Skip to comments.Full audio of 1998 ‘redistribution’ speech: Obama saw welfare recipients as ‘majority coalition’
Posted on 09/24/2012 6:09:01 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Full audio of 1998 redistribution speech: Obama saw welfare recipients as majority coalition 4:39 AM 09/24/2012
The Daily Caller has obtained a complete audio recording of the October 19, 1998 Loyola College forum on community organizing and policymaking during which a future President Barack Obama said he favored the government redistribution of wealth. The audio demonstrates the context of that remark and reveals other far-left positions that Obama held as a state senator.
Those positions encompass issues as wide-ranging as gun control, universal health care and welfare reform. Obama also said he viewed welfare recipients and the working poor as a majority coalition that could be mobilized to help advance progressive policies and elect their champions.
Last week the liberal Mother Jones magazine published video footage, shot during a campaign event, showing Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney opining that 47 percent of Americans are captive Democratic voters because they receive government benefits without paying income taxes. (RELATED: Romney controversy points to power of viral video)
Loyola College refused repeated requests from TheDC for a copy of the full one-hour and 42-minute videotape from 1998. But a source in Chicago who gained permission to view it recorded the sound secretly, confirming the accuracy of and expanding on initial accounts that featured only a brief audio excerpt.
I actually believe in [wealth] redistribution, Obama said in that 96-second excerpt, published September 18 on YouTube. At least at a certain level, to make sure that everybodys got a shot.
The following day, NBC News said it had obtained what it called the entirety of the relevant remarks, and complained that Republicans had taken the original lines out of context.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Sure sounds like the march from 47% to 49% is planned to end at above the 50% mark. The question is are they too lazy to vote in greater numbers than us..
“by Charles C. Johnson?”
Not the Little Green Footballs Charles Johnson is it?
Obama also said he viewed welfare recipients and the working poor as a majority coalition that could be mobilized to help advance progressive policies and elect their champions.
Remove the concept of violent revolution (maybe, maybe not), and this is a paraphrase of the Communist Manifesto.
The problem ~ and it’s really one for the Mittbots ~ is discovering Obama and Romney agree on all the fundamentals ~ as I warned you!
Would like to see a full transcript of this speech, I haven’t found one yet.
To put it succinctly, horsecrap !
47% is HC, but both these guys believing in it? Do you accept that as rational?
Even back then his voice was irritating and empty.
F him and F everyone voting for this scumbag.
What I think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant, serious policy work around uh what I will label the working poor although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage, but it’s also families of four who are making $30,000 a year uh uh they are struggling And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out um what kinds of government action uh would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to a move those agendas forward.”
One of the good things about welfare reform which the 1996 legislation I did not entirely agree with and would have probably voted against it at the federal level, but one good thing that comes out of it is that it essentially desegregates the welfare population which presumably is black uhh and uhh undeserving and urban uh versus the working poor which are bitta?? people, um now you just have one batch of folks, folks who are working but don't have health insurance aren't making much money, can't figure out a daycare, uhh don't a spend an hour and a half trying to commute to jobs that do exist um don't have much opportunity for uh enhancing their skills so that they can actually move up into a income bracket that would support uh that is an increasingly a majority population and so to the extent that we have policy systems that are thinking about how do we provide effective health care to those populations uh how do we provide job training so that people can upgrade their skills when thier in these jobs how do we provide effective child care and um of course how do we educate the children in these families in such a way that uh uh they are able to access economic opportunity I think those are going to be the critical policy questions uh that we uh face in the coming century and I don't think by the way that that is just uh a problem for urban areas or the inner city or for particular populations I think that that cuts across issues of race uh and geography and as a consequence becomes a useful means for coupling policy with politics...
...I am actually a strong believer that if we organize policy around um issues of economics that diverse populations have in common we will have uh uh the the basis and the conversation will have taken place and the coalitions will have been formed around which can address some of the issues George has so effectively organized uh uh..
UH uh uh uh
Found the full transcript:
it doesn’t have all of the uh uhs in it thought
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.