• 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!

Income Inequality

What should be done to battle income inequality in the USA?

  • Do not intervene

    Votes: 39 53.4%

  • Yes, do intervene

    Votes: 34 46.6%
  • Total voters
    73
Henrin said:
Private schools are not just for the rich even today.
Click to expand...

Private schools have never been just for the rich, I went to private schools growing up and my parents were nowhere remotely close to being rich.
 
Unrepresented said:
And despite them all being hard working I suspect that there's a variety of wages earned.

What response are you waiting for?

If the union didn't work for the members, new officials with new policies would be elected. Why is it that anti-union people are so quick to argue "if you don't like the job you don't have to take it" when it comes to employers underpaying their staff, but suddenly become "pro labor" where everyone is entitled to work at a shop if it means infringing on unions.

I'm not proposing violence, merely noting the historical remedies for imbalance involve rebalancing.
Click to expand...

Try scrolling back and putting a little effort forth.
 
TurtleDude said:
what part of the constitution actually gives the federal government that power?

the rich who live in the city limits pay for the schools of the poor.
Click to expand...
And the poor do too, but the school for the poor is crap... The rich can pay for a way out and thus try to gut spending on public schools.

The constitution is one of the most hypocritical and self serving documents ever written. I would be all for throwing it away and coming up with something new.

Its just like how during the civil war you could pay 300 bucks to get out of the draft. Or how sales tax effects the poor much greater than the rich. He rich pay it yes, but it does not effect them nearly as much, and they use their pull to get out of it as much as possible. The poor do not have these options.
Cephus said:
It's much easier than actually looking up the data. Whatever, you're just a liberal, I expect as much from you.
Click to expand...
I gave you a link with the data. Yours would appear to simply be incorrect. Your a neocon and I would expect you to act extremely unempathetic as you have (neocons are some of the most hypocritical ppl out their!)

And no I am a progressive thank you very much.

Henrin said:
Where do you get the idea the private sector shouldn't be allowed in? When in history has the private sector failed at providing education? If anything history tells us the dangers of public education and why a government monopoly in education is the worst of all monopolies.



Private schools are not just for the rich even today.
Click to expand...

Yes they are. Well specifically they are not for the poor.

If you were to eliminate them the rich and upper middle class would be forced to go to the same schools as the rest of us, this would in turn force them to use their sway and political power to fix the public schools.
 
Last edited:
b_dubz said:
Your a neocon and I would expect you to act extremely unempathetic as you have (neocons are some of the most hypocritical ppm out their!)

And no I am a progressive thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever. How many times are you going to say farewell and keep responding again? :roll:
 
b_dubz said:
And the poor do too, but the school for the poor is crap... The rich can pay for a way out and thus try to gut spending on public schools.

The constitution is one of the most hypocritical and self serving documents ever written. I would be all for throwing it away and coming up with something new.

Its just like how during the civil war you could pay 300 bucks to get out of the draft. Or how sales tax effects the poor much greater than the rich. He rich pay it yes, but it does not effect them nearly as much, and they use their pull to get out of it as much as possible. The poor do not have these options.

I gave you a link with the data. Yours would appear to simply be incorrect. Your a neocon and I would expect you to act extremely unempathetic as you have (neocons are some of the most hypocritical ppm out their!)

And no I am a progressive thank you very much.



Yes they are. Well specifically they are not for the poor.

If you were to eliminate them the rich and upper middle class would be forced to go to the same schools as the rest of us, this would in turn force them to use their sway and political power to fix the public schools.
Click to expand...
remind me why I have a duty to pay for the problems of others that I have done nothing to cause?
 
TurtleDude said:
remind me why I have a duty to pay for the problems of others that I have done nothing to cause?
Click to expand...
Because its the right thing to do. Because otherwise their are HUGE negative impacts for society and because to some extent you and all others who profess this system to ever have been fair and equal have caused it.
Cephus said:
Yeah, whatever. How many times are you going to say farewell and keep responding again? :roll:
Click to expand...
I said it once dippy learn to count.

Oh and its hilarious how you edit out the part that shows your lil book to be full of bull ploppy when up against the census...
 
b_dubz said:
Because its the right thing to do. Because otherwise their are HUGE negative impacts for society and because to some extent you and all others who profess this system to ever have been fair and equal have caused it.

I said it once dippy learn to count.

Oh and its hilarious how you edit out the part that shows your lil book to be full of bull ploppy when up against the census...
Click to expand...

your concept of the right thing to do is not mine. addicting people to handouts is almost as bad as addicting them to heroin and given how they vote, more harmful to me
 
SheWolf said:
You're complaining about laziness, then you are complaining about hard workers not being smart and looking for opportunities in the workplace. I hope you realize that distinction. I don't think the majority of Americans are lazy. I think a lot of Americans are willing to work hard, and work long hours, but that has little to do with the income gap. Very hard working people live in poverty and financially struggle.
Click to expand...

The poorest are a minority. You know-the poor you are trying to use the "income inequality" angle on.
 
SheWolf said:
I know... fighting unions is about hurting the Democratic Party's financiers... but I am a pragmatic person and want to hear better reasons to oppose unions on a personal level. I understand how current politics works.
Click to expand...

It hurts competition and drives up prices-both of which hurt the consumer-EVERY consumer. That good enough?
 
b_dubz said:
While it has greatly diminished in city's, again in rural areas it has gotten worse. Furthermore to attribute all this to the free market is absurd. In India and China they have largely been growing from outside investment, and education. Not your beloved free market. Both governments stepped in with strong regulations and more funding for public education. This does much more than the free market ever could/would.
Click to expand...

Im sorry you are factually incorrect. There are many millions less poor, as in the video I posted. The trend is-and its entirely because of adopting free market principles. If "Govt stepping in with strong regulations and funding" was the answer inner city schools would flourish here in the US-they dont. And in many places in both China and India they still down have public education.
 
Unrepresented said:
Increased unionization and other worker protections.
Click to expand...

There are Federal laws in place now for worker protections. The best worker protection is to do a very good job each day.
 
b_dubz said:
94% of black family's are headed by a single mom? Please qualify your horrendously racist statement.
Click to expand...

What if its true? (Or close to it), would it still be racist? Do you believe that facts are racist? Its over 70% born out of wedlock. Single parenthood is the single biggest predictor of poverty for the child.
 
b_dubz said:
I know multiple kids with high school diplomas that cannot read or right properly, don't know how to do simple algebra, and certainly have no chance of attending college due to these disparity's.
Click to expand...


Did you go to the same school as them?

Here in CA we spend over 16K per pupil per year in LA. Guess what the HS dropout rate is? Over 30%-and they dont even count those who come into the system after they start high school. Guess why.

Its about whats happening at home-what these kids are being taught (or not) at home. Its not a funding issue, and 50 years bears this out.

Heres a great example...
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
Im sorry you are factually incorrect. There are many millions less poor, as in the video I posted. The trend is-and its entirely because of adopting free market principles. If "Govt stepping in with strong regulations and funding" was the answer inner city schools would flourish here in the US-they dont. And in many places in both China and India they still down have public education.
Click to expand...

Yea OK I am wrong... oh no wait you are...

[QUOTE =]Education in China is a state-run system of public education run by the Ministry of Education. All citizens must attend school for at least nine years, known as the nine-year compulsory education, which the government funds.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_China[/QUOTE]

India? Swing and a miss
[QUOTE =]Education in India is provided by the public sector as well as the private sector, with control and funding coming from three levels: central, state, and local. Under various articles of the Indian Constitution, free and compulsory education is provided as a fundamental right to children between the ages of 6 and 14.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_India[/QUOTE]

So they certainly do both have public education. The literacy rate in China is 95.1% and in India is 74%...

That's funny because in China their is no private education.

They dont "flourish" because they are HORRENDOUSLY under funded. For example my friends mom has worked in the philly school district for decades, she's close to retirement actually, and as long as I can remember (so 20 years) she has been complaining about having to buy pens pencils and paper out of pocket for her class out of her hard earned checks. He district simply does not have the money to pay for it. Would you call that proper funding?

How about the fact that the philly school district can only afford having a nurse on premises one or two days a week is that proper funding? I think not...

So you sir are just wrong on all fronts. What has happened in China and India is directly due to government intervention, and not insane slashing of funding in the name of the "free market"

TurtleDude said:
your concept of the right thing to do is not mine. addicting people to handouts is almost as bad as addicting them to heroin and given how they vote, more harmful to me
Click to expand...
Haha that's hilarious your arguing that feeding and educating the poor is worse than shooting them up with dope... May a dope fiend brake into your house... Karma sucks :rolleyes:

I dont care what your concept of right is... May I ask are you religious at all?
US Conservative said:
It hurts competition and drives up prices-both of which hurt the consumer-EVERY consumer. That good enough?
Click to expand...
This is true only in two sectors too my knoledge cough construction cough pigs cough cough hack...

Unions are very necessary for teachers, fast food workers, big box store workers, and any other obvious wage slaves... Wish they weren't, but they are...

US Conservative said:
The poorest are a minority. You know-the poor you are trying to use the "income inequality" angle on.
Click to expand...

Income inequality apply's to the middle class as well, and the poorest being a minority really depends on where you live... Come to Philadelphia its rampant...
 
Last edited:
we have spent trillions on a war on poverty and all we have created are dependent Democrat voters-which was the plan all along
 
Cephus said:
Private schools have never been just for the rich, I went to private schools growing up and my parents were nowhere remotely close to being rich.
Click to expand...

Same here. While it's true that public education raised the cost of schooling overall it hasn't gotten so bad that it's only for the rich like liberals like to claim.
 
Henrin said:
Same here. While it's true that public education raised the cost of schooling overall it hasn't gotten so bad that it's only for the rich like liberals like to claim.
Click to expand...

It just reveals that, like in just about everything else, they have no clue what they're talking about. Their talking points are nonsense and when called on it, as I've seen over and over today, they insult you and run away. It's the liberal way.
 
b_dubz said:
Yes they are. Well specifically they are not for the poor.
Click to expand...

No, they're actually not.

If you were to eliminate them the rich and upper middle class would be forced to go to the same schools as the rest of us, this would in turn force them to use their sway and political power to fix the public schools.
Click to expand...

So your big plan to fix public education is to lower school choice? Sorry, but exactly how does that make sense? Public education puts in place monopoly forces that work in opposition to low cost education and higher educational standards. There is no possible way you are going to increase educational standards with public education. It has never happened and it never will. Don't confuse increased access with increased educational standards. They are not the same thing.
 
Henrin said:
Same here. While it's true that public education raised the cost of schooling overall it hasn't gotten so bad that it's only for the rich like liberals like to claim.
Click to expand...

No but its certainly only for the middle upper middle class, and rich. depending on what city you live in (ie philly, where I am from) it is totally unaffordable to the middle class. Its cheaper to move to the burbs, and many do.

Furthermore the numbers are skewed, because (again at least here in philly) most of the "private schools" are catholic schools, which only offer a slightly better education and recently have done away with standardized testing. It is also skewed because about half of the best (and most expensive) privates are in the burbs, and do not count to the numbers, whereas most of he catholic ones are in the city.
TurtleDude said:
we have spent trillions on a war on poverty and all we have created are dependent Democrat voters-which was the plan all along
Click to expand...
Their are results. Without he war on poverty millions would starve and go uneducated, as it is now they are only slightly better, and are generally uneducated and hungry still. Even if they do obtain high school diploma's... It also lowered the absolute poverty (not to be confused with poverty rate) by 1/3rd (5%) and could have done allot more had it been run properly.

Furthermore the war on poverty was immediately gutted after its inception by Nixon, and other presidents, the office for economic opportunity only lasted eleven years. It was then turned into he community service administration, and that only lasted from 75 till 81. With directors like Donald rumsfeld i don't know how you could expect anything different. I'm quite sure loads of money went into the pockets of private company's and administrative fees that did nothing for the people.

It cost 300 bill a year on average. it should have been allot more and could have done allot more. had it gone the way LBJ envisioned. This compared to military spending or corporate subsidies is a pittance.

For example in 7 years its estimated we spent 1.1 trillion in Iraq. This number is incomplete due to hidden costs but say it was 1.1 trillion. That would mean we could have paid for half of the "war on Poverty's" costs with Iraq alone. Or expanded and reformed it to do real good.

I'll ask you again are you religious?
 
Last edited:
b_dubz said:
No but its certainly only for the middle upper middle class, and rich. depending on what city you live in (ie philly, where I am from) it is totally unaffordable to the middle class. Its cheaper to move to the burbs, and many do.

Furthermore the numbers are skewed, because (again at least here in philly) most of the "private schools" are catholic schools, which only offer a slightly better education and recently have done away with standardized testing. It is also skewed because about half of the best (and most expensive) privates are in the burbs, and do not count to the numbers, whereas most of he catholic ones are in the city.

Their are results. Without he war on poverty millions would starve and go uneducated, as it is now they are only slightly better, and are generally uneducated and hungry still. Even if they do obtain high school diploma's... It also lowered the absolute poverty (not o be confused with poverty rate) by 1/3rd (5%) and could have done allot more had it been run properly.

Furthermore the war on poverty was immediately gutted after its inception by Nixon, and other presidents, the office for economic opportunity only lasted eleven years. It was then turned into he community service administration, and that only lasted from 75 till 81. With directors like Donald rumsfeld i don't know how you could expect anything different. I'm quite sure loads of money went into the pockets of private company's and administrative fees that did nothing for the people.

It cost 300 bill a year on average. it should have been allot more and could have done allot more. had it gone the way LBJ envisioned. This compared to military spending or corporate subsidies is a pittance.

For example in 7 years its estimated we spent 1.1 trillion in Iraq. This number is incomplete due to hidden costs but say it was 1.1 trillion. That would mean we could have paid for half of the "war on Poverty's" costs with Iraq alone. Or expanded and reformed it to do real good.

I'll ask you again are you religious?
Click to expand...

so millions were starving under DDE? :lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
so millions were starving under DDE? :lamo
Click to expand...
Yup!
The actual number of people below the absolute poverty line in 1961 (when he left office) was 18,828,933 keep in mind absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.

It would have been averted by passing economic bill of rights instead of the GI bill...

Its usually ten percent of the pop. In 66 it was 10.5%... Doesn't change much...

You guys should really look into stuff before you babble...

Are you religious?
 
b_dubz said:
Yup!
The actual number of people below the absolute poverty line in 1961 (when he left office) was 18,828,933 keep in mind absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.

It would have been averted by the economic bill of rights...

Its usually ten percent of the pop. In 66 it was 10.5%... Doesn't change much...

You guys should really look into stuff before you babble...

Are you religious?
Click to expand...

that isn't proof that millions were starving. sounds like bs to me

no
 
TurtleDude said:
that isn't proof that millions were starving. sounds like bs to me

no
Click to expand...
Any proof or just more babble?

I got it by simply taking 10% of the pop in 1961... Do some research I can wait...

Ahhhhh denial.... Such a common trait to neocons

Are you religious?
 
b_dubz said:
Any proof or just more babble?

I got it by simply taking 10% of the pop in 1961... Do some research I can wait...

Ahhhhh denial.... Such a common trait to neocons

Are you religious?
Click to expand...

I was alive back then. millions of people were not starving to death

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