Obama's Favorite Movie. "I'm Gonna Soak The Fat Boys..."

[cpklapper]

I realize that this need to be revised from the figure that Huey Long gave in the 1930's, which is clearly low. After some reflection, it seems to make sense to apply it to stock, bond and loan holdings above a threshold value of 1% of a large cap stock, approximately $50 million. The rate would be 0.1% per trading day on the maximum value of the holdings on that day. The intent is to encourage the super-rich to divest themselves of their controlling wealth or contribute billions to the budget.

[jbranstetter04]

@cpklapper Under what authority would the government be doing this, this confiscating of wealth? Furthermore, why is it the business of the federal government how much wealth we have? Please reply to my comment by clicking the reply to the right of this comment.

[cpklapper]

@jbranstetter04 The same authority by which governments grants property rights in stock ownership and loans, as well as the charter for the publicly traded corporations. It is the business of the federal government to protect the public purpose by which those grants were made. In the case of this tax, it is to prevent the abuse of those grants where the people are disenfranchised by holders of controlling wealth shutting down local factories and evicting them from their homes.

[jbranstetter04]

@cpklapper So your wealth tax would be a limited one. If a person had a lot of money, land, automobiles, gold etc, then they would not be taxes on those assets. And if not, then why?

[cpklapper]

@jbranstetter04 The point of the tax is not to take people's personal possessions away from them but to break the grip of monopoly power and other threats to the people. And the people win either way if Warren Buffett and the rest of the super-rich help raise revenue or, to avoid the tax, sold off most of their stock holdings to smaller investors and spent their wealth on things that the rest of people can earn money making.

Land is another question entirely. Henry George wrote volumes about it.

[jbranstetter04]

@cpklapper I think one of the most important things in our founding was that the government should protect property rights and give us a rule of law that we can count on. Without these things, who would want to take risk to acquire wealth if it was just going to be taken away. One of the worse things I remember the Obama administration doing was giving Unions rights over the guaranteed stock holders of Chrysler. Kind of reminded me of a banana republic.

[cpklapper]

@jbranstetter04 The Constitution did no such thing. The Fifth Amendment assured that property (along with life and liberty) might be taken away only under "due process of law" and that "private property" might be "taken for public use" only with "just compensation". Passing tax legislation would be "due process". Stock ownership in a publicly traded and chartered corporation is not purely private, would not be made less so and, in any event, is not being "taken away" but taxed.

[jbranstetter04]

@cpklapper I say that it did do such a thing and that you even stated it. When an individual or a group of individuals enter a legal contract with another company lending them money as an investment, with a contract drawn up guaranteeing them the right of being paid back first if there's a bankruptcy, then that contract needs to be protected. And contracts like that have been protected until now, until Obama. Now anything goes. Who will invest now without a premium being asked?

[cpklapper]

@jbranstetter04 Wrong on all counts. The federal government is not required to uphold the obligations of contracts, only the states. Congress is tasked to create uniform Rule of Bankruptcy (also Naturalization but they never bothered with that) and that, not a contract, is what gives the lenders first dibs. Also, in economics, loans are not investments. The choice is between lending your money through the bank for interest and investing it as equity in a business.for a dividend.

[cpklapper]

Because banks can create money and only need to keep a fraction of the deposits lent in reserve, lending has greater liquidity than investing. So, when lenders are favored by bankruptcy rules, a bias is created in favor of this liquidity as surely as a fall in aggregate demand disfavoring investment, thus creating another kind of liquidity trap. Congress would do well to reconsider the bankruptcy rules in this regard.

[jbranstetter04]

@cpklapper With all you wrote, I am still right. Here is a good article for all to read:

"Chrysler and the Rule of Law WSJ"

Obama is a Chicago thug. I watched and listed to it all with my own eyes and ears. I could not believe how a President of the United States threatened and demonized citizens of the US. It was a low point in US history, and one that I hope will soon be over.

[cpklapper]

@jbranstetter04 Despite all of your assertions, you are still wrong. I hold no brief for the President, mind you, but he is not the first and, as long as we have the two-party system, he won't be the last to abuse his office for the benefit of his cronies. To assert otherwise is to be blind to history. Not everything that government does is evil, whatever the conservatives tell you, and not everything that private interests do is good. Finally, scope is key, not public v private.

[jbranstetter04]

@cpklapper "scope is key, not public v private"

Finally the truth, or a truth. It is actually the debate, and has been for a longtime. It is not as much what they tell, because I am the conservative. I'm actually quite smart. I'm pragmatic as well. I understand the arguments of the left. I understand that there needs to be a balance, on everything. Should tax rates on the wealthiest be 0% or 100%? Neither would work. It is somewhere in between. By experimentation we can find it.

[cpklapper]

Yes, I am. I am also advocating the provision of the necessities to replace entitlements, bringing back the greenbacks, ending the Treasuries and, in the event of excessive inflation, an increase in the reserve requirements. What inflation there is would be, itself, a wealth tax, but that would not wrest the control of wealth out of the few hands it is in, as the STW tax would. The Democratic Party's upward mobility tax not only fails to do this, it cements the current concentration of wealth.

[jbranstetter04]

@cpklapper Who would this wealth tax apply to? At what level would it be applied?

[cpklapper]

Actually, Obama has been making the fat cats fatter. He doesn't have a populist bone is his body. Also, Huey Long's Share-the-Wealth program taxed WEALTH, not income. Most populists, like myself, have no problem at all with the productive rich, the ones who are earning an income, nor even with those who are resting and enjoying the fruits of their labors, but with the idle rich who tie up the country's resources playing control games with its companies and industry.

[jbranstetter04]

@cpklapper Are you advocating a wealth tax?

[shaneu1]

As in his beliefs, attitudes, taste in ladies, and even mode of dress, Mr. O. is right on target. "ATKM" is a superb film which holds up well to this day. Of course, having read Warren's book before seeing the film enhances one's appreciation of Robert Rosson's excellent cinema version. It remains perhaps the best American example of post-war neo-realism in film.

[gedoug]

How many times does Socialism, communism, collectivism, have to fail before people "get it". Other people's money eventually runs out and what do the leeches and couch sitters do then. When citizen A realizes his hard work is allowing citizen B to do nothing and Citizen A gets fed up with being stolen from he may just take his hard work over seas, or may stop working so hard so there is nothing to take. Fails every time its tried...just as it is failing now. NOBAMA 2012

[jamesmcrews]

Whoever uploaded this is a retard. "I'm gonna withhold my comments" but you put little bubbles throughout. Fuck you, dude. "Willie" aka Huey pulled his state from abject poverty nearly overnight. Yes, the fat fuck capitalists paid for it because they were the ones reaping all of Louisiana's rewards. Quit taking arms against poor people and fight the real enemy, you Ayn Rand worshiping, Fox News Watching, absolutely no independent thought running through your tiny head havin ass.

[jbranstetter04]

@jamesmcrews I actually wrote "I have no comments", but that was over two years ago, and now with O-bummer destroying our country minute by minute, I had no choice but to comment (I put the bubbles up a week ago). If you disagree with me, then comment as you did. That's why I let everyone comment on my videos. I'm sure that there are some things that we agree on.

[shaneu1]

@jamesmcrews Jamesmcrews hits the nail squarely on the proverbial head. As an aside, I cannot for the life of me understand why so many university kids and Gen Y types have conferred near-mythical status on the late Ayn Rand, whose "objectivist philosophy" was naught but a lowbrow rehashing (or perhaps regurgitation) of nineteenth century Herbert Spencer-style Social Darwinism, and whose novels were pure pulp, with all the subtlety or sophistication of a Mickey Spillane opus.

[jerzy862]

What movie is this?

[jbranstetter04]

@jerzy862 "All The Kings Men". All the king's horses and all the king's men. Couldn't put Humpty together again....

[hlwrites]

Obama's just another Willy.

[8pasta]

Sean Penn played Willie in the recent remake, but he has no problem distinguishing between Barack and Huey Long. If you think Robert Penn Warren, who wrote this, would ever have voted for a ticket that included Sarah Palin, you know nothing about the man.

[NObamma2008]

Obama is a dangerous Populist... Willing to make promises of redistribution of the wealth in order to achieve "fairness". Well if the poor have no money, and the wealthy hire lawyers and accountants to protect their money... who's money do you think he's going to "re-distribute"?

[BestPoliticalVideos]

If, by any chance, Uh bama gets elected President, I vow to quit my job and get in line for my welfare check! Viva La Bama!

[YouElm]

Just curious if you kept your vow and quit your job?

[BestPoliticalVideos]

AB-SO-F#CK-ING-UTE-LY! I now collect unemployment. I work for cash only now.

[Vincel3332000]

Wow. maybe learn some economics before you start spouting ignorance like you know something. We have had 4 presidents in our history who at the time they left office left with greater debt than when they started. You bet all four of them were Republican! Not one Democratic president has left office with a greater deficit than when they took office. Next time you speak, know what your talking about so you do not sound like a fool!

[mskwebb]

Vince you are the fool. Bill Clinton is the cause of the mortgage crisis. Forcing mortgage companies to give mortgages to people who can't afford them, trying to make home ownership a universal right.

[Blue8647]

lol sure he is...he proposed the idea, but it was left for Bush and his croonies to keep an eye on what these lenders were doing...and guess what, he failed. Besides, you can't disprove his point about deficits and surpluses now can you? The numbers speak for themselves.

[mtmt88]

my, this is scary. Obama built his whole campaign on this. thanks for sharing.

[Blue8647]

lol THIS is scary? I really hope that's sarcasm...otherwise, something's very wrong with America.

[JimQualls]

Actuallly, allahabama the muslim will soak the infidels.

[reevaluate2008]

So... do you think one of the "Fat Boys" got him?