OBAMA 2001: Redistribute The Wealth

[crazybabyborg]

Obama's economic plan wasn't just hatched during this campaign. His redistribution of the wealth philosophy has been in his mind for a length of time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4

[caesu]

yes, right-wing blogs hope this is going to be the october surprise now.
well, i doubt it very much.

it won't take long before you can find numerous video clips of McCain saying the same thing back in 2000.
maybe you will find him even say "redistributing the wealth".
where does it come from that some get so scared sh*tless about those words?
does it still have to do with 'cold war fear-mongering'?
what would jesus do? i think he was more a socialist than a capitalist.
if poor people get a chance to get weathier, they will start to consume more too, as a result more productivity.

[WhiskeyGirl]

yes, right-wing blogs hope this is going to be the october surprise now.
well, i doubt it very much.

it won't take long before you can find numerous video clips of McCain saying the same thing back in 2000.
maybe you will find him even say "redistributing the wealth".
where does it come from that some get so scared sh*tless about those words?
does it still have to do with 'cold war fear-mongering'?
what would jesus do? i think he was more a socialist than a capitalist.
if poor people get a chance to get weathier, they will start to consume more too, as a result more productivity.

What would Jesus do?  Good question.  I would look to the word of God for the answer, there are ten rules, and I think a few apply to the "redistribution of wealth".

16 "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

19 "You shall not steal.

20 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

21 "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

The Social Security Trust Fund was emptied years ago and I have seen nothing to suggest that anyone is concerned with how grandma and grandpa are going to pay for retirement.  I've seen media reports of a final solution - move 401Ks, 403Bs and other programs to government care and control.   No fund and no trust.  Tax and spend on other things, steal the future retirement of millions...just my humble opinions.

401Ks, etc. are the future for many.  What they lost due to the recent stock market corrections, how will it compare to the future when the government is in charge of your forced retirement fund?  Hmmm...  7% SS, 5% for the new plan and who knows what else?  Another 4% for the miracle health plan, and who knows how much more to pay for all the new spending programs.  By my way of reckoning, that is at least a 9% tax increase. 

When will the Social Security trust fund be restored?  When will the previous stimulus be paid off?  Future stimulus payments?  Who's paying for all this and where is the money coming from?

Someone reminded me today "It doesn't matter how much you make, it's all about what you save...that's all you really have." 

I see the government making more and more of my earnings disappear - no return for me.  Government saving any of that money?  From what I see, nothing saved, nothing put away for the future by the government.  Anything someone thinks is 'in trust' will be there for future politicians to 'loot'.  In the end, there is nothing.  just my humble opinions

Does it make sense to transfer one credit card balance to another?  Rob Peter to pay Paul?  Isn't this what financial wizzards have been warning against for some time?  In the end, the balance just gets bigger and bigger, and harder to pay off?

Yet, for some reason, politicians seem to think it will be o.k. for the nation to 'spend' its way out of a recession or a depression.   Did this ever work for anyone in the past? 

What if it doesn't work?  Look to many nations that have racked up hugh debts, and horrible conditions all that debt brings to the citizens.  The rich survive, the poor live in horrible conditions.  imho

Why would anyone want to burden future generations with a mountain of debt?

What's wrong with living a simple lifestyle?  Sometimes, less is more.

[caesu]

Matthew 19:23-24

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

EDITED: INAPPROPRIATE AND OFFENSIVE

[WhiskeyGirl]

Matthew 19:23-24

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Jesus = socialist community organizer

The Rich Young Man
 16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

 18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

   Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"

 20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

 21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

 22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

 23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

 26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"

 28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

========
It may be hard for a rich man to enter heaven, but is it impossible?  Is it the place of government to assist the rich man?  Or, should the rich man give his wealth to the poor on a voluntary basis?

[crazybabyborg]

Oh, I hate it when particular verses of scripture are pulled out to "prove a point" that is inconsistent with the spirit of the whole of scripture. I can think of no less than ten individual verses that would further my argument and point of view, but I'm going to resist posting them.

Instead, let me contribute a precept of scripture that is built on throughout the Bible. Scripture teaches that it isn't WHAT or HOW MUCH an individual gives to others, but the condition of the heart that is doing the giving. Scripture teaches that gifts given for the edification of the giver have, in fact, already received their reward and that the act of giving is an overflow of the heart's relationship with Him.

It is an absolute distortion of God's nature to suggest that we are spiritually obligated by government to fork over any portion of our earnings to government for the purpose of redistributing wealth. To suggest that WORKERS are bound by scripture to be enslaved by government rules they resent, as a substitute for that which is an overflow of Divine Love and offered unselfishly as an integral part of a personal relationship with Christ, is nothing short of blasphemy. 

[nonesuche]

Thank you CBB, I can't even read all of this just because for caesu to call Jesus a socialist is beyond the pale.

Why do you have to attack in this way to prove a point? It only completely undermines anything you post.

[caesu]

i am just saying that to show that if you would put jesus on a socialist-capitalism scale he would end up way closer to socialism.
- sharing food amongst many people
- turning over the tables of money lenders
- the rich should give to the poor (welfare)
it doesn't add up completely i admit. no mention of government involvement in this.
but if you wouldn't do that - nobody would pay taxes voluntarily.

but i get the idea here that socialism is the most evil thing ever - worse than racism.
where does this come from? are it the remains of 'the red scares'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

i think a state can only function properly with a mixed capitalist/socialist system.
else it will go down because of endless greed at the ones in power, the elite.
maybe this greedy capitalism has gone too far in the last few years, so eventually a more left-leaning government is needed to balance things out a bit. possibly it swings a too far to the left - don't worry, in 2010 there are new congressional elections coming up.

most countries have a mixed socialist/capitalist system. that's the U.S. included.
there is already social security and a (very) progressive tax system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
'spreading the wealth' is already very much included in the U.S. tax system.

[WhiskeyGirl]

(snip)

- sharing food amongst many people - 5 loaves & 2 fishes?  IIRC, this was a miracle. 

Mark 6:30-44 (NIV) - whole story

37  But he answered, "You give them something to eat."
      They said to him, "That would take eight months of a man's wages[a]! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?"

38  "How many loaves do you have?" he asked. "Go and see."
      When they found out, they said, "Five—and two fish."

39  Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. 40 So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties.

41  Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all.

42  They all ate and were satisfied, 43 and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. 44 The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.

This is from the biblegateway.com

=================

- turning over the tables of money lenders - from Matthew 21

Jesus at the Temple

12  Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13  "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'[f]"

14  The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. 15  But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

IIRC, Republicans and others, among them Bush, tried to reform Freddie and Fannie numerous times.  They were blocked by a number of Democrats, numerous times.  The problems with the F/F money lenders was well known for years, and where was the call to action by socialists/Democrats? 

Greed - why wouldn't someone (Congress, F/F management) NOT want fix the system?  Was it due to greed?

Perhaps if Freddie and Fannie had been reined in years ago, $700 billion plus could have been used to fund healthcare.

In the Obama message I have not seen one that addresses a fair price for provider services. 

As an example, how is it possible that a hospital may charge $20,000 for a stay, have the insurance (government/private) discount come in at say $12,000, leaving $8,000 to be paid by the insurance? 

At the same time, an uninsured person is on the hook for the full $20,000?

And, a notice on the local hospital door shows that they are obligated to treat people in need for free, if they do not have money to pay?

What is the fair price for services and why shouldn't everyone have access to the same fair price?

Why shouldn't everyone have access to the same services, prices, and programs?  "Like"  the plan available to members of Congress, is 'likely' NOT the same as the plan, benefits, access, program...imho.

At one time, in the past, local communities, religious and civic organizations ran healthcare facilities, many not for profit.  Now healthcare seems to be run by corporations...capitalism at its best.  Is this changing under the Obama plan?

===========
- the rich should give to the poor (welfare)

I have not seen anything in the Obama plan for America that addresses the responsibilities of the poor or those receiving welfare.  What obligation do they have for the benefits they receive?  What is their contribution to their future success? 

I believe that the able bodied should work, and that society should take care of those that cannot.

Deuteronomy 15:7 (New International Version)

 7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

Why should the central or federal government create and run all the welfare programs?  All the new tax and spend/borrow programs?

Why not return/keep/delegate these responsibilities to the states?  Local governments? 

I believe the federal government is to far away from the many problems that exist to be effective.  Why not empower state/local governments to improve the lives of their residents?   I think local people are closer to the problem and best able to respond.

Washington seems to add a lot of 'pork' to everything.  Taxpayers seem to have a direct line to their politicians, and a stronger voice in local spending decisions.

The federal system seems to spend an increasing amount of money like a steam roller, with little control in sight and no encouraging words on the horizon.  A "presidential review" is meaningless at this point, the money is already down the toilet, and the hole is getting bigger.  imho

IIRC, there is greed/preference in the Communist/Socialist systems too.

There are a lot of ways to fund social programs, make healthcare affordable...

- tax credits/deductions for donations to charity

- price controls, monopoly monitoring (markets, regions)

- grants from private corporations

=========
"spreading the wealth"

Sometimes, IIRC, spreading the wealth, in socialist/communist countries is a disadvantage for increasing productivity and wealth.  What incentive does an individual have to work hard?  Seek education?  Start a business?

What incentive is there to work?

Socialist/communist countries have failed before - many mouths to feed and no miracle workers.

Social responsibility and spreading the wealth  CAN BE a good thing...it depends on the 'heart' of the one doing the spreading...jmho

To sum it all up...one of the messages of Jesus is that  reward/riches/wealth are not found on this earth, but in heaven.

I do not see socialists/communists having the same concerns as Jesus, mo

(stepping off the soap-box, religion is not my strong point... )

[crazybabyborg]

My jaw just dropped, caesu. If you would please refrain from invoking Jesus in any discussion of socialism, we can participate in a discussion without offending anyone. As you state in your post, you recognize the disdain for the concept of socialism, and yet you go right ahead and attribute socialistic values on the Christian Savior. I can tell you that your understanding of socialism far exceeds your understanding of Jesus and I say that without having any idea of your depth of socialistic knowledge.

Just to correct the Bibical references, there are entire volumes written on Jesus's feeding many people, and none of them involve socialistic principles. Just to give you a flavor of the contrast in your own example, when His disciples approached Jesus to say that the throng of people gathered to hear Him teach should be sent away to find their meal because they only had a few loaves and fish to feed them, Jesus very deliberately instructed them to feed the 5,000. When they expressed the limitations of their food, Jesus rose and taught, by example, perhaps the greatest lesson for approaching life's problems. He took in his hands the meager fish and loaves and He prayed, thanking God for blessing them with food. He then gave the baskets to his disciples and instructed them to feed the crowd. They set about handing out the food and it was not only enough, there was food left over. Jesus fed the hungry, but what He gave that day was instruction. He taught us all that when the obstacles are insurmountable and our purposes are in accordance with the will of God, we should take whatever resources we have that seem too small, whether it be courage, money, faith, or whatever, and ask God's Blessing on those resources. Then we should act in faith; step out in that faith, give legs to it. It will be enough. God will multiply the blessing and supply the need beyond just the measure of it, but abundantly.

Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers because of corruption. Jews were called to observe the sacrifices and came from great distances to the temple to honor the Holy Day. The money changers were there to exchange foreign currency for local currency so the animals for sacrifice could be purchased and the money changers were cheating in the exchange. Within the center of the temple was the Holy of Holies, God's dwelling among His people. Corruption at the house of His Father, caused Jesus to react in righteous indignation.

Of course Jesus expected us to care for our brother, but never, ever, through coercion! Jesus taught that if you bring alms and have something against another, leave your gift and find your brother and make amends. Return when your heart is right and offer your gift so that it is acceptable to the Lord!(Mat 5:24) As I have already said, the condition of the heart of the giver is paramount in this:

Jhn 12:5 "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages."
Jhn 12:6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he  used to help himself to what was put into it.
Jhn 12:7 "Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.
Jhn 12:8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."


This is the last post I'm leaving by either of us that brings religion into this thread in this way. It is not appropriate to further political argument by way of religion. I responded only because I think it's possible you truly don't understand and I've done my best, at this point, to help you understand.

Are you honestly questioning why socialism is such a catalyst for alarm or are you just goading?
That topic is appropriate for discussion, but it's not one I'd care to elaborate on unless you are really sincere.

[caesu]

i am indeed honestly questioning why socialism is such a catalyst for alarm.
all western countries have adapted a bit of socialism in their government - including the U.S.
like i said in the earlier post, i think a healthy mixture of socialism and capitalism is ideal.
if it goes too far to one side, in the next election the democracy will adjust this.

capitalism run wild to the extreme may lead to fascism. socialism run wild to the extreme may lead to communism.

most western countries switch from a social-democratic to a conservative government every few years.
these social-democratic parties are more aligned with the Democratic party.
but still, the Democratic is more to the right of most western social-democratic parties.
with Obama the Democratic party might shift a little to the left. a little closer to a social-democratic party.

but still far from socialism. and even further of course from communism.
socialism and communism are very much different.

(and about that jesus comment, i just wanted to shed a positive light on certain aspects of socialism - jesus also provided (free) healthcare i might add - i didn't expect so much shock about that, but that's probably also because of the different view on socialism (again i am in favour of a healthy mixture of capitalism and socialism).

[Slogger]

i am indeed honestly questioning why socialism is such a catalyst for alarm.
all western countries have adapted a bit of socialism in their government - including the U.S.
like i said in the earlier post, i think a healthy mixture of socialism and capitalism is ideal.
if it goes too far to one side, in the next election the democracy will adjust this.

One of the difficulties of Socialism is that it's non-stop and infiltrates silently into too many areas of life.  It sneaks; you don't realize it's there until you are too dependent on it.  Then, it hurts too much to get rid of it.  Dependency is not healthy.

Socialism has infiltrated many of our college/universities.  It has been quietly injected into the minds of youth for decades.  Would Hitler have been invited to speak at our universities in 1941; as Ahmadinejad was invited to Columbia in 2008?  "Wipe Israel off the face of the earth" and "Death to America" need equal time in America?  Propaganda gets equal time with truth?  I say, "No!"

Socialism > Marxism is a death trap.  Unhealthy.  It encourages depending upon the government for almost everything; and then, it lowers what you received until you are fully dependent on the government and can't/won't function without it.  You can no longer stand on your own two feet. 

When that time comes, we would no longer have any control over our lives--we would be government controlled--a deadly situation.

Deadly is the ultimate state of unhealthy.
Columbia, home of Obama's friend, must believe so.

[Slogger]

CORRECTED TO READ:

i am indeed honestly questioning why socialism is such a catalyst for alarm.
all western countries have adapted a bit of socialism in their government - including the U.S.
like i said in the earlier post, i think a healthy mixture of socialism and capitalism is ideal.
if it goes too far to one side, in the next election the democracy will adjust this.

One of the difficulties of Socialism is that it's non-stop and infiltrates silently into too many areas of life.  It sneaks; you don't realize it's there until you are too dependent on it.  Then, it hurts too much to get rid of it.  Dependency is not healthy.

Socialism has infiltrated many of our college/universities.  It has been quietly injected into the minds of youth for decades.  Would Hitler have been invited to speak at our universities in 1941; as Ahmadinejad was invited to Columbia in 2008?  "Wipe Israel off the face of the earth" and "Death to America" need equal time in America?  Propaganda gets equal time with truth?  Columbia, home of Obama's friend, must believe so.  I say, "No!"

Socialism > Marxism is a death trap.  Unhealthy.  It encourages depending upon the government for almost everything; and then, it lowers what you received until you are fully dependent on the government and can't/won't function without it.  You can no longer stand on your own two feet. 

When that time comes, we would no longer have any control over our lives--we would be government controlled--a deadly situation.

Deadly is the ultimate state of unhealthy.

Somehow, I managed to get a sentence ("Columbia, home of Obama's friend, must believe so." ) in the wrong place.