[SpardaSon21]

Why should he?  How about to avoid hypocrisy?  Obama's rhetoric is commonly about how we should all look out for one another.  To call Americans selfish and greedy while bringing in 200 grand a year and not giving any money to your poverty-stricken half-brother is hypocrisy at its finest.

If Obama weren't a major fan of government wealth redistribution and justifying those claims by saying Americans aren't charitable enough I wouldn't mind him letting his half-brother rot at all, it's what I would do.  But I certainly wouldn't talk about us needing to do more for each other while my half-brother lives in a ramshackle hut.

EDIT: My whole problem with this situation is how Obama's actions don't match his rhetoric.

[Scotty]

Why should he?  How about to avoid hypocrisy?  Obama's rhetoric is commonly about how we should all look out for one another.  To call Americans selfish and greedy while bringing in 200 grand a year and not giving any money to your poverty-stricken half-brother is hypocrisy at its finest.

Because not helping one specific person that he doesn't know any more than all the hundreds of millions of people on that continent automatically means he's selfish and greedy.  By itself.  Yeah, let's just stop the conversation right there, because he can't possibly be doing anything else that's not selfish and greedy if he won't help a person he doesn't know on another continent. [/sarcasm]

[SpardaSon21]

If I were talking about us needing to do more for each other, I would probably start with helping out my family members, no matter how distant they are, especially someone who shares a father with me.

[Scotty]

That's truly a great idea [/serious], but let's change "father" to "third cousin" for approximately how close they are.  Would you be helping out someone so distantly related, provided you had the means to?  If you say yes, I suggest you start searching the family tree.

[General Battuta]

If I were talking about us needing to do more for each other, I would probably start with helping out my family members, no matter how distant they are, especially someone who shares a father with me.

Again, even if he wanted to do I don't think he ethically could. The President of the United States can't reach out to another country and send some money to a family member without causing a ****storm.

Let's say for a moment that Obama is a massive hypocrite, though. Does that make his points any less valid?

Lastly, while I'm not a big fan of 'forced wealth redistribution', is Obama actually a big fan of it either? What has he done which evinces this?

[SpardaSon21]

1. I don't have the means to donate money.

2. I'm not spouting rhetoric about helping others.

The minute I start saying we should do more to help others while simultaneously ignoring my half-brother (look, this is probably just me, but you should definitely be able to rely on someone who shares at least one parent with you), then you can denounce my lack of charitable giving, okay?

EDIT:  It would cause a ****storm if the President donated some of his personal income to help out his half-brother who lives in a shack?

EDIT No. 2:  As for wealth redistribution, check out Obamacare and its provisions on subsidies.

[Liberator]

Again, even if he wanted to do I don't think he ethically could. The President of the United States can't reach out to another country and send some money to a family member without causing a ****storm.

Sure he could, ever hear of Western Union?  Aslo, how would it cause a ****storm? 

[Blue Lion]

Again, even if he wanted to do I don't think he ethically could. The President of the United States can't reach out to another country and send some money to a family member without causing a ****storm.

Sure he could, ever hear of Western Union?  Aslo, how would it cause a ****storm? 

Obama uses taxpayer money to give cash to his family! Did we elect this guy to give money to his relatives? Let him use his bootstraps!

[General Battuta]

Again, even if he wanted to do I don't think he ethically could. The President of the United States can't reach out to another country and send some money to a family member without causing a ****storm.

Sure he could, ever hear of Western Union?  Aslo, how would it cause a ****storm? 

President sends money to unknown half-brother in Africa while Americans starve! Obama bails out/subsidizes family members!

1. I don't have the means to donate money.

2. I'm not spouting rhetoric about helping others.

The minute I start saying we should do more to help others while simultaneously ignoring my half-brother (look, this is probably just me, but you should definitely be able to rely on someone who shares at least one parent with you), then you can denounce my lack of charitable giving, okay?

EDIT:  It would cause a ****storm if the President donated some of his personal income to help out his half-brother who lives in a shack?

EDIT No. 2:  As for wealth redistribution, check out Obamacare and its provisions on subsidies.

I don't mean to denounce your lack of charitable giving, I mean that a) it doesn't matter if Obama doesn't walk the walk, it's the talk that's important (though personally I think he does both) and b) he doesn't know the guy at all. Why should he be expected to take care of his philandering dad's other baby?

I don't think Obamacare represents any significant effort towards wealth redistribution. Not that America doesn't need it. I'd like to have a middle class again.

[Blue Lion]

People used to freak out when he and Mrs Obama would go out to places to eat or he would go to basketball games. Imagine if he uses his salary he gets from the taxpayers to send it to a distant relative that isn't even in the country or a citizen (I believe?).

Would I care? No, but I'm rational.

[General Battuta]

Remember the burger incident? Didn't he ask for grey poupon or something, and it caused a minor kerfuffle?

[SpardaSon21]

Ha, if that ever happened, he could just dodge it by talking about how he was helping out a family member who needed his help.  It's hard to attack a man who's helping out his half-brother who lives in a shack, especially if he is sending his own money to do it.  An attack could backfire pretty heavily on Republicans if Obama played his cards right.

If Obamacare isn't enough, how about him telling Joe the Plumber "I think it's good for everyone when you spread the wealth around".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM
Seems like that's a pretty big statement in favor of wealth redistribution.

And GB, you say you support free markets, yet support government money being handed out to people?   No offense, but those two are pretty incompatible.  Spreading the wealth around is a disincentive to wealth creation.  Why start a small business if the government is just going to take your wealth and spread it around, especially if you are already receiving some of the wealth that is being spread around by the government?

And before you mention that this stuff already happens on a regular basis, let me just mention that I am opposed to all forms of subsidies and government handing out money.  Americans are more than capable of freely spreading their wealth around, and private charity has a much larger beneficial effect than government handouts, probably because private charities usually require some form of commitment by the beneficiary.

[Scotty]

And GB, you say you support free markets, yet support government money being handed out to people?   No offense, but those two are pretty incompatible.

No, they are not.  Free market refers to trade, government money "handouts" are purely capital.

[General Battuta]

*snip*

You talk about 'wealth creation' and the value of small businesses but the fact is that these forms of enterprise are already essentially dead, at least when compared to huge businesses and the financial elite.

I don't think that has anything to do with government handouts.

When the top 1% controls more than half the nation's wealth, I think intervention is required on some level. Some systemic change.

[BengalTiger]

See this is where I'm confused...Liberator just expressed everything I think is wrong with the US but we've 180 opposite each other for a while.

Lib, we really want the same things...you're just letting the wrong people tell you what's best for the country.  Fox isn't looking out for you.  The Republican Party isn't looking out for you.  In fact, you've been outright opposes to the only folks that are trying to look out for you, because some fat cat commentator told you he was a bad guy. 

I see that the libs seem to use Fox as a scapegoat. Every time a republican disagrees it's because Fox brainwashed them.

And I'm willing to bet $$$ that Lib doesn't feel need anyone to look out for him, and that includes Fox and the GOP.

Right. If I were in his situation I don't think I'd be doing much for him. He's as much a stranger to me as every other guy in the area.

Well, donating a few $ a month isn't doing much for president Obama. It's more/less like giving a beggar a coin or 2 once in a while for us regular people.

Spreading the wealth around is a disincentive to wealth creation.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin

[General Battuta]

We've created a nice little simulacrum here of how a totally inconsequential thing becomes blown out of proportion, conflated with apocalyptic end-of-the-country rhetoric, and then made out to be a major factor in the quality of the President.

Hooray!

[Liberator]

*snip*

You talk about 'wealth creation' and the value of small businesses but the fact is that these forms of enterprise are already essentially dead, at least when compared to huge businesses and the financial elite.

I don't think that has anything to do with government handouts.

When the top 1% controls more than half the nation's wealth, I think intervention is required on some level. Some systemic change.

So you are comparing a multi-national company that services the needs of whole countries with total employments in the tens of thousands and assets in the tens of millions or billions to "Sister Frieda's House of Cuts Hair Salon" that services the needs of a single town where it has at least 3 other competitors with employment of 8 people and assets in the tens of thousands?  Further, you realize that there are only a few dozen of these megacorps and there are quite literally hundreds of thousands of the other ones right?

[BengalTiger]

We've created a nice little simulacrum here of how a totally inconsequential thing becomes blown out of proportion, conflated with apocalyptic end-of-the-country rhetoric, and then made out to be a major factor in the quality of the President.

Hooray!

Well this is the General Discussion forum after all...

[General Battuta]

*snip*

You talk about 'wealth creation' and the value of small businesses but the fact is that these forms of enterprise are already essentially dead, at least when compared to huge businesses and the financial elite.

I don't think that has anything to do with government handouts.

When the top 1% controls more than half the nation's wealth, I think intervention is required on some level. Some systemic change.

So you are comparing a multi-national company that services the needs of whole countries with total employments in the tens of thousands and assets in the tens of millions or billions to "Sister Frieda's House of Cuts Hair Salon" that services the needs of a single town where it has at least 3 other competitors with employment of 8 people and assets in the tens of thousands?  Further, you realize that there are only a few dozen of these megacorps and there are quite literally hundreds of thousands of the other ones right?

what

I don't quite understand your point, but all in all, I'd prefer for small businesses to account for a greater share of the wealth. As has been said again and again, 1% of the people controlling 80% of the wealth is an aristocracy. I'd rather have a strong middle class.

[Liberator]

The flaw in your argument is that an aristocracy doesn't usually work 80 to 100 hours a week.