• 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
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.

You post is flawed at least in the following ways:

1. It is possible to give a rigorous definition of it.
2. No one is denouncing people for being wealthy
 
I'd rather the people who have the power of their office didn't use that power to become wealthy.
 
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.

Lobbyist have been around forever. No different than protest or marches etc. They are all groups lobbing congress to change policies, for whatever their cause. Government can be very over reaching. Lobbyist, protesters, marchers etc voice their opinion on that overreach or they are pushing for more regulation. Green Peace as an example, there are many wealthy people trying to change laws that they think for one reason or another needs to be addressed etc. Can you imagine the wealth behind the push of climate change as an example. Those are also lobbyist of one nature or another.
 
Lobbyist have been around forever. No different than protest or marches etc. They are all groups lobbing congress to change policies, for whatever their cause. Government can be very over reaching. Lobbyist, protesters, marchers etc voice their opinion on that overreach or they are pushing for more regulation. Green Peace as an example, there are many wealthy people trying to change laws that they think for one reason or another needs to be addressed etc. Can you imagine the wealth behind the push of climate change as an example. Those are also lobbyist of one nature or another.

I'm speaking about lobbying for governmental involvement in market process, like bailouts etc etc. economic lobbyists that get paid millions and millions of dollars to promote protectionist policy of a firm should not be a power of gov.
 
Why is it exploitation to hire cheap labor?

In the extreme cases, this can be very dehumanizing, and it costs lives. Sometimes people who get injured are simply cast out to die.

Surely we can agree that it is wrong to treat people that way, even if it is good business?


I'll give you a dumbed down example: A sweatshop worker makes $100 in clothing per hour, the capitalist realizes this worker doesn't have minimum wage protection, etc.. and only pays the worker 25 cents an hour, which is way more then what sweatshop workers actually make on average (Mexico is 3.00 per day on average I think?), but none the less, you can see how I oppose it, you may not follow the labor theory of value, but I do, so we will always disagree.

so how much should the worker in your scenario receive in wages?

I'm not sure what $0.25/hr can buy a laborer in Mexico.

Will that allow a person to pay rent, pay for transport, enjoy some basic entertainment, and still save up something for a training for a better job, or a minimal retirement? I'd say that should be the goal.

Capitalism is amoral, but that doesn't mean behaving morally is forbidden.

Some few example exists of companies harnessing the benefits of treating labor as a long term partnership, rather than a part to be cast aside at the first excuse.

One hopes they would be come more common, or that the government could incentivize them to behave this way.
 
In the extreme cases, this can be very dehumanizing, and it costs lives. Sometimes people who get injured are simply cast out to die.

Surely we can agree that it is wrong to treat people that way, even if it is good business?

If your workforce is struggling in their personal affairs than your business suffers. Anything that you buy on the market you should keep good care of, be that your house, your car, your computer, your desk, or whatever you are concerned with, and the same is true for labor. A business that concern themselves with the well being of their workers enjoys a productive and happy workforce that will make the business more money and better products. There is of course a cut off to all things, and much like it is with cleaning a house there comes a point where the returns level out and any further action is an overall loss, so business should maintain balance and try to keep their workforce productive and happy, while not overpaying them.
 
I'm speaking about lobbying for governmental involvement in market process, like bailouts etc etc. economic lobbyists that get paid millions and millions of dollars to promote protectionist policy of a firm should not be a power of gov.

First lobbyist are not a power of government. I spoke in a broader sense of lobbyist, protest, marches etc. influencing government. I have to assume you are OK with these groups trying to influence government decision making. You cannot separate economic involvement, everything has an economic impact of some degree. Take Green Peace as an example, everything it promotes has an economic impact. People promoting global warming has an economic impact. Everything the EPA does has an economic impact and to suggest the people cannot lobby against the EPA is ridiculous.

You are advocating that the government can impose economic impact on the American people all it wants and no one can lobby against the government for or against. Then you state lobbyist get paid millions of dollars as those they should not be paid. That is also ridiculous.
 
First lobbyist are not a power of government. I spoke in a broader sense of lobbyist, protest, marches etc. influencing government. I have to assume you are OK with these groups trying to influence government decision making. You cannot separate economic involvement, everything has an economic impact of some degree. Take Green Peace as an example, everything it promotes has an economic impact. People promoting global warming has an economic impact. Everything the EPA does has an economic impact and to suggest the people cannot lobby against the EPA is ridiculous.

You are advocating that the government can impose economic impact on the American people all it wants and no one can lobby against the government for or against. Then you state lobbyist get paid millions of dollars as those they should not be paid. That is also ridiculous.
Do You tHink that government should have the power to impose trade regulations and specific tariffs to certain companies, and then open non regulations to others only because certain companies can afford a lobbyist?

Do You understand what the economic effects of a export subsidy has on the American people or what about other trade protection policies, these fiscal policies are not the power the government should have as well as special interest taking advantage through campaign contributions.

You call yourself a conservative but you don't understand the guidelines of the constitution. I can get millions of people to agree that a dog is a fish and my company specializes in protecting sea life on land, does that mean the federal government has the power to enforce a subsidy, or negative tax, towards my special interest? No, what the federal government literally only has the power to do is protect the constitution and citizens of the participating States.
 
Do You tHink that government should have the power to impose trade regulations and specific tariffs to certain companies, and then open non regulations to others only because certain companies can afford a lobbyist?

First I don't buy the argument that an industry gets special treatment because they can afford a lobbyist? That's a straw-man.

Do You understand what the economic effects of a export subsidy has on the American people or what about other trade protection policies, these fiscal policies are not the power the government should have as well as special interest taking advantage through campaign contributions.

Again I don't buy the argument that an industry gets special treatment because they can afford a lobbyist? That's a straw-man.

You call yourself a conservative but you don't understand the guidelines of the constitution. I can get millions of people to agree that a dog is a fish and my company specializes in protecting sea life on land, does that mean the federal government has the power to enforce a subsidy, or negative tax, towards my special interest? No, what the federal government literally only has the power to do is protect the constitution and citizens of the participating States.

I totally agree
, no different than Obama investing in solar and the like. But I have no problem with protest, million man marches, lobbyist etc etc trying to speak out for their special interest. That is their right. I understand from your comments you want to ban these groups from speaking out on their behalf. Further these groups are not the power of government and some are well financed and some are not and they can be on the different side of an issue.

This is no different than you wanting to protect the constitution against others wanting to ignore it. Thus you have two lobbyist groups, one trying to insure it and the other trying to ignore it. We also have a third branch of government called the judicial.
 
our government is controlled by the rich powerful, thru the efforts of lobbying.

the rich and powerful are faction, they are special interest, democratic forms of government have many factions within them which is why founders hate democratic forms of government, and created our government on a republican form of government, not a democratic one.

with our current government today the senate has been turn into a democracy with the 17th amendment, as it was an aristocracy before that [ in name only ], meaning the senators would be chosen by the state legislatures.

by doing this pre-17th...... power is DIVIDED in congress, the people are represented in the house, while the states are represented in the senate, so you have .........two opposing interest with are being served.

today only one interest that served, because both houses of congress are democratic, faction thru the efforts of lobbying, control that single interest which all centralized in Washington.

if we had no 17th, then there again would be two interests, one in Washington and one in the 50 states legislatures.

since one interest would be in the 50 states, lobbying could not take place in the senate anymore, lobbyist would have to lobby at least 26 states, by physically visiting the actual states, and lobbying its legislatures, which would makeup thousand of people they would have to lobby, instead of just lobbying single senators.

the only way to stop the rich and powerful elite from controlling our federal government, is to cut their lobbying ability, and return to the original constitution.

Madison states in federalist #10 of how bad democratic forms of government are that they have many factious combinations [which are dreaded]then republican forms of government, which is why america was created a republic and not a democracy.

"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. "


by returning to the original constitution which the founders created.... to check the powers of lobbyist using the federal government, we can began to turn our nation around.
 
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.

Your experiences mean nothing, you're one of the lucky few, 80% of the world makes less then $10 a day.. It can be improved by eliminating the minimum wage? We see the conditions in countries without some sort of actual minimum wage, what our country was like before the minimum wage.. that's a ****ing joke. Lower taxes on who, multi billion dollar businesses? Typical libertarian. Communism has never been tried, and you say in every way, comparing what? Cuba to The united states?
 
Your experiences mean nothing, you're one of the lucky few, 80% of the world makes less then $10 a day.. It can be improved by eliminating the minimum wage? We see the conditions in countries without some sort of actual minimum wage, what our country was like before the minimum wage.. Lower taxes? Typical libertarian. Communism has never been tried, and you say in every way, comparing what? Cuba to The united states?

It's typical of a liberal/socialist/communist to just look at the total amount of money earned and nothing else.
 
Your experiences mean nothing, you're one of the lucky few, 80% of the world makes less then $10 a day.. It can be improved by eliminating the minimum wage? We see the conditions in countries without some sort of actual minimum wage, what our country was like before the minimum wage.. that's a ****ing joke. Lower taxes on who, multi billion dollar businesses? Typical libertarian. Communism has never been tried, and you say in every way, comparing what? Cuba to The united states?

here hear this same story time and time again,.....if they would only allow true communism to be put into practice it would work....and the people who say that are always the ones who think they can make it work.
 
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

The way the system works, you have to work to survive by acquiring money, you don't really "agree," when 80% of the world makes less then $10 a day, if people could just switch to different jobs so easily, I think they would to "balance" it out, no, it needs regulation. Wages in terms of capital wouldn't exist under communism. The freedom is ridiculous, you think if people could actually get a decent deal, 80% of the world wouldn't live on less then $10 a day. Really? They won't take the job? They have no ****ing choice, money, acquired from capitalists, is used to buy food, distributed by capitalists, jesus christ. It does exploit people, have you seen Haiti? Most third world countries? China? India? You keep stating henry ford, when the majority of capitalists don't even follow his mentality, it's why capitalists exploit laborers in countries without regulations.
 
It's typical of a liberal/socialist/communist to just look at the total amount of money earned and nothing else.

I'm sorry, I'm sure less then $10 a day can provide a comfortable life, not just subsistence, which is the great burden of the capitalist, workers need enough to be fed, sometimes even that is a burden, which is why we have people making less then $1.25 a day.
 
here hear this same story time and time again,.....if they would only allow true communism to be put into practice it would work....and the people who say that are always the ones who think they can make it work.

Literally, communism, by definition, has no state. I don't see how anything has come close.
 
How can a truly socialist country feed to world. Please explain economically

We already produce enough food to comfortably feed 10 billion people, a method of distributing with the mindset of use value and not exchange value would work, however, the capitalist influence on food production is to great as it stands.
 
It's nice to know communists are learning.

Yes, I'm really an anarcho capitalist. Why would people suffer?

We've seen what capitalists do without regulation, it's not hard. If anything, we'd revert back to feudalism.
 
I'm sorry, I'm sure less then $10 a day can provide a comfortable life, not just subsistence, which is the great burden of the capitalist, workers need enough to be fed, sometimes even that is a burden, which is why we have people making less then $1.25 a day.

The problem I see regularly on this forum is that people like yourself imagine that what people in this country need to meet their basic needs is the same amount needed in other countries.
 
The problem I see regularly on this forum is that people like yourself imagine that what people in this country need to meet their basic needs is the same amount needed in other countries.

Oh, I understand that, which is why I look at food prices, comforts like a bed, ****, even shoes..
Show me how wonderfully these people live.
 
Back
Top Bottom