Wealth Inequality Is A National Emergency

[cawacko]

Change the constitution to reflect reality. Change the preamble from "promote the general welfare of citizens, to promote the specific welfare of the wealthy. Change article one, change from "provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the US" to provide for the common defense and the creation of an aristocracy,
Through the tax bills and the tax loopholes, we are doing that anyway.
The top tax rate dropped from 91 percent to 30s. Does that help the general welfare of the nation? Corporate taxes dropped precipitously. Does that help the general citizen? Nope, let's face it the rich won and we are building a new 2 tiered America. And of course, a billionaire president really cares about the workers and the middle class. Trump has made it all worse. let's reelect him .

If you are so strongly against wealth inequality why do you support the Fed in its current form?

 

[StoneByStone]

Yes they were. They just weren't that obvious, and are now emboldened by the WH Trash we have ruling us.

I used to have discussions with Righties during the Obama years and the end of Bush years. They were wrong about most things, but they definitely weren't this crazy. Back then they at least believed in what they were saying. Today all they care about is pissing off DA LIBS.

 

[JPF]

If you don't think so then watch this:

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minute...ys-wealth-inequality-is-a-national-emergency/

There are several metaphors to use in describing wealth disparity…. “national emergency” isn’t one of them.

 

[Old Trapper]

There are several metaphors to use in describing wealth disparity…. “national emergency” isn’t one of them.

The Founding Fathers would disagree with you:

https://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If you don't think so then watch this:

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minute...ys-wealth-inequality-is-a-national-emergency/

There might not be any of this so called "wealth inequality", if more people would be more involved in working towards their own "responsibility inequality"; because a hand up was never meant to be a permanent hand out.

 

[JPF]

The Founding Fathers would disagree with you:

https://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

They would be wrong as well. Again, it’s certainly not ideal, it certainly should be addressed. It certainly isn’t preferable. But a “national emergency” it is not.

 

[Old Trapper]

They would be wrong as well. Again, it’s certainly not ideal, it certainly should be addressed. It certainly isn’t preferable. But a “national emergency” it is not.

Your "opinion", however, if one were to take a look at the real world you can see where they were right.

 

[JPF]

Your "opinion", however, if one were to take a look at the real world you can see where they were right.

Ok. Just a quick question. What level of inequality is tolerable?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What is stopping from all the "income equality" believers from creating a business and paying everyone equally; because once they make it work, they could use it as an example of their success and branching out.

Using their "success", they could then push for more to follow their example.

They could go even farther, by taking everyone's grades in Collage and evening them out over all the students; because why should the student that struggles not have the same outcome as those who find the classes easy??

 

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,

"Defending the nation is a Constitutional duty of the federal government... The rest of it??? ehhhhhh..." - Is what separates us from President Trump's 'S-hole countries.'

He doesn't have any S-hole countries.

That is not true. No current federal government agencies have been ruled unconstitutional.

Of course not... but that doesn't mean that they aren't... I even referenced the relevant sections of it.

Again, not true. We don't wear masks to walk about in public like the Chinese do. Our rivers no longer catch on fire... The EPA keeps our skies and waters clean.

The EPA doesn't do any of that... Private industry does...

Nobody has ever been convicted of stealing for simply collecting taxes.

I've stolen before, and didn't get convicted for it. Does that mean that I didn't steal?

The shutdown hurt the economy.

Sure, there was a little affect on it. Nothing catastrophic though...

False. The minimum wage has never been ruled unconstitutional. Without it, dependence upon social programs would quickly overwhelm them. Such programs would have to be greatly increased. It would be absurd. It would virtually make the case for a Universal Basic Income.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that it isn't unconstitutional... Where in Article 1 Section 8 do you see the power for Congress to legislate a minimum wage? Minimum Wage is a price control. Price controls never work...

If Warren Buffett voluntarily paid extra would you then voluntarily pay extra as well?

No.

If the answer is no then that quickly explains why it doesn't work voluntarily.

My opinion on the matter doesn't affect Buffet's opinion on the matter. If he thinks people ought to pay more, then he ought to pay more himself. He can even do so right now... Nothing is stopping him.

It has to be law for enough revenue to be collected to accomplish the goal of bringing the federal budget under control.

Again, it is NOT a revenue problem; it is a spending problem. We spend WAY too much money.

Incorrect. The federal government spends $4.3 Trillion per year, and nearly a trillion of it is borrowed because we are not collecting enough revenue.

Yes, that's A LOT of spending, ain't it? And it is not borrowed because there isn't enough revenue; it is borrowed because we spend WAY TOO DAMN MUCH money...

If taxes for the rich had not been decreased by Trump, the deficit would be smaller.

Okay, so it might be $500B instead of $1T if you were to tax "the wealthy" at 100%?? whoopity doo... Still rapidly increasing... The problem is spending, NOT revenue...

What spending cuts would you make?

Everything that is unconstitutional for the federal government to spend money on, per Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. That would include, but not be limited to, the EPA, FDA, various other federal agencies, Social Security, Medicare, various other social welfare programs, PBS, NPR, the Federal Reserve, and on and on...

IOW, Please identify how many million people you believe should lose their job in order to reduce the spending, and which people?

Well, obviously anyone who currently works for those federal agencies is going to lose their jobs. They will have to find a job in the private sector, or within State governments, which would likely add positions if these things were switched over to State control as opposed to federal control.

Also discuss how the economy can absorb so many laid off workers.

Between currently available jobs, and new positions within States that would be created, it shouldn't be too bad.

Please reference how the real estate market, for instance, would be impacted by millions of foreclosures, or how the value of real estate would be impacted by all these millions of people trying to sell their homes at once because they can no longer make the payments without paychecks from the Federal Government.

They'll have to get a job in the private sector, like everybody else. They might even have to make a sacrifice or two...

Housing values could be expected to plummet if you got your way, which is one of the reasons we don't do that.

Good. Maybe I could actually afford one then...

Fortunately there are not enough people who share your view to make that happen, for if it did, the economy would surely crash hard.

No, it wouldn't.

Your personal anecdotes are just one person among millions.

Yeah, that's why I qualified it as such, as I realize that all experiences aren't the same. I'm just sharing my own.

I disagree that private business would replace government business. Lockheed Martin gets 85% of their income from the federal government. Cutting them off from government contracts would destroy that company.

They would still have their government contracts. Defense spending is Constitutional, and is a duty of federal government.

We are going to do exactly that in 2020, but I don't think the newly elected officials are going to do what you want.

No, we aren't...

I'm glad we are in agreement on that. And since you have also acknowledged the FairTax has zero chance of being instituted, that leaves us with a progressive income tax as the only realistic way to fund the government we have. I know you'd like to drastically cut the government, but since you don't have enough company in that view, not enough people are being elected to Congress to do that. Which means we are stuck with the current level of spending, which is up since President Trump took office.

I don't think there is ANY way to realistically fund the government we have, even progressive taxation... There simply isn't enough money to place taxes on since we spend too much and government is too large. That is ignoring affects of people "making adjustments" to increased taxation rates, such as them simply stopping working after a certain point during the year.

The reality is that Democrats are tax and spend. Republicans are cut taxes and spend more. At least one of those methods comes closer to balancing the budget, which makes that one preferable. We are now at a point where we have to vote Democrat to control the debt.

Neither one is making any advances towards reducing the national debt, so neither one is "preferable" in that regard. They are both significantly increasing the national debt.

Incorrect. Nobody has proposed a 100% tax.

I realize that. I'm saying that even a 100% rate wouldn't be enough to solve the national debt crisis.

A top effective rate of around 55% would be sufficient to shore up the federal budget.

What do you mean by "shore up"? And you are speaking of the federal budget, not the national debt.

We should also levy a new tax on all stock trades above a certain size.

People will just trade multiple times at smaller sizes...

That and remove the cap on payroll taxes and we could fix the deficit and pay for all the programs Democrats want, including universal health care and free college tuition.

Not even close. Do you know how much "free" college tuition (aka public college) would cost?? Again, here you reference the deficit instead of the national debt... Fixing the deficit does NOTHING to fix the national debt...

Raise the minimum wage and many of them would be paying into the system.

Nope. This is a price control. Price controls don't work. EVER.

Incorrect. Just vote in some Dems in 2020 and watch the deficit get fixed,

Wouldn't fix the national debt... The national debt would still increase rapidly due to interest alone...

along with a lot of other badly needed things. President Clinton handed over a budget surplus -

You do realize that during that time, there was a REPUBLICAN controlled House, right?

which was promptly squandered on tax cuts by W. The GWB Presidency ended in a financial crisis call the Great Recession. Maybe those tax cuts didn't work so well after all.

GWB (and the Dem/Repub houses of that time) spent too much money. Devaluation of the dollar was also (and still is) a big problem. Banks being irresponsible with their loans was also a problem...

Big numbers tend to scare people. But that's only money going out. There is lots coming in,

Not as much as what's going out, though... It doesn't take an accountant such as myself to know that there is a problem if expenses are always higher than revenue...

The GDP for two years is bigger than both of those combined,

Thank you Trump??

and our credit is stellar,

Mehhhhhh

so we service the debt and let it ride. Our economy is strong.

Mehhhhhh

Incorrect. Walmart and Amazon didn't get to be the biggest retailers by pushing high quality. It was by offering cheap prices. The way those cheap prices are achieved is not by high quality manufacturing. It is by using the cheapest possible materials and the least number of semi-skilled labor hours possible.

The way you make anything such as high quality products more affordable is to mass produce them. The only way you are going to get production numbers high enough for that is to regulate minimum quality standards. When everyone is making products to the same high standards, then high production can also mean high quality. We could reduce planned obsolescence with regulation, and thus reduce the number of products which have to be replaced prematurely. Since high quality products would last longer, they would actually be cheaper in the long run to consumers. Since consumers would be paying more initially, they would also tend to take better care of their possessions, thus lengthening their useful life.

I agree with the last bit.

 

[Old Trapper]

Ok. Just a quick question. What level of inequality is tolerable?

As of now we hae approximately 21 suicides a day in this country. Not sure as to how many overdoses we see. 30 million people have no health insurance. Millions live in poverty. But those are symptoms that seem to be acceptable to a certain class of people.

I find the Bible answers your question:

2Corinthians 8: 13-15 " For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened. But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality. As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack."

 

[JPF]

As of now we hae approximately 21 suicides a day in this country. Not sure as to how many overdoses we see. 30 million people have no health insurance. Millions live in poverty. But those are symptoms that seem to be acceptable to a certain class of people.

I find the Bible answers your question:

2Corinthians 8: 13-15 " For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened. But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality. As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack."

Again, we're always going to have some measure of inequality when it comes to wealth: what level of inequality is tolerable?

 

[Old Trapper]

Again, we're always going to have some measure of inequality when it comes to wealth: what level of inequality is tolerable?

I don't quite understand how one can put a level of "inequality" into numbers. In the 50's, and 60's, the CEO received 23 times that of his employees. Now it is somewhere around 273 times that amount. At the same time the amount of wealth owned by the 1% was around 20%, now it is 80-90%.

At what point did the people lose control of the government?

 

[JPF]

I don't quite understand how one can put a level of "inequality" into numbers. In the 50's, and 60's, the CEO received 23 times that of his employees. Now it is somewhere around 273 times that amount. At the same time the amount of wealth owned by the 1% was around 20%, now it is 80-90%.

At what point did the people lose control of the government?

You’re saying income inequality is a “national emergency”. Clearly, there will always be inequality when it comes to wealth.

I’m simply asking, since you insist it’s a national emergency, what degree of inequality is tolerable? The CEO making 23X what his employees made…is that acceptable to you? What if today’s CEO only made 46 times (twice the 1950/1960 rate)? Would that be tolerable?

As for losing control of the government? We elected every person in elected office today. We have full control of the government or at least those who staff it.

 

[PoliTalker]

Change the constitution to reflect reality. Change the preamble from "promote the general welfare of citizens, to promote the specific welfare of the wealthy. Change article one, change from "provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the US" to provide for the common defense and the creation of an aristocracy,
Through the tax bills and the tax loopholes, we are doing that anyway.
The top tax rate dropped from 91 percent to 30s. Does that help the general welfare of the nation? Corporate taxes dropped precipitously. Does that help the general citizen? Nope, let's face it the rich won and we are building a new 2 tiered America. And of course, a billionaire president really cares about the workers and the middle class. Trump has made it all worse. let's reelect him .

Well said!

So true.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

If you are so strongly against wealth inequality why do you support the Fed in its current form?

There is nothing wrong with wealth inequality. It is natural and inevitable. Some people are savers, some are spenders.

The problem is EXTREME wealth inequality. That has more to do with greed and acquisition than personal spending habits.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello StoneByStone,

I used to have discussions with Righties during the Obama years and the end of Bush years. They were wrong about most things, but they definitely weren't this crazy. Back then they at least believed in what they were saying. Today all they care about is pissing off DA LIBS.

The problem with discussion boards is they tend to attract the anti-social types who can't get along with people in real life. The logical solution is to maintain a large Ignore List. Once the trolls are filtered out, more intellectual discussion remains.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



There is nothing wrong with wealth inequality. It is natural and inevitable. Some people are savers, some are spenders.

The problem is EXTREME wealth inequality. That has more to do with greed and acquisition than personal spending habits.

The federal reserve pushes policies that punish savers and promote pushing people into riskier asset classes which exacerbates wealth inequality. The Fed has been the biggest driver of this extreme inequality. For those who are serious about addressing the issue we have to start with the Fed. But how often (hint: rarely to never) do we hear politicians discuss the Fed?

 

[StoneByStone]

Hello StoneByStone,



The problem with discussion boards is they tend to attract the anti-social types who can't get along with people in real life. The logical solution is to maintain a large Ignore List. Once the trolls are filtered out, more intellectual discussion remains.

That's totally true. But even Righties in the real world weren't this bad. If Bush acted like Trump back then, there's no way he would have been elected.

 

[Legion]

If I started a gofundme or kickstarter to build a donation hub to serve the underprivileged do you think liberals would donate?

I doubt it.