• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Controle of Govornment by the wealthy

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In history we have countless examples of imperialistic empires rules by a small group of socially elite. This minority of elitists held power by keeping the people they ruled in a state of ignorance that insured that no one could arise with the intellect necessary to oppose them. Indeed no one had time or energy to divert from their feudal working class lifestyle to pursue knowledge.

For the most part Americans have been given the opportunity to raise in social status. People like Lincoln who were born poor but forged an education for themselves and went on to become prominent political leaders. But in the present day the gap between rich and poor continues to grow. The wealthy members of the population (of which there are very few relatively speaking) are growing wealthier and the poor poorer. with cuts to education the opportunities are declining for a poor person to get the education they need to become part of the ruling elite. Money is being passed down from wealthy father to wealthier son while the majority of poor people are living in a state of perpetual poverty. George W. Bush went bankrupt several times while the average person could not afford to be bankrupted once. People without the economic backing like the bushes have little chance of ever becoming president or holding some other such political office.

As education and programs for youth are cut and new tax plans enable the rich people to make more money faster one must wonder if the working class is meant to stay in their current social slot. Maybe the rich elitists feel threatened by the common layman?

When it comes down to it anyone with enough money can get a Harvard education. Any idiot son of a multimillion air can graduate from Yale. The presidential candidate with the most money at their disposal tends to win the race for leader of our country.

Money is America’s primary allegiance is to money and until that ceases to be true America will never truly be a World leader.
 

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
While George Bush is president I completely agree with you that if your parents are important and rich then you have a significiantly better chance of getting into harvard or have other advantages over other people. Right now the only thing republicans value is money. ( You spelled control wrong, your grammar does suck. Did you fail middle school English?)
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
i dont know where you get the idea that it is hard for the poor to get money for education, but i can tell you from first hand experience that the poorer you are the more money the government gives you to go to school. i dont know what your financial background is but i grew up in a very poor family and right now i am going to college because of pell grants and government assistance. if it wasnt for the government assistance i would have a very hard time paying for tuition, rent, and living expenses even with a full time job. now i may not be able to attend yale or harvard but i really wouldent want to.
 

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
:eek:t Well, an example of poor funded schools is the school district that I attend. All of our programs are being cut or shortened because Michigan school funding is 2.5 mil in the hole.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
jcueckert13 said:
i dont know where you get the idea that it is hard for the poor to get money for education, but i can tell you from first hand experience that the poorer you are the more money the government gives you to go to school. i dont know what your financial background is but i grew up in a very poor family and right now i am going to college because of pell grants and government assistance. if it wasnt for the government assistance i would have a very hard time paying for tuition, rent, and living expenses even with a full time job. now i may not be able to attend yale or harvard but i really wouldent want to.
First off I'd like to congradulate you on using a period for once. Good job.

Second, I'm amazed. Last time I checked, all of the programs that exist in the government now to help out poor people came from the Democratic side! Does that mean you support welfare and other programs like that?
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
i do not support welfare in its current incarnation. to be perfectly honest i am not a big fan of taking handouts for school but when its the only way to get a education its hard not to.
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am glad that you were able to recieve money for college and i hope that i will be as lucky as you. However according to the economist nearly 70% of sons are the same or less well off then their fathers. THis is from 1998. I am not saying that it is impossible for a person to climb the social ladder it is just that if you or I were to graduate from harvard we would be considered extremely smart. If someone is exeptionaly rich and they graduate from harvard it is nothing much.
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
the reason you have 70% of sons not being better off than their fathers is because they dont have the modivation to do better. when you grew up as i did you realize that you cant get much lower on the social ladder. i am determined to rise above my beginings at whatever cost. i know alot of people are content with accepting their position but that is because their is little modivation to do better.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
Maybe the reason that sons are usually not as well off as their fathers is that they aren't worth as much. Revolutionary thought, that.
 
J

Jufarius87

liberal one thats kind of offencive i will admit some republicans are republicans simply for fiscal matters but really most of truely beleive we doing what right for the country

the reason why the rich are in politics is obvious there are 2 big reasons

#1 politicians pay for about a third of their own re election campaigns.... obviuously this mean the rich have a natural advantage then

#2 this is the more corrupt reason the rich have more at stake in politics because of their investments but dont fool yourself there is only one senator who is a "joe american" and does his own taxes and that is newly elected senator obama (correct me if i spelled that wrong) all the rest of your dem buddies in the senate are rich
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hitler believed what he was doing was right.

Go Obama.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
The wealthy continue to control the government because of all the silly regulations on creating and owning a business, and because of the minimum wage.
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What are the regulations on creating and owning a buisness?
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Rhadamanthus said:
What are the regulations on creating and owning a buisness?
For instance:

-A taxi medallion in NYC costs an average of $150,000 because government refuses to allow for taxis to roam free. On top of that, the government won't even increase the number of taxis allowed and has not increased the number since the medallions were first introduced.

-A license to operate a pushcart costs about $7000.

-The cost to pass a single product through the FDA is so immense, it is nearly impossible for innovative or alternative products to be provided by new small businesses.

-Copywrights and patents make sure a single inventor becomes filthy rich, while preventing small businesses to duplicate the products and/or services and sell them on their own. These are forced monopolies....

-A homeless man tried to make a little cash by offering people to take pictures with his bird. Government officials arrested him and confiscated his bird for operating without a business license.
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems that these things do need to be revised badly.
 
M

Morgue

In our capitalistic style of economy, it is design to have segregation among companies and the people. Just look at it, under this economy, we are able to send already rich manufacturers, service industries, and any other company overseas. In turn this is making a lot of our own people lose jobs, therefore getting poorer. The cheap labor force over in other countries where we are shipping jobs into is allowing for companies to lower prices, but still make a greater profit than those stuck in the U.S. Then, the poor companies that cannot make it over to other countries are being run out of business because of the lower prices of the other companies. So, this makes the poor get poorer, the rich get richer,(in terms of companies) and the consumer gets screwed(for lack of a better term). This will cause a monopoly where-now the only company-, can hike up prices to whatever they want.

Now from surveys done on various groups of people, they came out with statistics saying that the average white male will inherit $70,000 and the average minority( any one of them, poor, women, other races) inherits about $7,000. So it is a trend that the poor Will keep getting poorer and the rich will keep getting richer.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Morgue said:
we are able to send already rich manufacturers, service industries, and any other company overseas.
Actually, we are FORCED to send our business overseas to make the best product.



Morgue said:
Then, the poor companies that cannot make it over to other countries are being run out of business because of the lower prices of the other companies. So, this makes the poor get poorer, the rich get richer,(in terms of companies) and the consumer gets screwed(for lack of a better term).
If they would stop the rediculous minimum wage laws, small businesses would have a better chance of survival as they would be able to compete just as effectively. Also, many more jobs would become available for people.



Morgue said:
So it is a trend that the poor Will keep getting poorer and the rich will keep getting richer.
That's because, through minimum wage laws, the poor are not allowed to start climbing the ladder of success from the bottom. We cut off the bottom and make them jump and try to reach the higher rungs before they can start. This makes it harder to start at all, and increases the unemployment rate.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
Actually, we are FORCED to send our business overseas to make the best product.
WE aren't forced. This is capitalistic globalisation at work. This trend will continue, because businesses want a high profit. Whether these sweatshops produce the 'best' products is highly debateable. On the surface, one may say that this is good for the avg American consumer. But it is NOT good for the avg American worker. It is pro-business, making the gap between rich and poor ever greater. This, in turn, leads to a whole new set of problems.


Gabo said:
If they would stop the rediculous minimum wage laws, small businesses would have a better chance of survival as they would be able to compete just as effectively. Also, many more jobs would become available for people.
It is obvious what you're condoning here. You actually want the American worker to make 75 cents an hour, all in the name of profit for the business. The problem with this thought is that while workers' salaries will drop dramtically, businesses will gain profit by an equally dramatic scale. Also, the median salary will remain more or less the same, so the cost of living is quite unlikely to decrease very much. Now you'll have an entire new 'extra poor' class of people who can't afford much of anything. And since you're obviously against any kind of welfare state, you are pretty much sentencing them to the very opposite of what you claim: there will be LESS social mobility, not more. You're vision of capitalism is highly idealistic.


Gabo said:
That's because, through minimum wage laws, the poor are not allowed to start climbing the ladder of success from the bottom. We cut off the bottom and make them jump and try to reach the higher rungs before they can start. This makes it harder to start at all, and increases the unemployment rate.
Minimum wage laws were an attempt by FDR to give the worker more rights. If you get rid of minimum wage laws, yes the unemployment will drop, but the amt of people in poverty will increase exponentially. If anything, the minimum wage should be raised slightly.
 
Last edited:

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
WE aren't forced. This is capitalistic globalisation at work. This trend will continue, because businesses want a high profit. Whether these sweatshops produce the 'best' products is highly debateable. On the surface, one may say that this is good for the avg American consumer. But it is NOT good for the avg American worker. It is pro-business, making the gap between rich and poor ever greater. This, in turn, leads to a whole new set of problems.
The best product is both a combination of low cost and high efficiency.
So, it's quite obvious finding cheaper labor will create a better product.
And when products are less expensive, more can afford them.




anomaly said:
It is obvious what you're condoning here. You actually want the American worker to make 75 cents an hour, all in the name of profit for the business. The problem with this thought is that while workers' salaries will drop dramtically, businesses will gain profit by an equally dramatic scale. Also, the median salary will remain more or less the same, so the cost of living is quite unlikely to decrease very much. Now you'll have an entire new 'extra poor' class of people who can't afford much of anything. And since you're obviously against any kind of welfare state, you are pretty much sentencing them to the very opposite of what you claim: there will be LESS social mobility, not more. You're vision of capitalism is highly idealistic.
The amount of people currently being paid minimum wage is extremely minimal. 2/3 of the people making minimum wage are making more within a year.
97% of workers over 30 make more than minimum wage.

You need to stop thinking of low paying jobs as permanent ones. Everyone can move on to bigger and better things, and almost all do. That's why they call it "climbing the ladder of success". The job experience and training will probably be more valuable to the employee in the long run than the wages are. People NEED low paying jobs to become more successful. They NEED something to put on their resume that makes them look more viable for the next job.

You also must consider that minimum wage laws hurt the poor more than they help. A business is not going to hire someone unless they are making money off of their service. If minimum wage is raised, all jobs where the worker doesn't produce more than that wage while working are gone. These jobs all go overseas, to benefit the people that are allowed to work for them.

Heck, if minimum wage is so great, why stop at $5 or $6 an hour? Why not make minimum wage something great, like $20 or even $30 an hour? Then everyone could make a fair living off of minimum wage and we'd all be successful and rich, right?




anomaly said:
Minimum wage laws were an attempt by FDR to give the worker more rights. If you get rid of minimum wage laws, yes the unemployment will drop, but the amt of people in poverty will increase exponentially. If anything, the minimum wage should be raised slightly.
:confused: Sorry, the logic doesn't follow here....
As far as I have been taught, any job is better than no job at all.
Making $1 an hour is better than making nothing at all.
Also, as of now 37.6% of minimum wage earners are teenagers living with parents anyways. This "mass poverty" that you claim is fictitious.

Of the people our government classifies as "poor", 97% have color television, 46% own their own home and 76% have air conditioning. Many of the things these "poor" people have, they could live without. Furthermore, getting rid of minimum wage laws will allow these people better opportunities in the long run anyways. Easier access to employment. More job experience. A ladder of success that is climbable for all people, that comes down to the ground completely for everyone to grab a hold of.


I know personally I was extremely glad to get a job working minimum wage over last summer. Did I think the job was worth the small wages? No. But I recognized the fact that I NEEDED that job to gain experience for bigger and better ones. I realized that low-paying jobs have become a scarcity nowadays, because businesses can't afford them. I was extremely lucky to be able to get a job at all, luck which many people can't have because minimum wage laws prevent them from finding work at all.




PS: My source is....
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1603
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For the most part Americans have been given the opportunity to raise in social status. People like Lincoln who were born poor but forged an education for themselves and went on to become prominent political leaders. But in the present day the gap between rich and poor continues to grow. The wealthy members of the population (of which there are very few relatively speaking) are growing wealthier and the poor poorer. with cuts to education the opportunities are declining for a poor person to get the education they need to become part of the ruling elite.
I don't know how you believe that Rhad. Clinton didn't come from a wealth. He got elected by being a "good communicator". I am new so I will be nice. :D There have been no cuts to education but that is beside the point. Anyone who wants to work hard can get through college on his own if he has to.
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have experienced the cuts to education first hand. I have seen how the rediculous guidlines in the 'no child left behind' thingy have caused the downfall of countless public schools. It's not rumors that i'm spreading here. The FACT that the gap betwean rich and poor continues to grow is just that, a FACT.

And to clarify my source, it is not just some wishy washy web sight. (i find statistics from web sights very hard to trust because any one can create one) my source is the economist magazine. And before any one comes and tells me how full of baloney i am i want them to go, read the article, and find another one from a more reliable source that disproves it.
 
Top Bottom