Galatia Forums

So it looks like the Romney campaign is trying to hit back at Obama by showing a 14 year old clip of Obama talking at a conference at Loyola University, where he mentioned the dreaded word "redistribution".

Turns out however, that they truncated the clip and took the thing completely out of context. If that doesn't show the weakness in Romney's campaign I don't know what. Washington post gave it a 4 pinnochio rating. That's a long nose there..

Here's the article.

---------------------

“You know, President Obama said he believes in redistribution,” GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said Tuesday. “Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth. Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth.”

But now NBC News has obtained the rest of Obama’s comments, and it is clear his remarks were taken completely out of context. Obama is not talking about redistributing wealth at all — instead, he speaks about competition, the market place and innovation in an effort to improve government services in Chicago.

-------------------

Edit: Politifact just did a piece on redistribution as well. Here's the article.

Good Day, Serban.

I agree a 14 year old clip is weak and should not be draged up. But really, all politians and "news programs" truncated and take comments out of context. Plus I rarley go to tht washington post for fair and unbais reporting.

Sincerely

Thomas

Yes, that is true that politicians truncate and take out of context all the time (just listen to a floor debate in Congress. man, oh man), but that is not an excuse. In this case it was blatantly done to try to distract from the recording of Romney. It was one of those, oh shit moments where they scrambled to find something else to put the heat on and they hurried and got burned again.

And interestingly enough, FOX news had on the front page all sorts of articles trying to compare Romney's words with Obama's words. Suddenly, they are nowhere to be found. That alone should tell you that this article is legit!

Edit: I was able to find the articles on fox, but you have to specifically search for them. They are no longer there for the public to see when they browse the site. Here's an example of one. I love the picture they chose ;)

I agree, I don't normally read that newspaper either, but in this case I don't find fault with why they gave the pinocchio nose for this.

-------

On a separate note, redistribution is not a bad word. Redistribution is actually how our government works, and it has worked since it's conception. Every deduction you make on your tax return is redistribution of wealth. The gov't has things they want to achieve and they use redistribution of the taxes paid to encourage the acts.

For example, the gov't wants people to make more babies, so they will give a tax deduction for every child under 18 you have. That money comes from the pool of taxes paid by the people and goes to those who have children.

Another example is the tax deduction on mortgage interest. The gov't has been pushing people toward home ownership for decades based on the theory that owners take care of their stuff, and this is one way to do it. You get money back on the interest you pay. Or, back in 2008, Obama did that 8000 cash back for new home owners.

Food stamps is another example. The nation decided that we can't let the poorest of the citizens starve, so they use tax money to supplement the living of these poor. A clear redistribution of wealth.

Heck, the oil industry write-offs or the deductions for yacths are redistribution of wealth (just upwards).

So my point here is that even if Obama's quote had been as originally shown by Romney, I still would have taken fault with Romney's attack.

Good Day, Serban.

I do apologies for the statement about the out of context comment, just because one side does it does not mean both sides should do. begining a conservative I can hardly watch the main stream media. it should never be done.

Again,I agree I don't watch fox for fact checking either

We are going to have to disagree about redistrubtion of wealth, I do not want my government picking winners or losers. people, companies or whatever.
I believe in very, very limited Gov.

Why should a preson who does not want to go to college pay for some one who does.

Agree companies should not get to write off half of what they do, but niether should the goverment be investing in say green tech companies because they have a green ajenda. or what ever ajenda they have.

Home ownership might be good for some but why should people who live apartments, pay for those who want homes.

Food for the straving is good, but we have created a whole class of people who are on a welfare cycle. some of the numbers are staggering. hey I think this topic has come full circle

Oh side note: Yesterday I got a notice for the IRS I underpayed on my 2010 taxes. They said I owed $139.98. This is the first notice I ever got. The amount I under paid was 97 cents the rest was interest and penilties. So, I call about it, after an hour on the phone, they couldn't figure out what was wrong and why I am now being charged because you can round to the nearest dollar. They told me they would send it to their "head account" they would get back to me in 30-60 days and not to worry. ahhh the feds.


Sincerely

Thomas

No need to appologize, you didn't do anything wrong.

But yes, we will have to agree to disagree =)

I guess in the end it all comes down to the question of who can affect the largest positive (however you define "positive") change in a nation, in the most cost effective way. I believe gov't is generally best positioned to do these large changes, though also best positioned to abuse. Thus we get to the push and tug of how much gov't is the right amount of gov't, and just what they are/should be allowed to do. I'm sure we can debate this ad nauseaum though, so I'll stop here =)

PS. If the feds told you not to worry, that means you're now on their black list. Disregard the black van parked outside your house.

Thomas Fitzcharles wrote: Food for the straving is good, but we have created a whole class of people who are on a welfare cycle. some of the numbers are staggering.

And hilariously a good portion of them vote Republican. The "red states" of the deep south are some of the worst. Just goes to show, most Americans want to get those lazy bastards off of welfare...unless it's them.