re: Princeton study: U.S. is an oligarchy

quote:

---

Not for the spender it doesn't, but it does for the investor in those products/services purchased.

---

Yes. That was exactly my point. Some spend heir marginal income. Some invest it. It's completely up to the recipient.

But if our "help" goes to more to spending than investing, I'd suggest it's money wasted. Because it isn't being used to increase the wealth of the poor. It's being spent on non-productive goods and services.

quote:

---

Wrong. These entitlements are not designed to increase wealth for the recipient, they are designed to provide a subsistence.

---

This is where we philosophically differ. I think government assistance should exist to help people become more independent. Not less.

Success should be measured by how many people get off of welfare, not how many sign up.

quote:

---

That said, an ancillary effect is to increase wealth for those investors in the products and services purchased.

---

the idea that "the rich" are self serving by giving away massive amounts if money, in the hope of recapturing a small portion as part some grand conspiracy is... Tin foil hat territory.

There are MUCH better investment opportunities than paying taxes.

quote:

---

If an entitlement income is increased it is only due to inflationary adjustments, and don't represent a real increase in income.

---

False. Look att te original chart. It's in %-GDP. not nominal dollars.

quote:

---

Not in the aggregate. SEE: NYSE:WMT

---

OK. Let's! Wal-marts total net earnings for 2013 was $15.8B. Total transfer payments were roughly $2.2T. So we made the absurd assumption that every dollar WMT earned was due to transfer payments they captures 0.7% of the total. Now, divide that by 3.23B outstanding shares.

This is a plan to get rich off of taxes? Hell just look at WMTs gross profit. It's 3.36%. And surely not every dollar comes from transfer payments.

WMT would be a terrible hedge against taxes. Even with the absurd (and favorable to your claim) assumptions.

The rich's aren't investing their money by paying taxes. And it's pretty silly to suggest they are.

quote:

---

I love how you people see this "gotcha" stuff like it's some sort of argument invalidator.

---

"gotcha" is an indicator that the arguments only value is an embarrassing the respondent. It contains no argument of merit. That is certainly true in arguing the semantics, rather than arguing the merits of transfer payments and taxes.

quote:

---

However a straw man is still a straw man.

---

You should learn the definition of strawman. (Your semantic argument fits, btw) This is not one. Clearly for most income and wealth are related. I simply explained how.

quote:

---

This is where we philosophically differ. I think government assistance should exist to help people become more [wealthy]. Not less.

---

You're right, we do differ on that point. I think payments should be subsistence level. As a matter of fact, if a person is hungry, I say give them food, not wealth. Eventually they would get tired of eating beans, rice and gubment cheese every day and would do something to increase their income.

quote:

---

the idea that "the rich" are self serving by giving away massive amounts if money, in the hope of recapturing a small portion as part some grand conspiracy is... Tin foil hat territory.

---

It's not an idea or a theory, it's a fact you provided yourself.

quote:

---

There are MUCH better investment opportunities than paying taxes.

---

Again, you said it yourself, there are other ways of investing besides buying stocks. Placating the great unwashed through bread and circuses is a time-honored method since the Roman Empire.

quote:

---

"gotcha" is an indicator that the arguments only value is an embarrassing the respondent.

---

Well then it wasn't a gotcha, it was an example of inconsistent hypocrisy. Either income is income and wealth is wealth or it's not. It can't be sometimes when it serves my point, but not other times when it doesn't serve my point.

quote:

---

You should learn the definition of strawman. (Your semantic argument fits, btw)

---

The OP title is: Princeton study: U.S. is an oligarchy

You admitted yourself that our legislators are rich, not poor. Our legislators made the laws creating entitlements (for WHATEVER reason). Therefore rich people created entitlement spending. ie, rich people are in control of the decision making. THEREFORE the US is an oligarchy.

quote:

---

For an individual that can turn marginal income into wealth (and a lot of us can) marginally reducing our income via taxes has a huge effect on our ability to accumulate wealth.

---

Not only does this have nothing to do with the OP, I have no where disagreed with this point. Therefore you are tilting at windmills, or in other words, creating a straw man to tear down an argument that hasn't been presented.

quote:

---

If voters didn't demand them, politicians wouldn't "provide" them. This isn't difficult.

---

Voters demand a LOT of things from our legislators that we don't get, immigration reform being one, so your point is invalidated. Politicians are not obligated to give the people what they demand, politicians give the People what it serves the politicians to give them.

that's the problem, the system is designed such that the government gets its power to govern from the People, but it doesn't. It gets its power from the oligarchy. I'm sorry you can't see it, but that only makes you a part of the problem.

quote:

---

Princeton study: U.S. is an oligarchy

---

Why do a study? It's no surprise. The ones who loan the money to our government dominate our policies and control both major political parties. And our entire monetary system operates on debt. It's been designed that way for the past 100 years.

It's that simple.

quote:

---

As a matter of fact, if a person is hungry, I say give them food

---

I do too. But that has nothing to do with paying taxes nor transfer payments.

quote:

---

It's not an idea or a theory, it's a fact you provided yourself

---

No. I showed it was preposterous.

quote:

---

Again, you said it yourself, there are other ways of investing besides buying stocks.

---

Indeed. And paying taxes is NOT one of them.

quote:

---

Placating the great unwashed through bread and circuses is a time-honored method since the Roman Empire.

---

"The rich" can do that without government.

quote:

---

Well then it wasn't a gotcha, it was an example of inconsistent hypocrisy.

---

Oh... then pardon me for misinterpreting. In that case, it's completely false.

quote:

---

Therefore rich people created entitlement spending. ie, rich people are in control of the decision making. THEREFORE the US is an oligarchy

---

Only if you believe they don't care about re-election, and re-election does not augment their wealth and power. Clearly it does. And if they do not satisfy voters, they will not hold on to either.

quote:

---

Not only does this have nothing to do with the OP

---

Ummm.. it was YOU that brought up the difference between wealth and income...

quote:

---

Voters demand a LOT of things from our legislators that we don't get, immigration reform being one, so your point is invalidated.

---

You realize this is a classic fallacy, right?

So by your assertion, if Congress repealed Social Security tomorrow, there would be no backlash at the polls in November? Just a bunch of mad rich people?

quote:

---

politicians give the People what it serves the politicians to give them.

---

Yes. Re-election being one of those self-serving things.

quote:

---

It gets its power from the oligarchy.

---

Congress gets it's power from being in office. How powerful was Barak Obama in 2002?

Hasn't America always been an Oligarchy? A few of the players might have changed, but the wealthy have always pulled the strings.