Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Our Redistributionist in Chief... The Brutal Truth

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


1998 Obama Admits He is for the Redistribution of Wealth



As the foundation of our Republic is shaken we stand to face further erosion of the principles on which this nation was founded.

May the Gods (whoever they may be) save us all.

24 comments:

  1. You obviously don't understand any financial policy is redistribution of some kind.
    Obama gives it to the poor, Romney gives it to the rich.
    Given our poor economy, Americans vote Obama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I understand perfectly well oh Great and all Knowing Anon what a redistributive financial policy is.

      I also understand you have the intellect of a ObamaBot and a Marxist of the highest order.

      Given our growing government dependency, dumb ass fiscal policy, debt that is out of control, and continuing deficits for as long as anyone can see under either The ObamaNater or RomneySkull VOTE GARY JOHNSON!!!

      Delete
    2. "Romney gives it to the rich"

      How so?

      Delete
  2. Are you unaware of how our federal income taxes work?

    It's redistribution of wealth.

    And it isn't Mr. Obama's idea. All presidents have presided over this countrywide redistribution, including Republicans, for decades.

    The conservatives pushed this non-controversy in the 2008 election with the "Joe (who wasn't a) Plumber" phony character. It's childish and shows a lack of understanding of how federal monies go to the poorest states as a percentage of their needs--NOT as a percentage of what they've paid in federal taxes.

    The poorer southern states get more tax revenue than what they pay; the richer northeast and west coast states get less than what they pay in federal taxes.

    You can easily find this information by googling it.

    America saw it as nonsense issue and voted for Mr Obama anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well my good Shaw after 45 years of paying federal income taxes, which included owning property, I think I have a modicum of of an idea. Thank you.

      I am for a flat income tax. 10 - 15% on an individuals reported gross earnings. No exceptions, no deductions, no loopholes. Simple and equitable. Oh, and those below the poverty line (which is set too low) would pay zero, 0, Nada in federal taxes.

      The progressive income tax system eschewed as the panacea by the liberal/socialists/Marxists is the most punitive, counterproductive, and and unrealistic tax cod ever devised. It is designed and practiced SOLELY to punish the producers and the wealthy. End of story. End of game.

      Delete
  3. Anon: Romney gives what to the rich?

    Please elaborate how he takes from the poor and gives it to the rich.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do realize Silver Anon cannot do that, because it is a fairy tale for the Hopium addicted.

      Anon is nothing more than a vacuous blowhard.

      Delete
  4. Agricultural subsidies that benefit land rich farmers. Subsidies to cash rich oil companies. Lower tax rates to people that can derive income from passive sources rather than actually working a 9 to 5.

    Are not these examples of taking money from one group and redistributing it to another group?

    I am not a rich guy. In fact, owning a home and living in Las Vegas, my net worth is below zero right now. yet I still have to pay my taxes and some of that money is in fact being used so that people like Mitt pay a smaller percentage of their income into the system.

    As Shaw pointed out, this has been our policy for years. The interstate phone system is a good example. Those in the cities pay higher rates in taxes so that those in rural areas can have phone lines brought to far away areas.

    Why should us city dwellers have had to pay for that all these years? Because it was for the common good of all of us to connect those people. Because redistribution, as some call it, makes sense.

    And that is before we even get to the biblical calling expressed in the New Testament, which I believe should be a pretty important text for a supposed Christian nation... " Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Agricultural subsidies that benefit land rich farmers. Subsidies to cash rich oil companies. Lower tax rates to people that can derive income from passive sources rather than actually working a 9 to 5.

      Are not these examples of taking money from one group and redistributing it to another group?"

      Yes Dave they are. And I. like any objectivist finds it both offensive as well as unethical and immoral. If you have followed this site to any degree you know this. I have stated it many times in different ways.

      "I am not a rich guy. In fact, owning a home and living in Las Vegas, my net worth is below zero right now. yet I still have to pay my taxes and some of that money is in fact being used so that people like Mitt pay a smaller percentage of their income into the system."

      The tax code both liberals and not too bright conservatives support is responsible for this. I published a flat tax plan I devised a couple years ago three times. The shortest of explanations of it I gave in response to Shaw's comment on this thread. If you would like to see the rest e-mail me and I will send it along.

      "" Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."

      That is utopia. Never existed, Never will. Human nature will not allow it.

      What must be true and can exist it EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. With equality of opportunity each person is limited only by their ability, desire and drive, willingness to take risk, ability to communicate, self motivation, and how much they believe in themselves and thier own capabilities. The key... HARD WORK.

      Now, for those who are disabled, mentally challenged, have debilitating physical limitations etc. naturally we as a society must provide for these specifics.

      As I always said... If I were walking down the street and on my right I saw a healthy strapping man panhandling for money and on the left I saw a man with four children sweating to lay pipe for $12 an hour who was barely getting by I would give my extra $100 to the guy sweating his ass off to provide for his family. I'm guessing you see the moral of that tale Dave.





      Delete
    2. Dave said: "Agricultural subsidies that benefit land rich farmers."

      Such as the farm bill. Thankfully, Republicans have been blocking this. Good for them.

      "Subsidies to cash rich oil companies."

      Can you name any of these? Almost all of the time people confuse tax cuts with subsidies. A tax cut is a subsidy of $0. It is not a subsidy to refuse to rob money from someone.

      "Are not these examples of taking money from one group and redistributing it to another group?"

      The tax break one for oil certainly isn't.

      "yet I still have to pay my taxes and some of that money is in fact being used so that people like Mitt pay a smaller percentage of their income into the system."

      Mitt pays many millions yearly in taxes, and you pay very little. This fact is a very strong one, and makes the complaints about matters related to this a non-issue.

      "And that is before we even get to the biblical calling expressed in the New Testament, which I believe should be a pretty important text for a supposed Christian nation... "

      There is absolutely no calling in the Bible to support this idea of turning over more and more of our property to the rulers. Other than the one line "render unto Caesar". Caesar is quite rich enough already, thank you.

      The Bible verses you mention are about actually helping the poor, not turning over our property to the richest, most powerful organization on planet Earth which makes vague broken promises that it will help the poor.

      Delete
    3. "Now, for those who are disabled, mentally challenged, have debilitating physical limitations etc. naturally we as a society must provide for these specifics."

      Exactly. And there is no need for government to help the well off.

      One insane policy that must be stopped is the Democrats and the SCHIP program. Intended for children in need, there was a big battle over this a few years ago. The Dems wanted to give these benefits to rich adults. The Republicans wanted to limit it to the actual needy. The Dems won.

      This is a perfect example (along with TARP, the auto industry handouts) of the Democrats supporting "redistribution" in which money from all taxpayers (most of whom are not rich) gets redistributed to the wealthy. And the Republicans, who support handouts to the poor but not to the rich, oppose this strongly.

      Delete
  5. I completely agree with Obama. "Redistribution of wealth," as Obama puts it, "at some level," is just another way of saying "investing in America." You cons and libertarians want us to live like dogs in the woods? Fine. Expect to lose in the future. Fortunately, there are enough of us out there who know when to tune out your silly, simplistic, hyperbolic, ridiculous dog whistles.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, jmj, there equally as many who tune out you as well as the rest of the hyperbolic ObamaBot Marxist Hopium smokers.

      Have a mighty fine evening with the Hopium Bong ya hear......

      Delete
    2. Rn: The "dog whistle" claim was JMJ trying to call you racist based on absolutely no evidence of it.

      Delete
  6. After reading and pondering both Shaw and JMJ's comments (and instead of arguing against them, which is too easy), I am reminded of a truth that I come across when arguing with my collectivist friends (several of which are dear friends.

    The irreconcilable divide.

    There is no reconciliation between the slavery that collectivists push (and are getting in accelerated fashion in Amerika) and the self-reliance and liberty that liberty advocates desire (and that which Ayn Rand and the Founders represented and the ideas that America was built upon).

    We need a clean divorce; no child support; no strings attached.

    They can have their worker's paradise and we can have our Constitutional freedom state where individuals are left alone for the most part, to pursue happiness and to fail or succeed as they see fit.

    Simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You and I could live with that. But the collectivists, never would they agree or accept that division and divorce. For the ultimate statist it has to be everything their way, all in, do or die.


      Delete
  7. The "redistribution" scam is all about feeding the power lust and wealth of the ruling elites.

    To accomplish this, the rulers take people's property forcefully (taxation). A situation which meets most of the definition of theft. Then they enrich themselves and build and bloat a vast bucreacracy. Then they let some crumbs go to the recipients of the "redistribution". All the while they become millionaires or just short of it in the name of helping the 99%/working class/middle class/poor/victims etc.

    Their priorities are revealed time and again whenever there are budget cuts to government programs. The people who get rich running them cut the actual services to the poor first, and the excessive government handouts to themselves personally are the last thing to get cut.

    It is all corrupt and actually fascist.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RN... it isn't that we may or may not disagree with you and Left Coast... it's that it is impossible...

    How does one essentially live off the grid?

    Take driving for example... now you may believe yourself to be a great driver and thus, have no need for insurance... but what happens if you get distracted and hit me, or my car and cannot pay for my injuries, or repair my car?

    How is that handled in this utopian individualistic society you guys speak of?

    What if you choose not to pay for health insurance and one night you need an ambulance to get you to the hospital. Does the hospital have a right to refuse you care if you cannot pay the bill that night?

    And if you die from that event, would the hospital be immune from lawsuits brought by members of your family for not caring for you?

    How would that be handled?

    My larger question comes down to this... how does society decide when we need a central authority to decide these things and when can these decisions be left up to the individual? Give me an objective way to make this decision, and please do not stand on the local government answer, government and authority is government and authority no matter where it originates...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's only impossible if one thinks so Dave. The entire last hundred tears or more have goten us to where we are today and there are literally millions who have no idea how to find independence personally let alone fiscal sanity as a nation.

      Delete
    2. Respectfully RN... that's a non answer... and that is the type of answer I always get from people advocating for a more, or totally libertarian viewpoint.

      Once we get down to the practicalities of it, libertarianism always falls apart in our 100% fully connected world.

      What you, and others advocate was much more doable 100 years ago when no one was connected and a ten mile journey was a two day affair.

      Now, it's darn near impossible... but I'll wait for your response before passing final judgement...

      Delete
    3. Respectful Dave... You can call me Les, and your response is as I expected. It what I have grown to expect from those who advocate a growing more intrusive government.

      Truth is Dave Libertarianism is what I most closely align with. However it is not my preference. My preference is a return o a constitutional and limited government that respects the rights enshrined in or Constitution and reflect the lofty principles of the Declaration of Independence.

      I know you believe what I advocate was easier to accomplish and maintain 100, 125, 150 years ago. I respect your views because they are in fact true. However, just because something was easier in the past does not mean it is not possible in the present or in the future. Valid and objective concepts do not lose value over time, they just must looked at from a perspective of current and ultimately future realities.

      I maintain we can insure the freedoms and liberties of yesteryear by more effectively instill the principles of self reliance and personal independence in our people. But this takes leadership that by not only empty word, but most importantly individual personal example. But what do I know after 40 years in business leadership positions.

      Because executive management in business fails to understand the principles I know (from experience) achieves excellence I am leaving management in industry and embarking on a new exciting career in professional fitness training. My goal is to help as many out of shape obese people as I can reach, thus helping to drive down health costs in a very small way.

      What does that have to do with anything, particularly your points? Probably nothing. But it beats talking to walls or arguing with people who don't want to consider alternatives. And please don't take tat remark to be directed at you Dave. You are thoughtful, respectful, and believe I would thoroughly enjoy spending a couple hours discussing the issues we both are concerned with and know need resolution.

      Delete
  9. Any tax cut has to countered by other tax payers paying for that tax cut. Redistribution.
    Unless of course like Republicans, you don't even counter those tax cuts and build a 16 trillion dollar debt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am in favor of scrapping the IRS as we know it. Go to a flat tax at 10 - 12%, eliminating deductions, exemptions, and all loopholes. Income earners below the poverty line, which needs to be recalculated and moved up, would be tax exempt.

      Eliminate loyalist and phase out all government subsidies to businesses over 5-8 year period.

      Reduce defense spending and reduce foreign aid, there is absolutely no reason why foreign counties should be partially dependent on American tax dollars. WE ARE BROKE... Thanks to the fact Americans weren't paying attention and the corrupt politicians and banksters had a hey day with our money.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.