"Redistribution of Wealth"

1journeyman

Active Member
I rarely, rarely ever start a thread, but this caught my attention. Senator Obama, speaking about redistribution of wealth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
Transcript here:http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2116149/posts
In part he says "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf
. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
"
So is that the "change" he is always talking about?
Listen to the interview or read the transcript...
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
If I understood the transcript correctly, Obama says that redistribution of wealth is more of a legislative than a judicial issue, which is true. The question that vexes us all is just how far should this redistribution go? It is the nature of government to redistribute some wealth. After all, what are police and armies but a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who serve to secure the security of the community. Same with schools, garbage collection, etc. A government can go further and share the wealth by supporting health care, libraries, parks, etc. It is all a redistribution of wealth. And, I suspect that you and I, Journey, are going to disagree on the extent of redistribution, but how can we disagree on the concept. You make your living through the redistribution of citizen wealth, and my career is dependent on winning research grants, which are also a result of redistribution of collected funds.
 

wattsupdoc

Active Member
You make your living through the redistribution of citizen wealth, and my career is dependent on winning research grants, which are also a result of redistribution of collected funds.
This is weak if your comparing this to Obamas social plan. The fact is Obama wants to take from the rich and give to the poor. Looks like Jesus has come back as Robin Hood. Only he's from Hollywood this time. So he's going to TAKE the rich's money, realise they're not willingly giving it, OR getting anything in return for it, they must just give it. Then some sap who sets on their butt, not doing anything, and making a baby every nine months, crying because they've been "oppressed", gets a check to go spend on crack. And then gets 500 from Biden for having the baby.........
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
I think P. Diddy, Sean “PUffy” Combs got it right, but named the wrong person.Be afraid ,be very,very afraid.Redistribution of wealth goes against everything this country stands for.A person who works hard saves his money ,grows his/her business ,and then starts to make a good and decent life for him/herself and family will have to turn around and share the fruits of there labor with those who may be lazy or unwilling to work hard for one of the promises of this country.I really hope that come Nov.4th ,the people of this country see that this is not only fundamentally wrong,but it may very well be catastrophically devastating,sending us down a path than may be irreversible with anything short of a uprising of the people.It seems to me that either 1.our elected representatives aren't listening to the people who voted them into office,ie Bailout that they passed,or 2. the people of this country want to do away with Capitalism and change to a form of Socialism.
I'm starting to see other red flags pop up as well"Fairness Doctrine".Its being suggested by some in congress that it should to be reinstated.
Another one is the Dem's. in my state of Illinois want to change our Illinois Constitution ,its up for a vote"Illinois Constitution Convention". And it funny that i haven't heard of this until last week.It almost slipped under the radar.But it really isn't being talked about at all in the media.Is it a start of a trend?I hope not,but I'm starting to get nervous.
 

spanko

Active Member
It has been said that the Generation X'ers are a group of whiney, everything is owed to me group. Could this be the future of socialism in our country as they become of voting age? And when I say age I don't mean 18, I mean of age where you really start to settle into your philosophy in life.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
They've practiced 'Redistribution of Wealth' here in Texas for years. The Edgewood School District is an economically poor district. They filed a lawsuit and won against the State Board of Education stating that their district was disadvantaged because it did not have the same 'expensive homes' in their district in which to pull property taxes from (We get taxed on our property based on the home's valuation, and part of those taxes, about 2/3rd's, are used to fund the School District which your home is located). So they used the Robin Hood principle and took a portion of all the 'rich' school districts taxes, and redistributed it to the poorer school districts in the state. This type of 'redistribution' was designed so that every child in the state had the same opportunity to obtain the same education as every other child in the state, regardless of where you lived. So this is an example of 'redistribution of wealth' at the state level.
So is this a good program because it benefits the education of all children in the state, regardless of their economic status, or is it an example of why we shouldn't allow the government to control how money is distributed between economic classes?
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2814186
They've practiced 'Redistribution of Wealth' here in Texas for years. The Edgewood School District is an economically poor district. They filed a lawsuit and won against the State Board of Education stating that their district was disadvantaged because it did not have the same 'expensive homes' in their district in which to pull property taxes from (We get taxed on our property based on the home's valuation, and part of those taxes, about 2/3rd's, are used to fund the School District which your home is located). So they used the Robin Hood principle and took a portion of all the 'rich' school districts taxes, and redistributed it to the poorer school districts in the state. This type of 'redistribution' was designed so that every child in the state had the same opportunity to obtain the same education as every other child in the state, regardless of where you lived. So this is an example of 'redistribution of wealth' at the state level.
So is this a good program because it benefits the education of all children in the state, regardless of their economic status, or is it an example of why we shouldn't allow the government to control how money is distributed between economic classes?
I think you have administering tax dollars fairly to basic government obligations confused with taking from from Joe and giving to Bob because Bob wont go to work and/or live within his means.Instead Bobs only job will be to sit by the mailbox and wait for his welfare check.
 

jdl

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2814186
They've practiced 'Redistribution of Wealth' here in Texas for years. The Edgewood School District is an economically poor district. They filed a lawsuit and won against the State Board of Education stating that their district was disadvantaged because it did not have the same 'expensive homes' in their district in which to pull property taxes from (We get taxed on our property based on the home's valuation, and part of those taxes, about 2/3rd's, are used to fund the School District which your home is located). So they used the Robin Hood principle and took a portion of all the 'rich' school districts taxes, and redistributed it to the poorer school districts in the state. This type of 'redistribution' was designed so that every child in the state had the same opportunity to obtain the same education as every other child in the state, regardless of where you lived. So this is an example of 'redistribution of wealth' at the state level.
So is this a good program because it benefits the education of all children in the state, regardless of their economic status, or is it an example of why we shouldn't allow the government to control how money is distributed between economic classes?
no this is a horrible program. How much school taxes do those that do not own property pay? ZERO. If you want equal % from all parties, remove property taxes, and Tax EVERYONE the same %.
Oh wait, this only works for liberals in regards to taxing income. But for property taxes, everything is fine???
 

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by JDL
http:///forum/post/2814199
no this is a horrible program. How much school taxes do those that do not own property pay? ZERO.
Of course they do, just not directly. They pay it as a portion of their rents. Taxes and other expenses are figured into the rents charged by landlords, they just aren't deductible as such by the tenants.
 

sigmachris

Active Member
Originally Posted by JDL
http:///forum/post/2814199
no this is a horrible program. How much school taxes do those that do not own property pay? ZERO. If you want equal % from all parties, remove property taxes, and Tax EVERYONE the same %.
Oh wait, this only works for liberals in regards to taxing income. But for property taxes, everything is fine???
That isn't entirely true...a landlord most likely builds property taxes into the rent. It wouldn't be a good business move to rent a property and not charge a rent that covers all expenses and a little profit.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/post/2814077
If I understood the transcript correctly, Obama says that redistribution of wealth is more of a legislative than a judicial issue, which is true. The question that vexes us all is just how far should this redistribution go? It is the nature of government to redistribute some wealth. After all, what are police and armies but a redistribution of money from those who have it to those who serve to secure the security of the community. Same with schools, garbage collection, etc. A government can go further and share the wealth by supporting health care, libraries, parks, etc. It is all a redistribution of wealth. And, I suspect that you and I, Journey, are going to disagree on the extent of redistribution, but how can we disagree on the concept. You make your living through the redistribution of citizen wealth, and my career is dependent on winning research grants, which are also a result of redistribution of collected funds.
I think Lamenting would be a better word.
And don't pull the argument that everything is redistribution of wealth. I'm sorry but an exchange of goods and services for a monitary unit is not redistribution of wealth.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2814195
I think you have administering tax dollars fairly to basic government obligations confused with taking from from Joe and giving to Bob because Bob wont go to work and/or live within his means.Instead Bobs only job will be to sit by the mailbox and wait for his welfare check.
How about if your "Bob" is a hard working individual who wants to get off welfare, but needs help for a few months to survive? That actually describes most of welfare recipients, since more than half of recipients are on welfare for 7 months or less. And how about the "Bob" who has a low paying job, but enough so he isn't on welfare, but his employer doesn't provide medical care? You pay one way or another, either by helping with insurance, or paying for emergency room visits. And while we are considering "Bob", how about his children, who attend a lousy school because the school district has little wealth? In short, don't automatically assume that all "Bobs" and "Bobettes" are sitting at the mailbox waiting for their welfare checks. Does it happen - sure! Is it common - not at all! Obama talks more about education and health care than welfare when he speaks of redistribution of wealth. I work at a University where 40% of the students come from families with extremely high needs (in NYC, that an income of about $24,000 for a family of 4), and neither they nor their families are sitting around waiting for welfare checks, but those Pell grants are the difference between a career in medicine, law, etc, or one in windshield cleaning at the tunnels. They live at the edge, and a minor illness may commit them to a life lost in poverty because they lack financial resources. the point I made in my first post is that government redistributes wealth all the time, and IMHO, redistributing some to help such people is a reasonable use of my tax dollars. In the long run, I will benefit by living in a society that is just, educated and vibrant. A good buy, IMHO.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2814237
And don't pull the argument that everything is redistribution of wealth. I'm sorry but an exchange of goods and services for a monitary unit is not redistribution of wealth.
Now you are modifying the definitions. If the wealth goes from a concentration to a wider distribution, that would be redistribution. Am I to assume then, that you agree with the tenets of Roosevelt's "New Deal" that put millions to work in the WPA? Wasn't that a redistribution of wealth to workers who exchanged their services (building parks, mowing lawns, painting scenes in post offices, etc) for money? I think we are closer together on this than you think - our difference is where to draw the line, not whether a line should be drawn.
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/post/2814239
How about if your "Bob" is a hard working individual who wants to get off welfare, but needs help for a few months to survive? That actually describes most of welfare recipients, since more than half of recipients are on welfare for 7 months or less. And how about the "Bob" who has a low paying job, but enough so he isn't on welfare, but his employer doesn't provide medical care? You pay one way or another, either by helping with insurance, or paying for emergency room visits. And while we are considering "Bob", how about his children, who attend a lousy school because the school district has little wealth? In short, don't automatically assume that all "Bobs" and "Bobettes" are sitting at the mailbox waiting for their welfare checks. Does it happen - sure! Is it common - not at all! Obama talks more about education and health care than welfare when he speaks of redistribution of wealth. I work at a University where 40% of the students come from families with extremely high needs (in NYC, that an income of about $24,000 for a family of 4), and neither they nor their families are sitting around waiting for welfare checks, but those Pell grants are the difference between a career in medicine, law, etc, or one in windshield cleaning at the tunnels. They live at the edge, and a minor illness may commit them to a life lost in poverty because they lack financial resources. the point I made in my first post is that government redistributes wealth all the time, and IMHO, redistributing some to help such people is a reasonable use of my tax dollars. In the long run, I will benefit by living in a society that is just, educated and vibrant. A good buy, IMHO.
How about BOB tries this. Work harder ,Take on a second job,Go back to school,Study hard.Community college if necessary.And make his own way in life instead of demanding this.
"The interview -- conducted by Chicago Public Radio while Obama was an Illinois state senator and University of Chicago law professor -- delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-election-results/
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2814239
How about if your "Bob" is a hard working individual who wants to get off welfare, but needs help for a few months to survive? That actually describes most of welfare recipients, since more than half of recipients are on welfare for 7 months or less. And how about the "Bob" who has a low paying job, but enough so he isn't on welfare, but his employer doesn't provide medical care? You pay one way or another, either by helping with insurance, or paying for emergency room visits. And while we are considering "Bob", how about his children, who attend a lousy school because the school district has little wealth? In short, don't automatically assume that all "Bobs" and "Bobettes" are sitting at the mailbox waiting for their welfare checks. Does it happen - sure! Is it common - not at all! Obama talks more about education and health care than welfare when he speaks of redistribution of wealth. I work at a University where 40% of the students come from families with extremely high needs (in NYC, that an income of about $24,000 for a family of 4), and neither they nor their families are sitting around waiting for welfare checks, but those Pell grants are the difference between a career in medicine, law, etc, or one in windshield cleaning at the tunnels. They live at the edge, and a minor illness may commit them to a life lost in poverty because they lack financial resources. the point I made in my first post is that government redistributes wealth all the time, and IMHO, redistributing some to help such people is a reasonable use of my tax dollars. In the long run, I will benefit by living in a society that is just, educated and vibrant. A good buy, IMHO.
Don't muddle the discussion redirecting it to people with true needs. They already have this, proof being the college you teach at.
The real problem is that Obama and the leftist/marxist philosophy that he espouses isn't out to help the one person who got delt a doyl brunson.
He is out there trying to emulate a system that doesn't work. All you have to do economically is examine some of the "socialist democracies" in europe. Compare it to key economic statistics here. These plans/policies haven't and don't work.
Capitalism is a dog eat dog world, and although it is counter intuitive, it is the best way for us as a whole to better our lives and our country.
 

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2814064
So is that the "change" he is always talking about?

OK buddy, look at it from another angle. Remember High school? Wouldn't it be great if everyone in your school graduated?
This is how you do it;
Remember the kids that study all night for exams, write out all the homework, always have their papers done on time, and read the WHOLE book!?
Basically the people that destroy the bell curve by scoring 100% on the exams?
Well, you only need a 70% to pass so they don't really NEED all those extra points. We can take 20 or 25 points from them and give the points to the kids that partied all night
and blew off the homework so they could play video games or spray paint bridges. These poor kids only got 60% or 65% on the exam! So we take a few points from the show-offs and give them to the partiers and EVERYONE passes!!! Isn't it great?

I mean think about it, don't you WANT everyone to pass?
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2814247
Now you are modifying the definitions. If the wealth goes from a concentration to a wider distribution, that would be redistribution. Am I to assume then, that you agree with the tenets of Roosevelt's "New Deal" that put millions to work in the WPA? Wasn't that a redistribution of wealth to workers who exchanged their services (building parks, mowing lawns, painting scenes in post offices, etc) for money? I think we are closer together on this than you think - our difference is where to draw the line, not whether a line should be drawn.
I'm not the ones changing definitions here. Distribute by definition doesn't incorporate an exchange in its definition. It does imply a one way transfer of. If you go look it up it uses equally one way words like dole out, dispense, allotment. So to answer your question, no I don't think that we are discussion the same thing. You know and I know when obama says "spread the wealth around" he isn't talking about supply side economics. As can clearly been seen by his bottom-up approach for economic growth.
Using your inacurate definition sure that is the ultimate goal. For poor people to not be poor anymore. But using the word distribute implies a one way transfer dispensing based on need.
From an economic standpoint the KEY difference between the redistribution that obama speaks of and a capitalist supply side system, is sustainability. The Free-rider issue is the dealbreaker challenge to redistributionary type governments. The problem is people are going to chose the path of least difficulty. Something that capitalism addresses (fine go hungery) while socialism and other redistributionary governments have not. This results in an eventual market failure and government failure. There may be an equalibrium where the government owns major producers like eads, and use seniorage/ high taxation to keep the ineficcient giants like EADS afloat, which (imo) I think Europe has reached. But their standard of living as a whole is much lower than ours. (which is what we were trying to improve in the first place)
And no I don't think FDR's work program is redistribution in the pure sense of the word. (after all seniorage funded most of those programs anyways)
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2814276
OK buddy, look at it from another angle. Remember High school? Wouldn't it be great if everyone in your school graduated?
This is how you do it;
Remember the kids that study all night for exams, write out all the homework, always have their papers done on time, and read the WHOLE book!?
Basically the people that destroy the bell curve by scoring 100% on the exams?
Well, you only need a 70% to pass so they don't really NEED all those extra points. We can take 20 or 25 points from them and give the points to the kids that partied all night
and blew off the homework so they could play video games or spray paint bridges. These poor kids only got 60% or 65% on the exam! So we take a few points from the show-offs and give them to the partiers and EVERYONE passes!!! Isn't it great?

I mean think about it, don't you WANT everyone to pass?

LOL I was one of the second group but still ruined the bell curve...
 

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2814289
From an economic standpoint the KEY difference between the redistribution that obama speaks of and a capitalist supply side system, is sustainability.
Capitalism does not equal supply side economics. Its a recent phenomenon, and even Alan Greenspan admitted that he was wrong for believing only in the one theory.
 

sickboy

Active Member
Ya know...you guys keep saying the word socialism like we are stupid enough to be swayed by this argument. It isn't the cold war anymore!
What is the main difference between socialism and capitalism? Private property. Has anyone said your house was going to become gov't property??
Also, stdreb, I would like to see some of this data that shows the European economies aren't as good as ours. I'm pretty sure their currency was kicking our butt until recently. And Europe isn't "socialist," but so many like to call it this b/c our economic philosophy has become "supply side or its socialism". Were we socialist between 92-2000? And did it hurt our economy? No.
And another thing, there are lifetime limits on welfare, so the idea that people make a living by collecting your money is absurd. We also have the shortest unemployment insurance program....
 
Top