By CNN's Jack Cafferty:
His critics have called him a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth of the nation from the haves to the have-nots. Now a newly surfaced 1998 clip of then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama would seem to support those allegations.
Republicans are pushing this audio clip – which they say was recorded at Loyola university...
In it, the future president talks about what he calls a "propaganda campaign" against government funded programs. He says he wants to resuscitate the idea that "we're all in this thing together, leave nobody behind."
Obama goes on to say this:
"I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution – because I actually believe in some redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
Obama's critics say the idea of redistributing wealth is socialism; they're linking these 1998 comments to more recent remarks like Obama's "you didn't build that" line.
Back in 2008, John McCain and Sarah Palin went after Mr. Obama after he said "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
More recently the president has said he wants people to feel like they're getting a fair shot. In a December interview with “60 Minutes,” he talked about inequality and people like teachers and small business owners who are working hard but feel like they're just treading water.
In response to the 1998 comments, the Obama campaign says Mr. Obama was making an argument for more efficient and effective government. They say the president believes there are "steps we can take to promote opportunity."
Here’s my question to you: Is the redistribution of wealth President Obama's answer to America's problems?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Only if your Robin Hood. Look Jack, Most people work hard for their money and they do not want the government taking more of it away from them to give to someone that the government deems more worthy of it. If politicians were such good managers of other peoples money we would not be in debt up to our eyeballs right now. The governments answer is to spend more money and they can not get that money from the poor and the rich are far too smart. That leaves the middle class on the hook for it.
When the Republicans start screaming about something, it means one of three things. 1) They are planning to do it, 2) That it is the way they would handle the situation 3) They have already done it. Remember Reagan talking about redistribution of wealth? We had a large middle class then. Since the 1980's the middle class has been slipping away as the tax laws changed etc. For a few years, we thought we might have it back, but then Bush 43 was elected and finished the job.
If the system was simple it would be the answer. America does have a safety net for all people poor and wealthy. It probably needs to get reformed but it does work. European countries have the idea of redistribution of wealth but our country is not structured that way. Our debt continues to sky rocket and the European countries is out of control too. Pretty certain the redistribution theory is not the path to a balanced budget or fiscal responsibility but rather a popular way to appeal to the poor and increase dependency of capable Americans that can contribute to the work force and work towards goals of success and the American dream.
The answer is leveling the playing field so the distribution of wealth isn't artificially manipulated.
A lot more than Romney will thats for sure. So I think the question is, will 47% of the cost for the crane to pull Mittens foot out of his mouth be enough stimulous? In a good economy redistribution of wealth happens every day. The more payroll checks being earned means more money injected in the economy by all economic classes, not just Wall Street. So redistribution of wealth is a byproduct of a good economy no matter how that economy became good. so the question is a bit putting the cart before the horse. Thats the kind of thinking that got us in the mess to begin with.
Ah, spin. The Republicans term it "redistribution" while the Democrats will call it "fair share". The real answer is stopping the President and Congress from micromanaging the economy to favor their political contributors. If you remove all of the tax laws that favor special interests, we will have a better idea of who actually pays taxes and what percentage of their income it represents, and then decide whether everyone is paying their fair share. The reality is that both Democrats and Republicans benefit from our convoluted system and neither is really interested in reform including our sitting President.
The corrective or redirection/ redistribution of wealth would certainly be a significant part of the answer to America's economical problems. Every single study shows that there was a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest over a 40 year period. Subsequently the transfer of this wealth from the middle class caused the middle class to shrink to where it stands today. It is so puzzling now why you would even ask this question as it is clear that the right thing to do is to restore the middle class with the return of some of the wealth that was transferred from the middle class. for decades and the wealthy didn't complain about their unfair enrichment at the expense of the middle class..
Redistribution of Wealth should be changed to Equal Opportunity.
When we expand the middle class, we enhance the quality of life for all.
The Rich will always have sponsors and a competitive disadvantage.
Our system of Government has always level the playing field
The Rich can depend on their parents ... if it were not for our system of Government the poor would have nothing!
I don't have much but I don't want government taking any of it and giving it to someone elso.
so the answere is NO. I can't afford any more government period.
Redistribution of wealth involves the seizure of legitimately earned assets under the color of government whereby those seized assets are redistributed to others in society. A bank robber does the same thing and they put him in jail for it. If the government does it then it is somehow good for the country.
Yes. The untaxable wealthy in this country have forced the hardworking middle class to support their weight for too long. If we don't see a concrete improvement - universal healthcare, taxing the wealthy, decreasing the tax burden of the middle class, supporting social security and Medicare instead of wars - then the middle class and the poor will rise up, and we will have a revolution in this country that will be far more radical than the "redistribution of wealth" laid at Obama's door. History is a hard teacher - but she doesn't lie.
If redistribution means paying the National Debt, then, i'm all for it.
Jack, if this question was meant to induce vomiting for poison victims I'm sure it has succeeded.
Redistribution of wealth is just a politically correct way of saying Socialism.....................or even Communism.
For this question to even be raised in a serious manner in America today speaks volumes of how duped and deceived Americans have become over time. It highlights how little we pay attention to our history and even WHY this nation was created.
Some things are terribly disturbing. This subject is one of 'em.
In any society there will be those with more wealth than others. Your question begs how does wealth proportion itself, e.g. By force such as in socialism or by capitalism principles of free trade associated with individualistic supply and demand. We are mostly the later with a touch of the former. The question is really who much of the former which is known to fail on its own dare we do. Good question. I for one think our government is going to far toward the former and we are struggling with the economic downside of that movement. The government needs to remember that Thomas Jefferson's values of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" actually originated from Thomas Hobbs' "life, liberty and pursuit of property", I.e., capital. It's a value and not an entitlement.
I don't think so Jack. I truly beleive the answer to Americas problems are term limits on congress. I also beleive that campaign finance has got to be totally and completely changed. There are many good, honest, hard working people that would provide much positive input and honesty into our political system, but are not able to financally compete with the big money that the elite provide to the elite running for these offices. We need to make it so anyone can run on a level playing field and limit the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns. If all of the above were done, wealth would be distributed on an honest basis and not just pointed to writing laws to protect the rich. After all, congress is there to represent every one, not just the rich that tell them how and what to implement into law. In other words, get rid of these thugs we now have in Congress!!!!!
What, are you Joe the Plumber? Didn't we leave that canard in the Wasilla lake with Sarah?
Carol in Northampton, Ma
This is my plan today. Lets say we have 298 million folks who are under water financially. To give everyone 10 million dollars, we need to raise 3 quadrillion. So we simply have the Treasury issue 3 quadrillion in Treasury Notes to the World Wide Market and sell them out. Everyone gets a boatload of cash, and then we default in a couple of years. Thats the way the big boys do it so why can't we little folks get in on the deal. What? We already did that? Ruh oh. Doug, Pepperell, MA.
Sure, why not; It has worked so well in Russia and China! NOT! This is the typical Socialist mantra spewed by Obama and his leftist allies. Redistribution would stiffle innovation and the desire to constantly improve ourselves. Why establish goals if you will benefit from government hand outs no matter what you do and whether or not you succed in your ambitions. This is and always will be a bad idea.
Not when obama tries to take the low class and force it into the middle class with welfare payments that exceed 1 mortgage in value while kicking out others ..Redistribution that subsidizes the fuedal landlord and non working shareholders represses..Banks drying up currency due to corporate america allowed to finance debt that is seperate from the profitable bonuses denies us loans without high interest rates to start biznesses..Unfortunately obama doesnt think small bizness is way to go.Redistribution only works if they (non working shareholders) pay thier fair share..if i gotta pay 28%, to hell with this country when govt allows those that steal from me a capital gains tax break
If your definition of "redistribution" is taxing the wealthy to provide a safety net of food, shelter, and medical care for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, children, and military veterans, then yes.
But something tells me, Jack, that you'd rather not take a dollar in tax money from billionaire Charles Koch to help provide food stamps for a poor child in America, so he'll have an extra dollar to buy a candy bar, whose manufacture will create a job for a poor 12 year old working in a candy factory in China.
Then he can smile as he eats his candy bar, knowing he's a "job creator."
No Jack, the redistribution of wealth isn't the answer to our problems. Some of the poor are just way too dumb to use the money wisely while the some of the rich are smart enough to find ways to get more money than they previously did. Money should not be redistributed -it should be earned. If money is to be effectively redistributed, then it's by better job training for the poor so that they can earn money rather than having it handed to them.
never....isn't that Communism?
Only if Socialism is the answer. If you search the web for the query "What are the basic tenets of the socialist party", the first answer displayed is: "You can start with Distribution of Wealth". After over 230 years of individual freedoms and liberty, our nation and society is now considering Socialism as a solution to our problems. What an unbelievable tragedy for our great nation and for our forefathers, who fought and died to protect our those individual freedoms, rights and liberties. God help us.
Roy, Glen St Mary, Florida
C;mon Jack, the phrase " redistribution of wealth" is a Republican talking point. Lending your diatribe some historical perspective, Eisenhower's top tax rate was 91%, Nixon's 70%, and for part of President Reagan term, the top rate was 50%. Why then is returning to Clinton-era top tax rates of 39% a redistribution of wealth rather than correcting a grievous policy change ?
It would certainly help. During the eight years of George Bush's administrations, thanks in large part to his and Republican tax and economic policies, trillions were transferred from the many in the middle to the few at the top of the economic latter. By most accounts this was the greatest transfer of wealth from the many to the few in this country's history. Talk about redistribution of wealth! When the middle class thrives the country thrives. Those of us in the middle class, the real middle class not Romney's definition of those making $200,000 to $250,000 per year, want nothing more than to get our fair share back. The Republican's talk loudly and repeatedly about class warfare. I agree it exists. How else can you describe knowingly and purposefully taking trillions from the many, who could not afford to lose it, so that the few could have a couple more mansions, a bigger private jet and a longer yacht. If Romney and the Republicans have their way even more money will be "redistributed" from the many to the few, and the class warfare will continue. They must be stopped.
What about the redistribution upward that's taken place the last twelve years? Mitt Romney has only released one year's tax return, but it showed that a guy worth $250 million pays a lower tax rate than the working poor in this country.
Yes, Jack, we will never be happy until all private property is eliminated. Then we can all share in President Obama's dream of redistribution of wealth. The last will become first.
Redistribution of wealth the NOT answer to America's problems....it IS the problem...
A brief look at the issue of the NHL lockout explains what true "wealth redistribution" consists of.
The owners want to decrease the revenue share that the players get from 57% to 47% resulting in a pay cut for the "workers" (i.e. the players) and a pay increase for the "owners" (i.e. the 1%’ers).
This the same “redistribution” of millions of American jobs that have been out-sourced by American companies to foreign countries over the past 20 years for higher profits for the so called “job creators” has resulted in the Redistribution of Wealth to the wealthy, not the American worker, his purchasing power or his way of life.
President Obama is looking out for the American workers and Mitt Romney is looking out for the wealthy owners.....for me, it an obvious choice.
It depends where you are on the scale. If you make under 30K, no I don't want to give any money to the do nothings.
If I make 100K, I still don't want give my hard earned money to the ones that make 30k.
If I make 200k, I still do't want to give my hard earned money to the 100k's, or below.
You asked you got it.
well here we go. yet ANOTHER Cafferty "push poll". are you working for Frank Luntz, Jack? what a bunch of baloney.
Come on Jack, this statement was made in 1998, yes 14 years ago. I beleive that the President is talking about fair taxes these days and not total socialism. The answer to our problems are simple, stop sending money to other countries including Isreal, bring all of our military home today and eliminate lobbyists and Congress.
Jack our Nation has a history of Progressive Taxation. From 1932 to 1980, our political landscape was dominated by progressive Politics...FDR and The New Deal, GI Bill and NLRA to The Great Society and Progresive Taxes up to 70%....during this time America had a dynamic middle class where a blue collar worker could own a home and raise a family on one income...Then comes Reagan in 1980 and the start of Conservative Dominance in politics. With it Reaganomics and Reagans assault on PATCO and Supply Side Economics, The Contract with America, NAFTRA and Bush Tax Cuts...The results are in. The middle class is on the ropes, the end of the one income family and income disparity on par with Third World dictatorships...it's been redistrubution of wealth from the working class to the rich and it has to stop.
It is not a redistribution of wealth it is the devaluation of our currency. The Fed is printing money out of thin air backed by nothing more than the word of lying cheating politicians.
"Redistribution of Wealth," as Obama stated 14 freaking years ago? How about a modernized version, such as giving us all a fair shake instead of our politicians only making sure the wealthiest advance? Or something like that. I'm sick of the dog whistle crap, Jack. Shame on you. Are you honestly pulling for the guy that thinks almost half of us should be treated as something he stepped in?
That is a great idea, I work 60 plus hours a week and get to give half my earnings to a lazy american(maybe?) standing by there mailbox waiting on another government check. There are people in this country quiting good jobs because they did the math and can make it on what our government(american peoples money) hand out.
Obama's scheme of wealth redistribution will work about as well as Romney's redistribution of what wealth is left into the hands of the upper 10%. Leaving most of us with what we have now, nothing.
Jack: President Obama does not want to redistribute the wealth of America. President Obama wants the wealthy to pay the rate they paid under President Clinton's term of office. This would mean an increase from 31 % to 35 %, before any deductions are allowed. This would mean an increase in rates for those people who are making more than $250,000 a year. This would help to pay down the deficit. Spending cuts and abolishing government programs that do not work would also reduce the deficit. President Obama believes the middle class is where the economy can best grow and produce more jobs. I believe he is right, because for the last 30 months we have seen positive job growth.
Obviuosly, there is no singular answer to all of America's problems. I think Obama believes in strengthening the middle class and giving those at the low end of the scale a fair opportunity to move into it. That would go a long way toward solving many of our economic problems because the middle class is the driving force beehind a robust economy. Concentrating all the wealth in a small segment of the population, as we have seen in recent decades, has exactly the opposite effect.The very rich care only about preserving their wealth and avoiding taxes. They show no concern for the state of the economy or the well being of the American people.
Jack...do you call raising taxes on the top 2% of our country's wealthy by 4%....redistribution? So those funds can be used to help pay for services that we all use, like fire, police, education, infrastructure use etc.....then I guess it is. What a socialist he is. Jack, you and your top 2% friends don't have to pay any taxes if you like, That's okay with me.......just stay off my roads, don't call the police or use any airports, or any public service for that matter. And that includes hospitals, drinking water, electicity, natural gas. cell phones. Pay your fair share or get out of this country.
Both sides are guilty. The Federal Reserve has facilitated the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of man.
This is called the "Robin Hood" theory, and it is a blanket statement that doesn't reflect the nuances of the problem. If we could get back to common sense legislation, removal of favortisim practices in the IRS, institute trade policies that favor American jobs and goods, outlaw lobbyists, and installing price controls on the medical community, then the playing field could be leveled in a reasonable manner. An organic solution is not beyond our reach.
Jack, America needs to face up to the reality of what the Republication pushed policies (tax cuts for the wealthy, offshoring middle class jobs) have done to income distribution ever since "Trickle Down" economics was introduced by Reagon. The policy and the welfare added to the tax code for the "Job Creators" – the GOP definition of the top 1% – has redistributed wealth disproportionately up to the top and nearly wiped out the middle class. The country can't sustain economic growth without a strong middle class. It's sad that the working class in the Red States by and large do not see this.
Jack, the problem is many Americans including myself can only get part time work. These employers chop up the full time positions into part time positions. Employers have a responsibility in this economy as well. We are not lazy, we need living wage and full time work. Show me the 40 hour living wage work week! You can't find that anymore!
tampa, fl a one time fee, on the 1% of $16 trillion should do the trick. Just like when a condo has an emergency, so does our govt. the rich won't miss it, they will still have plenty. All we need to do is stop our govt from doing it again.
Is the redistribution of wealth President Obama's answer to America's problems ?
Answer : NO – – – and I'm a Democrat – honestly thinking seriously about changing my Voting Registration to Independent. Getting a "fair shot" doesn't mean people that gets an education / works hard for what they Earn, has to "give" what they worked hard for all their life, to people that didn't ! period.
Call him a Socialist or a Statist it’s all the same. He said he wanted to fundamentally transform America and given another 4 years that’s just what he’d do. We’d become another Greece. He did it with Health Care the Auto industry Student Loans and now that he’s discovered Executive Order there would be no stopping him. If you look at his history it’s right out of Sol Alinski’s book.
don't think it answers our economic problems and I don't think the President does either. There is not enough money from the increased tax on the wealthy to do anything with. It is more of a social justice, feel good measure. The real plan is to increase all of our taxes, that is why the Bush tax cuts he wants are only extended for a year. Our President supports a large and powerful government who chooses winners and losers in the economy, favoring the policially connected and cronies. It is a government that will only increase in corruption and waste. Our President fixes nothing, he just exploits our problems for ideological and political gain. Our President has divided us and gave each of us a different message and a different promised entitlement. There is no money to implement his promises, even if he wanted to. We are broke and we have run out of other people's money. If America is suicidal, the will re elect Barack Obama
If he could he would. However the Legislative branch has blocked him at every turn. If we would just go to a flat tax and stay within a balanced budget all of these arguments would just go away! It wouldn't have to be called a Democratic or a Republican solution. Call it an American solution and a return to normalcy.
The 'redistribution' of Obama to another job someplace else is the answer to our problems. Just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Obama jetted to Vegas for a fundraiser while our Embassy was still burning. Shameful. Go Romney...
From Blue Ash OH.
Perhaps it helps the folks who are on the RECEIVING end of the redistribution, but it does not help AMERICA! Sooner or later the number of high income folks will be depleted and the whole welfare system will COLLAPSE. Check out how well the SOCIALIST welfare state has worked in EUROPE!
Redistribution of wealth is a bad term. I think everyone from Warren, Mitt and Bill on down to me and my family need to pay their fair share. There is no reason Mitt Romney should be in my tax bracket. (14%)
Call it the scary word "redistribution" if they want, we are still just talking about taxes paid by the wealthy. It worked during the Clinton years!
The answer is NO. At lease not in the "Robin-Hood" sence of the matter. I consider myself a moderate Democrat but would not support a take from the rich to give to the poor policy. The real answer lies with the american people rich & poor (the 99%) alike. First the average american, more so those ages 20 to 35, need to be willing to work for what they get. I see alot of laziness and "I Deserve" attitudes out there. You reap what you sew. The unions in this country, althought they once served a great purpose, are greatly to blame for this as they have transgressed into job killing money sucking enterprise disguised as middle-class worker representatives. Why would someone who really doesnt want to work feel the need to perform an honest days labor when they are getting paid (due to collective bargaining, employee classifications and pay scales) the same as the guy who takes pride and busts his hump every day? If I was a one-percenter I'd move my company out of country and pay someone pennies on the dollar just as so many have? It's a viscious circle. If we the 99% could take some responsibility and start living within the means of what we reap by performing an honest days work, perhaps the 1% would begin to feel some obligation to return their businesses state-side. Hence, sharing the wealth. Even if it means the cost of everyday products going up, everyone should have more to buying power as more poeple would be working. For those 1% who dont return their factories to the states and pay an american a decent wage, they should be taxed so heavily that they have no choice to eventually do so. It's a win-win for everyone.
don't think it answers our economic problems and I don't think the President does either. There is not enough money from the increased tax on the wealthy to do anything with. It is more of a social justice, feel good measure. It is class warfare distraction crap, used to divide our nation. The real plan is to increase all of our taxes, that is why the Bush tax cuts he wants are only extended for a year. Our President supports a large and powerful government supported by a bigger percentage of the country's GDP, who chooses winners and losers in the economy, favoring the policially connected and government cronies. It is a government that will only increase in corruption and waste. Our President fixes nothing, he just exploits our problems for ideological and political gain. Our President has divided us and gave each of us a different message and a different promised entitlement. The Hispanics get a temporary Dream Program. The retired get a promise to continue Medicare and Social Security as it is, even though it is unsustainable. The women get free contraception and abortion, even though everyone's insurance rates will go up to pay for the First Amendment imposition. The unemployed get their welfare without a work requirement. Everyone gets a bigger piece of the shrinking pie, because Obamanomics is a no growth economy. There is no revenues to implement his promises, even if he wanted to. We are broke and we have run out of other people's money. If America is suicidal, the will re elect Barack Obama and share in the poverty thru social justice, he brings.
It is the right answer for the wrong reasons. Obama wants socialism, which is wrong for this country. But the wealth should be redistributed for two reasons: 1) because for decades it has already been redistributed from the poor and middle class to the wealthy by unfair (purchased) legislation, and 2) because the rest of us do not have access to tax advantages that the wealthy have. For example, I can’t hide my money offshore and in Swiss banks. And if I want a loan to live in a new house I HAVE to produce my tax returns, even though that house isn’t near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave! Then, of course, the overall taxes I paid on a mid five figure income (for which I worked upwards of 80 hrs a week) amounted to about 50% of that income.
There are countless ways to distribute wealth, some socialist and some just plane smart. For years, I have vainly advocated one such way, namely a 100 percent recapitalization of all nations. No takers. Only because the people, economists, have not yet gotten used to better ideas than those they have. I am referring to their stiff and ruthless, selfish in the extreme capitalism, which does not allow for the periodic biblical forgiveness of debts and the mentioned recapitalization. Henceforth, I will dwell on the latter. What I have in mind, is doubling the money supply of all the nations, in proportion to their current GDP and/ or GNP. The world is changing with astronomic speed, and the laws that governed the cavemens' economy, if you can call it that, are grossly inadequate. As the world's population increses, we need constant, proportional increase in money supply, without devaluing the currencies we have! It boggles my mind why the economists refuse to implement my idea! This idea would save the U.S. and other economies (like Greece's) from dangerous collapse!
All of what President Obama has done says it is his answer to America's problems. For me, I'm not buying it and he's got me scared to death.
Pete from Chicago
Not unless the redistribution of wealth by Mr. Obama means that he's going to redistribute BACK to the poor and middle class the money taken from us and redistributed upwards to the top 1% in the guise of trickle down economics or more aptly named: trickle up economics.
No, President Obama never said that it was. Nonetheless, fair distribution of wealth is one of the answers. Ever wonder why people with the hardest jobs make so make so little money? Some make so little that they are not requird to pay federal income taxes and they can produce their completed tax documents to prove it.
Redistribution is not socialism (a dirty word to capitalist) and if it was...that's OK, under God's word in the book of Malachi. Since HE suggested to us, too just do that... "bring the excess to the Temple so that no one goes hungry". "And I will "Bless You". You know God, the one we keep asking to bless us.
What 47% percent of us who do pay taxes want, is for Mitt Romney to pay the same percentage as we do. Fix the tax laws. Then with that in mind... raise and lower the tax as needed. The rich elite don't need to pay my share and please don't force me to pay theirs when they and government create the bills. That's the United States problem not rich vs poor. The Elite Government Representatives sitting in their counting house excepting bribes from the elite and not taking care of the business of "We the people" who trusted them to do so.
And PLEASE politicians stop saying "The people want" you don't have a clue...But I hope on November 6Th "We the people" will be allowed to have a voice in spite of the Supreme Court allowing the rich to try and buy this election. Shame on them!. In my fighting, mad, humble opinion.
If it is then it should be the last ditch effort. Before then he should do other things to help solve America's problem like halting all foreign aid, securing the border, and taking away tax cuts from all of those that don't need them.
It's easy to understand why critics of this administration are making an attempt to besmirch President Obama with his remarks about wealth redistribution. Simply put the republican campaign cannot sell the trickle down theory anymore. That theory in and of itself has been by far the most successful wealth redistribution program, dare I say, in this Country's history. Let me restate that; the trickle down theory is a wealth redistribution theory that republicans know how to disguise as rational.
Commenting from Maumee, Ohio. I think this IS President Obama's answer. I also disagree with it. Helping people is one thing, – I think it's good to donate to charities, and I do so. That's a personal thing. But being forced into it? I don't like that.
It's not the answer to America's problems but I don't think anyone claimed that doing this would. We have a progressive tax system already that does exactly what the President said in 1998. I don't have an issue with paying a little more taxes if it means that the future for our children will be better and we take care of individuals that are our fellow citizens. Some people think of themselves and some of us think of ourselves as a part of a country that looks out for each other.
This country was built on citizenship, not every man for himself. The have and the have mores did not get there by themselves. As someone working with special Ed kids, a big part of my job is having resources from the "redistributed wealth" to help them gain some sort of independence. Part of that "redistrubted wealth" will help parents get money for much needed respite from working 24/7 with their disabled family members. None of these people are lazy, feel entitled, are smoochers or victims. The gall of Mitt Romney and his ilk.
Why is this a surprise to anyone? how else would you describe social security, medicare, medicade, unemployment benefits. They are all redistributive. This is just another example of the media creating balance by pretending it is the same as the Romney video. Why not talk about Romney's attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the rich with his unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy.
No need to feed the poor hungry and homeless. Just let them scrounge like those people in Haiti and other 3rd world countries. Fifty years ago these people lived in shacks with dirt floors and tin roofs so why can't they just go back to being what they were before.
Actually, redistribution of wealth isn't a new thing. Redistribution began after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. Eventually, they weren't satisfied that Indians owned most of the land and decided to "redistribute wealth." To me, I look at redistribution of wealth as a means to ensure that "everyone" is paying their fair share in supporting this country. I was totally shocked when I learned that I pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone who makes multi-millions of dollars in income. And, circumvents taxes by keeping his millions in an off-shore account.These are what need to be redistributed – fair share of taxes for all Americans. That's not socialism, that's the cost of freedom and being an American!
Jack,the answer to your question is no. Redistribution is the Presidents answer to Trickle down economics and whats comming down isn't Green it's Warm, Wet and Yellow and Americans don't like the smell! Jack from Nice Ca.
If we continue to feed and cloth these people the next thing you know people will be forced to wash their own dishes at a fancy restaraunt and change and wash their sheet in those fancy hotels.
There should be no redistribution. This includes redistribution of my tax dollars to corporations (they are people after all) that charge government millions to do things I don't want; I also do not want my money redistributed to Tea Party Republicans like Michelle Bachman who have Cadillac Pensions and Rolls Royce Health Care plans; or to Mitt Romney who pays 13.9% tax and uses government secret service.
Who spends the most money in our economy?
Who buys the most products?
When they no longer can afford to spend, what happens to the businesses that make those products?
Let's got rid of the 47% that are victems, all our problem would dissapear.
The only redistribution this country needs is to redistribute our votes to Romney. Obama, Biden, Clinton and their supporters believe only they know what's good for us Americans! It'll be a cold day in hell before my hard work, earnings and savings will ever be redistributied unless I want it redistributed, not some politician. If Obama is elected again, I fear that he will try to get over the 50% mark when it comes to handouts to those who "have less" than I have.
Great idea! Now they can buy more lottery tickets.
I find it ironic that Republicans are accusing Obama of redistribution when their tax policies redistribute wealth to demand for failed "trickle down" economics. It isn't about redistribution, it's about paying our fair share for critical programs and policies that support the needs of all citizens.
No Jack. According to your magic wall only about 10% fall into some form of entitlement or the redistribution the right is promoting. How about all the boondogles, the bridges to nowhere, and thousands of other pork barrel projects both sides promote to take all of our money and redistribute it to their constituents? Redistribution with efforts to improve the lives of those that need it is what is being worked on now and what Romney has said he is in favor of.
Jack, to redistribute wealth we first need to get the wealth and how does the government tend to get the wealth? taxes! and this nation is 16 trillion dollers in debt and counting. Instead of redistributing the wealth we need to decrease the deficit.
News break: "Europeans agree on single currency." That was 1998. Since CNN is spending time covering events from LAST CENTURY (in your Obama tape hoax) maybe you should cover all the 1998 news.
I worked for a large corporation that had to lay off people because of financial issues. The savings of the 64 people came to about $460,000. The month after the lay off's the corporation anounced exec bonuses of $450,000. REDISTRIBUTION I don't think so, FAIRNESS and OPPORTUNITY is the issue. MANAGEMENT, Government Representatives AND THE RICH have operated since the mid 1980 to represent only themselves and not the working people that support the companies or the government
No, Jack, Obama doesn't have an answer to America's problems.
Romney pays 13.x % and we pay 20-35 %. Which direction is the distrubution really??
Obama as much as said it was. When I compare obama and Romney, I see that though Romney isn't as good at the political "game", he knows how to get things done. Learning that he gave away his inheritance told me what kind of man he is. obama on the other hand uses your money and mine to show his generosity. I have no doubt that obama would love to see us leaning far into a socialist type of government. Look what he's done so far.
"Re-distribution" of wealth?
That's what Romney and his elite "One%-ers" believe in, but amongst themselves. They are dependent on Corporate "Entitlements". They believe they are ENTITLED to the tax-breaks and subsidies by way of the laws passed to favor them by way of the votes they buy in congress.
No surprise this is a Cafferty file question. But, let's take it a step further. Is the redistribution the right is seeking from the poor to the rich any better for the economy?
Redistribution and Trickle down? Can you explain the difference? Doesn't Mitt talk about allowing the wealthy to keep more of their wealth so they can create jobs? Isn't that redistribution?
Sharing is Noble, Greed is Decay...
Obama has answers?
Doesn't this work both ways? All I have seen is the rich getting richer.
I'm a small buisiness owner....I'm just treading water....... I work 7 days a week and only get christmas off. while the fat cats sit back and collect near tax free money,,,,, WTF...... that cant be "how it works" any longer
There will always be a redistribution of wealth no matter what. its the price you pay to live in a democracy. the question is do we want to continue to distribute the greatest amount of wealth to those that are already wealthy. I think not.
Washington has been redistributing wealth for years...upward
Yes Mitt, There Once Was A Time,
when Americans were not dependent upon government; believing that government has a responsibility to care for them, that they’re entitled to health care, to food, to housing. Oh, what a glorious free market time that was.
We were free of all financial regulation, it did not matter that desperation ruled as the stock market crashed, and banks closed never to reopen their doors. There was no intrusive FDIC to guarantee bank accounts, so in the time it takes the eye to blink, or the heart to beat, a lifetime of savings was wiped out. Yet for some reason, even thought we were free of regulation, businesses failed, jobs were lost, homes and farms were foreclosed, and dreams were swept away.
As it should be, those who could not take personal responsibility and care for their lives, such as the old and disabled, literally died in the street from starvation. Unfortunately, they were too weak to wait for hours on breadlines at soup kitchens for a meal. World War One veterans, who had lost their homes, set up an encampment in Washington. They were calling for the bonus they had been promised after the war. They believed that they were victims. Rightfully, instead of being honored, they were brutally attacked and expelled by other soldiers. No leeches here. Hundreds of thousands homeless men, women, and children traveled from town to town, in open boxcars on the rails, and falling apart jalopies looking for work. Any job, at any wage, just to put a scrap of bread on the table and end the relentless hunger that consumed them.
It was paradise, then, for us, no freeloaders with their food stamps and unemployment checks. No one was taking it, from those who were making it. So just remember, Mitt, your job is not to worry about those people. They're not paying taxes anyway. Now, take my $50,000 donation, I have to catch my plane to the Cayman Islands and check my bank account there. I'll see you there in 2 months. We're counting on you.
Isn't trickle-down economics, the Republican mantra, also a form of income distribution?
After viewing Mitt Romney hidden camera and his most insightful reveal of his beliefs, anything Obama does and will do smells like roses to me...At least, we all know Obama has the best interest of the nation in heart and he is leading us for better tomorrow.
Susan – Laguna Hills
It unfortunate that the Republicans have nothing else to rub in our faces except sound bites that President Obama said WAY before he became president! Get a new play book please or just tell Romney to get out of the way!
A desperate attempt to change the subject by a desperate campaign. They raised this LIE 4 years ago. It didn't work then and it's not going to work now. All that clip proves is that Obama has always supported giving people a fair shot. What Romney's video's show is he couldn't care less about giving people a fair shot.
How desperate is this campaign?
They get caught minimizing 47% of all Americans as unmotivated freeloaders and their response is to dredge up an audio clip from 1998?!
Here are just a few of Romney's positions from 1998 that are totally opposite of his stance today:
In 1998 Romney was pro-choice.
In 1998 Romney was for universal healthcare with a mandate.
In 1998 Romney was for partial amnesty for illegal immigrants.
In 1998 Romney was for bans on assault weapons.
In 1998 Romney believed in global warming.
In 1998 Romney was against "Don't ask, don't tell."
In 1998 Romney was against banning same sex marriage.
In 1998 Romney was for embryonic stem cell research.
In 1998 Romney was against the anti-tax pledge from the Americans for Tax Reform.
In 1998 Romney was for campaign finance limits.
How can this campaign believe that dredging up anything from 1998 will stick when their own candidate has flipped his own position on so many key issues since that time?
It's the height of hypocrisy and clearly demonstrates, at best, their desperation, at worst, their complete ineptitude.
Hasn't Obama done enough controversial things recently to get all the ammo you need without going back 14 years? And if he hasn't, and your candidate is on the record as having all the above controversy since then, you've already lost.
Jack, Some redistribution is required, and both sides seem to agree on that to me...one thinks it should "trickle down" and the other thinks it can or should come from the government. Let's give the President's idea a shot! We gave the other idea an entire generation only to find out it wont work that way.
The haves just want more and the have not's can not get enough money to have anything .... !
Jack, Why should those who paid there does, worked hard, sacrificed, and live the "American Dream" and EARNED there success, pay for those who just take every hand out and are still the ones to complain that there not being taken care of? Resdistrobution is a polar opposite of the American Dream! Dont take from the right and give to the wrong! Hope this is seen Jack!
The whole purpose of taxes is to distribute funds for the GREATER GOOD. The old folks had it right: "We're only as strong as our weakest link." Romney wants to criticize the 47% he classifies as people only wanting handouts. How did he miss the oil companies and other business subsidies that are payoffs for political contributions?
No single solution will resolve America's problems. If we think of our country as a family, we must realize that everybody must put some skin in the game to create a healthy family. All that taxes signify is sharing and distributing revenue for shared benefits. The government is us. Demonizing "government" truly democratically elected is a form of insanity. And like most families, the rich uncles are called upon to give a little more. How is that hard to understand?
Jack, it is not Obama's answer, it is Romney's answer to America's problem. Romney is the candidate for redistribution. He wants to redistribute the wealth from the poor and middle class and give it to the wealthy. How else is he going to pay for his cuts without raising taxes on the wealthy like he says he won't. He would have to raise taxes on the poor and middle class. He wants our country to slide further into the Plutonomy economic system that we unfortunately already have. He is such a hypocrite for accusing Obama of redistribution when he wants reverse Robinhood economics.
I don't know why Romney and his plutocratic friends are worried about redistribution of wealth. They have nothing to worry about when all of their money is stashed in Switzerland where the U.S. Government (Democratic or Republican) can't tax it.
Educating a poor kid is redistribution of wealth, that is a good thing. It's all a matter of degree Jack.
This is beyond beating the dead horse. Something the president said in the late 90's to something Romney said a few weeks ago is night and day. Having a level playing field is 'Redistribution', while giving the wealthy more they don't need is 'American'. What a joke.
Doesn't anyone remember about the camel and the eye of a needle?
Everyone should get a fair chance and everyone should have a shot.Level the playing field.I am an independent but agree with Obama.No one should struggle for the basic Human needs(Food, clothing and shelter).
I don't beleive that the president meant that as a redistribution of wealth but a method of fair employment and oppotunity to allow sucessful and methodical path for the people to prosper. Some may be sucessful beyond there wildest dreams and some to a lessor extent but the hope is that many will be financially better off. Doesn't sound like socialism to me....
We redistrubute the wealth to pay for defense. We redistribute the wealth to pay for NASA. We redistribute the wealth to pay for police fire and ambulan...no...no... we don't redistribute the wealth to pay for ambulance and hospital. Everyone else on the planet does, but we don't.
Yeah, redistribute the wealth Jack. I want national healthcare and send the bill to Romney because he overcharged me and he now has my money.
It's a beautiful and deeply American idea that we are all in this together – it's called "citizenship" – and that everyone "gets a shot." That's democracy. Not government by a few wealthy families. And to suggest this kind of shared wealth is socialism is stupid and rhetorical in its most manipulative sense. This is a good comment by a good man.
The redistribution of wealth can only be a part of the solution. You have missed the redistribution of tax liabilty that has been ongoing as the top rates have been cut at the federal level. You also have missed the distribution of wealth that has denied reward for our gains in productivity that have gone to the top while people like me pay a higher effective tax rate 21% than a wealthy presidential candidate. My raises have been at best 1-3% for "execellent performance" for the last 2 decades. Redistribution should start with distribution and only then do we have a complete argument to make. I say if you won't pay me for my hard work we should tax the top for capitalizing on it.
I'm an independent and I'm so tired of hearing this tired argument. In this country we have a progressive tax scale, the top earners pay more. People at the bottom take more out of the system because they need more assistance. Therefore, unless you believe the government shouldn't help poor people at all, EVERYONE believes in redistribution of wealth. The idea that saying so aloud opens you up to being called you a bolshevick is absurd and not worth the air time used to discuss it.
Jack, when you quote Obama, why not be honest and give the intire quote. He did NOT say a business owner did not build his own business. He said we all have help in whatever we do. Or words to that effect. We all know you are an Obama hater but why don't you try to pretend a little since you are suppose to be unbiased. I doubt that you are able to do that though.
Redistributition of the wealth is and always has been America's solutions to America's problems. Look at America during the 50's when the top earners paid 80 to 90% in taxes and the economy boomed. Redistribute and we aill all benefit.
No. That's not what President Obama is doing. But it IS what the Republicans have been doing for some time now. Redistributing the wealth of our nation and the middle class upward into the pockets of the 1%. If it get's any more upwardly redistributed, we're going to be a 'serfdom' nation... we're not far from that now.
If American taxpayers can save our banks and auto industries, etc., we've already redistributed the wealth, it's called bailouts. We are living in a time that it is necessary to redistribute America's wealth to avoid another terrible recession that ends up in a depression and we can't bail anything or anybody out.
I guess it depends on your definition of redistribution. We already redistribute wealth in the country by taking care of poor people with tax money. I think the President is saying we just need to make those programs more effective.
I think your question is inaccurate. Then Sen. Obama ONLY used the term "redistribution", but did not use the term with wealth, meaning he could have ment a number of things to redistribute, for example redistributing tax credits, redistributing services, etc. Jack I think it's important for the press to REPORT the news not twist the news as is being done here.
Many of my relatives were sent to a far off land in southeast Asia to fight against communist socialist aggression. I don't think they ever thought they would have to fight the fight all over again on American soil. No the distribution of wealth is not the answer. That Mr. President is UNPATRIOTIC.
No Jack, it's not, but it should be. The fact of the matter is, the largest economic expansion of any country, ever, occurred between the end of WW2 and the Mid-70s. During that expansion we saw the creation of the interstate highway system, the best schools and colleges in the world, the creation of NASA and the lunar landing, and the largest migration from the lower to the middle class EVER! Factories and industrial production exploded creating jobs, jobs and more jobs. In addition through civil rights legislation we added millions to the workforce and unemployment was still low. During that time frame, the top tax rate approached 90%. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
That comment by the president is a correct answer to a lingering american problem. We saw it clearly in the last four years where the workers lost footing and lost wealth while the rich became richer in these hard times. If Obama can make government more efficient by making the system fair for all, I'm all for it.
It's called TXES, Jack, look into it.
Redistribution is certainly part of ROMNEY'S plan, at least to a CERTAIN EXTENT, unless I missed something and he now supports an end to ALL income tax.
Ron Paul was the only Republican candiate calling for an end to ALL wealth redistribution.
If you LISTEN to Obama's 1998 speech be said he "believes in redistribution, as least to a CERTAIN EXTENT..." this doesn't mean 100% socialist equality, though Romney would like to frame it that way. The truth, again, is being obscured by the liars in the GOP.
No Redistribution! It is theft and this strategy will lead to a country as effective at helping citizens as the Chicago Public Schools is at educating children.
I wonder how many low intrest goverment loans Bain Capital took?
why not Jack? We've already tried the path of unmitigated greed–it was called de-regulation and resulted in Enron,Worldcom, Ponzi schemes, and mortgage predatory lending. How exactly is the hoarding of wealth and sending millions abroad to swiss bank accounts to avoid taxes going to help America in the middle of this economic crisis? When exaclty did social darwinism, deceit, and excess become american virtues?
Mr. Romney and his "cohorts" have been redistributing wealth to themselves for decades. They only have a problem with it when it helps the less privileged. At least the President is trying to give everyone a fair shot. Romney just wants to write off 47 percent of the country.
It's not THE answer, Jack, but it's a PART of the answer. I say this, by the way, as a person of privilege: a straight white man born into an upper-middle-class family who never had to rely on financial aid for my college or grad school education. I've been very lucky in many ways, and yes, I believe in efforts to adjust for the advantages that people like me have unfairly held for centuries. What Pres. Obama is espousing isn't socialism; it's just some corrective tinkering with a highly flawed system that historically has favored some above others - and favors them still. More power to him!
– Paul McComas, Evanston, IL
People who worked for their money should choose whether they want it to be redistributed;however, not all rich people earned their money. We live in a generation where the hardworker does not get what they earned nor what they deserved. A redistribution of wealth only gives to those who did not get what they deserve or earned and takes away from those who did not earn or deserve it. However it does not resolve our economic problems. We should fix the system that is corrupt so that everyone will have an equal opportunity to earn their own riches that way only few will need to depend on the government entitlements because there are people who really need help who cannot do for themselves or who has earned the help from their sacrifice for this country in the military.
EVERYONE benefits when more are doing better. The many successful people from poor backgrounds, demonstrate the
importance of having a strong safety net and support for thoses that make efforts. That takes money and government involvement.
of course not. It's not as if we have not had an opportunity to observe his actions and policies for the last 3 years and 9 months. He has not proposed any redistribution of wealth, unless you include supporting a steeper graduation in the graduated income tax. If that were deemed a redistribution of wealth, then just about every president in the 20th and 21st centuries would be a socialist.
The fact is that the "redistribution" has been going on for 30 years.
The rich have been getting richer while the middle-class' wages and salaries have been stagnant.
Changing that trend into something akin to a somewhat more just distribution system would be nice.
And it'd surely be good for America. Very good.
President Obama simply understands that.
Redistribution of wealth is nothing more than Robin HOOD economics. Capitalism & free market society is what America is all about as per the Founding Father. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not the answer to our current problem. The USA is not socialistic but Darwinistic. If we fall to this there will be no freedom left in the world!
Yes. And while we're at it, why don't we take all the hard work kids do in school and redistribute their grades to the kids who aren't doing so well. Wait... we do that too. We've been grading on a curve for decades and look at how well our education system is doing! We need to hold people accountable for their failures as well as reward them for their efforts. If we keep taking away the reward from those who earned it and giving it to those who failed where's the encouragment to excel? We have killed all motivation in this country because we know that no matter how well or good we do, we're going to be just the same. No wonder we are being passed by every other developed nation on the planet.
Whenever anyone wants to dump on Democrats they call them Socialists and we are all supposed to drop our jaws in shock and fear a the end of America. Obama however is not a Socialist; this is just name calling. And he's right – if all the wealth collects in the pockets of a few then the laws are skewed and there is no level playing field. Who stacked the deck – follow the money.
Mr. Etch-a-Sketch himself shouldn't be bringing up ancient history. If we went back to everything Romney has said, he was pro choice before he was pro life, he was for govt. mandated healthcare before he was against it, and the list goes on. Helping out the poor is not socialism, it is good for the country and good for business. Romney wants to return to the 1800's when everyone was on their own and all the wealth was controlled by a few families. Everyone else will be dirt poor because they don't have access to higher education, healthcare and the basic necessities of food and shelter.
Wealth has been greatly redistributed from the middleclass to the upper 1% in the past thirty years, so is this socialism? If so then Romney (Rmoney) and the wealthy Republicans must be socialists. Obama's remarks speak to the declining wealth of the working and middle classes. Somebody in the Republican Party should actually read Marx so they know what they are talking about rather than throwing fake political stink bombs!
Living in Ontario Canada, soft socialism is good for the disenfranchised. Romney's 47% need to depend on the governement. However, living off the government is not the economc answer. Reeducating, job creation programs,paid volunteer programs – these are the answers to helping people.
I made my argument on my own blog call Redistribution of Tax Liability: A Message from the Middle Class. I am just a registered nurse who is frustrated with the people above me making all the gains while we get the crumbs.
The redistribution of wealth is not a solution to any of our problems , but it is a necessity , especially when we have an economy that is structured to where the richest have seen there wealth increase by 250% over the last 30 years. Try as they might , some people are going to finish at the bottom , and they or there children should not have to suffer because of it.
redistribution of Romney's weatlh as in his fair share of taxes would be great if used for scolarships! we need educated workers to compete.
Most people think our farm policy works. That redistribution system has been in place for farmers since World War II. We now have 400 people controlling over 80% of the wealth in the U.S. and that certainly isn't working. Only 35% of corporations pay income tax and under Romney's definition corporations are people. General Electric and the little old lady living on $900 per month social security do have something in common.
Lets say Obama got what he wanted. He gave every one a hundred thousand dollars to get their fair shot. I would bet in six months the ones he gave it to would be broke again and the ones he took it from would have found a way to get it back. That is the way the world works sorry for the reality check.
Since I pay a much higher percentage of taxes than Mitt does and his tax plan would only increase that disparity. Why not ask the question: Is the redistribution of wealth Mitt Romney's answer to America's problems?
Redistributing wealth? Get half a brain. Obama makes the point that trickle down wealth is a myth. Just look at how the middle class has all but disappeared under the previous eight years of administration that bought two wars, gave tax cuts to the wealthy, and whose policies brought down the banking and housing system. Obama wants to develop policies that organically redistribute wealth. More lending for small businesses, fair pay for skilled workers, nurses and educator. Re-training for displaced workers. Many of these policies work very, very well in Germany and other European nations. Nobody wants to separate the rich from their wealth. In fact, for a Christian nation, remember this, "it is harder for a rich man to pass through the eye of the needle." If the rich do not support programs to keep their own children in well-funded public schools, then there is no hope for a shift in income for the middle class and poor, is there?
All tax systems are based on redistribution. Subsidies to oil an ethanol producers; incentives for business start-ups or expansion; tax loopholes for corporations; the plethora of tax deductions available to help a man making $20 Million reduce his effective tax rate to 13.9% – all these things involve "redistribution". Let's not target only those measures designed to help students, or low-income earners and start hollering "socialism" as an excuse to abandon our most precious resource, our people.
Jack redistribution as you want people to believe is government taking over the wealth of some people and giving it to others who are the less privileged. That is NOT what President Obama is saying, What the president is saying is that, we should let everyone their fair opportunity and a level play ground to become rich also. Not some opportuned 1% of the population controlling the wealth of the vast majority through continued manipulation and arm twisting of the system as done by the GOP.
PLEASE redistribute the wealth! We are running out down here!
Redistrbution has already taken place, the middle class were displaced by the poor and upper class got rich. The Republicans know this and so we. Not many of us make the two hundred thousand that is so frequently tossed about.
Yeah, that is how the one or two percent to be. It was on the back of the middle class which has disappeared
We have had redistribution of wealth for years. Not all states receive the same amount of federal dollars back that they have paid in. The ironic thing is that the southern conservative states have benefited from this redistribution the most.
The gov can't give anything that it doesn't take from someone else and redistribution of wealth is socialism. I'll resist socialism with my life...if necessary!
It may not be but Romney's team may make it look like so in a more positive way than they wish. Redistribution of wealth only works effectively in democratic nations favoring social equality. That relates well with Obama's plan where a high income earner will pay a higher tax rate than a low income earner. That is redistribution of wealth if you look at it that way, and i guess that's what Obama meant when he said he believes in some of it.
I don't that is the point. However, every society, including the U.S., has a way to distribute the load to who can carry the most. The U.S. is not different, just look at the taxes at state and local level.
The redistribution of wealth has already occurred, from the middle class to the wealthy. Some would call it theft. And it was not a solution to "the problem", it's the cause. All Obama is doing is trying to right the ship, so that everyone has a fair shot. It's Romney who wants to continue the policies of redistribution, to continue weighing everything in favor of the wealthy, so that top 1% gets richer, as the middle class continues to work harder for less, getting poorer along the way
this country is so top heavy, it will tumble
What's wrong with a little socialism? I'd think most Americans would be envious of Scandinavians' quality of life. And their gaps between their rich and poor are, naturally, some of the lowest in the world (GINI index).
Hell, no. Let the poor die in the streets. Keep them uneducated so they can't compete. Narrow the nation's wealth down to "100 people own EVERYTHING." And get rid of this socialist commie president that Wall St. loves so much. What a load. Republicans are desperate. Everyone knows what Obama meant. Could anyone really be against fairness? Well, yes, and we know who you are.
Taxes are Redistribution. Without taxes you don't have a society. You don’t have a military, roads, airports, on and on. The choice is clear. Do we want a country based on everyone for themselves or a country that invests in our citizens. The choice is clear to me. I choose the President.
Jack...there are just under 5 percent of Americans on Food stamps , these are the truly poor in our Country. I am a 70 year old Retired P O and Navy Submarine Veteran , and I guess I belong to the 47 percent not paying taxes . This is NOT a redistribution of Wealth ! President Obama may not have " All " the answers , but at least has SOME. ,where-as Gov Romney has NONE...other than to give the very Richest Citizens a Tax Break ! Romney has the best redistribution of wealth..The Rich get Richer , The Poor get Poorer !!..Gerry Forseth..Oshkosh , Wi.
Redistribution is a capitalist idea, though Reagan called it trickle down economics. The only real difference is trickle down doesn't work unless government puts some pressure on the rich to squeeze some of the trickle out of the truly greedy for the benefit of the truly needy.
How could such a short broad audio clip that could be about anything from 14 years ago be considered so seriously. But it does sound like a good idea. Seems to work here :)
This is not a redistribution of wealth, taketh from one and giveth to another, this is a redistribution for the opportunity to gain wealth for everyone, in that we make sure everyone from poor to middle class all have that same opportunity to prosper as do the wealthy. In todays society only the wealthy get wealthier, just give us little guys an chance, some help and see what we can do, that is what President Obama is trying to accomplish.
Think about it. Every person in America in the 1% Sound's great, Think it will happen
We are told by the "news media" that Obama is an honest man and we can believe his words. Therefore, the answer has to be : Yes, he does believe that the redistribution of wealth is the answer to our problems. Take from those who have achieved success –usually through hard work, perseverance, good choices, give to those who have not –usually through bad choices. All in the name of "fairness"...and just where is the concept of fairness in our Constitution? His agenda is the antithesis of what our country has been about.
Jack, some form of redistribution is inevitable in all forms of government (Education, Veteran Services, Medicare). Republicans are making it sound like a disease. I have to admit that Romney was right about one thing, Elections are decided by those in the middle, not Republicans or Democrats who always vote the same way regardless. Those of us in the middle will look deeper into the character of the candidates and predict how they will react to situations that are likely to happen during their presidency. During these times of complex foreing policy and economic woes, Obama is a better choice. Romney would be good in times of prosperity when wealth will inevitably trickle down.
Limited redistribution - whether voluntary or by law - is not socialism by definition. You distorted the question to imply that at one time in a place far far way that President Obama believed in complete redistribution. He probably believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus also if you dig deep enough.
Yes! The wealth that Mitt has accumulated and not paid taxes and\or reported on, or which he holds in foreign accounts SHOULD be redistributed. And yes, if we all pay the same amount of taxes – that would be redistributing the wealth to the very poor and middle class.
Jack I’m not sure that you get let! Wealth has already been redistributed. The top 5% have watched their incomes rise by 150% while the middle class wages have been stagnate for over a decade. One out of every 5 American children live in poverty and corporate CEO like Governor Romney can take advantage of laws and regulations that allow them to hide their assets overseas and escape taxes. If you are poor or lower middle class you can't even secure a free checking account. The game is rigged to move money from the bottom two thirds to the top...Redistribution
Jack , if so it is no different from what the USA as a country, is doing for others around the world! Wow, what is the big problem with being a country that practice "keeping our brothers and sisters"? The absence of food and shelter threatens the human experience everyday, sometimes brought on by natural disasters!
Republicans call taxing the most well off among us "redistributing of wealth" as if there is another option. The fact is that we have nearly 16 trillion dollars of debt. Raising taxes on the middle class is not an option in this brutal economic climate and we cannot cut enough programs out of the budget to make up for our deficit. Tax increases, while politically bad, are an economic necessity if we ever want to get out of the fiscal whole we dug ourselves into. Obama understands that we have to put pragmatism before what is good politically.
Redistribution is the only means to reconcile the maldistribution of wealth. The top is not the ONLY ones that have earned the rights to financial reward. The question is not why are they being penalized for the "success" on their financial gains, but why are we being penialized for our hard work with no financial reward?
It might not be the solution to all our problems, but for a country which is supposed to be based on high morals it iwould be the right thing to do.
Of course not. President Obama is advocating that everyone pay their fair share. It's amazing what this administration has been able to do on its own without support from the republicans. Just think of where the American economy might be if republicans had put the welfare of the American people ahead of politics and party and their sole goal of destroying this presidency.
It is pure hyprocrisy for Romney to criticize Obama for supporting wealth redistribution. Romney's Republican Party very successfully redistributed wealth from the middle class and poor when they approved tax breaks that shifted even more wealth to billionaires, cut taxes on capital gains to be lower than taxes on income earned by those who work and approved bank bailouts that allowed executives to earn huge bonuses while they cut off credit to most consumers and small businesses and Romney himself supports more redistribution of wealth by continuing tax cuts for millionaires. We 47 percenters have paid the price for the Republican Wealth Redistribution Plan for Millionaires.
The lower class in America is not often discussed in U.S. politics. The disenfranchised who are sometimes bitter and hopeless to crawl from their never-ending cycle of bill juggling and monthly choices between rent and groceries.
Redistribution of wealth would help them immensely, if done correctly and responsibly. These are the "have nots" in our society, and it often stems from being a product of one's environment. If it takes money to make money, the lower classes are starting with a disadvantage.
"For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?" – Sir Thomas More
We've been redistributing America's wealth, it's called bailout. But when we talk about redistributing America's wealth to the American people some like to call it Socialism and if that's true, we've already crossed that line.
WHEN, WHEN did it because a sin to have compassion for those less fortunate? And a politician like Obama that actually (shocks of shocks) wants to help people? Wonders never cease. Everyone in this country has forgotten why government was established at all. It is built by the people, FOR the people. Mr. Romney, we did actually build that & it's only purpose is to serve us. (Not to solely be a war machine.) If you can't see that, then you don't deserve to serve in any type of office.
Is this an attempt to spin from the comments that 47% of Americans are loosers? We are discussing a comment from 14years ago over a comment from hours ago. I watch CNN for the unprejudiced presentation of news...but the situation room is obviously bias. Why do you refer to a sitting president as Mr instead of President? The real question is how many corporations didn't pay taxes? By the way, Mitt didn't say Income tax..he said taxes...where is his tax returns.
Words matter and facts matter. And the fact is any tax by definition is redistribution of wealth. Not just in America, not just under Obama, but every tax ever levied by any government, lord, king, queen or jack in the entire history of the planet was for the purposes of redistribution. For most of history these taxes went from the humble and lowly and were redistributed upward to the high and mighty. We have generally had a much better system in the USA: taxes are collected from individuals, corporations and other entities. This money is pooled and redistributed in the form of highways, libraries, air craft carriers, post offices and NASA. It’s one thing to disagree with how much money is collected and what it is spent on. But to say, as Romney does, that you don’t believe in the very concept of redistribution at all is to say you don’t believe in government at all. It is also means you don’t believe in the U.S. Constitution because it lays out the redistribution of wealth as the primary role of government. To wit: “The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States. (Article I, Section 8: Enumerated Powers).” We act like the concept of redistribution is some scary cold-war commie plot, but it is really the most American thing in the world. Without it we wouldn’t have won our independence, ended slavery, defeated Hitler or sent men to the moon.
I think it's obvious he doesn't HAVE an answer to this question. I distinctly recall in 2008 during the election, he was emphatic he had these answers then and that all we had to do was elect him, but now here we are four years past the rodeo with nothing to show for it but less wealth among the fading middle class and overall general financial weakness across the board.
It's been estimated that the U.S. has spent over $7 trillion, with a "T", dollars since 911 on homeland defense and "security" (i.e., foreign wars we have no business being in). One can only ponder where we would be now had we thrown that $7 trillion on research to get ourselves off foreign oil, which seems to be at the very crux of most of our financial and political issues these days. For instance, if we weren't dependent on foreign oil, our men and women in the military would be protecting OUR borders instead of getting shot in foreign countries right now because the United States doesn't get involved in foreign wars unless there's oil in it for us. If that's not true, why are we NOT involved in the humanitarian issue of what's going on in South Africa? Answer: there ain't no oil there. If somebody ever scratches up a barrel of oil over there, we'll have a military presence there at warp speed.
I'm an independent and I'm so tired of hearing this tired argument. In this country we have a progressive tax scale, the top earners pay more. People at the bottom take more out of the system because they need more assistance. Therefore, unless you believe the government shouldn't help poor people at all, EVERYONE believes in redistribution of wealth. The idea that saying so aloud opens you up to being called you a bolshevick is absurd and not worth the air time used to discuss it.
Doesn't everybody believe in redistribution. Doesn't everybody want a bigger piece of the economic pie. In the early 1900's the rich had it; After the Depression and World War II, the middle class earned a bigger share of it; Under "Supply-Side Economics/Trickle-Down Economics", the rich got it back; and now the middle class and the poor want it again. Dumb Question.
The president is talking about the temporary tax breaks that was given before. I cannot believe that the rich would complain about paying a bit more to get the country gets back on the right tract. I give a lot and I am not rich, but I am very grateful that I am able to give to the someone less fortunate. Where has the decency gone?
Absolutely not. The solution to America’s problem is to discover and endless source of energy just like in Star Trek the Next Generation where all that is necessary is self-development. If not that try term limits in Congress.
Tic for Tat...I assume Mitt Romney is releasing the partial "Redistribution" video to fend off the ridiculous statements he made at the "Private" fund raiser back in February. The President has stated from the beginning that government funded programs should be implemented to at least give those less fortunate individuals a fair shot. Can the President take the millions of off shore accounts and give to the poor? Can the President tax the super rich enough to offset the poor? No..!! The entire label of "socialist" is weak and lame. But the economic disparity in this country goes far beyond the rich and the forever poor. Opportunity and selective choice for many years has created the robust contrast of the 50% vs. the 50%.
No it is absolutely not the solution. I see enough people that expect others to take care of them. It is time that people go back to taking care of themselves. It is your responsibility to take care of yourself, not the government's. I am a legal immigrant and now citizen from the Netherlands and have seen the socialistic system. I don't want this for the US, we are unique in the world and we should stay unique. If someone loses their job then under certain circumstances we can help for a certain time. We have many people that are on government support for years or generations, but they do not contribute to the US in any matter. That is not the American way!!! With redistribution of wealth this will only become worse. I work hard and many more hours more then the average person, so I am more successful and I will not want to give more to people that do nothing!
The redistribution of wealth is the essential component of our economy. Every time a dollar changes hands, with every transaction, wealth is both redistributed and new wealth is generated. The economy wouldn't work if there were no redistribution of wealth. If no redistribution of wealth occurred, our GDP would be a flat ZERO. The question here is, What direction do we want the redistribution of wealth to flow. - upwards from the middle class, or downwards from the wealthiest.
The only redistribution of wealth I see is setting limits on outrageous gains by taxing with the same percentages as all other Americans. If that is considered redistribution of wealth by the GOP, so be it!!! Right now, the Republican party is groping for anything they can get their hands on…including fondling American’s perception that Romney is the middle class. Better to redistribute than divide as when Romney touted that 47% of Americans are having their hands out, dependent upon the government. ~sigh~
The wealth has been going one way, UP, for so long and that trickle down must be jammed up somewhere. Send somebody up there to unclog that jam so we can get some wealth redistribution. My bill collectors will Tank You!
So Romney effectively writes off 47% of the American citizens as those he "does not have to worry about, and suddenly we're talking about something Obama said 14 years ago in relation to making social service agencies more effective? My taxes have been "redistributed" to fund wars I am against, bail outs banks and Wall Street, subsidize oil companies, and insure pensions for people who worked in companies that the likes of Romney have bankrupt. Let the wealthy pay a fairer share of their tax burden and fines for shipping jobs out of this country; before we worry about whether "redistribution" is feeding hungry kids and helping American citizens who have suffered from the recession.
“In his candid conversation with ‘Joe the plumber,’ Obama made clear that his main economic goal is to redistribute wealth, not strengthen and grow our economy,” said O’Leary. “This is pure socialism, albeit thinly veiled, and it does not resonate with hard-working Americans who would rather keep their money than have Obama redistribute it to his favorite constituencies.” Another 4 years of President Obama wlll zoom us toward the end of American civilization as we know it with his unbiblical morals that he have "evolved" to in his quest to "modernize" God and his word in order to satisfyt MAN'S desires! He must believe in a new Christianity???? :-(
Redistribution of wealth is the answer. It will benefit every one. U.S. economic history bears this point out very nicely. Redistribution is nothing new Jack, it has been going on since Ronald Reagan took office, only it favored the rich. They got richer, the cost of living has skyrocketed, and the middle class has shrunk. Redistribution on a broad base will put money into the hands of people who will spend and consume. That will get the economy going in the right direction and limit the boom and bust nature of the American Economy.
Nearly every government program's goal is to redistribute wealth in some way or another. I would be interested to see if Romney hates wealth distribution so much that he would move to repeal Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. I bet he wont because it wouldn't poll well and Romney will say and do anything that helps him in the polls.
Jack I realize that you are trying to help Romney out with using words like redistribution the wealth. But what I think will help America out is people like Romney paying their fair share in taxes especially on the money they have hidden in offshore accounts. It has been estimated to be that there is $21 trillion that billionaires have hidden in offshore accounts. If Romney wants to condemn other people for not paying taxes who have worked all their lives and pay other taxes like payroll taxes, then he needs to look into the mirror because he is guilty of the same thing. A lot of these people pay over 15% in taxes while Romney only pays 13%. If by redistribution you mean making millionaires pay their fair share then the answer is yes.
sorry, become a sin, not because a sin- typo
redistribution,No. Fairness,Yes.I'm 76 and have been paying into soc.sec. for 60 years as I still have to work as the last administration ruined my retirement and to tell me that I'm a taker and not a maker after paying taxes for 60 years is an insult. This idiot is totally out of touch with the real world as the middle class is being screwed and he wants to screw them some more. All he can say when asked abouy what he would do to fix things is to say"Trust me. I'll tell you after i"m elected.".The last time I heard that it was from a used car saleman or was it snake oil?
We already redistribute the wealth. It's called taxing. We've been doing it for years and Congress gets to play Robin Hood and decide how the wealth is divided among their financial supporters. As for Obama's comments, actually I hope we continue to strive for opportunities for everyone. I always thought helping our poor, hungry and brave was the American way. Somehow, we seem to have moved away from that concept to the "it's all about me" crowd. Truly sad.
You can ask for an equal opportunity for everyone without it automatically be defined as socialism. Asking that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes and not be able to hide their money in Swiss banks or Cayman Islands would be a start. Making sure everyone has equal educational opportunities is another. This fear mongering about socialism coming to get us is just ignorance. If the Republicans can't win an election on their ideas and intellect they will try it with fear. Haven't we had enough of the fear. This is just a new direction for the same old thing from them.
HEY! Somebody out there hear me?? We are out of Money.....PLEASE redistribute!
Of course it is Jack because socialism has such a great track record. As an alternative I would offer this: let's put people back to work and get them off the government dole. Then let's if those "working" stiffs want Obama to redistribute THEIR wealth. Let's get rid of this failed administration and give someone else a chance. Romney certainly can't do any worse!
How do we call it redistribution when one 1% of American control's over 90% of the nation's wealth economic wealth. The system is uunjust because the working pple pay more tax that some of this rich fellow. so the point iss for everyone to have a field to compete on, the govt must first address this disparity. secondly, American are unemployed today because many of our cooperation chose to ship job abroad for cheap labor so they could maximise profit and put american workers out of work. therefore, for our nation to develop the govt must first empower the working people and put in place policies that regulate many of the unbridle actions of this incooperation. Thirdly, govt dont operates in vacuum, our general tax is what the govt use to provide public services like policing,fire fighters, teacher among other. what will America look like when everyone is mandated to have their own private police. so it is obvious that many republicans are out of tourch with reality. also can we pause an ask how many american will be able to afford health with out govt support and what about the students strugglling to pay their school loan and the elders that have in the past pay their own quota for this nation. The idea of redistribution and creation of a fair competing for all will enhance the nation and reduce many of the American problem. Anyone can call it socialism or capitalist welfarism but the pole that we all stand today is substain by govt support and regulation. Mitt dont can't relate with the poor because he never felt our pain and I hope someday the working class pple can decide the fate of the nation. People make up govt and not the other way around.
Jack, There is another way.... "Big" doesn't work... not Big "Mega" Businesses ... they need to be regulated and we know that "Big" government doesn't work because really it is controlled by the "Big" money from really big business. There should be a partnership... and it isn't happening. Elections are simply how we decide who is going to control the world's resources. Is it going to be "team A" or "team B" that control the resources centrally far from where those resources are mined, grown, and harvested.
THE ANSWER: Local communities need to reclaim ownership and control over the resources that support their communities. It is at the local level where people care about sustaining the resources, environment, and the peace for the generations to come..... Decades and Centuries as opposed to "Central ownership and control" which only cares about the election cycles and annual reports. Greed runs the "Big" .... People run the "local community .... We must begin a process and governance system that puts the locus of control at the community level when in comes to our resources...... there is much more to do and say .... but, ask me and I will provide some ideas on how this could happen.
Jim, Happy Valley, California
Holy cow, will you conservative children stop acting like socialism is a dirty word? This pure capitolism, which does not require some distribution of wealth theough social programs and infrastructure projects and encourages the wealthy to hoard their money by offering incentives like "capitol gains" tax rates is a sure path the destruction of our economy and then our nation itself. The middle class in this country better wake up and stop working aginst their own economic interests or they will sonn wake up to find their sountry gone. When this happens, these greedy wealthy tyrants will do nothing to rebuild it, they will likely shut out the lights, out a for sale sign in the yard and move to another country, taking the nations wealth with them!
At least the president wants to redistribute the wealth in ares where it helps people in need so they can get on their feets and become successful as oppose to Romney who wants to redistribute what little wealth I have to his wealthy partners who only he can relate to on a daily basis. Sorry Mr. Romney you're to have to dig elsewhere on this one.
The redistrubution of wealth is not the answer for the ills of America. Instead it is moving to a Socialist country based upon a single ruler setting the rules of goverment, to collect wealth and distrubute to those who they see fit. Only in America can one determine his or her destiny, by those with the mind set to succeed and willing to put all the effort. America was not envision by the fore fathers to be govern by one ruler. Taxation without is Tyranny
The premise of this question ABSOLUTELY DUMB as if ALL our nation’s problems can be solved by any one remedy. REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH is also a loaded term which really is just tax policy. So NO I don’t believe Obama or Romney believes this because both their tax plan involve redistribution of wealth one way or another. But the question itself seems to just want to get reaction from people then to actually ask a legitimate question. So here my reaction, STUPIED QUESTION!!!
Yes, Jack, redistribution of wealth is the answer to America's problems. National wealth is not generated alone or in a vaccum, it is socially generated by all who work. Therefore, the wealth should be shared by all. A free and civilized society does not leave its citizens behind. Poor people work and pay taxes(sales and property taxes) as well as those in the middle class. Redistribution is the answer to addressing crime, terrorism, voter disassociation and poverty. Redistribution promotes fairness, justice and a strong nation with security and order.
There is something called the GINI ratio (look it up) which ranks individual countries on the disparity in income between the richest and the poorest. It has been shown that the countries with a lower ratio, less than 0.40, do better in hourly wages for their citizens. So yes, research shows that redistribution of the wealth leads to a healthier economy!
What the president was talking about was all the corporations and millionaires who don't pay no tax or no were near their fair share. like GE who didn't pay no tax's at all and thank us by moving jobs to China .
If we do away with all the tax loopholes it would be better for everyone.if you call that Redistribution so be it.....Lexington, Kentucky
Doesn't everybody believe in redistribution. Doesn't everybody want a bigger piece of the economic pie. In the early 1900's the rich had it; After the Depression and World War II, the middle class earned a bigger share of it; Under "Supply-Side Economics/Trickle-Down Economics", the rich got it back; and now the middle class and the poor want it again. I guess it all boils down to whether business considers the labor supply an asset of an expense (liability).
I am not a normal viewer, however, I can tell you that after watching today's broadcast, I will NOT be tuning in again. You showed very little (insufficient in my opinion) respect to the President of the United States of America. To refer to him as "Mr. Obama", rather than by his proper title of President, is something I have come to accept from the mudslingers at fox, but refuse to hear by choice. Your network has also failed completely to convey the importance of the American notion of "choice" by failing to acknowledge the existence of third party candidates, such as Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. I am very disappointed and I wish that meant more to the people at your network.
It makes sense to look at all of the resources of the country, including wealth. With the intension to accomplish thoughtful measures to assure we are not maintaining a large poor working class and an extremly rich small portion of the population. This is not socialism it is simply good management of a Democratic society.
I don't see how that tape is bad thing for this election. It only helps Obama in my opinion. Republican leadership is really out of touch with the dire economic plight of most Americans. Who are they aiming this campaign at? The 100 chief investors?
When Wall Street continues with these obscene profit and bonus models, while paying employees an unsustainable living wage the pyramid is bound to collapse.
Spreading earnings from any venture around more equitably can only create stronger businesses, grow a healthier economy and build a more robust America. Call it wealth redistribution, if you will. It's the proven trickle up approach that created a prosperous America during Bill Clinton's era.
Redistributing tax payer money to students, teachers, fire fighters, infrastructure, and even the auto industry... it's call a give away or welfare. But when you redistribute wealth to the benefit the richest 1% of Americans, it's called a tax cut. They both help. One helps the top 1%, and the other one helps the rest of us.
Not any more than Romeny's answer....Obama redistributes to the poor, Romeny redistributes to the wealthy through tax breaks and loop holes....both leave the middle class holding the bag!
Jack, if by redistribution of wealth you mean good paying jobs for average Americans, even at the expense of a bit of profit for people like Romney and the Kochs, then yes. Hell yes.
I swear I'm not a parasite! Need Money! trickle some down by redistribution method.....break.....we are sinking FAST....lifeboats broken.......money ran out......SOS........need redistribute......doctor wants payday has big stick......HELP!!
Jack, why do you repeat a misrepresentation of what the President said? When he said, "you didn't build that", he was referring to infrastructure and the way in which our efforts and merits always have some relationship to the efforts and merits of those who have gone before or who are around us. No one is an island. There is always a social context. He never said that no one has ever built his own business or taken advantage of opportunities given him or created his own opportunities. Let's be fair. This is a bum rap on the President.
This is nothing more than a temporary Robin Hood solution. We need a tax revolution like the Boston Tea Party (not political party). Realigning the tax code to tax the corporations and mega rich is fine. Unfortunately we cannot move further west to escape DC for true freedom. $250k is not "rich" and Obama's redistribution will hurt the only middle class.
I can't really believe this question is even being asked. The way of our world, and certainly the way of our land -these United States -not the USSA, is that you get out what you put in. I have worked my fingers to the bone to make more so that I may have those things I enjoy. I don't put in a 65 hour week to let someone who has no clue what I "put in" grab it and give it to those I know that are celebrating a lay off knowing they have 98 wweks to get back to work and others that just want MORE from me. This world job market is MERIT based; not "system" -atically socialist. If our true American way changed while I was sleeping, let me know; I'll move to some country where their national Constitution actually still represents the very basis of their laws. Sure we're all in it together. I'm very generous. Geez Jack, not even a drug dealer would stand for Mr Obama snatching half of his money after a drug deal gone good just for the sake of the presidents for redistribution. It's about as dumb an idea as this administration's Veterans Affairs Department spending 5 million bucks on a party recently...who was watching that bowl of money????? Find out, and then indict them.
I do not think President Obama wants to take all the money away from the rich and give to the poor. That is not what he means. I do think everyone needs to do their fair share. Everyone should pay something for living in this great country. Why don't we go to a 15% tax on everyone. No deductions of any type (especially since so many cheat on their deductions) 15% out of government assisted monies, 15% out of social security money, 15% out of pensions, 15% out of the very rich. Also get rid of people of the disability rolls that are not disabled. Doctors have made a lot of money claiming people are disabled when they are not. We all know people who work cash under the table and pay no taxes. That needs to stop. We have all got to quit voting with thoughts to our own pocketbook and vote for what is best for our country. Our whole country (including the 47% that Romney is ready to write off) is in this together and we have to pull together to get out of this mess and quit borrowing money from China. Anita, senior citizen from Florida
If you redistribute wealth downwards, the rich will get it all back with interest and taxes paid anyways .America depends on consumerism, that where the taxes should exist. Redistrubtion will stimulate spending and bail out main street USA.
WiTh the ability to buy demand increases and taps existing supply. A stimulated economy likewise generates new wealth.
It is much needed
We need to tax millionares and billionares at a much higher rate. They need to contribute with cash for a country that made it possible to accumulate such outragious sums. The poor contributes with blood and sweat. Taking a 14 year old comment from obama and considering he is a socialist is nonsense.
Creating a safety net while not enabling abuse is his goal. Redistribution of a small amount of wealth is only one aspect of a comprehensive plan. These accusations of Socialism are absurd...merely part of the Right wing's tired strategy of slander through repetitive talking points and stubborn intransigence. The Right proposes a winner take all strategy plus a laissez faire approach to our economy. What they will end up with, if given rubber stamp approval, is another deregulated mess exacerbated by greed, and a polarized population of 1% 'Haves' and 99% 'Have-Nots' (an amplification of the current trend). People will revolt.
Sure. I guess I've redistributed all my tax dollars so President Obama can continue with his golf games, parties and celebrity outings. I'm hoping this philosophy means Beyonce and Jay-Z will send me a cut of their paycheck after Obama gets re-elected.
Jack, I don't believe Obama is attempting to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH, or anything else. He's just trying to level the playing field. NO, that would be Republicans who Redistributed Wealth–UPWARD! And Romney who wants a "Do-Over" so they can finish the job. Republicans are the one's who nearly sent all of us, GLOBALLY, into the abyss? Or have you forgotten that? Myopia is becoming epidemic. Republicans couldn't even remember to invite the Architects of this Fiscal Disaster to their convention. BECAUSE ON THEIR WATCH (and as a direct result of their failed policies), WE JUST EXPERIENCED THE LARGEST REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, UPWARD, FROM THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS, TO THE RICHEST 1%, IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. How 'bout busting some REPUBLICAN/Romney chops for a change.Your (Right Leaning) BIAS is really showing lately! Or maybe they've got an opening for ya at FOX "news".
Why do people say Romney is more qualified to handle the economy because of his business background, I mean afterall wasn't G.W. a businessman to and did he own the Texas Rangers baseball team along with other business ventures. You simply can't run a country like you run a corporation.
Redistribution of wealth doesn't mean taking from rich to give to POOR. Last couple decade we witnessed WORKING class people wages heading south top of that H.CARE become unreachable for many, & food, oil and rent keep going up & UNIONS under attack, question is why rich getting richer and CORPORATIONS profit sky rocketing despite sluggish ECONOMIC condition but M.CLASS struggling? MY OPINION OBAMA'S REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH ARGUMENT IS WORKING CLASS people deserves more than what they been getting,
I am a nurse who has never more than a 2% raise in the last 8 years with no pension. I feel for those people who are unable to work or have dependents that need that extra help. My mother was a nurse who worked all of her life again with no pension. She died a pauper and I had to help support her in her so called golden years (due to a ponzie scheme). Some people who have worked diligently lost alot recently: Jobs, homes and health care. I think we should help them. The people who have been on the dole all of these years who don't want to work or do not have the education to make money need to be re-educated and required to go to work. A solution would be to cut our help to other countries who have inapproriate regimes and keep that tax money at home. When they learn to be our friends then help them. Charity starts at home. I do not believe in socialism. It does not work. The people that put into medicare and social security should draw from that pool of money. Others that need help should be able to draw from another area. Let those creative politicians come up with that other area.
Wake up people! The wealthy has been redistributing the wealth since the mid 1980s. They have taken CEOs making 8 times the employee wages and now they make 35 times the wages of the workers. If you give raises to the middle class it causes inflation like it did in the mid 1970s. To keep the inflation at bay, employee raises have practicaly been non existant since the early 1980s. The Redistrution of Wealth is why our country is broke!
First, you might want to define what 'redistribution of wealth' really means in the US. All wealth is the result of someone's effort. The right wing con is to convince everyone that the efforts of the ordinary person are worth way less than the efforts of the powerful and the exceptionally wealthy, and so more wealth should go to them and less to you. Right wingers like Romney actually love redistribution of wealth... as long as it goes to them, and not to you.
Redistribution of wealth is clearly President Obama's answer, but its not the correct answer to America's problem. There are only a few of us that can achieve great success because they are brilliant or had the good fortune of having an ancestor that was brilliant. The rest of us work very hard to be in the middle class. Why would those of us who study and work hard to succeed do that only to have our success shared with those who do not.
Maybe if we make smaller banks they can't hord as much money and WE CAN GET SOME REDISTRIBUTION...once in a while.....do something somebody!
Just like the Great Depression, we have the concentration of Massive Wealth in too few of hands. It must change if you want to stay the strongest country in the world.
When Mitt Romney talks about the redistribultion of wealth, he neglects to mention the redistribution that has occured since the Republicans re-engineered the tax code to create the largest gap ever between the wealth and the rest of us. Perhaps Obama's "redistribution" will bring us back to where we were before Reagan.
I have watched my eldest son and daughter struggle to make ends meet in full-time jobs that did not provide health benefits, retirement plans or even sick pay. They work so hard and it hurts to see these very smart young adults not have the same opportunities my brothers and I had. Socialism? Last time I checked Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are all social programs. From those at the top of the ladder to complain and call the rest of us who work from paycheck to paycheck "parasites" and "victims" aptly portrays how the top 1% sees the rest of us from their lofty mansions. Socialism? Barely making ends meet and not having a savings account? I'll take the Socialism or whatever label is stamped on it. I want my children to have a better life than me, but mostly I want my children to have a better life than they have.
My husband and I grew up in poor but hard working families who never took a dime of support from the available social services. We put ourselves through college and have worked hard and made smart spending and savings decisions all our lives. Why does that make us responsible for anyone else, and how much is enough? I am willing to help, and have helped through local charities, those who aspire to do the same. But I am not willing to throw any more of my money at those who have chosen, yes chosen, not to do more for themselves.
Mitt Romney advocated the same thing a few years ago, what I think is that they both think that the very wealthy should pay more of their share in taxes.
The distribution of wealth is what caused the economic meltdown and has left his country with trillions of dollars of debt. The distribution wealth is providing us with anemic consumer spending, tax revenues, and the high cost for entitlement programs. It has also left us with a government that has to subsidize the business sector and the consumers, while the wealthy laugh their way all the way to wall street.
Jack your desperation is showing more and more everyday! OBVIOUSLY President Obama DOES NOT think redistribution is the solution to the country's problems. President Obama thinks that the USA having the best education system for the children of America, so children grow up to be the most educated in the world, grown up to be entrepreneurs, and inventor, and contribute to the US economy. President Obama believes in investing in research and innovation, so that the USA will be the developers of new technologies (as the Defense Dept, was the successful developer of the internet), President also believes in investing in research and innovation, that can help find new medicines. President Obama also believes that the USA needs to make sure that it is fixing its infrastructure, so that sewer systems, and dams, and bridges, and our schools are not falling apart, so that they are in good condition to be used by America's businesses,and citizens for generation to come. President Obama also believes that the working poor, and the Middle class who work everday, in stores, and factories, and work in construction,and work as police, and teachers, and who are the ones who spend their income in stores, and buying products, and services, are the ones moving the economy forward, and making it grown and that these Americans should NOT be insulted, and should not have their taxes raised by Mitt Romney!
redistribution of wealth is socialism at its finest. The best con of all is the middle class thinking they will receive some of the wealth. Obama will see that doesnt happen. We need jobs back in the U S. Companies that employ workers overseas should not receive one penny in tax breaks.
Socialism?? I don't care if you call it Alien Invaision WE NEED MONEY.....it's all gone! Supposed to come around down here once in a while! IT AIN'T! Send redistribution ASAP! Don't make me beg!
What ever it takes Jack, very tired of the rigged system we have... wont be long we will be marching on our own embassy.
Both parties support redistribution. In order for something to trickle down where must that thing be redistributed to?
Really Jack..tapes from 1998 ..from the last election..really is that your help for Mitt romney and his campaign..really!
Jack Cafferty sounds off hourly on the Situation Room on the stories crossing his radar. Now, you can check in with Jack online to see what he's thinking and weigh in with your own comments online and on TV.
About Jack Cafferty
Subscribe | Send Feedback