Obama's "Redistribution"

[WillowTree]

Lets call it like it is.
"Re-distribution" really means "looting" the earned wealth of some for the unearned benefit of others. By what right can he or anyone else impose such a vile concept?

Bob Beckel the staunch liberal literally admitted it today..

 

[LoneLaugher]

That's my point. Just because the previous 43 presidents jump off a cliff, does it mean Obama should too?

The President can't act unilaterally and just abolish all income tax and government programs, he's not a monarch, it takes Congress to present such a bill for him to sign. When the conservative republicans had The Executive Branch and BOTH Houses under their control, did they abolish the aforementioned? Did they expand or decrease Medicare (Part D)? Did they expand the size of government or decrease the size of it?

If the president can't act unilaterally, then why is Obama making changes to a law already passed by congress? Hmm? Seems like to me he's already turned into quite the autocrat.

When Liberal Democrats had majorities in both houses in 2009-11, did they do anything to abolish the aforementioned? No.

Oh! You got him on that one! Obama is changing laws! Unbeatable logic.

 

[Pheonixops]

That's my point. Just because the previous 43 presidents jump off a cliff, does it mean Obama should too?

The President can't act unilaterally and just abolish all income tax and government programs, he's not a monarch, it takes Congress to present such a bill for him to sign. When the conservative republicans had The Executive Branch and BOTH Houses under their control, did they abolish the aforementioned? Did they expand or decrease Medicare (Part D)? Did they expand the size of government or decrease the size of it?

If the president can't act unilaterally, then why is Obama making changes to a law already passed by congress? Hmm? Seems like to me he's already turned into quite the autocrat.

When Liberal Democrats had majorities in both houses in 2009-11, did they do anything to abolish the aforementioned? No.

If he acted unilaterally and "autocratic" you would approve of it if he abolished the "redistribution" and government programs you approve of him abolishing?

Last I checked, it's not the Democrats who are the ones spouting against "big government" and "redistribution of wealth". It most certainly is and was the conservative republicans spouting the aforementioned and when they had BOTH Houses and the Executive branch they did the opposite!

 

[WillowTree]

For Fuck's sake.

Thank God my parents didn't raise me to be victim of others or their success.

Yes you are. The whole tax system is weighted against you and toward the extremely wealthy and corporations. You will favor billions and billions in tax breaks and subsidies for corporations but damned if a kid in a poorf family should get a meal.

this rhetoric is becoming boring, you already whined about that for 3 years and the taxes got raised on the rich,, remember that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The President can't act unilaterally and just abolish all income tax and government programs, he's not a monarch, it takes Congress to present such a bill for him to sign. When the conservative republicans had The Executive Branch and BOTH Houses under their control, did they abolish the aforementioned? Did they expand or decrease Medicare (Part D)? Did they expand the size of government or decrease the size of it?

If the president can't act unilaterally, then why is Obama making changes to a law already passed by congress? Hmm? Seems like to me he's already turned into quite the autocrat.

When Liberal Democrats had majorities in both houses in 2009-11, did they do anything to abolish the aforementioned? No.

Oh! You got him on that one! Obama is changing laws! Unbeatable logic.

I'm smelling a liberal brain overload over here. I think I might have struck a nerve.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If the president can't act unilaterally, then why is Obama making changes to a law already passed by congress? Hmm? Seems like to me he's already turned into quite the autocrat.

When Liberal Democrats had majorities in both houses in 2009-11, did they do anything to abolish the aforementioned? No.

Oh! You got him on that one! Obama is changing laws! Unbeatable logic.

I'm smelling a liberal brain overload over here. I think I might have struck a nerve.

Dude....you are too lame. Really. Just claim victory now. You massive tool.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The President can't act unilaterally and just abolish all income tax and government programs, he's not a monarch, it takes Congress to present such a bill for him to sign. When the conservative republicans had The Executive Branch and BOTH Houses under their control, did they abolish the aforementioned? Did they expand or decrease Medicare (Part D)? Did they expand the size of government or decrease the size of it?

If the president can't act unilaterally, then why is Obama making changes to a law already passed by congress? Hmm? Seems like to me he's already turned into quite the autocrat.

When Liberal Democrats had majorities in both houses in 2009-11, did they do anything to abolish the aforementioned? No.

If he acted unilaterally and "autocratic" you would approve of it if he abolished the "redistribution" and government programs you approve of him abolishing?

Last I checked, it's not the Democrats who are the ones spouting against "big government" and "redistribution of wealth". It most certainly is and was the conservative republicans spouting the aforementioned and when they had BOTH Houses and the Executive branch they did the opposite!

I would support the abolishment of entitlement programs if they were done so by an act of Congress. Not by a direct edict from the Executive branch. And no, Democrats would never think of smaller government or an individual's right to prosper. That is why we stress them.

Oh, and perhaps you should read this little gem:

These days the word [redistribution] is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking “socialized medicine.” But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/u...-law-redistribution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh! You got him on that one! Obama is changing laws! Unbeatable logic.

I'm smelling a liberal brain overload over here. I think I might have struck a nerve.

Dude....you are too lame. Really. Just claim victory now. You massive tool.

Really? Why are you the one attacking me for my unemployment? Did you forget to pack an actual argument pertaining to this thread? Of course not. You're the tool. A useful idiot. I bet your party is proud of you.

 

[MACAULAY]

Lets call it like it is.
"Re-distribution" really means "looting" the earned wealth of some for the unearned benefit of others. By what right can he or anyone else impose such a vile concept?

...................................................

Getting back to the Original Post, above, it states a classic "have v. have nots" dispute. They go back for ages.

ObamaCare is different. It doesn't make a dent in the top 1% or the top 10%.

It bust the ass of the Striving....the middle class....the backbone of this country...the people who insist on taking care of themselves.. It REDISTRIBUTES from those good people...for the most part...to those who DON'T bother to take care of themselves.

Obama is a Socialist. So. Let him go after those fat cats on Wall Street in New York in Yankeeland...instead of perpetrating a massive fraud on every American who is striving to take care of himself and his family.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bullshit.

 

[Katzndogz]

For Fuck's sake.

Thank God my parents didn't raise me to be victim of others or their success.

Yes you are. The whole tax system is weighted against you and toward the extremely wealthy and corporations. You will favor billions and billions in tax breaks and subsidies for corporations but damned if a kid in a poorf family should get a meal.

If parents didn't piss away the food money the kid would have plenty to eat. We have tge fattest poor kids in the world.

What is happening is the beginnings of a full revolt against redistribution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bullshit.

I rest my case.

 

[Doubletap]

Obama said he would "fundamentally change America"
Not without a fight he won't. There's too much at stake to let him. Many, many Americans value their indisputable right to their own lives to cave in to his Socialist/Marxist schemes.

 

[asaratis]

That poor family needs healthcare too, too bad Obamacare stripped them of the only plan they could afford.

Right, a $200 a month ID card and unaffordable deductibles. We spend the most for the 36th best healthcare in the world.

Really? As I told Joe this morning, we have one of the lowest birth mortality rates and highest life expectancies in the world, so how do we have a poor healthcare system exactly?

You may be right about the birth number, but we are not near the top in ELT. We tie for 33rd.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bullshit.

I rest my case.

You misunderstand again, dummy. That was not said to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lets call it like it is.
"Re-distribution" really means "looting" the earned wealth of some for the unearned benefit of others. By what right can he or anyone else impose such a vile concept?

Can we start by taxing churches and the like - get rid of religious tax exemptions?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Lets call it like it is.
"Re-distribution" really means "looting" the earned wealth of some for the unearned benefit of others. By what right can he or anyone else impose such a vile concept?

Can we start by taxing churches and the like - get rid of religious tax exemptions?

Tax all charitable donations ?

So much for your poor pawns.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me clarify. You are a liberal correct? You advocate programs such as Welfare, Food Stamps, Unemployment Benefits, Public Housing, and Medicaid, correct?

Okay then, how do any of those programs help people provide for themselves? They don't. They breed a sense of entitlement, laziness (for which you repeatedly accuse me of) and apathy. You sit there telling me how I should provide for myself when you sit there tacitly or otherwise supporting others living off the government dole.

Don't lecture me, you have no place. Hypocrite.

All of them help people provide for themselves. Which is why the vast majority of adults who take advantage of them.....do so for just a short period of time.

You need more information about public assistance programs. You are wrong here.

I support others living off the government dole ? Tacitly? Don't be silly. You have no idea.

How does a man provide for himself sitting at home doing nothing while taking in handouts from the government?

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

Most Medicaid dollars are spent on the elderly and the disabled.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lets call it like it is.
"Re-distribution" really means "looting" the earned wealth of some for the unearned benefit of others. By what right can he or anyone else impose such a vile concept?

Can we start by taxing churches and the like - get rid of religious tax exemptions?

Tax all charitable donations ?

So much for your poor pawns.

Don't respond to my posts if you don't have anything coherent to say.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Can we start by taxing churches and the like - get rid of religious tax exemptions?

Tax all charitable donations ?

So much for your poor pawns.

Don't respond to my posts if you don't have anything coherent to say.

You love and care for the poor sooooooo much you want to tax charity.

How disingenuous can you be ?