Many believe that the republicans represent those who are wealthy. They favor tax breaks for the rich and they believe in the "trickle down" approach, correct? My point is that most people believe, whether it is true or not, that Republicans support the rich. The rich, need the poor, to be rich. Therefore the rich people in the republican party or in any party for that matter, benefit from keeping the poor where they are financially.

 

Everyone thinks they can achieve the "American dream" in this country but in reality there is not a very good success rate for poor people. I believe 1% of Americans own around 40% of the nations wealth. And I believe 10% owns 50% of the nations wealth. Basically, the majority of the wealth in this country is possessed by few people. Those who are poor are more than likely going to remain poor, and that's exactly how the rich want it to be.

 

 

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense. I typed it really quickly :lol:. I'm currently supposed to be substitute teaching, but instead I'm surfing BGP.

I'm not sure that the rich need the poor to be poor. I am also not convinced that the rich intend on keeping the poor in poverty. Why would the rich want everyone else to be poor?

 

And if you want to talk about percentages of wealth, think about this:

Top 0.5% of income earners pay 28% of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% of income earners pay 37% of all federal income taxes

Top 5% of income earners pay more than 50% of all federal income taxes

Top 50% of income earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes

 

It is not like the rich aren't paying their share. Where does all the money that poor have go to? I'd like to see how much is being spent on unnecessary items such as cigarettes, I'd bet it is an incredibly high amount. My point is this- it is possible to rise out of poverty, you just have to be disciplined. And FWIW, it all starts with your upbringing. I don't think the cycle of poverty is due to the rich abusing the poor, I honestly believe that it is due to poor parenting. That is why you hear some cases about people from the ghetto becoming successful, and the common denominator is normally the same- a parent who forced them to focus on education.

 

Sorry for that tangent :lol:

 

1 - If this were true, then can the success of the Democratic Party during and after Franklin Roosevelt be explained? Many lifelong Democrats were created because of his social programs and their perceived success. It wasn't until the economic malaise of Carter that the Democratic Party saw itself severely weakened.

 

2 - What about looking at the parties of the left in other developed countries who have implemented social programs into a market economy? France's was recently defeated in an election because of the economy and the promise of reform by the conservative Sarkozy. Yet Germany has a strong economy even with social programs.

 

You can also look to the developing world, where social programs are - what I would consider - very necessary to their success. Without them, a simple bump in the global economy results in millions thrown back into poverty.

 

3 - I think you may be underestimating working conditions here in the early century. Also, the poor working conditions in developing countries are often bad when they first enter the market. These conditions are made better either through workers in those countries demanding better conditions or public outcry in the developed countries. Look at the sweatshop fiasco with Nike in Asia, after public outcry dealt them a blow to their bottom line, huge reforms were undertaken to ensure better working conditions and to restore consumer confidence.

 

4 - What do you mean by "fair trade?" Are you talking about fair trade certified products, like coffee, or trade agreements that require unrealistically high standards?

1- I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but I could make the argument that FDR's New Deal programs only lengthened the Great Depression.

 

2- Once again, I am unclear on what you mean. Social programs in a market economy? A lot of European countries look to what is called "The Swedish Model" as a beacon of success of social programs. I have been having a correspondence with Johan Norberg, a Swedish capitalist writer, for a few months now, and we have gone into great detail on the failure of these programs (specifically in Sweden) and why they artificially work for a while.

 

3- I can't disagree with improving working conditions in developing countries. It is whenever people cry out to boycott products made by child labor that I get upset, because of what those children have to do when they aren't working. See what happened with the 2006 World Cup, when people found out that the soccer balls were being made by Pakistani children- immediately there was an outcry and the balls became made by adults in China. Often times, those children (who had been working in their homes with their families making soccer balls) resorted to prostitution. It is just another example of a leftists attempt that looks good on the surface but is bad for many.

 

4-By "fair trade" I mean when Dems attempt to put tariffs and quotas on products to ensure American jobs, which it in turn destroys.

I'm not sure that the rich need the poor to be poor. I am also not convinced that the rich intend on keeping the poor in poverty. Why would the rich want everyone else to be poor?

 

And if you want to talk about percentages of wealth, think about this:

Top 0.5% of income earners pay 28% of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% of income earners pay 37% of all federal income taxes

Top 5% of income earners pay more than 50% of all federal income taxes

Top 50% of income earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes

 

It is not like the rich aren't paying their share. Where does all the money that poor have go to? I'd like to see how much is being spent on unnecessary items such as cigarettes, I'd bet it is an incredibly high amount. My point is this- it is possible to rise out of poverty, you just have to be disciplined. And FWIW, it all starts with your upbringing. I don't think the cycle of poverty is due to the rich abusing the poor, I honestly believe that it is due to poor parenting. That is why you hear some cases about people from the ghetto becoming successful, and the common denominator is normally the same- a parent who forced them to focus on education.

 

Sorry for that tangent :lol:

 

 

1- I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but I could make the argument that FDR's New Deal programs only lengthened the Great Depression.

 

2- Once again, I am unclear on what you mean. Social programs in a market economy? A lot of European countries look to what is called "The Swedish Model" as a beacon of success of social programs. I have been having a correspondence with Johan Norberg, a Swedish capitalist writer, for a few months now, and we have gone into great detail on the failure of these programs (specifically in Sweden) and why they artificially work for a while.

 

3- I can't disagree with improving working conditions in developing countries. It is whenever people cry out to boycott products made by child labor that I get upset, because of what those children have to do when they aren't working. See what happened with the 2006 World Cup, when people found out that the soccer balls were being made by Pakistani children- immediately there was an outcry and the balls became made by adults in China. Often times, those children (who had been working in their homes with their families making soccer balls) resorted to prostitution. It is just another example of a leftists attempt that looks good on the surface but is bad for many.

 

4-By "fair trade" I mean when Dems attempt to put tariffs and quotas on products to ensure American jobs, which it in turn destroys.

 

The rich may pay more taxes, but percentage wise, they do not pay a greater part of their salary. The middle class and the poor pay substantially more out of their checks each week than a rich person and the effects hurt the poor/middle class more than it does a rich person as well.

 

The rich do need the poor. If there is no poor, then there is no rich. Someone has to be there to do the retail jobs, the security guard jobs, and all other low to medium paying jobs. Rich people don't do those jobs do they? No, they pay the poor/middle class to do them. Without the poor, everyone would fall into one category and no one would be "rich".

The rich may pay more taxes, but percentage wise, they do not pay a greater part of their salary. The middle class and the poor pay substantially more out of their checks each week than a rich person and the effects hurt the poor/middle class more than it does a rich person as well.

 

I am not a financial guru (and some of our accountants or those in the know correct me if I am wrong), but with the exception of the bolded part, I believe the rest of your statement is innacurate.

^ Just did a quick search and found this article...

 

Bush tax rate cuts notwithstanding, those with high incomes pay at much higher marginal tax rates than those with lower incomes.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/sburns/stories/DN-burns_04bus.ART.State.Edition1.4603045.html

The rich do need the poor. If there is no poor, then there is no rich. Someone has to be there to do the retail jobs, the security guard jobs, and all other low to medium paying jobs. Rich people don't do those jobs do they? No, they pay the poor/middle class to do them. Without the poor, everyone would fall into one category and no one would be "rich".

 

Huh? Rich is rich and poor is poor regardless of comparisons. If everyone were of the same status there would be no classes but they would all be either poor, rich, or somewhere between. Also, low to medium paying jobs do not make one poor.

I smell a class revolution.....eh comrades.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but I could make the argument that FDR's New Deal programs only lengthened the Great Depression.

Your thesis in the original post was that the Democrats need the poor to remain poor to sustain the party. Regardless of how it happened, a Democratic administration saw the economy go from the worst it has ever been to rather strong and saw the party strengthen as a result. So it would seem the Democrats don’t need the poor to be poor.

Once again, I am unclear on what you mean. Social programs in a market economy? A lot of European countries look to what is called "The Swedish Model" as a beacon of success of social programs. I have been having a correspondence with Johan Norberg, a Swedish capitalist writer, for a few months now, and we have gone into great detail on the failure of these programs (specifically in Sweden) and why they artificially work for a while.

Again, your argument concerns the Democrat’s reliance on the poor remaining poor. In other developed countries, parties similar to the Democrats exist, at least in terms of economic policy. In one country, the party of the left lost because of their economic policy and the poor economy. In another, the economy is doing quite well, yet the party of the left is a mainstay.

 

I suppose the debate about market economies and social assistance programs should be reserved for another thread, but your correspondence with the writer sounds interesting. :thumb:

I can't disagree with improving working conditions in developing countries. It is whenever people cry out to boycott products made by child labor that I get upset, because of what those children have to do when they aren't working. See what happened with the 2006 World Cup, when people found out that the soccer balls were being made by Pakistani children- immediately there was an outcry and the balls became made by adults in China. Often times, those children (who had been working in their homes with their families making soccer balls) resorted to prostitution. It is just another example of a leftists attempt that looks good on the surface but is bad for many.

I agree, but conditions in those countries often improve after trade. But, again, the people often need assistance from the government to weather blips in the economy.

I am not a financial guru (and some of our accountants or those in the know correct me if I am wrong), but with the exception of the bolded part, I believe the rest of your statement is innacurate.

 

You are correct. We have a progressive tax system. Rate increases as income increases up to the rate limits.

I think one could just as easily say that Republicans need poor people to stay poor as well.

 

Either way, I think most conspiracy theories are junk, this one included.

People who own $5,000 worth of stock are much more likely to vote for Republicans than Democrats. That is the reason that Democrats are so opposed to privatizing any part of social security. While I am not prepared to say that Democrats conspire to keep people in poverty, one needs only to look to our inner cities that are controlled by Democrats to see that poverty pays if you are a Democratic politician.

I am not a financial guru (and some of our accountants or those in the know correct me if I am wrong), but with the exception of the bolded part, I believe the rest of your statement is innacurate.

 

Wouldn't surprise me. I wasn't 100% sure, about that part, I should have included that.

People who own $5,000 worth of stock are much more likely to vote for Republicans than Democrats. That is the reason that Democrats are so opposed to privatizing any part of social security. While I am not prepared to say that Democrats conspire to keep people in poverty, one needs only to look to our inner cities that are controlled by Democrats to see that poverty pays if you are a Democratic politician.

 

I'm not seriously saying that republicans want to keep people in poverty either. I just decided to create a conspiracy theory of my own. I think the idea is silly, honestly.

Huh? Rich is rich and poor is poor regardless of comparisons. If everyone were of the same status there would be no classes but they would all be either poor, rich, or somewhere between. Also, low to medium paying jobs do not make one poor.

 

 

Who do you think does the low paying jobs?

 

If everyone were the same status, there would be no rich, and no poor. There would be one class. The rich need the poor.

 

Lower and middle class jobs don't make people poor. But those are the only jobs poor people hold. You are not going to find a poor person in a high paying job. :lol:

I'm not seriously saying that republicans want to keep people in poverty either. I just decided to create a conspiracy theory of my own. I think the idea is silly, honestly.

As I said, the more prosperous people become the less likely they will vote for Democrats. I agree that your conspiracy theory is silly.

 

Grover Norquist makes a very good argument that the main reason Democrats oppose privatizing Social Security is that it would allow their core constituencies to build wealth of their own. People who own a few thousand dollars in stocks suddenly begin understanding what the capital gains tax debate is all about. Creating successful taxpayers is synonymous with creating Republican voters. Creating federal and state dependents translates to increases in Democratic voters.

 

The worse the economy is this fall, the higher gas prices are, and the less money people have in their pockets, the better chance Democrats have of being elected. The converse is true of Republicans.

As I said, the more prosperous people become the less likely they will vote for Democrats. I agree that your conspiracy theory is silly.

 

Grover Norquist makes a very good argument that the main reason Democrats oppose privatizing Social Security is that it would allow their core constituencies to build wealth of their own. People who own a few thousand dollars in stocks suddenly begin understanding what the capital gains tax debate is all about. Creating successful taxpayers is synonymous with creating Republican voters. Creating federal and state dependents translates to increases in Democratic voters.

 

The worse the economy is this fall, the higher gas prices are, and the less money people have in their pockets, the better chance Democrats have of being elected. The converse is true of Republicans.

 

As is any other one mentioned in this thread IMO. :lol:

As is any other one mentioned in this thread IMO. :lol:

Hey, I was just trying to be agreeable. :lol: