• 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 Future of The USA

If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the followin

  • Total voters
    30
roflpublican said:
providing we introduce a tax on 'money sitting idle in bank accounts, aka hoarding and keeping capital out of the economy' over a certain amount, i'd agree.
Click to expand...

you don't seem to know much about the wealthy. the only reason why some people keep money in bank accounts because of the uncertainty of Obama tax policies. the way people like me increase our wealth is investing it in companies.
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't seem to know much about the wealthy. the only reason why some people keep money in bank accounts because of the uncertainty of Obama tax policies. the way people like me increase our wealth is investing it in companies.
Click to expand...

obama's tax policies are the same as bush's tax policies =/. there has been no change to the tax code since he took office =/, minus obamacare.
 
roflpublican said:
obama's tax policies are the same as bush's tax policies =/. there has been no change to the tax code since he took office =/, minus obamacare.
Click to expand...

You know that is not true. You are basing it on what Obama had to do as an incumbent running again as to what he will do in the future based on what he wants to do and what he has promised to do
 
TurtleDude said:
You know that is not true. You are basing it on what Obama had to do as an incumbent running again as to what he will do in the future based on what he wants to do and what he has promised to do
Click to expand...

the tax code hasnt changed under obama is not true? what he does in the future could be anything, he could ban all the guns, repeal posse comitas (spelling fail) and declare war on each and every citizen of america. but until he does, :confused:

also before you say he hasnt promised to do any of those things:

politifact_photos_10reasons.jpg

but until he does them, or makes a move that has a chance of success to do them, they can't be considered reality yet.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Here is what I have a problem with
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
1) the left constantly talking about a few hundred uber wealthy and using them as a model for punitive taxes being levied on EVERYONE in the top one or two percent.
Click to expand...

OK, see below for how I believe the top 2% is defined:

What is the income level of the top 2 percent of taxpayers?
Answer:
250000.00

This answer changes every Tax Year. The answer for the Top 2% is difficult to interpolate as the IRS reports Top 1% and Top 5%, but not Top 2%, so one has to guestimate. The above answer of $250,000 is a pretty good guess.

For 2010 - a year in a Great Depression The IRS reports:
AGI
Top 1% 380,354*

Top 5% 159,619**
Click to expand...

Source: What is the income level of the top 2 percent of taxpayers

So, I suppose we can assume 250,000 is the magical number. I imagine that to those (especially families) making 40,000 or less, that 250,000 or more seems like a lot of money. Of course this would depend on where the person is living etc. Lets just say that it is likely that no matter where one lives/works in the U.S. (with perhaps a few exceptions), those making 250,000 and above should be able to make their living and find a place to live, setting themselves up to live somewhere between extremely comfortably and just comfortably. Still, someone making 380,000 and up is even more comfortable. The point is that especially for those in the top 1% and for some, depending on where they live etc., in the top 2%.... if they were complaining about paying equal or even slightly higher percentages of income taxes than their poor countrymen... that may come off as a bit greedy. Especially considering the deplorable situations that some people have been brought up in. As I've mentioned in other posts, too much blame is placed on both the wealthy and the poor as being bad people. When in actuality, everyone is just trying to do what they think is best. If more people could open their hearts and be understanding to the plights of others, we would likely get places quicker.

TurtleDude said:
2) thinking that anyone who is wealthy someone cheated others. this sort of attitude is common on this board
Click to expand...

I hope that people don't think this. I know for me it is just the fact that it seem some people are so bent on not giving, that it can seem greedy at times. Lets put it this way... I wonder if some of the reasons that some of our social programs have been put in place is because in the past, the benevolence of the wealthy alone was likely not doing enough to allow for equality of opportunity.

TurtleDude said:
3) pretending that most wealthy people are wall street investment bankers rather than understanding that many of us are wealthy due to years and years of saving and sacrificing. Years of making conservative investments in solid blue chip companies. Years of not spending more than one takes in. Yet we are demonized as somehow merely being lucky or dishonest.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone questions the hard work it takes to become wealthy or even comfortable. However, I believe it is pompous to believe that the wealthy and or comfortable have come as far as they have without being in a good position to do so. This does not negate the hard work, it just is to acknowledge that it is not only the operator that makes things happen; the environment needs to be right too.

TurtleDude said:
4) and the most idiotic of all-envious people who pretend that they are "helping the wealthy" by taking money from them and the "evils that come from wealth". Cut the BS, that is absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

I not sure what you mean by this one.... ? Could you say more about this?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Clearly you are not privy to how I believe the environment can be changed for the better. Its all about incentives and proper policies. Find a behavior that you want to see and reward it. Simple behavioral tactics. I like how you are starting to get what I am saying in your post below....
Click to expand...

It's not simple behavioral tactics because adults are not children. Simple behavioral tactics work on children. Adults already have their own incentives built in. They find a way to support themselves and reap the rewards of supporting themselves, or they don't and they suffer the consequences of not. It is not "simple" to suddenly start throwing money that either a) was taxed away from someone else or b) created out of thin air (which is still in the long run the same effect as a tax) and then aim it toward "good" behaviors that already have their own natural incentives built in. Are we going to pay parents not to abuse their children? Are we going to pay pregnant women not to smoke crack? The incentive structures are already there. If there's a problem somewhere, it's that we're creating cushions around bad behavior and distorting the risks of those "bad" behaviors.

Now you are getting somewhere. You are starting to understand that having a sense of financial security (one that is dependent upon hard and/or smart work), having strong mental and cognitive characteristics (something that can be accomplished by alleviating the large burdens many face in concert with adequate mental health care - also teaching values is important), and also making sure everyone is educated. These are all great things and I am glad you pointed them out. It seems we are finding common ground here. We must realize that people are a product of their environment and people do the best they can with what they know.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but we already provide mental health care, we already have an educational system, et cetera et cetera. We don't just lower our brow and ponder harder on it and suddenly "change the environment for all," happily ever after. We do what we can within sane limits. Making all sorts of higher education "free" is not sane (for example).

I am not sure where you are going with this... are you saying I am liberal?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
If this is true... then why would the World Health Organization list the healthcare systems in the way they did?
Click to expand...

Because the WHO has stupid measures, such as equitability. For example, if Country A and Country B both have a 85% mortality rate to colon cancer, and then Country A figures out how to provide a treatment to half of that 85% that cures colon cancer, then Country A will drop in the WHO ratings relative to Country B, despite the fact that Country A now has a 42.5% mortality rate, whereas Country B still has it's 85% mortality rate.
 
The European model.

A very wealthy class. 1.1 million more millionaires under Obama
A large government class as the desired and reliable employment.
Virtually no upper middle class.
Declining income of the middle class. Add inflation, middle class income dropped over 20%
A growing lower income and poor class, dependent upon government.

This is what is proven the unstoppable evolution of the USA and what people voted that evolution to be.

As the government and lower income population grows, the trend will grow. The wealthy, gaining in relative status, will approve this.
 
cpwill said:
Because the WHO has stupid measures, such as equitability. For example, if Country A and Country B both have a 85% mortality rate to colon cancer, and then Country A figures out how to provide a treatment to half of that 85% that cures colon cancer, then Country A will drop in the WHO ratings relative to Country B, despite the fact that Country A now has a 42.5% mortality rate, whereas Country B still has it's 85% mortality rate.
Click to expand...

if true then that is very silly.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
After reading some interesting arguments and articles regarding governmental structures and how the US should move forward, I constructed the following hypothetical situation. I realize that these options may seem limited, but from what I’ve read, they seem to key in to some of the main large issues that are argued and or contemplated. I am on the fence with which option I would prefer. So I’d like to hear some other people’s opinions.

If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the following options would be best for the US?


Option A:
Being number one in the world economy.

Increasing the current disadvantage of those born into poor families.

No free access to healthcare.

No free access to any level of education.

No food and shelter safety nets.

Being number one in military power.

Voting power is decided by the level of monetary contributions in taxes.



Option B:
Being among the top 10 economic forces in the world.

Slightly decreasing the disadvantage of those born into poor families.

Free access to only the most minimal health care for the poor.

Free access to no more than secondary education for the poor.

Food and shelter safety nets that serve only to keep people alive.

Being among the top 10 military powers in the world.

Everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes.


Option C:
Being among the top 50% of the economic forces in the world.

Almost complete removal of the disadvantage of those born into poor families.

Free access to quality health care for the poor.

Free access to all schooling levels and all schools for those capable of completing the coursework.

Food and shelter safety nets that serve to allow equal physical health.

Being among the top 50% of military forces in the world.

Progressive taxation is applied without loopholes.


Option D:
Unknown world economic power status.

Enforcing equality of outcome (not to be confused with equality of opportunity).

Unknown world military power status.

Taxes are decided based on the amount needed to create equality of outcome.


Also, if there are other areas that are important for consideration that would not effect the position of the other parts of the options, please list and or explore those.
Click to expand...

None of the above. You seem to be assuming that equalizing opportunity causes economic weakness. The reality is that it is quite the opposite. Economies are strongest when potential is met by more individuals making up that economy, and equalization of opportunity provides the only mechanism to do that.
 
Neomalthusian;1061112126 That's not what I said said:
The straw man is that you claim that I intend to offer this to everyone who wants to go to college. Do the universities give athletic scholarships to anyone who wants to play college football? My idea is original; we are brainwashed that only professional sources can suggest changes that aren't "squirrelly."

People do not have a right to go to college any more than they have a right to play college football. Only those with the most talent should be allowed to do either. In order to get the best in both, they have to be offered a natural and immediate incentive. What caliber of college athletes would be recruited if they had to live like the rest of the students, living miserably and childishly on part-time jobs? That proves how inferior college graduates are today.

Of course, the children of the rich live on psychologically healthy allowances; that's why it is indentured servitude for everybody else. The university was always designed exclusively for students with an independent source of income. Througout most of history, it was merely a fancy finishing school for the rich; it provided no value to the economy. Athletics were started to provide an entertainment center for heirheads; nothing's changed there.

And nothing changed in the class-biased structure of the university when its purpose completely changed to provide skilled professionals to the economy. It is pseudo-democratic to offer students not living off large allowances this fake and psychologically permanently damaging "opportunity." The present class-biased university is an insult to intelligence. High IQs, if they had not been trained to become meak weakling geeks since childhood, would use their brains only to destroy the rich who imposed this childish, depressing, and humiliating indentured servitude. But the rich are desperate to buy the love of their children by buying them a job, so they have to keep competition at a minimum instead of making it talent-based, which would ensure that most of the heirheads wound up with low-paying jobs. It also proves that the rich are crooks who must have gotten their own wealth through luck or cheating if they think they have a right to do that for their sons--and lately, daughters: feminism is just an upper-class scam for the rich to buy the love of their daughters too by offering them the same exclusive and unearned opportunities they set up their sons with.

Education does not reflect the real world. In reality, if a businessmen wrote a brilliant memorandum but his secretary messed up the typing of it, he wouldn't get any credit for it. But in school, he would get an A and she would get an F. From childhood on, school is set up to isolate the individual and imply that nobody but himself gets any benefit from his talent. It is as if all majors were like a major in casino gambling. So people resent brilliant students and treat them like freaks and losers. This sets up the High IQs to not realize that unpaid education is the same kind of insult in that they are also treated like they only benefit themselves by going to college That's why your attitude towards investing in the only people who should be allowed to go to college is as if you were asked to invest in casino-gambling majors. By the way, I don't propose we should pay Liberal Arts majors or any other self-indulgent pseudo-intellectuals.

This is not like welfare, which is money going down the drain, never to pay off. An investment in our most talented human resources is like an investment in an oil well. It will pay for itself many times over.
Click to expand...
 
MusicAdventurer said:
It is important to note that the greedy, hoarders are also a product of their environment and aren't evil; they are just doing what
The problem is that in our EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness), such severe wealth differentials were not possible. Therefore, in a relatively short period of time (i.e. from when people first started using money and hoarding it), huge differentials in power (i.e. money differentials) have been able to occur with little time for humanity to evolve in response. In other words, we used to live in small tribes, were there was a certain degree of order, but that was also somewhat flexible or different members had different strengths. However, it is likely that not many people had the kinds of power over others that we see today. In addition, even those who were higher in the social hierarchy were still not ostracized from the group. Do to the flexibility and changeability of the power in these social hierarchies, people remained close, socially. This is not what we see today. Thus, the wealthy try to fill their social holes with money, snuffing those out beneath them. The only way to fix this problem is to bring the classes closer together; to get everyone interacting again. One of the ways to do this is to decrease the income differences we observe.
Click to expand...

If we have to do it on our own, so must the children of the rich. If we outlaw a plutocrat's privilege of setting up his children with opportunities far beyond what they could get on their own, he would have to use his economic dominance to make it more possible for the rest of us if we made his own children subject to the same competitive requirements as everybody else. Of course, because greedheads are nasty or negligent parents, they have to buy the love of anyone close to them to make up for their own distant and self-obsessed personalities. They'll throw a tantrum if they can't finance trophy children, so they'll have to be forced to quit their claim that they have a right to use their money for anti-social goals. The power of numbers defeats the power of money, but, unfortunately it is true in our slavish times, that it can't defeat money's ability to brainwash the majority into going against its own self-interest by licking the chains that enslave them.
 
PrometheusBound said:
If we have to do it on our own, so must the children of the rich. If we outlaw a plutocrat's privilege of setting up his children with opportunities far beyond what they could get on their own, he would have to use his economic dominance to make it more possible for the rest of us if we made his own children subject to the same competitive requirements as everybody else. Of course, because greedheads are nasty or negligent parents, they have to buy the love of anyone close to them to make up for their own distant and self-obsessed personalities. They'll throw a tantrum if they can't finance trophy children, so they'll have to be forced to quit their claim that they have a right to use their money for anti-social goals. The power of numbers defeats the power of money, but, unfortunately it is true in our slavish times, that it can't defeat money's ability to brainwash the majority into going against its own self-interest by licking the chains that enslave them.
Click to expand...

Start naming names, oh covetous one. Who specifically out there is a good example of this characterization?

Personally I think your entire worldview requires stereotype.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Start naming names, oh covetous one. Who specifically out there is a good example of this characterization?

Personally I think your entire worldview requires stereotype.
Click to expand...

I believe he is speaking from experience, or simply by understanding human psychology... it sounds rather accurate to me... of course, these people he is talking about would never be consciously aware that they are that way... that would cause too much cognitive dissonance
 
Its sad that out of the following options from the OP (see below), more people picked option A than any other option... perhaps more people need to vote on this?

Option A:
Being number one in the world economy.

Increasing the current disadvantage of those born into poor families.

No free access to healthcare.

No free access to any level of education.

No food and shelter safety nets.

Being number one in military power.

Voting power is decided by the level of monetary contributions in taxes.



Option B:
Being among the top 10 economic forces in the world.

Slightly decreasing the disadvantage of those born into poor families.

Free access to only the most minimal health care for the poor.

Free access to no more than secondary education for the poor.

Food and shelter safety nets that serve only to keep people alive.

Being among the top 10 military powers in the world.

Everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes.


Option C:
Being among the top 50% of the economic forces in the world.

Almost complete removal of the disadvantage of those born into poor families.

Free access to quality health care for the poor.

Free access to all schooling levels and all schools for those capable of completing the coursework.

Food and shelter safety nets that serve to allow equal physical health.

Being among the top 50% of military forces in the world.

Progressive taxation is applied without loopholes.


Option D:
Unknown world economic power status.

Enforcing equality of outcome (not to be confused with equality of opportunity).

Unknown world military power status.

Taxes are decided based on the amount needed to create equality of outcome.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I believe he is speaking from experience, or simply by understanding human psychology... it sounds rather accurate to me... of course, these people he is talking about would never be consciously aware that they are that way... that would cause too much cognitive dissonance
Click to expand...

It sounds accurate? Must I really break it down? Before I do, just remember that these seething criticisms of the evil rich rarely come with any real life rich villains... just the stereotype thereof.

PrometheusBound said:
If we have to do it on our own, so must the children of the rich. If we outlaw a plutocrat's privilege of setting up his children with opportunities far beyond what they could get on their own,
Click to expand...

Children, whether "of the rich" or not, must not be required to do anything on their own. They're children. It doesn't matter whether their parents will buy them everything or can hardly buy them anything. They're still children and children are dependents. There is no realistic or ethical way to saddlebag children just because their parents are able to set them up for success better than other parents are able to set their children up.

Should we subtract a grade from the math tests of students whose parents are math teachers? There are many, many, many types of advantages that parents can try to pass down to their children, as they should, and to suggest government interference in that process for the sake of fairness is one of the most ridiculous propositions around.

he would have to use his economic dominance to make it more possible for the rest of us if we made his own children subject to the same competitive requirements as everybody else.
Click to expand...

This inherently does not make sense. It is anti-competitive to force winners to accept handicaps for equality's sake. Competitiveness means accepting the inevitable realities of different outcomes. To force equal outcomes is to be anti-competitive. Not thought through at all. Just emotional vitriol.

Of course, because greedheads are nasty or negligent parents, they have to buy the love of anyone close to them to make up for their own distant and self-obsessed personalities. They'll throw a tantrum if they can't finance trophy children, so they'll have to be forced to quit their claim that they have a right to use their money for anti-social goals.
Click to expand...

And then it careens further into careless and completely unsupported generalizations. You're defending this, MusicAdventurer? Really?

My challenge still stands. Before we see anymore broad-brush generalizations about anyone with significant money or anyone who's able to pass down some sort of competitive advantage to his or her children, why don't the ranters like PrometheusBound provide some real life examples to go along with their virulence? Sure there are some criminally bad rich ***holes out there. No doubt about that. But why not start naming some archetypes of this characterization?

I know why. Because the myth of a purely evil enemy is more arousing than identifying real life examples, and frankly some emotional types enjoy arousing themselves with rage more than being rational and balanced.
 
Last edited:
NOt sad at all. What is sad is how many people didn't pick A. Lots of parasites
 
Neomalthusian said:
It sounds accurate? Must I really break it down? Before I do, just remember that these seething criticisms of the evil rich rarely come with any real life rich villains... just the stereotype thereof.
Click to expand...

Sure it was a little harsh... sometimes reality is... I personally don't think those with overwhelming amounts of wealth are evil by nature... I've posted exactly how I see them in other posts. In summary, they are just humans like everyone else and mostly a victim or their environment

Neomalthusian said:
Children, whether "of the rich" or not, must not be required to do anything on their own. They're children. It doesn't matter whether their parents will buy them everything or can hardly buy them anything. They're still children and children are dependents. There is no realistic way to saddlebag children just because their parents are able to set them up for success better than other parents are able to set their children up.
Click to expand...

The way I thought would be to disallow inherited money, or at least minimize it to a certain amount, so long as other children were allowed the same. In addition, benefits such as going to better schools etc. would not be allow, instead, funding for schools would be allotted equally to all schools. Parents could decide which schools they want their kids to go to based on that schools performance... or simply home school them... etc. there are many ways to make the starting line more even

Neomalthusian said:
Should we subtract a grade from the math grade of students whose parents are math teachers? There are many, many, many types of advantages that parents can try to pass down to their children, and to suggest government interference in that process for the sake of fairness is one of the most ridiculous propositions around.
Click to expand...

Of course these types of advantages couldn't be controlled. I don't think anyone is proposing that we could ever makes things completely even at the start of life

Neomalthusian said:
This inherently does not make sense. It is anti-competitive to force winners to accept handicaps for equality's sake. Competitiveness means accepting the inevitable realities of different outcomes. To force equal outcomes is to be anti-competitive. Not thought through at all. Just emotional vitriol.
Click to expand...

Remember, we aren't talking about equality of outcome here... simply equality of starting points (or as close as we can get it)... what I feel equality of opportunity should actually refer to

Neomalthusian said:
And then it careens further into careless and completely unsupported generalizations. You're defending this, MusicAdventurer? Really?
Click to expand...

There is usually a grain of truth in any argument. PrometheusBound may be looking at the most negative aspect of things, but he has a point.

Neomalthusian said:
My challenge still stands. Before we see anymore broad-brush generalizations about anyone with significant money or anyone who's able to pass down some sort of competitive advantage to his or her children, why don't the ranters like PrometheusBound provide some real life examples to go along with their virulence?
Click to expand...

I truly could care less about arguing over the character or people in different positions in life. I am more interested in how people's character affects their decisions, their outlook on life and so on. I am most interested in how people's character contributes to the "evils" of life or diminishes them.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
LOL.. hello again TurtleDude - I would expect nothing less from you my friend :)
Click to expand...

I call em like I see em. I tire of people expecting others to pay for their existence
 
TurtleDude said:
I call em like I see em. I tire of people expecting others to pay for their existence
Click to expand...

Yes... I know you do. Me too :)

Still, that's not really what this post is about.

Its more pertaining to allowing there to be equal starting points for all (not to be confused with equal outcome)
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Yes... I know you do. Me too :)

Still, that's not really what this post is about.

Its more pertaining to allowing there to be equal starting points for all (not to be confused with equal outcome)
Click to expand...

the cure is far worse than the alleged disease
 
TurtleDude said:
the cure is far worse than the alleged disease
Click to expand...

And what do you propose the cure is then? (by the way I know you qualified disease with "alleged"... but I know that deep down you know there is a problem)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom