Understood.  But I think that’s highly presumptuous.  In any case, we probably would do best to avoid getting into it.

BTW Steve it is far from accurate to try and lay the current economic mess entirely or even primarily at the feet of the CRA.  Many seem to be conflating sub prime lending and CRA loans.  More than half of sub prime lending was to people who could have qualified for traditional loans and only about 20% of sub prime lending was connected to the CRA.  The deregulation in 1995 that allowed securitizing these loans (first done in 1997) and the further deregulation in 2004 that allowed for much heavier leveraging of these packages (from 12:1 to >20:1) are responsible for much more of this problem.  The 1995 changes set this mess in motion (compromise by Ds and Rs signed by Clinton) and the 2004 changes sped the rush to the cliff edge.

Also try to remember that comparing your domestic political rivals (D or R) to nazis is stupid at best.
<blockquote>Steve J, perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but are you honestly suggesting that we should attempt to create that kind of ideal community through tax policy and federal law? </blockquote>
I think that he’s just pointing out that is what Jesus thought (thinks?).

I’ll assume you don’t really believe that and you were just using the scripture to make a point.  Then I’ll ask this question: how progressive is enough?  After Obama implements his tax plan, there will still be rich and poor.  Will you be advocating still higher taxes on the rich and lower on the poor?  When will we know that our tax policy is fair enough?

Acts of the Apostles

(New Revised Standard version)

4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

4:34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

4:35 They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

And , by the way, I may be a bit better educated than you assume.

Kali, if you’d read the article you’ll see that Michael pointed out facts which contradict your assumption that those who call themselves liberal today are adhering to that philosophy which should, as you point out, be on the opposite end of the spectrum from authoritarianism.

That’s sort of the point, get it? And thus the title of the argument, which I’m sure was meant as hyperbole yet continues to seem closer to the truth day by day.

BTW, the other facts you asked for are also in the article, regarding why Michael thinks that Obama’s supporters are attacking Joe:

Mission accomplished: the left – the lefty media and bloggers – have created circumstances in which Joe Wurzelbacher might very well lose his job. Why? Because he had the audacity to ask “The One” a question, to which “The One” honestly answered that his goal is to “spread the wealth around.” That, of course, was a major mistake on Obama’s part. His team and most in the media know that this could cost him the elections if it were repeated time and again on television. Americans don’t take “spreading the wealth around” very well.
So, they went after Joe. Trying to find anything on him that would hurt him. Not because he said anything himself, but because he asked Obama a question to which the latter gave an honest but, from an opportunistic perspective, stupid answer.

See, it’s sort of like a context clue, when someone writes the question “Why?”, the sentence that follows that often gives insight as to what the writer believes the answer to that question is.

Now this is one load of crap if ever I saw one.

Do you own a copy of the U.S. Constitution?  I don’t really give a flying rip about other
“civilized societies” but I know that my Constitution does not allow for our government to tax its people in order to “take care of its economic problems” and “spread the wealth around.” Period. They are allowed to pay for certain items. That’s it. We go by the Constitution around here.  It’s called, “the law.” You want socialism or anarchy, dictatorships, please hop on the next plane out of here; we don’t want you.

I’m sick of this – I’m sorry, WHO on this stinking blog has a right to call the plumber a phony?!  So, a person who happens to use his middle name instead of his first name (I have, like, a dozen friends who do that – oh, I didn’t realize they were phonies…) – who is practicing a trade for which he may not YET be licensed – ok, HOW do most people learn trades anyway?? Duh. And who has a very real “American dream” of owning a business which can grow to its heart’s content.  So, now we call anyone who falls in these categories a “phony.”  Ok, thanks for the heads up. Jerks.
You libs are so angry and so discontent and you want everyone to drown in your misery along with you.
Well I’m not joining you and this is MY country and I’m not handing over my wallet to socialists. You’re so mad that Obama has finally been exposed as the socialist he is.
This whole thing is about HIM and about what HE SAID. Stop trying to make it about the plumber.
You don’t help your useless cause when you do this.  The very people Hussein purports to be compassionate towards *gagging* are fully represented in this man, “Joe.” Obama doesn’t give a rip about him or anyone else in a middle income bracket. Stop acting like he does. He’s a liar and a thief.

I can think of lots better ways to engage in important discourse about the future of our country than by arguing about sound bites, and single sentences uttered by politicians.  Joe’s concern represents the concerns of many.  Obama’s answer represents the answer by many…but to what question?  Yes–we need to spread wealth to everyone.  We do that by making good investments and by building a great nation.  Wealth is not a zero sum program.  We all get wealthy together. 

The right discussion should be, what did Obama mean by that.  In other words, given that he is an educated person, is he really saying “take from the rich and give to the poor?”  Or is he saying, “Build a bridge to the future?”  Interestingly, many cite his statements about giving middle class tax cuts to be proof of his “Robin Hood” mentality.  Yet, by doing so, he will create more commerce, and thereby greater tax revenues.   Hmm…maybe insetead of discussing sound bites, we should discuss issues.

If you knew anything at all about liberal philosophy you’d know that the ideology is at the opposite end of the spectrum from authoritarian. So not only is your argument flawed on its face, it ignores important facts.

Taxation has always, in every civilized society, been about distribution and pooling of resources. “Spreading wealth around” is a colloquial way of saying it.

It is not clear from your writing why you believe Obama is attacking Joe? What I see is the media frenzy around Joe (Sam), and McCain’s quick adoption of Joe. And truly, Joe is a Republican who favors McCain. But if you want to argue that Barack Obama is attacking Joe, you’ll need to present a rational argument.  

Sullivan’s no longer a conservative, at least in my book. He’s in bed with the Kos crew, and that’ it.

The left in 24 hours have found out more about ‘Joe’ than two years they have found about Obama.

The left in 24 hours have found out more about ‘Joe’ than two years they have found about Obama.

And did he now reverse his opinion or was he consistently critical of this sort of tactic when some in the rightosphere dug up information to discredit the Frost family?