- Home
- Business & Marketing (839)
- Editorials (696)
- Entertainment (2037)
- Fashion (1035)
- Highbrid (189)
- Honeys (2883)
- Humor (955)
- Music (5234)
- Need to Know (2265)
- News (2133)
- Podcasts (4)
- Politics (15)
- ARCHIVE
Thursday, September 20, 2012 | 7:17am
SOUND OFF: Can Obama’s ‘Redistribution of Wealth’ Fix The Economy Despite Critisism Its Socialsim?
Does Obama’s equation really equal Marx?
Hoping to further distance himself from the poorly articulated 47% comments, Mitt Romney’s campaign has redirected the conversation to redistribution. In an attempt to paint President Obama as Socialist, the Romney camp went digging in the crates to exhume this 1998 tape depicting a very long-accepted US government policy as Marxist. The President, then and now wants to ensure “at least at a certain level, that everybody has a shot.” Does that mean the President is in favor of the radical seizure of wealth?
“Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth,” Paul Ryan said this week during a campaign stop in Virginia. “Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth.”
Now I know my comments are biased and I apologize but regardless the economy is broken. Obama’s plan to force, yes force, the wealthy to contribute a little more is valid. I’m of the opinion that this philosophy has been widely accepted by American government for forever. Its part of the ideal that is capitalism. No one is saying the rich should show up at the mission and start handing out dollar bills but whether its hiring incentive or tax, the money must be spent by those who have more of it. Isn’t that a basic mathmatical equation? Maybe I’m confused. SOUND OFF: Can Obama’s “Redistribution Of Wealth” be the answer to the U.S. Economy’s woes despite the Republican criticism that its Socialist?
FILED IN Need to Know, News
I suppose it depends on how you define ‘redistribution’. All taxes are a form of redistribution: taxpayers pay money to the government and they decide where to spend it.
.
But I also think that most rich taxpayers wouldn’t complain so much if it weren’t for the fact that the additional money they are having to pay is being so mismanaged. We can talk all we want about stimulus, and growing jobs and all of the other catch phrases, but every household in America knows that the way to get yourself out of debt is not to generate more debt.
.
As I have noted many times: if each American were required to go out to get a loan to pay off their share of the national debt, they would need to pay $800 per month for the next 30 years.
.
But back to your question: does redistribution of wealth work? No, not in the long run. It assumes that the only reason people aren’t succeeding is because they don’t have money to start with.
.
While yes, I would agree that being born rich makes it much easier to die rich, the ability to make money (in the long run) has very little to do with where you started as it does the type of person you are, your motives, your work ethic, and your brains.
.
If we were to take all of the wealth in this country and equally divide it up among all of our citizens, I believe that in less than 2 generations it would be right back where it started.
Much Agreed.
First thing; you cannot place on the same field, something that was said 14 years ago, to something that was said a couple of days ago. What was said in this video was said 14 years ago and is part of the thought process of then plain ole,1998, 37 year old, Barrack Obama. What Gov. Romney said was the thought process of a current day, 2012, 65 year old, Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. You can’t compare the two. I don’t think it is fair. I sure as ALL HELL would not want to be held accountable for ANYTHING that I said 14 years ago. Especially if you were relating to my present day or potential thought process and desision making capability.
.
Second thing; Socialism does not work. One, because the United States won’t allow it to work. But, more so, because it is structurally unsound. Look at Social Security, Union Pensions, Medicare, any system where the cost today is paid for with money saved up yesterday. The problem is noone can properly predict the cost of that good or service 10 years down the road, AAAAAAND, people can’t keep their money grubing hand out the huge, over filling pot of money, so a good portion is usually allocated and/or, and mostly, wasted on other things even less structurally unsound. I’ll bet governments have never swandered public service money to better education, but we always seem to have the best military hardware.
I disagree. To play devils’ advocate for a moment… if someone makes a nasty racist comment 14 years ago, do you give them a pass now?
14 years ago or not, if these were his beliefs, it’s fair game to discuss them.
The difference between you or I saying these things is that we’re not the President of the United States.
I wouldn’t give them a pass, per se, but I also would not totally assume that their mindset is still the same, just the type of person I am. But, as you said, it definitly would be up for discussion, especially in a political arena.
And my comments don’t even start to discuss the morality of wealth distribution.
.
I believe in charity, and I also believe that it is proper to help those less fortunate, but I don’t think it’s moral to force someone to do so at the point of a gun.
.
And who decides who the ‘haves’ and the ‘have not’s’ are? The same moral justification that allows you to take money from a rich person and give it to a poor person could also be used to justify someone breaking into your house at night and ‘redistributing’ your TV set. Using the same logic, could we not argue that the thief has a right to your TV, since his NEED for a TV holds greater moral weight than your DESIRE for a TV? Afterall, you bought a TV once, it’s only fair that you buy another.
.
The great mantra of the communists was always ‘to each according to his need, from each according to his ability’; but this phrase denies the existence of human nature. People will always ask for more than they need, and will always work below their ability. And they will do so even more when the system is designed to reward those who don’t produce, and punish those who do.
.
You want to turn the economy around, create millions of jobs and raise a majority of our population out of poverty and into the middle class? That’s easy… PAY OFF OUR DEBT.
.
I cannot understand how people believe that simple financial rules that are so obvious on an individual level are suddenly misunderstood on a national level.
No.
What he said is not as valid as what policies he has supported or has passed as President. If you hear Mitt and actually look at what he did do in Mass. Then you see two different People.
But My question is much like what has already been posed what is redistribution of wealth? If the poor are paying close to 37% of there money in taxes and the Rich are spending 15% then to me the wealth has been unfairly distributed in the first place. And by Percentage and loop hole closing would be the best way to change the tax code to be more fair. And I hear you now ” Then what will give incentives to create jobs?” I say demand of that product or service. The more demand for a product, the more people will have to hire, Period.
And yes people’s work ethic and craftiness have helped people get their wealth. But saying that everyone has the same chance if they are born in the Ghetto struggling to find food has the same chances as someone born in a rich Neighborhood. The schools aren’t even the same. So if they are both being taught different things as to what America is how can we say that they have the same chances?
How do i know this? Because i have seen it. When i lived in the Midwest everyone was taught how to be a COG and only learning those types of lessons (high School). When I asked the my class mate who was honor roll what did he want to grow up to be. he told me “To Work for P&G”. When i was in the Northeast and in 5th grade we where playing games of building countries and stock markets.
And yes like in most families there will some that will excel and others that will find ways to fail no matter what you do for them. The Rich are rich and good for them. I don’t want their money directly in my hand. But we are only as strong as our weakest link.
I like the clip because it states that Obama believed in equality back then, as I believe that he also still believes in equality to this very day. Yes, I believe that Obama’s “Redistriution Of Wealth” can fix the economy a little bit. PEACE!!!
Now I’m not trying to start trouble per say. But Mitt just acted a fool and insulted just about half of the country with his comment. And Mitt put his foot in his mouth when it came to the Terrorist attack in Libya disguised as out rage over a stupid film. And we are talking about the Obama redistribution tactic. Even though i think it is a good discussion I am just wondering with these type of big things happening why are we on the outskirts of it?
I mean a months ago we were talking about how Mitt was going to win but now we aren’t even really talking about him. Has it been a disillusion about what he really is or the fact that everyone found out and are now trying to figure out how to save face? I am not Bitching about the topic. Just that i was wondering if The President has made as many public Gaffs would we be talking it that rather than just a 14 year old clip?
I am not trying to cause trouble. But I am wondering.
http://news.investors.com/100212-627662-under-obama-poor-middle-class-incomes-fall-sharply.aspx