• 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!

Income Inequality

What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

  • Do not intervene

    Votes: 39 53.4%
  • Yes, do intervene

    Votes: 34 46.6%

  • Total voters
    73
Their has been a decrease in these programs, not increase.

Poverty rates in america do not adjust for cost of living since the late 60s, only for inflation. Which is insane.

It is your bs that does not pass the truth or logic or any other test. Have you ever seen a poor person?



Do us a favor ... prove your point.

Take the median poverty income in 1993 ... add to it the value of the government programs available to them.

Do the same for 2013.

Adjust for inflation .... and get back to us.
 
Last edited:
Do us a favor ... prove your point.

Take the median income in 1993 ... add to it the value of the government programs available to them.

Do the same for 2013.

Adjust for inflation .... and get back to us.

How would I value government programs? That's kinda hard to figure... Kinda depends on the state too A much simpler way would be to study history and fact. Like the fact that Clinton took a huge chunk outta welfare in 94

Alhough I spose since the affordable care act was past cost of living went down a bit, which probably counters the welfare cuts clinton did... However bush cut it more so that would not be accounted for...

Or the fact that we have only factored in for inflation and not the cost of living since the 60s...

Frankly I don't understand what that would prove, and what i was saying is that we don't factor in cost of living increases... Median income is irrelevant of cost of living outpaces it...
 
Well why don't you elaborate instead of making silly comments? How much did your family make? How many ppl were their? Simple things like that prove your statements... Or disprove... What EV's...

You want truth? I'll give you truth ...

I was born in 1947 - we were 'Appalachia poor' - got running water in the house in 1958, and toilets the next year - our first tv was in 1961. We heated the house with wood we cut every summer. Lived on government cheese, corn meal, and illegal venison. So, I know poor ...

There were eight of us ... not including my grandma who slept on our couch until she died. My dad worked 12 hours a day as an auto mechanic ... my mom took care of the kids, raised a garden and the animals. I remember the time when my old man came home all excited because he got a pay raise to $2.10 an hour. Picked green beans for $.05/lb starting when I was 9. Then, it was blueberries in the fall. We sold them at a stand beside the road. When I turned 15, I worked at a grocery/general store - $0.75/hour (big money!!) - it went into the family fund. We were the kids who got two pair of overalls every fall (even my sister) and a pair of shoes. We lived in hand-me-downs and donations. So,yeah, I know poor ...

I got out of that ... Got my bachelor's in journalism and my Masters in political science (thanks to the Air Force). When I was in high school, I took several college courses - when I was drafted, and joined the USAF instead, I parlayed that into their education programs. Worked my ass off ... refused to be refused. In my twenty years in the Air Force, I always had two jobs ... I pumped more gas than most Arab sheiks. So, I served active duty, went to school, AND worked a second job. If you want to do it bad enough, you will figure out a way to do it.

None of that means a thing ... but, yet, it means everything. If you want out bad enough, you can get out. If I can do it, anybody can do it. If you don't want it bad enough, you can always find an excuse to not get it. THAT is how the real world works.

But, you're right about one thing ... I have little or no sympathy with those who whine and complain about how the 'system' held them back, or how the 'man' kept them down. That's all self-serving bull****. If you can only make a nickel shining shoes, it just means you have to shine more shoes. If you only get a nickel picking beans, you just have to pick more beans. If you don't want to shine shoes or pick beans, get your ass out of there ... join the military, move to another town. Do whatever you have to do ... unless, of course, you're able to convince yourself that it's not your fault - that you're the victim.

But, by all means, complain about the system - claim how it holds you back. It's true - it does. We subsidize non-performance. We fail to reward those who excel. Our whole school system is built to hold back the performers while we carry the non-performers. Why work at a sh*tty job when you can make just as much on welfare? $40K for doing nothing? Sign me up. We have robbed our poor of the incentive of upward movement. We have created a permanent underclass of poor ... and we did it so we could fell all warm and giggly about how we helped 'those poor downtrodden'. Their plight feeds our societal ego ... and we should be ashamed.

Where did I end up? Built my own company based on knowledge gained in the Air Force. Built my second company in Brazil. I'm retired now, and quite comfortably, I must admit. Anybody CAN do what I did .. they just have to WANT to bad enough.
 
How would I value government programs? That's kinda hard to figure... Kinda depends on the state too A much simpler way would be to study history and fact. Like the fact that Clinton took a huge chunk outta welfare in 94

Alhough I spose since the affordable care act was past cost of living went down a bit, which probably counters the welfare cuts clinton did... However bush cut it more so that would not be accounted for...

Or the fact that we have only factored in for inflation and not the cost of living since the 60s...

Frankly I don't understand what that would prove, and what i was saying is that we don't factor in cost of living increases... Median income is irrelevant of cost of living outpaces it...


Actually, it's pretty simple ... Google to the rescue.

This week, the Cato Institute released a new study calculating the state-by-state value of this typical welfare package for a mother with two children participating in seven common welfare programs — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, housing assistance, WIC, energy assistance (LIHEAP), and free commodities. We found that, in 2013, the value of those benefits varied widely across states, from a low of $16,984 in Mississippi to an astonishing high of $49,175 in Hawaii.

In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500.


Do the same for 1993.

You said that welfare had stagnated for the past 50 years ... the numbers say otherwise. If THAT error is noted, it casts doubt on the rest of your commentary. Maybe you need to prove all of them ...
 
Income redistribution is something that ALWAYS happens in America....despite the cries and whines from the right-wing about it. GBW tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans "redistributed" wealth to the wealthiest 1% of the population. Democrat tax cuts for the middle class "redistribute" wealth back to the middle class. This is the reality of living in a capitalistic society.
 
I was borrowing the socialist argument and stretching to it's logical limits to demonstrate its absurdity. The idea we should pay for things because it benefits all of us logically leads to the conclusion that we should almost pay for everything. I suppose you are right about cars as we could just as easily provide them bus fare, but the point appears to stand none the less. Really, if you think about it, Orwell was right to stretch this argument to everything except entertainment.

If you take any idea to its extreme, it does become unworkable. Socialism is the idea of paying for some things in common to its extreme.

It is not practical, on the other hand, to pay for some things privately. Private police, only arresting people who don't pay? How about private firehouses that will only put out fires in subscribers' houses? the military? No, the real question is what should be paid for collectively, not if everything or nothing should.
 
In the second experiment, Ariely and Norton asked participants to guess how wealth was distributed in the United States, and then to write how it would be divvied up in an ideal would (this, it seems, served as the template for Norton’s most recent study). Americans had little idea how concentrated wealth truly was. Subjects estimated that the top 20 percent of U.S. households owned about 59 percent of the country’s net worth, whereas in the real world, they owned about 84 percent of it. In their own private utopia, subjects said that the top quintile would claim just 32 percent of the wealth. In fact, the ideal looked strikingly like Sweden.

The Actual Wealth Distribution of the U.S., What Americans Think the Wealth Distribution Is, and What They’d Like It to Be

140926_%24BOX_PercentWealthOwned.png.CROP.original-original.png


As in Norton’s more recent study, responses varied a bit by age, income, and political party, but there was overall agreement that America would be better off with a smaller wealth gap.


Estimated and Ideal Wealth Distribution by Income and Political Affiliation
140926_%24BOX_EstimatedAndIdeal.png.CROP.original-original.png



“People drastically underestimate the current disparities in wealth and income in their societies,” Norton told me in an email, “and their ideals are more equal than their estimates, which are already more equal than the actual levels. Maybe most importantly, people from all walks of life—Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor, all over the world—have a large degree of consensus in their ideals: Everyone’s ideals are more equal than the way they think things are.” Theoretically, Americans aren’t exceptional in their views about distribution at all—they have a sense of fairness similar to that of Germans, French, and Australians, and most Americans would be offended if they actually knew the degree of economic inequality that exists in this country.

Americans have no idea how bad inequality is: New Harvard Business School study.
 
Conservative ideals are anti ppl. This country has gone so far to the right its absurd.

Liberalism is dead Obama and Clinton proved that.

Interesting, since neither Obama nor Clinton are liberals.
 
Why do you say indisputable. Not only is it but your premis is nothing but Democratic Party talking point lies.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Table 4 shows clearly the changes are nominal and in fact minuscule over nearly 90 years. Also the table is based solely on percentage where as 1% in 1922 was 1.2 million and 1% today is distributed over 3.2 million.

Take your talking points for the DNC back to your beloved underground and do not state your opinion as fact.


It's indisputable fact that income inequality in the United States has grown substantially in the past few decades.

Median nominal incomes, adjusted for inflation, have not gone up in the USA since the 50's. (Median is the halfway point, so we are talking about the middle-earner). In contrast, the per capita GDP has risen quite dramatically, due to the increased purchasing power of the upper echelon.


I pose three questions to you:

1.) What has caused this phenomenon
2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue
3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course


Thanks
 
Why do you say indisputable. Not only is it but your premis is nothing but Democratic Party talking point lies.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Table 4 shows clearly the changes are nominal and in fact minuscule over nearly 90 years. Also the table is based solely on percentage where as 1% in 1922 was 1.2 million and 1% today is distributed over 3.2 million.

Take your talking points for the DNC back to your beloved underground and do not state your opinion as fact.
Sigh...lets explore some data:

piketty-saez-top10a.jpg



income-top10a.jpg



income-inequality4-14a.jpg
 
Actually, it's pretty simple ... Google to the rescue.

This week, the Cato Institute released a new study calculating the state-by-state value of this typical welfare package for a mother with two children participating in seven common welfare programs — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, housing assistance, WIC, energy assistance (LIHEAP), and free commodities. We found that, in 2013, the value of those benefits varied widely across states, from a low of $16,984 in Mississippi to an astonishing high of $49,175 in Hawaii.

In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500.


Do the same for 1993.

You said that welfare had stagnated for the past 50 years ... the numbers say otherwise. If THAT error is noted, it casts doubt on the rest of your commentary. Maybe you need to prove all of them ...

Cato's study was full of ****. Their "typical welfare family" was absurd. Not at all representative of reality. They just fabricated a theoretical family collecting the maximum amount from every program, failing to account for the fact that this is impossible. (many means-tested programs count other social safety nets in their calculations, so you can't be eligible for all of them at once) Furthermore, they ignored the fact that the vast majority of those families have someone in the household working, which further reduces the total available benefits.

They ****ing lied to you, and you took it as gospel because it said what you wanted to hear.
 
Cato's study was full of ****. Their "typical welfare family" was absurd. Not at all representative of reality. They just fabricated a theoretical family collecting the maximum amount from every program, failing to account for the fact that this is impossible. (many means-tested programs count other social safety nets in their calculations, so you can't be eligible for all of them at once) Furthermore, they ignored the fact that the vast majority of those families have someone in the household working, which further reduces the total available benefits.

They ****ing lied to you, and you took it as gospel because it said what you wanted to hear.


LOL ... you are proof the easiest person to deceive is yourself. You conveniently ignore the subject of the discussion, so you can harangue about how a mother with two children participating in seven programs. If you had actually read the thread, I was told it couldn't be done ... and I showed a simple methodology that, in fact, said it could.

Give me a break ... if you don't like the numbers, present your own.
 
LOL ... you are proof the easiest person to deceive is yourself. You conveniently ignore the subject of the discussion, so you can harangue about how a mother with two children participating in seven programs. If you had actually read the thread, I was told it couldn't be done ... and I showed a simple methodology that, in fact, said it could.

Give me a break ... if you don't like the numbers, present your own.

You showed a pack of lies that you bought.

The Conservative Case For Welfare Reform Suffers Massive Blow Via Cato Institute Study - Forbes

Cato Study Distorts the Truth on Welfare and Work | Economic Policy Institute

Does Welfare Really Pay Better Than Work? - Business Insider
 
So change the narrative from 1% to 10%, use media (The Atlantic left wing rag) instead of academics like idea. You can lie all you want the fact is the poor are better off dramatically so, and the to is distributed in 3x the population and none of your DNC talking crap points can change those FACTS with your beloved social agenda.


Sigh...lets explore some data:

piketty-saez-top10a.jpg



income-top10a.jpg



income-inequality4-14a.jpg
 

From the Forbes link:

The problem is, based on the shocking bogus methodology utilized by the study—a methodology that could only have been chosen to achieve a desired result—the claim turns out to be complete, unadulterated nonsense easily disproven through a modicum of effort and understanding no more than the basics of how welfare works and who receives the benefits.

This is a longer way of saying "owned."
 
Income redistribution is something that ALWAYS happens in America....despite the cries and whines from the right-wing about it. GBW tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans "redistributed" wealth to the wealthiest 1% of the population. Democrat tax cuts for the middle class "redistribute" wealth back to the middle class. This is the reality of living in a capitalistic society.


what a stupid definition of "income redistribution"

you act as if the Clinton tax rates are natural and proper
 
So change the narrative from 1% to 10%, use media (The Atlantic left wing rag) instead of academics like idea.
Like "idea"?!?

Actually, the first graph is Piketty/Saez and the last one is just income data collected by the NYT
You can lie all you want
I have not posted any lies, nor have you shown they are.
the fact is the poor are better off dramatically so
False, in real terms the lowest quintile has lost wealth and has lower wages.
and the to is distributed in 3x the population
Um, again, the data shows the average incomes for individuals in the top 1%, 0.1% and the 0.01%.
and none of your DNC talking crap points can change those FACTS with your beloved social agenda.
You are not relying on facts, you are relying on falsehoods and rhetoric.

EDIT: Upon further review, the data for the last graph is from the Paris School of Economics, ie Piketty et al.
 
Last edited:
It isn't Walmart. Go find me some AMerican made products to buy ANYWHERE. It's not easy to do. The finest clothing stores are selling Chinese crap.

It's sure easy to find American made products to buy. MRI machines and many other advanced medical equipment. Jet engines and other aircraft parts (and whole jets too, as a matter of fact, as well as helicopters). Packaged medicaments. Software such as Microsoft Office and integrated circuits (Intel inside!). Gas turbines, valves, centrifuges, and air pumps. Advanced weapons of war. With all the talk of American losing the means of production, our GDP is still the biggest in the world. It's just that we moved to massively lucrative goods, and left the cheap crap to the Chinese.

As for income inequity, America still has the highest average household income in all of the OECD countries (basically, the developed world), and second largest median household income.

So, it seems like we're complaining a bit like spoiled brats.

This said, it is true that productivity used to go hand in hand with average household income up to about 1972, and now productivity continues to grow while income is stagnant. But still, we have it better than the overwhelming majority of the world.
 
Last edited:

Hey! Pay attention!

I made no comment about the study ... evidently, trying to find information was too difficult for the left wing ... so, I simply googled to show that it COULD be done. You didn't see me agree/disagree with the example. Frankly, I didn't even bother to read it ... it was an EXAMPLE of how to collect data.

Get over it ... you can't make your argument stand up, so you want to attack an example of a google search that seems to be so much more difficult for the left to perform? Could that be because you can't find data to support your position?

Get a life ....
 
Hey! Pay attention!

I made no comment about the study ... evidently, trying to find information was too difficult for the left wing ... so, I simply googled to show that it COULD be done. You didn't see me agree/disagree with the example. Frankly, I didn't even bother to read it ... it was an EXAMPLE of how to collect data.

Get over it ... you can't make your argument stand up, so you want to attack an example of a google search that seems to be so much more difficult for the left to perform? Could that be because you can't find data to support your position?

Get a life ....
Since when is linking to false data..... support for an(y) argument?
 
Since when is linking to false data..... support for an(y) argument?

Damn, this gets boring .... there was NO argument. Your leftie said it couldn't be done ... I took 30 seconds to do it. We weren't discussing the content of the example.

But, hey, keep gnawing on that bone ... when it's the only bone ya got, ya can't let it go.
 
Damn, this gets boring .... there was NO argument.
Yes there was an argument, which you then summarize:
Your leftie said it couldn't be done ... I took 30 seconds to do it.
There are 2 ways to show what amount of benefits families receive, reality and fantasy.
We weren't discussing the content of the example.
What is the point in making up crap...if it is being used to show what level of benefits are available or actually received? Supporting documentation SHOULD stand, otherwise we could say anything, any level of benefits are available.....and then do a touchdown dance.

Big whoop.

But perhaps that is how you play, you need false victories.

But, hey, keep gnawing on that bone ... when it's the only bone ya got, ya can't let it go.
Um, bub, this isn't the only rodeo in the thread, open your eyes.
 
Yes there was an argument, which you then summarize: There are 2 ways to show what amount of benefits families receive, reality and fantasy.What is the point in making up crap...if it is being used to show what level of benefits are available or actually received? Supporting documentation SHOULD stand, otherwise we could say anything, any level of benefits are available.....and then do a touchdown dance.

Big whoop.

But perhaps that is how you play, you need false victories.

Um, bub, this isn't the only rodeo in the thread, open your eyes.

I bow in disgraced defeat to the nonsense in your head that masquerades as intelligent thought.
 
Back
Top Bottom