- Joined
- Apr 4, 2016
- Messages
- 7,377
- Reaction score
- 1,454
- Location
- State of Jefferson
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
In 2001 in a recorded interview (easy to find on Youtube) a 41 year old Barack Obama called the US Constitution” A Charter of Negative Liberties.” He went on to clearly explain that he felt the Constitution is flawed because it restricts the power the Government has over the people instead of what must do to/for the people.
(easy to find on Youtube)
those views have not changed,Obama just now lies about it.
I could post dozens written articles on this. People hearing his own recorded voice saying this crap is much more effective.
"Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error" - Marcus Tullius Cicero.....than that makes Obama an Idiot.....every one of his policies is about giving the Government more power and taking freedom from the people.
You, uh, did notice that the text commentary in the video is incredibly biased, and basically twisting his words?If anyone wants to hear the 2001 interview.eace
That's one way to look at it. You can also see redistribution (albeit somewhat cynically) as a purely practical matter. Namely: Excessive levels of income inequality generates a great deal of unrest, both due to public discontent with their relative economic status, with the increasing evidence that the society is not a meritocracy or that the wealthy cannot justify their extreme economic status, with the incredible political influence accorded to the wealthy.The social justice idea is that those that have too much must surrender a (large) portion of that excess to the government such that those with too little can be treated "fairly".
Not when what the poorest 15% want is at the expense of the wealthiest 5%.Many (including Obama?) take that to the extreme where having "access to" X means having the tab (cost or bill) for X sent to society (the government) for only some people - we call that "means tested" assistance or the "safety net". In a democracy it is quite possible to get poorest 15% of the voters to demand pretty much unlimited government support from added taxation of only the richest 5%.
Okay, and....?In 2001 in a recorded interview (easy to find on Youtube) a 41 year old Barack Obama called the US Constitution” A Charter of Negative Liberties.” He went on to clearly explain that he felt the Constitution is flawed because it restricts the power the Government has over the people instead of what must do to/for the people.
Great post!The social justice idea is that those that have too much must surrender a (large) portion of that excess to the government such that those with too little can be treated "fairly". Many (including Obama?) take that to the extreme where having "access to" X means having the tab (cost or bill) for X sent to society (the government) for only some people - we call that "means tested" assistance or the "safety net". In a democracy it is quite possible to get poorest 15% of the voters to demand pretty much unlimited government support from added taxation of only the richest 5%.
So long as the rest of the voters are fooled into thinking that the added cost of such taxation of only the rich is not being passed along to them they may well go along with the social justice scheme. Of course the added taxation placed on one's landlord just might result in higher rents but that is not a problem if the government is ultimately paying your rent.
Great post!
(and well written)
I'm a strong proponent of basic social programs and reasonable regulations of capitalism, and your post shows the flip-side and dangers inherent with shooting too far. Getting the balancing act just right, is not easy!
That's one way to look at it. You can also see redistribution (albeit somewhat cynically) as a purely practical matter. Namely: Excessive levels of income inequality generates a great deal of unrest, both due to public discontent with their relative economic status, with the increasing evidence that the society is not a meritocracy or that the wealthy cannot justify their extreme economic status, with the incredible political influence accorded to the wealthy.
In 2001 in a recorded interview (easy to find on Youtube) a 41 year old Barack Obama called the US Constitution” A Charter of Negative Liberties.” He went on to clearly explain that he felt the Constitution is flawed because it restricts the power the Government has over the people instead of what must do to/for the people.
those views have not changed, Obama just now lies about it.
No disrespect intended - if the basis of a thread you create is a video that is, as you say, easy to find on YouTube then why not put the video in the OP so we can see it and then discuss it?
If you appear to not care enough about the topic of your own thread enough to find and link the video that is the actual subject of the thread, I would predict that most members here will feel the same as you portray your feelings on the subject, therein ending the thread before it even gets started.
Just an observation, mind you.
Why do you say that?It is a pity he couldn't have stuck to his insight.
New to this site. I'm still learning to navigate it.
In 2001 in a recorded interview (easy to find on Youtube) a 41 year old Barack Obama called the US Constitution” A Charter of Negative Liberties.” He went on to clearly explain that he felt the Constitution is flawed because it restricts the power the Government has over the people instead of what must do to/for the people.
It was in concert with BJ that a lot of that cutting started. Of course he had to be forced, he vetoed it twice, now takes credit for......
I.e. you can either tax the rich in order to make it possible for the poor to earn a decent living (e.g. subsidized education), or to mollify their discontent (guaranteed minimum income), or you can tax the rich to pay for huge numbers of riot cops and prisons and elite police in wealthy communities.
Meanwhile, contrary to right-wing poutrage, most of the social safety nets are often cut. Welfare was replaced with TANF, which is short-term, and so difficult to get that most poor people think it's better to keep looking for minimum-wage jobs. AFDC eligibility is typically tied to work, and it doesn't pay much.
Income equality is a dog whistle calling all socialists to sing the same tune. We have relative poverty in the US. What someone else has, unless it is criminally ill gotten, should be basically theirs to keep. Its theft otherwise. There should be no starving in the US, minimal shelters to assist people through especially hard times and opportunities to volunteer time to help out the community, at minimum, be a requirement for accepting government aid. Most of us are understanding that all go through some problems in life and some actually do need a safety net.That's one way to look at it. You can also see redistribution (albeit somewhat cynically) as a purely practical matter. Namely: Excessive levels of income inequality generates a great deal of unrest, both due to public discontent with their relative economic status, with the increasing evidence that the society is not a meritocracy or that the wealthy cannot justify their extreme economic status, with the incredible political influence accorded to the wealthy.
I.e. you can either tax the rich in order to make it possible for the poor to earn a decent living (e.g. subsidized education), or to mollify their discontent (guaranteed minimum income), or you can tax the rich to pay for huge numbers of riot cops and prisons and elite police in wealthy communities.
I am game, prove that to us.By the way, none of what you said discusses the constitutionality of either taxation or safety net programs, as these are well-established.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?