• 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!

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?


  • Total voters
    56
love for them to know.

some of them do know. some of them organize and then companies like coca cola bring in hired guns to kill the union leaders
 
The wealthy have more money, money is used to acquire power and controls the political scene, organizational skills play a tiny part in it.

re : lobbying. they win at that. the non-wealthy mostly walk around stunned in their routines. when it gets bad enough, they wake up. then they have the numbers.

we're better off with some kind of balance in between. right now, i'd argue that the balance is tipped to those with money, but not unstably so. a big part of the reason is readily available food, entertainment, and access to health care for the very poor.
 
I agree, the only reason I point at turtledude is his disrespect of "grunt workers" as he calls them..

I respect anyone who does his job well, no matter what his job is
 
re : lobbying. they win at that. the non-wealthy mostly walk around stunned in their routines. when it gets bad enough, they wake up. then they have the numbers.

we're better off with some kind of balance in between. right now, i'd argue that the balance is tipped to those with money, but not unstably so. a big part of the reason is readily available food, entertainment, and access to health care for the very poor.

Wait, you're telling me to keep a balance, we need to help the poor and make sure people have food, healthcare? Socialist. (Seriously though, this makes sense, I've never thought of it like this) But unfortunately, money is linked to power, corporations control the most watched media by the voters, money controls advertisements run.. I wouldn't call it balanced.
 
Great vid on this, if you have time to watch.

 
I respect anyone who does his job well, no matter what his job is

You've said that the "grunt workers" are less skilled then someone who works on wall street, unless I'm wrong. I don't judge skill in such a way, everyone is skilled at what they do, no one is more "skilled" then the other, in my view.
 
That's the problem with capitalism, it relies on exploitation of what one's labor is worth for profit. That's all there is to it. People literally agree to acquire a source of monetary income without much of a say, or have no source of income to buy food, shelter.. all controlled by capitalism.

That's a condition of life, not just of capitalism. When you have resources to sell then you sell those resources, but all you have is your labor then you have to sell your labor.
 
That's a condition of life, not just of capitalism. When you have resources to sell then you sell those resources, but all you have is your labor then you have to sell your labor.

It's a condition of life under capitalism and where a system like we have regarding money exists. :applaud
 
It's a condition of life under capitalism and where a system like we have regarding money exists. :applaud

No, it's pretty much a condition of life unless you go around stealing everything or you're all alone.
 

I'm sympathetic to your view, but what's the practical alternative?

Capitalism succeeds because it maps very closely to humanity's rapacious nature.

The systems that attempt to ignore or change that nature are doomed to devolve into capitalism.
 
I'm sympathetic to your view, but what's the practical alternative?

Capitalism succeeds because it maps very closely to humanity's rapacious nature.

The systems that attempt to ignore or change that nature are doomed to devolve into capitalism.

You've examined human nature under capitalism, and assume that is human nature.
How do you think we survived our evolution? By working together and collectively sharing to make sure we survived. It's not human nature.
 
No, it's pretty much a condition of life unless you go around stealing everything or you're all alone.

The whole concept of selling resources exists under a system like capitalism, as well as the concept of selling labor for monetary income. :roll:
 
You've examined human nature under capitalism, and assume that is human nature.
How do you think we survived our evolution? By working together and collectively sharing to make sure we survived. It's not human nature.

We'll have to disagree there. That only ever worked on a very small scale.

Can you point to a present day nation that has a better system?

It seems to me Capitalism harnesses our nature. Other systems attempt to deny it.
 
and the wealthy have a dependence on social safety nets to prevent unrest and significant increases in their level of taxation, especially considering the current level of income inequality.

re : the French Revolution; US Depression

That is true, but they also have control over the level of protection that those safety nets offer because they control the politicians that put such mechanisms into place in the first place. But I think what disturbs me most of all is the amount of influence that they have on the way people think. That is very disturbing.
 
We'll have to disagree there. That only ever worked on a very small scale.

Can you point to a present day nation that has a better system?

Better system then capitalism? None that's been done in a stable, democratic nation.
 
The whole concept of selling resources exists under a system like capitalism, as well as the concept of selling labor for monetary income. :roll:

All you are really talking about is trade using a medium of exchange. Regardless if currency exists or not people will need to trade their labor in certain situations in order to get the resources they're after.
 
'Course they do. They didn't buy the power, though- they didn't even take it. It was given to them on a platter by poor idiots who equate wealth with worth. "He's worth $3billion!" they say and when the billionaire tells them that global warming is a myth they leap in their thousands and chant, "Myth! Myth! Myth!". Another billionaire tells them that government health care is unworkable and will ruin the country and the poor idiots denounce the best improvement in their lives since the Model T. A billionaire tells them that unions are wrong and that moving factories to Mexico is right and that minimum wages will destroy the economy and, well, by God if he's so rich he must be smart! Right?
That's power, when you can make people believe that right is wrong and bad is good.

That is too much power and something needs to be done about it.
 
Better system then capitalism? None that's been done in a stable, democratic nation.

I'd agree. So it's like the old joke.

It's the worst possible system, except for all the others.
 
All you are really talking about is trade using a medium of exchange. Regardless if currency exists or not people will need to trade their labor in certain situations in order to get the resources they're after.

Not if everyone collectively works together, in a hypothetical communist society. where such a surplus exists that enough resources exist for everybody.
 
I'd agree. So it's like the old joke.

It's the worst possible system, except for all the others.

No, it literally is a horrible system that will self destruct on itself as time goes on, although this is stemmed with regulation.
 
Yes. /thread

Lol !!

The " wealthy " should " pay their fair share " and be punished because losers are envious of their wealth.
 
Wait, you're telling me to keep a balance, we need to help the poor and make sure people have food, healthcare?

yes.

Socialist.

not really. European center left; on the American political scale, that would be further to the left. socialism is giving the means of production to the workers.

(Seriously though, this makes sense, I've never thought of it like this) But unfortunately, money is linked to power, corporations control the most watched media by the voters, money controls advertisements run.. I wouldn't call it balanced.

it's tipped towards the wealthy at this point, as they can buy legislation, and the successful legislators who are beholden to them can draw their own districts. also, money is viewed as speech now. however, there are still more poor and middle class people, and that does count for something. power balance is probably 65 / 35 in favor of the wealthy. this is skewed a bit more when you take into account that you're talking about ten percent of the population.

it might be skewed more or less than that. the numbers that i threw out are really rough estimates based on my observations.
 
yes.



not really. European center left; on the American political scale, that would be further to the left. socialism is giving the means of production to the workers.



it's tipped towards the wealthy at this point, as they can buy legislation, and the successful legislators who are beholden to them can draw their own districts. also, money is viewed as speech now. however, there are still more poor and middle class people, and that does count for something. power balance is probably 65 / 35 in favor of the wealthy. this is skewed a bit more when you take into account that you're talking about ten percent of the population.

it might be skewed more or less than that. the numbers that i threw out are really rough estimates based on my observations.

I threw out socialist as a joke, as that is what most people who don't have a sense of what a socialist is would call you, we've been taught to believe free healthcare and social programs are socialist, well, somewhat..
 
Not if everyone collectively works together, in a hypothetical communist society. where such a surplus exists that enough resources exist for everybody.

Yes, you get back to me when that works.
 
Back
Top Bottom