• 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 divide between the rich and the rest

How serious a problem is the divide between the wealthy and the rest of us?

  • Not a problem at all.

    Votes: 32 29.4%

  • A problem, but not a serious one.

    Votes: 8 7.3%

  • A fairly serious problem.

    Votes: 34 31.2%

  • It's not just a "problem." It's a catastrophe that is only getting worse.

    Votes: 35 32.1%

  • This divide does not exist.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    109
Mathematician said:
I think it's more like the lower-class confusing rights with privileges and equal opportunity with equal outcome.
Click to expand...

The privileges you refer to (like welfare for the poor) are a distraction from the privileges enjoyed by those who control this country.
 
Medusa said:
okay

socialism is beaten by capitalism in every round

happy ?
Click to expand...

To answer your question first, but with another question, are there still socialist on this planet?

No, socialism is not beaten by capitalism in every round. A closed capitalist system that does not have the education and resources can fail, even faster than a socialist society will ultimately fail. Such societies usually do not climb above minimum, hand to mouth levels either. Without an infuse of capital and knowledge, they simply cannot climb higher or will take centuries to do so while other societies advance even further ahead. To date, Japan, is probably the only society that ever could be called successful while using a closed capitalist system. But then, it did receive a lot of help following WWII, so it did not truly start as a "closed" system.

Socialism is not always a failure at the start. Like a hydrogen fuel cell, it will take awhile to totally run down. It will however eventually run down because it always ends with the system attempting to equalize output for all without equalizing the input of all. It is impossible to get more out than what is put in. At it's core, Socialism seeks to create a "classless" society, in order for society to be without "classes" everyone must ignore value and also, everyone must be made equal regardless of their individual input. It is impossible to equalize every one at a high level because it draws more off of the system than is put into the system. Unfortunately for those who adhere to such a philosophy, there is no way to make all people truly equal. Each person has a unique combination of talents, intelligence, drive and education. It also does not encourage higher output from individuals, it cannot without creating class. In the end, the only way to equalize a society and do away with "class" is to have everyone at the lowest sustainable class level. For human societies, that is the slave class. While the individuals in such a society would not have an individual "master", they will be slaves to the society as a whole, but slavery is still slavery whether serving an individual master or a societal/community master. For those who do not believe it is true slavery, then perhaps you should check out what Marx says should be done to those who "revolt" against socialism.
 
Somerville said:
Your beliefs don't make it true
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I get to see this played out on a weekly basis with my fiance's family, and hear about even more of it through them. What I hear literally sickens me at times. People who CAN work who choose not to. People who truly believe the Government and therefore the productive workers in this country are here to fix their mistakes and to support their worthless asses. Which makes it much more difficult for the people who do truly deserve assistance to get it.
 
the separation of class is important, not all of us can be rich, we need people from all walks of life to make a society work
 
ernst barkmann said:
true, but congress applies handouts the nanny state... to the masses, and unions, planned-parenthood, environmentalist, and other special interest groups besiege congress for favors and money also.

our government is bought by faction/special interest, because the checks and balances to stop that special interest are gone, removed by the government, allowing them more power, and more opportunity for corruption.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's not that they are no longer there. It's that they were never there.
 
samsmart said:
Wrong. It's not that they are no longer there. It's that they were never there.
Click to expand...

Re-Read Article I, Section 8 and (if you read it properly) you will see that the checks are most definitely there.
 
Mathematician said:
Jealousy is the only real issue. A spotlight shined upon it in the last election; some were against Mitt simply for being rich.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The extent to which it enables demagoguery and the abuse of mankinds' baser nature is the danger here.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It's not a problem - because the lives of the rich don't impact your life or my life in any way - at all.
Click to expand...

How's your mortgage doing? Has it jumped around in the past few years due to rich people peeling back banking regulations to play hot potato with crappy loans?

Got any family in the military? Have they been deployed anywhere with strategic resources? Could those strategic resources possibly be controlled by rich people? Could those rich people possibly have the ear of someone who arranged for the troops to be deployed there?

Do you pay taxes? Ever realize that when rich people bought themselves a 15% capital gains tax rate, the government had to either tax you more or give you fewer benefits?

Do your children go to school? Are their school books and ciriculum determined by pure merit, or are there rich people lobbying for their books and agenda to be used?

Hows the job market near you? Think there'd be more jobs if rich people hadn't bought free trade agreements and minimal tarriffs? How would it be if rich people weren't lobbying against raising minimum wage?

Consumed any pop recently? Think the price of soda would be the same if rich people hadn't bought themselves farm subsidies on things like corn?


Rich people unquestionable use their money to buy politicians and make themselves richer. Denying that this **** has an impact on your life is like denying the Moon has an impact on the Earth.
 
Xslave said:
the separation of class is important, not all of us can be rich, we need people from all walks of life to make a society work
Click to expand...



if equality is impossible ,try social justice
 
ChunkySalsa said:
How's your mortgage doing? Has it jumped around in the past few years due to rich people peeling back banking regulations to play hot potato with crappy loans?
Click to expand...
No

Got any family in the military? Have they been deployed anywhere with strategic resources? Could those strategic resources possibly be controlled by rich people? Could those rich people possibly have the ear of someone who arranged for the troops to be deployed there?
Click to expand...
We're military - but nope.

Do you pay taxes? Ever realize that when rich people bought themselves a 15% capital gains tax rate, the government had to either tax you more or give you fewer benefits?
Click to expand...
Ah - really? Is the government trying to keep the influx balanced or something? "For every 15% we go up ___ we decrease 10% ___ and 5%__" ? . . . No - it's not a balancing act.

Do your children go to school? Are their school books and ciriculum determined by pure merit, or are there rich people lobbying for their books and agenda to be used?
Click to expand...
I'm on the PTA - we and non PTA parents who care deal with that. Money is not what talks.

Hows the job market near you? Think there'd be more jobs if rich people hadn't bought free trade agreements and minimal tarriffs? How would it be if rich people weren't lobbying against raising minimum wage?
Click to expand...
****ty - I live in a town with less than 4,000 people and no more than 50 registered businesses . . . Do I need to bring more rich people into the town or chase out the ones who are here to fix this?

Consumed any pop recently? Think the price of soda would be the same if rich people hadn't bought themselves farm subsidies on things like corn?


Rich people unquestionable use their money to buy politicians and make themselves richer. Denying that this **** has an impact on your life is like denying the Moon has an impact on the Earth.
Click to expand...
Last I looked - donations and votes make the political world move. What's wrong? Feeling misrepresented? How would knocking down the top 1% so they're then the top 10% (etc) make a difference in politics?

Looks to me like some of what you're arguing here - you know nothing about . . . and when money is influential - you're forgetting that the top 1% aren't the only ones who hold a significant amount of the financial umph. . .You're just imagining that only the top 1% can apply it - and that's obviously not true.
 
DVSentinel said:
To answer your question first, but with another question, are there still socialist on this planet?

No, socialism is not beaten by capitalism in every round. A closed capitalist system that does not have the education and resources can fail, even faster than a socialist society will ultimately fail. Such societies usually do not climb above minimum, hand to mouth levels either. Without an infuse of capital and knowledge, they simply cannot climb higher or will take centuries to do so while other societies advance even further ahead. To date, Japan, is probably the only society that ever could be called successful while using a closed capitalist system. But then, it did receive a lot of help following WWII, so it did not truly start as a "closed" system.

Socialism is not always a failure at the start. Like a hydrogen fuel cell, it will take awhile to totally run down. It will however eventually run down because it always ends with the system attempting to equalize output for all without equalizing the input of all. It is impossible to get more out than what is put in. At it's core, Socialism seeks to create a "classless" society, in order for society to be without "classes" everyone must ignore value and also, everyone must be made equal regardless of their individual input. It is impossible to equalize every one at a high level because it draws more off of the system than is put into the system. Unfortunately for those who adhere to such a philosophy, there is no way to make all people truly equal. Each person has a unique combination of talents, intelligence, drive and education. It also does not encourage higher output from individuals, it cannot without creating class. In the end, the only way to equalize a society and do away with "class" is to have everyone at the lowest sustainable class level. For human societies, that is the slave class. While the individuals in such a society would not have an individual "master", they will be slaves to the society as a whole, but slavery is still slavery whether serving an individual master or a societal/community master. For those who do not believe it is true slavery, then perhaps you should check out what Marx says should be done to those who "revolt" against socialism.
Click to expand...

l agree with the most of your post

but it is said that it was not a real socialism which the iron curtain countries experienced during that period but a bureaucratic dictatorship
 
Medusa said:
l agree with the most of your post

but it is said that it was not a real socialism which the iron curtain countries experienced during that period but a bureaucratic dictatorship
Click to expand...

Define real socialism.

Socialism derives from Marx and he defined it as the process/method of moving from capitalism to communism. Some now wish to remain at socialism or part socialism without moving to communism. While an authoritarian government is not a requirement of socialism, any government pursuing socialistic agendas must be, in part, authoritarian in nature, whether they are democratically elected or are outright dictators. Socialism is not a form of government, but can be actions taken by the government acting in the "best interests" of "society" by forcing compliance with social and economic desires of the socialist. Any government that pursues elimination of class or reduction in class differences, whether based upon social or economic measures, is socialistic in nature. Since they are socialistic, they are socialist.

Some pursue protecting classes based also based upon different measures. Class will always exist, but a persons class, imo, is based upon the individuals own merits. Any government that does not protect class based upon artificial structures or does not attempt to end class, but instead bases it upon individual merit/achievement can be said to be a Meritocracy. Something that like true Communism, does not currently exist.

I fully support Meritocracy, not unlimited Democracy, not corporatism, not socialism, not dictatorships nor any form of government that hinders the individuals right to achieve or stops people from experiencing the negative affects of their own choices.
 
Because we live in a democratic republic where the franchise is fairly universal, a society which increasingly tilts to the poor in larger numbers could spell disaster for the rich if things continue to tilt in that direction. The wealthy should and would do well to be concerned about the implications of such an imbalance when the vote could go against them in many different areas of issue.
 
haymarket said:
Because we live in a democratic republic where the franchise is fairly universal, a society which increasingly tilts to the poor in larger numbers could spell disaster for the rich if things continue to tilt in that direction.
Click to expand...

Disaster? What sort of disaster?
 
samsmart said:
Wrong. It's not that they are no longer there. It's that they were never there.
Click to expand...

wrong they were there...its called a mixed constitution.


The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

whats let the cat out of the bag...the 17th amendment, and the expansion of government power.
 
Federalist said:
Disaster? What sort of disaster?
Click to expand...

Too many desperate, angry, poor people will either require more and more subsidies to survive or will simply start taking rich's peoples money by force. It will also become a less successful economy in the long run with lower productivity, retail purchases and profits for corporations.
 
Mathematician said:
Jealousy is the only real issue. A spotlight shined upon it in the last election; some were against Mitt simply for being rich.
Click to expand...

Your answer is too simplistic. There are systemic problems associated with a gap being to huge. recognizing this is not a sign of jealousy. And I doubt any significant population opposed Mitt ONLY for being rich.
 
Geoist said:
Any nation that has a small percentage of the population with tremendous/growing wealth and a large majority with dwindling wealth is going to have problems. I would say that nearly any of our political issues can be dealt with if we tackle the problem of poverty.
Click to expand...

The problem of poverty lies in the hands of the poor, they have to get off their lazy asses and make something of themselves. If they refuse to do so, if they just have their hands out for a government check and worse, if the government is giving them one, that's the problem. The wealthy have nothing to do with it.
 
Cephus said:
The problem of poverty lies in the hands of the poor, they have to get off their lazy asses and make something of themselves.
Click to expand...

I am sure the lords said the same of the serfs in the Middle Ages.


If they refuse to do so, if they just have their hands out for a government check and worse, if the government is giving them one, that's the problem.
Click to expand...

I oppose dependency in general (unless one is too young or too handicapped). BUT, I don't pretend that we have a system that inherently oppresses the common people and grants privileges to the elite.


The wealthy have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Those who control power have everything to do with it.
 
Geoist said:
I am sure the lords said the same of the serfs in the Middle Ages.
Click to expand...
The serfs were not living in a society where they have mass opportunity to seek their way in life.

I oppose dependency in general (unless one is too young or too handicapped). BUT, I don't pretend that we have a system that inherently oppresses the common people and grants privileges to the elite.
Click to expand...
Yeah... graduated taxation is a real privilege.

Those who control power have everything to do with it.
Click to expand...
Individuals have control, have the power, even in this socialist society.

As JFK said, "A rising tide raises all boats."

When government penalizes wealth and pours on regulation the poor have a more difficult time with upward mobility. When government doesn't try to level things out, when it allows people to be as wealthy as they like there are more jobs and that fuller employment raises wages. As Obama has made obvious to all but the blind, a heavy hand by government and a hostile unpredictable environment created by government hurts the most vulnerable the hardest.

It's been known for thousands of years.

The ancient Persians had a saying...

When taxes were low, revenues were high...
When taxes high, revenues low.
 
Geoist said:
Any nation that has a small percentage of the population with tremendous/growing wealth and a large majority with dwindling wealth is going to have problems. I would say that nearly any of our political issues can be dealt with if we tackle the problem of poverty.
Click to expand...

Cut off their electricity. It will reduce carbon output. A total Buy One Get One Free political deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom