Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
Shame on you, Denise, disagreeing with a "great American"! Who do you think you are (possibly a great American yourself?) You are right about FDR, of course, as there are a ton of references and facts showing how FDR did indeed prolong the depression, even if I do have to go against such a great student of American history like Mr. Grinch to point it out.
Redistribution of wealth can have several definitions. Robin Hood was a good distributor of the wealth, robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Of course, he did it because the king was unscrupulous and over-taxed the populace to the point of starvation. Moral would be, don't over-tax the populace, which means Obama does not qualify for the Sherwood Forest Man of the Year award.
Redistribution of wealth can also mean taking form those who have and giving to those who do not. For example, if one child has two toys and another has none, the teacher taking one from the child with two and giving it to the child with none would be a distribution of wealth. A vagrant banging on you car window demanding your spare change because you have it and he needs it would be a distribution of wealth. (Could that be the "change" Obama refers to?) A robber sticking a gun to your head demanding what you have is exercising a certain distribution of wealth, too. Yes, you say that's illegal...and it is. Interesting that when an individual does it, it's illegal but when the government does it, it's a moral and applaudible thing to do.
Telling people who have worked hard to achieve whatever success they have that they have to give more of it to people who have not worked hard to become anything is a redistribution of wealth. Taking tax revenues from all working American and cutting one thousand dollar checks to everyone, even the 42% of the population that did not pay ANY income tax is also a redistribution of wealth (not to mention a great way to get votes from that 42%).
There is are good forms of distribution of wealth. collecting taxes to build roads, schools, maintain the infrastructure of the country and do the things that are beneficial to all citizens is a good thing. Using distribution of wealth to provide people with the opportunities to better themselves through education and job opportunities is a good thing. Creating more jobs for people to have more ways to earn a living and provide for their families is also a good way to go.
If the latter is Obama's plan, that's a good thing. If the taking from the rich to give to the poor is his plan (as evidenced by his passing out of checks) then it's not.
He wants a heavier tax on the corporations, which hire people. He wants to lower unemployment. How over-taxing the people who provide jobs, to the point there will be lay-offs, will lower unemployment is beyond my imagination. When companies declared they may move their companies overseas due to the tax increases, Obama proclaimed there will be tax relief for the companies that stay in the country. I haven't figured that one out yet.
In short, there are many methods of redistribution of wealth. Whichever plan Obama chooses to follow will dictate whether or not we move to a socialistic form of government. i wish he would take the time to realize just how generous Americans really are. The entire world know it, but our government seems to ignore it. There is a good chance the child with the three toys would give one to the child with none, practicing the distribution of wealth, and feeling good about it. Corporations give millions to agencies to help the poor. People reach into their pockets and give millions of agencies like the Salvation Army, Food for the Needy, outreach centers, and other related agencies to give relief to the poor...and they don't do it by government mandate. (Don't count in Joe Biden, who gave 3,000 over a ten year period to charities while making millions or Al Gore who, when faced with the fact he gave almost nothing to charities, claimed that he "gave his time".) Starving people are still trying to decide which tastes better with "time", mustard or mayonnaise.
Most people are very generous in their giving. Forcing them to be generous has an adverse effect.
How Obama handles it will measure his success and I will wait to see how he does. If he does it the right way I'll be the first to applaud. It's up to him now.