I have had it with capitalism (millionaire, Chicago, New York, percent)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No time at the moment to write a detailed rebuttal, but I do want to address a couple of points as to your general theme; the main one of my own being I think you missed mine. Like I say, I will have to be brief for the present time, but just to note...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
You cannot be serious. I shudder to think that anyone could believe such patently false nonsense given EVERY measurable data point that shows growing levels of poor, a disappearing middle class, and a state which shows the ultra rich possessing an unprecedented level of the share of overall wealth.
I am very serious when I say that one of the fallacies of the left when speaking of the "poor" is dealing with them as static classes of people rather than individuals. Most of those who are "poor" today will not be poor in another 20 years. Just as many of those in the middle and upper classes today were technically poor 20 years ago. Real people -- thanks to a free market system -- move up the economic ladder.
Here were two of the articles I posted earlier in the thread which spells it all out pretty well:
First, it seems to be a very broad generalization you are applying here. No doubt there are many reasons why people are less successful than others, including personal failure.
[snip]
But it's absurd to say most are at fault. With all of this going on .... you want to say that the poor deserve what they get, because it's their own fault they are poor?
Before you start rolling your eyes and making a speech, maybe you should read a little more carefully. I can roll mine too.
For the sake of length, I cut some of your quote, but some of what you say I have no real argument with. In fact, again, what I actually said (granted, it is possible I didn't explain it well) was that there are very clear distinctions with what constitues "the poor." To wit, that most -- very much a majority -- of this strata are young people just starting out, those suffering temporary set-backs thru no fault of their own, part-time workers, etc. Hell, I was one of them 30 years ago. But point is, those same individuals will not be poor long, certainly not over a lifetime. In a nutshell, nowhere did I say most are at fault. On the contrary...
What I DID say -- and stand by -- is that at least a noteable segment of "the poor" are where they are and will remain where they are via poor (no pun intended) life choices. One sees many of this type in Section 8 housing areas, and trashy is a crude, but accurate, way to describe these people's values, work-ethic, living arrangements, etc. They have no one to blame but themselves...although in order to profit themelves, many leftist politicians will tell them different.
Number of posts = 753; Number of capitalist fanatics = too many; Number of capitalist realists = not enough; number of incendiary remarks = 200+; number of people permanently ignored = 1; number of converts = 0; number of potential converts = 0; degree of escalating divisiveness = up 1000%
No time at the moment to write a detailed rebuttal, but I do want to address a couple of points as to your general theme; the main one of my own being I think you missed mine. Like I say, I will have to be brief for the present time, but just to note...
I am very serious when I say that one of the fallacies of the left when speaking of the "poor" is dealing with them as static classes of people rather than individuals. Most of those who are "poor" today will not be poor in another 20 years. Just as many of those in the middle and upper classes today were technically poor 20 years ago. Real people -- thanks to a free market system -- move up the economic ladder.
Here were two of the articles I posted earlier in the thread which spells it all out pretty well:
Didn't miss your point at all ... it was very clear. And I can see why you think the way you do ... citing that HACK Thomas Sowell and his article on the poor. He's the right wing extremist answer to the loony left .. and an advocate for torture, among many other dubious opinions which hold about as much water as a sieve.
Such opinions on issues like torture in many respects are subjective, from a philosophical perspective, so long as you are prepared to ignore the moral implications. But making claims that are patently untrue and in direct contradiction to the facts, as is clearly the case regarding the poor and income distribution, is not a subjective opinion ... it's a distortion at best, and a lie by definition.
As I already stated, the data for the past 50 years shows an increase decade to decade of poor. It also shows that the average earnings have been stagnant for those 50 years also, while costs have risen dramatically due to the loss of purchasing power of the dollar. The mind numbing reality is that the bottom 50% possess just 2.5% of the wealth. Extrapolating further, the top 1% possess more wealth than the combined wealth of 80%, and the top 10% possess more than double the wealth of the other 90%.
There are even more astounding facts and figures (if such things are of any interest) that contradict your ideas that being poor is a temporary state to which most will work there way out of with time.
1) Between 1983 and 1995, the bottom 40 percent of households lost 80 percent of their net worth. The middle fifth lost 11 percent. By 1995, 18.5 percent of households had zero or negative net worth.
2) Household debt as a percentage of personal income rose from 58 percent in 1973 to an estimated 85 percent in 1997.
3) As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent, up trend of 5% from 1983's 90% figure.
4) Adjusting for inflation, the net worth of the median American household fell 10 percent between 1989 and 1997, declining from $54,600 to $49,900. The net worth of the top one percent is now 2.4 times the combined wealth of the poorest 80 percent.
5) In 1998, weekly wages were 12 percent lower than in 1973 on an inflation-adjusted basis. Productivity rose 33 percent over that period. At the same time, the average hours worked increased by over 165 hours, equivalent to an additional month's worth of work, for effectively less pay.
6) In 1999 top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326:1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42:1.
7) In 1982, Forbes 400 list of richest Americans started with $91million. The list then included 13 billionaires. By 1998, $500 million was required and the list grew to 189 billionaires.
Now these figures have only gotten worse over the past decade, which shows that your "Things will be better in 20 years" is hogwash
Here are some even more long term numbers that might be a surprise to many ... figures from the Census Bureau:
Family Income of the 20th Percentile 1967 - $14,002 ... 2003 - $17,984 a rise of $3,982 over a 36 year period ... or $100 Bucks per year. Think the costs of everything didn't double or triple over that time span ? Boy ole boy, those poor people are making PROGRESS ... a whole 100 Bucks at a time. They'll be dead long before they change tax brackets. The reality? They start out poor, and end up POORER.
The 50th Percentile Family income (median income) in 1967 - $36,847 to 2006 $48,201. Wow, the median income rose a whopping $291 Bucks per year for 39 years for a major life altering $11,300 increase in income, which again didn't even come close to keeping up with the times. Your average automobile price increased over $20,000 during that 36 year period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Before you start rolling your eyes and making a speech, maybe you should read a little more carefully. I can roll mine too.
By now your eyes should be rolling back inside your head
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
For the sake of length, I cut some of your quote, but some of what you say I have no real argument with. In fact, again, what I actually said (granted, it is possible I didn't explain it well) was that there are very clear distinctions with what constitues "the poor." To wit, that most -- very much a majority -- of this strata are young people just starting out, those suffering temporary set-backs thru no fault of their own, part-time workers, etc. Hell, I was one of them 30 years ago. But point is, those same individuals will not be poor long, certainly not over a lifetime. In a nutshell, nowhere did I say most are at fault. On the contrary...
What I DID say -- and stand by -- is that at least a noteable segment of "the poor" are where they are and will remain where they are via poor (no pun intended) life choices. One sees many of this type in Section 8 housing areas, and trashy is a crude, but accurate, way to describe these people's values, work-ethic, living arrangements, etc. They have no one to blame but themselves...although in order to profit themelves, many leftist politicians will tell them different.
For the sake of length, my answer to this is .... PROPAGANDA .. fashioned by and for the top 10%, justifying the royal screw that the bottom 80% are getting.
Bubba, this nonsense comes from the same crowd that says OH NO ... you can't raise the minimum wage to $10 bucks an hour, it will kill the economy!! HA!! Sorry, but what is killing the economy is the jump from 13 Billionaires in 1982, to 189 Billionaires in 1998. I dare say 189,000 Millionaires would generate more economic benefits than does 189 Billionaires. In reality, if the top 10% chose to spend 50% of their annual incomes (not the 95% to 105% that everyone else spends by necessity) the US economy would be BOOMING, and everyone would be making progress. And those top 10% would still be able to stash away large sums, and wouldn't have to forgo the caviar, champagne, and boats on the lake.
The dense concentration of massive wealth in just a small percentage of hands is an economy killer, because there is only so much one person can spend, and the rest, if not circulated, is hoarded, and not benefiting the society.
There is something fundamentally wrong, and quite evil really, when you have 40 million people relying on food stamps ... 30 Million children living under the poverty line, and a small group at the top squeezing the life out of the country and the society at large so that they can amass more Billions in their quest to all beat Bill Gates, who himself has more wealth than half of the US population combined. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of good propaganda.
Sure, everybody has a chance ... just like Vegas, there is always the outside chance of winning, which keeps everyone playing the game ... but the reality is, the house never really loses, and there is a sucker born every minute.
As George Carlin said "They call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it".
Capitalism sucks. Period. I know that may sound shocking, but it's true -- at least of unregulated, laissez-faire "free market" capitalism. It screws the poor and middle class out of a decent living, while enriching the corporations that send our jobs overseas and making the fat cats even fatter. It is a disgusting, evil system based upon greed and avarice. It is based on the lust for more, more, MORE while stopping at nothing to feed that desire.
Spoiler
In a capitalist system, corporate execs will slash thousands of American jobs to add a few pennies to their annual bonuses. They will send skilled jobs to China and Cambodia, laying off American workers and forcing children to work in sweatshops for pennies per day. These soulless organizations will sell out American workers to save a pittance, reaping record profits while we grow more and more desperate. If people here are fortunate enough to keep their jobs, they'll see their wages slashed, pensions cut and benefits scaled back. When unions try to stand up for workers rights, the government moves in to bust the unions in the name of "saving money" (look at what's happening in Wisconsin). However, raising taxes on the rich and corporations is out of the question. The government gives corporate behemoths tax breaks and exemptions and even bailouts while cutting essential services like education and unemployment benefits. It is disgusting.
It's not just about jobs either. Take healthcare. A man works hard, goes to college, and gets a good job with health benefits. If he loses his "good job," he'll be out of luck, becoming one of the millions of uninsured Americans. At least in almost any other developed country, you don't have to worry about lacking health insurance because you lose your job. Also, what of all the people with pre-existing conditions - the private health insurance companies look for ways to deny them.
People keep talking about "high taxes" and how they don't want to pay taxes. I really don't get this. I'd rather pay higher taxes and get better services than save money on taxes and have to fight the corporate machine to get essential services like healthcare. I'd rather tax the living crap out of the rich and corporations to ensure everyone gets a free education, a living-wage job, a home, unlimited unemployment insurance and guaranteed access to free or very low-cost healthcare and prescription drugs
Most of the problems American faces today were created by bad government, not bad buisness.
1. American jobs lost- thank Bill Clinton for NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. He killed our manufacturing via government "negotiated" insane trade policies.
2. Illegal Immigration- allowing tens of millions of cheap, unskilled workers into the US has driven down wages, increased crime, and cost the tax payers hundreds of billions in social services for them. Thank the democratic immigration policies.
3. High debt- the feds and the states are drowning from unfunded social programs that are redirecting available funds that could be used for infrastructure, development of our natural resources, or further clean energy initiatives. The liberals have robbed the treasury to pay for votes (the old bread and circuses trick) and now we have nothing left.
4. Massive regulations and corporate taxes that prevent the development of domestic energy and create better buisness climates in other nations. Buisness employes people- not the government. As long as government continues to get in the way of buisness, we will be in trouble.
Funny.
I seem to recall Republicans supporting:
1. NAFTA
2. Illegal immigration
3. Unfunded medicare spending (see Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug bill)
4. Oil and Gas subsidies and regulations that benefit the existing firms, banking regulations that benefit the existing firms, etc., etc.
One thing we agree with, is that government is the problem.
What we don't agree with, is that Republicans are the solution.
Disclaimer: This post should not be used as a basis to falsely assume that I think Democrats are the solution.
Didn't miss your point at all ... it was very clear. And I can see why you think the way you do ... citing that HACK Thomas Sowell and his article on the poor. He's the right wing extremist answer to the loony left .. and an advocate for torture, among many other dubious opinions which hold about as much water as a sieve.
Such opinions on issues like torture in many respects are subjective, from a philosophical perspective, so long as you are prepared to ignore the moral implications. But making claims that are patently untrue and in direct contradiction to the facts, as is clearly the case regarding the poor and income distribution, is not a subjective opinion ... it's a distortion at best, and a lie by definition.
As I already stated, the data for the past 50 years shows an increase decade to decade of poor. It also shows that the average earnings have been stagnant for those 50 years also, while costs have risen dramatically due to the loss of purchasing power of the dollar. The mind numbing reality is that the bottom 50% possess just 2.5% of the wealth. Extrapolating further, the top 1% possess more wealth than the combined wealth of 80%, and the top 10% possess more than double the wealth of the other 90%.
There are even more astounding facts and figures (if such things are of any interest) that contradict your ideas that being poor is a temporary state to which most will work there way out of with time.
1) Between 1983 and 1995, the bottom 40 percent of households lost 80 percent of their net worth. The middle fifth lost 11 percent. By 1995, 18.5 percent of households had zero or negative net worth.
2) Household debt as a percentage of personal income rose from 58 percent in 1973 to an estimated 85 percent in 1997.
3) As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent, up trend of 5% from 1983's 90% figure.
4) Adjusting for inflation, the net worth of the median American household fell 10 percent between 1989 and 1997, declining from $54,600 to $49,900. The net worth of the top one percent is now 2.4 times the combined wealth of the poorest 80 percent.
5) In 1998, weekly wages were 12 percent lower than in 1973 on an inflation-adjusted basis. Productivity rose 33 percent over that period. At the same time, the average hours worked increased by over 165 hours, equivalent to an additional month's worth of work, for effectively less pay.
6) In 1999 top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326:1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42:1.
7) In 1982, Forbes 400 list of richest Americans started with $91million. The list then included 13 billionaires. By 1998, $500 million was required and the list grew to 189 billionaires.
Now these figures have only gotten worse over the past decade, which shows that your "Things will be better in 20 years" is hogwash
Here are some even more long term numbers that might be a surprise to many ... figures from the Census Bureau:
Family Income of the 20th Percentile 1967 - $14,002 ... 2003 - $17,984 a rise of $3,982 over a 36 year period ... or $100 Bucks per year. Think the costs of everything didn't double or triple over that time span ? Boy ole boy, those poor people are making PROGRESS ... a whole 100 Bucks at a time. They'll be dead long before they change tax brackets. The reality? They start out poor, and end up POORER.
The 50th Percentile Family income (median income) in 1967 - $36,847 to 2006 $48,201. Wow, the median income rose a whopping $291 Bucks per year for 39 years for a major life altering $11,300 increase in income, which again didn't even come close to keeping up with the times. Your average automobile price increased over $20,000 during that 36 year period.
By now your eyes should be rolling back inside your head
For the sake of length, my answer to this is .... PROPAGANDA .. fashioned by and for the top 10%, justifying the royal screw that the bottom 80% are getting.
Bubba, this nonsense comes from the same crowd that says OH NO ... you can't raise the minimum wage to $10 bucks an hour, it will kill the economy!! HA!! Sorry, but what is killing the economy is the jump from 13 Billionaires in 1982, to 189 Billionaires in 1998. I dare say 189,000 Millionaires would generate more economic benefits than does 189 Billionaires. In reality, if the top 10% chose to spend 50% of their annual incomes (not the 95% to 105% that everyone else spends by necessity) the US economy would be BOOMING, and everyone would be making progress. And those top 10% would still be able to stash away large sums, and wouldn't have to forgo the caviar, champagne, and boats on the lake.
The dense concentration of massive wealth in just a small percentage of hands is an economy killer, because there is only so much one person can spend, and the rest, if not circulated, is hoarded, and not benefiting the society.
There is something fundamentally wrong, and quite evil really, when you have 40 million people relying on food stamps ... 30 Million children living under the poverty line, and a small group at the top squeezing the life out of the country and the society at large so that they can amass more Billions in their quest to all beat Bill Gates, who himself has more wealth than half of the US population combined. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of good propaganda.
Sure, everybody has a chance ... just like Vegas, there is always the outside chance of winning, which keeps everyone playing the game ... but the reality is, the house never really loses, and there is a sucker born every minute.
As George Carlin said "They call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it".
Exactly. Awesome post. It is absolutely unacceptable how much wealth the top 10% own, and how little the bottom 50% have. It is disgusting. We aren't becoming a nation of nobles and serfs, we already are one. Our system is evil. Crush capitalism.
Did you know that real income for the middle class has actually declined since 1980?
Yes, the capitalist conservatives are starting to take hold in Canada, as well. I don't think Canada goes nearly far enough, but I still think their situation is much better than ours in the US.
Sweden is the country with the lowest income inequality, and their system (not Cuba, Russia, etc.) is what I propose we should do here:
Neither country is all-out socialist, they both have mixed economies, or "social capitalism/capitalistic socialism."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
