• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

So it would seem the Progressive Machine has got some soldiers pushing press releases.

Is the expectation people won't realize these studies are funded by the likes of George Soros' Open Society Institute, and thus have an extreme bias and agenda attached to them, or are they purely for the consumption of the Progressive Believers, and are talking points to fuel the propaganda effort?



I got tired of this propaganda about 25 years ago. It was bogus then, it is more bogus now.

In fact, this has been the mantra of Communists, socialists, social democrats and the entire left side of the spectrum since the first lazy bastard decided he shouldn't have to work.

What they don't tell you is the numbers are skewed all over the place, there is no agreed on definition of what constitutes "poor" and they usually compare wealth with income, ignore the fact the mysterious 1% pay 90% of the tax burden, and that today's poor have 50" screens.

Look, one way this number almost goes away is a simple thing. Stop the flow of 1,300 a day or so of "poor" illegals from flooding the low end of the job pool. Incomes for the lowest end will rise as will wages.
 
Actually right now we just want employers to give their employees more raises. Right now they are socking away their increased profits because the tax laws allow are so favorable that they can't resist it. It is unsustainable.


One every two months, or is once a year good enough?

And why?

Why the **** should ANY employer give people raises when he can draft from the millions of illegals? Why should any employer hand out raises while the city, county, state and especially federal governments rape his pockets with garbage like Obamacare?

Why should any employer give out raises when production by American workers is falling? Why should an employer give out raises when his profits are tanking.

Why SHOULDN'T an employer simply close the doors, sell the assets and customer list and retire?

Or would you pass a law making him stay on the job?
 
Continue standing with the 0.000 001 % and the tax loopholes for the uber rich that Sen. Coburn tried to do away with in 2011.

Why do you think half of Republicans favor a 50 % tax on all income over one million dollars ?

No, just another Progressive moron.

The World is filled with them for some reason. The increased disparity shows that pretty clearly.
 
yea because we all know that the economy is a zero sum game....

The economy isn't a zero sum game, but distribution from a pool (regardless if the size of the pool can change), as stated as a percentage of the pool, is zero sum.
 
Ok, tell us how many times a poor person gave you job.
Every consumer, rich or poor, is in part responsible for creating jobs......
No rich person ever gave me a job, except my Uncle Sam.....
 
I got tired of this propaganda about 25 years ago. It was bogus then, it is more bogus now.

In fact, this has been the mantra of Communists, socialists, social democrats and the entire left side of the spectrum since the first lazy bastard decided he shouldn't have to work.

What they don't tell you is the numbers are skewed all over the place, there is no agreed on definition of what constitutes "poor" and they usually compare wealth with income, ignore the fact the mysterious 1% pay 90% of the tax burden, and that today's poor have 50" screens.

Look, one way this number almost goes away is a simple thing. Stop the flow of 1,300 a day or so of "poor" illegals from flooding the low end of the job pool. Incomes for the lowest end will rise as will wages.



oh wait--- this isn't satire?
 
And as long as this Keynesian horror show continues in the major economies...more wealth will be taken from taxpayers and given to the rich.

Anyone that actually thinks big government helps the masses is staggeringly naive, imo....it does the opposite.

Look at TARP, QE, Mark to Market rule changes, toxic asset buyouts by the Fed, too-big-too-fail, etc.

All these helped the rich far, FAR more then they helped the poor/middle class.

But the ignorant masses are so staggeringly gullible/naive/flat out stupid that they actually buy the rhetoric from the corporations who pay the politicians to convince the masses that bailing out the rich/major corporations is 'good for the masses'.

When it is little more then a legal transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the rich.
 
So you agree that raising taxes doesn't stifle economic growth? That's all I wanted to know.

Depends entirely on the circumstances. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's not an ideological question for me.
 
Ok, tell us how many times a poor person gave you job.

Statistically, it's pretty likely that any random person has worked for someone that is not rich.

A little over half our jobs are with small businesses. Only 2% of small business owners are in the top 1%. So nearly half of everyone employed is currently working for someone who isn't rich. If someone has had more than one job, it's highly likely that at least one of their employers wasn't a 1%er.

I've had probably around 25 employees, every one of those people have worked for someone that is not rich (because I'm not rich).
 
So lowering tax for middle class would make them poorer? Higher tax on the rich. That is what Obama was proposing?

what lefties want is more and more middle class voting for more and more government. and this happens when the middle class are prevented from understanding the cost of government handouts. Taxing the rich more while cutting taxes on the middle class, encourages the Middle class to want more and more goodies since they don't pay for it
 
what lefties want is more and more middle class voting for more and more government. and this happens when the middle class are prevented from understanding the cost of government handouts. Taxing the rich more while cutting taxes on the middle class, encourages the Middle class to want more and more goodies since they don't pay for it
The rich depend upon government to make them rich and protect it. Where would Jeff Bezos be today if the government didn't create the internet?
 
The rich depend upon government to make them rich and protect it. Where would Jeff Bezos be today if the government didn't create the internet?

horescrap. the rich often create government to do their bidding. study history a bit. rich people have always existed.
 
horescrap. the rich often create government to do their bidding. study history a bit. rich people have always existed.

what lefties want is more and more middle class voting for more and more government....

Hmm, so the rich are lefities. Interesting. I learn something from you most every time you post.
 
So lowering tax for middle class would make them poorer? Higher tax on the rich. That is what Obama was proposing?

Why don't you ask the 17 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers if they are better off under Obama. Maybe you can ask the over 10% African American unemployed why Obama hasn't created an economy that helps them. Maybe too many people sitting on their asses rather that getting out and finding a job, learning from that job, and moving into upper income levels. One thing you can count on with liberals/progressives, it is always someone else's fault for individual failures and inability to find gainful employment probably the rich.
 
countless tribal societies disagree with you.

wow, you pretend to counter my claim that rich people have always existed by saying there are societies that don't have wealthy people. that does not counter my claim. If I said every society has rich people you might be right but there have been wealthy people since before the time of Christ. Indeed successful Roman Gladiators had a comparative wealth greater than the top paid quarterbacks or home run hitters in modern America.

your counter is ignorant. I might say, men have owned weapons for ages. and your counter would be akin to saying some societies had no weapons

do you see your error?
 
Hmm, so the rich are lefities. Interesting. I learn something from you most every time you post.

many rich are

while its an imperfect argument-there is some truth to the point that rich conservatives are rich despite the government while rich liberals are rich because of the government
 
You think there are not wealth disparities in tribal societies?

its irrelevant. that some tribe in borneo might have egalitarian wealth distribution patterns does not establish that we have wealthy people in every first world and almost every other nation these days
 
Back
Top Bottom