Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have always "redistributed". The problem with NOT doing that is the divide between the haves and have nots becomes too large to support society as we know it. The divide is big in this country isn't it? There will always be rich and poor and people in between but you can only be so rich and you can only be so poor before things blow up in an ugly fashion.
It shouldn't be long now before republicans start fighting for primogeniture and hereditary titles...
I mean, really, when did redistribution become controversial? It's an essential mechanism in any functioning democratic republic. Please show me a democratic nation that does not have numerous examples of redistribution?
Without it, the wealth of a nation concentrates completely at one end, and it ends up being run by an aristocracy or oligarchy... until the guillotines come out. Then it becomes a dictatorship. I'm not fond of either system.
What't the point. Obama supporters want redistribution because they are unable to provide for themselves and they poor. They have shown they are unable to understand a republican view and that is the very reason they are poor.
... Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.
The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.
The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.
But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.
People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.
Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.
...
This is so typical of the current state of the Republican Party and part of the reason that the Republicans redacted the full complexity of Obama's remarks, in inability to discuss complex ideas without resorting to pre-prepared talking points of 4th grade exposition.
lol, ovcatto, another bought vote. The dependent class.
The truth is that Romney has based his whole campaign on the belief that he could blur his way to the White House, mouthing right-wing slogans, fudging the math, and counting on voter disillusionment with Obama to do the rest.
America isn't buying it and sees through the lack of detail. Slogans aren't a substitute for policy.
I have a theory that some people may be confusing redistribution with "restitution".
I heard Romney repeat in FLA yesterday " AND... my opponent believes in REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!" (cue head tilt and pious eye roll )
The crowd went "Booooooo!!!!" right on cue too.
But looking at their faces, I saw some of them get this look like, "WTF? What's redistribution??? "
I wonder how many realize that, in a democratic republic, redistribution of wealth, via the tax code, and all the services provided by government, is ESSENTIAL to the well-being of the commonwealth? That, we couldn't function without it? I mean, think about it- what wold a country with NO redistribution look like? A Randian plutocracy, right?
So here's my theory- many in the GOP understand perfectly well what "redistribution" means... and they HATE it! That's why they resent the mythical "47%" they accuse of freeloading. I include Romney in this group because, dumb as he is, this IS about money, after all, one of the few things he's conversant in.
Conversely, I think MANY of Romney's supporters HEAR "redistribution" and, since it's coming out of the mouth of a black president, THINK they hear "restitution", as in restitution for slavery.
Redistribution- Essential, non-controversial
Restitution- Radical, VERY controversial!
What do you think, am I on to something?
Let's help you-
"Redistribution"- stealing the wealth and labor from one who produces it and giving it to one who did not.
See also "theft", "robbery", "confiscation", and "communism"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
"
