• 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!

Inequality Troubles Americans Across Party Lines, Times/CBS Poll Finds

imagep said:
I could care less about someones definition of economic freedom, unless that economic freedom increases the standard of living.

Anyhow, I find that the income I have as an American, provides me more economic freedom than the lower income I would likely have in most countries.

Now riddle me this, what do Estonia, Ireland and Chile, all have in common that the US doesn't have? **** the riddle, I'll just tell you - universal healthcare. Hmm.
Click to expand...

And we have been saddled with an idiotic insurance reform plan that needs to be scrapped.
 
sawdust said:
And we have been saddled with an idiotic insurance reform plan that needs to be scrapped.
Click to expand...
My understanding of the whole medical cost issue is that it's a combo of high medical costs and nothing preventing their increase.

I suppose if we had a single-payer system we could dictate prices to some degree, but that's kinda unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever.


From what I've heard/read, part of the issue (the main issue?) is that hospitals have a monopoly on healthcare for a given area, and can therefor dictate the price they wish consumers to pay.
 
mac said:
Failing to become rich due to personal limitations does not make it society's responsibility to step in and raise your standard of living for you.
Click to expand...

First of all, the statement was that anyone can become rich, which is false.

Also, the moved goal post is a straw man, of course. We're not talking about "rich" - we're talking about decades of stagnant income for the vast majority, soaring income and wealth for a few at the top that has resulted in a shrinking middle class, which I'd define as able to work a normal job, and afford healthcare, education including college for your children, vacations and a secure retirement.

And society's "responsibility" is in my view to set the rules of the game (the "market") so that we have broad prosperity, and the entire income scale shares in the gains of productivity, rising GDP, national wealth. Unfortunately there isn't (to my knowledge) any example anywhere in history of a 'natural' large middle class. A couple of others are discussing this in this thread - but if you find a large and prosperous "middle class" what you also find are strong government, progressive taxes, and a fairly significant amount of income "redistribution" either directly such as through national healthcare and income guarantees of sorts (welfare, EITC, food stamps, rent subsidies in the U.S., etc.) and likely some form of wage supports such as through unions or minimum wages and the like.

I think that's entirely appropriate. Government doesn't exist to maximize GDP or the S&P 500. It serves the U.S. - 350 million or so individuals, and the economic policy should focus on the broad population.

If you have any examples otherwise, I'd love to learn something new this week!
 
The Mark said:
My understanding of the whole medical cost issue is that it's a combo of high medical costs and nothing preventing their increase.

I suppose if we had a single-payer system we could dictate prices to some degree, but that's kinda unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever.


From what I've heard/read, part of the issue (the main issue?) is that hospitals have a monopoly on healthcare for a given area, and can therefor dictate the price they wish consumers to pay.
Click to expand...

Well gee. I guess we should bust the monopoly and open up health care to convenience stores. Health care is expensive because the government bureaucracy makes it expensive to administer. There is no free market in health care and market pressures, namely competition, is the mechanism which regulates price.

The very worst thing you can do to achieve fair market in healthcare is to regulate price. How's that working out for bread in Venezuela?
 
sawdust said:
Well gee. I guess we should bust the monopoly and open up health care to convenience stores. Health care is expensive because the government bureaucracy makes it expensive to administer. There is no free market in health care and market pressures, namely competition, is the mechanism which regulates price.

The very worst thing you can do to achieve fair market in healthcare is to regulate price. How's that working out for bread in Venezuela?
Click to expand...
The question is whether it is possible/reasonable to create/encourage competition in healthcare to a level which lowers the prices enough.

Another big cost is medical equipment prices, I understand - another somewhat monopolized area.


One thing I heard/read made me wonder whether it's possible to fix something with our current system - apparently the original Affordable Care Act was going to have provisions that allowed the administrators to make offers/price suggestions to drug companies and the like - but that was nixed and instead they went with the current system, wherein drug companies tell the Government how much they will be paid for a given item.

No negotiation, basically. Or at least it sounded like that. From a half-remembered radio interview.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Guy, Belgium is not a nation built on heavy industries and a powerful military-industrial complex. If "productive" is what you're looking for, then look at Australia. Or Japan. Or South Korea. Or (and especially) Germany. Are you going to tell me that the people in these nations are so coddled by the government that they've become complacent?

Please, try to refrain from cherry-picking - it's doing you no good at all, and it's easily shot down.
Click to expand...

What percentage of their gdp do each of those countries spend on defense?

Do you think any of those countries could defend themselves if they didn't have the USA protecting their ass?

So only so much money around....the question becomes what do you spend it on?

Protecting the rest of the world....which we have been doing for 100 years......

you cant do both......
 
sawdust said:
I believe that the Bush tax cuts sun settled during Obama's first term. Economic freedom also tracks regulation and this administration is the most regulatory administration in my memory. The only thing that rivals is was FDR's failed NRA.
Click to expand...

Other than Obamacare, can you list a few of those regulations and explain how they have restricted your personal economic freedom?
 
The Mark said:
The question is whether it is possible/reasonable to create/encourage competition in healthcare to a level which lowers the prices enough.

Another big cost is medical equipment prices, I understand - another somewhat monopolized area.


One thing I heard/read made me wonder whether it's possible to fix something with our current system - apparently the original Affordable Care Act was going to have provisions that allowed the administrators to make offers/price suggestions to drug companies and the like - but that was nixed and instead they went with the current system, wherein drug companies tell the Government how much they will be paid for a given item.

No negotiation, basically. Or at least it sounded like that. From a half-remembered radio interview.
Click to expand...

Obamacare was written by the insurance companies because they envisioned more customers. The last thing in the world they want is competition. The whole thing needs to go.
 
imagep said:
If that's the case, then no one did, because I certainly did not.
Click to expand...

No you did not, someone else posed a question...and you missed it.
 
JasperL said:
First of all, the statement was that anyone can become rich, which is false.

Also, the moved goal post is a straw man, of course. We're not talking about "rich" - we're talking about decades of stagnant income for the vast majority, soaring income and wealth for a few at the top that has resulted in a shrinking middle class, which I'd define as able to work a normal job, and afford healthcare, education including college for your children, vacations and a secure retirement.

And society's "responsibility" is in my view to set the rules of the game (the "market") so that we have broad prosperity, and the entire income scale shares in the gains of productivity, rising GDP, national wealth. Unfortunately there isn't (to my knowledge) any example anywhere in history of a 'natural' large middle class. A couple of others are discussing this in this thread - but if you find a large and prosperous "middle class" what you also find are strong government, progressive taxes, and a fairly significant amount of income "redistribution" either directly such as through national healthcare and income guarantees of sorts (welfare, EITC, food stamps, rent subsidies in the U.S., etc.) and likely some form of wage supports such as through unions or minimum wages and the like.

I think that's entirely appropriate. Government doesn't exist to maximize GDP or the S&P 500. It serves the U.S. - 350 million or so individuals, and the economic policy should focus on the broad population.

If you have any examples otherwise, I'd love to learn something new this week!
Click to expand...

The examples are all the people that were born with "nothing" in this country who became rich. Carson, Clinton and Fiorina are recent blaring examples.
 
mac said:
The examples are all the people that were born with "nothing" in this country who became rich. Carson, Clinton and Fiorina are recent blaring examples.
Click to expand...

That proves nothing - surely you understand this. Of course exceptional individuals can rise above poverty and become successful/wealthy. That a few truly exceptional individuals can doesn't prove anything except that those who are exceptional - in the cases you mention the top 1/10,000th or so - can succeed. I don't know their IQ scores, but I'm confident they're all in nosebleed territory. How about a person with an 87 IQ or with other mental or physical illness/limitations? No amount of effort or willpower or hard work turns them into a brain surgeon, or a politician with the skills of Clinton, or CEO material. The economy should work reasonably well for them and ordinary Americans who just by definition and the reality of the history of the entire human race will not and cannot be expected to become CEO or brain surgeon.
 
gdgyva said:
What percentage of their gdp do each of those countries spend on defense?

Do you think any of those countries could defend themselves if they didn't have the USA protecting their ass?

So only so much money around....the question becomes what do you spend it on?

Protecting the rest of the world....which we have been doing for 100 years......

you cant do both......
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. You wanted to judge a country by how productive its people are, and you pointed to Belgium. I simply pointed out to you Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Germany...and you know very well that these are all very productive people. You also know that the past generations of socialized democracy has not changed their national character. This obviously means that lowering the income inequality does NOT automatically result in a people becoming lazy.

THAT, sir, is the issue.

And your claim about national defense doesn't work, either - because if you'll check, nations whose people are naturally industrious remain industrious regardless of what kind of government they have. This was true with Japan and Germany. This is also true (in a less complimentary way) towards other nations like, say, Italy, or Egypt, or Mexico.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You didn't answer the question. You wanted to judge a country by how productive its people are, and you pointed to Belgium. I simply pointed out to you Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Germany...and you know very well that these are all very productive people. You also know that the past generations of socialized democracy has not changed their national character. This obviously means that lowering the income inequality does NOT automatically result in a people becoming lazy.

THAT, sir, is the issue.

And your claim about national defense doesn't work, either - because if you'll check, nations whose people are naturally industrious remain industrious regardless of what kind of government they have. This was true with Japan and Germany. This is also true (in a less complimentary way) towards other nations like, say, Italy, or Egypt, or Mexico.
Click to expand...


sawdust picked Belgium....not me

please reread what i wrote......

we...the USA spend a lot of our GDP on national defense

name one other industrialized country that spends anywhere close to what we spend.....and what does their economy look like?

at times, decisions are made about what to spend money on....what to prioritize....defence has always been at the top of the list for us

that is VERY different from Germany, Japan, Belgium, France, or any other country you want to compare us to

that was my point....my only point

is that right or wrong? that is the question i think we will soon have to ask ourselves

do we continue to protect the South Korea's, the Germany's, and other countries......

or do we put that money to work here in the USA....and let the other nations fend for themselves
 
JasperL said:
That proves nothing - surely you understand this. Of course exceptional individuals can rise above poverty and become successful/wealthy. That a few truly exceptional individuals can doesn't prove anything except that those who are exceptional - in the cases you mention the top 1/10,000th or so - can succeed. I don't know their IQ scores, but I'm confident they're all in nosebleed territory. How about a person with an 87 IQ or with other mental or physical illness/limitations? No amount of effort or willpower or hard work turns them into a brain surgeon, or a politician with the skills of Clinton, or CEO material. The economy should work reasonably well for them and ordinary Americans who just by definition and the reality of the history of the entire human race will not and cannot be expected to become CEO or brain surgeon.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it proves everything.
 
gdgyva said:
sawdust picked Belgium....not me

please reread what i wrote......

we...the USA spend a lot of our GDP on national defense

name one other industrialized country that spends anywhere close to what we spend.....and what does their economy look like?

at times, decisions are made about what to spend money on....what to prioritize....defence has always been at the top of the list for us

that is VERY different from Germany, Japan, Belgium, France, or any other country you want to compare us to

that was my point....my only point

is that right or wrong? that is the question i think we will soon have to ask ourselves

do we continue to protect the South Korea's, the Germany's, and other countries......

or do we put that money to work here in the USA....and let the other nations fend for themselves
Click to expand...

Sorry about the mixup...but my point stands. And defense has NOT always been at the top of the list for us. In fact, except for during the Civil War and WWI, it was NEVER "at the top of the list" until we began rearming for WWII. The isolationists were very influential in our society and government until Pearl Harbor.

And as far as us protecting the rest of the world goes, it's like the old comic-book saying, "with great power comes great responsibility". Yes, we can spend less on Defense and I've long said we should - starting with MY beloved aircraft carriers. But the thing is, it's conservative economic dogma that big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation are a sure-fire recipe for being consigned to the economic dustbin of history...BUT every single one of the first world democracies have precisely that...and NO democracy that does not have all three of those is a first-world democracy. The rest of the free world is lucky that we are here, yes...but that in and of itself is not in any way a determinant of the economic success of a nation.
 
wtf gave anyone the right to take anyone else's property, hmm? that's what taxes do, that's what regulations do, and I'm opposed to both. Any decent person is.
 
prison/con.net said:
wtf gave anyone the right to take anyone else's property, hmm? that's what taxes do, that's what regulations do, and I'm opposed to both. Any decent person is.
Click to expand...

You should really consider the standard of living is in countries that don't have taxes or regulations. Like Somolia.
 
imagep said:
You should really consider the standard of living is in countries that don't have taxes or regulations. Like Somolia.
Click to expand...
It's culture that defines any nation and it just takes a generation or two to change it. Taxes and regulations would have no effect whatsoever in a place like Somalia.
 
Grant said:
It's culture that defines any nation and it just takes a generation or two to change it. Taxes and regulations would have no effect whatsoever in a place like Somalia.
Click to expand...

Would education (schools), infrastructure creation, jobs and the eradication of warlords have any effect?
 
An interesting analysis conducted on November 2, 2012 [see here]. However, I think the 'Historical Income Tables' from the U.S. Census Bureau make for a better macro view [see here].
 
prison/con.net said:
wtf gave anyone the right to take anyone else's property, hmm? that's what taxes do, that's what regulations do, and I'm opposed to both. Any decent person is.
Click to expand...

I think you meant "selfish freeloader."

You live in a developed country with outstanding infrastructure, police, a military to protect us from invasion, courts, rule of law, schools, etc. That costs money. Taxes are the bill for those services you enjoy every minute of every day. And so by living here and enjoying those services, you've agreed to the terms of residency, and that includes that you pay part of the bill for all you enjoy through taxes. Pretty simple.

Regulations are just laws. Same as above. If you want anarchy, there are options for you to consider moving to. You should research it and find a country that better suits you.
 
JasperL said:
I think you meant "selfish freeloader."

You live in a developed country with outstanding infrastructure, police, a military to protect us from invasion, courts, rule of law, schools, etc. That costs money. Taxes are the bill for those services you enjoy every minute of every day. And so by living here and enjoying those services, you've agreed to the terms of residency, and that includes that you pay part of the bill for all you enjoy through taxes. Pretty simple.
Regulations are just laws. Same as above. If you want anarchy, there are options for you to consider moving to. You should research it and find a country that better suits you.
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone is against police, schools, military, highways, etc but there are many agencies and bureaucracies which are ineffective, redundant, unnecessary and a waste of public money. That holds true in most democracies. And many, like those you mentioned, must always have public scrutiny to ensure the public is getting value for their dollar.
 
The growing gap is concerning.

However, it isn't the role of the government to regulate it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom