Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

How is it good for Obama, a socialist, to spread the wealth around?

Barack Hussein Obama recently stated that spreading the wealth around is good. How is this possible. People who work hard and drive our economy truly earn their money. They have gone to school, worked hard, and made lots of sacrifices. I just don't understand how spreading the wealth around is good. Why should my family have more taxes going to people who don't work and have jobs. I understand that not all people who get government money don't have jobs, but we are now rewarding laziness and inadequate persons in our society. Please explain this to me. I just cant understand.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Do you even know what socialism is, except that it's really, really bad?

    We've been living in a socialist democracy since Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated his New Deal in 1933 and again in 1935-36 as a response to the terrible economic times of the Great Depression. These are some of his socialist programs that still exist today that most Americans use regularly:

    * Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

    * Federal Housing Administration (FHA)

    * Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

    * Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

    * Fannie Mae

    * Social Security System

    If your grandparents receive Social Security, then they're socialists.

    If your grandparents receive medical care or a nursing home spot under Medicaid, then they're socialists.

    If you would like to receive universal health coverage under Obama's plan, then you are a socialist.

    If you would like the government to intervene to lower gas prices, then you're a socialist.

    If you think the government bail out of insurance companies was a good idea, like both McCain and Obama did, then you're a socialist.

    New Deal socialism - http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html

    and http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/essays/new...

  • 1 decade ago

    If you want to define socialism (incorrectly) as "spreading the wealth," that’s fine - but you should know that this definition also encompasses Warren Buffett, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and Sarah Palin.

    Why?

    - Warren Buffett has come out publicly in support of Obama.

    - Ronald Reagan expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (the single most wealth-redistributive policy in the history of our tax code); also, the highest tax bracket under Reagan was 50% - the highest bracket in Obama’s proposed plan is 39.6%.

    - John McCain has publicly supported the EXACT same type of tax policy that he is NOW calling "socialist." Don't believe me? See for yourself:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kYsF1MerAY

    Youtube thumbnail

    - Sarah Palin imposed a windfall profits TAX on oil companies in Alaska, and cut a $1,200 check to every Alaskan with the proceeds. If that's not "SPREADING THE WEALTH," I don't know what is.

    If you want to vote for McCain, that's your right. But do your country a favor, and find at least one GOOD reason to do so (this is not one).

  • 1 decade ago

    First off, he isn't a socialist. He is no where near a socialist. What he means by spread the wealth around, is that he will give tax breaks to the poor and not the rich. Giving the rich tons of money and leaving the poor with nothing makes no sense. If the rich are at the top of the class pyramid, then won't making it a heavy top collapse down on America? We need a good base.

    Source(s): Obama '08
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Poor people are not good for the economy. Plenty of people who don't have much work a full time job. There is nothing wrong with asking people who are able to pay more to shoulder a bit more of the tax burden. We do it now. Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his income in his taxes as the people who work in his office.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z_UrOKtjHk

    Youtube thumbnail

    Obama is not talking about increasing welfare. He is talking about spreading the tax burden towards those who can afford to pay it.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Did you know that a substantial portion of the most wealthy, niether produce nor create anything. They live quite a wealthy lifestyle from the buying and selling of other peoples money, product and hard work.

    And believe me, these guys don't work all that hard. I used to be one of them. I worked about about 5 hours per day, usually 4 days a week and made well over 300K per year.

    Is that fair ?

    edited to add - I quit doing it from guilt. I felt like I was a leach. And I was.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You do realize that the Rich took the wealth from the middle class. 1% of the population owns 90% or more of "Wealth" in America.

    30 years ago the Same 1% owned about 40% of the wealth.

  • 1 decade ago

    Redistribution of wealth ...

    Here is a creative approach to redistribution of wealth as offered by a reader of the newspaper, the Eagle Tribune.

    Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

    Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' button , again I laughed--just imagine the coincidence.

    When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

    I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

    At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed the money more.

    I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

    REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS NOT A GREAT IDEA..............its a fool's political game!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    thank you. it is not good to spread the wealth around. people work hard for their money, and it is NOT fair to have to give it away.

  • 1 decade ago

    99% of people earning more than $250,000 a year do not work harder than regular people. They inherited their money or they are hedge fund managers that steal money from poorer people.

    Obama just wants to support the middle class, which is the backbone of our country. Bush has nearly destroyed the middle class, polarizing the rich and the poor with nothing in between.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Its great for people that dont work for a living, and single moms with part time jobs and 6 kids.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.