Obama: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

[jgarden]

During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%.

In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

The Great Recession (2007) also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

The reality is that there has already been a massive redistribution of wealth in America over the last decade - all of it seeming to favor a select few, the top 1%.

During 2012 and previous elections, when such inequalities come under public scrutiny, Americans should be aware that the top 1% is actively using its power and wealth in an effort to systematically discredit any attempts to seriously question its privileged position.

These attacks rely strictly on the subjective, emotional and ideological approach while deliberately avoiding the use of statistical data like the plague - afterall what member of the top 1% really wants to explain why his/her income deserved to grow 10X faster between 2002 and 2007 than any of the rest of us.

 

[usmcstinger]

The reason this isn't getting coverage is because:

1. It happened 15 years ago.
2. It's not even remotely controversial outside of wingnutta.

Wait, saying 47% of Americans (Actually more like 40% when you look a new poll) say the govenrment needs to do more!!!! and that's controversial, yet saying you want to redistribute isnt?
I mean how many times have libtards like you say he did not want to do that? he was not a socialist? I'm guessing millions the past 4 years, so now it's ok? So you're saying conservatives were right?

The vast majority of the population wants to redistribute. People may want changes to welfare, but very few support getting rid of it. I've never heard of significant opposition to the Earned Income Tax Credit. I could keep going, but I think you get the point.

Where is your proof that the vast majority wants to redistribute. You should have written: The vast majority of our population supports income redistribution.
Class dismissed!

I am waiting for your proof regarding the support for income redistribution.

 

[GreatDay]

"redistribution" is entirely required for a "free enterprise" system, we knew that in the fifties and sixties and our economy flourished, only after Reagan came to power busted up the unions, which were a big part of keeping things balanced, and we embarked on this death spin of wealth concentration which will kill the nation if we do nothing to stop it, it really is just math, an unbalanced system cannot continue it will spin apart like an unbalanced motor.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Can someone provide some actual figures here?

What, precisely, did Obama say that has some folks so upset? We already have redistribution. So at what point does something become redistribution if it already exists?

.

 

[usmcstinger]

Every nation redistributes its wealth. Can anyone name a country that doesn't redistrubte its wealth? In fact, many economic textbooks list redistribution of wealth as one the functions of government. How a nation redistributes its wealth is a responsibility of its economic system, government policies and economic conditions. England was heavy into the new world's economic system and as soon as the ink was dry on our new Constitution the government was involved in the new economy, at first helping business, then regulating business and in the Great Depression helping people. "Redistibution of Wealth" has now become a code word for the helping of people not business.

The USA!

Please list the Economic Text Books that list redistribution of wealth as a function of government. Can you tell me where it is stated in our Constitution?

I am waiting for your answers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%.

In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

The Great Recession (2007) also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reality is that there has already been a massive redistribution of wealth in America over the last decade - all of it seeming to favor a select few, the top 1%.

During 2012 and previous elections, when such inequalities come under public scrutiny, Americans should be aware that the top 1% is actively using its power and wealth in an effort to systematically discredit any attempts to seriously question its privileged position.

These attacks rely strictly on the subjective, emptional and ideological approach while deliberately avoiding the use of statistical data like the plague - afterall what member of the top !% really wants to explain why his/her income deserved to grow 10X faster between 2002 and 2007 than any of the rest of us.

You lefties keep trying to spin this issue.
The fact is those who work hard, work smart have great ideas and are willing to take risks ARE earning more. That is a cold hard fact of life.
"Redistribution" is a deliberate act. Essentially it is the act of taking.
Higher earners are not taking from anyone.
If one could place ten people in a room from all levels of income with the person with the highest, take $900k of his $1million and give each of the other 9 people $100k, eventually the person who had the million would find a way to earn another $1 million while the poorest of the people in the group would most likely end up squandering the $100k and end up with nothing.
It is not possible to make a poor person rich by simply giving them money. Eventually, a poor person will end up being poor.

 

[thereisnospoon]

.

Can someone provide some actual figures here?

What, precisely, did Obama say that has some folks so upset? We already have redistribution. So at what point does something become redistribution if it already exists?

.

No we do not. We have taxation.
Far off from redistribution.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"redistribution" is entirely required for a "free enterprise" system, we knew that in the fifties and sixties and our economy flourished, only after Reagan came to power busted up the unions, which were a big part of keeping things balanced, and we embarked on this death spin of wealth concentration which will kill the nation if we do nothing to stop it, it really is just math, an unbalanced system cannot continue it will spin apart like an unbalanced motor.

When unions are mentioned, credibility goes right out the window.
Unions destroyed themselves through an archaic and now failing business model.

 

[Immanuel]

The reason this isn't getting coverage is because:

1. It happened 15 years ago.
2. It's not even remotely controversial outside of wingnutta.

And how long ago was the incident where Romney alledgedly cut the hair of a classmate? How many weeks did we have to listen to the LWM tell us how evil Romney was for a childhood prank?

Immie

 

[Mac1958]

.

Can someone provide some actual figures here?

What, precisely, did Obama say that has some folks so upset? We already have redistribution. So at what point does something become redistribution if it already exists?

.

No we do not. We have taxation.
Far off from redistribution.

How do you define "redistribution"?

.

 

[regent]

Every nation redistributes its wealth. Can anyone name a country that doesn't redistrubte its wealth? In fact, many economic textbooks list redistribution of wealth as one the functions of government. How a nation redistributes its wealth is a responsibility of its economic system, government policies and economic conditions. England was heavy into the new world's economic system and as soon as the ink was dry on our new Constitution the government was involved in the new economy, at first helping business, then regulating business and in the Great Depression helping people. "Redistibution of Wealth" has now become a code word for the helping of people not business.

The USA!

Please list the Economic Text Books that list redistribution of wealth as a function of government. Can you tell me where it is stated in our Constitution?

I am waiting for your answers.

Happy to oblige. The book is Economics by Campbell R. McConnell and the page number in the sixth edition is 102. The preface has a long list of reviews by other economists and I would suspect it is an econ 101 textbook, and apparently McConnell is teaching or was teaching at the University of Nebraska when he wrote the sixth edition.
It does not have to be stated in the Constitution to be constitutional.
Now the question for you, can you name a nation that does not redistribute the wealth. The next question is pretty obvious pot but I will wait for your answer before asking.

 

[thereisnospoon]

.

Can someone provide some actual figures here?

What, precisely, did Obama say that has some folks so upset? We already have redistribution. So at what point does something become redistribution if it already exists?

.

No we do not. We have taxation.
Far off from redistribution.

How do you define "redistribution"?

.

The taking of funds from the producer under threat of government sanctions for no other reason than to enrich the non -producer.
Taxation for the funding of essential functions of government is just that, Taxation.
The left supports the taking of money from those who they view as having too much, "hoarding" of their money( I would assume this means not giving it to THEM) or just because driving by a large home just bugs the shit out of them
Liberals do not believe high pay is earned. Unless it was paid to some Hollywood elitist.
Liberals view wealth and success as criminal. They get so angry when they see wealth, they spit chewed up nails.
Taxation is not redistribution. An example would be when person A is told they must surrender part of their assets to Person B because he is unskilled and cannot acquire the skills to earn a higher wage. Therefore the one with the know how and skills is being punished. That is redistribution.

 

[regent]

No we do not. We have taxation.
Far off from redistribution.

How do you define "redistribution"?

.

The taking of funds from the producer under threat of government sanctions for no other reason than to enrich the non -producer.
Taxation for the funding of essential functions of government is just that, Taxation.
The left supports the taking of money from those who they view as having too much, "hoarding" of their money( I would assume this means not giving it to THEM) or just because driving by a large home just bugs the shit out of them
Liberals do not believe high pay is earned. Unless it was paid to some Hollywood elitist.
Liberals view wealth and success as criminal. They get so angry when they see wealth, they spit chewed up nails.
Taxation is not redistribution. An example would be when person A is told they must surrender part of their assets to Person B because he is unskilled and cannot acquire the skills to earn a higher wage. Therefore the one with the know how and skills is being punished. That is redistribution.

Another economic textbook with reference to redistribution: American Economic History by Jonathan Hughes:
"When the existing states elected their first president and launched a new form of government in 1789, they did not seem to recognize a dynamic interpretation of their new constitution could make the law an instrument for the redistribution of wealth and income."

 

[thereisnospoon]

Every nation redistributes its wealth. Can anyone name a country that doesn't redistrubte its wealth? In fact, many economic textbooks list redistribution of wealth as one the functions of government. How a nation redistributes its wealth is a responsibility of its economic system, government policies and economic conditions. England was heavy into the new world's economic system and as soon as the ink was dry on our new Constitution the government was involved in the new economy, at first helping business, then regulating business and in the Great Depression helping people. "Redistibution of Wealth" has now become a code word for the helping of people not business.

The USA!

Please list the Economic Text Books that list redistribution of wealth as a function of government. Can you tell me where it is stated in our Constitution?

I am waiting for your answers.

Happy to oblige. The book is Economics by Campbell R. McConnell and the page number in the sixth edition is 102. The preface has a long list of reviews by other economists and I would suspect it is an econ 101 textbook, and apparently McConnell is teaching or was teaching at the University of Nebraska when he wrote the sixth edition.
It does not have to be stated in the Constitution to be constitutional.
Now the question for you, can you name a nation that does not redistribute the wealth. The next question is pretty obvious pot but I will wait for your answer before asking.

You are twisting words to suit your own needs. It doesn't work that way.
You don't get to create your own reality. Well you may, but it doesn't make it so.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How do you define "redistribution"?

.

The taking of funds from the producer under threat of government sanctions for no other reason than to enrich the non -producer.
Taxation for the funding of essential functions of government is just that, Taxation.
The left supports the taking of money from those who they view as having too much, "hoarding" of their money( I would assume this means not giving it to THEM) or just because driving by a large home just bugs the shit out of them
Liberals do not believe high pay is earned. Unless it was paid to some Hollywood elitist.
Liberals view wealth and success as criminal. They get so angry when they see wealth, they spit chewed up nails.
Taxation is not redistribution. An example would be when person A is told they must surrender part of their assets to Person B because he is unskilled and cannot acquire the skills to earn a higher wage. Therefore the one with the know how and skills is being punished. That is redistribution.

Another economic textbook with reference to redistribution: American Economic History by Jonathan Hughes:
"When the existing states elected their first president and launched a new form of government in 1789, they did not seem to recognize a dynamic interpretation of their new constitution could make the law an instrument for the redistribution of wealth and income."

The operative is "could"..That does not mean "do".. And just because some guy wrote a textbook, does not make what he wrote any more important than what is in his opinion.
One of the posters on your side stated the "purpose of government is to redistribute wealth.".....That is not accurate nor is it true.
Look, the majority of wage earners want to keep as much of what they worked for.
That in and of itself makes redistribution a political impossibility.
So you lefties can just shut up about it. Because it isn't going to happen.
Oh and if wish, you can try to take it by force. My response, Come get ya some.
It is sickening how you people can believe you are entitled to the fruits of other's labor.
Go earn your own money.

 

[Mac1958]

No we do not. We have taxation.
Far off from redistribution.

How do you define "redistribution"?

.

The taking of funds from the producer under threat of government sanctions for no other reason than to enrich the non -producer.
Taxation for the funding of essential functions of government is just that, Taxation.
The left supports the taking of money from those who they view as having too much, "hoarding" of their money( I would assume this means not giving it to THEM) or just because driving by a large home just bugs the shit out of them
Liberals do not believe high pay is earned. Unless it was paid to some Hollywood elitist.
Liberals view wealth and success as criminal. They get so angry when they see wealth, they spit chewed up nails.
Taxation is not redistribution. An example would be when person A is told they must surrender part of their assets to Person B because he is unskilled and cannot acquire the skills to earn a higher wage. Therefore the one with the know how and skills is being punished. That is redistribution.

I haven't heard any details on what Obama means by "redistribution", but I assume it simply means higher taxes on higher earners with the "benefits" (such as they are) going to lower earners. I don't think he means he wants to reach into the wallet of Person A and hand it to Person B.

That's why, unless you have heard otherwise, I think he's just talking about "fairer" taxation, not literal redistribution. And if I'm correct, it's just more of what has been happening for a long time.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How do you define "redistribution"?

.

The taking of funds from the producer under threat of government sanctions for no other reason than to enrich the non -producer.
Taxation for the funding of essential functions of government is just that, Taxation.
The left supports the taking of money from those who they view as having too much, "hoarding" of their money( I would assume this means not giving it to THEM) or just because driving by a large home just bugs the shit out of them
Liberals do not believe high pay is earned. Unless it was paid to some Hollywood elitist.
Liberals view wealth and success as criminal. They get so angry when they see wealth, they spit chewed up nails.
Taxation is not redistribution. An example would be when person A is told they must surrender part of their assets to Person B because he is unskilled and cannot acquire the skills to earn a higher wage. Therefore the one with the know how and skills is being punished. That is redistribution.

I haven't heard any details on what Obama means by "redistribution", but I assume it simply means higher taxes on higher earners with the "benefits" (such as they are) going to lower earners. I don't think he means he wants to reach into the wallet of Person A and hand it to Person B.

That's why, unless you have heard otherwise, I think he's just talking about "fairer" taxation, not literal redistribution. And if I'm correct, it's just more of what has been happening for a long time.

.

Once again...For the essential functions of government to be funded taxation is used to that end. To level an imaginary playing field by transfer of wealth is redistribution.

 

[regent]

So far, no one has named a country that does not redistribute its wealth? Are we to assume then that all nations have a system for redistributing wealth?
Other questions: is redistributing wealth the same as redistributing income?
Has America always redistributed its wealth?
Are governments usually involved in the nation's redistribution system?
Are there different systems for redistributing wealth?

 

[ilia25]

The taking of funds from the producer under threat of government sanctions for no other reason than to enrich the non -producer.
Taxation for the funding of essential functions of government is just that, Taxation.
The left supports the taking of money from those who they view as having too much, "hoarding" of their money( I would assume this means not giving it to THEM) or just because driving by a large home just bugs the shit out of them
Liberals do not believe high pay is earned. Unless it was paid to some Hollywood elitist.
Liberals view wealth and success as criminal. They get so angry when they see wealth, they spit chewed up nails.
Taxation is not redistribution. An example would be when person A is told they must surrender part of their assets to Person B because he is unskilled and cannot acquire the skills to earn a higher wage. Therefore the one with the know how and skills is being punished. That is redistribution.

I haven't heard any details on what Obama means by "redistribution", but I assume it simply means higher taxes on higher earners with the "benefits" (such as they are) going to lower earners. I don't think he means he wants to reach into the wallet of Person A and hand it to Person B.

That's why, unless you have heard otherwise, I think he's just talking about "fairer" taxation, not literal redistribution. And if I'm correct, it's just more of what has been happening for a long time.

.

Once again...For the essential functions of government to be funded taxation is used to that end. To level an imaginary playing field by transfer of wealth is redistribution.

Would you please stop posting that nonsense? Taxation IS redistribution. One person pays millions in income tax so some others don't to have to pay anything and instead get Social Security checks and free Medicare. If that is not wealth redistribution, what is?

And this is what Obama and any other sane person would mean when they say "redistribution". Whether you like it, or not.

 

[Londoner]

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution" - YouTube

Yep...

And if the "Free Press" didn't agree with it, they would be Brutalizing him with it like they are Romney right now over the 47% tape...

Son, you need to widen your optic and approach this issue from a place outside the Rightwing message system.

Our system has been redistributing money to the wealthy from day one. Do you understand the point of lobbying? It is to get subsidies, bailouts, and tax free access to infrastructure.

Research how commercial aviation was launched. Research Boeing. Research the pure redistribution from the taxpayer into the hands of private profit makers. Or, research the patent system, which allows corporations to get monopoly protection so as to avoid being disciplined by market competition.

My young naive son. Research the way the state of California awarded monopolies to their too largest cable/internet providers Cox and Charter. There is not one city in California where these companies are forced to compete directly. You know why Charter and Cox don't want to compete Son? Because the market would force them to offer lower prices and better service to retain market share. Competition benefits the consumer but corporations hate it - because they can't raise rates on consumers who have other options.

Do know what large corporations like Cox and Charter do son? They pour money into government so they can divide the state into fixed no-competes - same with health care. This allows them to raise rates and cut service without fear of losing customers.

By eliminating market competition, government helps corporations redistribute money from poor consumers to shareholders.

Research the 2003 GOP Drug Bill, specifically what Eli Lilly did to eliminate drug competition so that it could get a no-bid, soak-the-taxpayer access to medicare drug distribution.

Research how many health care providers exist in the state of Iowa. Research how much money was paid to make this happen.

Corporations - the private sector - lobbies Washington in order to get rid of competition. This enlarges their market share and increases the payout to investors. But it does something else son. It redistributes money from captive consumers to the artificially rigged monopolies.

Or what about when the government gives tax breaks to corporations who ship jobs overseas? These corporations depend on government services, specifically the Pentagon, which protects their supply chains and trade routes. Who do you think subsidizes the stabilization of dangerous parts of the "developing" world where corporations get their sweatshop labor and raw material? Answer: the public. It's called redistribution.

Study the US patent system, which is the most monopoly friendly in the world. Research who pays to maintain it. Then research what a patent means to a company, specifically the way it gets rid of competition and transfers money from captive consumers to shareholders. It's called redistribution son.

Son, research the military Keynesianism that ended the great depression. The government put the nation to work building war materials. Then when the war ended, the industrial infrastructure was handed to the private sector. Research government subsidies and government funded research inside computer/internet/biotechnology. Research how the technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA budgets fueled the 80s consumer electronics revolutions. Do you even know the kind of technology that was developed by the Pentagon and NASA? And do you know where that technology ended up?

Before you talk about redistribution you should realize that profit-makers have been standing on the shoulders of tax payers since the fucking beginning. They have received more redistribution than any two-bit welfare queen by an unimaginable factor. The point of being a large corporation is to go to Washington and lobby for access to the taxpayer's wallet. The point of the Reagan Revolution (which was so beautifully represented in Tom Delay's K Street) was to give corporations more efficient access to government welfare.

And let's not talk about the bailouts from Reagan's S&L's to Bush's meltdown. The USA has been reduced to an ATM for the recklessness of elite investors. Corporations, the private sector, John Galt, has been bailed out to the tune of trillions more than any collection of welfare queens.

Government has redistributed trillions to the private sector. You need to include this in your thinking, otherwise it seems like your information came directly from the Republican Party. There is such a big world out there. It's way more complex than you've been lead to believe.