• 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

JasperL said:
You asked me to defend my points and I did with links and evidence. What you've responded with is your opinion. It's not how this works.
Click to expand...

It's not opinion. It's putting what YOU posted into plain english. Did you not indicate the increase in debt? Well, you did. Increase in debt lowers net worth. :shrug:

And you can't point to more people buying cars and going to college as a positive, and evidence of rising living standards, then condemn the debt that makes that POSSIBLE because of decades of stagnant wages. Yes, many families funded what appeared to be rising living standards by taking on more debt. That's not sustainable, which is in large measure why growth is so anemic - real, sustainable growth can ONLY come from rising wages, and we haven't had that in the broad middle for DECADES.
Click to expand...

Well, you can't ignore what's causing the decline in net worth while lamenting the decline in net worth. again :shrug:

A couple are globalization made possible with "free trade" agreements, the end of tariffs, and "right to work" for less laws, and a general institutional hostility towards unions of all kinds. I could say more, but you're just going to dismiss those points out of hand so why bother.
Click to expand...

Uhm, who generally champions free trade agreements and lowered tariffs? And right to work laws are the very embodiment of the American ideal. The idea that one must be a member of an organization (and pay them) in order to be allowed to have a job is downright un-American.
 
mac said:
No, they are not equal, first off. Secondly, he opposed parts of the law and was overruled. So, what he signed into law were the parts he agreed with. The parts he didn't...the individual mandate, most importantly, he didn't sign into law. He was overruled and they were "signed into law" by the Mass legislature.
Click to expand...

Uh, here's Romney: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ney-calls-health-care-mandate-essential/?_r=0

“With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate,” he says in the video, which was found by the group American Bridge 21st Century.

It is Flipper Romney, so maybe he was for it, against it, then was for it again.....
 
JasperL;1064231615]First of all, I put some faith in evidence, because that is how we make informed judgments about the question at hand. I'm not sure what else to do but look at the data, observe the trends. Anecdotal evidence - how YOU did in your particular part of the world when you started work with your skill set and education - isn't data.
Click to expand...

I deal in personal experience, dealing with actual people, and human behavior that leads to those numbers you love posting. Without context your charts are meaningless and you ought to know that. Who makes up those numbers? How were the numbers captured, where did the data come from? Are illegals counted in the number and if not how do you know they weren't. What about irresponsible people making bad choices and are those choices identified and quantified?

Of course personal responsibility plays a role, but the fact is no amount of "personal responsibility" makes up for the fact that wages have stagnated for decades, or that a person of average intelligence, willing to work hard, 30 years ago could get a good job, with regular raises, a pension, etc. and that job either doesn't exist - it's been offshored - or exists in far fewer numbers. If there are 1,000x of those jobs, only 1,000x people CAN fill them. People can't work really hard and fill 2,000x of those good jobs - 1000x are simply GONE.
Click to expand...

If good jobs are gone what have these people done to secure new good jobs? Did they take their education and experience learned on the jobs they had to better themselves or did they sit on their asses whining and complaining about the govt. not doing enough to hurt those who did take those opportunities and capitalized on them? How do you propose politicians assure that there is shared prosperity and where is that in the Constitution as a role of the Federal Govt? Whose responsibility is it to set wages that a private business with their own private funds invested pays their employees? Do you have any idea what those major corporations pay their employees since with most liberals they are the evil ones.

This is the constant refrain from conservatives that it's all about personal responsibility and all that. For each person, sure, their success will depend in large part on their effort. But not everyone can be above average, make above average wages in an above average job in a booming field with lots of future growth potential. So no amount of hard work changes those broad trends reflected in those numbers.
Click to expand...

So what should an average employee who does the average work and puts in the average amount of effort pay and who decides what is fair for that person? Let me help you, the market decides except in the liberal world who believe it is the Government's responsibility to tell a private business person what to pay their workers. If they cannot recoup their costs no big deal to that govt. bureaucrat except for the reality that those employees lose their jobs and become dependent on the govt.


A string of straw men. If you don't want to have a serious conversation, fine, but I've never claimed I want anything close to 'equal outcomes' nor do I want to 'punish producers.' In the past few decades the "producers" have seen their wages and wealth skyrocket. That's great. The problem is the other 90% of the country which has not. If there's anything I "want" it is that the country as a whole SHARE in the increased prosperity. It's fine with me if a CEO makes $50 million. What's missing is his employees wages are going down or stagnant (economy wide). It's the latter that is the problem, for all of us, including the CEO who needs BROAD wage gains to fuel real, sustainable economic growth.
Click to expand...

