Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 11th, 2012, 06:37 PM   #1
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,799
We as progressives have had the burden of explaining how the wealthy (like corporate elites and billionaire hedge fund managers) had made it possible for the last 30 years through legislative measures and lobbying, to steal from the American people. Stealing from the American people is as easy right now as stealing candy from a baby. This is mainly due to the lunacy notion by our Supreme Court that ruled money is speech and corporations are people with the 1976 Buckley vs Valeo and 2010 Citizens United. And in this cause, that old cliche of "it's as easy as taking candy from a baby" IS TRUE! Literally true! The rich like taking candy from little children according to a new study out from the University of California Berkeley and Toronto. These 2 teenagers discovered that wealthy upper class Americans are more likely than poorer folks to break laws while driving, lie for financial gain, and of course STEAL CANDY FROM CHILDREN.



1st, how they did the study for the traffic laws was that they observed multi day and week periods of traffic intersections. What they found was that people driving high end vehicles (like BMWs and Mercedes) were more likely to break traffic laws or cut off pedestrians. Quote:



"drivers of expensive vehicles such as Mercedes, BMW and Toyota’s Prius hybrid were seen breaking the rules more often at four-way intersections than people who drove a Camry or Corolla.



They were also more likely to cut off pedestrians trying to cross the street than drivers of cheaper cars."



2nd, in the other study they played a game of dice with a $50 dollar prize for the winner. The they didn't tell them that there was a hidden camera. Quote:



"using a game of dice, given the opportunity to win a $50 prize, people who self-reported high socio-economic status were more likely to lie and say that they had rolled higher numbers than they actually had.





“Even in people for whom $50 is a relatively small amount of money, cheating was three times as high,” said lead author Paul Piff of UC Berkeley. “It really shows the extreme lengths to which wealth and upper rank status in society can shape patterns of self-interest and unethicality,” he told AFP."



3rd, researchers put a jar of candy in front of someone and told them that this candy if for the children in the lab next door. Then the researcher leave the room. Quote:



"And when given a jar of candy that they were told was for children in a nearby lab — though they could take some if they wanted — the richest people took more candy than anyone else.



Even Piff, who has studied the impact of wealth on people’s morality and charitable giving in the past — finding that rich people tend to give less to charity than poor people — was surprised to see them taking sweets from kids. “I was astonished,” Piff said. “On average, people in the upper rank condition took two times as much (candy), so it was a pretty sizeable effect.”



Are you surprise that the rich stole more from children? I guess considering that they don't mind stealing from an entire countries, we shouldn't be. And the study goes on with more examples. http://www.rawstory....to-cheat-study/



However what is really important here, is WHAT they have stolen from all of us over the last 30 years. 1st of all they stolen our money. Today the top 1% owns 40% of all the wealthy. Prior to Reagan most wealth was evenly distributed among most Americans populous and since Reagan that has flipped.







Now despite increase productivity (which mean people are producing more money for the company that they work for) working people wages have barely increased in the last 30 years.







This means the U.S. citizens have not been earning their proper fruits of their labor. Instead, what has been happening is that all that money that was left over from all the productivity since the 1980s, instead was redistributed to the wealthy Americans. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) since 1980, the top 1% have seen their income gone up 275%. Quote:





"After-Tax Income Grew More for Highest-Income Households



[font=Microsoft Sans Serif', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group. (After-tax income is income after federal taxes have been deducted and government transfers—which are payments to people through such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance—have been added.)[/font]

[font=Microsoft Sans Serif', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:[/font]
  • 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
  • 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
  • Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
  • 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent."

[font=Microsoft Sans Serif', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729

Middle class income hasn't even kept up with inflation. Also the banks have moved something like $8 Trillion dollars worth of wealth out of the hands of the homes of the middle class when they crash the economy in 2007-8. So they are not only stealing our money they are stealing our commons.



The wealthy have stolen our right to unionize at the workplace which started with Reagan's war on unions and now these new "Right to Work" laws that make it harder or impossible to unionize. Almost 30% of our workforce has been unionized in before Reagan came into office and now it's today around 8-7%. The mass decrease in the unionization rate is one of the main reasons why we've seen a sharp decline in wages.







Employees in Right to Work states make in average $5333 thousand dollars less than open shop employees. http://qctimes.com/n...1871e3ce6c.html



The wealthy have stolen our right to healthcare because unlike every other OECD country in the world, the U.S. doesn't consider healthcare a right. This is due to years of republicans and healthcare insurance companies lobbying massively our elected representatives against the American people health to alien their pockets by denying people healthcare.



Our peace have been stolen by the rich due to the defense contractors lobbying our elected representative for unnecessary weapon system and continuing to beat the drums of war. Spending stupid amounts of money on stuff like this whether if we need them or not.







This is 1 of the main reasons why our defense budget has tripled since the 1990s.



And of course most importantly, the rich have stolen our right of self governance. The Supreme Court have delivered this with Citizens United in 2010 enabling rich people to spend millions of billions of dollars to influence our ELECTED representative. I must emphasize the that its our elected representatives. This has played out with the 2010 midterms where the corporations spent over $300 dollars buying our representatives. We got the most corporate funded houses in the history of our nation.



And now we have the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) where lobbyist and corporate elites are literally writing our laws and handing them to our state legislators.



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUpNukpqWSM[/media]
Fayt is offline  
Old August 11th, 2012, 06:53 PM   #2
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,799
Thank you all for participation in choosing the next topic thread on this site. It was so much fun I'm going to do it again next month. I might even make it a regular thing.



Thank you
Fayt is offline  
Old August 11th, 2012, 08:13 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Bookworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
We as progressives have had the burden of explaining how the wealthy (like corporate elites and billionaire hedge fund managers)
In your estimation, what is the monetary point at which a person is considered "wealthy"? I can understand a billionaire being termed wealthy, but if I own my own corporation and make, say, 250,000 a year, would I be one of those "corporate elites"?



If I produce a product that 200 million people want to buy, and I make 10 dollars profit on each item, will I have "stolen" from the people in order to make my wealth?
Bookworm is offline  
Old August 11th, 2012, 09:03 PM   #4
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,799
What is considered wealthy in the U.S. is anyone making over $340 thousand a year. That's the 1 percent but not the top 1 percent.







The top 1% are Americans making over millions of dollars a year, those are the people that should be taxed pre Reagan tax rates. So the answer to your question is no, you're elite compared to most 99-98% of the American people people like yourself is not the target of progressive/liberal outrage.



I should had mentioned that not all rich people are bad, most are good and a matter of fact, most want to taxes increase.
Fayt is offline  
Old August 11th, 2012, 09:18 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt
1st, how they did the study for the traffic laws was that they observed multi day and week periods of traffic intersections. What they found was that people driving high end vehicles (like BMWs and Mercedes) were more likely to break traffic laws or cut off pedestrians.




"drivers of expensive vehicles such as Mercedes, BMW and Toyota’s Prius hybrid were seen breaking the rules more often at four-way intersections than people who drove a Camry or Corolla.




They were also more likely to cut off pedestrians trying to cross the street than drivers of cheaper cars."


I've noticed this too, but I must point out that it's a cold day in hell to find an R is driving a Prius, which many on the right call a "Pious."



Evidently, rich liberals are no better than rich conservatives in this aspect.



[youtube]http://youtu.be/GS7P-uyfQH8[/youtube]
imaginethat is offline  
Old August 11th, 2012, 10:07 PM   #6
Fayt Storm ON [OFF]
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 15,799
One BIG difference between the liberal rich and the conservative rich is that liberal rich are fighting AGAINST their own economic interests. Despite that the rich should not be spending millions of billions of dollars influencing our elected representatives. And yes the liberal rich can be bad drivers too. That study wasn't a partisan piece.
Fayt is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 07:51 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Surveys are generally tools to serve the purpose of the surveyor, as are polls. Before even looking at the survey, and seeing that it came from Berkeley, I knew discrediting it would be, as you stated, as easy as taking candy from a baby. The exact survey conducted by Liberty University or The King's College would have given completely different results. Not that they would be accurate, but completely different. Trying to present to the scientific world that the subjects of the survey were undergraduate students from the most radically liberal college in this country as representative of the U.S. or the world’s wealthy is, well, it is Berkeley and rabid liberalism.



(1) Sitting at an intersection observing traffic violations and stating as a fact that drivers of high end vehicles are wealthy upper class is one of the most unsound, unscientific, and statements probably ever made. Perhaps since the study was 100% uncontrolled, let me tell you how I read the results. What the data tells me is that the high end vehicle drivers had 10 year loans on the cars, were making $50,000 per year, and were just trying to keep up with the Jones by buying a car with money they did not have, to impress people they did not like—keeping up with the Joneses. The data also tells me that only the high end vehicle drivers that broke the law were the $50,000 per year drivers, and the high end vehicle drivers that did not break the law were wealthy upper class who paid cash for their cars. The data also tells me that the Corolla drivers had just robbed a bank or committed a felony and were being extremely cautious to not draw attention while making their escape. For this data to be remotely legitimate there would have to be empirical evidence that drivers of high end cars, at those intersections (the word "multi" does not cut it in a survey, how many and where), in that part of town (demographics are paramount for accuracy), in that state (demographics are paramount for accuracy, I assume California), at that time of day, are wealthy upper class people behind the wheels. For this to be remotely accurate, first the income level of each person would need to be verified, then that particular person would have to get into a high end automobile without knowing they were being watched, then followed over the course of several day to determine if this is true or not; and the same with the Corolla drivers. They would need to know then population of high end cars in a certain demographic, and then follow a certain percentage for this to be accurate. In other words, it is just fabricated left wing garbage in, garbage out to present a the result they wanted.



(2) The dice game’s credibility ends with the words “self-reported high socio-economic status.” Let’s get this straight: The people, who stated they were rich, rolled the dice, and then they lied about the numbers. The data tells me that the people who lied about the numbers on the dice probably lied about their income because they are liars, and probably drove to the survey in a Mercedes they still owed 9 more years on the loan, and were probably caught by the same people blowing through a red light on the way over.



(3) The richest people took the candy? This portion of the survey used undergraduate students, exactly 129 students. For this to have the slightest accuracy and to achieve an accepted scientifically accepted result, about 1000 would be needed for the survey. Also undergraduate students do not qualify as a measure of someone’s rank in society (wealth, occupational prestige, and education). Their parents may be wealthy, but that does not mean that a 10-21 year old will have the same characteristics as their parents. It can be assumed the same for the dice game.



The survey does not show or prove anything. It shows what it shows: what they wanted it to show. What was the goal of the survey? What methodology was used? What were the sample sizes in relation to the population? What was the margin of error? What was the desired error level? What was the desired level of confidence?



For any of the experiments to be accurate they would have to know what error they will tolerate and how many people are in the population of their survey, then they could use the accepted method of collecting a survey sample for their confidence number.



Perhaps if I get bored later, I will spend the afternoon observing my neighbors and present their habits as representative of the world.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 02:12 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Bookworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
The top 1% are Americans making over millions of dollars a year, those are the people that should be taxed pre Reagan tax rates. So the answer to your question is no, you're elite compared to most 99-98% of the American people people like yourself is not the target of progressive/liberal outrage.



I should had mentioned that not all rich people are bad, most are good and a matter of fact, most want to taxes increase.
So when I start making over a million dollars a year, that is when progressives start being outraged at me? What is the real difference between someone making a million dollars a year and someone making 100,000 a year? They are both simply people, who walk and talk and breathe basically the same, yet one should have outrage directed at them and be punished with a higher tax rate simply because he makes more money than the other. How is that fair? I've often heard that one of the ways to reduce smoking is to raise taxes on cigarettes, and if people have to pay higher taxes, they will stop the activity that is being taxed. It sounds like you want to raise taxes on success, thus reducing the incentive for people to be successful.
Bookworm is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 02:34 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
What is considered wealthy in the U.S. is anyone making over $340 thousand a year. That's the 1 percent but not the top 1 percent.







The top 1% are Americans making over millions of dollars a year, those are the people that should be taxed pre Reagan tax rates. So the answer to your question is no, you're elite compared to most 99-98% of the American people people like yourself is not the target of progressive/liberal outrage.



I should had mentioned that not all rich people are bad, most are good and a matter of fact, most want to taxes increase.


Why should the top 1% pay pre Reagan era tax rates when they are currently paying 68% of taxes collected? Seems to me that the 50% of the U.S., who use the majority of government resources, who do not pay taxes, should just simply be paying taxes. Fair share, what is it? Is paying no taxes but receiving government benefits fair? Is it fair to the 1% who support not only the government, but also the 50% who do not contribute? One group is over taxed and one group is not only under taxed, but not taxed at all. I just don't see the equity in this, and I also do not see a long term positive prognosis. If just half of the 1% just decided to up and leave for a more tax friendly environment, what would we do then? There is zero attempt by the left for a synergistic solution; just punish the productive and successful.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old August 12th, 2012, 02:45 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1344747797' post='420421

What is considered wealthy in the U.S. is anyone making over $340 thousand a year. That's the 1 percent but not the top 1 percent.







The top 1% are Americans making over millions of dollars a year, those are the people that should be taxed pre Reagan tax rates. So the answer to your question is no, you're elite compared to most 99-98% of the American people people like yourself is not the target of progressive/liberal outrage.



I should had mentioned that not all rich people are bad, most are good and a matter of fact, most want to taxes increase.


Why should the top 1% pay pre Reagan era tax rates when they are currently paying 68% of taxes collected? Seems to me that the 50% of the U.S., who use the majority of government resources, who do not pay taxes, should just simply be paying taxes. Fair share, what is it? Is paying no taxes but receiving government benefits fair? Is it fair to the 1% who support not only the government, but also the 50% who do not contribute? One group is over taxed and one group is not only under taxed, but not taxed at all. I just don't see the equity in this, and I also do not see a long term positive prognosis. If just half of the 1% just decided to up and leave for a more tax friendly environment, what would we do then? There is zero attempt by the left for a synergistic solution; just punish the productive and successful.


Another example of people just not thinking things through far enough, "tax the rich." It's in the same vein as gun control laws supposedly having an effect on people with criminal intent....



Maybe, the best thing to do is to tax the rich, and watch some of them head for somewhere else. Iow, give the liberals/progressives what they want. And some will move. The first allegiance of many is money.



Then, the tax revenues they contribute, and which pay for a lot of many social programs, will have to be made up by increasing taxes on someone else ... like, the middle class.



That should be fun to watch.
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
rich, stolen



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Romney's stolen tax returns RidinHighSpeeds Current Events 3 September 8th, 2012 01:32 PM
Does The Amount Of Money Stolen Matter? leighredf Crime and Punishment 49 January 7th, 2011 01:16 AM
Track down your stolen laptop with Prey Dude111 Science and Technology 1 July 2nd, 2010 01:44 PM
Stolen 2004 election hevusa Political Talk 58 June 4th, 2006 03:39 PM
Government For the Rich, By the Rich and ONLY for the Rich ManOfTrueTruth Political Talk 9 February 6th, 2006 06:42 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.