View Poll Results: Are you in the 1% or 99%

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1%

    9 17.31%
  • 99%

    43 82.69%
Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 205

Thread: The 99 % or 1%?

  1. #171
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,114

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    If susie opens a lemonade stand and spends $5 on supplies, and pulls in $20 that afternoon. what bloddy ****ing business is it of yours to go demand her $15 profit, or to tell her she has to "hand more of it out", or any other such bull****?
    it's none of my business.

    but if Susie decides to get into banking and insurance, buys up smaller banks and insurance companies until her company is a massive global entity, and then starts a gambling game that nearly collapses the global economy and needs my tax dollars to keep her company solvent because it's so damned big that to let it fail would cause an even bigger global crisis?

    yeah. then it's my business.

    likewise, i don't really care if someone gets rich. that's an aspect of capitalism that i'm fine with. however, there is a tipping point where the inequality between a small percentage getting very, very rich and a large number struggling to find work that allows them enough money to contribute to consumption begins to create widespread economic and social unrest. at that point, it is about more than someone getting rich. it becomes my business.

  2. #172
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    15% claiming to be 1%... not surprising
    THe people who post on this board I suspect are way above the average income in this country. really poor people don't really spend much time posting on boards like this. I suspect that the incidence of college degrees is much higher than the population in general as well



  3. #173
    Professor
    FinnMacCool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    South Shore of Long Island.
    Last Seen
    03-12-15 @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Josie View Post
    If you want to learn more about the people behind these protests....

    Stephen Lerner - here he wants to encourage people to stop paying their mortgages so another financial crisis will be created. He also wants to completely stop Wall Street from operating. What would that do to our country and it's economy?



    Also another major character in this is Frances Fox Piven (famous anti-capitalist) - if you can get through this video, go for it. The crowd just parrots everything she says which is uber annoying and stupid:



    And if you don't know what the Cloward and Piven Strategy is: Cloward

    The point is to overwhelm the system and create a crisis so that it will collapse and the progressives in charge can then put in a new system - a "guaranteed annual income". This Wall Street stuff is the beginning of them attempting to collapse the system.

    Also involved is a group called Anonymous. Now I do agree that our government has sold us down the river and we shouldn't be bailing all these corporations out, but I don't agree that Wall Street needs to be destroyed. Plus "we are legion" is just a little disturbing:



    The co-editor of the Occupy Wall Street Journal newspaper is a communist. But, but, but....this is just about having fair capitalism, right? Uh huh...

    "We have to help bring this government down. We have to destroy this system. The solution is communism and socialism."



    We need to bring this government down? But I thought this was just about fair capitalism....

    And the co-creator of the newspaper (Aran Gupta) was a speaker at the Socialism 2011 conference in Chicago called Fomenting for Marxist Revolution.

    Fomenting for Marxist Revolution on July 4

    Cornel West (a professor) is a supporter of the movement and a member of the Democratic Socialists. The Nazi and Communists Parties support the protests too (no big surprise there if you knew who was behind it anyway). These people aren't pro-capitalism. The regular ole Joe on the street might be, but these people are leaders and they want a total transformation of the system.

    More to come as more research is done....
    The only thing this proves is that you didn't really do any research nor do you really care about the issues and that your only goal is to slander the movement.

    First of all, if you did any research at all you would know that the reason why the crowd "parrots" what the current speaker says is because the police won't let them use a megaphone so they use a human microphone. Now, how did you miss that in your VERY extensive research? Anyone who has spent more than two minutes looking into this would've figured this out.

    You can mention these people but it doesn't make a difference because as I repeated a million times already, this is a democratic movement run on consensus. There are many many different ideologies present.
    "Idealists foolish enough to throw caution to the winds have advanced mankind and have enriched the world.

    "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue. "

    "The motto should not be: Forgive one another; rather understand one another. "
    -Emma Goldman

  4. #174
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,358

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    But there aren't many, many ideologies LEADING it. And I know about the "people's microphone". It's annoying and stupid.


  5. #175
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Hey! I'm playing nicely with you and you turned all bratty!
    Because you are not thinking. I was expecting much more from you.

    How could you possibly even engage in any policy discussion about anything without tracking the standard of living? That's like trying to play scrabble without paying attention to the points...

    The most universally agreed upon measure is probably the human development index the UN keeps. It's an objective statistical index, not something pulled out of anybody's ass... Obviously.
    HDI is not a measurement of standard of living. It is a measure to see how poor countries are developing. What place you get among the top countries, doesn't matter. For instance this index says that Israel and Greece has a better school system than Hong Kong and Finland. Both Finland and Hong Kong has one of the best school systems in the world. Israeli and Greece schools are not good. In fact, even Kyrgyzstan got just below Hong Kong. They got last place in the Pisa Survey.

    The index only measures literacy, and average number of years of schooling. That's not a good indicator for standard of living. There is no such thing as standard of living index, because it is subjective.

    Also, your numbers are incorrect. US was number 1 in 1990, and are now number 4.



    I think you're thinking of the median HOUSEHOLD income- that's $49k in the last census. I'm talking about individual. Your theory was that corporate income taxes explained the massive gap between $44k and $97. Obviously it doesn't. Most of them pay no corporate income taxes at all.
    I meant average income, which is $46k in the last census

    I never said corporate taxes is the only reason. I talked about payroll taxes. I talked about different kind of benefits, like retirement, health care, sick benefits, etc. This sent me up to 75K, then I talked about hidden taxes such as business profit taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes. So the number made sense.


    That's true, but not significant.

    Doh, you're right on that one. I shouldn't be saying "increased by 333%", I mean "is 333% of what it was in 1960". Still though, the point remains unrefuted, right?
    Not significant? Taking inflation into account decreases the growth rate from 233% till 160%.

    You didn't say it is 4 times larger. You said the GDP increased by 400% when in fact it increased by 160%. You can try to explain this away, but you were majorly wrong.


    Just look at the graph you posted a couple posts back. You show the average income of the top 1% going from $600k to $2m between just 1979 and 2005 in constant dollars. That's only half of the time range we're talking about. If it increased at the same rate the rest of the time span, that would give you a ballpark of a 766% increase in the income of the top 1% since 1960. Obviously that's not exact, I'm just trying to base it on your data. So you see how that is totally incompatible with your theory that the average only went up 65%, right? That is more than 1/3 of our nation's income right there- the top 1%. So even if everybody else's income dropped to zero between 1960 and today, that would still be an average increase of 255%... So obviously you're missing something, right? Post your source and we'll see if we can figure out what it is. Maybe unrealized gains? Maybe it's excluding a bunch of types of income? But obviously you're missing something.

    But the median income just went up 40%. It's because, as your graph nicely demonstrates, all the income growth is occurring at the tippy top.
    You can't just extrapolate like that! You extrapolated upwards from 2005, but it went down in 2007 majorly. You extrapolated in 1960 - 1979, but that is a period without increasing inequality. And even if you were to extrapolate, the growth rate would be 600 + 40/26 * (1900 - 600) = 2600, 2600 / 600 = 4.33, so a 333% growth. How the heck did you get a 766% increase with those assumptions.

    But if you used the correct numbers instead of just extrapolating, the increase from 1960 till 2010 is 210% among the top 1%. http://duanegraham.files.wordpress.c...since-1947.jpg This is still a bigger increase than the median wage, but not much higher than the GDP per capita increase. Parts of this inequality can be explained by benefits and hidden taxes, which affects low income workers much more.

    But, your argument was that under Bush the wages of the top 1% increased by 400%. That is twice the amount they increased on 50 years. You need to stop creating bull**** figures, and start investigating the actual data.



    Ok, since you're getting bratty, lets just try to dumb it down. You tell me. Why is the top 1% shooting up in wealth rapidly while the rest of us are actually losing ground? Are you contending it is impossible to fix? We should just resign ourselves to living in a society where the rich get all the money and we get table scraps no matter how hard we work? Why not fix it? Out of some kind of fealty to feudal lords or something? No thanks.
    We can fix it. But if you want significantly lower income inequality, then you also have to accept lower living standards for the majority of the population.What is truly impossible is significantly lower inequality, but higher living standards. US could potentially become like a France/UK/Greece/Italy combo.

    The reasons for high income inequality is
    1. US only have one truly productive sector, and that is finance
    2. Immigration is driving down the wages of low qualified workers.
    3. Poor education for the poor is causing future generations to have a difficult time to compete.
    4. People are becoming lazier and more dependent on the government. Are you on welfare, or hardly not working, then you won't have a high salary
    5. Public unions are pushing up the wages for public sector jobs. Since private professional workers can get public jobs, they also have to increase wages to prevent people from leaving their jobs. The ones who can't compete, low qualified workers will get lower salaries. Just to mention, countries with low income inequality has lower salaries for public workers than private workers.

    Changing the tax code will not have a very significant effect. it's not the top 1% who is driving income inequality. The income inequality rose much more under Reagan than Clinton, but their salaries of the top 1% decreased under Reagan and increased under Clinton. Income inequality is rising, because a large amount of people are not working, and there is a huge gap between professional jobs and non-professional jobs.

    I think the left lacks a clear understanding of income inequality in the US. There are things US can do, but the left is stuck in the mindset that making the tax code more progressive and handing out more welfare will solve all problems. It won't if they are not solving the underlying problems. People also needs to be more modest. You can't make tens of millions of unproductive people productive overnight. You can't stop the downward trend of low qualified wages, if you are bringing in millions of unqualified workers each year. And at last, the 1% richest people in America are not the cause of most of America's problems.
    Last edited by Camlon; 10-21-11 at 11:31 PM.

  6. #176
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,358

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Occam, I'm not affiliated with any political party.


  7. #177
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    10-10-15 @ 01:31 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,069
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Josie View Post
    Occam, I'm not affiliated with any political party.
    My apologies... so your "philosophy" is libertarian but you don't support their party... got it. You're one of those neo-libertarians that popped up in 2009? Interesting. I've been observing libertarians for over a decade.

    Tell me, who are the leading thinkers of the libertarian "philosophy"? I'm curious how much you actually know about the political moniker you cloak yourself in.

  8. #178
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Razor View Post
    My apologies... so your "philosophy" is libertarian but you don't support their party... got it. You're one of those neo-libertarians that popped up in 2009? Interesting. I've been observing libertarians for over a decade.

    Tell me, who are the leading thinkers of the libertarian "philosophy"? I'm curious how much you actually know about the political moniker you cloak yourself in.
    And you speak for the 'others' - albeit - and interesting group of rejects and sluffers (kidding!)
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  9. #179
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is off target and have not one damn clue what they would get if they were taken seriously which I don't because they are a bunch of unwashed thieves, and druggies with no pride in themselves and they should be protesting Obama and the ones who pasted the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 and continued to allow it loan money for housing people could not afford and Obama for his failed policies that wasted billions on failed programs.

    I say clear them out and jail everyone who violates the law. They are Un-American.

  10. #180
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,358

    Re: The 99 % or 1%?

    Occam, I understand that most of my political opinions lean libertarian according to their platform. The rest of your post is irrelevant. I don't follow people...I follow beliefs.


Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •