Obama audio: government redistribution of wealth

Oct 26, 2008 21:51

Here's a 2001 radio interview of Obama as he holds forth on how the government can best redistribute wealth.

He laments that the civil rights movement "didn't break free of the constraints of the Founding Fathers"

Someone needs to transcribe this audio. h/t FR.

image Click to view



Leave a comment

Comments 26

(The comment has been removed)

indalay October 27 2008, 02:52:18 UTC
You've given people other people's money once

And then the need will be justified to give it to them twice, and 3x, etc etc. And then there will be new people with need, joining up with the previous first batch of "have-nots". And more and more and more, as many of those who work hard see the futility and just join in with the others. And some will have to, because jobs will be lost.

There won't be enough jobs because the climate for business will be cold and harsh.

It seems to me that a point is reached where the government won't be able to find enough people or businesses left to tax to support itself and all the people who now expect to be supported by the government.

Disaster.

But certainly someone in charge will see this trend and stop it before we go into the crapper?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

indalay October 27 2008, 03:20:44 UTC
Yeah.

Reply


paul1149 October 27 2008, 02:36:39 UTC
I think below is more from the same interview, from the Chicago NPR source. Listening now. h/t FR again.

http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=372

Reply

paul1149 October 27 2008, 02:43:37 UTC
This is a different interview, of Obama and someone else. Obama is smooth. I can see his appeal.

Reply


eastertheatre October 27 2008, 02:59:41 UTC
This really upsets me. I had a poli sci prof who was always down our throats about putting "positive" rights into the Constitution, guiding rights to make us good citizens who watch out for each other, because the state should be like a kindly parent. Arrrghhh! I don't want to be freaked out about what's coming, but I am starting to be. I don't want this.

Reply

warrioreowyn October 27 2008, 04:51:06 UTC
Well, Obama was basically saying that that shouldn't be done, and one of the things he's been critical of the Democratic Party about is that they looked to the courts to hold back the Republican ideology when they couldn't win elections. His position was, "well, we can't just complain that the Republicans are appointing judges who will advance there agenda; if we want to stop that ultimately we're going to actually have to win elections and provide a platform that people support."

Reply

eastertheatre October 27 2008, 07:22:58 UTC
I get what you're saying, but it's disturbing that he thinks wealth redistribution is such a primary value. He's putting it in the context of changing the fundamental role of the government as set down in the Constitution (not advancing the Republican agenda, but reading the Constitution as written), even though he's not talking directly about changing the Constitution itself, just doing it by other means. Those other means I think are not about winning elections per se, but about creating powerful pressure groups.

Reply

paul1149 October 27 2008, 11:38:46 UTC
I think he's saying that the courts shouldn't be the redistributors, and he's right about that. But there's no question that he wants the government to do that job. Listen to the second interview I posted here for further confirmation. Change is indeed coming if Obama gets in.

Reply


indalay October 27 2008, 03:29:53 UTC
Not for nothing, but listening to this again, he is really only speaking of economic redistribution for those affected by what the civil rights movement sought to abolish, i.e. racism...

How is this whole thing gonna work?

Reply


warrioreowyn October 27 2008, 04:56:02 UTC
Essentially, what he's doing is critiquing the civil rights movement for focusing too much on the courts: you can have to courts require that the government allow people equal rights, which was a big part of the civil rights movement, but you can't move on from there and pursue economic equality through the courts. If you want to be able to fight poverty, you need to do it through civic action and through legislation.

I understand that Republican wouldn't like this, as a fundamental assumption of the party and the conservative movement is that the poor (particularly the black poor) are poor due to laziness and irresponsibility, and therefore the government has no role in increasing opportunity: black people just have to start acting right. That's not actually how things work, and that attitude is the reason why generally 90+% of black people vote Democratic - why vote for a party that so openly despises you?

Reply

eastertheatre October 27 2008, 07:25:29 UTC
I would think that someone who believes I am such a victim that I can only survive on welfare and other government assistance openly despises me, while someone who believes I am strong enough to make it like anyone else, even if I might have it harder than some other people, actually respects me and believes me capable of great things.

Reply

indalay October 27 2008, 10:33:22 UTC
Exactly.

Reply

sunshine1139 October 27 2008, 19:21:25 UTC
Ditto.
People that are giving handouts are telling the people that receive them that they are helpless without the government, and that they cannot do it themselves.
I can definitely see where someone telling them that they can make better lives for themselves would definitely hate them. Geez.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up