Thread: Redistribution of Wealth

Obama said it, sure sure. People have been harping on that since then. But let me ask this, what does it mean exactly?

Is redistribution the same as my tax dollars going to General Government, the Military, Physical and Human Resources, and in specifics, road construction, Iraq, social security, etc?

I suppose we should have specifics about this. People have gone hand over fist to show his statement as a bad thing, even McCain and Palin have mentioned it in their argument against Obama, but the truth is; the wealth is already redistributed.

Would it be bad if someone redistributed this wealth back down to the middle class instead of banks, military might, and those who sit at the head of the conference table?

Originally Posted by johnflesh

Obama said it, sure sure. People have been harping on that since then. But let me ask this, what does it mean exactly?

Is redistribution the same as my tax dollars going to General Government, the Military, Physical and Human Resources, and in specifics, road construction, Iraq, social security, etc?

I suppose we should have specifics about this. People have gone hand over fist to show his statement as a bad thing, even McCain and Palin have mentioned it in their argument against Obama, but the truth is; the wealth is already redistributed.

Would it be bad if someone redistributed this wealth back down to the middle class instead of banks, military might, and those who sit at the head of the conference table?

Good questions! And having just watched last night's rerun of "The Colbert Report" I have been inspired by the notion that roads and hospitals and museums are all wealth redistribution.

AND we just redistributed $700 billion to bankers, right?

Not to mention Iraq.

Originally Posted by Davocrat

Good questions! And having just watched last night's rerun of "The Colbert Report" I have been inspired by the notion that roads and hospitals and museums are all wealth redistribution.

AND we just redistributed $700 billion to bankers, right?

Its pretty crazy that Colbert, he actually gave me insight instead of laughs. That is where this thread came from, he made a great point.

Originally Posted by Davocrat

Good questions! And having just watched last night's rerun of "The Colbert Report" I have been inspired by the notion that roads and hospitals and museums are all wealth redistribution.

AND we just redistributed $700 billion to bankers, right?

Of Course! Wealth is redistributed every time you buy a soda. The financial elite are not nearly as terrified of someone taking away their fortunes as they are someone redistributing their influence. The "old money" as it is referred to (like there was such a thing indigenous to America) is not in any danger of no longer being rich. The point of contention with the top 1% isn't money. It is the influence associated with it. It is not how many dollars are in your pocket, the money will always be there. It is who is in your pocket. The idea of an administration that does not put the first families first is insinuating that they are no more important than anyone else. This does not sit well.

Originally Posted by dbelkau

The idea of an administration that does noy put the first families first is insinuating that they are no more important than anyone else. This does not sit well.

Finally! Obama gets a point for that alone. Not worth a vote but hey, credit is due.

They aren't any more important than anyone else, unless they perfected walking on water, can fly, and can avoid death.

Wait a minute, you guys come here and praise the merits of Obama's, and liberal in general, economic and tax policies and slam McCains and Bush's, and conservative in general and don't understand the basic economic principle of wealth redistribution?

It's not something new and never before engaged in by a governments, whose economies eventually fail and the people have far less freedom and liberty.

Originally Posted by Stinger

Wait a minute, you guys come here and praise the merits of Obama's, and liberal in general, economic and tax policies and slam McCains and Bush's, and conservative in general and don't understand the basic economic principle of wealth redistribution?

It's not something new and never before engaged in by a governments, whose economies eventually fail and the people have far less freedom and liberty.

Like England? The Pound still has far more power than the Buck.

Even Adam Smith gave a nod to redistribution in the form of promoting the general welfare.

At the end of the day, I guess we'll see how far the average 401K has to shrink before erstwhile hardcore "hands-off business" folks start sheepishly asking for just a TEENY WEENY LITTLE BITTY BIT of socialism in America...