Looks like Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber is not going over well with voters...


Washington, D.C. – Election Day is only two weeks away, and as John McCain and Barack Obama make their final pitches to “close the deal” with voters, a stunning new ATI-News/Zogby poll shows a clear majority of undecided voters disagree with Obama’s plan for wealth redistribution in America (http://www.cnbc.com/id/27339578/).

“The major issue on voters’ minds right now is the economy, and the major voting bloc on candidates’ minds right now is the undecided voter,” said ATI-News president Brad O’Leary. “Our poll results show that undecided voters overwhelmingly reject Obama’s economic plan to redistribute wealth.”

The poll surveyed 1,214 likely voters nationwide and was conducted October 17-20. It has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

ATI-News/Zogby asked likely voters: “John McCain and other critics say Barack Obama is heavily influenced by people and organizations which seek social justice through redistribution of wealth in America. Do you agree or disagree with efforts to bring social justice by the redistribution of wealth?”

By a more than two-to-one margin, undecided voters disagree with such efforts to redistribute wealth. In total, 57 percent of undecided voters said they disagreed, while only 24 percent said they agreed (19 percent are not sure).

A majority (52 percent) of self-identified Independent voters also disagree with efforts to bring social justice through wealth redistribution. Only 39 percent of Independents agree (10 percent are not sure).

“In his candid conversation with ‘Joe the plumber,’ Obama made clear that his main economic goal is to redistribute wealth, not strengthen and grow our economy,” said O’Leary. “This is pure socialism, albeit thinly veiled, and it does not resonate with hard-working Americans who would rather keep their money than have Obama redistribute it to his favorite constituencies.”

O’Leary also noted that Obama’s tax welfare plan, coupled with his goal of raising barriers to free trade, “makes for a toxic mix that could drive America’s economy into a prolonged depression.”

“Obama isn’t the second coming of JFK,” said O’Leary, “He’s the reincarnation of Herbert Hoover.”

A show of hands please, who wants their money redistributed by Obama? If you raised your hand, you get to give first.

The flip side of this is that you are happy to see a very small percentage of Americans owning the vast majority of the country's wealth.
So the likes of the multi-million bonuses given to failed bankers and other business people is all right then?

Yes it smacks of socialism, or dare I say communism, but think what could be achieved if this money was used with foresight and thinking.

I don't begrudge anyone their wealth, and I think we have a rather distorted view of what "poverty" in America is. If you want to see poverty, go to Obama's brother's house... or hut.

According to the latest Census Bureau figures, 49.7 percent of all American households fall in the highest quintile, 23.4 in the fourth, 14.8 in the middle, 8.7 in the second and 3.4 in the lowest, and again, another decrease in income inequality. Half of all American households fall in the highest quintile, so it sounds like most of us have done pretty well.

Also, people tend to ignore the fact that most households don't remain stagnant or regress, they move upward... but not always. The report also shows "Of households in the lowest income quintile in 2001, 28.6 percent were in a higher quintile in 2003; of those originally in the highest income quintile, 32.1 percent were in a lower quintile 2 years later."

I'm all for curbing extravant bonuses to ineffective CEO's, but I object to government restricting my ability to earn my own bigger share of the pie and giving it to so many who are perfectly capable of getting their own slice.

Well I guess McCain is a shoe-in because of this.

It's shoo-in, NK. A "shoe-in" is what Obama did with his spread the wealth line, stuck his "shoe-in" his mouth.

Here is a Heritage Foundation article from last year that puts American poor into perspective.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/upload/bg_2064.pdf

I just want to highlight this one bullet point for Curley's edification.




The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London,
Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Here is a Heritage Foundation article from last year that puts American poor into perspective.Hello tom:

And, that perspective is that the American poor, ain't poor. Therefore, since they're NOT poor, they don't need help. Help is reserved for the super wealthy.

Of course, this perspective, along with the entire right wing agenda, has been (or is in the process of being), totally repudiated.

excon

No true "right winger " is pleased with the bailout . But yes ;at what point do people stop needing government to provide for them ? Again ;you take strange views for a self proclaimed libertarian . Nothing comes without strings attached including dependency on the nanny-state.

Again ;you take strange views for a self proclaimed libertarian .Hello tom:

It's simple really. I'm a libertarian who believes in providing a safety net. Yes, I'm not pure, but I can live with it.

excon

Tom is right on all points here, and I'm frankly quite weary of this imagined notion that Republicans don't care about the poor. I have different view on what "help" actually means in many cases, but we are all for helping those who really need help.

As I said before on this site, in my community much if not most of the help the poor and homeless receive in the way of food, clothing and shelter is private assistance. We love to give to help others, I think we've been quite generous with our own funds unlike the paltry amounts that say Joe Biden actually contributes. Private organizations are MUCH more effective and much more responsible with funding than government agencies because for one, they tend to do it out of love and compassion and two, they're held accountable. It's also mutually beneficial, the giver gets a sense of having made a difference and the recipient gets to see compassion in action - a blessing on both sides. You don't get that from compulsory "contributions" and lines at the welfare office.

Also, as I pointed out only a few percent fall in the lowest quintile and household incomes typically don't remain stagnant. Isn't it better to help those who are able to support themselves reach that goal? How does one gain self-respect, self-esteem, confidence and a feeling of worth through dependence on government? Which side is content with people remaining dependent and which side is intent on building people up in real, tangible ways? It certainly isn't the left and their "economic justice" ways.

And lastly, don't try to tell me I wouldn't understand. As I've said before I have a daughter with AIDS, and when she was living here and truly unable to work she received a paltry $553.00 in disability pay and about another 50 bucks in food stamps per month to try and support herself. Tell me how she was supposed to do that? She couldn't, no way, she had to rely on housing assistance from a local charity and what we could spare so she could live a somewhat independent life, while able-bodied "poor" families around her were pushing shopping carts full of groceries they'd gotten with food stamps out to their cars to drive home and snack on while watching cable TV.

The safety net has already been provided.What level of life style would you guarantee by the government ? Like you ;I am not a "purist"either . I'd say more of a minimalist.I'm trying to slow down the runaway train and set it towards a more reasonable course;a course more in line with the founders definition of the right to property.

The drift towards socialist statism has already gone beyond reasonable and I see in Obama and the current "progressive " coalition of Democrats a move towards a total victory of the nanny-state. You don't only hear it from Obama ;but also from the words of Barney Frank ,Jim McDermott with his 401(K) savings grab and a whole host of others who think they are fullfilling the dreams of FDR and LBJ.

Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree... However, it's not just happening out of the blue. It's pushback from the wrongheaded, unregulated, and unabashed greed fomented by a right wing president, that caused this bust in the first place.

Had the dufus not gone so far right and blown it, the backlash wouldn't be so far left.

excon

The flip side of this is that you are happy to see a very small percentage of Americans owning the vast majority of the country's wealth.
So the likes of the multi-million bonuses given to failed bankers and other business people is alright then ??

You forgot to mention, the multi millions that actors / actresses get paid per movies, or Oprah, or pro - atheletes, etc...

I do agree that a ceo should not get a golden parachute for doing a bad job. :mad:



Yes it smacks of socialism, or dare I say communism, but think what could be achieved if this money was used with foresight and thinking.

Has central planning ever worked on a national scale?

You forgot to mention, the multi millions that actors / actresses get paid per movies, or Oprah, or pro - atheletes, etc....
Good point well made, but with the current financial crises I was drawn to the CEO/Financiers.


Has central planning ever worked on a national scale?
There is no reason that it cannot work especially in the areas of health and social care.

Take care of the populace.

Are you referring to the centrally planned economies of former USSR, CHina, Cuba?

You forgot to mention, the multi millions that actors / actresses get paid per movies, or Oprah, or pro - atheletes, etc....
Why do they get paid so much?

It is NOTspreading the wealth, it is giving my income to someone else. I can donate to whom I wish effecting a hand up NOT a hand out. Those in power want to give hand outs so they can buy votes!

How would you give a hand-up? What sort of thing(s)?

****Added Later****
Obama said he would give money toward college tuition to those young people who give two years of public service in Vista, the Peace Corps, the military. Wouldn't that be a hand-up? Not every young person would participate in such a program, but it would benefit the person who does as well as benefit our global community.

Are you referring to the centrally planned economies of former USSR, CHina, Cuba?
No, Canada, France, UK.

These "global community" ideas are truly scary. Let's hope Halloween doesn't last year-round for the next four years.!

"Spreading the wealth around" is just restating:

From each according to his ability.
To each according to his needs.

These "global community" ideas are truly scary. Let's hope Halloween doesn't last year-round for the next four years.!!

"Spreading the wealth around" is just restating:

From each according to his ability.
To each according to his needs.
Why would a "global community" be scary?

"From each according to his ability..." worked well for the American Indians and the early colonies.

Why would a "global community" be scary?

"From each according to his ability..." worked well for the American Indians and the early colonies.

You are wrong on both counts. There can be no global community without global government. The further government is from the people, them more corrupt and inept and tyrannical it becomes.

I guess I can't say about the Native American, but Communism didn't work at all in the early colonies. Those that tried it starved. They abandoned that idea the second year.

You are wrong on both counts. There can be no global community without global government. The further government is from the people, them more corrupt and inept and tyrannical it becomes.

I guess I can't say about the Native American, but Communism didn't work at all in the early colonies. Those that tried it starved. Thay abandoned that idea the second year.
The early colonies mimicked the Indians. If it didn't work, the fault lay with the colonists. It worked for the Indians for centuries.

The lifestyle of the Indians is way different from modern life. It's comparing apples and oranges. You cannot prescribe for us what works for tiny hunter-gatherer units compared to our huge system.

Its funny how each of the many times Communism fails, they always say it just hasn't been tried with the right group of people yet.

Thank god no one is advocating communism so you don't have to worry about that.

The lifestyle of the Indians is way different from modern life. It's comparing apples and oranges. You cannot prescribe for us what works for tiny hunter-gatherer units compared to our huge system.
"Tiny"? Of course "tiny" comparing thousands of them to the millions in the U.S. now. It doesn't work for us because we are greedy individualists.

Any time the fox guards the hen house, you will be missing your chickens, and that is the weakness of capitalism.

As far as spreading the wealth, ask a guy who lost his factory job to a worker in another country, making less money, or an American company that exploits its overseas workers (Wal-mart, come to mind as they get large tax breaks, to build in a community, then leave before the taxes come due)

Why should the wealthiest 1% tell me when to work, where, and how much I make like a serf, and then lay me off before Christmas.

Finally, since you can bailout a greedy son-of-gun, why can't you bailout the ones who suffer for it.

Spread the wealth sound great to me. At least make it fair, as how can they make money if I can't buy anything.

Spread the wealth, sounds a lot better than trickle down economics for sure.

No, Canada, France, UK.

I did not know that - thank you NK

Obama Calls For 'Redistribution of Wealth' In 2001 PBS Interview

YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)

Apparently the voters are OK with this. :D

It proves he is even more radical than even I suspected.

The Warren Court was the most radical court in our history and yet he says it did not go far enough because it did not address an issue it has no perusal over :
"The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.”


He thinks the court did not attempt to break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution .

As a Harvard trained lawyer he should know it is not the job of the court to expand the powers of government . The constitution was essentially designed to limit the powers of the Federal Government.

He goes on to say that the constitution is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

He wants the NANNY STATE to have Constitutional legitimacy . It does not. He would enact his "changes " through fiat.

not the job of the court to expand the powers of government . The constitution was essentially designed to limit the powers of the Federal Government.

Balance, not limit nor expand.

How can you support a bailout of the wall street casino, and not the backbone of America, the middle class, who has put up with this bad behavior, through no fault of their own??

You should read the writings of the Founders. They designed the Federal Government to have limited powers .


The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
[The Federalist No. 45]


What you are referring to (I think) is separation of powers.