Who Rules America?

[SeekingTruth]

Wealth inequality in America:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[i'va biggen]

Shit, thought it was pussy

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

The sooner you get over the idea that its not fair that you aren't super rich, and stop worrying about how much others have, the sooner you will learn to appreciate what you do have.

Guess what? The world is full of rich people. The world is full of poor people. The world is full of people in between.

You aren't nearly as poor as you think you are, and its not the fault of the fat cat wealthy you despise so much that you aren't as wealthy as you think you should be.

You had the incredible good fortune to be born in a country that offers educational opportunities most of the rest of the world can't even dream of. You were born into a country where something as simple as taking a hot shower is taken for granted as an every day event. 11% of the globe's population will be born, live a full life, and never once take a hot shower. Not once. Don't even get me started on what percentage of the world population will never own a car, never once sit inside an air conditioned structure of any kind, never own a microwave oven, coffee pot, or cell phone.

And yet you think you have it so bad. If you were REALLY invested in trying to make this world a little more fair, then get off your ass and go join the Peace Corps. There are bridges that need building, Schools that need building. Water purification systems that need building. Go deliver basic medicine and foodstuffs to people who will never once in their life taste chocolate, ice cream, or french fries.

But we both know you aren't REALLY that concerned about real inequality. Your only concern is that YOU, PERSONALLY, just aren't as equal as you THINK you should be.

[WombRaider]

We should just get over it. What a surprise. And exactly what the 1 percenters think too.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

We should just get over it. What a surprise. And exactly what the 1 percenters think too.

And why am I not surprised that you chose to ignore the portions of my post that were inconvenient to you?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

And why am I not surprised that you chose to ignore the portions of my post that were inconvenient to you?

None of it was inconvenient to me. It's just more rhetoric. The world isn't FULL of rich people, firstly. It is, however, full of poor people. That much you got right. Your diatribe against others having it worse is meaningless. I wasn't born somewhere else. I have no say in where I was born, so that's just a random crapshoot.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

The sooner you get over the idea that its not fair that you aren't super rich, and stop worrying about how much others have, the sooner you will learn to appreciate what you do have.

Guess what? The world is full of rich people. The world is full of poor people. The world is full of people in between.

You aren't nearly as poor as you think you are, and its not the fault of the fat cat wealthy you despise so much that you aren't as wealthy as you think you should be.

You had the incredible good fortune to be born in a country that offers educational opportunities most of the rest of the world can't even dream of. You were born into a country where something as simple as taking a hot shower is taken for granted as an every day event. 11% of the globe's population will be born, live a full life, and never once take a hot shower. Not once. Don't even get me started on what percentage of the world population will never own a car, never once sit inside an air conditioned structure of any kind, never own a microwave oven, coffee pot, or cell phone.

And yet you think you have it so bad. If you were REALLY invested in trying to make this world a little more fair, then get off your ass and go join the Peace Corps. There are bridges that need building, Schools that need building. Water purification systems that need building. Go deliver basic medicine and foodstuffs to people who will never once in their life taste chocolate, ice cream, or french fries.

But we both know you aren't REALLY that concerned about real inequality. Your only concern is that YOU, PERSONALLY, just aren't as equal as you THINK you should be.

I agree with most of what you said.
Just this last week, I went to U of H's graduation ceremony (My niece just graduated). Matthew Mconaghay was the commencement speaker. His entire speech was incredible. A bit long, but incredible. Sure he said some cliche stuff but overall he made some good, hard, cogent points. One thing he said really resonated with me. (slight paraphrasing) "Life is not easy, and it's not fair: never was, isn't now and won't ever be. Don't ever fall into the entitlement trap of being a victim. Most things are rewarding when you break a sweat to get them."

There is no substitute for hard work. If you're not getting what you want, work harder. "Now if you know what you're worth then go out and get what you're worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody!" -Rocky Balboa


That should be the end of it. But does that mean we should NOT look at the flip side of the argument? No. We can't expect people to play the game if we constantly keep changing the rules. Urging people to simply work harder is idealistic at best. Think about it this way. It's like playing a game of monopoly where one person owns 95% of the houses, hotels, railroads, and bank. Now if you and a hundred others can't win with the 5% you have then you are all just a bunch of lazy fucks.

Also saying that you can't be unhappy about your conditions because there are people that have it so much worse is the same as saying that you can't be happy because there are people who have it so much better. Anger and joy are all relative, so yeah, people not having ice cream in Africa does not bother the single mom who's working 3 jobs to provide for her kids here in America.

My solution is to revamp the tax system. Make sure the rich pay their fair share (percentage wise). Make the capital gains system progressive so that at some (high) levels of income the level of capital gains tax is the same as income tax. This dis-incentivizes the rich hiding the majority of their income as wealth creation.
Also, AS A WHOLE, reduce taxes. Both on the rich and the poor. The more money people perceive they have , the "free-er" they believe themselves to be. Revamp all the governmental programs as well, especially entitlement programs so there isn't a single fat-fuck sitting on his ass collecting checks while being able to work.
Expansion of the EITC will also be a much better alternative to raising the minimum wage to $15. The minimum wage should be set at $10.10 and thereafter indexed to inflation.

The biggest issue holding us back is the political divide. One side believes one thing and the other side believes another. Those political parties give fuck all about the actual welfare of this economy or this country.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by shanm

I agree with most of what you said.
Just this last week, I went to U of H's graduation ceremony (My niece just graduated). Matthew Mconaghay was the commencement speaker. His entire speech was incredible. A bit long, but incredible. Sure he said some cliche stuff but overall he made some good, hard, cogent points. One thing he said really resonated with me. (slight paraphrasing) "Life is not easy, and it's not fair: never was, isn't now and won't ever be. Don't ever fall into the entitlement trap of being a victim. Most things are rewarding when you break a sweat to get them."

There is no substitute for hard work. If you're not getting what you want, work harder. "Now if you know what you're worth then go out and get what you're worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody!" -Rocky Balboa


That should be the end of it. But does that mean we should NOT look at the flip side of the argument? No. We can't expect people to play the game if we constantly keep changing the rules. Urging people to simply work harder is idealistic at best. Think about it this way. It's like playing a game of monopoly where one person owns 95% of the houses, hotels, railroads, and bank. Now if you and a hundred others can't win with the 5% you have then you are all just a bunch of lazy fucks.

Also saying that you can't be unhappy about your conditions because there are people that have it so much worse is the same as saying that you can't be happy because there are people who have it so much better. Anger and joy are all relative, so yeah, people not having ice cream in Africa does not bother the single mom who's working 3 jobs to provide for her kids here in America.

My solution is to revamp the tax system. Make sure the rich pay their fair share (percentage wise). Make the capital gains system progressive so that at some (high) levels of income the level of capital gains tax is the same as income tax. This dis-incentivizes the rich hiding the majority of their income as wealth creation.
Also, AS A WHOLE, reduce taxes. Both on the rich and the poor. The more money people perceive they have , the "free-er" they believe themselves to be. Revamp all the governmental programs as well, especially entitlement programs so there isn't a single fat-fuck sitting on his ass collecting checks while being able to work.
Expansion of the EITC will also be a much better alternative to raising the minimum wage to $15. The minimum wage should be set at $10.10 and thereafter indexed to inflation.

The biggest issue holding us back is the political divide. One side believes one thing and the other side believes another. Those political parties give fuck all about the actual welfare of this economy or this country.

1. The rich do pay their fair share. They pay their fair share, as well as my fair share, your fair share, and the fair share of many others.

2. Not only should we not expand the EITC, we should eliminate it.

3. I agree we need to cut taxes across the board - but not until we've balanced our budget and paid down our debt. We spend $250 billion on interest alone every year. Just imagine what we could do with $250 billion every year if we weren't saddled with so much debt. First things first. We can't afford to reduce revenue when we keep overspending the revenue we generate now.

4. I have more sympathy for the child in Africa than I have for the single mother of 3 trying to raise her kids on minimum wage. Just as you and I basically got lucky by being born in this country, that child in Africa didn't get to choose where to be born either. The risk of that child dying of malnutrition or preventable disease is not due to the child's irresponsible choices.

The single mother struggling on minimum wage cannot say the same thing. In a country that provides access to birth control for free, or for a fee based on a sliding scale, as well as access to safe and legal abortions, there is absolutely, positively, no excuse for any woman to have a child in this country that she cannot afford. Yeah, that is a hard attitude to take, but I really don't care. I am 100% in support of every citizen having the freedom to succeed in this country. The other side of that coin is allowing citizens the freedom to fail. Social programs are an important safety net for societies. What we've created though, are safety hammocks.

No, life isn't always fair. There are people who will work their fingers to the bone til the day they die, without every amassing wealth that they can pass down to their children. Meanwhile, there are people who will never know a hard day's work, but who will enjoy the privileges that wealth brings. There is no substitute for hard work, but sometimes luck brings more reward than hard work ever can.

All I'm saying is that railing against the wealthy is not the way to solve that single mother's problems. Introducing her to birth control, and giving her a brochure to her local community or tech college will help her out far more than taking another bite out of the wallet of the wealthy in order to just give her more free stuff. Which, in case you didn't realize it, is the point of Debbie's threads here, as well as most of her other link vomits, disguised as threads.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

1. The rich do pay their fair share. They pay their fair share, as well as my fair share, your fair share, and the fair share of many others. I don't think you understand the concept of "fair share". Which do you think is a FAIR share: a person on 80k a year paying 30% of his income in taxes or a person earning $10 million a year paying 15%?
Sure, the rich guy is paying more in terms of amount, but think of it this way: who is paying a higher proportion of his/her income and who is left with more after paying the allocated tax rates? The person with 6 million after taxes will still be a lot happier and better off than the person with $50,000.

2. Not only should we not expand the EITC, we should eliminate it. Typical. You are just parroting the same old neo-conservative talking points without any actual idea what you are talking about.
The EITC rewards people for working i.e creates an INCENTIVE. This is in direct support of the entitlement argument you made earlier. It is the single most useful measure we have to a) getting people to work and become self-sustainable and b) to lift the lower income households out of poverty through hard work.

3. I agree we need to cut taxes across the board - but not until we've balanced our budget and paid down our debt. We spend $250 billion on interest alone every year. Just imagine what we could do with $250 billion every year if we weren't saddled with so much debt. First things first. We can't afford to reduce revenue when we keep overspending the revenue we generate now. Again, you're parroting the same one-sided talking points. Saying that we should "pay down the debt" is idealistic at best.
The only debt that actually matters is public debt (it is close to 11 trillion I think). About 50% of it is held by the government and owed to OURSELVES. It is made up of treasury securities that we (the states and its citizens) buy from the federal government. Therefore, any interest that is owed, along with repayments, is owed to OURSELVES.
The other 50% of these U.S securities are held by investors from outside the U.S. If you have a vested interest in a company, you of course want that company to do well. This investor-company relationship is inherently similar to the one between the U.S economy and the global economy. The more other countries invest in our country, the stronger it becomes. Not only that, other companies have an important financial interest in seeing our economy stay afloat and even flourish. China is the case in point: if the U.S economy fails, so does China.
it is a huge misconception that the debt payments and interest payments are somehow bleeding out our economy.

4. I have more sympathy for the child in Africa than I have for the single mother of 3 trying to raise her kids on minimum wage. Just as you and I basically got lucky by being born in this country, that child in Africa didn't get to choose where to be born either. The risk of that child dying of malnutrition or preventable disease is not due to the child's irresponsible choices.
I never said that you shouldn't have empathy. I said that the mother doesn't have empathy because she is too busy with her own problems. It might not be fair but that's just the way it is.

All I'm saying is that railing against the wealthy is not the way to solve that single mother's problems. Introducing her to birth control, and giving her a brochure to her local community or tech college will help her out far more than taking another bite out of the wallet of the wealthy in order to just give her more free stuff. Not "free stuff". The opportunity to be able to make a decent living on the back of the American promise: working hard leads to just reward.Which, in case you didn't realize it, is the point of Debbie's threads here, as well as most of her other link vomits, disguised as threads.

.

[CuteOldGuy]

What an idiot you are, ShamWow. So, we understand that the mega-rich and corporations run the government. Your solution is more government. Dafuq? No wonder we are in decline.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What an idiot you are, ShamWow. So, we understand that the mega-rich and corporations run the government. Your solution is more government. Dafuq? No wonder we are in decline.

Where the fuck did I say that you blithering idiot?

I advocated a more efficient tax system with less taxation for everyone, that doesn't equate to more government. That's also something more substantive than anything you've posted in your entire time here, and that includes your latest asinine post. Why don't you take your bitching and moaning and get the fuck out.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What an idiot you are, ShamWow. So, we understand that the mega-rich and corporations run the government. Your solution is more government. Dafuq? No wonder we are in decline.

I don't see anything in there that calls for more government. Would you care to share with us what part you think says this?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

We should just get over it. What a surprise. And exactly what the 1 percenters think too.

As a small business owner, (currently 15 employees), I fall into the lower half of the 1% group. But my annual income is minuscule compared to those in the upper half of that 1%.

The government should stop using the term "1%", because it is very misleading. The term they should be using is "top .1%".

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

As a small business owner, (currently 15 employees), I fall into the lower half of the 1% group. But my annual income is minuscule compared to those in the upper half of that 1%.

The government should stop using the term "1%", because it is very misleading. The term they should be using is "top .1%".

You bring up a good point.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

I don't think you understand the concept of "fair share". Which do you think is a FAIR share: a person on 80k a year paying 30% of his income in taxes or a person earning $10 million a year paying 15%?
Sure, the rich guy is paying more in terms of amount, but think of it this way: who is paying a higher proportion of his/her income and who is left with more after paying the allocated tax rates? The person with 6 million after taxes will still be a lot happier and better off than the person with $50,000.

Yes I understand how taxes work quite well thank you. Don't speak to me about "talking points" when you parrot them. The idea that the wealthy pay less in taxes than middle class Americans is a myth. They pay a higher rate on their income. What you are talking about are capitol gains taxes, which is a whole different topic.

Typical. You are just parroting the same old neo-conservative talking points without any actual idea what you are talking about.
The EITC rewards people for working i.e creates an INCENTIVE. This is in direct support of the entitlement argument you made earlier. It is the single most useful measure we have to a) getting people to work and become self-sustainable and b) to lift the lower income households out of poverty through hard work.

Again, no I am not parroting anyone's talking points. You are delusional if you think the EITC creates an incentive. The only reward it provides is a reward for popping out babies. It is an unabashed attempt at redistributing wealth. Nothing more.

Again, you're parroting the same one-sided talking points. Saying that we should "pay down the debt" is idealistic at best.
The only debt that actually matters is public debt (it is close to 11 trillion I think). About 50% of it is held by the government and owed to OURSELVES. It is made up of treasury securities that we (the states and its citizens) buy from the federal government. Therefore, any interest that is owed, along with repayments, is owed to OURSELVES.
The other 50% of these U.S securities are held by investors from outside the U.S. If you have a vested interest in a company, you of course want that company to do well. This investor-company relationship is inherently similar to the one between the U.S economy and the global economy. The more other countries invest in our country, the stronger it becomes. Not only that, other companies have an important financial interest in seeing our economy stay afloat and even flourish. China is the case in point: if the U.S economy fails, so does China.
it is a huge misconception that the debt payments and interest payments are somehow bleeding out our economy.

I don't give a crap if talking about paying down our debt is idealistic or not. Again, I am very well aware of how our debt works. $250 billion (WITH A B) is not a 'misconception' that it is bleeding us dry. That is a staggering amount to pay in interest alone. I don't know about you, but I absolutely can't stand to pay interest on anything. Not a car loan, credit card debt, or student loans. It is simply money pissed down the drain with no return in value. Is it a necessary evil? Yes. No one could buy a home without a home mortgage, and few college students could hope to get an education without accumulating student loans. But the prudent person dispenses with debt as quickly as possible, rather than dragging it out year after year by only paying the interest on their debt, rather than paying down the debt itself. We've mortgaged our children and our grandchildren's future because we lack the wherewithal to tighten our belts and live within our means as a nation. Plain and simple.

And by the way, these aren't anyone's talking points. I remember choking when Cheney said debts don't matter. That more than anything else is why I voted a straight Democrat ticket in 2004 and again in 2006. I don't really care which party finally pulls its heads out of its ass and returns to fiscal common sense, as long as one party does. Republicans have been no better at fiscal discipline that Democrats have been. The only difference is that conservatives are more apt to hold Republicans responsible for spending like drunken sailors than liberals are.