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.
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?