Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution

[Nightshade]

Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution

The courts are poised for a takeover by the judicial left.

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation's most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama's extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes -- and he is quite open about this -- that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: \"[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.\"

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren \"never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,\" and \"to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.\"

He also noted that the Court \"didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.\" That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to \"preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution\" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a \"tax cut\" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will \"administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.\" Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

Mr. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

[Bet51987]

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

This is the major reason I'm voting for Obama...now and four years from now.

Thank you TB...

Bettina

[Spidey]

Yea, and the hell with everyone else…right?

[Bet51987]

Yea, and the hell with everyone else…right?

Not at all. If someone doesn't understand what it's like having two kids and not being able to get a job because you had a non-violent felony when you were young and stupid, or you don't understand the benefits of medical marijuana to reduce pain, or you don't permit the funding of stem cell research, then you have no right being a judge on the high court.

Vote Obama

Bee

[Dakatsu]

Oh noes! Teh political left will be appointed to teh courts! Wut r we gonna do?!?!?!

[Spidey]

Why should the taxpayer fund every high risk idea out there? If stem cell research is so great, why hasn’t private industry jumped all over it? Remember Interferon? Oh, no of course not, too young. (was supposed to cure everything from the common cold to cancer)

Judges need to make decisions based on law, not empathy.

Vote Freedom

[woodchip]

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

This is the major reason I'm voting for Obama...now and four years from now.

Thank you TB...

Bettina

And what about the infant female Bet, partially delivered and then terminated in a most cruel manner. Oh yeah, to young to vote so not important.

[Grendel]

If stem cell research is so great, why hasn’t private industry jumped all over it?

They do. But do you really want the industry to control it ? The beauty of public funding is that the results are available to everyone. Keeps the competition healthy.

Vote Freedom

Sure, as soon that actually becomes a choice.

[Will Robinson]

...If someone doesn't understand what it's like having two kids and not being able to get a job because you had a non-violent felony when you were young and stupid,...

I don't understand it. Did the conservatives pass some law against hiring people of that description?

[Will Robinson]

If stem cell research is so great, why hasn’t private industry jumped all over it?

They do. But do you really want the industry to control it ? The beauty of public funding is that the results are available to everyone. Keeps the competition healthy....

I find it ironic using the merits of public funding to support the election of Obama since he promised to stick to public funding in this campaign, he and McCain both made the promise, but as soon as taking private money, from god knows anyone, was more beneficial to him personally he said piss off to the promise.

Makes me realize the benefits to the country take a back seat to the benefits of the man and his party. Stem cell public funding...sure he's your man...in promise anyway. But watch Merck or Eli Lilly write him a big enough check and he'll vote the other way next election cycle though....

[Bet51987]

Why should the taxpayer fund every high risk idea out there? If stem cell research is so great, why hasn’t private industry jumped all over it? Remember Interferon? Oh, no of course not, too young. (was supposed to cure everything from the common cold to cancer)

Spidey, I can't answer because I don't know. What I do know is what I've already listed and the republicans have turned down those and most other things that could benefit human beings.

Judges need to make decisions based on law, not empathy.

Vote Freedom

Before you can make decisions based on law you have to have a law on the books and those laws should be made with empathy for the people. Conservatives want to change some of the existing laws (Roe vs Wade) and add more laws to be in line with their ideology.

So, I agree.. Vote Freedom.

Bee

[Spidey]

Yes, laws can be made with empathy of people in mind, but judges should not be in the business of making law, that’s the legislative branch’s job. (plenty o liberals there)

While it’s true that the supreme court tests the constitutionality of laws, I would take a wild guess, and say they aren’t going to overturn R v W anytime soon…or ever.

Grendel, what planet do you live on? J/k That’s good in theory, but tends to fail in practice. Big business still ends up with the benefits of the spending, without having to spend the money themselves. (it’s not like the government is going to develop the whatevers* and give it to people)

*whatevers…still haven’t found out exactly what will come of this research.

[dissent]

... or you don't permit the funding of stem cell research, ...

say wha - ???

c'mon Bee; you're a bright girl. The Bush administration has a set of policies related to federal funding for stem cell research.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 809-1.html

NIH guideleines
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp

State funding
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/compare ... =112&cat=2

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=9244363

Do we really need the Feds?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34993.html

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/ ... ingExpands

So the fact is that stem cell research has been getting funding. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask whether or not government at the federal level should fund this or any other kind of research. If the government finds that it has "extra" money, should they just find a way to spend it, or should they do something else with it, like return it to the taxpayers, or pay down the national debt, etc.?

I'm a conservative, so I tend to have a bias against the government getting involved in more and more spending. (No, I am not against all federal science spending) But I live in Illinois, where the Democrats are making a royal mess of things, and Obama and Biden's speechifying does not give me confidence that they are going to do pretty much the same kind of thing at the federal level. And I'm mad as hell at the Republicans for not doing a better job of things when they had the (albeit slim) majority in Congress.

[Bet51987]

Thanks for the links Dissent. I'm at school break so I'm typing fast.

You're right and I shouldn't have put it that way. What I meant (unless I'm wrong) was that president Bush sided with the religious right and vetoed funding for any new cell lines so scientists are hobbled. If the republicans win the white house, I have to seriously worry about Sarah Palin becoming president since she opposes stem cell research more vehemently than president Bush. And, yes, I think the governent should fund it so the breakthroughs will come from here instead of overseas.

Funny, Sarah Palin has no problem with increasing the funding for special needs children but opposes the research that could eliminate the problem for millions of them. I can provide links but it's better if you choose.

And I'm mad as hell at the Republicans for not doing a better job of things when they had the (albeit slim) majority in Congress.

I would be mad too especially since the sharpest increase in government spending and gross mismanagement came from the republican administration...while remaining flat during the Clinton years.

http://www.heritage.org/research/featur ... PDF/S3.pdf

I don't know if my choice of Obama will be a bad call or not...time will tell...and I wouldn't be destroyed if McCain won but Sarah Palin's views are against everything I'm for and I think she has the possibility of setting this country back a hundred years. I would never support a team with her on it.

Bee

[woodchip]

Palin for president 2012.

[dissent]

Thanks for the links Dissent. I'm at school break so I'm typing fast.

You're right and I shouldn't have put it that way. What I meant (unless I'm wrong) was that president Bush sided with the religious right and vetoed funding for any new cell lines so scientists are hobbled. If the republicans win the white house, I have to seriously worry about Sarah Palin becoming president since she opposes stem cell research more vehemently than president Bush. And, yes, I think the governent should fund it so the breakthroughs will come from here instead of overseas.

As my links were pointing out, the lack of federal funding has, in fact, NOT "hobbled" further study. There seems to be lots of non-federal funding.

Funny, Sarah Palin has no problem with increasing the funding for special needs children but opposes the research that could eliminate the problem for millions of them. I can provide links but it's better if you choose.

please do (provide links). Folk keeping making claims that stem cells will do more and more and more and more, but I'm thinking the reality is a bit more modest. If you can point me to some rational discussion, I'd appreciate it.

I would be mad too especially since the sharpest increase in government spending and gross mismanagement came from the republican administration...while remaining flat during the Clinton years.

http://www.heritage.org/research/featur ... PDF/S3.pdf

Your chart is spending per household; and "gross mismanagement" isn't mentioned at all. Since some of that Bush spending is due to entitlement expansion (the Medicare prescription drug thing)- do you think that was a bad thing?

I don't know if my choice of Obama will be a bad call or not...time will tell...and I wouldn't be destroyed if McCain won but Sarah Palin's views are against everything I'm for and I think she has the possibility of setting this country back a hundred years. I would never support a team with her on it.

hyperventilating a bit, it seems. Alaska still seems to have all the modern amenities.

[woodchip]

So how would these political ideas set our country back? From Wikipedia:

\"Palin declared that top priorities of her administration would be resource development, education and workforce development, public health and safety, and transportation and infrastructure development.[79] She had championed ethics reform throughout her election campaign. Her first legislative action after taking office was to push for a bipartisan ethics reform bill. She signed the resulting legislation in July 2007, calling it a \"first step\", and declaring that she remained determined to clean up Alaska politics.\"

[Will Robinson]

Alaska sure as hell is doing better than Illinois, you can't attribute all of that, on either side, to Palin or Obama but if you look at their campaign promises when they each ran for their respective positions and look at what they delivered Palin seems to have delivered some and adapted to the will and need of the people, all the people. For example, for an alleged religious nut she was clear in stating she does not think creationism should be taught in school she merely suggested it shouldn't be censored from classroom discussion when the topic comes up. Find the mainstream media outlet that got that story right though could take a while...it's on the schedule right after they report Hell freezing over.

Meanwhile in the murder capital of the nation, communities he organized, Obama voted present a lot and started running for national office the day he got there. I don't know what he delivered other than promises. But call him if you need him....

[Testiculese]

What I got from the article wants that Obama wants judges that have a bit of humanity in them, not right-wing religious nutcases with no soul.

