At the lowest levels of government, virtually every time a law is passed it redistributes wealth. The function of government is to find those tasks which we can do most efficiently as a community and do them. Thus, when we are taxed to pay for a police force, it redistributes a small amount of wealth from taxpayers to the officers who serve in that capacity. We don’t mind, except for today’s Republicans, because hiring a private police force would cost far more. Therefore, it is completely bogus for Willard Romney to accuse Barack Obama of wanting to redistribute wealth, as if Romney did not want to do so far more.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Tuesday sought to shift the focus from a leaked video of controversial comments he made at a fundraiser earlier this year to comments President Obama made in 1998 about the "redistribution" of wealth in America….
…Romney also referenced "a tape that just came out today where the President is saying he likes redistribution."
"I disagree," Romney continued. "I think a society based upon a government-centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America. That will not build a strong America or help people out of poverty."
Romney is referring to a video being featured on the conservative news aggregator The Drudge Report and pushed aggressively by Republicans today. It features what is billed as Mr. Obama speaking at Loyola University in 1998. In the video, the president is heard saying that it’s important to "somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all." … [emphasis added]
Inserted from <CBS>
Here is that video. (It’s actually audio).
Nothing Obama said was in any way unreasonable. He was discussing tiny amounts compared with Romney’s massive intended redistribution featuring huge tax cuts for his 1% cronies and a tax increase on the poor and middle classes.
Ed Schultz and Dean Baker discussed how Republicans have redistributed wealth.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
All the many years Republicans have promised wealth would trickle down, we have watched it gush up, as the chart displayed above clearly demonstrates. That is Republican redistribution of the wealth, and Willard promises the same, but more so. For Willard to accuse Obama is pure projection: blaming others for what he is doing. Also, he was trying to divert attention from his stated disdain for the 47% of Americans, whose wealth he intends to redistribute upwards.
16 Responses to “Redistribution Always Happens”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Just one more example of how Mutt distorts everything he thinks he can–
Exactly!
We will automatically go over the cliff via budget cuts since the worthless congress took Grover Norquist Pledge… rolling eyes
I am hoping they will cavfe in the lame dick session.
Mr Obama 1998 — "…we're all in this thing together. Leave nobody behind. … How do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate summary distribution because I actually believe in redistribution at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
Yet another instance of Rmoney taking a quote out of context!
Every time that Rmoney makes a gaffe, he distracts people from his previous gaffe and ultimately his tax returns. But more than that, it distracts people from asking the real questions — the meat and potatoes questions — that should be asked of every candidate.
Projection indeed. Rmoney is a master.
Get out the vote!!!!!
Vote Democratic 2012!!!!! Vote Obama/Biden 2012!!!!!
Exactly, Lynn. Where are those returns?
30 years ago the 1% owned 7% of Americas wealth. Today the 1% own 25% od Americas wealth. I call that wealth redistribution.
At the same time the bottom 40% own 0.2% of the wealth,
I think one of the most eloquent explanations of redistribution is provided by Hendrik Hertzberg in "The New Yorker":
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg
My simple analogy (that I'm pretty sure I've stated in the past) is that a homeowner who owns a $1 million home will pay more for insurance than will the owner of a $200,000 home. But the insurance company is not penalizing the first homeowner for his/her success. It’s only because that first homeowner clearly has more to lose, and therefore should pay more.
If the core function of government is to provide a stable environment in which our society can flourish, then clearly the wealthy have more to lose from government's absence – and so should pay more in taxes … and be DAMN GLAD to be able to do it!
(Don't hate me – but speaking as one of those fortunate enough to be in that category – I am most assuredly DAMN GLAD to be able to do it.)
Nameless, I fully agree, and have nothing against anyone because they are rich. I reservce the anger for those who are rich and insist that I pay their share.
I also shared this one on Facebook. I don't understand why anyone who isn't wealthy and has had to work for a living would ever consider voting for Romney. I love that they are playing a recording of his mother telling how his dad had to live on welfare at one time. Does that mean his multi millionaire dad was a victim and worthless, too?
Thanks, Edie!
When I first saw this clip, I laughed. I still think it ridiculous that Rmoney's campaign committee thinks it will harm the President. It is plain old common sense to redistribute wealth. It just doesn't make sense to do it from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Then you could truly call it trickle down economics instead of BS.
Good point!
I don't know how this will cost him the election? As I see it Romney is giving Obama one more reason to vote Obama/Biden 2012. No matter how hard they try they always give the people another reason to trust Obama and see them for the fools they have become
WEll said, Mama!