Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: More proof Obama is a socolaist look at what he says about Redistribution of Wealth

  1. #1
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836

    More proof Obama is a socolaist look at what he says about Redistribution of Wealth

    In this Audio Obama talks about the failings of the Supreme Court to change the FLAWED United States Constitution.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

    I will break it down for you folks in this audio Obama says that he not only thinks that the "United States Constitution" was FLAWED when it came to redistribution of wealth, but thinks it was ok for the courts to change the "United States Constitution".

  2. #2
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Hey Havakasha what would you call Redistribution of Wealth?

  3. #3
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    What is a socolaist? LoL.

    I would call redistribution of wealth what the Republicans have done to this country for the last quarter century and especially the last 8 years under Bush/Cheney. The figures dont lie. The rich have gotten much richer and the middle class are getting squeezed. Funny how Republicans were never concerned when they were doing it. When Democrats try to rebalance things and make things more fair its suddently brought to attention as redistribution of wealth. The bullies and the powerful are running a little scared

    I call that HYPOCRISY.

  4. #4
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    No what republicans do is let the people that risk it all, keep what they make and in that process give jobs to those that are not willing to risk a dam thing. When was the last time you got a job from a poor man.


    What democrats want is a system where noone is rewarded for risking everything to develope new ideas. You know what that gets you right.

    If not here is an example: In USSR a farmer was given 100 acres out of which 10 was given to him to do what he wants to do with and he would get to keep whatever he got from just the ten acres the other 90 he was only given 10% of the crops, the rest (90%) of which went to the state. 78% of the crops that did not fail came from the 10 acres the farmer was given to do what he wanted and got to keep for himself. While he was told he had to plant the whole 100 acres and tend to the whole 100 acres 78% of the crops came from the 10 acres he was given to do what he wanted.

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    What is a Socolaist? John how come you never answer any questions?
    Are you a spoiled child or something?

    No.Republicans gave it to the rich through tax cuts, lax regulations and rewarding the giant corporations that support their agenda. They have been doing it for years. They had 6 years under Bush of unfettered control. Republicans had control of the House and Senate for those 6 years and look at what happened to income distribution during those years. You cant win on the facts John nor common sense. Provide the data during the Bush years please on income distribution and skyrocketing salaries for the Corporate heads who robbed this country blind. They rewarded their own base. But good try.

  6. #6
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Who are you trying to kid they had it was an even split in senate seats (one indepentant that voted with democrats) and only 12 extra seats in the house from 2000 to 2002. House added another 12 for a total of 24 extra seats in 2004. In the senate the republicans had 55 seats from 2002 to 2004.


    The best the republicans had was 5 extra seats for two years in the senate and in the house they had 24 seats for 2 years. For most of the rest of that 6 years you are talking about the republicans never held a real controlling body. For 2 years the senate was even and for the other 2 years the republicans only had 2 extra seats. THAT IS NOT "unfettered control".


    Now I saved the best for last. Hey dumbass when was the last time you got a job from a poor person????????????? Yea thats what I thought, NEVER. Hey dumbass who employs most people in the United States?????????? Yea thats what I thought, As you would say rich evil companies.


    Now while you think it is a bad thing that 30 years ago there where no billionaires and now there are many.


    Now while you think it is bad that 8 years ago there were less billionaires and millionaires and that it is bad that now there are many many more.


    I have news for you it is a good thing. Those are the ones that supply the jobs to people. YOU DONT GET JOBS FROM THE UNEMPLOYED. Increasing unemployment benefits largely just increases the time people stay unemployed. Look at what Newt Gingrich's bill on welfare reform did for the people on welfare. THEY MIRACULOUSLY FOUND JOBS THAT WHERE NOT THERE BEFORE.


    Like I said lloyd you want socialism because you cant make it on your own. You also dont think your kids can ether. You believe you will always need the governments help. Sad really, because you see I dont want the governments help because I dont need it and I will have tought my kids to excell so they wont need it. You really must have a low opinion of yourself and your offspring.

  7. #7
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    But what is a Socolaist?

    Bush vetoed ZERO (that's right ZERO) bills when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the House. That means the Republicans got whatever they wanted.
    Now repeat after me. ZERO, ZERO, ZERO, ZERO, ZERO, ZERO, ZERO, ZERO. YEP THAT IS ZERO. GOOD TRY BUDDY

    DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH WENT TO THE RICHEST ONE PERCENT. YOU DO THE ANALYSIS. LOL.

    So more millionaires and billionaires added up to more jobs? No it lead to excesses of greed and the collapse of the worlds financial system.
    Which has led to a recession that the corporate heads of Catepillar and Dupont have admitted is completely unique and has led to high unemployment and the screwing of the middle class.

    I am out there working. What about you?
    You know nothing about me and my family and how hard we have worked to make it to where we are so be careful what you say. You are going to be caught in another big lie. What i want is a good balance of govt and private enterprise, NOT CORPORATE COMMUNISM WHICH THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BROUGHT US.

  8. #8
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    I have done the analysis dumbshit. Bush had the tech bubble burst (just before he took office) which created a reccession and a attack of the likes which was never seen all in the first 18 months of him taking office. Hummmm, Dhaaaaaa all three created a situation that could have been the worst economic disaster this country had ever seen, yet some how we pulled out of it. All and I mean ALL, the economist were amazed at how well the economy was doing despite all that had happen to it. I guess you believe Bushs policies had nothing to do with that though right. Thats why I call you a dumb twit.


    I told you what lead to the world financial system collasping. Which by the way the Bush Administration tried to stop. In 2001 through 2006 Bush and the republicans tried to regulate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac 3 times, each time the democrats forced or threatened a filibuster to get the bill passed (the republicans never had enough seats to quash a filibuster by the democrats). From 1978 to 2000 Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac had given 2 trillion in loans. From 2000 to 2004 they had given another 1.4 trillion in loans. From 2004 to 2006 they had another 2 trillion in loans. OBAMA VOTED AGAINST THE ALMOST EXACT BILL IN 2005 THAT HE LATTER VOTED FOR IN 2007 to regulate Fanny and Freddy.


    Now because you are a dumb twit I will explain how Mark to Market works and why the rules made a bad situation even worse. As you might know the government regulations let banks loan or invest out up to 40 times what their assets were valued at. When the housing bubble burst and the sub prime mess became aware to the rest of the world those assets were valued at much less then what they really were because noone wanted to buy the paper because they did not know how much of that paper was insolvant (how much of it had sub prime mortgages in them). So instead of the paper really being worth 1 billion (or the 1.5 billion it started out at) it was worth 50 to 100 million. That ment that if a bank (Leman Brothers for example) holding these kind of assets that used to be worth 10 billion are now worth 1 billion instead of the 5 or 7 billion they are really worth. That meant the banks now had a short fall of 200 to 280 billion because instead of them being able to finance 200 to 280 billion they only had the right to finance 40 billion.


    Now while you would like to SOLELY blame the banks for investing in these types investments. I DO NOT. I blame the PEOPLE who got the loans they could not possibly afford, FIRST. I then blame ACORN which pressured banks to give people who could not afford the loan, loans and for lobbying congress to change the rules to make it possible for Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to purchase the loans from the smaller banks that said that they could not do because they could not sell them to anyone. I then blame Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. As a matter of fact I put very little blame on the banks that got stuck with these loans because by the time they got to them noone in that bank even knew how much of that paper they were buying were mortgages that the people who got them had NO POSSIBLE WAY of paying them back. They were stuck in with good mortgages, CDs, Bonds, and stock investments. IT WAS NOT THAT BANKS RESPONSIBLITY to figure out if people could actually pay back the mortgage or not they had most likely figured that since most came from Fanny and Freddy that there was some risk about being able to pay off the mortgages BUT that there was NO WAY IN HELL Fanny and Freddy (basically government entity) would be giving a person they knew full well could not pay back the mortgage a loan in the first place. The paper that was bought did not even include all of the information to even be able to check weather people could afford the mortgages or not.


    Finally Havakasha (lloyd) I know all I need to know to say what I said about YOU. I know you lie. I also know YOU dont think you can make it without the governments help. I also know YOU dont think your kids or grandchildren can make it on their own. YOU want the government to help you and your family with everything. There is only one reason for people to want the government involved in their lives as much as you do and that is because you dont think you and your family can make it on its own, otherwise you would not want the government to be so involved in your lives. You blame everyone but yourself for your problems, its always someone elses fault. You are part and parcel of the entitlement mantaility. QUIT DEPENDING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO DO EVERYTING FOR YOU AND DO IT YOURSELF. TAKE SOME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS AND QUIT BLAMING EVERYTHING ON OTHERS.
    Last edited by john; 10-11-2009 at 02:17 PM.

  9. Ad Fairy Senior Member

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •