• 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!

Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

  • Total voters
    95
Navy Pride said:
redistribution of wealth is taking money from the rich and spending it on failed welfare programs..........
Click to expand...

Redistribution of wealth means: "redistribution of wealth". A person's pension plan is part of his wealth.
 
Navy Pride said:
redistribution of wealth is taking money from the rich and spending it on failed welfare programs..........
Click to expand...

ANY government spending is wealth redistribution. When the State takes money from workers to spend it on a highway, it's redistributing wealth from the workers to the concrete and steel companies.
 
jet57 said:
Redistribution of wealth means: "redistribution of wealth". A person's pension plan is part of his wealth.
Click to expand...

Again what planet are you from? We are talking about tax increases on the wealthy...
 
Redistribution of wealth is one thing the USA is incredibly good at. Thanks to things like reduced capital gains tax rates we've moved a lot of wealth to the top.
 
vvx said:
Redistribution of wealth is one thing the USA is incredibly good at. Thanks to things like reduced capital gains tax rates we've moved a lot of wealth to the top.
Click to expand...

whoa there... so now reduced taxation is "wealth redistribution"?

that's .. umm... not accurate.
 
Thrilla said:
whoa there... so now reduced taxation is "wealth redistribution"?

that's .. umm... not accurate.
Click to expand...

It absolutely can be, under certain circumstances.

Consider the fact that the United States engages in targeted tax reductions for oil companies that drill on American soil, under the rationale that it "creates jobs". It does not provide that relief to foreign-held oil companies that sell in America. In that case, those tax reductions are every bit as redistributionist as a direct handout.
 
Einzige said:
It absolutely can be, under certain circumstances.

Consider the fact that the United States engages in targeted tax reductions for oil companies that drill on American soil, under the rationale that it "creates jobs". It does not provide that relief to foreign-held oil companies that sell in America. In that case, those tax reductions are every bit as redistributionist as a direct handout.
Click to expand...

allowing a legal entity to keep more of its income can never be considered wealth redistribution.

in order for wealth to be redistributed, it needs to be confiscated first.
 
How can anyone answer anything other than "yes"?

Obama said that's what he wants about four years ago.
 
Thrilla said:
allowing a legal entity to keep more of its income can never be considered wealth redistribution.

in order for wealth to be redistributed, it needs to be confiscated first.
Click to expand...

If you are using selective tax cuts to penalize organizations which are forced into paying their full taxes, it definitely becomes wealth distribution, a reverse-subsidy that picks winners and losers.
 
Einzige said:
If you are using selective tax cuts to penalize organizations which are forced into paying their full taxes, it definitely becomes wealth distribution, a reverse-subsidy that picks winners and losers.
Click to expand...

sorry, that's still not wealth redistribution....

a requirement of wealth redistribution is a transfer of wealth.. in order to transfer, you must take control of that wealth... then pass it on.. transfer it.

direct subsidies can be wealth redistribution ...but what you are describing can not.
 
Navy Pride said:
Again what planet are you from? We are talking about tax increases on the wealthy...
Click to expand...

No; that's what the cpaital drive wants you to think. What they are doing is something else entirely. They have diverted your attention with the fallacy that the unbiquitous "big hand" wants to pick on them, when they are in fact stealing from you. They are going to make you the last generation that draws social security or has a a private pension, i.e. a union one. (whether you personally have a union pension or not doesn't matter to this point), all union pensions are to become a thing of the past. The new model is going to be based on "return". Fees and interest that will be run by a few trusts and trustees. The (401) will serve as a capital raising devise for business expansions. The country is being taken over by a business model. We are no longer the America that we were raised to understand. Citizens United by the way has plenty of room for foreign influences, adn one the capital markets have been controlled, you won't have any idea where your money is. And, as with Sept 2007, if the bottom falls out? "it's just a market shift" a "correction", "you can work another 25 years and replace it".

I happen to not want that.
 
StillBallin75 said:
If the answer were yes, it'd make him no different from the likes of economists such as Milton Friedman, who supported a NEGATIVE income tax in conjunction with his flat tax proposal. Chew on that for a minute.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to work the numbers on that right now, actually. I think I can lower the deficit while increasing the income of lower income Americans, without hiking taxes on business owners and upper income earners. Depending on whether or not I'm fusing the Census Data correctly... I had to eventually give up and assign the average household to all income strata equally, which I know is false, but which I think if anything might be slightly conservative on both ends (expenditures and revenues), thus canceling each other out.
 
People are saying that he wants to impose just regulations and reasonable taxes on businesses in order to maintain a healthy and relatively fair economy.

People are saying that he wants to redistribute wealth in order to control wealth and award his cronies and ideological allies.

And, really, they're both right. Politics is like that. There's simply no way to extricate the two motivations, and it's senseless to try to measure them-- the only thing we can do is put on our wonk hats and look at his policies and see whom they are helping and whether or not they deserve our support in doing so.

Everyone wants to redistribute the wealth. Anyone tells you any different is lying-- whether to you or to themselves.
 
earthworm said:
And thanks be to God for that one.
And I imagine that during the Dark Ages, "real conservatives" ruled the roost.
Click to expand...

What, you mean back when trade was dominated by unions and production was overwhelmingly controlled by the government?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
People are saying that he wants to impose just regulations and reasonable taxes on businesses in order to maintain a healthy and relatively fair economy.

People are saying that he wants to redistribute wealth in order to control wealth and award his cronies and ideological allies.

And, really, they're both right. Politics is like that. There's simply no way to extricate the two motivations, and it's senseless to try to measure them-- the only thing we can do is put on our wonk hats and look at his policies and see whom they are helping and whether or not they deserve our support in doing so.

Everyone wants to redistribute the wealth. Anyone tells you any different is lying-- whether to you or to themselves.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. Like you posited, which redistribution of wealth is good for our country? Hint: It's NOT giving more to the wealthy.
 
liblady said:
I have to agree with you. Like you posited, which redistribution of wealth is good for our country? Hint: It's NOT giving more to the wealthy.
Click to expand...

:lol: well then you are voting for the wrong guy :lol:
 
liblady said:
I have to agree with you. Like you posited, which redistribution of wealth is good for our country? Hint: It's NOT giving more to the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Neither party's plan, or overall agenda, is good for the whole people. The Democrats want to piss the money away on 'social justice' and unworkable technologies, without getting spending under control. The Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy when we're running massive deficits and have an entirely unacceptable debt load, and too many of them support tax plans that are mathematically incapable of supporting the amount of government that any non-libertarian thinks we need.
 
cpwill said:
What, you mean back when trade was dominated by unions and production was overwhelmingly controlled by the government?
Click to expand...

Ah, a conservative who recognizes the Statist nature of feudalism. Amazing! Now we just need to work on ridding you of the ideological underpinnings of feudalism and we're golden.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Neither party's plan, or overall agenda, is good for the whole people. The Democrats want to piss the money away on 'social justice' and unworkable technologies, without getting spending under control. The Republicans want to cut taxes on the wealthy when we're running massive deficits and have an entirely unacceptable debt load, and too many of them support tax plans that are mathematically incapable of supporting the amount of government that any non-libertarian thinks we need.
Click to expand...

I absolutely do not believe "social justice" is pissing money away. As a society, we are only as great as how we treat the least of us. We have a duty to provide for our fellow citizens who are incapable of doing so, period. As far as spending, I would much rather spend money on school lunches than on ****ed up mother ****ing godamned wars.

Is there room for reduction in spending? Absolutely. Is there room for a tax increase on the wealthy? Absolutely. My opinion? We need to stop screwing ordinary citizens to favor the wealthy. Sooner or later, the middle class will wake and then all hell's gonna break loose. Our country was NOT founded to develop another royal class, and that is exactly what has happened.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
People are saying that he wants to impose just regulations and reasonable taxes on businesses in order to maintain a healthy and relatively fair economy.

People are saying that he wants to redistribute wealth in order to control wealth and award his cronies and ideological allies.

And, really, they're both right. Politics is like that. There's simply no way to extricate the two motivations, and it's senseless to try to measure them-- the only thing we can do is put on our wonk hats and look at his policies and see whom they are helping and whether or not they deserve our support in doing so.

Everyone wants to redistribute the wealth. Anyone tells you any different is lying-- whether to you or to themselves.
Click to expand...

Well the same could be said of any POTUS that presides over the budget as all POTUS do so ANY POTUS is in a sense redistributing wealth if you want to play those semantics.

I prefer nation building and defense of the United States of America and prefer the resolute intellect of Barack Obama.

Yet realistically either candidate for POTUS has plans for the budget. I am pleased that middle class citizens are paying lower taxes and more citizens have health coverage in which they pay for.

I support president President Obama on about 85 % of issues and trust his judgement as CIC in foreign policy.

Romney ... well he has nice hair for a guy in his sixties and he got a nice slice of the pie of his reinvestment of funds for companies some of which wanted to relocate out of our country. he is very secretive of his off shore accounts and his personal economics for a guy who runs his mouth he is qualified based on this ability.

Obama paid about the same income tax as I do and invested in his community and he has resolute intellect and calm..

I do not respect Mr. Romney and do not find him worthy to be POTUS yet not evil ... just a spoiled rich kid who inherited wealth (trusts set up that hide untaxed $ such just like he has for his own children) and later became uber wealthy by taking slices of the pie.

Romney is quite the fumbling incompetent on foreign policy and i agree he shoots off his mouth before he analyzes the situation.

I can tell Romney has never been challenged as the uber wealthy spoiled rich kid ... he gets nervous and twitchy when anyone questions too deeply.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
What do you think and why would he want to do that?
Click to expand...

In fact, np, he does. He wants to make sure people like you are taken care of. Romney and Ryan? Not so much. You do know Ryan voted against veterans benefits, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom