• 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

KevinKohler said:
Yes. Publicly funding political campaigns, with NO private funding.
Click to expand...

How does that work? How do we determine who gets the money or do we just write checks for anyone that says they're running for office?
 
KevinKohler said:
50 years ago, hell, even 30 years ago, I would have agreed with you 100%.

Times have changed, and you seem oblivious to that change. Our markets are regulated, causing entry barriers to would be start ups, reducing competition for the established. Since creating ones own business is more and more a risky bet with increasingly bad returns, this creates more surpluses in labor, which decreases the bargaining power, no matter HOW good of an employee one might be. And then, of course, there are the robots, ever more ready and willing to take those jobs and do them for free.

We are slowly, and soon to be PAINFULLY, transitioning into a dramatically reduced labor society. We either accept that certain things will need to be done in order to preserve our way of life, or we change our way of life...namely, no more consumer culture, but a simpler, less materialistic existence. Or we accept that consumerism requires consumers, and acknowledge that robots and poor people don't consume. Not as much as is needed to afford me my corvette, anyway, at least.
Click to expand...


As has been pointed out here the answer is reducing the size of govt. and their influence not allowing it to get bigger by creating more dependence. Businesses are run by individuals with survival instincts, they are going to respond to govt. policies and some are going to be hurt. Don't blame the owner blame the govt.
 
whysoserious said:
Exactly, so it is available to him. He can get Medicaid, he just doesn't qualify for it.
Click to expand...
only liberal logic can come up with this disaster of a statement.
no it isn't available to him. if it was then he would be able to sign up for it.

It's such an egotistical viewpoint. "OMG they want my money because they are so poor and lazy". Man, just pay your taxes and quite down like the rest of us. No one gives a ****.
Click to expand...

then why are you so up in arms that they have more than you?
actually I try to pay as little in tax as possible. I work hard for my money to provide for my family not give it to the government.
 
Ikari said:
We know exactly what 7 years of Romney would do. Neigh the exact same things that 7 years of Obama did.
Click to expand...

Really? how exactly do you know? What is it in the Romney Record that says that, his balanced budget in MA? His job creation? His implementation of a state run and state approved healthcare program? Don't know about you but sounds like a states' rights guy to me and a smart business person. Works for me
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I don't debate speculationg. if you have proof of this, feel free to share. I've shone 65% home ownership where close to 50% of the NJ population is middle class.
Click to expand...

If YOU have proof, feel free to share it. All sorts of people, organizations, and corporations can buy property. If you want to assert the reason is that a healthy middle class exists that is buying it up, you need to prove that.


ReverendHellh0und said:
This I don't disagree with./
Click to expand...

Don't agree with it all you want, then look up the numbers and come back.
 
ludin said:
nope not at all. it was the government that did it. not those evil rich people. they were just as much a victum of that fraud as everyone else.
maybe more so because some were talked into actually buying those securities as investments.

again the fact is if you don't like what you make then do something to make more. stop complaining about other people and their success.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, the person who COMMITS the fraud, IE, cooks their books, and then bribes ratings agencies to LIE for them...are NOT victims, genius.


Can I call you genius? I'm gonna call you genius form now on.
 
ludin said:
then quit complaining that someone else has more and you don't.
I have no issues I am not the one complaining about rich people you are.

if you are happy with your life then good for you. stop getting mad that someone has more than you do.
Click to expand...

What post did I express a complaint about someone else having more than me?


Can you find it, and show me, genius?
 
Conservative said:
Really? how exactly do you know? What is it in the Romney Record that says that, his balanced budget in MA? His job creation? His implementation of a state run and state approved healthcare program? Don't know about you but sounds like a states' rights guy to me and a smart business person. Works for me
Click to expand...

Republocrats haven't, on whole, been significantly different for quite some time. How is Obama different than Bush? There's some difference, but on whole they do the same thing.
 
KevinKohler said:
Uh, no, the person who COMMITS the fraud, IE, cooks their books, and then bribes ratings agencies to LIE for them...are NOT victims, genius.


Can I call you genius? I'm gonna call you genius form now on.
Click to expand...

yep it was the government that was overseeing the selling and it was Freddie and fannie that were selling the bundled securities to investment banks.
the fact that I know more about it than you do yea I am a genius.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I don't debate speculationg. if you have proof of this, feel free to share. I've shone 65% home ownership where close to 50% of the NJ population is middle class.




This I don't disagree with./
Click to expand...

You have shown ONLY that there are a lot of people who own houses in NJ. Take a minute to understand what is meant by this.

A person who rents out their house.....is a part of that 65%.
 
KevinKohler said:
What post did I express a complaint about someone else having more than me?


Can you find it, and show me, genius?
Click to expand...

you have done it so far this whole thing.
it's not fair they have more. they should have it taken away yadda yadda yadda.

same ol complaint of the 1%.

they make more than me I work I should have everything they do. yadda yadda yadda.
just go back and check your own posts.
 
Ikari said:
Republocrats haven't, on whole, been significantly different for quite some time. How is Obama different than Bush? There's some difference, but on whole they do the same thing.
Click to expand...

Don't think Bush would have generated a stimulus program with targeted tax cuts and bailouts for supporters like unions. Don't think Bush would have implemented Obamacare and don't believe it would have taken 7 years to get back to pre recession job creation
 
Papa bull said:
How does that work? How do we determine who gets the money or do we just write checks for anyone that says they're running for office?
Click to expand...

By not having money be an issue. Candidates don't need money, they need services.
 
Conservative said:
As has been pointed out here the answer is reducing the size of govt. and their influence not allowing it to get bigger by creating more dependence. Businesses are run by individuals with survival instincts, they are going to respond to govt. policies and some are going to be hurt. Don't blame the owner blame the govt.
Click to expand...

I blame BOTH. Big business is WHY we have these regulations.

So yeah, I support TAXING the very people who's meddling in our government resulted in the NEED to mess with taxes in the first place. You don't think the people who run the corporations that are largely the ones responsible for the lobbyists who have created this monster are POOR, do you?
 
cpwill said:
Wealth can only get you power through the mechanism of government. If you actually want to reduce the power of the wealthy, reduce the power of government, especially to provide an ROI on investment. But so long as you increase the power of government, you will increase the power of those with the wealth to influence it.
Click to expand...

I think most of us can agree with that one.

But, the devil is in the details. How do you reduce the power of government when the power of wealth wants government to continue to increase? It's like tilting at windmills.
 
Ikari said:
If YOU have proof, feel free to share it. All sorts of people, organizations, and corporations can buy property. If you want to assert the reason is that a healthy middle class exists that is buying it up, you need to prove that.
Click to expand...


Wrong, the onus is on you to prove your contention. if it were up to the other party to prove or disprove your speculation, no debate could happen.
 
KevinKohler said:
By not having money be an issue. Candidates don't need money, they need services.
Click to expand...

So who gets these "services" that we, the taxpayers are going to fund under your idea? How do we decide which ones we're going to spend money on or do you just figure it should be a free-for-all for everyone that thinks it would be an interesting diversion to throw their hat in the ring? Services = money.
 
Conservative said:
Really? how exactly do you know? What is it in the Romney Record that says that, his balanced budget in MA? His job creation? His implementation of a state run and state approved healthcare program? Don't know about you but sounds like a states' rights guy to me and a smart business person. Works for me
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? You sound like a low info voter, now.

He balanced the budget by increasing TAXES, only, like Obama with the AHCA, he was shrewd enough to NOT call them taxes, lol.

He didn't create jobs, because it's not the role of government to create jobs, REMEMBER? PEOPLE with business plans created jobs. He just HAPPENED to be governor during a time of largess, in a state that is a bit more free than others, in the NE. Lucky him?

A smart business person? He's road on the coattails of others his entire life. He wouldn't know what to do with a can opener if it opened it's mouth and gave him instructions.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Good idea.

Now, to get it past the lobbyist and their minions in Congress.
Click to expand...

Same problem. Dole out campaign funding (or services) to everyone that runs? And why should my tax money support someone I despise? Why should my taxes support a campaign for president by someone like Michael Moore (or Hillary Clinton)? Do you want your tax money funding a run by Sarah Palin or the leader of the KKK, whoever that may be?

In reality, I don't think it would be constitutional to prevent private funding of campaigns. The idea might sound great, but it's a non-starter just because of the constitutional issues, alone.
 
KevinKohler said:
I blame BOTH. Big business is WHY we have these regulations.

So yeah, I support TAXING the very people who's meddling in our government resulted in the NEED to mess with taxes in the first place. You don't think the people who run the corporations that are largely the ones responsible for the lobbyists who have created this monster are POOR, do you?
Click to expand...

I think big business is an easy target for people who don't understand business. Businesses are in business to make a profit to pay themselves, their employees, and in the case of public traded corporations their shareholders. They are going to do whatever they can to influence politicians and rules/regulations but they don't vote. I don't blame big business like others because big business really isn't the problem, regulations and taxes hurt small businesses more than the big ones and those are the people really hurting. Where is the outrage over politicians on both sides of the aisle catering to big business and voting on their behalf? That is the problem with govt. today, career politicians not being held accountable for their votes and leadership that protects them by hiding their votes or legislation that wouldn't look favorable to them.

Our Founders knew that power corrupts that is why we had a part time legislature. That is why we have a part time legislature in TX. You make the laws and go home and live under them. We also have term limits as do most states, why not the Federal Govt for Representatives and Senators? That would straighten out this country in a hurry.
 
ludin said:
yep it was the government that was overseeing the selling and it was Freddie and fannie that were selling the bundled securities to investment banks.
the fact that I know more about it than you do yea I am a genius.
Click to expand...

LOL.




We're done, you're right, about everything, I'm wrong, about everything, you win at everything, have a nice day, LOL.
 
ludin said:
you have done it so far this whole thing.
it's not fair they have more. they should have it taken away yadda yadda yadda.

same ol complaint of the 1%.

they make more than me I work I should have everything they do. yadda yadda yadda.
just go back and check your own posts.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. I'm just an idiot who couldn't see it. Well played, sir. I bow to your radiant genius. Have a good day.
 
KevinKohler said:
Are you kidding? You sound like a low info voter, now.

He balanced the budget by increasing TAXES, only, like Obama with the AHCA, he was shrewd enough to NOT call them taxes, lol.

He didn't create jobs, because it's not the role of government to create jobs, REMEMBER? PEOPLE with business plans created jobs. He just HAPPENED to be governor during a time of largess, in a state that is a bit more free than others, in the NE. Lucky him?

A smart business person? He's road on the coattails of others his entire life. He wouldn't know what to do with a can opener if it opened it's mouth and gave him instructions.
Click to expand...

Really, so BLS is wrong on MA? You don't think govt. policies influence job creation? The MA treasury is wrong on the balanced budget? He did what Reagan did, increased use taxes asking people who use the products and services to pay more for their use.

Whether you like Romney or not is irrelevant, he had the experience that Obama still doesn't have today and that experience was ignored as Romney's resume was picked apart. I would take Romney in a heart beat over the incompetent we have there now
 
KevinKohler said:
Are you kidding? You sound like a low info voter, now.

He balanced the budget by increasing TAXES, only, like Obama with the AHCA, he was shrewd enough to NOT call them taxes, lol.

He didn't create jobs, because it's not the role of government to create jobs, REMEMBER? PEOPLE with business plans created jobs. He just HAPPENED to be governor during a time of largess, in a state that is a bit more free than others, in the NE. Lucky him?

A smart business person? He's road on the coattails of others his entire life. He wouldn't know what to do with a can opener if it opened it's mouth and gave him instructions.
Click to expand...

Really, so BLS is wrong on MA? You don't think govt. policies influence job creation? The MA treasury is wrong on the balanced budget? He did what Reagan did, increased use taxes asking people who use the products and services to pay more for their use.

Whether you like Romney or not is irrelevant, he had the experience that Obama still doesn't have today and that experience was ignored as Romney's resume was picked apart. I would take Romney in a heart beat over the incompetent we have there now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom