Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To the 99% of us Americans

Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 1:19:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The top 1% of wealthy Americans make OVER the other 99% of Americans.

We've recently given over 17 trillion dollars of our HARD EARNED tax money to the banks- corporate powerhouses!!! What do they need this money for? oh yeah, to control us even further.

So lets think about this. We've given the banks over 17 trillion dollars. Yet the average American is up to their necks in debt, can barely pay off their Re-financed house (at astronomically high percentage rates) to these SAME banks; work productivity and inflation is at its highest yet our pays are remaining the same.

Policies don't change because Politicians are RICH and because the rich people bait politicians with even more money to sway their stances on policies.

So we know this but now is the big question- what can we really do about it?

Well for one the super-pacs need to go. We need to tax this top 1% higher. We need to get America back into a state of economic gain compared to the dead state that it's in now.

There are plenty of policies that need changing but no policies can change without our 99% voting power! And this goes not for PRESIDENTIAL votes but for the votes of OUR CONGRESS who has the final say of the bills that get passed.

So how do we raise enough awareness? People are brainwashed into thinking that if they "work hard enough" they can get in on that wealth too. People are too focused on themselves to take a step back and look at the state of our country.

Media shoves instant gratification and the need for materials into our throats.

The younger generation needs to step up to the plate and make some changes.

Most of you guys here are extremely intelligent and aware, so I'm hoping you have some input.

Do we really have any power? Can we change things? How? Is it just a matter of spreading awareness or does something else need to be done?
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:17:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is not accurate.

http://www.financialsamurai.com...

The top 1% make about 20% of the money in the US (according to IRS tax forms), and the next 4% make about 14.73% (so their total is 34.73%). Before you get to the half way point, you hit about the 85 percentile group. It is around the top 15% make as much as the bottom 85% (around there).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:18:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course, that is based on income. non realized capital gains (Stock that you own that increase in value, but you don't sell) are not counted.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:19:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think that we need to change regulations, lower taxes, stop wars, reform education and spend our resources wisely. We have that already, but we just need to stop the corruption in the system.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:22:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 2:19:03 PM, inferno wrote:
I think that we need to change regulations, lower taxes, stop wars, reform education and spend our resources wisely. We have that already, but we just need to stop the corruption in the system.

yes sure these things need to be changed, but the question is how do we change them?

pretty much every american knows sh*t is f*cked up, but they think they are powerless to change anything. in a way we are. how do we get past that?
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:23:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 2:20:15 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
just making a post to add this post to my sig, not sure how to do it without posting.

Actually, if you change your signature in a new post, click on the "review button" (that you have to click on before making any posts) then click "back" (or to any other page) your sig will be updated without having to actually make the post.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:25:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 2:17:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This is not accurate.

http://www.financialsamurai.com...

The top 1% make about 20% of the money in the US (according to IRS tax forms), and the next 4% make about 14.73% (so their total is 34.73%). Before you get to the half way point, you hit about the 85 percentile group. It is around the top 15% make as much as the bottom 85% (around there).

okay, that stat was inaccurate, but the sentiment remains.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:25:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 2:23:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/24/2011 2:20:15 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
just making a post to add this post to my sig, not sure how to do it without posting.

Actually, if you change your signature in a new post, click on the "review button" (that you have to click on before making any posts) then click "back" (or to any other page) your sig will be updated without having to actually make the post.

thanks!
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:35:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1) Tax people more, companies less. I know that I'm viewed as a leftist on this site (at least economically), but companies cannot spend money for pleasures, since a companies cannot experience pleasure, only people can (and animals, but that's not important to this issue). People that run a company take to company profits and give it to themselves so that they can have the high lifestyle. By taxing rich people more, and companies less, this creates an incentive for companies to give less money to their higher ups (since it will just go to the evil evil government) and spend more money on expanding the company (thus creating more jobs). If a company is presented with the option of spending $100,000,000 on itself (where $15,000,000 goes to taxes and $85,000,000 goes to it) or its upper management (where $50,000,000 goes to taxes and $50,000,000 goes to the upper management), that will push more money to the company.

2) Companies are not people and should not be able to give political donations (same applies to unions). If a company wants to give to a politician, they can pay their upper management more, so that those individuals can give to the politicians (in which case, they'll be hit by that higher tax rate).

3) Government owned companies. If companies are doing things in a crappy manner, then let the government do it. They can run as a non-profit (so that the goods are available at the lowest price possible) or as a profit (since the government is 100% share holder, all profits go into the general funds, meaning less tax burdens).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 2:47:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ore_Ele,

1. yes

2. Is there really a difference between Ceo Blankfein giving 1 million to a president and Goldman Sachs giving 1 million dollars to a president? The money is still there to barter the prez into the ceo's agenda.

3. Yes, unfortunately, things seem to be going the other way. NASA, anyone? I can see it now. a theme park on the moon. space ship honeymoons.

This still doesn't really get to the question of what us american citizens can do to make changes. Policies can't be changed by us. Only the congress and (somewhat) presidents can make these changes... and why would they change their ways for us peasants?
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:07:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 2:50:20 PM, dogfoo wrote:
Citation?

laRouchePAC.com

It's a piece of paper i have that quotes "In March 2008, Chairman Bernake invoked an emergency clause in the Federal reserve act, claiming on the basis of 'unusual and exigent circumstances' the Fed could issue emergency loans to nondepository institutions since the first time since the great depression. As a result, the Fed issued more than 16 trillion in emergency loans to wall street and foreign banks."

Because they are idiots who live above their means

yes, i won't argue with that, the majority of us are idiots who have given in to the people in power. brainwashed into thinking we need to work a little bit harder to get all those great materials we all need so so much in order to be happy.

No one forced them into it, they signed a contract in ink and believe it or not it's not hard to see whether you have subprime mortgage

just because they signed the paper doesn't make it an okay thing to do. Those contracts are purposefulyl long winded,hard to understand, so that the average american gets taken advantage of. and its okay because they were naive enough and strapped enough to do it?


No it works because idiot voters are fooled by television ads instead of doing research (See yourself)

umm, yes i am obviously an idiot who wants everyone to stay naive and policies to remain f*cked up. I'm done wasting my time on you.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:10:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why do you care? If somehow If everyone was starving yet we all had equal income would it be better? Wealth isn't a zero sum game.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:13:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh FYI, If you really want to cite statistics, look how much wealth your family has compared to any other African family. It doesn't even compare.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:19:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:10:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Why do you care? If somehow If everyone was starving yet we all had equal income would it be better? Wealth isn't a zero sum game.

Why do i care? What kind of question is that? Why does anyone care about anything?

If we had a better ran economy, people wouldn't go starving.

millions of american's are losing their jobs and homes. we are all so focused on material gain and instant gratification. something needs to change.

the good of the country needs to be thought about. The good of other people needs to be thought about.

F*cking selfish people make me sick. Just because YOU have a billion dollars, and you have the ability to turn your eye on the destructive state of our country and our people, doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:20:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 2:53:58 PM, dogfoo wrote:
At 8/24/2011 2:35:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
3) Government owned companies. If companies are doing things in a crappy manner, then let the government do it. They can run as a non-profit (so that the goods are available at the lowest price possible) or as a profit (since the government is 100% share holder, all profits go into the general funds, meaning less tax burdens).

Are you shitting me? It's called the post office which are losing billions annually.

Well, you've been banned, but you'll be back, so I can address it anyway.

It's also called the Oregon Liquor Stores, which make the state millions of dollars.

What you're doing is a classic broad brushing fallacy (one government agency is failing, therefore every government agency will fail). That would be like me pointing to any one of the over 50% of businesses that fail within 5 years and saying "see all businesses will fail because this one did."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:23:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's also called the Oregon Liquor Stores, which make the state millions of dollars.
And run things much worse than the private liquor stores, which are banned to keep such state-run stores in business. Hence, your conditional was a lie.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:23:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 2:52:56 PM, dogfoo wrote:
At 8/24/2011 2:35:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
1) Tax people more, companies less. I know that I'm viewed as a leftist on this site (at least economically), but companies cannot spend money for pleasures, since a companies cannot experience pleasure, only people can (and animals, but that's not important to this issue). People that run a company take to company profits and give it to themselves so that they can have the high lifestyle. By taxing rich people more, and companies less, this creates an incentive for companies to give less money to their higher ups (since it will just go to the evil evil government) and spend more money on expanding the company (thus creating more jobs). If a company is presented with the option of spending $100,000,000 on itself (where $15,000,000 goes to taxes and $85,000,000 goes to it) or its upper management (where $50,000,000 goes to taxes and $50,000,000 goes to the upper management), that will push more money to the company.

You're incorrect. It encourages even higher pay to the higher ups. Meaning that the effect of the tax is negated and the additional cost is forwarded onto customers (middle class) who bear the brunt of the increase.

You failed economics apparently. Increaseing taxes decreases demand and decreases supply. If we have natural gas and oil as two different heating sources and the government puts a high tax on oil, what do you think is going to happen? It creates an incentive for people to buy the natural gas instead.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:24:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, as for this thread.

Premise: The government is giving tax money to politically favored rich people.

Solution: MORE TAXES. MORE GOVT POWER.

wtf
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:26:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:23:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's also called the Oregon Liquor Stores, which make the state millions of dollars.
And run things much worse than the private liquor stores, which are banned to keep such state-run stores in business. Hence, your conditional was a lie.

Actually, it runs things just fine. The private liquor stores are not banned so that state run can stick around, but for regulation purposes. Not to mention, every calculation regarding tax revenue from opening up the liquor stores would indicate that the government would make less by allowing the private sector in (and such a higher tax burden on everyone else).

You also failed to show anything that the state is not making money from state run liquor stores.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:26:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:24:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, as for this thread.

Premise: The government is giving tax money to politically favored rich people.

Solution: MORE TAXES. MORE GOVT POWER.

wtf

okay, so then what is a better solution?
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:28:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 2:47:58 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Ore_Ele,

1. yes

2. Is there really a difference between Ceo Blankfein giving 1 million to a president and Goldman Sachs giving 1 million dollars to a president? The money is still there to barter the prez into the ceo's agenda.

If the company and the individual are taxed at different rates, yes.


3. Yes, unfortunately, things seem to be going the other way. NASA, anyone? I can see it now. a theme park on the moon. space ship honeymoons.

This still doesn't really get to the question of what us american citizens can do to make changes. Policies can't be changed by us. Only the congress and (somewhat) presidents can make these changes... and why would they change their ways for us peasants?

Your own question defeats itself. You ask how can we make changes when we can't make changes. We can make changes, one thing to do is to make more use of recalls of elected people. Don't let them make false promises with no consequences.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:29:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:13:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Oh FYI, If you really want to cite statistics, look how much wealth your family has compared to any other African family. It doesn't even compare.

Also look at the cost of living.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:30:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:26:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/24/2011 3:23:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's also called the Oregon Liquor Stores, which make the state millions of dollars.
And run things much worse than the private liquor stores, which are banned to keep such state-run stores in business. Hence, your conditional was a lie.

Actually, it runs things just fine. The private liquor stores are not banned so that state run can stick around, but for regulation purposes.
I live in Washington. In 2008 there was a ballot measure on privatizing liquor stores. The proponents of keeping the liquor stores admitted that private entities would make the same liquor cheaper-- i.e., better-run stores. Their sole argument was state revenue.

Not to mention, every calculation regarding tax revenue from opening up the liquor stores would indicate that the government would make less by allowing the private sector in (and such a higher tax burden on everyone else).
Does not follow. The monopoly IS a tax burden-- on drinkers. It's just not as direct. Of course the government would get less money without a monopoly.
Why should drinkers have to subsidize everyone else?
Furthermore, you just effectively admitted you were lying above when you said that the purpose wasn't so the state run could stick around


You also failed to show anything that the state is not making money from state run liquor stores.
It's not making money, it's stealing it. Certainly, the state run liquor stores are a positive strictly for the state's accounting books.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:31:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:26:49 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 8/24/2011 3:24:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, as for this thread.

Premise: The government is giving tax money to politically favored rich people.

Solution: MORE TAXES. MORE GOVT POWER.

wtf

okay, so then what is a better solution?
Abolish all subsidies, so that subsidies to rich people can't be hidden in them.

btw, more taxes isn't a bad thing if its the RICH people being taxed.
Yes, it is. It just taxes the PRODUCTIVE rich and subsidizes the LESS PRODUCTIVE rich who will receive the state's favor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:38:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
None of my business as I'm not an American, but wouldn't it be reasonable to allow the Bush tax breaks for the most wealthy individuals expire?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:38:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is burglary okay if it's rich people too, since you say robbery is?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:43:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:30:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/24/2011 3:26:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/24/2011 3:23:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's also called the Oregon Liquor Stores, which make the state millions of dollars.
And run things much worse than the private liquor stores, which are banned to keep such state-run stores in business. Hence, your conditional was a lie.

Actually, it runs things just fine. The private liquor stores are not banned so that state run can stick around, but for regulation purposes.
I live in Washington. In 2008 there was a ballot measure on privatizing liquor stores. The proponents of keeping the liquor stores admitted that private entities would make the same liquor cheaper-- i.e., better-run stores. Their sole argument was state revenue.

cheaper goods =/= better run stores.


Not to mention, every calculation regarding tax revenue from opening up the liquor stores would indicate that the government would make less by allowing the private sector in (and such a higher tax burden on everyone else).
Does not follow. The monopoly IS a tax burden-- on drinkers. It's just not as direct. Of course the government would get less money without a monopoly.
Why should drinkers have to subsidize everyone else?

It's no more a tax than the profit margin for every company is a "surcharge" on their products.

Drinkers don't have to subsidize everyone else, they are free to not drink. It's not like working, where the option to not have a job is not truely practical. It is totally practical to not drink hard liquor (beer and wine are still available through the free market). Therefore the option of not doing it, is a legit option.

Furthermore, you just effectively admitted you were lying above when you said that the purpose wasn't so the state run could stick around.

uh, no I didn't. I mentioned an economic value for keeping them around. That doesn't translate into the motive for keeping them around. The purpose is for regulation, not profits. We just happen to make profits in addition to it and we enjoy those profits. Evidenced by the fact that we only do this with hard liquor, not beer or wine (hard liquor has more reason to regulate, while wine and beer would likely draw more revenue).



You also failed to show anything that the state is not making money from state run liquor stores.
It's not making money, it's stealing it. Certainly, the state run liquor stores are a positive strictly for the state's accounting books.

Bull. It's no more "stealing" money, than any company is out there. It provides a good to a customer where the customer is free to buy that good or not buy that good. By free will choice.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 3:47:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 3:38:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is burglary okay if it's rich people too, since you say robbery is?

Tax isn't burglary.

Burglary - "Entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime."

http://www.google.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"