• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

40,000 New Yorkers Pay 50%+ of the city's taxes!

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Which pretty much ensures that the working class will never get ahead

You make a great point. As long as you work for someone else, your pretty much putting yourself on a tread mill living from paycheck to pay check.

The thing of it is, wealth is not a big paycheck. It was never about how much money you make, it is about what you do with the money you make.

The biggest problem is, people are programed from an early age that they will grow up and work for someone else.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
You make a great point. As long as you work for someone else, your pretty much putting yourself on a tread mill living from paycheck to pay check.

The thing of it is, wealth is not a big paycheck. It was never about how much money you make, it is about what you do with the money you make.

The biggest problem is, people are programed from an early age that they will grow up and work for someone else.

But Rick, if everybody worked for themselves, who would work for you?
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
Can you imagine what would happen if these 40,000 people decided to take a year off?

Since you responded with an Ayn Rand thought, I have the answer!

atlass.gif
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Since you responded with an Ayn Rand thought, I have the answer!

atlass.gif

Great cartoon. I must be the exception, you could drop me nakid and poor anywhere. In the jungle, desert, blighted city, forest, whatever and come back six months later and I would be king of my domain as I am the ultimate survivalist.
 

Frostbyte

Member
The right wing does not celebrate the “unequal distribution of wealth.” Capitalism is a system where those who work, and those who have passion and enginuity succeed. Of course there are going to be different results because people are different. Those that work are the ones that get paid. Wealth is distributed in systems like Socialism and Communism, in a capitalist society, wealth is earned. First of all the left wing and democrat party is the ultimate in hypocracy regarding the economy, the need and want income inequality.

“Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, and another America that gets the tax breaks.” One America that will do anything to leave it’s children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because it’s children are already set for life.” – John Edwards 2004

John Edwards gave that speech at the same time he was purchasing 102 acres of land in Orange County, NC. On which he built a mansion, with five bedrooms and six (and a half) baths. It connects to his huge recreation facility called The Barn. This addition features an indoor pool, basketball, squash and handball courts, and a stage. The estate contains more than 28,000 sq ft and cost 1,000,000 more than any other home in the county. Just to twist the knife of irony, it sits across the street from a trailer park.
To quote Glenn Beck
“Let me be completely clear about something: I don’t care about income inequality. I don’t care if some people make a lot more money than other people. In fact, I want that to happen because it motivates people to push themselves harder. It’s a function of capitalism, and I like capitalism. I do care that people are able to meet their basic needs such as food, drink and shelter. If life is a stock market, I’m bearish on starving people to death. I also care about people having every opportunity to succeed financially if they work hard. No one should ever face an uphill battle simply because of race, gender, or anything else other than merit.”
It is not right to punish those who work hard and have the passion to make themselves wealthy. In the phrase “All men are created equal” the emphasis is too much on “equal” when included on that should be “created.” Everyone is created equal, it does not guarantee success.
You have been conditioned by the left wing and the media to view the right wing and rich people as robber barons living off the hard work of other people and doing nothing. Just like you’ve been told the Fox News is a joke, because even CNN, which I believe is probably the closest to the middle, has left wing bias. MSNBC is the most left wing news organization, besides MAYBE the NY Times. And they’re bleeding money like a stuck pig. I wouldn’t be so quick to demonize Fox News along with Hannity and Limbaugh before you look into them a little more. Rush Limbaugh has the highest accuracy rating in talk radio at least, maybe it even extends beyond that. The best numbers I can find place the rating between 96 and 99.6 percent. If Fox News is so terrible, explain to me why Bill O’Reilly has had the number one rated cable news show for 8 years. Also explain how every time progressive talk radio is tried, and allowed to sink or swim in a free market, it fails. Yet Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and others, prosper? The only way liberal talk stays on the air is when it’s held up by the public. (NPR and PBS)
The democrat party relies on class tension and quite frankly, it relies on people being poor. They need people to stay afraid for their money, and they need people to think that they can’t get rich. Then they continue to say “we’ll take care of you” and perpetuate the nanny state, and their regime. If republicans truly support just the rich, and get their votes from them, wouldn’t they want more people to be rich? And If the democrats get the poor votes, wouldn’t they want people to stay under privileged? Here are some numbers for you. The following compares the American cities with the highest poverty rates, and the percent of time a Republican has been mayor since 1965. (this excludes El Paso, where partisan information was lacking. El Paso county however, is traditionally left leaning and supported John Kerry in 04)
(in formation is laid out as such; City Poverty Rate Time a Rep was mayor since 65)


1.Cleveland, OH 32.4% 38.1%
2.Detroit, MI 31.4% 0%
3.Miami FL 28.3% 31%
4.Atlanta, GA 26.9% 0%
5.Buffalo, NY 26.9% 0%
6.St. Louis, MO 25.4% 0%
7.Cincinnati, OH 25% 19%
8.Milwaukee, WI 24.9% 0%
9.Newark, NJ 24.8% 0%
10.(tie) Philadelphia, PA 24.5% 0%
11.(tie) New Orleans, LA 24.5% 0%

(I apologize for the difficult to read layout, nothing I can do)

Republicans have run the cities with the worst poverty problems only 8% of the time since 1965.
If we may, lets actually examine poverty in America. Here are the numbers;
 
Last edited:

Frostbyte

Member
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Between 1979 and 2004 the number of households earning less than $75,000 per year (inflation adjusted) fell by 10.1%. The number earning greater than 75k rose by the same number.
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]In the same time, median size of a newly built home increased from 1485 sq ft to 2140 sq ft. Around 40% of these have 4+ bedrooms, and 90% have central air.
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Between 97 and 03, the number of people with computers rose by 68%. The number with internet access rose by 206%
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The (inflation adjusted) net worth of the median family rose by 31% from midway through Clinton’s term to midway through Bush’s. 54% of Americans hold no credit card debt.
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]An American at the poverty line is better off than 85% of the rest of the world.

In poor households;
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]97% own a color TV (25% big screen)
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]73% own a microwave
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]73% own a car (30% own 2+)
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]78% own a dvd or vcr
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]59% own a stereo
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]63% have cable/satellite TV
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]55% own 2+ TVs
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]76% have air conditioning
-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]56% and 65% have a dryer and washer, respectively

-Almost half of poor households actually own their home.
[FONT=&quot]The average dwelling of a POOR American, has more sq footage than the average dwelling of a person in any European nation except Luxembourg. The average poor person in America has a bigger house than the average person, PERSON, in Europe.[/FONT]
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
-Between 1979 and 2004 the number of households earning less than $75,000 per year (inflation adjusted) fell by 10.1%. The number earning greater than 75k rose by the same number.

You do realize that in that timespan, the cost of a house went from something like $50,000 to $175,000, right? It's called inflation. If everyone made the same amount for 25 years, there would be a hell of a lot more people living on the streets.

-Between 97 and 03, the number of people with computers rose by 68%. The number with internet access rose by 206%

I don't buy those numbers. I'd think the number of computer owners rose by a lot more than that, and the number with internet access must have gone up way more than that.

-The (inflation adjusted) net worth of the median family rose by 31% from midway through Clinton’s term to midway through Bush’s. 54% of Americans hold no credit card debt.

What is the "net worth of a median family"? I have to doubt that 54% number. That seems pretty absurd. Regardless, though, 46% of people holding credit card debt should be a high number, not a low one. It should be looked at as something to work on, not a goal achieved.

-An American at the poverty line is better off than 85% of the rest of the world.

In poor households;
-97% own a color TV (25% big screen)
-73% own a microwave
-73% own a car (30% own 2+)
-78% own a dvd or vcr
-59% own a stereo
-63% have cable/satellite TV
-55% own 2+ TVs
-76% have air conditioning
-56% and 65% have a dryer and washer, respectively

-Almost half of poor households actually own their home.
[FONT=&quot]The average dwelling of a POOR American, has more sq footage than the average dwelling of a person in any European nation except Luxembourg. The average poor person in America has a bigger house than the average person, PERSON, in Europe.[/FONT]

What are you considering poor, and where did you get these numbers? I could throw out numbers and statistics, too. They're only good if you can back them up. Besides, many of those things aren'y even luxuries, or at least shouldn't be considered luxuries, like washers and dryers, microwaves, air conditioning, and a car.

Aside from that, as you said the houses being built have gotten progresively bigger over the years, so obviously some less-than-rich people are going to live in bigger houses than in Europe. They don't feel the need to live in huge houses with huge yards. That's not a commentary on how wealthy they are. It's a commentary on their mindset that would behoove us. Americans always think bigger is better, and that's part of the problem.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Frostbyte - I'm just curious - where did you get your statistics from?

I'm sure that they are all well researched and extremely accurate, because if not, it would be the first time we've ever seen right wing talking points pulled out of someone's backside and posted in this forum as if it were gospel.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Robert Reich said:
"The incomes of the top 1 percent have soared for thirty years while median wages have slowed or declined in real terms. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez have shown, in the 1970s the top-earning 1 percent of Americans took home 8 percent of total income; as recently as 1980 they took home 9 percent. After that, total income became more and more concentrated at the top. By 2007, the top 1 percent took home over 22 percent. Meanwhile, even as their incomes dramatically increased, the total federal tax rates paid by the top 1 percent dropped. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1 percent paid a total federal tax rate of 37 percent three decades ago; now it's paying 31 percent." Source.

I've seen these or similar figures before.
 

J Bryson

Well-Known Member
Gee. Despite Investocracy's best efforts, he's stimulated a reasonable and respectful debate among people with opposing viewpoints.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology

Thanks, Rick.

It would appear that Frostbyte simply overlooked the inclusion of a link to his source. With the source being The Heritage Foundation, I can certainly understand why he might have forgotten to provide the link.

Nonetheless, I took time to read the article, look at their source material, and I even did a quick background check on the two authors of the article. It turns out that one (Kirk A. Johnson) left the Heritage Foundation to go to work for another ultra-right organization that works to influence politicians in Michigan. I thought it was interesting that his Ph.D. is in "Public Policy".

According to the Heritage Foundation, the other author (Robert E. Rector) has been "Dubbed the "intellectual godfather" of welfare reform by National Review Editor Rich Lowry...". Now that is high praise indeed, coming from the periodical that launched the conservative movement in America. Sure, it undercuts any claims of objectivity by the authors, but I doubt that that bothers them in any way.

I don't think anyone would expect an honest, unbiased article to emanate from the Heritage Foundation, but you have to love the fact that the last three sources for material are ... wait for it ...

... prior works of the authors.

You read that correctly. They are citing their own work as source material for this particular article.

With a little luck, these two could probably land a job at Faux News, working as copy writers for Sean Hannity. That way, they wouldn't even have to cite their own work, since research is considered an unneccesary burden.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Thanks, Rick.

It would appear that Frostbyte simply overlooked the inclusion of a link to his source. With the source being The Heritage Foundation, I can certainly understand why he might have forgotten to provide the link.

Nonetheless, I took time to read the article, look at their source material, and I even did a quick background check on the two authors of the article. It turns out that one (Kirk A. Johnson) left the Heritage Foundation to go to work for another ultra-right organization that works to influence politicians in Michigan. I thought it was interesting that his Ph.D. is in "Public Policy".

According to the Heritage Foundation, the other author (Robert E. Rector) has been "Dubbed the "intellectual godfather" of welfare reform by National Review Editor Rich Lowry...". Now that is high praise indeed, coming from the periodical that launched the conservative movement in America. Sure, it undercuts any claims of objectivity by the authors, but I doubt that that bothers them in any way.

I don't think anyone would expect an honest, unbiased article to emanate from the Heritage Foundation, but you have to love the fact that the last three sources for material are ... wait for it ...

... prior works of the authors.

You read that correctly. They are citing their own work as source material for this particular article.

With a little luck, these two could probably land a job at Faux News, working as copy writers for Sean Hannity. That way, they wouldn't even have to cite their own work, since research is considered an unneccesary burden.

Well, you can kill the messenger, discredit the messenger, do what ever you like VOR. I would enjoy reading anything you have to discredit the figures that are provided. Do the numbers lie? They quote the census bureau don't they?
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
This is always a problem. Someone asks for a source which implies to me they think the whole thing came out their butt. Even when the source is provided, it is then discredited which is a total waste of time in the first place.

A superior move would be to find a more creditable source to the contrary.
 
Top