• 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

there is more wealth available than stealing stuff from those who are more talented or intelligent than you are

the zero sum nonsense of the income redistributionist left is hilarious

you probably blame the valedictorian of you HS class from preventing you from getting A grade



t
I think it is so pathetic that Ivy League colleges produce students who believe wealth and the issuance of grades are analogous.
 
You are still avoiding the argument, a finite amount of wealth exists, and if a group has captured an ever growing share, there is no escaping the fact that less remains for the other 99%.

There is enough wealth out there for you to participate but what is preventing you is you and not a rich person. The pie continues to grow and if you continue to sit on your ass, don't blame someone else for getting a bigger share of that pie. You and others have continued to tout the Obama economy, that is a growing pie, why aren't you getting your share?
 
You are still avoiding the argument, a finite amount of wealth exists, and if a group has captured an ever growing share, there is no escaping the fact that less remains for the other 99%.

a finite amount of wealth? maybe so but we are no where near reaching that limit. its an excuse the parasite or redistributionist left uses to take from others
 
there is more wealth available than stealing stuff from those who are more talented or intelligent than you are

the zero sum nonsense of the income redistributionist left is hilarious

There is a zero sum element in the economy, and you can see it in all the figures of wealth and income. And obviously economic growth means the pie itself gets bigger. It's not an either/or question.

But it's no accident or random occurrence that as income and wealth for the top has skyrocketed, income and wealth at the middle and below has stagnated, for decades. The growth from productivity gains that used to fuel higher wages across the board have gone mostly to the top slivers. So the pie IS getting bigger, but the share of the pie controlled by the wealthy is also growing. It's just what the numbers say any way you want to parse them.
 
I think it is so pathetic that Ivy League colleges produce students who believe wealth and the issuance of grades are analogous.

competition is competition. you want to blame those who achieve for your lack of achievement

me becoming more wealthy by investing wisely and not spending stupidly does not impact your ability to become more wealthy and thus you blaming me for your lack of financial success is pathetic
 
There is enough wealth out there for you to participate but what is preventing you is you and not a rich person. The pie continues to grow and if you continue to sit on your ass, don't blame someone else for getting a bigger share of that pie. You and others have continued to tout the Obama economy, that is a growing pie, why aren't you getting your share?
Again, I am not surprised that the history of US wage gains since 1973 have passed you by. Not once have I seen one iota of acknowledgement of such basic facts.
 
There is a zero sum element in the economy, and you can see it in all the figures of wealth and income. And obviously economic growth means the pie itself gets bigger. It's not an either/or question.

But it's no accident or random occurrence that as income and wealth for the top has skyrocketed, income and wealth at the middle and below has stagnated, for decades. The growth from productivity gains that used to fuel higher wages across the board have gone mostly to the top slivers. So the pie IS getting bigger, but the share of the pie controlled by the wealthy is also growing. It's just what the numbers say any way you want to parse them.


as long as investment produces income, those who don't spend more than they make will get richer
 
There is a zero sum element in the economy, and you can see it in all the figures of wealth and income. And obviously economic growth means the pie itself gets bigger. It's not an either/or question.

But it's no accident or random occurrence that as income and wealth for the top has skyrocketed, income and wealth at the middle and below has stagnated, for decades. The growth from productivity gains that used to fuel higher wages across the board have gone mostly to the top slivers. So the pie IS getting bigger, but the share of the pie controlled by the wealthy is also growing. It's just what the numbers say any way you want to parse them.

Do you always blame someone else because you aren't getting your share? Why do you think more income is going to the top earners? I asked you how a rich person prevented you from joining them and you dodged the question, why?
 
competition is competition. you want to blame those who achieve for your lack of achievement

me becoming more wealthy by investing wisely and not spending stupidly does not impact your ability to become more wealthy and thus you blaming me for your lack of financial success is pathetic
Poor turtle, every time basic understanding of concepts like "finite" befuddles you, you get so upset and it becomes personal.

Here, let me buy you a round.
 
Again, I am not surprised that the history of US wage gains since 1973 have passed you by. Not once have I seen one iota of acknowledgement of such basic facts.

Funny, they never passed me by because I went out and grabbed my share and grew my income by becoming very marketable and being the best at what I did. you don't seem to understand the concept and want the govt. to redistribute to you what I have earned. How typically liberal you are. This is called the decline of America when we have more people with your attitude
 
Funny, they never passed me by because I went out and grabbed my share and grew my income by becoming very marketable and being the best at what I did. you don't seem to understand the concept and want the govt. to redistribute to you what I have earned. How typically liberal you are. This is called the decline of America when we have more people with your attitude
You have not shown one iota of understanding the most basic history of US workers, all you have are personal anecdotes.
 
a finite amount of wealth? maybe so but we are no where near reaching that limit. its an excuse the parasite or redistributionist left uses to take from others

It's interesting you'd use the term "parasites" for a lot of people, millions of them, who used to have good jobs in manufacturing but have seen them disappear and replaced by low wage service jobs. And that's just one very large group, with other groups no more guilty of being parasites than they are. And it's the economy of the last 40 years that's been "redistributionist" with wage gains that used to be shared across the income scales now going almost entirely to the top - wealth and income has been redistributed upwards.

I wouldn't think anyone would find it surprising that some below the top levels are pushing for a redistribution back down to the lower levels.
 
It's interesting you'd use the term "parasites" for a lot of people, millions of them, who used to have good jobs in manufacturing but have seen them disappear and replaced by low wage service jobs. And that's just one very large group, with other groups no more guilty of being parasites than they are. And it's the economy of the last 40 years that's been "redistributionist" with wage gains that used to be shared across the income scales now going almost entirely to the top - wealth and income has been redistributed upwards.

I wouldn't think anyone would find it surprising that some below the top levels are pushing for a redistribution back down to the lower levels.

it isn't our fault that global labor markets mean someone with an IQ of 85 and a 8th grade education cannot get 40 dollars an hour on a production line when someone with an IQ of 105 and a 12th grade eduction in India is willing to do the same job for 10 dollars an hour
 
You have not shown one iota of understanding the most basic history of US workers, all you have are personal anecdotes.

I understand my history and I was a U.S. worker. You and other liberals seem to claim that I am not that smart and yet I did quite well for myself and my family who would disagree with you. If I can do it, certainly someone with your superior intelligence can do it, what are you waiting for?
 
Do you always blame someone else because you aren't getting your share? Why do you think more income is going to the top earners? I asked you how a rich person prevented you from joining them and you dodged the question, why?

It's not relevant to the discussion, but I'm doing fine and haven't complained at all about my financial situation.

Why? Many reasons, but among them is we've offshored jobs that produce actual wealth - making things - and substituted those jobs with crap low value added service jobs. We call that 'free trade' to pit U.S. workers and plants against third world locations that don't meet even minimal environmental or working condition standards, then allow those goods to be imported here tariff free. The result is predictable.

For the record, asking how a rich person prevented me from joining them misses the point. Not everyone can be above average, and what we're talking about is the economy as a whole, not my place in it. And the fact is the rules of the game established by 'the rich' guaranteed that U.S. workers, as a group, lost. U.S. workers cannot compete with plants that allow pollution in China so thick you can't see a quarter mile on 'clear' days. So they shut down here, threw millions of hard workers out of a good job making things of real value, replaced by stocking shelves in Walmart.
 
I understand my history and I was a U.S. worker. You and other liberals seem to claim that I am not that smart and yet I did quite well for myself and my family who would disagree with you. If I can do it, certainly someone with your superior intelligence can do it, what are you waiting for?

Therein lies your problem--you are too quick to try to personalize discussions when anecdotal nonsense is just nonsense in relation to the subject at hand. I don't see you as not smart--I see you as stubborn when there is no reason for stubbornness. Regardless,. congratulations on having done quite well for yourself. Other people, however, may have other priorities and motives than what you assume they do or should have.
 
it isn't our fault that global labor markets mean someone with an IQ of 85 and a 8th grade education cannot get 40 dollars an hour on a production line when someone with an IQ of 105 and a 12th grade eduction in India is willing to do the same job for 10 dollars an hour

Since when is it U.S. policy to encourage that? It's part of the point - "free trade" serves the interests of the global behemoths quite well, and we've expanded it over the years, to the obvious detriment of the average American. So why is "free trade" our policy choice when it causes average workers of all kinds of IQ and education decades of stagnating income? It's a change in the rules that guarantee U.S. workers lose.

And nice of you to insult U.S. workers. You think they're all stupid? Can't you at least try to hide your contempt a little bit?
 
I understand my history and I was a U.S. worker. You and other liberals seem to claim that I am not that smart and yet I did quite well for myself and my family who would disagree with you. If I can do it, certainly someone with your superior intelligence can do it, what are you waiting for?
Who says I haven't?

Instead of insisting on the personal, try showing you have this claimed understanding of US wage growth since 1973.
 
I love economically unsuccessful people pretending they know more about economic success than us successful people
I did not realize that inheritance is a basis for claims of success.
 
Since when is it U.S. policy to encourage that? It's part of the point - "free trade" serves the interests of the global behemoths quite well, and we've expanded it over the years, to the obvious detriment of the average American. So why is "free trade" our policy choice when it causes average workers of all kinds of IQ and education decades of stagnating income? It's a change in the rules that guarantee U.S. workers lose.

And nice of you to insult U.S. workers. You think they're all stupid? Can't you at least try to hide your contempt a little bit?

YOu want to try to play this stupid game of saying I was referring to all US workers? not going to work with me.

but the fact is-being strong but uneducated isn't going to get you big bucks any more. I know-3 miles from where I grew up was the big motor works in Norwood Ohio. lots of people who didn't even graduate from HS got good jobs there and the place was full of nice well cared for middle class homes. Three generations of people in that area worked at the big GM assembly plant there. But the union wages, along with a costly strike and physical limitations made the place unprofitable and it was shut down. contrary to the left, companies or factories exist to make the owners money, not to provide jobs. labor is merely a commodity and when that commodity can be obtained for less cost, any manager who doesn't take advantage of that is incompetent

Norwood Assembly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so tell me, how do you change the fact that workers overseas will do the same quality of labor for less cost?
 
I did not realize that inheritance is a basis for claims of success.

its easy for the failures to justify others not failing by pretending its inheritance

the country is littered with athletes, entertainers and heirs who got big bucks as 20-30 year olds and are bankrupt at 40

ever heard of MC Hammer? Aaron Pryor?
 
its easy for the failures to justify others not failing by pretending its inheritance

the country is littered with athletes, entertainers and heirs who got big bucks as 20-30 year olds and are bankrupt at 40

ever heard of MC Hammer? Aaron Pryor?


holy mental pretzelfark.
wow.
 
YOu want to try to play this stupid game of saying I was referring to all US workers? not going to work with me.

You were the one who used an example of a guy with an 85 IQ and an 8th grade education, not me.

but the fact is-being strong but uneducated isn't going to get you big bucks any more. I know-3 miles from where I grew up was the big motor works in Norwood Ohio. lots of people who didn't even graduate from HS got good jobs there and the place was full of nice well cared for middle class homes. Three generations of people in that area worked at the big GM assembly plant there. But the union wages, along with a costly strike and physical limitations made the place unprofitable and it was shut down. contrary to the left, companies or factories exist to make the owners money, not to provide jobs. labor is merely a commodity and when that commodity can be obtained for less cost, any manager who doesn't take advantage of that is incompetent

Of course, but it's a very deliberate policy choice to pit a U.S. worker in a U.S. plant with minimal safety and environmental rules against a plant in China that is allowed to dump waste untreated into the nearest waterway, and to use electricity fired by coal plants that cause the pollution you see in any picture of modern day China. That is our country setting the rules of the game.

Obviously, it's the job of companies to use the rules to their advantage. But there is no inherent requirement that we set the rules so U.S. manufacturing will lose. For 200 years, we had a policy of rigging the rules in favor of our citizens. Seems reasonable to me! Our job as a country isn't to maximize ROI for GE

so tell me, how do you change the fact that workers overseas will do the same quality of labor for less cost?

That horse has left the barn, but at this point I'm for subsidies of U.S. manufacturing, tax breaks, and perhaps more. Not because I think that's how it should be done, but when we "compete" with subsidized production overseas, we either lose or match their subsidies - seems to me. I'd rather work it the other way with the tariffs we thought were normal for 200 years, but there seems little likelihood of that in this environment. Saying the word is almost heresy - brands one a kook.

But what I don't quite understand is we have a global economy that predictably caused decades of income stagnation for the vast majority of U.S. workers, and has GLOBALLY resulted in an incredible concentration of wealth in the hands of a very, very, very few. It's in the data and the causes are clear enough. But you're insulting the predictable losers of that rigged game by calling them "parasites" and then whining when those who were guaranteed to lose and DID, have the temerity to fight for some small measure of their losses to be restored.
 
Back
Top Bottom