Having empathy doesn't automatically mean you vote with your heart and to hell with the law. You can still put someone away for, say, homicide, but with a reason to feel like it wasn't out-and-out cold blooded murder, you don't give the max penalty.

I'm sure any judge is going to be aware of the law, and anything other than religious, right-wing, soulless, corporate whores is a good thing.

[Will Robinson]

What I got from the article wants that Obama wants judges that have a bit of humanity in them, not right-wing religious nutcases with no soul.

What concerns me is he recently complained of the supreme court that

It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted."

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical,

He obviously thinks the court should have taken the matter into it's own hands and somehow ruled that wealth be taken from someone and given to others! It doesn't seem to bother this so called constitutional law proffesor that he's asking the court to do something it is clearly forbidden to do!

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

So I'm more than a little concerned that he'll stack the courts to make it easier to implement his idea of "economic justice".

I'm sure any judge is going to be aware of the law, and anything other than religious, right-wing, soulless, corporate whores is a good thing.

If judges never got it wrong we wouldn't need the appeals process! I don't know of any 'souless, rightwing, corporate decisions making it through the process but if Obama gets to stack the courts the appeals against liberal judges legislating from the bench will be slim and none and we'll see lots of socialistic causes upheld in the court bringing us more situations like the subprime mortgage crisis where a pet liberal project backfired on us and we now get a major economic meltdown and the irony is that economic crisis has catapulted Obama and his liberal friends into power! They crapped in our oatmeal and the media said "Yea, the republicans did it. Vote for change"!

[Bet51987]

Dissent..

The reason there is so much non-federal funding of stem-cell research is because of the LACK of enough federal funding due to the restrictions from president Bush. I gave you some here anyway but I would suggest any medical forum will give you as much as you wish to read.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140955.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex ... tions.html

http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00508.htm

And no.... I'm not hyperventilating. Sarah Palin is a young earth creationist who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible much like Thorne does. She wants to allow the teaching of creationism is public schools and supports intelligent design. In science, she believes that dinosaurs and humans lived together at the same time less than 10,000 years ago. If that absurd thinking, (I'm sorry Thorne ) doesn't set us back a hundred...or should I say six to ten thousand years...nothing will. I don't want her as a model to help appoint supreme court justices.

She also doesn't believe global warming is partly mans fault and wants to sue the government for listing polar bears as endangered species. God, she's making me sick..

http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm

Anyway, I'm not out to convince you. I'm just genuinely frightened the more I read about her.

Bee

[Spidey]

“Anyway, I'm not out to convince you. I'm just genuinely frightened the more I read about her.”

That’s the way I feel about Obama.

[Bet51987]

“Anyway, I'm not out to convince you. I'm just genuinely frightened the more I read about her.”

That’s the way I feel about Obama.

That's fine..but seriously... compared to a possible Palin why are you afraid of Obama.

Bee

[Spidey]

People obsessed with religion don’t bother me as much as people who are obsessed with a false kind of religion like egalitarianism and or socialism. And its not that I disagree with egalitarianism, It’s the bastardized version that scares me. (making things equal my tearing some down to raise others) I wish someone would figure out how to make everyone equal at the top, instead of the other way around.

We have some constitutional protections against religion, not so with some political ideology.

They have “equality” in many other countries…everyone is equally poor.

[Bet51987]

People obsessed with religion don’t bother me as much as people who are obsessed with a false kind of religion like egalitarianism and or socialism. And its not that I disagree with egalitarianism, It’s the bastardized version that scares me. (making things equal my tearing some down to raise others) I wish someone would figure out how to make everyone equal at the top, instead of the other way around.

We have some constitutional protections against religion, not so with some political ideology.

They have “equality” in many other countries…everyone is equally poor.

Fair enough but I would like to see the equality gap close up a little without being a threat to freedom because the gap is huge. However, having overly religious people in power or in areas where they can change the supreme court is what scares me.

Bee

[Spidey]

But see, that’s the problem “freedom” includes the right to fall flat on your face and land in the gutter. (or reach the stars)

Did you ever hear of the study about the people on the island, where whatever they tried, one person always ended up with more coconuts than everyone else? There is nothing wrong with a gap between the rich and the poor, regardless of how wide it is, as long as everyone has the right to cross that gap.

[Bet51987]

But see, that’s the problem “freedom” includes the right to fall flat on your face and land in the gutter. (or reach the stars)

Did you ever hear of the study about the people on the island, where whatever they tried, one person always ended up with more coconuts than everyone else? There is nothing wrong with a gap between the rich and the poor, regardless of how wide it is, as long as everyone has the right to cross that gap.

That's fine but everyone can't cross the gap for obvious reasons. However, some people are perfectly happy picking coconuts for coconut wages while others need to be executives which gets them executive coconuts. Everone is happy and each lives within their means.

The problem is when the executives get greedy making it harder and harder for the little guy to live on the smaller coconuts he now gets. He's hurting and to make matters worse the government needs more coconuts so places higher coconut taxes on the little guy while allowing the executive to keep most of his. Worse still is when the executive lays off the coconut picker because the asian market is cheaper....but the government still chokes him.

I don't mind Obama taking more of those coconuts from the executive and taxing him for defecting overseas. The bottom line, as I see it, is that the little guy is broken from making the executive rich in the first place so I think it's payback time.

Look at Exxon's record profit today.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27453305/

Oh, and I can't win my point with dad because he's a VP of some of those executives. I even went with him to Japan.

Bee

[Sergeant Thorne]

When is it done being payback time? When do freedoms return?

[Spidey]

Heh, cute.

The reason one person always had more nuts than the others wasn’t that they cheated anybody out of theirs, it was because they were more industrious.

I think one of the reasons we could never agree on this kind of thing may be the starting point, I believe that you are born and then struggle to get as far as you can in life, you may believe that a certain amount of things are due you, such as a job with good pay & benefits.

Nobody is tasked with the responsibility of providing anyone with anything, this idea that business owes you something is a myth, mostly perpetrated by the left. I am an employer, I get up every day and risk it all to make something of my life, and I provide jobs for others. But still it’s not enuf according to people like Hillary Clinton who once said “If a business can’t provide its employees with health insurance, they don’t deserve to be in business”…what nerve.

And what I dislike the most is business bashing…it goes something like this…

I hate the rich, lets tax them till there are no rich anymore…by the way…can you make me some more jobs, please. What we need is more jobs, and if we just had some more programs.

It’s called class warfare………….don’t be duped.

[Bet51987]

I don't know what to say. I only know what I read because I don't have any real work experience yet. What you say Spidey was true in the industrial age but it's different now. Everything has changed from the industrial times I read in school and what I see now. What are the true costs that your generation is inflicting on mine or my future children.

Thorne... I'm not sure what you mean but freedom (I include all kinds) isn't free. It never was and never will be. It's a privilege determined by you and your governing body.

I'm getting in over my head now so I have to bow to the elders. I just know that I went through my teen years with president Bush and I didn't like his handling of the economy and his religious overtones. Now that I can vote I want to vote in someone with the best chance to fix the \"average joe\" like the neighbors you like.

Bettina

[Spidey]

Damn Bett, just how old do you think I am? I’m in the same boat you are, all the land is gone, all the mineral rights belong to someone else…etc. I just don’t believe that because someone has something and someone else does not, that there is an injustice there, that’s just the way life is…I’m sorry life is not fair, maybe your science can change that someday.

I’m going to stop lecturing you now, I can tell it’s frustrating you…(not my intent)

But I just want to say one last thing, I believe that there is more that can be done to help people get ahead in this world, I just disagree with you on the methods.

[AlphaDoG]

I'm getting in over my head now so I have to bow to the elders. I just know that I went through my teen years with president Bush and I didn't like his handling of the economy and his religious overtones. Now that I can vote I want to vote in someone with the best chance to fix the "average joe" like the neighbors you like.

Bettina

It's government's responsibility to pave the roads, pick up the garbage, provide civil protection (police), protect the borders (army,navy,marines,etc.), regulate commerce between the separate sovereign states which make up this ONCE fine country.

Bee, it is NOT government's responsibility to make sure every citizen has all the same monies/possessions!

[Bet51987]

Spidey... I don't know how old you are but you sound (complimentary ) older than me. (I'm 20) And the only frustration is that I've reached a point where I just don't know enough about this to agree or disagree. I just know that from what I've read that I don't want another republican administration.

AlphaDog.. Paving the roads, picking up the garbage, providing police and armed forces, and regulating commerce, takes money which the government gets from taxation. Then there are the individual states who collect their own taxes for the same thing. But what happens when the people who pay those taxes are being squeezed to a breaking point like what is happening right now. People out of jobs because the manufacturing base is leaving for Asia for cheap labor and lower taxes. Greed is a big problem and these corporations know how to get it.

This is the part that I don't know enough about. Who is to blame; How can it be fixed?

Bee

[woodchip]

\"People out of jobs because the manufacturing base is leaving for Asia for cheap labor and lower taxes. Greed is a big problem and these corporations know how to get it.\"

During the Recession of the late 70's and early 1980's, two major manufacturing plants in Jackson MI asked the city of Jackson for breaks on their property taxes. The city of Jackson refused. Understand these two companies were THE major employers for the city. Because of the city's short sighted refusal both companies moved out. The result?
From Wikipedia:

\"The city suffered severe economic losses in the early 1980s with the loss of two major industrial employers - Clark Equipment and Goodyear Tire & Rubber\"

So instead of getting a little less in property taxes from the two companies, the city of Jackson lost ALL the property taxes. The city also lost all the city income taxes generated by the two companies payrolls. Most damaging were all the families who lost their jobs during tough times.

So who was at fault here? The evil companies because they wanted a tax break during a recession? Or politicians to stupid to understand that the result of their incompetence, the city and it's people would lose their major income producers?

I would suggest that instead of putting even more taxes on these Greedy corporations, thus forcing even more companies to leave, reduce their taxes so they stay and entice more companies to return to America. If companies cannot make a profit one place, they will go someplace else where they can.
As I view it, Jackson MI is a microcosm of how America will be if Obama gets elected.

Remember, the more profits a company makes the more likely it will expand and create new jobs. On the other hand, how many jobs will be created by giving the low income people a welfa....er tax refund?

[Foil]

But see, that’s the problem “freedom” includes the right to fall flat on your face and land in the gutter. (or reach the stars)

There is nothing wrong with a gap between the rich and the poor, regardless of how wide it is, as long as everyone has the right to cross that gap.

I'll agree with your general sentiment; opportunity and the reward for one's efforts is the basis of our economy. Government attempting to put everyone on the same level would just be disastrous.

However, we must include the cavéat that we cannot allow this to override our ethical duty to take care of the poor and hurting among us. [For the Christians in here, that duty is spelled out by the o.t. prophets as well as the example of the early church.] Oh, and for those who are automatically assuming "Foil just wants to hand out money to lazy welfare-ites", don't; that's not what I'm talking about at all.

That's a big part of what bothers me about the election rhetoric lately. From my perspective, Republicans are busy accusing the Democrats of wanting to turn us into a socialist nation, and the Democrats are busy accusing the Republicans of only serving the interests of the rich and powerful; dramatic overstatements, both. ...Meanwhile, the topic of how we handle caring for the poor in this country (and I mean poor, not the rhetoric about this vague "middle class") has been mostly lost.

[Spidey]

I believe in helping the poor, by building an environment of opportunity, not an environment of constant dependance, such as is caused by the current welfare system. Why can’t we require some public service from people receiving welfare?

What is better…

1. Take the money from me and give it to someone in need.

2. Let me keep the money and give the person some work, and let them earn some money with dignity.

Simple multiple choice question.

BTW…what ever happened to “God helps those who help themselves”?

[Foil]

I believe in helping the poor, by building an environment of opportunity...

Agreed. Again, I'm not talking about welfare handouts.

In an economy with massive unemployment and foreclosures, where people willing to work who have lost their jobs and homes and can't find that opportunity anywhere... it absolutely baffles me that it's almost a taboo topic in the election campaigns.

Republicans can't endorse anything to assist the poor, or they get accused of supporting lazy welfare parents. Democrats can't, either, or they get called socialist. So both sides argue over the vague "middle class" and some guy named Joe...

BTW…what ever happened to “God helps those who help themselves”?

You won't find that quote anywhere in the Bible; in fact, the phrasing in scripture is more often along the lines of "God helps the helpless".

Frankly, that phrase is too often used as a cop-out, an excuse for apathy.

[Spidey]

I never said it was in the Bible.

\"God helps the helpless\". You know what I’m going to say next… But I wont, because he doesn't.

“Frankly, that phrase is too often used as a cop-out, an excuse for apathy.” No it’s not, that phrase has great meaning to me.

[Jeff250]

That phrase can have meaning for you all day long, but the question more relevant to the powerfulness of the phrase is: Does it have any meaning to God? Christians get their understanding of God from the Bible. If you get your understanding of God from elsewhere, then your argument may not appeal to others who get their understanding of God from a different source than you. So to answer your question of whatever happened to that phrase: for most people, it never took off, since it doesn't appeal to their understanding of God.

[Spidey]

That’s fine with me. My understanding of God is…the power to get things done already resides in me.

Welp, there are millions of helpless people out there, what is God waiting for?

Is it that God only helps the truly helpless, and ignores the needs of the rest?

I would also like to point out that the slogan is not so much a religious saying but more of a “truism”.