Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are talking about a monopoly that this government is supposed to be breaking up. However, this government does not want to do their job. Instead this government is now the biggest monopoly who is in the business of creating and selling monopolies to the highest bidder.
I would think we would have a mandate that the folks receiving money for food in the form of welfare assistance have passed a test showing they know how to spend their food budget wisely and have the means for doing so. For example, they should have the means to store enough food to cook meals for their family for say a week. If they don't have access to a freezer and a means to heat food i would argue they don't have a means to spend our welfare $ wisely, thus I would argue money would be better spent for a food line for that person till they can show they have the basic rudimentary means to do spend money for food wisely.
This is satire, right?
No, it's common sense. Something people would apply if they were spending their own money and / or actually gave a crap about the poor.
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.
the point is that so few people controlling so much of the wealth is just bad for the economy.
It would be so much better if the government controlled more of the economy.
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
You are talking about a monopoly that this government is supposed to be breaking up. However, this government does not want to do their job. Instead this government is now the biggest monopoly who is in the business of creating and selling monopolies to the highest bidder.
The government is now in the business of propping up inefficient, wasteful, and criminal enterprises instead of allowing them to fail (and jailing the criminals) so they can be replaced by better run businesses.
This decades long process has now snowballed to the point we now have Too Big To Save financial institutions. We now have an oligarchy.
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 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.
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?
This is satire, right?
No, it's common sense. Something people would apply if they were spending their own money and / or actually gave a crap about the poor.
As I mentioned earlier, I am the president of a faith-based non-profit in my spare time.
Your logic is quite poor, and also indicative of talking about a subject of which you have no familiarity.
there is a freezer compartment in EVERY refrigerator. and the latter one is an obligatory part of any apartment.
A freezer compartment is not a standard sized freezer and that is what was quoted.
I would think we would have a mandate that the folks receiving money for food in the form of welfare assistance have passed a test showing they know how to spend their food budget wisely and have the means for doing so. For example, they should have the means to store enough food to cook meals for their family for say a week. If they don't have access to a freezer and a means to heat food i would argue they don't have a means to spend our welfare $ wisely, thus I would argue money would be better spent for a food line for that person till they can show they have the basic rudimentary means to do spend money for food wisely.
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?
It's funny when you think the conversation is all about you. You don't even understand that you are being harmed by this as much as everyone else. Amazing.
I encourage you to watch the 6 minute video completely and keep an open mind.
I do understand this topic has been discussed thoroughly already, but I think it is interesting how it samples the perception of the issue by the American people.
Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube
You are talking about a monopoly that this government is supposed to be breaking up. However, this government does not want to do their job. Instead this government is now the biggest monopoly who is in the business of creating and selling monopolies to the highest bidder.
The government is now in the business of propping up inefficient, wasteful, and criminal enterprises instead of allowing them to fail (and jailing the criminals) so they can be replaced by better run businesses.
This decades long process has now snowballed to the point we now have Too Big To Save financial institutions. We now have an oligarchy.
But again a different subject thread.
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.
the point is that so few people controlling so much of the wealth is just bad for the economy.
It would be so much better if the government controlled more of the economy.
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
This has nothing to do with the government. Stay focused here. Take your Ritalin.
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.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.
I don't eat at McDonald's but for maybe once every three months when I get a craving for a Big Mac. I cook at home 90% of the time. I love people who talk smack and prove how clueless they are. The discussion was about buying healthy foods at the grocery store versus buying processed junk full of chemicals and additives. It had nothing to do with McDonald's but you're too dumb to recognize that.
the point is that so few people controlling so much of the wealth is just bad for the economy.
It would be so much better if the government controlled more of the economy.
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?
This has nothing to do with the government. Stay focused here. Take your Ritalin.
You're going to fix the "inequality problem" without involving government?
Excellent!
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.
What is so fundamentally wrong with struggle? You say that like work is a dirty word. Some people live a life in fear of the unknown, for those folks no amount of money will ever give them a reasonable sense of security, financial or otherwise.
We give them money for food. Dark heart is the jerk who wants that money spent on crap instead of decent food. If we give someone 175 a month in food assistance should that be spent on "food" they need for the entire month or 15 visits to McDonalds? A small bag of rice at the store costs many times more by ounce than rice in bulk.Man......there are some people here who have dark, ugly hearts.
I am most impressed by the genius who expects people with no money to buy food ( in grain form ) in bulk for discounts. It is just wonderful logic. Arrogant fuck.
You are talking about a monopoly that this government is supposed to be breaking up. However, this government does not want to do their job. Instead this government is now the biggest monopoly who is in the business of creating and selling monopolies to the highest bidder.
The government is now in the business of propping up inefficient, wasteful, and criminal enterprises instead of allowing them to fail (and jailing the criminals) so they can be replaced by better run businesses.
This decades long process has now snowballed to the point we now have Too Big To Save financial institutions. We now have an oligarchy.
We give them money for food. Dark heart is the jerk who wants that money spent on crap instead of decent food. If we give someone 175 a month in food assistance should that be spent on "food" they need for the entire month or 15 visits to McDonalds? A small bag of rice at the store costs many times more by ounce than rice in bulk.Man......there are some people here who have dark, ugly hearts.
I am most impressed by the genius who expects people with no money to buy food ( in grain form ) in bulk for discounts. It is just wonderful logic. Arrogant fuck.
This is satire, right?
No, it's common sense. Something people would apply if they were spending their own money and / or actually gave a crap about the poor.
As I mentioned earlier, I am the president of a faith-based non-profit in my spare time.
Your logic is quite poor, and also indicative of talking about a subject of which you have no familiarity.
