Between the 700...oops I mean the 850 billion dollar Tarp bill (150 billion in "Christmas trees") and the amount the "big 3 auto makers" are looking for -- 15 to 75 billion -- as well as the states and their billions they need -- California looking for 15 billion -- it occurred to me: Haven't we already spread the wealth around?

Someone pinch me! How is it that there is any wealth left with a 1 trillion dollar deficit?

Consider also that the labor unions have to give concessions to save the big 3 auto makers.

Yep you read that right, the labor unions....oops again the one union for 3 businesses, United Auto Workers, whose whole purpose is to provide a voice for the auto worker, not dominate these companies and determine their survival, is the key to whether the big 3 get bailout money. Apparently the unions have possession of the wealth that GM, Ford, and Chrysler were built upon, and, hold the future of the employee and employer in their hands. the UAW the balancing fulcrum of social order.

Do any of you remember voting for the government and business to be subservient to the unions as the leaders and sole arbiter of our nation's economic future, and thus our nation? I sure don't. Last I knew we are a capitalist nation, built on our own work and not as laborers forever but to eventually be owners ourselves, employing others. We owned our farms, owned our livestock, our land, we had real property in the idea of reality. Renting was looked down on as a waste of money because of the lack of equity as renting is not an investment where we build equity that we can use to pursue and fulfill our dreams.

Those days have fallen to the wayside with the consumer economy, driven by the internet to an endless payment plan for access, and not even guaranteed access. We sign a one sided "End User License Agreement" where we have no rights at all but are to be subjected to making payment, irrespective of performance by those providing service.

Everywhere you look there is a redistribution of wealth from those who have any to those who are too incompetent to have any and generally because of government support and pursuit of "jobs." and this is irrespective of there being to many jobs where people do almost nothing but get a paycheck. Humorously if it wasn't so sad, these people lose their job and it's everyone's fault but their own. We like to think of ourselves ad productive, we build this wonderful story of ourselves that we tell to others but, in the end, we are producing little and paid far more than what we are worth because, in all honesty we do just enough not to get fired and just below as much as we could so we don't "show up" our fellow employees.

A little honesty about the "job" environment is a good thing. This reveals just how far we've come along to be less than our forefathers when it comes to wealth, real wealth. See when you realize this you know wealth has already been redistributed, and now the 700 billions and the 150 billion in "Christmas trees" added to that, along with the auto bailout and the "stimulus packages" too, you can see wealth redistribution has also already failed.

Make sure to act accordingly over these next 4 years when you hear the President-Elect and Congress wanting to enact legislation to "tax the upper 5 percent" to give money to those with less, for, you'll see the tax is being applied to the very people we've been giving money to, the banks and GM, to save their businesses, their industries, and of course the all important "jobs." It's rather obvious these "wealthy" people who are proving far less wealthy than the American people as a whole.

To me, the cars should be free if we own "the big 3" auto makers, and, we should be paying no interest on loans and have no deductible on insurance since we own the big players on Wall Street and AIG the big insurer as well. I mean, what owner pays for the use of their company products with cash out of their own pocket?

Thank you for reading.

That is the headline that should be on every newspaper tomorrow, for the clock is getting turned back to just after the Civil War, or at least before the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

The electorate so busy taking out vengeance on conservatives has forgotten the devil is in the details, they haven't any care or concern with the tax shelter haven that Obama has promised to create for the billionaires who assure him a means to have this much money to buy our election.

All they had to do was appeal to the anger of the last 2 elections.  No one cares about the issues, about the 500 billion dollars surrounding Obama now, his friends so long as he give them the benefit they seek:  Tax Shelters.

I guess when liberal education breeds and raises Godless liberal values into every aspect of existence it only stands to reason that the people of a nation have no reason to care about their country.  Personal narcissistic interest take precedence over anything else.  I'd site history but what's the use.  Many an American will have died in vane in a few short years, and those who believed will continue to believe even while all that's meant anything of America is evaporating from existence.

But I guess there is a pride to being angry and then the sacred right to vote of all the nation's people being bought for 600 million dollars and sacrificing the Foundation of America.

Should this trend continue throughout the night I am certain the left will enjoy this moment, but moreso, they will enjoy it into the years, for they never admit wrong doing, FannieMae and FreddieMac have proven this.

Hang on folks!  Here comes Carter's 2nd term!

John McCain has been on the side of the middle-class for a very long time, taken from a February 2000 New York Times Article:

"MR. McCAIN'S tax-cut plan is valued at $238 billion over five years and $500 billion over 10 years. Its centerpiece is an expansion of the lowest income tax bracket, 15 percent, to cover higher incomes.

"Under the plan, the ceiling for the 15 percent bracket would rise to $70,000 from $43,050 for married couples filing jointly, and to $35,000 from $25,750 for single taxpayers. The effect would be to give a $3,504 tax cut to a couple with taxable income of $70,000 or more.

"Mr. McCain's plan would also double the child tax credit to $1,000 a year, expand tax incentives for savings and investment, reduce the tax on large estates and reduce the marriage penalty for some people by increasing the standard deduction for couples. Mr. McCain would offset a portion of the tax cuts by closing corporate tax loopholes.

"His pitch is that the plan is modest enough in size that it leaves plenty of money from the surplus tax revenues to deal with other needs. By expanding the 15 percent bracket to cover millions of additional taxpayers, he says, his plan amounts to a start on creating a system of flatter tax rates. And he argues that his plan gives much less of its benefits to the wealthy than Mr. Bush's plan does.

''I want a balanced approach,'' Mr. McCain said in the South Carolina debate. ''The difference between Governor Bush's proposal and mine is that I put a whole lot of money into Social Security, Medicare and paying down the debt. He puts a whole lot of money into tax cuts.''

"An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice found that only 1.8 percent of the benefits of the McCain plan would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. Most of his proposed tax cuts would go to a broadly defined middle class: more than 52 percent to taxpayers making $65,000 to $130,000, and 21 percent to taxpayers making $39,000 to $65,000.

"Mr. McCain's plan, however, would do almost nothing for taxpayers with incomes below $39,000. Mr. Bush asserts that Mr. McCain's plan would leave too much of the surplus in Washington, where, Mr. Bush says, it would inevitably be spent not on Social Security but instead on bigger government and wasteful programs. And Mr. Bush regularly criticizes Mr. McCain's plan, contending that it would not help the working poor."

What I find really good here is that this problem they found with McCain's plan in 2000 he fixed this time around, by adding to his proposal what Bill Bradley suggested in 2000:

"As a former member of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the fathers of the 1986 overhaul of the tax code, Mr. Bradley arguably has more experience with tax policy than any of the other candidates...

"....The only specific tax cuts he backs are tax breaks on health insurance payments, an expansion of the earned-income tax credit for the working poor and an expansion of the child care credit in a way that would help low-income people."

Senator McCain also incorporated an issue from Al Gore regarding Research and Development:

"Mr. Gore has proposed allocating $250 billion to $300 billion to tax cuts over the next decade for specific goals. In particular, he supports expanded tax incentives for education and retirement savings....a permanent extension of the tax credit for corporate research and development."

The entire article is located here:  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E7DC1F30F934A15751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1


Additionally John McCain promises a ban on Internet taxes and Cell phone taxes, from his website:

"Ban Internet Taxes: John McCain believes we must make a farsighted, robust, and fervent commitment to innovation and new technologies to sustain our global competitiveness, meet our national security challenges, achieve less costly and more effective health care, reduce dangerous dependence on foreign sources of oil, and raise the quality of education in the United States. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity.

Ban New Cell Phone Taxes: John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message - and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes."

The main thing missing right now is the raising of the income the lowest tax bracket, and I believe that's probably a good thing since, we have quite a bit of government debt to afford right now.

The point of this is to show that John McCain learns from his past, he does pay attention to the American People, that with all this talk of corporate lobbyists, there remains this man who only had a corporate tax benefits even 8 years ago of 1.9% to corporations.  Admittedly 8 years ago our corporate tax rates were competitive, they no longer are.  Look at how aggressively McCain's 2000 tax plan pursued getting the lower tax rate into the lower and upper middle-class incomes (70,000 a year) in 2000.  I am certain that once our economy recovers John McCain will pursue raising the income level that the 15% tax covers, to "start on creating a system of flatter tax rates."

And McCain will do this without creating the corporate tax shelters that Obama does:

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk Obama says this at almost the end of the conversation.)

McCain is keeping the 15% capital gains tax in place, while phasing out the alternative minimum tax.

So the question boils down to:  Is 500 or 1000 dollar checks (essentially an economic stimulus) the answer to our economy, or, providing a framework of growth by generating wealth for decades into the future?  The answer to this is clear to me, John McCain.


Thank you for reading.

Obama has earned America's distrust.  It's the tail end of Obama's pitch to Joe the Plumber.  Obama walks right up to Joe to get his question.  Then Obama puts forth a number of his beliefs and expresses his logic to conclude a tax increase of 3% on "those making over $250,000" is necessary to give a tax break for those making less, asserting it's the government's role, the government's job to assure our incomes meet our personal needs -- that government's control of our personal input will improve our personal output.

The following transcript of what Obama said during the entire interview with Joe Wurzelbacher,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk. I wanted to keep the entire train of thought together so I omitted what Joe said, however I referenced it for context in brackets where the context would be lost, so without further delay I give you by transcript, what Senator Barack Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" when he believed there were no open mics:

"If your revenue is above 250, then from 250 down your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that, say for 250 up, say from 250-300 or so....you'd go from 36 to 39% which is what it was under Bill Clinton.

"So the uh....and the reason we're doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250, and so what I want to do is give them a tax cut I wanna give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I wanna give them a tax cut and so what we are doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250, that that marginal amount above 250 that they are going to be taxed at a 39% instead of a 36% percent rate.

"Here's a way of thinking about it, um....How long you been a plumber?...Okay so over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current Tax Code.

"So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful....through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much, which I understand. But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks, who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they're bein taxed to the higher rate than they would be under mine.

"So, what I'm doin is...put, project yourself back 10 years ago, when you were only makin...whatever, 60 or 70, under my tax plan you'd be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be having lower taxes, which means, you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are [now] faster.

"Now look, nobody likes high taxes, off course not. So...But what's happened is, we end up, we cut taxes a lot, for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven't given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last 8 years. So all I want to do is, I want to....I've got a net tax cut. The only thing that changes this, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and with the 5% of the folks who've been doing very well, even though they've been working hard, and I understand and I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts.

"Now....I respect the disagreement, I just want you to be clear it's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody, who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too.

"I'd be open to it [a flat tax] except for, here's the problem with the flat tax, the uh...is that actually if you put a flat tax together, you probably, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that's the value added, making it up [making up for the lost revenue]. Now some people say 23 or 25 but in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it.

"So....I do believe that, for folks like me, who are, you know, have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's things were slow and, she can barely make the rent, you know, because.

"My attitude is if the economy's good for the folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so that business is bad for everybody and I think, when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody. But I, listen I respect what you do and I respect your question and even if I don't get your vote, I'm still going to be working hard on your behalf cause I want to make sure...Small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it.

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it."

Obama utterly reverses himself in this last paragraph with Joe the Plumber.  Is rich $250,000?  I mean, Obama himself doesn't seem to think so.  It is Obama who uses this amount as his example in making a specific mention of this "elimination of capital gains" to Joe, numbers relative to Joe's situation, Joe's business and Joe's hard work -- remember $250,000 is the line for "rich" when Obama is imposing his 3% tax increase.  Yet Obama has said small business will get a "tax cut" under his plan.  Well with this last paragraph, that certainly is a tax cut and on those making over $250,000, "the rich."  Now using the same figures as Obama did, the tax increase Obama proposes is $7,500 on income taxes while the capital gain tax amount would be around $37,500 of capital gains taxes -- a net loss of $30,000 to the government!

Of course this means government will come up with a large shortfall, and, the solutions will range from lowering the definition of "rich" below $250,000 to increasing the tax upon them to 5% or 10% or more, they become our source of income over time, maybe even entirely.  The government would become beholden to these wealthy, to their influence and job creation, as the source literally "over and above" the American People.  The free enterprise system and Our Will, the will of the many, would lose its authority to the will of the majority of wealth -- the top 5%.

In other words, the great "change" that is about to happen, if we take Obama's word for it, is to make the people, the poor and middle class, of this nation pay the taxes while providing the upper .1% of this nation with the largest tax cut in the history of the United States of America because of the amount of wealth they already hold.  This explains very well the list of those supporting Obama: George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, the majority of Exxon Mobile executives, and a host of others including Wall Street Banks.

These elite of wealth and power are finally going to have a President who recognizes their right to control to achieve a complete enslavement of the American people.  They will be justified if we vest this right in these elite by voting for their candidate, to be subjected to their influence on him, their will.  This is, by Barack Obama's own words, the future if Obama becomes President of the United States of America, according to this capital gains tax cut to those making over $250,000 as Obama notes to Joe above.  Please understand that those making well more than $250,000 will be able to eliminate 150 million dollars of tax on every billion they make merely by creating small businesses as tax shelters.   This capital gains tax cut creates a Ponzi Scheme for the rich, growing numerous entities, to split them again and keep them small businesses.  Mass accumulations of wealth without any responsibility to pay anymore than the tax code provides, which will be less than these billionaires would pay on their consolidated wealth.

It will look good folks, very good, but this will be short lived because the government shortfall will be so great that the threshold of the increase in income taxes will need to be lowered, lowered to include everyone who doesn't have any capital gains.  The 1986 Tax Reform Act is what brought an end to income tax shelters for the wealthy.  Are we now going to bring them back and give the wealthy elite even more places to hide their money?

This is what one must believe in light of Obama saying what he did to Joe and believing there were no open mics at the time. I have no reason not to believe Obama either considering the 600+ million dollars Obama has raised for his campaign -- Obama is just another bought and sold politician, his price was just 6 times higher than anyone else, and the above paragraph reflects his promise to the wealthy.

For weeks now I've been posting this with a variety of notions it brings up, the reason is simple:  If you read the entire transcript, or listen to it, and noticed the last thing Obama said to Joe, you can't help but walk away wondering which part is the lie.  However now I realize it's all true and this is an even greater threat to America than European socialism.  This here is the creation of a communist politburo.  We the people to be reliant on those whose wealth is so great that their desire to lead cannot be denied, they just needed a candidate willing to sell out on principle, sell out on America.  Senator Obama's election to identify with his African roots, to read angry black authors and associate with people who wish to see America and/or it's systems, especially capitalism destroyed, is that candidate.

I am convinced Obama is going to do both because his esteemed backers need recognition, and We the People whose will has defeated them time and time again must be put in our place -- what better way to do that than if we elect to be slaves?

Do the math...

Is Obama going to tax the rich or is Obama going to give the rich a break, or both and enslave 95% of Americans?

What's the truth?

The following transcript of what Obama said during the entire interview with Joe Wurzelbacher,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ilwk_wmsQk. I wanted to keep the entire train of thought together so I omitted what Joe said, however I referenced it for context in brackets where the context would be lost, so without further delay I give you by transcript, what Senator Barack Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" when he believed there were no open mics:

"If your revenue is above 250, then from 250 down your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that, say for 250 up, say from 250-300 or so....you'd go from 36 to 39% which is what it was under Bill Clinton.

"So the uh....and the reason we're doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250, and so what I want to do is give them a tax cut I wanna give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I wanna give them a tax cut and so what we are doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250, that that marginal amount above 250 that they are going to be taxed at a 39% instead of a 36% percent rate.

"Here's a way of thinking about it, um....How long you been a plumber?...Okay so over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current Tax Code.

"So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful....through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much, which I understand. But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks, who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they're bein taxed to the higher rate than they would be under mine.

"So, what I'm doin is...put, project yourself back 10 years ago, when you were only makin...whatever, 60 or 70, under my tax plan you'd be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be having lower taxes, which means, you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are [now] faster.

"Now look, nobody likes high taxes, off course not. So...But what's happened is, we end up, we cut taxes a lot, for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven't given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last 8 years. So all I want to do is, I want to....I've got a net tax cut. The only thing that changes this, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and with the 5% of the folks who've been doing very well, even though they've been working hard, and I understand and I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts.

"Now....I respect the disagreement, I just want you to be clear it's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody, who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too.

"I'd be open to it [a flat tax] except for, here's the problem with the flat tax, the uh...is that actually if you put a flat tax together, you probably, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that's the value added, making it up [making up for the lost revenue]. Now some people say 23 or 25 but in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it.

"So....I do believe that, for folks like me, who are, you know, have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's things were slow and, she can barely make the rent, you know, because.

"My attitude is if the economy's good for the folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so that business is bad for everybody and I think, when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody. But I, listen I respect what you do and I respect your question and even if I don't get your vote, I'm still going to be working hard on your behalf cause I want to make sure...Small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it.

"One other thing I didn't mention, for small business people, I'm going to eliminate the capital gains taxes. So what it means is if your business succeeds, and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains you get, we're not going to tax you on it, because I want you to grow more. So you're actually gonna get some...you may end up, I'd have to look at your particular business, but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that because I'd have to take a look a it. Alright? Thanks for your...thanks for the question though, I appreciate it."

Do the math...

Is he going to tax the rich or is he going to give the rich a break?

What's the truth?

You read that right.

Sean Hannity just offered to give Obama's half brother in the outskirts of Nairobi $10,000 if Barack Obama will agree to be interviewed by Sean Hannity.

Of course his long standing offer to send $1,000 if the Obama Campaign will send Hannity his address still stands.

I posted this because I believe there are people coming to TownHall who might be able to make something like this happen.  Obama's half brother lives on very little and Hannity has been offering for months, in the interest of helping Obama's half brother out to send $1,000 for the address.  Tonight was the first time I heard him offer $10,000 if Obama will be interviewed by Sean.

If you are a democrat and could make that happen please contact Sean Hannity so he can help out Obama's half brother, who Obama appears to have not helped at all.

The following was taken by compiling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34yRmKPnDQ&feature=related, each of which edited what was subject to consideration, yet together I found them to reasonably complete Obama's statements for the area of the conversation, around 40 minutes into the interview.  There were 3 guests and a moderator, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was one on of them.  I almost entire solely quote Obama here:

"The court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.  And to that extent, as radical I think that people try to characterize the Warren Court...uh, it wasn't that radical.  It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted it 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 state or federal government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

"And one of the, I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused.  I think 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."


Now a caller asks if it's too late to use the court for "reparative economic work to take place...or would it be legislation at this point?"

"You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I'm not optimistic about bringing about...uh, major...uh, redistributive uh...uh..chang...uh through the courts...um...Yea the institution just isn't structured that way...um, you just look at very rare examples where in, during desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order...uh...uh...you know changes that cost money to a local school district, and the court was very uncomfortable with it, it was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out.  You start getting into all sorts of separations of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time, um, the courts just not very good at it, and politically it's just, it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.  So I mean, I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think you can...Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.  I think just as a practical matter our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it."


The commentator at the radio station found that many times the court is "ratifying the status quo," and in effect, she explains "....the court makes redistributive decisions, or distributive decisions all the time," to which Obama replies with an affirmative "right."  She continues with an example, "The court considers whether it's okay to take the program, um, the federal medicare program that provides compen...you know that recompenses people by insurance for every medical procedure they can have except abortion, and it [the Supreme Court] upholds that and say 'we can except abortion from that.'  Well that's a decision about what kinds of subsidies we are willing to uphold and what we're not."

Obama replies:

"Although typically, I mean the court can certainly be more or less generous in terms of interpreting actions and initiative that are taken by the legislature, but in the example, for example funding of abortions or medicare medicaid the court is not initiating those funding strings.  Essentially the court is saying is at some point okay this is a legitimate prohibition ,or this is not.  And I think those are very important battles that have to be fought, and they do have a distributive aspect to them."


In my view Obama completely reversed himself from his previous statements about the court venturing into redistribution of wealth, yet, that was a rebuttal in reply to an argument that the court had done so as posed by another guest.

Further, in light of Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, the 10th Amendment, and the 13th Amendment it seems to me that Obama had hoped the court or some redistribution plan would reinstate slavery but against the slave masters, as though that would be the only way to make the slaves whole.  Essentially he'd hoped the court would violate Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 by imposing a direct tax, by using powers not granted to the United States Government and reserved to the States or the People under the 10th Amendment, and by doing both of these things, have committed the most radical of moves in reinstating slavery but with the Government as the master, this of course would overturn the 13th Amendment.

Obama doesn't seem to understand that this would not help anyone to maintain a system that has proven morally wrong on all levels, even as revenge.  The only way to get rid of this mentality and the racism from it is for no one to perpetrate it and eventually it's not even a consideration of how we'd treat another human being.  But this approach seems lost on Senator Obama.

However, please understand that the 2001 radio interview segment here shows more than anything else the contradictory ability of Barrack Obama, for he contradicts his earlier statement about the courts, while, at the same time, he reaffirms what he said before but on a different scale, using an altered context.  I've found this the great frustration with Senator Obama because it's similar to discussing with a conman when you will get your money back.  No straight answers, and often they ask you to send them more, hoping that after they do this to you multiple times you'll figure out you're being had and there is no way you are getting a penny back.

Hope this helped out anyone that could use it.

Thanks for reading.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

"No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration here before directed to be taken."

However, Obama wants to imagine powers vested in the federal government by his interpretation of the Constitution, remember that's not the job of the President, but of the Judicial Branch:

"[T]he Warren Court interpreted .... 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 state or federal government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."

In fairness, the Illinois Senator's comments on WBEZ were a rebuttal to another of 2 other guests being interviewed at the time, and in particular the notion that the U.S. Supreme Court had ever attempted to be involved in wealth redistribution.  The other guest suggested , in summary, that the Supreme Court had attempted redistribution regarding the agency providing hearings before denying welfare, but due to money allocated for that purpose versus the actual benefits to people, the Supreme Court reversed themselves 5 years later.

However this is meaningless since the Constitution addresses these imagined powers in government which Obama questions the court for not having used.  I cite Article 10 of the Constitution of the United States of America:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is on top of prohibitions against slavery under the 13th Amendment, which government taking from one person or class by using government's unbridled taxing authority, to then merely distribute directly to another class, is "absolute power over life, fortune or liberty of another," the definition of slavery. 

This is particularly true in light of the 10th Amendment and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, the latter makes a direct tax illegal period, the former directs that any other power and/or purpose to tax is not vested in the United States Government.  Please understand that taxation must inure a benefit to the payor or it is outright theft. 

Note that Senator Obama wanted to make sure we are viewed as investors in Wall Street, in regard to the 700 billion dollar bailout, while, however, when it comes to his "Spread The Wealth" program, the wealthy are not to be deemed investors in those less fortunate.  Instead the wealthy are source targets who pay and receive no benefit whatsoever.  This to me is a very distinct difference between John McCain and Barack Obama in regard to their actual regard for the American People.  We all seek success and this type of program, though it appeals to the younger generation who rebel against authority, like Bill Ayers did in his youth, is a disincentive to the pursuit of success.

Over time the "Spread The Wealth" program is a cruelty upon those less fortunate.  Obama's tax program enslaves those dependent on government programs already, while, by providing no benefit to those paying the amount, he is enslaving them as well.

"Spread The Wealth" is a travesty against civil rights progress in America that sets us back 145 years.

All emphasis, typos, and grammatical errors above mine.

Thank you for reading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU&feature=related


ACORN's reward is pretty clear now isn't it. The 20 billion from the $700 Billion Bailout doesn't matter for sure. Obama wins, they'll get everything they've been after.

I mean here is a guy, Obama, that spends 2 years making campaign promises that everyone believes, political rhetoric that no politician follows through with.

But the fact that over the course of 20 years Obama was surrounded by, acted, and had at least a three year friendship with a thief, terrorists, Black Liberation Theologists, Muslim leader, or was studying angry black poetry, people do not think this is an indication at all of who he really is or what he really believes in, stands for. As much as people like to pretend there is deep racism, there is a deeper reverse racism of extreme import in believing this man who has said virtually the same thing for 2 years to us in running for President, and yet those same people will not assess, let alone believe, his actions of 20 years, tantamount to the proverbial stink that attracts the low life flies.

Even here, seeing the video above where Obama invites the Community Organizers, the ACORN portion of which are being investigated in 11 states, to help him make policy "before my inauguration," while we also know about the 20 billion dollars for ACORN in the first version of the $700 billion dollar bailout, those who are following Obama's illustrious psych, the will of The Obama, will not shake the spell.


Thank you for reading.

The trick to redistribution and socialism is, in simple terms:

socialism = controlling the means of production, right?

When person A, who produces nothing, asks the government to get what person A needs to survive from person B, who produces more than enough for themselves (because they like it that way, which would seem to be up to them since it's their work and negotiating effort that resulted in lucrative activity) then government is controlling both person A's means of production and person B's reliance on receiving what they negotiated to receive for work performed, or their productive generation of the means of production for person A, the government, and themselves -- everyone's means of production reliant on person B alone. Government controlling person B by taking anything away from them for any reason is exercising control on the means of production overall.

Thus redistribution is socialism.

Understand by the rolls of people who have been on welfare, food stamps, or other social aid most of their lives, sometimes some 30 and 40 years or more (though occasionally taking a job so as to at least appear they are trying to be on their own), there is a pattern and appearance of just being in the character of person A above, always ready to claim entitlement from others.

Often this is due to antecedent resentments that politically are exploited every 4 years, generally by liberal democrats playing on the person A people who resent those who have more than they do.

This occurs even if liberal programs such as Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the financial meltdown, their quasi government status used to strong arm banks, these institutions assured encouragement of banks to loan to those who cannot pay back due to the potential of lawsuits filed by lawyers such as Barack Obama who was chosen by ACORN to be their lawyer just for such lawsuits, lawsuits alleging discrimination on the basis of the bank wanting to not loan to people who cannot pay the loan back. Let us not forget Fannie and Freddie used our money, some 180 million dollars, to lobby for political favor, which essentially resulted in Barack Obama getting an 80% pay raise as a U.S. Senator from Fannie and Freddie alone.

In other words, the success of banks, in the role of person B above, is subjected to the whim of person A via lawsuit, resulting in a financial catastrophe that negatively effected person B further, government has no idea how or what to do to fix it, and, by the election polling data in this election, it appears will only result in person A being able to demand more from anyone who pursues to be the productive person B.

The "socialism" in another way here is the conditioning over time of no one wanting to be person B and everyone wanting to be person A because there is little value in being the producer without having a say over what happens to what you produced, be it the product or the wealth you hoped it would provide, for yourself to determine the distribution of. This conditioning of course, in the future, passes all power to the government to determine who of those not producing can be taken from, for other reasons than production, in order to give to the new person A people so as not to discourage them from pursuing being non-productive whim demanding whiners. Eventually the government has only to determine minor differences amongst large groups of person A people, who, now reliant on government, are docile and haven't any fight left in them. The government becomes the "bank" for everything their complete control created by the premise that person A, who, like a spoiled brat, doesn't want to produce, but is erroneously deemed to be of authority to use government to demand from person B. -- Government the arbiter, and dictator, of criterial determinations, or as known in the former Soviet Union: The Politburo.

Thanks for reading.