• 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!

Distributions of wealth in this country

eohrnberger said:
That'd be a mis-characterization of what I posted.
Everyone has to adapt and find their way in the situations in which they find themselves. Has always been the case, and will always be the case.



Student debt is incurred at the collegiate level. Perhaps those liberal / progressive indoctrination centers should focus less on indoctrination and more on preparing their students to be competitive in the present and future job market?

If a student is 'stuck in student debt and paid low wages' then clearly their education isn't serving them well, and there's something inherently wrong with their education, or what they are being taught while attending college.
Click to expand...
So let millions of Americans get taken advantage of, right?

Your ideology is toxic. You have no sense of duty.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
jimbo said:
Because they can. phattonez's don't set wages. Markets do. Simply, if an employer needs 10 new employees and 50 want the job, then he can offer lower compensation. If only 2 apply, then he will offer more. Eventually an equilibrium is reached.

Today there are three reasons wages are lower. Low end jobs are going overseas. Why pay government and union dictated $50/hour for marginal labor when better labor can be had elsewhere for 10% of that? People in those 10% countries are coming here where they can get 50%. We are moving former low end workers onto government assistance (subsistence) to make room for those low end from elsewhere.

A fourth point is sheer survival. Consumers may speak kudos to US made products, but in the end they buy Chinese made tools at Harbor Freight and Jeans from Wallyworld rather than more expensive goods elsewhere.
Click to expand...
So in other words, corporations are undercutting American labor and have no sense of responsibility to this country.

And I'm supposed to support them?

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
phattonez said:
So in other words, corporations are undercutting American labor and have no sense of responsibility to this country.

And I'm supposed to support them?

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

Those are your words, not other words,
 
Mach said:
You blamed the banking bail-out on Obama. That was you introducing politics into it, and it was the opposite of reality.
It was Republicans/Bush that did so. Obama did what you said he didn't do, invest in infrastructure. Obama did not do what you said he did, bail out the banks.

This problem is enabled by politics, and it's solved by politics, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Again, not excusing anything that Bush did as he was just as sold out to the banks, but you have a rosy picture of Obama that isn't based in reality.

Michael Hudson said:
Promising “hope and change,” he won by posing as a transformational president, leading the Democrats to control of the White House, Senate and Congress in 2008. Swept into office by a national reaction against the George Bush’s Oil War in Iraq and the junk-mortgage crisis that left the economy debt-ridden, they had free rein to pass whatever new laws they chose – even a Public Option in health care if they had wanted, or make Wall Street banks absorb the losses from their bad and often fraudulent loans.

But it turned out that Obama’s role was to*prevent*the changes that voters hoped to see, and indeed that the economy needed to recover: financial reform, debt writedowns to bring junk mortgages in line with fair market prices, and throwing crooked bankers in jail. Obama rescued the banks, not the economy, and turned over the Justice Department and regulatory agencies to his Wall Street campaign contributors.

...

National income statistics showed that only the top 5 percent of the population were better off. All the growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during Obama’s tenure went to them – the Donor Class that had gained control of the Democratic Party leadership. Real incomes have fallen for the remaining 95 percent, whose household budgets have been further eroded by soaring charges for health insurance.
Click to expand...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-26/michael-hudson-trump-obamas-legacy-end-democratic-party

The fact is that no bankers went to jail, bank profits increased, and nothing fundamentally changed. They had the opportunity and they sold out to bankers.

Don't forget. Obama voted for the bailout. Both parties were complicit.

https://www.politico.com/story/2008/10/the-senate-bailout-vote-014196

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
Bullseye said:
They don't "create money out of thin air"; the receive deposits and investments and use that to fund loans.
Click to expand...

Do you have no idea how banks work? They don't lend out deposits.

Yep, his property becomes more valuable based on the income it creates.
Click to expand...

LOL! So we'd all be richer if we were all paying double what we're currently paying for rent? You hear that, everyone? We could all be millionaires if we just paid more in rent!

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
jimbo said:
Those are your words, not other words,
Click to expand...
This is a more succinct way of putting it. This is what capitalists expect me to accept. It's tripe.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
My guess is that almost everyone here is in the bottom 80% of earners in the US. Heck, some are probably in the bottom 90% of earners (making right below $40k per year).

Contrast that with the top .1% of earners (who average $2,757,000 per year) and whose income increases around $300k per year (and that's accelerating way faster that pretty much anyone else).

It's kind of funny that the top earners increase, INCREASE is more each year than most people make in 3-4 years.
 
phattonez said:
So let millions of Americans get taken advantage of, right?

Your ideology is toxic. You have no sense of duty.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

I would say that the liberal / progressive indoctrination centers are the ones that don't have a sense of duty, the duty of preparing their students for the realities of the job markets they will need to compete and survive in being subjugated to liberal / progressive political ideology and a steaming heaping dose of SJWism, none of which will prepare them to survive and thrive in their adult life, and is, in fact, a detriment to their survival and thriving.
 
eohrnberger said:
True. So lets take a real life example.

There's a movement demanding $15/hr for no skill, no knowledge fast food workers, essentially teenager starter jobs that some mistaken believe are jobs on which to base an entire work career on, and contribute enough value to command higher wages than what the market have set.
The market's response to this movement was to implement automation, touch screen ordering systems, which reduced the demand for these jobs.
The end result is that many fast food workers were fired, as the demand for that job has been reduced, having been partially replaced with this automation.

If the government were to regulate a $15/hr minim wage, this same thing would happen only in greater numbers with many other minimum wage jobs, resulting with more people unemployed.

That's pretty much the reality, as we've seen come to pass in recent history. Markets cannot be, and shouldn't be, distorted by the government, at least not any more than absolutely necessary (thinking of cases of fraud, other criminality, and possibly some reasonable environmental regulation).
Click to expand...
That's 100 % bull**** , that's everything you wrote. A full time working adult has to be paid a wage that can support a family. Other wise my tax dollars are being used to feed and house his family, who benefits? the business and the stockholder, while my tax dollars are wasted on something that the business gets the whole benefit of. **** the company, **** their owners and stock holders . You people are nuts.
 
phattonez said:
So corporations have record profits and the stock market is at an all time high, yet we're unreasonable to want higher wages? Get out of here.
Click to expand...
The simple fact has to be noted that the market isn't controlling wages and hasn't for the last 70 years. Corporate head are the ones controlling wages and stupid people who think that their shouldn't be any minimum wages that the market will take care of that , bull****. even Adam Smith in about 179? said there is time that the market doesn't control wages that the business does and of course he also pointed out the obvious , that it isn't a good thing.
 
Mach said:
That was President George W. Bush, a Republican, with his Treasure Secretary, the former CEO of the largest investment bank in the world, Goldman Sachs, that made that call Phat.

You appear to be brazenly attempting to re-write recent history.

First, anyone can see the trend that extends before Obama Phattonez, I'm not quite sure why you've injected "Obama's fault" into this.

The sub-prime crisis occurred during Republican George W. Bush's administration. George W. Bush had no interest in policy or economics.
The Bush Administration chose to engage in a war in Iraq, saying it might cost $100B, but it ended up cost some $2.7T dollars. There is your lost spending Phattonez, we sunk it into the sand of Iraq. Maybe we could send our kids to school there given how much we invested in that infrastructure?

That's what Republicans were doing with government when the crisis hit. They were spending like drunken sailors on the military.

GWB's decent Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neil, was pushed out because he was capable and serious.

In his place, GWB put the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson in the position.
Paulson, the Republican, appointed by George W. Bush, former CEO of one of the worlds largest investment banks, then proposed the Emergency Economic Stability Act of 2008, which GWB signed into law.
GWB/Paulson bailed the banks out.

They then handed over an economy in deep recession under their watch, to President Obama.
Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that focused on an enormous range of infrastructure, housing, health care, education, tax, etc., benefits to offset the Great Recession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009


Now, I'm not sure how you made the claim you made, but can you try to clarify based on the facts?
Click to expand...
If you looked at the wages and bonus structure at Goldman Sachs you would find out why all our treasury people are from Goldman Sachs , example Goldman Sachs got 10 million in the bailout program , they gave out 10 billion in bonuses that year.That is a low number for them. They simply buy the best people by drowning them in money. By the way, point of interest, that bailout year bonus added up to $750,000.00 a year per person who works there.
 
phattonez said:
So let millions of Americans get taken advantage of, right?

Your ideology is toxic. You have no sense of duty.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...
These people are all self made ****s that got their money from daddy and they are set for life, so they are better all of a sudden then everyone else , and the rest of the people can **** themselves , they got theirs. Ya those are the great Americans that populate the right. wing.
 
phattonez said:
Do you have no idea how banks work? They don't lend out deposits.
Click to expand...
Yes, the do. And if you buy CD's from them they loan that money out to.


phattonez said:
LOL! So we'd all be richer if we were all paying double what we're currently paying for rent? You hear that, everyone? We could all be millionaires if we just paid more in rent!

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...
How do you come up with this ridiculous jabberwocky?
 
Bullseye said:
Yes, the do. And if you buy CD's from them they loan that money out to.


How do you come up with this ridiculous jabberwocky?
Click to expand...
Again you have no idea what your talking about the last I looked they only need 3% of the money in deposit that they loan out, You absolutely know nothing about this .
 
phattonez said:
This is a more succinct way of putting it. This is what capitalists expect me to accept. It's tripe.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...
Capitalists aren't the problem, it's the only system that works. The problem are the people who think they earn it all , deserve it all and shouldn't be taxed and that what capitalism is. no it isn't.
 
jbander said:
Again you have no idea what your talking about the last I looked they only need 3% of the money in deposit that they loan out, You absolutely know nothing about this .
Click to expand...
LOL, maybe you need to look somewhere else. Try this to fill in your blank spots

As mentioned before, banks basically make money by lending money at rates higher than the cost of the money they lend. More specifically, banks collect interest on loans and interest payments from the debt securities they own, and pay interest on deposits, CDs, and short-term borrowings. The difference is known as the "spread," or the net interest income, and when that net interest income is divided by the bank's earning assets, it is known as the net interest margin.
Click to expand...

Or, here's another form


Basic function of bank is to regulate money and earn profit for the depositor and for itself too . The money deposited in banks is distributed in the form of loans which maintains the flow of money in the market .
That is how banks help in maintaining the flow of money in the market which is done as per RBI guidelines and earn profit .
Click to expand...
 
jbander said:
That's 100 % bull**** , that's everything you wrote. A full time working adult has to be paid a wage that can support a family. Other wise my tax dollars are being used to feed and house his family, who benefits? the business and the stockholder, while my tax dollars are wasted on something that the business gets the whole benefit of. **** the company, **** their owners and stock holders . You people are nuts.
Click to expand...

"A full time working adult has to be paid a wage that can support a family"

The world doesn't owe you, or anyone else, a single thing. Not one.

It is up to everyone to earn it.

You people are nuts.
You people are nuts if you think the world owes you something.
You people are nuts if you think the world is going to give you anything (of value).

TANSTAAFL.
 
phattonez said:
Simple. Raise taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, rents, etc. while cutting taxes on wages.
Click to expand...

I would support simplification of our tax system, basically taxing all income regardless of how it was acquired at the same rate. I would also limit refunds to no more than the total tax provided government.

If we're going to have a minimum wage, it should be the base beyond which a tax liability begins.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Those "market forces" include many government mandates and pay supplements. The various "safety net" programs can (and often do) create a situation where the meager paychecks of two workers, working side by side at the same position for the same employer, can result in far different outcomes. While the employer may pay them the same wage, if one receives "safety net" benefits and the other does not (or they pay different amounts of income tax), then they are not receiving equal net compensation for equal work.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Employers hire employees not families, and pay them for the work they perform. A single employee doing the same work as a married employee with 3 kids may be paid the same wage by the employer, but pay higher taxes due to tax deductions allowed the married employee with 3 kids. The single employee may be trying to save enough to afford marrying and starting a family, IMO a very rational decision, while the married employee with 3 kids is being subsidized by government tax deductions at cost to his/her single co-worker.
 
Individual said:
Excellent point. Employers hire employees not families, and pay them for the work they perform. A single employee doing the same work as a married employee with 3 kids may be paid the same wage by the employer, but pay higher taxes due to tax deductions allowed the married employee with 3 kids. The single employee may be trying to save enough to afford marrying and starting a family, IMO a very rational decision, while the married employee with 3 kids is being subsidized by government tax deductions at cost to his/her single co-worker.
Click to expand...
Kiss it,there is no tax cut for just the poor in the top 20 most used tax cuts , their are tax cuts for everyone and many tax cuts just for the wealthy. So get a life and do some reading.
 
jbander said:
Like I said you have no clue, deposits don't equal loans, you need some help , fractional reserve banking
Click to expand...
Didn't say deposits EQUAL loans, just that banks use money from deposits to MAKE loans. I provided references which say the same thing; you provide blustering buffoonery.
 
Individual said:
I would support simplification of our tax system, basically taxing all income regardless of how it was acquired at the same rate. I would also limit refunds to no more than the total tax provided government.

If we're going to have a minimum wage, it should be the base beyond which a tax liability begins.
Click to expand...
that would be the biggest tax cut for the wealthy in the history of this country, so ya you would support that. the you me first group just love that kind of ****.
 
Bullseye said:
Didn't say deposits EQUAL loans, just that banks use money from deposits to MAKE loans. I provided references which say the same thing; you provide blustering buffoonery.
Click to expand...
My buffoonery " fractional reserve banking" needs a little more of you attention . You have a long way to go to be able to talk to anyone who has a clue about economics.
 
Bullseye said:
Didn't say deposits EQUAL loans, just that banks use money from deposits to MAKE loans. I provided references which say the same thing; you provide blustering buffoonery.
Click to expand...
Your wrong when the deposits are loaned out the bank can still loan out 33 times more then that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom