Obama: 'Theoretically' OK for Courts to Redistribute Wealth

Obama

It is all in the mind. Thoughts are concepts. Economie is thoughts. Change some concepts and the minds perception also changes.

Sobeit @ Mar 16, 2009 05:56:56 AM

Downright Terrifying

In my last decade as a working American I am terrified of what will happen to me if Obama is elected. While I am trying to increase my earnings and sock it away for retirement, Obama will be busy taking it from me and giving it to people who don't pay any taxes! I already pay too much in taxes and he's going to take more. By the time I retire he will have this country in such a mess I'll need to take a post-retirement job to survive.

Don't be fooled by his crap about lowering taxes for 95% of the population. He is a liar of the worst type and he can't have his kingdom without taxing us all more. And he is preying on all the uniformed people of this country.

We should be afraid.... be very afraid.

Terri of GA @ Oct 28, 2008 20:56:31 PM

Obama's views

"...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 suffer from that."

Clearly Obama wants to redistribute something. I don't know any other way of reading this quote.

I understand that the top 1% of taxpayers pay someting like 39% of all income taxes. Isn't that enough? To me there is something ethically wrong about requiring such a small minority to pay so much.

John of @ Oct 28, 2008 15:34:57 PM

redistribute the wealth

For all you who fell safe...taxes are not the only way of redistribute the wealth

Complements of: Thursday, October 23, 2008 The Wall Street Joournel/Opinion

Argentina's Property Grab

A cautionary tale for anyone who owns a retirement account.

by Cristina Kirchner

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner announced this week that her government intends to nationalize the country's private pension system. If Congress approves this property grab, $30 billion in individually held retirement accounts -- think 401(k)s -- managed by private pension funds will become government property.

That the state could seize retirement savings no doubt seems outrageous to Americans. But it is a predictable development in a country where government intervention in the financial system is the norm. With Washington now expanding its role as guarantor in American banking, that's something to think about.

Paul of Ma of MA @ Oct 28, 2008 15:24:32 PM

Sigh

And don't forget, he's a Muslim, too. Oh yeah, and a terrorist. And oh yeah, he hates America. And he hangs around with terrorists and people who have said nasty things about America. And he's never served a day in the military. And... oh what the hell!

Look, people, IF the man is elected next Tuesday, give him one year in office, and then go ahead and judge him. But this nonsense of nuancing every phrase that has come out of his mouth (have you actually listened to his "redistribution" interview on WBEZ-Chicago, by the way?) is just evidence, it seems to me, of how little the McCain campaign has to offer by way of their OWN POSITIVE GOALS for the country. Is this all they've GOT????

I'm disappointed in U.S. News in allowing this pap to be disseminated.

Bob the History Teacher of IL @ Oct 28, 2008 13:56:00 PM

Moron

Do you understand English? The fact that three lawyers can "craft theoretically" an argument for a proposition, call it "x", doesn't mean they support "x". Indeed, the "theorectically" adverb is lawyer-speak for NOT necessarily supporting it.

You have your agenda, and you will push it any way you can, but, really, you ought to have a better grasp of the English language if you hope to influence anybody who doesn't already agree with you.

Steve of TN @ Oct 28, 2008 10:24:16 AM

Where's the News Here?????

He is saying that it is "theoretically possible" to contrive an argument. he didn't say he supported the result or that it was a good idea. In fact he implied that it was a bad idea.

iIt is one more sign that Conservatism has lost all claim on thoughtfulness (where it was once decades ahead of libaralism) that this sort of silliness is played up as if it was substantive.

Pragmatist of MN @ Oct 28, 2008 08:32:13 AM

really

>Use the court to redistribute wealth? Really?

Really; there was a serious push for this. Obama is actually arguing against it - he's saying that the narrow-minded focus on using courts is a tragedy of civil rights movement. So, he's saying that judicial activism is a bad idea, which is something that conservatives should cherish.

>The Warren court was not radical? Really?

Really (kinda); as Obama explains "it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution." If that makes you think he's using the word radical to mean something specific, I'd say you're right. Of course, it was surely radical in its scope, but since we're not mind-readers, it seems plausible to assume Obama meant something else.

>Anyone could craft a theoretical justification to use the court to spread the wealth? Really?

Really (kinda), though it seems safe to assume he's referring to other lawyers. Specifically "any three of us" is likely referring to the other U. Chicago law professors what were involved with that discussion - i.e., elite US lawyers.

Lastly, at no point in that discussion does Obama say it's theoretically OK for courts to redistribute wealth. I can craft theoretical justifications for the death penalty, or come up with a rationale for it, but I'm actually opposed to it. As usual, he hides his actual thoughts on this topic. You can consider this good or bad (I'd say it's bad), but don't put words into his mouth.

of OH @ Oct 28, 2008 04:59:55 AM