I hear this A LOT. Usually from friends and other folks. Especially my sister-in-law who believes that Obama will force her USAF husband out of a job because Democrats hate the military (but that’s another story). :rolleyes:
I looked at Snopes, but it linked to an article that said the Wall Street Journal did an addition to his quote. Obama never said it himself.
Is that it? Is that what the critics are talking about? Is there any more? Please tell me there’s more that this “quote”.
Oddly enough, I cannot use a Snopes to derail her argument, because she doesn’t trust it. She thinks Snopes always seems to defend liberals (and that’s yet another story).
And I always contended that when you read his “spread the wealth” comment out of context it made it seem worse than it was. I think he really meant that he wanted to get money flowing in the economy…
Every admin spreads the wealth. The tax policies and any other financial plans will move the money where they want. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy stretched the middle classes finances. All his economic policies assisted in exacerbating the wealth gap. Yes, he redistributed the wealth.
Obama is suggesting that the tax breaks for the wealthy should stop and breaks should go to the middle class and poor. Why does anyone have problems with that? More people should be involved it the wealth of America. We do not need to develop a special class of billionaires. That is wrong.
Apparently Clinton skeletonized our military, therefore Obama the democrat will do the same thing. Her facebook stated: “I am very depressed thinking Obama has won… unsure of military’s future and husband’s career.” So I quoted Obama’s own site. I figured it would show her she has nothing to worry about: (Italics mine)
Her response was golden:
So, no retraction or counterproof. She’s entitled to her beliefs and that’s that. Can’t we all just get along? :smack:
Bethany: You’re saying that having beliefs is a bad thing?
Rufus: I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier.
Bush was insanely succcessful in redistrbuting the wealth. It flowed from the middle class to the richest 5% of the country. Concentration *is *redistribution.
By definition, taxation (and the use of the money acquired through same) is redistribution of your money. Since all administrations in my lifetime have used the income tax to pay for programs, all presidents have been “Redistributors in Chief”. It’s a stupid argument.
And given that the progressive tax was the brain-child of Teddy Roosevelt, and the Earned Income Tax Credit that of Richard Nixon (signed into law by Ford, and increased by both Reagan and G.H.W. Bush)*, it seems all the more absurd.
*See this post for further detail. Also, you can read Teddy Roosevelt’s entire 1910 speech here. I highly recommend it, actually. Sounds eerily like something Barack Obama would be saying, as opposed to, for instance, John McCain, who claims Roosevelt has his idol. Interesting stuff.
If it is logical to put it in the wealthy to trickle down, lets just give it all to Bill Gates. As he spends it, we will all be enriched. He will buy a car and the dealer will make money. If he goes to Europe on vacation .we will wait patiently. If he builds a new house ,the builders and salesmen will make money. After a while it will trickle down to the Target clerks.
Yep ,giving the tax breaks to the rich is just about as logical. Give tax breaks to the average worker, then they go out and eat. They buy a car or a computer. Lots of them. Gates makes money. Many people ,including the rich, make money.
Why him specifically? It seems to me that the government has a vested interest in encouraging the development of new jobs and new companies in all sorts of industries, not just Windows software and operating systems.
That’s a disingenuous subtitling of what he said. Every time the narrator tries to draw explicit inferences they are wrong and twist what he actually said.
Why can’t the right just be intellectually honest for a change?
