14 Comments Add your own

• 1. DingDong  |  October 27th, 2008 at 10:53 am

  This is unbelievable, Obama in his own words talking about redistribution of wealth. Not only talking about it but how to do it. If this does not exemplify his position nothing will. To try to say he is not a socialist at heart is crazy.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

• 2. Peter Gunn  |  October 27th, 2008 at 11:22 am

  Redistribution of Wealth ?

  Why is it that Republicans are so intellectually dishonest on the question
  of wealth redistribution ?

  And why is it that when wealth is transferred upwardly as it has been for the
  past eight years that THIS is not Redistribution of Wealth or as they like to call it, Socialism ?

  I don’t expect an honest answer, Just pointing out the obvious.

• 3. echo4charlie  |  October 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am

  It takes the incentive away from the “middle class” to work harder. We could work less, and take handouts from those willing to work hard. That’s what it equates to. And although he may not intend for that to be the case, that is what will happen.

  I’ve spoken to several acquaintances who are small business owners throughout Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Missouri, Nevada and Michigan, and not one is voting for Obama, nor are their small business owner colleagues. That is a lot of small business fighting the Obama vote.

  One (in Minnesota), under Obama’s tax plan, will likely have to cut their work force from 350 to about 200 to make up the difference. Where is that incentive?

• 4. DingDong  |  October 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am

  Your crazy, how is wealth transfered upwardly? The top 10% of people pay 70% of the taxes. How does it get transfered upwardly? Are wealthy people more or less likely to use government services?

• 5. Peter Gunn  |  October 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

  Like I said

  I didn’t expect an honest answer and what I got above is simply more of the same rhetoric

  Honesty, That’s why McCain will LOSE
  this election

• 6. DingDong  |  October 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

  No Peter, you gave no data or examples. You can’t explain your answer. Your the dishonest one. Where is you answer? Why not a flat tax? Government is to provide a service and one of them is not social engineering.

• 7. jon  |  October 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

  DingD…
  You’re making me crazy with your inability to use the proper contraction for you are. The correct spelling is “you’re”.

• 8. DingDong  |  October 27th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

  Sorry Jon: I don’t the luxury to check my grammar. Trying to make a living.

• 9. echo4charlie  |  October 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  Ok, DingDong: YOU’RE right, and I agree with you on this (actually, I agree with you a lot. You’re very informed).

  This is not a good program anywhere but on paper…………

• 10. DingDong  |  October 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

  echo4charlie: I don’t necessarily agree with a flat tax just trying to get an idea of were he is coming from. I think I am actually more for some type of consumption tax.

• 11. DingDong  |  October 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

  Equal treatment?

  http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail;jsessionid=05E049ACA4CC7E9CCED4E623BEDF898C?contentId=7728799&version=7&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1

• 12. echo4charlie  |  October 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  Interesting article that I read, copied, and pasted. True or false, it is food for thought:

  Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
  Saturday, October 25th, 2008

  * Author: Aaron Klein
  * News Date: 10/24/08
  * Source: WND

  JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

  Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.

  The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party’s aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

  Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

  Obama’s campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.

  But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party’s official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.

  The party’s Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: “New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying “these victories prove that small ‘d’ democracy can work.”

  The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.

  New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago’s Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group’s support and “encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

  Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party’s political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a “visible and active relationship” with the party.

  The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

  Following the initial reports of Obama’s purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.

  “[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of ’small d democracy’ mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist,” wrote Davidson.

  But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

  Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ’social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity.”

  The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”

  Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America.” He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.

  According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate’s ties to the group.

  In 1995, the DSA’s New Ground newsletter stated, “In Chicago, the New Party’s biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

  “Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it’s easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party.”

• 13. Billybeermonicagar  |  October 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am

  Pete, I don’t understand how wealth is transfered upward. Wealth is created first, then distributed second. How are your people transfering wealth you claim they don’t have?

• 14. Henry  |  October 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am

  Wouldn’t McCain be for distribution of wealth since he voted against the Bush tax cuts? Just wondering.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed