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%.

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"thereisnospoon" 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.

Perhaps "thereisnospoon" would care to explain how 66% of the total income gains generated in America between 2002 to 2007 went into the pockets of the top 1%. Even if it was possible for such a small select group to work 24/7/365, there aren't enough hours in the day to work that smart and that hard to justify 1% earning 2/3 of all the income gains during that period.

Footnote: Unlike Barack Obama, Mitt Romney was born with a "silver spoon in his mouth." What evidence can "thereisnospoon" provide to show that Mitt worked harder, longer, had more "great ideas" and was "willing to take risks" more than millions of other Americans?

What about the hundreds of thousands of young Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan facing more risks in a single day than Mitt Romney will see in a lifetime - did they come home feeling they were entitled to 66% of all the income gains generated in America over the last 5 years?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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."

 

[ilia25]

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.

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!

 

[jgarden]

Forbes Thought Of The Day

“ When a man tells you he got rich through hard work, ask him: Whose? ”

— Don Marquis

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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. Your claim is idiotic.
Taxation or in the case above, a purchase...Is a contract. The power company provides power to my home provided I pay them for that service.
The government provides a police department provided all of the property owners in the town pay for it.
Redistribution....I hand money over to a another party. I get NOTHING in return.
You are incorrect. I am correct. Obama said what he said and meant it. The man in a socialist central planner.
The fact is Obama was never vetted, did not have nearly enough experience to handle the job has never worked in the private sector, knows nothing of business and economics.
Obama got elected by a bunch of shit scared self hating white suburban moderates who are now paying dearly for their mistake. Many of them are jobless. Many more have lost 10 years of equity in their homes. This is a direct result of Obama's policies.
What are the chances of those same white suburban moderates being once again being guilted into "voting for the black guy because it's fashionable"?
No, it is my thinking people will be voting with their wallets in November.
In 2008 we had a popularity contest. In 2012 we're deciding the very survival of the nation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Forbes Thought Of The Day

“ When a man tells you he got rich through hard work, ask him: Whose? ”

— Don Marquis

What's your point? And who the fuck cares what Don Marquis has to say.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Okay, what vehicle is used to obtain the funds that are redistributed?

From where are the redistributed dollars derived?

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You're an arrogant son of a bitch, sir.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Okay, what vehicle is used to obtain the funds that are redistributed?

From where are the redistributed dollars derived?

.

They are not redistributed. Nice try at a a trap question, BTW.
We get a TAX BILL from our local government and we pay the BILL. Or in lieu of a bill from the state and /or federal government we are TAXED on pay day via an automatic deduction.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Okay, what vehicle is used to obtain the funds that are redistributed?

From where are the redistributed dollars derived?

.

They are not redistributed. Nice try at a a trap question, BTW.
We get a TAX BILL from our local government and we pay the BILL. Or in lieu of a bill from the state and /or federal government we are TAXED on pay day via an automatic deduction.

You're just avoiding the obvious. In order for funds to be redistributed, they must first come from taxation. Therefore, the question is the level at which people are taxed to provide funding for spending. The next question is how and to where the funds are spent.

I honestly don't know you need to avoid this, I assume your reason is political.

Jeez, just be honest. You won't melt. Funds for "redistribution" come from taxation.

.

 

[G.T.]

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.

 

[mal]

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.

It's about how far it is going to go one way or the other G.T.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

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.

It's about how far it is going to go one way or the other G.T.



peace...

Not in the quote in the video it isn't.

 

[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.

.

 

[Katzndogz]

At least obama is consistent. He believed in redistribution 14 years ago and believes it now. What makes democrats the Keystone Kops is the consistency of obama's positions are old news, but what Romney did in high school is a breaking scandal.

 

[mal]

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.

It's about how far it is going to go one way or the other G.T.



peace...

Not in the quote in the video it isn't.

It's the Unknown about Obama that Concerns so many...

The People has Chosen to Associate with, be it Bill Ayers or other less Activist Marxists...

And the Pronounced LACK of Info on the guy pre-Illinios Senate.

So not Knowing just what he means by Redistribution has some people a little Concerned.

If the "Free Press" wasn't Voting for him, they'd be Concerned also.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

It's about how far it is going to go one way or the other G.T.



peace...

Not in the quote in the video it isn't.

It's the Unknown about Obama that Concerns so many...

The People has Chosen to Associate with, be it Bill Ayers or other less Activist Marxists...

And the Pronounced LACK of Info on the guy pre-Illinios Senate.

So not Knowing just what he means by Redistribution has some people a little Concerned.

If the "Free Press" wasn't Voting for him, they'd be Concerned also.



peace...

faux concern.

didn't you donate to Obama?>

oh wow.

 

[mal]

Not in the quote in the video it isn't.

It's the Unknown about Obama that Concerns so many...

The People has Chosen to Associate with, be it Bill Ayers or other less Activist Marxists...

And the Pronounced LACK of Info on the guy pre-Illinios Senate.

So not Knowing just what he means by Redistribution has some people a little Concerned.

If the "Free Press" wasn't Voting for him, they'd be Concerned also.



peace...

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...

 

[G.T.]

It's the Unknown about Obama that Concerns so many...

The People has Chosen to Associate with, be it Bill Ayers or other less Activist Marxists...

And the Pronounced LACK of Info on the guy pre-Illinios Senate.

So not Knowing just what he means by Redistribution has some people a little Concerned.

If the "Free Press" wasn't Voting for him, they'd be Concerned also.



peace...

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.

 

[regent]

Politicians have been coming up with these scare things from day one. Marx breathed air Obama breathes air what does that tell you about Obama? During my lifetime I have heard a number, and by this time I thought some political writer would have written a book about the use of fear in political campaigns.
Of course, Democrats have used them too, think of the little girl picking a flower, but we'll let the author of decide who did it the most. The real question is how effective are they, what types are most effective and why do they seem to work with so many? Republicans, at one time only trotted out their big guns of communism and socialism when things looked darkest, Alf Landon used them on Social Security in 1936 but that was during the Great Depression and people had some real fears then, so while old Alf gave it a nice try, the real fears took precedence and we have Social Security.