• 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

So who gets these "services" that we, the taxpayers are going to fund under your idea? How do we decide which ones we're going to spend money on or do you just figure it should be a free-for-all for everyone that thinks it would be an interesting diversion to throw their hat in the ring? Services = money.

Honestly, these are questions that I don't have answers to. Maybe someone smarter than me can come up with solid, viable answers.


All I know is, money in politics has not served the american public, and it continues to get worse.
 
It was rich people that crashed the market. It was rich people that committed fraud, and passed off toxic mortgages off as USDA prime securities, which is what REALLY caused things to go down.

It was actually the Democrats and more specifically the GSEs that created and or guaranteed all those toxic securities.

And you should remember why it was done in the first place. It was massive and unprecedented Government intervention for the purpose of mandating " equality " and " fairness "

It was fundamentally redistribution and boy did it backfire.

All Progressive redistributive initiatives backfire.
 
I think big business is an easy target for people who don't understand business. Businesses are in business to make a profit to pay themselves, their employees, and in the case of public traded corporations their shareholders. They are going to do whatever they can to influence politicians and rules/regulations but they don't vote. I don't blame big business like others because big business really isn't the problem, regulations and taxes hurt small businesses more than the big ones and those are the people really hurting. Where is the outrage over politicians on both sides of the aisle catering to big business and voting on their behalf? That is the problem with govt. today, career politicians not being held accountable for their votes and leadership that protects them by hiding their votes or legislation that wouldn't look favorable to them.

Our Founders knew that power corrupts that is why we had a part time legislature. That is why we have a part time legislature in TX. You make the laws and go home and live under them. We also have term limits as do most states, why not the Federal Govt for Representatives and Senators? That would straighten out this country in a hurry.

I'd love it, but again, how to make it happen by voting for candidates in the two party system...?
 
Really, so BLS is wrong on MA? You don't think govt. policies influence job creation? The MA treasury is wrong on the balanced budget? He did what Reagan did, increased use taxes asking people who use the products and services to pay more for their use.

Whether you like Romney or not is irrelevant, he had the experience that Obama still doesn't have today and that experience was ignored as Romney's resume was picked apart. I would take Romney in a heart beat over the incompetent we have there now

And you would get the same result.



As for governments creating jobs.....it's the CONSERVATIVE meme that it's not the role of government to create jobs...so when a CONSERVATIVES walks in applauding government for creating jobs....I laugh a little.
 
I'd love it, but again, how to make it happen by voting for candidates in the two party system...?

TX has it right and see in this forum how TX is maligned and denigrated. TX legislators meet every two years, handle the state's business and then go home to live under the laws they created. there is a reason businesses and people are moving to TX. Too bad the rest of the nations and in particular the blue states still don't get it.
 
Honestly, these are questions that I don't have answers to. Maybe someone smarter than me can come up with solid, viable answers.


All I know is, money in politics has not served the american public, and it continues to get worse.

We've got the system we've got because it's the best that the smartest people in this country have been able to come up with. Things like "publicly funded campaigns" sound good until you try to figure out some way to implement such a system without causing bigger problems than we've already got and/or trampling the constitution. Lots of things sound good at first blush and that's why it's so easy for people to solve all the problems of the world in casual conversation.
 
And you would get the same result.



As for governments creating jobs.....it's the CONSERVATIVE meme that it's not the role of government to create jobs...so when a CONSERVATIVES walks in applauding government for creating jobs....I laugh a little.

No, sorry, it is the conservative position that govt. creates the policies that affect economic activity and that is what creates jobs. It is just like liberals claim that I have stated that tax cuts create jobs, no, tax cuts create the economic activity that creates jobs. Taxes and Regulations hurt private sector economic activity and always will
 
No, sorry, it is the conservative position that govt. creates the policies that affect economic activity and that is what creates jobs. It is just like liberals claim that I have stated that tax cuts create jobs, no, tax cuts create the economic activity that creates jobs. Taxes and Regulations hurt private sector economic activity and always will

How's that hairsplitting knife of yours doing?
 
How's that hairsplitting knife of yours doing?

What hair splitting knife, that has been my position since I was old enough to understand that liberalism was a farce and was destroying this country with all that spending in the name of compassion and before I understood the components of GDP. Didn't take me long to buy into Reaganomics because I lived them, economic activity increases when people have more money to spend and that happens when they get to keep more of what they earn. Reagan took office with 99 million Americans working and 116 million Americans working when he left. That is what grew FIT revenue 60% including 3 years of FIT tax cuts.
 
It was actually the Democrats and more specifically the GSEs that created and or guaranteed all those toxic securities.

No, it was banks and bankers who created them, and spent $billions buying the regulations that allowed them to do so. And "democrats" - LOL. Republicans were just along for the ride. Never had any power to influence anything! Of course republicans get credit for the growth and the jobs, but not the bubble that created the growth and jobs.

And you should remember why it was done in the first place. It was massive and unprecedented Government intervention for the purpose of mandating " equality " and " fairness "

It was fundamentally redistribution and boy did it backfire.

All Progressive redistributive initiatives backfire.

Redistribution from homeowners to lenders and other financial institutions making record profits, paying our record bonuses, under regulations they spent decades shaping with $billions spent lobbying and campaigning. But it was all the fault of someone else.....

Sheesh, it should be obvious the "equity and fairness" stuff is just the bones thrown to the proles as a small price for what the financial behemoths wanted. Like the cost of tipping the valet at a five star resort.
 
Last edited:
We've got the system we've got because it's the best that the smartest people in this country have been able to come up with. Things like "publicly funded campaigns" sound good until you try to figure out some way to implement such a system without causing bigger problems than we've already got and/or trampling the constitution. Lots of things sound good at first blush and that's why it's so easy for people to solve all the problems of the world in casual conversation.

We all recognize that we're not solving the problems of the world. But I really see no alternative to somehow LIMITING the influence of money in elections. And constitutional issues aren't a barrier really - we've amended it many times and can do so again.
 
I'm not disagreeing with any of this.

How ever, none of what you said in any way refutes the fact that only so much wealth can be created within a given span of time.

FALSE! This is patently and demonstrably false. Creation is ALWAYS an available option so wealth creation is always available.

And that fact debunks the concept people refer to when they quip "economics isn't zero sum".

It isn't a fact and so your argument falls apart from there.
 
I think most of us can agree with that one.

But, the devil is in the details. How do you reduce the power of government when the power of wealth wants government to continue to increase? It's like tilting at windmills.

Well, I think a solid starting point is convincing the public that the problem is not solved by increasing the power of government, on the dubious notion that you somehow are not additionally increasing the power of interest groups when you do so.
 
Redistribution from homeowners to lenders and other financial institutions making record profits,...

Hi Jasper, could you please explain what you mean by this? Are you talking about the mortgage payment that homeowners make to the lenders?
 
Indirectly, we ALL use those services. Yeah, your neighbor uses those roads more than you. To get to his job. Making something, or providing a service. Which gets him money, which he then puts back into the market, which eventually finds it's way to you.

Same with social services. No, I don't use them. I'm 33. Don't need them. But I accept that I enjoy the society I live in, and that social services is one of the tools my government employes to preserve that society, to keep it from becoming something else, something I might enjoy FAR less.

Exactly. It's a construct that we, as a society, have designed. It is our best stab at an effective means of support, infrastructure, and responsibility.
 
only liberal logic can come up with this disaster of a statement.
no it isn't available to him. if it was then he would be able to sign up for it.

then why are you so up in arms that they have more than you?
actually I try to pay as little in tax as possible. I work hard for my money to provide for my family not give it to the government.

Where am I up in arms that someone has more money than me? LOL Don't make up random ****, ludin, that's bad form.

(Oh and it is available to him, he just needs to earn less money. He can weigh the risks and benefits, and if it's so easy and great as you guys say, then he can choose to live below the poverty line and apply for some federal benefits).
 
Where am I up in arms that someone has more money than me? LOL Don't make up random ****, ludin, that's bad form.

(Oh and it is available to him, he just needs to earn less money. He can weigh the risks and benefits, and if it's so easy and great as you guys say, then he can choose to live below the poverty line and apply for some federal benefits).

Do you believe a road to a prosperous society is to lower successful citizens to the level of less successful ones so that everyone can be on a level playing field? I'd really love for you to explain this one...
 
Do you believe a road to a prosperous society is to lower successful citizens to the level of less successful ones so that everyone can be on a level playing field? I'd really love for you to explain this one...

That's a straw man. It's difficult for me to explain a position I don't have.
 
That's a straw man. It's difficult for me to explain a position I don't have.

So, then what did you mean when you said this:

"Oh and it is available to him, he just needs to earn less money. He can weigh the risks and benefits, and if it's so easy and great as you guys say, then he can choose to live below the poverty line and apply for some federal benefits"

???
 
We all recognize that we're not solving the problems of the world. But I really see no alternative to somehow LIMITING the influence of money in elections. And constitutional issues aren't a barrier really - we've amended it many times and can do so again.

We could amend the constitution but since we are talking about free speech, you're really talking more about discarding it because it's the most fundamental right a democratic society can have and it is the cornerstone of the bill of rights. They don't call it the first amendment for nothing.
 
Hi Jasper, could you please explain what you mean by this? Are you talking about the mortgage payment that homeowners make to the lenders?

OK, the financial institutions made loans, charged a bunch of fees, sold them off at a profit almost immediately, those buyers bundled them into securities, charged more fees, sold off those securities at a profit, so all along the way the players are keeping slices of this new debt. And when the shiate hit the fan, the homeowners were mostly left with a mortgage debt in excess of the value of the property, many bankrupted, lost their houses and savings, but we covered the losses of the lenders instead of bailing out the borrowers. So after all the dust settles, which group benefited from the boom and the bust? It's not homeowners.... Follow the money as they say.

And the bigger point is the purpose of all the changes were NEVER to 'redistribute' downward. The banking and lending environment we had in the bubble was nearly exactly what the biggest lenders and the most powerful institutions in the U.S. paid good money - $billions over time - to get. Look at the results during the bubble - everyone in the process was shoveling in profits, pay, bonuses and stock appreciation gains as fast as they could work the shovels.
 
So, then what did you mean when you said this:

"Oh and it is available to him, he just needs to earn less money. He can weigh the risks and benefits, and if it's so easy and great as you guys say, then he can choose to live below the poverty line and apply for some federal benefits"

???

That people who live below the poverty line have access to some benefits.
 
OK, the financial institutions made loans, charged a bunch of fees, sold them off at a profit almost immediately, those buyers bundled them into securities, charged more fees, sold off those securities at a profit, so all along the way the players are keeping slices of this new debt. And when the shiate hit the fan, the homeowners were mostly left with a mortgage debt in excess of the value of the property, many bankrupted, lost their houses and savings, but we covered the losses of the lenders instead of bailing out the borrowers. So after all the dust settles, which group benefited from the boom and the bust? It's not homeowners.... Follow the money as they say.

And the bigger point is the purpose of all the changes were NEVER to 'redistribute' downward. The banking and lending environment we had in the bubble was nearly exactly what the biggest lenders and the most powerful institutions in the U.S. paid good money - $billions over time - to get. Look at the results during the bubble - everyone in the process was shoveling in profits, pay, bonuses and stock appreciation gains as fast as they could work the shovels.

Right, and so I still didn't see a direct answer to the question, 'are you talking about the mortgage payment made to the bank'?

I would ask you though, I know I am not the smartest person in the world, but when we bought our house, I read the documents before signing them, and if I had questions, I asked right then for clarification, and if I didn't like the answer, I asked to have it changed...Are you telling me that the borrower has NO responsibility for their situation? That the banks forced them to sign the papers?
 
That people who live below the poverty line have access to some benefits.

Right, So my point stands, you are saying that those with the means should give them up to live like those in poverty...Why? And do you think that would be a model for prosperity in this nation?
 
Right, So my point stands, you are saying that those with the means should give them up to live like those in poverty...Why? And do you think that would be a model for prosperity in this nation?

No I don't know that I've ever said that. It's a straw man and possibly one of the largest non sequiturs I've seen. I don't even give up enough to "live like those in poverty", so I am not sure how a small bump in a progressive tax bracket would be asking anyone else to.

That's not a very good or logical argument, j-mac.
 
Back
Top Bottom