• 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
They always have and always will have too much power... that is the nature of being rich.
 
Born Free said:
Citizens do participate in all forms of lobbying, protests is a form of lobbying, million man marches are a form of lobbying. Activist groups are a form of lobbying. Green Peace is a lobbyist. There are lobbyist for and against government on about all issues. And there is big money on each side of any one issue. Take the Sacramento smelt where the lobbyist won the argument that the smelt trumped all the farmers need for water. Billions of gallons of water have been diverted away from the farmers for the smelt. Unions are lobbyist and they have deep pockets (lots of money) representing citizen participation.
Click to expand...

I think people are worried about the lobbyists that right bills for congressman to just sign... that is the problem and not the marchers...
 
Thrilla said:
no need to .... it's simply a projection of your own personal frustration over the idea that people see things differently than you do.... it's meaningless to anyone who isn't you.
Click to expand...

Whatever rocks your boat.
 
Excon said:
Another lame reply.
This is you not understanding what has been said.

Again;
You judge that by the local prevailing rate, just as you judge the conditions by the local requirements.

If it is only worth 0.50¢ a week, that is all it is worth.​

What is it you do not understand about that?

Do you really not understand that?
Do I really need to change the amount for you to understand what is being said?


More lameness. Figures.
You are wrong.
Paying them what they are worth is not exploitation.


And you are wrong because it is not your business.




I am advocating you participating in their society to reduce their starvation by population reduction. That is the only thing that really works.
Feeding them with other's resources just exacerbates the problem.


:doh
Another emotive and lame reply.
You are not entitled to another's efforts. Not in reality or nature.
Get rid of that silly notion.


More irrational lameness and wrong to boot. Figures.


No, I am not.
Your reply is illogical as it is ignorant.


:naughty
That is what you are engaged in.
There is no obvious MLK point. You were being emotive as well as illogical.



:doh
Wrong.




1. Wrong.
2. They can't show any such thing. The claim is "too much". That is a subjective assertion, and as such, can not be proven.


Every citizen has a right to lobby or have another lobby on their behalf. Sorry you do not like that, but there is nothing wrong with lobbying.

The wealthy support those who are of similar views as theirs own.
Just as the poor support those who are of similar views as theirs own.
If a person isn't a viable candidate for the masses they are appealing to, they are not going to be elected no matter how much money is thrown into the coffers by the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Except they aren't worth 50 cents, they are producing hundreds/thousands in profit each day, the capitalist is deciding what they are worth to pay them the lowest amount available, no matter their quality of life, it's why we struggled so hard to get labor unions, the minimum wage.. You're disgusting.
We produce enough feed, right now, to feed 10 billion people, you're claim is ludicrous.
Not wrong, it's why capitalists love countries without minimum wage laws, labor laws.. and it's why they actively fight against labor laws/wage laws, has they have through history, with slavery, child labor, the minimum wage.. You appear to literally have no emotion, which is important when talking about the starvation of others. The problem is, it is not 50 cents a week, where the hell are you getting that anyway? You honestly think a sweatshop worker making $100 in product an hour that gets paid 10 cents an hour is just how much she/he is worth? I don't care what you say, any human being with a conscious knows that it is not right. Ah, the nature of the capitalist. You keep saying illogical and ignorant, while refusing to say why other then LUL EMOTIONAL. Facts are facts, genius, and emotion isn't a bad thing when constituted with facts. You are defining it on your own, you seem to think staring at excel sheets and working the stock market is more skilled then a construction worker, you are coming up with your own definitions. Capitalism doesn't help poverty, it's been fueling it, feeding off of it, just look at why capitalists move production to countries with little to no labor laws, and yes, I do take into account the local prices, which is why the people suffer from bad nutrition, laughable shelter, never guaranteed food, let alone meat, which is a rarity, hell, affording a good education, decent clothing, clean water, medicine? Good luck, without help from generous people, which we need more of. Look at the congo, burundi, liberia, niger, Nicaragua, Haiti.. You keep saying wrong like you're superior, while defining stuff on your own and ignoring poverty reports, etc.. Wait, we shouldn't feed them at all? Jesus ****ing christ. (Capitalism may help first world countries in some aspects, but to maintain this, it relies on labor in third world countries, and countries with little to no labor laws/unions/etc..)
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
the website lists everyone who benefits from the lobbying expenditures?

I'm not listed on that site, and I know I benefit from lobbying.
Click to expand...

It shows lobbying in relation to wealth contributions, and who contributes/where it goes.
 
Dovkan said:
It shows lobbying in relation to wealth contributions, and who contributes/where it goes.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the website.... and it does not show who benefits from any lobbying, nor does it enumerate the subject matter of any specific lobbying attempts.

the website gives people just enough information to form an uninformed opinion.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think people are worried about the lobbyists that right bills for congressman to just sign... that is the problem and not the marchers...
Click to expand...

They can write all the bills they want but it has to pass congress. And the bill has to be sponsored by a congress person and submitted for debate and a vote. I don't mind any lobbyist writing a bill as the work is free. A congress person has to already want the measure to be brought before congress before any bill could be written by staff or anyone for that matter. Remember there are lobbyist on either side of legislation, for and against.
 
Dovkan said:
Except they aren't worth 50 cents,
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the point made.
They are worth what they are worth.
If that be a dime a week that is all they are worth.


Dovkan said:
they are producing hundreds/thousands in profit each day,
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to what their labor is worth in their market.
You clearly do not understand that.

Again, as you were already told;
You judge that by the local prevailing rate, just as you judge the conditions by the local requirements.

If it is only worth 0.50¢ a week, that is all it is worth.​


Dovkan said:
the capitalist is deciding what they are worth to pay them the lowest amount available, no matter their quality of life, it's why we struggled so hard to get labor unions, the minimum wage..
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, their economy determines that.
And in some cases these capitalists pay above the prevailing wage.
So you are again speaking nonsense.


Dovkan said:
You're disgusting.
Click to expand...
Just more emotive nonsense from you confirming you have no valid argument.


Dovkan said:
Not wrong,
Click to expand...
Yes wrong.
Heck you can't even properly quote what you are replying to, so of course you are just more wrong in that regard as well.


Dovkan said:
it's why capitalists love countries without minimum wage laws, labor laws.. and it's why they actively fight against labor laws/wage laws,
Click to expand...
Irrelevant emotive nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with a company seeking lower costs in production. Nothing.


Dovkan said:
You appear to literally have no emotion, which is important
Click to expand...
It is important in debate.


Dovkan said:
The problem is, it is not 50 cents a week, where the hell are you getting that anyway?
Click to expand...
The problem is in your not understanding what was said.
Again, as you were already told;
You judge that by the local prevailing rate, just as you judge the conditions by the local requirements.

If it is only worth 0.50¢ a week, that is all it is worth.​


Dovkan said:
You honestly think a sweatshop worker making $100 in product an hour that gets paid 10 cents an hour is just how much she/he is worth?
Click to expand...
Another lame argument.
They are not making such a product.
Nor is that product worth that much in the market it is made.


Dovkan said:
I don't care what you say, any human being with a conscious knows that it is not right.
Click to expand...
What ever you are speaking to you are obviously wrong as usual.


Dovkan said:
Facts are facts,
Click to expand...
That is right, and they are not on your side.
And your emotive illogical nonsense are not facts that matter.


Dovkan said:
You are defining it on your own,
Click to expand...
Wrong.


Dovkan said:
you seem to think staring at excel sheets and working the stock market is more skilled then a construction worker,
Click to expand...
You seem to like making assertions of things not said.
Btw construction workers are laborers. Not much skilled required.


Dovkan said:
Capitalism doesn't help poverty,
Click to expand...
Wrong.


Dovkan said:
which is why the people suffer from bad nutrition, laughable shelter, never guaranteed food, let alone meat, which is a rarity, hell, affording a good education, decent clothing, clean water, medicine?
Click to expand...
You are speaking to an overpopulation issue. Not capitalism.


Dovkan said:
You keep saying wrong like you're superior,
Click to expand...
:doh
Wrong. I keep telling you that you are wrong because you are.
Which has only to do with your inferior arguments.


Dovkan said:
while defining stuff on your own
Click to expand...
Wrong again.
 
Excon said:
Irrelevant to the point made.
They are worth what they are worth.
If that be a dime a week that is all they are worth.


Irrelevant to what their labor is worth in their market.
You clearly do not understand that.

Again, as you were already told;
You judge that by the local prevailing rate, just as you judge the conditions by the local requirements.

If it is only worth 0.50¢ a week, that is all it is worth.​


:naughty
No, their economy determines that.
And in some cases these capitalists pay above the prevailing wage.
So you are again speaking nonsense.



Just more emotive nonsense from you confirming you have no valid argument.


Yes wrong.
Heck you can't even properly quote what you are replying to, so of course you are just more wrong in that regard as well.



Irrelevant emotive nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with a company seeking lower costs in production. Nothing.


It is important in debate.


The problem is in your not understanding what was said.
Again, as you were already told;
You judge that by the local prevailing rate, just as you judge the conditions by the local requirements.

If it is only worth 0.50¢ a week, that is all it is worth.​


Another lame argument.
They are not making such a product.
Nor is that product worth that much in the market it is made.


What ever you are speaking to you are obviously wrong as usual.


That is right, and they are not on your side.
And your emotive illogical nonsense are not facts that matter.


Wrong.


You seem to like making assertions of things not said.
Btw construction workers are laborers. Not much skilled required.


Wrong.


You are speaking to an overpopulation issue. Not capitalism.


:doh
Wrong. I keep telling you that you are wrong because you are.
Which has only to do with your inferior arguments.


Wrong again.
Click to expand...

Who the hell am I talking to? :applaud You seem to be ignoring the food point, nice job. Not worth continuing discussion with one who enjoys the exploitation of laborers and assumes they are correct on their own opinions.
 
Dovkan said:
Who the hell am I talking to? You seem to be ignoring the food point, nice job. Not worth continuing discussion with one who enjoys the exploitation of laborers and assumes they are correct on their own opinions.
Click to expand...
There is no relevant food point, but way to further you false claim of opinion. :applaud
 
Born Free said:
Key word you used "asking" sorry they can ask all they want but that does not mean what they are asking for will be granted. I don't think it takes constitutional power to ask anything.
Click to expand...
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3034525

If they pay politicians enough Money they receive negative taxes.

There's even cases where special interest will spend more money on k street then output of their product
 
Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post

Well, the reason I posted that is because a "rigorous definition" isn't possible for either - and you just demonstrated that. Indeed, both are completely relative terms - yet people like to use them in contexts like this as if they are definitive, easily understood, known and accepted by all - AN EASY STANDARD BY WHICH WE MIGHT JUDGE SOMEONE "GUILTY."

And yet, they are anything but.

When we start looking at someone with more money than we have, or more money than someone else has to decry them for their "riches" and "wealth" - we judge them accordingly, and when we do we err in an extremely egregious, unjust, and unfair manner.

If as you and so many others here are asserting, that the "wealthy" are easily identifiable people like Soros, Adelson, the Koch brothers, et. al. - and that in a thread that is denouncing such people for being "the wealthy," then who - by whatever "rigorous definition" you can put forth for us - who by your definition is NOT guilty?

I'll give you some help - you can't do it. It's not possible, by ANY definition, however "rigorous" one might think it.

People here are equating guilt with wealth; they are judging an impossible to define group of people for what? For having more money (and in this context more power thereby). More money than what? What is the standard of guilt here?

Impossible to define - and therefore totally unjust to be pronouncing anyone guilty on that basis. Totally unjust.
Click to expand...
MildSteel said:
You post is flawed at least in the following ways:

1. It is possible to give a rigorous definition of it.
Click to expand...
Actually, no it's not. As I said, any definition of it is necessarily relative, or comparative.

And frankly, you just proved my point, for if it were so easy to provide a rigorous definition of it, you would have.

I'll help you. "Rich" = $______ (simply fill in the blank)

Look, "rich" or "wealth" is typically 'defined' in terms of abundance (i.e. "lots" of something, in this case money), or in terms of excess (i.e. more than a 'typical' amount or more than one 'needs'). Go to any dictionary and that's what you'll find. The problem with those definitions is that they rely on non-specific terms themselves (e.g. "abundant," or "lots," or "more than" etc.). They're ambiguous terms that rely on other ambiguous terms for their own definitions.

And the problem with that is, as I said in my first post, that when we use such terms to lump together some amorphous group of people and refer to them as "the rich" or "the wealthy" - as is being done in this thread (cf. the title "Do the wealthy...?") and all throughout our society today to decry perceived (or actual, it doesn't really matter) wrongs done by "them" - we are behaving unjustly, because the only way to identify such people as we give such labels to is by comparing them to some standard that simply does not exist - but by our own discrimination as we compare them against the only thing we CAN compare them against - ourselves, what money we might have or not have compared to what they have.

If you don't believe that - provide a different articulation of the title of this thread - "Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?" without using the term "the wealthy." Or better yet, provide a specific list that delineates the names of ALL the people to which that question specifically refers. Not some, because that wouldn't be fair or just to single out only a few. Give us a list of all their names.

MildSteel said:
2. No one is denouncing people for being wealthy
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right?
 
Dovkan said:
Then explain why the majority of the world only makes enough for clothing, shelter, and food/water, while working for sweatshops making fancy clothing they can never afford, etc... Producers don't want to charge low, it's why millions starve to death every year, it's not practicial to distribute/sell food to them where we're in the first world gobbling that **** down and wasting 50% of it. New technology is good for taking away jobs, at least in terms of what is happening today, eventually, it will get to a point where technology will take a majority of jobs. China was only planned until 1978, genius. It's the core idea of capitalism, don't sugarcoat it, capitalism relies on exploiting cheap labor/resources in under-developed countries to resell it at a profit to other countries, capitalism thrives on poverty. Many other countries other then China, you've only stated one example of a capitalist country without a minimum wage doing good, and even then: List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paying domestic in America for production in regards to factory isn't as profitable as exploiting labor in another country.
Click to expand...

1. Because certain trade regulations do not allow countries to diversify production, major factor in stagnation of developing nations

2. Producers charge low in competition, the reason we are based on consumption so heavily is due to Keynesian theory of economics, basically progressive economic theory. The idea that a central banking authority needs the power to implement policy to increase consumption. This is only possible through central banking a socialist idea. Yet free marketism glorifies savings and even hayak creating a privatized banking system to induce savings rather then spending

3. When that happens humanity will reallocate itself to a more purposeful use

4. Chinese government directly controls their central bank, making it completely planned, as well as uses economic policy to impose massive merchantilist trade policies, which literally means it's centrally planned... Smart guy

5. Capitalism thrives on privatized exchange of capital, not poverty. Capitalism creates the most stable efficient system, communism can not work, simply because a communist society has no way to calculate when to expand production or reduce production. In fact the fact that communism is incapable of this proves that everyone will succumb to poor impoverished conditions and would completely fail unless there was a state or authority dictating production, which is why Stalinism was effective in production, because it was through force.

6. We are not discussing min. Wage or even income inequality idk why you brought this issue up, however you need to study inter generational income mobility if you wish to discuss classes movement along lines of personal wealth in terms of inequality. You'll find it quite amusing when you see statistics of similar countries with factors like GDP size, population, level of immigration. You'll find income mobility tends to happen more efficiently in a freer market

7. This is because the other countries use central planning authority to do things like devalue currency and use trade protectionism to try to outcompete other nations. You Blame the free market for government policy...
 
Dovkan said:
Dollar a day revisited
Not sure about the current rates, feel free to find them for me.
Click to expand...
Looks like I have to pay in order to get a copy of that study. Here is one written by BBC: it calculates a $1.25 a day based on 2005 PPP.

Dollar benchmark: The rise of the $1-a-day statistic - BBC News

jFwvWpe.gif


As you can see, so called absolute poverty is actually on decline and has been for decades now in developing countries. So the point really is that you got it backwards, capitalism is creating more wealth for ordinary people and is setting a record for bringing these people out of poverty and into the middle class. No other economic system has done that and thats why the vast majority of the world's countries has embraced capitalism. Its not a perfect system but its far and away the better alternative to others that have been dreamed up, especially socialism/communism.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Actually, no it's not. As I said, any definition of it is necessarily relative, or comparative.
Click to expand...

What you just said is meaningless because we live in a relative world. Everything that we give meaning to is relative to something else.

EdwinWillers said:
You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

No I am not. You are just putting up an old, stale line of defense that simply does not apply. I don't bear the rich any malice for being rich. It's just not there.
 
Henrin said:
If your workforce is struggling in their personal affairs than your business suffers. Anything that you buy on the market you should keep good care of, be that your house, your car, your computer, your desk, or whatever you are concerned with, and the same is true for labor. A business that concern themselves with the well being of their workers enjoys a productive and happy workforce that will make the business more money and better products. There is of course a cut off to all things, and much like it is with cleaning a house there comes a point where the returns level out and any further action is an overall loss, so business should maintain balance and try to keep their workforce productive and happy, while not overpaying them.
Click to expand...

Certainly that's the ideal, though it it flies in the face of the way Capitalism is often applied. Some nations have legal protections limiting this, but in much of the third world, governments feel compelled to be extremely lax, to attract outside investment. It's tempting to think of this as small scale, but this is major industrial players. Look at the Bhopal disaster and it's aftermath.

There's not a lot of abuse in the U.S., but the products we buy are often made overseas by exploited labor. It's rationalized away as good enough for them, but we would never put up with treatment like that here, and it's wrong to reward those who do it anywhere. The challenge, as you touched on, is defining the line between shrewd business and exploitation.
 
Libertie76 said:
Big Pharma Pockets $711 Billion in Profits by Robbing Seniors, Taxpayers | Ethan Rome

If they pay politicians enough Money they receive negative taxes.

There's even cases where special interest will spend more money on k street then output of their product
Click to expand...

In that article you posted is a problem with congress, there was no mention of follow the money. Who was paid how much or not etc. No mention of bribes or the DOJ taking action etc. Hell to get Obamacare passed the Dems lobbied the votes they needed to get it passed. The Dems gave special deals to get their vote.

There are lobbyist for and against on about every issue that comes before congress. Congress represents their districts and in every state their elected officials are lobbying congress for their state. States try to sway businesses to move to their state and to get them to move they will give tax breaks, free land etc. In these cases the states are lobbying for businesses to move. Football stadiums are financed by the teams and the city or state, making a mutual deal that both benefit from having a team in their city.
 
Born Free said:
In that article you posted is a problem with congress, there was no mention of follow the money. Who was paid how much or not etc. No mention of bribes or the DOJ taking action etc. Hell to get Obamacare passed the Dems lobbied the votes they needed to get it passed. The Dems gave special deals to get their vote.

There are lobbyist for and against on about every issue that comes before congress. Congress represents their districts and in every state their elected officials are lobbying congress for their state. States try to sway businesses to move to their state and to get them to move they will give tax breaks, free land etc. In these cases the states are lobbying for businesses to move. Football stadiums are financed by the teams and the city or state, making a mutual deal that both benefit from having a team in their city.
Click to expand...
I said big pharmaceutical asks for subsidies, hence the word big meaning a lot of money, and you said they ask but don't receive... so I posted you an article.

If you want me to find articles of corruption through lobbyists I will, however this article seriously proved you were wrong.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/29/politics/politicians-play-lobbyists-pay/
 
Born Free said:
Citizens do participate in all forms of lobbying, protests is a form of lobbying, million man marches are a form of lobbying. Activist groups are a form of lobbying. Green Peace is a lobbyist. There are lobbyist for and against government on about all issues. And there is big money on each side of any one issue. Take the Sacramento smelt where the lobbyist won the argument that the smelt trumped all the farmers need for water. Billions of gallons of water have been diverted away from the farmers for the smelt. Unions are lobbyist and they have deep pockets (lots of money) representing citizen participation.
Click to expand...


this is correct ...however it is democratic forms of government, that are most susceptible to factions/ special interest who lobby government in there own interest, which is why the very rich and powerful people and large corporations, have the ear of politicians rather then the average Citizen.

republican forms of government make it more difficult for faction/ special interest to lobby, because all power is not concentrated in one centralized location power is divided , as opposed to democratic forms.

by repealing the 17th amendment we cut the legs out from under lobbyist,who lobby the senate, and return power to the states to place a check on the power of the federal government again.
 
Libertie76 said:
I said big pharmaceutical asks for subsidies, hence the word big meaning a lot of money, and you said they ask but don't receive... so I posted you an article.

If you want me to find articles of corruption through lobbyists I will, however this article seriously proved you were wrong.


Politicians live it up and have the lobbyists pay - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Subsidies are a part of government and business that both benefit, no different than a state giving free land or tax credits to a business to move to their state. This is a daily event. I have no idea what you are driving at, or better yet what is the point you are trying to make?
 
ernst barkmann said:
this is correct ...however it is democratic forms of government, that are most susceptible to factions/ special interest who lobby government in there own interest, which is why the very rich and powerful people and large corporations, have the ear of politicians rather then the average Citizen.

republican forms of government make it more difficult for faction/ special interest to lobby, because all power is not concentrated in one centralized location power is divided , as opposed to democratic forms.

by repealing the 17th amendment we cut the legs out from under lobbyist,who lobby the senate, and return power to the states to place a check on the power of the federal government again.
Click to expand...

Who do the unions represent?
 
MildSteel said:
Although ordinary citizens can vote in national elections, the candidates must have funding that is backed by organizations that are controlled by those with wealth. As such the choices are limited.

Do the wealthy have too much power in the United States?
Click to expand...

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