Obama 2001 Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

Well well, with all the outcries for a thread on this BLOG site radio splicing thing it seems to me that the McCain tactic is hitting a nerve. Some people seem nerveous about this Obama radio clip is working. And honestly, with all of Obama's "Ah..." and "uh..." and "eh..." he uses it probably wasn't too difficlt to splice something.

Besides new ATS political trolling rules we cannot use BLOG sites to start political threads.

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
Well well, with all the outcries for a thread on this BLOG site radio splicing thing it seems to me that the McCain tactic is hitting a nerve. Some people seem nerveous about this Obama radio clip is working. And honestly, with all of Obama's "Ah..." and "uh..." and "eh..." he uses it probably wasn't too difficlt to splice something.

Besides new ATS political trolling rules we cannot use BLOG sites to start political threads.

lol, watching you guys convince yourself that this isn't real is just mind blowing. Utterly amazing in a place that claims to see through the bull.

reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius


Because it's not real. It is edited by the GOP. FACT! Now go away partisan hack.

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius

 

Because it's not real. It is edited by the GOP. FACT! Now go away partisan hack.

It is real. What evidence do you have that what I'm hearing with my own ears doesn't exists? You have no way to disprove the pattern Obama has shown us.

Christ, its really sad watching reality slip slowly away from some of you guys.

reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Right there. Read it and weep. More Republican BS right up there with the "Black guy attacked me!"

reply to post by Karlhungis


you are kidding, right? explain to me how wealth is currently being redistributed from the working class to the upper class. just because the upper class makes more money (by definition), they are not having money "funneled" to them from lower- and middle-class workers. yes, they EMPLOY lower- and middle-class workers, but that is a GOOD thing. if you want to make more money, go to school. you can practically do this for free with all the public and private grants available (literally billions of dollars waiting to be distributed to college students), not to mention federal school loans. go make yourself rich by starting a business or getting involved in investments. allowing rich people to keep some of what they earn (they are already in a higher tax bracket) is not wealth redistribution. i'm sorry that people who work in minimum wage jobs make less money than CEOs of small businesses and corporations, but that is how it should be. how many jobs have you ever received from a lower-class worker? i'd rather have job opportunities and a chance to make something of myself than a few thousand dollars per year in government handouts and a heavy tax-the-rich policy that will keep people from seeking to earn more money.

He does not say "redistribute wealth" in the original audio, but says "redistributive change".

FACT CHECK: McCain misreads 2001 Obama interview

Tue, 28 Oct 2008 - Republican John McCain is misreading seven-year-old comments by rival Barack Obama about "redistributive change" to argue that the Democrat's tax policy is built on "taking your money and giving it to someone else."
******SKIP******
"It's always more interesting to hear what people have to say in these unscripted moments," McCain told a rally in Dayton, Ohio, alluding to Obama's now well-known exchange in Ohio with Joe the Plumber. "And, today, we heard another moment like this from Sen. Obama.

"In a radio interview that was revealed today, he said that, quote, One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society."

Obama never said that
******SKIP******
What Obama called a tragedy was the civil rights movement's focus on the court, rather than on "political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Obama did not define redistributive change in the interview, but he said one example of such change involves education, "how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity."

I never heard Obama say anything close to being socialist.

Socialism

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Keyhole]

Obama is not a socialist. It doesn't matter how many times the Republicans say it it's not going to be true. Socialism "refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society". What that means is to take from everyone and give to everyone, and that's hardly what he's doing here.

Besides Brian Moore is the presidential candidate for the socialist party, and here's his statement about the claim that Obama is a socialist:

"It's misleading for Republicans to say that," the local peace activist and perennial candidate said Wednesday from his Spring Hill home. "They know (Obama's) not a socialist."

Now, more than ever, Moore and his party are getting attention thanks to the $700-billion financial bailout and the rhetoric from the Republican presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin have repeatedly labeled Obama as a socialist in recent days.

"Now is not the time to experiment with socialism," Palin said at a rally Monday.

"I think his plans are redistribution of the wealth," McCain said in a television interview Sunday. "That's one of the tenets of socialism."

The Republicans are capitalizing on their Democratic rival's recent conversation with Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, in which Obama told the Ohio man that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama was discussing his plan to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000.

Moore said McCain and Palin are abusing the "socialist" label. Likewise, he said Obama's programs wouldn't create a true wealth redistribution.

"It seems like both major party candidates are trying to use socialism to their advantage, in a negative and in a positive way," he said.

Moore and his vice presidential candidate Stewart Alexander are competing in 18 states, including Florida, which carry more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

(His name actually appears on the ballot in just eight states but he's a qualified write-in candidate in the other 10.)

If elected, Moore would push for the "full government takeover of all American corporations."

www.nowpublic.com...
Socialist Party USA Website

Besides, it doesn't mean much coming from Sarah Palin when she told journalist Philip Gourevitch just a few weeks before she was nominated that “we’re [Alaska] set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

And since she used $50,000 of tax payrer's money to remodel her house.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Shocka]

I guess Reagan was a socialist too!

Does McCain Think Reagan Was a Socialist?

When the Earned Income Tax Credit was expanded in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan, who signed the bill into law, called the EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.”

The EITC provides a tax credit to very low-income working families. The credit can exceed federal income tax liability, meaning that some very low-income families actually receive a check from the IRS. Since pretty much all working people pay federal payroll taxes (and also some federal excise taxes like the gasoline tax) even if they don’t owe income taxes, the EITC seemed like a justifiable break for struggling families.

Leaders of both parties agreed, as did President Reagan. That’s as close to a consensus as anyone finds in Washington. It seemed this was one sort of tax cut that everyone supported.

Until now. Presidential candidate John McCain, who often claims to emulate Ronald Reagan, has lately argued that tax breaks exceeding income tax liability are “welfare,” and has even suggested that they are socialism.
******SKIP******
Pinning down where Senator McCain stands on taxes has never been easy. He originally opposed the Bush tax cuts, saying. “I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks.”

Funny how it wasn't called socialist then!


[edit on 10/29/2008 by Keyhole]

Moderators should something be added to the topic of this as new information has come out regarding that these videos were tampered with?

apps.wbez.org...

This thread should be labeled *HOAX*!

Apparently this audio was edited to misrepresent what Obama was saying at that interview!

This comes straight from the radio station that did the interview.

Excerpts of Seven Year-Old Obama Interview Cause Stir

In 2001, Chicago Public Radio interviewed then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama about civil rights. Over the weekend, someone posted excerpts of the interview, edited to misrepresent Obama's statements. The item is now catching national attention.
******SKIP******
The 4 minute spliced collection of clips portrays Obama as advocate a redistribution of wealth through the power of the Supreme Court. That folds in with some allegations by the McCain Palin campaign.

The twist here is that, when heard in the context of the whole show, Obama’s position is distinctly misrepresented by the You Tube posting. Taken in context, Obama is evaluating the historical successes and failures of the Civil Rights movement—and, ironically, he says the Supreme Court was a failure in cases that it took on a role of redistributing resources.

Here's the original full interview!

Click here for Obama's full interviews.

The only time he says "redistribution of wealth" is on the first audio recording at 40:15 he states that "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistributing wealth."

The OP audio is edited to try to make Obama look bad!

Good find amazed!

Originally posted by David9176
When listening to the audio of this...do you know what stands out to me the most? "Negative rights." What the hell is that? What is a negative right? What is he implying??

Listen to the first audio recording on the link above, "negative rights" are talked about at 40:45!

Basically what he was talking about was that the Constitution is a Constitution of negative rights because it says what the federal government and the state governments can't do, rather than saying what they can do.

People jump to conclusions soo easily when things are taken out of context, but, that is exactly what the author of the EDITED audio clip wanted!

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE LABELED *HOAX*!

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
What I find about this is that he is actually trashing our constitution and he is actually discussing the best way to redistribute the taxes.

Well the US constitution where written but a bunch of white old men so logically it was created to defend the private wealth these individuals had accumulated by normally exploitative and or illegal practices. Why not reform the aspects of the US constitution that takes from the majority to give to the richest 5%?

This is why it is a bad thing. A lot of people seem to be caught up in this we are redistributing the wealth to the richest people which isn't the case. Here are three different articles explaining this.

www.realclearpolitics.com...
www.actionamerica.org...
www.nationalreview.com...

The top 50% of tax payers have the highest tax burden. Anywhere from 35-45% of taxpayers don't pay taxes, they get a tax return.

And of that 50% the richest few percent ( who constitute all the millionaires and billionaires) don't pay comparatively much taxes. I mean why not tax these guys more given how they made their money on financial speculation ( contributing nothing to the economy or social welfare) and on the backs of those lowest forty percent who supposedly don't pay taxes? What about food, gas and general service taxes? Don't you think they could be taxed if they made proper salaries to start with?

We already have a very progressive tax system. And these are the tax brackets,

www.moneychimp.com...

And yet the gap between the rich and the middle class/poor in the US is increasing just about the fastest in the world? How is that progressive?

And here is an article showing that the tax breaks for the wealthy actually increased government revenues.

www.moneychimp.com...

Right and if you believe the moneychimp don't expect me to believe you to 'trust' your credibility on any related issue.

So Obama knows that raising the taxes on the wealthy is actually going to reduce government revenues, but he intends to make up for this by cutting the federal budget.

Nonsense in, nonsense out and if don't know why any fair minded person would believe such to be the case. How can taxing the rich reduce government income? Is this the same as how global warming is going to lead to more snowfall in the arctic regions? Sure.....

So my question is why is he cutting money supply to the government and then going to try to make up for it by cutting the federal budget? He is going to increase government spending by a massive amount.

His answer is that because it is "fair."

www.youtube.com...

Obama will like all those before him give tax breaks to the rich and by one means or another tax average hard working Americans more and more. To seriously believe that he will do anything different is to admit that you do not understand who funds him and who's interest he has always representd. Sure Mccain would have reduced taxes for the rich even faster and more and taxed that same hardworking citizen more and more obviously but then that is and always have been the main different between the GOP and the 'democrats'.

Then you have this gem of audio that just further increases the evidence that he is a Marxist.

hahahahahahah. I should probably say something more but i am afraid that might dignify your statement in some sort of obscure way.

A Marxist, in the US government! Hahahaha.

I'm sorry. I don't intend to offend it's just that ridiculous.

Stellar

Originally posted by ACEMANN
My Father makes enough to be in the crosshairs of O-bambi's tax hikes and he is far from "wealthy".

Then he should vote for McCain as he will reduce taxes for the rich far more than Obama eventually will ( mark my words; reduce here and give back even more there) thus making the vast majority poorer and providing the rich with ever more reason and means to leave the country when all those poor angry folk start getting agitated about having been ripped of so.

He makes a decent living but makes enough to be a source target for his wealth redistribution BS.

You consider 200 000 a year only a decent living? Do you understand that only a very small fraction of Americans earn that sort of income and that they are by world standards considered to to be well in the the wealthiest 0.25 % in the world? I mean that may be decent for some but for most its quite a indecent amount.

It makes me sick to think that he will be taxed even MORE because he actually went to school and made something of himself, unlike the other deadbeats in his family.

Yeah! It's a shame how these rich guys keep getting richer despite the supposedly 'massive' tax burden on their backs. Maybe we can increase their taxes and stop the moment when the the gap between the American middle class and wealthy starts decreasing? Are these guys just working more and more hours per day to get so much wealthier? What exactly are they doing that is so deserving of so much wealth?

Your comment about how that guy should just "sell more cars"makes me sick.

Especially considering how the vast majority of people on the planet doesn't have cars. What does the average American drive and how many cars are there per family? What is the average value and model date's? Maybe we should compare so you can see that most of those who have cars actually needs them for lack of the public transportation that some more taxation of the rich could have ensured?

He earned his money and "toys".

That depends on what you mean by 'earned'. Lets say that it was all above board, based on a moral code that wont make too many cringe and generally towards a productive end, would that necessitate him receiving such a high financial reward to afford toys while others in America struggles for basic survival? Is affording toys what inspires his production of 'wealth' and if so why? Why should we not make it harder for those few in society that are so greedy that they must have more than they even know what to do with? Why shouldn't we have a tax system that milks those ( for the public good; public transportation, schools, universities, renewable energy) who don't have anything to do other than make more and more money?

Why should he now be forced to sell the rewards of his hard labor?

Because mostly those who earn the most work less and certainly less strenuously with knowledge and skills that those who receives the least could easily duplicate if given the same level of education and social backgrounds. Why keep on rewarding those who have benefited by the system at the expense of those who haven't gotten anywhere near the same level of help in the first place?

Are you willing to give up your big-screen TV, Nintendo Wii, and internet to help pay your taxes?

Those are all things you can afford on a far, far smaller salary. To suggest that Obama is even pretending to cut taxes on the lower middle class ( who can afford those things) is very ill informed. His record speaks volumes as to who he is going to help.

I have read enough and understand enough to support my personal view of Obama as a maxist.

Then you should take reading lessons or read books actually written by Marx. When someone tells you they know something about Marx or Marxist they will be wrong 99% of the time. I fall into that 1% who may actually offer something Marx would not strenuously object to.

I actually paid attention in history class and am horrified to hear the same s#%& coming from his mouth as Lenin. F#$^ Obama and his rhetoric.

Then your history teacher believed taught from a book that hopelessly misrepresented history; not altogether surprising given how corporate capitalist wrote just about all the books on Marx.

For extra credit look how "great" Chicago and Illinois as a whole are doing; fiscal, crime-rate and gun-murder wise.

Obama is an EMPTY SUIT.

At least we can agree that a vote for Obama is not a vote for anything other than a slightly slower destruction of the American society in general than Mccain is suggesting.

I've had enough socialism this past year to fill me for my life already..oh, and for the record,

They say repetition is the basis of all learning so working on that basis i must insist that 99% of things said about socialist and or socialism in the MSM, in books, or by politicians is either plainly wrong or misrepresentations.

I DON'T like McCain.

/rant/off

Yes and who on Earth does? I mean doesn't it give you a clue about just how bad McCain is that a still rather deeply racist society is about to vote a coloured man into office based on their deep mistrust of everything the GOP and it's generally white old men represents? If the democrats were not trying to lose this election by all means possible ( yes, they are) they would have chosen a young white guy ( Clinton, anyone) and won by fifteen or more points instead of 5 to 10.

This is the type of election even some African countries would be embarra sed by.

Stellar

reply to post by jam321


No. I fall below the poverty line and I don't qualify for any "perks" No offense but, learn the system before spouting falsehoods.

reply to post by StellarX

I have become increasingly tired of this argument.Tax the rich,redistribute to the poor.I guess I would be considered poor.I survive on around 12 thousand dollars a year.There is no doubt that I would benifit from Obama's redistribution of tax money.However call it simple pride or maybe just a sense of fairplay,I don't think any one "class" of people should be singled out and have what they have earned taken from them.
It almost seems like jealousy and covetness by some to extract money from those who have it.Those who strive to educate themselves,present a stellar work ethic and achieve some form of wealth.
What lesson does this teach our young people? Don't worry,be happy,you don't have to do anything with your life or succed at anything,because the government will take care of you?
What happens when those that have the drive to achieve see that they could get by just as well by not achieving?Sit on their collective arses out of disillusionment and let the government do it for them.
What is it called when you derive part of your sustainance at the detriment of others? Oh yea...I think that is called a parasite!!

Right now this topic falls under two groups. The Republicans screaming "Black! Secret Muslim! Socialist!" And every one else trying to tell them the audio is edited byt the GOP, Obama never said it. And the response is more "Black! Secret Muslim! Socialist! I refuse to listen!" This topic should have HOAX next to it as it has been proven to be edited audio and complete and total Republican BS.

i think the wealthy should have the same increases in their entire compensation, as the minimum wage earners recieve in their entire compensation, percentage-wise.