NYT: The administration doesn’t want you to call ObamaCare “redistribution,” but just to be clear… it is.

posted at 6:31 pm on November 24, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

I would almost call it a bit of a zinger from the New York Times, except that they still do their level best to couch the essential facts with every possible excuse. ‘Yes, President Obama and his administration did deliberately deceive the American people by actively refusing to call ObamaCare “redistribution,” but they had to do it, you see, because those uncivilized Republicans would have used the term as a political bludgeon. Let’s face it, he basically had no choice!’

“Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds,” said William M. Daley, who was Mr. Obama’s chief of staff at the time. Republicans wield it “as a hammer” against Democrats, he said, adding, “It’s a word that, in the political world, you just don’t use.”

These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking “socialized medicine.” But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall. …

They were nonetheless acutely aware of how explosive the word could be. When Mr. Obama ran for president in 2008, Republicans tried to wound him by accusing him of waging “class warfare” to achieve wealth redistribution. …

In the end, America’s political culture may have made it unrealistic to expect a smooth public reception for the law, no matter how cleverly the White House modulated Mr. Obama’s language or shaped his policy to minimize the number of losers.

“America’s political culture”? …Riiight. I suppose the president had nothing to do with that. Still, though, the gist is that the Paper of Record is not feeling shy about referring to ObamaCare by its most aptly descriptive noun (whatever else they’re still feeling demure about, ahem), and they just pointed out that the White House shamelessly peddled and lied about ObamaCare any which way they felt they needed to to get the law passed. Most unfortunately for the White House, however, ObamaCare’s true nature is beginning to show itself despite all of the prohibitively abundant glitches preventing so many people from shopping for plans. The inherent redistributive properties at work are already rearing their politically ugly heads:

Fears that insurance exchanges that are the linchpin of President Barack Obama’s federal health care overhaul wouldn’t attract the young, healthy people needed to make them financially viable are being heightened by the early results of signups in several states.

If it becomes a trend, that could lead to increases in insurance premiums and deductibles next year. Along with the paltry enrollment numbers released this week, officials in a handful of states said those who had managed to sign up were generally older people with medical problems — those with the greatest incentives to get coverage. …

Insurers have warned that they need a wide range of people signing up for coverage because premiums paid by adults in the younger and healthier group, between 18 and 35, are needed to offset the cost of carrying older and sicker customers who typically generate far more in medical bills than they contribute in premiums.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hell yes it is.

bluegill on November 24, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Michelle Obama on ObamaCare’s redistribution of wealth:
https://twitter.com/bluegill4ever/status/403624061873319936

bluegill on November 24, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Well I won’t call Obama an rude, ill-educated half halfwit even though he is.

pat on November 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Obamacare can only redistribute wealth that is voluntarily contributed in the firm of premiums.

I’m 47, very healthy and have only been hospitalized twice in my life and only once as an adult after I fell and broke my ankle.

I have a high deductible, $6,000, low premium, $150/month, plan with an HSA. My total contributions to both are $7,800. I’ve only exceeded my deductible twice, when I broke my ankle and when my son was born and had kidney surgery in the same year.

If my health insurance costs go up I will just self-insure up to $10k and buy a critical care policy to cover the chance I may exceed $10k in expenses. And if Rush and the Daily Caller were right regarding the fine/tax, I won’t pay that either. I refuse to have any more of my hard earned income redistributed.

It’s a simple question of math and probability.

Charlemagne on November 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Why have parents when you have the Obamas…..

Electrongod on November 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM

And Obama had to say all those lies he said in order to get Obamacare passed because he knows what’s best for us peasants & conservative knuckle draggers. The end justifies the means for Democrats – can’t trust anything they say.

Chessplayer on November 24, 2013 at 7:05 PM

If anyone noticed in the interview on the headlines link, the head of the California Obamacare website says they have 80,000 people enrolled, but then does the number of enrolleew by age breakdown into 5 categories, only one of which was over 10,000. When I added the numbers, I got about 30,000 enrollees, not 80,000.

talkingpoints on November 24, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Stalin had to call’em “re education” camps…..

Hitler had to call em “showers”…..

yeah…yeah…. we know

the beatings will continue until moral improves

roflmmfao

donabernathy on November 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Our Platonic Guardians had to use a Noble Lie to get the masses to vote for Obamacare politicians. Now that the Lie has been exposed, the plebes are so ungrateful for what their betters did for them and may not cooperate.

Cry me a river.

Wethal on November 24, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Blast from zee past:

2001 WBZ Public Radio,Chicago,Interview with Obama,on
Redistrubution of Wealth
========================

2001 Obama WBEZ Interview Redistribution Wealth Warren Court
************************************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM

canopfor on November 24, 2013 at 7:10 PM

talkingpoints on November 24, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Math is hard.

Wethal on November 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

“Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds,”

Bwahahahahahahaha

yeah…. taking what belongs to someone and giving it to someone is usually called thief….. I didn’t see them use that term either…

what a bunch of thugs…

roflmmfao

donabernathy on November 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM

” Redistribution theft, robbery, burglary, larceny, thieving, pilfering, pocketing, embezzlement, pinching is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds”

so just use your old stand by “appropriation”

roflmmfao

donabernathy on November 24, 2013 at 7:19 PM

“Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds,”

As it should for the love of Pete.
Taking from Peter to make things more equitable for Paul will always get the support of Paul.

Rio Linda Refugee on November 24, 2013 at 7:20 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Also, obama does not want to be called Muslim, or marxist, or communist.

GaltBlvnAtty on November 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM

they just pointed out that the White House shamelessly peddled and lied about ObamaCare any which way they felt they needed to to get the law passed

You see a great product on TV for $9.95, and if you call NOW, then you can get 2 for the price of 1. Awesome. Then you find out the shipping and handling is $29.99. That’s ObamaCare.

Paul-Cincy on November 24, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Good night, nurse, that troll is dumber than a sack of doorknobs.

CurtZHP on November 24, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Not going to be buying ObamaCare insurance, and by some weird coincidence my tax refund will end up being $0 next year eliminating the source of any non-compliance “fine.” Let it burn.

Neo on November 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

We have gone from taxation without representation to representation without taxation.

CurtZHP on November 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

The federal income tax wasn’t instituted until the 16th amendment, 100 years ago. The “founding fathers” were long dead.

Paul-Cincy on November 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

the founding fathers never dreamed of taxing a mans labor (income tax)… the thieves and thugs had to wait till 1913 to start that kind of looting.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on November 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Can we finally call the man a SOCIALIST?

Galt2009 on November 24, 2013 at 7:34 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

does ssi cover this level of stupidity?

dmacleo on November 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

No, taxes are not ‘redistribution’ if the people paying receive some benefit from doing so.

Redistribution is the taking of property from some to be handed over to others in exchange for votes.

It is government organized theft, pure and simple.

Galt2009 on November 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

You talk um some wicked good Engrish, Harvard grad.

Chuck Schick on November 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM

I’m from the government and I’m here to help

Bwahahahahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihq9W9RlNOE

roflmmfao

donabernathy on November 24, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Bam,
you lying POS….
you
can
kiss
my
red
rear end.

Notice that I didn’t suggest that anyone needs to put anything in your wide-open mouth as some MSNBC commentators are wont to do.

avagreen on November 24, 2013 at 7:40 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

does ssi cover this level of stupidity?

dmacleo on November 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM

I thought Obamacare covered mental health?

Now that’s interesting…if enough Liberals get mental health care…does that mean they will be cured enough to get their head out of their butts?

ProfShadow on November 24, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Obamacare can only redistribute wealth that is voluntarily contributed in the firm of premiums.

I’m 47, very healthy and have only been hospitalized twice in my life and only once as an adult after I fell and broke my ankle.

I have a high deductible, $6,000, low premium, $150/month, plan with an HSA. My total contributions to both are $7,800. I’ve only exceeded my deductible twice, when I broke my ankle and when my son was born and had kidney surgery in the same year.

If my health insurance costs go up I will just self-insure up to $10k and buy a critical care policy to cover the chance I may exceed $10k in expenses. And if Rush and the Daily Caller were right regarding the fine/tax, I won’t pay that either. I refuse to have any more of my hard earned income redistributed.

It’s a simple question of math and probability.

Charlemagne on November 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Well Charlemagne – you may not have the choice to NOT pay a fine/tax. All this is all done through your yearly Tax Returns. Your insurance company will send you a form in January (kinda like W-2′s) that shows you DO indeed have insurance and the dates of coverage. There will be a section on your Tax Form for medical insurance to fill out and you attached the proof of coverage. If you ever get money back in taxes after you file in April, the fine would be automatically deducted. Or they will just add the “tax” to your payment amount.

This is how they do it in Massachusetts.

pastselldate on November 24, 2013 at 7:45 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

personal income taxes. thats what most people are talking about. not taxes in general. yes, there were taxes and levies at founding. but personal income tax, as earlier described, stealing someones labor, someones time away from their family, was never ever dreamed of by the founding fathers. because most people think that is unfair to steal that labor, that time, from an honest man. statists do not. thats kind of the difference. one has compassion. your side, not so much. unless you steal first.

t8stlikchkn on November 24, 2013 at 7:46 PM

because most people think that is unfair to steal that labor, that time, from an honest man. statists do not. thats kind of the difference. one has compassion. your side, not so much. unless you steal first.

t8stlikchkn on November 24, 2013 at 7:46 PM

is there a modern society in the world that does not tax income? are you saying every society is a society of thieves?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Williamson says that Obysmal is nothing more than a front man. Unfortunately, Congress (and the media) have allowed him to get away with this lawlessness.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364731/front-man-kevin-d-williamson

A good piece on the audacity of the BoyKing…

onlineanalyst on November 24, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Insurers have warned that they need a wide range of people signing up for coverage

The beatings will continue until the morale improves …

PackerBronco on November 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM

In your face “Bait and Switch”

famous amos on November 24, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Your insurance company will send you a form in January (kinda like W-2′s) that shows you DO indeed have insurance and the dates of coverage. There will be a section on your Tax Form for medical insurance to fill out and you attached the proof of coverage. If you ever get money back in taxes after you file in April, the fine would be automatically deducted. Or they will just add the “tax” to your payment amount.

This is how they do it in Massachusetts.

pastselldate on November 24, 2013 at 7:45 PM

That’s what John Judis was pushing in the item posted in headlines last night — the way Australia was able to get their version of single-payer finally pass was to take out the money like income tax, Medicare and Social Security, before people get their paychecks. For the left, if you do it far enough out from Election Day, you take one big hit, but the idea is the low-info swing voters will forget about where that additional payroll deduction is going by the next time they go to the polls.

That’s the direction they’ll try to go in the future — they can’t right now, because they don’t control the House, and Obama still can’t order medical insurance payroll withholdings by decree. But if the current version of ObamaCare sinks under its own weight, the left’s not giving up on getting their pet redistribution program fully enacted.

jon1979 on November 24, 2013 at 8:13 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

You talk um some wicked good Engrish, Harvard grad.

Chuck Schick on November 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Looks like he cut and pasted it, lazy bastard.

D-fusit on November 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

And now for something delightfully different: how the English language has changed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3r9bOkYW9s&feature=youtu.be

onlineanalyst on November 24, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Medicare Director Who Said Health-Care Systems ‘Must’ Redistribute Wealth Says He’s Happy With Obamacare

In a 2008 speech in England celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the NHS, Berwick said, “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must–must–redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate.”

Akzed on November 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

The federal income tax wasn’t instituted until the 16th amendment, 100 years ago. The “founding fathers” were long dead.

Paul-Cincy on November 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Nonpartisan once again: Will you please post something that suggests you have an IQ higher than 76. My goodness the stupid is strong.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 24, 2013 at 8:24 PM

taxes is also redistribution…….
nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Gawd you’re hilarious.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 24, 2013 at 8:25 PM

We have gone from taxation without representation to representation without taxation.

CurtZHP on November 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

We don’t even have representation. We have self-appointed masters who will determine what is good for us.

onlineanalyst on November 24, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Well Charlemagne – you may not have the choice to NOT pay a fine/tax. All this is all done through your yearly Tax Returns. Your insurance company will send you a form in January (kinda like W-2′s) that shows you DO indeed have insurance and the dates of coverage. There will be a section on your Tax Form for medical insurance to fill out and you attached the proof of coverage. If you ever get money back in taxes after you file in April, the fine would be automatically deducted. Or they will just add the “tax” to your payment amount.

This is how they do it in Massachusetts.

pastselldate on November 24, 2013 at 7:45 PM

That is exactly what Rush & the DC were talking about. Pay your taxes so as not to get a return, and they can’t fine you.

blockchords on November 24, 2013 at 8:26 PM

is there a modern society in the world that does not tax income? are you saying every society is a society of thieves?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:58 PM

You’re so dishonest with your use of logical fallacies.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 24, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Hey y’all I’s wents to Hawvawd too.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 24, 2013 at 8:28 PM

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM
nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:58 PM

No, taxes are not ‘redistribution’ if the people paying receive some benefit from doing so.

Redistribution is the taking of property from some to be handed over to others in exchange for votes.

It is government organized theft, pure and simple.

Galt2009 on November 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM

blockchords on November 24, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I no longer consider you an intellectual peer. You’re an intellectual subordinate until you prove otherwise.

nonpartisan on November 6, 2013 at 10:24 PM

This was directed at Resist We Much….

Thanks for the laughs.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 24, 2013 at 8:29 PM

No, taxes are not ‘redistribution’ if the people paying receive some benefit from doing so.

Redistribution is the taking of property from some to be handed over to others in exchange for votes.

It is government organized theft, pure and simple.

Galt2009 on November 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM

I don’t think nonintelligent would understand the general welfare clause.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 24, 2013 at 8:32 PM

He’s trying to get the old and sick vote.

HellCat on November 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM

is there a modern society in the world that does not tax income? are you saying every society is a society of thieves? nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Well the US didn’t have an income tax until about 100 years ago, and it was a great country – unless you wanted to sit around and smoke dope all day and not work while collecting checks for having six kids by four men.

Akzed on November 24, 2013 at 8:43 PM

are you saying every society is a society of thieves? nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:58 PM

So by your logic if everybody is doing something it is always acceptable. Seriously pathetic. Harvard my ass.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 24, 2013 at 8:47 PM

ummmm… I don’t know for sure. But isn’t it likely that the States had income taxes some time before the 16th Amendment? When saying that this country didn’t have income taxes before then, this is probably a good distinction to make.

Just sayin.

blockchords on November 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Lame troll says what? Oh a few inane comments and then he flies the coop.

CWchangedhisNicagain on November 24, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Hilarious. Redistribution is just a bad word. No indication that NYT recognizes it’s really just a bad idea. People don’t hate the word, they hate the idea of any more redistribution. They don’t want any more of their assets taken away and given to someone else. Producers are already losing a big chunk of what they produce, and they don’t want to lose anymore. Imagine that. But to the NYT, it’s just a toxic word not a toxic idea.

mbs on November 24, 2013 at 8:55 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Please show me where a progressive income tax is allowed by Amendment XVI.

As previously given in the Constitution all taxes are to be applied equally.

Amendment XVI did allow an income tax, but did not put in language to allow different income levels to be taxed at different rates.

There is a hole in the modern progressive income tax and it is centered on just that point. Redistribution requires different tax rates for different levels of income. The Constitution has all to be taxed equally. Even the Progressive movement got this wrong, and just put a new law into place for unequal rate taxation… and no one has ever questioned it. Yet the prior language regarding the equality of taxation was not changed by Amend. XVI.

Progressives, always trying to get around the Constitution by misdirection and class warfare so that no one bothers to question if they are actually allowed to do the things they do.

ajacksonian on November 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

You talk um some wicked good Engrish, Harvard grad.

Chuck Schick on November 24, 2013 at 7:39 PM

You be ol’ skool, Chuck.

Nonparmesan be new skoo.

;)

Solaratov on November 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM

ummmm… I don’t know for sure. But isn’t it likely that the States had income taxes some time before the 16th Amendment? When saying that this country didn’t have income taxes before then, this is probably a good distinction to make. Just sayin. blockchords on November 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Taxes were allocated among the states by the feds, and it was collected by the states from their citizens and paid to the govt by the state.

There was no direct taxation of citizens by the feds prior to the income tax amendment.

Akzed on November 24, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Thank you, again, Mr. Chief Justice

Static21 on November 24, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Taxes were allocated among the states by the feds, and it was collected by the states from their citizens and paid to the govt by the state.

There was no direct taxation of citizens by the feds prior to the income tax amendment.

Akzed on November 24, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Are you sure about that? B/c I just checked my Constitution and in Article I Section 9 it says “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” The 16th Amendment only changed the aspect that they had to be in proportion to the census.

Are you saying that the Federal Government levied the direct taxes referred to in this context through the States? I guess the ‘in proportion to the census’ line is comparing the States populations in the Census. So I guess that seems right.

But you missed my point. State governments and various local governments existed from the time of our founding. They only would have been limited in taxing by their respective State Constitutions. Not the Federal Constitution.

blockchords on November 24, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Amendment XVI did allow an income tax, but did not put in language to allow different income levels to be taxed at different rates.

ajacksonian on November 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM

I hadn’t thought of it like that before! The 16th Amendment says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

…so, people could be taxed differently, but not based on their income levels?? So, basically it had to be a flat tax and people would pay different amount of taxes for that reason??

Is that what you’re saying?

blockchords on November 24, 2013 at 9:18 PM

The problems with Obamacare are all because Republican’s oppose Obamacare.

When Obamacare was being written, Nancy Pelosi froze them out of the drafting. But Republican’s are to blame for Obamacare’s problems.

When Obamacare was being shepherded (some say rammed) through Congress Obama and Pelosi extened an olive branch offering to allow them to vote for the bill. It was needed so badly that there was no time for the delay of the few days it would take to read it. But Republican’s are to blame for Obamacare’s problems.

Implementation was entirely in the hands of the Obama White House. But Republican’s are to blame for Obamacare’s problems.

So because the Republicans had nothing to do with the drafting, passage or implementation, they are responsible for all the problems.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

schmuck281 on November 24, 2013 at 9:33 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

“taxes is”…you is a big dummy.

Plus, you is dead wrong and uneducated.

Schadenfreude on November 24, 2013 at 9:57 PM

*points politely to the “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS” sign*

Midas on November 24, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Yeah great plan. Make it very hard for 20 somethings to get full time jobs then expect them to pay huge premiums they cannot afford.

neyney on November 24, 2013 at 10:17 PM

It took my 17 yr old daughter to ask, “what if we had a flat tax? How would that affect this whole penalty thingy?” Out of the mouths of babes….

Renee on November 24, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Math is hard.

Wethal on November 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Naw.

Lying is easier.

Shy Guy on November 24, 2013 at 11:31 PM

Kudos to the Progressives for believing in a political philosophy intensely enough to lie, cheat, steal and borrow to advance it.

What do Republicans believe in ? Anything other than “‘go along to get along”?

rickyricardo on November 24, 2013 at 11:56 PM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

noforeskin on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

The federal income tax wasn’t instituted until the 16th amendment, 100 years ago. The “founding fathers” were long dead.

Paul-Cincy on November 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM

…Harvard…is Hard!

KOOLAID2 on November 25, 2013 at 1:09 AM

Tax revolt.

The Founding Fathers approve this message.

justltl on November 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM

Obamacare can only redistribute what the public hands over voluntarily.

And if you don’t hand it over voluntarily they’ll fine you. Maybe a lot.

And if you want healthcare insurance but not on Obamacare terms, that will be denied to you.

It’s part of a system designed to box you in, cut off all your alternatives, and punish you till you obey.

Voluntarily of course.

David Blue on November 25, 2013 at 2:37 AM

Income tax….
The government says to the citizen: Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on November 25, 2013 at 3:10 AM

When his death panels kick in we’ll watch the real redistribution he intends. Life is but a worthless commodity to the Godless-(including his followers (in both political parties).

Don L on November 25, 2013 at 5:44 AM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Wrong.

First of all, as others have already schooled you, there was no national income tax until 100 years ago.

Secondly, it’s conceivable to have a national income tax and not have redistribution. Not all government spending is redistribution. There are actual public goods that when funded by government benefit all equally. If the government funds the building of a road that’s a public good. Your money went to build a road that you use.

Redistribution – which can happen via taxation – is when the government takes your money and pays bureaucrats to hand it back out to favored political clients. When ObamaCare makes you buy an insurance plan you don’t need that has a vastly increased cost in both premiums and deductibles in order that it may be offered more cheaply to someone else then that’s redistribution. You’re money is being given to someone else against your will.

gwelf on November 25, 2013 at 8:53 AM

taxes is also redistribution…guess our founding fathers were socialist commies eh?

nonpartisan on November 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

But to be fair taxes fund our massive redistributive federal government. The national government heavily taxes the citizens then the national government decides how to dole that out back to the individual states and funds redistributive programs along political client lines.

This is one of the big reasons why progressivism hasn’t succeeded in America like it has in Europe. European progressives are pretty straightforward with their intentions – they’re going to take your money and give it to people they like. They’re going to take half of your property and in return the state will care for you (healthcare, welfare, etc). They’re fairly honest about the price (though they are mistaken and disingenuous about how their preferred system harms economic growth and economic liberty).

Progressives in America pretend that “the rich” can pay for the whole thing if they’d just pay their “fair share”. This is a lie. The rich already pay most of the taxes and the progressives have raided the “lock box” of social security, borrowed very heavily on the backs of future generations, and still fall a great deal short of where they want to be.

Most of the money spent by the national government is redistributed.

But lets also not forget that debt spending is am even more egregious form of redistribution. We’ve robbed the future to bribe the present.

gwelf on November 25, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Tax revolt.

The Founding Fathers approve this message.

justltl on November 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM

I’ve been watching that series Sleepy Hollow. Ichabod Crane comes back to life in the modern world and works with the police. An officer buys him some doughnuts. He looks at the receipt and says “A ten percent levy on baked goods? The Revolutionary War was fought over two percent!”

Kafir on November 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Trolls are so cute when they think they make sense.

itsspideyman on November 25, 2013 at 9:05 AM

NYT: The administration doesn’t want you to call ObamaCare “redistribution,” but just to be clear… it is.

Yeah, redistributing poverty.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 25, 2013 at 9:25 AM

I’m beginning to think Russia is less socialist than America.

Axion on November 25, 2013 at 9:42 AM

If anyone noticed in the interview on the headlines link, the head of the California Obamacare website says they have 80,000 people enrolled, but then does the number of enrolleew by age breakdown into 5 categories, only one of which was over 10,000. When I added the numbers, I got about 30,000 enrollees, not 80,000.

talkingpoints on November 24, 2013 at 7:07 PM

I expect that most of those are in fact new Medicaid beneficiaries.

slickwillie2001 on November 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM

And the NYT knew the whole time and didn’t tell any of its readers until today. The NYT lies to you just as much as Obama. The media is complicit.

magicbeans on November 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM

I am concerned that al New York Times has such high circulation numbers while so many other newspapers are shtruggling. The government should take some of their subscribers and reassign them to those other worthy papers. Spread the readership around you know.

slickwillie2001 on November 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM

slickwillie2001 on November 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Winner. Heh!

avagreen on November 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM