liberal base getting upset already..told ya

[Tim Elston]

An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system ...

An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth

Paul, could you list the source or sources for these definitions? I'd like to take a look at them. I'm particularly interested in what comes after the elipses in the first definition and whether there is a specific context for the second.

As it stands, the first definition does not fit Obama because he believes in private ownership and control of the means of production. The second definition does not apply to him, either, because he does not hold to a doctrine of equal distribution of wealth. Or, if he does I'd like to see the evidence for it.

[TW]

Tim,
What does the term "Redistribution of Wealth" mean to you? This was a major part of Mr. Obama's campaign. This is a core value for him, listen to this public radio interview from 2001:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
That has the ring of socialism to it. The government does not have to own production to control it, it can be done with legislation. The problem is that He would take from those that earned and give it to those that are already on the government pad. We are already part of the way there with the changes that have been made in Social Security over the years. An example of this is that next year I will retire, after 45+ years of paying my taxes and making my "contributions" to Social Security, under the current formula a person that has never worked, never paid taxes, never made S.S "contributions" will, when they "retire," draw almost the same amount that I will. My benefits will be reduced because I will be over a particular threshold, and theirs will be increase to "make them more equitable to my benefits." Where is the justice in that for me? Where is the justice for anybody that has worked so that they can have a little better life when they reach their "Golden Years?"

If Mr. Obama is so bent on redistribution of the wealth he should be encouraging people to work for their wealth, not expect the government to hand them the money.


TW

[MacUser]

If a man doesn't work for it. He will not respect, appreciate or treasure it.

Let someone give you $100 dollars and you will blow it instantly.. without a second thought. Now work hard and earn that $100 and it will become greater than the Free $100 and watch as you will treasure it and be sure it is put to use wisely and with purpose.

This is a core principle of this world.

[Tim Elston]

What does the term "Redistribution of Wealth" mean to you?

What does that phrase mean to me? It is a Republican talking point, as shallow as it is common. I don't know why the concern isn't turned on its head: the redistribution of wage earning power. Redistribution of wealth has gone from the bottom to the top, not the other way around, in the last fifty years. It is a free market correction for free people to elect an administration that takes modest action to free the market from a controlled stranglehold and monopoly of the super elite. I don't know why putting the top 5% into a higher tax bracket causes such consternation. The reason they currently pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, even after tax shelters and loopholes that reduce their rate to below mine, is because their income is obscenely higher than anyone else's. I did some surfing last night and saw figures like, in the last forty years the real income of top executives has has grown 70% and the real income of their employees has grown 6%; from 2003 to 2007 executive pay has gone from 360 times more than their average employee to 520 times. In real terms, beyond the shallow talking point, the redistribution of wealth is from the bottom to the top, and it is absolutely obscene. At a time when it takes two incomes to raise a family of four and CEOs are walking away with millions and mid-level executives are making six-figure Christmas bonuses, that the old and tired "redistribution of wealth" mantra even flies is testament to what really bugs me about the human race.

This is a core value for him, listen to this public radio interview from 2001:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
That has the ring of socialism to it. The government does not have to own production to control it, it can be done with legislation. The problem is that He would take from those that earned and give it to those that are already on the government pad.

In that video, did you notice that they often cut him off mid-sentence and did not develop the larger context of the interview? Did you notice that they did not show Obama's entire answer to Joe the Opportunist? I listened to the entire answer elsewhere, and as a whole it was a good, balanced answer. People who harp on the "spread the wealth around" comment without appreciating the balancing comments that he made are not being fair to the truth about what he said.

Note, too, that Obama spoke against using the courts to effect whatever he meant by redistributive justice. Instead of the courts, use legislation. Legislation is a democratic, political process, and that's where economic policy should be developed, not in the courts. Unfortunately, the video producer was more interested in creating fear and labeling Obama with the R-word rather than hearing out what Obama meant. We end the video as listeners without knowing what Obama meant by redistributive justice, because the video did not allow us to hear that part. It just wanted us to hear the snippets that played to our prejudices about what a dark, evil socialist must mean by redistribution, especially if he said it with those eerie captions flashing in and out.

Every time I've listened to Obama in the whole, without sound-bite filtering, I have found his message on any given topic to be more balanced than either the left wants or for what the right dares give him credit. My guess is that if we heard that whole interview, Obama's ideas would be more balanced than the monger producer wanted to portray, even if it meant distorting the truth to influence votes.

We are already part of the way there with the changes that have been made in Social Security over the years. An example of this is that next year I will retire, after 45+ years of paying my taxes and making my "contributions" to Social Security, under the current formula a person that has never worked, never paid taxes, never made S.S "contributions" will, when they "retire," draw almost the same amount that I will. My benefits will be reduced because I will be over a particular threshold, and theirs will be increase to "make them more equitable to my benefits." Where is the justice in that for me? Where is the justice for anybody that has worked so that they can have a little better life when they reach their "Golden Years?"

I hear you, but why is Obama responsible for the Social Security system? This system has been in tact through as many Republican presidents as Democrat, and Republican legislators and constituents are just as resistant to altering it as are Democrats. George Bush championed providing medications for the elderly; does that make him socialist? Eisenhower pushed for the greatest expansion of Social Security in its history. Does that make him a socialist? No, all of our presidents, to date, have been capitalists.

I, frankly, do not understand this purist impulse that dubs every social program socialistic. I would much prefer to see social programs handled by the individual states, because competitive contracts tend to bring market dynamics into play. But my preference doesn't mean that I don't value social programs that assist people. Yes, there are people who never work who get taken care of by our social security net. Well, fine, I'm a capitalist; I'm not banking on my 7.5% to do anything for me when I retire. Because I'm a take-care-of-yourself kind of guy, I'm planning to save and invest enough to take care of myself in retirement. Do I begrudge able-bodied people for not working and living off the dole? Yes, and I support any needed welfare reform that forces them to get off their duffs and get to work. But I also sympathize with a program that provides public assistance to the elderly, mentally disabled, and working poor. Am I a socialist for being okay with such programs? No, I am not. I categorically do not support the collective ownership of the means of production. I believe in capitalism. I also believe that capitalism is not subverted by social programs that provide public assistance to the needy, or health care, or training programs, or railways, or schools, or road systems, or police forces, etc.

If Mr. Obama is so bent on redistribution of the wealth he should be encouraging people to work for their wealth, not expect the government to hand them the money.

He has been advocating work and new jobs. I have never heard him say that he wants people to stop working and get on a bread line. His references to redistributive justice are almost certainly about curbing the obscene income gap and providing relief to working people whose labor is being exploited by executives who are syphoning off the value of labor to feed into their massive bonuses and obscenely outrageous salaries.

Someone tell me that a man who works ten to fifteen hours a day at ten to twelve dollars an hour for a company whose profits are in the millions or even billions is not working for his "wealth." I understand that these problems are complex and that some solutions cause more problems than they solve, but in principle it is within the boundaries of democratic capitalism for the government to make modest corrections to market imbalance.

I mean, if I heard you correctly, you don't necessarily object to government intervention to effect a bailout for the auto industry, right? How is it, then, altogether improper for the government to ensure that poverty does not incapacitate its weakest citizens, whether the working poor or retirees, and thus keep them modestly active as economic units? I mean, there is give and take to every government action. Military expenditure, for example, is a social rather than private investment. Did Reagan's massive expenditures to public defense constitute socialism? No. Why, then, in principle, does a social security system constitute it? In both cases capitalistically gained wealth is distributed to a social concern.

Anyway, large subject, long post, but too short to be worthy of it. Short answer: Obama is no more of a socialist than George Bush or Dwight D. Eisenhower. None of them were or are.