Yes, we can.

[scaeagles]

Here's what I said:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

in which he lamenting that the supreme court (specifically the Warren court) never addressed redistribution of wealth as an issue of economic justice.

He thinks the Warren court should have been able to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" in regards to what he refers to as "economic justice".

He wants redistribution of wealth. He says it clearly. He is simply talking about the best way to do it.

I think we agree that he wants redistribution of wealth.

I believe my conclusions above to be logical in the context of his statements. I think it obvious that he is indeed lamenting that the court did not address it. You may not, OK.

Upon relistening again, I will agree and concede that he did not say the Warren court should have been able to to break free gfrom those constraints. However, he then goes on to discuss how he thinks the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement was to focus on the courts instead of elsewhere where those economic aims could have been accomplished.

My point still stands in that he WANTS those aims accomplished. He wants redistribution of wealth by taking from those who pay taxes and giving it to those who don't, and deceiving the populace by calling them tax cuts. That's a clever way to promote socialism, but it's socialism nonetheless.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

He wants redistribution of wealth by taking from those who pay taxes and giving it to those who don't, and deceiving the populace by calling them tax cuts.

When it comes to redistributive solutions, what you just said is not necessarily what is being talked about.

And as I said, we all support redistributive policies, we just disagree on which ones. After all, I'm assuming you would not remove from the X% of people who pay no federal taxes all access to federal services.