Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Failure Of Civil Rights Movement To Redistribute Wealth A "traged


Justin86

Recommended Posts

[url="http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/comments/"]http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/ra...ealth/comments/[/url]

[quote]Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth

In a radio interview in 2001, Barack Obama said the civil rights movement failed when it became so dependent on the Supreme Court that it never got around to working toward redistributing income.

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 27, 2008

A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

The interview -- conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago -- delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, 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 state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.

The 2001 interview evokes recent questioning by Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who asked Obama about his proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. Obama told Wurzelbacher he wants to hike taxes on the wealthy so that the government can spread the wealth.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have "nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut."

"Here are the facts. In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country," Burton said..

"As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up -- not from the corridors of Washington. ... And so Obama's point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process," Burton continued.

John McCain's campaign said the tape proves that Obama is too liberal for the White House.

Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

"Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench," Holtz-Eakin continued.

National Review reporter Byron York, a FOX News contributor, said the U.S. government already has a progressive tax system that gives money earned by one group to another group, but it's a matter of degree. He added that Obama's outlook on that system hasn't changed.

"It seems clear from listening to this that the Obama of 2001 and probably the Obama of today feels that the government doesn't do that enough, and I think that's probably the big point in this tape," York said.

"You've got to take him at his word," York added. "It seems to me that the tape shows that this is simply a goal he has had for a long time."

In a speech in Cleveland on Monday, McCain said the Obama interview is just another indication that the Democrat wants to increase sharply the amount of government spending.

"Today, he claims he will only tax the rich. But we've seen in the past that he's willing to support taxes that hit people squarely in the middle class, and with a trillion dollars in new spending, the most likely outcome is that everyone who pays taxes will be paying for his spending," McCain said.[/quote]

[url="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck"]For the full radio interview click here.[/url]

Could Obama be anymore frank that he's a socialist who wants to redistribute our wealth? I mean, what is it going to take before people open up their eyes!

Edited by Justin86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excelsior1027

To be perfectly honest:

It scares the heck outta me that the United States of America is so close to voting into office someone who believes in the same governmental and economic principles that were held by the government of a nation that just 20 years ago we were fighting a Cold War with. Obama is a Marxist. A Marxist. What are his supporters thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Excelsior1027' post='1687308' date='Oct 28 2008, 02:05 AM']Obama is a Marxist. A Marxist. What are his supporters thinking?[/quote]
Or are most of them thinking at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kenrockthefirst

So rather than Obama the "socialist" you prefer McCain the socialist. Remember, the latter voted for the $835BB "bailout" of Wall Street, and one of his main economic policies is for the government to buy up all the troubled mortgages. Pot, meet kettle. Hypocrisy, thy name is McCain. I think you need another wedge, the "socialism" mantra isn't getting any traction, if I may be permitted to mix metaphors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the bailout plan is a worse application in my view. Instead of taking from the able and giving to the needy, the government took from all of us and gave to wall street and the banks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kenrockthefirst

[quote name='Didymus' post='1687959' date='Oct 28 2008, 08:33 AM']and the bailout plan is a worse application in my view. Instead of taking from the able and giving to the needy, the government took from all of us and gave to wall street and the banks.[/quote]
Right. The Bush track record has been to move public services to the private for-profit sector, e.g. Halliburton, while taking private risk, e.g. "toxic assets" and making them public, i.e. putting the taxpayer on the hook. McCain offers more of the same. It's actually the worst of both economic worlds: the Law of the Jungle If It Feels Good Do It capitalism coupled with an inverted form of socialism: from each according to his ability - except the "Joe the Plumber" taxpayer isn't [i]really[/i] able - to each according to his need -- except Richard Fuld didn't [i]really[/i] need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1687953' date='Oct 28 2008, 08:55 AM']So rather than Obama the "socialist" you prefer McCain the socialist. Remember, the latter voted for the $835BB "bailout" of Wall Street, and one of his main economic policies is for the government to buy up all the troubled mortgages. Pot, meet kettle. Hypocrisy, thy name is McCain. I think you need another wedge, the "socialism" mantra isn't getting any traction, if I may be permitted to mix metaphors.[/quote]
It is hypocrisy is you believe the exception defines the rule. You have to ask yourself if you think this is McCain normal modus operandi or is he reacting to an extra-ordinary event with an out of ordinary response. If you think the bailout bill is offensive, then don't vote for Obama, because it is the type of legislation you will see fairly often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kenrockthefirst

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1687991' date='Oct 28 2008, 10:59 AM']It is hypocrisy is you believe the exception defines the rule. You have to ask yourself if you think this is McCain normal modus operandi or is he reacting to an extra-ordinary event with an out of ordinary response. If you think the bailout bill is offensive, then don't vote for Obama, because it is the type of legislation you will see fairly often.[/quote]
A person's true colors come out during times of stress. If McCain had any core convictions other than "it's my turn to be president," he would have stood up for his beliefs. He didn't. Through their support of the $835 "bailout" plan, McCain in particular and the Republicans in general have given the lie to their assertion that "government isn't the solution, it's the problem." What they [i]really[/i] mean is that government isn't the solution to your problem if your underprivileged or, indeed, middle class, but, hey, if you're a fat cat, don't worry, we've got you hooked up.

