The Empire Strikes Back: 1998 Obama Video: ZOMG REDISTRIBUTION!!!1111onesy

[Razgovory]

I never did get Obama's comments about "making fatcats and millionaires pay their fair share so everybody can have a fair shot," and I don't understand this one either.  Isn't the whole point of redistribution that nobody will never have a fair shot?  Or is the fair shot he's talking about a fair shot at consuming like a rich person?

It's stuff like this which makes me doubt Obama's intellectual depth.

Yes, Yi.  That is in fact the point of social Democracy.  So nobody will have a fair shot.

[alfred russel]

Social democracy isn't about the necessities of life, that sounds far more like a more right-wing idea, basically of the state as safety net. Any attempt at social democracy goes way beyond that.

Also this is stupid by Romney. McCain attacked Obama for similar remarks to no effect. Far worse is that attacking a guy who's been President for four years over something he said fifteen years ago looks weak and sort-of weird.

Well yeah, but the news cycle is dominated by Romney saying something really stupid. This attack will almost certainly be ineffective, but if the story becomes "look at these two clips of Romney and Obama saying things that are controversial" Romney might lessen the damage he is taking.

[viper37]

I don't see the connection between the two.  The US didn't even have an income tax before WWI.  Does that mean the poor had a negative chance of improving their conditions back then?

Difficult to compare.  Many blacks were poor because of racial issues in that time.  So you exclude a very sizable part of the workforce from faire competition, and it didn't seem like the blacks of 1905 had a very good chance at gaining wealth, compared to a white man.

The poor people of today, black or white have a better chance of seeing their children escape poverty than the poor people of 1905.

If we go back to early US, the poor could still emigrate toward the frontier.  Life wasn't easy, but they stood a chance, they could farm their own lands, chop the wood they needed to heat themselves in winter and raise some cattle.  The occasional indian raid would have been a problem, but a minor one overall.

However today, you can't really go to a place where there's no one and build your own cabin in the wood.  You can't really grow your own crops in a field to achieve self-sustainance, you'd still be devoid of any of the things we take for granted like television, cable, electricity.  So you'd be a lot poorer compared to the average than you would be in 1757 or 1785.

It's really hard to compare.

[viper37]

And sorry, kids, but Obamacare doesn't really count.

Btw, I meant to ask: how are those death panels going?

[PDH]

And sorry, kids, but Obamacare doesn't really count.

Btw, I meant to ask: how are those death panels going?

Rosie O'Donnell is still alive

[Razgovory]

And sorry, kids, but Obamacare doesn't really count.

Btw, I meant to ask: how are those death panels going?

As a loyal Obama supporter I might be able to secure a job as a camp guard for FEMA.

[DGuller]

I call Blokhin's job.

[Strix]

And sorry, kids, but Obamacare doesn't really count.

Btw, I meant to ask: how are those death panels going?

As a loyal Obama supporter I might be able to secure a job as a camp guard for FEMA.

Not so fast! Those are Union jobs....bought and paid for!! 

[Jacob]

I think that's what's meant by "a fair shot".

I think you just made that up and don't have a clue what it means either.

You wanna bet?

[DGuller]

 

[Admiral Yi]

Difficult to compare.  Many blacks were poor because of racial issues in that time.  So you exclude a very sizable part of the workforce from faire competition, and it didn't seem like the blacks of 1905 had a very good chance at gaining wealth, compared to a white man.

The poor people of today, black or white have a better chance of seeing their children escape poverty than the poor people of 1905.

If we go back to early US, the poor could still emigrate toward the frontier.  Life wasn't easy, but they stood a chance, they could farm their own lands, chop the wood they needed to heat themselves in winter and raise some cattle.  The occasional indian raid would have been a problem, but a minor one overall.

However today, you can't really go to a place where there's no one and build your own cabin in the wood.  You can't really grow your own crops in a field to achieve self-sustainance, you'd still be devoid of any of the things we take for granted like television, cable, electricity.  So you'd be a lot poorer compared to the average than you would be in 1757 or 1785.

It's really hard to compare.

How does any of what you described change if we tax the rich more?

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, Yi.  That is in fact the point of social Democracy.  So nobody will have a fair shot.

  Seriously Raz, who on Languish do you think is stupid enough that they won't notice the so you added?

[Eddie Teach]

Well yeah, but the news cycle is dominated by Romney saying something really stupid. This attack will almost certainly be ineffective, but if the story becomes "look at these two clips of Romney and Obama saying things that are controversial" Romney might lessen the damage he is taking.

Wonder how long they were holding on to this clip. 

[Valmy]

How does any of what you described change if we tax the rich more?

It might not but we might be able to balance the budget better.  I mean eventually taxes are going to skyrocket and spending is going to collapse so we might as well ease into it instead of shock therapy.

[DGuller]

Yes, Yi.  That is in fact the point of social Democracy.  So nobody will have a fair shot.

  Seriously Raz, who on Languish do you think is stupid enough that they won't notice the so you added?

He added so?