else.

However, in the last two years, since dems have had control of Congress, my income has plummeted by 20,000. The most I ever made was close to $80,000 a year, and that was working 12 hours a day, every day, seven days a week.

Now, I have to work more day, get paid less, and make somewhere around $55 or 60,000.

I'm an IC MT/editor/QA type person, who does all three, for different clients, depending on who I work for.

Not an MTSO, but took advantage of all the tax breaks for small businesses, as well as HSA account for health purposes, just for my husband and myself.

Soooo...to answer your question to sam....Yes, I did well in the first four years after 9/11. I work my butt off, to be able to live where I do. We're middle class America....but dropping fast.

I cannot afford to have more taxes. I cannot afford to pay for more social programs for those who do not work.

As someone said recently on this board. Why should I work my butt off to make $60,000 a year, to be told I am in an upper middle class bracket, and have to dole out thousands more in taxes to the people who refuse to work? (And if they can't work, there are progrmas for them) I'd do just as well working only 40 hours a week, instead of the 80 to 100 I do work.


Do not believe for a moment, that Obama knows what he's doing for the economy. It's all a subterfuge to raise taxes anything that isn't tied down, and then some. A one time tax rebate to lower and middle America, to buy their votes. Then tax, tax, tax.

No thanks.

---

If we had NUKED the Afghan SOB's on 9/12/2001,
.

---

I was talking about Kaydie, not Obama.
Why do you think he does not know how many states there are? That sounds like a silly rumor. My mom used to talk about when they bombed Pearl Harbor, so that means that they dropped a bomb on Pearl Harbor, doesn't it? I'm confused.

---

What are you talking about? The Biden/Obama
{{

---

What bill was Obama talking about?

During the debate he stated the reason he did not vote for the bill presented in Illinois regarding babies that live through abortion is because there is a bill that already addresses this?  Or did I miss something?

---

Which Obama effigy are you talking about? There have been 2 so far....
One was in Oregon and the latest one was in Kentucky, at UofK. And so the school is going to apologize to Obama, and they called in the FBI. So did anybody think to apologize to Sarah Palin and her family? or to McCain and his family? Why is it a hate crime of the effigy is black and not a hate crime because the other effigy was a white female? They passed it off as "freedom of speech." So wouldn't hanging a black person in effigy be an exercise in "freedom of speech?" One would think so, but then again, this is another example of people bending over backwards to kiss Obama's feet and the MSM thinks this is OK? Be scared, be very scared if Obama is elected.

---

I heard Obama talking
about that bill. I cannot remember what he said was on it that he did not like, but I remember he said that those babies are protected without it. That it is already a law that they have to get medical attention if they survived the abortion.

He knew that was the case when he voted, so that was not the issue, and it would not subject them to being left to die.

---

If you are talking about the Obama Nation post...
it was written by a black pastor and it is his opinion. He was not hired by nor affiliated with the McCain campaign. There are several black preachers who do not agree with black liberation theology. There was nothing in his post about hatred. He said homosexuality was a sin..it is. He didn't say he hated gays...just that the Bible says the ACT is a sin..and it is. Just like lying, adultery, murder, etc. It does have the distinction of being the one sin that God classified as an "abomination." All the preacher was pointing out was that when Obama said there was nothing specific in the Bible regarding homosexuality...he was wrong. Again...there is no hatred in that post. He just doesn't agree with Obama's philosophy. Where you get hate from that I don't know....did you even read the post?

And by the way....sniping and cattiness must be your strong suit? You seem to excel in that area. Can you just drop the cattiness and sniping (as you asked that I do) and go figure, as you told me to do? Thank you so very much.

---

Re-read my post....I was NOT talking about Obama himself...
I am talking about his followers. And yes, it is more like followers than supporters, and a great many of them, including on this board, turn into a snarling, snapping, pack attack on anyone who posts anything negative or unflattering about him. I cannot believe you can say that no one can make you hate. We all have the capacity within us to hate. But no one hates spontaneously and it most certainly can be taught. do you think Islamic terrorists were born hating? Of course not. But they are taught it, and they learn it. Just the way a lot of kids were taught racism. THey werren't born hating, it was taught to them until they thought that was the way it was supposed to be. They didn't even know it was hate. Louis Farrakhan preaches hate. The I disagree totally that hate comes from within and that no one can make you hate. Oh yes they can.

All that being said...I did not say that by design Obama makes his followers that way...I said I didn't know. But the fact remains, those are the traits they exhibit.

And I never said, not one time, that Obama was a hater. Did not say that at all. All I said was he inspired that kind of emotion in many of his followers.

---

and Obama was talking about McCain's policies
What's the difference? Because she used the word Lipstick in her speech, it was about her. That's quite a leap. Give me a break.

---

Old news -- instead of trash-talking Obama
 I haven't heard any initiatives out of him yet!  Just the trash-talking!

---

Pot meets kettle. You mean like Tom Delay's 2000-2001
We are still dealing with the aftermath. But hey, he was just trying to help out the shrub and the rest of the GOP good ole boys.

---

Between May and July 2001, the National Security Agency reported
at least 33 different intercepts indicating a possible imminent al Qaeda attack. The FBI issued 216 secret, internal threat warnings between January 1 and September 10, 2001, of which 6 mentioned possible attacks against airports or airlines. The Federal Aviation Administration issued 15 notices of possible terrorist threats against American airlines. The State Department issued 9 separate warnings during the same period to embassies and citizens abroad, including 5 that highlighted a general threat to Americans all over the world.

Yeah, that Bill Clinton wasn't doing his job alright.

Oh, wait.

---

No objective person can state with 100% certainty what happened 9-11-2001.
Some believe what they were told via news, some believe the new presentation of facts, theories, evidence, and logic. I believe that al-Quaeda terrorist attacked the US on 9-11. I take to the conspiracy theories with a grain of salt, until different is proven to be true. Out of all of the theories and logic presented, the one unanswered question is why was the bin Laden family allowed to flee America the day after the attacks??? It's at least one piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit and to me the American public has not gotten a satisfactory answer. Heck, most don't even know or care.

On a lighter note, have you seen The Seige starring Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis? Released in 1998 and eerily similar to post 9-11.

---

McCain was talking about how many trips Obama had made to...
Iraq...constantly talking about Iraq and what was going on there and never having been there, though many other senators had. Anyone paying attention knows that. Obama's little trip to Germany was part and parcel of his "I am a citizen of the world" hoohah. Had nothing to do with what McCain said. And yes, he finally DID go to Iraq, and well he SHOULD. And he knows that the surge worked, but he would die before he admitted it. That is what I HATE about politics. Politicians (none of them) ever say what they think or they feel...only what they think you want to hear. I hate the pandering and dishonesty, on both sides. It reeks.

---

Redistribution (sm)
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

---

Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?

---

Over generalization....socialism is redistribution
xx

---

"income redistribution" is just a fancy term for
nm

---

What exactly do you think spread the wealth
xx

---

I say YES to spreading the wealth

I am happy that FINALLY someone is standing up for the middle class.  I am happy that finally we will be given some tax breaks.  The wealth does NOT trickle down when the tax breaks are given to the upper class/business that fall in that tax bracket.  They do not create more jobs, therefore strengthening the middle class/economy.  What they do is line their pockets and get rich  and then save even more money and get even more tax breaks by sending work overseas and hiring people that will gladly work for way less an hour, therefore driving the value of American jobs down so that the rest of us, who are stuck trying to make it, find a decent paying job, are screwed.  I am voting for Obama and I think he is going to win.

---