• 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
KevinKohler said:
Not really. We simply need to remove the laws that protect unions and their members from employers. The only power a union should have is the collective bargaining.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's what unions are for.
 
US Conservative said:
It may not be govt, but its involuntary, leads to more big govt, and isn't known for efficiency or quality-so one could argue there's no difference.
Click to expand...

In California, it's voluntary. It should be voluntary, on that I agree.
 
Ikari said:
The closing down of Free Market capitalism and the installation of the Corporate State have pushed to remove economic mobility amongst the People. The long term trend is the establishment of an actual aristocracy and the death of the Middle Class. What we should do is free the markets to allow participation. You'll never get homogeneous income distribution, there will be those that get more and those that get less. But Free Market can lessen the difference between the extremes and promote a healthier middle class.
Click to expand...

Free market how, though? A totally free market? No law? No regulation?

A sorta free market, with regulation, but not by government, by third parties?


What do you mean by free market?
 
Cephus said:
It's not just a couple of salaries but the people who tend to do that are conservative. Liberals have their hands out, they just expect to be rewarded for showing up. They think they're just entitled to more, we think we actually have to work hard and earn it. That's why, in my entire professional career, I've never been in the same position more than 3-4 years, I'm always being promoted, I'm always moving up, I'm always improving and succeeding, because I have the drive and desire to do it. I know that it's *MY* responsibility. Liberals think it's someone else's responsibility.

That's the difference.
Click to expand...

And now you're just saying stuff.
 
Dittohead not! said:
In California, it's voluntary. It should be voluntary, on that I agree.
Click to expand...

Its still not voluntary, because they still dock your pay, its just now they wont protect you if you need "union representation". You are screwed in either case. The lefts about control, never think otherwise.
 
SheWolf said:
Money and financial stability is a basic human need, and the majority of people work out of need, not out of privilege, as a hobby, or out of human desire. At least, that is how it is for the poor and working class, and for the majority of Americans who are not billionaires and have student debts and mortgages to pay off.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't change a thing I said. I'm not a billionaire. I've worked hard for everything I've gotten. I've made good financial and personal decisions, I have virtually no debt and I pay for virtually everything in cash. I live within my means. It's not my fault if people can't learn to do that.

Personally, I would like to be paid more money than I currently am. I think I deserve more. It not so much a reciprocal agreement, as what is available for now... and I NEED $ now. Making some money, is better than making no money.
Click to expand...

Then you need to prove to your employers that you're worth more money than you're making. You need to show that your presence and your work earn them a significant amount of money. If you can't do that, then you're just not worth more. That's how it works.

Having a job, any job, in the current American economy is reason to be thankful... Refusing a job because it's not good enough, would be consigning oneself to poverty and a financial catastrophe. Our politicians need to recognize the difference between the welfare or "lazy poor" and the working poor. The poor who work their asses off because they are not lazy and refuse welfare, yet still live below the poverty line.
Click to expand...

That's true, but we're also talking about people who had low-paying jobs before the economy tanked and once it recovers fully, they'll still have low-paying jobs. That's all they will ever have because they have neither the skills, the work ethic or the education to have more. And whose fault is that?

Furthermore, we are not all created equal. We are not all Bill Gates, nor are we all equally capable of starting up successful companies like Mr Gates did. You can't just tell anybody off the street to start up a company and expect them to be the next billionaire or even remotely successful. Some people just aren't intelligent enough to run companies or stay wealthy once they win the lottery or suddenly find wealth.
Click to expand...

No, we're not, so why are so many people acting like everyone ought to be treated equally? Bill Gates earned his billions. He deserves them. Someone digging ditches has not earned that much, therefore they don't deserve it. So why do we have this thread about income inequality when you, yourself, admit that there isn't work equality? People get what they've earned. If they want to get more, they have to earn more. It's not rocket science.
 
US Conservative said:
Its still not voluntary, because they still dock your pay, its just now they wont protect you if you need "union representation". You are screwed in either case. The lefts about control, never think otherwise.
Click to expand...

If you get the benefits of the union, then it's only fair that you pay for it. Why should the rest of the membership support freeloaders?

Dang liberals, always with their hands out.
 
SheWolf said:
I think the government should stay out of employer/employee bargaining and union politics. We should let the workers and their employers work everything out among themselves like the adults they are, right?
Click to expand...

Right-except that govt is all up in unions and vice versa-look at the democrat parties major donors-they are unions. They take care of each other in a sham against the public.
 
SheWolf said:
Government employees are required to do a lot of things... When you enter the work force, you have certain responsibilities and duties, and many of them ****ing suck and seem unfair. Why single out the requirement to join a union as opposed to the requirement to wear a uniform or pass a certain exam?
Click to expand...

Because passing exams and wearing a uniform dont FORCE contributions to one particular party. Its a violation of the 1st ammendment, under threat of losing your job.

Why do you hate the 1st ammendment?
 
US Conservative said:
Right-except that govt is all up in unions and vice versa-look at the democrat parties major donors-they are unions. They take care of each other in a sham against the public.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that many years ago, during one of California's many financial crises, that the politicians were directly consulting with the unions to find out what they ought to do to solve the problems and the unions all told them to act in the union's best interest. This isn't difficult to understand, the unions buy politicians all the time and it's not the conservative politicians they're purchasing.
 
US Conservative said:
Right-except that govt is all up in unions and vice versa-look at the democrat parties major donors-they are unions. They take care of each other in a sham against the public.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the Democrat Party's major donors are unions, but most of the union donations do go to Democrats.

Do you see that as a problem?

It seems to me that, if the Republicans want a bigger share of that pie, then they should be more pro labor.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If you get the benefits of the union, then it's only fair that you pay for it. Why should the rest of the membership support freeloaders?

Dang liberals, always with their hands out.
Click to expand...

The point is you have to pay for it EITHER way, and they get to spend YOUR money for THEIR politics. Freedom of association, the enemy of unions.
Its one reason for their demise.
 
Cephus said:
It wasn't that many years ago, during one of California's many financial crises, that the politicians were directly consulting with the unions to find out what they ought to do to solve the problems and the unions all told them to act in the union's best interest. This isn't difficult to understand, the unions buy politicians all the time and it's not the conservative politicians they're purchasing.
Click to expand...

This is generally true, though there are agriculture unions here in CA that support the republicans, especially after all the crap going on in the central valley with the drought and delta smelt bull****.
 
KevinKohler said:
Free market how, though? A totally free market? No law? No regulation?

A sorta free market, with regulation, but not by government, by third parties?


What do you mean by free market?
Click to expand...

I would be more inclined to follow the philosophies of Hayek. It's not Laissez-faire, but has a limited amount of proper law and regulation to ensure the free participation and interactions of the market. And when people mess up, they have to realized the consequences of such; the government doesn't bail out the losers. Or rather shouldn't.
 
US Conservative said:
The dems used their influence to suppress the TEA party and other groups. Obama is the sitting POTUS and he fundraises like its cool, always has.
Click to expand...

Um... yeah, that's right. The Democrat president fundraises for Democrats, and the Democrats oppose the TEA Party that identifies itself with Republicans.

And, of course, Republican presidents stay out of the fund raising business, right?

Money is the mother's milk of politics. If you're going to oppose funding for one party, then oppose it for the other as well. Actually, money has corrupted our entire political system, not just one party.
 
b_dubz said:
That's insanity. So you would allow the rich to pass on massive domes of money while everyone else picks up scraps?

I say you can only pass on property, not money. Especially over 1-5mill or so.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the rich would live in a country like that?
 
US Conservative said:
The point is you have to pay for it EITHER way, and they get to spend YOUR money for THEIR politics. Freedom of association, the enemy of unions.
Its one reason for their demise.
Click to expand...

It is against the law of the State of California to use general membership dues to support political causes.

I know. I used to be one of those terrible union members. I was even elected president of a local. I have a proud history of union membership, just like one of our most famous governors, Ronald Reagan.
 
US Conservative said:
This is generally true, though there are agriculture unions here in CA that support the republicans, especially after all the crap going on in the central valley with the drought and delta smelt bull****.
Click to expand...

True, but they also rely on illegal alien labor, which is something the Republicans, in general, oppose, so...

But yes, the Teacher's Union and the Public Employee Unions have the Democrats in their pocket.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure that the Democrat Party's major donors are unions, but most of the union donations do go to Democrats.

Do you see that as a problem?

It seems to me that, if the Republicans want a bigger share of that pie, then they should be more pro labor.
Click to expand...
Lets make you sure...
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014
1 ActBlue $119,805,859 99% 0%
2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $63,562,815 79% 1%
3 National Education Assn $59,991,508 57% 4%
4 AT&T Inc $57,977,064 41% 58%
5 National Assn of Realtors $57,197,540 41% 43%
6 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $47,074,114 90% 2%
7 Goldman Sachs $47,054,435 52% 44%
8 Carpenters & Joiners Union $43,628,423 68% 9%
9 United Auto Workers $42,462,975 71% 0%
10 Service Employees International Union $41,307,878 80% 2%
11 Laborers Union $39,686,889 83% 7%
12 American Federation of Teachers $38,179,895 89% 0%
13 Teamsters Union $36,977,417 88% 5%
14 Communications Workers of America $36,800,816 87% 0%
15 JPMorgan Chase & Co $35,815,427 47% 51%
16 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $35,451,971 85% 0%
17 AFL-CIO $35,393,501 54% 2%
18 United Parcel Service $33,444,162 35% 64%
19 Citigroup Inc $33,438,657 48% 50%
20 EMILY's List $32,778,804 98% 0%
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
20 of the top 32 donors lean Democrat, while only 6 lean Republican. The rest are on the fence.

Top Industries Lobbying on Labor, 2014
Industry Total
Public Sector Unions $6,736,037
Transportation Unions $5,658,163
Industrial Unions $4,013,607
Misc Unions $3,643,065
Building Trade Unions $2,395,000
Click to expand...

What I see as a problem is the sham these sides are in on. Unions support democrat politicians in exchange for their votes, its anti-capitalism, anti-competition, and a conflict of interest. And no-the solution isn't the republicans jumping on board. :doh
 
Dittohead not! said:
Um... yeah, that's right. The Democrat president fundraises for Democrats, and the Democrats oppose the TEA Party that identifies itself with Republicans.

And, of course, Republican presidents stay out of the fund raising business, right?

Money is the mother's milk of politics. If you're going to oppose funding for one party, then oppose it for the other as well. Actually, money has corrupted our entire political system, not just one party.
Click to expand...

I dont oppose funding-I oppose HOW THE DEMOCRATS OBTAIN FUNDING, is that hard to understand? No matter, unions will continue to shrink in influence and as more people become aware of the sham it will resolve-knowing the dems they will just find another angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom