If a group of 100 people worked in a system where $100 of wealth was split so that ten people got to share $90 and the other 90 had to get by on sharing $10 most of the people would say that the system needed to be fixed or adjusted.
But here in America the 90% are told that any form of financial equality is unfair and even "evil". They are sold the "American dream". Instead of caring about the entire population they are told that it is best for a small percentage to control a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth, and that "anyone can make it". So the struggling 90% turn on each other and try to climb over each other to get to the top instead of working together to help everyone.
But what they are not told is that in The United States the wealth of an individual is affected more by the wealth of his parents than in almost any other industrialized country. The system in place here in America is not as much of a "meritocracy" as it is in other countries. Instead, it is much more of a "plutocracy" where the wealthy use money to make more money instead of working to make more money and the benefits of wealth are passed down from generation to generation.
We need a capitalist economy to promote efficiency and innovation. But "everyone" can not succeed in a capitalist system. By definition a capitalist system insures there will be both winners and losers. So it is unfair to sale "capitalism" to masses as a system where "everyone can succeed if they just work hard". That is not possible in a capitalist system. It is a blatant lie.
So we need a government to counterbalance the power of money. Every citizen is given an equal vote despite their wealth because "all men are created equal". And the job of the government is to protect citizens from exploitation by the wealthy. That is why every income tax in every country is "progressive" with the wealthy paying more than the poor.
I don't want "socialism" or "communism" in America. All I want is an honest government that admits that in a capitalist system the gains of the "winners" come from the "losers", and puts some systems in place to protect and care for the losers. Do things to balance the scales. If citizens see the system as rigged against them then they don't have as much incentive to strive for success.
But as long as 90% of the population is happier fighting over 10% of the wealth instead of implementing some sort of fair system to help their fellow citizens the 10% share will keep shrinking. Soon they will be fighting over just 5%, and then less. History proves that eventually wealth distribution will reach a tipping point and it will get very ugly. I just hope this country makes some changes before it comes to that.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 09-20-2023).]
Fred I think that there is more to the shut down than you want to see. "On the House floor, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) declared he would not support a government funding package unless there was increased border security."
[This message has been edited by jdv (edited 09-20-2023).]
Fred I think that there is more to the shut down than you want to see. "On the House floor, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) declared he would not support a government funding package unless there was increased border security."
yes the Gop contains some Real WANKERS WHO PLACE THEIR Gop PROGRAM OF Idiocracy over the real needs of the nation and it's people
she was a real profit when she said they are DEPLORABLE
Not all things are as you describe. Take a historic look at things. I don't mean just historic events but how people lived. My grandfather's parents were so poor they could not afford to raise him so he was raised on a farm by his grandparents. He grew up with no indoor plumbing. My father grew up with more material wealth as he had plumbing, a washing machine and a telephone. I grew up with all of that plus a television, dryer and microwave oven. My children are growing up with all of that plus air conditioning, cable TV, computers, the Internet, and cell phones. My family's historic wealth has significantly grown with each generation. It does not take much to look at a family today and compare it to an equivalent family x number of decades prior to see that today's family is better off.
There will always be people with more wealth than the middle class. That is part of the definition of middle class, they are in the middle. It is not the government's job to police the rich. If anything the bigger the government gets, the more the rich manipulate and control the government. Because a few thousand dollars in the pockets of some politicians can land a large corporation billions of dollars through favorable laws and government contracts.
If a group of 100 people worked in a system where $100 of wealth was split so that ten people got to share $90 and the other 90 had to get by on sharing $10 most of the people would say that the system needed to be fixed or adjusted.
But here in America the 90% are told that any form of financial equality is unfair and even "evil". They are sold the "American dream". Instead of caring about the entire population they are told that it is best for a small percentage to control a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth, and that "anyone can make it". So the struggling 90% turn on each other and try to climb over each other to get to the top instead of working together to help everyone.
But what they are not told is that in The United States the wealth of an individual is affected more by the wealth of his parents than in almost any other industrialized country. The system in place here in America is not as much of a "meritocracy" as it is in other countries. Instead, it is much more of a "plutocracy" where the wealthy use money to make more money instead of working to make more money and the benefits of wealth are passed down from generation to generation.
We need a capitalist economy to promote efficiency and innovation. But "everyone" can not succeed in a capitalist system. By definition a capitalist system insures there will be both winners and losers. So it is unfair to sale "capitalism" to masses as a system where "everyone can succeed if they just work hard". That is not possible in a capitalist system. It is a blatant lie.
So we need a government to counterbalance the power of money. Every citizen is given an equal vote despite their wealth because "all men are created equal". And the job of the government is to protect citizens from exploitation by the wealthy. That is why every income tax in every country is "progressive" with the wealthy paying more than the poor.
I don't want "socialism" or "communism" in America. All I want is an honest government that admits that in a capitalist system the gains of the "winners" come from the "losers", and puts some systems in place to protect and care for the losers. Do things to balance the scales. If citizens see the system as rigged against them then they don't have as much incentive to strive for success.
But as long as 90% of the population is happier fighting over 10% of the wealth instead of implementing some sort of fair system to help their fellow citizens the 10% share will keep shrinking. Soon they will be fighting over just 5%, and then less. History proves that eventually wealth distribution will reach a tipping point and it will get very ugly. I just hope this country makes some changes before it comes to that.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-20-2023).]
and it is the RWNJ'S WHO TOOK OVER THE Gop and killed the middle class with the gush up that never trickled down thanks ron tax cuts and rump rate income tax on the 1% thank don but full rate and no dodges for the middle class
good work RWNJ AND no A PICTURE OF CARL AIN'T A FIX not ever the usual thought and prey heavy on the prey the Gop is good at prey not so much at government
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 09-21-2023).]
There will always be people with more wealth than the middle class. That is part of the definition of middle class, they are in the middle. .
You completely missed my point. The current policies are shrinking the middle class. If something does not change the United Sates will eventually mirror third world countries with a very small upper class and a lower class.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT:It is not the government's job to police the rich.
Actually that is one of their most important jobs. See anti-trust laws, minimum wages, restrictions on child labor, laws against usury, OSHA regulations to protect workers, and on and on and on. The government is needed to protect the small individual from the power of money.
And Randye continues to prove what happens to "reading comprehension" when you live in an echo chamber.
quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
We need a capitalist economy to promote efficiency and innovation.
I don't want "socialism" or "communism" in America. All I want is an honest government that admits that in a capitalist system the gains of the "winners" come from the "losers", and puts some systems in place to protect and care for the losers.
Originally posted by fredtoast: Actually that is one of their most important jobs. See anti-trust laws, minimum wages, restrictions on child labor, laws against usury, OSHA regulations to protect workers, and on and on and on. The government is needed to protect the small individual from the power of money.
Show me where in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution that it says that. I won't hold my breath.
What do you think of all the laws that leftists say target the poor? By your definition that means it is the governments job to protect the people from the poor.
Show me where in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution that it says that. I won't hold my breath.
What do you think of all the laws that leftists say target the poor? By your definition that means it is the governments job to protect the people from the poor.
it is covered here
'' Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ''
no where is the right of the 1% to ever increasing wealth listed in the laws just in the Gop gospel dogma
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that those laws do not exist or are not Constitutional?
The existence of these laws prove my point. They are justified to "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare".
If those were the only laws that ever existed, that would support your argument. They are not so their existence does not prove anything.
Otherwise I can point to all of the laws concerning vehicles and the operation of vehicles and say the purpose of the government is to regulate cars. There are a lot more vehicle codes than any law you have cited.
'' Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ''
no where is the right of the 1% to ever increasing wealth listed in the laws just in the Gop gospel dogma
That is an argument from absence. That is the exact opposite of showing where those document support the op's assertion.
If those were the only laws that ever existed, that would support your argument. They are not so their existence does not prove anything.
Otherwise I can point to all of the laws concerning vehicles and the operation of vehicles and say the purpose of the government is to regulate cars. There are a lot more vehicle codes than any law you have cited.
Stop wasting my time squealing about semantics. It IS the governments job to regulate cars. And the proof is the laws they have passed in this area.
It is also the governments job to protect the disadvantaged from exploitation by the power of wealth and money. And the proof is all the laws they have passed in this area.
Originally posted by fredtoast: Stop wasting my time squealing about semantics. It IS the governments job to regulate cars. And the proof is the laws they have passed in this area.
It is also the governments job to protect the disadvantaged from exploitation by the power of wealth and money. And the proof is all the laws they have passed in this area.
I had to laugh when I realized how you are defining what the government's "job" is. Whatever law exists makes it the government's "job". "Job" has nothing to do with purpose as you use it. That makes the phrase meaningless as it is the government's job to enforce all laws including those that are anti-poor and anti-middle class.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Show me where in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution it says that [it's the government's job to protect less wealthy individuals from exceptionally wealthy individuals, or "police the rich."]
This is a misconception on the part of Doug85GT.
The Constitution starts with a mission statement for the federal government, which is obligatory:
quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This is what the federal government is expected to accomplish, with the consent of the people, the support of the people, and within the bounds of oversight by the people, as expressed by their power to vote.
Beyond these core requirements, the Constitution does not delineate what the government should or cannot do.
"Policing the rich,", as Doug85GT encapsulated it, is a policy issue.
The Constitution establishes how the federal government is organized, but beyond that core mission statement at its very beginning, the Constitution is policy agnostic. It doesn't say that the federal government should police the rich. It doesn't say that the federal government cannot police the rich.
That is a matter of policy that is determined among the people's representatives in Congress, the President that's been elected by the people, and the judicial branch.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-21-2023).]
This is what the federal government is expected to accomplish, with the consent of the people, the support of the people, and within the bounds of oversight by the people, as expressed by their power to vote.
Beyond these core requirements, the Constitution does not delineate what the government should or cannot do.
"Policing the rich,", as Doug85GT encapsulated it, is a policy issue.
The Constitution establishes how the federal government is organized, but beyond that core mission statement at its very beginning, the Constitution is policy agnostic. It doesn't say that the federal government should police the rich. It doesn't say that the federal government cannot police the rich.
That is a matter of policy that is determined among the people's representatives in Congress, the President that's been elected by the people, and the judicial branch.
Wrong person. It is the OP who makes that claim, not me.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Wrong person. It is the OP who makes that claim, not me.
It's a misconception to assert (by formulating it as a rhetorical question) that the Constitution does not spell out that the federal government needs to police the rich.
That is the misconception that I lay at the feet—or in this case, the hands, I would think—of Doug85GT.
It's true to say that the Constitution does not spell out that the federal government needs to police the rich, but it's a misconception to use the Constitution as a counterargument to fredtoast's saying that the policing of the rich is one of the federal government's most important responsibilities.
That is fredtoast's opinion about a policy issue that is beyond the scope of the Constitution. It's not a Constitutional issue. That is the meaning of my previous remarks in this thread, where I described the Constitution as "policy agnostic." So it is not any kind of argument against fredtoast's opinion on this matter, to bring up the Constitution.
Now when you get into the nitty gritty of the specific federal laws, Executive Orders, and the federal regulatory agencies and their decisions that comprise the policy of "policing the rich," there could be Constitutional issues on more specific grounds, but it wouldn't (or shouldn't) be an argument about whether the government can police the rich. It would be an argument about what is allowed to the government in the specific ways and means that the government is using (or wants to use) to police the rich.
We would all be better served if fredtoast had not stopped at saying that policing the rich is one of the most important jobs for government.
He could have said that policing the rich has become one of the most important jobs for government in the current day United States, which has evolved from the 13 newly established United States of George Washington's presidency, into the much larger and more complex nation that we are today. Had fredtoast extended his "policing the rich" remark in this way, it would have sharpened the focus of this discussion, and very possibly, the conversational door (so to speak) that gave entrance to the misconception about the relevance of the Constitution, would not have become an open door. (But that is just speculation on my part.)
But this is not to impeach fredtoast in any way, for his not having elaborated on his too brief remark about "policing the rich."
It cannot be overlooked that fredtoast's "police the rich" remark is the very foundation upon which I constructed the more complete and informative construct that the policing of the rich has become one of the most important jobs for government in the current day United States, which is a much larger and more complex nation than the original 13 United States. So in that sense, I have—to reprise Newton's famous words—"stood on the shoulders of giants," in the way that I have taken my inspiration from fredtoast's all too brief remark, and enlarged on that foundation to erect a mighty edifice of Reason that will doubtless stand for centuries to come.
"Am I wrong?"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-22-2023).]
I had to laugh when I realized how you are defining what the government's "job" is. Whatever law exists makes it the government's "job". "Job" has nothing to do with purpose as you use it. That makes the phrase meaningless as it is the government's job to enforce all laws including those that are anti-poor and anti-middle class.
I have to laugh at people who think they are being clever when they are just playing silly semantic games.
Wealth inequality is a problem. It is the governments job to deal with it. They have done this with a progressive income tax and making property owners pay for schools among other things. Squealing about the difference in definition of "job" or "purpose" does not change this in any way.
And BTW I have never heard of a law to protect the wealthy from exploitation by the poor, could you please give me an example. I am beginning to believe that you have no clue what I am really talking about.
BORDER SECURITY IS A REAL NEED OF THE NATION AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!
Anyone who doesn't realize this IS the real idiot.
Border security is a need. But so are thousands of other things. That is not the point.
The point is that if you want to pass laws about border security then get more congressmen to agree with you and pass laws. Don't shut down the government just because you are part of a small minority who is not getting what you want.
Originally posted by fredtoast: I have to laugh at people who think they are being clever when they are just playing silly semantic games.
Wealth inequality is a problem. It is the governments job to deal with it. They have done this with a progressive income tax and making property owners pay for schools among other things. Squealing about the difference in definition of "job" or "purpose" does not change this in any way.
And BTW I have never heard of a law to protect the wealthy from exploitation by the poor, could you please give me an example. I am beginning to believe that you have no clue what I am really talking about.
Wealth inequality is not a problem. It is not the government's job to deal with it.
It is not surprising that leftists cannot think of any laws that protect the "rich" from the poor. Every law that defines property crime is a law that protects the "rich". A few examples of laws that protect the "rich" from the poor: trespassing, workman's comp fraud, unemployment fraud, embezzlement, shoplifting, robbery, theft, kidnapping.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Wealth inequality is not a problem. It is not the government's job to deal with it.
That's your opinion. It's obviously a far cry from being a unanimous opinion among the people of the United States.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: It is not surprising that leftists cannot think of any laws that protect the "rich" from the poor. Every law that defines property crime is a law that protects the "rich". A few examples of laws that protect the "rich" from the poor: trespassing, workman's comp fraud, unemployment fraud, embezzlement, shoplifting, robbery, theft, kidnapping.
Those laws are not entirely for the purpose of protecting the rich from the poor.
Take the laws against fraudulent claims for workman's compensation fraud and unemployment benefits. Those laws protect people with honest claims from people who would file fraudulent claims. Those laws are of value in ensuring that when honest claims are filed, there is money available for the claimants as compensation. The honest claimants could be among the poor. They certainly wouldn't be restricted to the ranks of the rich.
There's an unseemly air of condescension about a sentence that begins with "It is not surprising that leftists cannot think of any laws..." It reminds me of a certain other forum member. No one should ever want to be like that certain other forum member.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-22-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: That's your opinion. It's obviously a far cry from being a unanimous opinion among the people of the United States.
Those laws are not entirely for the purpose of protecting the rich from the poor.
Take the laws against fraudulent claims for workman's compensation fraud and unemployment benefits. Those laws protect people with honest claims from people who would file fraudulent claims. Those laws are of value in ensuring that when honest claims are filed, there is money available for the claimants as compensation. The honest claimants could be among the poor. They certainly wouldn't be restricted to the ranks of the rich.
There's an unseemly air of condescension about a sentence that begins with "It is not surprising that leftists cannot think of any laws..." It reminds me of a certain other forum member. No one should ever want to be like that certain other forum member.
LOL
I can make the same claim that laws listed prior are not exclusively to protect the poor from the rich. If you want to claim it is the job of the government to do x because of certain laws, I get to do the same. All it illustrates is how dumb the argument is from the OP.
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 09-22-2023).]
A few examples of laws that protect the "rich" from the poor: trespassing, workman's comp fraud, unemployment fraud, embezzlement, shoplifting, robbery, theft, kidnapping.
WTF?
None of those have to do with "rich" or "poor". The laws of fraud, trespassing, and theft apply to everyone equally. You can be living in government housing and still charge a person with trespassing if they refuse to leave your apartment. These laws were not designed specifically to address behavior of any class.
On the other hand the regulations I listed all apply to the power of wealth. Poor people don't organize monopolies, the elite wealthy do. Common laborers don't control working conditions in factories or mines, factory and mine owners do. Poor people don't run banks or investment houses, bankers and investment brokers do.
None of those have to do with "rich" or "poor". The laws of fraud, trespassing, and theft apply to everyone equally. You can be living in government housing and still charge a person with trespassing if they refuse to leave your apartment. These laws were not designed specifically to address behavior of any class.
On the other hand the regulations I listed all apply to the power of wealth. Poor people don't organize monopolies, the elite wealthy do. Common laborers don't control working conditions in factories or mines, factory and mine owners do. Poor people don't run banks or investment houses, bankers and investment brokers do.
And yet those laws disproportionately are used to prosecute the poor and minorities. Surely you have seen the news over the past four years. Cue some blue hair SJW, blah, blah, blah, blah, defund the police, blah, blah, blah, Black Lives Matter, blah, blah, blah, eliminate cash bail, blah, blah, blah.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: And yet those laws disproportionately are used to prosecute the poor and minorities. Surely you have seen the news over the past four years. Cue some blue hair SJW, blah, blah, blah, blah, defund the police, blah, blah, blah, Black Lives Matter, blah, blah, blah, eliminate cash bail, blah, blah, blah.
Again the point goes over your head.
The inequalities of enforcement are a totally different issue. I'll probably make a thread about that some time, but it has nothing to do with the point I was making. None of those laws were specifically designed to target the poor and protect the wealthy.
Originally posted by fredtoast: Again the point goes over your head.
The inequalities of enforcement are a totally different issue. I'll probably make a thread about that some time, but it has nothing to do with the point I was making. None of those laws were specifically designed to target the poor and protect the wealthy.
Wrong. You leftists can't even keep up with the BS your side spews. Systemic racism trumps your unequal enforcement excuse.
Then there is the Occupy Wall Street movement which would vehemently disagree with your characterization that the government polices the rich.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Wrong. You leftists can't even keep up with the BS your side spews. Systemic racism trumps your unequal enforcement excuse.
What's that supposed to mean?
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Then there is the Occupy Wall Street movement which would vehemently disagree with your [fredtoast] characterization that the government polices the rich.
And..?
Instead of having a conversation with the other forum member(s,) you want to wave a magic wand and turn them into the Occupy Wall Street movement.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-22-2023).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Wrong. You leftists can't even keep up with the BS your side spews. Systemic racism trumps your unequal enforcement excuse.
I am sorry, but I do not even understand what you are trying to say.
All I said was that unequal enforcement was a completely different issue from what I was trying to discuss. The laws you mentioned were not passed to address a situation were a difference in class resulted in exploitation.
Tresspassing laws were not designed to protect a higher class from a lower class. On the other hand anti-trust laws were specifically designed to protect the general public from the class that has the power and wealth to form monopolies.
Theft laws were not designed to address any class difference. But child labor laws were specifically designed to protect poor children whose desperate financial conditions led to exploitation by business owners. And OSHA regulations were first designed to protect the class of people whose desperate financial condition forced them to work in dangerous conditions. Usury laws and SEC regulations were designed to protect the uneducated masses who were subject to exploitation by unscrupulous lenders.
I am talking about laws specifically designed to protect a certain class, none of the laws you mention fit that description.
