|
Author
|
Topic: Admitted: O'BomberCare about Wealth Redistribution
|
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 1291
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 27, 2010 09:35 AM
 
Wealth Redistribution: A central tenet of Socialism.So now, Max Baucus, US Senator, demoscat, admits to the Socialist agenda with O'BomberCare
http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/03/26/max-baucus-admits-that-healthcare-reform-is-about-wealth-redistribution/ We could have a good discussion about the glories of Socialism. We could have a good discussion about the glorious successes of Socialism around the world. But please, stop lying that O'Bomber and the rest of the Progressive demoscats in Congress are not Socialists.
IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 3414
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 27, 2010 11:29 AM
it is not individuals who are too wealthy it is the fricking corporations who now feel they can tell the people (and the government for that matter) what to do, eat, think, and put up with that are sucking us dry old man. i can't see the video till i get to a faster connection but this was never about rich "people" per se...and i dont think any sane person would believe it was. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 2608
From: acousticgod@sbcglobal.net
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 27, 2010 12:07 PM
"This is also an income shift. It's a shift. It's a leveling to help lower income, middle income Americans. Too often, too much of late, last couple three years, the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much. The wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with the increased income of the highest income Americans. This legislation will have an effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America, because healthcare is now a right for all Americans, and because healthcare is now affordable for all Americans." - Max BaucusHe did speak of maldistribution of income in that speech, yes. He did NOT suggest that healthcare reform is a redistribution of wealth. Wait. Why is there a big smile on your post, Jwhop? I thought you didn't like Socialists, but you smile when you think you've caught one? How does that make sense? If I were in your position I'd give the angry face, you know, to indicate that I don't approve. Putting a smiley face up there only makes it seem as if you're being smug (when really you don't have any good reason to be). Back to what was said: He didn't suggest that this legislation would level out income. He suggested that now the poorer classes may have equal access to healthcare. The lower classes already have equal access to police services, right? They already have equal access to fire department services, too, correct? These are things that affect their overall safety, much like healthcare does. We don't go around calling the institutions of police officers and firemen Socialist, now do we? quote:
We could have a good discussion about the glories of Socialism. We could have a good discussion about the glorious successes of Socialism around the world.
We already have on several occasions. As I recall it is your contention that any hint of Socialism anywhere leads to a murderous regime. Everyone else on the face of the planet knows otherwise. Everyone else can look at England, France, Canada, Australia, Norway, etc. and understand that having Social programs does not translate into murderous regimes. It's extremely flawed thinking on your part. IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 3414
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 27, 2010 04:44 PM
the quote pretty obviously points out that those middle class and poor working class people who WERE paying inordinate amounts of their income on insurance can now spend it on some of the retail product available on the market, thus putting more money ultimately in the pockets of the rich, the small businesses, and the corporations alike. how dangerous is that to the economy? sounds kind of like the postwar economy when the regulations on wages made it possible for the working stiff to think about buying a home and enjoying his day off for once. it really was a terrible, totalitarian time, wasn't it? you should be able to remember, jwhop...i was younger but apart from the social pressure to conformity it was a pretty free and affluent time as i recall!!i am looking forward to my daughter being able to carry insurance for herself and not just her child. i may even shop myself...though if i don't find a policy i like i can easily swallow the "draconic" fine (under $700) so that others can jump onboard. IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
