• 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
Thrilla said:
we're not the only ones in reality, there are other ideologies firmly rooted in reality.

socialism and communism aren't counted among us, but we're certainly not alone.

older socialists/communists pretty much exist only in academia... where they poison young impressionable minds with their fairy tales of a utopia that cannot and will not exist on earth while it's inhabited by humans..
if it were not for academia, they would starve and cease to exist..... or become capitalists :cool:.
Click to expand...
those darn joos and their infiltration of the university to force communism on our poor youth who clearly can't think for themselves
 
someone tell those hundreds of thousands of naxalites and zapatistas that they can only exist in academia
 
go home everyone. the Right has declared itself the winner. you can win just about anything when you pose your position as non falsifiable
 
MildSteel said:
Although ordinary citizens can vote in national elections, the candidates must have funding that is backed by organizations that are controlled by those with wealth. As such the choices are limited.

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?
Click to expand...

America is the home of equal opportunity and democracy: one dollar, one vote.
 
Dovkan said:
Most communists today advocate peaceful methods, at least from what I've seen.
Click to expand...

no they do not. no communist i know who claims that label falls for the delusion of nonviolence
 
MildSteel said:
Although ordinary citizens can vote in national elections, the candidates must have funding that is backed by organizations that are controlled by those with wealth. As such the choices are limited.

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?
Click to expand...

I say yes because the wealthy can lobby congress to impose certain economic policies to sustain the certain industry they are currently involved in. So a wealthy union will force close shop laws as well as a company impose lobbying to have subsidies etc etc.

I think the fact that a lot of American voters don't vote or pay enough attention to geopolitics that they don't really oppose the the funding.
 
Dovkan said:
Yes, the worker is not paid for the amount he is producing, almost always with a massive gap. Why would someone take part in a trade when they get nothing from it? It's exploitation, you support my case, the capitalist relies on not giving the laborer a fair payment for his labor, in order to achieve profit.
Click to expand...

Capitalism defines the labor market as a societal agreed upon even trade. So I trade someone capital for an amount of output, however the distinguishing point of value of labor would need to be directed by a few people as well as society to force the individual to accept it. So, regardless of the sustainability of any service job in a communist society, a short order cook would be forced to take low wage jobs yet in capitalism the individual who is in contract with employer has the freedom to transfer capital or labor. Meaning, if the wage is too low they won't take the job.

You suggest capitalism exploits people, however it's only through state that any firm can actually benefit off of exploitation. "We have to pay the workers enough to buy the cars' Henry ford
 
MildSteel said:
EdwinWillers said:
Define "the wealthy."

Better yet, define "rich."
Click to expand...

I'm not going to give a rigorous definition. That said examples given earlier are Soros, Adelson, Koch brothers.
Click to expand...
Well, the reason I posted that is because a "rigorous definition" isn't possible for either - and you just demonstrated that. Indeed, both are completely relative terms - yet people like to use them in contexts like this as if they are definitive, easily understood, known and accepted by all - AN EASY STANDARD BY WHICH WE MIGHT JUDGE SOMEONE "GUILTY."

And yet, they are anything but.

When we start looking at someone with more money than we have, or more money than someone else has to decry them for their "riches" and "wealth" - we judge them accordingly, and when we do we err in an extremely egregious, unjust, and unfair manner.

If as you and so many others here are asserting, that the "wealthy" are easily identifiable people like Soros, Adelson, the Koch brothers, et. al. - and that in a thread that is denouncing such people for being "the wealthy," then who - by whatever "rigorous definition" you can put forth for us - who by your definition is NOT guilty?

I'll give you some help - you can't do it. It's not possible, by ANY definition, however "rigorous" one might think it.

People here are equating guilt with wealth; they are judging an impossible to define group of people for what? For having more money (and in this context more power thereby). More money than what? What is the standard of guilt here?

Impossible to define - and therefore totally unjust to be pronouncing anyone guilty on that basis. Totally unjust.
 
Last edited:
Dovkan said:
So, giving the means of production to the people, not a individual person, making sure everyone has food... You can't stand this idea, and that's ok, I know the person you are.
Click to expand...

How can a truly socialist country feed to world. Please explain economically
 
MildSteel said:
Although ordinary citizens can vote in national elections, the candidates must have funding that is backed by organizations that are controlled by those with wealth. As such the choices are limited.

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?
Click to expand...



Of course they do.
 
Goshin said:
Of course they do... and it has been that way throughout history. Wealth and political clout tend to go hand in hand, one way or another. Especially extreme wealth,


Like George Soros, to name one.
Click to expand...



Like the Koch brothers to name two!
 
Dovkan said:
It's a condition of life under capitalism and where a system like we have regarding money exists. :applaud
Click to expand...

How do you calculate when production should expand or retract more efficiently without money
 
Henrin said:
What? Corporations are a creation of the state.
Click to expand...
Capitalism is also a creation of the state


inb4 bbbbbut capitalism is simply trade
 
No they do not have too much power.

If the staggeringly ignorant masses would get a brain when they voted and stopped voting for the perfect candidate and only voted for candidates on the important issues then the rich would be powerless in elections.

But because the masses are SO staggeringly ignorant, they keep electing the most pathetic candidates imaginable - whether it is for municipal, state or national votes.

The rich are only as powerful as the masses allow them to be.


It's like political campaigns. The ignorant masses actually buy into campaign adds, whereas the more informed/intelligent realize they are pure hockum and should be ignored. And the ignorant masses actually get much of their news from mainstream tv...which of course means they are getting nothing but filtered swill from whichever side of the aisle that network supports. And even the networks that do not support one side are so mind-numbingly stupid that getting news from them is a total waste of time.
Or there are the types that wait for the debates to make up their minds and then usually pick the one that 'seems' the best for the job...almost totally separate from where they actually stand on the key issues.
Or there are the types that think of themselves as 'patriots' and will blindly follow whoever is in charge...when in reality all they are is little, trained minions.
And then there are the worst type of ignorant mass...the type that actually think they are intelligent/informed. So all they do is close their minds to everything that does not fit their views...which means they stay ignorant - and arrogant (there are a TON of those types on here, imo).

Anyone that thinks the rich have too much power in America have no idea what they are talking about. The power is right there for the masses to take...if only they were not so clueless and/or gullible and/or politically lazy.


And even if the rich do/will some day have to much power - it is the masses who are to blame for giving it to them.
 
Last edited:
instagramsci said:
fantastic job its done of that then huh
Click to expand...

If you think central banking monopolizing the money supply and massive levels of regulations to alter the market through special interest is free marketism, however it's not. The accumulation of wealth you argue against is not the free market, it's the special interest groups empowering the state.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't call working people parasites. I call those who demand others fund their existence parasites. Your existence is not a just claim on the wealth or time of others.
Click to expand...



Tsk tsk tsk. Let them eat cake?
 
The government has too much power.
 
Dovkan said:
Sounds like most college libertarians yelling about how sexy the unregulated free market is and how it gives them massive wood without taking a history class or looking at the world. Talking crap about either side without presenting an actual argument does nothing.
Click to expand...
My experiences count since I live in the real world. And I graduated from college many many years ago. ;)

I co-own my company and Im making good money so I am quite happy with the system- sure it can be improved with less taxes and eliminating minimum wage but on the whole capitalism works, its proven itself superior to communism in every which way and so it baffles me as to why there are still believers in a failed economic theory like communism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom