PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Politics Debates
     What would you prefer?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Originally Posted by Fallingupword84:
alex, anyone who is not very wealthy is a second-class citizen. americans hate to admit this, but we are NOT a classless society. there are three classes: the very wealthy, the middle class, and the poor. i belong to the middle class, therefore i am a second class citizen. i do not have the same opportunities has a first class citizen. we all have capitalism to thank for this.


And what would you prefer?  That we have an even distribution of wealth?  It would never work, and quite frankly I, being in the VERY low middle class, do not feel that I have any less oppurtunity than anyone else.  If anyone is willing to work hard, they can get out of their social class.  Of course we have social classes, the difference with ours is we are not trapped in it.  We can change our social class.  I would on the other hand feel cheated if I was working harder than someone else, but because of even distribution of wealth we were equally well-off.  THAT would be unfair!

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 4:17 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i am simply asking for a more equal distribution of wealth. 1% of the united states owns 40% of the wealth. 20% owns 92%. that doesnt sound very fair to me. we should not be greedy. we should share the wealth with the poor. you do not belong to the poor. you belong to the middle class. the poor do not have the same opportunities.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 4:45 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i posted this in the "capitalism sucks" forum a few weeks ago:

i took economics last semester and learned about something called utility theory. the greater a person's income, the smailler is the marginal benefit of a dollar. the millionth dollar spent by a rich person brings a smaller marginal benefit to that person than the marginal benefit of the thousandth dollar spent by a poorer person. so by transferring a dollar from the millionaire to the poorer person, more is gained than is lost and the two people added together are better off.

this is the whole idea behind socialism: distributing the money more equally and fairly among the people


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 4:47 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if i become rich i will give a lot of (most of) my money to the needy. i promise - seriously. but i don't think i should HAVE to do. if i have to do it, it takes the fun outta it


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 5:12 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thats good that you would give money to the needy. i believe it wholeheartedly. but not all rich people are like that


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:25 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 4:45 PM on January 17, 2003 :
i am simply asking for a more equal distribution of wealth. 1% of the united states owns 40% of the wealth. 20% owns 92%. that doesnt sound very fair to me. we should not be greedy. we should share the wealth with the poor. you do not belong to the poor. you belong to the middle class. the poor do not have the same opportunities.


Like I said, I belong to the very low middle class.  And the only reason I put myself there is because I am a college student who works and my personal income pulls me up enough for me to consider MYSELF middle class.  However, according to financial aid measurements my family as a whole is considerably below the poverty line.  So YES I grew up poor, but I still managed.  Anyone who is willing to look for oppurtuinities and take them when they have the chance has equal oppurtunity!  Even the poor.

How would you recommend we distribute the wealth???  We already have distributive taxes, so the rich are already being forced to help the poor.  What else would you recommend we do to distribute the wealth??



 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:25 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well bush just gave a huge tax cut to the rich by taking away the corporate dividends tax.  so that didnt help anyway.

not all poor people have the opportunity to go to college. and then some people made mistakes when they were younger so now they cannot afford the basic necessities of life. so should we just let them rot and die? no. we should share our wealth with those in need.

btw sarah, did you read what i said about utility theory at all? did you understand it?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 8:16 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 8:16 PM on January 17, 2003 :
well bush just gave a huge tax cut to the rich by taking away the corporate dividends tax.  so that didnt help anyway.

That's true

not all poor people have the opportunity to go to college. and then some people made mistakes when they were younger so now they cannot afford the basic necessities of life. so should we just let them rot and die? no. we should share our wealth with those in need.

No, and we don't let them just rot and die.  We give them tax breaks.  We give them unemployment, we give them welfare.  Even homeless people are paid $500 a month!  Do you know what a homeless person could do if they put their mind to it??  There are alot of places with VERY cheap room and board for them and they will help them get jobs and get back on their feet.  I agree, the situation  isn't ideal, but I do not agree with forcibly taking money away from people who earned it.  That is taking away their right.  

btw sarah, did you read what i said about utility theory at all? did you understand it?
Yes I understood it, and I have heard it before.  But that still is not reason enough to take the hard earned money from wealthy people and give it to the poor.  If the wealthy choose to give, fine.  But you should not force them.  

And you still haven't answered my question...how would you propose we distribute the wealth.  How do we keep it distributed???  

Sarah



 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 9:45 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

tax corporations and dividends more. invoke tariffs to keep factories inside the country so unemployment will not be so high. tax the rich more than the poor. believe me, bill gates and the likes can certainly afford giving up a little of their money. what would you rather have, a few rich guys and a lot of poor people, or a very very very large middle class and no people on the very extreme?
we should offer free health care, like Canada and Sweden do. we should offer more unemployment benefits to those who get laid off. we should improve our inner-city schools. this will help reduce the poverty level as well.

how is the utility theory not reason enough to give money to the poor?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:10 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sarah, first of all let me commend you for rising out of poverty. That takes alot of discipline and fortitude, and it should be congratulated with all the rewards that it deserves. That said...
Is it possible for poor people to get out of poverty? sure. if they are extremely bright, discplined, and determined. Then they can rise and be successful. The problem? Its still unequal. A poor kid who does ok in school, lives a life with a few mistakes, not many, and generally is ok but isn't really smart, determined, or discplined, isn't going anywhere. By contrast, a rich kid who coasted through school, has a bunch of DWIs or other minor infractions (such as drug abuse), isn't particularly smart or discplined, can become...president of the US (yeah, you know who I mean). The issue isn't "Is it possible for anyone to get out poverty?" because people can. The issue is "does everyone, regardless of economic class, have an equal oppurtunity to be successful?" And to that the answer currently is a resounding no.

My personal solution (on the economic side) is:
Eliminate the ban of recieving student aid by people who have a drug USE (not distribution) conviction. The current ban simoltanously takes aid away from those who need it most but are also most likely to fall into drug abuse in the first place. hardly fair.
Second, increase the EITC.
Third, and this is important, DO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING NECESSARY to keep kids in school. that includes setting up subsidized daycare programs so they dont have to drop out to take care of siblings. that includes getting good teachers in at the earlies ages. that includes an expansion of head start. and that includes making extracurriculars available and affordable to all students.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:34 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

pardon my ignorance, but what is the EITC?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:36 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have to second that question.

And two, I agree wholeheartedly about the things you suggested.  They sound like excellent ideas.  Except maybe the drug convinction one, one conviction should be excused yes, but repeated offenses is questionable.  (Furthermore there are programs for people who used to be addicts who have gotten clean, which give VERY nice financial aid.  At least there is in California, I don't know about other states.)
I don't have a problem with expanding such programs, in fact I think programs like that are excellent ideas.  However, I do not agree with extreme distributive taxes or other forms of distributing wealth.  I have nothing against helping people get back on their feet, but I am strongly opposed to taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people.  To me taking money from rich people and using it for programs which benefit the poor is very different and is a good idea.  It's like the old saying "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."  If you just distribute the money, yes the poor are better off, but do they have the skills and drive to stay that way.  In many cases no.  But if you improve education for the poor then you are giving them the skills they need to get to the top themselves.

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 02:04 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sarah, that is basically what i mean. when i say give it to the poor, i mean more through programs. that is what welfare is. programs. i am not saying to just give all poor people a huge check. but we should vastly improve and increase programs. that will ultimately help distribute the wealth more equally in the long run.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 02:43 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right, but I disagree with welfare it is a "program" which hands them a check every month.  If they want to ween people off of their welfare then thats ok.  But people staying on welfare as long as they can is ridiculous and unfair.  The system is cheated to much to be worthwhile.  Instead offer free chid care so parents can work, offer night classes for parents to improve their skills.  But do not hand them money

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 11:33 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sarah, I'm surprised your family didn't take advantage of the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). The EITC is the largest govt. aid program to the poor outside medicaid. Basically, it is a refundable rebate on your income, that caps at a certain level (so the rebate stops going up at a certain income level, I'm not sure exactly where). The beauty of the EITC is twofold. First its refundable, which means that for many poor families, the rebate exceeds the amount they pay in taxes, meaning come april they get a check in the mail instead of sending one out. The Hartford Courant said that the economic effect of this was to produce a "mini-christmas" in the poorest areas, as people would go on spending trips or pay bills with this extra infusion of cash. The other great part of the EITC is that it goes up as income goes up, thus providing an incentive to work. The EITC doesn't cap until you get into the lower middle class. So the EITC gives an incentive and a boost to poorer families trying to move up, as well as giving a desperately needed boost to businesses in low-income areas.
In terms of general welfare my opinion is that they need to be focused on "teaching the man to fish," I.E. they need to have alot of focus on job training and programs that get and keep people in jobs. the vastly successful Portland Welfare to Work model could be adapted nation wide. The problem with the current "welfare reform" is that the stated objected is not to get people out of poverty, but to get them off welfare. If the state cuts their aid but they still remain poor, the call the reform a success. Instead, the focus needs to be shifted getting people out of poverty. But it is a bit unfair to ask people to learn to fish while they are starving. So while they are learning, I have no problem with giving them fish to tide them over. (The Communist model: Give a man a fish, the Democratic model: teach a man to fish, feed him while he's learning, the Republican model: ignore the man).
The ban on recieving aid is for federal programs only (mostly Pell Grants, the predominant college aid program to the poor). California is right to give the aid to people who have gotten clean, but that is small consolence to the poor in Alabama. I agree with you, if they are repeat offenders, no grant. But a one time conviction of marijuana shouldn't prevent you from getting into college. That's counterproductive, if anything it puts these people who desire to go to college back on the streets. smooth.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:36 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

exactly dsa. wow you sure know how to explain stuff well. in the long term, we should be teaching the man to fish. but in the meantime we should give them a few so they dont have to live in poverty.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:23 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My views are very similar to yours dsa.  And I have no problem giving the poor money to tide them over while they work, but they need to improve the programs that check up on people under welfare.  They need to make sure people under welfare actually need it, and they need to make sure that they are making an attempt to get off of the welfare.  I just know too many people who take advantage of welfare.  One woman had two children, single mom, and she was on welfare as long as she could.  She never got a 'real job' but she refurnished furniture under the table.  She was actually able to continue recieving her check until her daughter was 20 (not going to college) because the government messed up and didn't realize she was over 18.  She was so 'poor' but she gave her son a brand new Mustang for his 21st birthday.  I have a major problem with times like that when the system is being taken advantage of.  So I would approve of welfare if they had a tighter hold on the people who took it, but they don't so a lot of money is being wasted where it shouldn't be.

My family actually did (and does) get EITC.  I just didn't realize it was caled that.  We got a check every year instead of paying.  And I don't have a problem with that either, although I do think it is about as far as we should go with distributive taxes.  

As far as the drugs it is too bad they don't have a national program similar to the one here in California.  I actually have a friend on it, and she isn't paying anything for her college.  There are other benefits as well but I don't remember them all.  

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 1:22 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well I am always happy (and due to the partisanship on this site, amazed) when folks agree with me. And to reciprocate, I agree entirely that we need to tighten up on making sure that only people who need welfare get welfare. But that isn't the republican goal.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:06 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who says the dividend cut was just for the rich? A lot of people are going to benefit. A lot of companies that didn't issue dividends have now decided to so... like Mircrosoft.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:59 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

which makes for a 16 million dollar tax cut for Bill Gates...


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 7:21 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Chances are they wouldn't have even issued the dividend had Bush not eliminate dthe tax, and you know that. Gates gains $100 million, but others gain the other $900 million, and a lot of people own Microsoft stock.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:15 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

rich people own microsoft stock. the millions of poor people who live in poverty do not.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 9:18 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A lot of middle-class families own Microsoft stock. And I'm getting tired of your poverty complaints. Is socialism knocking poverty out? No! The poverty rate in Great Britain is higher and increasing while the US rate is lower and decreasing.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:16 AM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Source: CIA Factbook, 2002.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:18 AM on January 20, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yeah, i'm getting tired of you thinking that everyone on the planet owns stock. the fact is, they dont. and great britain is not a true socialist country (although they do have some socialism). sweden is probably the purest in the world.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 1:04 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And look at their economy. The GLobal Depression hurt us all, but It's far worse off because of that socialism.

You're the one who classfied Great Britain as socialist and I always said it really wasn't. That's why I threw that at you.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 1:24 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

great britain is a socialist country. but it is not as socialist as sweden and canada


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 2:19 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 02:43 AM on January 18, 2003 :
sarah, that is basically what i mean. when i say give it to the poor, i mean more through programs. that is what welfare is. programs. i am not saying to just give all poor people a huge check. but we should vastly improve and increase programs. that will ultimately help distribute the wealth more equally in the long run.



Fallingupwards:

You don't have to worry about distribution of wealth.  Through all of history when ever the rich have gotten too rich and the poor too poor.  The poor just simply starting killing the rich and take what they have.  It has happened everywhere and throught history.  It will happen again.

If capitalism is truely unjust system, then it will not survie.

That is another reason why you don't let the government take your guns!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:45 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Fallingupwards:

I once criticized you for being and idealist college boy who doesn't undersand labor.

From what I have read here especially from Sarah is that working people don't want your socialism.

I misrepresented myself when I told you I started working at 12 carrying sacks of cement.  That is true, but it was for my fathers construction company.  He was very well off, owned his own company, but was also an IBEW union member.  I did work my way through school at his company.  I've dug ditches, roofed, laid brick, run pipe, and worked very very hard.  I've got both views on being the "man" and being a worker bee.

You need catch a clue and get out of your comfy college classroom.  Socialism sounds great in a classroom.  Sounds great talking about with your college buddies.  You probably mean well, but it looks more like the educated elite deciding the best thing for the poor from up above.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:24 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On the one hand, some working poor (mainly those who managed to get out) don't want socialism. On the other, socialist ideals traditionally, and this holds true in America too, get most of their support from the working poor. Its a bit disingenous to say that b/c one women doesn't like socialism, nobody does. In fact, I don't like anecdotes in general to support ideas (see the gay rights forum).


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 9:21 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
Maynard

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EITC is really nice, it helped me and my wife very much the last 3 years.  my wife handles the finances, but i believe that EITC stops at 16,000 a year, thats why we are not getting it this year.


-------
I love my country, but fear my government.

your friendly ultra-conservative patriot.
 


Posts: 270 | Posted: 12:12 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.