• 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
That's what I have been saying.:2bow: The Republicans look upon workers as pawns in their world chess game.

as opposed to rich democrats who see the average person as a pawn to be used for votes. No republican I know wants people to stay in poverty and dependent on the government. Independent people who are net tax payers are far less likely to demand more and more government

poor dependent pawns are puppets of the deems and that is why democrat party policies are designed to create as many dependent pawns as possible
 
you might believe as much.. but y'all do a poor job of communicating that sentiment.

the class warfare of today is palpable and very ugly... and the 2 major parties , and their adherents, are all guilty of waging it.

it's just as wrong to attack the rich as it is to attack the poor... especially when the attacks are based up on misapplied statistics and stereotypes.

I've always been for the underdog and the poor compared to the rich are the underdog.
 
as opposed to rich democrats who see the average person as a pawn to be used for votes. No republican I know wants people to stay in poverty and dependent on the government. Independent people who are net tax payers are far less likely to demand more and more government

poor dependent pawns are puppets of the deems and that is why democrat party policies are designed to create as many dependent pawns as possible

Sounds like you listened to Rush Limbaugh today.
 
47% dont pay taxes....well if romney loses and dems make headway back into the house and keep the senate...then the far right can blame themselves for vilifying and denigrating public and govt workers and blaming the debt on them for LOSING THE ELECTION because they all pay taxs and are part of the 53% that do....you screwed yourselves
 
Wait a minute...what's wrong with redistribution of wealth?
 
Workers? Did the workers invest their own money to build the factory/plant/build, to hire the HR staff, the managers, the attorneys, the accountants, the workers... the materials, the tools (computers, equipment...) Do the workers pay the taxes on the facilities, get the permits to open said business...

Businesses exist to earn a profit for those with a vested interest in said Business. The investors. This is reality.

And guess what any owners palce does with no workers.......NOTHING........

And you have to negociate with the workers....Its FEderal law.....the NLRA.
 
And guess what any owners palce does with no workers.......NOTHING........

And you have to negociate with the workers....Its FEderal law.....the NLRA.
They can be fired and replaced.
Right now there are plenty of people willing to take a job away from some workers that are complaining to much.
 
comedy4all said:
Its theft.
Even if the government does it.

That seems pretty obviously false, in at least some circumstances. Distribution of wealth just seems to be a term for who currently possesses wealth, not who rightfully possesses it. Redistribution can right a wrong just as much as it can be a wrong in itself. Suppose I steal from you, and suddenly I have all your wealth. During the time I possess it, the distribution of wealth is in a certain physical state. In order to bring about a state of justice, it has to be redistributed.
 
Yes, yes. Taxes are theft and government should be privately funded. I assume by setting up government owned businesses?

Move from an income tax to a consumption tax. That way people pay taxes willingly, not the government just taking what it wants.
 
That seems pretty obviously false, in at least some circumstances. Distribution of wealth just seems to be a term for who currently possesses wealth, not who rightfully possesses it. Redistribution can right a wrong just as much as it can be a wrong in itself. Suppose I steal from you, and suddenly I have all your wealth. During the time I possess it, the distribution of wealth is in a certain physical state. In order to bring about a state of justice, it has to be redistributed.
The poor are not poor because they got stolen from. They are poor because they keep doing the things that made them poor.
The rich are not rich because they stole their money from the poor. They are rich because the keep doing the things that made them rich.

Theft is theft no matter what you call it.
 
The poor are not poor because they got stolen from. They are poor because they keep doing the things that made them poor.
The rich are not rich because they stole their money from the poor. They are rich because the keep doing the things that made them rich.

Theft is theft no matter what you call it.

The rich haven't stolen from the poor.

They grabbed the money before the poor could get it in the first place.
 
The rich haven't stolen from the poor.

They grabbed the money before the poor could get it in the first place.

You speak as if there is only a fixed supply of money, rather than the reality that wealth is produced.
 
The rich haven't stolen from the poor.

They grabbed the money before the poor could get it in the first place.
There is not a fixed amount of wealth. Wealth is created. It’s not a pie that when eaten there is no more. We just make another pie (and this time its apple instead of cherry).
 
You speak as if there is only a fixed supply of money, rather than the reality that wealth is produced.

When those who have most of the existing "pie" get most of the new "pie" BECAUSE they have most of the existing "pie" the "pie" might as well be called "fixed".
 
When those who have most of the existing "pie" get most of the new "pie" BECAUSE they have most of the existing "pie" the "pie" might as well be called "fixed".

It is obvious that you have never passed an economics course.
 
Back
Top Bottom