• 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!

The Rich are Robbing the Poor Blind

Bullseye said:
It's a ludicrous concept. A half-assed attempt to deny the fact top earners pay a far larger share of taxes than their share of total wages.
Click to expand...


Math disagrees with your emotion.
 
I live near a ranch Tom Barrack owns. Its one of many for Tom. He employs some professional polo 9 goalers, some winery help (illegals), some ranch hands and a few maids, winery servers, etc. He is not a big employer locally. He likely made off with millions in tax breaks with Trump. None of us saw any of it. Now Tom may have invested his millions in tax breaks making high paying jobs for someone in another area, I have no clue. But here, nada. In fact, our local billionaires have not started any new businesses here at all under Trump. They just pocket the dough it seems.
 
Media_Truth said:
That ramp down hasn't really happened yet. I don't know why that's shown on the graph. Most financial analysts state that our deificit will be very close to $1 Trillion by Jan 1st.
Click to expand...

Depends on who’s projecting what and what data set and... statistics. We still got a way to go from that big peak in 2010.
 
Bullseye said:
Quote Originally Posted by Media_Truth View Post

Makes no difference. The truth is there. You just choose to ignore it. REPUBLICANS = SKYROCKETING DEFICITS!!!!
Click to expand...


Sorry, no.
Click to expand...

This is almost as bad as us looking at Trump's inauguration photos right next to Obama's and being told that they are the largest in history. I mean denying facts that we all can see can only go so far.
 
ataraxia said:
This is almost as bad as us looking at Trump's inauguration photos right next to Obama's and being told that they are the largest in history. I mean denying facts that we all can see can only go so far.
Click to expand...
Yet you continue doing so. Why is that?
 
It really comes down to how much money does anyone really need? Money becomes an obsession once it is your only motivation. What incremental value does the second billion give a billionaire? Nothing really. But yet they persist, they persist without thinking or caring about the people they employ or displace or let go. Why? Because at a gut level, some of them are sociopaths. They really could care less about human beings at all. Sure they assuage their egos with token charity donations, they might even go visit some poor people and look concerned but do they really care? Nope. Contrast that with most of us, left or right. We know we are not going to be billionaires, we know this is all we have, yet many of us help others one way or the other. Why? Because the vast majority of us, left or right, actually care about human beings.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... is your definition of robbery simply not getting a 'fair share' of what someone else earned? Why rely on government to take what is rightfully yours?
Click to expand...

That's how they got you...they sold you this and you believed it.

In the real world, lower income/skilled people:

- bear the economic burden of immigration
- bear the economic burden of offshoring along with the middle class
- are the most vulnerable (to unexpected illness, financial troubles, legal troubles, you name it)
- have the beast amount of bargaining power
- have the least ability to find loopholes, engage in grey conduct like takes money/attorneys to navigate to come out ahead
- have the least ability to find new work
- have the least ability to transition to a new job skill
- in America, have weak union/labor support
- probably had a network of higher wealth individuals to get them a job
- probably had access to better education and early health care

I could go on.

Now, if you're an ambitious capitalist, even with average ethics, you will take advantage of every one of those things and even with similar input, can come out so far ahead that it might dramatically change the wealth redistribution of the United States, and accelerate it over time since it compounds. Guess what, that's what happened.

I'm not going to say you are foolish because you don't seem to get this, it's not readily apparent, and one of the things we wealthy people in power do, is ensure that no one is looking critically at the things that empower us. Which is easiest to do with Republican propaganda. Deny, deny, deny.

You imply that whaetever a capitalist pays you, is what is "rightfully" your due. Which means there is never a reason to negotiate, if what you got is right, at 2% of the profit when you did 90% of the actual work, then how can you argue for more if it's what's "rightfully"yours?

I hope you don't mean that it's whatever you *negotiate* to be yours...because you're...you know, a free American able to negotiate or choose a different job? You'd have to ignore a hundreds factors of reality like the list I started for you above, if you were to believe you had any hope of having any power at the negotiating table.

Liberals largely are trying to help empower those lower/middle income people, and half of those people fight that help because they were told liberals are bad. It's very sad. Similar to vaccines right? Science/medicine gives us vaccines to prevent disease, and some people tell others the vaccine is bad, so they oppose it...to their own detriment.
 
Bullseye said:
Sorry, no.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love how all these spendthrift libs suddenly care about the interest accruing deficits?
Yeah, me too. :lol:
 
trixare4kids said:
Don't you just love how all these spendthrift libs suddenly care about the interest accruing deficits?
Yeah, me too. :lol:
Click to expand...
Only when a Republican President inherits them from the Anointed One.
 
trixare4kids said:
Don't you just love how all these spendthrift libs suddenly care about the interest accruing deficits?
Yeah, me too. :lol:
Click to expand...

Don't you just love how all these financially prudent republicans all of a sudden don't think rising deficits are a big deal? :lol:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... is your definition of robbery simply not getting a 'fair share' of what someone else earned? Why rely on government to take what is rightfully yours?
Click to expand...


Assumes that the laws (or libertarian concepts) governing property (including intellectual property), ownership, stocks, dividends, and salaries (the entire philosophical basis of capitalism as such) are morally valid to begin with

Communism for example rejects the entire concept that it is possible for an individual to even own the means of production.

It's possible that on some metaphysical level deeply rooted in the nature of reality (perhaps even totally independent from human consciousness and socio-economic interaction) libertarian ideas about such things are just wrong.
 
Mach said:
That's how they got you...they sold you this and you believed it.

In the real world, lower income/skilled people:

- bear the economic burden of immigration
- bear the economic burden of offshoring along with the middle class
- are the most vulnerable (to unexpected illness, financial troubles, legal troubles, you name it)
- have the beast amount of bargaining power
- have the least ability to find loopholes, engage in grey conduct like takes money/attorneys to navigate to come out ahead
- have the least ability to find new work
- have the least ability to transition to a new job skill
- in America, have weak union/labor support
- probably had a network of higher wealth individuals to get them a job
- probably had access to better education and early health care

I could go on. {I snipped the rest to allow reply}
Click to expand...

Most of the 'unfairness' factors that you have presented are the direct result of government policy and/or of folks simply accepting what is while not daring to try to change their situation. In the case of someone doing 90% of the work and getting 2% of the profit that worker would be a fool not to either compete directly or to join the competition (switch employers).

It took me quite a few years to decide that continuing to do construction/maintenance work others was a raw deal so I decided to become self-employed. Preparation was the key - I had to acquire significantly more tools/equipment and to establish a customer base sufficient to take that leap. What I found was that many folks will give you no chance unless you come highly recommended but that only a few satisfied customers are necessary to 'spread the word' to attain that status. I now have more offers for work than I care to take on (especially since I now get Social Security retirement and need less outside income), have thousands invested in tools/equipment and am able to refer job offers to others who I trust.

The idea that adding enough income redistribution programs will somehow make poor folks (low wage workers making others rich) into something (anything?) else (middle class?) has not been shown to be true. What such "safety net" assistance programs mainly do is to simply make them (a bit) more comfortable remaining as low wage workers while making others rich. If one requires $X/month in order to meet basic living expenses then it really does not matter how much of the $X is from a meager paycheck and how much is added (or made unnecessary in the case of Medicaid, SNAP or rent subsidies) by various "safety net" programs.

Making someone more dependent on government by transferring many employer provided fringe benefits (medical care insurance is a big one) makes little sense. If the government could truly do a better job in providing medical care insurance then simply offer that benefit as a 'pubic option' (perhaps for a fixed monthly/annual fee or as a percentage of AGI). The same 'public option' idea could be tried for other (currently employer provided) fringe benefits such as vacation pay, sick leave, retirement fund matching and tuition assistance. Where these "let the government take over" ideas seem to fail (at least to get my support) is that they aren't (can't be?) offered as 'public options' because they are seen as worthless to most except for the very low income folks that feel that they would get more than they would have to give up in higher taxes or "user fees".
 
calamity said:
The Rich are Robbing the Poor Blind...by stealing their future [via continually increasing "at light speed" the national debt].


It's really disgusting to see what this country has become.

Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid spending in 2018



So, while senators and their betters live to 90 and beyond, the plebes will all begin dropping dead by 60 again. That's one way to control costs. I guess.

Of course, demanding that the rich begin to pay their fair share is out of the question. They insist that getting richer is their right. And, none of the Republican politicians have the stones to deny them that...nor are they motivated to do so.
Click to expand...

Red:
Note:
The bracketed portion of the "red" text is there to paraphrase the substance of the quote in the OP that doesn't "transfer" when one uses DP's quote functionality. Please let me know if my paraphrasing mischaracterizes your point for including the externally-sourced omitted quoted passage. My remark below is based on my paraphrasing being accurate.​


I think it more apt to say that the current generation of legislators and their supporters -- no matter either group's financial position -- are robbing blind the poor and rich individuals of future generations by incurring massive amounts of current-dollar debt to purchase current goods/services that must be paid for using future dollars.

As to whether that more apt phrasing is accurate depends on three things:
  1. The nature and extent of relationship between the interest rate on the debt and the devaluation rate of the U.S. dollar (aka, inflation).
  2. The nature and extent of the relationship between median or average per capita income and the devaluation rate of the U.S. dollar.

  • The net difference between items one and two.
That said, it's hard to assign to rich folks the preponderance of culpability for the extent of whatever "theft" there be, for federal borrowing is undertaken to enable spending on programs that benefit America's upper, middle and low income citizens and residents.
  • The majority of discretionary federal spending benefits rich folks, but the rest benefits everyone.
  • The majority of non-discretionary federal spending benefits everyone, with the remainder benefitting non-rich folks.
What share of federal borrowing (debt spending) is attributable to supporting programs that mostly benefit rich folks? I don't know.

I know it's possible to quantify it by analyzing the nature of programmatic government spending so as to classify the lion's share of programs as either "preponderantly rich benefit," "preponderantly universal benefit," or "preponderantly non-rich benefit" and then pro-rate debt spending across them, but that's analysis and classification I haven't the will to perform. Maybe someone has; I don't know.

I know only that there's no way I'm going to ascribe to the notion that the blame for whatever "theft" there be lies with the rich. I'm willing, however, to concur with an assertion that legislators and policy makers/enforcers who authorize debt spending are, in general, wealthier than is the average American. The thing is there are plenty of rich folks who detest deficit spending in general and there are plenty of rich folks who, even being okay with some deficit spending, disapprove of it at the level/rate our government has been doing it for the past jubilee or so.



Other:
Yes, cutting Medicaid amounts to robbing from the poor, regardless of who's "thief," though by definition, whoever be the "thief," they're not poor.
 
ataraxia said:
So Trump University really was better than Harvard in educating you for the real world? :lamo
Click to expand...
Well, I think it safe to say that enrollees at Trump U. learned at least one thing neither Harvard nor any other university/college would have taught them: the nature and extent of shadiness intrinsic to Trump U. and its leadership/managers.
 
:2wave: I have very liberal views on most issues that dog our country. My view of the rich robbing from the poor question posited here is that some balance
should be maintained that allows the rich to remain rich and that a fair portion of wages and opportunity descend to the masses. The worst excesses of our two party system are generally balanced out by the voters. If a substantial enough bipartisan bloc of voters see things going too far in one direction over time, there will be a correction. I am liberal in my views but I think we need both dominate parties to maintain balance.

I am not sure that we have allowed enough time after the Republican tax cut to see if wages will generally increase. The gap between rich and poor in our country is still increasing steadily. I don't think it is sustainable if allowed to go on ad infinitum.
 
Xelor said:
Well, I think it safe to say that enrollees at Trump U. learned at least one thing neither Harvard nor any other university/college would have taught them: the nature and extent of shadiness intrinsic to Trump U. and its leadership/managers.
Click to expand...

Yes. It seems Trump and the Republicans are teaching America a lesson it will never forget.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. It seems Trump and the Republicans are teaching America a lesson it will never forget.
Click to expand...
Well, let's hope it never forgets. I wouldn't bet on that happening.

We've been down very similar roads before and witnessed similarly constituted heads of state, yet here we are....


​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom