• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I Actually Believe In Redistribution

vote obama, 2012!

time to un-distribute!

All governments redistribute wealth. The question is, in which direction do they spread it? From the poor to the rich, or from the rich to the poor? I think this week has shown us in which direction Romney wishes to see it go.
 
Redistribute the wealth?

Yes, I believe that is a brilliant idea.

Half the population should work, and the other half should stay at home watching TV.

Then all the income generated by the half who works should be split evenly among everyone. Sounds good to me!
 
We have had a progressive income tax since it's inception. For those from Rio Linda that means we tax the richest the most.
 
romney's focus is to grow resources, not pool them

Since our founding, America has promoted personal responsibility, the dignity of work and the value of education. Those values made our nation the hope of the earth and our economy the envy of the world.

Efforts that promote hard work and personal responsibility over government dependency make America strong. When the economy is growing and Americans are working, everyone involved has a shared sense of achievement, not to mention the basic sense of pride that comes with the paycheck they earn.

However, over the past four years, those kinds of opportunities have been in short supply. We're experiencing the worst recovery since the Great Depression. Unemployment has been above 8% for 43 straight months; 47 million Americans are on food stamps. Nearly one in six Americans now live in poverty.

Under President Obama, we have a stagnant economy that fosters government dependency. My policies will create a growing economy that fosters upward mobility.

Government has a role to play here. Right now, our nation's citizens do need help from government. But it is a very different kind of help than what President Obama wants to provide.

My experience has taught me that government works best when it creates the space for individuals and families to pursue success and achieve great things. Economic freedom is the only force that has consistently succeeded in creating sustained prosperity and lifting people out of poverty. It is why our economy rose to rival those of the world's leading powers -- and has long since surpassed them all.

The dreamers and the entrepreneurs, not government, built this economy, and they can once again make it strong.

My course for the American economy will encourage private investment and personal freedom. Instead of creating a web of dependency, I will pursue policies that grow our economy and lift Americans out of poverty.

USAToday: Romney would grow economy, not redistribute it
 
Your reasons for the food stamp use increases are...not wrong...but insignificant. The real reason is summed up in the following article:

Aside from the fact that this is basically a redundant thread complete with many of the same citations as the one about record numbers collecting disability in another topic, you are trying to play this food stamp issue both ways. On one hand you wish to claim the rise in food stamp recipients is an indicator of a failed recovery, now you claim it has nothing to do with actual need. While it is also true that Bush II never signed the bill, it did still come into law during his presidency. I will admit that a better way to describe it would have been "with bi-partisan support"(216-108 in the House and 81-15 in the Senate) but it is even more misleading trying to act like Obama was the crucial swing vote or otherwise solely responsible for the expansion.It is obvious from your fluttering back and forth on facts and issues that you have no actual concern for the poor but are merely looking for a way to justify the rich paying less. If the decline in median incomes is of such grave concern following the worst recession since WW II then redistribution would seem to be the ideal solution since those at the top suffered the least.
 
1. Aside from the fact that this is basically a redundant thread complete with many of the same citations as the one about record numbers collecting disability in another topic, you are trying to play this food stamp issue both ways. On one hand you wish to claim the rise in food stamp recipients is an indicator of a failed recovery, now you claim it has nothing to do with actual need.

2. While it is also true that Bush II never signed the bill, it did still come into law during his presidency.

3. I will admit that a better way to describe it would have been "with bi-partisan support"(216-108 in the House and 81-15 in the Senate) but it is even more misleading trying to act like Obama was the crucial swing vote or otherwise solely responsible for the expansion.It is obvious from your fluttering back and forth on facts and issues that you have no actual concern for the poor but are merely looking for a way to justify the rich paying less. If the decline in median incomes is of such grave concern following the worst recession since WW II then redistribution would seem to be the ideal solution since those at the top suffered the least.

1. Excuse me? I've said no such thing...in this thread or in that other thread. In fact, I haven't posted once in that other thread. Perhaps you'd like to retract this?

2. So what if it came into law during his Presidency? He vetoed the stupid thing twice!! It's not his baby...that's for sure.

3. Fine. Like the article said...good or bad, Obama is partly responsible. And Bush is not.
 
this afternoon:

Andrea Mitchell: NBC Hasn't "Authenticated" Obama Redistribution Clip, Won't Air | RealClearPolitics

On her MSNBC program this afternoon, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell said the network would not air the clip of then-State Senator Barack Obama endorsing redistribution in 1988 because the network could not "authenticate" the clip.

"Let's explain this redistribution issue because we have not authenticated this 14-year-old tape from Loyola College when Barack Obama was a state senator. So because we have not independently at NBC news and MSNBC authenticated it, we're not airing it," Mitchell said.

"But the basic issue is they're accusing President Obama, as John Sununu said to be yesterday, of class warfare. That is trying to change the subject," Mitchell added.

Chuck Todd: Well it is. Look, this to me feels more about look at where they distributed it, they went to the Drudge Report to make sure the audio got out there.

UPDATE (@2:31PM ET): MSNBC's Tamron Hall just announced on air that the network has now authenticated the tape.

what are they so afraid of?
 
1. Excuse me? I've said no such thing...in this thread or in that other thread. In fact, I haven't posted once in that other thread. Perhaps you'd like to retract this?

2. So what if it came into law during his Presidency? He vetoed the stupid thing twice!! It's not his baby...that's for sure.

3. Fine. Like the article said...good or bad, Obama is partly responsible. And Bush is not.

I do apologize for mistaking your post for one by The Prof. Apparently it isn't you specifically but conservatives in general who can't make up their minds what has caused the spike in food stamp recipients. As for the rest, technically Obama never said "W" supported it. He said it came about during the previous administration which is true. To many it looks, in retrospect, like a wise move that would have been necessary later on anyway. I'm sure there will always be a few self centered money grubbers that think giving someone something like $150/ month for food is what keeps them from leading the lifestyle of the rich and famous.
 
1. I do apologize for mistaking your post for one by The Prof. Apparently it isn't you specifically but conservatives in general who can't make up their minds what has caused the spike in food stamp recipients.

2. As for the rest, technically Obama never said "W" supported it. He said it came about during the previous administration which is true. To many it looks, in retrospect, like a wise move that would have been necessary later on anyway.

3. I'm sure there will always be a few self centered money grubbers that think giving someone something like $150/ month for food is what keeps them from leading the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

1. Thank you. However, I would caution you for applying your stereotypes to "conservatives in general". If you do, you might someday tell people that I wish all gay people would go to hell because "conservatives in general" want that. That would make my gay brother kind of upset.

2. I see...so a "technicality" allows Obama to get away with misleading statements and putting forth incorrect implications. Do you think that's okay? I agree it's par for the course, but I don't like it and I usually try to point out such lying behavior. Especially when Obama does it because, in his case, nobody else does.

3. Now this statement from you surprises...and disappoints me. I didn't think you would be raising hyperbolic straw men. Oh well.
 
obama at loyola, 10-19-98

"I Actually Believe In Redistribution" - YouTube

"i don't think it's too strong to call it a propaganda campaign against the possibility of govt action and its efficacy, and i think some of it's deserved, the chicago housing authority has not been a model of good policy making and neither necessarily have been the chicago public schools"

"what that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we're all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live, and my suggestion i guess would be the trick---and this is one of the few areas where there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues---i think the trick is figuring out how do we structure govt systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because i actually believe in redistribution, at least at some level, to make sure everyone's got a shot"

gotta pool those resources, now, even as the pool dries up

Household income fell 4.8% during economic recovery - latimes

never before has america faced so clear a choice

more pools or more resources, let the voters decide

The states did not establish their federation so that it could redistribute wealth. If there are going to be laws to redistribute wealth, these should be state laws, not federal. There is no legitimate reason for the federal government to take money from a Pennsylvanian in order to give it to a Californian.

Please peruse the legitimate powers of Congress, and consider which of these powers can be used for the purpose of redistributing wealth.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
april to june, this year: 200K americans find work (58% of which jobs pay between 8 and 13 dollars per hour), 246K go on disability, 265K apply newly for food stamps

More Americans Added to Food Stamps Than Find Jobs

what's to redistribute in obama's america other than doles and debt?

psst---real marxists don't like obama, cuz when he's around there's simply nothing left to distribute

queue up, comrades
 
1. Thank you. However, I would caution you for applying your stereotypes to "conservatives in general". If you do, you might someday tell people that I wish all gay people would go to hell because "conservatives in general" want that. That would make my gay brother kind of upset.

2. I see...so a "technicality" allows Obama to get away with misleading statements and putting forth incorrect implications. Do you think that's okay? I agree it's par for the course, but I don't like it and I usually try to point out such lying behavior. Especially when Obama does it because, in his case, nobody else does.

3. Now this statement from you surprises...and disappoints me. I didn't think you would be raising hyperbolic straw men. Oh well.

!. I try not to do that unless I've seen someone post quite a few times and have a pretty good feel for their views. There are usually certain stances that go together, evangelicals tend to be vehemently against abortion AND SSM, but not everyone fits into an easy classification. I've become pretty liberal on a number of social issues but illegal immigration and gun control are not among them.
2. I said before that it would have been better if he described the measure as passing with bipartisan support. I do think it is just as misleading, or more so, to act like Obama was the prime architect or swing vote on the bill when Republican supporters consisted of more than a few defectors.

3. Sorry, but my experience is this is what almost all of these rants about food stamps, people on disability, etc. really boil down to. Modern conservatism is not associated with concern for others but is viewed as a philosophy concerned with accumulating as much material wealth for the individual as possible. Most of the other reasons given are just red herrings. I don't believe most Republicans would give a whit if someone else became "dependent" on government if they didn't feel like they were paying for it. If they were as concerned with the deficit as they claim "W" would have never gotten a second term. We are supposed to be not only members of the same species but also share the bond of being Americans. To quibble and whine about supplying basic needs to fellow Americans during the greatest economic turmoil of our lifetimes seems to me the essence of a petty and self centered personality. We all know there are those who acquire great wealth through no merit of their own. It is known as inheritance. To presume that people are not similarly struck by extreme hardship through no real fault of their own is wishful thinking. It has long been my opinion that if you find yourself in a position where taxes are your primary source of stress and concern then you are in need of some real problems to give you some perspective.
 
Back
Top Bottom