October 27, 2008

HOPE ON Project, Day 8: Let’s Never Find Out Part 8 — ‘Middle Class’ (includes 2001 ‘Redistributive Change’ Interview Transcript)

Filed under: Business Moves,Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:31 am

HOPEONlogo.jpgNote: This is the eighth of what will be 13 daily posts on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States (while many of the other candidates are not). Previous Posts — Part 1 (Obama “Part of the Problem” on Fan and Fred); Part 2 (“Energy”); Part 3 (“Punished”); Part 4 (“Number One”); Part 5 (“Earmarks”); Part 6 (’The Chicken Button’ and the Chicken Who Pushed It); Part 7 (“Trust” on Bill Ayers).

The daily videos involved are from NeverFindOut.org, a project of Let Freedom Ring (donation link is here).

This post is part of the HOPE ON Project (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now).

Today’s SOB Alliance author is Brian at One Oar in the Water. Update: Additional SOB Alliance posts (surely not all): Return of the Conservatives, Buckeye RINO, NixGuy, Right Runner.


Video (direct YouTube link):


Middle Class

MAN 1: Senator Obama, why are you lying to us?
MAN 2: To help the middle class, you have promised to drastically increase the taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.
WOMAN 1: This makes us think that the middle class will be better off, right?
MAN 1: Now let’s talk about reality.
MAN 3: What does your tax increase really do for America?
MAN 4: History has shown us that when big companies pay more taxes, they cut costs, they cut jobs, and they cut salaries.
WOMAN 2: Cut salaries for who?
MAN 2: The middle class that works for those big companies.
WOMAN 3: Which means that the middle class now has less money, not more.
MAN 5: Which leads us to a few questions:
WOMAN 4: Why are you misleading the middle class into thinking that your tax plan will help us?
MAN 3: How will we feel if you become President and we find out that we’ve been lied to?
MAN 4: And lastly, you’re running for President, not us.
MAN 2: Why do we need to explain this to you?
ANNOUNCER: What happens when we elect a President who lies to the middle class? Please, America, let’s never find out.


Commentary from Brian at One Oar:

In Sept 2004, the Washington Post ran a hit piece stating that the middle class in this country was shrinking. Economist Arnold Kling pointed out that the WAPO was correct, but only telling half of the story. The other half was that those of the lower class (under 15K and 15K to 30K) were moving up to the middle class (30K to 55K), and the former middle class (30K to 55K) moved up to the next position (55K to 75K), however the largest category increase was the “75K and up,” which saw the largest percentage increase, almost 18 percent. That fact is folks the poor are moving up the ladder, as well as the middle class, despite what the MSM tells the public; despite what Barrack Obama tells us too.

Barrack Obama claims to be the champion of the downtrodden and the middle class. He claims that the American people are falling behind as the rich get richer. The rich might be getting richer, but so too is every other category in this country. Yet if elected Obama would raise taxes on the very people that have recently made it to the next rung, the new middle class. Not only would he impoverish the middle class, but he would extinguish any hope the poor have to reach the next rung.

This is nothing new the world over; those that claim to bring prosperity through government only bring despair. Obama will bring change, but that change will surely mean despair. Can we afford to vote for someone that will bring despair?

Obama, real change…real misery…real despair.


Additional BizzyBlog comments:

Best video line: Why do we need to explain this to you?

This is a guy who clearly doesn’t even understand the difference between income and net worth. John McCain admits that econ is not his strongest suit, but Barack Obama doesn’t understand the first thing about it.

What’s more, he doesn’t care. Instead, he’s obsessed with redistributing income both income and wealth — by any means necessary:

Transcript of previously unrevealed material in a 2001 interview with radio station WBEZ in Chicago –

OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the courts, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples — so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I was able to pay for it I’d be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, 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’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It 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 federal government or the state 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 to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

….. Karen (Caller): The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?

Host: You mean the courts?

Karen: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?

Obama: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Y’know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

You look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era where the court, for example, was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to local school districts, 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 separation of powers issues, y’know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it, and politically 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, y’know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. …..


No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.