• 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!

Inequality Troubles Americans Across Party Lines, Times/CBS Poll Finds

You're missing a simple point. Even if stagnant...US incomes are still higher than most of the rest of the world.

Right.


We're still the best, so why try to be better?



What a great argument.
 
we don't give tax cuts to those companies.

however maybe if we made business environment more hospitable then they wouldn't be moving overseas to begin with.

Is there a corporate tax break that ships jobs overseas? | PolitiFact

yet another lie told by the left.

Please. As if minimum wage is the reason. Not to ruffle your skirt, sister, but the EPA is a BIG reason, and hey. why not, right? Just bulldoze our environment here in the US for tidy profit, no bug deal that has no historical reference of back firing, right?
 
Right.


We're still the best, so why try to be better?



What a great argument.

More like "we're steadily sinking but still 3rd place, so why do anything while it's not too late to avoid falling behind malaysia"
 
You're missing a simple point. Even if stagnant...US incomes are still higher than most of the rest of the world.

I already addressed that. If our incomes are stagnant Europe and Asia will catch up. In my mind, if you are standing still you are really falling behind because everybody is moving forward.

Also, I don't understand why you would choose stagnation over healthy economic growth for the middle class. Doing this will take strong technological development, good education, low taxes and regulations, and moderate income inequality.
 
Right.


We're still the best, so why try to be better?



What a great argument.

"Better"? How is taking what someone earned and giving it to someone that didn't earn it, specially when it's not actually necessary....."better"?
 
I already addressed that. If our incomes are stagnant Europe and Asia will catch up. In my mind, if you are standing still you are really falling behind because everybody is moving forward.

Also, I don't understand why you would choose stagnation over healthy economic growth for the middle class. Doing this will take strong technological development, good education, low taxes and regulations, and moderate income inequality.

So what if they catch up? When you're talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor....there should be a reason to do so. "Fair" is not a reason...."need" would be. Americans as a whole can support themselves. At some point, even the leftest of ideologues need to realize that there is a difference between need and want. You guys aren't pissed that the poor have it bad....you're pissed that some don't have it bad. If you're taking money from those that have "too much" and giving it to those that have less simply for the sake of doing it....you're (society) committing theft.

The American condition is actually better than in most other places in the world. You guys need to put away the torches and pitch forks and try to figure out how to earn your way to the 1% rather than trying to get the govt to give their money to you.
 
Please. As if minimum wage is the reason. Not to ruffle your skirt, sister, but the EPA is a BIG reason, and hey. why not, right? Just bulldoze our environment here in the US for tidy profit, no bug deal that has no historical reference of back firing, right?
strawman arguments will always be strawman arguments.

this has nothing to do with what I posted. please go back read and understand.
yes the US has become hostile to businesses. they are moving to more friendly businesses environments.

more so under this administration. now the EPA is attacking the airline. that is all they can do is try to shut businesses down instead of building them up.
the cost in jobs and business growth is huge.

however as I proved there is no such thing as tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. it is just another liberal lie.
right up there with you can keep your plan if you like it and you can keep your doctor.
 
strawman arguments will always be strawman arguments.

this has nothing to do with what I posted. please go back read and understand.
yes the US has become hostile to businesses. they are moving to more friendly businesses environments.

more so under this administration. now the EPA is attacking the airline. that is all they can do is try to shut businesses down instead of building them up.
the cost in jobs and business growth is huge.

Of course they're moving to "more friendly" business locals. Such as places like China:

china-bad-pollution-climate-change-7__880.jpg

What's not to like - socialize the costs of pollution, privatize the profits. Works every time it's been tried!

Also, too, workplace safety is overrated. We'd have a lot more jobs if we just accepted workplace deaths/disease/injuries of the proles when it slows progress! Etc.

I have no doubt we could as a country eliminate a lot of regulations on the margins that would have little effect on the things we care about, but that is a difficult process, that takes more work than just whining about the EPA, which came about and got its power because we had air and water like China. It's far cheaper and you get higher economic growth when millions of individuals pay for pollution with shorter lives and poor health than when the polluter pays for cleanup at the source. OSHA emerged because businesses objectively ignore problems that don't come with a cost to them. What is a life worth? For businesses, it's worth precisely what a lawsuit after the death/disease/injury will cost, if the family of the dead are allowed to sue, and the state forces the defendant to pay. In "business friendly" locations, that worth is effectively zero, and so workplaces aren't safe. Workers put up with it because not ALL THAT MANY people die immediately, and the long term risks from exposure to chemicals are hidden, and after all in corrupt regimes the alternative is starvation and death.

Etc....
 
"Inequality" doesn't trouble me in any way, shape, form, or fashion. There's no rational reason for it to trouble anyone.



This country was founded by rebelling against an aristocracy. We have built a new aristocracy, ensuring that the rich are very very rich and stay that way across generations, while poverty is inherited and the lower middle class has little chance to move up. Of course that troubles us. It is antithetical to everything we believe in. Unfortunately, we try to pretend that this problem doesn't exist and many people oppose measures to equal the playing field because they don't want anything holding them down when they become rich.

This country was founded on by rebelling against an absolute central authority that taxed it relentlessly, on the basis that all men are equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

You and yours want to build the same thing, only you think it's somehow better when it doesn't involve any kind of a monarch. It isn't.
 
Because those that are privileged and powerful and have the means to more heavily influence the government put themselves in a protected position from small competitors and heavily skew the competitive field.

Are you taking corporations? Because there are laws against monopolies. As far as the average person who's just trying to get ahead, the income gap has very little importance. Why should I care how much someone else makes. Unless this is all fueled by jealously.
 
TRANSLATION: 'I dismiss your facts and figures because I want to believe what I want to believe.'

In Sweden most children are born to unmarried women and it doesn't seem to be degrading Sweden.

The fact is that everyone except for the top 1% have been economically stagnant or lost ground over the last 30 years. That can't be simply explained by accusing the bottom 99% of being lazy.

Not in Texas. Not in Georgia.

Not in red states. And not in homes with engaged, married parents.

The 1 percent bullsh is just that. Bullsh.
 
Are you taking corporations? Because there are laws against monopolies. As far as the average person who's just trying to get ahead, the income gap has very little importance. Why should I care how much someone else makes. Unless this is all fueled by jealously.

I will give you an example of how big business uses their clout to persuade the government to pass laws to stifle competition. I have worked in logistics for over a decade. In the freight brokerage side of things we have about a dozen big players and the rest of the industry is comprised of small businesses many of which only have 1-5 employees and gross revenues of under $500K. Law requires all freight brokerages to carry a $10K surety bond however some of the big dozen are on a campaign to have the law changed to require a $100K surety bond. The larger surety bond has no benefit to these large companies and the only reason they want to have them required is many of the small competitors cannot afford them thus eliminating their competition.
 
So what if they catch up?

You don't care about prosperity or American exceptionalism? Do you want your children to be better off than you? Do you care about anything?

Here is a choice. Take your pick:
A. Stagnation for the middle class.
B. Strong growth for the middle class.

What is your preference?

When you're talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor....there should be a reason to do so.

When did I talk about this? What post? Where did I say that I support socialism?

"Fair" is not a reason...."need" would be.

My reason is "Better." If we can make America better why not do so? The way income is being distributed is morally wrong and is keeping the middle class from achieving its potential. We can be doing better.

Americans as a whole can support themselves.

Sure most of us can, but so can Mexico. Mere survival is easy, actually being the best takes work and fair laws.

At some point, even the leftest of ideologues need to realize that there is a difference between need and want.

If "need" is all that is important than there is no need to ensure that we stay a first world country because we can obtain our needs by being a second world country. I want America to have both needs and wants. I want America to be the most technologically advanced, the most prosperous nation in the world with both the most of what we need and want.

You guys aren't pissed that the poor have it bad....you're pissed that some don't have it bad. If you're taking money from those that have "too much" and giving it to those that have less simply for the sake of doing it....you're (society) committing theft.

Is this a response to someone else? I never mentioned taking money away from people and giving it to the poor. Taking money away from the successful and using it to fuel a welfare state is a really bad idea and won't help anybody. Just take a look at Europe.

The American condition is actually better than in most other places in the world. You guys need to put away the torches and pitch forks and try to figure out how to earn your way to the 1% rather than trying to get the govt to give their money to you.

Again, I don't support the welfare state. I actually support completely scrapping welfare and severely cutting social security.

So your solution to all this is for everyone to be in the 1%. The problem is that only a limited number of career fields allow people to do this. If everyone tried to be a doctor for example, there would be too many doctors and the demand for every individual doctor would fall. This would greatly reduce earning for doctors and create high unemployment for them making the medical field no longer a route to the 1%.

If everyone tried to create a small business there would be too many small businesses and the free market would weed out most of them.

The reality is that there are a limited number of seats for executives, doctors, or small business owners, and there will always be a need for janitors, engineers, nurses, and teachers. It is great to encourage people to try to achieve more but the hard reality is that not everyone is going to be rich. So we should make sure that the middle class and the poor are treated fairly because most Americans are going to fall into these groups no matter what.
 
"Inequality" doesn't trouble me in any way, shape, form, or fashion. There's no rational reason for it to trouble anyone.

This country was founded on by rebelling against an absolute central authority that taxed it relentlessly, on the basis that all men are equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

You and yours want to build the same thing, only you think it's somehow better when it doesn't involve any kind of a monarch. It isn't.

Here is something "troubling" about income inequality.

In 2009 at the worst part of the recession incomes for the average Americans had fallen to $44,000, and incomes for the rich fell to $871,000 per year.

In 2013 the incomes of the rich had recovered to $968,000. However even during this recovery the incomes for the average American had fallen to $43,900 from the worst part of the recession.

Everyone lost because of the recession but only the rich gained from the recovery. That is really really troubling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/u...d-to-top-one-percent.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
 
You don't care about prosperity or American exceptionalism? Do you want your children to be better off than you? Do you care about anything?

American prosperity is not achieved through progressive disincentivization. America climbed the ladder to exceptional long before progressive taxation.

Here is a choice. Take your pick:
A. Stagnation for the middle class.
B. Strong growth for the middle class.

What is your preference?

How do you propose creating strong growth for the middle class?

When did I talk about this? What post? Where did I say that I support socialism?

Then what are you talking about?

My reason is "Better." If we can make America better why not do so? The way income is being distributed is morally wrong and is keeping the middle class from achieving its potential. We can be doing better.

How is it "morally" wrong? Those that have made themselves worth more, made themselves irreplaceable or in demand, earn more. How is that morally wrong? What is morally wrong is forcing companies to pay easily replaceable people more than they warrant.

Sure most of us can, but so can Mexico. Mere survival is easy, actually being the best takes work and fair laws.

What laws are unfair?

If "need" is all that is important than there is no need to ensure that we stay a first world country because we can obtain our needs by being a second world country. I want America to have both needs and wants. I want America to be the most technologically advanced, the most prosperous nation in the world with both the most of what we need and want.

Need is not all that is important, but when establishing a point where the government needs to step in and assist....it should be based on what you need. Not what you want.

Is this a response to someone else? I never mentioned taking money away from people and giving it to the poor. Taking money away from the successful and using it to fuel a welfare state is a really bad idea and won't help anybody.

Then what do you propose?

Just take a look at Europe.

That was my point.

Again, I don't support the welfare state. I actually support completely scrapping welfare and severely cutting social security.

So your solution to all this is for everyone to be in the 1%. The problem is that only a limited number of career fields allow people to do this.

Untrue. Anyone could do it. Getting into the 1% is more about wealth management than earning potential. However, if if the 1% were limited to a certain few professions....learn and engage in that profession....if you want to be rich. I guarantee you that most that complain about the 1% couldn't handle the stress or workload to get there and stay there.

If everyone tried to be a doctor for example, there would be too many doctors and the demand for every individual doctor would fall. This would greatly reduce earning for doctors and create high unemployment for them making the medical field no longer a route to the 1%.

And then a guy realizes there's no one around to fix toilets. He then opens his own plumbing business and makes millions. :shrug:

If everyone tried to create a small business there would be too many small businesses and the free market would weed out most of them.

Then create a different one, a bigger one, a better one...until you get it right.

The reality is that there are a limited number of seats for executives, doctors, or small business owners, and there will always be a need for janitors, engineers, nurses, and teachers. It is great to encourage people to try to achieve more but the hard reality is that not everyone is going to be rich. So we should make sure that the middle class and the poor are treated fairly because most Americans are going to fall into these groups no matter what.

And when there becomes a shortage in those fields because they don't pay enough....the wage will rise.
 
Do you think everyone can become rich?

Everyone willing to educate themselves and put in the work...coupled with sensible fiscal choices can.
 
Everyone willing to educate themselves and put in the work...coupled with sensible fiscal choices can.

I didn't ask if anyone become rich. I asked if everyone can be richer. Like every single person in the US together. Is it possible with the right amount of work. Please give me a practical answer.
 
"Better"? How is taking what someone earned and giving it to someone that didn't earn it, specially when it's not actually necessary....."better"?

Because if there is a system of legislation in place to help ensure that the balance of economic power remains with a small demographic of people, thereby allowing them to continue to reap the lions share and then some of the profits resulting from increased productivity and technology, our ENTIRE ECONOMY IS GOING TO CRASH, AND NOT RECOVER.

The 1% need consumers to live their way of life. Consumers need a paycheck that does more than just barely covering the basics to adequately consume. Asking the 1% to please oh please pay their help better doesn't work. So we introduce things like increased minimum wages, and try to disincentivise rampant profiteering via progressive taxes. The mind set being...don't want to pay your people enough to live and be productive members of the economy? Fine, we'll tax you more, and use that help them to continue to consume.

Don't like? Then work on alternatives. Economically VIABLE alternatives.
 
I didn't ask if anyone become rich. I asked if everyone can be richer. Like every single person in the US together. Is it possible with the right amount of work. Please give me a practical answer.

No, not by our understanding of rich.



But consider for a moment what we in this country have, even our poorest. Everyone here ALREADY IS rich, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Back
Top Bottom