Obama's Radio Interview [thread split]

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DakotaGuy, Oct 27, 2008.

  1. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #1
    I would say that at this point the worst possible argument against Obama would be this radio interview he did in 2001.

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

    It has 1.6 million views at this time so it is making it around. Now it all depends on your definition of "redistribution" and what you think he means by that. It isn't some conspiracy theory or something that is made up because it is in his own words. I would say this would gain more traction then anything else because nothing else can be proven yet.

    As far as Obama being born in Hawaii I guess we just have to assume that it is the truth unless one of the court cases is successful and makes him release the original certificate.

    I do get the feeling around here though that you have to be 100% behind Obama otherwise you are bashed pretty hard. I am a moderate Democrat that is leaning toward Obama, but I don't exactly know what I will do when I get into that voting booth. I know what we will get with McCain and it isn't going to be anything wonderful, but I have a good idea what his Presidency would look like. With Obama I'm not really sure. He could be great and he could be the biggest flop since GW. The great dilemma for me is that I cannot stand Palin and I don't agree with her right wing politics. I'm just not comfortable with her as "2"
     
  2. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2

    Not at all. However, what you have to do is to be prepared to argue your case, come armed with as many facts as possible and avoid insulting people.

    As for the above clip, here's Marc Ambinder's take:

    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/obama_has_been_talking_about.php
     
  3. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #3
    I've moved this discussion from a closed thread because it's more timely than rehashing old ground.
     
  4. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #4
    It's his own words, but the subtitles give inaccurate descriptions of what he said, and at times, of the questions, especially the part about the courts, which was just a law professor answering questions.

    Re. the legislative part: people hear "redistribution of wealth" and they picture paying taxes, the government gathering it, and checks sent out. As Powell and numerous others have pointed out, ALL tax and economic policy is "redistribution of wealth," it's just a question of where and how and to whom.

    McCain likes to talk about Hoover raising the income tax. The inequality of wealth and the incredibly low highest rate are cited by many economists as major contributors to the Great Depression. We're back to those levels. Once again, I'll give these statistics: over the past 23 years, the top 1% has increased its income by $600 billion. The bottom 80% has decreased its income by $600 billion. The other 19%, has stayed the same. That's a MASSIVE redistribution of wealth, courtesy of Reagan and the 2 Bushes most of all. I don't understand how anyone can think that 1% of the population having nearly a quarter of all the income in the country is a good thing. (and the inequalities of wealth are even more dramatic)

    To me, the interview shows that in 2001, Obama was aware of these major trends. He hasn't just decided this year to learn about the economy, like McCain.
     
  5. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #5
    That's what's so sad about this election. So many Americans have been brainwashed about any kind of redistribution that the mere use of the word, no matter the context turns people into raging bulls.

    It's amazing that so many people are unwilling to see that Obama's point is, "Don't take it to the courts, let's see if we can work it out together, locally".

    The 1.6 million people who viewed that video are probably the same ones who scream bloody murder at activist judges and community activists.

    Sigh...
     
  6. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #6
    That 1.6 million views doesn't really mean anything. I've watched it and I'm as liberal as one can get and it hasn't swayed my views one bit.

    So how many other people like me have watched it ?

    A lot I'm guessing.
     
  7. DakotaGuy thread starter macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #7
    I think you make a good argument. I would agree with the statistics that income has been redistributed from the lower and middle class to the wealthy. Of course I blame some of that on our economy changing from a manufacturing economy to a service based economy. I think the only issue that some people like myself have is does "redistribution" mean more welfare? Also, how far do you use taxes to "redistribute" until everyone is on the same level? I believe in Capitalism and I think it drives people to do the best they can do, however there also needs to be some fairness in the whole process. It really is a thin line between "redistribution" of wealth and socialism.

    Many that have watched it will not be swayed at all. The only people that might use his comments as part of their decision making process is the Moderate Democrats and the Independents.
     
  8. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #8
    well if you listen to the interview without watching the orwellian visual messages you get a much clearer picture of what obama's speaking about:

    the civil rights movement and the pro's/con's of bringing about change (specifically, the redistribution of political and economic justice) thru either the courts or legislation.

    it does involve the redistribution of wealth( they speak specifically of schools) because this was the era of 'separate but equal'...which was a thinly veiled form of segregation leading to opportunity inequality.

    this video is just more tripe from the frenzied masses spoon-fed by mccain's campaign of fear and division.
     
  9. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #9
    You raise taxes on the super rich, who have profited over the past 25 years, and surely won't be "punished" by paying a little more, you keep them the same for those that have stayed the same over the past 25 years. You lower them on those that have suffered over the past 25 years. That's basically what Obama's plan is. Simple as that. I think he should raise them much more on the super-rich, but that's me.

    You can see the change from Reagan to now. Forget the top 1%. Just look at the top .01%. http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/07/13/income-gap-and-marginal-tax-rate-1917-2006/ It's not just changing industries. The top marginal rate in 1928 was low -- I think 20% (I can find the link) -- it went up later as high as 90%, and was in the 70's or so during the post-WWII growth period. Inequality of wealth causes problems for the economy, it lowers the health of the citizens -- not just for low-income people, but when there's inequality, the upper middle class tends to be less healthy as well. Defense spending no longer stimulates the economy like it once did, because so much of it is to private contractors who hire overseas workers.

    There are many investments that government makes other than welfare. They can make investments that prevent welfare and are good for the country as a whole. Education, health care, alternative energy. Those are the main things Obama is talking about. There isn't equal education, so some people are more likely to need welfare or help because of the neighborhood they were born in. Alternative energy -- Obama is talking about $15 billion a year for 10 years, and that would create 5 million jobs (mostly in the private sector). That's not too much, that's too little, in my opinion. Government research and incentives would be much more effective than business on its own -- industry has failed miserably.
     
  10. gregdrummeraz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    Glendale, az
    #10
    If he decides to make this whole socialist thing happen... Then the WORLD economy is SCREWED!

    Once he announces that... a trillion will be ripped out of the stock market. Many companies will go under... Everyone who has been greedy, will stay greedy.

    You know this guy wants to take EVERYONES hard worked for 401ks and put them all in one big pot. Then, every year you get 25k(retired folk).

    Think if you have 25 million in your 401k, or a larger sum that would pay you a lot more then 25k a year... How would that make you feel?

    I don't care if you don't vote McCain, just don't vote Obama...


    Mr. Obama

    Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko, Kim Jong Il, Karl Marx, & Fidel Castro, welcome you proletarian comrade Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama to the Party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  11. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #11
    And this is based on his proposal of raising the top income rate from 35% to 39%, and the capital gains rate for some, up to 23-28%? That's some interesting reading comprehension you have there.
     
  12. gregdrummeraz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    Glendale, az
    #12
    When companies taxes go up... they have less to pay there employees...


    We are looking to grow our economy, not crash it!
     
  13. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #13
    You guys in Arizona sure like your talking points!

    Have lower corporate rates resulted in higher employment, and higher wages? No. Wages have gone down, unemployment up in the past eight years.
     
  14. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #14
    That is in fact, impossible.

    The legal maximum for 401k contributions is $20,500 for people over the age of 50 and $15,500 for all others. Even if by some miracle your employer matched you dime for dime (never happens btw), your maximum contributions are $41,000 and $31,000.

    Even if you enjoy high rates of return (say 10% on average after losses), you will hit a maximum of about $20 million after 40 years of continuous contributions.

    Let real life interject, and you'll see that market gains tend to average about 7% for aggressive investors after losses, and that contributions for even high earners will tend to max out around $25,000, and you're looking at a realistic maximum of about $6.6 million, which after 40 years of inflation is truly only equal to about $2.8 million modern dollars.

    But then the math isn't really important is it?
    Since that's not actually going to happen, I'm feeling quite good, thanks.
     
  15. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #15
    Using that logic why not just remove all corporate taxes?

    I'm quit sure you will get a really big raise if they did that huh ?
     
  16. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #16
    What do you mean by welfare? We've had 20 plus years of corporate welfare that has led us to where we are today.

    Do you think everyone in Sweden, Denmark, Finland or even Cuba is on the same level? If so, you're sorely mistaken. Europe has learned that they can't control every aspect of society and that demonizing those with entrepreneurial talents is counterproductive.

    Stockholm has plenty of Mercedes.

    One of the reasons that Daimler will survive this downturn just fine (outside of the fact that they dumped Chrysler just in time) is the fact that they don't have the enormous health care expenses that US automakers do. Isn't one of the tenets of globalism to be competitive? We spend 15% of GNP on health care, but only ~60% of Americans are insured. Germany spends ~10-12% on health care and most everyone is covered.

    How many more Americans would be driving a Mercedes right now if it weren't for the fact that they're spending so much out of pocket for healthcare?

    Is it socialism if everyone has to pay in? We don't think so when it comes to car insurance. Not even when it comes to homeowner's insurance. Why is it such a huge problem when it comes to health insurance?
     
  17. gregdrummeraz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    Glendale, az
    #17
    Quit being so arrogant about all of this... Sarcasm should be left at the door.
     
  18. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #18
    When you make a realistic argument that is based on facts and logical craftsmanship, other posters won't feel the need to make sarcastic jabs.

    In point of fact, you still haven't answered Peace's question. If corporate tax rates are indicative of job creation, shouldn't a tax rate of 0 be levied on all corporate entities to promote maximum possible job growth?
     
  19. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #19
    Hey, that's a great idea. Why are we taxing corporations anyway? What is the logic in that? Not taxing them would stimulate more business enterprise, which would be a good thing.
     
  20. gregdrummeraz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    Glendale, az
    #20
    Well, when I get hundreds of other users behind me like a training bra like you have... We'll see how it goes.

    You have a safety net of people knowing things. I don't, I search things. sometimes not crazy thoroughly though. Most things I say are real, its just not complete. You need to take a break and realize that.. there are sooo many opposing minds to how I feel, that you(democrats) decide to beat me down like I am wrong.

    I want you guys to look it up.. I have looked up what you guys say. Not everything completely right.

    Don't even tell me to lay out a list, you know it isn't gong to happen.

    Start putting your self in my shoes and see how I get POUNDED by the LAKE of democrats compared to the POND(more like puddle.) of republicans.

    read past how I get treated and see how overwhelming it is!
     
  21. gregdrummeraz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    Glendale, az
    #21
    The way the the government runs is off of taxes... Though thanks for being on my side haha. :eek:
     
  22. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #22
    Because corporations don't care about one particular tax, but rather their net cost of labor per hour.

    That's one of the reasons why the US is losing the current race in globalization. Our high healthcare costs, and ironically, lower regulatory requirements, make doing business harder at times here rather than easier.

    Many industries (outside of finance it seems :rolleyes:) prefer to have government regulation be clear and consistent as opposed to the constantly changing regulatory scheme (however weak it is) of the US. So, even though US regulations are generally less stringent, their greater inconsistency and uneven enforcement make it harder to comply. Compare that to other countries' regulatory schemes, and one sees that it's easier to know what the government wants and simply do it.

    As for taxation in particular, it is only one piece of the puzzle. Generally a company won't mind a tax rate of a certain percent if in return they are getting lower labor costs (ie the government provides healthcare and retirement benefits), easier to follow regulatory schemes, and other factors that can affect the quality of production (are the workers educated enough to do the job, etc).
    I don't need anyone else to make my case for me (and in fact, I disagree with some of the other posters in certain regards).

    If you have a good case to make, it will stand on its own merit no matter how many people are "behind me like a training bra."
    No, I have a safety net of knowing things myself and the wisdom to know that if I don't know something, I can always look it up and then enter the fray. If you don't know so much about a subject like taxation, then you should learn more about it and then enter the thread.
    Yes, it shows in the quality of your posts. ;)
    You mean how someone can have $25 million in their 401k?

    Or how Obama is a muslim despite being a Christian?

    Or how Obama is a socialist despite the fact that progressive taxation is not socialism?

    Have I missed any?
    I'm not beating you down at all; I'm merely shredding your poor argument to bits. Like I said before, if you have a good argument to make, it will stand on its own regardless of how many people are behind you.
    You want us to look up what exactly?
     
  23. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #23
    But what are we supposed to look up? In the course of an hour, you posted:

    -that Obama admits to being a socialist, and your evidence was a link to a debate where he talked about raising the capital gains tax to 20-28%. I don't need to look up the meaning of socialism, I know that's not socialism. I also know that the capital gains tax has been at that level or higher during George HW Bush's presidency, Reagan's presidency, and others that I assume you wouldn't call socialist;
    -- Obama's plan calls for everyone pooling their 401(k)'s and getting back $25k per year upon retirement. Completely made up -- where are we supposed to look up fabrications?;
    -- Taxes on businesses means we won't grow jobs. Where's your support for that statement? If true, why should we support a party that suggests making taxes on businesses that operate outside the US lower than ones that operate here? How do you explain the lower job and wage growth over the past eight years compared to the previous eight?
    -- The stock market will lose a trillion dollars if Obama's elected, and something about a worldwide depression or something. What's the basis for saying that? The fact that Obama's plan calls for "raising" taxes for the top 5% to levels that are lower than anytime in the past 75 years, with the exception of five years?
     
  24. gregdrummeraz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    Glendale, az
    #24
    Once again, people have taken parts of what I said and rewrote it to their advantage.

    Congratulations! :rolleyes:
     
  25. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #25
    Relax Greg. Although I disagree with your views I respect your right to express them. Don't let all these Oxford graduates get to you. This is politics after all.;)
     

Share This Page