• 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

Your statement was galactically ridiculous, and you know it.

Are you even able to explain what's "galacticly" ridiculous about my post without resorting to straw men?
 
That's right but he was also, largely, a self made man. We can see repeatedly that being a Presidents son, governors son or any prominent person's son doesnt guarantee sucess. Certainly it may offer a step in the right direction but after that they're on their own. There are many, the current President included, who are successful without that start. The difference lies in taking any opportunity and dedication to hard work and an education. The education can often take many forms.
Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's all true, but you really have to acknowledge all the advantages that being born rich provides. His world class education was paid for so he graduated debt free. He'd grown up the son of a CEO and Governor, so was trained from an early age how to interact with the very top sliver of society. He started his career with invaluable contacts, and many more that he didn't know were a phone call away. Failure is also not a big deal when you have a huge, cushy safety net, which is your wealthy family to fall back on. He could go years with no income from the business and rely on family support to pay all his essential bills. If he went bankrupt, he never had to worry one second whether he'd have a roof and food for his wife and kids.

Yes, he deserves a great amount of credit for the hard work he did, and the success he had at multiple stops. But I think the point in this context is similarly talented individuals without a wealthy CEO/Gov for a father would have had a FAR tougher time doing what he did.

And Bill Gates and partners did it largely on their own. They took advantage of an opportunity, one that IBM itself missed out on. Bill Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's the same story but less obvious. Would Bill Gates have become Microsoft were he born in the inner city and attended crap schools with a mother who never got her GED? We'll never know. He's an exceptional enough person that it's absolutely possible, but certainly by no means assured, especially if at a young age his biggest concerns were gang bangers on the corners and how to get home without getting killed, or whether he had to take a full time job at 17 to take care of his ailing mother and sister.... Not a lot of time to ponder on the future of technology in those circumstances.

Is being "Uberrich" really that important? Has that become the meaning of life? Whatever happened to genuine spirituality and fulfillment from other aspects of being?

Not to me, but what is important is a job that pays for the basics - food, shelter, healthcare, education for your children, an occasional vacation, and a stable retirement. I've seen several studies that show VAST improvements in happiness to that point, and just small, marginal gains after.
 
Why does this plant close and why are they moving elsewhere? That's what everyone should be asking themselves.

$1 an hour pay, no unions, if unions try to start you hire muscle to kill them or beat them and no one cares, no work safety rules, house them in a decrepit building with no fire escapes, sprinkler so a fire or building collapse kills them all, poison the workers with industrial chemicals and early deaths no problem, dump your waste untreated into the river out back, rely on energy from unscrubbed coal that results in pollution so thick you can't see 1/4 mile on a clear day. Anything I'm missing?

There isn't much you can do. The glory years are over and the world has become more competitive. That's just the way it is.

But our GDP per capita keeps going up and up. There isn't any reason but the rules of the game that those increases must go to the top sliver, with nothing trickling down to the bottom. And I can't imagine it's sustainable. Last time we had inequality this large and growing, we had the union movements, people protesting in the streets, violent confrontations with company supporting police and our military, etc.
Some countries, and people, can adapt to the modern world while others cannot, and governments are limited in what they can do. The US has always prided itself on hard work and initiative but that idea now appears old-fashioned and a more collective society has emerged, encouraged by politicians who say they can offer programs in order to turn things around. Many people still believe that in fact and ask themselves why the government doesn't do something.

There isn't any evidence Americans aren't working hard. We work more hours per week, and have fewer vacation days and sick days than any other industrialized country. And there isn't any evidence of less "initiative" - what kind of "initiative" did it take to work the 90% of jobs that paid wages to a single earner sufficient to raise a family a few decades ago and living standards should have risen since then with the rise in productivity and GDP per capita?
The idea has always been to work your way up or be satisfied with your position in life and find happiness in other areas. There is nothing demeaning in stocking shelves anyway. Honest work is often its own reward.

There isn't anything demeaning about the work, a person just cannot afford food, shelter, healthcare on the wages paid. That's the point. If the job doesn't pay enough for that, then society (taxpayers) will kick in the remainder, somehow.

That's largely why family, relationships, and good planning are important. Realizing you're largely on your own in this world and to take responsibility for your life is the first step toward genuine freedom. I, like many others, have profited greatly from 'the kindness of strangers' and have given kindness in return. The government often ruins those human relationships.

It's nice but not actually an answer. By definition the 90% of waitresses not extraordinary have kids that get sick. What happens when they do get sick? Wish for charities to emerge to help them out? And in the meantime what do they do with their sick child or their own diabetes, or heart disease?
 
Are you even able to explain what's "galacticly" ridiculous about my post without resorting to straw men?

Sure, when you single Fox out as having CORPORATE talking heads. Like every other network has volunteers, or talking heads that are altruistic somehow. I suppose it's easy to label everything you don't like a strawman. Dude, admit you went over the top with your corporate crap. They are all paid by corporations, every news network is a business, and Fox isn't anymore so than any other.
 
Sure, when you single Fox out as having CORPORATE talking heads. Like every other network has volunteers, or talking heads that are altruistic somehow. I suppose it's easy to label everything you don't like a strawman. Dude, admit you went over the top with your corporate crap. They are all paid by corporations, every news network is a business, and Fox isn't anymore so than any other.

It is Fox's corporatism combined with their conservatism that will predictably push them toward the "class warfare" narrative every time. Just as the first conservative to participate in this thread, and nearly all others that followed, framed wealth inequality in terms related to "class warfare" (he used "wealth redistribution). It's a corporatist/conservative mix, because if you don't muddy the issue with other factors (such as bringing liberal vs. conservative institutions into the topic) every conservative theme will favor the interests of the rich/business over the interests of the poor/employees.
 
Last edited:
It is Fox's corporatism combined with their conservatism that will predictably push them toward the "class warfare" narrative every time. Just as the first conservative to participate in this thread, and nearly all others that followed, framed wealth inequality in terms related to "class warfare" (he used "wealth redistribution). It's a corporatist/conservative mix, because if you don't muddy the issue with other factors (such as bringing liberal vs. conservative institutions into the topic) every conservative theme will favor the interests of the rich/business over the interests of the poor/employees.

Oh, a double down moment. Sorry, but this is nothing but conjecture.
 
When it comes down to it forced wealth redistribution ( theft ) is basically all the left have left as a economic plan for growth.

Its their solution to a problem they made much worse and if its ever implemented it will backfire on the Middle class in epic proportions.

Why is it with people such as yourself that when tax rates are changed to favor the wealthy it is ok with you and even encouraged. When tax rates are changed to favor the middle/working class....its "wealth redistribution" and "theft"? Seriously.....I want to know.
 
It is Fox's corporatism combined with their conservatism that will predictably push them toward the "class warfare" narrative every time. Just as the first conservative to participate in this thread, and nearly all others that followed, framed wealth inequality in terms related to "class warfare" (he used "wealth redistribution). It's a corporatist/conservative mix, because if you don't muddy the issue with other factors (such as bringing liberal vs. conservative institutions into the topic) every conservative theme will favor the interests of the rich/business over the interests of the poor/employees.


Yep.....just like they love to push the narrative that it is Unions and public employees that are responsible for economic woes. They are the ones who are driving the "class warfare" agenda because it feeds their sheeple the lines that they want to hear.
 
That's all true, but you really have to acknowledge all the advantages that being born rich provides. His world class education was paid for so he graduated debt free. He'd grown up the son of a CEO and Governor, so was trained from an early age how to interact with the very top sliver of society. He started his career with invaluable contacts, and many more that he didn't know were a phone call away. Failure is also not a big deal when you have a huge, cushy safety net, which is your wealthy family to fall back on. He could go years with no income from the business and rely on family support to pay all his essential bills. If he went bankrupt, he never had to worry one second whether he'd have a roof and food for his wife and kids.
If I may say so you really should read the Wiki biography link I provided so you can see that he is largely a self made man who has worked hard, created thousands of jobs, helped the poor and raised a wonderful family. He deserves whatever success he owns.
Yes, he deserves a great amount of credit for the hard work he did, and the success he had at multiple stops. But I think the point in this context is similarly talented individuals without a wealthy CEO/Gov for a father would have had a FAR tougher time doing what he did.
A tougher time perhaps, but the number of self made people, like Carly Fiorina for example, shows that success from a small start can still be had. There are still thousands of opportunities around and some people can see them while others can't. That's where the real difference lies.
It's the same story but less obvious. Would Bill Gates have become Microsoft were he born in the inner city and attended crap schools with a mother who never got her GED? We'll never know. He's an exceptional enough person that it's absolutely possible, but certainly by no means assured, especially if at a young age his biggest concerns were gang bangers on the corners and how to get home without getting killed, or whether he had to take a full time job at 17 to take care of his ailing mother and sister.... Not a lot of time to ponder on the future of technology in those circumstances.
We'll never know but we do that that was the case with Dr.Ben Carson, another Presidential candidate. It's not up to the government to make people successful, it's up to the individual. Getting there is no secret to those who have made it but those who haven't made think there is some mystery involved, some trick that they don't quite understand. But there is no trick. Work hard, work smart, plan ahead, and watch for opportunities. Do that and success is more likely.
Not to me, but what is important is a job that pays for the basics - food, shelter, healthcare, education for your children, an occasional vacation, and a stable retirement. I've seen several studies that show VAST improvements in happiness to that point, and just small, marginal gains after.
None of that is guaranteed and we should not be fooled into thinking it will ever be so. We are having to make cultural sacrifices in order to try to maintain these expectations with the assumption that those being introduced to the democracies will carry on with the same work ethic and traditions that our forefathers had. That's a leap of faith and one that has little credibility. We always have to watch for and rely on ourselves and not trust the politicians to guarantee a constant money supply.
 
Why is it with people such as yourself that when tax rates are changed to favor the wealthy it is ok with you and even encouraged. When tax rates are changed to favor the middle/working class....its "wealth redistribution" and "theft"? Seriously.....I want to know.
"The wealthy already pay a larger proportion of taxes than the rest of society. Of course you can tax them higher, in which case they may just go elsewhere, or you can cut expenses and waste in government in order that the wealth can be spread around more eqally.

The thing is that people often vote for larger government thinking others will pay for it, or the government is some benevolent group that can give them others people money without consequences. Then they wonder why businesses move offshore, curtail investment, or go to a more business friendly environment.
 
"The wealthy already pay a larger proportion of taxes than the rest of society. Of course you can tax them higher, in which case they may just go elsewhere, or you can cut expenses and waste in government in order that the wealth can be spread around more eqally.

The thing is that people often vote for larger government thinking others will pay for it, or the government is some benevolent group that can give them others people money without consequences. Then they wonder why businesses move offshore, curtail investment, or go to a more business friendly environment.

Obama already cut a large number of government jobs so you can't play that old card.

The reality is that we need laws that benefit companies that do business here in the United States and eliminate tax credits for businesses that outsource. "Business friendly environment" is just a nice way of saying "Corporate Welfare"....which is often the GOP's answer to everything. The whole rhetoric of class warfare is nothing more than a way for the Republicans to push their failed "trickle down economics" theory that never works. What is it about the GOP that they keep trying the same failed things over and over and expect different results the next time around?
 
Obama already cut a large number of government jobs so you can't play that old card.

The reality is that we need laws that benefit companies that do business here in the United States and eliminate tax credits for businesses that outsource. "Business friendly environment" is just a nice way of saying "Corporate Welfare"....which is often the GOP's answer to everything. The whole rhetoric of class warfare is nothing more than a way for the Republicans to push their failed "trickle down economics" theory that never works. What is it about the GOP that they keep trying the same failed things over and over and expect different results the next time around?
Not enough bureaucracies were cut and companies are still leaving or not investing..

If you think the problem has been solved then there is little left to say.
 
Why is it with people such as yourself that when tax rates are changed to favor the wealthy it is ok with you and even encouraged. When tax rates are changed to favor the middle/working class....its "wealth redistribution" and "theft"? Seriously.....I want to know.

People " such as myself " aren't naive enough to think for one second that tax increases on " the Rich " benefits the Middle class.

Why do people " such as yourself " fall prey to these simpleton divisive narratives that are based on envy ?
 
If I may say so you really should read the Wiki biography link I provided so you can see that he is largely a self made man who has worked hard, created thousands of jobs, helped the poor and raised a wonderful family. He deserves whatever success he owns.

Goodness, he was given HUGE advantages as an accident of his birth. And I explicitly gave him credit for his accomplishments. That doesn't mean it would have been as easy for a black kid born to a single mother in NYC in the Bronx, or a white kid born in Appalachia to a tobacco farmer. If you think it would have been, you need to put down the crack pipe, or hold off on that second bottle of vodka this early in the day.

A tougher time perhaps, but the number of self made people, like Carly Fiorina for example, shows that success from a small start can still be had. There are still thousands of opportunities around and some people can see them while others can't. That's where the real difference lies.

I never argued that it isn't possible - of course it is. I see those successes all the time. But pointing out the one in 10,000 case isn't making any kind of point except that the system isn't ENTIRELY broken.

A sound economy produces a large, stable middle class - decent jobs to ordinary people with ordinary skills who do what is asked, work hard, take care of their family. We should all share in income growth, rising standards of living, etc. The harder you work, the more you make is still a key function, but the distribution of income really isn't IMO sustainable right now. I don't think the public will put up with it for much longer if the trends don't at least halt and begin to reverse.


We'll never know but we do that that was the case with Dr.Ben Carson, another Presidential candidate. It's not up to the government to make people successful, it's up to the individual. Getting there is no secret to those who have made it but those who haven't made think there is some mystery involved, some trick that they don't quite understand. But there is no trick. Work hard, work smart, plan ahead, and watch for opportunities. Do that and success is more likely.

Goodness, the point is to set the rules of the game so that success is more than POSSIBLE for the most extraordinary individuals born in poverty. The ideal (not achievable obviously) is to establish the rules so that kids have the same OPPORTUNITY. They don't now - income mobility is decreasing, not increasing.

None of that is guaranteed and we should not be fooled into thinking it will ever be so. We are having to make cultural sacrifices in order to try to maintain these expectations with the assumption that those being introduced to the democracies will carry on with the same work ethic and traditions that our forefathers had. That's a leap of faith and one that has little credibility. We always have to watch for and rely on ourselves and not trust the politicians to guarantee a constant money supply.

Not looking for guarantees, and there's no evidence our work ethic has diminished.
 
People " such as myself " aren't naive enough to think for one second that tax increases on " the Rich " benefits the Middle class.

Why do people " such as yourself " fall prey to these simpleton divisive narratives that are based on envy ?


LOL....based on envy? Hardly. Based on equality and fairness. We should return to the pre-Reagan tax cuts. It was those tax cuts that really ushered in the era of income inequality...its always the same with your type....if it benefits the rich it is fine....if it benefits the working/middle class it is "Income redistribution" "envy"...etc. You are so predictable.
 
Goodness, he was given HUGE advantages as an accident of his birth. And I explicitly gave him credit for his accomplishments. That doesn't mean it would have been as easy for a black kid born to a single mother in NYC in the Bronx, or a white kid born in Appalachia to a tobacco farmer. If you think it would have been, you need to put down the crack pipe, or hold off on that second bottle of vodka this early in the day.
Certainly Romney had an advantage with good parents and upbringing, parents he was very proud of, and who encouraged him th succeed in life and do the right thing. That's what all people with children should be doing.

What is your complaint here? That farmers in Appalachia shouldn't have children? Or single mothers should be forced to have abortions? How about improving the educational system in order that young people can rise above their circumstance? Instead we see politicians alternative forms of education, like charter schools or school vouchers. It seems it is noot to their political advantage to have an educated populace..
I never argued that it isn't possible - of course it is. I see those successes all the time. But pointing out the one in 10,000 case isn't making any kind of point except that the system isn't ENTIRELY broken.
And you have an alternative system in mind where everyone can be successful? What if people aren't all that interested in being successful in the ways you describe but prefer to live a smaller, more laid back lifestyle? Not only is there no guarantee of success in this life but many just aren't to interested in it on any grand level.
A sound economy produces a large, stable middle class - decent jobs to ordinary people with ordinary skills who do what is asked, work hard, take care of their family. We should all share in income growth, rising standards of living, etc. The harder you work, the more you make is still a key function, but the distribution of income really isn't IMO sustainable right now. I don't think the public will put up with it for much longer if the trends don't at least halt and begin to reverse.
There is no such thing as 'a stable economy' and it is a pipe-dream to think there is. Circumstances fluctuate and adults have to be prepared for those fluctuations.
Goodness, the point is to set the rules of the game so that success is more than POSSIBLE for the most extraordinary individuals born in poverty. The ideal (not achievable obviously) is to establish the rules so that kids have the same OPPORTUNITY. They don't now - income mobility is decreasing, not increasing.
And what is your theory as to the cause of this?
Not looking for guarantees, and there's no evidence our work ethic has diminished.
With more Americans getting food stamps, encouraged by the government, there is becoming less reason than ever to work. Naturally, human nature being what it is, many will take advantage of that. Now it's about 50% of Americans receiving some sort of government assistance and that cannot logically last.
 
LOL....based on envy? Hardly. Based on equality and fairness. We should return to the pre-Reagan tax cuts. It was those tax cuts that really ushered in the era of income inequality...its always the same with your type....if it benefits the rich it is fine....if it benefits the working/middle class it is "Income redistribution" "envy"...etc. You are so predictable.
Sure. Jimmy Carter was doing a great job!!
 
Sure. Jimmy Carter was doing a great job!!

Carter absolutely made some mistakes....but income inequality was not one of them nor was it the result of his policies. Try again.
 
LOL....based on envy? Hardly. Based on equality and fairness. We should return to the pre-Reagan tax cuts. It was those tax cuts that really ushered in the era of income inequality...its always the same with your type....if it benefits the rich it is fine....if it benefits the working/middle class it is "Income redistribution" "envy"...etc. You are so predictable.

Nope, envy.

And I wont get into just how foolish it is to make the Government the ultimate arbiter of whats " fair " and equitable.

This Progresive nonsense only appeals to people who have a child like understanding of how our economy works.

I'm serious, if I asked my 7 year old cousin how we should help poor people she woukd say take money from the Rich and give it to them
 
Nope, envy.

And I wont get into just how foolish it is to make the Government the ultimate arbiter of whats " fair " and equitable.

This Progresive nonsense only appeals to people who have a child like understanding of how our economy works.

I'm serious, if I asked my 7 year old cousin how we should help poor people she woukd say take money from the Rich and give it to them


LOL.....yeah riiiiiiiight.......Republicans always know how to make an economy work....that's why they keep trying trickle down and leaving the mess for the next guy to clean up. Obviously your 7 year old cousin is smarter than you.
 
Obama already cut a large number of government jobs so you can't play that old card.
Your sweats must be on fire. Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

The reality is that we need laws that benefit companies that do business here in the United States and eliminate tax credits for businesses that outsource. "Business friendly environment" is just a nice way of saying "Corporate Welfare"....which is often the GOP's answer to everything. The whole rhetoric of class warfare is nothing more than a way for the Republicans to push their failed "trickle down economics" theory that never works. What is it about the GOP that they keep trying the same failed things over and over and expect different results the next time around?
No, the reality is that Obama has been getting the country in debt by over a trillion dollars a year with nothing to show for it. Certain;ly some of it went to 'corporate welfare' as you say, like Solyndra, or all those millions that just disappeared with the 'stimulus plan'. Be a friend of Obama and his party and your business is half way there.
 
Your sweats must be on fire. Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

No, the reality is that Obama has been getting the country in debt by over a trillion dollars a year with nothing to show for it. Certain;ly some of it went to 'corporate welfare' as you say, like Solyndra, or all those millions that just disappeared with the 'stimulus plan'. Be a friend of Obama and his party and your business is half way there.


LOL....your link doesn't support your argument....in fact it dispels it. Did you even read it before you linked it?
 
We are moving from manufactured products and services to virtual products and services today, that's a far greater expansion of technology.

Ok, we are thinking of things in a very different way. I am thinking of technology that relates to wealth.

The reason I think technological advancement is slowing down is because GDP growth per year is slowing down. It used to average 4% now it is around 2.5%.
http://ablog.typepad.com/.a/6a00e554717cc988330147e1676b38970b-pi
 
Back
Top Bottom