Obama: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

[mal]

faux concern.

didn't you donate to Obama?>

oh wow.

For Obvious Reason I Donated to Obama in 2008... And certainly not because I was going to Vote for him.

As for anyone's "Concern" that is not your own, it's not for you to say if they are Experiencing "Faux" Concern.

For a President to have had his Political Career Kick-off with a Domestic Terrorist and Marxist, it is VERY Legitimate for people to be Concerned about Obama's Goals.



peace...

ahahahaha....what a rube.

We knew about Ayers in 2008.

We knew about Ayers before 2008... What's yoar point?...

I wrote extensively about him WELL before the Election.

Made this bumper sticker before the Election:

Again, Rube... What's yoar point?...



peace...

 

[G.T.]

That your money isn't where your mouth is, rube.

 

[ilia25]

I have explained the what is defined as taxation and what is redistribution.
You fail to grasp these two as individual concepts to suit your political agenda.
That is not my problem.
Taxation and redistribution are two separate things.
"Stay with your brother, Charlie or go back to Wallbrook are not the same thing Ray."

Gee, who gives a flying f*** about your "explanations"? Taxation redistributes wealth, and denying it only shows off your idiocy!

Stop it.....That is the same thing as claiming paying one's utility bills is redistribution.

No, it is not. A utility bill is a fee -- everyone pays the same amount if the service is the same. With taxes, everyone is entitled to the same government services, but the payments depend on your income.

An example you would understand -- if everyone were paying the same amount in taxes, say, $10,000, only then there will be no wealth redistribution.

 

[BlindBoo]

For Obvious Reason I Donated to Obama in 2008... And certainly not because I was going to Vote for him.

As for anyone's "Concern" that is not your own, it's not for you to say if they are Experiencing "Faux" Concern.

For a President to have had his Political Career Kick-off with a Domestic Terrorist and Marxist, it is VERY Legitimate for people to be Concerned about Obama's Goals.



peace...

ahahahaha....what a rube.

We knew about Ayers in 2008.

We knew about Ayers before 2008... What's yoar point?...

I wrote extensively about him WELL before the Election.

Made this bumper sticker before the Election:

Again, Rube... What's yoar point?...



peace...

You wrote extensively about Ayers? What were his motivation for his(and lots of other young Americans) protest in the 60's? Was it opposition to certain US policies?

 

[mal]

That your money isn't where your mouth is, rube.

^Someone here Translate Retard for me?...

I don't Speak Retard.



peace...

 

[mal]

ahahahaha....what a rube.

We knew about Ayers in 2008.

We knew about Ayers before 2008... What's yoar point?...

I wrote extensively about him WELL before the Election.

Made this bumper sticker before the Election:

Again, Rube... What's yoar point?...



peace...

You wrote extensively about Ayers? What were his motivation for his(and lots of other young Americans) protest in the 60's? Was it opposition to certain US policies?

Without Question, why?...



peace...

 

[Erand7899]

I don't know what part of tax and spend (our system)is not a redistribution. Anyone who pays taxes and doesn't get them back is having their funds redistributed. Talk about much ado about nothing.

That's exactly right. The Republicans are trying to say that Obama's "redistribution" comments indicate that he's a Marxist/Communist/Martian/Socialist, when in fact there are essentially just two elements at work here: How much people are taxed and where the money is spent. They can spin this all they want, but that's the bottom line.

Much ado about nothing, indeed.

What they really don't want to admit is that any President who allows for funds to go from one place to another is a redistributionist by their standards. Like, say, Reagan. It's just a matter of degree, then.

.

You are attempting to rationalize Obama's remarks, by confusing the definition of redistribution to include things it has nothing to do with. The American people have a contract with government. With the federal and state governments, those contracts are the US and state constitutions. With local governments, the contract is codifed in the stipulations that establish those entities. The people's part of the contract is to pay taxes to fund the government and the services that the contract specifies that government will provide. No different than the rental contract between a lessee and a lessor, or your agreement with the electric company.

Collecting taxes and providing the service in accordance with the contract, is not redistribution in any way, form, or method. Redistribution takes place when government begins giving some of the money they collect in taxes to individuals or groups that have not done anything to earn that money. The billions of dollars that Obama gave to cronies and campaign donors in the form of green energy loans and grants, is redistribution.

Welfare is redistribution. The earned income tax credit is redistribution. Pell grants are redistribution. The millions given to planned parenthood is redistribution. Foreign aid is redistribution. Our government has found many ways to redistribute wealth, but none of it is in compliance with the contract that government has with the people.

Whether, or not, you are in favor of some or all of this redistribution of wealth, at least recognize what it is, and quit attempting to rationalize it into something it is not.

 

[G.T.]

That your money isn't where your mouth is, rube.

^Someone here Translate Retard for me?...

I don't Speak Retard.



peace...

You donated to Obama in 2008.

Source: yourself

You think (and knew of Ayers in 2008) that Obama's Association with Ayers should be the cause of concern.

Source: yourself


I guess your trolling spills over into your real life tact as well, but that's no real surprise.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't know what part of tax and spend (our system)is not a redistribution. Anyone who pays taxes and doesn't get them back is having their funds redistributed. Talk about much ado about nothing.

That's exactly right. The Republicans are trying to say that Obama's "redistribution" comments indicate that he's a Marxist/Communist/Martian/Socialist, when in fact there are essentially just two elements at work here: How much people are taxed and where the money is spent. They can spin this all they want, but that's the bottom line.

Much ado about nothing, indeed.

What they really don't want to admit is that any President who allows for funds to go from one place to another is a redistributionist by their standards. Like, say, Reagan. It's just a matter of degree, then.

.

You are attempting to rationalize Obama's remarks, by confusing the definition of redistribution to include things it has nothing to do with. The American people have a contract with government. With the federal and state governments, those contracts are the US and state constitutions. With local governments, the contract is codifed in the stipulations that establish those entities. The people's part of the contract is to pay taxes to fund the government and the services that the contract specifies that government will provide. No different than the rental contract between a lessee and a lessor, or your agreement with the electric company.

Collecting taxes and providing the service in accordance with the contract, is not redistribution in any way, form, or method. Redistribution takes place when government begins giving some of the money they collect in taxes to individuals or groups that have not done anything to earn that money. The billions of dollars that Obama gave to cronies and campaign donors in the form of green energy loans and grants, is redistribution.

Welfare is redistribution. The earned income tax credit is redistribution. Pell grants are redistribution. The millions given to planned parenthood is redistribution. Foreign aid is redistribution. Our government has found many ways to redistribute wealth, but none of it is in compliance with the contract that government has with the people.

Whether, or not, you are in favor of some or all of this redistribution of wealth, at least recognize what it is, and quit attempting to rationalize it into something it is not.

First of all, could you post a copy of the contract to which you refer? The Constitution is not a contract, by the way.

And you admit that redistribution already exists, on a widespread basis. That is precisely my point. Therefore, as I have said, the question is not whether we engage in redistribution, it is the level and amount of redistribution that is debatable.

So, again, Obama was not pushing some new idea or big change, as the GOP is trying to pretend. He wants more of what's already happening, the GOP wants less.

I don't know why this has to be such a big deal. Aw, heck, yes I do.

.

 

[Erand7899]

That's exactly right. The Republicans are trying to say that Obama's "redistribution" comments indicate that he's a Marxist/Communist/Martian/Socialist, when in fact there are essentially just two elements at work here: How much people are taxed and where the money is spent. They can spin this all they want, but that's the bottom line.

Much ado about nothing, indeed.

What they really don't want to admit is that any President who allows for funds to go from one place to another is a redistributionist by their standards. Like, say, Reagan. It's just a matter of degree, then.

.

You are attempting to rationalize Obama's remarks, by confusing the definition of redistribution to include things it has nothing to do with. The American people have a contract with government. With the federal and state governments, those contracts are the US and state constitutions. With local governments, the contract is codifed in the stipulations that establish those entities. The people's part of the contract is to pay taxes to fund the government and the services that the contract specifies that government will provide. No different than the rental contract between a lessee and a lessor, or your agreement with the electric company.

Collecting taxes and providing the service in accordance with the contract, is not redistribution in any way, form, or method. Redistribution takes place when government begins giving some of the money they collect in taxes to individuals or groups that have not done anything to earn that money. The billions of dollars that Obama gave to cronies and campaign donors in the form of green energy loans and grants, is redistribution.

Welfare is redistribution. The earned income tax credit is redistribution. Pell grants are redistribution. The millions given to planned parenthood is redistribution. Foreign aid is redistribution. Our government has found many ways to redistribute wealth, but none of it is in compliance with the contract that government has with the people.

Whether, or not, you are in favor of some or all of this redistribution of wealth, at least recognize what it is, and quit attempting to rationalize it into something it is not.

First of all, could you post a copy of the contract to which you refer? The Constitution is not a contract, by the way.

And you admit that redistribution already exists, on a widespread basis. That is precisely my point. Therefore, as I have said, the question is not whether we engage in redistribution, it is the level and amount of redistribution that is debatable.

So, again, Obama was not pushing some new idea or big change, as the GOP is trying to pretend. He wants more of what's already happening, the GOP wants less.

I don't know why this has to be such a big deal. Aw, heck, yes I do.

.

The Constitution is a contract, and it is enforcable in a court of law.

Yes, I admit that redistribution exists on a widespread basis, but that does not make it right or proper. And yes, Obama is pushing some new idea and big change. He wants to expand redistribution in some idiotic effort to equalize outcomes. Apparently, that is what he meant by hope and change.

 

[Mac1958]

You are attempting to rationalize Obama's remarks, by confusing the definition of redistribution to include things it has nothing to do with. The American people have a contract with government. With the federal and state governments, those contracts are the US and state constitutions. With local governments, the contract is codifed in the stipulations that establish those entities. The people's part of the contract is to pay taxes to fund the government and the services that the contract specifies that government will provide. No different than the rental contract between a lessee and a lessor, or your agreement with the electric company.

Collecting taxes and providing the service in accordance with the contract, is not redistribution in any way, form, or method. Redistribution takes place when government begins giving some of the money they collect in taxes to individuals or groups that have not done anything to earn that money. The billions of dollars that Obama gave to cronies and campaign donors in the form of green energy loans and grants, is redistribution.

Welfare is redistribution. The earned income tax credit is redistribution. Pell grants are redistribution. The millions given to planned parenthood is redistribution. Foreign aid is redistribution. Our government has found many ways to redistribute wealth, but none of it is in compliance with the contract that government has with the people.

Whether, or not, you are in favor of some or all of this redistribution of wealth, at least recognize what it is, and quit attempting to rationalize it into something it is not.

First of all, could you post a copy of the contract to which you refer? The Constitution is not a contract, by the way.

And you admit that redistribution already exists, on a widespread basis. That is precisely my point. Therefore, as I have said, the question is not whether we engage in redistribution, it is the level and amount of redistribution that is debatable.

So, again, Obama was not pushing some new idea or big change, as the GOP is trying to pretend. He wants more of what's already happening, the GOP wants less.

I don't know why this has to be such a big deal. Aw, heck, yes I do.

.

The Constitution is a contract, and it is enforcable in a court of law.

Yes, I admit that redistribution exists on a widespread basis, but that does not make it right or proper. And yes, Obama is pushing some new idea and big change. He wants to expand redistribution in some idiotic effort to equalize outcomes. Apparently, that is what he meant by hope and change.

So we already engage in redistribution, as I said. Good grief, yet I still have to wrestle over it.

The Dems want more, the GOP wants less, what a shock.

The only reason this thread exists is to pretend that Obama has been "caught" on tape suggesting something that we don't already do.

Yet another example of the intellectual dishonesty that is so polluting our political discourse from both sides.

.

 

[regent]

Look at a dollar bill and wonder if it has been around the block a few times or has it been in your wallet since it was printed.
Can a nation exist without a constant redistribution of both wealth and income? The political and economic questions: how much is redistributed, who or what decides the amount and manner. Does the govenment have any imput in the redistribution, if so what should the government's goal be in the redistribution? And so on.

 

[ilia25]

First of all, could you post a copy of the contract to which you refer? The Constitution is not a contract, by the way.

And you admit that redistribution already exists, on a widespread basis. That is precisely my point. Therefore, as I have said, the question is not whether we engage in redistribution, it is the level and amount of redistribution that is debatable.

So, again, Obama was not pushing some new idea or big change, as the GOP is trying to pretend. He wants more of what's already happening, the GOP wants less.

I don't know why this has to be such a big deal. Aw, heck, yes I do.

.

The Constitution is a contract, and it is enforcable in a court of law.

Yes, I admit that redistribution exists on a widespread basis, but that does not make it right or proper. And yes, Obama is pushing some new idea and big change. He wants to expand redistribution in some idiotic effort to equalize outcomes. Apparently, that is what he meant by hope and change.

So we already engage in redistribution, as I said. Good grief, yet I still have to wrestle over it.

What fascinates me is how gullible and brainwashed those people must be, if they can be guided into belief that something that was a part of American society since forever is some kind of a liberal plot.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Look at a dollar bill and wonder if it has been around the block a few times or has it been in your wallet since it was printed.
Can a nation exist without a constant redistribution of both wealth and income? The political and economic questions: how much is redistributed, who or what decides the amount and manner. Does the govenment have any imput in the redistribution, if so what should the government's goal be in the redistribution? And so on.

That is not redistribution...It's COMMERCE.
In fact it says on the bill.."this note is legal tender for all debts public and private"..
In other words the transfer of currency for goods or services is a contract. For a contract to be valid it must offer "equal consideration". One party offers in trade money for something in return of equal value..
Redistribution is the taking of money from one party by a third party( in this case government) for the benefit of another. The one losing money gets NOTHING in return.
Your understanding of economy and matters financial begins and ends with your political agenda.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Constitution is a contract, and it is enforcable in a court of law.

Yes, I admit that redistribution exists on a widespread basis, but that does not make it right or proper. And yes, Obama is pushing some new idea and big change. He wants to expand redistribution in some idiotic effort to equalize outcomes. Apparently, that is what he meant by hope and change.

So we already engage in redistribution, as I said. Good grief, yet I still have to wrestle over it.

What fascinates me is how gullible and brainwashed those people must be, if they can be guided into belief that something that was a part of American society since forever is some kind of a liberal plot.

What "was part of American society since forever"?

 

[Mac1958]

The Constitution is a contract, and it is enforcable in a court of law.

Yes, I admit that redistribution exists on a widespread basis, but that does not make it right or proper. And yes, Obama is pushing some new idea and big change. He wants to expand redistribution in some idiotic effort to equalize outcomes. Apparently, that is what he meant by hope and change.

So we already engage in redistribution, as I said. Good grief, yet I still have to wrestle over it.

What fascinates me is how gullible and brainwashed those people must be, if they can be guided into belief that something that was a part of American society since forever is some kind of a liberal plot.

I have to admit - I never know when partisans are being honest and when they're just playing little partisan games. It seems entirely plausible to me that they know there's no plot, they just saw this as an opportunity to score some political points regardless of how intellectually dishonest their "point" is, that they don't really believe this stuff.

It's probably just a big game. Unfortunately, this is not a good time in our history for game-playing.

.