Obama: "I actually believe in re-distribution"

#1
golfballs

golfballs

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
75,414
Likes
57,672
#1
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4[/youtube]

Well no ****!
 
#4
#4
This is really dumb. Redistribution of resources means what, depending on the subject? If you're talking about schools, it might mean from science to shop or from shop to science. The negativity kings always try to make things into something bad, when they don't even know WTF they are talking about.
 
#5
#5
This will get little attention because this is not shocking news concerning this man.
 
#6
#6
allvol123 said:
This will get little attention because this is not shocking news concerning this man.
Click to expand...
The country seems numb to Obama all together. I guess Romney really is that bad that they'd put this trash back in there over him.....
 
#7
#7
Vol Main said:
This is really dumb. Redistribution of resources means what, depending on the subject? If you're talking about schools, it might mean from science to shop or from shop to science. The negativity kings always try to make things into something bad, when they don't even know WTF they are talking about.
Click to expand...

He was talking logistics. Re-distro has millions of political meanings.
 
#8
#8
Vol Main said:
This is really dumb. Redistribution of resources means what, depending on the subject? If you're talking about schools, it might mean from science to shop or from shop to science. The negativity kings always try to make things into something bad, when they don't even know WTF they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Why would he says he "believes" in it if this is all it was. Who on earth doesn't believe in moving resources around.

If your version is true he should be removed from POTUS for being Captain Obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9
#9
BigPapaVol said:
He was talking logistics. Re-distro has millions of political meanings.
Click to expand...

Point is that you do not even now what he was talking about. Corporate board meetings, school board meetings, county commission meetings, etc. are always talking about shifting resources. I listened to the you tube, and I can't tell you what resources he wanted to redistribute from what to where, so how can you know? After a storm, our county redistributed funds to replace street lights and signs that were blown down. According to you, that must have been some kind of communist conspiracy. Duh. The Apple Corporation redistributes funds from PCs to market the iPod. It's a communist conspiracy. Shift funds from public housing to schools. Communist conspiracy! Don't you know that the halls of Congress are filled with lobbyists advocating redistributing the national wealth into their companies? They must be communists. Every advocate in the country wants to redistribute funds to whoever they represent. They're all communists!
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
Spoon redistribution is the answer.

Few have realized, to this very day, the genius of spoon redistribution economics or SRE as its known among the heavyweights.
 
#14
#14
Vol Main said:
Point is that you do not even now what he was talking about. Corporate board meetings, school board meetings, county commission meetings, etc. are always talking about shifting resources. I listened to the you tube, and I can't tell you what resources he wanted to redistribute from what to where, so how can you know? After a storm, our county redistributed funds to replace street lights and signs that were blown down. According to you, that must have been some kind of communist conspiracy. Duh. The Apple Corporation redistributes funds from PCs to market the iPod. It's a communist conspiracy. Shift funds from public housing to schools. Communist conspiracy! Don't you know that the halls of Congress are filled with lobbyists advocating redistributing the national wealth into their companies? They must be communists. Every advocate in the country wants to redistribute funds to whoever they represent. They're all communists!
Click to expand...

listen to the piece, again. Language about redistribution, tossed around with relearning about how positive government intervention can actually be isn't discussing UPS stuff. He was clearly talking about redistribution of wealth via government action and there is no debate about it. If you want to pretend it's something else, roll on with your moderate self, all moderate and such.

If you don't think this guy is a full blown Euro socialist, you're an utter moron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
volinbham said:
My bet is he meant redistribution of furniture - Feng Shui style
Click to expand...

my guess is kettle cooked chips, although Vol Main probably prefers Pringles.

or am I getting my trolls confused? They all look alike....
 
#18
#18
BigPapaVol said:
listen to the piece, again. Language about redistribution, tossed around with relearning about how positive government intervention can actually be isn't discussing UPS stuff. He was clearly talking about redistribution of wealth via government action and there is no debate about it. If you want to pretend it's something else, roll on with your moderate self, all moderate and such.

If you don't think this guy is a full blown Euro socialist, you're an utter moron.
Click to expand...

Okay, I did listen to it again. If you are right that he was talking about financial redistribution by government, and that is certainly possible in the context, he clearly was not talking about redistribution of income. There was something there about "giving folks a shot," or words like that. What does that mean? It doesn't mean welfare; it means some kind of opportunity for upward economic mobility. My father served in World War Two and went to college on the G.I. Bill. The government gave virtually an entire generation "a shot," with education benefits. Would you go back in time to nullify the G.I. Bill, because it was paid for with taxes? Do you argue that Americans did not deserve that opportunity? Do you argue that the G.I. Bill was not good for the economy? Do you argue that the G.I. Bill did not contribute to making America the strongest nation in the world? I think that the G.I. Bill was a strong positive in all these respects. Was it a redistribution of resources? Yes. That is not Euro-socialist; that is American capitalist. A trained work force and educated professional class are not hatched out of a cabbage patch.
 
Last edited:
#19
#19
the GI Bill required a trade with govt. Our current welfare system has no such requirement
 
#20
#20
utvolpj said:
the GI Bill required a trade with govt. Our current welfare system has no such requirement
Click to expand...

We need to get away from the current welfare system. In my state, the unemployed cannot go to technical schools or any kind of school while receiving unemployment compensation. They cannot receive training for a new job; they can only look for a new job. Now we have millions of people with exhausted benefits and no new job skills.

Federal funds for unemployment are administered by the States.
 
#22
#22
Vol Main said:
We need to get away from the current welfare system.
Click to expand...

sure we can- get a job or don't eat. Guess what choice people would make?

if you're going to school you are not unemployed. You are a student
 
#23
#23
utvolpj said:
to make news it would have to be something we didn't already know
Click to expand...

A good reason why we do not need four more years of his malaise.

malaise_v2.jpg
 
#24
#24
Vol Main said:
Okay, I did listen to it again. If you are right that he was talking about financial redistribution by government, and that is certainly possible in the context, he clearly was not talking about redistribution of income. There was something there about "giving folks a shot," or words like that. What does that mean? It doesn't mean welfare; it means some kind of opportunity for upward economic mobility. My father served in World War Two and went to college on the G.I. Bill. The government gave virtually an entire generation "a shot," with education benefits. Would you go back in time to nullify the G.I. Bill, because it was paid for with taxes? Do you argue that Americans did not deserve that opportunity? Do you argue that the G.I. Bill was not good for the economy? Do you argue that the G.I. Bill did not contribute to making America the strongest nation in the world? I think that the G.I. Bill was a strong positive in all these respects. Was it a redistribution of resources? Yes. That is not Euro-socialist; that is American capitalist. A trained work force and educated professional class are not hatched out of a cabbage patch.
Click to expand...

holy density.
 
#25
#25
Government redistributes income in the form of spending tax dollars all the time. They take my tax dollars and build the roads on which commerce travels, trucks with goods go from one point to another; they use my tax dollars to help fund universities, where people go to learn to be accountants, lawyers, and to manage businesses; they use my tax dollars to pay for guns, ammunition, and food and clothing for service men and women in Afghanistan.

Some of my tax dollars may well have contributed, along with the dollars of millions of others,to help the business that Bain bought and sold prosper.

Romney needs to quit the bytchin', imo.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top