• 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!

Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income

Poor in America can be the top 1 percent in 90 percent of the nations of the world.

Relativity.
 
That was a lot of work but it does nothing to prove the point you were making about the states. The only state with higher unemployment was Florida and it's pretty much the same as Illinois.

The article I gave you said:

Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average.

And then it said this:

Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.

It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.
Tax cuts don't create jobs - Tampa Bay Times
 
That was a lot of work but it does nothing to prove the point you were making about the states. The only state with higher unemployment was Florida and it's pretty much the same as Illinois.

I'm trying to show you there is a lot out there showing tax cuts do not create jobs.
 
The article I gave you said:

Florida's unemployment rate remains far higher than the 9.1 percent national average.

And then it said this:

Recently, both a Tax Foundation study and University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith have argued that reducing taxes has no discernible impact on job growth.

It's not hard to find evidence to support such a view. Other states with much higher corporate tax rates — Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey — all enjoy significantly lower jobless numbers, as well as hosting the corporate headquarters of many more Fortune 500 companies per capita.
Tax cuts don't create jobs - Tampa Bay Times


Actually, here in Illinois the state just ponied up a boatload of tax incentives to get a number of Fortune 500 companies not to move away. Sears was the top of the list. In our case we would potentially have lost a sizable number of jobs.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._cme-and-cboe-sears-cme-employee-income-taxes
 
Last edited:
Actually, here in Illinois the state just ponied up a boatload of tax incentives to get a number of Fortune 500 companies not to move away. Sears was the top of the list. In our case we would potentially have lost a sizable number of jobs.


Quinn signs Sears-CME tax breaks into law - Chicago Tribune
So, they scared the state, and got what they wanted. What happens when they move in a few months or a couple of years anyway? There is also lots of information out there on this happening.
 
Thread after thread discuss this. Read a few.

A discussion on DP is not the same as a credible cite. Many things are discussed on DP; including many which are incredible (Obama is not a citizen; 911 was a government job). The existence of discussion here does not make them so.

I asked YOU to support YOUR assertion. That seems to be a fair challenge in any argument. In fact, in any real argument, any assertion should be supported, particularly when specifically challenged. To tell the challenger to find it himself is lazy, weak and cowardly. Your inability to produce a cite only leads me to conclude you have none. Therefore, your original assertion that quantitative easing had anything to do with increases in prices, particularly food, is not valid.
 
Last edited:
Poor in America can be the top 1 percent in 90 percent of the nations of the world.\




Relativity.

Interesting how we are so quick to compare our poor to the poor of Uganda, Bolivia, the Congo, Somalia, etc.... as some type of justification that they have it so well. We don't compare our education, military, government or other standards of living to such a peer group; only our poor. Is it so we don't have to face the fact that the poor in America are no where near as well off as the poor in the countries that are the real peer group; Japan, Canada, the UK, Norway, Germany, Australia?

Yep. It is a convenient rationalization... which we are just so good at.


The wealth distribution system in America is abominable... almost on Mexican standards. We all should be ashamed.
 
Last edited:
Interesting how we are so quick to compare our poor to the poor of Uganda, Bolivia, the Congo, Somalia, etc.... as some type of justification that they have it so well. We don't compare our education, military, government or other standards of living to such a peer group; only our poor. Is it so we don't have to face the fact that the poor in America are no where near as well off as the poor in the countries that are real peer group; Japan, Canada, the UK, Norway, Germany, Australia. Yep. It is a convenient rationalization... which we are just so good at.

who cares? I prefer a society where we can have lots of winners rather than one where there is a concerted effort to try to make people "equal"
 
who cares? I prefer a society where we can have lots of winners rather than one where there is a concerted effort to try to make people "equal"

No one is speaking of equality; only equity. You should care as the current trajectory of class bifurcation is not sustainable in a democracy. Either it changes, or the democracy dies (which is what is happening here).

If you like being a rich man in a poor country, perhaps a relocation to Mexico would be in order. Oh, wait, Mexico is coming here.
 
Last edited:
who cares? I prefer a society where we can have lots of winners rather than one where there is a concerted effort to try to make people "equal"

So you think providing basic necessities to American citizens is an effort to make them equal? BTW I am still waiting for you to explain why you should not pay more when you use facilities and laws supported by all tax payers.
 
No one is speaking of equality; only equity. You should care as the current trajectory of class bifurcation is not sustainable in a democracy. Either it changes, or the democracy dies (which is what is happening here).

If you like being a rich man in a poor country, perhaps a relocation to Mexico would be in order. Oh, wait, Mexico is coming here.

Excellent points. If one wants a sustainable society in an America that ones children and grandchildren can live in in peace and harmony with others, they better damn well learn to change the attitude which only thinksof SELF above SOCIETY.
 
So you think providing basic necessities to American citizens is an effort to make them equal? BTW I am still waiting for you to explain why you should not pay more when you use facilities and laws supported by all tax payers.

why not stick to what I said rather than what you hoped I said
 
Excellent points. If one wants a sustainable society in an America that ones children and grandchildren can live in in peace and harmony with others, they better damn well learn to change the attitude which only thinksof SELF above SOCIETY.

the rich dems who are creating addiction to government handouts are actively ruining this country so they can win elections and with it get the wealth and power they derive from holding public office
 
No one is speaking of equality; only equity. You should care as the current trajectory of class bifurcation is not sustainable in a democracy. Either it changes, or the democracy dies (which is what is happening here).

If you like being a rich man in a poor country, perhaps a relocation to Mexico would be in order. Oh, wait, Mexico is coming here.

Think the role of the Federal government should be to "spread the wealth"...?
 
the rich dems who are creating addiction to government handouts are actively ruining this country so they can win elections and with it get the wealth and power they derive from holding public office

Your so called 'logic' has holes gaping enough to drive an elephant through. If these rich dems are rich why do they need to hold public office to get them wealthy? They do not need to win an election or anything else to get wealthy if they are rich as you claim they are.

Why don't you tell us how the Great Satan FDR did this and made himself wealthy in the process?
 
who cares? I prefer a society where we can have lots of winners rather than one where there is a concerted effort to try to make people "equal"

You do realize in a real competition, there is only one winner. If winner makes up only 1% of the population, I wouldn't call that lots of winners.
 
Your so called 'logic' has holes gaping enough to drive an elephant through. If these rich dems are rich why do they need to hold public office to get them wealthy? They do not need to win an election or anything else to get wealthy if they are rich as you claim they are.

Why don't you tell us how the Great Satan FDR did this and made himself wealthy in the process?

Lets examine some of these wealthy dems

Bill Clinton-until he left the presidency he never had a job that would make him a millionaire. If he had been just another lawyer in Arkansas, I doubt he would be worth the many millions he is today

Al Gore's father campaigned as the poor country school teacher. until he left the senate and became a Pawn of Armand Hammer, he never held a job that paid more than 85K a year yet he died a multimillionaire

How did the Kennedy family get its wealth? through Public office
 
You do realize in a real competition, there is only one winner. If winner makes up only 1% of the population, I wouldn't call that lots of winners.

You seem to think that the one percent is frozen in time at one instant. Its like saying there is only one Olympic 100Meter gold medalist in the 2012 games and forgetting all the other games and the winners
 
You seem to think that the one percent is frozen in time at one instant. Its like saying there is only one Olympic 100Meter gold medalist in the 2012 games and forgetting all the other games and the winners

Don't make leaps. You don't do it well.

Whether number is 1/2 % or 5% or hell, even 10%, that's a small percentage. So there are not a LOT of winners. But that's OK as long as the middle is strong. They see enough good to be comfortable and see a possible rise one day, even if it doesn't actually happen. But destroy the middle class, keep hating the working person, and that gap will be everyone's undoing sooner or later. It's just bad business.
 
Don't make leaps. You don't do it well.

Whether number is 1/2 % or 5% or hell, even 10%, that's a small percentage. So there are not a LOT of winners. But that's OK as long as the middle is strong. They see enough good to be comfortable and see a possible rise one day, even if it doesn't actually happen. But destroy the middle class, keep hating the working person, and that gap will be everyone's undoing sooner or later. It's just bad business.

so someone making 100K, 200K or 300K is not a winner?
 
Don't make leaps. You don't do it well.

Whether number is 1/2 % or 5% or hell, even 10%, that's a small percentage. So there are not a LOT of winners. But that's OK as long as the middle is strong. They see enough good to be comfortable and see a possible rise one day, even if it doesn't actually happen. But destroy the middle class, keep hating the working person, and that gap will be everyone's undoing sooner or later. It's just bad business.

Just like everything else top teir income levels bring people in and drop people out, year after year.
There is no permanence for some in upper, middle or lower.

In fact our current income disparity can have multiple and varied reasons, that you don't know about, yet you assume it's because there is 1 winner.
It's correlation = causation, crap logic.
 
so someone making 100K, 200K or 300K is not a winner?

If I have more, I win. ;)

Do I need to define win for you? :2funny:

Seriously, that's good, but that group is shrinking and not growing. That's the point. Ideally, just like in grading, you'd like a nice curve with most in the middle. If you have most at the ends, and the middle small, there is likely a problem. This really isn't complicated.
 
Just like everything else top teir income levels bring people in and drop people out, year after year.
There is no permanence for some in upper, middle or lower.

In fact our current income disparity can have multiple and varied reasons, that you don't know about, yet you assume it's because there is 1 winner.
It's correlation = causation, crap logic.

Yes, we know that. But if the gap studily grows, that is different. And I haven't mentioned reasons at all yet, though I suspect policy that favors wealthy and business play a role among many reasons.

You too shouldn't make leaps as you're no better than TD at it.
 
Back
Top Bottom