You may believe you don't want equal outcome but in order to mandate shared responsibility that is what you are going to get or have to demand. It scares me when I see people like you who I doubt ever invested a dollar of your own into a business for if you did how would you feel about a govt. entity telling you what you have to pay your employees and what you have to pay the govt. in taxes and regulations? What you want to do is lump all businesses together when the vast majority of those paying at or a little above minimum wage are small businesses not large companies. Even Walmart pays an average of over $10 an hour and offers full benefits to their full time employees along with education reimbursement as well as promotions from within. Most Walmart managers come from within and many make six digit salaries.

You just don't realize how foolish you sound or how poorly informed you are. I competed against Wal-Mart and other large businesses. I know what they paid their employees, I employed over 1200 people, hired, fired, and promoted many, and had my own money invested in the business so pardon me if I don't give your posts much credibility.
 
whysoserious said:
Well two of those are asking me to name a conservative that voted something with Obama's name on it... so no, that's not happening. And Reagan raised some taxes.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. The point is that conservatives are just as concerned about other people and their money as anyone else. They just follow this ridiculous, unproven theory of these magical "job creators" who we all suckle off of.
Click to expand...

Reagan raised use taxes, if you don't use the service or product you don't pay the taxes. You don't seem to understand what your taxes fund or what taxes you pay
 
JasperL said:
Uh, here's Romney: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ney-calls-health-care-mandate-essential/?_r=0

“With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate,” he says in the video, which was found by the group American Bridge 21st Century.

It is Flipper Romney, so maybe he was for it, against it, then was for it again.....
Click to expand...

Sounds like MA is just the place for you. You just don't understand the difference between a state and federal mandate. Not surprising.
 
Conservative said:
Reagan raised use taxes, if you don't use the service or product you don't pay the taxes. You don't seem to understand what your taxes fund or what taxes you pay
Click to expand...

You asked me to name a conservative that raised taxes. Why are we going around in circles?

You care as much, if not more, about the finances and taxes of others than anyone else on this board. So let's quite playing games.
 
rocket88 said:
Romney did hold public office when he signed it, McCain was sure in favor of the Bush stimulus, and you can't even keep your Bushes straight.

Sure is convenient that you can just write them off as "not conservatives." I'm beginning to think the "true conservative" is as elusive as Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Romney was a Governor and what he signed didn't affect anyone outside the state of MA, you don't seem to understand the concept of state vs Federal issues. Would you please post the Bush stimulus and show me the Federal Spending in that stimulus?
 
KevinKohler said:
They have an educated work for available to them through those tax dollars, without which, they would not be wealthy.

They have subsidized poverty, without which, they would have to pay higher wages, or face violent revolt at some point.
Click to expand...

that is such a pathetic argument because those educated on our dime (which is a state function-not federal) get higher wages by virtue of a public education

nothing is funnier than the legions of envy pretending that the rich get some sort of extra benefits for paying more federal income taxes in a year per person than 50 million will pay in their life times combined
 
whysoserious said:
You asked me to name a conservative that raised taxes. Why are we going around in circles?

You care as much, if not more, about the finances and taxes of others than anyone else on this board. So let's quite playing games.
Click to expand...

Right, forgot how specific I have to be with liberals, I was talking FEDERAL INCOME TAXES not use taxes.

I care about people being taxed even you. If you care so much about what the govt gets then send more of your income to the Federal Govt. and stop trying to spread liberal misery equally to everyone else. What is it about liberals who worry so much about how much money goes to the govt. yet never sends in more than required. If you truly cared, help your local bureaucrats out by sending them more of your own money
 
TeleKat said:
We live on a planet with scarce resources. This is not Star Trek, we cannot just replicate everything we need. As such, it's important to realize that the wealth centralization as described in the OP is basically mass theft. It is restricting access to the world's natural resources and forcing people to go without. It is economic authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

No, not scarce. Finite maybe, but not scarce.
 
Conservative said:
Right, forgot how specific I have to be with liberals, I was talking FEDERAL INCOME TAXES not use taxes.

I care about people being taxed even you. If you care so much about what the govt gets then send more of your income to the Federal Govt. and stop trying to spread liberal misery equally to everyone else. What is it about liberals who worry so much about how much money goes to the govt. yet never sends in more than required. If you truly cared, help your local bureaucrats out by sending them more of your own money
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're quite the compassionate person. I can feel the warmth radiating.
 
JasperL said:
Uh, here's Romney: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ney-calls-health-care-mandate-essential/?_r=0

“With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate,” he says in the video, which was found by the group American Bridge 21st Century.

It is Flipper Romney, so maybe he was for it, against it, then was for it again.....
Click to expand...

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.[19] He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[20] He vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[21] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two."
 
The internet is such a strange and wondrous place. In the RW, most of the conservatives I encounter are social conservatives who will gladly say screw banks, Wall Street, corporations, rich people, etc., but then on the internet I seem to only encounter the ones who talk like they were born in a manger and rose to be Emperor by eating bean sandwiches and everybody can do the same.
 
whysoserious said:
Yeah, you're quite the compassionate person. I can feel the warmth radiating.
Click to expand...

So does that mean you are going to send more of your take home pay to the Federal Govt. that required because you are such a warm caring person? Or do you have a job rather than being an expert student?
 
Conservative said:
So does that mean you are going to send more of your take home pay to the Federal Govt. that required because you are such a warm caring person? Or do you have a job rather than being an expert student?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what my tax rate is, effective that is, I could find out soon. I probably should know.

Either way, for someone who makes my level of money, I am sure I pay a tax rate that almost every person in the country would say is high enough. I feel fine with myself.
 
mac said:
It's not opinion. It's putting what YOU posted into plain english. Did you not indicate the increase in debt? Well, you did. Increase in debt lowers net worth.
Click to expand...

You said most of the reduction in net worth was increases in debt, but no increases in assets. Evidence? And this proves what? They're better off because they went into debt for cars they are upside down in (no increase in assets) and for a college education that got them no wage increases?

Well, you can't ignore what's causing the decline in net worth while lamenting the decline in net worth.
Click to expand...

And the two positives you mentioned to indicate living standards have not dropped is stuff they bought on credit. Are they better off having to borrow to go to college and to be upside down in their car loans? And let's face it - without added debt, our economy does FAR less well during that period, so wages drop further, fewer jobs, fewer profits for DJIA, etc.

Uhm, who generally champions free trade agreements and lowered tariffs? And right to work laws are the very embodiment of the American ideal. The idea that one must be a member of an organization (and pay them) in order to be allowed to have a job is downright un-American.
Click to expand...

You tell me. If you're going to point out that Clinton signed a bunch of this stuff, sure. Supported all along the way by GOPers. I didn't make this partisan and I don't feel any need to defend policies signed by democrats because they are democrats.

And unions weren't "unamerican" for the soldiers that fought and put their lives on the line in WWII. When did this idea of unions become UNamerican? What year was that?
 
whysoserious said:
I'm not sure what my tax rate is, effective that is, I could find out soon. I probably should know.

Either way, for someone who makes my level of money, I am sure I pay a tax rate that almost every person in the country would say is high enough. I feel fine with myself.
Click to expand...

Tax rates are irrelevant, what are you sending to D.C. Show your compassion and lead by example, send more of your take home pay to D.C. to fund those politicians that you care so much about because we all know they are compassionate and really care. You certainly are going to get a great rate of return in the form of human compassion so just do it and let me know how it turns out.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.[19] He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[20] He vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[21] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two."
Click to expand...

You said, and I'll quote you: "The parts he didn't...the individual mandate, most importantly, he didn't sign into law."

What you referenced above is the EMPLOYER mandate. Two entirely different mandates. Nothing works without an individual mandate, which is why Romney supported it in Mass. and why it's in the ACA.

The broad reform CAN work without an employer mandate. Not as well, and it encourages employers to offload their healthcare costs onto taxpayers, but nothing crucial depends on employers kicking in some amount.
 
JasperL said:
You said most of the reduction in net worth was increases in debt, but no increases in assets. Evidence? And this proves what? They're better off because they went into debt for cars they are upside down in (no increase in assets) and for a college education that got them no wage increases?
Click to expand...

Personal financial mismanagement is not a fault of society. It is the fault of the individual.

And the two positives you mentioned to indicate living standards have not dropped is stuff they bought on credit. Are they better off having to borrow to go to college and to be upside down in their car loans? And let's face it - without added debt, our economy does FAR less well during that period, so wages drop further, fewer jobs, fewer profits for DJIA, etc.
Click to expand...

I didn't call them "positives" and you should evaluate your own statement here.

You tell me. If you're going to point out that Clinton signed a bunch of this stuff, sure. Supported all along the way by GOPers. I didn't make this partisan and I don't feel any need to defend policies signed by democrats because they are democrats.
Click to expand...

Ok, then, where do these policies come from then?

And unions weren't "unamerican" for the soldiers that fought and put their lives on the line in WWII. When did this idea of unions become UNamerican? What year was that?
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Unions are not Un-American. Forcing someone to join one so that they are "allowed" to get a job is un-American.
 
JasperL said:
You said, and I'll quote you: "The parts he didn't...the individual mandate, most importantly, he didn't sign into law."

What you referenced above is the EMPLOYER mandate. Two entirely different mandates. Nothing works without an individual mandate, which is why Romney supported it in Mass. and why it's in the ACA.

The broad reform CAN work without an employer mandate. Not as well, and it encourages employers to offload their healthcare costs onto taxpayers, but nothing crucial depends on employers kicking in some amount.
Click to expand...

How many sections did he veto and how many are specifically named in that reference?
 
mac said:
Yes. You are using it incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Economic scarcity is used to refer to a state where resources are limited. It is the most basic and fundamental economic law in every school of thought on the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom