• 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!

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?


  • Total voters
    56
Not really. Socialism involves a considerable amount of immoral acts that must be taken for the system to be put in place and function, which usually speaking people aren't so happy with doing themselves.

The only immoral act I can think of is giving the means of production to the workers, and taking them away from the capitalists who owned them. View it how you will. I'm seriously going to bed now though.
 
Yes and it makes me sick. We need redistribution.
 
Wait, a society where everyone helps each other? I thought human nature prevented this? :lamo Now tell me why communism isn't viable.

You do realize what happens when they refuse to help, right? It's not a bad system as a form of charity, but as a backbone to an entire society it's more than a little cruel.
 
The only immoral act I can think of is giving the means of production to the workers, and taking them away from the capitalists who owned them. View it how you will. I'm seriously going to bed now though.

This is all ready going on in parts of the country. Work place democracy with worker CO-OP's.
 
You do realize what happens when they refuse to help, right? It's not a bad system as a form of charity, but as a backbone to an entire society it's more than a little cruel.

So, every single individual human being would refuse to help a specific individual? Forreal, im off to bed now.
 
So, every single individual human being would refuse to help a specific individual? Forreal, im off to bed now.

Ahem..they can only get assistance if they give assistance. Do you really want a society where people are kicked out if they refuse to help others?
 
They are not steering it in both directions. They make a hard right and then when they make a soft right it appears that they are going in the both directions. Clinton and Obama both have governed to the right of Nixon. Not only that but because they control the means to steer public opinion, they public doesn't say wait a minute until wealthy elites give the idea.

the money comes in from both sides, man.

as for influence, fox and talk radio lean hard American right. MSNBC and some talk shows lean hard American left. mainstream media leans soft American left. MSNBC leans hard American left.

the public generally doesn't say "wait a minute" before it hits their doorsteps. this generally happens when the economy crashes or something serious happens, like a transition from manufacturing to a global / post labor economy. if there's not enough opportunity, people turn to safety nets. if there are no safety nets, people start to consider other options.
 
Lucky :applaud

Some American companies go to Mondragon in Spain, like GM & others. To learn why the company is so efficient. The reason is because everyone owns the company & cares about the production.
 
Lol !!

The " wealthy " should " pay their fair share " and be punished because losers are envious of their wealth.
Frankly, I'm not so worried about how much money they have.

Far more worried by how much political influence they have.
Money is one thing, but power is something else again.
Sadly, the two are directly linked in most cases these days.
 
The only immoral act I can think of is giving the means of production to the workers, and taking them away from the capitalists who owned them. View it how you will. I'm seriously going to bed now though.

Redistribution is definitely one of those evils I'm talking about. How many people do think would be comfortable stealing peoples property like that? Do you really want someone that can do those kind of acts in charge?
 
You would think socialists would look towards the community to help the poor, not the state, but hey, socialists are usually confused about their own ideology.

it's odd how their beliefs and advocacy run in direct contradiction to thier preferred society...

"stateless, classless society" my ass... every single one of them advocates for total state control and further division of classes... without pause, without fail.
 
it's odd how their beliefs and advocacy run in direct contradiction to thier preferred society...

"stateless, classless society" my ass... every single one of them advocates for total state control and further division of classes... without pause, without fail.

You would think socialists would be interested in decreasing the power of the state, but all they ever do is propose new ideas to grow the state. It's almost as if they don't realize you can never obtain a stateless society by growing the size and scope of government. Then again, I never believed they actually want a stateless society. To me they are the shining example of people that have made the state into a religion.
 
You would think socialists would be interested in decreasing the power of the state, but all they ever do is propose new ideas to grow the state. It's almost as if they don't realize you can't never obtain a stateless society by growing the size and scope of government. Then again, I never believed they actually want a stateless society. To me they are the shining example of people that have made the state into a religion.
Government has become so convoluted the people technically tasked with leading it rarely have any real idea what they just signed.

The people who elect them have even less chance of understanding it...

I'm tempted to say the people who write/type/compose are in control.
 
the money comes in from both sides, man.

I disagree. The big money that makes a difference comes in from organizations that are controlled by the wealthy. Either that or some person who is wealthy runs with their own money.

as for influence, fox and talk radio lean hard American right. MSNBC and some talk shows lean hard American left. mainstream media leans soft American left. MSNBC leans hard American left.

What you call American left is no more than social left in terms of moral values. There is very little left wing discourse in terms of left wing economic ideas that would empower the lower class in economic terms.

the public generally doesn't say "wait a minute" before it hits their doorsteps. this generally happens when the economy crashes or something serious happens, like a transition from manufacturing to a global / post labor economy. if there's not enough opportunity, people turn to safety nets. if there are no safety nets, people start to consider other options.

Your argument has little merit because although we can see that people have lost jobs due to the effects of globalization, they still have not elected candidates that will take concrete steps to reverse such activity as outsourcing jobs. This is because they actually have very little power and are merely presented choices that will do nothing to effect such change.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. The big money that makes a difference comes in from organizations that are controlled by the wealthy. Either that or some person who is wealthy runs with their own money.

i should clarify. i mean that big money is not just a right wing or a left wing phenomenon.

What you call American left is no more than social left in terms of moral values. There is very little left wing discourse in terms of left wing economic ideas that would empower the lower class in economic terms.

both parties embrace corporatism in different ways.


Your argument has little merit because although we can see that people have lost jobs due to the effects of globalization, they still have not elected candidates that will take concrete steps to reverse such activity as outsourcing jobs. This is because they actually have very little power and are merely presented choices that will do nothing to effect such change.

they haven't woken up enough to properly organize, and they haven't been offered an option that will do them much good. also, they don't know what to demand.

what they should be demanding first is more choices and changes to the system to address gerrymandering and laws designed to artificially limit choice. i doubt that increasing wealth inequality and lack of opportunity can be effectively addressed in the current Republican / Democrat dynamic no matter who wins. very few on either side are vocal enough about it to convince me that they even care. i can only name a handful of lawmakers that treat this as a top priority issue.
 
i should clarify. i mean that big money is not just a right wing or a left wing phenomenon.

I think it is more accurate to say it is not a Democratic or Republican phenomenon. I say that because there is very little "left" remaining in the Democratic party, particularly at the national level. What is there is confined to social issues such as gay rights and legalization of marijuana. There is practically nothing there in terms of left wing economic policy and ideology.

both parties embrace corporatism in different ways.

That is true, but they both certainly embrace it. Therefore I say there is very little there in terms of left wing economic ideology and policy.


they haven't woken up enough to properly organize, and they haven't been offered an option that will do them much good. also, they don't know what to demand.

what they should be demanding first is more choices and changes to the system to address gerrymandering and laws designed to artificially limit choice. i doubt that increasing wealth inequality and lack of opportunity can be effectively addressed in the current Republican / Democrat dynamic no matter who wins. very few on either side are vocal enough about it to convince me that they even care. i can only name a handful of lawmakers that treat this as a top priority issue.

Absolutely. But again, that is because of the influence of wealth in this country. Although there are big donations coming from the wealthy to the Democrats, because left wing economic policy does not suit their interests, you will not see much of that. The most that you will get is a little more safety net relative to the Republicans, but nothing really substantial.
 
I think it is more accurate to say it is not a Democratic or Republican phenomenon. I say that because there is very little "left" remaining in the Democratic party, particularly at the national level. What is there is confined to social issues such as gay rights and legalization of marijuana. There is practically nothing there in terms of left wing economic policy and ideology.

yeah, the Democrats are definitely more corporatist than populist on a lot of issues. this was illustrated during the health care debate. single payer was never on the table, and they couldn't even get a public option.

That is true, but they both certainly embrace it. Therefore I say there is very little there in terms of left wing economic ideology and policy.

agreed.

Absolutely. But again, that is because of the influence of wealth in this country. Although there are big donations coming from the wealthy to the Democrats, because left wing economic policy does not suit their interests, you will not see much of that. The most that you will get is a little more safety net relative to the Republicans, but nothing really substantial.

i agree with that, also. the only reasons to vote Democrat instead of Republican are social equality issues, a little less war, and a little less trickle down. and the sad part is that even if they controlled both branches of government, they would probably misprioritize and go straight to carbon taxes and gun control. jobs, economic opportunities, education, and infrastructure. that's what we want, it's what we need and that's what they should be prioritizing if they ever control congress and the presidency.
 
i agree with that, also. the only reasons to vote Democrat instead of Republican are social equality issues, a little less war, and a little less trickle down. and the sad part is that even if they controlled both branches of government, they would probably misprioritize and go straight to carbon taxes and gun control. jobs, economic opportunities, education, and infrastructure. that's what we want, it's what we need and that's what they should be prioritizing if they ever control congress and the presidency.

Economic opportunities, education and infrastructure would definitely make the difference. That's actually where Obama should have struck hard in his first term when Democrats controlled Congress. It was a monumental shame to have missed such a opportunity. Who knows when that will happen again.
 
Economic opportunities, education and infrastructure would definitely make the difference. That's actually where Obama should have struck hard in his first term when Democrats controlled Congress. It was a monumental shame to have missed such a opportunity. Who knows when that will happen again.

well, if it makes you feel any better, i doubt that they could have gotten that done, either. i mean, ****, they couldn't even get a public option passed with every Republican voting against it and Democrats from conservative districts running for their lives. we got a stimulus when we needed another new deal. i'm not looking down my nose at the stimulus, though. the COBRA part definitely saved my ass when i lost my job.
 
well, if it makes you feel any better, i doubt that they could have gotten that done, either. i mean, ****, they couldn't even get a public option passed with every Republican voting against it and Democrats from conservative districts running for their lives. we got a stimulus when we needed another new deal. i'm not looking down my nose at the stimulus, though. the COBRA part definitely saved my ass when i lost my job.

If that is the case then that is sad. That said, Obama could have probably pushed through some big infrastructure projects. That type of thing has bi-partisan appeal because it buys them political points with their constituents. It may have been especially attractive since it was a time of economic downturn. If Obama had been a Lyndon Johnson type, he could have made a convincing sales pitch to both Republicans and Democrats alike. Furthermore, Obama should have seen what happened to Hillary when she tried to push healthcare reform through. The medical lobby is quite powerful.
 
If that is the case then that is sad. That said, Obama could have probably pushed through some big infrastructure projects. That type of thing has bi-partisan appeal because it buys them political points with their constituents. It may have been especially attractive since it was a time of economic downturn. If Obama had been a Lyndon Johnson type, he could have made a convincing sales pitch to both Republicans and Democrats alike. Furthermore, Obama should have seen what happened to Hillary when she tried to push healthcare reform through. The medical lobby is quite powerful.

my biggest criticism of his presidency is that he didn't go straight to the American people with a frank sales pitch more often. however, to do what needed done, you'd have to have the America of 1930. we live in an America that is divided almost 50 / 50, and that divide is the size of an ocean. that means that neither side can get much of anything done, even when the economy gets destroyed by gambling.
 
Hey, anyone who exploits labor and accumulates wealth in mass numbers while millions starve to death is a scum in my book.

So you don't try to exploit labor or accumulate wealth?
 
So you don't try to exploit labor or accumulate wealth?

How would I exploit labor? I'm a laborer working to collect money, which I in turn use to buy food. I specifically said accumulate wealth in mass numbers as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom