- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Obama is talking about the victories of the civil rights movement, and says, “You know if you look at the victories and the failures of the Civil Rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court, I think where it succeeded was to invest 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 as long as I could pay for it I would 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 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 and 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 suffer from that.”
The entire context of the interview isn’t clear, and the sentiment isn’t all that different from Martin Luther King Jr., who after the voting rights and other accomplishments of the 1960s civil rights movement moved toward greater emphasis on poverty and economic justice.
But McCain’s campaign is jumping on it as part of the assault on Obama’s remark to the famous Joe the plumber in Ohio that with America so economically troubled, it might be good to spread the wealth.
“The American people continue to learn more about Barack Obama. Now we know that the slogans ‘change you can believe in’ and ‘change we need’ are code words for Barack Obama’s ultimate goal: ‘redistributive change.’ In a previously uncovered interview from September 6, 2001, Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t been more ‘radical’ and described as a ‘tragedy’ the Court’s refusal to take up ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth.’ No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change,” McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a statement.
wait till he elects memebrs to the court, and has pelosi, reid with him. Kiss your success good bye as its not “Fair”
More McCain & Drudge sludge. Andrew Sullivan writes the following:
Go read the original talk that Obama gave on NPR and see if it says anything even faintly similar to the truncated quotes about to be used by McCain. I mean: come on. Here’s the headline:
“2001 Obama: Tragedy That ‘Redistribution Of Wealth” Not Pursued By Supreme Court”
Here’s what it’s based on: the “tragedy,” in Obama’s telling, is that the civil rights movement was too court-focused. He was making a case against using courts to implement broad social goals – which is, last time I checked, the conservative position. The actual quote in full:
“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.”
So Obama was arguing that the Constitution protects negative liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to formal constitutional rights. So it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism.
Is this really all McCain has left?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/drudges-latest.html#more
The progressive (termed because your tax rate progresses with your income) tax system has been around in the US since the 16th amendment was passed in 1913. In fact it only targeted the wealthy.
By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time. Form 1040 was introduced as the standard tax reporting form and, though changed in many ways over the years, remains in use today.
xxxhttp://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
Today republicans are complaining that 40% of people in the US end paying no income taxes because they make too little. So today 60 times as many American by percant/per capita pay income taxes than when first enacted.
Does that sound like socialism to anyone else?
This is not a new issue, it’s not even an issue, since Obama only plans on changing/raising the top rate. The fact that he wants to make cut taxes for people in lower brackets instead of McCain’s focus on the top bracket is just as socialist as McCain’s tax cuts are the support of feudalism.
It’s fair to ask if Obama is pushing for anything that is different from what the democrats have done for the last 50 years or change the basic tenants of the tax laws that have bee around for 95 years. I certainly don’t think there is anything new on the tax/social front for Obama that is different than Clinton. Unfortunately for McCain, given Bush’s double of the national debt, McCain looks irresponsible arguing that more tax cuts for the rich and more debt for the government is a good thing.
@AmCan 183066 wrote:
This not a new issue, it’s not even an issue, since Obama only plans on changing/raising the top rate. The fact that he wants to make cut taxes for people in lower brackets instead of McCain’s focus on the top bracket is just as socialist as McCain’s tax cuts are the support of feudalism.
Exactly! You nailed it. I don’t understand why the Obama camp hasn’t been more forceful in making that argument.
Its the fact that he wants to send checks that are more money than the people contribute. That is the difference.
Its the fact that he wants to send checks that are more money than the people contribute. That is the difference.
That’s pretty much going on since they launched social security in the 1930’s, nobody who received it at first had paid any social security. My parents and their generation paid 3% (the employer pay a tax roughly matches the employee’s tax) for their end, i pay 6.2% yet their benefits are based on my contributions my kids my pay 9. Certainly ever since welfare and food stamps have existed, the government has been transfering wealth.
You seem to have missed everything that happened between 1928 and 1981. Nothing of what obama proposes on taxes is really new, he’s just reinstating the taxes cut by the current Borrow and Spend Bush admin.
yeah wait till palsosi and reid get full control.. you aint seen nothing yet
