• 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.

Obama on Redistribution of Wealth

So, out of curiosity, does taking resources from more affluent school districts and providing them to less affluent ones not constitute equalization through the force of government?

I guess you're speaking hypothetically, as there's no evidence that that's what Obama was talking about?

That's fine. The answer is no. The public school system only exists through the force of government. Like any organization, the government is responsible for distributing limited resources in the most effective way it can.

In any case, that's not what Obama was talking about.
 
What Obama was looking for, in the relevant quote, was private, decentralized, marketplace solutions to help improve Chicago's public education system. In fact, having read it now a third time, I think he was talking about redistributing education funds AWAY from government-run schools and TOWARD private sector solutions.

Great spin, you ought to be on the Obama campaign. Obama has no concept of private sector job creation or private sector growth. His is a govt. central economy where the Federal Govt. handles all personal responsibility issues.
 
"I'm stuck, I can't show that this "redistribution" has effected the wealthy, so I will instead try to argue that my opponent looks bad, like I always do when I have reached a dead end."

Thanks for the invite, looks to me like Harshaw isn't having any problems with you at all.
 
I guess you're speaking hypothetically, as there's no evidence that that's what Obama was talking about?

That's fine. The answer is no. The public school system only exists through the force of government. Like any organization, the government is responsible for distributing limited resources in the most effective way it can.

In any case, that's not what Obama was talking about.

Here, let me offer a little more detail on what was said and in what context things were being discussed - Obama 'redistribution' video: President in 1998 Loyola University video discusses government's role

Read more: [url]http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/political/obama-redistribution-video-president-in-1998-loyola-university-video-discusses-governments-role#ixzz27314ZGh3

[/URL]

For those that don't like to read the whole comment is available in this video -


I'd have to say that this remark in particular really puts things in perspective -
Let me just close by saying, as we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named, policy research for the working poor, broadly defined, I think that what we're going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic -- I don't think it's too strong to call it a propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy.


I really don't think that there is any question at all but that what he was talking about was using government to take resources from some just to hand them out to others. It's forced equalization by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Here, let me offer a little more detail on what was said and in what context things were being discussed - Obama 'redistribution' video: President in 1998 Loyola University video discusses government's role

Read more: [url]http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/political/obama-redistribution-video-president-in-1998-loyola-university-video-discusses-governments-role#ixzz27314ZGh3

[/URL]

For those that don't like to read the whole comment is available in this video -


I'd have to say that this remark in particular really puts things in perspective -



I really don't think that there is any question at all but that what he was talking about was using government to take resources from some just to hand them out to others. It's forced equalization by any stretch of the imagination.


I don't think there is any question that Obama supporters mostly are leftwing zealots whose go continues to be a European Socialist economy with a large govt. central economy and nanny state. Rather frustrating since this isn't the foundation upon which this country was built but it seems to be the change message Obama ran on but wasn't specific in talking about.
 
I really don't think that there is any question at all but that what he was talking about was using government to take resources from some just to hand them out to others. It's forced equalization by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think there's a speck of evidence for your conclusion. He was talking about reprioritizing the existing pool of education funding, and it appears that he was suggesting that funds should be shifted to a market-based, competitive approach.
 
I don't think there's a speck of evidence for your conclusion. He was talking about reprioritizing the existing pool of education funding, and it appears that he was suggesting that funds should be shifted to a market-based, competitive approach.

Got it, promoting class warfare, calling for the people that pay most of the FIT now to pay their fair share, demonizing individual wealth creation and generating the terrible economic results today are to be ignored and we are to support Obama because he tells you what you want to hear? That is liberal logic from leftwing zealots who want us to believe they really are for the best interest of all Americans. The best interest of all Americans is to fire Obama
 
Got it, promoting class warfare, calling for the people that pay most of the FIT now to pay their fair share, demonizing individual wealth creation and generating the terrible economic results today are to be ignored and we are to support Obama because he tells you what you want to hear? That is liberal logic from leftwing zealots who want us to believe they really are for the best interest of all Americans. The best interest of all Americans is to fire Obama

FYI:


The rest ended up owing no federal income tax due to various tax expenditures such as education credits, itemized deductions or reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Most of this group are in the middle to upper income brackets. In fact, the TPC estimates there are about 7,000 families and individuals who earn $1 million a year or more and still pay no federal income tax.
FactCheck.org : Dependency and Romney’s 47 Percenters

Stop demonizing wealth creation Con! :mrgreen:
 
You apparently did not read my whole thread. I am the parent of an autistic child who gets services from the government. This too is redistribution. My son provides no services in your sense of the word. Because of the severity of his disability he will never be able to work and therefore will not be able to provide a service.

As I said the services that these and the physically disabled need cost money. We do what we can but we ain't Romney or Trump. If it weren't for those services my son and millions like him as PD or DD would be in the streest starving or dead.

If you are going to critize a post please do read the whole thing and then critize the whole or leave it alone.

And contrary to some heartless people in the Tea Party and the far right my son is not a leach on society nor 'Worthy of death". And those that have said so also said they were Christians. Bull.

Before you critize redistribution step outside your comfort zone and look at the facts of what is going on. My son gets $282 per month from the gov.. could you live on that?

I deeply resent those who buy the Romney, Limbaugh, Tea Party and far right line on the bloodsucker of society. Romney is more of one than my son any day of the week,month year or milenium.

wolfman 24
 
FYI:


The rest ended up owing no federal income tax due to various tax expenditures such as education credits, itemized deductions or reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Most of this group are in the middle to upper income brackets. In fact, the TPC estimates there are about 7,000 families and individuals who earn $1 million a year or more and still pay no federal income tax.
FactCheck.org : Dependency and Romney’s 47 Percenters

Stop demonizing wealth creation Con! :mrgreen:

Yes, and we all know that in a free enterprise, capitalistic economy built on the private sector it is the responsibility of the Federal Govt. to take from some to give to others and then demonize those who pay the most taxes now but never talking about the 47% that don't pay any FIT.
 
Class warefare? Bwahahahahahahaha!
View attachment 67134861

Now isn't that cute? Are you going to ask Harry Reid to open up his desk and debate the couple dozen bills there passed by the House that never got to the Senate floor for debate? Maybe while at it you can ask Mr. Reid why the Senate hasn't even presented a budget in three years?
 
You apparently did not read my whole thread. I am the parent of an autistic child who gets services from the government. This too is redistribution. My son provides no services in your sense of the word. Because of the severity of his disability he will never be able to work and therefore will not be able to provide a service.

As I said the services that these and the physically disabled need cost money. We do what we can but we ain't Romney or Trump. If it weren't for those services my son and millions like him as PD or DD would be in the streest starving or dead.

If you are going to critize a post please do read the whole thing and then critize the whole or leave it alone.

And contrary to some heartless people in the Tea Party and the far right my son is not a leach on society nor 'Worthy of death". And those that have said so also said they were Christians. Bull.

Before you critize redistribution step outside your comfort zone and look at the facts of what is going on. My son gets $282 per month from the gov.. could you live on that?

I deeply resent those who buy the Romney, Limbaugh, Tea Party and far right line on the bloodsucker of society. Romney is more of one than my son any day of the week,month year or milenium.

wolfman 24


I feel for you. I have chronic systolic congestive heart failure caused by a very rare congenital heart defect. And I have taken advantage of government programs as well.
 
Let's break it down, because Obama did use a lot of big words:


“As we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named — policy research for the working poor, broadly defined — I think that what we're gonna have to do is somehow* resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic, I don't think it's too strong to call it a propaganda campaign, against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved.

Here Obama is referring to the fact that Republicans frequently argue that government is ineffective. He says he agrees that that is sometimes the case. Pretty clear so far?

Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policy making. And neither necessarily have been the Chicago public schools.

Pretty clear again, right? The Chicago school system blows.

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 how, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live,

Because people are so skeptical about government, you really have to work extra hard to make sure government programs work. Still pretty clear, right?

and my suggestion I guess would be that the trick, and this is one of the few areas where I think there have to be technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to* just political issues,

Okay, conservatives, try to clear the blood out of your eyes and focus on what he's actually saying, as opposed to what you want him to be saying. First, he is talking about "technical" issues, as opposed to "political" issues. Technical issues means mechanics -- nuts and bolts. How can we make this thing work? That's as opposed to political issues, like fairness in taxation and wealth redistribution through the tax code.

how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot.

And here is the crux of the biscuit. What are "government systems that pool resources"? In this case he's talking about the Chicago school system. The "pooled resources" is the chunk of money the state allocates to the school system. So what he's asking is, how -- TECHNICALLY -- can the funds in that big chunk be moved around -- redistributed -- to help improve the worst schools (where the students don't presently have a shot)?

How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities.”

This is a pretty dense bit, here. He's asking, how can you shift resources away from the big, failed school bureaucracy, when all of the funds are given to that bureaucracy in one big chunk. How can you rest funding away from that apparatus and use some of it to pay for more market-based, competitive, and innovative programs that are more responsive at the local level. How is it TECHNICALLY possible to take some of that money from the entrenched school bureaucracy when everyone knows that bureaucrats never willingly give up money and/or power?

And that's it. Nothing about taxing the rich to give to the poor.
 
Now isn't that cute? Are you going to ask Harry Reid to open up his desk and debate the couple dozen bills there passed by the House that never got to the Senate floor for debate? Maybe while at it you can ask Mr. Reid why the Senate hasn't even presented a budget in three years?

Republican Jobs Bills Won’t Actually Create Jobs, Say Economists | Obama 2k12 Supporters
~snip
Follow the money trail and connect the dots..convince the middle class that government (by the people?)..is what destroyed their lives, not greed corporations and the greedy politicians that took their bribe money…it’s all about corporate managed trade policy..to think it’s something other than this is simply ano admission of ignorance to the facts..

WASHINGTON — House Republicans routinely beat the drum about the hard work they have done in passing “more than 30 jobs bills” that are now before the Democrat-controlled Senate, going nowhere, as the economy gasps for air.

For almost a year, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have plugged their jobs package at every opportunity. They regularly bring it up at press events, during floor speeches and in statements in response to just about anything related to the economy. Boehner even carries around in his jacket pocket a 4-by-8-inch card that lists off their jobs bills, and he encourages his members to flash their cards at campaign events.

“President [Barack] Obama and Democrats here in Congress have shown us what doesn’t work: more government, more spending, more taxes don’t create more jobs,” Boehner said at a recent weekly briefing. “We’ve passed more than 30 jobs bills, including bipartisan bills expanding energy production and projects like the Keystone pipeline.”

Cantor plugged the jobs bills — and nudged Democrats to get on board with the Republican plan — in response to the June unemployment report. “House Republicans are committed to bold, pro-growth policies and have passed dozens of bills to create jobs,” he said in a statement. “We’ve begun to right the ship, but we will not be able to achieve long-term growth without willing partners in the White House and Senate.”

The GOP jobs package, which currently includes 32 bills, represents Republicans’ hallmark legislative accomplishment over the past two years. In the months ahead of the election, they will lean on it as proof of two things: that they are not the do-nothing obstructionists that Democrats paint them as, and that they are working hard to address the 8.2 percent unemployment rate.

But there’s a problem with their jobs bills: They don’t create jobs. At least, they won’t any time soon.

In interviews conducted by The Huffington Post with five economists, most said the GOP jobs package would have no meaningful impact on job creation in the near term. Some said it was not likely to do much in the long term, either.

“A lot of these things are laughable in terms of a jobs plan that would produce noticeable improvements across the country in the availability of employment in the next four or five years,” said Gary Burtless, a senior economist at Brookings. “Even in the long run, if they have any effect all, it would be extremely marginal, relative to the jobs deficit we currently have.”

Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, agreed that the bills would have almost no effect on job creation in the short term, though he was slightly more optimistic about their long-term prospects.

“These kind of changes will matter over a period of three to five years,” Zandi said. “It takes that long before businesses can digest changes and respond to them.”

He noted, though, that legislation as narrowly targeted as the Republican package is unlikely to do much for real job creation.

“For it to show up in a meaningful way in the natural economy, you can make specific changes that could affect a specific industry or a few companies, but it’s not going to make a big difference in terms of the monthly job numbers,” Zandi said. “It takes some very significant changes across lots of different industries to really make a big difference.”

Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, said some of the bills could create jobs, but that they would amount to more of an afterthought in terms of achieving broader policy goals.

“They are very narrowly targeted, and it gives the impression that maybe some of this is special interest really pursuing these, not really taking a macro view but a very, very micro focus in what the impact would be,” Riccadonna said. For most of the bills in the package, “jobs are a second- or third-order effect, not the main priority.”

At the heart of the GOP jobs package is a push for rolling back regulations — and gutting environmental laws that regulate clean air and water — to spur job growth. The House Republican Conference website makes the argument that deregulation will “remove onerous federal regulations that are redundant, harmful to small businesses, and impede private sector investment and job creation.”

But economists told The Huffington Post that regulation has had a minimal impact on the unemployment rate. Their claim is backed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that just under 16,000 jobs, or 0.4 percent, were lost because of “government regulations/intervention.”

“It’s just hard to believe that the paperwork requirements to starting a business represent a major impediment to starting businesses right now,” Burtless said. “That’s not why we had lots more business creation in the late ’90s.”

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, warned that any potential job creation from environmental deregulation could be offset by health concerns.

“If you increase employment but you have a lot more sick people, you have to ask yourself, ‘What’s the trade-off?’” he said. “The highest level of GDP is not necessarily the highest level of national satisfaction or national health.”

Indeed, environmental advocates argue that many of the GOP proposals are more likely to kill people than create jobs.

“It won’t save them jobs, it won’t even save them that much money, but it is going to cause illnesses, deaths, more hospital stays or days lost because of illness,” said Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “That’s why we have all these environmental laws.”

Not all of the GOP proposals are focused on environmental deregulation. A handful call for weakening the authority of the National Labor Relations Board as a way to boost businesses’ savings, which could, in theory, then be reinvested in new jobs.

But Burtless said those proposals are more likely to impact those currently working than those seeking work.

“They may weaken the ability of current workers to negotiate for better working conditions or wages. They may lessen the ability of workers who want to join unions to do so in companies that are currently unorganized,” he said. “But it’s just hard to believe that they create jobs in the short run.”

Even one of the more popular bills in the mix — a small business tax cut — won’t do much for job creation, some of the economists said. They argued that it’s not that businesses need more money for hiring, but that they need a sufficient demand for their products.

“They know that if they hire people to produce more widgets, they won’t be able to sell the widgets,” Prakken said. “Giving them a tax break just increases their profits,” but doesn’t encourage hiring.

Riccadonna disagreed. He acknowledged that weak demand is the biggest problem facing businesses, but said the small business tax cut is still the most likely of all the GOP bills to create jobs.

“We should be focusing on small businesses and what we can do to make business conditions more favorable for them, because that’s where the real turn in labor market will lie,” he said. “So anything that makes life or operating conditions a little bit easier for them, that I would certainly be in favor of. That will have a meaningful jobs impact.”

Ultimately, each economist was clear on one point: The GOP package is far more political than practical.

“It’s game playing to try to pretend like they’re doing something,” said Jesse Rothstein, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s silly season, and so they know they have to put up something that has the label ‘job creation’ on it, whether or not it would work.”

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel demurred when asked for a response. He reiterated that Senate Democrats are holding up their job-creation bills.

“The House has passed more than 30 jobs bills that are awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled United States Senate,” said Steel. “We have passed a responsible budget that deals with our deficits and debt, a bill to replace the ‘sequester,’ which would be disastrous for our national security, and … we will vote to stop the tax hike on every American taxpayer, which is scheduled for the end of this year. In short, we are acting on the American peoples’ priorities: jobs and our economy.”

A Cantor spokeswoman did not return a request for comment.

For all their complaints about Senate inaction, Boehner and Cantor regularly fail to point out that the Senate has, in fact, passed nearly a dozen of Republicans’ so-called jobs bills in the last two years. Eleven have already become law, and another one has passed the Senate but hasn’t been signed into law yet.

House Republicans routinely herald the hard work they have done in passing the 30-some “jobs bills” in the slideshow below, while they antagonize the Senate for its failure to act on the measures. But economists warn that the House-passed bills won’t do much to create jobs — which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says is the explanation for why the bills have stalled.
 
Mitt Romney this week has jumped on a 14-year-old clip of Barack Obama speaking about "redistribution" of wealth at a 1998 conference in Chicago.

He has a pretty long history of supporting redistribution, don't you think?
 
He has a pretty long history of supporting redistribution, don't you think?

True ... like pretty much like every president since at least Teddy Roosevelt, including Ronald Reagan and both Bushes.
 

Oh, great, another novel that says really nothing. You want badly to believe what economists say and ignore what Obama has done. I know that you must have missed this but we have more unemployed/discouraged workers today than when Obama took office and the under employed is 8 million which is driving the median income down. You nor the economists have any clue what the Republican Job's bill will do and Harry Reid prevented debate on those bills. In addition Obama hasn't met with his jobs' council since January and you believe he has done a good job on jobs?

The Obama record is there for all to see and anyone that supports that record is a big govt. supporting liberal that wants us to be like Europe. Four more years of Obama and we will be like Greece
 
I don't think there's a speck of evidence for your conclusion. He was talking about reprioritizing the existing pool of education funding, and it appears that he was suggesting that funds should be shifted to a market-based, competitive approach.

What he's talking about is that some resources (read "taxes") such as school taxes are generally proprietary. These "resources" are marked for a specific purpose. What he's talking about is blowing off that proprietary reason for collecting the taxes and using them for something completely different and that's just plain wrong.
 
Romney was so anxious to cover for his 47% remark that they immediately took out a 1998 video - took one line from it - and used it against Obama without showing the whole clip. Seems like they had this in their bag of tricks and were waiting for the right moment.

And Obama was so anxious to cover the souring of the Arab Spring terrorist attacks that they immediately found whatever they could to attempt to alienate voters.

They all have bags of tricks. Don't act like it's one side over the other.
 
I cannot get a fix on your take here, but if you are listening to Romney and you have this problem you will not be happy if he gets in.

Most people have no idea the damage Bush did to the "safety net". P Ryan called it more of a hammock. The net looks more like a black hole. Anything that gets near it gets sucked in and disappears.

Please remember that politicians opt to use sound bytes. You need to look into for yourself outside your comfort zone no matter what side of the fence you are on.

Thats the only way to know for sure. When I see an issue or subject that interests me I don't give a damn what righty or lefty say I look the damn thing up on what I consider objective , unbiased websites or books. That means I don't look at Fox or MSNBC.

Our country is rapidly losing the ability to think on it own.

Wolfman24
 
I cannot get a fix on your take here, but if you are listening to Romney and you have this problem you will not be happy if he gets in.

Most people have no idea the damage Bush did to the "safety net". P Ryan called it more of a hammock. The net looks more like a black hole. Anything that gets near it gets sucked in and disappears.

Please remember that politicians opt to use sound bytes. You need to look into for yourself outside your comfort zone no matter what side of the fence you are on.

Thats the only way to know for sure. When I see an issue or subject that interests me I don't give a damn what righty or lefty say I look the damn thing up on what I consider objective , unbiased websites or books. That means I don't look at Fox or MSNBC.

Our country is rapidly losing the ability to think on it own.

Wolfman24

Barack Obama is incompetent as the results show and yet the results today are blamed on Bush. Absolutely amazing how Bush alone created the mess Obama inherited but now it is everyone else BUT Obama that has generated the terrible results we have today. You see, the buck never gets to Obama, maybe that is why he spends so much time out of the WH
 
I am a huge supporter of education but I think the Department of Education needs to be split apart with the Student Loan sections being revamped to put market pressure down on the cost of college education and the rest of the thing abolished with the savings going to states in block grants. It has gone from a resource for school systems to a huge burden having DC dictating so much in the way of education.
 
For those who think that Obama has never been vetted, think on this: Dispite millions of dollars to conduct opposition research, the best Romney could come up with is a 14 year old quote that only works when taken out of context.

But I think it shows something important.

In 1998 Obama was making the case that the government needs to efficiently pool it's resources into working programs... because he believes in redistribution, at least in the sense of making sure that everyone has a shot. Fast forward 14 years and ..... Obama believes in efficient government solutions to ensure that everyone has a shot to be successful. Sure he'd use different words today, but his fundamental beliefs are essentially unchanged.

Compare that to Romney, he can't keep a position more than 14 minutes, let alone 14 years.

But what was Romney doing then. Well, in 1992 Romney had saved Bain capital by obtaining a 10 Million Dollar bailout. He followed that up in 2002 by saving the Olympics with a 1.3 Billion dollar government bailout. (In comparison the 1984 LA games cost $75M and the 1996 Atl games cost $609M).

So while Obama was for government intervention to give everyone a shot, Mitt was into government intervention to "reward success".
 
For those who think that Obama has never been vetted, think on this: Dispite millions of dollars to conduct opposition research, the best Romney could come up with is a 14 year old quote that only works when taken out of context.

But I think it shows something important.

In 1998 Obama was making the case that the government needs to efficiently pool it's resources into working programs... because he believes in redistribution, at least in the sense of making sure that everyone has a shot. Fast forward 14 years and ..... Obama believes in efficient government solutions to ensure that everyone has a shot to be successful. Sure he'd use different words today, but his fundamental beliefs are essentially unchanged.

Compare that to Romney, he can't keep a position more than 14 minutes, let alone 14 years.

But what was Romney doing then. Well, in 1992 Romney had saved Bain capital by obtaining a 10 Million Dollar bailout. He followed that up in 2002 by saving the Olympics with a 1.3 Billion dollar government bailout. (In comparison the 1984 LA games cost $75M and the 1996 Atl games cost $609M).

So while Obama was for government intervention to give everyone a shot, Mitt was into government intervention to "reward success".

Why would anyone vote for someone who in four years generated 23 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, 5.4 trillion added to the debt, 48 million on food stamps, 46 million below the poverty level, over 100 million on some form of taxpayer assistance, 1.7% GDP growth, lied to us about the killing of our Ambassador, lost billions in green energy companies, and so on. Sorry but don't worry much about what Romney said when in reality it was the truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom