Have you heard this clip from Obama?

[TXMomof4]

I just heard this this morning and it makes me want to cry!

 

I know, not a very rational response, but still.....makes me want to cry!

 

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

 

A few quotes from the interview.

 

"Redistribution of Wealth is Economic Justice in this society."

 

"Warren Court was not that radical, it did not break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution."

 

"It doesn't state what the Federal or State government must do on your behalf."

 

"One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the coalitions of power that bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."

 

"Redistribution of Wealth is an administrative task."

 

"Although you can craft legal justifications for it legally any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."

[Nakia]

Scary, huh?

[RebeccaC]

Yes, and then there is the one titled, Obama says constitution deep flaw continues today ....... http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4 Hope that link worked. The constitution is a blind spot in the country and the fundamental flaw that continues to this day. What are we without our constitution.... and do we want a pres who thinks our constitution is flaw because it does not list what the gov should do only what it can't do. I'll take the can't do constitution over the socialist leaning redistribute the wealth can do that would be even more greatly flawed, one Obama wants us to have.

Edited October 27, 2008 by RebeccaC

[Margaret in GA]

George Will (aConservative) had an interesting take on redistribution of wealth on George Stephanopoulus yesterday. Here is his quote:

 

"Ninety-five percent of what the government does is redistribute wealth. It operates on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Case in point: we have sugar subsidies. Costs the American people billions of dollars but they don't notice it it's in such small increments. But the few sugar growers get very rich out of this. Now we have socialism for the strong - that is the well-represented and organized in Washington like the sugar growers. But it's socialism none the less and it's not new."

 

Margaret

[LilyK]

It only blatantly confirms what we really already knew about him. No matter how much the media loves him and portrays him as the sage voice of reason, this is who he is- a proponent of redistribution of wealth, meaning a socialist. Unfortunately, a great percentage of the population is socialist without realizing and/or admitting it. Therefore, I am afraid that dissemination of this video will do little to sway voters.

[Zelda]

George Will (aConservative) had an interesting take on redistribution of wealth on George Stephanopoulus yesterday. Here is his quote:

 

"Ninety-five percent of what the government does is redistribute wealth. It operates on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Case in point: we have sugar subsidies. Costs the American people billions of dollars but they don't notice it it's in such small increments. But the few sugar growers get very rich out of this. Now we have socialism for the strong - that is the well-represented and organized in Washington like the sugar growers. But it's socialism none the less and it's not new."

 

Margaret

 

I think there is a significant difference in using taxes for goods and services (including but not limited to those that can be accessed by everyone) and increasing taxes on the wealthy and above average earners and giving that money in the form of tax credits to the lower level earners.

[LisaKinVA]

It all just makes me so very sad. Maybe I'm too tired to get angry right now, I don't know. But, as has been oft said, "those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it."

 

-- most people under 30 may know what the "term" communism is, but they do not know what it is, or would mean for this country. Much of that has been left out of history books.

 

-- Intelligence can be a double edged sword... anyone remember the Carter years fondly? Carter was exceptionally smart (graduated in the top 10 of his USNA class), but that is what tended to make him indecisive with foreign policy. And his (along with the Democratic Congress) economic policies at that time were in many ways disastrous.

 

Bush, and the Republicans are not without a multitude of their own sins. The Republicans were given ample opportunities to push for significant reforms, but many in leadership became intoxicated with their new found "power" -- and instead of bringing reform, continued down the same corrupted path as those who led before.

 

I have never been as disturbed as I am today, as I look toward the next 2-4 years. While I know some who say, God will protect us (or my family), I'm reminded of a passage in the Bible which says, "rain falls on the just and unjust alike." The converse is also true... when famine and disease hit the country, the entire nation is affected. I just cannot shake this feeling that, if the policies and beliefs I'm beginning to hear so much about these last couple of weeks are put into place, many, many people are going to be hurt than anyone ever anticipated. And, it will be much more difficult to undo.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I just heard this this morning and it makes me want to cry!

 

I know, not a very rational response, but still.....makes me want to cry!

 

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

 

A few quotes from the interview.

 

"Redistribution of Wealth is Economic Justice in this society."

 

"Warren Court was not that radical, it did not break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution."

 

"It doesn't state what the Federal or State government must do on your behalf."

 

"One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the coalitions of power that bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."

 

"Redistribution of Wealth is an administrative task."

 

"Although you can craft legal justifications for it legally any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts."

 

Well, I'll tell you what. I'll get an interview from Sen. McCain, and I'll take little bits of it, string it together, and write an alarming narrative, too. To. Too, that's the one. (Sorry, someone who doesn't know which "too" to use loses points automatically. But that's not my main issue with this.) I'll label it Scary! and Bombshell! and See??!

 

Is he not talking about the civil rights movement? Is he not talking about requiring funding to desegregate, that sort of thing?

 

Why is there no full transcript, so I can hear context? Why are the quotes just hung out there? Why wouldn't funding, say, desegregation be an administrative task?

 

Am I just stupid, or is this really a pieced together hack job? (And it's perfectly ok if I'm stupid. I'm willing to be taught.)

[Michelle in MO]

I've listened to this radio interview several times; I think it's very scary. How can you take the oath of office as President: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" if you don't fundamentally believe in certain elements of the Constitution?

Edited October 27, 2008 by Michelle in MO

[Michelle in MO]

nt

Edited October 27, 2008 by Michelle in MO

[teamturner]

"Ninety-five percent of what the government does is redistribute wealth. It operates on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Case in point: we have sugar subsidies. Costs the American people billions of dollars but they don't notice it it's in such small increments. But the few sugar growers get very rich out of this. Now we have socialism for the strong - that is the well-represented and organized in Washington like the sugar growers. But it's socialism none the less and it's not new."

 

Margaret

 

John Stossel had an interesting report about subsidies that blew me away. There are people living on farm land that are paid NOT TO FARM. They just receive monthly checks. The video shows a real estate agent selling a piece of property and telling the buyer about the great deal it is since you get this check in the mail from the government every month. WHAT??? It's really sad that we have this kind of government waste that no one in Washington will do anything about. Please watch this video!

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6061916

[GreenKitty]

He wants to change 'Liberty'. OUR liberties.

[8filltheheart]

Well, I'll tell you what. I'll get an interview from Sen. McCain, and I'll take little bits of it, string it together, and write an alarming narrative, too. To. Too, that's the one. (Sorry, someone who doesn't know which "too" to use loses points automatically. But that's not my main issue with this.) I'll label it Scary! and Bombshell! and See??!

 

Is he not talking about the civil rights movement? Is he not talking about requiring funding to desegregate, that sort of thing?

 

Why is there no full transcript, so I can hear context? Why are the quotes just hung out there? Why wouldn't funding, say, desegregation be an administrative task?

 

Am I just stupid, or is this really a pieced together hack job? (And it's perfectly ok if I'm stupid. I'm willing to be taught.)

 

 

Pam, I have listened to it in its entirety. If you would like to hear it, here is the info.

 

http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp (scroll down to Jan 18 courts

and civil rights)

 

The entire audio is almost an hour. The quoted commentary starts around 39:50

 

The earlier segments of the show are discussing Brown, desegragation, busing, and equalizing school spending. The Youtube segment does not alter or bias his comments. In that part of the segment he is specifically addressing the limits of reform via the courts. He states that the courts have failed to break free from the Constitution.

[Julie in Austin]

I will become scared of this when someone can explain to me how/why it doesn't apply equally to McCain's plan to give every single family a 5K tax break for health insurance. What on earth is that if not redistributing wealth?

[TraceyS/FL]

DH had a thing on TV that scared me enough that i had to go to bed... it was either that or stand there and puke. And I hate to puke.

 

I loved the here is a man we can have as president, but he'd never pass a background to be an FBI agent. Gee, lovely.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I will become scared of this when someone can explain to me how/why it doesn't apply equally to McCain's plan to give every single family a 5K tax break for health insurance. What on earth is that if not redistributing wealth?

 

And doubling the child tax credit to $7K per child.

[jacqui in mo]

Keeping (or getting back) your own money in the form of a tax break is not redistribution. Now if you're getting the $5k tax break when you haven't paid at least that amount, then, yes, I'd say that is redistribution.

[Colleen]

Am I just stupid, or is this really a pieced together hack job? (And it's perfectly ok if I'm stupid. I'm willing to be taught.)

 

Nah, you're not stupid. I'm stupid for being amused by these redundant "SHOCK AND AWE!!!!" posts that have littered the board for many a week now.;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Pam, I have listened to it in its entirety. If you would like to hear it, here is the info.

 

http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp (scroll down to Jan 18 courts

and civil rights)

 

The entire audio is almost an hour. The quoted commentary starts around 39:50

 

 

Thank you, yes, I'd love to listen. I appreciate this.

[Margaret in GA]

John Stossel had an interesting report about subsidies that blew me away. There are people living on farm land that are paid NOT TO FARM. They just receive monthly checks. The video shows a real estate agent selling a piece of property and telling the buyer about the great deal it is since you get this check in the mail from the government every month. WHAT??? It's really sad that we have this kind of government waste that no one in Washington will do anything about. Please watch this video!

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6061916

 

 

OK. I tried to watch the video, but John Stossel is so politically biased, I had to turn it off. I don't blame Obama for not agreeing to be interviewed by him. It's like McCain giving Arianna Huffington an interview. When will news programs return to reporting news, not opinion? OK. Rant over.

 

Having said that, I want to say that I was against so much of this farm bill and I'm sure John Stossel and I share many of the same views. I am disgusted by subsidies and other tax breaks for corporate farms. I believe we should do everything we can to save *real* family farms, including tax relief. In our state, you can get a property tax waiver for having a farm. Do people abuse the system? Yes. But, it's a great program anyway. Georgia's farmland is disappearing faster to development than any other state's (except Texas). We need farms. We cannot trust the world's food.

 

Speaking of big government...I happen to be someone that would like to reduce the military. Just look at the waste going on there (and I don't just mean Iraq). Especially disturbing? Private contractors.

 

"The Pentagon’s reliance on outside contractors in Iraq is proportionately far larger than in any previous conflict, and it has fueled charges that this outsourcing has led to overbilling, fraud and shoddy and unsafe work that has endangered and even killed American troops" (source:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html)

 

Not all government is bad. Not all privitization is good.

[Colleen]

Unfortunately, a great percentage of the population is socialist without realizing and/or admitting it.

 

(Read: "Unfortunately, a great percentage of the population displays nuance in their thinking such that they disagree with me.")

 

:001_rolleyes:

[Danestress]

Keeping (or getting back) your own money in the form of a tax break is not redistribution. Now if you're getting the $5k tax break when you haven't paid at least that amount, then, yes, I'd say that is redistribution.

 

Well, it's a "break" that favors some over others. You take money from everyone based on income and put it in a pile and then give a ton of money back to people who have children. Call it a subsidy, call it redistrubution, call it whatever you want, but may would call it unfair.

[katilac]

I think there is a significant difference in using taxes for goods and services (including but not limited to those that can be accessed by everyone) and increasing taxes on the wealthy and above average earners and giving that money in the form of tax credits to the lower level earners.

 

There is also a significant difference between taxing goods and services and subsidizing particular industries.

 

A tax is paid to the government by an individual or business. A subsidy is paid by the government to an individual or business. It is a redistribution of wealth, like tax credits and welfare.

 

Of course, the money for goverment subsidies comes from taxes.

[nmoira]

 

How can you take the oath of office as President: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" if you don't fundamentally believe in certain elements of the Constitution?

I don't see where in the oath it says, "I think the Constitution is a perfectly drafted document, and there's nothing I would have fought to change had I been there when it was framed."

[Spy Car]

Pam, I have listened to it in its entirety. If you would like to hear it, here is the info.

 

http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp (scroll down to Jan 18 courts

and civil rights)

 

The entire audio is almost an hour. The quoted commentary starts around 39:50

 

The earlier segments of the show are discussing Brown, desegragation, busing, and equalizing school spending. The Youtube segment does not alter or bias his comments. In that part of the segment he is specifically addressing the limits of reform via the courts. He states that the courts have failed to break free from the Constitution.

 

 

Thanks for posting the whole interview in context, because it shows that Barack Obama was talking about how the Warren Court "desegregated" the schools in Brown v Board of Education, but did not insist that "poor" or "minority" schools be funded at levels that would have provided for "equal" education. And Obama's point was the Warren Court was not "radical" (as it has accused of being).

 

If you start around 34:20 it's clear.

 

When he speaks of "redistribution" Obams is speaking of how to get more money into historically impoverished schools so students would have and equal opportunity to a descent education. And how State Courts (working to uphold State laws) took up the issue.

 

Not scary. Just shows he has a decent concern for the most disadvantaged people in this society.

 

What is scary if how people dishonestly clip comments out of context. Sarah Palin did the same thing with Obama's comment on Afghanistan. It's really despicable.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

 

I will become scared of this when someone can explain to me how/why it doesn't apply equally to McCain's plan to give every single family a 5K tax break for health insurance. What on earth is that if not redistributing wealth?

Or his plan to buy up mortgages and then renegotiate with homeowners for less than the face value of the mortgage.

[teamturner]

Well, it's a "break" that favors some over others. You take money from everyone based on income and put it in a pile and then give a ton of money back to people who have children. Call it a subsidy, call it redistrubution, call it whatever you want, but may would call it unfair.

 

But what is fair? Is everything in life supposed to be fair? That's not what I teach my children.

 

If we are aiming for fair, then we need TOTAL and COMPLETE redistribution. Everyone makes the.same.thing. Everyone lives in the same house. Everyone drives the same car. Everyone gets the same healthcare. Takes the same vacations. etc..... Where does it end?

 

Why don't we just put the government in charge of all companies, factories, production. We will all be the workers. Is that the utopia? Then will it all be fair?

[Perry]

Here's an interesting article from Volokh Conspiracy about what is meant by "redistribution of wealth."

[TXMomof4]

Well, I'll tell you what. I'll get an interview from Sen. McCain, and I'll take little bits of it, string it together, and write an alarming narrative, too. To. Too, that's the one. (Sorry, someone who doesn't know which "too" to use loses points automatically. But that's not my main issue with this.) I'll label it Scary! and Bombshell! and See??!

 

Is he not talking about the civil rights movement? Is he not talking about requiring funding to desegregate, that sort of thing?

 

Why is there no full transcript, so I can hear context? Why are the quotes just hung out there? Why wouldn't funding, say, desegregation be an administrative task?

 

Am I just stupid, or is this really a pieced together hack job? (And it's perfectly ok if I'm stupid. I'm willing to be taught.)

 

Did you listen to the interview? That's why I provided that link instead of *just* the quotes. I didn't have time to do a full transcript or really to search for one, but the entire interview is played on the link.

[teamturner]

the world's food.

 

Private contractors.

 

"The Pentagon’s reliance on outside contractors in Iraq is proportionately far larger than in any previous conflict, and it has fueled charges that this outsourcing has led to overbilling, fraud and shoddy and unsafe work that has endangered and even killed American troops" (source:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html)

 

Not all government is bad. Not all privitization is good.

 

Yes, this is another problem that McCain actually brought up in one of the debates. And just to be clear, I'm not happy with any of the politicians. I wish we could wipe the slate clean and start over.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

Not scary. Just shows he has a decent concern for the most disadvantaged people in this society.

 

What is scary if how people dishonestly clip comments out of context. Sarah Palin did the same thing with Obama's comment on Afghanistan. It's really despicable.

 

Bill

 

What worries ME is that often times people listen to stuff like this and then do not insist on getting the remarks in context. On THIS board, there are those among us who do not insist on full source texts. who do not insist on context. Who do not insist on eschewing propaganda.

 

I don't expect everybody to see things my way or to vote the way I do or agree with my conclusions, mind you. But dang if I'd expect anyone to let me get away with putting Sarah Palin's remarks about Iraq and "God's will" on here all twisted to make her look like she thinks the war was some kind of Christian latter-day crusade or something. And I surely could pull the remarks apart and "prove" that she said these things. But I would hope someone would call me on my fundamental dishonesty. Or if I posted someone else's twisting of this (Charlie Gibson, anyone?), I would hope that someone would say, Um, Pam, check that again, will you? instead of chiming in on how "scary" she is for her "religious beliefs" about the war.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Pam "SFSOM" in TN
To avoid painting with too broad a brush.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Or his plan to buy up mortgages and then renegotiate with homeowners for less than the face value of the mortgage.

 

You realize, of course, that this means the government owns these people's HOMES if that happens.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Did you listen to the interview? That's why I provided that link instead of *just* the quotes. I didn't have time to do a full transcript or really to search for one, but the entire interview is played on the link.

 

You think so? I'm not sure about that. I listened to what you linked, yes. Four minutes, I think, broken up into bits out of context.

[8filltheheart]

We'll have to agree to disagree. You obviously did not listen to the entire interview based on the time lapses between our posts.

 

I did listen to the entire show and they touched on numerous topics. Yes, at one point he discusses the limits of desegregation b/c of the funding issue problems being complicated through the courts.

 

However, school desegregation was not the sole focus. He discusses the limits of reforming from grass roots and that administrative approaches are more effective. And he specifically states that redistributing wealth was not addressed by the courts. Those comments are not directly connected to the commentary on the school issue. It was addressed to the civil rights movement in general.

[Spy Car]

Did you listen to the interview? That's why I provided that link instead of *just* the quotes. I didn't have time to do a full transcript or really to search for one, but the entire interview is played on the link.

 

 

I listened to the lead-in and it made it clear the omission of the "context" in the YouTube video cleated an entirely false impression of Mr Obama's point. It's deceptive "editing".

 

Bill

[Colleen]

What worries ME is that people listen to stuff like this and then do not insist on getting the remarks in context. On THIS board, we do not insist on full source texts. We don't insist on context. We don't insist on eschewing propaganda.

 

I don't expect everybody to see things my way or to vote the way I do or agree with my conclusions, mind you. But dang if I'd expect anyone to let me get away with putting Sarah Palin's remarks about Iraq and "God's will" on here all twisted to make her look like she thinks the war was some kind of Christian latter-day crusade or something. And I surely could pull the remarks apart and "prove" that she said these things. But I would hope someone would call me on my fundamental dishonesty. Or if I posted someone else's twisting of this (Charlie Gibson, anyone?), I would hope that someone would say, Um, Pam, check that again, will you? instead of chiming in on how "scary" she is for her "religious beliefs" about the war.

 

:iagree: Such is life in a sound bite society.

 

Good golly, it's easy to stop by for a few minutes and just be a ditto-head...

[Danestress]

If you want to start talking about "redistribution" than you have to acknowledge that some things that we have lived with under conservative and liberal presidents both are technically "redistribution."

 

Tax credits for children redistributes wealth. You can call it whatever you want, but of the people who pay into the tax pool, the ones with kids get money back. I would call that redistributing.

 

I don't think it's fair, but I agree that not everything is fair. I'm sort of idealistic, so I do actually believe that we should work for justice, freedom and peace that that a "fair" tax system is a good one. We may not all agree on what is fair, but I still think we should set "fair" as a goal - one of our goals.

 

My problem with the child tax credit (and honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with it - I'm surprised to find myself posting about it since I've not really given it much thought) is that everyone gets that credit even if they are wealthy and don't actually need it. If we only gave that credit to people who actually need the money to provide basic needs for their children, then everyone would have lower taxes (theoretically, with all things being equal) and that seems more "fair" to me then giving the credits to everyone regardless of need.

[8filltheheart]

What worries ME is that people listen to stuff like this and then do not insist on getting the remarks in context. On THIS board, we do not insist on full source texts. We don't insist on context. We don't insist on eschewing propaganda.

 

I don't expect everybody to see things my way or to vote the way I do or agree with my conclusions, mind you. But dang if I'd expect anyone to let me get away with putting Sarah Palin's remarks about Iraq and "God's will" on here all twisted to make her look like she thinks the war was some kind of Christian latter-day crusade or something. And I surely could pull the remarks apart and "prove" that she said these things. But I would hope someone would call me on my fundamental dishonesty. Or if I posted someone else's twisting of this (Charlie Gibson, anyone?), I would hope that someone would say, Um, Pam, check that again, will you? instead of chiming in on how "scary" she is for her "religious beliefs" about the war.

 

I disagree. I heard the clip on the news this morning and the first thing I did was find the original source in order to listen to it in context and form my own opinion. I, personally, do not listen to sound bites to make my decisions.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I disagree. I heard the clip on the news this morning and the first thing I did was find the original source in order to listen to it in context and form my own opinion. I, personally, do not listen to sound bites to make my decisions.

 

I shall edit.

[Spy Car]

What worries ME is that people listen to stuff like this and then do not insist on getting the remarks in context. On THIS board, we do not insist on full source texts. We don't insist on context. We don't insist on eschewing propaganda.

 

 

I'm afraid this board is becoming a victim of inflammatory links to disreputable sources like World Net Daily that are willing to spew any sort of distorted false-charge.

 

The good news is the "fear and smear" campaign is just turning people off.

 

Sad to see the filth brought here though.

 

I really enjoy political discourse, including discussions of those who see things from a vantage point I don't share. But the constant links to inflammatory and disreputable propaganda sites is making me feel kind of sick to my stomach.

 

And I can't help but feel "scary" is a code-word out of our dark past.

 

Bill

[Jean too]

Well, I'll tell you what. I'll get an interview from Sen. McCain, and I'll take little bits of it, string it together, and write an alarming narrative, too. To. Too, that's the one. (Sorry, someone who doesn't know which "too" to use loses points automatically. But that's not my main issue with this.) I'll label it Scary! and Bombshell! and See??!

 

Is he not talking about the civil rights movement? Is he not talking about requiring funding to desegregate, that sort of thing?

 

Why is there no full transcript, so I can hear context? Why are the quotes just hung out there? Why wouldn't funding, say, desegregation be an administrative task?

 

Am I just stupid, or is this really a pieced together hack job? (And it's perfectly ok if I'm stupid. I'm willing to be taught.)

 

Here is the transcript:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Double post, for some reason, deleted.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Pam "SFSOM" in TN

[Deidre in GA]

Is he not talking about the civil rights movement? Is he not talking about requiring funding to desegregate, that sort of thing?

 

yes, that is the context of what he was referring to. i'm sitting at my desk multitasking so i listened to the link; my eyes were elsewhere. after reading a few posts, i went back and WATCHED the commentary. interesting how one could walk away with an entirely different take on the audio if you READ ON THE SCREEN what his words mean rather than just listening yourself.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Here is the transcript:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI

 

Excellent! I'm a visual learner. Thanks much.

 

ETA: Wait. This isn't a transcript. It's a commentary on the bits that are in the You Tube.

 

Drudge? Hell awaiting for journalists, those enactors of one of those pesky Bill of Rights amendments?

 

Well. Later will have to be the audio itself.

 

Thanks (sincerely) for the effort, though.

[Zelda]

I'm afraid this board is becoming a victim of inflammatory links to disreputable sources like World Net Daily that are willing to spew any sort of distorted false-charge.

 

The good news is the "fear and smear" campaign is just turning people off.

 

Sad to see the filth brought here though.

 

I really enjoy political discourse, including discussions of those who see things from a vantage point I don't share. But the constant links to inflammatory and disreputable propaganda sites is making me feel kind of sick to my stomach.

 

And I can't help but feel "scary" is a code-word out of our dark past.

 

Bill

 

I also hate the links to the NYT and Editor and Publisher. ;)

[8filltheheart]

Pam,

 

I am only going to add one more comment before I ignore the general board for the rest of the day..... ;)

 

One thing that strikes me on both sides......the willingness to automatically dismiss something as being biased against your candidate. I think intellectual honesty requires the willingness to search out the original sources on all sides.

 

Discourse would be far more productive if people were actually discussing the actual issues.

 

BTW.....this is not directed solely at you. I think this board has been representative of lots of opinion and little fact.

[Spy Car]

Here is the transcript:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI

 

That's not a "transcript" it is another "selective quote" surrounded by misinformation and deceitful "spin".

[Queen_Zarga]

My problem with the child tax credit (and honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with it - I'm surprised to find myself posting about it since I've not really given it much thought) is that everyone gets that credit even if they are wealthy and don't actually need it. If we only gave that credit to people who actually need the money to provide basic needs for their children, then everyone would have lower taxes (theoretically, with all things being equal) and that seems more "fair" to me then giving the credits to everyone regardless of need.

 

Sorry, but I just had to jump in here. Your information is not correct.

 

child tax credit

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Sorry, but I just had to jump in here. Your information is not correct.

 

child tax credit

 

Dana's getting tax info wrong? How so? Which part of what she said is incorrect?

[Danestress]

Sorry, but I just had to jump in here. Your information is not correct.

 

child tax credit

 

Well yeah, the credit is limited by income that's true. Though seriously I think most people making "$100,000 a year in many (but not) areas of the country, can afford the basis for their children if they live wisely. It's not just for the poor. I don't know that I think it's fair to give a credit without a determination of need.

 

But the deduction is for everyone, is it not? Or pretty much everyone? Honestly, DH and I don't need it. We don't. We didn't have children whom we could not afford to feed and educate. But we get it anyway. Yipee. Wealth redistributed to us:)