Personally, I don't have a problem with government stepping up when it's needed. I'm simply pointing out that it's silly to call Obama a "socialist" when McCain is just as willing to "spread the wealth." The only difference between them is who benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1687965' date='Oct 28 2008, 10:28 AM']Right. The Bush track record has been to move public services to the private for-profit sector, e.g. Halliburton, while taking private risk, e.g. "toxic assets" and making them public, i.e. putting the taxpayer on the hook. McCain offers more of the same. It's actually the worst of both economic worlds: the Law of the Jungle If It Feels Good Do It capitalism coupled with an inverted form of socialism: from each according to his ability - except the "Joe the Plumber" taxpayer isn't [i]really[/i] able - to each according to his need -- except Richard Fuld didn't [i]really[/i] need it.[/quote]
Hmm, you are mixing issues here. The "matches that started the fire" were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie and Freddie are quasi-government organizations like the post office. They existed to provide a public service, securing loans. Because they are quasi-government organizations, they susceptible to manipulation by the federal government, that includes any dangerously risky social engineering legislation the congress has in mind. This is exactly what happened with Fannie and Freddie.

The government, not the private sector, turned the banks into loan pimps. The banks, in many but not all cases, were willing to profit from this pimping, but they would have never been put into such a place if the government had not forced its will on them.

Some may balk at the the government pumping money into the credit system, but you need to ask who is it really saving. It is short sighted to think it helps banks. The banks need help because risky borrowers have failed to pay back the cash they borrowed. Those borrowers could be your neighbor or your neighbor's neighbor, not fat tycoons on Wall St.

The public's role does not end with accepting risky lending. Part of the money a bank loans comes from you and me, our savings. As Americans, we are failing to adequately save money. The banks have to turn to other money sources, sources willing to accept the risk. If we saved more, the banks would not have to sell so many financial products to secure our loans.

I guess the point of my message is just to say that the issue is not as simple as portrayed. The fingers of blame need to point at D.C., especially the democrats.

One lesson of all this is if you want your health care run by the same people who ran Fannie and Freddie, vote Obama. How did that go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kenrockthefirst

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1687998' date='Oct 28 2008, 11:18 AM']Hmm, you are mixing issues here. The "matches that started the fire" were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie and Freddie are quasi-government organizations like the post office. They existed to provide a public service, securing loans. Because they are quasi-government organizations, they susceptible to manipulation by the federal government, that includes any dangerously risky social engineering legislation the congress has in mind. This is exactly what happened with Fannie and Freddie.

The government, not the private sector, turned the banks into loan pimps. The banks, in many but not all cases, were willing to profit from this pimping, but they would have never been put into such a place if the government had not forced its will on them.

Some may balk at the the government pumping money into the credit system, but you need to ask who is it really saving. It is short sighted to think it helps banks. The banks need help because risky borrowers have failed to pay back the cash they borrowed. Those borrowers could be your neighbor or your neighbor's neighbor, not fat tycoons on Wall St.

The public's role does not end with accepting risky lending. Part of the money a bank loans comes from you and me, our savings. As Americans, we are failing to adequately save money. The banks have to turn to other money sources, sources willing to accept the risk. If we saved more, the banks would not have to sell so many financial products to secure our loans.

I guess the point of my message is just to say that the issue is not as simple as portrayed. The fingers of blame need to point at D.C., especially the democrats.

One lesson of all this is if you want your health care run by the same people who ran Fannie and Freddie, vote Obama. How did that go?[/quote]
With respect, this is simply not true. The problem was caused by a) banks making risky loans, e.g. without income verification, to b) folks who couldn't really afford those loans. The banks were able to do so because they could "spread the risk" by selling the mortgages to investment banks such as Bear Stearns who "bundled" the mortgages and sold them as "mortgage backed securities." The investment banks were able to do so because they weren't regulated, a direct consequence of the Let the Markets Decide If It Feels Good Do It Republican ideology. Alan Greenspan had to admit last week that that ideology failed because whereas one would assume that investment banks would act rationally in reducing their risk in not taking on bad loans, they actually preferred the Let the Markets Decide If It Feels Good Do It rah-rah approach.

Edited by kenrockthefirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1687997' date='Oct 28 2008, 12:17 PM']A person's true colors come out during times of stress. If McCain had any core convictions other than "it's my turn to be president," he would have stood up for his beliefs. He didn't. Through their support of the $835 "bailout" plan, McCain in particular and the Republicans in general have given the lie to their assertion that "government isn't the solution, it's the problem." What they [i]really[/i] mean is that government isn't the solution to your problem if your underprivileged or, indeed, middle class, but, hey, if you're a fat cat, don't worry, we've got you hooked up.[/quote]
I think the republicans prove the adage is correct, government is the problem. The government caused the problem, and now the government has to clean up its mess.

McCain is showing his true colors, government is not the answer to everything. This means there are occasions where government needs to play a role, especially when that role is to play is janitor cleaning up its own mess.

I am explaining the thinking behind passing the bill and how we are not witnessing hypocrisy. Out of ordinary problems with an out of the ordinary solution. Not, this is not my endorsement of the plan passed, just an explanation of the thinking.

[quote]Personally, I don't have a problem with government stepping up when it's needed. I'm simply pointing out that it's silly to call Obama a "socialist" when McCain is just as willing to "spread the wealth." The only difference between them is who benefits.[/quote]
"Spread the wealth" is Obama's modus operandi. With McCain, it's an exception and not the rule. I can't make that any clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1688000' date='Oct 28 2008, 12:27 PM']With respect, this is simply not true. The problem was caused by a) banks making risky loans, e.g. without income verification, to b) folks who couldn't really afford those loans. The banks were able to do so because they could "spread the risk" by selling the mortgages to investment banks such as Bear Stearns who "bundled" the mortgages and sold them as "mortgage backed securities." The investment banks were able to do so because they weren't regulated, a direct consequence of the Let the Markets Decide If It Feels Good Do It Republican ideology. Alan Greenspan had to admit last week that that ideology failed because whereas one would assume that investment banks would act rationally in reducing their risk in not taking on bad loans, they actually preferred the Let the Markets Decide If It Feels Good Do It rah-rah approach.[/quote]
So ask yourself, "Why did the banks make the risky loans? Why didn't they verify income vs. expenses? Why did they give to borrowers who couldn't afford it?" They made these risky loans because they risked being sued if they didn't or face federal retribution. (No federal money comes without strings.) I won't deny there was some profit to it, but this feeding frenzy would not have begun if it wasn't started by the government. It induced the behavior which led to the crisis.

It is true the banks had to "spread the risk." It is too much for one institution to assume all the risk. The idea of spreading the risk is good in theory. If someone defaults on a loan, the pain is lessened. The failure was to realize the great damage that could occur if many people are defaulting and/or real estate values falling. (There is also debate was to whether banks had adequately spread the risk. Some banks retained the risk.)

It was not deregulation that led to the crisis. It was poor regulation, specifically the Community Reinvestment Act. (Thank you Jimmy Carter, democrat.) It is the door that opened the banks up to subprime lending. But as Alan Greenspan said, it was the securitization of these risky loans that fueled the crisis. So how did the banking system get into the risky business of securitization? Well, in 1995, Bill Clinton, democrat, revised the Community Reinvestment Act to allow banks to securitize these risky loans.

So if you don't like everything you describe, thank your federal government and especially democrats for setting the stage for collapse. Bush warned 17 times that this would happen, and [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html"]it has been documented[/url]. This is also [url="http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp"]a very interesting read[/url].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kenrockthefirst

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1688006' date='Oct 28 2008, 12:32 PM']I think the republicans prove the adage is correct, government is the problem. The government caused the problem, and now the government has to clean up its mess.

McCain is showing his true colors, government is not the answer to everything. This means there are occasions where government needs to play a role, especially when that role is to play is janitor cleaning up its own mess.

I am explaining the thinking behind passing the bill and how we are not witnessing hypocrisy. Out of ordinary problems with an out of the ordinary solution. Not, this is not my endorsement of the plan passed, just an explanation of the thinking.


"Spread the wealth" is Obama's modus operandi. With McCain, it's an exception and not the rule. I can't make that any clearer.[/quote]
To quote Chico Marx from [i]Duck Soup[/i] vis-a-vis whether McCain is a) a hypocrite and b) a socialist, "who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1688021' date='Oct 28 2008, 01:00 PM']So ask yourself, "Why did the banks make the risky loans? Why didn't they verify income vs. expenses? Why did they give to borrowers who couldn't afford it?" They made these risky loans because they risked being sued if they didn't or face federal retribution. (No federal money comes without strings.) I won't deny there was some profit to it, but this feeding frenzy would not have begun if it wasn't started by the government. It induced the behavior which led to the crisis.

It is true the banks had to "spread the risk." It is too much for one institution to assume all the risk. The idea of spreading the risk is good in theory. If someone defaults on a loan, the pain is lessened. The failure was to realize the great damage that could occur if many people are defaulting and/or real estate values falling. (There is also debate was to whether banks had adequately spread the risk. Some banks retained the risk.)

It was not deregulation that led to the crisis. It was poor regulation, specifically the Community Reinvestment Act. (Thank you Jimmy Carter, democrat.) It is the door that opened the banks up to subprime lending. But as Alan Greenspan said, it was the securitization of these risky loans that fueled the crisis. So how did the banking system get into the risky business of securitization? Well, in 1995, Bill Clinton, democrat, revised the Community Reinvestment Act to allow banks to securitize these risky loans.

So if you don't like everything you describe, thank your federal government and especially democrats for setting the stage for collapse. Bush warned 17 times that this would happen, and [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html"]it has been documented[/url]. This is also [url="http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp"]a very interesting read[/url].[/quote]
As to why the banks did it, simple: greed. It's not hard. You can find a great overview of the background to the crisis [url="http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1"]here[/url]. (Note: some "blue" language is involved.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...