• 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!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

Ikari said:
The destruction of free market capitalism, the decay of proper economic mobility, corporate subsidy and law that promotes coproration over smaller business' bought and paid for. It's a purposeful march to ensure the rich stay rich. And that 1% ain't even safe. Eventually we're really going to be looking at the 0.1%, and even many of those in that 1% will find themselves down in the slums with the rest of the serfs.

This is the movement to reinstate a true aristocracy. Corporate America is but one necessity in that quest.
Click to expand...


Spent 35 years in the business world and can honestly say you have no idea what you are talking about and totally ignore anything that contradicts your point of view. Most corporations are good corporate citizens and it is only class envy that generates comments like yours. If anyone is bought and paid for it is the Democrat party buying votes by promoting class envy and warfare and creating greater dependence. There isn't a company in the world that does 3.9 trillion dollars worth of business in a year but that is what "our" President wants to spend and all that does is buy votes.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That has nothing to do with world wealth distribution.....or the propensity to spend. you are bonging while we bing. You seemed to have a VERY hard time believing the math, questioning it many times....and you STILL do not have correct numbers.I feel no need to answer ALL of your off topic non-sequiturs, get back to the OP.
Click to expand...

You cannot answer the question because to do so would tell everyone here who you are. Stop trolling and discuss the issues. The Top 1% controlling 99% of the wealth is a lie but more importantly who really cares. How does that impact you and your family? The answer is it DOESN'T
 
apdst said:
You offered an exception. There are exceptions to everything.

However, the reality exists that Google employs thousands of people. How poor is Google, now?

Ya see, Google made a ton of money and now it's trickling down.
Click to expand...
You asked, not thinking that it could be answered.
I answered and asked you directly "Does this qualify"?
Now you add exception.
 
Dibbler said:
Don't worry about it. The new Republican majorities in both houses have YOUR best interests in mind.

Click to expand...


Right, and liberals have your best interest at heart? LOL, keep dreaming and keep funding that liberal society of dependence
 
Conservative said:
Spent 35 years in the business world and can honestly say you have no idea what you are talking about and totally ignore anything that contradicts your point of view. Most corporations are good corporate citizens and it is only class envy that generates comments like yours. If anyone is bought and paid for it is the Democrat party buying votes by promoting class envy and warfare and creating greater dependence. There isn't a company in the world that does 3.9 trillion dollars worth of business in a year but that is what "our" President wants to spend and all that does is buy votes.
Click to expand...

Both parties are bought and paid for.
 
Conservative said:
Spent 35 years in the business world and can honestly say you have no idea what you are talking about and totally ignore anything that contradicts your point of view. Most corporations are good corporate citizens and it is only class envy that generates comments like yours. If anyone is bought and paid for it is the Democrat party buying votes by promoting class envy and warfare and creating greater dependence. There isn't a company in the world that does 3.9 trillion dollars worth of business in a year but that is what "our" President wants to spend and all that does is buy votes.
Click to expand...

Corporations aren't inherently bad, but the coupling of the Corporate entity and the State is. The Corporate State should be avoided. In Free Market you'd have corporations as well, they just don't get the ear of the legislators.
 
JANFU said:
So they receive a credit dependent upon family, dependents and income. Where does it show poor people do not pay any tax.
You cannot show it, now can ya.
Click to expand...

You don't know what the Earned Income Credit is. Do you?
 
JANFU said:
You asked, not thinking that it could be answered.
I answered and asked you directly "Does this qualify"?
Now you add exception.
Click to expand...

Its an obvious exception to the rule. Unless you can prove that Google is the norm, in the private market. Can ya?
 
apdst said:
Its an obvious exception to the rule. Unless you can prove that Google is the norm, in the private market. Can ya?
Click to expand...

You put it out there- no changes after my friend.
Thanks for playing.
 
JANFU said:
You do not know poor do you?
Click to expand...

I'm one of ten kids. My father was a mechanic, my mom a secretary. Want to rethink that most idiotic statement since you don't know me, anyway?
 
JANFU said:
You put it out there- no changes after my friend.
Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

There wasn't any change. Anyone with half a brain knows your example in no way represents the norm.
 
apdst said:
I'm one of ten kids. My father was a mechanic, my mom a secretary. Want to rethink that most idiotic statement since you don't know me, anyway?
Click to expand...

I was going by your ignorant statement on the poor.
What else would a person think.
 
JANFU said:
I was going by your ignorant statement on the poor.
What else would a person think.
Click to expand...

What happened was that I blew your argument out of the water and just like any Liberal, you were forced to make it personal.
 
apdst said:
There wasn't any change. Anyone with half a brain knows your example in no way represents the norm.
Click to expand...
You give me to much credit.
 
apdst said:
What happened was that I blew your argument out of the water and just like any Liberal, you were forced to make it personal.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.
 
Fearandloathing said:
The top 1% make only $717,000 annually?

****, the Vancouver Canucks don't have a player under $980,000, and if you add up the rosters of the NBA, MLB, movie stars, Hip hoppers, pro golfers, the NFL and Nascar drivers, you have few billion there.

Not that i matters. The number is just a number. Who says a football player or a movie star has to give away money because someone doesn't earn as much? They don't have the ability to score touchdowns or enthrall us with make believe. They didn't bother with an education and have to work at Mac's Milk.

So?
Click to expand...

When it comes to the point when the general public cannot afford to pay the ever so increasing salaries through ticket sales and $12 beers, then yeah, they'll be "giving away" their money. At the rate that we are going, it will happen.
 
Fletch said:
Oddly enough, you don't fear vesting massive power in the hands of the state even though it is states that are the historic oppressors of people. Here is a list of the Forbes 400. Tell me in what way any of those people pose a threat to you.

The Richest People in America List - Forbes
Click to expand...

For ****'s sake, Fletch... they are the ones who are indirectly governing. :roll: You think they donate gobs of cash and offer posh post-political career jobs cuz they're charitable?
 
Conservative said:
Why is this even an issue, who cares and how does it affect you? Great headlines that motivate and upset Obamabots but why you? Too many people spend way too much time worrying about who pays the taxes and how much they pay, why is that? Do you really believe class warfare is productive? Maybe of some of these so called poor people who are whining and complaining would get off their asses things might just improve in their own lives.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of power being concentrated into a few hands, really no different from government power being concentrated in just a few individuals.

Wealth enough to live comfortably is great. Anyone who works hard and saves should be able to have a nice home, cars, vacations, etc.

But, what we're talking about is wealth in the billions being concentrated in a small percentage of people. Those people then use this wealth (or at least can use that wealth) to gain power,more wealth, therefore more power, and so on. They can ruin ordinary individuals, have much more influence than their numbers would suggest on government action.

It's not about having money. It's about power, and power corrupts regardless of its source.
 
It's terrible..

 
imagep said:
No, that's not what he said at all.

He said that "the average annual income of top percent", that doesn't imply that the top one percent starts at that point.

I've seen a figure more than double that for the average income of the 1%, I suspect that his figure is the median income for 1%ers, and not the mean income (which is closer to $1.5 million).
Click to expand...


Aw. :( Now I'm disappointed. We need to get more money to the top 1% quick!
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's a matter of power being concentrated into a few hands, really no different from government power being concentrated in just a few individuals.

Wealth enough to live comfortably is great. Anyone who works hard and saves should be able to have a nice home, cars, vacations, etc.

But, what we're talking about is wealth in the billions being concentrated in a small percentage of people. Those people then use this wealth (or at least can use that wealth) to gain power,more wealth, therefore more power, and so on. They can ruin ordinary individuals, have much more influence than their numbers would suggest on government action.

It's not about having money. It's about power, and power corrupts regardless of its source.
Click to expand...

When You Legislate Buying and Selling, The First Things Bought And Sold are Legislators.




You have the problem precisely backwards.
 
Middleground said:
For ****'s sake, Fletch... they are the ones who are indirectly governing. :roll: You think they donate gobs of cash and offer posh post-political career jobs cuz they're charitable?
Click to expand...

Well, why are they doing that?



Put more indirectly: how much of the Senate, do you think, has some Bill Gates money behind them? I recall seeing an estimate a few years back that he had about half in his pocket, but I think we can agree that the answer is roughly "as many as he wants".


Now. How many did he fund to prior to Microsoft's competitors buying enough government to bring it up on monopoly charges? Because as I recall, the answer there is "zero".



When we allow government to be used by large businesses as a means of gaining an advantage over the competition, we only ensure that they will seek to make an ROI off of government. When you concentrate power over the market in the government, you create massive incentives for the most powerful players in the market to seek to steer it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom