• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I Actually Believe In Redistribution

T

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
obama at loyola, 10-19-98

"I Actually Believe In Redistribution" - YouTube

"i don't think it's too strong to call it a propaganda campaign against the possibility of govt action and its efficacy, and i think some of it's deserved, the chicago housing authority has not been a model of good policy making and neither necessarily have been the chicago public schools"

"what that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we're all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live, and my suggestion i guess would be the trick---and this is one of the few areas where there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues---i think the trick is figuring out how do we structure govt systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because i actually believe in redistribution, at least at some level, to make sure everyone's got a shot"

gotta pool those resources, now, even as the pool dries up

Household income fell 4.8% during economic recovery - latimes

never before has america faced so clear a choice

more pools or more resources, let the voters decide
 
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney appeared on FOX News' "Your World" with host Neil Cavuto to address his "47 percent" comments that were caught on tape.

"Frankly, we have two very different views about America. The president’s view is one of a larger government. There’s a tape that just came out today with the president saying he likes redistribution. I disagree. I think a society based upon a government-centered nation […] that’s the wrong course for America. That will not build a strong America or help people out of poverty," Romney said.

"I’m talking about a perspective of individuals who I’m not likely to get to support me. I recognize that those people who are not paying income tax are going to say, gosh this provision that Mitt keeps talking about, lowering income taxes, that’s not going to be real attractive to them. And those that are dependent on government and those that think government’s job is to redistribute, I’m not going to get them," Romney said.
Click to expand...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...st_create_wealth_not_redistribute_wealth.html
 
First off, should count from 2010.

I see a 20% drop in unemployment and a 2% drop in HII (which accounts for inflation). I've learned in elementary school to check the scales :).

With GDP rising much faster than salary I say a redistribution is indeed in order.
 
shiang said:
First off, should count from 2010.

I see a 20% drop in unemployment and a 2% drop in HII (which accounts for inflation). I've learned in elementary school to check the scales :).

With GDP rising much faster than salary I say a redistribution is indeed in order.
Click to expand...

So your plan is to stop GfP growth because?
 
middle class income fell twice as fast since the end of the recession as it did during the recession

Household income fell 4.8% during economic recovery - latimes

58% of the way-too-few jobs created since the end of the recession in obama's 4th month in the white house earn between 10 and 12 dollars per hour

Majority of new jobs in recovery are low-paying - latimes

what's to pool, food stamps?

Food stamp enrollment hits record high of 46.7M | Mail Online

disability benefits?

8,786,049: Yet Another Record for Americans Collecting Disability | CNSNews.com

more pools or more resources, let america decide
 
Last edited:
I say a redistribution is indeed in order
Click to expand...

that's fine, as fine as the private sector

tell your friends

The recession that ended three years ago this summer has been followed by the feeblest economic recovery since the Great Depression.

Since World War II, 10 U.S. recessions have been followed by a recovery that lasted at least three years. An Associated Press analysis shows that by just about any measure, the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest.

America's gross domestic product — the broadest measure of economic output — grew 6.8 percent from the April-June quarter of 2009 through the same quarter this year, the slowest in the first three years of a postwar recovery. GDP grew an average of 15.5 percent in the first three years of the eight other comebacks analyzed.

Consumer spending has grown just 6.5 percent since the recession ended, feeblest in a postwar recovery. In the first three years of previous recoveries, spending rose an average of nearly 14 percent.

The economy shed a staggering 8.8 million jobs during and shortly after the recession. Since employment hit bottom, the economy has created just over 4 million jobs. So the new hiring has replaced 46 percent of the lost jobs, by far the worst performance since World War II. In the previous eight recoveries, the economy had regained more than 350 percent of the jobs lost, on average.

Adjusted for inflation, wages have fallen 0.8 percent. In the previous five recoveries —the records go back only to 1964 — real wages had gone up an average 1.5 percent at this point.
Click to expand...

Economic recovery is weakest since World War II - AP

what's to pool?
 
The Prof said:
middle class income fell twice as fast since the end of the recession as it did during the recession

Household income fell 4.8% during economic recovery - latimes

58% of the way-too-few jobs created since the end of the recession in obama's 4th month in the white house earn between 10 and 12 dollars per hour

Majority of new jobs in recovery are low-paying - latimes

what's to pool, food stamps?

Food stamp enrollment hits record high of 46.7M | Mail Online

disability benefits?

8,786,049: Yet Another Record for Americans Collecting Disability | CNSNews.com

more pools or more resources, let america decide
Click to expand...

If you actually look at the chart you'd see what's happening, first a lot of people lost their jobs from the start of 2008 to the start of 2010. Then supply side economics kicked in. The supply of workers went up, the demand went down so did the average salaries. But if you look at 2010, a year after Obama was in office and his policies took effect the sharp drop stopped, the unemployment gradually went down, the salaries stabilized. Take a wild guess what's going to happen to salaries once unemployment goes down? But it wont happen, or at least wont last if Romney gets elected president.

Food stamps, 3 reasons

1. Internet, ease of applications.
2. There's a "lag" effect, people tend to use up their savings be4 looking to food stamps. Once on food stamps they tend to stay on food stamps even after getting a job, though they may have qualified before they lost their previous jobs and simply didn't apply.
2. Better government management and distribution of the food stamps to qualifying citizens.

Getting more food stamps and disability to the people who qualify and need em "That's a good thing!" - Romney

You guys are so keen to point out population increase when it comes to employment yet shove it under the rug when you guys talk about stuff like food stamps.
 
shiang said:
My point is companies should pay their workers what they deserve.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....

I suspect your definition of "what they deserve" is much different from the labor market's definition.

Could you quantify what workers deserve, the labor required to earn what they deserve and, if the labor does not justify the amount you came up with, explain why the worker still should get what you think they deserve?
 
I never got why Americans are so scared of the word redistribution. There are already massive levels of redistribution.

The question is rather, should there be more redistribution.
 
shiang said:
If you actually look at the chart you'd see what's happening, first a lot of people lost their jobs from the start of 2008 to the start of 2010. Then supply side economics kicked in. The supply of workers went up, the demand went down so did the average salaries. But if you look at 2010, a year after Obama was in office and his policies took effect the sharp drop stopped, the unemployment gradually went down, the salaries stabilized. Take a wild guess what's going to happen to salaries once unemployment goes down? But it wont happen, or at least wont last if Romney gets elected president.

Food stamps, 3 reasons

1. Internet, ease of applications.
2. There's a "lag" effect, people tend to use up their savings be4 looking to food stamps. Once on food stamps they tend to stay on food stamps even after getting a job, though they may have qualified before they lost their previous jobs and simply didn't apply.
2. Better government management and distribution of the food stamps to qualifying citizens.

Getting more food stamps and disability to the people who qualify and need em "That's a good thing!" - Romney

You guys are so keen to point out population increase when it comes to employment yet shove it under the rug when you guys talk about stuff like food stamps.
Click to expand...

Your reasons for the food stamp use increases are...not wrong...but insignificant. The real reason is summed up in the following article:

President and Senator Obama not Straight on Food Stamp Eligibility

President Obama recently said,

First of all, I don’t put people on food stamps. People become eligible for food stamps. Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me. Number three, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in 8 million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government.

One major change in food stamp rules — in the direction of more generosity — occurred with the 2009 “stimulus” law, which has President Obama’s signature, not Bush’s.

Another major change in food stamp rules — in the direction of more generosity — occurred with the 2008 Farm Bill. We all know that Bush was president in 2008. But what Obama hopes you do not know is that Bush never signed it. Here’s wikipedia’s narrative:

On May 15, the House and Senate passed the bill, but President Bush issued a veto on May 21. The House voted to overturn the president’s veto shortly thereafter, and with the margins by which the bill was passed, a Senate override also occurred; so the Congress overrode the president’s veto, passing the bill into law (Public Law 110-234, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007). However, the veto override was moot, as a 34-page section of the bill was omitted in the version sent to the White House. In effect, the President vetoed a bill Congress never considered. The bill had to be re-passed by Congress.

The House passed the Farm Bill again on May 22, and the Senate shortly thereafter. President Bush again vetoed the measure, but this veto was overridden in both Houses on June 18, so the Farm Bill in its entirety became law.

In summary, Bush vetoed that law twice.

Meanwhile, Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2008. Senator Obama had THREE chances to vote against it, but he never did (he abstained all three times).

Finally, President Obama’s Agriculture Department has been remarkably complicit, if not wholeheartedly enthusiastic, with the states’, since inauguration day, using the rules from the 2002 and 2008 Farm bills to soak the U.S. taxpayer.

Some, but very little, of the increase in food stamp spending can be attributed to the recession or any other factor pushing people into poverty. It’s all about the program’s getting more generous.

Whether expanding the food stamp program is “good” or “bad” is a different matter. President Obama deserves some of the credit or blame for those expansions; President Bush deserves none.

read more at: President and Senator Obama not Straight on Food Stamp Eligibility
Click to expand...
 
ok... and why is expanding food stamp eligibility such a terrible thing? I thought cutting down on starvation is good?

I know you guys don't want people to start thinking "oh even if I don't work I won't starve to death". I highly doubt that's the mentality of 47% of the American population.

I think of it more as "un-distribution" than re-distribution. The wealthy are smarter and more powerful, so they take advantage of the average citizen and take more than their share. So the government normalizes it somewhat with "un-distribution". The wealthy benefit more from the system since they take advantage of the infrastructure more so they pay a higher percentage. The poor spends the money they have immediately while the wealthy are likely to store their earnings in a bank. All good reasons for un-distributions on both a moral and rational basis.

Currently our tax system is a bell curve, that peeks at the middle class at around 25% effective, when taxes really should be progressive.

It's not "we hate the rich people and we want to screw them over". It's just rational policy making. On top of that I AGREE that money invested back in companies should not be taxed. The money we're proposing tax raises on are the money the wealthy keep in their bank accounts, doing so actually encourages them to re-invest back into the economy instead of putting it aside.
 
Last edited:
shiang said:
1. ok... and why is expanding food stamp eligibility such a terrible thing? I thought cutting down on starvation is good?

2. I know you guys don't want people to start thinking "oh even if I don't work I won't starve to death". I highly doubt that's the mentality of 47% of the American population.

3. I think of it more as "un-distribution" than re-distribution. The wealthy are smarter and more powerful, so they take advantage of the average citizen and take more than their share. So the government normalizes it somewhat with "un-distribution". The wealthy benefit more from the system since they take advantage of the infrastructure more so they pay a higher percentage. The poor spends the money they have immediately while the wealthy are likely to store their earnings in a bank. All good reasons for un-distributions on both a moral and rational basis.

Currently our tax system is a bell curve, that peeks at the middle class at around 25% effective, when taxes really should be progressive.

It's not "we hate the rich people and we want to screw them over". It's just rational policy making. On top of that I AGREE that money invested back in companies should not be taxed. The money we're proposing tax raises on are the money the wealthy keep in their bank accounts, doing so actually encourages them to re-invest back into the economy instead of putting it aside.
Click to expand...

1. I don't think anyone wants people to starve. But I wonder how many of the people taking advantage of expanded eligibility are actually starving?

2. I'll just dismiss this obvious attempt at building a strawman.

3. A couple of observations:
a. Is "un-distribution" just your way of saying the rich earn too much and we have to take it away from them? Exactly how do you quantify "more than their share"? Sounds to me like you just don't like someone who has more than you.
b. But then you say, "It's not "we hate the rich people and we want to screw them over". Sorry, but that's just what you DO want to do.
c. I'm wondering what you think happens to all that money the wealthy keep in their bank accounts? Do you think it just sits there gathering dust?
 
Mycroft said:
1. I don't think anyone wants people to starve. But I wonder how many of the people taking advantage of expanded eligibility are actually starving?

2. I'll just dismiss this obvious attempt at building a strawman.

3. A couple of observations:
a. Is "un-distribution" just your way of saying the rich earn too much and we have to take it away from them? Exactly how do you quantify "more than their share"? Sounds to me like you just don't like someone who has more than you.
b. But then you say, "It's not "we hate the rich people and we want to screw them over". Sorry, but that's just what you DO want to do.
c. I'm wondering what you think happens to all that money the wealthy keep in their bank accounts? Do you think it just sits there gathering dust?
Click to expand...

Good examples of rich people taking more than their share is when a company crashes they still get payed bonuses?

When GDP grows significantly and salaries are stagnant (shows workers are under payed, or I should say MORE under payed). Basic math says the net pay equals the net gain, if the workers are under payed then by default their bosses are being over payed. I think deep down every one knows this reality. The majority of extremely wealthy people are overcompensated for what they actually produce.

There's wealthy people I like and wealthy people I don't like. Just as there's poor people I sympathize with mind and poor people I sympathize with.

Believe it or not I'm not poor. Warren Buffet actually said he thinks it's unfair his secretary gets taxed more than him, and he's one of the richest man in the world.

"I'm wondering what you think happens to all that money the wealthy keep in their bank accounts? Do you think it just sits there gathering dust?"

When the economy looks bad/weak and the chance for losing money is high? ....ya.

First put the money in the hands of the middle class so they start spending (one thing about Americans... they're big spenders when they have money). Once the demand is there, companies naturally hires people and delivers the goods. I think that makes more sense than handing the money to the rich, and hope they take some risks with that money.
 
Last edited:
America's greatest economic boom was the result of the large redistribution of wealth that transpired during the recovery from the great depression. Since the middle and lower classes consist of the most people, it would make sense to keep these classes as strong and stable as possible.
 
Camlon said:
I never got why Americans are so scared of the word redistribution. There are already massive levels of redistribution.

The question is rather, should there be more redistribution.
Click to expand...

Oh that's because we're brought up with the silly ideology and literature that says "Every man should build his own log cabin and hunt for his own food." :) ...silly but it does help build work ethic.

BCR said:
America's greatest economic boom was the result of the large redistribution of wealth that transpired during the recovery from the great depression. Since the middle and lower classes consist of the most people, it would make sense to keep these classes as strong and stable as possible.
Click to expand...

"Trust Busting" could technically be interpreted as anti-rich. When it was really just a common sense measure.
 
So where is he news here? Obama has run on the idea of upping the tax rate on the rich to fund programs that benefit everyone and close down some of the debt we have run up. The redistribution line has been uttered time and time again in some sort of idea that obama is going to take everything from the rich and make the country communist. Is this the weapon romney was holding in reserve for his really big screw up? It is old and it is a dud.

Don't get me wrong, Romney's latest scandal, the tape of his fund raiser, also offers up little to no real news. Romney has run a campaign which has been very critical of immigrants, hispanics, and he has been saying all along those things are how he feels. It is just a little more blunt than normal for him, but it is not really news, just entertaining.

Is there something groundbreaking in this obama quote that was not there way back when he said it? About the only mistake I can see is him using republican words instead of saying taxes. Still, obama supporters know this, republicans use it as an excuse to hate him despite no one ever claiming to take all the money from the rich and redistribute it. It is just taxes and the outrage over it seems like the same old bitching to me. Romney better have something better up his sleeve for the debates. he is terrible at speaking without a script writer. For all the complaints made about obama and a teleprompter mitt offends everyone when he speaks on his own and in a hurry.

Anyway, have fun with the bitch fest over old news.
 
The French Revolution should be a good warning to those who support saturating the rich with as much as they can plunder, instead of every one gets their fair share and try to not have people starve.
 
The Prof said:
never before has america faced so clear a choice

more pools or more resources, let the voters decide
Click to expand...

The voters will decide. The choice isn't as clear as you'd have us believe, however. Republican presidents historically do not cut back the size of the federal government. The last one, Bush II increased hugely the size of government and government spending, and this is just the opinion of liberals. There are many honest conservatives that would try to remind us of this...

Republican Presidents Never Reduce the Size of Government
 
Andalublue said:
The voters will decide. The choice isn't as clear as you'd have us believe, however. Republican presidents historically do not cut back the size of the federal government. The last one, Bush II increased hugely the size of government and government spending, and this is just the opinion of liberals. There are many honest conservatives that would try to remind us of this...

Republican Presidents Never Reduce the Size of Government
Click to expand...

lol, ya no more than democratic presidents actually raise taxes on capital gain.
 
shiang said:
1. Good examples of rich people taking more than their share is when a company crashes they still get payed bonuses?

2. When GDP grows significantly and salaries are stagnant (shows workers are under payed, or I should say MORE under payed). Basic math says the net pay equals the net gain, if the workers are under payed then by default their bosses are being over payed. I think deep down every one knows this reality. The majority of extremely wealthy people are overcompensated for what they actually produce.

There's wealthy people I like and wealthy people I don't like. Just as there's poor people I sympathize with mind and poor people I sympathize with.

Believe it or not I'm not poor. Warren Buffet actually said he thinks it's unfair his secretary gets taxed more than him, and he's one of the richest man in the world.

"I'm wondering what you think happens to all that money the wealthy keep in their bank accounts? Do you think it just sits there gathering dust?"

2. When the economy looks bad/weak and the chance for losing money is high? ....ya.

3. First put the money in the hands of the middle class so they start spending (one thing about Americans... they're big spenders when they have money). Once the demand is there, companies naturally hires people and delivers the goods. I think that makes more sense than handing the money to the rich, and hope they take some risks with that money.
Click to expand...

1. People negotiate the terms of their employment based on their value to their employer. If an employer and employee engage in a contract and the employer then crashes, should the contract not be honored? Or do you want some law passed that says that contracts that YOU don't like cannot be made?

2. Worker's earnings are not a function of the rise and fall of GDP...rather the rise and fall of supply and demand and subjective value of the work performed. Now, you happen to think the wealthy get paid more than they should...but SOMEONE disagrees with you and that someone is the one making the payment. Not you.

3. "put the money in the hands of the middle class". Sorry, but it don't work that way (or it shouldn't). Everyone has to EARN the money that's in their hands. Any policy to take the money from anyone and "putting it in the hands" of anyone else is nothing more than oppressive government.
 
the government normalizes it somewhat with "un-distribution"
Click to expand...

vote obama, 2012!

time to un-distribute!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom