Interesting Obama quotes

[Fury]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[shootfighter1]

Its funny how many people that distrust the government the most want to increase its power.....think about that one.

[Fury]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.      

[shootfighter1]

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.

[stormshadow]

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.  

[shootfighter1]

"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.

[Decker]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Decker]

"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?

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[24KT]

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.

[shootfighter1]

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.
-

[Decker]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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?   

[240 is Back]

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?

[24KT]

oh brother.   what is it about math that you hate so much?

His lack of understanding it.

[240 is Back]

His lack of understanding it.

he once said statistics were useless. 

[Decker]

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.

[youandme]

he once said statistics were useless. 

FDR would disagree

[Dos Equis]

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.