Is this what Obama really meant when he said, “spread the wealth”?

Abu the Sys Admin


“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Powered by Yahoo Answers

10 Responses to Is this what Obama really meant when he said, “spread the wealth”?

  7. Ingrid September 6, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    Powered by Yahoo Answers

    He meant that if we the people are paying billions and billions to the rich, we, the little people deserve a break as well. that simple.

    McCain depicted yesterday the leaders of Europe Socialists.
    If their Governments are Socialistic I like to have the same system because it is quite fair to most people.

  8. az grande September 9, 2009 at 4:48 am

    Powered by Yahoo Answers

    Capitalism is great as it generates a lot of wealth, greed is the problem. Democracy thrives when socialistic and free market principles merge. In a true democratic society redistribution of wealth is what happens when those at the top refuse to share the wealth fairly. For example, it was once the case when a CEO made 15-1 more than his top level managers, today he makes 400-1 more. Never in the history of America has so much of our nations wealth been consolidated into so few hands…..One party puts legislation in place to consolidate wealth into as few hands as possible while the other party uses legislation to spread wealth more fairly…..The result should be compromise, not division; its called democracy.

  9. diskpanic September 9, 2009 at 5:09 am

    Powered by Yahoo Answers

    Yes. The problem with Socialism in representative governments like ourselves is (1) politicians start to use the “spread the wealth” mantra as a tool to pander to votes among the less affluent and less capable members of the democracy and (2) Socialism only works in smaller populations (because governmental costs are relatively low or nonexistent). Large populations tend to quickly have a disproportionate amount of high cost services and bureaucracies that eat up a large amount of relative capital that would otherwise be directed to Socialist functions of state.

    Every single large population country that’s attempted to use socialism has collapsed or recessed to non-growth models. The U.S. economy bears the brunt of the misdirected ideology of socialist nations that drain our economy. When our economy grinds to a halt, you will see serious problems on the world market, because our capitalist market is the only one keeping the socialist markets going.

    Fact: countries that have strong socialist systems of government/economy have no or extremely weak militaries. If you are too busy paying for butter, you can’t pay for guns.

    Socialism has destroyed every single major democracy that it’s been tried in. It’s looking like it’s going to be our turn.

    **EDIT**
    Addendum. The problem with Obama’s problem is that he doesn’t necessarily want to give to JUST the poor. The “true poor” don’t have enough food, don’t have clothing to put on their backs, and don’t have shelter. Those are the true poor. Obama wants to take money away from the rich and give it to people that do have food on their tables, do have clothes on their backs, and do have shelter over their heads. That’s not helping the poor, that’s true redistribution of wealth. That’s taking money away from someone and giving it to someone else so they can buy a nicer T.V.?

    The Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” What about taking money from someone at the top end and giving it to someone in the middle end so they can get a better T.V. is not “unreasonable”?

  10. connor September 10, 2009 at 1:11 am

    Powered by Yahoo Answers

    You are not understanding what Obama’s statement meant. Instead, you are falling for the Republican spin on it.

    Here’s a great story from Fox News (of all places!) on what he really plans to do:

    “Socialism!” he said incredulously to a crowd of more than 10,000. “It’s kind of hard to figure how Warren Buffet endorsed me. Colin Powell endorses me and John McCain thinks I’m passing socialism,” he said with more than a hint of disbelief.

    Obama explained that he would implement a tax cut for those making under $250,000 – 95% of Americans. “These are the teachers and the janitors who work in our schools. They’re the cops and firefighters who keep us safe. They’re the waitresses who work double shifts, the cashiers at Wal-Marts, the plumbers fighting for the American Dream. John McCain thinks that giving these Americans a break is socialism. Well I call it opportunity, and there is nothing more American than that,” he said.

    Obama turned from defense to offense, saying that if John McCain wants to have a debate about redistributing wealth – just look at the Republican nominee’s plan. It’s McCain who would give tax breaks to those who don’t need it and don’t deserve it, Obama said – tax cuts for Fortune 500 CEOs, billions to Wall Street banks, and tax breaks for big oil companies.

    “Let’s talk about the 100 million middle-class Americans who John McCain doesn’t want to give a single dime of tax relief. Don’t tell me that CEOs and oil companies deserve a tax break before the men and women who are working overtime day after day and still can’t pay the bills,” Obama said as the crowd cheered.

    Obama asked those in the crowd to raise their hands if they made under $250,000 and then promised them – nearly every single person in the arena – they would not see a dime of tax increases. For those making more than that, he promised to put rates back where they were under Bill Clinton’s administration.

    “Did that feel like socialism to you? Rich folks were still making out just fine back then, but we were able to make sure that ordinary folks got a little bit of help without blowing a hole through the budget and piling up mountains of debt like George W. Bush has done and like John McCain has supported,” he blasted. “We have tried it George Bush’s way. We’ve given more and more to those with the most and hoped that prosperity would trickle down to everyone else. And guess what? It didn’t work. So it’s time try something new,” he said.

    And like that tennis player who knows he’s about to score, Obama said, “He can call me any name he wants- but I know what’s right and what he’s talking about is not right, it’s not change – that’s why we’re gonna beat him in this election on November 4th.”