View Poll Results: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

Voters
120. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    96 80.00%
  • No

    24 20.00%
Page 42 of 46 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 451

Thread: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

  1. #411
    Professor
    Kane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    09-09-13 @ 09:13 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,661

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    He's certainly not reversed the financial flow toward the 1%.


    Nope. Obama is a bought off corrupt schmoe, and I say those dipwad Liberal talk hosts are equally lame-o.

    If Obomber hadn't blown up the Middle East gas prices would have receded. Nope just more profits for Haliburton.
    __________________________________________________ _____
    "The press is the hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for no other reason than to tell us lies where their interests are concerned." — Henry Adams

  2. #412
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane View Post
    Nope. Obama is a bought off corrupt schmoe, and I say those dipwad Liberal talk hosts are equally lame-o.

    If Obomber hadn't blown up the Middle East gas prices would have receded. Nope just more profits for Haliburton.
    Have you forgotton who started the war? Both parties and the corporate media.

  3. #413
    Professor
    Kane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    09-09-13 @ 09:13 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,661

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    LibAvenger:

    Obomber is the more effective evil. Not the lesser of two when measured against Bush. Whereas Bush was transparent in his decisions, Obomber hides behind sophisticated covert ops and stealth,with evil CFR members in govmnt and the media, like the Clintons, (and their DLC buddies) to execute even more innocents than before. And, if you think Obama will stop with regime change in Syria, you are wrong. Iran is coming, because he is taking orders from the CFR, he is just a figurehead. The choreographed events where he poses as a leader reading from teleprompters, picking pre-determined questions from his lackey press, and foreign/domestic policy talking points ginned up by corporate America, in newspapers and TV, are all just window dressing for our American dictatorship and never ending war machine.

    Romney was never meant to win.The entire primary was a hoax, the nominee was picked beforehand. His VP attacking social security was proof of that. Seniors would NEVER stand for or elect that, the power-brokers know that. Its just another stealth manuever for the CFR to make their villian Obomber seem fair and just.

    You see? Obama the working class hero would NEVER attack the DEFENSELESS like the old and sick. Our elections are scripted like a storybook football game. And they're pre-determined. Our elections are decided behind closed doors, by not-so-secret anymore societies.

    https://leaksource.wordpress.com/201...syria-exposed/

    A Nation Deceived - Council on Foreign Relations Sponsorship of Covert Activities at Home and Abroad
    Last edited by Kane; 09-25-12 at 09:29 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _____
    "The press is the hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for no other reason than to tell us lies where their interests are concerned." — Henry Adams

  4. #414
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane View Post
    LibAvenger:

    Obomber is the more effective evil. Not the lesser of two when measured against Bush. Whereas Bush was transparent in his decisions, Obomber hides behind sophisticated covert ops and stealth,with evil CFR members in govmnt and the media, like the Clintons, (and their DLC buddies) to execute even more innocents than before. And, if you think Obama will stop with regime change in Syria, you are wrong. Iran is coming, because he is taking orders from the CFR, he is just a figurehead. The choreographed events where he poses as a leader reading from teleprompters, picking pre-determined questions from his lackey press, and foreign/domestic policy talking points ginned up by corporate America, in newspapers and TV, are all just window dressing for our American dictatorship and never ending war machine.

    Romney was never meant to win.The entire primary was a hoax, the nominee was picked beforehand. His VP attacking social security was proof of that. Seniors would NEVER stand for or elect that, the power-brokers know that. Its just another stealth manuever for the CFR to make their villian Obomber seem fair and just.

    You see? Obama the working class hero would NEVER attack the DEFENSELESS like our old and sick? Our elections are scripted like a storybook football game. And they're pre-determined. Our elections are decided behind closed doors, by not-so-secret anymore societies.

    https://leaksource.wordpress.com/201...syria-exposed/

    A Nation Deceived - Council on Foreign Relations Sponsorship of Covert Activities at Home and Abroad
    I knew that!

  5. #415
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,874

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    Millions of people have already done so, and you can do it also if you want to badly enough.
    Well, I have switched careers mid-life, but just because I did, or because millions have done so (I'm not sure this is entirely correct either), it does not follow that all people can. I would put it that when even a few people don't have that capability, we are in a state that needs rectification. In fact, I think probably many millions do not have that capability, and so we are in a state of rather severe injustice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    2) Point made. I should have said "profit controls."
    Well, again, profit controls seem to have worked in at least some instances. Most guilds in the European Renaissance employed profit controls, and this was one of the better sustained economic expansions the world has ever seen. There were other reasons we could attribute this expansion to, but if the claim is that profit controls never work, this is an exception. I can think of others.

    Of course, I would admit that profit controls do not always work, and when profits are too severely controlled, they have a negative effect. I agree that there has to be an incentive to work hard and take risks. This is why I say that, in exchange for limiting proportional profits, there also has to be a certain amount of protection from risk.

    Note also that I'm talking about proportional profits, not absolute profits. Let's say that Sam the factory owner has a factory that makes barrels. He is restricted from taking, by law, more than, say, 8% of net profits for himself or shareholders. But that 8% can represent anything from $8 to $8,000,000 per year.

    A system that makes sure that workers have money is a system that creates and maintains a lot of customers as well. Part of what I'm arguing is simply that we need to return to an economic model wherein the best way to make money is to be productive. Right now, I don't think we have that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    Occasional periods of lower standards of living can usually be traced to governmental attempts to bring "social justice" although natural disasters like hurrricanes and tsunamis can also cause setbacks.
    Really? I've never heard of someone trying to trace, say, the begining of the Great Depression to government's attempt to bring social justice. Indeed, the Great Depression seems to have come at the end of a pretty laissez faire attitude. The depressions of 1837 and 1893 also do not seem attributable to government trying to bring social justice. Perhaps the case is a little vague with regard to 1837.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    I take a dim view of those who take my money by force and then make poor choices. People make choices and should be allowed to benefit (or not) from the consequences. A former neighbor of mine once sold an iPad on eBay and shipped it to the buyer in Nigeria before discovering there was no money in the PayPal account he was given. I feel no responsibility to make good his loss.
    Well, the example is probably not typical. Suppose your neighbor owned an iPad warehouse with 500 workers, and it had to shut down and put those people out of a job. Whether or not this guy screwed up is a smaller issue when compared to the impact those 500 now-jobless people will have on your community. When we come together to ensure mutual survival, we give up some stuff. We are dependent creatures. There is simply no getting around that. We have social minds, and most of that raw brain-power is devoted to that end. Rugged individualism applies to tigers and polar bears. Not to us.

    If you don't like that, again, I invite you to divest yourself of all goods you didn't make from raw materials you yourself gathered, and, foresaking all human help, plunge into the wilderness, where you are free to own all you can possibly gather. If that doesn't sound very good to you, it might be because you're as aware as I that very few people would last very long doing that. We are dependent creatures. We have to depend on each other to make good our mistakes. We need not do so absolutely or in every case (I, too, would feel no obligation to make good your neighbor's mistake). But there is a point where either we have to, or we may as well all just embrace the wilderness route, with all the hardship and disease it entails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    We are as close as any society has ever been to that standard.
    I can think of at least a few societies I think are closer, both current and historical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    Everyone is born with different talents and different circumstances, but no other society in history has given its citizens such freedom and opportunity to change their circumstances.
    I would admit we're not as bad as some on my side of the fence sometimes like to think. But I think we're hardly the best in the world on such scores.


    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    The FDR case is a good example of the failed kind of government meddling which you seem to be proposing, which is incompatible with free markets and material progress.
    It didn't seem to many at the time to have failed, though naturally some people were pretty mad about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    When you deny property rights, you are proposing a failed society.
    I'm not necessarily denying property rights, but I wonder about just what those rights ought to be. I'm afraid I do not see why a society that doesn't believe in our version (or more accurately, your version) of property rights must perforce fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    So you actually believe that only physical resources are wealth?
    No, but all wealth is based on physical resources and cannot exceed the value of physical resources by some certain portion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    And one that increases every year, with no limit in sight.
    Well, there certainly is an end in sight, depending on how perspicacious we are. I pointed out last post what that end must be, if no other arrives before then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    Fraud, etc. are especially prevalent where the government has control.
    I do agree that government is a traditional and primary avenue for the perpetration of exploitation and corruption. We'll have to come up with a better political system to address the economic imbalances. But that's no excuse for not attempting either and both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    Society merely provides the garden in which ideas can flourish and further benefit the society.
    This just seems like a way to say the same thing I said, while ignoring the obvious consequences. If society is our garden (from which, presumably, we get our food), let's see what happens when we stop taking care of the soil...

    It's interesting you mention this, because I am an avid gardener and I've often thought a garden is a good metaphor for the economy as a whole. I take the soil to be the poor and middle classes, as they are the ones out of which stuff is produced. It's the people who work in factories, on farms or fishing boats, in mines or forestry, in retail stores, etc. who actually produce and distribute goods. The rich tend to be the people who enable tracking, accounting, and exchange of those goods. There are exceptions to this, of course (doctors should probably be in the former class of people, but tend to be well off, for example). Of course, what the rich do is necessary. In the metaphor, they're rather like polinators. We could still have onions, carrots, radishes, lettuce, and such. But who wouldn't want to have tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, apples, and so on?

    What I'm saying here is that we've gone too far out of balance with our concern for a certain segment of society and protecting their rights, while steadily devaluing the contribution of the rest. And that value is huge. We've devalued it through the laws we've enacted about how contracts are to be enforced, how wages and hiring are to work, and how money and ownership are to work. Without reforms which reach to a basic conceptual level, we're going to have an economic dust bowl on our hands. And people can protest all they'd like that what we did was "morally right"--it still leads to that end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes
    It is up to the individual to make something of it, and a free market society will reward contribution. A managed economy does not spread the wealth, it only spreads the poverty.
    I think the first part of this is simply false, and the second part misconstrued. But I do not advocate for a completely planned economy. I advocate for a balanced model between competetive and cooperative forces.
    Last edited by ashurbanipal; 09-27-12 at 01:08 PM.

  6. #416
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Well, I have switched careers mid-life, but just because I did, or because millions have done so (I'm not sure this is entirely correct either), it does not follow that all people can. I would put it that when even a few people don't have that capability, we are in a state that needs rectification. In fact, I think probably many millions do not have that capability, and so we are in a state of rather severe injustice.
    Agreed that millions do not have the capability to control their own destiny, and in all cases that is due to the government. In a free society, you are free to follow your dreams ("pursuit of happiness" in the 18th century terminology). The "severe injustice" you cite is self-inflicted.

    Well, again, profit controls seem to have worked in at least some instances. Most guilds in the European Renaissance employed profit controls, and this was one of the better sustained economic expansions the world has ever seen.
    Examples?

    A system that makes sure that workers have money is a system that creates and maintains a lot of customers as well. Part of what I'm arguing is simply that we need to return to an economic model wherein the best way to make money is to be productive. Right now, I don't think we have that.
    Agreed on the need to be productive. Perhaps you could explain that to the public employee unions that are giving sensible citizens so much grief. In the private sector, please note that workers are in the business of selling their labor for as much as the market will bear and are hardly the victims of exploitation that you seem to believe.

    Really? I've never heard of someone trying to trace, say, the begining of the Great Depression to government's attempt to bring social justice. Indeed, the Great Depression seems to have come at the end of a pretty laissez faire attitude. The depressions of 1837 and 1893 also do not seem attributable to government trying to bring social justice. Perhaps the case is a little vague with regard to 1837.
    I'm still waiting for your definition of social justice. Without that definition, it is nothing but a meaningless slogan.

    Well, the example is probably not typical. Suppose your neighbor owned an iPad warehouse with 500 workers, and it had to shut down and put those people out of a job. Whether or not this guy screwed up is a smaller issue when compared to the impact those 500 now-jobless people will have on your community. When we come together to ensure mutual survival, we give up some stuff. We are dependent creatures. There is simply no getting around that. We have social minds, and most of that raw brain-power is devoted to that end. Rugged individualism applies to tigers and polar bears. Not to us.
    It is often a tragedy when a business fails, as when the buggy whip factories went out of business a century ago or when the telephone switchboard operators were replaced by automation. Stuff happens, and it's time to move on. Your attitude reflects that of the socialist failures of the 20th century, when governments focused their attention on preserving yesterday's jobs instead of tomorrow's products.

    I can think of at least a few societies I think are closer, both current and historical.
    Examples?

    I would admit we're not as bad as some on my side of the fence sometimes like to think. But I think we're hardly the best in the world on such scores.
    So who is?

    In fact, through this whole conversation you have only made vague petty complaints and offered no positive definitions or agenda to reach this undefined goal. Can you offer any positive arguments as to why I should not dismiss your "social justice" babble as a brain fart brought on by seeds and stems?

    What I'm saying here is that we've gone too far out of balance with our concern for a certain segment of society and protecting their rights, while steadily devaluing the contribution of the rest. And that value is huge. We've devalued it through the laws we've enacted about how contracts are to be enforced, how wages and hiring are to work, and how money and ownership are to work. Without reforms which reach to a basic conceptual level, we're going to have an economic dust bowl on our hands. And people can protest all they'd like that what we did was "morally right"--it still leads to that end.
    Perhaps Thoreau was right when he observed that most men have the souls of slaves, but some of us prefer to define our own lives. I return to the concept of "willing buyer, willing seller" confident that every seller would be happier to get twice the price and every buyer would be happier to get half the price. You may raise vague and frothy objections about presumed coercion, but you have nothing better to offer in its place.

    I think the first part of this is simply false, and the second part misconstrued. But I do not advocate for a completely planned economy. I advocate for a balanced model between competetive and cooperative forces.
    Again, and for the last time, define your vision of a properly balanced model.
    Last edited by Diogenes; 09-27-12 at 01:51 PM. Reason: keyboard problems (:
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  7. #417
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Everyone wants to redistribute wealth. The differences are in how much and where to, and even those differences aren't as large as they're made out to be.

    News Flash: National Defense is redistributing wealth.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #418
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Everyone wants to redistribute wealth.
    Not everyone. Some people want to create wealth, and all of our lives are better for their efforts.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  9. #419
    Educator RenoCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 08:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    799

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    It is in his blood. Watch "2016." He has an anti-colonialism agenda that has been deeply ingrained in him. He learned this from his father (and his surrogates in his fathers absence), Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers and many others who believe in the redistribution of wealth. When he refers to the top "1%" he isn't talking about the US, he is talking about the top 1% in the world. That includes nearly all of us here in the good old USA. He told Joe the Lumber he wants to redistribute wealth and his stump speech repeatedly talks about taxing the wealthy more. Why would he want to do this? Because once the Government controls the wealth and distributes the wealth it controls everything, and control is power. Hitler knew this when he preached to the "suffering masses" and told them how opressed they were. Granted, he may not see this come to fruition in his lifetime but that does not matter. It is a philosophy he truly believes in and the slow slide to Socialism will continue as long as he is president.
    "We have to get past the awful legacy of the last 8 years." Bill Clinton, 3/21/2016, in Spokane, WA while on the campaign trail for Hillary.

  10. #420
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

    Quote Originally Posted by RenoCon View Post
    It is in his blood. Watch "2016." He has an anti-colonialism agenda that has been deeply ingrained in him.
    So what benefits can be derived from colonialism vs. the costs, worth and value of it?

Page 42 of 46 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •