Posted on 10/26/2008 5:55:40 PM PDT by Pacothecat
In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview Obama is discussing the best way to bring about a Redistribution of Wealth.
This Video Exposes the radical underneath the rhetoric!
With Drudge on this baby, she’s here to stay. BO believes in ‘spreading the wealth around’ a lot more than he’s claiming.
Earlier report, buried during a previous weekend:
Obama In His Own Words: “Tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2109659/posts?page=1
I firmly believe you are exactly correct. This revelation will not create an epiphany among the believers.
CBS has released a statement: "Senator Obama’s campaign has requested and purchased a half-hour of time on the CBS Television Network for Wednesday, October 29 from 8:00 – 8:30 PM, ET/PT. We will, of course, make an equivalent opportunity available to Senator McCain and other legally qualified candidates upon request."
IF SO, we need to use Obama's own words against him & buy time before, after or in the middle of Obama's Wed. Program.
Just airing it on Fox is preaching to the choir.
We should buy commercial time on CNN as well. Go for broke! It's not too late.
sw
bttt
I would add one additional avenue to vote - military service. If someone is willing to lay down their life in defense of this country, I think they deserve the right to vote, even if they don't own land.
Thanks...yet more the MSM can ignore and Obama can twist.
Who the [insert universal adjective here] does BHO think he is referring to the Bill of Rights as "negative rights?"
pflv
This is just further proof that Obama really was (and still is) thoroughly trained and discipled by Ayers and his ilk.
Steve Doocy is by far the best person on the Fox News Channel. The problem with this ‘Redistribution of Wealth Audio’ is most Americans don’t understand why that is bad. With a week left before the election, they’re not going to learn, either. I’m afraid they will have to learn the hard way.
And this man may be elected President. If your friends and relatives can't see the You Tube link for whatever reason, send this money quote.
It showed "not available" when I went to it.....then came back five minutes later momentarily.....now it's gone again.
Did Obama have this taken down?
Looks like dark forces are at work this morning.
I know lots of freepers snatched this video to save it from the possibility we know would happen.
Hope someone can post a link to it. I still haven't seen it.
I think what we're experiencing is Freedom of Information under President Hussein.
Leni
Leni
..one of many “smoking guns”—this guy intends to destroy our entire constitutional system
If Obama Wins, Economy’s Doomed, Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital,says a big-government Obama administration would lead to a collapse on par with the Great Depression.Sat 10/25/08 08:59 AM EST — Gregg Greenberg
You have too watch the typical young baby investor ad. Wait a couple of minutes for a very scary summary by Peter Schiff.
Personally, I don’t think that America can stand 4 years of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Kennedy, Schumer, Clintoon, Kerry, Dodd and others.
Rats in Congress are ready to replace our IRAs and 401k’s with a government run plan and have been working on this for years.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?
October 23, 2008 10:47 AM ET | James Pethokoukis |
I hate to use the “S” word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers’ retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta’s Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn’t that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.
House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created “guaranteed retirement accounts” for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since “the savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
A few respectful observations:
1) McDermott is right when he says the savings rate isn’t going up. But the savings rate doesn’t include gains to money you invest in the stock market. It ignores the buildup of net worth. (If you bought a share of XYZ Corp. in January at $100, for instance, and its value doubled by December, the savings rate measure would still value that investment at $100. In short, the savings rate is a phony number.)
2) So based partly on the above faulty logic, the $4.5 trillion, as of the start of the year, invested in 401(k) plans doesn’t count as savings.
3) Ghilarducci would have workers abandon the stock market right at the bottom of the market. A stupid idea, according to Warren Buffett: “I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: ‘Put your mouth where your money was.’ Today my money and my mouth both say equities.”
4) Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of “a source of financial anxiety and...fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets.” Please, I’ll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.
5) What effect would this plan have on an already battered stock market? Well, I would imagine it would send it even lower, sticking a shiv into the portfolios of everyone who didn’t jump aboard. But I am sure the Chinese would love to jump in and buy all our cheap stocks to fund the retirement of their citizens.
My bottom line: If you believe in the long-run dynamism of the American economy, then you have to believe in the stock market. Listen to superinvestor Buffett, not the prof from the New School.
Send this on, Please send it to everyone you know, post the link on your State FR Board and also send to Freepers you know in other states!
Very revealing.
It won’t be mentioned on the MSM.
bump
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.