AUDIO: Obama is FOR a Communistic Redistribution of Income… He SAID So in 1998

September 18, 2012 | Filed under 2012 Presidential Race,Barack Obama,corruption,Culture Of Corruption,Democrats,Economics,Liberals,Media | Posted by

During the campaign in 2008, Barack Obama had a revealing moment in Ohio when he told Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher (Now running for Congress in Ohio) that he wanted to “redistribute the wealth.”

His supporters cried that anyone that called Obama a communist based on this revealing slip was making a mountain out of a mole hill. They said he was “taken out of context” and didn’t mean what his detractors were claiming he meant.

But did he? Did Obama mean that he is for a socialistic, big government confiscation of wealth to have it redistributed to those that have less? Again, his supporters clam this is an outrageous misread of his ideas. But his supporters would have to contend with what then Senator Obama said at a conference at Loyola University in 1998.

At that October 19, 1998 conference, Obama said in explicit and direct terms that he is for redistribution of wealth.

Then he said that he thinks the role of government is to “pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution,” because he “actually believe(s) in redistribution.”

Out of context? Listen to this audio and see for yourself:

Obama clealry feels that the role of government is meant to take from those that earn and give it away to those that won’t, in other words Obama feels that government should implement programs that operate like the communist ideal “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Meanwhile, GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney noted that, “redistributing wealth is an entirely foreign concept.”

Which of these two has the more American ideals? I think you can guess.

« « More Kate Middleton Topless Photos Banned By French Judge
David Corn Caught Lying About Romney 47% Clip, Lapdog Media Set To Ignore His Lie » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 18, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Economics, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Hank_M

    This recording is a gold mine.
    Obama not only admits he believes in redistributing wealth, but he also slams the Chicago Housing authority and Chicago schools.

    Romney needs to run this, not only to highlight Obama’s view, but also to get under the skin of the de-facto president, Valerie Jarret.

    Here’s a little info on Jarrett.

    “Jarrett’s involvement in Chicago real estate development between 1992 and
    2009 was marred with controversy, much of which centered on Habitat’s role as
    the sole developer for “family public housing,” a status granted under a
    district court ruling in 1987.

    Under Jarrett’s leadership, Habitat oversaw the development of a number of
    public housing projects, one of which, in the Cabrini Green neighborhood, was
    dubbed a “national
    symbol of urban despair.” Others became so run-down the city had to ask the
    federal government to intervene.”

    • Brucehenry

      Hilarious.

      You think a 14 year old tape of a state legislator saying he believes in “redistribution….at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot,” is a SMOKING GUN, a bombshell.

      But a 4 month old video of the GOP nominee for president sneering at 47% of Americans who “think of themselves as victims, who are dependent on government, who think they are entitled…” to this or that, is no big deal.

      I’ll just let Warner’s bedwetting about “communism” pass this time.

      • jim_m

        Those of us who have lived in the Chicago area know that this is not any different from what he believes today. The fact is that he has been consistent in his comments about redistribution. There is little reason to think that he has changed his belief system. Why would he do so? He claims to be smarter and more capable than everyone who works for him and everyone he meets. Who is going to be able to give him any argument that he would respect much less seriously consider?

        • Brucehenry

          I’m not saying he’s changed his mind. I’m saying that, like a lot of folks, like me, he thinks that a little redistribution “at least at a certain level to make sure everybody’s got a shot” might not be such a bad thing.

          One thing wingnuts will never get is that not everybody is one. Being a little left of center doesn’t make one a communist.

          Bedwetters.

          • jim_m

            You are conflating two separate arguments.

            1) he is for radical redistribution. His surrogates have previously spoken about equality of outcome. He has made other statements about his belief that people do not need heir income and that “fairness” requires that income be taken from people who are successful and given to those who are not successful.

            2) He is a communist. He has a long history of communist associations. I have listed it many times before. You should not need to have it repeated. No one else in recent memory has had so many associations and had them in such influential positions. Additionally, he has recently declared that capitalism, not only doesn’t work, but that it has never worked. This is a clear declaration that he opposes capitalism. What else then must he be?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes yes Frank Marshall Davis Bill Ayers yada yada.

            I’ve seen you make this paraphrase about how capitalism has never worked but never seen the link. Not saying you didn’t post it, I just must have missed it. Why do I suspect that that is some kind of weird truncated version of what was actually said?

            Prove me wrong, Jim Bob.

          • jim_m

            From his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. SPeakign of capitalsim:

            Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

            Now he refers to it in a number of ways and never says “Capitalism”, but it is clear that is what he is speaking of )he calls it “trickle down” and “On your own economics” but he cites such a broad sweep of history that it is clear that he does not mean anything other than capitalism and the free market). Anyone who reads the entire speech would come to that conclusion. His comments about the free market make it clear that he does not believe in a free market, but one that regulates outcomes to make things “fair”.

          • Brucehenry

            Just as I suspected. I bet there were a few paragraphs before the one you started with, weren’t there, Jim?

            You know DAMN WELL that Obama wasn’t speaking of “capitalism” when he uttered this paragraph — he was speaking of the trickle-down, you’re-on-yer-own bastardized version of capitalism that the GOP espouses these days.

            The other day you accused me of dishonesty because I didn’t notice two links you had posted. Yet here you are, posting exactly what I had predicted you would post — a truncated snippet of Obama’s words in which he addresses “Supply Side Economics,” not “capitalism.” Such dishonesty is rarely put so brazenly on display.

            Shame on you, Jim. And you’ve claimed this for months, knowing FULL WELL that Obama was addressing trickle-down, not “capitalism.”

            I hereby invite everyone here to do what I did: Read the text of Obama’s Osawatomie speech and see if he is talking about “capitalism” per se, or if he is talking about the supply-side hokum Republicans have been spouting for 30 years. After you’ve read it, YOU decide if ol’ Jim here is being honest or not.

          • jim_m

            Really Bruce? SHow me where Hoover used trickle down. Show me where big guy. obama uses euphemisms but in the context of the whole speech everyone knew what he was saying and many people called him out on it.

          • jim_m

            I posted a link to the speech with both transcript and video. I recognize that even if obama could open up gulags, nationalize the entire economy, suspend elections and declare single party rule you would never admit that he’s a communist.

          • Brucehenry

            And if Obama cured cancer tomorrow, you’d bitch about the jobs in the cancer research industry disappearing.

            Your defense of what you’ve done is weak, Jim. If you are saying that “Republican economic theory” is what is meant by “capitalism,” you’re being even MORE dishonest than previously.

          • jim_m

            If obama were to cure cancer tomorrow it would be in the same manner that he killed bin laden, ie taking credit for the work of others. I would celebrate the success of others and deplore his grotesque attempt to take credit for the accomplishments of others. He’s a vulgar and ignorant wannabe.

          • jim_m

            The dishonest one is anyone who believes that obama actually supports capitalism and free markets.

          • jim_m

            Bruce, the WAPO says that obama declares that “Republican economic theory” never worked. SInce the GOP is promoting capitalism and free markets I think we can dispense with the notion that obama believes in either, especially the notion of free markets.

          • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

            President Obama claimed that capitalism never worked?
            Do you have the URL to evidence supporting your claim about the President?

            Also, although I would classify the President as being a socialist, because of his belief in wealth distribution, I would not go so far as to classify him as a communist, because I see no evidence that he promotes the government take-over of profitable private businesses.

          • jim_m

            Jesus, David. WHy not just become a lefty troll.

            Here is the link to the full speech video and transcript. Bruce will deny the meaning of the whole thing but to everyone else it is obvious. Left wing ideologues will keep apologizing for obama’s communist bent.

            http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/obamas-anti-capitalism-speech-in-texas-kansas.html

          • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

            Making sure that everybody’s got a shot isn’t necessarily the goal of wealth redistribution. Both Republicans and Democrats promote equal opportunity for everyone, but equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results. The only way (that I know of) to guarantee equal results is by government-forced wealth redistribution,which seems to be the goal of President Obama.

          • herddog505

            I agree. “Everybody having a shot” is not the same thing as “spreading the wealth around”.

          • Brucehenry

            True, but espousing some redistribution “at a certain level” is part of simple liberalism, not “communism.”

            I’m not trying to convince anyone that Obama is not more left than right. Just that being a little left of center is no more communism than being a little right of center is monarchism. Obama (or FDR or Truman or LBJ) is no more Stalin than Romney (or Bush or Reagan or Nixon) is George III.

            BTW, David, Herd, do YOU GUYS think Obama was talking about “capitalism,” per se, in the Osawatomie speech? Because I don’t think either one of you can or will honestly say so.

          • herddog505

            Yes, I’d say that “capitalism” (as his feeble lefty brain understands it) is EXACTLY what he was talking about. He starts out by waxing lyrical about TR and his trust-busting, then credits various regulations such as the eight hour work day, health and safety laws, etc. with creating our mighty economy, criticizing all the while “on your own” economics and “trickle down” economics. He complains about factories moving overseas, but never stops to wonder WHY they do so.

            Barry’s answer, of course, is “government action”: Uncle Sugar will magically “redistribute” wealth and this will make it all better. The only problem (as he mentions in his 1998 speech) is the technical problem of determining how to do this to get most bang for the buck.
            I think that Barry is not a communist per se, but I do believe that “liberalism” and the idiot idea that robbing Peter to pay Paul is somehow good for both of them have communism – total government control of the means of production – as their ultimate end. Certainly communism is grounded in the belief that Peter doesn’t really deserve what he has, or at the very least that the government can take whatever portion of it is required to “help” Paul, ideas that are very popular with lefties (what else in IOWS about?).

            Incidentally, it occurs to me that, for all the whining and wailing and gnashing of teeth that lefties do about “trickle down” economics, they practice a bastardized form of it. What else was the auto bailout but trickle down economics? “If the car company stays in business because Uncle Sugar gave it billions in cash, thousands of workers will benefit.” How is this different than, “If the car company stays in business because Uncle Sugar gave it billions in tax breaks, thousands of workers will benefit”?

            And keep in mind that Uncle Sugar’s ability to affect that company and the lives of the people it employs doesn’t just hinge on bailouts or tax breaks: Uncle Sugar also has tremendous power to affect the company’s financial health – and, hence, that of its employees – by other actions. Again, why DO factories in America close and go overseas? It’s easy to blame the “greed” of the owners, but the fact is that it’s cheaper to make various products in China or Mexico in large part because of government policy, because of efforts to “make sure everybody has a shot”. Yes, everybody likes health and safety regulations; everybody wants clean air and water; everybody wants even the most unskilled, menial worker to be able to live in a nice house, drive a good car, send his kids to college, etc., but all these things come with a price. What Barry and libs in general essentially espouse is making that price higher and higher; they are always surprised when it makes things worse and worse for everybody.

          • Brucehenry

            Fine, a legitimate point of view, but Jim is claiming that Obama literally meant “capitalism” as the dictionary defines it, “has never worked.” That’s not what was said, now, is it?

            You have legitimate points, articulately put, but I’m disappointed that you would choose to join in Jim’s dishonest assertion. You know the difference between classic capitalism and supply-side economics. Pretending you don’t is unlike you.

          • jim_m

            Regardless of your apologetics you cannot deny that he claims that limited government and free markets do not work.

          • Brucehenry

            Not only he, but I, and millions of liberals and moderates (as well as many conservatives) know that totally unfettered, unregulated “free markets” indeed do not work. At least, not for the greater good.

            Certainly the market works best when it can be “free,” consistent with the health and safety of the population and the long term health of the market itself (a “free” market that evolves into monopoly is not a good thing, for example). But there are differences of opinion all along the political spectrum about the degree to which regulation should be applied.

            Those who espouse a greater degree of regulation have a legitimate point, and should not be demonized as “communists.” I’m sure even YOU, Jim, think that at least some of the regulations on foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals, for instance, have a place.

            Meanwhile, I don’t see anyone rushing to second your opinion that Obama meant classic “capitalism” in his Kansas speech.

          • jim_m

            The blog isn’t that busy tonight and Davis is too busy issuing corrections for being off topic to participate.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, we’ll see. I renew my invitation to all to review the speech and compare it your characterization. Which is wrong and dishonest. LOL.

            I’ve got to be up at 4 am in the morning, but I’ll check to see if anyone took me up on it before I leave for work at 530.

          • jim_m

            It does not surprise me that you think that an interpretation of obama is wrong or dishonest. You refuse to even admit that he has any communist connections. Anyone denying reality with the persistence that you do would have difficulty seeing things any other way.

          • retired.military

            Bruce do you know of one person that voted for McCain that will vote for Obama?

            I know I dont. I do know quite a few on the opposite side of that equation though.

          • retired.military

            Obama is a whole lot left of center. He left center way way back.

      • Vagabond661

        You want to pooh pooh something that happened 14 years ago and yet you fret over 10 years worth of tax returns and hyperventilating about Romney putting a dog in a travel carrier on the roof of his car from 1983. puuuhhlllease….

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      Valerie Jarret has nothing to do with what President Obama said in 1998. By writing about her, you have gone off topic.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


    Meanwhile, GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney noted that, “redistributing wealth is an entirely foreign concept.”

    Okay. So Eisenhower and his 91% tax rate are foreign concepts. Awesome to know.

    • Texas_Accountant

      Jay,

      You say that as though the “Rich” paid the 91% tax rate. The tax law was filled with “loop holes” in the 1950′s. For example, there was no “at risk” limitation, so you could “lose” more on an investment than you actually had at stake. In addition, there was no “Great Society” in the 1950′s, so who was on the other end of the redistribution?

    • herddog505

      Are you claiming that Ike was using that money for redistribution in the days before Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc? Or was he using it for things like B-47′s, Atlas missiles, and armored divisions in West Germany?

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    Meanwhile brain dead leftists (are there any other kind) fail to note that transfer payments under Eisenhower were trivial bordering on non-existent.

  • LiberalNightmare

    The election is now over for Obama.

    • jim_m

      There’s an awful lot of fraud to overcome yet.

    • jim_m

      Better be careful. This article was about economic policy, not the election. David Robertson will be coming around to chastise you for going off topic.

    • 914

      I think its impossible for Barry to get above 46% So yes, its over..

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    I agree with Warner on one thing. The 1998 recording (of President Obama’s speech) indicates that the President advocates wealth distribution, which really isn’t news. His 2008 comment to Joe the plumber told everyone that, and yet Obama was elected anyway.

    • herddog505

      Yeah, MiniTru was really on the ball for that one: when they couldn’t outright bury what he said, they told us, “That’s not what he meant” and then made the story about Joe himself, digging up dirt on him to deflect attention from what Barry said and what that means for our country.

  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    Heck, wasn’t Romney a communist in 1998, too? Pro-abortion, pro-government-health-care, etc.

  • Olsoljer

    This just gets dumber by the minute. It appears that politicial candidates need interpreters. It is what it is. Romney did not denigrate anyone in his evaluation of voting percentages, he simply stated a fact, in identifying what voter group he would need to appeal to. Leftist interpreters have told us this is insulting Americans, it is denigrating people on government assistance ad naseum. Now we have interpreters telling us Obama didn’t mean redistribution of wealth from a socialist context, he was only saying it was a fair thing to do. “You didn’t build that” meant….

    Let the words speak for themselves, and quit trying to convince me they meant what YOU wanted to hear. If it comes out of your mouth, you better live with it.

  • Pingback: Foreign Is As Foreign Does | Daily Pundit

  • Pingback: October is historically the month in which Obama reaffirms his socialist tendencies. » Gator In The Desert