Obama Wants To Redistribute Wealth

  •  October 14, 2008

Obama got caught on video saying that he wants to “spread the wealth around.”


So a burdened plumber asks Obama what he’s going to do to help out. Obama basically responds by saying he’s going to give people like him other people’s money.
Wealth redistribution. Buying votes. That’s the name of the game.
And that’s actually what he’s proposing with his “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” nonsense. 47% of Americans have no federal income tax burden, so Obama wants to take money from the people who do pay taxes and put it into a check for people who don’t.
If that’s not wealth redistribution, I don’t know what is.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array Jerry

    I’m tellin’ ya….

    A Pure, Dyed in the Wool “Commie”!

    Commie. Commie. Commie!!!

    Call it what it is!

  • di butler

    Can we get the plumber to be President instead?

  • http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

    Investors, people that live off of other peoples’ labor are the very definition of wealth redistributors. Other people produce, they consume. Any tax-plan that gives some money back to the producers is anti-redistribution.

  • robert108

    Investors, people that live off of other peoples’ labor are the very definition of wealth redistributors. Other people produce, they consume.

    Thanks for the badly mistaken Marxist view. The reality is that investment builds business, which provides jobs for the less ambitious. Reinvestment keeps the prosperity cycle going. It’s govt spending that is wasteful and unproductive.

  • Patricia Jahla

    Obama on small business — does anyone know what Obama really means when he says he will not raise taxes on any small businesses generating less than $250,000 per year? Is that Net? Gross sales? After tax profits, or what? I am the owner of a very small business which has gross sales of about $500,000, but after expenses — like paying my employees! — I am doing well to pay myself $40,000 per year. So I’m really wondering what the heck he means!

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Angry Vertebrate – Investors, people that live off of other peoples’ labor are the very definition of wealth redistributors.

    Free choice.

    Any tax-plan that gives some money back to the producers is anti-redistribution.

    Government force.

    The question becomes clear: pro-choice or pro-government force?

  • http://www.rabidamerican.net/ Rabid American

    COMMIE!

    Komrade Obama will also use this as a preface to “Reparations”. Don’t think it’s not coming….

    Bill Ayers will probably assist the Komrade Obama in deciding who has too “much” and to whom it will go.

    When we’re all broke, then we are equal.

    “Change” is all we’re gonna have left….

  • James

    That plumber looked absolutely stunned at his answer. It was classic, he actauly didn’t know whether to crap his pants or pat Barry on his head for giving such a stupid answer. If John McCain does not use this in a commercial, he deserves to lose!

    The plumber should have shot back, “Or maybe they can get off their fat, welfare leaching asses and work for me and earn it!!!!” Then Barry would have probably crapped his pants and then the secrect service would have had to have shot him!

  • mtc

    Sen. Obama, and his wife, Michelle, donated $240,000 to charity in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in reported income.
    Sen. Biden claimed $995 in charitable gifts in 2007, 0.3 percent of the couple’s claimed income of nearly $320,000.
    Sen. McCain in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.
    From philanthropy.com

  • Bat One

    Sen. Obama, and his wife, Michelle, donated $240,000 to charity in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in reported income.

    Which amounts to less the 30% of the $832,000 he paid to ACORN.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

    This should be in a whole bunch of campaign ads.

  • robert108

    It’s the difference between equality of opportunity(the American way), and equality of outcome(the Marxist wet dream).
    Equality of outcome has to fight against the natural variations between human beings, and so requires coercion(the dictatorship of the proletariat) and mass slaughter(like under Hitler, Stalin and Mao, as well as the slaughters under radical Islam of “unbelievers”).
    Equality of opportunity takes advantage of the natural variations between human beings, and so requires no coercion or mass slaughter. It is what free people do when they are able to make free choices.

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    Sounds like Socialism to me!

  • di butler

    Please can we swap Obama for the plumber???

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development