Jackson Free Press

On-screen text on Fox News echoed the Drudge Report in falsely claiming that Sen. Barack Obama said it is a "tragedy" that the Supreme Court has not addressed wealth redistribution. In fact, the "tragedy" Obama identified during the interview was in what he said was the civil rights movement's overreliance on the courts to pursue political and economic justice.

Previous Comments

ID

139886

Comment

Why is all these poor white faces at the bottom of the well who are without any wealth of any nature and kind so worried about wealth being redistributed. You would think they would be in need or favor of some kind of equity coming about. But they're not. Instead they're perfectly happy with their trailers and 3 wheelers as long as they think I'm walking, living in a shack worse than theirs and am working at Mr. Bud Johnson's sawmill for some peanuts, molasses and a few pennies to buy supplies to plant my truck patch. Redistribution of wealth is an impossibility everywhere anyway, especially here in a democratic society, for surely the biggest rogues or theives the world has ever seen have perfected a system of making sure what has been taken can never be taken back. And that's the double truth Ruth, so stop your worrying and crying about something happeneing that no one is interested in anyway.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-10-28T10:44:53-06:00

ID

139888

Comment

Funny. Gov. Palin has her own juicy "socialist" quote. And she's the one who actually takes from the very rich (oil companies) and gives it to the less-wealthy (every Alaskan). A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re 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.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist. The "redistribution" talking point is ridiculous.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-10-28T11:02:55-06:00

ID

139891

Comment

Isn't there a difference of taking the profits from something that is owned by the people of Alaska and dividing it, than taking the money people have earned and does not belong to the gov't and redistributing it to other people? and she did not set up the Alaska Permnant Fund which is where every Alaskan gets their share from she was still in Jr High in 1976 when that was set up.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-10-28T11:21:06-06:00

ID

139892

Comment

Yes, there is a difference. Under "socialism," the government owns or controls the means of production and then redistributes the take to "the people." See Alaska. That is not the same thing as taxation, which is what Obama and McCain, and presumably Palin, support. The difference is who they think should bear more burden going forward from right now—the wealthy who can afford it and benefit the most from corporate welfare and tax breaks already, or the middle class who are being sunk by the entire economy including taxes. You can disagree with a middle-class tax cut, but it is laughable to equate it with socialism or booger-bear "redistribution," as if they're not all doing that. Thus, if you disagree with taxation in any form, say that, but don't mistake it for socialism or Marxism. And if you do, I presume you also do not believe in ever going to war or driving on highways. If you're from Mississippi, you can be forgiven for not knowing what communism/socialism really is, considering that we all (white folks, anyway) grew up here being told that any effort to build public schools, help the poor or give civil rights to black people was "communistic." It is time, though, to reject those lies, and learn what these things really mean. When you do, you'll see what an insult McCain-Palin are hurling at you. In this equation, Palin comes closest to Marxism.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-10-28T11:24:09-06:00

ID

139893

Comment

As for your second question, Bubba, here's a piece in the Christian Science Monitor on Alaska's unique approach to redistributing oil profits: Oil royalties, taxes, and fees currently provide about 90 percent of the state's general revenues. Thanks to the recent spike in prices and a recent rewrite of the state's oil-tax system that reaps the benefits of high prices, the state treasury is overflowing. That has allowed Palin and the legislature to authorize bigger budgets, including a nearly $1 billion "energy assistance" package that allowed the special $1,200 payments and targets aid for rural utilities and bulk-fuel purchases. Alaska's current riches are a dramatic turnaround from the 1990s, when oil prices fell as low as $9 a barrel and the state was weighing whether to reinstate a personal-income tax, impose a statewide sales tax, or tap into its Permanent Fund to pay for services. "We were the only state in the nation at that time that was actually cutting its budget, and every one of the eight years I was in office, we cut our budget," says former Gov. Tony Knowles, a Democrat who served from 1994 to 2002. Skyrocketing oil prices have erased that dilemma for now. Even as state operating budgets rose from $2.46 billion in fiscal 2005 to $5.26 billion for the current fiscal year, the legislature was able to sock away $5 billion into various savings accounts and craft the energy package that includes the $1,200 payment. Under Palin's watch, the legislature reinstated a popular municipal revenue-sharing program and revived the Alaska Film Office. Education spending is up, and capital budgets have been among the biggest in state history.[...] Some skeptics consider the $1,200 payout part of a shortsighted plan that lacked investment in the future and, at worst, could morph into a long-term entitlement. "It sounds good that you give everybody 1,200 bucks," said state Rep. Les Gara, an Anchorage Democrat. "But as a government leader, you're supposed to figure out what the problem is and find out a solution.... Everybody decided it was just easier to dole out the cash than to come up with a plan to reduce the cost of energy."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-10-28T11:30:55-06:00

ID

139895

Comment

Also, the amount per person shot up $1,200 each under Palin because she levied new taxes on oil companies and because oil prices went up. See also: Palin's Pipeline Problem She's not an energy expert; she's an expert—so far—at helping certain oil companies (and their lobbyiests) get what they want, and at increasing the pay-out to "the people" by raising taxes on oil companies. She has also benefited from high oil prices, and her state will continue to. At this point is where her and Todd's former associations with the secessionist AIP folks come in—with an Alaska-first attitude, high oil prices help that state. Drilling in Anwar helps both oil companies and thus Alaskans even though it does little to help the American oil problem. And socialism and massive earmarks for her state is fine and dandy, but don't dare ask them to contribute to anything that benefits the lower 48. Get it?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-10-28T11:38:00-06:00

ID

139897

Comment

Alaskans actually will get more than that for 2008. They get $2069 from the AGF and one-time $1,200 Alaska Resource Rebate for a total of $3269.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-10-28T11:49:11-06:00

ID

139898

Comment

I know. That's additional. BTW, I'm not arguing against their fund; maybe it makes sense. But it's sure more "socialistic" than a middle-class tax cut and rolling back Bush tax cuts to Clinton-era levels. I truly hate the ignorance we're being asked to believe in the name of politics. I'm not a partisan; I want people to tell the truth and argue on the merits. And as a MIssissippi, I've heard enough race- and red-baiting to last me three lifetimes.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-10-28T12:04:09-06:00

ID

139902

Comment

Here you can listen to the oh-so-scary "redistribution" interview. It kills me that people don't get what he is saying—which, essentially, is an argument *away* from judicial activism, per Cass Sunstein (click for his bio). He writes: In that interview, Obama was discussing efforts, in the 1960s and 1970s, to redistribute resources through the federal courts. Obama said that the Warren Court was not so terribly radical, because it "never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." He complained, not that the Court refused to enter into those issues, but that "the civil-rights movement became so court-focussed," In answering a caller's question, he said that the court "is just not very good at" redistribution. Obama added, with approval, that the Constitution "is generally a charter of negative liberties." Obama's principal claim--about the institutional limits of the courts--was made by many conservatives (including Robert Bork) in the 1960s and 1970s: Courts should not attempt to guarantee "positive" rights, or interpret the Constitution to redistribute wealth. Obama is squarely rejecting the claim that was made by many liberal lawyers, professors, and judges at the time--and that is being made by some today. Listening to people try to turn *this* intelligent commentary into a red scare might just be the most perfect definition of being "pecked to death by ducks." Good Lord.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-10-28T12:51:23-06:00

ID

140003

Comment

What are some of these folks thinking? How can someone take from you what you don't have? McCain and Palin stand before a crowd of folks telling them that Obama will take their wealth and "give it to people who don't work or pay taxes." This is the lowest of the low and their way of reinforcing a class system. Can you believe that McCain and Palin would take "Lying Joe the Plummer" and create a heroic story around the lies he told and continues to tell? This man has hired a publicist, is sporting a new country wardrobe and has been offered a singing contract. He is also answering questions on the campaign trail and has made remarks that he does think that Obama is a "socialist and a Marxists". Lying Joe the Plummer does not know what a socialist or a Marxist is. I hope that someone will ask him for a definition.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-10-30T09:50:20-06:00