• 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!

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

Sounds so easy.... I wish I could exist in this easy world.

That's your problem. You think what I suggested is EASY. It's hard, son...hard as hell. Doesn't change the fact it is doable. Hell we have people dying to come here to take he jobs people in this country are too weak and spoiled to do. They bust their ass...make enough to live here and still send money home. Give me all 20 million or so illegals and send 20 million lazy weak willed pets to their socialist utopia...I'll take that trade any day of the week and throw in a few draft picks and a kicker to be named at a later date.
NOT easy...especially if you havent prepared. Still...EMINENTLY doable. It starts by standing up.
 
Sounds so easy.... I wish I could exist in this easy world.

You're a business owner with a computer and high speed internet and you're complaining about opportunity in this country? Look around the world, you're the freaking 1% dude.
 
That's your problem. You think what I suggested is EASY. It's hard, son...hard as hell. Doesn't change the fact it is doable. Hell we have people dying to come here to take he jobs people in this country are too weak and spoiled to do. They bust their ass...make enough to live here and still send money home. Give me all 20 million or so illegals and send 20 million lazy weak willed pets to their socialist utopia...I'll take that trade any day of the week and throw in a few draft picks and a kicker to be named at a later date.
NOT easy...especially if you havent prepared. Still...EMINENTLY doable. It starts by standing up.
I didn't say it was easy. Your interpretation of things are more simple, and really aren't based in reality.

The people that are jobless right now aren't jobless by choice, you seem to think this is the case. THere are currently 8 people unemployed per job opening.
 
You're a business owner with a computer and high speed internet and you're complaining about opportunity in this country? Look around the world, you're the freaking 1% dude.

This argument isn't about the rest of the world.
 
You're a business owner with a computer and high speed internet and you're complaining about opportunity in this country? Look around the world, you're the freaking 1% dude.

and he has better health care then the richest person in the world could of obtained 20 years ago.

but wealth does not trickle down.
 
This argument isn't about the rest of the world.

I see, it's the top 1% fighting to be the top 0.1%. You lament the systematic suppression of opportunity in one post and claim you own a consulting business in another. When comparisons are drawn between opportunities in our system to others around the world, you dismiss them off-hand. Opportunity and ability, by definition, are never universally shared. Inequality of opportunity is inherent in human society, people reap the benefits sown by their ancestors before them. Just as us Americans reap the benefits sown by the work of our countrymen before us. There is nothing immoral about contributing to the success of your offspring. In fact, it’s natural and moral to do so. The benefits you reap from the financial and social success of your parents is no morally different than the benefits you receive from them nurturing and raising you as a child. The only immoral inequities of opportunity are those that are systematic in government through legislation and coercion.
 
and he has better health care then the richest person in the world could of obtained 20 years ago.

Only for those that can afford it, that's the problem. We have the most expensive health care system in the world.

but wealth does not trickle down.

The middle class wages has stagnated during the last 30 years while those at the top have quadrupled in income. And the rich folk are investing their tax cuts in jobs overseas. What's the incentive again for the middle class to continue voting for tax cuts for the rich?
 
The middle class has not "stagnated" in the last 30 years - given that that would put this measure starting at 1982; quite the opposite. A large number of the "middle class" have moved into the upper income brackets. Incomes have continued to go up, as have living standards. omg but the cost of living!!!; yes, the basket of goods now includes an extra car, a bigger house, a home computer, etc. and so forth. surprise, it costs more to purchase 2 cars in 2012 than it did to purchase 1 car in 1982, and it costs more to purchase a computer in 2012 than it cost not to purchase a computer in 1982.

What has happened is that household income has been incredibly damaged and those raises mitigated by the rise in divorce and single-parent families over that time period. American society is bifurcating into those classes that get and stay married and do well, and those that do not, and do poorly. In addition, the rising cost of healthcare has eaten much of the remaining increase in compensation - moving away from a third-party-payment system has been demonstrated repeatedly to solve that problem, and can be instituted at a national level with relatively little effort.

As for the middle class incentive - the tax burden on the middle class has been lightened relative to the upper income earners over the same time period. It turns out (shocker) that when you allow people who are by definition more productive more freedom with their resources... they are even more productive, and you can tax that productivity :). I'm also unaware of any tax cut for the "rich" (that is an excellent point, Rhapsody - everyone in this thread is in the top 1%) that hasn't simply been part of a package that included rate cuts for everyone. what you are actually asking the middle class to do is use our superior numbers to begin screwing over someone else in order to benefit themselves; and so the answer to your question is "because we are better than that."
 
Last edited:
The middle class has not "stagnated" in the last 30 years - given that that would put this measure starting at 1982; quite the opposite. A large number of the "middle class" have moved into the upper income brackets. Incomes have continued to go up, as have living standards. omg but the cost of living!!!; yes, the basket of goods now includes an extra car, a bigger house, a home computer, etc. and so forth. surprise, it costs more to purchase 2 cars in 2012 than it did to purchase 1 car in 1982, and it costs more to purchase a computer in 2012 than it cost not to purchase a computer in 1982.

What has happened is that household income has been incredibly damaged and those raises mitigated by the rise in divorce and single-parent families over that time period. American society is bifurcating into those classes that get and stay married and do well, and those that do not, and do poorly. In addition, the rising cost of healthcare has eaten much of the remaining increase in compensation - moving away from a third-party-payment system has been demonstrated repeatedly to solve that problem, and can be instituted at a national level with relatively little effort.

As for the middle class incentive - the tax burden on the middle class has been lightened relative to the upper income earners over the same time period. It turns out (shocker) that when you allow people who are by definition more productive more freedom with their resources... they are even more productive, and you can tax that productivity :). I'm also unaware of any tax cut for the "rich" (that is an excellent point, Rhapsody - everyone in this thread is in the top 1%) that hasn't simply been part of a package that included rate cuts for everyone. what you are actually asking the middle class to do is use our superior numbers to begin screwing over someone else in order to benefit themselves; and so the answer to your question is "because we are better than that."


Thanks for you opinion!

However, the facts show:

"Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust. (How the rich became the über rich)"

How the middle class became the underclass - Feb. 16, 2011

"Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/tax-cuts-for-wealthy-americans_n_1011601.html


Sorry, but there is no incentive for the working class to continue voting for tax cuts for the rich. If a dog bites you once, its his fault. If the dog bites you twice, its your fault.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say it was easy. Your interpretation of things are more simple, and really aren't based in reality.

The people that are jobless right now aren't jobless by choice, you seem to think this is the case. THere are currently 8 people unemployed per job opening.
In a word you are 'wrong'. We work with people EVERY DAY. Its not EASY...Eminently DOABLE. You have to be willing to DO it...not whine about how unfair life is. Things dont change overnight...they do change over a course of time with an effective plan and hard work. Or...they can just believe people like you, roll over and expect to be taken care of. Thats really not a problem...Those that act as you suggest simply continue to make it easier for those willing to do what it takes. Good thing those MILLIONS of illegal and otherwise immigrants pouring in here every year dont share your fatalistic vision...right? Funny how they manage to find all those jobs you claim no one can get.
 
Only for those that can afford it, that's the problem. We have the most expensive health care system in the world.



The middle class wages has stagnated during the last 30 years while those at the top have quadrupled in income. And the rich folk are investing their tax cuts in jobs overseas. What's the incentive again for the middle class to continue voting for tax cuts for the rich?

smart rich people invest their money where they either make the best return or the money is safest
 
The people that are jobless right now aren't jobless by choice, you seem to think this is the case. THere are currently 8 people unemployed per job opening.


It seems most conservatives do not understand this, or they simply ignore it to adhere to the GOP talking points,
 
It seems most conservatives do not understand this, or they simply ignore it to adhere to the GOP talking points,

so whose fault is this?
 
smart rich people invest their money where they either make the best return or the money is safest

The working class has no interest in continuing to vote for tax cuts to the rich that they just use to invest overseas. The debt has grown too large and the economy has suffered too much, and they are not helping the working class.

Tax cuts to those that actually produce jobs in this country make sense. Voting to give someone a tax cut just because they are rich is idiotic!
 
The working class has no interest in continuing to vote for tax cuts to the rich that they just use to invest overseas. The debt has grown too large and the economy has suffered too much, and they are not helping the working class.

Tax cuts to those that actually produce jobs in this country make sense. Voting to give someone a tax cut just because they are rich is idiotic!

the working class are for the most part pawns that rich liberals use as tools to take more money from the other rich
 
the working class are for the most part pawns that rich liberals use as tools to take more money from the other rich

You are so funny! So you are now claiming there are different tax rates of rich liberals and rich conservatives???? :lamo
 
You are so funny! So you are now claiming there are different tax rates of rich liberals and rich conservatives???? :lamo

YOu are confused as usual. Rich liberals believe they make more money when Democrats control government. One of the ways to assure that is to pretend you side with the masses and call for higher taxes.

Those who are rich despite the government are opposed to this.
 
You are so funny! So you are now claiming there are different tax rates of rich liberals and rich conservatives???? :lamo

crony capitalism.


there is good reason why GE pays no taxes. there is also good reason why Goldman Sachs gave so much money to Obama.
 
crony capitalism.


there is good reason why GE pays no taxes. there is also good reason why Goldman Sachs gave so much money to Obama.

GE and other big corporations like Exxon weren't paying taxes under the Bush administration. And which party is it that wants to close the loopholes?

Wall street changed their tune after Obama went after them. Look who they are supporting this time:

"So who do they want to win in 2012? Based on contribution patterns so far, the overwhelming favorite of the Wall Street banks to win in 2012 is Mitt Romney."

The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election
 
However, the facts show:

"Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

:) the facts do indeed show this when they are manipulated. For example, when you define "middle class" as a multiple of the poverty level, wages remain relatively stagnant indeed because the poverty level is generally tied to inflation. This, however, completely fails to account for the increasing percentage of Americans who earn above that marker. The general underpinning of the American Dream, after all, is that each generation does better than it's parents - but measuring only within an artificial income range does not produce a number that reflects whether or not that is being achieved. When you look at actual people, therefore, what you find is that 2/3rds of American 40 year olds are earning more (constant) today than their parents did at age 40 - and once you adjust for our smaller modern household size, that number increases to 4/5ths of households. If 80% of Americans That data, incidentally, comes from Scott Winship of the left-leaning Brookings Institution, using data from the Pew Economic Mobility Project.

incomes of all percentiles have net increased:

20090828_HaskinsFigure1lasttake.jpg


though agreeably we have seen an expansion of income range, as many of those in the upper half of the income stream have advanced faster (and worked themselves out of the "middle class" used by people wishing to demonstrate stagnation).

And those who do not work ahead or advance? What is causing them? Have they been robbed by monopoly men? Did a banker mug them on the way home from school? Perhaps a small business owner stole their car and life-savings? What drags that bottom 10th Percentile?

Well, again, according to a scholar from the left-leaning Brookings Institute:

...The size and scope of federal spending on programs to boost economic mobility, paid for disproportionately by the rich, helps us to see that the current system — again in contrast to the common *perception — is structurally designed to help the poor. But many years of evaluation studies show that most of these programs produce modest, if any, lasting impacts on participants. The effect of government assistance, in short, is not proportional to its scope and scale. Even so, the decades of data on which programs work and which do not allow us to sketch out a realistic public-policy agenda to aid economic mobility in America — provided we understand that the ability of government to change the underlying circumstances will always be limited, because economic mobility is constrained above all by personal choices and behaviors. Indeed, we need more public polices that are designed to provide incentives for individuals to make choices that will promote their own development and boost their own income....

Census data show that if all Americans finished high school, worked full time at whatever job they then qualified for with their education, and married at the same rate as Americans had married in 1970, the poverty rate would be cut by around 70% — without additional government spending. No welfare program, however amply funded, could ever hope for anything approaching such success.


huh. looks like "they got beaten up and mugged by a guy driving a rolls-royce" isn't mentioned....

"Tax Cuts For Wealthy Americans Cost Treasury $11.6 Million Every Hour"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/tax-cuts-for-wealthy-americans_n_1011601.html

:lamo: static scoring? :) Trust the Huffington Post to make an argument built on an assumption that has never proven accurate in the real world. Due to the fact that we live in a dynamic world, the portion of the income tax paid by the wealthy INCREASED following the Bush Tax Cuts.

Sorry, but there is no incentive for the working class to continue voting for tax cuts for the rich. If a dog bites you once, its his fault. If the dog bites you twice, its your fault.

no dog has bitten me. I am not harmed by my neighbor being more successful. Good for him :).
 
GE and other big corporations like Exxon weren't paying taxes under the Bush administration. And which party is it that wants to close the loopholes?

Republicans. :) You may recall the budget they passed did so. Democrats seem to be intent on increasing the complexity of the tax code.

Wall street changed their tune after Obama went after them

"Wall Street" =/= "The Rich", though the Street is agreeably fantastically good at Crony Capitalism. But to think that Democrats are going after them?

...Nancy Pelosi and her husband were parties to a dozen or so IPOs, many of which were effectively off limits to all but the biggest institutional investors and their favored clients. One of those was a 2008 investment of between $1 million and $5 million in Visa, an opportunity the average investor could not have bought, begged, or borrowed his way into — one that made the Pelosis a 50 percent profit in two days. Visa, of course, had business before Speaker Pelosi, who was helping to shape credit-card-reform legislation at the time. Visa got what it wanted. The Pelosis have also made some very fortunate investments in gas and energy firms that have benefited from Representative Pelosi’s legislative actions.

The Pelosis made a million bucks off a single deal involving OnDisplay, the IPO of which was underwritten by investment banker William Hambrecht, a major Pelosi campaign contributor. Writes Schweizer: “The same Bill Hambrecht went before the House Finance Committee, chaired by Barney Frank, a Pelosi ally, to push for a change in the registration process for stock IPOs, an exemption called Regulation A. Under current law, a company that plans an IPO of less than $5 million in stock gets an exemption from detailed reporting. Hambrecht wanted the exemption raised to $30 million, which would greatly benefit his business, making IPOs easier, quicker, and far less expensive. As the hearings began, Congressman Frank said, ‘I should note also that it was Speaker Pelosi who first called this to our attention earlier in the year. It is something that the speaker has taken a great interest in.’”

Besting Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D., N.Y.) got in on the pre-IPO action, without putting up so much as one rapidly depreciating U.S. dollar of his own assets, when a political supporter — who just happened to be the biggest shareholder of the firm in question — lent him $14,000 to buy shares in the private company, which he then sold for more than a hundred grand after the firm went public. There wasn’t so much as a written loan agreement.

On and on and on it goes: Sen. John Kerry invested aggressively in health-care companies while shaping health-care legislation. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R. Ala.) was a remarkably apt options trader during the days when he had a front-row seat to Congress’s deliberations on the unfolding financial crisis. The Obama administration poured billions of dollars into solar companies, of which the failed Solyndra is the most infamous. But a lot of that money went to other firms, including First Solar, which is owned by billionaire Obama supporter Ted Turner and by Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is omnipresent. And during the financial crisis, a big piece of Goldman Sachs was bought by Warren Buffett, who stacked up a lot of cash when the government poured money into that struggling investment bank with the support of Barack Obama. When the federal government bought into Goldman Sachs, it negotiated for itself a 5 percent dividend. Warren Buffett got 10 percent — on top of the benefit of having Washington inundate his investment with great rippling streams of taxpayers’ money....

:lamo
 
huh. looks like "they got beaten up and mugged by a guy driving a rolls-royce" isn't mentioned....

You scoff at IRS data and have the gaul to cite the Brookings Institute? :lamo


no dog has bitten me. I am not harmed by my neighbor being more successful. Good for him :)

Its nothing to do with one person being more successful than another. Its about the fact that a consumer economy cannot prosper with too much wealth concentrated at the top. Look at other countries where wealth disparity is as great, Mexico and Turkey.............is that what you aspire to?
 
Republicans. :) You may recall the budget they passed did so. Democrats seem to be intent on increasing the complexity of the tax code.

Yes, I recall the bill that never had a chance of passing the Senate because it threw seniors under the bus to provide lower taxes for the rich and corporations. That's simplified alright!





"Wall Street" =/= "The Rich", though the Street is agreeably fantastically good at Crony Capitalism. But to think that Democrats are going after them?

I see, you claimed Wall Street was the bad guy when they funded Obama in 08, but after they found out he wouldn't play ball and are now funding Romney, they are not the bad guys anymore? Is what the Brookings Institute told you? :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom