• 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!

Rich-Poor gap widening

Aunt Spiker said:
Every single freaking Liberal could vote Conservative and it wouldn't change their lack of wealth at all.

People who are wealthy tend to vote in favor of measures that will CONTINUE to preserve their wealth.
Click to expand...

No, but if they got off their asses and worked harder, it just might. Gotta make your own luck.
 
liblady said:
lol...yes, the rich ARE demanding gov't services through corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

really? how many? prove it

and again I see lots of whining about the gap but what are your solutions

I realize that there will always be a gap and as long as investments are making money the rich willl continue to get richer
 
TurtleDude said:
unions like that too-if a company fails not only do the owners and shareholders take a bath so do the people who have jobs there

the bailout of GM was a union benefit
Click to expand...

It goes beyond that. Decades and decades of tax payer dollars going to corporations. Where's the outrage?
 
TurtleDude said:
that does happen-bernie maddoff for example. and I bashed him constantly. and I was against the bailouts

but the rich aren't the ones demanding others pay for the government services they use because the rich pay far more in taxes than what they use.
Click to expand...

Corporate WELFARE accounts for MORE 'giving' to these massive corporate and conglomerate chash cows than the government gives through it's various social-programs such as TANF and TEA.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Corporate WELFARE accounts for MORE 'giving' to these massive corporate and conglomerate chash cows than the government gives through it's various social-programs such as TANF and TEA.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely correct. Yet, little to no outrage.
 
Boo Radley said:
It goes beyond that. Decades and decades of tax payer dollars going to corporations. Where's the outrage?
Click to expand...

Well, Democrats had just as much opportunity to change this as the Republicans did... where's the outrage?
 
TurtleDude said:
really? how many? prove it
Click to expand...

What do you think TARP was all about? And that wasn't the first OR LAST go around for Corporate welfare handouts, either.

Look at Chrysler - They were handed one hell of a pretty penny - and for what? Only to fail again. . . and again.


and again I see lots of whining about the gap but what are your solutions

I realize that there will always be a gap and as long as investments are making money the rich willl continue to get richer
Click to expand...

solutions: Doing what works well in other countries - and taking from the very rich and just giving it to the very poor does nothing. This needs to be done through programs that have been tried and proven to work - improving education, contraception availability, transportation and job-connections, etc.

Our systm currently does work (the welfare portion) for many - it acts as a net for when people lose their job for vairous reasons (etc) and need temporary help while they get things back together - this is great, it should be continued and possibly expanded in some ways.

All of these things you oppose.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Well, Democrats had just as much opportunity to change this as the Republicans did... where's the outrage?
Click to expand...

You're right about that. But I'm not out here demonizing working folk. And republicans haven't changed **** when it comes to corporate welfare. They're fine with it. Sadly, bothi sides have been fine with. But your side, republicans, have been attacking working folks. I just don't know why you support that, and not want them to tackle corporate welfare.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're right about that. But I'm not out here demonizing working folk. And republicans haven't changed **** when it comes to corporate welfare. They're fine with it. Sadly, bothi sides have been fine with. But your side, republicans, have been attacking working folks. I just don't know why you support that, and not want them to tackle corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

Because with wealth comes power - they don't want to tackle corporate welfare because all those failling and poorly functioning companies do a lot of business with and for the government.

It's the Elite and their thug loving selves . . .we're just constituents with votes.
 
I have been on both sides of this issue. I'm glad I jumped on the "get your ass in gear and make something of yourself" boat a long time ago. I love this cruise ship, the USS Patrician. It is sad to see the docks filling up with plebians.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What do you think TARP was all about? And that wasn't the first OR LAST go around for Corporate welfare handouts, either.

Look at Chrysler - They were handed one hell of a pretty penny - and for what? Only to fail again. . . and again.
Click to expand...

TARP--PORKULUS--UAW BAILOUT.........passed by liberals.....opposed by conservatives.

solutions: Doing what works well in other countries - and taking from the very rich and just giving it to the very poor does nothing. This needs to be done through programs that have been tried and proven to work - improving education, contraception availability, transportation and job-connections, etc.

Our systm currently does work (the welfare portion) for many - it acts as a net for when people lose their job for vairous reasons (etc) and need temporary help while they get things back together - this is great, it should be continued and possibly expanded in some ways.

All of these things you oppose.
Click to expand...

Get real.....its not a net.....its a hammock......

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer--Franklin
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
TARP--PORKULUS--UAW BAILOUT.........passed by liberals.....opposed by conservatives.



Get real.....its not a net.....its a hammock......
Click to expand...

Your sentiment is why the system was reformed in 1993 - which I support.

Our current system is 2 years at a stretch - no more than 5 years total.
If someone doesn't take that time to get out of their situation then they're just stuck there - support WILL end - as it does for many.
However. Some people don't actually WANT to be on assistance. These people qualify and DON'T take assistance - ever. Others get in the system and try to swindle it, sure - of course they do. Not saying some don't love it and abuse the system - but that doesn't mean that most are like that. And what happens to those who don't figure out how to help theirselves? They just stay in their situation and are dropped out of the system.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer--Franklin
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Being poor IS hard - which is why I support programs that build the necessary skills, education base and ability to get out - and stay out.
 
Boo Radley said:
We were younger. Easier to do.
Click to expand...

What? That's a baseless claim.

Well, I mentioned two books.

1874 to1879 -workers not allowed to speak to each other in factories
Click to expand...

Is that just one factory or a government rule? If the former then just leave and find another job, otherwise it is worth it.

1875 - workers fed up with conditions and pay in factories
Click to expand...

That's subjective.

1877 - Columbia Bicycles - Founded in 1877 by Col. Albert Pope. Mass production began at the Weed Sewing Machine Company factory on Capitol Avenue. The company is now headquarted in Westfield, Mass.


1880 - New Haven still has horse trolleys;
Click to expand...

So what? Not everyone owns a plane either and those were invented 100 years ago.

late 1880's electric trolley in Hartford1880's - people working 14 to 16 hrs a day at average pay of $1.75 a day
Click to expand...

Must be nominal wages. $1.75 was worth a lot more back then.

1883 - Industry becomes bigger and more mechanized; skilled craftsmen become obsolete
Click to expand...

In other words, goods are becoming cheaper.

1880s5 September 1882 (United States)
Thirty thousand workers marched in the first Labor Day parade in New York City.
1883 (Canada)
The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada (TLC), a Canada-wide central federation of trade unions was formed.
1884 (United States)
The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, forerunner of the American Federation of Labor, passed a resolution stating that "8 hours shall constitute a legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886."
1885 (United States)
Ten coal-mining activists ("Molly Maguires") were hanged in Pennsylvania.
March 1886 (United States)
The Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886 was a labor union strike against the Union Pacific and Missouri Pacific railroads involving more than 200,000 workers.
1 May 1886 (United States)
Workers protested in the streets to demand the universal adoption of the eight hour day. Hundreds of thousands of American workers had joined the Knights of Labor.
Click to expand...

Unions exist and have existed. It means nothing other than subjetive perception of working conditions.

By the late 1800s, states and territories had passed over 1,600 laws regulating work conditions and limiting or forbidding child labor. In many cases the laws did not apply to immigrants, thus they were often exploited and wound up living in slums working long hours for little pay.

Throughout America, local child labor laws were often ignored. On a national level, progress to protect children stalled as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled several times that child labor laws under question were unconstitutional. A subsequent attempt to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution failed.
Click to expand...

Because prosperity, not laws, brought an end to child labor.

In 1904, the National Child Labor Committee was organized by socially concerned citizens and politicians, and was chartered by Congress in 1907. From 1908 to 1912, photographer Hine documented numerous gross violations of laws protecting young children. At many of the locations he visited, youngsters were quickly rushed out of his sight. He was also told youngsters in the mill or factory had just stopped by for a visit or were helping their mothers.

The History Place - Child Labor in America: About Photographer Lewis Hine
Click to expand...

Children working is better than children starving.
 
liblady said:
lol...yes, the rich ARE demanding gov't services through corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

Libterarians want smaller government, including less government in big business, to reduce corporate welfare.

And regarding "hating the poor", every state woos business and investment to their state for jobs and revenue. They don't try to seek out attracting the poor...why is that? Is it THEM, that hate the poor?

What about you? Do you want a very low income area built right next to your property (at least before you started living semit-retired sailing!)? Why not?

According to middle class home owners, low income areas near them tend to:

1. increases crime and drugs
2. reduce property value
3. not attract the retail and restaurants that they enjoy
4. reduces public school funding/quality

Is it really the middle class that hates them? Or is your demonizing just not appropriate?
 
TurtleDude said:
really? how many? prove it

and again I see lots of whining about the gap but what are your solutions

I realize that there will always be a gap and as long as investments are making money the rich willl continue to get richer
Click to expand...

The solution is as always. tax the rich...give more to the poor. Silly man.

Or people could decide they will have a better life and simply create one for themselves. Yes...I know...that takes years and years of hard work. Shocking.
 
VanceMack said:
The solution is as always. tax the rich...give more to the poor. Silly man.

Or people could decide they will have a better life and simply create one for themselves. Yes...I know...that takes years and years of hard work. Shocking.
Click to expand...

sounds like an Alvin Lee song
 
Boo Radley said:
It goes beyond that. Decades and decades of tax payer dollars going to corporations. Where's the outrage?
Click to expand...

you mean the government buying stuff from corporations?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Corporate WELFARE accounts for MORE 'giving' to these massive corporate and conglomerate chash cows than the government gives through it's various social-programs such as TANF and TEA.
Click to expand...

any proof of that

and I love what lefties and populists call corporate welfare

for example

a city knows that say Toyota plans on building a new plant. so that city promises tax abatements for toyota if they build a factory in that city

or a city builds an NFL team a stadium to coax that team to stay when other cities are also trying to lure them away

lefties would call that corporate welfare

what I call it is quid pro quo-the city wants the business so they bargain to get the jobs, the payroll taxes and all the other stuff a big business can bring.

what exactly do we get by funding sloth and dependency? more sloth and dependency and more voters who vote away our wealth
 
apdst said:
As long as we have a government that constinues to kill middle class jobs, the gap will keep getting wider.
Click to expand...

How is the government killing middle class jobs? Last time I checked the government has not outsourced any jobs to India. Perhaps you mean they have not done enough to protect American jobs, perhaps by not leving steeper taxes on imports to give companies an incentive to manufactuer domestically.... Thats pretty progressive thinking for a conservative, don't you think, Apdst? Maybe you are really a closet liberal?
 
from Turtle Dude

a city knows that say Toyota plans on building a new plant. so that city promises tax abatements for toyota if they build a factory in that city

or a city builds an NFL team a stadium to coax that team to stay when other cities are also trying to lure them away

lefties would call that corporate welfare
what I call it is quid pro quo-the city wants the business so they bargain to get the jobs, the payroll taxes and all the other stuff a big business can bring.
Click to expand...

and from his fellow worshipper at the same altar, Mach

Libterarians want smaller government, including less government in big business, to reduce corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

For two people who seem to agree constantly and hit the like button for each others posts, you need to get together and discuss why you contradict each other so badly in these statements.

Either you want government to get involved in picking winners and losers and setting up an uneven playing field to help businesses and corporations or you do not want that to happen. You cannot have it both ways and your ideology which you both seem to subscribe to cannot have it both ways.
Of course, what this does is perfectly illustrate the basic contradiction in much of right wing ideology as well as the rampant hypocrisy festering through it like a virulent disease eating away at it from within and eventually killing it.

We hear the hollow cliche over and over and over again in thread after thread that "we want smaller government". What a bunch of crap. What you do want is for government to pick winners and losers and as long as the winners worship at your same altar, you are very happy with that outcome.

Your ideological cliches are just lipstick on a pig.
 
Last edited:
income equality is a very petty goal, envious, divisive, pitting one group of americans against another

andrew cuomo's state of the state, jan 5, 2011:

The State of the State begins with an honest analysis of the crisis that we face. In government, as in life, you can never solve a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it. The economic recession has taken an especially hard hit on the State of New York. In 2009, we had a twenty-six year high in unemployment, roughly 800,000 New Yorkers are now unemployed, hundreds of thousands more are under-employed. We have the worst business tax climate in the nation, period. Our taxes are 66% higher than the national average. Upstate is truly an economic crisis. In real GDP, from 2001-2006, upstate New York grew about 1.7% per year while the average in the nation was 2.7%. The costs of pensions are exploding, 1.3 billion in 1998-1999, projected for 2013, 6.2 billion - a 476% increase and its only getting worse.

The State of New York spends too much money, it is that blunt and it is that simple. Our spending has far exceeded the rate of inflation. From 1994-2009, inflation was about 2.7% per year; medicaid went up over 5% per year and education went up over 6% per year. We just can’t afford those rates of increase. State spending actually outpaced income growth. State spending increased just under 6%, personal income growth was only 3.8%.

And most damaging, our expenses in this state far exceed revenue. We’ve been focusing on this year and the deficit this year, which is a very large deficit about $10 billion, and that is a problem and it is a major problem; what’s worse, is it’s not just about this year. Next year, the problem goes to $14 billion. The year after, the deficit goes to $17 billion. This is not a one year problem my friends. This is a fundamental economic realignment for the State of New York.

Not only do we spend too much, but we get too little in return. We spend more money on education than any state in the nation and we are number 34 in terms of results. We spend more money on Medicaid than any other state in the nation and we are number 21 in results. We spend about $1.6 billion per year in economic development and we are number 50 in terms of results.

And the large government we have is all too often responsive to the special interests over the people of the State of New York. The proof is in the pudding. And New Yorkers are voting with their feet. Two million New Yorkers have left the State over the past decade. What does this say? It says we need radical reform, it says we need a new approach, we need a new perspective and we need it now. This is a fundamental realignment for the state.

And we have to relearn the lesson our founders knew and we have to put up a sign that says New York is open for business. We get it. And this is going to be a business friendly State.

The property taxes in New York are killing New Yorkers. Thirteen of the sixteen highest tax counties are in New York when assessed by home value. In absolute dollars, Westchester County has the highest property taxes in the United States of America. Nassau County the second highest property taxes in the United State of America. It has to end, it has to end this year. We have to hold the line on taxes for now and reduce taxes in the future. New York has no future as the tax capital of the nation. Our young people will not stay. Our business will not come. This has to change.
Click to expand...

GOVERNOR ANDREW M. CUOMO STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS | Governor

there's your political landscape, progressives

your opinions, against that kind of gust, are just little puffs of hot air

party on
 
TurtleDude said:
any proof of that

and I love what lefties and populists call corporate welfare

for example

a city knows that say Toyota plans on building a new plant. so that city promises tax abatements for toyota if they build a factory in that city

or a city builds an NFL team a stadium to coax that team to stay when other cities are also trying to lure them away

lefties would call that corporate welfare

what I call it is quid pro quo-the city wants the business so they bargain to get the jobs, the payroll taxes and all the other stuff a big business can bring.

what exactly do we get by funding sloth and dependency? more sloth and dependency and more voters who vote away our wealth
Click to expand...

Here: from a textbook titled "Social Problems" by Macionis - 4th Edition: on Corporate Welfare.
Just for you . . . because you seem to be the one NOT understanding what IS "corporate Welfare"

(Chapter 10 - pg 268)
"Problems of the US Political Economy"

In the United States, most goods and services are produced by corporations. In the United States, almost 6Million business (of almost 30 million total) are incoporated. Of tehse, the largest 100 corporations are giants, each with more than $35Billion in assets. Together, tehse 100 businesses are responsible for most corporate production in the United States. . .

Government provides aid in the form of subsidies, price controls, outright cash grants to businesses, especially when officials fear that a large industry might fail and cause damage to the overall economy. In the 1970's, for example, such fears led the federal government to provide financial assistance to bail out the Chrysler Corporation. Similarly, in the 1980's, the federal governemnt provided $500 Billion to head off a collapse of the savings and loan industry. In 2008 and 2009, the government provided more than $1 Trillion to large financial corporations and major automakers to prevent their collapse.
Click to expand...

(Chapter 10 - pg 271)
Social Policy: corporate Welfare: Government Handouts for Big Business

Who benefits most from "welfare" in the United States? If you are like most people, you would answer that most of the beenfits go to needy people. In reality, however, government programs provide more benefits to corporations than to poor people.

Why do companies get such special treatment? With all their wealth, corporations have great power. In addition, many states and cities are eager to increase the number of available jobs; all a large company has to do is announce a willingness to relocate, and the otffers from state and local government - in the form of low-interest loans, tax relief, free utilities, and other beefits - come pouring in.

Some people call government aid to corporations "public-private partnerships." Such aid, they explain, creates jobs that may be needed by communities hard hit by business closings. Critics counter that handouts for big business amounts to corporate welfare. Furthermore, the amounts provided are often far greater than any promise of new jobs justifies. In 1991, for example, Indiana offered a $451 million incentive package to United Airlines to build an aircraft amaintenance facility in the state. United built the facility and created 6,300 new jobs. Some simple math shows that the cost of these new jobs came to a whopping $72,000 per person hired. . . .(it lists quite a few of these examples . . . .)

Across the United States, even in good times, corporations benefit to the tune of tens of billions of dollars each year. In 2008 and 2009, government "bailouts" were far greater. Totaling more than $1 Trillion in an effort to bring an end to the most serious recession since the 1930s. This is about fifty times the amount that the government spends omn welfare programs that benefit poor families.
Click to expand...

Talk about dependency, hunh? It's not just occasional support for a few businesses here and there. It's repeated support for the SAME ONES over and over - and in the same industries.

So - tell me - if corporations are SO large and SO wonderful - why do they fail? Not just once - but twice, three times? Where is their cutoff or capped bailout limit (there is none).

The auto industry RAKES IN Billions every year in self-driving profit through auto and parts sales, etc. But that's NOT ENOUGH for them - they KEEP failing.
Same thing with banks - they KEEP failing.

And that's acceptable to you? Continual bailout for the same bull**** inability to MANAGE their fat-cash-cow business well? Why isn't their profit of Billions every year SUFFICIENT? Why do they KEEP failing?

But - in your mind - if a FAMILY runs into a hard time - they don't deserve ANYTHING at all? No housing assistance, no food, nothing?

Why not - what makes a failing and incapable corporation *so special* but a small group of people *so worthless* to you?

And if you're claiming that these business provide a necessity or employ people - you can suck it - their continual FAILURE is why we have had so many problems in the last century. Their "benefit" seems to outweigh their "good" - and they could care less about the lives they force their chunked employees INTO when they fold and close up shop. So - it doesn't even matter to them, either.
 
upsideguy said:
How is the government killing middle class jobs? Last time I checked the government has not outsourced any jobs to India. Perhaps you mean they have not done enough to protect American jobs, perhaps by not leving steeper taxes on imports to give companies an incentive to manufactuer domestically.... Thats pretty progressive thinking for a conservative, don't you think, Apdst? Maybe you are really a closet liberal?
Click to expand...

making business costs too high is what causes that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom