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

[koshergrl]

I did.

 

[dblack]

The hyperbole around commies and marxists just causes people to stop listening. Whatever we want to label things, it seems obvious there is a dispute over whether we truly want free markets or not. I, for one, see merging economic and state power as a really bad idea.

 

[Auteur]

Considering what we both know about how great fortunes are created, if you choose to regard progressive taxation as "stealing," my response to that is I have absolutely no problem with stealing from thieves! One good rip-off deserves another. As far as upper-level hoarders are concerned, they could be taxed at the level of billions and it would in no way affect their lifestyles. That fact alone is an almost shameful irony.

If that's not "revenge" motivation, what is?

You say "wealth isn't infinite." The amount of "wealth" we can "invent" is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Just keep adding zeroes. It's not that hard to create wealth.

Rush Limbaugh? Never listened to his show... not even once.

Of course it's not revenge. Progressive taxation is a reasonable principle, even if we were to assume that free markets worked perfectly, and that human nature always saw altruism triumph. It is a way of assigning resources in a way that tend to benefit all, rather than only the narrow interests of a few. Left to individuals to work out, there would be no end of bickering and self-serving. And markets and human nature are far from perfect.

Tax supports government, and government supports civilization. If you think governments role should be limited to things like the military and police, pick up a copy of one of Charles Dickens works. He described such a state of affairs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Great, more hate the poor. Well sorry but the facts paint a different picture:

Here's Why Income Inequality Really Is A Big Deal - Business Insider

Still nobody has debated the facts. Go figure.

*sigh* Let me see if I can cut through the fog of "Ooh, graphs. It MUST be true!" that always seems to envelop the illiterate. Consider this my good deed for the week.

Here's what your article actually SAID, minus the pretty pictures that so distract you:

People are talking a ton right now about income inequality, especially because Occupy Wall Street has brought the issue to the fore.

But perhaps people aren't talking enough about why it's a big deal. After all, one common response people have, when presented with data about inequality is that America is an incredibly rich country (due to our capitalist system) and that even most of the "poor" are rich by historical and global standards.

And that's no doubt true, but...

Frankly, they already lost me at "no doubt true", as though there might actually BE some doubt about that.

But I digress.

It turns out that even in a rich society, income and wealth disparity still matters.

Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at England's University of Nottingham, recently did a TED Talk about what he found while researching his book about income inequality, The Spirit Level.

The basic thesis is that social ills, like crime and teen pregnancy, that have long been associated with poverty, actually have a stronger correlation with income inequality.

In other words, it doesn't matter how big the pie gets, inequality ends up tearing away at society.

Okay, so now we have his thesis: rich people are responsible for all of society's evils, simply by being rich. Anyone who had graduated from a high school English Composition course would expect this to be followed by supporting evidence of this thesis, right?

First let's start with the basics. In the U.S. the richest 20% are 8.5 times richer than the poorest 20%.

Okay, so first we need to establish just how much non-rich people should hate those rich devils, and we have a pretty picture showing us how much more money they have than the poor folks, compared to other countries, which are presumably much better places to live because their rich people are much closer to being poor.

Around the world, there's not much correlation between wealth and various lifestyle outcomes.

Another pretty picture, demonstrating that being rich in other countries doesn't stop your life from sucking like it does here.

What matters is the level of inequality WITHIN countries.

THIS pretty picture tells us that in England and Wales, their rich people have a longer life expectancy than poor people, as measured by neighborhood.

Life expectancy is not related to average income.

But THIS pretty picture tells us that life expectancy is NOT related to being rich. Hmmm.

Child well-being does the same thing when measured against GNP.

Is anyone else wondering what the point of all this contradiction is? Or just wondering when they're going to get around to it?

Now look at it up against income inequality by country.

THIS pretty picture is titled "Child Well-Being is Better in More Equal Countries". Which frankly makes me wonder how they're measuring "child well-being", especially since they're allegedly getting their figures from the UN.

This inequality permeates every part of a child's life, especially education. This is U.S. state high school dropout rates plotted against state inequality.

Of course, that only proves that the US has high dropout rates. Doesn't prove what the cause is[are]. We're just supposed to assume that, since wealth inequality ALSO exists, that's the cause.

And of course, this correlation extends to violent crime.

Different topic, same method.

Because there's more crime in general, people don't trust each other. That really hurts a country's (or state's, or city's) sense of unity.

My, THAT'S a rather large leap in logic to make.

You can even see this correlation in mental illness.

Different topic, same flawed method.

That could be because inequality makes individuals feel intense judgment and competition. These are the most stressful social situations for human beings.

Ooh, more assumptions. THAT'LL help. This pretty picture is entitled "What kind of stressful tasks raise stress hormones the most?" Nowhere does it prove that stress has diddly squat to do with wealth inequality.

Worst of all, it destroys the thing Americans take pride in about our country the most — opportunity.

You might note, if you happen to read the actual article, that the charts get more and more simplistic and include fewer and fewer numbers and stats as you go on. I wonder why.

And these are the places where you can see it all played out in front of you.

And there's a list of "The 21 Most Unequal Cities in America".

That's the end of the article. Now, having excised the distracting colors and pictures - and I assure you, every single word of the article IS included in this post - does anyone see any proof that wealth inequality is bad, or do you see the same thing I do, ie. a statement of "correlation equals causation" that everyone is supposed to accept and assume the charts have proven?

Cecilie, I believe I have diagnosed your problem so that you may begin to take steps to fix it. When you read a paragraph, the focus is on that paragraph and that paragraph alone. All previous paragraphs apparently cease to exist and any subsequent deeper meaning is lost. This makes for quick repartee (as evidenced by the sheer volume of drivel you spout) but prevents you from making any real observations.

Joe, I believe I have diagnosed your problem so that you may begin to take steps to fix it. You are laboring under the delusions that 1) you are an intelligent, informed human being, 2) you have convinced the rest of us that you are an intelligent, informed human being, and 3) you are anything other than a sad joke at whose unearned conceit I am currently laughing.

See to that, would you? Thanks.

 

[Gadawg73]

Considering what we both know about how great fortunes are created, if you choose to regard progressive taxation as "stealing," my response to that is I have absolutely no problem with stealing from thieves! One good rip-off deserves another. As far as upper-level hoarders are concerned, they could be taxed at the level of billions and it would in no way affect their lifestyles. That fact alone is an almost shameful irony.

If that's not "revenge" motivation, what is?

You say "wealth isn't infinite." The amount of "wealth" we can "invent" is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Just keep adding zeroes. It's not that hard to create wealth.

Rush Limbaugh? Never listened to his show... not even once.

Of course it's not revenge. Progressive taxation is a reasonable principle, even if we were to assume that free markets worked perfectly, and that human nature always saw altruism triumph. It is a way of assigning resources in a way that tend to benefit all, rather than only the narrow interests of a few. Left to individuals to work out, there would be no end of bickering and self-serving. And markets and human nature are far from perfect.

Tax supports government, and government supports civilization. If you think governments role should be limited to things like the military and police, pick up a copy of one of Charles Dickens works. He described such a state of affairs.

Where in all your mumbo jumbo is the fact that over 50% of government now is plundering money from producers and then handing it back out immediately to moochers?
That is not the role of government.
You need to read Dickens, government is not in any of his works practicing charitable works. His works are the individual taking on a larger role in helping his fellow man. You ignore that. You say fuck you to your family, friends, neighbors and community in need. You give them the middle finger and tell them you have no time for them. You tell them to go sit for hours at the government bureaucracy headquarters for the 86 overlapping and redundant welfare programs so they can wait months for assistance. You force them to depend on government instead of getting off your fat, lazy and pass the buck ass instead of helping them yourself.
Govern yourself accordingly and next time read the book before you make a damn fool of yourself.

 

[Rshermr]

If that's not "revenge" motivation, what is?

You say "wealth isn't infinite." The amount of "wealth" we can "invent" is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Just keep adding zeroes. It's not that hard to create wealth.

Rush Limbaugh? Never listened to his show... not even once.

Of course it's not revenge. Progressive taxation is a reasonable principle, even if we were to assume that free markets worked perfectly, and that human nature always saw altruism triumph. It is a way of assigning resources in a way that tend to benefit all, rather than only the narrow interests of a few. Left to individuals to work out, there would be no end of bickering and self-serving. And markets and human nature are far from perfect.

Tax supports government, and government supports civilization. If you think governments role should be limited to things like the military and police, pick up a copy of one of Charles Dickens works. He described such a state of affairs.

Where in all your mumbo jumbo is the fact that over 50% of government now is plundering money from producers and then handing it back out immediately to moochers?
That is not the role of government.
You need to read Dickens, government is not in any of his works practicing charitable works. His works are the individual taking on a larger role in helping his fellow man. You ignore that. You say fuck you to your family, friends, neighbors and community in need. You give them the middle finger and tell them you have no time for them. You tell them to go sit for hours at the government bureaucracy headquarters for the 86 overlapping and redundant welfare programs so they can wait months for assistance. You force them to depend on government instead of getting off your fat, lazy and pass the buck ass instead of helping them yourself.
Govern yourself accordingly and next time read the book before you make a damn fool of yourself.

Who are the moochers, me boy. Guess it depends on your definition. Welfare of all kinds is 12%. And so I am sure you call them moochers. So, what other moochers do you have in mind. And who do you believe appointed you the person who can determine who moochers are? Dipshit. Maybe you have been listening to Romney too much. By the way, how DID he do in that election after the 47% comment? dipshit.

 

[Auteur]

If that's not "revenge" motivation, what is?

You say "wealth isn't infinite." The amount of "wealth" we can "invent" is greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Just keep adding zeroes. It's not that hard to create wealth.

Rush Limbaugh? Never listened to his show... not even once.

Of course it's not revenge. Progressive taxation is a reasonable principle, even if we were to assume that free markets worked perfectly, and that human nature always saw altruism triumph. It is a way of assigning resources in a way that tend to benefit all, rather than only the narrow interests of a few. Left to individuals to work out, there would be no end of bickering and self-serving. And markets and human nature are far from perfect.

Tax supports government, and government supports civilization. If you think governments role should be limited to things like the military and police, pick up a copy of one of Charles Dickens works. He described such a state of affairs.

Where in all your mumbo jumbo is the fact that over 50% of government now is plundering money from producers and then handing it back out immediately to moochers?
That is not the role of government.
You need to read Dickens, government is not in any of his works practicing charitable works. His works are the individual taking on a larger role in helping his fellow man. You ignore that. You say fuck you to your family, friends, neighbors and community in need. You give them the middle finger and tell them you have no time for them. You tell them to go sit for hours at the government bureaucracy headquarters for the 86 overlapping and redundant welfare programs so they can wait months for assistance. You force them to depend on government instead of getting off your fat, lazy and pass the buck ass instead of helping them yourself.
Govern yourself accordingly and next time read the book before you make a damn fool of yourself.

I sounds like you don't get out very much, Mr G. Your rant against "moochers" suggests a lack of understanding of the complexity of various social problems, and of the growing inability of the economy today to provide work for all, much less meaningful work. It is the tired old rant of those who have received their education by watching Daniel Boone and Marshall Dillon on the flickering screen. Do you think real life is like that? How many people have you actually met that have been recipients of welfare programs? You see, in real life, the hero does not necessarily ride into town, and make all well for the less fortunate.

We have seen what happens when, in a large and complex society, we leave critical social and economic questions to the private sector. In recent years, wealth polarization has skyrocketed, manufacturing has fled the country, and the most dubious segments of the financial industry have risen to prominence not seen before, with flim flam and near embezzlement now the accepted order of the day. Doesn't sound too heroic, does it? It gets worse. Those now with the most economic options have been so little interested in helping their "fellow man" that they have just about trashed the world economy in their mad scramble to make ever more profit (2008).

In the jurisdiction I live in, about 1 % of the budget goes to direct welfare costs. Yet no one is left out. It is absurd to take a modern day society of tens, or hundreds of millions, and try to run it on some sort of idealized Hollywood cowboy town basis. The only way to have a viable society in today's world is to have effective and pragmatic social programs that meet the challenges of the economy today, which include trends that are too big for any one individual to deal with. That's what works. It works in the EU, in places like Canada, Australia, and others. The US has problems. Listening to the self-serving nonsense of Mit Romney, or similar, or retreating to comic books will not help. Some deeper reading might.

 

[Gadawg73]

Of course it's not revenge. Progressive taxation is a reasonable principle, even if we were to assume that free markets worked perfectly, and that human nature always saw altruism triumph. It is a way of assigning resources in a way that tend to benefit all, rather than only the narrow interests of a few. Left to individuals to work out, there would be no end of bickering and self-serving. And markets and human nature are far from perfect.

Tax supports government, and government supports civilization. If you think governments role should be limited to things like the military and police, pick up a copy of one of Charles Dickens works. He described such a state of affairs.

Where in all your mumbo jumbo is the fact that over 50% of government now is plundering money from producers and then handing it back out immediately to moochers?
That is not the role of government.
You need to read Dickens, government is not in any of his works practicing charitable works. His works are the individual taking on a larger role in helping his fellow man. You ignore that. You say fuck you to your family, friends, neighbors and community in need. You give them the middle finger and tell them you have no time for them. You tell them to go sit for hours at the government bureaucracy headquarters for the 86 overlapping and redundant welfare programs so they can wait months for assistance. You force them to depend on government instead of getting off your fat, lazy and pass the buck ass instead of helping them yourself.
Govern yourself accordingly and next time read the book before you make a damn fool of yourself.

Who are the moochers, me boy. Guess it depends on your definition. Welfare of all kinds is 12%. And so I am sure you call them moochers. So, what other moochers do you have in mind. And who do you believe appointed you the person who can determine who moochers are? Dipshit. Maybe you have been listening to Romney too much. By the way, how DID he do in that election after the 47% comment? dipshit.

Wrong, Medicaid makes up 1/2 of the means test give away programs and no one that is handicapped or disabled is put on that. They are on Medicare.
On 2011 the average amount a "poor" person receives in Federal aid was $19,000 in total expenditures.
Do the math, it accounted for just less than 1 trillion dollars.
Add in the interest on that, the administration and delivery.
Add in 10% of giveaways through the DOD, not only the "poor" are moochers.
Add in Congressional retiree pensions and government union payoffs.
Add in farm subsidies.
Add in EIC.
Add in half of the folks on social security disability and the Medicare they receive.
50%. Or more.

 

[RKMBrown]

Of course it's not revenge. Progressive taxation is a reasonable principle, even if we were to assume that free markets worked perfectly, and that human nature always saw altruism triumph. It is a way of assigning resources in a way that tend to benefit all, rather than only the narrow interests of a few. Left to individuals to work out, there would be no end of bickering and self-serving. And markets and human nature are far from perfect.

Tax supports government, and government supports civilization. If you think governments role should be limited to things like the military and police, pick up a copy of one of Charles Dickens works. He described such a state of affairs.

Where in all your mumbo jumbo is the fact that over 50% of government now is plundering money from producers and then handing it back out immediately to moochers?
That is not the role of government.
You need to read Dickens, government is not in any of his works practicing charitable works. His works are the individual taking on a larger role in helping his fellow man. You ignore that. You say fuck you to your family, friends, neighbors and community in need. You give them the middle finger and tell them you have no time for them. You tell them to go sit for hours at the government bureaucracy headquarters for the 86 overlapping and redundant welfare programs so they can wait months for assistance. You force them to depend on government instead of getting off your fat, lazy and pass the buck ass instead of helping them yourself.
Govern yourself accordingly and next time read the book before you make a damn fool of yourself.

I sounds like you don't get out very much, Mr G. Your rant against "moochers" suggests a lack of understanding of the complexity of various social problems, and of the growing inability of the economy today to provide work for all, much less meaningful work. It is the tired old rant of those who have received their education by watching Daniel Boone and Marshall Dillon on the flickering screen. Do you think real life is like that? How many people have you actually met that have been recipients of welfare programs? You see, in real life, the hero does not necessarily ride into town, and make all well for the less fortunate.

We have seen what happens when, in a large and complex society, we leave critical social and economic questions to the private sector. In recent years, wealth polarization has skyrocketed, manufacturing has fled the country, and the most dubious segments of the financial industry have risen to prominence not seen before, with flim flam and near embezzlement now the accepted order of the day. Doesn't sound too heroic, does it? It gets worse. Those now with the most economic options have been so little interested in helping their "fellow man" that they have just about trashed the world economy in their mad scramble to make ever more profit (2008).

In the jurisdiction I live in, about 1 % of the budget goes to direct welfare costs. Yet no one is left out. It is absurd to take a modern day society of tens, or hundreds of millions, and try to run it on some sort of idealized Hollywood cowboy town basis. The only way to have a viable society in today's world is to have effective and pragmatic social programs that meet the challenges of the economy today, which include trends that are too big for any one individual to deal with. That's what works. It works in the EU, in places like Canada, Australia, and others. The US has problems. Listening to the self-serving nonsense of Mit Romney, or similar, or retreating to comic books will not help. Some deeper reading might.

^ typical marxist.

News flash. We don't owe you a job. We don't owe you food. We don't owe you shelter. We don't owe you an education. We don't owe you a flat screen TV. We don't owe you diddly squat. You want to raise a family, go for it. You want a job? Get off your ass and start working.. voila you have a job.

 

[Gadawg73]

Of course it's not revenge. Progressive taxation is a reasonable principle, even if we were to assume that free markets worked perfectly, and that human nature always saw altruism triumph. It is a way of assigning resources in a way that tend to benefit all, rather than only the narrow interests of a few. Left to individuals to work out, there would be no end of bickering and self-serving. And markets and human nature are far from perfect.

Tax supports government, and government supports civilization. If you think governments role should be limited to things like the military and police, pick up a copy of one of Charles Dickens works. He described such a state of affairs.

Where in all your mumbo jumbo is the fact that over 50% of government now is plundering money from producers and then handing it back out immediately to moochers?
That is not the role of government.
You need to read Dickens, government is not in any of his works practicing charitable works. His works are the individual taking on a larger role in helping his fellow man. You ignore that. You say fuck you to your family, friends, neighbors and community in need. You give them the middle finger and tell them you have no time for them. You tell them to go sit for hours at the government bureaucracy headquarters for the 86 overlapping and redundant welfare programs so they can wait months for assistance. You force them to depend on government instead of getting off your fat, lazy and pass the buck ass instead of helping them yourself.
Govern yourself accordingly and next time read the book before you make a damn fool of yourself.

I sounds like you don't get out very much, Mr G. Your rant against "moochers" suggests a lack of understanding of the complexity of various social problems, and of the growing inability of the economy today to provide work for all, much less meaningful work. It is the tired old rant of those who have received their education by watching Daniel Boone and Marshall Dillon on the flickering screen. Do you think real life is like that? How many people have you actually met that have been recipients of welfare programs? You see, in real life, the hero does not necessarily ride into town, and make all well for the less fortunate.

We have seen what happens when, in a large and complex society, we leave critical social and economic questions to the private sector. In recent years, wealth polarization has skyrocketed, manufacturing has fled the country, and the most dubious segments of the financial industry have risen to prominence not seen before, with flim flam and near embezzlement now the accepted order of the day. Doesn't sound too heroic, does it? It gets worse. Those now with the most economic options have been so little interested in helping their "fellow man" that they have just about trashed the world economy in their mad scramble to make ever more profit (2008).

In the jurisdiction I live in, about 1 % of the budget goes to direct welfare costs. Yet no one is left out. It is absurd to take a modern day society of tens, or hundreds of millions, and try to run it on some sort of idealized Hollywood cowboy town basis. The only way to have a viable society in today's world is to have effective and pragmatic social programs that meet the challenges of the economy today, which include trends that are too big for any one individual to deal with. That's what works. It works in the EU, in places like Canada, Australia, and others. The US has problems. Listening to the self-serving nonsense of Mit Romney, or similar, or retreating to comic books will not help. Some deeper reading might.

I travel to Puerto Morales, Mexico often and have many Canadian friends.
They tell me a different story than you do.
And right, the EU is doing great! LOL, you live in a la la land.
At least I have read Dickens.

 

[Rshermr]

Where in all your mumbo jumbo is the fact that over 50% of government now is plundering money from producers and then handing it back out immediately to moochers?
That is not the role of government.
You need to read Dickens, government is not in any of his works practicing charitable works. His works are the individual taking on a larger role in helping his fellow man. You ignore that. You say fuck you to your family, friends, neighbors and community in need. You give them the middle finger and tell them you have no time for them. You tell them to go sit for hours at the government bureaucracy headquarters for the 86 overlapping and redundant welfare programs so they can wait months for assistance. You force them to depend on government instead of getting off your fat, lazy and pass the buck ass instead of helping them yourself.
Govern yourself accordingly and next time read the book before you make a damn fool of yourself.

I sounds like you don't get out very much, Mr G. Your rant against "moochers" suggests a lack of understanding of the complexity of various social problems, and of the growing inability of the economy today to provide work for all, much less meaningful work. It is the tired old rant of those who have received their education by watching Daniel Boone and Marshall Dillon on the flickering screen. Do you think real life is like that? How many people have you actually met that have been recipients of welfare programs? You see, in real life, the hero does not necessarily ride into town, and make all well for the less fortunate.

We have seen what happens when, in a large and complex society, we leave critical social and economic questions to the private sector. In recent years, wealth polarization has skyrocketed, manufacturing has fled the country, and the most dubious segments of the financial industry have risen to prominence not seen before, with flim flam and near embezzlement now the accepted order of the day. Doesn't sound too heroic, does it? It gets worse. Those now with the most economic options have been so little interested in helping their "fellow man" that they have just about trashed the world economy in their mad scramble to make ever more profit (2008).

In the jurisdiction I live in, about 1 % of the budget goes to direct welfare costs. Yet no one is left out. It is absurd to take a modern day society of tens, or hundreds of millions, and try to run it on some sort of idealized Hollywood cowboy town basis. The only way to have a viable society in today's world is to have effective and pragmatic social programs that meet the challenges of the economy today, which include trends that are too big for any one individual to deal with. That's what works. It works in the EU, in places like Canada, Australia, and others. The US has problems. Listening to the self-serving nonsense of Mit Romney, or similar, or retreating to comic books will not help. Some deeper reading might.

I travel to Puerto Morales, Mexico often and have many Canadian friends.
They tell me a different story than you do.
And right, the EU is doing great! LOL, you live in a la la land.
At least I have read Dickens.

Well, Gadwig, that would be your opinion. Which is not worth anything. And neither is mine. You respond as a con tool. I know what you will say on any subject. Actual l impartial inks to proof of anything is always missing. What a surprise.

 

[MikeK]

^ typical marxist.

News flash. We don't owe you a job. We don't owe you food. We don't owe you shelter. We don't owe you an education. We don't owe you a flat screen TV. We don't owe you diddly squat. You want to raise a family, go for it. You want a job? Get off your ass and start working.. voila you have a job.

This notion you have about what Marxism is serves as a diversionary device for your avoidance of the real problems with the U.S. Economy, which really have very little if anything to do with our welfare programs.

Were it not for the fact that you've been effectively indoctrinated with a hate welfare mindset you would be focusing your obvious intelligence on the real problems, which are:

The wasteful cost of the Iraq invasion (and other unnecessary military adventures): Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study

The incredibly vast waste by the extraordinarily corrupt Military Industrial Complex: In How Many Ways, Can The Military-Industrial Complex Waste Money?

The cost of tax evasion by major corporations: Tax Dodging within Multinational Companies | My CMS

Instead of paying attention to these actual villains of massive waste you assume the posture of a typical Rush Limbaugh disciple toward those who might be receiving a few comparative pennies more than sufficient to keep them alive.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[MikeK]

It sounds like you don't get out very much, Mr G. Your rant against "moochers" suggests a lack of understanding of the complexity of various social problems, and of the growing inability of the economy today to provide work for all, much less meaningful work. It is the tired old rant of those who have received their education by watching Daniel Boone and Marshall Dillon on the flickering screen. Do you think real life is like that? How many people have you actually met that have been recipients of welfare programs? You see, in real life, the hero does not necessarily ride into town, and make all well for the less fortunate.

[...]

There is a level at which greed and selfishness qualifies as a behavioral pathology. I believe this Gadawg character is a textbook example of that state of misery, which is why I added him to my Ignore list. He is a predictable and repetitious annoyance for whom any attempt at reason is a waste of time.

 

[RKMBrown]

^ typical marxist.

News flash. We don't owe you a job. We don't owe you food. We don't owe you shelter. We don't owe you an education. We don't owe you a flat screen TV. We don't owe you diddly squat. You want to raise a family, go for it. You want a job? Get off your ass and start working.. voila you have a job.

This notion you have about what Marxism is serves as a diversionary device for your avoidance of the real problems with the U.S. Economy, which really have very little if anything to do with our welfare programs.

Were it not for the fact that you've been effectively indoctrinated with a hate welfare mindset you would be focusing your obvious intelligence on the real problems, which are:

The wasteful cost of the Iraq invasion (and other unnecessary military adventures): Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study

The incredibly vast waste by the extraordinarily corrupt Military Industrial Complex: In How Many Ways, Can The Military-Industrial Complex Waste Money?

The cost of tax evasion by major corporations: Tax Dodging within Multinational Companies | My CMS

Instead of paying attention to these actual villains of massive waste you assume the posture of a typical Rush Limbaugh disciple toward those who might be receiving a few comparative pennies more than sufficient to keep them alive.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

>>> This notion you have about what Marxism is serves as a diversionary device for your avoidance of the real problems with the U.S. Economy, which really have very little if anything to do with our welfare programs.

The marxist policies of the socialists is one of the problems in our Economy. I'd say this problem is one of many major problems. For example, if say half the people who are out of work to collect welfare would go back to work the economy's growth as measured by GDP would grow to the point where those folks increase GDP by say 10% vs acting as an anchor on the rest of the population resulting in a slowing of the GDP.

>>> The wasteful cost of the Iraq invasion (and other unnecessary military adventures): Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study

I'm a constitutional conservative. I'm against the endless war on that which we fear (terror). This is another one of the many major problems in our economy.

>>> The incredibly vast waste by the extraordinarily corrupt Military Industrial Complex: In How Many Ways, Can The Military-Industrial Complex Waste Money?

I'm a constitutional conservative. I'm against the over spending on endless wars on that which we fear (terror and communism and and and and ..). Waste in government is another one of the many major problems in our economy. I'm for smaller government. IMO we should go back to levels of spending that are more similar to what it was under the Clinton Admin after the republican congress made all the cuts.

>>> The cost of tax evasion by major corporations: Tax Dodging within Multinational Companies | My CMS

Tax avoidance of corporate taxes is a legal activity. Tax evasion is an illegal activity, no? I would prefer no personal income and/or corporate income tax to be replaced with a sales or flat tax. This would encourage corporations to invest in America again.

>>> Instead of paying attention to these actual villains of massive waste you assume the posture of a typical Rush Limbaugh disciple toward those who might be receiving a few comparative pennies more than sufficient to keep them alive.

Never ever watched Rush. Don't care to. I'm fine with caring for the "truly" needy I just prefer programs that work and don't like the current system that has turned this country into a class based democratic society that votes to pay itself out of the Treasury. You need to understand that the end of all democratic republics begins when that happens.

>>> You really should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm very proud of my positions on these matters. I've given them great thought. IMO my positions, if enacted through policy, would help the poor more than the current system.

 

[Auteur]

^ typical marxist.

News flash. We don't owe you a job. We don't owe you food. We don't owe you shelter. We don't owe you an education. We don't owe you a flat screen TV. We don't owe you diddly squat. You want to raise a family, go for it. You want a job? Get off your ass and start working.. voila you have a job.

Two news flashes for you:

1) I'm not talking about Marxism. I'm talking about social democracy. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then you should do some supplementary reading before posting any more here.

2) You do owe me a job. And I owe you a job. That's the way it works in a modern economy. We live in a complex machine in which each of us, as individuals, have limited control. Yes, each should do the best they can, but there are myriad factors that cannot be controlled by private individuals.

Your assumption that anyone can get a job is a good example. There is a trend away from full employment in the mature industrial countries today, caused by various factors, and from a macroscopic viewpoint, it matters not one wit how lazy or enthusiastic each worker is. These are problems that can only be dealt with at a political level. Simplistic solutions, Tea Party style, like giving everyone a shovel, might satisfy those whose testosterone levels frequently overrule higher functions, but will actually do nothing for the problem at hand.

 

[Rshermr]

^ typical marxist.

News flash. We don't owe you a job. We don't owe you food. We don't owe you shelter. We don't owe you an education. We don't owe you a flat screen TV. We don't owe you diddly squat. You want to raise a family, go for it. You want a job? Get off your ass and start working.. voila you have a job.

This notion you have about what Marxism is serves as a diversionary device for your avoidance of the real problems with the U.S. Economy, which really have very little if anything to do with our welfare programs.

Were it not for the fact that you've been effectively indoctrinated with a hate welfare mindset you would be focusing your obvious intelligence on the real problems, which are:

The wasteful cost of the Iraq invasion (and other unnecessary military adventures): Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study

The incredibly vast waste by the extraordinarily corrupt Military Industrial Complex: In How Many Ways, Can The Military-Industrial Complex Waste Money?

The cost of tax evasion by major corporations: Tax Dodging within Multinational Companies | My CMS

Instead of paying attention to these actual villains of massive waste you assume the posture of a typical Rush Limbaugh disciple toward those who might be receiving a few comparative pennies more than sufficient to keep them alive.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

>>> This notion you have about what Marxism is serves as a diversionary device for your avoidance of the real problems with the U.S. Economy, which really have very little if anything to do with our welfare programs.

The marxist policies of the socialists is one of the problems in our Economy. I'd say this problem is one of many major problems. For example, if say half the people who are out of work to collect welfare would go back to work the economy's growth as measured by GDP would grow to the point where those folks increase GDP by say 10% vs acting as an anchor on the rest of the population resulting in a slowing of the GDP.

>>> The wasteful cost of the Iraq invasion (and other unnecessary military adventures): Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study

I'm a constitutional conservative. I'm against the endless war on that which we fear (terror). This is another one of the many major problems in our economy.

>>> The incredibly vast waste by the extraordinarily corrupt Military Industrial Complex: In How Many Ways, Can The Military-Industrial Complex Waste Money?

I'm a constitutional conservative. I'm against the over spending on endless wars on that which we fear (terror and communism and and and and ..). Waste in government is another one of the many major problems in our economy. I'm for smaller government. IMO we should go back to levels of spending that are more similar to what it was under the Clinton Admin after the republican congress made all the cuts.

>>> The cost of tax evasion by major corporations: Tax Dodging within Multinational Companies | My CMS

Tax avoidance of corporate taxes is a legal activity. Tax evasion is an illegal activity, no? I would prefer no personal income and/or corporate income tax to be replaced with a sales or flat tax. This would encourage corporations to invest in America again.

>>> Instead of paying attention to these actual villains of massive waste you assume the posture of a typical Rush Limbaugh disciple toward those who might be receiving a few comparative pennies more than sufficient to keep them alive.

Never ever watched Rush. Don't care to. I'm fine with caring for the "truly" needy I just prefer programs that work and don't like the current system that has turned this country into a class based democratic society that votes to pay itself out of the Treasury. You need to understand that the end of all democratic republics begins when that happens.

>>> You really should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm very proud of my positions on these matters. I've given them great thought. IMO my positions, if enacted through policy, would help the poor more than the current system.

That is the problem. It is simply your opinion. Based on your opinion. Supported by your opinion. Everyone has an opinion. Difference is, others can actually back up their opinions with fact based data. From actual impartial sources. Which is why your opinion is worth much less than the opinion of others. It is an obvious thing, if you look at it.

 

[Auteur]

Where in all your mumbo jumbo is the fact that over 50% of government now is plundering money from producers and then handing it back out immediately to moochers?
That is not the role of government.
You need to read Dickens, government is not in any of his works practicing charitable works. His works are the individual taking on a larger role in helping his fellow man. You ignore that. You say fuck you to your family, friends, neighbors and community in need. You give them the middle finger and tell them you have no time for them. You tell them to go sit for hours at the government bureaucracy headquarters for the 86 overlapping and redundant welfare programs so they can wait months for assistance. You force them to depend on government instead of getting off your fat, lazy and pass the buck ass instead of helping them yourself.
Govern yourself accordingly and next time read the book before you make a damn fool of yourself.

I sounds like you don't get out very much, Mr G. Your rant against "moochers" suggests a lack of understanding of the complexity of various social problems, and of the growing inability of the economy today to provide work for all, much less meaningful work. It is the tired old rant of those who have received their education by watching Daniel Boone and Marshall Dillon on the flickering screen. Do you think real life is like that? How many people have you actually met that have been recipients of welfare programs? You see, in real life, the hero does not necessarily ride into town, and make all well for the less fortunate.

We have seen what happens when, in a large and complex society, we leave critical social and economic questions to the private sector. In recent years, wealth polarization has skyrocketed, manufacturing has fled the country, and the most dubious segments of the financial industry have risen to prominence not seen before, with flim flam and near embezzlement now the accepted order of the day. Doesn't sound too heroic, does it? It gets worse. Those now with the most economic options have been so little interested in helping their "fellow man" that they have just about trashed the world economy in their mad scramble to make ever more profit (2008).

In the jurisdiction I live in, about 1 % of the budget goes to direct welfare costs. Yet no one is left out. It is absurd to take a modern day society of tens, or hundreds of millions, and try to run it on some sort of idealized Hollywood cowboy town basis. The only way to have a viable society in today's world is to have effective and pragmatic social programs that meet the challenges of the economy today, which include trends that are too big for any one individual to deal with. That's what works. It works in the EU, in places like Canada, Australia, and others. The US has problems. Listening to the self-serving nonsense of Mit Romney, or similar, or retreating to comic books will not help. Some deeper reading might.

I travel to Puerto Morales, Mexico often and have many Canadian friends.
They tell me a different story than you do.
And right, the EU is doing great! LOL, you live in a la la land.
At least I have read Dickens.

That's your only answer? You have been as far as Mexico, have some anecdotal stories from a few Canadians, and are feel like laughing at the EU? Anything with some more substance?

 

[PrometheusBound]

seven out of top ten wealthiest in Congress, Democrats...where is that equality now....

1. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): $188.6 million

2. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.): $160.1 million

3. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.): $152.3 million

4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-W.Va.): $83.7 million

5. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.8 million

6. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.); $70.2 million

7. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.): $56.5 million

8. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.): $53.5 million

9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): $49.7 million

10. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.): $46.1 million


Read more: Top Ten Wealthiest Members of Congress - Fox News

That just proves that the Conservative/Liberal Axis is a united ruling class of thieves and traitors.

 

[Rshermr]

I sounds like you don't get out very much, Mr G. Your rant against "moochers" suggests a lack of understanding of the complexity of various social problems, and of the growing inability of the economy today to provide work for all, much less meaningful work. It is the tired old rant of those who have received their education by watching Daniel Boone and Marshall Dillon on the flickering screen. Do you think real life is like that? How many people have you actually met that have been recipients of welfare programs? You see, in real life, the hero does not necessarily ride into town, and make all well for the less fortunate.

We have seen what happens when, in a large and complex society, we leave critical social and economic questions to the private sector. In recent years, wealth polarization has skyrocketed, manufacturing has fled the country, and the most dubious segments of the financial industry have risen to prominence not seen before, with flim flam and near embezzlement now the accepted order of the day. Doesn't sound too heroic, does it? It gets worse. Those now with the most economic options have been so little interested in helping their "fellow man" that they have just about trashed the world economy in their mad scramble to make ever more profit (2008).

In the jurisdiction I live in, about 1 % of the budget goes to direct welfare costs. Yet no one is left out. It is absurd to take a modern day society of tens, or hundreds of millions, and try to run it on some sort of idealized Hollywood cowboy town basis. The only way to have a viable society in today's world is to have effective and pragmatic social programs that meet the challenges of the economy today, which include trends that are too big for any one individual to deal with. That's what works. It works in the EU, in places like Canada, Australia, and others. The US has problems. Listening to the self-serving nonsense of Mit Romney, or similar, or retreating to comic books will not help. Some deeper reading might.

I travel to Puerto Morales, Mexico often and have many Canadian friends.
They tell me a different story than you do.
And right, the EU is doing great! LOL, you live in a la la land.
At least I have read Dickens.

That's your only answer? You have been as far as Mexico, have some anecdotal stories from a few Canadians, and are feel like laughing at the EU? Anything with some more substance?

Please, please. That is as good as you could expect from gadawg. He is not what one would call a big thinker. Studies are beyond him. Research is way too hard. So, there you go. Best he can do.

 

[MikeK]

The marxist policies of the socialists is one of the problems in our Economy.

"The Marxist policies of the Socialists."

Who are you talking about and exactly what do you mean?

Does falling onto hard times and needing financial help make one a Marxist or a committed Socialist? Those whom you've been led (by one corporatist propagandist or other) to believe are "Marxist socialists" have no wish to transform the existing economic system of the U.S., which is regulated capitalism. And for your information, neither Marxism or Socialism theoretically permits any of its citizen/subjects to collect public assistance rather than work simply because they choose to. That is what what your expressed ideology implies -- and is quite mistaken.

I'd say this problem is one of many major problems. For example, if say half the people who are out of work to collect welfare would go back to work the economy's growth as measured by GDP would grow to the point where those folks increase GDP by say 10% vs acting as an anchor on the rest of the population resulting in a slowing of the GDP.

I can assure you that more than half of those you refer to are unemployed through no fault of their own (exported jobs, etc). Most of those collecting unemployment insurance are hoping to find wages equal to what they lost, which I assume you would do in their position. Unfortunately for most of them it soon will be necessary to accept the fact that minimum wage jobs are all that's available to them. Many of them will soon be competing with illegal aliens for work.

As previously mentioned, the only solution to the existing problem is a federal make-work program similar to FDR's WPA and CCC, funded partly by sharply elevated taxes on upper income levels, aimed mainly at offshore tax havens, and applied to repairing the infrastructure. That will stimulate the economy and create many new industries.

The problem is not Marxism or Socialism. It's corporatism and laissez-faire capitalism.