• 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
LiberalAvenger said:
Could you explain that? I am not familiar with Jill Stein.
Click to expand...

Basically she supports giving a "living wage" that equates to about $20,000 a year to anyone who is unemployed.



johnny_rebson said:
Jill Stein won the Green Party nomination???

I guess I won't be able to vote for Roseanne Barr this November.
Click to expand...


The funny thing about that is after she lost the Green Party nomination, Roseanne Barr decided to run as the "Peace and Freedom Party" candidate, which she did win.

So you can still vote for her :p
 
diogenes said:
I suggest that "willing buyer, willing seller" goes a long way toward settling the question.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem so helpful to me; it just pushes the question back a step. What counts as "willing" in either case?

This is far from an idle question. When, for instance, I feel thirst, and I get some water, did I just make a willing choice? I certainly would not have gotten the water absent the thirst I felt. Feeling the thirst, I could not long ignore the body's demand for water. So my choice was coerced at least in that sense.

I suspect many people who work menial jobs would, if their choice was unconstrained, demand more for their labor. But, of course, they cannot do so. I recognize, of course, that someone whose job is to sweep floors should not command a hundred dollars an hour or some such lofty wage. But at the same time, people are coerced into taking what labor they can find, and at the wages they can find. I think a case can be made that we're dangerously close to pushing the envelope past its breaking point on this matter, and when that happens, there are going to be some very unpleasant consequences. We're already dealing with some of them.

Adam Smith spends a fair deal of locution talking about this problem. IIRC, it was chapter 8 of book 1 of The Wealth of Nations. He did not believe that wages should be determined by the market, as we was convinced this would lead to a lack of genuine liberty. Unfortunately, not very many people these days have taken time to read his argument.
 
Ikari said:
No, we already have done this in our history and there is no need to revisit those barbaric practices of the labor war. Unions came into existence because of a necessity for unions. They exist today largely as corrupt organizations bent on money and power....just like the government. And just like the government, you can't exactly do away with them as there is a base need and functionality for them.
Click to expand...
I believe that unions are out of date and are fighting their demise. Maybe someday unions will be needed again, but they are not needed now. A union that forces people to join the union is not “a force that fights for the worker”, it is nothing but thugs looking to make money off of the workers backs.
 
comedy4all said:
I believe that unions are out of date and are fighting their demise. Maybe someday unions will be needed again, but they are not needed now. A union that forces people to join the union is not “a force that fights for the worker”, it is nothing but thugs looking to make money off of the workers backs.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Reaganism to me.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I can think of a few problems with this, but I'll respond to the one I think is most critical: why does this in any way rule out that the rich (which I take to mean, all or most rich people) in our society didn't steal from the poor? You said it yourself: you either earn wealth, or you steal it. Nothing in your statement precludes the possibility that the rich, or at least some rich people, stole their wealth.
Click to expand...
Oh yes let’s play the “some” and “not all” game.

It is a possibility that “some” of the people that are considered rich got that way by stealing their money. Although the vast majority of them did it the legitimate way. By providing a good or service that people wanted. Bands provide songs, athletes provide entertainment, construction companies provide buildings, grocery stores provide food; and people give their money to these places voluntarily in exchange for the product or service.

I am also going to add my response to another thread, because I think that it applies here.

Being poor and being dirt poor (for lack of a better term) are two different things, I have been both.

Right now I am poor; I must tell you that it’s pretty nice. I have EBT so I eat well. I get government assistance that pays for my house, cable/internet, and I bought a new computer with my tax returns. I haven’t worked in over a year.

Being dirt poor is a mental condition. During my twenties I decided to live out of a van for three years, I thought it would be “cool”. It was cool. I had no bills and the freedom to go where ever I wanted. As far as eating goes, I found ways to get by. I earned what money I could, and frankly I drank most of it away. When I met others in similar dirt poorness I found that there is a certain laziness to the life style. They would always moan about it not being fair that they live like this, but they would never do anything about it. So; like me they chose to be dirt poor.

When I decided to end my time being dirt poor, it ended. I got a job and an apartment. I later married and started a small café’ with my wife. The bad economy hit and killed our café’. I have not been able to find a job for over a year. I have decided I will not live like a moocher so I enlisted in the Army.

In America; Poverty is a choice.
 
comedy4all said:
Oh yes let’s play the “some” and “not all” game.

It is a possibility that “some” of the people that are considered rich got that way by stealing their money. Although the vast majority of them did it the legitimate way. By providing a good or service that people wanted. Bands provide songs, athletes provide entertainment, construction companies provide buildings, grocery stores provide food; and people give their money to these places voluntarily in exchange for the product or service.

I am also going to add my response to another thread, because I think that it applies here.

Being poor and being dirt poor (for lack of a better term) are two different things, I have been both.

Right now I am poor; I must tell you that it’s pretty nice. I have EBT so I eat well. I get government assistance that pays for my house, cable/internet, and I bought a new computer with my tax returns. I haven’t worked in over a year.

Being dirt poor is a mental condition. During my twenties I decided to live out of a van for three years, I thought it would be “cool”. It was cool. I had no bills and the freedom to go where ever I wanted. As far as eating goes, I found ways to get by. I earned what money I could, and frankly I drank most of it away. When I met others in similar dirt poorness I found that there is a certain laziness to the life style. They would always moan about it not being fair that they live like this, but they would never do anything about it. So; like me they chose to be dirt poor.

When I decided to end my time being dirt poor, it ended. I got a job and an apartment. I later married and started a small café’ with my wife. The bad economy hit and killed our café’. I have not been able to find a job for over a year. I have decided I will not live like a moocher so I enlisted in the Army.

In America; Poverty is a choice.
Click to expand...

They will shot your eye out in the army.
 
ashurbanipal said:
This doesn't seem so helpful to me; it just pushes the question back a step. What counts as "willing" in either case?

This is far from an idle question. When, for instance, I feel thirst, and I get some water, did I just make a willing choice? I certainly would not have gotten the water absent the thirst I felt. Feeling the thirst, I could not long ignore the body's demand for water. So my choice was coerced at least in that sense.

I suspect many people who work menial jobs would, if their choice was unconstrained, demand more for their labor. But, of course, they cannot do so. I recognize, of course, that someone whose job is to sweep floors should not command a hundred dollars an hour or some such lofty wage. But at the same time, people are coerced into taking what labor they can find, and at the wages they can find. I think a case can be made that we're dangerously close to pushing the envelope past its breaking point on this matter, and when that happens, there are going to be some very unpleasant consequences. We're already dealing with some of them.

Adam Smith spends a fair deal of locution talking about this problem. IIRC, it was chapter 8 of book 1 of The Wealth of Nations. He did not believe that wages should be determined by the market, as we was convinced this would lead to a lack of genuine liberty. Unfortunately, not very many people these days have taken time to read his argument.
Click to expand...

"Willing" means voluntary, you have a choice. Your body's demand for water is your problem, not mine, and not that of society or the government. Likewise with your wishes for more pay and a better standard of living - if you want more money for your time, it is up to you to find someone who thinks you are worth what you want. If you feel coerced, you are coerced only by your own desires and that is your problem alone, not anyone else.
 
Diogenes said:
"Willing" means voluntary, you have a choice. Your body's demand for water is your problem, not mine, and not that of society or the government. Likewise with your wishes for more pay and a better standard of living - if you want more money for your time, it is up to you to find someone who thinks you are worth what you want. If you feel coerced, you are coerced only by your own desires and that is your problem alone, not anyone else.
Click to expand...

With a post like that you ought to be quoting rush limbaugh instead of A.L. in your sig.
 
Diogenes said:
"Willing" means voluntary, you have a choice. Your body's demand for water is your problem, not mine, and not that of society or the government. .
Click to expand...


Most governments...Well heck most people have realized the need for a clean public water system (especially after cholera outbreaks I'd suspect) over the years.
 
winston53660 said:
Most governments...Well heck most people have realized the need for a clean public water system (especially after cholera outbreaks I'd suspect) over the years.
Click to expand...

Sure. So.... ??
 
In answer to the question posed in the poll. Yes. Since every tax, and before that, every tariff ever enacted constitutes a redistribution of wealth, obviously he - along with every other politician who believes in a civilized society comprised of, among other things, roads you can drive on, bridges you can drive over, police to protect you, and firemen to prevent your house from burning - believes in redistribution of wealth.
 
winston53660 said:
Most governments...Well heck most people have realized the need for a clean public water system (especially after cholera outbreaks I'd suspect) over the years.
Click to expand...

Exactly and that's why the people made a compact and created the US Constitution to provide for the general welfare of the people.
 
Diogenes said:
"Willing" means voluntary, you have a choice. Your body's demand for water is your problem, not mine, and not that of society or the government. Likewise with your wishes for more pay and a better standard of living - if you want more money for your time, it is up to you to find someone who thinks you are worth what you want. If you feel coerced, you are coerced only by your own desires and that is your problem alone, not anyone else.
Click to expand...

So, by the same reasoning, a person who is mugged and is given the choice "your money or your life" chooses to give up their money? I mean, if the person's desire for life is what is coercing them (as seems certainly to be the case, even if the mugger is also doing the coercing--a person who genuinely had no desire to live, but a strong desire not to give up their money, should choose to accept death), then if the person gives up their money to the mugger, they chose that voluntarily?

While you're answering that, answer me two other questions:

Suppose I capture two men. One I lock in a room and starve until he dies. The other, I shoot in the head and he dies. Am I guilty of murdering both, or just the one that I shot?

Suppose I capture two women. I plan to rape both. One, I threaten with a gun, and she lets me have sex with her. The other, I throw in a room, and deny her food, telling her she may only eat when she has sex with me. Am I guilty of raping both, or just the one that I threatened with the gun?
 
ashurbanipal said:
So, by the same reasoning, a person who is mugged and is given the choice "your money or your life" chooses to give up their money? I mean, if the person's desire for life is what is coercing them (as seems certainly to be the case, even if the mugger is also doing the coercing--a person who genuinely had no desire to live, but a strong desire not to give up their money, should choose to accept death), then if the person gives up their money to the mugger, they chose that voluntarily?

While you're answering that, answer me two other questions:

Suppose I capture two men. One I lock in a room and starve until he dies. The other, I shoot in the head and he dies. Am I guilty of murdering both, or just the one that I shot?

Suppose I capture two women. I plan to rape both. One, I threaten with a gun, and she lets me have sex with her. The other, I throw in a room, and deny her food, telling her she may only eat when she has sex with me. Am I guilty of raping both, or just the one that I threatened with the gun?
Click to expand...

Aside from your straw men arguments, do you have any alternatives to the "willing seller, willing buyer" rationale to offer as a measure of social justice?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Exactly and that's why the people made a compact and created the US Constitution to provide for the general welfare of the people.
Click to expand...

general welfare did not mean the public dole
 
ashurbanipal said:
So, by the same reasoning, a person who is mugged and is given the choice "your money or your life" chooses to give up their money? I mean, if the person's desire for life is what is coercing them (as seems certainly to be the case, even if the mugger is also doing the coercing--a person who genuinely had no desire to live, but a strong desire not to give up their money, should choose to accept death), then if the person gives up their money to the mugger, they chose that voluntarily?

While you're answering that, answer me two other questions:

Suppose I capture two men. One I lock in a room and starve until he dies. The other, I shoot in the head and he dies. Am I guilty of murdering both, or just the one that I shot?

Suppose I capture two women. I plan to rape both. One, I threaten with a gun, and she lets me have sex with her. The other, I throw in a room, and deny her food, telling her she may only eat when she has sex with me. Am I guilty of raping both, or just the one that I threatened with the gun?
Click to expand...

both should come back and shoot you after they escape and few if any grand juries would indict either woman for murder:mrgreen:
 
why wouldnt he,that's how he was raised and educated.Read he own bio Dreams from my father,he lets you know straight up that his mentor Frank Marshall Davis had the most influence on his life.Along with a few other communist radical's.So radical was Frank Marshall Davis the FBI and CIA where watching his crazy butt.So yes it's the right thing to do,if you where brainwashed like that most of your life.You can't blame him for that.It's always worked in every communist in the world.It sounds good in the being,but everybody gets screwed really hard,so dont fight it,believe the media and vote him on in and get over with.Just breathe in really slow and it will be ok.
 
Diogenes said:
Aside from your straw men arguments, do you have any alternatives to the "willing seller, willing buyer" rationale to offer as a measure of social justice?
Click to expand...

Well, maybe, but first, I've asked you some questions. You should answer them...though I suspect you will not, as you are as aware as I that any reasonable answers you give will show your position is untenable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom