Now the truth (starts to) comes out on Obama

[NickD 203]

Redistribution of income is an outcome of a progressive tax system, but redistribution of wealth is something different, The two terms - income and wealth - are not interchangeable in the economic lexicon; wealth consists one's net worth: Assets minus liabilities. Income is how much you earn from one or multiple sources. The impact of a redistribution of income in contrast to a distribution of wealth would differ considerably, as could the methodologies involved to achieve them.

From the same source your quoted that information from, also states:

"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

But this was in 2001, what about 2008? Or about eight years of Bush.

With wealth, comes power, and with power, control, perhaps a better question would be how wealth was gained. And is government that has a key controlling factor with laws and regulations or deregulation for that matter favoring all the people in the land equally, or only favoring the upper 10%. Heard other estimates that the upper 10% now own 90% of the wealth in this nation. Up about 19%. Another way to look at this, is with 90% of the money, prefer that over wealth, those 10% are controlling the government while the other 90% are left to dangle. Believe that Obama used 95 instead of 90%, but doesn't make that much difference, in a majority rule society, 78%, 90%, or 95% is a 100% regarding what laws we will have.

While diamond production is highly limited to keep prices extremely high, we do not need diamonds to survive, but we do need fuel, a huge percentage only have the automobile for our jobs and our home locations depend on that vehicle for us to essentially survive, can't go to work or school without it, no other way, that is a definite necessity, and a very good means to increase the percentage of wealth for that upper 3 to 10% as well with any other necessity of life.

Can say one thing in favor of Obama over McCain, he did bring this subject up of unequal wealth distribution, and the wealthier this small percentage becomes, the greater the rest of us will suffer. But McCain/Palin are doing everything to twist this around, make fun of it, can criticize it. If you want this for your leadership, vote for it.

This is nothing new in our history, started off in around 1860 with the industrialization of this country and grew way out of proportion, children were made to work long hours in factories, adults alike were nothing more than slaves. Took a great republican, Teddy Roosevelt to put an end to this misery, at least was a start. McCain /Palin sure in the hell ain't no Teddy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Redistribution of income is an outcome of a progressive tax system, but redistribution of wealth is something different, The two terms - income and wealth - are not interchangable in the economic lexicon; wealth consists one's net worth: Assets minus liabilities. Income is how much you earn from one or multiple sources. The impact of a redistribution of income in contrast to a distribution of wealth would differ considerably, as could the methodologies involved to achieve them.

Which is why calling Obama's tax policy, socialism via a redistribution of wealth, silly beyond absurd.

Obama's calling for a distribution of wealth, not just a redistribution of income. That's why he's being called a socialist.

Ah, I get it now. He's socialist by way of semantics, but not over his progressive tax policy. Logic at its finest.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Speaking of logic, did you listen to the audio in the OP? You do understand that Obama is not ignorant of the fact that he has the intent to redistribute income AND wealth, no?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

From the same source your quoted that information from, also states:

?

I didn't quote that from a source unless I was the author of that source. That's pretty basic stuff.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Virtual wife

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Speaking of logic, did you listen to the audio in the OP? You do understand that Obama is not ignorant of the fact that he has the intent to redistribute income AND wealth, no?

VW, you and I and McCain's Camp know exactly what this is...it's nothing more than a last ditch desperate attempt to further scare voters who might already by uncertain about him. If Obama is a socialist then every President before him was also. There is no logic behind this bogus argument and hopefully, enough voters are savvy enough to see through this facade. If McCain should win, this will be a stain on his Presidency....that he won it by smearing Obama to smithereens.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Speaking of logic, did you listen to the audio in the OP? You do understand that Obama is not ignorant of the fact that he has the intent to redistribute income AND wealth, no?

VW, you and I and McCain's Camp know exactly what this is...it's nothing more than a last ditch desperate attempt to further scare voters who might already by uncertain about him. If Obama is a socialist then every President before him was also. There is no logic behind this bogus argument and hopefully, enough voters are savvy enough to see through this facade. If McCain should win, this will be a stain on his Presidency....that he won it by smearing Obama to smithereens.

I can't agree with that. What I see is the trickle of information coming out despite a media that has coddled, protected and shielded an unworthy candidate from hard questions about his past and his true beliefs. Obama is speaking of socialist concepts in the audio and he is trying to run from the truth now. He is not like every other president, and, God forbid, he will not be president.

This is his voice, those are his words, any blunting of the reality and refusal to understand what Obama believes is stone cold denial. No smear this.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Virtual wife

[luckytxn 2,265]

Of course though when we have tax cuts and the economic spur comes we do exactly what shouldn't be done. We increase our spending to more than the increase tax revenues bring us. So when Bush brought in the prescription plan and increase of the Government that brought a huge unwieldly bureacracy (Homeland security, etc) and mandates to the states and that brings huge deficits. The huge deficits are a huge tax increase believe it or not. We have to pay for them down the line eventually and now just paying the interest is taking up a huge part of the budget.

Also the war is eating up a huge part of the budget. Believe it or not though we pay more to take care of our supposed obligations around the world that places American soldiers in far off places. We still have a huge military presence in Europe that should definately be brought home. Europe is wealthy and does not need our troops. We should pull all our troops out of Japan and Korea also. They are now wealthy and all we are doing is subsidizing these countries so they can use their wealth to give their citizens exactly what we want here. Socialized policies.

If we were to bring all our troops back home and reduce the military a lot and decrease the Government non essential payouts (Subsidizing farmers and corporations) then we would have a huge surplus that we can start reducing the deficit and then talk about what Social programs we want.

Lucky be careful when suggesting that the military be cut... the GWOT is real... it's just the invasion of Iraq that's highly questionable. We do need to protect our interests overseas and have a healthy homeland defense (defense is the DoD side/ homeland security is the government side). In my opinion we do need to make a responsible withdrawal from Iraq, but based on conditions and not a timetable. This may sound like a republican point of view but the difference is I don't think the Bush administration really wants to leave Iraq so they would never consider the conditions right to leave (they've also written a blank check to the Iraqis again & again, never holding them to any sort of standard).

I understand the logic of why we need so many American troops all over the world. Our interests seem like a need to have troops. If the business climate is so bad then we just don't have no business there. Does anyone really think that we did not prop up Western Europe for many years. (Guess soldiers will be able to answer this one best). It is very expensive to build and maintain a huge force that we have done in Europe. All of the countries were very weak and exhausted after the bif war and ripe to be invaded by Russia back then. They are now wealthy and prosperous and can afford to carry their own burden more. We need to pull out of Europe and let them now assume their own security. They are able to afford to spend a portion of their wealth on the huge Social programs we so desire here because we subsidize their very expensive security.

Same in Japan. They have virtual no military and we spend a lot of our hard earned taxes supporting and protecting them. It is no wonder they are so wealthy and prosperous. This country now wants the same things that all of these countries want. Social programs are very expensive so let us now bring our troops home and let these other countries start spending their own hard earned money on their own defense. Now I never said we have to reduce our defense in our own home and backyard. (Don't worry Canada we will still protect you so you can have your Socialist policies cheaply)

We have done enough in the world and it is time we do enough now back home. This huge deficit spending has to stop. Both these candidates have very expensive programs and also to get elected they have to say they will cut taxes. It is destroying us economically. For once let us tax ourselves and pay for the things we want. Let the tax go up as the Government spends it. When we see what it actually costs and it starts to hurt then we can see if it is worth it or not. Right now we are just spending money and not seeing the effects because of deficit spending.

It will be funny to see all these Socialists on here crying in a few years when the Socialists have once again taken the reigns of Government of the Legislative and Presidential together. We can ill afford the Reps to have both again. They spent even worse. You sheep are pathetic and not seeing the danger we are heading to.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Speaking of redistribution of wealth, those who mentioned it, what about George W. Bush with the stimulus bill earlier this year?

Accordingly from the definition of many posters, that is defined to be socialism.

[nowhereman 1]

Redistribution of income is an outcome of a progressive tax system, but redistribution of wealth is something different, The two terms - income and wealth - are not interchangable in the economic lexicon; wealth consists one's net worth: Assets minus liabilities. Income is how much you earn from one or multiple sources. The impact of a redistribution of income in contrast to a distribution of wealth would differ considerably, as could the methodologies involved to achieve them.

Which is why calling Obama's tax policy, socialism via a redistribution of wealth, silly beyond absurd.

Obama's calling for a distribution of wealth, not just a redistribution of income. That's why he's being called a socialist.

He's calling for tax cuts for people making under 250K and a tax increase for those making over 250K. The whole redistribution/ socialist argument is a half-baked, desperate attempt by McCain to win back some votes. It's par for the course for the way McCain has conducted himself.

[nowhereman 1]

ALC is that you? Been there, done that.

Is that the best dodge you can do?

My friend you need to pull up some Barack debate clips and see how a pro does it.

DO a forums search instead. Pick your key words: US Constitution, Bill of Rights. Et Al.

And do... get over it- if that's your definition of a dodge.

"dodge"

If you think that one is good, I did an even better one this morning by starting a thread about

"Barack lynching" only I typed "Barack lunching".

(shrug)

So a no-go for the US Constitution search as well as what nowhereman suggests comes from a very well-known exchange of correspondance between Jefferson and Madison.

Are you suggesting that we crawl through random correspondence to determine what a well thought out document says?

Here is a little bit inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial, which I had the pleasure to visit just a few months ago.

<<God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free. Establish the law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan.>>

Danno your quote proves nothing... please get You are suggesting that the separation of church & state means a godless state & that's simply untrue.

[Niels Bohr 72]

He's calling for tax cuts for people making under 250K and a tax increase for those making over 250K. The whole redistribution/ socialist argument is a half-baked, desperate attempt by McCain to win back some votes. It's par for the course for the way McCain has conducted himself.

I'm glad we still have people who are exceptional at reasoning skills.

[NickD 203]

Speaking of logic, did you listen to the audio in the OP? You do understand that Obama is not ignorant of the fact that he has the intent to redistribute income AND wealth, no?

VW, you and I and McCain's Camp know exactly what this is...it's nothing more than a last ditch desperate attempt to further scare voters who might already by uncertain about him. If Obama is a socialist then every President before him was also. There is no logic behind this bogus argument and hopefully, enough voters are savvy enough to see through this facade. If McCain should win, this will be a stain on his Presidency....that he won it by smearing Obama to smithereens.

I can't agree with that. What I see is the trickle of information coming out despite a media that has coddled, protected and shielded an unworthy candidate from hard questions about his past and his true beliefs. Obama is speaking of socialist concepts in the audio and he is trying to run from the truth now. He is not like every other president, and, God forbid, he will not be president.

This is his voice, those are his words, any blunting of the reality and refusal to understand what Obama believes is stone cold denial. No smear this.

A vote for McCain/Palin is not a vote for McCain/Palin, it's a vote for Karl Rove! The master of deceit.

Watch McCain and even Bush, they are not speaking from the heart, but they saying what they are being told to say. I can appreciate your position on the issues, if you are in the upper 3%, heck, if I was way up there, would feel the same way.

What I can't understand his how Rove got and maintains this power in the republican power, but from the sounds of it, the good republicans are finally starting to rebel. But if McCain wins, so does Rove and it will be four more years of the same stuff. Obama knows this, but for some reason won't come out and say it, but is far more outspoken on this issue than any candidate in the past.

It's costing use another six thousand dollars this year to send our daughter to college, that federal tax we are paying to Washington DC is not coming back to us, along with increases in other state taxes, not only monopolies in the necessities we need to live costing us a small fortune, but much higher taxes as well. I know when I am getting screwed, and really getting screwed, now? How much money do these guys really need? But they have all the power and can do anything they want to, the rest of us have to pay for it. Getting tired of that, we are just slaves.