During his 2008 campaign, Obama spoke about the need for economic fairness and reducing income inequality. He mentioned that redistribution of wealth should be part of a broader strategy that focused on creating opportunities for all Americans to succeed. However, he cautioned that this didn't mean equal outcomes, but rather ensuring a level playing field.
Obama wants to tax higher income people, while giving the middle income tax payers a break. Too bad both parties can't get it together. We can't keep spending money and not collect taxes. The argument that cutting taxes for the weathly to promote jobs is about insane. Of course being involved in two major military confrontations and several other minor confrontations with the military budget we have is also insane.
Yes, he has made that clear many times.
Yes he is. Redistribution of wealth, expansion of ACORN, reparations, affirmative action....need I go on?
The redistribution of wealth is aimed at enhancing levels of economic equality.
I think you mean redistribution of wealth?Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich.[2] The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds.-Wikipedia. :)Basically meaning, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay, because the government is distributing wealth.
Redistribution of wealth equates to nothing more than the government taking what you earned with your time and sweat and basically giving it away. This isn't fair, it's communism.
Community finance incolces the redistribution of wealth by the communist overseer.
Tax more from the rich and give to the poor
Yes, Karl Marx believed in the redistribution of wealth as a core tenet of his political and economic philosophy. He argued for the redistribution of wealth to address economic inequality and advocated for the abolition of private property in order to create a more equitable society.
So the sick and elderly don't have to survive on the streets if a financial catastrophe hits their lives.
That depends on who it is redistributed to. If wealth were redistributed to individuals (say for example to make people's shares more equal), but remained privately owned and controlled by individuals, that would not be socialism. But if it were redistributed to collective ownership in any form, or retained in government ownership, or if its use were controlled by the government despite different assets nominally belonging privately to individuals that would be socialism. Whether the USA needs socialism, and whether socialism goes against human nature, and whether redistributive change is counterproductive to the entire society are questions that are not related to which forms of redistribution are socialist. NOTE: it is well worth paying close attention to the difference between a redistribution of wealth and a redistribution of income.
Share Our Wealth.
It brought about a redistribution of wealth and brought a new class of European to the fore front.