once again the jokes write themselves...

[sonickteam2]

he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?
 
   its not news.

[kosmo vinyl]

Where exactly in this quote does Obama advocate for the redistribution of wealth via courts? I'm not a lawyer or play one on TV, but what I believe he is advocating that change should happen first via community action  and then via the courts. One could say he's against judical legislation...
 
 "One of 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"

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by kosmo:
   

Originally posted by manimtired:
  how was it taken out of context?

it was on drudge... [/b]

it's also on  ABC. . .
 
 the plain reading of at least what jake tapper posted is more troubling, at least to me, on his view of the warren court and the constitution.  
 
 however, i find this statement amusing:
 
 "As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up â?? not from the corridors of Washington."
 
 so, how does he think he can effectuate change if change doesn't come from washington?
 
 regardless of all that. . it is still evident that he believes government redistribution of wealth is a policy that should be enhanced and encouraged. . .in this interview, he merely notes, wistfully, that the court couldn't do it, because the constitution has "negative liberties" in it that make it difficult through judicial activism.  well, the constitution is there precisely to limit what government can do, something obama apparently believes is a bad idea.

[Bags]

Originally posted by very sonick:
  he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?

Republicans are for redistribution of wealth as well.  Ever hear of those farm subsidies?  Oh my god, what they do with sugar subsidies is simply unbelievable.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by Bags:
   

Originally posted by very sonick:
  he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?

Republicans are for redistribution of wealth as well.  Ever hear of those farm subsidies?  Oh my god, what they do with sugar subsidies is simply unbelievable. [/b]

Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal.  Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol?

[Bags]

The Reps redistribute the wealth to the super rich and corporations in order to effectuate this 'trickle down' theory.  That's all I'm saying...they just redistribute differently.
 
 I know they're all guilty of supporting immense farm subsidies, but the Rs, then, need to stop pretending they are completely innocent in welfare and redistribution of wealth.  It's just the tax and spend liberals, though it is Bush that has created the highest deficit and largest government of them all.
 
 Hey, would 'small' government give a crap if John married Betty or Bob?  I don't think so...

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
     

Originally posted by Bags:
       

Originally posted by very sonick:
  he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?

Republicans are for redistribution of wealth as well.  Ever hear of those farm subsidies?  Oh my god, what they do with sugar subsidies is simply unbelievable. [/b]

Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal.  Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol? [/b]

McCain?
 
   no, cant be, because he said
 
 
  "I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,"
 

[Bags]

Here's a chart, though it's not a calculator.  I get a bit more back from McCain, but I get money back under Obama as well.  And the point is, I'm fine.  I think it's more important that a family making $50K gets 3.5 times as much back under Obama.  That's where the world of hurt is.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by Bags:
  The Reps redistribute the wealth to the super rich and corporations in order to effectuate this 'trickle down' theory.  That's all I'm saying...they just redistribute differently.
 
 I know they're all guilty of supporting immense farm subsidies, but the Rs, then, need to stop pretending they are completely innocent in welfare and redistribution of wealth.  It's just the tax and spend liberals, though it is Bush that has created the highest deficit and largest government of them all.
 
 Hey, would 'small' government give a crap if John married Betty or Bob?  I don't think so...

if that's all your saying, the you used an especially non-useful parallel with farm subsidies, especially since the most recent farm bill is one of the worst one in decades, all effectuated under a democratic congress.
 
 that being said, you are right that the republicans from the election of W have made the situation worse.  the difference between what obama is saying and what republicans are supposed to be doing is that republicans don't want government to limit the ability of someone to become wealthy (of course, the economic theory is that only the well-to-do have the means and ability to inject capital into markets, therefore, government shouldn't limit the ability of people to do that), whereas, obama is quietly all about limiting the ability of people to make money and have government tell people how much money they can make (through potentially crippling tax hikes), then take that money and give it away.  
 
 and it has nothing to do about whether small government should care about who people marry, it's that government of any size shouldn't care- government should not be dictating to people and limiting people how they live their life, be it socially or economically.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by very sonick:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal.  Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol?

McCain?
 
   no, cant be, because he said
  "I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,"
  [/b]

how convenient you neglect this statement- "In Grinnell, McCain said he still opposes subsidies"
 
 as i'm sure you can note, this is about subsidies.  even in the article above, it still states that mccain is against ethanol subsidies.  in fact, mccain has stated he supports dropping the tariff on brazilian sugar-based ethanol, coupled with killing corn-based ethanol subsidies here, let them compete and see how it works.  i don't think it takes a genius to realize and note the travesty that ethanol subsidies have had on the price of food worldwide.  
 
 i will note my own trepidation about brazilian sugar-based ethanol only because i wonder how many acres of rainforest are being tilled under to increase sugar production.  .and if the u.s. does drop its tariffs, what effects would that have.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   

Originally posted by very sonick:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal.  Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol?

McCain?
 
   no, cant be, because he said
  "I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,"
  [/b]

how convenient you neglect this statement- "In Grinnell, McCain said he still opposes subsidies"
 
 as i'm sure you can note, this is about subsidies.  even in the article above, it still states that mccain is against ethanol subsidies.  in fact, mccain has stated he supports dropping the tariff on brazilian sugar-based ethanol, coupled with killing corn-based ethanol subsidies here, let them compete and see how it works.  i don't think it takes a genius to realize and note the travesty that ethanol subsidies have had on the price of food worldwide.  
 
 i will note my own trepidation about brazilian sugar-based ethanol only because i wonder how many acres of rainforest are being tilled under to increase sugar production.  .and if the u.s. does drop its tariffs, what effects would that have. [/b]

or how about you leave out the whole article which is about him saying whatever voters want to hear, which is basically what you accuse his opponent of.
 
  nice try, but try as you might, McCain is just another politician with crappy dead end policies.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by very sonick:
 
  nice try, but try as you might, McCain is just another politician with crappy dead end policies.

well, if you are correct, congratulations on supporting the same crappy dead end policies- change you can believe in.

[Bags]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   the difference between what obama is saying and what republicans are supposed to be doing is that republicans don't want government to limit the ability of someone to become wealthy... whereas, obama is quietly all about limiting the ability of people to make money and have government tell people how much money they can make (through potentially crippling tax hikes), then take that money and give it away.

So the loss of $115K to a person making up to $2.5 million limits their ability to 'make money' and is crippling to them as investors and consumers?  Man, I feel bad now, I didn't know things were so tight for millionaires.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   

Originally posted by very sonick:
 
  nice try, but try as you might, McCain is just another politician with crappy dead end policies.

well, if you are correct, congratulations on supporting the same crappy dead end policies- change you can believe in. [/b]

you're welcome!

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by Bags:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   the difference between what obama is saying and what republicans are supposed to be doing is that republicans don't want government to limit the ability of someone to become wealthy... whereas, obama is quietly all about limiting the ability of people to make money and have government tell people how much money they can make (through potentially crippling tax hikes), then take that money and give it away.

So the loss of $115K to a person making up to $2.5 million limits their ability to 'make money' and is crippling to them as investors and consumers?  Man, I feel bad now, I didn't know things were so tight for millionaires. [/b]

how many jobs could be created with that $115K?  how many jobs are lost because of the absence of that $115K in the market?  that's a $115K lost capital that could be re-invested in a number of private projects.  instead, the government becomes the beneficiary, and becomes more wasteful spending.  let people spend their money, not the government.