• 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 the Government should redistribute money

Should the Government redistribute money?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 41.7%

  • No

    Votes: 28 58.3%
  • Total voters
    48
G

GmH

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
72
Reaction score
28
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
We all know Obama wants to redistribute money. Do you feel the same way. Tax the rich, tax the corps and give to the poor.
 
Last edited:
Redistributing money is $ocialism. If you think America is away from $ocialism, think again. ;)
 
What specific pieces of legislation has Obama supported that redistribute wealth?
 
Voltaire X said:
That's existed for decades and decades. The only thing Obama has done to the tax rates is extend the bush cuts.
Click to expand...

OK, how about Obamacare?
 
Canell said:
OK, how about Obamacare?
Click to expand...

That's a different issue. I don't agree with Obamacare but it's certainly not wealth distribution. No one is being given money, in fact people are being forced to PAY money because of Obamacare. The Supreme Court struck down the part forcing states to expand medicaid, so there's certainly no wealth distribution going on via Obamacare.
 
Voltaire X said:
No one is being given money...
Click to expand...

Well, wealth is not merely money. It could take the form of services, food stamps, etc. But you're right on that part - the OP asks about money, not wealth. ;)
 
Voltaire X said:
That's existed for decades and decades. The only thing Obama has done to the tax rates is extend the bush cuts.
Click to expand...

you didn't ask what he'd added, you asked what he supported. That being said, Obamacare is definitely redistributive.

I don't agree with Obamacare but it's certainly not wealth distribution. No one is being given money
Click to expand...

...um. yes they are? specifically families below a certain multiple of the poverty line are being given subsidies to go into the exchanges and purchase health insurance.

Here. Calculate your winnings - courtesy of the US Government and the people they took it from originally
 
cpwill said:
you didn't ask what he'd added, you asked what he supported. That being said, Obamacare is definitely redistributive.



...um. yes they are? specifically families below a certain multiple of the poverty line are being given subsidies to go into the exchanges and purchase health insurance.

Here. Calculate your winnings - courtesy of the US Government and the people they took it from originally
Click to expand...

Corporate welfare. Yuck. I don't like Obamacare, like I said. It's disgusting to see all that money taken from taxpayers and handed over to insurance companies. The actual cost of healthcare could easily be less than half of what it currently is if the middlemen were cut out.
 
anywho, in response to the OP.


At this point, the question is not whether or not we will have wealth redistribution - it is how should we structure it. Over time perhaps we can wean ourselves off, but to send the American people cold turkey tomorrow would be to create disruption, pain, and loss worse than that which we are trying to solve.
 
Voltaire X said:
That's a different issue. I don't agree with Obamacare but it's certainly not wealth distribution. No one is being given money, in fact people are being forced to PAY money because of Obamacare. The Supreme Court struck down the part forcing states to expand medicaid, so there's certainly no wealth distribution going on via Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Actually "Obamacare" raises premiums for younger people and lowers them for older people.
Even though older people tend to be more wealthy, it's a regressive subsidy.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually "Obamacare" raises premiums for younger people and lowers them for older people.
Even though older people tend to be more wealthy, it's a regressive subsidy.
Click to expand...

and young people tend to be poorer. :) Guess which candidate really wants to tax the poor to give to the upper income?
 
cpwill said:
and young people tend to be poorer. :) Guess which candidate really wants to tax the poor to give to the upper income?
Click to expand...

Yep, but people eat anything up.
To be fair though, I'm not a fan of Romney either.

I think they're both boobs.
Republicans should of went with Gary Johnson, but mild mannered doesn't fit in any political group these days.
 
that.... plus an incredibly destructive foreign policy....


you have to be a full three legged conservative (or play enough of one on TV) to get the GOP behind you. Johnson, to his credit, was too honest to misrepresent himself as such.
 
I wholeheartedly think the government should redistribute money from people who are just sitting on it. We should:
  1. take money from people with lots of it and little marginal propensity to spend
    • this means the government has more money/less debt and the economy doesn't suffer much for it because they wouldn't have spent the money anyway
    • if you ain't spending it, hiring people or doing anything else that helps out the country as a whole, we have no ****ing reason to incentivize you to be doing that economically less productive stuff with generous (~15%) tax rates. (and giving non-job creators ~30% tax rates would hardly onerous)
  2. invest in workfare programs that get the un/under-employed working in projects that improve the national infrastructure
    • this increases the lower/middle classes' income thus improving demand and strengthening the economy in the short term
    • it also improves the infrastructure, making it easier for businesses to flourish and create more jobs in the middle term and long terms
  3. invest in education (jobs training programs and free college degrees in needed fields for anyone that can maintain good grades)
    • this bolsters our nation's deteriorating global competitiveness and makes us much better off in the long term
 
Canell said:
OK, how about Obamacare?
Click to expand...


Obama signed it...but the real name should be....Romney/PelosiCare.....modeled after mittsies mass plan and instituted and mangled by Pelosi....hey lets not forget something else here...why dont we call it SCOTUSCARE it was upheld by the supreme court
 
ChunkySalsa said:
I wholeheartedly think the government should redistribute money from people who are just sitting on it. We should:
  1. take money from people with lots of it and little marginal propensity to spend
    • this means the government has more money/less debt and the economy doesn't suffer much for it because they wouldn't have spent the money anyway
    • if you ain't spending it, hiring people or doing anything else that helps out the country as a whole, we have no ****ing reason to incentivize you to be doing that economically less productive stuff with generous (~15%) tax rates. (and giving non-job creators ~30% tax rates would hardly onerous)
  2. invest in workfare programs that get the un/under-employed working in projects that improve the national infrastructure
    • this increases the lower/middle classes' income thus improving demand and strengthening the economy in the short term
    • it also improves the infrastructure, making it easier for businesses to flourish and create more jobs in the middle term and long terms
  3. invest in education (jobs training programs and free college degrees in needed fields for anyone that can maintain good grades)
    • this bolsters our nation's deteriorating global competitiveness and makes us much better off in the long term
Click to expand...

That's not wealth redistribution, though. That's increasing tax rates to fund new government programs, not taking money from some and handing it to others.
 
I have a slight issue when select few benefit financially from natural resources, especially resources of a finite supply and they're handed to them by the government. I have a slight problem when government resources are used to enrich the wealthy even the further. I'm sorry but I see a double standard when a less well off person gets government help at a small fraction of what the super rich get when the less well off gets labeled a freeloader while the rich person doesn't.
 
Voltaire X said:
That's not wealth redistribution, though. That's increasing tax rates to fund new government programs, not taking money from some and handing it to others.
Click to expand...

It's a government mandate via taxation to fund a private company. But hey, you get to choose between as long as they are in the exchange!
 
Last edited:
Voltaire X said:
That's not wealth redistribution, though. That's increasing tax rates to fund new government programs, not taking money from some and handing it to others.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure there are people willing to call what I said "redistribution" (in the derogatory sense) and ALL taxes redistribute wealth by picking and choosing who gets taxed and how much.
 
Last edited:
Tax income credits should be removed. I completely oppose taxing one person only to give it to someone else.
 
GmH said:
We all know Obama wants to redistribute money. Do you feel the same way. Tax the rich, tax the corps and give to the poor.
Click to expand...

It is the primary role of government. Tax people to pay for things that are for the common good... that is redistributing money/wealth.

Tax to pay for the military = redistribution of money/wealth.
Tax to pay for the police = redistribution of money/wealth.
Tax to pay for roads = redistribution of money/wealth.

The list goes on and on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom