- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Princeton study: U.S. is an oligarchy
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:36 pm to Rex
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:36 pm to Rex
quote:Who cares about wealth? I have no problem with people keeping what they earn. Oh, and income... isn't concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
The richest 400 people in this country own about half our wealth.
2
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:37 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Because they want it to stop? Because they recognize its bad for the economy? Because they realize it divides us?
Our democracy is run by the recipients of government wealth redistribution, because that's how our politicians are buying their votes, not with campaign funding.
---------
Then why is there so much money in campaign funding?
Why would you assume its nefarious because some donors are rich?
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 1:00 pm
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:38 pm to Rex
quote:Do you have any "extra" money?
"Wealth redistribution" only amounts to taking back what never should have been allowed in the first place.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:40 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Duh as far as the US being an oligarchy. Anyone who doesn't think money runs the country and policy is delusional.
read an article a while back stating the ratio of the number of citizens per congressman is nothing like what was origianlly set forth by the founding fathers.
Its no longer a governemnt of the people for the people, its now a government of the elite for the elite.
Restoring the original ratio would lead to the creation of thousands of congressmen (or tens? - i dont recall... but just what we need more of, right?), but... it would be damn near impossible to buy that many votes and maintain elits, esp if term limits are imposed.
stupid idea, i know.
The only other solution is to restore the power to the states.
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:44 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Good question. If one's income is supplemented, but they do not attain wealth, we should examine what's the effectiveness of that supplement.
Are the poor getting wealthy, or just added income?
Is it bled away as inflation? Is it spent on economically unproductive goods?
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:46 pm to Rex
quote:So you are saying that Americans are divided by wealth and race? I thought we were all americans, regardless of income and race? Use caution Gerald. Your latent bigotry is surfacing.
He thinks that Cliven Bundy is one of his kind, when Cliven Bundy is a rich white man
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:50 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
You've put your finger on exactly what Libertarians have been trying to get across for decades now.
Yes, I know.
I've been aware of the Libertarian movement since watching Buckley's Firing Line in the late 70's early 80's.
quote:
Go read some Mises or Rothbard
LINK
The problem is that I have some liberal views, so I am labeled a liberal and cannot claim Libertarianism.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:57 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens
Maybe when they're polled on individual issues but we have popular elections for all of Congress and the President wins the popular vote the vast majority of the time. Americans vote these politicians in and the wring their hands when these politicians do what they've always done.
Americans make their own bed
Posted on 4/16/14 at 1:07 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:THANKS!
Who cares about wealth? I have no problem with people keeping what they earn. Oh, and income
Posted on 4/16/14 at 1:10 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
but we have popular elections for all of Congress and the President wins the popular vote the vast majority of the time.
How many times have you gone to the poll for a presidential election and looked at the list and thought to yourself, "That's it? That's what I have to choose from?"
You make it seem like pulling the lever for a D or an R is making any real choice. It's not. It's an illusion of choice provided to us by the system.
quote:
Americans make their own bed
The bed never gets made because we keep bickering over which is the head and which is the foot. When in the end, it makes no difference. It's just a bed.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 1:13 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:And we keep voting them in. No "rich" person forces voter to vote in any certain way. If that was the case Ted Cruz would have never been elected. His opponent has all the big money backing.
Americans vote these politicians in and the wring their hands when these politicians do what they've always done.
It's certainly true that "the rich" are more politically active and they spend more than the middle class on political activities. But that OUR fault for not participating.
The middle class + the poor out number "the rich" in votes, and combined they make FAR more money.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 1:19 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Well, you have to look at what it takes to win. You have to promise more cheese to more voters than ever.
How many times have you gone to the poll for a presidential election and looked at the list and thought to yourself, "That's it? That's what I have to choose from?"
That takes a lot of people out if politics. They don't want to be Santa Claus. And without it, they cannot win.
Look how few republican legislators want to cut SS or Medicare. That's a direct result of voter demands.
A politician, of any affiliation, campaigning on cutting entitlements is DOA. That isn't because of "rich" people. It's because of voters' demands.
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 4/16/14 at 1:22 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
If one's income is supplemented, but they do not attain wealth, we should examine what's the effectiveness of that supplement. Is it bled away as inflation? Is it spent on economically unproductive goods?
What?
The fact is that it's NOT a wealth re-distribution, we are only told that to make us feel uncomfortable.
It's an income re-distribution. And what happens to that income supplement is that it gets SPENT on things such as groceries, rent, gas etc... It is not intended to accumulate, it is intended to re-circulate in the economy. Who profits when money circulates in the economy? Shareholders. The money doesn't disappear from the economy.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but let's call it what it is.
It's funny (and I've pointed this out in the past) but when I'm told that the rich pay a disproportionate percentage of their income in taxes, I point to their wealth holdings. For example, the top 1% paid about 31% of taxes paid in 2010, but they held 42% of the financial wealth. I'm told I can't look at their wealth, and have to look only at their income. Yet when it comes time to discuss entitlements, I'm told it's a transfer of wealth.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 1:34 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Well, you have to look at what it takes to win. You have to promise more cheese to more voters than ever.
That takes a lot of people out if politics. They don't want to be Santa Claus. And without it, they cannot win.
Look how few republican legislators want to cut SS or Medicare. That's a direct result of voter demands.
A politician, of any affiliation, campaigning on cutting entitlements is DOA. That isn't because of "rich" people. It's because of voters' demands.
Yet, curiously, it's the rich who gave us the entitlements in the first place.
It's just our version of bread and circuses.
It's like blaming women for their getting the right to vote. How many women do you think voted for women's suffrage?
Posted on 4/16/14 at 1:42 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Exactly. Spending does not generate wealth. Investing does.
And what happens to that income supplement is that it gets SPENT
Note: "investing" != stocks/bonds. It can be anything from education, to buying building supplies for a carpenter. Anything that generates more wealth than it consumes for the purchaser qualifies as an investment.
If an increasing income over time doesn't translate into increased wealth.... An opportunity is been wasted.
quote:id argue the person receiving the money has the greatest opportunity to benefit. Some random shareholder may re-capture some portion of it. But will be tiny compared to be recipient.
Who profits when money circulates in the economy? Shareholders.
quote:I'm aware of your semantic "gotcha". It's just not that interesting.
Yet when it comes time to discuss entitlements, I'm told it's a transfer of wealth.
It depends timeline. Given that nearly 1/3 of every dollar of economic production goes to wealth transfer... where it's more like to be spent, rather than invested in more economically productive areas... that has an enormous effect on wealth generation over time.
And it depends on whether we look at it on a macro or individual level. 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.
Some call that a good thing. I call it cruel. POV... I suppose.
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 4/16/14 at 1:47 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Not exactly. The populist movement of the early 20th century spawned much of them. Bought Roosevelt a lot of votes. And the Great Society has bought A LOT of votes for he democrats since its inception.
Yet, curiously, it's the rich who gave us the entitlements in the first place.
But that was the purpose of these programs--buying votes. Not benevolence.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 2:51 pm to Taxing Authority
The rich were originally against these social welfare payments and actually attempted a coup to overthrow FDR, but were thwarted by the Army General they contacted.
The rich now tolerate social welfare payments because they know it prevents unrest that would absolutely destroy this country as we know it.
The rich now tolerate social welfare payments because they know it prevents unrest that would absolutely destroy this country as we know it.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 3:13 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Spending does not generate wealth.
Not for the spender it doesn't, but it does for the investor in those products/services purchased.
quote:
If an increasing income over time doesn't translate into increased wealth.... An opportunity is been wasted.
Wrong. These entitlements are not designed to increase wealth for the recipient, they are designed to provide a subsistence. That said, an ancillary effect is to increase wealth for those investors in the products and services purchased.
...or is it "ancillary"? That's my point, it's primary.
quote:
If an increasing income over time doesn't translate into increased wealth
If an entitlement income is increased it is only due to inflationary adjustments, and don't represent a real increase in income.
quote:
Some random shareholder may re-capture some portion of it. But will be tiny compared to be recipient.
Not in the aggregate. SEE: NYSE:WMT
quote:
I'm aware of your semantic "gotcha".
I love how you people see this "gotcha" stuff like it's some sort of argument invalidator. Just because someone is pointing out hypocritical inconsistencies doesn't make it either a "gotcha" nor an invalid statement.
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.
Some call that a good thing. I call it cruel. POV... I suppose.
However a straw man is still a straw man.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 3:17 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Yet, curiously, it's the rich who gave us the entitlements in the first place. Not exactly.
How many poor people are in Congress?
How many women in Congress voted for the 19th Amendment? Zero. It was men who gave women the vote. You can't blame the women.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 3:56 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Basically, none. Perhaps you missed my earlier post. Getting votes is part of getting wealthy.
How many poor people are in Congress?
quote:
No one goes to DC and becomes less wealthy.
But... to get that wealth they need to stay in office. The way to stay in office has become... give more stuff away. That's done to satisfy voters, not "rich" people.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News