Do Americans truly understand 'redistribution of wealth'?

[ChoomCzar]

Do Americans truly understand 'redistribution of wealth'?

By Virginia Prodan


The recently uncovered tape of Obama addressing students at Loyola University in 1998 has produced an uproar. In the tape, Obama expressed his admiration for redistributive government programs:

I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities?

If he is elected, Obama's 1998 proposition will be reality in the next four years.
When he proposed to redistribute wealth, Ibama meant that the system has to find a "trick" way to transform your wealth into government's hands. Government will then distribute that wealth to others of its choosing.
Your work and your wealth will belong to the government "in the name of society"; in other words, it will belong to the collective. Actually, though, your work and your wealth will belong to the elite of the government, who will decide who and what is given your money. This is what "redistribution of wealth" means in Obama's philosophy; it is also the basic principle of communism.
The meaning of the "redistribution" of wealth is official government stealing and the end of your freedom. It is the beginning of your forced sacrifices for your leader, your government, and your society. This leads to a permanent realignment of power in society, as has been seen in Europe, or the rise of a dictator, as has been seen frequently in communist society.
For almost half of my life, I lived in communist Romania. I lived the other half in the free land, America. Believe me -- I know what Obama is talking about and advocating for America.
Obama's America is a communist society. As history shows, he will bring about this way of life by the following means:
1. Transforming private property into collective property.
The right to individual private ownership of property is sacred in America. American society is based on a person's right to the fruit of his labors, not to mention his ancestors' labors. The government has no right to take these away.
Under redistribution of wealth philosophy imposed by government -- and of the communist system - you have no personal right to your work, property, or inheritance.
2. Destroying the initiative and creativity of people.
America's wealth and prosperity were created by individuals with the great desire and creativity encouraged by a free society. Many Americans started at a lower income and with no prior wealth. Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, among others, started with essentially nothing and built huge enterprises.
Creativity and working hard were emphasized by many successful Americans during their lives and after their deaths. Andrew Carnegie, for example, felt so strongly that each generation should make its own way that he left the bulk of his estate to charity.
The successes and consequent contributions of these "wealthy" people create growth and opportunities for other Americans, resulting in more success and wealth for America as a whole. But eliminating from society individual power and desire curtails and squashes the drive for success.
A government does not create wealth. It is the private sector, where new businesses are started and flourish, that allows opportunity and wealth to expand. The private sector is responsible for economic growth.
As America's successful become wealthy, they are able to give more and support others, be it through research projects, schools, or the arts. Throughout history, it has been the wealthy who have commissioned fine art, musical compositions, museums, and other monuments of civilization.
3. Increasing the poverty of all who depend on government for basic needs.
Government redistribution will not help the poor. History has shown that redistribution of wealth makes all poor.
In communist societies like China, Russia, Romania, etc., there was and there is no equality of classes. Rather, there exist millions of poor people under a small, elite group of communist rich who never care about helping poor people.
History shows example after example of communist systems that have collapsed, each of which made promises like equality and justice and failed to deliver. But each of these collapses took millions of lives and many generations, as people discovered the lies and finally fought the system only at length.
American society is well-known for its compassion for and charity to the poor. Many programs, both private and public, are in place to help those seeking to overcome poverty. Yes, many in society believe we should be doing even more. But one must remember that poor people are part of our society who need to be helped, but not enabled.
We must not be stopped by the pressure of political correctness to acknowledge that many people have greater abilities than others -- artistic or musical skills, abilities in mathematics or science, in leadership, in business, and so forth. Therefore, as people are different in abilities and effort, fairness of reward requires such differences. This is in fact the true "fair shake" we hear so much about today in politics.
Make no mistake: this November election starkly concerns what we want our future as a country to be. We have to decide if we want to elect a president who will bring us back to the American values of free market and free opportunities to pursue the American dream, or if we want to elect a president who will take us into socialism and communism -- in other words, the end of our freedom, where government controls, dictates to, and owns us.
Redistribution of wealth means not equality, fairness, or justice, but rather poverty, slavery, and a complete lack of freedom.
Freedom is precious to those who don't have it. Will free American people choose to be enslaved? I hope not. Do those Americans who think "redistribution of wealth" is wonderful and will make their lives easier really understand its world history and true consequences? That remains to be seen.

[acp5762]

Redistribution of Wealth, is actually a Socialist or even what some may consider a Communistic way of controlling the economy. It simply ends up like this. An individual works in accordance with his abilities and is compensated in accordance with his needs. Ambisions, Wants or desires don't enter into the equation as far as the Government is concerned.

[markroxny]

We are supposed to be a Judeo/Christian nation no? The Bible is socialist by your definition Marshall

Acts 4:32-35
"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was --- distributed ---- to each as any had need."

Luke 3:11
"And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.”

James 2:15-16
"If a man or woman is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?"

And republicans are probably going to say, that's talking about how individuals should live, not the government. Okay, well shouldn't the same thing apply to a woman's choice? The government shouldn't be able to have any say so over what a woman does with her body based on the Bible, right? This is only if you feel that the words of Christ in the Bible only apply to what individuals do and not the government. If you feel this is a Christian nation, and the words of the Bible should apply to everyone ...then if we followed the word's of Christ, would it be considered "socialism"?

[WTF]

Ever single tax is a 'redistribution of wealth'. It is just that some Tea Nuts are to obtuse to recognize that simple fact.

[ChoomCzar]

Originally Posted by WDF

Ever single tax is a 'redistribution of wealth'. It is just that some Tea Nuts are to obtuse to recognize that simple fact.

Who said it wasn't???????? Who the fuck are you arguing with? Why are you criticizing people who don't exist?

Conservatives just happen to be different than libertarians in our recognition for the need of some government. We want the minimum necessary government to effect the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. We just hope the Constitution will be deemed legal again someday.

Of course, one could argue that payroll taxes which fund SS and Medicare are similar to one investing in a pension plan or old age medical plan, or at least that what the liberal filth told us.........

[acp5762]

Your Bible verse has no similarities to any Socialistic Concepts. It's very poor taste to use the Bible to try and prove a point in something so repugnant as Socialism.

[WTF]

[QUOTE=ChoomCzar;3240887]QUOTE]

Hey Marshy, you are not suppossed to change the posters name nor his quote . Remember? You have been banned twice for doing so. I would hate to see it happen a third time.

Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

Of course, one could argue that payroll taxes which fund SS and Medicare are similar to one investing in a pension plan or old age medical plan, or at least that what the liberal filth told us.........

If the truth be known....

Conserative filth took that savings and spent it on the military.

That is wtf Ronnie Reagan did. He cut taxes on the wealthy and raised the SS tax. He shifted who actually paid for the military from the wealthy to the poor and middle class. Great man there...

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by markroxny

We are supposed to be a Judeo/Christian nation no? The Bible is socialist by your definition Marshall

No, the Bible does not support socialism. The Bible advocates charity, not government confiscation. Charity is voluntary. Romney gave over four million dollars to charity last year, voluntarilly.

Your argument is specious.

Saul of Tarsus, was a tax collector prior to becoming a follower of Jesus. After his religious conversion, he changed his name to Paul, and stopped collecting taxes.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Your Bible verse has no similarities to any Socialistic Concepts. It's very poor taste to use the Bible to try and prove a point in something so repugnant as Socialism.

I competely disagree. Republicans and Morman's wear their faith on their sleeve. They all claim to be Christians. The Bible clearly has elements of ideas that these very "Christians" would consider to be socialist. I have proven that.

They can't have it both ways and neither can you. You either believe in what Christ taught or you don't. You can't call it socialism when it's at a government level.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Saul of Tarsus, was a tax collector prior to becoming a follower of Jesus. After his religious conversion, he changed his name to Paul, and stopped collecting taxes.

And what did JESUS say when asked about taxes???

Give to Caesar what is Caesars!
Mark 12:17

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by markroxny

I competely disagree. Republicans and Morman's wear their faith on their sleeve. They all claim to be Christians. The Bible clearly has elements of ideas that these very "Christians" would consider to be socialist. I have proven that.

They can't have it both ways and neither can you. You either believe in what Christ taught or you don't. You can't call it socialism when it's at a government level.

You haven't proven anything. The Bible advocates charity not government confiscation. The Bible says Christians should tithe to the church. A tithe is freely given; the church doesn't garnish your wages or take your house if you don't contribute.

[ChoomCzar]

[QUOTE=WDF;3240918]

Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

QUOTE]


That is wtf Ronnie Reagan did. He cut taxes on the wealthy and raised the SS tax. He shifted who actually paid for the military from the wealthy to the poor and middle class. Great man there...

He cut taxes for everybody. Defeating the Soviets was a good thing but costs money. The money spend was used for one of the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution......

I understand that cowards who are too scared to fight and defend their country like to minimize the dangers our country faces and denigrate the military, so I understand your point of view. You don't want to emotionally confront the reality of your cowardice.

Around the time of Reagan, you would have been of age to join the military, but didn't have the balls to do so. I can understand your hatred of Reagan and your motivation to lie about his accomplishments.

On another post I posed some questions which nobody answered. Let me toss one your way, because, as you know, we all wait to hear what you have to say.

1. How did the Alternate Minimum Tax impact the Bush Tax Rate Cuts?

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

You haven't proven anything. The Bible advocates charity not government confiscation. The Bible says Christians should tithe to the church. A tithe is freely given; the church doesn't garnish your wages or take your house if you don't contribute.

Clearly you missed what I just posted that Jesus said when asked about Taxes:


Mark 12:17

And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Clearly you missed what I just posted that Jesus said when asked about Taxes:


Mark 12:17

Render unto to Ceasar, that which is Ceasar's. The question is, what is Ceasar's? What does the government own?

To interpret that Bible verse, as a requirement for Christians to pay a confiscatory progressive income tax is silly. You can selectively choose Bible verses, out of context, to support just about anything.

All citizens, Christians included, have a right to determine what a fair rate of taxation is. Once again, your argument is specious.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Render unto to Ceasar, that which is Ceasar's. The question is, what is Ceasar's? What does the government own?

To interpret that Bible verse, as a requirement for Christians to pay a confiscatory progressive income tax is silly. You can selectively choose Bible verses, out of context, to support just about anything.

All citizens, Christians included, have a right to determine what a fair rate of taxation is. Once again, your argument is specious.

Wrong again joe.

Question: What Does the Bible Say About Paying Taxes?
Did Jesus pay taxes? What did Jesus teach his disciples about paying taxes? We will see that the Bible is very clear on this issue.
Answer: First, let's answer the question, "Did Jesus pay taxes?"

In Matthew 17:24-27 we learn that Jesus did indeed pay taxes:

• After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" "Yes, he does," he replied.
  When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"
  "From others," Peter answered.
  "Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours." (NIV)

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke each tell of another account, when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in his words, and find a reason to accuse him. In Matthew 22:15-22 we read:

• Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
  "Caesar's," they replied.
  Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
  When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. (NIV)

This same incident is also recorded in Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-26.
So the gospels leave no doubt that Jesus taught his followers not only in words, but by example, to give to the government any taxes that are owed.
In Romans 13:1, Paul brings further clarification to this concept, along with an even broader responsibility to Christians:

• "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."(NIV)

Therefore, we can conclude from this verse, if we don't pay taxes we are rebelling against the authorities established by God. Romans 13:2 gives this warning:

• "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."(NIV)

And finally, regarding the paying of taxes, Paul couldn't make it any clearer in Romans 13:5-7:

• Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.(NIV)