• 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

Sorry, I don't consider newsmax a source.


But stop and think about what you posted.


we know NJ has a 68% home ownership rate.


How many are middle class in NJ vs how many are upper class?


Follow the logic and hopefully you will see where your point doesnt make much sense.
Why dont you, who is trying to prove your point of middle class ownership, provide the data to prove your point, instead of asking me to prove your point?

The answer is, because your argument is too lazy to do so, because it would rather rely on speculation and negation of fact disproving it.
 
Well poor people pay taxes and consume goods. So one way or another can you tell me how the money you received was in some way NOT from a poor person.
Nope.
Thank you
When we stop paying for SNAP, Earned Income Credit, and other hand-outs, you might have a point.
 
People like TurtleDude are clueless about how most people live. Just read his postings. He continually brags about his wealth, accomplishments and his knowledge, while at the same time berating those who didn't have his dad's ass to crawl back into when the going gets rough. In truth, he is just one pathetic dude who is full of himself.

:2bigcry:

Perhaps you should take your rub fest to the basement?
 
There are still a few "blue dog" Democrats, to be sure.

But my point was this: Who do you think finances campaigns? It takes a lot of money to run, after all.

Yes, and the issue remains the stupid voters who buy the ads and never research to verify their accuracy. You see, there is no question that Obama cut the deficit in half but the context is he had record deficits of over a trillion dollars that he cut in half. When he made that promise the deficit was 400 plus billion so cutting a 400 billion dollar deficit would make that 200 billion not a half a trillion dollars as he has done.
 
Yet people still vote for the liberals and progressives that count on keeping this statuesque, to keep their voters...

Statuesque? It's large and elegant?

and, what changes in the real world when the self described conservatives get into power?
 
It's not what these people do to me, it's what they do to society in general that is the problem. .

You mean problems like business investment, job creation and wealth creation? I thank them as well. We live in the wealthiest country in the world thanks to them.
 
You mean problems like business investment, job creation and wealth creation? I thank them as well. We live in the wealthiest country in the world thanks to them.

I think you'd have a hard time showing that the US is the wealthiest country, at least on a per capita basis, or that the wealth we do have is due to having it concentrated in only a few hands.
 
People like TurtleDude are clueless about how most people live. Just read his postings. He continually brags about his wealth, accomplishments and his knowledge, while at the same time berating those who didn't have his dad's ass to crawl back into when the going gets rough. In truth, he is just one pathetic dude who is full of himself.

I actually expected better from you but as usual I am always disappointed by liberal rhetoric. You have no idea who anyone here is or what each of us has accomplished. We all are responsible for ourselves and if you didn't achieve the status you wanted don't blame someone else for it, blame yourself. The opportunity was there and for whatever reason you didn't achieve the desired results.

I inherited nothing, I expected nothing from someone else other than the opportunity to succeed and I did that, succeed. Why haven't you generated what you wanted to achieve. What did any rich person or the top 1% do to prevent you from grabbing a bigger share of the growing pie. Neither you or any other liberal will ever answer that question. You look in the mirror every day at the person responsible for the results generated and because you didn't do what you had hoped for it is ok to penalize or demonize those of us who did.

Keep spouting the class warfare rhetoric and ignoring individual responsibility, it is typical liberalism
 
Last edited:
It's not what these people do to me, it's what they do to society in general that is the problem. I imagine when the divide between top and bottom gets too great, there will be a change. The poor will only allow themselves to be exploited for so long.

So now you are an expert on society and what people do to others? What makes you that expert? Do you know everyone else's situation or economic status, education, profit demand? You seem to believe that everyone else is the cause of you not achieving what you wanted. Man up for a change.
 
I don't give a damn what someone else earns or pays in taxes thus the question remains, why do you?
Because the debate is about how to have an economic system that is merit based. If you don't care about what other workers earn, then there is no point in involving yourself in debate about inequality.
 
I think you'd have a hard time showing that the US is the wealthiest country, at least on a per capita basis, or that the wealth we do have is due to having it concentrated in only a few hands.

I don't think it would be that hard but I'm too lazy to play the internet quote game. If you disagree then you disagree. It is OK with me. But I will correct you. I didn't say that the concentration of wealth is the cause of our national wealth. I said that the people who own the concentrated wealth are the cause of it. Find me a wealthy country without concentrated wealth.
 
Yes, and the issue remains the stupid voters who buy the ads and never research to verify their accuracy. You see, there is no question that Obama cut the deficit in half but the context is he had record deficits of over a trillion dollars that he cut in half. When he made that promise the deficit was 400 plus billion so cutting a 400 billion dollar deficit would make that 200 billion not a half a trillion dollars as he has done.

Absolutely.

Do you think there's a way to make the voters ignore the ads that feed them half truths and outright lies while appealing to emotions?
 
I don't think it would be that hard but I'm too lazy to play the internet quote game. If you disagree then you disagree. It is OK with me.

Good.

I do tend to disagree with statements I know to be false, but that's just me.
 
So now you are an expert on society and what people do to others? What makes you that expert? Do you know everyone else's situation or economic status, education, profit demand?
Wait, you don't care about anyone elses situation....ergo you don't care if anyone else is an expert on the economic conditions of US workers....so why are you here at all?
 
Because the debate is about how to have an economic system that is merit based. If you don't care about what other workers earn, then there is no point in involving yourself in debate about inequality.

The economy we have is indeed merit based, you want to destroy that by penalizing those who earned the money. Why is that and what good will it do? Merit doesn't mean taking from someone else to give to another, it means earning it thus the term merit.
 
Absolutely.

Do you think there's a way to make the voters ignore the ads that feed them half truths and outright lies while appealing to emotions?

Just turn off the TV and do your own research. I learned to trust but verify but guess that comes from 35 years experience. I don't buy media spin from either side, I verify the rhetoric by looking at the data, data like I pointed out in Obama cutting the deficit in half, what deficit was never asked. I don't see a lot of value in cutting the deficit from 1 trillion to 500 billion as it still adds to the growing debt. I see no benefit in touting Clinton balancing the budget but adding 1.4 trillion to the debt. I see no value in giving Obama credit for great job creation when the numbers are just back to pre recession levels and all those job gains are compared against a very low base all caused by Obama leadership failures.

I am waiting for the liberal here to post the Reagan spending proposals in his 1981 stimulus package?
 
Are you suggesting that some sort of "peasant" revolt would take place? Of course it would, if things got bad enough. I would like for things to not get so bad. Lots of people die in peasant uprisings. Lots of people get poor. I don't want that.


Our government already heavily regulates our market. They do things i am sure you agree with. The problem with you is, you're OK with regulations, as longs as it's for things YOU want.




No, a "peasant revolt" will never happen as long as there is walmart, mtv, and 200 channels on your tv.
 
I agree. But that coming about is about as viable as Ron Paul getting elected for president, sadly.

What we NEED, is election reform. Everything else will work itself out through that.



Wont ever happen. we vote the very people in who have no motivation for any such reform and every reason against it. When has any politician voted himself LESS power?
 
Just turn off the TV and do your own research. I learned to trust but verify but guess that comes from 35 years experience. I don't buy media spin from either side, I verify the rhetoric by looking at the data, data like I pointed out in Obama cutting the deficit in half, what deficit was never asked. I don't see a lot of value in cutting the deficit from 1 trillion to 500 billion as it still adds to the growing debt. I see no benefit in touting Clinton balancing the budget but adding 1.4 trillion to the debt. I see no value in giving Obama credit for great job creation when the numbers are just back to pre recession levels and all those job gains are compared against a very low base all caused by Obama leadership failures.

I am waiting for the liberal here to post the Reagan spending proposals in his 1981 stimulus package?

OK, if you really do all of that, it puts you in the 1%, maybe even the 0.1%

of voters who actually understand the issues, that is.

Meanwhile, the vast majority swallow the ads whole, which is why money is what it takes to get elected.

Money is what buys elections, not facts, not issues, not ideology (at least, not mostly), but money.

Which is why people with real money have real power.

I'm not talking about the guy who had a successful career or business and is now worth a few measly million and lives comfortably. I'm talking about the people with real wealth, the kind measured in the billions, the kind that comes from and then produces power.

And, power concentrated in only a few people is dangerous. It feeds on itself and grows even bigger and more powerful. That's true whether the power comes from government or from great wealth, or as is generally the case, from both.
 
OK, if you really do all of that, it puts you in the 1%, maybe even the 0.1%

of voters who actually understand the issues, that is.

Meanwhile, the vast majority swallow the ads whole, which is why money is what it takes to get elected.

Money is what buys elections, not facts, not issues, not ideology (at least, not mostly), but money.

Which is why people with real money have real power.

I'm not talking about the guy who had a successful career or business and is now worth a few measly million and lives comfortably. I'm talking about the people with real wealth, the kind measured in the billions, the kind that comes from and then produces power.

And, power concentrated in only a few people is dangerous. It feeds on itself and grows even bigger and more powerful. That's true whether the power comes from government or from great wealth, or as is generally the case, from both.

Funny, I live in a state with a lot of rich oil people yet it is a state with boundless opportunities which is why millions have moved here. I don't see the affects of money here like you do in California and especially San Francisco. TX is an incredible state with low cost of living and low taxes depending on where you choose to live. Money doesn't seem to buy a lot of votes here as Wendy Davis can attest or many other liberals who have moved here from California and are trying to change this state into the one they left.
 
Funny, I live in a state with a lot of rich oil people yet it is a state with boundless opportunities which is why millions have moved here. I don't see the affects of money here like you do in California and especially San Francisco. TX is an incredible state with low cost of living and low taxes depending on where you choose to live. Money doesn't seem to buy a lot of votes here as Wendy Davis can attest or many other liberals who have moved here from California and are trying to change this state into the one they left.

Well, good for you. Maybe the billionaires of Texas use their power more benignly than do the ones here.

And, if you're lucky, they'll continue.

Or not. They're the ones with the power, after all, not you.
 
Back
Top Bottom