Obama's "redistribution of wealth"

Am i the only one, that realizes that those, exact words, which Obama has said multiple times, yes I have quotes. Are we turning into socialists? If so, the day that happens, the stock market will fail as most major investors will most likely pull out. Check this out, another 800 million the taxpayers will have to pay to combat "poverty" in the world.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/oba...edistribution/

Seriously, why should we try to fix things in other countries, when we have a crap load of poverty over here.
Also what is with social progressive's labeled rapists as people with a disease. They give them treatment instead of jail time. The only treatment a man that can rape a 6 year old girl needs is a bullet in his head.
So this might be a little rant, but I just see no logic in any of these views.

I'm also sure all the political figures will find away around paying. I will pay just as Ms. Pelosi does.

News Flash: All economics is a redistribution of wealth.

Meh - take it with a grain of salt. Best to stick with unbiased media.

There is a diffenence in taxing to pay for things like the Military and Schools, and taxing to make things "fair".

Money "taken" for legitimate government services that provide equally to all, i.e. military defends all americans, not just reds or blues, is not redistrobution is the sense that it stays in the government. Money taken because you, individually, make too much and given to another individual citizen just to be "fair" is redistribution. That "poor" person does not provide a service to all americans for the extra wealth he is handed by the government (other than making us "feel" better about ourselves)..... jmoc

Anyone else noticing how the Obama "Rich" has gone from $250,000, to last night's infomercial of $200,000 to Joe Biden's $150,000. I'm getting richer by the moment, and Obama's not even been elected yet... jmoc

Define: "unbiased media." Is that even possible?

Yes, and the only network I've seen them mention it is FOX. Wonder why none of the others have said anything about it? To be fair though, I don't watch the others, so they MAY have. But I somehow doubt it.

There is a difference between paying for goods or services that one desires and using force (government) to take money from one person and dole it out to others who have less because it is deemed "fair". Sure, wealth is redistributed in both cases, but only one method promotes a truly healthy economy.

Yes you're right. There is a difference between direct distribution from taxation (i.e., military and infrastructure) and indirect distribution from taxation (i.e., welfare and social programs). However a great majority of taxation goes to indirect distribution. These are programs that only have the potential of directly being utilized by the individual taxpayer (i.e., Joe the Plumber). Even taxing for schools, is indirect in such sense because you may not have a kid going to school, or you choose private education. However, it does not mean that you do not benefit from it. Having a stable society, which many of these social programs are rooted to promote (hopefully), will directly impact every citizen. Our society is not one that your social standing, life decisions, and economic status, will wholly influence your future outcome. If that were to be true, then yes, these indirect distributive programs are truly unfair. We have a mutualistic relationship with each other.

Perhaps the dispute is an interpretive difference with "equality". Some focus on compensatory equality, while others want an egalitarian equality. It just comes down to how much meritocracy you want in society.

Yes it is however until January 20, 2009 that will mean we get something of value for redistributing our wealth. After that I'm not so sure.

If trickle down economics hasnt worked recently, How can you say that it is the only method to produce a healthy economy?

Anyone who has done their research knows that the marginal tax rates under Obama's plan are pretty much equal to those under Clinton. Were we a socialist country then? No.

This usually comes up in these arguments so what about people who don't pay income tax receiving a check? Yeah, it's called the Earned Income Tax Credit, and we've been doing it for decades.

If you are $150k you are still easily in the top 10% of earners in the United States for family income. Statistics are available every year based on income tax returns for houshold income. Consider US population is approx 305 million, 10% is still 30 million people making over $150k per year. Given the geographic tendencies in the United States, if you make that much money you probably know a lot of other people that make that much or more. -E

Just curious, is there a particular reason why you are undecided? What issues are most important to you?

Bar Stool Economics!
>
> I don't know if you've seen this or not, but it is good!
> BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
>Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
> comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
> would go something like this:
>
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
>
> The fifth would pay $1.
>
> The sixth would pay $3.
>
> The seventh would pay $7.
>
> The eighth would pay $12.
>
> The ninth would pay $18.
>
> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>
> So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day
> and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
> threw
> them a curve.
>
> "Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the
> cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."
>
> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
> first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
>
> But what about the other six men; the paying customers?
>
> How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
> 'fair
> share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
> subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth
> man
>
> would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
> suggested
> that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same
> amount,
> and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.!
>
> And so:
> The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
> savings).
>
> The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
>
> The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
>
> The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
>
> The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
>
> The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
>
> Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
> to
>
> drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
> their savings.
>
> 'I only got a dollar out of the $20, 'declared the sixth man. He pointed
> to
>
> the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
>
> 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar,
> too.
>
> It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
>
> 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when
> I
> < BR>> got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'*
>
> 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
> anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
>
> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
>
> The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
> down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
> they
> discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all
> of
>
> them for even half of the bill!
>
> And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
> tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
> benefit
> from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy,
> and
> they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking
> overseas where the atmosphere i s somewhat friendlier.
>
> David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
> Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
>
>
> For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
>
> For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
>

and if that one doesn't do it for you try this,

My Decision 08

I'm voting Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and
I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers
and thieves.

I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry
whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a
gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of
gas at 15% isn't.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better
job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody
is offended by it.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the
bad guys will stop what they're doing because they will then know we'r e
really good people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if
it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt
away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of
millions of unborns so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be
allowed to make profits for themselves They need to break even and give
the rest away to the government for redistribution as IT sees fit.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the
Constitution every few days to suit the liberal fringe kooks who would
NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I'm voting Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my @#% it's
unlikely that I'll ever have another poin t of view.

'A Liberal is a person who will gladly give away anything they don't
own.'

I have posted the same general thing, but it was attributed to Neal Boortz and was titled, "Daschle's Diner" prior to the 2000 elections. I liked that one a little better because it quotes Marx in a roundabout way:

http://freedomkeys.com/diner.htm .