|
On October 06 2011 05:06 DeepElemBlues wrote:*sigh* Show nested quote +1.) You view of "class warfare" is a narrow one without any historical understanding where the term comes from and boiling the 200 year old capitalist class struggle down to who pays taxes is actually insulting. You can really tell that the republicans and their propaganda channels learned a new word and now have to use it everywhere, no matter if it's appropriate. And I think your view of what capitalists do and do not understand and are capable of understanding and doing is self-serving, arbitrary, and inconsistent. Show nested quote +2.) That you write something like "liberals/ marxists" shows that you don't care to honestly discuss. "Liberals" have nether in the wierd american sense of "everyone slightly leftist" nor in the "Liberalism" sense anything ideologically to do with "Marxism". And the "liberals" in the democratic party are far away from a marxist point of view and neither them want to be labeled as Marxists or Communists, and Communists would not want them labeled as Communist. If you don't understand why you need to understand the reasons behind people's politics in order to peacefully change them, well, you just might be a party commissar in the mid-1920s. Also, I wouldn't presume to lecture Austrians on what their politics really is and how their terms are silly and ignorant, I don't see why you can't extend the same courtesy to the United States. Possibly because your political beliefs are not widely popular or even acceptable to the American public, so you are not very happy with them. Obviously the problem is their lack of understanding and retarded (literal sense of the word) political development, correct, comrade? Well you shouldn't worry, the dialectic preordains their progress, slow and frustrating as it may seem. Don't forget that! Show nested quote +3.) The point that the 10% "employ" the 90% is exactly the point of CLASS. And I am not quite sure what you mean by this "invented gap". When I understand it right you mean because the whole living and income standards have risen since the second world war for the whole society, than that's true. But this "invented gap" you talk about has been constantly rising since the 90ties. It's as big as never before if I recall right (not 100% sure). And it's built on the backs of the third world. Unfortunately (for you) this constant rise has not resulted in the kind of living standard / material inequality that existed prior to the Second World War, and is the cause of less concern about "income inequality" and wealth distribution. You do not understand why this would cause people to not behave in the way you would expect them to. The times have changed, and you are relying on an archaic understanding of the social dynamic, an understanding that has been tossed on "the ash heap of history," one might say? Huehuehue. Show nested quote +4.) "The rich" benefit far more from this system than anyone else. If not, they wouldn't be rich. They are not rich because they worked the land harder than other people. Don't kid yourself because someone made it from the bottom, that's not the general rule. "The rich" (=the capitalists) profit far more from the workforce than the workforce profits of them. Also only the state, or a state like structure can guarantee that "private property" (as in means of production) remains untouched.
Who's to stop the masses to just take what they want, except the state?
All of that is greatly debatable and is pretty standard Soviet (or earlier) agitprop. Again, times have changed, and your ideological prism has not. Show nested quote +
A conservative of the 19th century said it best, "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."- Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Why this quote has any relevance to the discussion can only be explained in terms of probably deliberate ignorance about what conservatives actually believe about the role of government and of taxes. Unfortunately far too often here, and everywhere, people like you seem to think that the Ron Paul or Ayn Rand contingent of conservatism is representative of conservatism's general stance on those roles. Nah, he just messed it up worse.
I just waited for you to come. I will now also refer right-wing people only as conservatives/ fascists because it's obviously ok, because "liberals/ marxists" is exactly the same. And I don't understand why you label me as arrogant if the US-media takes words that have a very specific meaning an just turns them upside-down.
And we can't and don't have anything to discuss because our view of the world, history, whom the economic system has to serve and even humanity are so apart from each other that it wouldn't bring us any merit except endless forth and back which I am not keen on.
|
On October 06 2011 05:18 Keone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:13 Rick Roy wrote:So things were completely fine before Obama? No I don't think it's all his fault, but he said when he was elected that it was going to be about 'jobs', and unemployment is up. His ideas to stimulate the economy failed, and he's squandered more money and is continuing to do it. To be fair, it's easy to be the idiot who blows a hole in the ship and jumps overboard, and tough to be the guy trying save the sinking ship. I think you know who is who.
I think you're very naive if you think our country's current economic situation is the result of one person, or even one political party. This is 50 years in the making.
|
I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo.
The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpg
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/
There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to higher up employees at the exclusion of everyone else. I don't see why something like a progressive payroll tax couldn't work wonderfully in helping to a) encourage companies to hire more lower wage workers and b) offer tax break to companies that don't overpay CEO's/Executives. Especially if you did something where the tax rates were influenced by how the pay was distributed (so an executive making 20x the wages of the minimum salary would have less payroll taxes than an executive making 200x the wages of a minimum salary worker even if they made the same amount).
I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself.
|
On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Show nested quote +Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)?
Your wild-west view of the world is ridiculous. As if everything is up to people themselves and not out of their control. If "chances" were the same for everyone, not many people would complain.
|
On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to the exclusion of others. I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself.
and how much more did the top lose in the next few years when the markets crashed?
|
On October 06 2011 05:25 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Your wild-west view of the world is ridiculous. As if everything is up to people themselves and not out of their control. If "chances" were the same for everyone, not many people would complain.
I know you don't live in America so the question may or may not be valid, but go back to my first sentence. I don't know ANYONE who has been shut out of a successful life through no fault of their own.
I know PLENTY of lazy, incompetent assholes who dropped out of college (or who didn't have the grades to get there in the first place) and now want the same rewards handed to them.
EDIT: And guess what, if your parents did a piss-poor job of raising you and didn't give you a respect for education, well I have no sympathy. Primary and secondary school is free in America, make use of it. Those books don't read themselves.
|
On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Show nested quote +Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)?
Sounds like this person's education was fully funded by the government from K-12 and partially (public university) in college.
If we continue cutting taxes (or even keep them at current low levels) those services will almost surely have to be reduced. Especially if the defense budget is also off the table, which many congressmen arguing that it needs to keep increasing at it's current rate. States are already laying off teachers and reducing funds for public universities.
That's not *evil* but it's pretty selfish to be given opportunities by a public system and then try to dismantle that system for following generations.
|
On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:
Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)?
This is what americans actually believe.
There is no hope for your country, 50% still have these laughably wrong beliefs.
|
On October 06 2011 05:25 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to the exclusion of others. I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself. and how much more did the top lose in the next few years when the markets crashed?
So much that they had to starve and live in the projects. Right?
In reality "after" (as if it's over) the crisis the wealth gap was bigger than before.
|
On October 06 2011 05:27 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Sounds like this person's education was fully funded by the government from K-12 and partially (public university) in college. If we continue cutting taxes (or even keep them at current low levels) those services will almost surely have to be reduced. Especially if the defense budget is also off the table, which many congressmen arguing that it needs to keep increasing at it's current rate. States are already laying off teachers and reducing funds for public universities. That's not *evil* but it's pretty selfish to be given opportunities by a public system and then try to dismantle that system for following generations.
How many false assumptions can you make in a single post? Have I ever advocated we should dismantle the public education system? That's absurd.
Reduce the budget. Reduce defense spending. Reduce entitlement spending. Improve education, don't throw money at it. Get rid of tax loopholes. Get the bottom half of America paying income taxes again. Legalize it :p
Those are all things I believe in, but NOTHING is possible if Americans do not regain their sense of personal responsibility. The fact of the matter is that you CAN do something with your life regardless of where it started. You don't need things handed to you.
|
On October 06 2011 05:26 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:25 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Your wild-west view of the world is ridiculous. As if everything is up to people themselves and not out of their control. If "chances" were the same for everyone, not many people would complain. I know you don't live in America so the question may or may not be valid, but go back to my first sentence. I don't know ANYONE who has been shut out of a successful life through no fault of their own. I know PLENTY of lazy, incompetent assholes who dropped out of college (or who didn't have the grades to get there in the first place) and now want the same rewards handed to them. EDIT: And guess what, if your parents did a piss-poor job of raising you and didn't give you a respect for education, well I have no sympathy. Primary and secondary school is free in America, make use of it. Those books don't read themselves.
And if your parents were drug-addicted and your father in prison they probably would not have told you to read those goddamn books. That's why it's called cycle of poverty. Sure, you can break out of it. Most don't. Because from the start it's rigged against them, and you don't need this silly personification of the system as "the man keeping you down" to acknowledge the fact that for some people it's too hard.
|
On October 06 2011 05:33 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:26 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:25 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Your wild-west view of the world is ridiculous. As if everything is up to people themselves and not out of their control. If "chances" were the same for everyone, not many people would complain. I know you don't live in America so the question may or may not be valid, but go back to my first sentence. I don't know ANYONE who has been shut out of a successful life through no fault of their own. I know PLENTY of lazy, incompetent assholes who dropped out of college (or who didn't have the grades to get there in the first place) and now want the same rewards handed to them. EDIT: And guess what, if your parents did a piss-poor job of raising you and didn't give you a respect for education, well I have no sympathy. Primary and secondary school is free in America, make use of it. Those books don't read themselves. And if your parents were drug-addicted and your father in prison they probably would not have told you to read those goddamn books. That's why it's called cycle of poverty. Sure, you can break out of it. Most don't. Because from the start it's rigged against them, and you don't need this silly personification of the system as "the man keeping you down" to acknowledge the fact that for some people it's too hard.
If you truly have extenuating circumstances there are programs and laws built to protect you. I don't think anyone really believes the poor are all addicted to drugs (well maybe the Christian Right).
If you're poor, you can still enjoy free schooling (as well as free breakfast and lunch, at least in Texas). Hell, your parents don't even have to be tax-paying citizens. You go to the same classes as all the other kids.
|
On October 06 2011 05:25 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to the exclusion of others. I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself. and how much more did the top lose in the next few years when the markets crashed?
If the bottom 99% lost nothing at all when the markets crashed (not true of course) then the top 1% would have had to have their family income drop 63% from the crash to have their income growth match the growth that the bottom 99% does. So meaning that from 2007-2011 if the top 1% lost 63% of their income and the bottom 99% had 0 growth then the overall growth from 1980-2011 would have been ~30% across the board.
Do you really think the market crashed SO MUCH that the top 1% is now making 63% less in 2011 than they did in 2007?
|
On October 06 2011 05:39 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:25 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to the exclusion of others. I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself. and how much more did the top lose in the next few years when the markets crashed? First off that's not even relevant because it's about income, not cash holdings (which yes the market crash factors into that, but not in that way). If the bottom 99% lost nothing at all when the markets crashed (not true of course) then the top 1% would have had to have their family income drop 63% from the crash to have their income growth match the growth that the bottom 99% does. So meaning that from 2007-2011 if the top 1% lost 63% of their income and the bottom 99% had 0 growth then the overall growth from 1980-2011 would have been ~30% across the board. Do you really think the market crashed SO MUCH that the top 1% is now making 63% less in 2011 than they did in 2007?
It's relevant because you can make percentage change graphs do funny things depending on your start and stop dates.
In any case, I guess I'm a little confused because I don't understand the platform or position of Occupy Wall Street and "the 99%". Is it that the rich have too much money? Or that there is a finite amount of money in the world and the rich have gobbled it all up?
I think we can all agree the latter is ridiculous. If it's the former, is it jealously that drives them? I don't make as much money as several of my neighbors, but I don't mind. I work hard and live within my means. I've done the poor college student eating ramen. I've done the 550 square foot apartment.
|
On October 06 2011 05:42 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:39 Logo wrote:On October 06 2011 05:25 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to the exclusion of others. I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself. and how much more did the top lose in the next few years when the markets crashed? First off that's not even relevant because it's about income, not cash holdings (which yes the market crash factors into that, but not in that way). If the bottom 99% lost nothing at all when the markets crashed (not true of course) then the top 1% would have had to have their family income drop 63% from the crash to have their income growth match the growth that the bottom 99% does. So meaning that from 2007-2011 if the top 1% lost 63% of their income and the bottom 99% had 0 growth then the overall growth from 1980-2011 would have been ~30% across the board. Do you really think the market crashed SO MUCH that the top 1% is now making 63% less in 2011 than they did in 2007? It's relevant because you can make percentage change graphs do funny things depending on your start and stop dates. In any case, I guess I'm a little confused because I don't understand the platform or position of Occupy Wall Street and "the 99%". Is it that the rich have too much money? Or that there is a finite amount of money in the world and the rich have gobbled it all up? I think we can all agree the latter is ridiculous. If it's the former, is it jealously that drives them? I don't make as much money as several of my neighbors, but I don't mind. I work hard and live within my means. I've done the poor college student eating ramen. I've done the 550 square foot apartment.
True you can, but that doesn't mean you can just throw out data when it disagrees with your point (especially since I also posted the other graph). Nor is there any reason to suspect that the graph would look much different if it went up to 2011, unless you are suggesting that the top 1% has had massive reductions in income over the past 4 years.
The 99% thing is basically saying that there's been a consistent concentration of wealth in the top 1% of the country at the expensive of the other 99% of the country. It's not that the rich have too much money as much as it is that as the economic pie grows the 1% is taking all of that growth.
|
On October 06 2011 05:44 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:42 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:39 Logo wrote:On October 06 2011 05:25 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to the exclusion of others. I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself. and how much more did the top lose in the next few years when the markets crashed? First off that's not even relevant because it's about income, not cash holdings (which yes the market crash factors into that, but not in that way). If the bottom 99% lost nothing at all when the markets crashed (not true of course) then the top 1% would have had to have their family income drop 63% from the crash to have their income growth match the growth that the bottom 99% does. So meaning that from 2007-2011 if the top 1% lost 63% of their income and the bottom 99% had 0 growth then the overall growth from 1980-2011 would have been ~30% across the board. Do you really think the market crashed SO MUCH that the top 1% is now making 63% less in 2011 than they did in 2007? It's relevant because you can make percentage change graphs do funny things depending on your start and stop dates. In any case, I guess I'm a little confused because I don't understand the platform or position of Occupy Wall Street and "the 99%". Is it that the rich have too much money? Or that there is a finite amount of money in the world and the rich have gobbled it all up? I think we can all agree the latter is ridiculous. If it's the former, is it jealously that drives them? I don't make as much money as several of my neighbors, but I don't mind. I work hard and live within my means. I've done the poor college student eating ramen. I've done the 550 square foot apartment. True you can, but that doesn't mean you can just throw out data when it disagrees with your point (especially since I also posted the other graph). Nor is there any reason to suspect that the graph would look much different if it went up to 2011, unless you are suggesting that the top 1% has had massive reductions in income over the past 4 years. The 99% thing is basically saying that there's been a consistent concentration of wealth in the top 1% of the country at the expensive of the other 99% of the country. It's not that the rich have too much money as much as it is that as the economic pie grows the 1% is taking all of that growth.
I guess my point of view is that if you want some of the pie, go out and take it. No one is stopping you. My original question still stands unchallenged:
Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
|
On October 06 2011 05:49 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:44 Logo wrote:On October 06 2011 05:42 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:39 Logo wrote:On October 06 2011 05:25 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to the exclusion of others. I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself. and how much more did the top lose in the next few years when the markets crashed? First off that's not even relevant because it's about income, not cash holdings (which yes the market crash factors into that, but not in that way). If the bottom 99% lost nothing at all when the markets crashed (not true of course) then the top 1% would have had to have their family income drop 63% from the crash to have their income growth match the growth that the bottom 99% does. So meaning that from 2007-2011 if the top 1% lost 63% of their income and the bottom 99% had 0 growth then the overall growth from 1980-2011 would have been ~30% across the board. Do you really think the market crashed SO MUCH that the top 1% is now making 63% less in 2011 than they did in 2007? It's relevant because you can make percentage change graphs do funny things depending on your start and stop dates. In any case, I guess I'm a little confused because I don't understand the platform or position of Occupy Wall Street and "the 99%". Is it that the rich have too much money? Or that there is a finite amount of money in the world and the rich have gobbled it all up? I think we can all agree the latter is ridiculous. If it's the former, is it jealously that drives them? I don't make as much money as several of my neighbors, but I don't mind. I work hard and live within my means. I've done the poor college student eating ramen. I've done the 550 square foot apartment. True you can, but that doesn't mean you can just throw out data when it disagrees with your point (especially since I also posted the other graph). Nor is there any reason to suspect that the graph would look much different if it went up to 2011, unless you are suggesting that the top 1% has had massive reductions in income over the past 4 years. The 99% thing is basically saying that there's been a consistent concentration of wealth in the top 1% of the country at the expensive of the other 99% of the country. It's not that the rich have too much money as much as it is that as the economic pie grows the 1% is taking all of that growth. I guess my point of view is that if you want some of the pie, go out and take it. No one is stopping you. My original question still stands unchallenged: Show nested quote +Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
That's not true/fair at all. My corporation is preventing me by giving my CEO huge raises/bonuses and the rest of us 0-3% raises. Or do you think the economy/country can work by having everyone be wealthy and their own boss? Even if I get a better job somenone else is getting my old job at the same salary with the same slower income growth than the CEO/executive with the much higher % increase/year in income.
I think it's fair to tell someone "get a bigger piece of the pie" by getting a better job or what-not, but that doesn't fix the issue where the top 1% (regardless of who is that 1%) is getting all the growth. We can work to make the pie even bigger, but that doesn't change the fact that overall that 1% is ending up with most of the growth. (Edit: basically don't think of it from a single person's perspective, but rather the population as a whole. Individuals can grab bigger pieces of the pie, but as a population someone is by definition going to have a small piece. So if my income isn't increasing fast enough I blame myself, if 99% of the population isn't having their income increase as much as they should I blame the system regardless of which part I'm in. Also I guess the sort of thing where if I have 1% of the pie and keep doing what I'm doing I think it's reasonable to think 5 years down the line I should still have ~1% of the pie).
Capitalism means someone's gotta be poor (by comparison to other people). We don't need to fix that, we just need to make sure they can still have a good living and get their fair shake.
|
On October 06 2011 05:26 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:25 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 05:16 Rick Roy wrote:Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...? Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)? Your wild-west view of the world is ridiculous. As if everything is up to people themselves and not out of their control. If "chances" were the same for everyone, not many people would complain. I know you don't live in America so the question may or may not be valid, but go back to my first sentence. I don't know ANYONE who has been shut out of a successful life through no fault of their own. I know PLENTY of lazy, incompetent assholes who dropped out of college (or who didn't have the grades to get there in the first place) and now want the same rewards handed to them. EDIT: And guess what, if your parents did a piss-poor job of raising you and didn't give you a respect for education, well I have no sympathy. Primary and secondary school is free in America, make use of it. Those books don't read themselves.
I don't want you to change your opinion, i just want you to reach it based on a better foundation.
"I know you don't live in America so the question may or may not be valid, but go back to my first sentence. I don't know ANYONE who has been shut out of a successful life through no fault of their own."
Do you know anyone with no faults? I agree that people often wind up in bad financial situations partially as the result of their own error, but I no nobody without personal faults. As a result, I know nobody who has come into a "successful life" who has no faults of their own. If they were to fall on hard times, somebody such as yourself could easily attribute their collapse to their personal fault.
"I know PLENTY of lazy, incompetent assholes who dropped out of college (or who didn't have the grades to get there in the first place) and now want the same rewards handed to them."
That is interesting, and certainly something I see a lot. I'm not sure if you should base your opinion of such a large portion of the population (lower class america) off such a small sample of that portion (college dropouts and underachievers that you know). The fact that they even had the money to get into college makes them a minority.
"EDIT: And guess what, if your parents did a piss-poor job of raising you and didn't give you a respect for education, well I have no sympathy. Primary and secondary school is free in America, make use of it. Those books don't read themselves"
You put an if in that first sentence so I'll disregard it. You know as well as I do the value of a high school diploma, and in America the cost of post secondary education is absurd when compared with the incomes of lower class family (the vast majority of its citizens). That is to say, the post secondary education required for getting a "good job" is unaffordable to the majority of American citizens.
|
On October 06 2011 05:42 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 05:39 Logo wrote:On October 06 2011 05:25 trainRiderJ wrote:On October 06 2011 05:22 Logo wrote:I don't understand why people are focusing so much on taxes which are part of the issue, but not all of it, nor even really the most important part imo. The bigger issue, as I see it, is more of this: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/299762_2442823032078_1296915961_2902112_1143001595_n.jpghttp://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/There's nothing wrong with the rich being rich, or corporations being big (though too big may be an issue, but a different one). The problem is that corporations, or more specifically the people in corporations, seem to be increasingly encouraged to horde the benefits of prosperity to the exclusion of others. I don't see how it could be even remotely bad to find ways to encourage corporations (or the system as a whole) to spread growth more evenly across the population. It's not redistributing wealth or preventing the wealthy from being wealthy or getting rich. It's about making sure that one part of the pie doesn't take all the growth and choke out the other parts. The pie can only grow so much so fast, when the top 1% takes all/most of that growth the other 99% suffer and eventually creates an unstable system that can't sustain itself. and how much more did the top lose in the next few years when the markets crashed? First off that's not even relevant because it's about income, not cash holdings (which yes the market crash factors into that, but not in that way). If the bottom 99% lost nothing at all when the markets crashed (not true of course) then the top 1% would have had to have their family income drop 63% from the crash to have their income growth match the growth that the bottom 99% does. So meaning that from 2007-2011 if the top 1% lost 63% of their income and the bottom 99% had 0 growth then the overall growth from 1980-2011 would have been ~30% across the board. Do you really think the market crashed SO MUCH that the top 1% is now making 63% less in 2011 than they did in 2007? It's relevant because you can make percentage change graphs do funny things depending on your start and stop dates. In any case, I guess I'm a little confused because I don't understand the platform or position of Occupy Wall Street and "the 99%". Is it that the rich have too much money? Or that there is a finite amount of money in the world and the rich have gobbled it all up? I think we can all agree the latter is ridiculous. If it's the former, is it jealously that drives them? I don't make as much money as several of my neighbors, but I don't mind. I work hard and live within my means. I've done the poor college student eating ramen. I've done the 550 square foot apartment.
There is an infinite amount of money, but that hardly means anything. But there's a limited amount of wealth and ressources at a time, and this wealth is very concentrated on the top percentage earner and the biggest companies. This is actually pretty hurting the economy because there is not enough demand.
|
On September 18 2011 08:39 Xxio wrote:
This will achieve nothing besides making the people involved look like idiots. I'm also 90% certain that the majority of people involved are in the top 1% themselves, and don't even know what kind of income the top 1% entails. All of this, of course, besides the fact that the idea and preconceptions behind it are completely misconstrued.
The organizers and protestors themselves have made it clear on the whole the protest is about concentrated wealth and corporate corruption. And, top earners like lawyers are out protesting with the group because they believe in the cause. I agree most of the protestors don't understand the derivitves market or behind-closed-doors legislative obstacles, but they, like most Americans, understand the economy is not doing well and Wall-Street is.
Top 1% refers to those individuals earning more than $250,000 annualy.
Also, regarding student protests: most protests begin with college students for two reasons: they have the time to and in an economic protest such as this, they are the ones with a future promised them that won't pay up. As politicans talk about recent reduced unemployment for the aggregate, post-grad underemployment is still about 20% in the US alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
