Not Another Delta Between Rich and Poor Thread

[LeftofLeft]

The Left always sites the inequality of income and wealth in America. Guess what?Inequality in wealth and income exists in Asia, Europe, The Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Canada. Do the Countries that comprise these Continents NOT have an Elite and a Poor? Why would the US want to move more towards a Society where so few enjoy the finer things? In these societies, the Masses are lead to believe 'everything is fair' yet somehow, a Poor still exists and so does an Elite? Wouldn't a society that enables and encourages upward mobility be more appealing (which is what US Founders had in mind)?

What does the Left have to say about the existence or justification of an Elite anywhere in the World? Why focus in US??

 

[California Girl]

They don't. The left are part of a global movement to destroy the wealthy and 'redistribute' their money. Apparently, this will solve the world's problems. Except that it won't... there will just be more poor and no rich. And we'll all go down together! Doesn't that sound cool!

 

[auditor0007]

The Left always sites the inequality of income and wealth in America. Guess what?Inequality in wealth and income exists in Asia, Europe, The Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Canada. Do the Countries that comprise these Continents NOT have an Elite and a Poor? Why would the US want to move more towards a Society where so few enjoy the finer things? In these societies, the Masses are lead to believe 'everything is fair' yet somehow, a Poor still exists and so does an Elite? Wouldn't a society that enables and encourages upward mobility be more appealing (which is what US Founders had in mind)?

What does the Left have to say about the existence or justification of an Elite anywhere in the World? Why focus in US??

You are missing the entire point of the argument. The left does not want to restrict anyone's earnings and those of us in the center or to the left do not suggest that earnings should be equal for everyone. What is being questioned is the disparity in the growth of income between the lower income and middle class in comparison to the very wealthy. While the very wealthy have seen their incomes soar to unprecedented heights, the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or even decrease. This is no longer an America of prosperity for all, but rather it has become an America of prosperity only for the very few while everyone else takes a back seat.

And there is a problem with this. As Henry Ford once said, it is important to pay workers enough so that they can afford the products that we sell. Otherwise, we will have nobody to buy our products. In a sense, this is exactly what is happening in the US. The masses can no longer afford to buy the things we produce. Eventually it will even catch up to the elite and the entire house of cards will come tumbling down.

 

[auditor0007]

They don't. The left are part of a global movement to destroy the wealthy and 'redistribute' their money. Apparently, this will solve the world's problems. Except that it won't... there will just be more poor and no rich. And we'll all go down together! Doesn't that sound cool!

If you ever got off off that train, you would see that you are way off base and have very little understanding of what the center and left believes.

 

[California Girl]

The Left always sites the inequality of income and wealth in America. Guess what?Inequality in wealth and income exists in Asia, Europe, The Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Canada. Do the Countries that comprise these Continents NOT have an Elite and a Poor? Why would the US want to move more towards a Society where so few enjoy the finer things? In these societies, the Masses are lead to believe 'everything is fair' yet somehow, a Poor still exists and so does an Elite? Wouldn't a society that enables and encourages upward mobility be more appealing (which is what US Founders had in mind)?

What does the Left have to say about the existence or justification of an Elite anywhere in the World? Why focus in US??

You are missing the entire point of the argument. The left does not want to restrict anyone's earnings and those of us in the center or to the left do not suggest that earnings should be equal for everyone. What is being questioned is the disparity in the growth of income between the lower income and middle class in comparison to the very wealthy. While the very wealthy have seen their incomes soar to unprecedented heights, the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or even decrease. This is no longer an America of prosperity for all, but rather it has become an America of prosperity only for the very few while everyone else takes a back seat.

And there is a problem with this. As Henry Ford once said, it is important to pay workers enough so that they can afford the products that we sell. Otherwise, we will have nobody to buy our products. In a sense, this is exactly what is happening in the US. The masses can no longer afford to buy the things we produce. Eventually it will even catch up to the elite and the entire house of cards will come tumbling down.

The only reason that the wealthy are seeing an increase in income is because they invest differently to the rest. That old adage "The first million is the hardest" is very true. It has jack shit to do with 'equality' and everything to do with wise investing.

 

[LeftofLeft]

They don't. The left are part of a global movement to destroy the wealthy and 'redistribute' their money. Apparently, this will solve the world's problems. Except that it won't... there will just be more poor and no rich. And we'll all go down together! Doesn't that sound cool!

Good quote....but, I disagree on one part. A Rich or Wealthy exists in every society.....even ones that "redistribute the Wealth." Who's wealth is Cuba, Venezeuala, or North Korea redistributing? If your name is Castro, Il-Sung, or Chavez, you are part of the 'Less than 1 percent.' You get the finer things while that Masses produce for you. How Fair is that??

 

[eflatminor]

...the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or even decrease.

So, the question is what to do about this. More central planning or should we embrace the idea of individual liberty and limited government that made America the greatest nation in history for poor and middle class folks? Personally, I vote for the latter.

 

[auditor0007]

The Left always sites the inequality of income and wealth in America. Guess what?Inequality in wealth and income exists in Asia, Europe, The Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Canada. Do the Countries that comprise these Continents NOT have an Elite and a Poor? Why would the US want to move more towards a Society where so few enjoy the finer things? In these societies, the Masses are lead to believe 'everything is fair' yet somehow, a Poor still exists and so does an Elite? Wouldn't a society that enables and encourages upward mobility be more appealing (which is what US Founders had in mind)?

What does the Left have to say about the existence or justification of an Elite anywhere in the World? Why focus in US??

You are missing the entire point of the argument. The left does not want to restrict anyone's earnings and those of us in the center or to the left do not suggest that earnings should be equal for everyone. What is being questioned is the disparity in the growth of income between the lower income and middle class in comparison to the very wealthy. While the very wealthy have seen their incomes soar to unprecedented heights, the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or even decrease. This is no longer an America of prosperity for all, but rather it has become an America of prosperity only for the very few while everyone else takes a back seat.

And there is a problem with this. As Henry Ford once said, it is important to pay workers enough so that they can afford the products that we sell. Otherwise, we will have nobody to buy our products. In a sense, this is exactly what is happening in the US. The masses can no longer afford to buy the things we produce. Eventually it will even catch up to the elite and the entire house of cards will come tumbling down.

The only reason that the wealthy are seeing an increase in income is because they invest differently to the rest. That old adage "The first million is the hardest" is very true. It has jack shit to do with 'equality' and everything to do with wise investing.

Here are some facts, and it really doesn't matter how or why things got this way, it's just not good for American, and it is going to be the downfall of the middle class. The top 1% controls 42% of all the wealth. The top 5% controls 69% of all the wealth. And finally, the top 20% controls 93% of all the wealth. That leaves the bottom 80% controlling 7% of the wealth. If you really believe this is good for American, then hey, keep up the good work.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The Left always sites the inequality of income and wealth in America. Guess what?Inequality in wealth and income exists in Asia, Europe, The Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Canada. Do the Countries that comprise these Continents NOT have an Elite and a Poor? Why would the US want to move more towards a Society where so few enjoy the finer things? In these societies, the Masses are lead to believe 'everything is fair' yet somehow, a Poor still exists and so does an Elite? Wouldn't a society that enables and encourages upward mobility be more appealing (which is what US Founders had in mind)?

What does the Left have to say about the existence or justification of an Elite anywhere in the World? Why focus in US??

You are missing the entire point of the argument. The left does not want to restrict anyone's earnings and those of us in the center or to the left do not suggest that earnings should be equal for everyone. What is being questioned is the disparity in the growth of income between the lower income and middle class in comparison to the very wealthy. While the very wealthy have seen their incomes soar to unprecedented heights, the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or even decrease. This is no longer an America of prosperity for all, but rather it has become an America of prosperity only for the very few while everyone else takes a back seat.

And there is a problem with this. As Henry Ford once said, it is important to pay workers enough so that they can afford the products that we sell. Otherwise, we will have nobody to buy our products. In a sense, this is exactly what is happening in the US. The masses can no longer afford to buy the things we produce. Eventually it will even catch up to the elite and the entire house of cards will come tumbling down.

Why stop there? Why classify someone as 'workers' and only limiting them to buy things "we produce?" The Elite buy things that anyone produces. The 'Workers' buy things that the Elite has positioned them to buy........seems like you are missing the point.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You are missing the entire point of the argument. The left does not want to restrict anyone's earnings and those of us in the center or to the left do not suggest that earnings should be equal for everyone. What is being questioned is the disparity in the growth of income between the lower income and middle class in comparison to the very wealthy. While the very wealthy have seen their incomes soar to unprecedented heights, the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or even decrease. This is no longer an America of prosperity for all, but rather it has become an America of prosperity only for the very few while everyone else takes a back seat.

And there is a problem with this. As Henry Ford once said, it is important to pay workers enough so that they can afford the products that we sell. Otherwise, we will have nobody to buy our products. In a sense, this is exactly what is happening in the US. The masses can no longer afford to buy the things we produce. Eventually it will even catch up to the elite and the entire house of cards will come tumbling down.

The only reason that the wealthy are seeing an increase in income is because they invest differently to the rest. That old adage "The first million is the hardest" is very true. It has jack shit to do with 'equality' and everything to do with wise investing.

Here are some facts, and it really doesn't matter how or why things got this way, it's just not good for American, and it is going to be the downfall of the middle class. The top 1% controls 42% of all the wealth. The top 5% controls 69% of all the wealth. And finally, the top 20% controls 93% of all the wealth. That leaves the bottom 80% controlling 7% of the wealth. If you really believe this is good for American, then hey, keep up the good work.

What do those numbers look like in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela,the UK, or Canada? I am just curious as to what other Country should America be like.....based on the numbers you site?

 

[California Girl]

You are missing the entire point of the argument. The left does not want to restrict anyone's earnings and those of us in the center or to the left do not suggest that earnings should be equal for everyone. What is being questioned is the disparity in the growth of income between the lower income and middle class in comparison to the very wealthy. While the very wealthy have seen their incomes soar to unprecedented heights, the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or even decrease. This is no longer an America of prosperity for all, but rather it has become an America of prosperity only for the very few while everyone else takes a back seat.

And there is a problem with this. As Henry Ford once said, it is important to pay workers enough so that they can afford the products that we sell. Otherwise, we will have nobody to buy our products. In a sense, this is exactly what is happening in the US. The masses can no longer afford to buy the things we produce. Eventually it will even catch up to the elite and the entire house of cards will come tumbling down.

The only reason that the wealthy are seeing an increase in income is because they invest differently to the rest. That old adage "The first million is the hardest" is very true. It has jack shit to do with 'equality' and everything to do with wise investing.

Here are some facts, and it really doesn't matter how or why things got this way, it's just not good for American, and it is going to be the downfall of the middle class. The top 1% controls 42% of all the wealth. The top 5% controls 69% of all the wealth. And finally, the top 20% controls 93% of all the wealth. That leaves the bottom 80% controlling 7% of the wealth. If you really believe this is good for American, then hey, keep up the good work.

I'll support the right of anyone to acquire wealth.... but you are not taking mine to get it. Got that? Good. We work hard for what we've acquired. I'm sorry for you that you haven't achieved that, but it's not my responsibility to provide you with what I have earned.

 

[waltky]

Rich folks runnin' rough-shod over the 99%...

The states with the widest gap between rich and poor
6 June`12 - New York tops the list of states where the wealth gap is greatest.

While some income inequality is generally considered necessary in a free market economy, extreme inequality is not. In the United States, there are far more poor people than wealthy ones -- and the gap between the rich and poor is growing. Income inequality is a problem among more developed countries, but the U.S. is among the worst. The U.S. has the fourth worst income inequality compared to other developed countries, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation. Though some are better than others, all 50 states have higher inequality than most of the developed world. 24/7 Wall St. examined the 10 states with widest gap between the rich and poor.

Scored between one and zero, the Gini coefficient is a measure used by economists to rank income inequality. Zero reflects perfect income equality, where everyone makes the same. A score of one reflects an economy where one person has all of the money and everyone else has none. Higher numbers represent significant concentrations of wealth, extreme poverty, and a limited middle class. The Census began tracking inequality in the U.S. in 1967. The Gini coefficient was 0.397 then. The most recent number puts it at 0.469. Though states range from 0.419 in Utah to 0.499 in New York, America’s income divide has widened.

While the states we examined have high inequality, they’re not necessarily wealthy states. Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee, have among the lowest median incomes in the country and also have the worst income inequality scores. States with the highest incomes, including Connecticut, Massachusetts and California, are also on the list. All ten states have -- relative to the size of their middle class -- a large percentage of their population living at one end of the income spectrum, and in some cases large percentages at both ends. In four of the states on this list, more than 7 percent of households earn at least $200,000 each year, much larger than the national proportion of roughly 4 percent. On the other side of the spectrum, five of these states have among the top 10 largest percentages of households earning less than $10,000 each year. Only two of these states, New York and California, have very large proportions of both extremely wealthy households and extremely poor households.

Having a large population appears to be a factor contributing to inequality as well. Of the states on this list, eight are among the 25 most populous states in the country. The four most populous states -- New York, California, Texas and Florida -- have among the worst income inequality. It appears that a large, populous state is more likely to have extremely poor rural areas and large citieswith wealthy suburbs. While having high or low median income does not appear to correlate to high income inequality, education does. Looking at the percentage of the population 25 years and older with a high school diploma, eight of the 10 are in the bottom third. This includes California, Texas and Mississippi, which have the three least educated populations in the United States.

MORE

 

[Steelplate]

This is how stupid the right is. They think that paying workers real living wages and benefits is "taking THEIR wealth" away from them. That's how brainwashed they've become.

The truth of the matter is that when the working and middle class succeed, so does the rest of the country. More taxable income means more revenue to pay off debt. It also means more expendable income to buy the shit that we produce.....which is good for business.

The problem is that we have a whole fucking generation of greedy self centered assholes that want theirs and are willing to fuck over anyone to get it...even if it means destroying our country and propping up a totalitarian one, like China. IMO, they are fucking traitors.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The only reason that the wealthy are seeing an increase in income is because they invest differently to the rest. That old adage "The first million is the hardest" is very true. It has jack shit to do with 'equality' and everything to do with wise investing.

Here are some facts, and it really doesn't matter how or why things got this way, it's just not good for American, and it is going to be the downfall of the middle class. The top 1% controls 42% of all the wealth. The top 5% controls 69% of all the wealth. And finally, the top 20% controls 93% of all the wealth. That leaves the bottom 80% controlling 7% of the wealth. If you really believe this is good for American, then hey, keep up the good work.

What do those numbers look like in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela,the UK, or Canada? I am just curious as to what other Country should America be like.....based on the numbers you site?

Norway works. Thanks for asking.

 

[Seawytch]

The only reason that the wealthy are seeing an increase in income is because they invest differently to the rest. That old adage "The first million is the hardest" is very true. It has jack shit to do with 'equality' and everything to do with wise investing.

Here are some facts, and it really doesn't matter how or why things got this way, it's just not good for American, and it is going to be the downfall of the middle class. The top 1% controls 42% of all the wealth. The top 5% controls 69% of all the wealth. And finally, the top 20% controls 93% of all the wealth. That leaves the bottom 80% controlling 7% of the wealth. If you really believe this is good for American, then hey, keep up the good work.

What do those numbers look like in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela,the UK, or Canada? I am just curious as to what other Country should America be like.....based on the numbers you site?

So, you're interested in what income inequality looks like in other countries? I'll clue you in. The US is on par with Cameroon, Madagascar, Rwanda, Uganda and Ecuador.

Map: U.S. Ranks Near Bottom on Income Inequality

 

[JoeNormal]

If anyone is really interested in the societal effects of economic inequality, this video shows empirical data. It takes about 16 minutes to watch.

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

They don't. The left are part of a global movement to destroy the wealthy and 'redistribute' their money. Apparently, this will solve the world's problems. Except that it won't... there will just be more poor and no rich. And we'll all go down together! Doesn't that sound cool!

Sounds about right...If my taxes keep going up here I may think about Shrugging soon too

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Left always sites the inequality of income and wealth in America. Guess what?Inequality in wealth and income exists in Asia, Europe, The Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Canada. Do the Countries that comprise these Continents NOT have an Elite and a Poor? Why would the US want to move more towards a Society where so few enjoy the finer things? In these societies, the Masses are lead to believe 'everything is fair' yet somehow, a Poor still exists and so does an Elite? Wouldn't a society that enables and encourages upward mobility be more appealing (which is what US Founders had in mind)?

What does the Left have to say about the existence or justification of an Elite anywhere in the World? Why focus in US??

You are missing the entire point of the argument. The left does not want to restrict anyone's earnings and those of us in the center or to the left do not suggest that earnings should be equal for everyone. What is being questioned is the disparity in the growth of income between the lower income and middle class in comparison to the very wealthy. While the very wealthy have seen their incomes soar to unprecedented heights, the rest of Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or even decrease. This is no longer an America of prosperity for all, but rather it has become an America of prosperity only for the very few while everyone else takes a back seat.

And there is a problem with this. As Henry Ford once said, it is important to pay workers enough so that they can afford the products that we sell. Otherwise, we will have nobody to buy our products. In a sense, this is exactly what is happening in the US. The masses can no longer afford to buy the things we produce. Eventually it will even catch up to the elite and the entire house of cards will come tumbling down.

The only reason that the wealthy are seeing an increase in income is because they invest differently to the rest. That old adage "The first million is the hardest" is very true. It has jack shit to do with 'equality' and everything to do with wise investing.

Sure, the top 1% are just way smarter and work waaay harder than everyone else.

1947-1979:

Bottom 20 percent of the income distribution: 118 percent increase
Second-to-bottom 20 percent: 100 percent increase
Middle 20 percent: 111 percent increase
Second-to-highest 20 percent: 114 percent increase
Highest 20 percent: 99 percent increase
Highest 5 percent: 86 percent increase

1979-2008:

Bottom 20 percent of the income distribution: 7 percent decrease
Second-to-bottom 20 percent: 6 percent increase
Middle 20 percent: 11 percent increase
Second-to-highest 20 percent: 23 percent increase
Highest 20 percent: 49 percent increase
Highest 5 percent: 73 percent increase
Highest 1 percent: 224 percent increase

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-group-says-family-incomes-grew-equally-pri/

Apparently they are outworking the common man by 224% right?

 

[Meister]

The Left always sites the inequality of income and wealth in America. Guess what?Inequality in wealth and income exists in Asia, Europe, The Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Canada. Do the Countries that comprise these Continents NOT have an Elite and a Poor? Why would the US want to move more towards a Society where so few enjoy the finer things? In these societies, the Masses are lead to believe 'everything is fair' yet somehow, a Poor still exists and so does an Elite? Wouldn't a society that enables and encourages upward mobility be more appealing (which is what US Founders had in mind)?

What does the Left have to say about the existence or justification of an Elite anywhere in the World? Why focus in US??

In most of those areas you mention, the poor are actually poor. They don't have air conditioners, at least one auto, two color televisions, Wii's or Xbox's, MP3 player, three squares a day, or a place called a home.
just sayin...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The Left always sites the inequality of income and wealth in America. Guess what?Inequality in wealth and income exists in Asia, Europe, The Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Canada. Do the Countries that comprise these Continents NOT have an Elite and a Poor? Why would the US want to move more towards a Society where so few enjoy the finer things? In these societies, the Masses are lead to believe 'everything is fair' yet somehow, a Poor still exists and so does an Elite? Wouldn't a society that enables and encourages upward mobility be more appealing (which is what US Founders had in mind)?

What does the Left have to say about the existence or justification of an Elite anywhere in the World? Why focus in US??

In most of those areas you mention, the poor are actually poor. They don't have air conditioners, at least one auto, two color televisions, Wii's or Xbox's, MP3 player, three squares a day, or a place called a home.
just sayin...

What we call poor is easily middle-class/upper middle class in the majority of Nations around the world.