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

You wanna know what my platform is? Here it is. "I'm gonna soak the fat boys and spread it out thin".

I have no comments, I upload, and you decide, this time.


Huey Pierce Long, Jr. (August 30, 1893 -- September 10, 1935), nicknamed The Kingfish, was an American politician from the U.S. state of Louisiana. A Democrat, he was noted for his radical populist policies. He served as Governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and as a U.S. senator from 1932 to 1935. Though a backer of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 presidential election, Long split with Roosevelt in June 1933 and allegedly planned to mount his own presidential bid.

Long created the Share Our Wealth program in 1934, with the motto "Every Man a King," proposing new wealth redistribution measures in the form of a net asset tax on large corporations and individuals of great wealth to curb the poverty and crime resulting from the Great Depression.

Charismatic and immensely popular for his social reform programs and willingness to take forceful action, Long was accused by his opponents of dictatorial tendencies for his near-total control of the state government. At the height of his popularity, the colorful and flamboyant Long was shot on September 8, 1935, at the Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge; he died two days later at the age of 42. His last words were reportedly, "God, don't let me die. I have so much left to do."


Long proposed a new progressive tax code designed to limit the size of personal fortunes. The new tax code would tax the first million dollars of income at the existing rates. The second million dollars would be taxed at 1%. The third million at 2%; the fourth million at 4%; the fifth million at 8%; the sixth million at 16%; the seventh million at 32%; the eighth million at 64%; and the remainder at 100%.

The resulting funds would be used to guarantee every family a basic household grant of $5,000 and a minimum annual income of $2,000-3,000 (or one-third the average family income). Long supplemented his plan with proposals for free primary and college education, old-age pensions, veterans' benefits, federal assistance to farmers, public works projects, and limiting the work week to thirty hours.

Denying that his program was socialistic, Long stated that his ideological inspiration for the plan came not from Karl Marx but from the Bible and the Declaration of Independence. "Communism? Hell no!" he said, "This plan is the only defense this country's got against communism."

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• socialized
• medicine
• barack
• obama
• socialism
• hope
• change
• yes
• we
• can
• redistribution
• wealth
• tax
• spend
• health
• care
• free
• rich

[mtmt88]

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

[reevaluate2008]

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

[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]

@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 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]

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.

[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.

[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 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 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 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 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?