General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoly Crap, Obama tape talking about Redistribution! WTF was he thinking.....
He said......
"I actually believe in some redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
Well, he was thinking every American citizen in this country deserves a shot. No matter how bad of a situation they are in, or how poor they were raised, or how bad their health is. And the people with a bigger share of LUCK than the people down on their luck, can help them out. Because the LUCKY ones might be there some day also!
The GOP really thinks this tape sounds bad?? Hell, it will get him more voters than it will cost him.
I am proud of Obama making that statement. Any real progressive believes the same damn thing!
Lex
(34,108 posts)But yeah, President Obama didn't say anything earth shattering there.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)NotThisTime
(3,657 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)IggleDoer
(1,186 posts)At least President Obama sticks to his convictions.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)it would make the rich people and the business owners want to leave the country, and they are the ones who pay more money in taxes.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)They aren't the ones paying more taxes.
but you know that.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Cha
(296,878 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Logically, where are they going to go? They're on Easy Street here and they know it.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)redistribution of funds within existing programs in order to get more bang for the buck.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)brush
(53,743 posts)There you go, funds within existing, already funded programs. Fox of course will not mention that. Or the whole of the speech before and after the sentence about redistribution.
drlit
(41 posts)The young Obama went on to talk about free markets and competition and .... well we should post it!
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)skeewee08
(1,983 posts)"make sure that everybody got a shot" how dare him for wanting to help EVERYBODY
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,396 posts)are we supposed to believe that such a belief is "scandalous"! Sometimes, I feel like I'm living in a parallel universe or something........
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)the Caymen Islands and Switzerland.
spanone
(135,795 posts)Permanut
(5,571 posts)as in "redistribution of wealth".
Every government since the beginning of time has redistributed wealth, and it can be very good or very bad, but not inherently either. The Koch brothers would like us to believe that redistribution is evil if done by Democrats; same with Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, yada yada.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)doing a very good job of painting Obama as a socialist. He actually said this during the 2008 campaign. I remember because I winced when I heard it on TV, and my Dad (a far right wingnut) spat it back at me later.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)shows just how desperate they are.
Logical
(22,457 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)What a bunch of moRANS!
The Romney statement of: "47% of these people pay no income taxes"
Will prompt the response: "DO YOU!?"
Vs. the Obama tape
The Obama Statement: "I do believe in redistribution, at a certain level, to give everybody a fair shot"
will prompt the response: "Hell ya! Sign me up for THAT!"
Spazito
(50,171 posts)It does the opposite, imo. It opens up the issue of income disparity and the widening gap between the middle class and the 1%. This issue only reinforces the already widely accepted view that Romney is out of touch with all but the 1%.
I suspect the Obama campaign is totally prepared to 'go there' and are not unhappy at all to do so.
ecstatic
(32,653 posts)Um, Mitt, you do realize that we have a progressive tax system, don't you? Oh wait... he probably doesn't. His rate is lower than mine, much less people in the top tiers of income earners.
mick063
(2,424 posts)The concentration of wealth in this country is a crime.
The 1% are a huge threat to our way of life.
Tax the holy living shit out of them in retribution for not keeping Reagan's promise.
George II
(67,782 posts)SunSeeker
(51,522 posts)Any time you take taxes from one group to support another, it is redistribution. In other words, it's how we create a civilized society. Don't like redistribution, baggers? Give up your Social Security check and move to Somalia.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)what you said.
brush
(53,743 posts)The repugs redistribution of wealth is "tax cuts for the rich" but they don't call it redistribution but it moves the money in the opposite direction than the direction (downward) people think of when they say redistribution of wealth.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)thc420
(34 posts)...President Obama a commie Marxist for 4 years, this is the best they got?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Pathetic, I know. I bet they were saving it until late October. I bet they wanted it to drop like a bomb. It was probably Breitbart's idea.
But they had to release it early because of the Romney comments and nobody really cares about some stupid video from 14 years ago.
Epic fail.
Logical
(22,457 posts)progressoid
(49,952 posts)Didn't Breitbart supposedly have some huge bombshell to drop?
obxhead
(8,434 posts)He wants to give your taxes to rich people.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)said we should use govt. resources to help those who need it .
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)Because, uh, we could talk about what he was saying about gun control, right to choose, being more liberal than Ted Kennedy, etc.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Once an intelligent person listens to the tape, they will like Obama more. Obama basically said that government does have a roll. Obama also said that the action of government should be more prominent at the state and local levels. I am a federalist, I have some issues with the state and local stuff, in particular when those levels are controlled by partisan, self-serving assholes.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I assume you mean "role" and not a bank roll.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)a dinner roll for everyone in danger of starving
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Apparently Republicans are convinced that the less well funded districts should serve the function of perpetuating lack of opportunity.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)DallasNE
(7,402 posts)While Obama was a State Senator in Illinois. Quite mature for someone still in his 30's. And it shows how desperate Romney is that he is trying to find something, anything to hit Obama with, even 14 year old statements.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Loge23
(3,922 posts)What a fiasco the R&R campaign has been thus far!
They now want to head-to-head on redistribution?? Really??!
We have the King of the 1% with his lackey, Ryan, lecturing us on redistributing! Ludicrous!
Form Mother Jones, required facts:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Willard's daily foot-in-mouth disease flare-ups.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)said 14 years ago, but still do not know what Mitt paid in taxes.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)..........................
But is it really socialism to talk of spreading the wealth?
Actually, it has been part of the American economic system since its founding.
In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce the enormous inequality between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
Madison later spoke in favor of using laws to reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.
During the early days of the republic, the government relied mostly on tariffs to collect revenue, under the theory that since the rich bought most of the imports, they would pay most of the taxes.
....................... http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/business/calbreath/20081026-9999-1b26dean.html
leftylauren
(51 posts)but when a Dems comments are put in context they come out sounding better than the soundbite makes them sound?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Sure they do... especially if you edit the part out about "a fair shot" and neglect to put it in its context.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)and this election boils down to whether you believe government should play a role in our lives and the economy or if it's every man for himself.
Shitty Mitty
(138 posts)even the right used to believe the same, till they became what they are today
Daayyummmboi
(50 posts)if you have to waste time using your staff to do nothing but to search back 14 years of archive records
praying that you will find anything, ANYTHING, that would take the heat off your ass for a national flub.
Then! When you do find a clip to push, it essentially says the exact same thing as your opponent says today.
WEAK!!! As hard as Romney will try to push this crap story... it will vanish in 24 hours.
bullwinkle428
(20,628 posts)GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO REDISTRIBUTE!!!
Otherwise, we're fucking Somalia!!!
SunSeeker
(51,522 posts)Noooooo. Gubmint is the problem.
doccraig67
(86 posts)"There has been a systematic I don't think it's too strong to call it a 'propaganda campaign' against the possibility of government action and its efficacy," Obama says in the audiotape. "...as we try to resuscitate this notion that we're all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking what are the delivery systems that are effective and meet people where they live.
"And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, he said, "because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody's got a shot."
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The US gdp is roughly $50,000 per person. The concept of "redistribution" only makes sense if one accepts the premise that you aren't entitled by virtue of citizenship and membership in the economy to any part of it and the $50,000 therefore belongs to someone other than you.
Shiraz
(302 posts)Talking about redistributing the wealth from better off parts of the state , to the more needier parts.
doublethink
(6,818 posts)progree
(10,894 posts)which is in effect a negative income tax for the working poor (which is in effect redistribution). It was meant to incentivize work over welfare.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Let them use it all they want.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)HEY, everyone believes in redistribution. What they differ about is how redistribution is accomplished and who will benefit, who will pay.
TBF
(32,017 posts)meaning that if the wealthy are stupid enough to keep stealing from the poor via living off their labor and paying them a pittance they'd better have damned good security. When people get to the point where they have nothing to lose things are going to change - and they will change through violent forces if nothing peaceful (such as distribution) is accomplished.
War Horse
(931 posts)Who'd a thunk?
The more I see of RMoney the more terrified I get. I'd actually give W a third term over that guy.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)health care. I had a decent job to feed, clothe and shelter myself even though, making women's wages there wasn't any left over from payday to payday. However, I never resented my income and payroll taxes because I felt secure that there would be something there for me if I lost my job or fell ill and couldn't work anymore. We had better welfare and safety nets back then and even though I didn't use any of the benefits my taxes paid for, I was happy in the thought that they would be there fore me when I needed them. I never bought into the personal responsibility meme nor did any one I knew at the time whether they were Republican or Democrat. We were so secure about this that we turned our focus instead to ending the Vietnam war. We honestly never thought we would be losing those things that made our society civilized. btw We had poor people back then, but we didn't have institutionalized homelessness. Some people chose to be hobos or drop outs, but they knew they could drop back into the mainstream if they tired of it. It's not that way anymore.