Obama on Redistribution of Wealth

[areafiftyone]

Mitt Romney this week has jumped on a 14-year-old clip of Barack Obama speaking about "redistribution" of wealth at a 1998 conference in Chicago.

However, NBC News "has obtained the entirety of the relevant remarks, which includes additional comments by Obama that weren't included in the video circulated by Republicans. That omission features additional words of praise for 'competition' and the 'marketplace' by the then-state senator."

Obama, from the whole clip: "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities."

Maggie Haberman: "It's a bit different than when the first sentence is isolated. Obama was making two parallel pitches, for market competition and pooled resources, in a fashion similar to how he has at other points in his career... That line is one Obama almost certainly wishes he could get back - but it's also why video archives of him talking about redistribution is unlikely to surprise swaths of voters."


Continue Reading Here: http://politicalwire.com/http://politicalwire.com/

 

[areafiftyone]

Romney was so anxious to cover for his 47% remark that they immediately took out a 1998 video - took one line from it - and used it against Obama without showing the whole clip. Seems like they had this in their bag of tricks and were waiting for the right moment.

 

[AdamT]

And Mitt has once again garnered the coveted FOUR PINOCCHIOS from the Washingon Post's fact checker for yet another dishonest attack ad. The most dishonest campaign in modern memory adds to its legacy. :roll:

4 Pinocchios for a truncated, 14-year Obama clip - The Washington Post

 

[Tettsuo]

Redistribution is only good if it's in favor of the rich.

As per Conservatives that is.

 

[Harshaw]

And Mitt has once again garnered the coveted FOUR PINOCCHIOS from the Washingon Post's fact checker for yet another dishonest attack ad. The most dishonest campaign in modern memory adds to its legacy. :roll:

4 Pinocchios for a truncated, 14-year Obama clip - The Washington Post

From your own link:

Just as we have not been very impressed about many of the Obama campaign’s claims about Mitt Romney’s business career many years ago, we were not initially that impressed with the Romney campaign’s effort to dredge up a 14-year-old quote to demonstrate that President Obama wants to “redistribute wealth.” The clip was so old — he was just a state senator — and the context was rather unclear. Also, it appeared as if the YouTube version was clipped in mid-thought.

Besides, what does "just a state senator" have to do with it?

Also from the link:

But now NBC News has obtained the rest of Obama’s comments, and it is clear his remarks were taken completely out of context. Obama is not talking about redistributing wealth at all — instead, he speaks about competition, the market place and innovation in an effort to improve government services in Chicago.

Whereas, in fact, given the entire quote, which they provide, I think THEY mischaracterize it, and that yes, indeed, it's about wealth redistribution vis-a-vis using the government to spur "competition."

“As we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named — policy research for the working poor, broadly defined — I think that what we're gonna have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic, I don't think it's too strong to call it a propaganda campaign, against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policy making. And neither necessarily have been the Chicago public schools. What that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we're all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking how, what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live, and my suggestion I guess would be that the trick, and this is one of the few areas where I think there have to be technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues, how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities.”

As with "you didn't build that," the "full context," if indeed even THIS is, only makes it worse.

I have my doubts that you even read this article.

 

[AdamT]

From your own link:

Besides, what does "just a state senator" have to do with it?

Also from the link:

Whereas, in fact, given the entire quote, which they provide, I think THEY mischaracterize it, and that yes, indeed, it's about wealth redistribution vis-a-vis using the government to spur "competition."

As with "you didn't build that," the "full context," if indeed even THIS is, only makes it worse.

I have my doubts that you even read this article.

First, that he was just a state senator is an indication that the clip is very old, and thus not necessarily relevant to Obama's present views. Second, as the article states, it isn't obvious exactly what he was referring to when he said redistribution. Clearly it modifies "pooled resources", so a literal interpretation would be that he was talking about redisributing those existing resources for better effect. In other words, we have this pool of revenue, but we should reprioritize how it's being disributed. OTOH, he also talks about ensuring equal opportunity, so you could interpret his comment as saying that "pooled resources" should be redistributed to help those perceived to have less opportunity.

Now, you seem to be one of those folks who want to take a literal interpretation of Obama's "you didn't build it" comment, but you seem to be suggesting that we NOT take a literal interpretation of Obama's redistribution comment. That would suggest to me that you are really only interested in bending whatever Obama says to your purpose of making him look bad.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Results, results, results.....that is what I hear from the RW about economic policy.

So lets look at the top 400 earners and how they have fared under the oppressive "redistributive" President Obama.

They have increased their wealth by 13% under his administration.

Results....indeed.

 

[Harshaw]

First, that he was just a state senator is an indication that the clip is very old, and thus not necessarily relevant to Obama's present views.

Funny, his autobiography from 1995 was considered such.

Second, as the article states, it isn't obvious exactly what he was referring to when he said redistribution.

He certainly wasn't referring to redistributing "competition," as the article seems to say.

Clearly it modifies "pooled resources", so a literal interpretation would be that he was talking about redisributing those existing resources for better effect. In other words, we have this pool of revenue,

And that "pool of revenue" isn't "wealth," or derived from it? Really? Where did it come from?

OTOH, he also talks about ensuring equal opportunity, so you could interpret his comment as saying that "pooled resources" should be redistributed to help those perceived to have less opportunity.

Which is classic wealth redistribution, and exactly what the full context of the paragraph suggests. :shrug:

And as you here are admitting that yes, it can be taken that way, then you agree that isn't "dishonest" to do so.

Now, you seem to be one of those folks who want to take a literal interpretation of Obama's "you didn't build it" comment, but you seem to be suggesting that we NOT take a literal interpretation of Obama's redistribution comment. That would suggest to me that you are really only interested in bending whatever Obama says to your purpose of making him look bad.

No, I'm saying the full context of that speech made the "you didn't build that" comment WORSE than just the shorthand of taking a "literal interpretation" of just those words.

And the full context HERE is such that yes, he is indeed talking about wealth redistribution, despite that fact the article said he wasn't talking about it "at all."

 

[roughdraft274]

Whereas, in fact, given the entire quote, which they provide, I think THEY mischaracterize it, and that yes, indeed, it's about wealth redistribution vis-a-vis using the government to spur "competition."

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" There ya go, paraphrased it for you.

 

[Harshaw]

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" There ya go, paraphrased it for you.

Really? They're inside Obama's head and can objectively say, without question, what his words mean, even when the words suggest otherwise -- and thus they represent "reality"?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Really? They're inside Obama's head and can objectively say, without question, what his words mean, even when the words suggest otherwise -- and thus they represent "reality"?

Words.....hmm.....so how are they manifesting themselves?

Are the wealthy worse off......"redistributed"?

 

[Harshaw]

Words.....hmm.....so how are they manifesting themselves?

Are the wealthy worse off......"redistributed"?

This is a whole bunch of gibberish which doesn't speak to anything I said. Which is not atypical from you.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

This is a whole bunch of gibberish which doesn't speak to anything I said. Which is not atypical from you.

Oh...OK...you don't get how "words" become "reality". We call that "making them manifest", or "putting them into action".....or "results".

If you have "evidence" that these "words" have had an effect upon "reality" for the wealthy....please, show it.

 

[Harshaw]

Oh...OK...you don't get how "words" become "reality". We call that "making them manifest", or "putting them into action".....or "results".

If you have "evidence" that these "words" have had an effect upon "reality" for the wealthy....please, show it.

:shrug: More gibberish. If you think you're coming off well here, you're sorely mistaken.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

:shrug: More gibberish. If you think you're coming off well here, you're sorely mistaken.

"I'm stuck, I can't show that this "redistribution" has effected the wealthy, so I will instead try to argue that my opponent looks bad, like I always do when I have reached a dead end."

 

[Harshaw]

"I'm stuck, I can't show that this "redistribution" has effected the wealthy, so I will instead try to argue that my opponent looks bad, like I always do when I have reached a dead end."

:roll:

No honest person with half a brain will look at this exchange and agree that it's how it went down. You beclown yourself. 'Sall I have to say about that.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

:roll:

No honest person with half a brain will look at this exchange and agree that it's how it went down. You beclown yourself. 'Sall I have to say about that.

Ah...OK...I suppose this same fictional character will see the superior position you are achieving by ad hominem.

Got mirror?

 

[wolfman24]

Hello

Romney is opposing something that this country has been doing for years, actually forever. I was a civil servant for most of my life. My paycheck came from the redistribution of taxes to civil servants. A soldier gets paid same thing (you oppose the military that much?) Police, fireman, medical personnel at the VA, on and on and on.

Then there are state employees. Many state employees get part of thier salary from monies given to the states from yep redistribution of taxes. Contracted employees get redistributed tax money via the state or feds.

If there was no redistribution there would be - no police, no fireman, no emts, no va, no military, no road workers (no roads), no refund checks, no just about everything to do with the infrastructure of this country.

Now before someone shoots off his mouth. My son is autistic (he is 21 years old) and cannot work along with millions of other physically disabled and mentally disabled AMERICAN citizens. As such he gets a very small amount of money from the feds. Contrary to Mr. Romney and Limbaughs opinion most parents don't make 250,000 per year and can not afford the equipment, therapy or resources it takes to raise these kids and get them what they need so they can get around. They need some type of help.

Some people have suggested charity. REALLY???? What do you do when you get those calls for charity on the phone 7x per day. Yep Hang UP. So Charity NOT

Only a person with no compassion and no understanding of the situation, the kids will even think to suggest of letting these type kids fend for themselves. Then you are advocatine genocide. Pure and simple.

Wolfman 24 An autistic father of an austic son.

 

[AdamT]

Funny, his autobiography from 1995 was considered such.

His '95 book is autobiographical. It's not considered especially relevant as far as determining his current policy goals.

He certainly wasn't referring to redistributing "competition," as the article seems to say.

That's not what the article seems to say, at least to me.

And that "pool of revenue" isn't "wealth," or derived from it? Really? Where did it come from?

It's revenue, from whatever sources the state had for revenue. The point is that he seems to have been talking about redistributing the existing pool of revenue; he does NOT seem to have been talking about tax policy in general.

Which is classic wealth redistribution, and exactly what the full context of the paragraph suggests. :shrug:

What it suggests and what it suggest TO YOU are two different things. You're bending it to mean something it doesn't say, because you want it to mean something it doesn't say. Same as the "you didn't build it" BS.

And as you here are admitting that yes, it can be taken that way, then you agree that isn't "dishonest" to do so.

It is dishonet to suggest that it means something it probably doesn't mean, even if that's one possible interpretation, and especially so if you don't provide the full context of the quote -- which Romney did not. Of course his excuse is that he didn't HAVE the full quote, which just means that he had no way of knowing what the context was, but chose to assign the meaning that he thought best fit his needs. That is dishonest.

No, I'm saying the full context of that speech made the "you didn't build that" comment WORSE than just the shorthand of taking a "literal interpretation" of just those words.

Yeah, I'm sure you read the whole speech. :roll:

And the full context HERE is such that yes, he is indeed talking about wealth redistribution, despite that fact the article said he wasn't talking about it "at all."

I agree with the Post writer. He was not talking about redistribution of wealth in the sense that Republicans use the term. He wasn't talking about raising taxes on the rich and using the proceeds to benefit the poor and working class. He was talking about the technical -- not political -- mechanics of pooling resources.

So, long story short, Romney is being dishonest AGAIN. He didn't have the context to understand the comment, but he assigned a meaning to it anyway. Basically it came down to, "HE SAID REDISTRIBUTION!! HE SAID REDISTRIBUTION!! CALL THE AD AGENCY!!"

 

[Lutherf]

Hello

Romney is opposing something that this country has been doing for years, actually forever. I was a civil servant for most of my life. My paycheck came from the redistribution of taxes to civil servants. A soldier gets paid same thing (you oppose the military that much?) Police, fireman, medical personnel at the VA, on and on and on.

Then there are state employees. Many state employees get part of thier salary from monies given to the states from yep redistribution of taxes. Contracted employees get redistributed tax money via the state or feds.

If there was no redistribution there would be - no police, no fireman, no emts, no va, no military, no road workers (no roads), no refund checks, no just about everything to do with the infrastructure of this country.

Now before someone shoots off his mouth. My son is autistic (he is 21 years old) and cannot work along with millions of other physically disabled and mentally disabled AMERICAN citizens. As such he gets a very small amount of money from the feds. Contrary to Mr. Romney and Limbaughs opinion most parents don't make 250,000 per year and can not afford the equipment, therapy or resources it takes to raise these kids and get them what they need so they can get around. They need some type of help.

Some people have suggested charity. REALLY???? What do you do when you get those calls for charity on the phone 7x per day. Yep Hang UP. So Charity NOT

Only a person with no compassion and no understanding of the situation, the kids will even think to suggest of letting these type kids fend for themselves. Then you are advocatine genocide. Pure and simple.

Wolfman 24 An autistic father of an austic son.

Are you aware that there is a rather significant distinction between getting paid for ones services and "redistribution" as defined in the subject of this thread?

What Obama is looking for is equalization by means of forced redistribution through the powers of the state. That's a whole world away from getting a paycheck because you provided a service that someone else deemed valuable.

 

[AdamT]

Are you aware that there is a rather significant distinction between getting paid for ones services and "redistribution" as defined in the subject of this thread?

What Obama is looking for is equalization by means of forced redistribution through the powers of the state. That's a whole world away from getting a paycheck because you provided a service that someone else deemed valuable.

What Obama was looking for, in the relevant quote, was private, decentralized, marketplace solutions to help improve Chicago's public education system. In fact, having read it now a third time, I think he was talking about redistributing education funds AWAY from government-run schools and TOWARD private sector solutions.

 

[EyesWideOpen]

First, that he was just a state senator is an indication that the clip is very old, and thus not necessarily relevant to Obama's present views. Second, as the article states, it isn't obvious exactly what he was referring to when he said redistribution. Clearly it modifies "pooled resources", so a literal interpretation would be that he was talking about redisributing those existing resources for better effect. In other words, we have this pool of revenue, but we should reprioritize how it's being disributed. OTOH, he also talks about ensuring equal opportunity, so you could interpret his comment as saying that "pooled resources" should be redistributed to help those perceived to have less opportunity.

Now, you seem to be one of those folks who want to take a literal interpretation of Obama's "you didn't build it" comment, but you seem to be suggesting that we NOT take a literal interpretation of Obama's redistribution comment. That would suggest to me that you are really only interested in bending whatever Obama says to your purpose of making him look bad.

Don't take my word for it, but if remembered correctly he was talking about housing and education in Chicago. He said the Chicago Housing Authority and the Chicago Public School System were failing. The redistribution he was talking about may have been the funding for both of those, how much, where, etc it is spent.

But hey, when campaigning there is but one rule "never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

 

[AdamT]

Don't take my word for it, but if remembered correctly he was talking about housing and education in Chicago. He said the Chicago Housing Authority and the Chicago Public School System were failing. The redistribution he was talking about may have been the funding for both of those, how much, where, etc it is spent.

But hey, when campaigning there is but one rule "never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

I think that's exactly what he was saying. The Chicago school system blows. From a technical standpoint, how do you get at some of that school funding and redistribute it, "in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities."

 

[iguanaman]

Funny, his autobiography from 1995 was considered such.



He certainly wasn't referring to redistributing "competition," as the article seems to say.



And that "pool of revenue" isn't "wealth," or derived from it? Really? Where did it come from?



Which is classic wealth redistribution, and exactly what the full context of the paragraph suggests. :shrug:

And as you here are admitting that yes, it can be taken that way, then you agree that isn't "dishonest" to do so.






No, I'm saying the full context of that speech made the "you didn't build that" comment WORSE than just the shorthand of taking a "literal interpretation" of just those words.

And the full context HERE is such that yes, he is indeed talking about wealth redistribution, despite that fact the article said he wasn't talking about it "at all."

You and Romney might as well give up on the "redistribution" tactic. Voters already know that Romney is the one with the redistribution scheme and his friends and him get the money.
You are simply reminding voters of that.

 

[Lutherf]

What Obama was looking for, in the relevant quote, was private, decentralized, marketplace solutions to help improve Chicago's public education system. In fact, having read it now a third time, I think he was talking about redistributing education funds AWAY from government-run schools and TOWARD private sector solutions.

So, out of curiosity, does taking resources from more affluent school districts and providing them to less affluent ones not constitute equalization through the force of government? If, for example, I live an an affluent neighborhood and have moved there because they have a better school district should my tax dollars be taken and used for a school district that isn't as financially well off? That's the "redistribution" he's talking about and it's exactly the same kind of "redistribution" he talked about to Joe Wurzelbacher....just like the GOP ad stated.