In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview:
Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth!

Please note in this interview Obama states: “"Generally, the Constitution is a Charter of Negative Liberties.“

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

In a 1995 interview, Obama is found to be race baiting:

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

I really do not see where this man can benefit America.

All you have to do to redistribute wealth is bring the factories home to the USA.  When we do that the working people will have plenty and the factories can prosper supplying the demand created by a well paid work force.  The only problem with that is there is not enough profit to pay each CEO a few BILLION every year.  They will have to settle for a few million every year.

drover,
that sounds great in theory. But the fact is that the companies that run the factories are not going to pay someone in the US $6.55(minimum)/hour plus benefits to do the same job that some 5 yr old in China will do for 10 cents a day. I’m not saying that that’s a good thing, by any stretch of the imagination. I’m just saying that it probably ain’t gonna happen.

Gordy40 - 27 October 2008 01:44 PM

I really do not see where this man can benefit America.

But Gordy, don’t you remember? He’s such a great speaker! Isn’t that what Americans need/want… Someone to tell us that we’re going to Hell in a handbasket and that he’s the head basket weaver and tell us in the most eloquent way possible?

That is not a theory Chico, that is a proven system.  We recovered from the depression and built the strongest economy in the world under that system.  There was one small problem with that system.  The CEOs could only make a few million a year so they got DC to let them ship the jobs overseas so they can make a few billion a year.

I thought that one of the primary reasons we recovered from the depression was World War II, which required the full industrial might of our country and putting every last able-bodied person to work.

I was taught in school that the only reason we won the Second World War was that we out produced Germany and Japan combined.  We probably can’t even produce a pair of combat boots today.  I guess we will have to rely on China to win the next one for us.

drover - 28 October 2008 07:58 PM

I was taught in school that the only reason we won the Second World War was that we out produced Germany and Japan combined.  We probably can’t even produce a pair of combat boots today.  I guess we will have to rely on China to win the next one for us.

That’s part of the problem…it’s what you were taught in school. I was taught in school that America is a 2-party system, but you see how true that is. There was also this little thing back in WW2 where people didn’t sit around and wonder and want to talk with Hitler about why he hated so many people. America saw a problem and stepped in to help with men who had the resolve to lay down their lives for freedom from tyranny. Oh yeah, and as far as Japan was concerned, we had a little thing called an “A-bomb” that pretty much determined the outcome.

We could produce combat boots today. The problem is that the Chinese will do it soooo much more cheaply.

drover - 28 October 2008 06:09 PM

That is not a theory Chico, that is a proven system.  We recovered from the depression and built the strongest economy in the world under that system.  There was one small problem with that system.  The CEOs could only make a few million a year so they got DC to let them ship the jobs overseas so they can make a few billion a year.

At this point, it is a theory, because these companies are not going to move the factories back to America without a REALLY good reason.

Which CEO’s are making “billions”? Can you provide a link to prove that? LOL Sorry, couldn’t resist. Actually, it’s the companies that are posting these billion dollar profits every year.

Due to inflation, $1 Million from 1945 would be about $11.5 Million today (OK, 2007, but you get the idea). And don’t worry folks, I do, in fact, have a link for your viewing enjoyment:
The Inflation Calculator

So, a CEO after WW2 making, say, $4M/yr would be making about $45.6 M/yr today. According to Forbes, the average of the top 500 CEO’s in the country is much less than that. And before anyone goes blasting away that there are CEO’s who make much more than that, notice the word “average.“

CEO Compensation

After a 38% collective pay raise in 2006, chief executives of the 500 biggest companies in the U.S. (as measured by a composite ranking of sales, profits, assets and market value) took a pay cut of 15% last year. The last time the big bosses took a pay hit was in 2002. In total, these 500 executives earned $6.4 billion in 2007, an average of $12.8 million apiece.

Now, do I think these guys deserve to have the “golden parachute” comp pkgs if they run the company into the ground? Absolutely not. Do I even think it’s fair that they make so much more per year than the average employee for their respective co’s? Not so much. But I don’t have a problem with someone with skills making more money per year than someone working as an unskilled laborer. Are there problems and inequalities in the current system that badly need to be addressed? Absolutely. But we can’t go all “Robin Hood” and take from the “rich” to give to the “poor.“ That’s called “theft” no matter how you spin it.

Personally, I think the best way to go about it would be for the top 500 companies in the country to all agree to decrease their profit margins by 25% (or some agreed upon figure) and shift some of that money in to wages of the working class of the company. That way, prices would be lower and wages would be higher, so more people would have more purchasing power. And since it’s just the top companies, it’s not going to run the small business owner out of business by messing with their already razor-thin profits. Granted, the shareholders are going to take a bit of a hit at first, but in the long run, it benefits everybody because everyone will be able to buy more with less money. So when you’re living off of your 401K and IRA’s, there’s going to be more money available to buy things at lower prices. Heck, even people depending on Social inSecurity would benefit.

Chico, you make some valid points, but I still think the idea that someone mentioned…I forgot who…the one about factories coming back to the United States is a great idea. I think that would be very good for the economy, also for our peace of mind.  We as a country are always saying that we support democracy and freedoms…etc. and look at the countries in which most of our money goes to….Communist China, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela…...and the list continues.  Stop me if I am wrong but I don’t think that any of these are a democracy or a republic.  We need to put our money where our mouth is on this subject.  Anyone can talk big, but one’s actions define one more so than fancy speeches and false goodwill.  So becoming more self sufficent would be nice for the economy, and I think it would improve our image somewhat.  And we can rest easy knowing that those 5 year old Chinese children aren’t slaving away for us.  We also need to find alternative energy to stop sending money to most of those countries, I understand, but that is another issue entirely.  Also, on another point, we had the war against Japan won before we dropped the A-bomb, we had them practically blockaded and were starving them out.  The Japanese government were deadlocked about unconditional surrender before Heroshima, after Heroshima they were still deadlocked and refused to surrender.  So we dropped another one on Nagasaki.  They were still deadlocked and refused to surrender. Only Emperor Hirohito changed his mind after the bombs were dropped.  And he surrendered the next day.  He knew that the war was pretty much over and he did not want Japan to fall apart, plus he was greatly impressed by the bombs.  But those bombs had no impact on the debate to surrender unconditionally. Those guys probably would have argued about that until there was no one left to surrender.  So basically we only changed one person’s mind with those A bombs.  It just happened to be the right person.  So they didn’t actually win the war per se, they just sped up the process and saved thousands of Americans from having to invade the home islands.

tionne9 - 30 October 2008 12:23 PM

Chico, you make some valid points, but I still think the idea that someone mentioned…I forgot who…the one about factories coming back to the United States is a great idea.

Oh, I’m not debating that bringing the factories back is a good idea. I’m just saying it’s not likely to happen.

Also, on another point, we had the war against Japan won before we dropped the A-bomb, we had them practically blockaded and were starving them out.  The Japanese government were deadlocked about unconditional surrender before Heroshima, after Heroshima they were still deadlocked and refused to surrender.  So we dropped another one on Nagasaki.  They were still deadlocked and refused to surrender. Only Emperor Hirohito changed his mind after the bombs were dropped.  And he surrendered the next day.  He knew that the war was pretty much over and he did not want Japan to fall apart, plus he was greatly impressed by the bombs.  But those bombs had no impact on the debate to surrender unconditionally. Those guys probably would have argued about that until there was no one left to surrender.  So basically we only changed one person’s mind with those A bombs.  It just happened to be the right person.  So they didn’t actually win the war per se, they just sped up the process and saved thousands of Americans from having to invade the home islands.

I’m not debating any of that. But if anything, your elaboration proves one big point…the stupidity of government officials LOL. You drop an a-bomb on somebody and they STILL can’t decide whether or not to surrender?  But at least, like you said, it sped up the process and saved many American and Japanese lives.

Chico, you say that it is unlikely that the factories will come home.  In that case it is unlikely that the USA will survive as the strongest most influential country in the world. 
The problem is not the free trade agreements that allowed the factories to move overseas.  It is not the destruction of protectionism, not the deregulation, nor even the demolition of the well paid work force.  These things and more were brought on by the free market, free trade, deregulating tax cutters getting the upper hand in politics.  Economics is really simple.  The free market advocates have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
Without a wellpaid workforce there is no demand.  When there is no demand it makes no difference whether the labor costs are ten cents an hour or ten dollars an hour.  No one is going to prosper.  You guys have had the upper hand ever since Newt Gingrich and all we have done is go down, down, down.  You had better come up with something pretty quick that works. 

The difference between 900 million and 1.1 billion really doesn’t matter to me but if you are really interested you should check out the hedge fund managers who hit the road just before the credit crisis hit the front page.  I gotta go.  The blood pressure police just informed me that my computer privileges have been revoked.  Have a good day.

drover - 30 October 2008 02:33 PM

Chico, you say that it is unlikely that the factories will come home.  In that case it is unlikely that the USA will survive as the strongest most influential country in the world.

You’re right.

The problem is not the free trade agreements that allowed the factories to move overseas.  It is not the destruction of protectionism, not the deregulation, nor even the demolition of the well paid work force.  These things and more were brought on by the free market, free trade, deregulating tax cutters getting the upper hand in politics.  Economics is really simple.  The free market advocates have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

Ok, you lost me there. How can you say that the problem is neither the free trade agreements nor deregulation in one breath and then say that it’s the “free market, free trade, deregulating tax cutters” in the next? Maybe I’m just misreading it or maybe if you could elaborate.

But you’re right…economics is simple. It’s the politicians that complicate it

Without a wellpaid workforce there is no demand.  When there is no demand it makes no difference whether the labor costs are ten cents an hour or ten dollars an hour.  No one is going to prosper.

I almost agree with you here. Except I would say that the demand will always be there for certain goods. However, there may be no ability to pay. Things are only worth what people are willing and able to pay for them. So, if we as a country would stop burning up that plastic, these merchants would have no choice but to lower the prices. “Well-paid” is a relative and subjective term. For example, if someone’s expenses come to $2500 per month and their total take-home income is $2600, then they probably wouldn’t be considered well-paid. However, if that same person’s total expenses were, say, $1300, then wouldn’t you agree that that person could now be considered “well-paid”?

You guys have had the upper hand ever since Newt Gingrich and all we have done is go down, down, down.  You had better come up with something pretty quick that works.

Who are “you guys”? It’s certainly not me. I have no control over anything. As for something that works, see my plan above. That’s about as good a place as I know of to start.

The difference between 900 million and 1.1 billion really doesn’t matter to me but if you are really interested you should check out the hedge fund managers who hit the road just before the credit crisis hit the front page.

Rats always know when a ship is sinking. If we could just eliminate greed from the equation, our economy would be booming.

I gotta go.  The blood pressure police just informed me that my computer privileges have been revoked.  Have a good day.

No use in getting all bent out of shape. Most of the time on these things, I’m just thinking out loud, in a sense. So don’t take anything I write here personally. We can disagree and still be friends.