• 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

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)


(Chapter 10 - pg 271)


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.

so the auto industry doesn't have unions pushing for that

total FAIL on our part It was the UNIONS that pushed for the GM bailout

and who gets hurt the most if a bank fails

and where have i supported bailouts

seems I am not the one with understanding problems
 
Oh - and here's concerning Who votes - since you seem hellbent on thinking that all the poor people on welfare hit up the polls and support Democrats and Liberal measures and candidates.
It's actually presented in a nifty bar-chart. But I'll type it out for ya.

"Voting by Income Level"
The percentage of adult who reported voting in the 2008 president election. A clear pattern is prsent. As income goes up, so does the likelihood of voting.

(chart statistics:
Less than $10,000: 49% voted
10,000-to-19,999: 54% voted
20,000-29,999: 56% voted
30,000-39,999: 62% voted
40,000-49,999: 65% voted
50,000-74,999: 71% voted
75,000-99,999: 76% voted
100,000 and more: 80% voted

As you can see - in the last main election teh people who EARN LESS are also the ones who VOTE LESS.

So stop repeating the same "the poor people vote for their own welfare supporters" because it's OBVIOUSLY not true.

To your relief (and mine- we both support capitalism for it's many goods)
In yet another neato chart of statistics is our rankings of "Capitalism" and where we actually fall compared to other countries - they reference this as a % of GDP ratio - the % of GDP which is produced by the Private Sector VS the % of GDP which is produced by the Public sector (government)
For the US 82% of the GDP is Private - 18% is public.
Germany and Australia: 76% Private / 24% public.
Italy: 75% Private / 25% public
Canada: 74% Private, 26% public
France: 70% Private / 30% public
Norway: 68% Private / 32% public
Sweden: 64% Private / 36% public

We're higher than the countries which we consider ourselves to be kin to as far as the production of our Private-sector. . . making us the least 'socialist' of them all.

Overall - however you cut it up and serve it - there is nothing wrong with assisting those who need some assistance . . . if we *don't* (like how we use to NOT provide assistance for our people) then various ranking on different scales of 'quality of life' - 'life expectancy' - and so on - will drop and we'll be more akin to 3rd world countries than any of us want to ever be.
 
Last edited:
I dont know why the notion of the gap between the rich and poor is surprising to anyone. There wont be a true economic recovery until we revitalize our industrial base. That wont happen until the unions and labor scrap the past and start fresh and it will NEVER happen if the unions insist on compensation packages that have priced the American worker out of the industrial labor market. Its ironic that a bunch of people that claim to champion the cause of the poor also remain steadfast supporters of half of the component that has destryoed the job market in the country (ironic though not surprising since the Unions also support their beloved party which they believe will fix everything because the politicians actually 'care' about the poor :lamo ).
 
so the auto industry doesn't have unions pushing for that

total FAIL on our part It was the UNIONS that pushed for the GM bailout

and who gets hurt the most if a bank fails

and where have i supported bailouts

seems I am not the one with understanding problems

To me this issue doesn't concern Unions in the least - I'm sure that equates with some people - but not for me. :shrug:

My point in all of this is to abate your fears that we're turning socialist, that we help the poor too much, and that they run to the polls every election to vote in the political party that will keep them on welfare. Obviously all of these concerns are baseless and not reflecting the reality of all of these situations.
 
Last edited:
The gap is widening because a significant percentage of people in this country have no work ethic whatsoever, and no money-management plan beyond buying flat screens and XBoxes with every nickel they get their hands on.

1/3 of this country is beyond stupid, lazy, and irresponsible. They bring the averages down across the board.
 
The gap is widening because a significant percentage of people in this country have no work ethic whatsoever, and no money-management plan beyond buying flat screens and XBoxes with every nickel they get their hands on.

1/3 of this country is beyond stupid, lazy, and irresponsible. They bring the averages down across the board.

Oh - so people who are employed FULL time are lazy, irresponsible and stupid?

INCOME means you WORK to EARN IT - you know, a JOB.
INCOME does not necessarily INCLUDE one's WELFARE or their amassed wealth - only a SMALL percentage of the population overall GETS welfare anyway.

Before I became a stay at home Mom I was employed full time, had two kids, and I earned $8.00 an hour. That put me at just over $15,000 a year. I was NOT lazy, NOT stupid, NOT irresponsible. MOST people who struggle financially and are gainfully employed. . . They make ends meet - but don't rake in the dough in excess.

Your thought process is why so many college kids come out of college EXPECTING to have a job just because the got a degree in Liberal Arts.

And what you're referring to is *strictkly income* - not *wealth* - Wealth can amass on it's own once you have it. (Property values increase, stock values increase) - you can be a lazy fat bastard and do nothing your whole life and die wealthier than you were when you inherited it from your Mum.
 
Last edited:
The gap is widening because a significant percentage of people in this country have no work ethic whatsoever, and no money-management plan beyond buying flat screens and XBoxes with every nickel they get their hands on.

1/3 of this country is beyond stupid, lazy, and irresponsible. They bring the averages down across the board.

I think that is BS. It makes those who believe it feel better, seeing themselves in the upper 1/3. But most people have a fine work ethic. Of all our problems related to this gap, this is by far the least.
 
I'm new here, but it seems to me that those on the conservative side of things ignore the fact that in our past (i.e. 1950's) we have had very high taxes on the wealthy, and it did nothing to stunt our growth as a nation. In fact, many look back on that era as our "golden age" when America emerged from World War II as prosperous and happy (excluding the threat of nuclear annihilation, of course).

I suppose what I am trying to say is that taxes on the wealthy were much higher than what they are now and yet there seemed to be a general consensus that this was the right thing to do. And I can't help but think that a contributing factor to this was the closer income equality and general prosperity of all Americans.
 
I'm new here, but it seems to me that those on the conservative side of things ignore the fact that in our past (i.e. 1950's) we have had very high taxes on the wealthy, and it did nothing to stunt our growth as a nation. In fact, many look back on that era as our "golden age" when America emerged from World War II as prosperous and happy (excluding the threat of nuclear annihilation, of course).

I suppose what I am trying to say is that taxes on the wealthy were much higher than what they are now and yet there seemed to be a general consensus that this was the right thing to do. And I can't help but think that a contributing factor to this was the closer income equality and general prosperity of all Americans.

Coming out of WWI and WWII I don't imagine that 'wealth distribution' was a concern - people were happy to be war free, out of the depression, and able to settle down and have a family.

I can identify with that - I was in a state of bliss for the year following my husband's decision to adopt the kids. Every single negative thing rolled right off me - I was 100% stress free.

Apply that mindset to an entire nation - it's like dope.
 
Last edited:
What? That's a baseless claim.

Well, I mentioned two books.

Baseless? So you would argue that those at the beginging of something aren't more likely to reap benefits than those are the end of something? I mean, there was more unexplored land, more resources, less people, more promise, less competition internationally. The time periods are so different, I think you're unwise to blow this off so quickly.

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

I gave you a couple of timelines, and there is more, to show that this was common and not limited to just one.

That's subjective.

So is a lot of what you're arguing.

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

You're really missing the point. ;)

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

Sure it was, or more than now. Not sure I would use the words A LOT.

In other words, goods are becoming cheaper.

And people less able to afford even them. The product becomes cheaper, and in some ways less quality, and people lose the way to make a good living. great stuff that. ;)

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

It speaks to the need for unions.


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

I wouldn't go so either or in my thinking, but as presenting prosperity as the single answer, you're wrong. People fought to end tham and it took laws, regulations, and not just propserity.


Children working is better than children starving.

Sure. But today they are neither working or starving. Wouldn't you say that is better yet?
 
making business costs too high is what causes that

Some of those high costs can be lowered by significantly lowering the ridiculous compensation for those at or near the top. Start there if you have any real integrity about corporate expenses .
 
I'm new here, but it seems to me that those on the conservative side of things ignore the fact that in our past (i.e. 1950's) we have had very high taxes on the wealthy, and it did nothing to stunt our growth as a nation.

Obama Calls Tax Cuts the 'Right Thing to Do'

At Obama's side, Clinton backs tax deal - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

everyone's on the conservative side of this, the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts for the rich

if you're not aboard, you're a splinter
 
I'm new here, but it seems to me that those on the conservative side of things ignore the fact that in our past (i.e. 1950's) we have had very high taxes on the wealthy, and it did nothing to stunt our growth as a nation. In fact, many look back on that era as our "golden age" when America emerged from World War II as prosperous and happy (excluding the threat of nuclear annihilation, of course).

I suppose what I am trying to say is that taxes on the wealthy were much higher than what they are now and yet there seemed to be a general consensus that this was the right thing to do. And I can't help but think that a contributing factor to this was the closer income equality and general prosperity of all Americans.

There certainly were high tax rates, but also great tax cuts. Most of those were eliminated in the tax reform of the 1980s, so that the effective tax rate did not end up changing much.
 
Baseless? So you would argue that those at the beginging of something aren't more likely to reap benefits than those are the end of something? I mean, there was more unexplored land, more resources, less people, more promise, less competition internationally. The time periods are so different, I think you're unwise to blow this off so quickly.

We are much more technologically advanced. I mean, if what you're saying was true, then why are the countries that have many comparative opportunities for growth not growing? Shouldn't Africa then be a booming continent?

I gave you a couple of timelines, and there is more, to show that this was common and not limited to just one.

All of the examples that you provided were based on subjective value judgments. Who cares about that?

So is a lot of what you're arguing.

I'm basing everything from an objective standard, you're the one bringing subjective opinions in here.

You're really missing the point. ;)

No. You think that just because something is inevented that only a few years later everyone should have it? Why do you ignore the central problem of economics: scarcity?

Sure it was, or more than now. Not sure I would use the words A LOT.

The dollar has lost 98% of its value since the beginning of this century. I certainly would use the words A LOT.

And people less able to afford even them. The product becomes cheaper, and in some ways less quality, and people lose the way to make a good living. great stuff that. ;)

So we're poorer than we were 30 years ago? Interesting.

It speaks to the need for unions.

If you want to join one that's fine, but there's a reason that so many are not part of a union even though they could conceivably be in one.

I wouldn't go so either or in my thinking, but as presenting prosperity as the single answer, you're wrong. People fought to end tham and it took laws, regulations, and not just propserity.

Your own post showed that the laws did not work. The laws were violated anyway. We needed to become richer before child labor ended. There are countries around the world that have outlawed it but still have it, and guess what, it's because they're poor!

Sure. But today they are neither working or starving. Wouldn't you say that is better yet?

Yes, thanks to prosperity, children and all of us live much better lives.
 
You think this is evidence? Not sure it's even evidence let alone proof. If anything it raises the question, but it doesn't settle it.

Mind finding evidence to the contrary because you've offered nothing substantial, only empty rhetoric. My post actually had real numbers and historical data. All I've heard from you is baseless speculation.
 
The high taxes on the rich which have resulted in the top 5% paying more federal income taxes and death taxes than the rest of the country combined is what has caused the gap. Not because the taxes are not high enough but because we have subsidized dependence and sloth among millions who now look to the rich and the government to take care of them

Drug addicts are not good workers. Entitlement addicts are rarely ambitious
 
Oh - so people who are employed FULL time are lazy, irresponsible and stupid?

INCOME means you WORK to EARN IT - you know, a JOB.
INCOME does not necessarily INCLUDE one's WELFARE or their amassed wealth - only a SMALL percentage of the population overall GETS welfare anyway.

Before I became a stay at home Mom I was employed full time, had two kids, and I earned $8.00 an hour. That put me at just over $15,000 a year. I was NOT lazy, NOT stupid, NOT irresponsible. MOST people who struggle financially and are gainfully employed. . . They make ends meet - but don't rake in the dough in excess.

Your thought process is why so many college kids come out of college EXPECTING to have a job just because the got a degree in Liberal Arts.

And what you're referring to is *strictkly income* - not *wealth* - Wealth can amass on it's own once you have it. (Property values increase, stock values increase) - you can be a lazy fat bastard and do nothing your whole life and die wealthier than you were when you inherited it from your Mum.

None of that was pointed at you or folks like you.

I'm saying that there are masses of people who will do anthing they can to avoid working. And we've all worked with the "dead weight" folks, many of which have lost their gravy train during this unemployment downturn.

Good people are hard to find. I will attest to that.
 
Some of those high costs can be lowered by significantly lowering the ridiculous compensation for those at or near the top. Start there if you have any real integrity about corporate expenses .

100 or so executives vs. many million overpaid union workers who want 10X what a similarly skilled chinese or Indian worker will take?
the Highest corporate tax in the free world--

I understand your envy of the overpaid executives and yes there are a bunch

but that is peanuts compared to government imposed costs and taxes combined with overpriced labor

and executive salary is within the sole control of the company
 
The high taxes on the rich which have resulted in the top 5% paying more federal income taxes and death taxes than the rest of the country combined is what has caused the gap. Not because the taxes are not high enough but because we have subsidized dependence and sloth among millions who now look to the rich and the government to take care of them

Drug addicts are not good workers. Entitlement addicts are rarely ambitious

So - tax the rich less and it'll somehow narrow the gap?
That makes no sense - the gap is the gap. The gap will always be.

None of that was pointed at you or folks like you.

I'm saying that there are masses of people who will do anthing they can to avoid working. And we've all worked with the "dead weight" folks, many of which have lost their gravy train during this unemployment downturn.

Good people are hard to find. I will attest to that.

Which is true - of course that's true.
less than 1/3 of those on welfare fall into that category. . .which of the lower quadrile of the populus. And they, like others - if after a few years of being on they don't fix their lives up a bit - they're out of the system. Woosh - gone.

It's such a small percentage of the population I'm not about to let their foul oversights and problems in life guide me to want to end the system.

It was a lot higher before 1993, sure - that's when they reformed the system and seriously limited the number of years they were on support - it doesn't work that way anymore. People expecting a lifetime of handouts are in for a defeat.

Thus - while in - it's essential to take advantage of relocation, outreach and other progrmas geared to provide childcare, education - and those essentials to build a welfare-free life.

That doesn't usher people into the top quadrile, of course - but juts above the poverty line - that's where most people are, right now - even if they've never been on any type of welfare program.
 
Mind finding evidence to the contrary because you've offered nothing substantial, only empty rhetoric. My post actually had real numbers and historical data. All I've heard from you is baseless speculation.

I'm not sure my claim is the affirmative claim. I think those who say we no longer have a work ethic would have to present the evidence. I think that is how it works.

However, here's how one young person responded to the claim:

Debunking The Millennials' Work Ethic "Problem"

Debunking The Millennials' Work Ethic "Problem" - Erica Williams - The Conversation - Harvard Business Review

But I would argue the past always looks better than it was, and people have alwys criticised the present. This is not new. But it is much harder to prove than it is to jump on that bandwagon. Our business in this country goes on everyday, just as it always has. Most people work, and hold jobs. Some work more than one job. For every story you can tell me of someone being lazy, I can give you two of someone beating odds, workingn hard and overachieving. It's just, as it has always been, more popular to see the class half empty of not completely dry.
 
The high taxes on the rich which have resulted in the top 5% paying more federal income taxes and death taxes than the rest of the country combined is what has caused the gap. Not because the taxes are not high enough but because we have subsidized dependence and sloth among millions who now look to the rich and the government to take care of them

Drug addicts are not good workers. Entitlement addicts are rarely ambitious

Still repeating that same LIE that there are such things as death taxes. Even after you yourself admitted that they were Estate Taxes and used your own state of Ohio as evidence.

But maybe you have found some Death Taxes in the law in the last week? We eagerly await the verifiable and objective evidence of that discovery.

In the absence of it, its just another right wing term designed to pervert the true meaning of another term for ideological purposes.
 
So - tax the rich less and it'll somehow narrow the gap?
That makes no sense - the gap is the gap. The gap will always be.



Which is true - of course that's true.
less than 1/3 of those on welfare fall into that category. . .which of the lower quadrile of the populus. And they, like others - if after a few years of being on they don't fix their lives up a bit - they're out of the system. Woosh - gone.

It's such a small percentage of the population I'm not about to let their foul oversights and problems in life guide me to want to end the system.

It was a lot higher before 1993, sure - that's when they reformed the system and seriously limited the number of years they were on support - it doesn't work that way anymore. People expecting a lifetime of handouts are in for a defeat.

Thus - while in - it's essential to take advantage of relocation, outreach and other progrmas geared to provide childcare, education - and those essentials to build a welfare-free life.

That doesn't usher people into the top quadrile, of course - but juts above the poverty line - that's where most people are, right now - even if they've never been on any type of welfare program.

what is your solution

and why do the rich have a duty to pay more and more so those who don't make it can get more stuff

for you to believe the crap you and others spew you must think that the failure of the many to become rich is due to the FAULT of the wealthy
 
Back
Top Bottom