Obama on Chicago Public Radio: 2001, a sample of talk about redistributing wealth Options

[Hartmann]

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

Ignore the typing, just listen to the content.

It is not best for the courts to undertake the task of redistributing wealth, instead it is an act that should fall upon the lawmakers.

This is some seriously scary stuff, especially if he still has these views.

[Psykopath]

Wow, actually a good post there.

I disagree that the vast majority of state jobs are "easy." Certainly the typical service areas, similar to those in the private sector, are more lax than the job of say...a professor or engineer. Others though tend to equate reasonably well in the pay-to-difficulty ratio.
I think the draw of state jobs leads itself more towards the benefits (medical/vision/dental insurance, leave days, etc.), not necessarily the lack of hard work as you'd put it.

But yes, it is quite obvious that similar jobs in the private sector (in a fair majority of cases) will pay more than their public sector counterparts.
But again: higher pay doesn't = the best benefits.

As for the rest of your post: nothing but insults.
-Obama isn't a Socialist or Communist, but that horse has been beaten to death. To me it's the same as calling Bush another Hitler...fun to toss out an insult, but moronic to actually hold it as truth.
-Just because myself and others may support a particular candidate of differing views than your own does NOT mean we are somehow "inferior" in the workplace or any less committed to earning a living.

[Dogmeat]

Wow, actually a good post there.

I disagree that the vast majority of state jobs are "easy." Certainly the typical service areas, similar to those in the private sector, are more lax than the job of say...a professor or engineer. Others though tend to equate reasonably well in the pay-to-difficulty ratio.
I think the draw of state jobs leads itself more towards the benefits (medical/vision/dental insurance, leave days, etc.), not necessarily the lack of hard work as you'd put it.

But yes, it is quite obvious that similar jobs in the private sector (in a fair majority of cases) will pay more than their public sector counterparts.
But again: higher pay doesn't = the best benefits.

As for the rest of your post: nothing but insults.
-Obama isn't a Socialist or Communist, but that horse has been beaten to death. To me it's the same as calling Bush another Hitler...fun to toss out an insult, but moronic to actually hold it as truth.
-Just because myself and others may support a particular candidate of differing views than your own does NOT mean we are somehow "inferior" in the workplace or any less committed to earning a living.

I'm not trying to insinuate inferiority, I'm trying to make the point that the vast vast vast majority of the people who are in the top tax brackets made the choice to work their way there. They figured out a way to get there, it wasn't just handed to them which is the mentality that this "tax the rich" bravado conveys to people. If you're happy with what you make, fine, but it's complete bullshit expect those who have put the time and effort in making more than you to have to pay for people who refuse to do so, which is what the tax policies the Democrats have been pushing for the last 30+ years amount to.

And, there is a HUGE difference between somone making $250,000,000 a year and $250,000 a year. Obamas tax policy doesn't discriminate at all in this respect.

The "$250,000" is a direct swipe at the affluent upper middle class. Not the "rich". And whats more, I don't even know if you could consider $250,000 "affluent" these days with how expensive everything is .... I'd phrase it more like "not hurting with some financial security and a little bit of disposable income".