Obama 2001 youtube clip hitting the rounds, "redistribute wealth"

[barryr]

Hmm, "redistribute wealth" and looks like he doesn't want to follow the Constitution either. Interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

[SJ Bronco]

2001.....

In 2001, I had an afro.....

[TheDave]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=73243

[ak1971]

you are a racist and a nazi

[frerottenextelway]

I like how Obama essentially presents the conservative viewpoint on the subject, but people like the OP are too stupid to understand what he's actually saying.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I like how Obama essentially presents the conservative viewpoint on the subject, but people like the OP are too stupid to understand what he's actually saying.

Ha!

Consider the source of the OP.

[Garcia Bronco]

I like how Obama essentially presents the conservative viewpoint on the subject, but people like the OP are too stupid to understand what he's actually saying.

What would you define as the conservative view point before I listen to it?

[Spider]

ok . I saw this on another board ............. who in the hell is OP ????????/

[snowspot66]

original poster i assume

[frerottenextelway]

What would you define as the conservative view point before I listen to it?

Well, here's Obama's take summed up neatly by me, you tell me if that's not the conservative viewpoint:

Obama makes the case for judicial limitations and that it's historically been a mistake to use the courts in attempts to bring broad social change.

[frerottenextelway]

original poster i assume

:yep:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well, here's Obama's take summed up neatly by me, you tell me if that's not the conservative viewpoint:

Obama makes the case for judicial limitations and that it's historically been a mistake to use the courts in attempts to bring broad social change.

Yep.

But of course the right-wing disinfo slingers will extract the quote from its context in the hope that they can use it to bolster their "socialist" smear campaign.

[Garcia Bronco]

Well, here's Obama's take summed up neatly by me, you tell me if that's not the conservative viewpoint:

Obama makes the case for judicial limitations and that it's historically been a mistake to use the courts in attempts to bring broad social change.

I don't think he made a case for judical limitations, but told the truth about the courts role in our government. I also don't consider this a conservative view point. It's a Constitutional one IMO. I also think moderate liberals and conservatives alike are tired of things being decided by the courts outside the realm of honest interpretation.

[frerottenextelway]

I don't think he made a case for judical limitations, but told the truth about the courts role in our government.

"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."

I also don't consider this a conservative view point. It's a Constitutional one IMO. I also think moderate liberals and conservatives alike are tired of things being decided by the courts outside the realm of honest interpretation.

Well, let me put it this way then. It's a POV that consertives have used my entire lifetime as a wedge issue by painting the libruls as being for pro-activist judges.

[frerottenextelway]

Yep.

But of course the right-wing disinfo slingers will extract the quote from its context in the hope that they can use it to bolster their "socialist" smear campaign.

This election sure is seperating out the idealogues from the pure partisan hacks on the Right. The inner-Party fight between the two groups is a trainwreck waiting to happen in the coming years.

[Garcia Bronco]

"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."



Well, let me put it this way then. It's a POV that consertives have used my entire lifetime as a wedge issue by painting the libruls as being for pro-activist judges.

The Constitution's role is to restrain Government, and it's up to the people to do things on their own behalf. Not for Government to do things on my behalf. Ultminately this will be the downfall of our society. Now another one will rise in it's place. Most likely a dictatorship.

[Bronco Bob]

The Constitution's role is to restrain Government, and it's up to the people to do things on their own behalf. Not for Government to do things on my behalf. Ultminately this will be the downfall of our society. Now another one will rise in it's place. Most likely a dictatorship.

Is this why the conservatives want an amendment to ban gay marriage?

[Needa Pass Rush]

"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 so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, January 20th, 1961

[frerottenextelway]

The Constitution's role is to restrain Government, and it's up to the people to do things on their own behalf. Not for Government to do things on my behalf. Ultminately this will be the downfall of our society. Now another one will rise in it's place. Most likely a dictatorship.

If you're afraid of a ''dictatorship'', maybe you support the candidate who's a constitutional scholar and was speaking out -- against his own Party here -- pushing an agenda that belongs in the legislative branch through the judicial system.

Here's an excellent entry from David Bernstein on this, who's definetly on the conservative side of the spectrum.

http://volokh.com/posts/1225104785.shtml

[frerottenextelway]

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, January 20th, 1961

Do you have a point?

[SJ Bronco]

Is this why the conservatives want an amendment to ban gay marriage?

In their defense ( I can't believe I said that) it's not really the conservatives as much as the religious zealots that are doing that. (I know the difference is like 200 people)

[Breaker]

[QUOTE=frerottenextelway;2142395]"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."

How does the Constitution not state exactly what the governments responsibilities are to the people. The Constitution gives numerous responsibilities. These include the responsibilities to levy and collect taxes, provide for common defense and promote the pursuit of liberty; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia. By granting these powers to the Federal Government they are termed by definition a responsibility because no other entity has the right to them, they are the responsibilities of the United States Federal Government.

The Amendments themselves are rights but the government has the responsibility to enact or not enact legislation that contravenes these Amendments, that is obvious is it not?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mccain-digg-deeper.jpg

[frerottenextelway]

How does the Constitution not state exactly what the governments responsibilities are to the people. The Constitution gives numerous responsibilities. These include the responsibilities to levy and collect taxes, provide for common defense and promote the pursuit of liberty; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia. By granting these powers to the Federal Government they are termed by definition a responsibility because no other entity has the right to them, they are the responsibilities of the United States Federal Government.

The Amendments themselves are rights but the government has the responsibility to enact or not enact legislation that contravenes these Amendments, that is obvious is it not?

I'm not sure you understand his quote or the Constitution, so I'm not sure how to answer. The Judicial Branch interprets the Constitution and all statutes, while the Legislative Branch makes or amend laws. Now the Legislative Branch can only make laws that don't break the Constitution, but they aren't limited to only what the Constitution specifies. They can make laws like the proliferation of nuclear arms, or offshore oil drilling, or whatever.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Proof (if anyone needs it) that barryr and his fellow "socialist" bleaters don't know their collective ass from a gopher hole...

Income Redistribution not Traditional Socialism

John McCain has taken to once more demagoging the economic issue as the Republican right has traditionally done beginning in the modern era with the tactical and markedly unsuccessful propaganda front directed at Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Roosevelt’s first reelection campaign in 1936 was fresh on the heels of congressional passage and the president’s signature on the landmark 1935 Social Security Act. There was much anger as well resulting from such sweeping legislation as the National Recovery Administration and the creation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with disciplinary powers applicable to Wall Street.

Laissez faire was what the members of the American Liberty League, the vigilant opposition group to Roosevelt’s economic policies, favored. His comprehensive changes in U.S. economic policy during a critical Depression period prompted them to hurl charges of “socialism” while others went beyond that and asserted that FDR was a dictator of a Communist or Fascist model.

It was under Woodrow Wilson, another Democratic president known for comprehensive change, that the federal income tax became a reality. Not only did those of the American Liberty League and their well heeled predecessors not wish to pay federal income tax; they feared and were incensed by the national government using taxation as a leveling tool.

While it is true that socialistic governments freely engage in such leveling policies, it is a broad tool of mixed economy governments that believe that such government involvement.

Forces of the right, particularly of the stringent Ayn Rand style libertarianism, regard such action as socialism per se. U.S. Depression historians such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and others argue that such action is no more than mixed economy activity.

According to the prevalent international model of what constitutes socialism as well as the number one listed definition in American dictionaries, a government reaches the level where it is termed socialistic only when the operational economic tools of that body are dominated by public rather than private control.

Due to needed reforms during the Roosevelt Administration that brought millions of Americans out of hardship status, there were more cars and houses sold and, while the total income of those at the very top declined, there was a notable leveling process that occurred during the New Deal period that extended to the Fair Deal under Harry Truman’s leadership and the New Frontier of John F. Kennedy.

Yes, there was a popular two term Republican president who served in the eight years between Truman and Kennedy. It is interesting to note that Dwight D. Eisenhower, who functioned except for his first two years in office in a divided government with Democrats controlling the Congress, did not see fit to tamper with the federal tax structure.

Democrats such as Kennedy criticized the Eisenhower Administration economically for another reason, high interest rates, which were imposed to keep a lid on inflation. Democrats believed that growth should have been emphasized more and the tight money strategy should have been deemphasized.

The significant element to note regarding tax policy under both Eisenhower and successor Kennedy was that, while federal income tax rates extended as high as 91 percent, few Americans actually paid that rate due to insertion of deductions. These deductions generated a money flow with a resultant ripple effect that redounded to those levels below top rate payers as the middle class flourished.

It is a truism that has been supported with substantial economic data that during this period of Eisenhower-Kennedy governance when the top tax rates were highest, the country as a whole prospered to a greater degree.

There were more millionaires per capita created during this period and fewer people falling below the poverty line than was the case when Ronald Reagan governed. Under Reagan more billionaires were created at the same time that the ranks of the impoverished and homeless dramatically increased.

Do not expect to hear anything on the order of a discussion of tax policy during the Eisenhower administration of the fifties or Kennedy in the sixties from John McCain.

John McCain, it will be recalled, said during one of the Republican presidential debates that he “did not know much about economics.”

On that point, believe him!

by Bill Hare

[Breaker]

I'm not sure you understand his quote or the Constitution, so I'm not sure how to answer. The Judicial Branch interprets the Constitution and all statutes, while the Legislative Branch makes or amend laws. Now the Legislative Branch can only make laws that don't break the Constitution, but they aren't limited to only what the Constitution specifies. They can make laws like the proliferation of nuclear arms, or offshore oil drilling, or whatever.

Ok first off the Legislative Branch can make laws that are in direct opposition to what is explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is simply up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not such programs, laws, etc are legal or not. More than half of the New Deal programs and policies, which where enacted by the Legislature where deemed to be illegal, that does not mean that they where not passed because they were.

He said that the Constitution does not say what responsibilities the government, whether State or Federal, have to the people of their respective jurisdictions, and the is totally incorrect. By granting the Federal Government specific and sole power over things like defense and treaties, the Constitution is charging the Federal Government with the responsibility of utilizing those powers for the people. Thus one responsibility of the government to the people is to provide roads, maintain an Army, build Post Offices. The simple granting of the power as an exclusive right by definition outlines which responsibilities each of the State and the Federal Government's has to those within their jurisdictions.

Now if you read his quote differently than I do please tell me how you are reading it.