This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

Because this is inequality taken to absurd extremes. Unfair extremes. 1 in 6 people in this country are consistently hungry, while a very small group of people own 40% of our wealth. That is crazy.

don't get into a whale size and you won't be constantly hungry.

and stop this bullshit.
 
By your comments I'll just assume you don't understand what I said. I'll explain.

If Bob earns 10bucks an hour and Jill earns 1000 bucks an hour, then Jill's portion of your fairness based wealth pie between the two of them is 99%. And according to your OP that is not fair. If a few years later Bob is now earning 1000 bucks an hour and Jill is now earning 100000 bucks an hour then Bob is still unfairly treated because Jill is making 99% more than he is. Granted Bob is rich as hell but according to you justice is not served because Jill has too big a piece of the wealth pie.

Can you please explain what the hell food insecurity means. And also show me statistics that prove anyone in this country goes more than 12 hours without a meal.

God you're so dumb. I never said anything about the wealth pie being distributed in equal portions. No one has fucking said that.

You also arent paying attention to the actual stats. The small group of individuals who 40% of our wealth are far more than just 100x wealthier than the poor. Your Bob and Jill scenario hardly puts the actual inequality in perspective.

Feedingamerica.org

(Their stats are straight from the Dept. of Agriculture's definition of food insecurity).

Its the new talking point. financial inequality.

You know what. Fuck off. I am good. I work hard. I grow an awesome garden. Others are lazy and want what I grow.

I am a conservative. You are a liberal because you think you deserve what I worked so hard for.

yes it is, it is used to create anger and jealousy then they can be sold on socialism and communism
 
Bullshirt. Healthy food is cheaper than junk food.

You may want to rethink that statement. You're not making yourself look very intelligent.

Whether or not healthy food is cheaper than junk food isn't a consideration. It doesn't taste as good. A bag of potato chips and a pint of Hagen Daz just tastes better than the steamed vegetable plate. The psychology of poverty is that they can afford so little, they cannot deny themselves anything pleasant that they can afford. They can't afford a new car, but they can afford six Kit Kat bars. They comfort themselves with food. They replace all those big luxuries with little luxuries. A parent might not be able to afford the newest model Xbox, so they run off to McDonalds instead.

Then there is the big one. Convenience. If you really want to eat healthy all those fresh fruits and vegetables don't have a long shelf life. For the truly lazy in poverty, they don't want to take time out of their busy Jerry Springer schedules to go to the store every couple of days.
Bull shirt. I can easily make healthy food that is better for you and tastes better than fast food crap for an order of magnitude less in cost. You are paying extra because you are too lazy to cook a meal. I buy raw sugar, beans, oats, barlery, etc. in fifty pound rucksacks. I buy meats when they are .50-2 a pound. ROFL I could easily make 10 great meals for what you would spend on one meal at McDonalds.
 
Poverty isn't fun, pretty or glamorous, it is comfortable. If no one has it good, they don't have it so bad either. They need do nothing to survive. They aren't hungry enough to go hunting rats in the sewers. Everything they really need and much of what they merely want is given to them.

The effect of investing overseas isn't any different than poor people spending the money they get on cheap stuff made overseas. In both cases, the money is going out of this country. The solution would be to encourage investment in this country. Less regulation, cheaper energy and an educated work force willing to show up would do wonders. Instead we have an illiterate and lazy workforce in an overregulated environment with a disintegrating energy policy.
 
You may want to rethink that statement. You're not making yourself look very intelligent.

Whether or not healthy food is cheaper than junk food isn't a consideration. It doesn't taste as good. A bag of potato chips and a pint of Hagen Daz just tastes better than the steamed vegetable plate. The psychology of poverty is that they can afford so little, they cannot deny themselves anything pleasant that they can afford. They can't afford a new car, but they can afford six Kit Kat bars. They comfort themselves with food. They replace all those big luxuries with little luxuries. A parent might not be able to afford the newest model Xbox, so they run off to McDonalds instead.

Then there is the big one. Convenience. If you really want to eat healthy all those fresh fruits and vegetables don't have a long shelf life. For the truly lazy in poverty, they don't want to take time out of their busy Jerry Springer schedules to go to the store every couple of days.
Bull shirt. I can easily make healthy food that is better for you and tastes better than fast food crap for an order of magnitude less in cost. You are paying extra because you are too lazy to cook a meal. I buy raw sugar, beans, oats, barlery, etc. in fifty pound rucksacks. I buy meats when they are .50-2 a pound. ROFL I could easily make 10 great meals for what you would spend on one meal at McDonalds.

You keep all that in your studio apartment do you? All 400 feet of it.
 
Whether or not healthy food is cheaper than junk food isn't a consideration. It doesn't taste as good. A bag of potato chips and a pint of Hagen Daz just tastes better than the steamed vegetable plate. The psychology of poverty is that they can afford so little, they cannot deny themselves anything pleasant that they can afford. They can't afford a new car, but they can afford six Kit Kat bars. They comfort themselves with food. They replace all those big luxuries with little luxuries. A parent might not be able to afford the newest model Xbox, so they run off to McDonalds instead.

Then there is the big one. Convenience. If you really want to eat healthy all those fresh fruits and vegetables don't have a long shelf life. For the truly lazy in poverty, they don't want to take time out of their busy Jerry Springer schedules to go to the store every couple of days.
Bull shirt. I can easily make healthy food that is better for you and tastes better than fast food crap for an order of magnitude less in cost. You are paying extra because you are too lazy to cook a meal. I buy raw sugar, beans, oats, barlery, etc. in fifty pound rucksacks. I buy meats when they are .50-2 a pound. ROFL I could easily make 10 great meals for what you would spend on one meal at McDonalds.

You keep all that in your studio apartment do you? All 400 feet of it.
Excuses.

I have not been in a studio apt. since I first got married. But, yes I could store the food in half a dozen stack able 5gallon containers and a standard freezer.
 
You keep all that in your studio apartment do you? All 400 feet of it.


those apartments in projects are much bigger than 400sq feet studio. 400 sq feet studio is what you BUY( if you can't afford more) not what you get from the government.
one person gets a one-bedroom apartment, at least in New York.
 
Yes, 1 in 6 people face food insecurity, which means they go through periods of time without food.

For Christ's sakes. You assholes do not fucking pay attention. Absolutely nothing i have said so far suggests any of the bullshit you said in your last sentence. How about you be a man and have an actual debate with me?

By your comments I'll just assume you don't understand what I said. I'll explain.

If Bob earns 10bucks an hour and Jill earns 1000 bucks an hour, then Jill's portion of your fairness based wealth pie between the two of them is 99%. And according to your OP that is not fair. If a few years later Bob is now earning 1000 bucks an hour and Jill is now earning 100000 bucks an hour then Bob is still unfairly treated because Jill is making 99% more than he is. Granted Bob is rich as hell but according to you justice is not served because Jill has too big a piece of the wealth pie.

Can you please explain what the hell food insecurity means. And also show me statistics that prove anyone in this country goes more than 12 hours without a meal.

Wow, dumb and dumber. While I have my doubts about one in every six going or being hungry, there is no doubt that millions go more than 12 hours without a meal at least every now and then. You obviously have no clue about the realities that real poor people face. Yes, they have it much better here in the US than many other parts of the world, but being poor is not fun, pretty, or glamorous. It's a tough life for most and it's not as easy to get out of as you seem to think.

One of the biggest faults of cons is that they have lost all sense of compassion. Greed had so taken over their thought process that they can no longer think straight. Getting back to the point of the thread, the point is that so few people controlling so much of the wealth is just bad for the economy. It's that plain and simple. It has nothing to do with being fair. The bulk of that wealth is not being used to help the economy grow. It's one of the main reasons our economy is stuck and going nowhere. If half of that wealth that is held by the top 1% was spread out amongst the remaining 99%, the vast majority of that wealth would be spent and put back into the economy. Economically speaking, it would do much more good than being held by a very small number of people who have so much they don't even know what to do with it. Sure the top 1% invests that money, but a great deal of it, they invest overseas.

This argument is not about what is fair and what is not; it's about what makes sense and what is better for our economy.

No, you are deflecting to what you want to make this thread about. You are in the wrong thread. The OP cited to clap trap about wealth inequality. And immediately goes into clap trap about wealth distribution.

But to your point, that the hell does it matter what is better for our economy, it's my effin money I earned it leave me the hell alone. What part of liberty don't you understand?
 
Okay, lets see you buy a pound of ground beef for $3.00 a pound, a box of hamburger helper for $2.00, and two cans of vegetable fo a dollar a piece. Total $7.00. That will easily feed a family of four. It will cost a family of four at least $12.00 to eat skimpy at a fast food resturaunt. So your point is? There is another question we could ask the liberals that are so concerned about the hungry. Why aren't holding obama accountable? When he first got into office you could get a pound of ground beef for .99¢ and 4 cans of vegetables for a $1.00. The cost of food has tripled under obama, yet not a care from the left.

Why do you say this? Most of the fat, unemployed, "disabled" folks around here consider themselves as conservative and reliably vote Republican. I don't know of any overweight liberals.
 
Yes, 1 in 6 people face food insecurity, which means they go through periods of time without food.

For Christ's sakes. You assholes do not fucking pay attention. Absolutely nothing i have said so far suggests any of the bullshit you said in your last sentence. How about you be a man and have an actual debate with me?

By your comments I'll just assume you don't understand what I said. I'll explain.

If Bob earns 10bucks an hour and Jill earns 1000 bucks an hour, then Jill's portion of your fairness based wealth pie between the two of them is 99%. And according to your OP that is not fair. If a few years later Bob is now earning 1000 bucks an hour and Jill is now earning 100000 bucks an hour then Bob is still unfairly treated because Jill is making 99% more than he is. Granted Bob is rich as hell but according to you justice is not served because Jill has too big a piece of the wealth pie.

Can you please explain what the hell food insecurity means. And also show me statistics that prove anyone in this country goes more than 12 hours without a meal.

Wow, dumb and dumber. While I have my doubts about one in every six going or being hungry, there is no doubt that millions go more than 12 hours without a meal at least every now and then. You obviously have no clue about the realities that real poor people face. Yes, they have it much better here in the US than many other parts of the world, but being poor is not fun, pretty, or glamorous. It's a tough life for most and it's not as easy to get out of as you seem to think.

One of the biggest faults of cons is that they have lost all sense of compassion. Greed had so taken over their thought process that they can no longer think straight. Getting back to the point of the thread, the point is that so few people controlling so much of the wealth is just bad for the economy. It's that plain and simple. It has nothing to do with being fair. The bulk of that wealth is not being used to help the economy grow. It's one of the main reasons our economy is stuck and going nowhere. If half of that wealth that is held by the top 1% was spread out amongst the remaining 99%, the vast majority of that wealth would be spent and put back into the economy. Economically speaking, it would do much more good than being held by a very small number of people who have so much they don't even know what to do with it. Sure the top 1% invests that money, but a great deal of it, they invest overseas.

This argument is not about what is fair and what is not; it's about what makes sense and what is better for our economy.

And again.. BY CHOICE.. for how many have luxuries??? You choose a game over a basket of healthy food, that is not the fault of the 'rich' or anyone else

YOU do not get to tell others what they HAVE to do with their wealth.. if they wish to invest it and grow business, fine.. if they wish to spend it, fine... if they wish to stick it in a savings account, fine.. if they wish to bury it in their back yard, fine....

And why are overseas investments chosen? Try the bullshit and complex tax law that is trying o be used for goddamn wealth redistribution at high levels... the Robin Hood mentality of big government..

I don't care if you think government taking 50% from people is 'better' or 'fair'... I will fight against you doing it no matter who that person is....
 
Who, on this forum, is disagreeing with the basic points you are making right now?

No one.

What is the point in posting the vid then?

Because this is inequality taken to absurd extremes. Unfair extremes. 1 in 6 people in this country are consistently hungry, while a very small group of people own 40% of our wealth. That is crazy.

1 in 6 people in this country are consistently hungry

B.S.
 
You can get a full meal from fast food. You do not get a full meal from fresh produce. :cuckoo:

are one of those lazy idiots? :cuckoo:

you get the whole healthy meal from fresh produce.

If you pick your lazy butt from the coach and COOK
 
Because this is inequality taken to absurd extremes. 1 in 6 people in this country are consistently hungry, while a very small group of people own 40% of our wealth. That is crazy.

No one is consistently hungry. Not unless they have other conditions that leads to constant hunger and obesity. Speaking of which, we have the fattest poor people in the world. If you imagine that people are constantly hungry, volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter. If nothing else, you will be educated out of your erroneous notions. Our "poor" have so much food, coming from so many sources, that they send food back to their home countries by the barrel full.

You misunderstand obesity and poverty. The reason why we have poor obese people is because junk food is cheap. Healthy food is not. Could these people be smarter about what they buy? Sure, but eating healthy is still difficult when you are poor.

The reason why we have poor obese people is because junk food is cheap.


The reason we have poor obese people is because our poor people watch cable all day.
 
No one is consistently hungry. Not unless they have other conditions that leads to constant hunger and obesity. Speaking of which, we have the fattest poor people in the world. If you imagine that people are constantly hungry, volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter. If nothing else, you will be educated out of your erroneous notions. Our "poor" have so much food, coming from so many sources, that they send food back to their home countries by the barrel full.

You misunderstand obesity and poverty. The reason why we have poor obese people is because junk food is cheap. Healthy food is not. Could these people be smarter about what they buy? Sure, but eating healthy is still difficult when you are poor.

The reason why we have poor obese people is because junk food is cheap.


The reason we have poor obese people is because our poor people watch cable all day.

and listen to this bleeding heart bs fed to them how they just can't make it so don't even try...the noble bleeding hearts are here for you as long as it's other peoples monies....
 
1 in 6 people in this country are consistently hungry

B.S.


you can not take "feeling" as a measurement of hunger.

"feeling" hungry does not mean that you are going without food more than 12 hours ( even less).

"feeling" hungry is a SUBJECTIVE measurement and is inaccurate, to say the least.

Fat people "feell" hungry MORE, than normal ones, because the caloric intake of the fatsos needs to be HIGHER in order for the body to take care of that excessive fat.
Person with normal BMI does not need more than 1500-1800 calories per day ( if they are not chopping wood or being Amish) and a fatso with a BMI of 35 will need 3000 calories per day just to take care of the pumping blood through that fat.

It does not mean that they are STARVING or being MALNOURISHED.

If they stay on a 2000 calorie limit - they will burn their fat and loose weight and might be not "feeling" hungry anymore.
 
1 in 6 people in this country are consistently hungry

B.S.


you can not take "feeling" as a measurement of hunger.

"feeling" hungry does not mean that you are going without food more than 12 hours ( even less).

"feeling" hungry is a SUBJECTIVE measurement and is inaccurate, to say the least.

Fat people "feell" hungry MORE, than normal ones, because the caloric intake of the fatsos needs to be HIGHER in order for the body to take care of that excessive fat.
Person with normal BMI does not need more than 1500-1800 calories per day ( if they are not chopping wood or being Amish) and a fatso with a BMI of 35 will need 3000 calories per day just to take care of the pumping blood through that fat.

It does not mean that they are STARVING or being MALNOURISHED.

If they stay on a 2000 calorie limit - they will burn their fat and loose weight and might be not "feeling" hungry anymore.
And maybe come off the disabled list and go to work.
 
Okay, lets see you buy a pound of ground beef for $3.00 a pound, a box of hamburger helper for $2.00, and two cans of vegetable fo a dollar a piece. Total $7.00. That will easily feed a family of four. It will cost a family of four at least $12.00 to eat skimpy at a fast food resturaunt. So your point is? There is another question we could ask the liberals that are so concerned about the hungry. Why aren't holding obama accountable? When he first got into office you could get a pound of ground beef for .99¢ and 4 cans of vegetables for a $1.00. The cost of food has tripled under obama, yet not a care from the left.

Why do you say this? Most of the fat, unemployed, "disabled" folks around here consider themselves as conservative and reliably vote Republican. I don't know of any overweight liberals.

Guess you've never been to the projects?
 
I don't think there are that many going without enough food. We have welfare and stores like Dollar General that have low food prices. I think the bigger problems are having enough to afford housing, utilities, gas for our cars, basic clothing and money for unexpected necessary expenses.

People that work shouldn't struggle to afford their basic needs. They should also be able to afford a reasonable sense of finacial security.

Financial security will probably never be a reality for the majority of Americans. They will probably work their whole lives helping others to have that and more money than they will ever need.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top