• 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!

Does the GOP need to fear the 99% Movement?

Should the GOP should fear the 99% movement

  • Absolutely should fear it

    Votes: 19 31.1%
  • Somewhat fear it

    Votes: 7 11.5%
  • Fear it a little bit

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Fear it a tiny bit

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • Absolutely nothing to fear

    Votes: 20 32.8%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 6 9.8%
  • Other (explian)

    Votes: 4 6.6%

  • Total voters
    61
So people who engage in international business, where their customers are all around the world and who typically seat their profits in the U.S, are screwing U.S. citizens?

Posted from my phone

Actually, from my understanding.

1% rule 80-90% with the help of 9-19%.

Globally, historically, anthropologically.

The 50s-70s were an abberation that has been corrected.
 
The majority of the the big corporate money went to the GOP candidates in 2010. It seems the corporate money people have found that the majority of Democrats are not playing ball the way they used to.

And you ignored all the positions I listed that the Democrats took in favor of the middle class that the GOP was opposed to.
Democrats can say anything they want. Politicians vote all the time on bills they know wont/cant pass just to make a statement or appease voters. the proof is in their actions. Go ahead...say it...YES...the majority of Wall Street and banker money goes to democrats. I know it must be like swallowing a big **** sandwich...but face facts...your team is just as corrupt as the other team.
 
obama_immelt.jpg


Obama Doesn

Hell, he knows where his bread is buttered too.

His healthcare plan when it was all.said and done was a wonderful gift to the health insurance industry.

"Hey guys, you know those ridiculous practices you indulge in that are really starting to piss people off? Denying peiple with pre-existing conditions and looking for some reason to drop long term customers when the actually get sick and need care?

We'll give you 150 million new customers and we'll force them to pay if you will please stop doing what the American people are going to demand we make you stop pretty soon anyway. Mm'kay?"
 
If I walk up and offer you $100 for a blow job and you deny the offer, then shame on me...and Im the bad guy. If you walk up and say..."hey...put that $100 away bitch, it will cost you at least $1000 and you have to give it to me all up front and if you DONT make this deal you WONT like the consequences long term" then where does your problem reside? You and others keep making this claim that 'the majority of democrats' are somehow pristine and opposed to Wall Street influence. Really? Who received the bulk of their campaign contributions? Who has ALWAYS been in bed with the people you claim they are 'against'? If you dont think the democrats are as corrupt as the republicans and arent responsible for creating the climate of corruption, you arent paying attention or are blinded by your partisanship.

Sounds like we agree that its way past time to get investment-level campaign money out of our politics.

Progress is being made.

Yay OWS!
 
Actually, from my understanding.

1% rule 80-90% with the help of 9-19%.

Globally, historically, anthropologically.

The 50s-70s were an abberation that has been corrected.

Funny... I don't feel "ruled." Just how do the 1% rule anything?
 
Funny... I don't feel "ruled." Just how do the 1% rule anything?

Do you honestly believe your government does what the VOTERS want?

Or what those who invest in campaigns want?

Honestly?
 
Democrats can say anything they want. Politicians vote all the time on bills they know wont/cant pass just to make a statement or appease voters. the proof is in their actions. Go ahead...say it...YES...the majority of Wall Street and banker money goes to democrats. I know it must be like swallowing a big **** sandwich...but face facts...your team is just as corrupt as the other team.

Please, just the facts Ma'am ~

"Companies that received federal bailout money, including some that still owe money to the government, are giving to political candidates with vigor. Among companies with PACs, the 23 that received $1 billion or more in federal money through the Troubled Assets Relief Program gave a total of $1.4 million to candidates in September, up from $466,000 the month before.

Most of those donations are going to Republican candidates, although the TARP program was approved primarily with Democratic support.

Companies that received bailout money giving generously to candidates
 
Do you honestly believe your government does what the VOTERS want?

I believe political will is balanced against political clout.

Or what those who invest in campaigns want?

Honestly?

Honestly, its both. Only politicians are more likely to keep promises made to their contributors than those made on a campaign to the people.

These special interests are of course also made up of voters. Personally I feel like campaign contributions should be made illegal, and I'm almost never for new laws/restrictions. But in this case, I find that far too many people who are incapable of creating or running a successful and profitable business are being given positions where they get to tell those who can make a profit what to do.

If a politician had to be a successful businessman in order to afford a campaign, we might begin to elect people who wont waste our tax dollars.
 
Actually, from my understanding.

1% rule 80-90% with the help of 9-19%.

Globally, historically, anthropologically.

The 50s-70s were an abberation that has been corrected.

The argument that the 50s-70s were some great time, is an appeal to tradition.
Nothing but a red herring not really supported by any factual evidence.
 
"99%" seems ridiculous. What do you think the real % is?
 
The argument that the 50s-70s were some great time, is an appeal to tradition.
Nothing but a red herring not really supported by any factual evidence.
Excactly, looking at past poverty rates, we have seen a long term decline. However, people's expectations have been going up faster than the living standards.

fig07.gif
 
Power!

"Controlling the wealth of America – top 1 percent control 83 percent of U.S. stocks."
Controlling the wealth of America

so what? winnners win and too many losers are content to whine and demand the government do something rather than getting off their asses and try to achieve
 
so what? winnners win and too many losers are content to whine and demand the government do something rather than getting off their asses and try to achieve

You can't win a rigged game, that is what the protests are about.
 
The argument that the 50s-70s were some great time, is an appeal to tradition.
Nothing but a red herring not really supported by any factual evidence.

Well I lived through half of that period, so have some first-hand experience.

And I notice you allowed the rest of my statement to stand.

The reference to the 50s to 70s was speaking to the statistics pertaining to that period as the differ from those AFTER that period. They are different. Something substantial did happen at the end of the 70s.
 
You can't win a rigged game, that is what the protests are about.

losers, failures and those too lazy to compete always make that pitiful excuse

and those scumbags aren't just whining about the few uber rich who probably do rig the game

most of us in the top one percent aren't responsible at all for their lack of success yet they blame all of us
 
Well I lived through half of that period, so have some first-hand experience.

And I notice you allowed the rest of my statement to stand.

The reference to the 50s to 70s was speaking to the statistics pertaining to that period as the differ from those AFTER that period. They are different. Something substantial did happen at the end of the 70s.

What statistics?
Please let me see them.

Hope you have something better than statutory tax rates.
 
again, so what? what is your solution? punish the most successful people? redistribute wealth

all of the solutions I have heard-other than taking away the incentives for the middle class to be slothful-are far worse than this supposed problem

I propose trickle up taxation.
 
Last edited:
Guys guys guys all this talk about "incentives" i mean throughout our whole history we have had incentives...
 
Back
Top Bottom