• 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!

5 tycoons who want to close the wealth gap

And who says that all rich people take advantage of everyone, ALL the time?
vs
Who knows better than not to be evil, than the Devil?

You just ****ing called them the Devil. Good gods man, why not label some of us on DP the devil also and make it personal.

. I just think it's about time that the old model of screw them all, as much as possible for market share, has to change. Our definition of success can't be purely based, on excess material wealth.

Who the **** do you think you speak for? Who is using a model of "screw them all"? You? YOu are relating the wealthy to literally the Devil, I suspect if we just observe the facts you seem to be ready to burn "witches". Who measures their own life on excess material wealth? Who are these people that you presume to ****ing speak for?

Your argument is based on a fantasy in your head about things you actually know nothing about as evidenced in your opinion on the matter. You may as well keep appealing to authority as you do in the OP, it's the least offensive of your fallacies.
 
Last edited:
Billionaires have been stepping up to the plate lately to give their opinion and float trial balloons.
IMV, this is a good thing, even if some of the balloons get popped.
There will be great things to emerge if this continues.

My pet project would be an Eisenhower Interstate system of water pipelines, for all the reasons,
which would be an incredible legacy for the 22nd Century folks to look back at,
as we ensured a safe and plentiful supply of water to the entire Nation .
You said they were hypocrites, that isn't a misguided person?

And who says that all rich people take advantage of everyone, ALL the time?

I would say their opinion is more prominent and meaningful, than anyone else's, because of their status.
Who knows better than not to be evil, than the Devil?
 
I thought we were discussing the "rich guys" list that started with Buffet. None of them can legislate anything, they can only opinionate© just like we can. Nothing we discuss here becomes law because we suggest it. Neither does Mr. Buffet et al.

If I'm missing your point, please explain and I will read it carefully.

:peace

Last I checked, they're wanting to shape policy. Now if they're saying "rich should do xxx because it's the right thing to do", that's one thing. The way they're wording it, they want the government monopoly to throw its weight around.
 
That's B.S. It's about closing the wealth gap via wealth redistribution, primarily taxes on the wealthy, min wage, and salary caps.

The hypocrisy is what some point out as the absurdity. They pillaged our markets to earn billions. And by pillage I mean freely engaged with others who freely engaged in a marketplace that valued their contribution significantly. Now that they are ultra-wealthy, they sing a new tune. How convenient.

But the real absurdity IMO is that the market simply isn't valuing things the way some dreamy people believe it should. People don't' really want to take advantage of all our marketplace has to offer, all the amazing access to information and learning, ridiculously inexpensive education and the most prosperous economy in human history, in the universe. No, that's not good enough, they want their cake and eat it too. And liberals are here telling them that indeed, that's the way to reach their dreams, to take from others and just keep up with the mediocrity and their dreams will come to them.

You can want the wealth gap to be closed. That's fine, there is nothing wrong with that. It's a good dream, I'm being serious. But you can't force people to behave the way you want them to. You can't force a parent to raise their child with skills that our market values. They drink softdrinks and watch TV and absentee parent, and they live their own dream...much to your dismay. And you can't change that by INCENTIVIZING them, and anyone with sense can admit that.

Couldn't disagree more. Taxes on the wealthy corporations are absurd the way they "dodge, shelter and get breaks". And a realistic, minimum wage increase would benefit everyone, eventually.

I'd like to see more middle class, not necessarily less wealthy people.



A hypocrite is not necessarily 'misguided'. They could be very intentionally that way, giving lip service to what they think people want to hear, and many won't look past that to see that they aren't following through on their own level. A hypocrite is not necessarily someone who is just wealthy, it's someone who says one thing, and does another.

mis·guid·ed
adjective \(ˌ)mis-ˈgī-dəd\

: having wrong or improper goals or values

hy·poc·ri·sy
noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\

: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

They sound similar. :)
 
Who the **** do you think you speak for?
I notice you came in here to dump all over grip's well-meaning thread.
Maybe you should get a grip on your bashing and present your own ideas to take this Nation forward .
 
vs


You just ****ing called them the Devil. Good gods man, why not label some of us on DP the devil also and make it personal.



Who the **** do you think you speak for? Who is using a model of "screw them all"? You? YOu are relating the wealthy to literally the Devil, I suspect if we just observe the facts you seem to be ready to burn "witches". Who measures their own life on excess material wealth? Who are these people that you presume to ****ing speak for?

Your argument is based on a fantasy in your head about things you actually know nothing about as evidenced in your opinion on the matter. You may as well keep appealing to authority as you do in the OP, it's the least offensive of your fallacies.

I don't understand, could you please rephrase that?
 
I notice you came in here to dump all over grip's well-meaning thread.
Maybe you should get a grip on your bashing and present your own ideas to take this Nation forward .

He's referring to the wealthy literally as the Devil. And as such he wants to raise their taxes. Maybe you think being forced to pay even more, for being what someone arbitrarily terms "the Devil", is well-meaning, and I would point out that it's inconsistent with the facts in the thread.
 
When I got to the Henry Ford example I knew we were confronted with absolute stinking bull****. Ford created the company store. His employees lived in his housing, brought from his stores, bought his vehicles. Any wages he paid them returned right to him. In fact he's the reason we're running vehicles on gasoline. The original diesels ran on peanut oil. Ford happenned to own a lot of oil stock. Got so his employees even bought gasoline from him.

He refined and locked in modern economic slavery.
 
Couldn't disagree more. Taxes on the wealthy corporations are absurd the way they "dodge, shelter and get breaks". And a realistic, minimum wage increase would benefit everyone, eventually.

Who are you disagreeing with? Your own link refers primarily to wealth redistribution, primarily taxes on the wealthy, min wage, and salary caps. And you agree with that. Yet you couldn't disagree MORE? !?
I'd like to see more middle class, not necessarily less wealthy people.

So let's slow this down.
Who or what gives you the right to enforce this desire on other people? Remember you first demonized them calling them the Devil. Then claim they don't put employees first, and take a "screw them all" attitude. You are attacking, personally, a wide range of people Do you really yet have the ethical floor to discuss this rationally? Until you recant your earlier hellfire and brimstone, I do not see how you can be serious.

These "Devil's you insult are the ones actually putting employees first most likely. How many employees have you put first?
 
He's referring to the wealthy literally as the Devil. And as such he wants to raise their taxes. Maybe you think being forced to pay even more, for being what someone arbitrarily terms "the Devil", is well-meaning, and I would point out that it's inconsistent with the facts in the thread.

Why is the Devil so bad? Does he make anyone do things? Doesn't he work for God? Enlighten me, inquiring minds want to know?
Didn't Jesus call Judas the money lover, a devil? By biblical estimation, isn't every sinner a devil at some point?

You took it too literally, my friend.
 
When I got to the Henry Ford example I knew we were confronted with absolute stinking bull****.

Of course, because you're dealing with people that are clueless. When a company is booming, their margins are such that they can spend 5x what another mature business might spend on employee perks and awesome work quality of life. You know the companies, the ones with gourmet food and transportation services, open/moveable work areas with all the modern creature comforts a human could dream up. And they claim "see they treat their employees well!" Wrong, they can afford to spend 5x as much and it won't even register on their corporate earnings. A hyper competitive grocery chain CANNOT financially do that. Not in any way shape or form. I know software companies that get so much per employee it's just mind boggling. Of course their employees are treated spectacularly in financial terms. Well dur. It's not because they are Angels, it's because their company makes a bloody fortune per headcount. Drives me ****ing crazy.
 
When I got to the Henry Ford example I knew we were confronted with absolute stinking bull****. Ford created the company store. His employees lived in his housing, brought from his stores, bought his vehicles. Any wages he paid them returned right to him. In fact he's the reason we're running vehicles on gasoline. The original diesels ran on peanut oil. Ford happenned to own a lot of oil stock. Got so his employees even bought gasoline from him.

He refined and locked in modern economic slavery.

So you like Ford or you don't?
 
Why is the Devil so bad? Does he make anyone do things? Doesn't he work for God? Enlighten me, inquiring minds want to know?
Didn't Jesus call Judas the money lover, a devil? By biblical estimation, isn't every sinner is a devil at some point?
Oh boy. Yet your next claim was these' Devil's, (Devil being a compliment according to you!), screw their employees. Maybe you meant that as a positive too!

You took it too literally, my friend.
Next time you want to insult an entire group of people, just specifically personally attack me instead. It would be more...ethical. And if that makes you uncomfortable, considering holding your insults and rash generalizations in check, in favor of reasoned discourse.
 
Oh boy. Yet your next claim was these' Devil's, (Devil being a compliment according to you!), screw their employees. Maybe you meant that as a positive too!


Next time you want to insult an entire group of people, just specifically personally attack me instead. It would be more...ethical. And if that makes you uncomfortable, considering holding your insults and rash generalizations in check, in favor of reasoned discourse.

I'll do what I want. :mrgreen:

And the devil didn't make me say that....lol
 


tumblr_n163a4yMng1qinrtgo1_500.jpg


:popcorn2:


How then do you explain the failure of the war on poverty? 80 years later, and people are poorer than ever (so they tell us) and more dependent on govt. Yet the democrats keep saying just spend a little bit more, tax the rich a little bit more. At what point does their orthodoxy of big govt do down the drain? When they run out of other peoples money?
 
The main argument from the OP is "how to keep supply-side economics thriving"?

On the one hand, the U.S. is a capitalistic country. No doubt about it. This means that once an individual finds that magic formula to bring his product or service to that marketplace, is able to harnest the power of politics and/or the tax code in order to gain more wealth, the pure capitalist will take every advantage possible to bring about more wealth unto himself.

Problem: Once the majority of industry lay in the hands of a small few, it becomes increasingly difficult for others to jump into the market. Put simple: the big fish quickly gobble up the little fish either through out-pricing them or buying them out. But that's on the side of dwindling competition. Consumers are the bigger threat to perpetual profits.

What we've had take place in this country is two decades of union busting and off-shoring in order to keep labor cost down, and four decades of favorable (low) tax rates for the wealthy. The argument being so that companies can "keep more of what they earn and, thus, put more of their profits back into their business(es)". What entrepreneaur or small business owner wouldn't be in favor of these "cost-saving measures"?

Problem: When your economic policies are based on consumption (and debt) - supply-side economics - you need to ensure there are:

a) enough consumers to keep buying the products and services the marketplace provides, or,;

b) enough investors to take on your debt (bonds) or remain confident in the strength of your company (stocks).

Lose either and profits will fall. All Buffett, Unz, Hanauer, Silberstein and Hindery are saying is "if our capitalistic way of life is to continue, we either need to fulfill the tennants of 'trickle-down (supply-side) economics' or feed the welfare state and stop complaining about it."

Many people out there just don't get it, probably because they don't want to. I'm not suggesting that the wealthy need commit to altuism and give just because. There is a logical reason for raising the minimum wage in a capitalistic society. You simply cannot keep wages so low that it becomes increasing difficult for people to have their basic survival needs meet. The problem with the conservative mind-set is it makes a false argument. It lumps too many into the "lazy" category without acknowledging that there are many people out there who want to make a way for themselves and/or improve their way of life, but they simple can't because they struggle to have their basic survival needs met. These same people who condemn the poor fail to acknowledge that job/skills training does have a cost. A college education - even a training certificate or associates degree - cost! And if you're struggling to put food on the table, a roof overhead, keep the lights on, put gas in your car, or your losing work hours to stay home and care for a sick child or have no health insurance at all, chances are you'll never be able to afford the necessary skills training (college education) to move up from your present status in life.

Or course, some would then argue "work hard and move up the ranks". Easier said than done when those near retirement won't leave (or can't afford to retire themselves) AND your company isn't hiring/filling vacant positions OR just "right-sizing". Fact is, there are many problems with our national economy, but the best immediate corrective action all businesses can take to start turning things around is to pay their employees a higher salary (those deemed worthy enough anyway).

There's only so much the working poor can take. Moreover, the middle-class can only be squeezed so much. Eventually, people will rise up. It's just a matter of time.
 
Last edited:
The best suggestions are made by example. None of these people are doing what they are suggesting, their lack of action speaks much louder than their words.

By the way the wealthy are not inherently smarter than the average bipedal hairless monkey.:mrgreen:

Hello PriateMK1 - long time no see. Are you saying that these 5 men have not given massive donations to charity? I didn't say anything about their intelligence but they might be a little smarter than average. Or maybe just luckier.

Last I checked, they're wanting to shape policy. Now if they're saying "rich should do xxx because it's the right thing to do", that's one thing. The way they're wording it, they want the government monopoly to throw its weight around.

So are you Sir, and so am I. What's wrong with that? Do they have less rights than we do?
 
Hello PriateMK1 - long time no see. Are you saying that these 5 men have not given massive donations to charity? I didn't say anything about their intelligence but they might be a little smarter than average. Or maybe just luckier.

I hope he's not saying that! I gave a speech about a month ago on the merits of capitalism and one aspect of it was denoting how the wealthiest Americans - some of whom are mentioned in the OP - gave billions to charitable contributions just last year. These people do give, but they recognize that giving to charities will only help struggling families only so far. If it's a job that brings meaning to a person's life and a job that brings revenue to the government and reduces the rolls of those on social programs, then the wealth-class needs to feed the primary driver of capitalism - consumption. Pay higher salaries at least to the level where people can have a living wage and you take care of all sorts of problems in this country.

Of course, folks who are against this decree INFLATION! Got news for you, inflation's already upon us. It's just creeping up there very slowly.
 
They want to give some of their money back to the government to redistribute?

Um, Warren Buffet is a billion dollars behind on his taxes! :lamo
 
They want to give some of their money back to the government to redistribute?

Um, Warren Buffet is a billion dollars behind on his taxes! :lamo

In 2011, Berkshire-Hathaway was disputing a billion dollars in taxes. I can't determine how this resolved but I don't think that a company trying to fight their tax bill has much to do with an individual who donated 2.6 billion in 2013. He's not the only shareholder in B-H and demeaning him for this really isn't very logical. I'm sure you also know he has pledge 98% of his assets to charity upon his death, much to his children's dismay, no doubt.
 
I hope he's not saying that! I gave a speech about a month ago on the merits of capitalism and one aspect of it was denoting how the wealthiest Americans - some of whom are mentioned in the OP - gave billions to charitable contributions just last year. These people do give, but they recognize that giving to charities will only help struggling families only so far. If it's a job that brings meaning to a person's life and a job that brings revenue to the government and reduces the rolls of those on social programs, then the wealth-class needs to feed the primary driver of capitalism - consumption. Pay higher salaries at least to the level where people can have a living wage and you take care of all sorts of problems in this country.

Of course, folks who are against this decree INFLATION! Got news for you, inflation's already upon us. It's just creeping up there very slowly.

I don't know why anyone would object to higher salaries for workers. Especially those who work.

Some ultra-rich people give very generously and some wouldn't give anyone a dollar if they saw them starve. There is no "class behavior" that applies here.

Obviously, those who are generous make more impact when they call for generosity than those who don't.
 
In 2011, Berkshire-Hathaway was disputing a billion dollars in taxes. I can't determine how this resolved but I don't think that a company trying to fight their tax bill has much to do with an individual who donated 2.6 billion in 2013. He's not the only shareholder in B-H and demeaning him for this really isn't very logical. I'm sure you also know he has pledge 98% of his assets to charity upon his death, much to his children's dismay, no doubt.

These guys are counting on your naivety.
 
Hello PriateMK1 - long time no see. Are you saying that these 5 men have not given massive donations to charity? I didn't say anything about their intelligence but they might be a little smarter than average. Or maybe just luckier.



So are you Sir, and so am I. What's wrong with that? Do they have less rights than we do?

Its been a bit I have been retooling my operations. Howdy by the way. :2wave:

Its easy to play a rigged game, especially if you have the inside scoop most of the wealthy are not especially smart just well placed. At the level of money they have acquired its actually very hard to lose unless they actively go about squandering it. People at that level make money by owning a bit of everything. This way unless EVERYTHING goes down there is very little risk they will lose out on their investments as a WHOLE. If their money mangers, or they are even remotely competent the gains will almost always out weigh the loses.

By the way that's why you want to invest in institutional mutual funds if you invest in stocks as they have the best returns as that is how they invest. They own literally the entire breadth of the market. Not to mention they have very little in the way of overhead.
 
These guys are counting on your naivety.

Counting on it in what way? My influence is very limited - fooling me won't win anybody anything. But I'm open to learning, can you explain a bit more?
 
The main argument from the OP is "how to keep supply-side economics thriving"?

On the one hand, the U.S. is a capitalistic country. No doubt about it. This means that once an individual finds that magic formula to bring his product or service to that marketplace, is able to harnest the power of politics and/or the tax code in order to gain more wealth, the pure capitalist will take every advantage possible to bring about more wealth unto himself.

Problem: Once the majority of industry lay in the hands of a small few, it becomes increasingly difficult for others to jump into the market. Put simple: the big fish quickly gobble up the little fish either through out-pricing them or buying them out. But that's on the side of dwindling competition. Consumers are the bigger threat to perpetual profits.

What we've had take place in this country is two decades of union busting and off-shoring in order to keep labor cost down, and four decades of favorable (low) tax rates for the wealthy. The argument being so that companies can "keep more of what they earn and, thus, put more of their profits back into their business(es)". What entrepreneaur or small business owner wouldn't be in favor of these "cost-saving measures"?

Problem: When your economic policies are based on consumption (and debt) - supply-side economics - you need to ensure there are:

a) enough consumers to keep buying the products and services the marketplace provides, or,;

b) enough investors to take on your debt (bonds) or remain confident in the strength of your company (stocks).

Lose either and profits will fall. All Buffett, Unz, Hanauer, Silberstein and Hindery are saying is "if our capitalistic way of life is to continue, we either need to fulfill the tennants of 'trickle-down (supply-side) economics' or feed the welfare state and stop complaining about it."

Many people out there just don't get it, probably because they don't want to. I'm not suggesting that the wealthy need commit to altuism and give just because. There is a logical reason for raising the minimum wage in a capitalistic society. You simply cannot keep wages so low that it becomes increasing difficult for people to have their basic survival needs meet. The problem with the conservative mind-set is it makes a false argument. It lumps too many into the "lazy" category without acknowledging that there are many people out there who want to make a way for themselves and/or improve their way of life, but they simple can't because they struggle to have their basic survival needs met. These same people who condemn the poor fail to acknowledge that job/skills training does have a cost. A college education - even a training certificate or associates degree - cost! And if you're struggling to put food on the table, a roof overhead, keep the lights on, put gas in your car, or your losing work hours to stay home and care for a sick child or have no health insurance at all, chances are you'll never be able to afford the necessary skills training (college education) to move up from your present status in life.

Or course, some would then argue "work hard and move up the ranks". Easier said than done when those near retirement won't leave (or can't afford to retire themselves) AND your company isn't hiring/filling vacant positions OR just "right-sizing". Fact is, there are many problems with our national economy, but the best immediate corrective action all businesses can take to start turning things around is to pay their employees a higher salary (those deemed worthy enough anyway).

There's only so much the working poor can take. Moreover, the middle-class can only be squeezed so much. Eventually, people will rise up. It's just a matter of time.


Extremely, well phrased out. You took my argument to the next level of logical reasoning.

If people can try to see the situation, without so much bias and emotion, it's not hard to come to a similar conclusion.
 
Back
Top Bottom