• 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!

Rich-Poor gap widening

Even Reagen knew his initial tax cuts went too far. Trickle-down economics has been proven false time and time again. Not to mention, it's just common sense. When people make money, they don't give it away, they invest it so that they can make more money with it.
 
Even Reagen knew his initial tax cuts went too far. Trickle-down economics has been proven false time and time again. Not to mention, it's just common sense. When people make money, they don't give it away, they invest it so that they can make more money with it.

So when they invest it, it goes to some magic never-neverland, right?
 
This topic and the OP which leads it is a perfect illustration of the growing problem in America - and I do not mean just the details of economics. You would think that it makes rather plain common sense to have a nation which is not trying to emulate some third world system where a few wealthy live in gated communities atop the mountain and the rest of us fight for the garbage that accumulates at the bottom of the hill. Such a formula is a recipe for disaster in a democratic republic such as ours.

Once upon a time, the governmental officials in charge of our government were more or less ruled by common sense and pragmatism. Sadly, we have seen at least one party become nearly totally ideologically pure - at least in their own opinion - and rejecting compromise and pragmatics and heresy. Dwight Eisnehower - a Republican was both a conservative and practical man. He governed at a time of record high tax rates and what many look back upon as a pretty good time of economic expansion for middleclass Americans.

Today, ideology rules and pragmatics are a dirty word to the True Believers.

And the result is economic trends just like this where one side simply gives us idoelogical platitudes and theory to justify our fast becomign tow very different societies, and two very unequal ones.

But remember - the masses have the right to vote in this nation. They will not long be fooled and put up with such things. Eventually we will see the straw that breaks the camels back if this trend is not reversed soon.
 
A very small part of it does go down. It's true that a rising tide lifts all boats, it's just that some boats are being lifted at a much faster rate than others.

The debate, I think, is if trickle down, meaning helping business (especially with tax cuts), actually ever does enough to rise the tide.
 
As long as we have a government that constinues to kill middle class jobs, the gap will keep getting wider.
 
As long as we have a government that constinues to kill middle class jobs, the gap will keep getting wider.

How has government done this?
 
Drilling moratorium, tax hikes, sabotaging of the economy, over-regulation.

:lamo

The only one that may have hurt any at all is the first one, and there may be good reason to stop it. The spill itself hurt even more.

But there is no evidence taxes significantly effect jobs. And we've had a good economy with regulations, and seen problems without regulations. Much of our present problems may hold some fault in under regulation, not over regulation.
 
:lamo

The only one that may have hurt any at all is the first one, and there may be good reason to stop it. The spill itself hurt even more.

But there is no evidence taxes significantly effect jobs. And we've had a good economy with regulations, and seen problems without regulations. Much of our present problems may hold some fault in under regulation, not over regulation.

Believe that...:lamo
 
Ever since Reagan drastically cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, the rich have been getting richer at an astronomical pace. Check out this interesting article that documents the growing disparity between the top1% of the population and the remaining 99%....

Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap - Yahoo! News

Wait?! Low end jobs were lost during a recession? Clearly that's a dead guy's fault! But let's remember that you agree that tax cuts have a lasting effect ;)

The truth is that the poor haven't gained wages because those that are poor are on government assistance and the amount of government assistance has not been increased significantly.
 
Believe that...:lamo

Yeah I do. And I would love to any actual evidence to the contrary. Not someone's opinion, but verifiable evidence. I'd be more than willing to look at it.
 
Yeah I do. And I would love to any actual evidence to the contrary. Not someone's opinion, but verifiable evidence. I'd be more than willing to look at it.

How's that hope-n-change working out for us? :lamo
 
How's that hope-n-change working out for us? :lamo

Less than hoped for, better than what we had and the alternative. However, do note that isn't an answer to anything we've been discussing. Is there a reason you're trying to divert attention?
 
Why is this a surprise for anyone? Trickle down economics hasn't ever worked. Anywhere. Ever. Just look at Africa. The rich simply get richer and reserve the wealth for themselves. How many jobs does buying a Lamborghini create for Africans? How many jobs does buying a $10,000 Rolex create in Switzerland? At the most one could argue that some aspects of trickle down economics preserve jobs. As for 'creating them'? Hardly. The wonders of Taylorism have made it so that companies are constantly looking for ways to cut down costs and number of employees. I personally believe that thanks to industrial sciences, industrialism has reached a point where it is simply impossible to create more jobs in any meaningful way. Whether this is due to the explosion of human population in the 20th century is unknown, what I do know is that it makes trickle down economics obsolete and irrelevant.
 
Why is this a surprise for anyone? Trickle down economics hasn't ever worked. Anywhere. Ever. Just look at Africa. The rich simply get richer and reserve the wealth for themselves. How many jobs does buying a Lamborghini create for Africans? How many jobs does buying a $10,000 Rolex create in Switzerland? At the most one could argue that some aspects of trickle down economics preserve jobs. As for 'creating them'? Hardly. The wonders of Taylorism have made it so that companies are constantly looking for ways to cut down costs and number of employees. I personally believe that thanks to industrial sciences, industrialism has reached a point where it is simply impossible to create more jobs in any meaningful way. Whether this is due to the explosion of human population in the 20th century is unknown, what I do know is that it makes trickle down economics obsolete and irrelevant.

What should we do, instead? Give the government all our money and let them distribute it as they see fit?
 
What should we do, instead? Give the government all our money and let them distribute it as they see fit?

No one suggests any such thing. But you might support workers more, like in Wisconsin, and maybe ask more of business and not just give them a pass and get next to nothing from them. Just a thought. . . . :coffeepap
 
As long as we have a government that constinues to kill middle class jobs, the gap will keep getting wider.

This is true, the mixing of corporatism and the government has effectively begun to shut down true free market capitalism. Through improper regulations, special treatment, subsidies, bail outs, and give always the government has worked quite effectively with the established corporate base to shut down proper competition and consequence from the market. The goal, of course, is to remove economic mobility. Mobility does not just mean poor people can get rich, but it also means that rich people can become poor through bad choices and business decisions. If you can close down mobility, the rich do not become poor. Additionally, to establish a proper aristocracy, you need to eliminate the middle class.
 
A very small part of it does go down. It's true that a rising tide lifts all boats, it's just that some boats are being lifted at a much faster rate than others.

Take a small example, since econmics is really a sum of lots of small transactions.

Let's say you and your neighbor farm some land, equal plots sizes, similar everything.

One day he buys some modified seed, that results in him getting 20% more yield on his crop. Same plot as you, same work, same seed cost. The next year he changes again to the newest seed, again getting a 20% gain. You don't know this, you are just plugging away using your original seed. He's now 44% ahead of you in terms of crop revenue (income). After some years of inequality, you hear about this new seed and you start using it too. You're now both equal again at crop yield, (although he still has a few years of greater income compounding since he made the change earlier)

It appears to be common sense that:
1. inequality of income is not a problem in this scenario
2. inequality does not somehow take from the bottom unfairly
3. inequality does not somehow made it more difficult to close the gap (directly)

Help me reason this out. Because when I control for other variables, the "inequality" part doesn't seem to lead to anything other than the fact that some people achieve more, and some do not.
 
Last edited:
No one suggests any such thing. But you might support workers more, like in Wisconsin,

The way that Obama supported workers, by killing their jobs? I would rather not have that kind of support.

and maybe ask more of business nd not just give them a pass and get next to nothing from them. Just a thought. . . . :coffeepap

Ask more of business, in terms of what?
 
Back
Top Bottom