"What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all," said the senior Obama, a Harvard-educated economist. "This is the government's obligation." The "means" he had in mind were confiscatory taxes on a scale that redefines the term "progressive taxation."

"Theoretically," he wrote, "there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

But Kenya expert Raymond Omwami, an economist and UCLA visiting professor from the University of Helsinki who has also worked at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, said Obama senior could not be considered a socialist himself based solely on the material in his bylined piece.

Omwami points out that the elder Obama’s paper was primarily a harsh critique of the controversial 1965 government document known as Sessional Paper No. 10. Sessional Paper No. 10 rejected classic Karl Marx philosophies then embraced by the Soviet Union and some European countries, calling instead for a new type of socialism to be used specifically in Africa.

The government paper rejected materialism (i.e., “conspicuous consumerism”), outlined the nation’s goals to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and disease, and also laid out important decrees regarding land use for economic development. Obama senior’s response covers these issues, frequently focusing on the distribution of real estate to farmers. Since most Kenyans could not afford farmland in line with market forces established earlier by white British farmers, the elder Obama argued that strong development planning should better define common farming space to maximize productivity and should defer to tribal traditions instead of hastening individual land ownership.

In other words, Obama senior’s paper was not a cry for acceptance of radical politics but was instead a critique of a government policy by Kenya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, which applied African socialism principles to the country’s ongoing political upheaval.

Never underestimate the stupidity of "Joe Six Pack"...Dubya did get elected a second time, after all.

Never underestimate the stupidity of "Joe Six Pack"...Dubya did get elected a second time, after all.

Oh goodie, we're off to get another thread locked... .


Yup. Scary stuff. And 'ole Sarah is still out there blabbering today that a VP's role is to be "in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes". Someone better tell her that all a VP can do is cast a tie-breaking vote, not to "get in there and make policy".

AGG

Yet Democrats want to call him stupid, and call the voters stupid, but appear unwilling to come to grips with losing twice to someone they claimed wasn't as smart as the typical Democrat.

Calling the other guy stupid just means that you don't have anything good to say about your own guy, so you have to tear down the other guy.

Since you are comparing GPAs, why not back away from the old and look at the new - shall we compare GPAs of McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden?

AGG

Tell THAT to [censored] Cheney.

Sure, if you have the info, throw it out here. Citing your sources, of course.

I thought the left believed the Constitution is open to interpretation, ya know a "Living Constitution"?

The Vice President is the President of the Senate, and as such, has the power to preside over any session of the Senate. I'm not exactly sure how powerful that makes him, though the Rules of the Senate do grant the President a lot of procedural power. He does only have one opportunity to vote (to break a tie); and he is the presiding officer in any impeachment except that of the President.

Sure, if you have the info, throw it out here. Citing your sources, of course.

In terms of procedura, Sarah Palin was correct in her definition the VP's role as President of the Senate.

Biden is much smarter than Palin.