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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

 

[Katzndogz]

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 do know that most people today who live in apartments or the housing projects don't have freezers.

 

[Vox]

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 do know that most people today who live in apartments or the housing projects don't have freezers.

there is a freezer compartment in EVERY refrigerator. and the latter one is an obligatory part of any apartment.

 

[Katzndogz]

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 do know that most people today who live in apartments or the housing projects don't have freezers.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

 

[editec]

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.

No, and nobody is suggesting that, either.

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

Yeah like YOU are the goose that lays that golden, egg?

 

[g5000]

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.

I am the president of a non-profit and work with the poor all the time, and you are so full of shit your eyes must be brown.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It would be so much better if the government controlled more of the economy.

No, and nobody is suggesting that, either.

How else you gonna equal things out, sparky?

Yeah like YOU are the goose that lays that golden, egg?

I claimed I was a goose?

 

[Leweman]

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

 

[freedombecki]

I am not suggesting we become equal. I am okay with the idea of a CEO making much more money than a low level employee. However, these stats are insane. This is NOT how it should be. The middle class is shrinking. That is a problem.

It's a problem inflicted on the middle class because Progressives are running/ruining the US economy

"The Middle Class has been buried these past 4 years" -- Joe Biden, Oct 2012

Um, no it is not progressives fault the stats are the way they are.

Oh, yes it is, too.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

 

[g5000]

The socialist solution to income disparity would be to tax the upper classes more, and redistribute that money to the lower classes. I do not believe that is what the topic starter is proposing.

We need to understand what has been causing more and more wealth to be distributed toward the top, at the expense of a stagnant and shrinking middle class and a growing underclass.

Much of this is caused by growing profits that are not being shared with the workers. Profits have been increasing, and instead of sharing the growing profits with their workers, the executives have been keeping it all for themselves, or for their shareholders.

Does that really sound like the Judeo-Christian thing they are doing? Does it really?

You know the answer.

Speaking of shareholders, the top one percent own 50 percent of all stocks. So when the rich executives are spreading the wealth to their shareholders, they are spreading the wealth to other rich people.

Another cause of the concentration of wealth is result of profound changes which have occurred in the financial services sector in the past twenty years.

Until very recently, the primary business of investment banks was raising capital for corporations which needed long term funding. This was accomplished by brokering stock and bond issuances, for which the investment bank earned a fee. Investment banks also arranged marriages between corporations (mergers and acquisitions), for which the banks also received fees.

The primary business of commercial banks was providing loans to corporations which needed short term funding, for which the banks received interest payments.

Good, strong, really boring stuff.

During this long and traditional period, banks were, for the most part, privately owned. Investment banks, in particular.

When you own a bank, or are a partner in that bank, you tend to be more prudent with loans and risks since it is your own personal money at stake.

However, in the late 80s and early 90s, banks started going public in a big way. And the real cowboy period started as bankers began playing with other people's money. Your money.

With shareholders demanding constantly growing returns, bankers began losing focus, and began taking bigger and bigger risks. They lost sight of their primary purpose, and began investing money for themselves. They began buying and selling stock for their own gain. They began creating exotic products to sell to the rubes. They began ripping the faces off their own clients.

As a result of these changes, by the year 2000, Wall Street was making 40 percent of all corporate profits in the United States.

Think about that. Think of all the mom and pop businesses in America the Right likes to talk about defending at tax time. Think of all the factories and manufacturing facilities in America. Think about all the Wal-Marts, K-Marts, Targets, Wallgreens, Sears, JC Penney's, and every other department store under the sun. Think of all the Best Buys, Radio Shacks, and other consumer electronics stores. Think of all the 7-11s and Quick Marts and Circle K's and all the other corner convenience stores. Think of every single business you can think of. All those commercial business of every variety you pass on your way to your won company every day. Take your time. There's a lot of them.

And then try to imagine the stupendous amount of money those place make all combined together.

And then imagine the financial services sector making nearly the same amount of money as every other motherfucking dollar made in America.

It's astonishing.

That is some SERIOUS concentration of wealth. A lot of those dollars have been stolen from YOUR pocket. And a lot of it has been done illegally, and the crooks all have police protection, which is also paid for by YOU.

You see, having big money means being able to own Congress. Forget about a D or an R after some politician's name. Take a look at who their biggest donors are. Go ahead. Open up Chuck Schumer's account and see who totally owns the Senator from New York (epicenter of the financial sector).


It is time to stop with the reflex knee-jerk automatic protection response for these assholes who are stealing from you. It makes you look like an idiot.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

I am the president of a non-profit and work with the poor all the time, and you are so full of shit your eyes must be brown.

We know all about it.

EXCLUSIVE: Dominican Republic scammers sell welfare food bought in NYC and shipped in barrels - NYPOST.com

 

[RKMBrown]

You do know that most people today who live in apartments or the housing projects don't have freezers.

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.

 

[g5000]

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.

I am the president of a non-profit and work with the poor all the time, and you are so full of shit your eyes must be brown.

We know all about it.

EXCLUSIVE: Dominican Republic scammers sell welfare food bought in NYC and shipped in barrels - NYPOST.com

Classic stereotyping. You are an amusing creature, working so hard to confirm your biases against the darkies.

 

[g5000]

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.

This is satire, right?

 

[RKMBrown]

The socialist solution to income disparity would be to tax the upper classes more, and redistribute that money to the lower classes. I do not believe that is what the topic starter is proposing.

We need to understand what has been causing more and more wealth to be distributed toward the top, at the expense of a stagnant and shrinking middle class and a growing underclass.

Much of this is caused by growing profits that are not being shared with the workers. Profits have been increasing, and instead of sharing the growing profits with their workers, the executives have been keeping it all for themselves, or for their shareholders.

Does that really sound like the Judeo-Christian thing they are doing? Does it really?

You know the answer.

Speaking of shareholders, the top one percent own 50 percent of all stocks. So when the rich executives are spreading the wealth to their shareholders, they are spreading the wealth to other rich people.

Another cause of the concentration of wealth is result of profound changes which have occurred in the financial services sector in the past twenty years.

Until very recently, the primary business of investment banks was raising capital for corporations which needed long term funding. This was accomplished by brokering stock and bond issuances, for which the investment bank earned a fee. Investment banks also arranged marriages between corporations (mergers and acquisitions), for which the banks also received fees.

The primary business of commercial banks was providing loans to corporations which needed short term funding, for which the banks received interest payments.

Good, strong, really boring stuff.

During this long and traditional period, banks were, for the most part, privately owned. Investment banks, in particular.

When you own a bank, or are a partner in that bank, you tend to be more prudent with loans and risks since it is your own personal money at stake.

However, in the late 80s and early 90s, banks started going public in a big way. And the real cowboy period started as bankers began playing with other people's money. Your money.

With shareholders demanding constantly growing returns, bankers began losing focus, and began taking bigger and bigger risks. They lost sight of their primary purpose, and began investing money for themselves. They began buying and selling stock for their own gain. They began creating exotic products to sell to the rubes. They began ripping the faces off their own clients.

As a result of these changes, by the year 2000, Wall Street was making 40 percent of all corporate profits in the United States.

Think about that. Think of all the mom and pop businesses in America the Right likes to talk about defending at tax time. Think of all the factories and manufacturing facilities in America. Think about all the Wal-Marts, K-Marts, Targets, Wallgreens, Sears, JC Penney's, and every other department store under the sun. Think of all the Best Buys, Radio Shacks, and other consumer electronics stores. Think of all the 7-11s and Quick Marts and Circle K's and all the other corner convenience stores. Think of every single business you can think of. All those commercial business of every variety you pass on your way to your won company every day. Take your time. There's a lot of them.

And then try to imagine the stupendous amount of money those place make all combined together.

And then imagine the financial services sector making nearly the same amount of money as every other motherfucking dollar made in America.

It's astonishing.

That is some SERIOUS concentration of wealth. A lot of those dollars have been stolen from YOUR pocket. And a lot of it has been done illegally, and the crooks all have police protection, which is also paid for by YOU.

You see, having big money means being able to own Congress. Forget about a D or an R after some politician's name. Take a look at who their biggest donors are. Go ahead. Open up Chuck Schumer's account and see who totally owns the Senator from New York (epicenter of the financial sector).


It is time to stop with the reflex knee-jerk automatic protection response for these assholes who are stealing from you. It makes you look like an idiot.

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.

 

[g5000]

Thomas Jefferson is one of the greater idols whom libertarians and conservatives admire.

Too bad so many of my fellow conservatives are ignorant of Jefferson's strong desire to ensure America prevented the unnatural concentration of wealth. People who admire Jefferson really ought to read him and become more familiar with him. He proposed a progressive tax structure, among other methods, to keep wealth from being too heavily concentrated in the hands of the few.

There is a very bad trend which has been going on for a couple decades now, folks. Wakey wakey.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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.