Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Fury on May 07, 2008, 10:16:31 AM
-
Dreams of My Father, by Barack Obama
"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race".
"The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
"That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, blaming "white people - some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
Could someone, particularly someone who supports Obama, contextualize or explain these quotes? They seem so far out of left field (no pun intended) that there has to be something more going on here. When did he come up with these ideas and how strongly does he renounce those views in the book?
Also, I'm interested to hear everyone's take on this. If a guy with an MBA from Harvard couldn't fix our economy, why should we expect a guy without any strong economics backing to be able to? Not supporting Bush or discrediting Obama in any way, just asking.
-
He's a mulatto...bi-racial. I think his comments on that point are interesting.
"And I come by here to say that America, too, is going to hell if she doesn't use her wealth. If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God's children to have the basic necessities of life, she, too, will go to hell." - Martin Luther King
"I talked in Washington in 1963 about my "Dream," and we stood there in those high moments with high hopes. And over and over again, I've seen this dream turn into a nightmare.
I've seen promising young black boys, who are already facing discrimination at home, going away and dying in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam. We are 11 percent of the population here, and we are 22 and four-tenths percent of the dying force in Vietnam. These are facts that we must hear. When somebody tells me that these two issues can't be mixed, they are mixed. I didn't mix 'em, the war mixed 'em.
Our nation spends approximately $500,000 to kill every enemy soldier. And we spend about $53 a year on every person categorized as "poverty-stricken." And half of this goes to the salaries of those who are not poor." - Martin Luther King
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I suppose we could reanimate the smiling corpse of Ronald Reagan so that we feel good about ourselves again, but that's not going to happen. Obama is a real person articulating the travails of his life.
Why do you hold that against him?
As for Bush and his MBA from Harvard, he accomplished what he set out to accomplish: defang the regulatory power of the government, enrich friends and cronies at taxpayer expense and generally socialize the costs of big business while privatizing the profits.
-
Its funny how many people that distrust the government the most want to increase its power.....think about that one.
-
What travails of life? As far as I know, Obama had a pretty good upbringing. He wasn't on the streets fighting for meals, shooting up drugs and gangbanging. He was a middle class mulatto.
Interesting that he blames white people though. I wonder if he still does? ???
I'm interested in how people think he's going to fix the economy. Why should we expect someone with no economics background to possess the ability to fix this gigantic fuckup we're in? Not saying he won't, he just might. But why should we expect it? Because he's young? Because people think he's going to invoke "change"? Enlighten me.
-
Its funny how many people that distrust the government the most want to increase its power.....think about that one.
I don't see any difference btn ostensible "conservatives" and liberals. Gov. has grown like a cancer under the Bush presidency.
-
What travails of life? As far as I know, Obama had a pretty good upbringing. He wasn't on the streets fighting for meals, shooting up drugs and gangbanging. He was a middle class mulatto.
Interesting that he blames white people though. I wonder if he still does? ???
I'm interested in how people think he's going to fix the economy. Why should we expect someone with no economics background to possess the ability to fix this gigantic fuckup we're in? Not saying he won't, he just might. But why should we expect it? Because he's young? Because people think he's going to invoke "change"? Enlighten me.
Are you a mulatto? Then how do you know what his life was like--the racial tensions he experienced?
Look at his plan for the economy here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
McCain brags about how he knows nothing about the economy. Hillary parrots stupid ideas like McCain's Gas Tax Holiday.
At least Obama has the sense to knock that bit of stupidity out of the park.
-
Also, I'm interested to hear everyone's take on this. If a guy with an MBA from Harvard couldn't fix our economy, why should we expect a guy without any strong economics backing to be able to? Not supporting Bush or discrediting Obama in any way, just asking.
Good question. Obama has already admitted his ideas aren't new. His recipe is the old fashioned, big government, liberal tax, spend, and redistribution of wealth. His "change" message is a smokescreen. If he wins and we give him a Democrat Congress, all I can say is get your checkbook. :-\
-
Yes it has Decker, I have criticized Bush heavily for this. He is not a true traditional conservative. Thats why I voted for Ron Paul.
-
Are you a mulatto? Then how do you know what his life was like--the racial tensions he experienced?
Look at his plan for the economy here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
McCain brags about how he knows nothing about the economy. Hillary parrots stupid ideas like McCain's Gas Tax Holiday.
At least Obama has the sense to knock that bit of stupidity out of the park.
yeah, gimme a break - The president doesn't fix the economy, he asks the Fed what to do. Same with Congress.
-
"Change" is such bullshit. His ideas and platforms are just what BeachBum said, old school left wing/quasi-socialist. Its unfortunate that many people don't spend the time or have the intelligence to look beyond the surface.
"Change we can believe in".... ::)
In order for there to be significant change, we have to change how our government works, scrap the 2 party system and stop the trends of government spending, excessive power, and international policeman.
-
Good question. Obama has already admitted his ideas aren't new. His recipe is the old fashioned, big government, liberal tax, spend, and redistribution of wealth. His "change" message is a smokescreen. If he wins and we give him a Democrat Congress, all I can say is get your checkbook. :-\
You are already seemingly comfortable with the billions and billions spent on subsidizing Big Business. This socialism has grown like a tumor under the Bush administration yet I hear not a peep from you. Where are your free market, small government protests?
Under this socialism, Big Business socializes the cost/risk of business at the taxpayers's expense and privatizes the profits to its own benefit.
-
yeah, gimme a break - The president doesn't fix the economy, he asks the Fed what to do. Same with Congress.
I agree. The Fed and the business cycle are kings. However, the spending priorities of a president and congress does affect that hierarchy.
-
"Change" is such bullshit. His ideas and platforms are just what BeachBum said, old school left wing/quasi-socialist. Its unfortunate that many people don't spend the time or have the intelligence to look beyond the surface.
"Change we can believe in".... ::)
In order for there to be significant change, we have to change how our government works, scrap the 2 party system and stop the trends of government spending, excessive power, and international policeman.
Which of his economic ideas do you have a problem with?
-
You are already seemingly comfortable with the billions and billions spent on subsidizing Big Business. This socialism has grown like a tumor under the Bush administration yet I hear not a peep from you. Where are your free market, small government protests?
Under this socialism, Big Business socializes the cost/risk of business at the taxpayers's expense and privatizes the profits to its own benefit.
And where exactly did I say I was comfortable with billions and billions spent subsidizing "Big Business"? And what subsidies are you talking about?
Bush isn't a socialist and hasn't pushed a socialist or quasi-socialist agenda. Obama is either a socialist or quasi-socialist pushing a quasi-socialist agenda. That's partly why you hear protests about Obama, but not Bush from me.
-
And where exactly did I say I was comfortable with billions and billions spent subsidizing "Big Business"? And what subsidies are you talking about?
Bush isn't a socialist and hasn't pushed a socialist or quasi-socialist agenda. Obama is either a socialist or quasi-socialist pushing a quasi-socialist agenda. That's partly why you hear protests about Obama, but not Bush from me.
I think you need to re-read Decker's statement. He points out exactly where, how, and why Bush is a socialist.
-
Don't have time to type it all Decker but in reading his website, his solution to almost every problem was to increase federal funds to... and increase government control/involvement in....(insert issue)
- I am very much apposed to his redistribution of wealth. I believe he will raise taxes on all Americans making $150K or more per yr....maybe even lower. I have heard him use the $150K figure...and although it does not affect me (even as a doc), I still don't think its fair.
-He wants to force small business to pay for the healthcare of its workers...that would kill me or force my few employees to become contractors.
-I do not believe in expanding medicaid programs and the welfare system.
-Increasing taxes on oil and other company profits will not work.
-Increasing capital gains taxes have proven to decrease federal revenue, penalyze investors/owners and discourage new businesses and investments.
-Raising the minimum wage even more
-Expanding FMLA and increasing taxes and other expendatures on small businesses.
-handouts and relief funds for people who made poor decisions on home loans. Yes, the lenders are partially to blame but fiscally responsible people would never have signed those loans with little personal finances.
-
-
And where exactly did I say I was comfortable with billions and billions spent subsidizing "Big Business"? And what subsidies are you talking about?
Bush isn't a socialist and hasn't pushed a socialist or quasi-socialist agenda. Obama is either a socialist or quasi-socialist pushing a quasi-socialist agenda. That's partly why you hear protests about Obama, but not Bush from me.
b/c I only see you rail against some shadowy vague socialism which on this board has taken the character of welfare and entitlements.
Bush is a socialist in the sense that the owners of the means of production are of his class and they are working over the average tax payer and commonly owned resources to their private benefit.
-
Don't have time to type it all Decker but in reading his website, his solution to almost every problem was to increase federal funds to... and increase government control/involvement in....(insert issue)
- I am very much apposed to his redistribution of wealth. I believe he will raise taxes on all Americans making $150K or more per yr....maybe even lower. I have heard him use the $150K figure...and although it does not affect me (even as a doc), I still don't think its fair.
-He wants to force small business to pay for the healthcare of its workers...that would kill me or force my few employees to become contractors.
-I do not believe in expanding medicaid programs and the welfare system.
-Increasing taxes on oil and other company profits will not work.
-Increasing capital gains taxes have proven to decrease federal revenue, penalyze investors/owners and discourage new businesses and investments.
-Raising the minimum wage even more
-Expanding FMLA and increasing taxes and other expendatures on small businesses.
-handouts and relief funds for people who made poor decisions on home loans. Yes, the lenders are partially to blame but fiscally responsible people would never have signed those loans with little personal finances.
-
Thank you for pointing those things out. I think much of the redistributive effort in this country already inures to the benefit of the wealthy--whether tax breaks, subsidy payoffs or pillaging the country's natural resources for pennies on the dollar. I support universal healthcare b/c the British have it and provide better healthcare 40% cheaper than the privatized version in the US. Bush has really screwed Medicaid--removing the bargaining power of the government and giving the leverage to private companies; Removing the oil companies billions in subsidies might encourage a little leanness in the industry; I don't know of any economist that would say the moderate increase in capital gains tax rates would actually result in a drop off of tax revenue--that sounds too supply sidish to me.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it.
-
b/c I only see you rail against some shadowy vague socialism which on this board has taken the character of welfare and entitlements.
Bush is a socialist in the sense that the owners of the means of production are of his class and they are working over the average tax payer and commonly owned resources to their private benefit.
I rail against socialism when I see socialism, like Obama's agenda. I don't recall specifically mentioning "welfare and entitlements." I'm pretty sure I've said on this board more than once that I don't have a problem with a taxpayer funded safety net. That's completely different from the things Obama has in store for taxpayers.
Bush isn't anywhere near a socialist. He isn't trying to work over the average taxpayer. Where do you get that from?
You said there are "billions and billions spent on subsidizing Big Business." What do you mean by this?
-
Bush isn't anywhere near a socialist. He isn't trying to work over the average taxpayer. Where do you get that from?
oh brother. what is it about math that you hate so much?
-
oh brother. what is it about math that you hate so much?
His lack of understanding it.
-
His lack of understanding it.
he once said statistics were useless.
-
I rail against socialism when I see socialism, like Obama's agenda. I don't recall specifically mentioning "welfare and entitlements." I'm pretty sure I've said on this board more than once that I don't have a problem with a taxpayer funded safety net. That's completely different from the things Obama has in store for taxpayers.
Bush isn't anywhere near a socialist. He isn't trying to work over the average taxpayer. Where do you get that from?
You said there are "billions and billions spent on subsidizing Big Business." What do you mean by this?
Here's some of Bush's socialism for the rich: 18 billion oil subsidies
http://www.addisonindependent.com/node/1268
"[L]ower taxes on capital gains ($37B), accelerated depreciation ($37B), agribusiness subsidies ($18B), tax avoidance by transnational corporations ($12B), tax-free muni bonds ($9.1B), media industry handouts ($8B), tax loopholes for the insurance industry ($7.2B), corporate meal and entertainment deductions ($5.5B), nuclear industry subsidies ($7.1B), aviation industry subsidies ($5.5B), mining industry subsidies ($3.5B), oil and gas industry tax breaks ($2.4B), export subsidies ($2B) and "miscellaneous" ($1.6B)." http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/aboutus/wn_ABudget.html
""Wealthfare" enjoyed by big business, writes Zepezauer, includes tax avoidance by transnationals, lower taxes on capital gains, accelerated depreciation, insurance loopholes, business meals and entertainment, tax free municipal bonds, and export subsidies. Other corporate goodies include the savings and loan bailout, agribusiness subsidies, media handouts, nuclear subsidies, aviation subsidies, mining subsidies, oil and gas tax breaks, timber subsidies, and others. Among other particularly egregious developments is a $100,000 "accelerated depreciation" for the largest of the gas-guzzling SUVs."
"Military waste and fraud is in its own category..."
Wealthfare—the money government gives away to corporations and wealthy individuals—costs us more than $815 billion a year. That’s:
"47 percent of what it costs to run the US government (which is about $1.73 trillion a year, not counting entitlement trust funds like Social Security and Medicare)
enough money to eliminate the federal debt in just over eight years (the total is now $6.6 trillion, accumulated over 200-plus years)
more than four times what we spend on welfare for the poor (currently around $193 billion a year; see Appendix A for a breakdown)" http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/TROW/Introduction
Gov. payments to people under the poverty level is a hand up.
Gov. payments to the successful 'free market' corporations is a handout. It's also a handjob on the american taxpayer.
-
he once said statistics were useless.
FDR would disagree
-
Here's some of Bush's socialism for the rich: 18 billion oil subsidies
http://www.addisonindependent.com/node/1268
"[L]ower taxes on capital gains ($37B), accelerated depreciation ($37B), agribusiness subsidies ($18B), tax avoidance by transnational corporations ($12B), tax-free muni bonds ($9.1B), media industry handouts ($8B), tax loopholes for the insurance industry ($7.2B), corporate meal and entertainment deductions ($5.5B), nuclear industry subsidies ($7.1B), aviation industry subsidies ($5.5B), mining industry subsidies ($3.5B), oil and gas industry tax breaks ($2.4B), export subsidies ($2B) and "miscellaneous" ($1.6B)." http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/aboutus/wn_ABudget.html
""Wealthfare" enjoyed by big business, writes Zepezauer, includes tax avoidance by transnationals, lower taxes on capital gains, accelerated depreciation, insurance loopholes, business meals and entertainment, tax free municipal bonds, and export subsidies. Other corporate goodies include the savings and loan bailout, agribusiness subsidies, media handouts, nuclear subsidies, aviation subsidies, mining subsidies, oil and gas tax breaks, timber subsidies, and others. Among other particularly egregious developments is a $100,000 "accelerated depreciation" for the largest of the gas-guzzling SUVs."
"Military waste and fraud is in its own category..."
Wealthfare—the money government gives away to corporations and wealthy individuals—costs us more than $815 billion a year. That’s:
"47 percent of what it costs to run the US government (which is about $1.73 trillion a year, not counting entitlement trust funds like Social Security and Medicare)
enough money to eliminate the federal debt in just over eight years (the total is now $6.6 trillion, accumulated over 200-plus years)
more than four times what we spend on welfare for the poor (currently around $193 billion a year; see Appendix A for a breakdown)" http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/TROW/Introduction
Gov. payments to people under the poverty level is a hand up.
Gov. payments to the successful 'free market' corporations is a handout. It's also a handjob on the american taxpayer.
Assuming I accept your sources at face value, this isn't socialism. It isn't "Bush's socialism."
I don't support any subsidies for the oil cartel, or the tobacco cartel. Don't have a problem at all with lower capital gains taxes. That isn't socialism. The rest doesn't really bother me, particularly the tax deductions. That isn't socialism.
-
Sure Decker. You are one of the individuals I enjoy exchanging ideas/debating with.
I agree that subsidies given to huge corporations should be looked at more carefully, as you pointed out, there is likely lots of abuse there. However, I do not believe in high captial gains taxes or taxing profits disproportionally. Those kinds of taxes limit business investment, incentives and profits taxes are passed on.
I like Obama (and Clinton's) idea of not giving subsidies or tax breaks for companies that move large #s of plants overseas.
-
Assuming I accept your sources at face value, this isn't socialism. It isn't "Bush's socialism."
I don't support any subsidies for the oil cartel, or the tobacco cartel. Don't have a problem at all with lower capital gains taxes. That isn't socialism. The rest doesn't really bother me, particularly the tax deductions. That isn't socialism.
What is socialism?
-
Sure Decker. You are one of the individuals I enjoy exchanging ideas/debating with.
I agree that subsidies given to huge corporations should be looked at more carefully, as you pointed out, there is likely lots of abuse there.
Same here. However, I do not believe in high captial gains taxes or taxing profits disproportionally. Those kinds of taxes limit business investment, incentives and profits taxes are passed on.
I do agree with this. I know that corporations pass on the costs of taxes but I'm all right with that. It's like spreading the risk under insurance.
I like Obama (and Clinton's) idea of not giving subsidies or tax breaks for companies that move large #s of plants overseas.
I admire any candidate that encourages buying american products/creating american jobs.
-
What is socialism?
Pick one. :) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+socialism
-
Pick one. :) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+socialism
I am asking you what you think 'Socialism' is.
I have my own idea sir and I'd like to hear your idea.
-
I am asking you what you think 'Socialism' is.
I have my own idea sir and I'd like to hear your idea.
Among other things, complete government control of public and private industry, forced redistribution of wealth, and punishment and/or stifling of success by the government (e.g., taking more than half of a person's income over a certain level).
What is your definition?
-
Among other things, complete government control of public and private industry, forced redistribution of wealth, and punishment and/or stifling of success by the government (e.g., taking more than half of a person's income over a certain level).
What is your definition?
Isn't the president and congress redistributing the country's wealth to the economic elites via subsidies? Do the economic elites need a corruption of the free market even if it does inure to their individual benefit?
Socialism is ownership of the means of production by all people involved where production is carried out more for use than for profit--the economy is planned.
To me that is a decent barebones defintion of the concept.
In Bush's plutocratic form, the elites own the means of production, they get the redistributed subsidies, gov. contracts and national resources. They steer all economic advantage to themselves while "sharing" the costs of business with all americans.
-
Isn't the president and congress redistributing the country's wealth to the economic elites via subsidies? Do the economic elites need a corruption of the free market even if it does inure to their individual benefit?
Socialism is ownership of the means of production by all people involved where production is carried out more for use than for profit--the economy is planned.
To me that is a decent barebones defintion of the concept.
In Bush's plutocratic form, the elites own the means of production, they get the redistributed subsidies, gov. contracts and national resources. They steer all economic advantage to themselves while "sharing" the costs of business with all americans.
Yes the government is engaged in some form of redistribution of wealth (e.g., taxes used to support infrastructure, pay public employees, and welfare). But you know that's not what I'm talking about. I think when I and many others talk about redistribution of wealth we are referring to, for instance, Obama raising taxes on people he considers "wealthy" and taking that revenue to support his pet social programs.
Our free market system is the antithesis of socialism. We are free to form whatever business we like, with the government providing some oversight (like antitrust laws, the courts, etc.).
Do you work for a private company or for the government?
-
Yes the government is engaged in some form of redistribution of wealth (e.g., taxes used to support infrastructure, pay public employees, and welfare). But you know that's not what I'm talking about. I think when I and many others talk about redistribution of wealth we are referring to, for instance, Obama raising taxes on people he considers "wealthy" and taking that revenue to support his pet social programs.
Our free market system is the antithesis of socialism. We are free to form whatever business we like, with the government providing some oversight (like antitrust laws, the courts, etc.).
Do you work for a private company or for the government?
Taxes and tax revenue are not socialism. Even if those tax dollars are paid to GE or an impoverished family.
In the US, We have a free market for the rank and file people and a socialized form of capitalism for the elites where they receive benefits, subsidies, resources, gov funded R&D and much more while passing the costs of business/risk to the american taxpayer.
I am a partner in a private firm. I don't anticipate the government bailing my company out if it faced bankruptcy. Can Bear Stearns or Ford say the same thing?
Do you work for government or a private company?
-
Taxes and tax revenue are not socialism. Even if those tax dollars are paid to GE or an impoverished family.
In the US, We have a free market for the rank and file people and a socialized form of capitalism for the elites where they receive benefits, subsidies, resources, gov funded R&D and much more while passing the costs of business/risk to the american taxpayer.
I am a partner in a private firm. I don't anticipate the government bailing my company out if it faced bankruptcy. Can Bear Stearns or Ford say the same thing?
Do you work for government or a private company?
I didn't say and don't believe that taxes are socialism.
Free market applies to everyone.
Does your company affect millions of consumers? If not, that’s the primary distinction between your company and a company like Ford.
Does the government control the type of law your firm practices, who your clients are, what you charge by the hour, and what you earn?
I'm part owner of a private company.
-
I didn't say and don't believe that taxes are socialism.
Free market applies to everyone.
Does your company affect millions of consumers? If not, that’s the primary distinction between your company and a company like Ford.
Does the government control the type of law your firm practices, who your clients are, what you charge by the hour, and what you earn?
I'm part owner of a private company.
I don't work at a law firm. I am a partner in a pension administration firm. We may not affect millions yet but we certainly affect thousands. Our charges are asset based for trust valuations and service based for taxfilings and compliance testing.
Since the government makes the law in this country, I would say that it makes regulations for my business...especially the IRS and DOL.
The free market does apply to everyone. It's just that for the elites, they also have the socialism handouts and protection from bankruptcy offered by OUR government.
I don't have that.
Bears Stearns engaged in shady business practices...yet the gov. handed over 30 billion.
If that's not favoritism, then what is?
Oh the gov. had a good reason for the bailout, right?
I'm certain that 'good reason' is not fidelity to the free market.
-
I don't work at a law firm. I am a partner in a pension administration firm. We may not affect millions yet but we certainly affect thousands. Our charges are asset based for trust valuations and service based for taxfilings and compliance testing.
Since the government makes the law in this country, I would say that it makes regulations for my business...especially the IRS and DOL.
The free market does apply to everyone. It's just that for the elites, they also have the socialism handouts and protection from bankruptcy offered by OUR government.
I don't have that.
Bears Stearns engaged in shady business practices...yet the gov. handed over 30 billion.
If that's not favoritism, then what is?
Oh the gov. had a good reason for the bailout, right?
I'm certain that 'good reason' is not fidelity to the free market.
Businesses fail all the time. We just lost two: Molokai Ranch and Aloha Airlines. Thousands of people lost their jobs. Terrible.
I have mixed feelings about government bailouts. In general, I don't think the government should bail out a failing business. On the other hand, if the business affects millions of people and could adversely affect the economy nationwide, then government intervention might be helpful. Overall, though, I think businesses should operate with as little government interference as possible and survive or fail based on their merit.
What do you mean by "elites"?
-
Businesses fail all the time. We just lost two: Molokai Ranch and Aloha Airlines. Thousands of people lost their jobs. Terrible.
I have mixed feelings about government bailouts. In general, I don't think the government should bail out a failing business. On the other hand, if the business affects millions of people and could adversely affect the economy nationwide, then government intervention might be helpful. Overall, though, I think businesses should operate with as little government interference as possible and survive or fail based on their merit.
What do you mean by "elites"?
I mean the corporate executives whose income has gone up 500% and the plutocratic business owners--the top 10% that own over 80% of wealth in the US.