Monday, October 27, 2008
2001 Economic Justice Discussion
Listen for yourself. Perhaps I am missing something. But to me it sounds like he's implying that a failing of the civil rights movement was that it did not provide reparations of some kind nor any monetary redistribution policy... And that darn Constitution seems to get in the way...
Speaking of the Constitution..let me dust off my pdf copy and start re-reading it..
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
So the only concrete example of redistributive change brought up in this discussion is redistributing wealth to poorer school districts. An idea so radical that it's actually how things would work in the Socialist Republic that John McCain envisions.
I also don't really understand why you fault Obama for discussing the constitution. He goes on to provides examples why the constitution is right to leave that sort of thing to the legislative branch.
And then of course, Joe the Plumber, who thinks that somewhere between 35% and 39.6% lies evil socialism.
But in response to your specific question, which I realize that I didn't directly address: Obama seems to me to be saying that the failure of the civil rights movement was that it tried to use the courts to do things that they weren't meant to do. Or, in campaign lingo, why you shouldn't expect "activist judges" to "legislate from the bench."
Ah the legislative and executive branch should have "administered" wealth redistribution. Someone who is supposedly such an "orator" seems to make clear where he stands. I wonder just how far he will go from the campaign promises he is making to get elected.... I don't have much faith that he will compromise. The terms that gets people nervous is "spread the wealth around", "economic justice". Those are in the realm of socialism.
Also, you forget that not only will the top tax bracket increase, but also capital gains taxes will increase...That is a dis-incentive to investing. This will cause more investors to pull money out of the market (and businesses). Even Clinton Administration cut cap gains taxes.
Decreasing capital gains tax is also an incentive to pull money out of the market. When the capital gains rate has been lowered in the past, investors have pulled their money out of the market to realize gains at the lower tax rate.
Increased capital gains tax is an incentive for people to leave their money in the stock market.
People are pulling out money now (and may not put back in) in anticipation of the increases.
When taxes are low, it makes repeat investing attractive.
But the core issue here for me is that we have two candidates that will both "spread the wealth" more than their predecessor, but one of them is calling the other one a socialist because he doesn't use the special American code words for things that are in the realm of socialism.
It bothers me greatly that politics in America has been reduced to the sound bite. It's actually quite refreshing to hear a political candidate that will occasionally talk about issues in a nuanced way without resorting to talking points. Are the American people really unable to process moderately complicated policy issues?
If McCain wants to bring up this issue, why doesn't he contrast his opinion on civil rights movement in the US and the attempts to bring the (at the time woefully bad) infrastructure in minority communities up to standard? He probably has one, and it's probably at least slightly different than Obama's. But instead, we see McCain try and pin another funny name to Obama and aren't left with a damn clue what he stands for on the issue.
I have a better idea of who McCain is than Obama. I don't trust anything that comes out of his mouth. The arrogance and decadence of his nomination acceptance spectacle, and his election night space. With all the money he is spending just to get elected, doesn't bode well for what the spending will be like under his term. He has more experience running for president than being a senator!
Has McCain given money to an organization that is committing voter fraud and is supposed to be non-partisan?
Has McCain had a pastor as his spiritual he went to for years, married in that church, bring his kids to that church and does not once speak up against his anti-Israel, racist, rhetoric? If he can't stand up to a pastor, what makes you think he'll stand up for you or me in the eyes of those who seek to hurt us? One chooses the church they go to (or not go to). One chooses their advisers. Silly me for thinking character of a leader should matter. Diction matters. and Obama is quite deliberate in the words he uses. "Economic justice" is a socialist concept that I do not agree with.
McCain endured torture for 5 years before he was broken. I think he has the balls to stand up for America. He has shown it. His rhetoric empowers the individual to create success from opportunity, not rely on some one else to hand them their "just enough to get by". Yes, McCain is the lesser or two "evils".
Man... that was a good rant, but about the only person it served was me, so down it goes.
Let's just say I respectfully disagree with many of the conclusions you've reached.
I'd encourage you to look at the past allegations towards acorn in evaluating the current set. Specifically the political nature of the allegations, the absense of voter fraud (which is different registration fraud), and state laws requiring them to turn in forged registration cards from workers.
I think your political beliefs shape your opinions on the importance of many of Obama's associations and perceptions of arrogance, but I'm not going to convince you one way or the other.
I will say that personally I consider the ability to see good in people who hold views that are radical or disagreeable to be a positive character trait.
Personally I think Obama's policies empowers the individual to create success from opportunity and to survive misfortune to try again.
Additionally I think his calm and measured approach to problems is more befitting a time of economic crisis and international uncertainty than John McCain's shoot-from-the-hip style.
I'll be voting for him not because he's the lesser of two evils but because I genuinely believe he'll be a good president.
Obama's "Spreading the Wealth" mentality is not just a sound-bite... many people have been saying and thinking that FAR before Obama himself 'slipped up' on it.
The idea that someone who is already paying a significantly higher percentage of their salary to the government, must pay yet MORE in order to provide 'tax credits' (i.e. free money) to people who do not pay any income tax in the first place, is, to me, a major step towards socialism.
Let's look at the other guy briefly:
- McCain plans to give every American family $5000 for health care (yes, even the ones that don't pay taxes)
- McCain plans to spend $300 billion towards repricing people's crappy real estate investments
- McCain voted for the $150 billion "economic stimulus" to lower income Americans and the $700 billion bailout.
They're both socialists. Though I suppose the only real socialist is Palin, who gives every man, woman, and child in Alaska $3200 of the oil companies money simply for breathing.
To pretend that there's some sort of fundamental difference between the candidates over what amounts to a few percentage points seems dishonest to me, and also leaves me wondering how McCain plans to fund his brand of socialism.
I am personally appalled by the idea that McCain wanted to 'refinance' people's bad mortgages. I have mixed feelings about the bailout for similar reasons, as it goes against a fundamental principle of mine, which is that people need to be responsible for their choices, good or bad. Risk should always have consequences.
You can't forget that we got into this mess, not as much for the '8 years of failed economic policies of the Bush administration' (if you want to talk about sound-bites...) but a large part because of laws that were passed under Jimmy Carter, and strengthened by Bill Clinton to make sure that banks were 'fair'. These banks and institutions were being, in essence, punished for not giving loans to people who couldn't afford them. One of the major problems with this country is the sense of entitlement that people deserve things they haven't earned or worked for. And I think that goes back to the subject of this post, in that Obama feels the government should have done MORE to promote this "economic justice", when that is a major part of why we are in this mess now. I think his economic policies have the potential to stunt economic growth, but yet I assure you, as president, he will continue to blame it all on Bush.
I'm not much of a fan of McCain's health-care plan either, but consider the potential long-term affect of Obama's. I know he is saying that everyone will get to 'keep' their employer-provided health-care plans, but what will be the incentive of employers to keep providing insurance to their employees? After all, if the government is giving them a plan they can buy into without question, and it will most likely be 'cheaper', why should the employer keep offering theirs? Even with Obama's penalty for the big companies, it will probably still be cheaper to just stop offering health-care overall. Then more and more people get forced into the government plan, and we are en route to nationalized health care a la Canada and Europe. If that works "so well" for them, then why do so many come to the US for health-care? It is competition in the private sector of health insurance that keeps coverage competitive &complete, and care of the highest quality. So, I agree McCain's plan is dumb, but Obama's is plain dangerous when you think beyond the immediate 'hope'.
BTW, in my book, there is a stark difference between giving $5000 to EVERYONE, than taking $5000 from one person and giving it to another. One is maybe a questionable use of government funds. The other is blatant redistribution of wealth, and a fundamental aspect of socialism.
You say it's just a 'few percentage points'. However, I think that is a very slippery slope that i do not want to go down. Right now rich is defined as $250K. Who's to stop the next step where we now say "You know what, we need more money. Let's now raise taxes on people making $200,000 or more." Next, $150,000 or more. The idea is noble, but it is essentially un-American in my opinion, and actually suppresses the American dream that Obama likes to paint a pretty picture of in his speeches. I don't want to go down that road, even for a few measly little percentage points.
For me, this is absolutely a lesser-of-two-evils vote. McCain does not match all of my ideals, but his policies are not nearly as radical, and I think he will defend and protect us. I have very little confidence that Obama will take action until it is too late.
There's a lot of blame to go around with the current credit crisis, but if you ask me, fair lending laws have as little to do with it as Bush does (though the cheap credit that fueled the current economic boom is part of it).
Lenders gave away as many subprime loans as they could because they viewed it as a risk-free operation. They could simply sell the mortgages to banks who would package them as mortgage backed securities (packaged together with other securities, layers upon layers deep). Banks loved this because they could get high ratings on their securities because for the most part the only people that really understood the risks of these securities worked for the banks. Consumers loved them because they could get an incredible return out of an investment rated nearly as safe as a t-bill. It was basically a license to print money for everybody involved, and lenders could pretty much sell crappy mortgages as fast as they could grant them.
Of course, the whole house of cards fell over and everybody lost their shirt. But it wasn't because they were trying to be fair, or because they were obligated to under law, it was because they were all greedy bastards.
So out of curiosity, what's your opinion the economic stimulus package? Do extraordinary times require unamerican socialism, or was that okay simple because they pulled the money out of the ether (read: added it to my future $12 trillion tax burden)?
Is having a campaign pay $832,000 to an ACORN affiliate shady? ACORN receives Federal (ie, our) money. As a result, it is supposed to be non-partisan... but not only was money accepted from a campaign by a member organization, but they have endorsed a candidate.
I don't think giving or accepting a loan that you couldn't possibly afford is fair.
The banks were compelled to make loans that had a high probability to never to be paid back because laws required it.
Let's say you are looking for a job. If an employer told you to to work for year shoveling crap, and they might pay you, but they made it clear that they had no money. Would you accept the job? How long would you do the job? How about if a law would make it harder for you to look for another job if you did not take the crap shoveling job for at least 30% of your time?
So those who took the sub prime loans that could not afford do not have responsibility? What about renting? Do just the banks have responsibility for making the poor decision and then trying to turn it into something they could profit from (including those with oversight by the US government..see Barney Frank and Chris Dodd). The government did a great management job there.
Blogger is a crappy message board: but add this to my post about fair lending laws. A good data point to use to separate the effect of mortgage-backed-securities and fair lending laws is to compare credit union performance with that of traditional banks/lenders.
Credit unions are subject to the same fair lending laws that banks were, but generally loaned against their own assets instead of selling mortgages. Everything I've seen suggests that despite some collateral damage from the economy as a whole, credit unions are weathering the subprime meltdown rather well. It would appear lending to minorities isn't a problem when you're betting your own money.
To answer your question. I disagree with the stimulus package.
Why is it that when The Bush Admin" investigates something, it is considered bias? He sure has silenced the media...huh..
Obama's campaign has blackballed reporters who asked "tough" questions. I wonder if he'll ask search engines to filter "unfair" search result...
He let Enron fail, right...didn't he have "friends" there?. Worldcomm failed... these pale in comparison to the travesty of the bailout both candidates supported.
Also, you have said that I color Obama's associations through my views. And you do not? I say question everything.
The people who took those loans sure as hell have a responsibility to pay them back, or lose their house. Which is why I'm voting against your socialist candidate and his $300 billion buy back your house with my money plan :P
Of my views color my opinions. I clearly think that my socialist is better than your socialist, and therefore worry less if he knew somebody at enron.
How can one be even-handed if he holds all his cards in his left hand?
I don't think the economic stimulus package helped anything. You can't just throw money at people who are struggling and expect them to do what you think is 'right for the country' with it. (See Katrina victims spending their FEMA debit cards on high-def TV's and breast implants). When things are rough, I believe you have to, to a degree, let things play out. That is not to say I do not support any kind of regulation in terms of protecting investors from dishonest and fraudulent practices, but the government should not be telling people (or businesses) how to invest their money. I think Social Security demonstrates that the government has no skill in this matter.
And I think that idea cycles full-swing back to the issues of taxes. Taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots" does not inspire hard work, productivity, innovation, etc. It's the whole give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish analogy. Yeah, I was given a few fish in my life from having been blessed with a good family that took care of me, but my family also taught me to fish so I would be able to take care of myself.
I understand that everyone's caught up in the 'hope' and 'change' and the feeling that Obama is going to kiss the booboo and make it better, but I fear that immediate sense of action without considering the long-term consequences will permanently damage us in the future.
Kerry is talking about another New Deal (when most historians now agree that the New Deal hindered economic growth more than it encouraged it). Pelosi wants to pass the Fairness Doctrine, which is one of the most un-American, freedom-robbing pieces of legislation in recent history (regardless of what your political beliefs are). Obama was specifically asked during the 2nd debate if he would support Israel should Iran attack them, and Obama avoided the question, giving his talking points about how Iran should not have nuclear weapons in the first place, elegantly avoiding providing a response to (in my opinion) a PIVOTAL issue for our national security.
I simply have a hard time understanding why so many people have this undying faith and trust in Obama.
FYI, Obama opposes the Fairness Doctrine.
Yes, that's what his spokesperson says... but keep in mind 2 things:
1) Obama has done 180's on MANY things during the course of this campaign alone; the most notable being the public campaign financing, and then there are things like whether Rev. Wright is like his grandmother or a racist Anti-American. I'm not talking about tweaks in policies, I'm talking complete 180's.
2) The fairness doctrine is on the agenda of many prominent democrats including Nancy Pelosi (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/06/25/pelosi-i-want-bring-back-fairness-doctrine). Do you REALLY think Obama will veto a law passed by a democratic congress to make things more 'fair'?
Obama likes to make a big deal out of McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time, but by the same calculation Obama voted with the Democratic party 97% of the time. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html).
Call me cynical, but I don't think he will stand up to Pelosi and the Democratic party elite. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
As a side note, McCain's figure for voting with his party is 79%.
(http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/03/fact-check-does-obama-almost-always-vote-with-his-party/)
Both the figures are based on 'key votes'. Of course Obama has far fewer of these, being that he has only been in the senate for what, 3 years, and has been campaigning for half of that time. But it just goes to show how much more unpredictable his promises of bipartisanship are...
Meanwhile McCain has reversed himself on things like torture and the environment.
Look, I don't think anybody but the economic far left (by American standards) wants to see the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and thankfully it looks like they're not going to get it.
Pelosi is unpopular among democrats and downright hated by the right. She has very little political capital left to spend to go up against a popular president and is probably smart enough not to try. Especially on what boils down to a free speech issue.
But yes, I trust Obama to mostly do the things that he was voted into office to do. He saw what happened to Clinton in 1994 and Bush in 2006, and I think he's smart enough to tread carefully.
With regards to campaign finance. Obama did say that he would accept public financing. Then the internet changed campaign financing in America forever, and he was smart enough to realize that. Both the republicans and democrats I've heard speak on the issue acknowledge at this point that public financing in its current form is dead.
I'm not going pretend that Reverend Wright doesn't worry me slightly, but I think his handling of Wright pretty much fits with his description of their relationship. It's much easier to defend sermons taken out of context (or in context) than it is to defend someone who's currently repeating those hateful things in the media. I think he underestimated just how radical Wright's views were. I think it may have been as much of a wake-up call for him as it was the rest of the nation.
The ability to adapt to changing situations is important.
"I think he underestimated just how radical Wright's views were. I think it may have been as much of a wake-up call for him as it was the rest of the nation."
That would be a fine point if Obama hadn't been sitting in his church for 20 years ;)
I think Obama is an intelligent person, which is why I think he was VERY aware of the things Wright was saying each and every week. Either he's a liar, changing his tune for political gain, or he is simply an idiot. I think it's the former, but neither speaks well for his character as president of the United States in my book.
You've listened to each and every one of Wright's sermons over that 20 year period? :)
You REALLY think that was the first time Wright ever said anything racist or anti-American in 20 years? I think it was just the first time it was caught on film :P
One more Obama quotes for the road: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." ..Sounds kind of Gestapo-ish to me... Don't we have a whole slew of "security" forces already that are non-military?
Congratulations, you've officially Godwinned the thread.
In case you're too bored to read the quote below, he seems to be talking about expanding things like AmeriCorps (teachers) and the Peace Corps.
In a rare gaffe, none of the stereotypes in this speech have been given names.
Full context:
Just as we must value and encourage military service across our society, we must honor and expand other opportunities to serve. Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but it also depends on the teacher in East LA, or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia. . . .
Today, AmeriCorps – our nation’s network of local, state and national service programs – has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife Michelle once left her job at a law firm at city hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. These programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America’s greatest resource – our citizens.
That’s why as President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.
So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Or in the form of a youtube clip.
It's pretty much the standard socialist tactics we use to get kids to join the army. Free public college education in exchange for a commitment to spend some amount of time doing something useful for the community.
I know the context. I am not seeing the connection between the community service efforts and "a national security force". Perhaps I am a bit confused as to the definition of security being used in his speech. Financial security?
I think he's talking about mortgage-backed securities, given how many of those we now collectively own.
Post a Comment