• 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
Einzige said:
It makes it effective redistribution, as you're denying to Business B the profits that it would have otherwise made in competition on a level playing field against Business B.
Click to expand...

no.no.no.no.

I don't care how many time you rephrase it or what terms you make up... it is not wealth redistribution, period.


again, wealth redistribution requires a TRANSFER of wealth... stop arguing that a favorable tax code = wealth redistribution, it is simply not true.

if you want to argue over favorable tax codes, fine, but stop saying they are something they are not.
 
Thrilla said:
no.no.no.no.

I don't care how many time you rephrase it or what terms you make up... it is not wealth redistribution, period.


again, wealth redistribution requires a TRANSFER of wealth... stop arguing that a favorable tax code = wealth redistribution, it is simply not true.

if you want to argue over favorable tax codes, fine, but stop saying they are something they are not.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is true.

If you want to abolish corporate taxes altogether, fine, whatever. But when you're using the tax code to accomplish what in another time would be had with a direct hand-out, you are engaging in subsidy. And when you penalize the competitiveness of one business to the benefit of another, you are engaging in redistribution.
 
If only it were that simple. The problem is, good intentions don't count. The Democrats want to spend a lot of money on stupid **** that will make our country worse. There is no good and evil in policy, only good and bad, and both main parties are dominated by bad ideas.
 
liblady said:
So all ideas are not equal, I'll give you that. But when one party wants to privatize education, and the other wants to improve it, who do vote for? Don't fool yourself into thinking that that republicans are thrifty, you know Bush's record. And Reagan's. where do want your tax dollars to be spent? Helping kids grow into contributing citizens, or helping the wealthy maintain the status quo?
Click to expand...

my federal taxes don't go to schools...... they go to, primarily, benefits for the disadvantaged and the military.
the Dept of Education has yet to educate one single child... not one!

Obama has no say in my property taxes, so you are launching a red herring here... (property taxes pay for schools)

and really.. look at your choices.. either "privatize" or "improve".... as if they are opposites or something :roll:
(you'll really like Warren BUffets latest "theory" ... making private schools illegal.... it fits the liberal/progressive/statist agenda to a T)
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
If only it were that simple. The problem is, good intentions don't count. The Democrats want to spend a lot of money on stupid **** that will make our country worse. There is no good and evil in policy, only good and bad, and both main parties are dominated by bad ideas.
Click to expand...

Amen....and a hallelujah! thrown in for good measure.
 
Aberration said:
There's no fact in there to try and refute. It's one long talking point with nothing to substantiate it.

But people like you don't need that. Which is why talking points are used so much.
Click to expand...

that is the best you can do? It is fact ... Are you unaware of the

Medicare Fraud Reform

http://www.healthreform.gov/affordablecareact_summary.html

and

Making Work Pay

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...me-bring-back-the-making-work-pay-tax-credit/

Since our anemic economy still needs a boost, why not reverse course and bring back the MWP in a bulked-up form? That step would provide more powerful macro medicine for 2012.

A quick review: MWP provided a credit in 2009 and 2010 of 6.2 percent of earnings up to $400 for singles and twice that for couples. It phased out between $75,000 and $95,000 of income (twice that range for couples). That meant that most of the tax savings went to low- and middle-income workers, the group most likely to spend rather than save the extra cash.

Will bigger paychecks bring a better economy?
 
Last edited:
Einzige said:
It absolutely is true.

If you want to abolish corporate taxes altogether, fine, whatever. But when you're using the tax code to accomplish what in another time would be had with a direct hand-out, you are engaging in subsidy. And when you penalize the competitiveness of one business to the benefit of another, you are engaging in redistribution.
Click to expand...

no... it is not wealth redistribution.. end of story.

there is no transfer of wealth in any of your examples.. ergo, it's not wealth redistribution.
 
Thrilla said:
and to be honest, i don't care about the middle class.. or the lower class.. or the upper class.. or the uber upper class.
I don't care about your taxes, or his taxes, or her taxes, or their taxes.

I care about MY taxes.
Click to expand...

At least YOU are honest.

Clearly you and Romney have something in common!
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
If only it were that simple. The problem is, good intentions don't count. The Democrats want to spend a lot of money on stupid **** that will make our country worse. There is no good and evil in policy, only good and bad, and both main parties are dominated by bad ideas.
Click to expand...

Again, I respectfully disagree. It's never bad policy to educate our youth. It's TERRIBLE to turn the education of our youth over to corporate interests. Corporations, despite what Romney says, ARE NOT PEOPLE, and thus have no stake in furthering the cause of Americans. They should not be running our prisons, they should not be running our wars. In fact, they should not be controlling OUR oil. They should not be making money betting AGAINST us.

It's unbelievable to me that given the stark differences between the parties, one could ever land on the republican side. Do people really understand what our country was founded upon? It was founded upon opportunity, which republicans want to deny to everyone who hasn't yet made it. Do you really think a ghetto kid has the same opportunity as a rich kid?
 
Thrilla said:
my federal taxes don't go to schools...... they go to, primarily, benefits for the disadvantaged and the military.
the Dept of Education has yet to educate one single child... not one!

Obama has no say in my property taxes, so you are launching a red herring here... (property taxes pay for schools)

and really.. look at your choices.. either "privatize" or "improve".... as if they are opposites or something :roll:
(you'll really like Warren BUffets latest "theory" ... making private schools illegal.... it fits the liberal/progressive/statist agenda to a T)
Click to expand...

School lunches are funded by the fed. Is that a problem?

I certainly don't think private schools should be illegal, my kids, and I, went to catholic schools. Great education. I do think that legacy admissions to university should be outlawed, and applications should be judged without name, gender, name of school or anything but SAT/ACT scores and high school involvement, and of course, the obligatory essay.
 
liblady said:
Again, I respectfully disagree. It's never bad policy to educate our youth.
Click to expand...

Depends on what we're teaching them. I've never begrudged having to pay for the public schools, but I've never seen anything to change my opinion that my children will never see the inside of one. It isn't enough to educate them, we have to educate them well-- which costs money, yes, but which also requires that money be spent judiciously in service to sound principles.

liblady said:
It's TERRIBLE to turn the education of our youth over to corporate interests. Corporations, despite what Romney says, ARE NOT PEOPLE, and thus have no stake in furthering the cause of Americans. They should not be running our prisons, they should not be running our wars. In fact, they should not be controlling OUR oil. They should not be making money betting AGAINST us.
Click to expand...

Agree with all this, except I don't see a problem with for-profit education as long as the education is the product-- I'm only interested in keeping the corporations out of the schools when the corporations are acting in a non-educational capacity.

liblady said:
Do you really think a ghetto kid has the same opportunity as a rich kid?
Click to expand...

No. Do you really think it's possible for him to? How much money are you willing to spend on something that can never happen?

Not to mention, of course, that it was left-wing social policies that created the ghettoes in the first place-- and left-wing policies that are continuing to sustain them.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Depends on what we're teaching them. I've never begrudged having to pay for the public schools, but I've never seen anything to change my opinion that my children will never see the inside of one. It isn't enough to educate them, we have to educate them well-- which costs money, yes, but which also requires that money be spent judiciously in service to sound principles.



Agree with all this, except I don't see a problem with for-profit education as long as the education is the product-- I'm only interested in keeping the corporations out of the schools when the corporations are acting in a non-educational capacity.



No. Do you really think it's possible for him to? How much money are you willing to spend on something that can never happen?

Not to mention, of course, that it was left-wing social policies that created the ghettoes in the first place-- and left-wing policies that are continuing to sustain them.
Click to expand...

That last comment is pure baloney, or bologna, if you will. How so, Viktyr? Which admins have tried to limit redlining? Which admins have tried to provide early childhood education?
 
Dion said:
Oh I know that and do ... yet the track back missed.
Click to expand...
uh huh.. sure.

Now ... lets here your refute!
Click to expand...
refute what?... talking points?

Do you think all POTUS reside over the budget and if by doing so are they redistributing?
Click to expand...
I don't really understand what you are asking here.
but no, Obama doesn't "reside" over a budget... we haven't had a budget for years... your Democratic congressional leadership won't allow one.
yes, the federal government redistributes 100's of billions of dollars every year.

Do you disagree with this tax reform?
Click to expand...
yes, I disagree with his tax reform.
1st, it's not reform... it's the same **** i've been seeing for over 50 years... a few rates are modified, a few favorable tax codes entered for those guys, a few taken out for those guys.. blablabla
this "tax reform" is like calling my changing of the underwear every morning " underwear reform".. nutting special, nothing to get all giddy about.
personally, my taxes increased... but i knew that would happen under a Dem or Rep, because there isn't a lick of difference between them when it comes to confiscating wealth.

Do you think trickle down economics works?
Click to expand...
not a fan of any scheme that focuses on only 1 side of a 2 sided equation.... whether that be "trickle down" or "trickle up", you can count me out.
 
liblady said:
School lunches are funded by the fed. Is that a problem?

I certainly don't think private schools should be illegal, my kids, and I, went to catholic schools. Great education. I do think that legacy admissions to university should be outlawed, and applications should be judged without name, gender, name of school or anything but SAT/ACT scores and high school involvement, and of course, the obligatory essay.
Click to expand...

yes. that's a problem for me... the entire federal dept of education is a problem for me.

good to hear that private school should remain private,etc
I'm pretty big on education.. i'm not, however, big on tossing money at something in hopes it will get better...especially when a good portion of that money goes to administration ( which coincidentally, also has never educated a single child)

fire 2 administrators from each school district around the country, and I can feed every single child a meal for lunch... a federal dept is wholly unnecessary to meet that goal.
 
liblady said:
Again, I respectfully disagree. It's never bad policy to educate our youth. It's TERRIBLE to turn the education of our youth over to corporate interests. Corporations, despite what Romney says, ARE NOT PEOPLE, and thus have no stake in furthering the cause of Americans. They should not be running our prisons, they should not be running our wars. In fact, they should not be controlling OUR oil. They should not be making money betting AGAINST us.

It's unbelievable to me that given the stark differences between the parties, one could ever land on the republican side. Do people really understand what our country was founded upon? It was founded upon opportunity, which republicans want to deny to everyone who hasn't yet made it. Do you really think a ghetto kid has the same opportunity as a rich kid?
Click to expand...

good lordy:roll:
 
Thrilla said:
sorry, ultrapartisan kool aid really isn't deserving of a valid response.. it doesn't matter if it's red or blue kool aid.
Click to expand...


I am NOT partisan. Give me a president who actually understands that america is NOT her corporations, I'll be happy. Red or blue.
 
liblady said:
I am NOT partisan. Give me a president who actually understands that america is NOT her corporations, I'll be happy. Red or blue.
Click to expand...

don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining...

your partisanship is dripping

for instance.
It's unbelievable to me that given the stark differences between the parties, one could ever land on the republican side
Click to expand...


no, not partisan at all :roll:
 
Thrilla said:
tax cuts are not wealth redistribution..... I don't care how many times you people argue as much, it will never be true.
Click to expand...

That makes it rather easy to give tons of money to the middle class without doing any wealth redistribution. Jack tax rates up on income over $1 million in order to eliminate FICA tax. It's a tax cut. We've cut FICA. Certainly this isn't wealth redistribution? Yeah we're taking a lot more from the rich now. The taxes are funding benefits for other taxpayers. You wouldn't consider this wealth redistribution, right?
 
Well yeah, progressive taxation is by definition a redistribution of wealth. [/end thread]
 
vvx said:
That makes it rather easy to give tons of money to the middle class without doing any wealth redistribution. Jack tax rates up on income over $1 million in order to eliminate FICA tax. It's a tax cut. We've cut FICA. Certainly this isn't wealth redistribution? Yeah we're taking a lot more from the rich now. The taxes are funding benefits for other taxpayers. You wouldn't consider this wealth redistribution, right?
Click to expand...


uhh.. yeah, I would consider it as wealth redistribution.... because it is.


it's the very definition of wealth redistribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom