• 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!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

justabubba said:
he called it
said you would squirm and wiggle
nailed you on your karl marx comparison you insisted was not made
and you now squirm and wiggle

explain it ... or admit you made an inaccurate comparison
but quit denying the obvious
Click to expand...

I enver called anyone a Marxist, nor did I make an inaccurate comparison. Last time I checked, our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is, "uninalienable rights", that have been, "endowed by our creator"; not something pruchased with our tax dollars.
 
apdst said:
I enver called anyone a Marxist, nor did I make an inaccurate comparison. Last time I checked, our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is, "uninalienable rights", that have been, "endowed by our creator"; not something pruchased with our tax dollars.
Click to expand...
so this is what you insist was not an inaccurate comparison or referring to a forum member as a marxist:
apdst said:
But, I didn't, "call him a Marxist", correct? I only said that his comments were Marxist-esque. Still confused, laddy?
Click to expand...
reminds me of a description my Mom used to use (most frequently directed at politicians): "the truth isn't in him"
 
justabubba said:
so this is what you insist was not an inaccurate comparison or referring to a forum member as a marxist:

reminds me of a description my Mom used to use (most frequently directed at politicians): "the truth isn't in him"
Click to expand...

since it wasn't applied to you what is your fixation on the subject?
 
TurtleDude said:
since it wasn't applied to you what is your fixation on the subject?
Click to expand...

please point out any rule i have violated, which prevents me from entering into a discussion of what has been posted
 
apdst said:
But, I didn't, "call him a Marxist", correct? I only said that his comments were Marxist-esque. Still confused, laddy?
Click to expand...

Nah,its not about your spelling its about your trying to wiggle and squirm your way out of answering the following question.

Still awaiting an answer to this.

So you’re saying that UtahBill has the following qualities “indicating style, manner, resemblance, or distinctive character” to “Karl Maex”?
Click to expand...


Now watch apdst wiggle and squirm in his lame attempt at deflection.:mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
My dad died on May 10th. That was a Monday. He was at work Friday. He was 75. My grandfather died on his tractor one fall morning, while we were trying to up-root a stump back in 1979. He was 76. My g-grandfather came home from work, ate supper, took a bath, went to bed and was gone before the sun came up. He was 74. It's a family tradition. I come from a family of hard workin' self employed folks that always had the inate ability to what we had to do.

Ultimately, I've made my decisions and I'm the one that has to live with them. cum, ****, or bleed. And, I don't want the government getting up in my ****.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, tradition....my family tree has about a 10 year advantage on yours, and I had planned on beating it by 5 years. Never smoked or drank, no serious genetic issues, only a few pounds over weight, and even my siblings who smoked a long time are relatively healthy. So how did I get chosen to get Parkinson's?
 
apdst said:
I enver called anyone a Marxist, nor did I make an inaccurate comparison. Last time I checked, our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is, "uninalienable rights", that have been, "endowed by our creator"; not something pruchased with our tax dollars.
Click to expand...

So much of what you post sounds so uneducated, then you say something that sounds smart. Is your wife helping you?:2razz:
 
Grant said:
That suggests the government knows better on how to spend your money than you do.
Click to expand...

Big business has always played an important roll in our economy and should. The problem is when big business uses its money to change ellections so that the new government stops looking after the will of the people.

e.g. former oil execs should not be in government oversite of their old companies.

Question: The constitutional freedons President Bush took away.

Answer: The patriot act took away 4 and 5.

Question: The constitutional freedom President Obama (then a senitor) took away

Answer: The first ammendment. FISA bill.

You asked why I voted for social programs and expect the rich to pay for them. I did not. I vote Libertarian. We had a candidate on all 50 ballets. NO its not a waist of a vote.

I want a smaller government so that we can ALL pay less in taxes.

You keep saying the rich pay to much and everyone is taking your money. If you had your way how would you have the income for the government set up. I dont want to know what you dont want or that your upset about the debt. We owe 11 trillion plus. How should we go about paying it off
 
justabubba said:
please point out any rule i have violated, which prevents me from entering into a discussion of what has been posted
Click to expand...

I don't recall claiming you violated a rule.
 
upsideguy said:
....Sure tax incentives can provide short-term results, but sustainable results are achieved only when the product or service has real value to the consumer.
Click to expand...

This is half-true. Sustainable results are achieved when the product or service has value to the consumer AND provides profit to the business. You need both, and taxes have a direct impact on profit.
 
Taxes? ATPT or oedipus or whatever his name is just slandering on. Arguments about topicality about non topical points. Geez, oh so way off the point people. Regular ass ****s are screwed. And it's not because of the government. To quote David Frum -

"Think back to 1960. The federal government regulated the price of every airfare. It regulated every rail, truck and shipping route. It regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated stockbrokers' commissions. It regulated the interest rates that could be paid on checking accounts. It told most farmers how much they could grow of what commodity. It regulated what kind of political and religious comment could be expressed on the airwaves. And of course it conscripted millions of young men beginning their careers into the armed forces."

Who regulates now? Our bosses. So many of them take advantage of that power. And who wouldn't? At least the government is representative of us. Or it used to be. Until Obama came in and suddenly and quite magically we as a "Christian Nation" who all of a sudden think mosques are insensitive realized it was much too big.

I have a point, and its not about big government, taxes, or anything other than pertaining to the original post - can someone please tell me the benefits of a model that on the micro scale looks like this...

There is a theoretical community where $10,000 exists. Ten people live there and each have $600. Except for one person. He has $4,600. This community makes $2,000 every year as a whole (GDP). So, by the end of the year there will be $12,000 as a whole for the community. Everyone agrees the community generates most of its $2000 annually because of the man with the most money providing services for profit. At the end of the year everyone who worked for this person now has $580 but person number 10 has $6,780. The community made money, but most citizens are worth less than they were last year.

This is what is happening RIGHT NOW on a massive scale. This is reality. Conservatives need to know what they are talking about instead of changing the subject. They need to ask why "trickle up" couldn't work as well (if not more efficiently) than trickle down. They need to make up their minds as to whether or not Obama is an extreme Christian, or a Muslim. They need to ask how the President can be held responsible for fixing the economy while insisting he have nothing to do with. They need to ask themselves who really is "in poor taste" when it comes to the freedom of a business man to build on property (whatever the hell might be there) he purchased and was approved by the city. And, finally they need to stop arguing that the community model I laid out - the status quo - is somehow OK.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
Ah yes, tradition....my family tree has about a 10 year advantage on yours, and I had planned on beating it by 5 years. Never smoked or drank, no serious genetic issues, only a few pounds over weight, and even my siblings who smoked a long time are relatively healthy. So how did I get chosen to get Parkinson's?
Click to expand...


Just goes to show that all that crap about a healthy lifestyle doesn't guarantee anything.
 
UtahBill said:
So much of what you post sounds so uneducated, then you say something that sounds smart. Is your wife helping you?:2razz:
Click to expand...

My wife? Hell no, she hates the internet.
 
apdst said:
Just goes to show that all that crap about a healthy lifestyle doesn't guarantee anything.
Click to expand...

besides, it only adds to the end years of your life, when you are too old to enjoy it....
 
JakeFromWI said:
Taxes? ATPT or oedipus or whatever his name is just slandering on. Arguments about topicality about non topical points. Geez, oh so way off the point people. Regular ass ****s are screwed. And it's not because of the government. To quote David Frum -

"Think back to 1960. The federal government regulated the price of every airfare. It regulated every rail, truck and shipping route. It regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated stockbrokers' commissions. It regulated the interest rates that could be paid on checking accounts. It told most farmers how much they could grow of what commodity. It regulated what kind of political and religious comment could be expressed on the airwaves. And of course it conscripted millions of young men beginning their careers into the armed forces."

Who regulates now? Our bosses. So many of them take advantage of that power. And who wouldn't? At least the government is representative of us. Or it used to be. Until Obama came in and suddenly and quite magically we as a "Christian Nation" who all of a sudden think mosques are insensitive realized it was much too big.

I have a point, and its not about big government, taxes, or anything other than pertaining to the original post - can someone please tell me the benefits of a model that on the micro scale looks like this...

There is a theoretical community where $10,000 exists. Ten people live there and each have $600. Except for one person. He has $4,600. This community makes $2,000 every year as a whole (GDP). So, by the end of the year there will be $12,000 as a whole for the community. Everyone agrees the community generates most of its $2000 annually because of the man with the most money providing services for profit. At the end of the year everyone who worked for this person now has $580 but person number 10 has $6,780. The community made money, but most citizens are worth less than they were last year.

This is what is happening RIGHT NOW on a massive scale. This is reality. Conservatives need to know what they are talking about instead of changing the subject. They need to ask why "trickle up" couldn't work as well (if not more efficiently) than trickle down. They need to make up their minds as to whether or not Obama is an extreme Christian, or a Muslim. They need to ask how the President can be held responsible for fixing the economy while insisting he have nothing to do with. They need to ask themselves who really is "in poor taste" when it comes to the freedom of a business man to build on property (whatever the hell might be there) he purchased and was approved by the city. And, finally they need to stop arguing that the community model I laid out - the status quo - is somehow OK.
Click to expand...

Out here in the real, capitalist world, someone is going to come along and compete with that one dude that owns all the wealth and leave the $600 dollar folks with $650 in their pockets at the end of the year. The first guy will have to either match, or surpass that, or close the doors. It's called, "competition".

The, "community model", that you laid out isn't ok, nor is it ok for the wealth of that one person to be transfered to the government. As it satands, now, there are laws that protect the consumer from big business, but there are no laws that protect the consumer from the government. Ask yourself: what $600 shmeaux, has the resources to take on the government? Who can, "compete", with the government, when the government writes the rule book and has infinite resources? Think about that.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
I can't deny the baby boomers have wreaked havoc on this country. But SS isn't the problem, congress borrowing from SS trust fund is.
Click to expand...

No, SS and especially Medicare are the problems. The "trust fund" balance that has been spent is around $2.5T. The unfunded liabilities of those programs total $100T.

I feel bad for your generation because paying for the Iraq War is going to be passed onto you and your kids.
Click to expand...

The costs of the Iraq war are minuscule compared to the costs of entitlement programs.

So if SS survives by the time you retire, you might be glad you have it.
Click to expand...

If I'm relying on SS by the time I retire, something will have gone drastically wrong in my life plan.

So it's a good thing we have SS then, or else all those seniors would be living in the streets or on welfare. And don't forget, those seniors paid a substantial sum from their paychecks into SS and feel they deserve to get something in return.
Click to expand...

This is circular logic. There are two possible scenarios - people are getting either more or less out of SS than what they put in. If they're getting more out, then they're stealing from future generations in order to fund their lifestyles. If they're getting less out, then they could have avoided welfare and homelessness had they not had 12% of their lifetime earnings taken from them.

Moreover, SS's problems are nothing compared to Medicare. Medicare spending on old people drastically surpasses whatever those people contributed during their lives. It's high quality care for the elderly being funded by the young.
 
JakeFromWI said:
I have a point, and its not about big government, taxes, or anything other than pertaining to the original post - can someone please tell me the benefits of a model that on the micro scale looks like this...

There is a theoretical community where $10,000 exists. Ten people live there and each have $600. Except for one person. He has $4,600. This community makes $2,000 every year as a whole (GDP). So, by the end of the year there will be $12,000 as a whole for the community. Everyone agrees the community generates most of its $2000 annually because of the man with the most money providing services for profit. At the end of the year everyone who worked for this person now has $580 but person number 10 has $6,780. The community made money, but most citizens are worth less than they were last year.

This is what is happening RIGHT NOW on a massive scale. This is reality. Conservatives need to know what they are talking about instead of changing the subject. They need to ask why "trickle up" couldn't work as well (if not more efficiently) than trickle down. They need to make up their minds as to whether or not Obama is an extreme Christian, or a Muslim. They need to ask how the President can be held responsible for fixing the economy while insisting he have nothing to do with. They need to ask themselves who really is "in poor taste" when it comes to the freedom of a business man to build on property (whatever the hell might be there) he purchased and was approved by the city. And, finally they need to stop arguing that the community model I laid out - the status quo - is somehow OK.
Click to expand...

The first part of your post is wandering around aimlessly, but your example has some interesting tidbits. It sounds like you have 1 person providing services for profit and 9 people sitting on their asses complaining about not having any money. If that's what you mean, then I might agree with you on some level that we do have that going on right now.

The last part is wandering aimlessly again, but I'll answer your question about trickle up economics. From your example, as stated by you, 1 rich person was responsible for most of the productivity of the community. If the 9 decide they can make their lives easier by banding together and stealing from the 1, they will not be wealthier in the end. The 1 is not motivated by his compassion for the 9 thieves who couldn't be bothered to get off their butts and make their own money. Pretty soon there won't be anybody to steal from.
 
apdst said:
Out here in the real, capitalist world, someone is going to come along and compete with that one dude that owns all the wealth and leave the $600 dollar folks with $650 in their pockets at the end of the year. The first guy will have to either match, or surpass that, or close the doors. It's called, "competition".

The, "community model", that you laid out isn't ok, nor is it ok for the wealth of that one person to be transfered to the government. As it satands, now, there are laws that protect the consumer from big business, but there are no laws that protect the consumer from the government. Ask yourself: what $600 shmeaux, has the resources to take on the government? Who can, "compete", with the government, when the government writes the rule book and has infinite resources? Think about that.
Click to expand...

So this past year, the economy made money, but the average joe making less than 500k is worth less than he was last year. Are you denying that? It is happening. The guy competing against the other guy is still competing for our money.

Now, I'm not sure what big government has to do with the gap between the rich and poor increasing. But you've made your opinion clear and I thank you.
 
JakeFromWI said:
So this past year, the economy made money, but the average joe making less than 500k is worth less than he was last year. Are you denying that? It is happening. The guy competing against the other guy is still competing for our money.

Now, I'm not sure what big government has to do with the gap between the rich and poor increasing. But you've made your opinion clear and I thank you.
Click to expand...

What with governmental policies killing job growth and the super rich being able to absorb it easier, the government has created the gap between rich and poor.

The, "poor man's party", has no reason to make more poor people into rich people. The poor man's party depends on the poor man to vote them into power. More poor people = more votes for the poor man's party.

People aren't worth less now, because retailers took their money. They're worth less now, because the government is killing the job market with it's legislation.
 
apdst said:
What with governmental policies killing job growth and the super rich being able to absorb it easier, the government has created the gap between rich and poor.

The, "poor man's party", has no reason to make more poor people into rich people. The poor man's party depends on the poor man to vote them into power. More poor people = more votes for the poor man's party.

People aren't worth less now, because retailers took their money. They're worth less now, because the government is killing the job market with it's legislation.
Click to expand...

Wall Street is doing great because America is not hiring. Or America is not hiring so Wall Street will do great.

Corporate America's bottom line is that - the bottom line. How to increase profit margins for those who own the business. Sometimes that means cutting jobs. Big government what?

Factories close because of labor unions and taxes is the vibe I'm getting here. They cut jobs because of growing health care costs. Because of growing shipping costs and environmental regulations.

They all have one thing in common - they eat into the profit margin. American workers are expensive. How come no one can just admit they are greedy. It is nobody's fault but those responsible for hiring.

We had a lower unemployment rate in 1960 (5.5%) when the government controlled rail, truck and shipping routes. When it regulated the price of natural gas and stockbrokers' commissions. It regulated the interest rates that could be paid on checking accounts. It told most farmers how much they could grow of what commodity. It regulated what kind of political and religious comment could be expressed on the airwaves. And selective service was still not quite selective.

That sounds like big government.

Unemployment was 5.5%
 
apdst said:
However, it is a good time to allow tax breaks to corporations to remain in place, so all those poor people can go back to work.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts don't create jobs... Demand in the economy creates jobs
 
Phoenix said:
The rich will keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich.
The poor will continue to get poorer because, well, they keep doing the things that make them poor.
Click to expand...

No, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because we have created/allowed trade, regulatory, tax and consumer protection policies to favor the haves at the expense of the have nots
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom