what does that biblical verse have to do with Obama, or public policy?  SEems funny to read a liberal quoting scripture as a defense.

oh and by the way, people who earn money aren't given it, and look up who pays most of the taxes in the USA, it's people with money. 

But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality

How about that one?

don't start with your hateful anti-christian rant please.

I'm still all wet from all of the tears from yesterdays Christiana as victim crying fest.

This coming from the same moron (Beck) who used a video clip of FoxNoise's 24 as a way to prove that torture works?

I think that by now it is beyond painfully obvious that Glen Beck is in a contest for the dumbest idiot on TV.... and Hannity is none to happy about it!!

Which industry has Obama proposed a nationalization of?

SUre it does.  It is an absolute fact that when you give people something they haven't worked for, they take it for granted and just expect more.  Its human nature.  there is no pride of ownership, or pride in hard work and earning your own way.  Socialism punishes success and rewards mediocrity and laziness.  why work hard when you can get it for free, nobody is that dumb.  Leftists keep saying income has been redistributed upwards, but low taxes is not redistributing anything, it just keeps more money in the pockets of those who earned it, not those with their hand out.

Which economic policies has Obama borrowed from the Soviet Union and other communist countries as part of his proposals?

AA, the primary cause of the current recession is Republican de-regulation, whick lead to the S&L debacle under Reagan and Bush41. The GOP didn't learn from that, as de-regulating the banking industry has led to Wall Street bankers running wild like they are in a Vegas casino with fistfulls of cash. There are some dirty Dem hands, also, but de-regulation is the primary cause. And McSame wanted to de-regulate the health care industry. Good thing for most Americans that McSame and Caribou Barbie were sent packing.

AA there you go again pushing some tired old line about poor people forcing Demo's to put pressure on Freddie and Fannie to give loans to poor people they knew they couldn't pay back.  That is PURE BS and has been refuted but I guess it doesn't fit into your ideology so you refuse to accept facts here are some for you:"

Scapegoating Minorities for Failures of Banking

Blaming CRA makes little sense, but gets finance industry off the hook

by Mary Kane

It seems, on the face of it, a theory too absurd to even be taken seriously: A ragtag band of anti-poverty activists pushes the White House into forcing lenders to make bad loans to poor and minority borrowers, setting off a subprime loan crisis that puts the entire global economy at risk...

The remarkable thing about the spread of the CRA story was that it was simple to refute: The basic facts about the regulation didn't support the accusations. Gregory Squires, a sociology professor at George Washington University who studies redlining, said one of the gratifying effects of the move to blame the CRA was the eventual pushback by some publications. In outlining what the CRA really does, those stories and editorials educated people about what had been a misunderstood and slightly obscure 30-year-old law, he noted.

Editorials in the L.A. Times (10/25/08) and in the New York Times (10/15/08) dismissed the charges surrounding the CRA as inaccurate; as the NYT pointed out, CRA rules apply to banks, not to the private, unregulated mortgage lenders that made the vast majority of subprime loans during the boom. And the L.A. Times noted that the CRA was not the source of the mortgage products blamed for defaults:

The last things anyone wanted from the CRA were the exotic mortgages that have failed at alarming rates, including "liar loans" and "negative amortization" mortgages whose low payments pushed borrowers deeper into debt. So why did those types of loans and other questionable practices proliferate? Because they generated higher returns for lenders and investors.

The Washington Post also ran a news story refuting the claims (10/3/08). And Aaron Pressman of Business Week (9/29/08) offered a particularly sharp rebuttal, calling CRA critics "know-nothings," linking to Congressional testimony and other evidence exonerating the CRA, as well as providing a summary of posts in the blogosphere challenging the idea.

McClatchy Newspapers also followed up with a widely cited piece (10/12/08) that pinpointed the private sector as the source of the subprime boom:

Federal Reserve Board data show that: More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

But in many ways the pushback was too little, too late. Despite the rebuttals, it has become an article of faith among many that the CRA played some part in the housing crisis problem. And the attention paid to the CRA overshadowed what should have been a genuine controversy over discriminatory lending behavior in the mortgage market during the housing boom...

The claim that minority borrowers were to blame adds insult to injury, since predatory lending and the foreclosure crisis have already and will continue to wipe out billions of dollars of wealth in communities of color. The ink is not yet dry on this one, but I suspect that the idea that borrowers are to blame has gotten more resonance than it rightly deserves.

That resonance exists in some measure because blaming the CRA put borrowers on the defensive. The pushback involved explaining that the CRA didn't force banks to lend to risky borrowers-instead of focusing on the culpability of lenders in targeting minority borrowers for high-cost loans to begin with.

Plenty of evidence exists to document that problem. In July, the NCRC released a study (NCRC.org, 7/31/08) showing that minority borrowers, regardless of income, were the most at risk of receiving high-cost mortgage loans. And the tendency for minority borrowers to pay more than their white counterparts for their loans increased with the minority borrowers' incomes.

The previous month, an analysis of foreclosures in the Washington, D.C., area found Prince George's County-the nation's wealthiest black suburb (Washington Post, 7/26/07)-had one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation (Washington Post, 6/19/08). A year earlier, the Post, using an analysis of Federal Reserve data, concluded that Prince George's County residents were more likely to have subprime loans than predominantly white areas-a disparity that couldn't be explained by the county's credit scores, which ranked above state averages (Washington Post, 3/17/07).

In many ways, media let CRA's opponents set both the terms and tenor of the debate. As a result, the real scandal-the discrimination against minority borrowers at all income levels-failed to get the coverage it deserved." Your short disertation on Socialism and Capitalism is just pure conservative BS.  I'll just say what Beck was doing is called "red-baiting."  It is a tactic used mostly against union organizers by companies to scare workers away from the organizer and obscure the issues and need for worker unity.  By calling the organizer or union "red" or "commie" the attempt was to place communism and socialism as the issue as opposed to lets say worker safety, wages or anti-discriminatory practices of the company. 

No, no no no no.

The primary cause of the current recession is laissez faire economics:  little oversight and NO regulation.  Hhhhmmm...which party supports this?  Answer: The Republican party.  It had nothing to do with "...well meaning Democrats through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack (sic)...".  If this is the fault of a risky home loan scheme, then it was perpetuated by the Republicans.  They were in power when these risky lending schemes came into play.  Republicans were in power when lenders were approving risky loans for people who they knew wouldn't be able to pay.  It's the lending industry's misrepresentation (on a massive scale) that caused this house of cards to fall.  And where was the oversight?  Where was the regulation?  Oh...the Republicans don't believe in oversight and regulation (unless it is, of course, regarding social issues, such as homosexuality, but that's another topic).

Admit it:  This is a situation where Conservative economic theories/policies fall apart.  Our current recession is a perfect example that some (SOME) regulation is needed.  You cons failed the American public.  That's the reason your party is in shambles and you have little power in government these days. 

Simply put, the Republican Party S-U-C-K-S.

...policies put in place by well meaning Democrats through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack to provide risky home loans.

I wonder what policies those were. I'm pretty sure FMae & FMac don't provide the loans, so it looks like Barney is saying FM/FM put the policies in place. Interesting.

Boy I say boy you are lost.  You say you disagree with me, and then produce 5 paragraphs of drivel that do not even address my post.

The gap between the rich and the poor RIGHT NOW after 8 years of Bush stealing from the poor is the widest since the robber baron period right before the Great Depression. 

It has nothing to do with capitalism, socialism, marxism, or whatever other isms you throw out.  It has to do with EQUALITY.  And saving our economy from (and for) people like you.

LOL Kyle!  I always am curious.  What the hell is so wrong with nationalized healthcare anyway?  And please - whoever you are - don't tell me the "I waited 4 years for a new heart" scenario. Seems to be working ok in much of the world -- and here.  Kaiser here in CA is close. If you can AFFORD something better, Obama's plan lets that happen.  If you can't, maybe all the Christians might enjoy helping a bit.  I know I would pay more taxes if I knew more people were being helped.  Oh, but WHOOPS, I'm a liberal and therefore Godless, sorry. 

He's not interested in elaborating on his assertions yet, it seems.

The renunciation of capitalism is a good question.

I was about inquire about Obama's declaration of widespread exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.  Surely that must have happened at some point during a speech somewhere.