Wealth inequality is a bigger problem than a lot of people realize..... Its impact on a society can be quite damaging at many levels.... Wealth inequality supports the domination of public policy by the rich for their own benefit, without any regard to the damage to society..... It has created an oligarchy here in this Country.....The most important things to an oligarch are wealth preservation, freedom to use their wealth as they see fit, and freedom to pile up more money for themselves...... Probably the most alarming is the using of their wealth as the they see fit...and sadly they use it to buy control over the political system...which has created the Oligarchy here....and that alone can have very damaging effects on the rest of society as the problem becomes worse...
Yellow | Welch's $10.6 Million PIE Chart!
- Thread starter Freightmaster1
- Start date
Pilot you make many good points.How do you stop this and still have a capitalist system?It seems to me there are a lot of very wealthy people preaching wealth redistribution but none are willing to part with their wealth.It's not just a republican thing,look at Al Gore,The Clintons and just about every political figure in the executive branch on both sides of the aisle.I agree one man having hundreds of million is extreme but,I also believe a slacker who refuses to work but still lives a middle class lifestyle is extreme.I wish I knew the answers,what would you like to see happen about wealth inequality?
Oh no! Surely we can't allow people to spend their own money on what they believe is important!?!?!? Noooooooo!!!!! Next, a Teamster will want to buy a pickup truck or a boat! Noooooooo!!!! Heaven forbid, they may pay union dues!!! Nooooo!
Here we go again....
I'm a constitutionalist (can you tell?). I believe in Freedom. Pilot goes by the Central Control ideals of Marx , Statism (yes, here we go again)....
Last edited:
badboybill
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 11
I can't believe after all that's gone down the last few years. That you and the union are still standing down.
Oh no! Surely we can't allow people to spend their own money on what they believe is important!?!?!? Noooooooo!!!!! Next, a Teamster will want to buy a pickup truck or a boat! Noooooooo!!!! Heaven forbid, they may pay union dues!!! Nooooo!
Here we go again....
I'm a constitutionalist (can you tell?). I believe in Freedom. Pilot goes by the Central Control ideals of Marx , Statism (yes, here we go again)....
Jimmy,this made me smile,your avatars are getting pumped up for the debate.Im looking forward to it also.I enjoy looking through both ends of the spectrum from two intelligent men.
I knew you couldn't resist commenting....... You've taken my statement out of its intended context..... There is a vast difference between a wage earning Teamster (or any other typical working class person) and the Uber wealthy and the Corporate elite of the Nation that uses their immense wealth to buy Politicians and influence..... The typical working wage earner is no where close to being an Oligarch.....
What is happening due to Income and Wealth inequality is that it creates a class of people with so much economic power that they wield tremendous political power....and then use that political power to further increase their wealth, and then they use that wealth to further increase their political power, and so on and so forth.....
While you may not see whats wrong with that....the truth is such inequality is economically inefficient .....as wealthy people make more money...the extra millions they make has diminishing marginal utility..... Say for example, someone earning $50,000 per year would benefit much more from receiving an extra 1 million dollars than say, a Bill Gates or George Soros would...... What is necessary for a strong and growing economy, given our consumption based model of capitalism, is broad based prosperity with a large middle class that has money to spend...rather than a very small group of extremely wealthy people while the rest of the population is poor and struggle......
Whether you're a constitutionalists or a member of Tupperware Party is irrelevant to the problems of Wealth and Income inequality...... Wealth inequality on the scope that is occurring here is in fact detrimental to the freedom that you believe in...
To you, anyone who disagrees with your View point is a "Marxist".... Again the problems associated with the widening gap of wealth inequality has nothing to do with "central control" ideals of Marx..... in fact an argument could be made that a small class of uber wealthy elites have more "central control" than what your ascribing to Marx..... Ignoring wealth inequality, simply dismissing those that talk about it as it as "Marxists" will not cause it to go away....the ever shrinking middle class and swelling ranks of the poor will not stay quiet forever.....
Here we go again....
We're not going anywhere again..... I'm not going to get involved in a protracted time consuming effort to try and explain things from a broader perspective..... it never gets us anywhere Jimmy... You have your ideas, opinions and beliefs and I obviously have mine and we just can't seem to "convert" each other to the "other side", so to speak......
Thank you falconfan..... You ask a very good question... I'm not sure if it can be stopped at this point....but what it will do, if it continues unabated, is further erode our capitalist spending based economy ... There are some things that would help slow it down over time...maybe stop it...but the things needed to make it a possibility will not be allowed by those that have accrued so much power in the Political process..... things that would make some of the members on here go crazy......
Your absolutely right... I'm not saying that anyone has to "give up" a part of their wealth...but changes are needed in how the power that wealth "buys' is used to influence policy that affects the general welfare of the Public......If that could be controlled it perhaps would make a difference in how the Wealthy Corporate elite spend their money.....which in return may benefit Society in a more constructive manner...
Your correct.... The reason that it is that way is because of the Wealth, whether individual, or through large Corporate donors, that has purchased the majority of Politicians of all parties...... which is an argument against concentrating the wealth to an increasingly smaller group or class of people....
I agree...no one really needs anywhere close to hundreds of millions of dollars to live a decent productive life.....and I agree that those that are not willing to work and earn their way shouldn't be living a "middle class" lifestyle either.....but I will say this, living a middle class life style is not even possible for many people working these days...much less those not working....but I get your point and can't say I disagree....
I wish I had the definitive answers too....but it is a more of a complex issue that can't adequately be addressed with simplicities...and the solution to the issue would be doing things that are opposite of what is being done currently....in my opinion.... Things such as Eliminating exemptions so corporations pay the official tax rate would be an excellent way start.....The government could also raise income taxes on the wealthy...for example, in the 1950s, the U.S. had a 91% top marginal income tax rate. While that rate is obviously too high, some economists support a top rate tax level of 80% at least "thinkable" again.” which is still to high in my opinion....but at least 50% would be more realistic...A cap on executive pay that sets a maximum for annual compensation would be another direct approach to restraining runaway inequality. So would increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to average executive pay.....It's well known that as the rich have gotten richer, the top income tax rate has gone down. In the 50's, the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, as I previously mentioned, It's now 39.6 percent....and I needn't tell you that working class Americans are not getting "richer".... Do you suppose there is a correlation?... I know these ideas drive some of the members on here crazy as I mentioned...but you asked and I told you.....
The bottom line is that an economy with the majority of the wealth concentrated at the top will not, and can not, produce a vibrant and thriving economy.....The majority of the wealth of a Nation needs to be in the hands of the majority of the population that will spend it back into the economy......and that is what will grow the economy and create the demand that will create the jobs to meet the demand.....
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html.
The ten planks of the Communist. I don't call you Marxist as an insult. I call you that because you believe as they do. I have this strange idea, that when people talk of Marxist philosophy, and call for Marxist type governance, they should be called Marxist. Like I call for going by our Constitution. I'm a Constitutionalist... Controlling others wealth comes from the Manifesto on Communism written by Marx in 1848...
I believe in Freedom. I give to causes I believe in, as do you. Matters not if its one cent or one trillion dollars. Long as its the property of one person, he should have the right to spend it as he wishes. Political Action Committees, Unions, Individuals. All the same...
Last edited:
Basically, you could have written the following, for it says exactly the same thing:
From Manifesto on Communism, Karl Marx, 1848.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
repeal citizens united would be fair for all this is the koch brother plan to run our country .http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...ost-one-billion-dollars-to-buy-2016-election/
Repeal the first amendment? I disagree...
I didn't take it that way Jimmy... Thanks though for the clarification...
I'm not going to go into a long discussion about the Communist Manifesto... You and I have already been around the block more than a few times on that......
Perhaps you missed the point I was making regarding inequality and the negatives it presents for Society....and some possible ways to mitigate it's worsening....... I think there is a difference between "controlling" others wealth and putting restrictions on what it can be used for when the good of the greater Public is at stake....... .. That is what Income and wealth inequality does.....as I outlined in my previous post..... Increasing inequality harms economic growth.....If you want to consider the ideas of reversing the Ill effects of Wealth inequality as Marxist...that is fine with me....It really doesn't matter what you, or anyone else calls it, it is still a problem that needs to be rectified....But as I've also previously mentioned...those with the concentrated wealth have infiltrated and corrupted the very Political process from which the needed change would normally come from...so it looks rather bleak for any meaningful change from the course we're on... So you needn't worry to much about "Marxism" taking hold in the USA.......
Jimmy, we all believe in Freedom..... Once again the money that you or I can afford to give to any particular cause is miniscule by comparison...There is no chance that either of us...or the hundreds of millions like us, can buy the influence that the Extremely wealthy and Multinational Corporations can.... An example would be the Koch Brothers plan to spend nearly a Billion dollars to influence the Presidential Election cycle in 2016.......Do you think for a moment that they have the best interests of the average citizen in mind?..... yours or mine?.... not hardly, and they will expect a return on that investment.... You say that it doesn't matter if it's "once cent or one Trillion"..... I beg to differ......there is a HUGE difference between those sums of money and the influence that they can buy with it.... You also say that as "long as it's the property of one person, he should have the right to spend it as he wishes".......Two points here.....First is that it is often NOT the money of a single person....It is the Money of huge Multinational Corporations......Secondly..... Should the "rights" of a single person also include the ability to have such a large influence over Policy that it creates a negative impact on Society?... what about the rights of those that do not possess such Wealth?....... It is obvious to most that the Political system has been corrupted beyond "fixing" by the election process....and why is that.....because those that you say should have the "right" to spend their money as they wish....choose to spend it on getting more money and more power...and more control over Governmental policy making.......
You believe in "freedom"...yes we all do....but does Freedom come from corruption?...no it works opposite of that...with corruption comes less freedoms down the line......With Freedom comes responsibility.... responsibility to make sure that we all take care of the people of the Nation......The Responsibility to recognize corruption and purge it from Society before it becomes impossible as it has become.... Wealth inequality feeds the corruption and that corrupted Governance feeds Wealth inequality.... a vicious cycle.....
I'm not going to take this much farther because, for the most part we have traveled this road many times in the past.....There is nothing "new" that can be said by either of us that would make us change our positions and opinions......But I will say this..... you are very passionate about what you believe and I truly respect that....Disagreements aside......
So to quote you from a reply to a recent post of mine.... " I disagree with your post, but be safe and live long..."
For s post that wasn't going to be long about the communist manifesto,. You just recited all of chapter one... And you know I can find and match the paragraphs...
We've been a Marxist-leaning nation since 1913. I can shoe proof of that too. But its easier to just link to long blades posts. Those prove Marxism is in our education system...
We've been a Marxist-leaning nation since 1913. I can shoe proof of that too. But its easier to just link to long blades posts. Those prove Marxism is in our education system...
Last edited:
i have no trouble with the unions getting out of politics . that money could of been put into something better . lets see ummm how about the pension .there needs to be some type of reform . they should be elected on merit not on name only { how did that work out for hoffa being pres of the teamsters } money and name doesnt mean best for the job
For the 2014 election cycle, check out who make the biggest political donations and to which party. Koch Brothers? You've got to be kidding.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=2014
