we need to address the disparity in “ownership and equity” in the United States...

[Capitalist]

It is something that needs to be addressed.

If by "addressed" you mean more central planning, I would disagree.

===================
Could you be more specific?
I'm not pointing at the dreaded "socialism", but there must be an approach that would reverse this trend. Currently we are heading towards plutocracy and as I pointed out, this would eventually destroy the US economy.
The problem that has risen is that many companies have stopped the ole "a fair days pay for a fair day's work" standard and have directed those monies towards exec pay and larger dividends. Thus flat wages, even in enviroments when there is high worker productivity and good profits. This has been evident since the 2001 recession.
How does this trend get reversed?

We should worry more about private property rights, than trying to encourage big government from interfering even more in the operation of companies. I know what it is if you let ownership of a business remain in private hands but gov. makes the decisions, do you. Business requires freedom from politicians, not favors. Business/producers are free to act on their judgment, they generate the kind of wealth that has lifted us out of poverty. To the extent they are forced to take orders from bureaucrats, the result is stagnation.
I vote for laissez-faire capitalism and freedom.

 

[Vanquish]

So let's discuss this honestly.

Is poverty in America something we want to eliminate/get as close to eliminating as possible?

or do we want to just let those who are impoverished just fall to the wayside without any help to let things happen "naturally"?

I personally DO think the government has a role in diminishing poverty. What say you all?

 

[daveman]

So let's discuss this honestly.

Is poverty in America something we want to eliminate/get as close to eliminating as possible?

or do we want to just let those who are impoverished just fall to the wayside without any help to let things happen "naturally"?

I personally DO think the government has a role in diminishing poverty. What say you all?

I say YOU have a role in diminishing poverty. You need to donate your money to poor people.

There. Now I'm just as generous as liberals!

 

[saveliberty]

So let's discuss this honestly.

Is poverty in America something we want to eliminate/get as close to eliminating as possible?

or do we want to just let those who are impoverished just fall to the wayside without any help to let things happen "naturally"?

I personally DO think the government has a role in diminishing poverty. What say you all?

Government helps create opportunity. Your at liberty to persue it or not. Wealth may not make happiness for all.

 

[kiwiman127]

So, despite historical evidence based facts, people want to stay with the status quo and just let our middle class driven consumer driven economy become a thing of the past?
Why do I say this? Because with less and less expendable income, the working middle class (who makes up the majority of the consumer class) won't be able to contribute to our economy. There is no demand if people can't afford to create demand.
"Business/producers are free to act on their judgment, they generate the kind of wealth that has lifted us out of poverty" And extended flat wages lift the working class out of poverty? Recent facts don't bear that quote out!
So, how about someone factaully refute what I have been posting about? So in a nutshell I am saying, there's a record wealth gap, we have a consumer driven economy, the consumer has less and less expendable income due to and extended (and current) period of flat wages and this poses a threat to our econonical stability.
Where am I wrong?

 

[daveman]

So, despite historical evidence based facts, people want to stay with the status quo and just let our middle class driven consumer driven economy become a thing of the past?
Why do I say this? Because with less and less expendable income, the working middle class (who makes up the majority of the consumer class) won't be able to contribute to our economy. There is no demand if people can't afford to create demand.
"Business/producers are free to act on their judgment, they generate the kind of wealth that has lifted us out of poverty" And extended flat wages lift the working class out of poverty? Recent facts don't bear that quote out!
So, how about someone factaully refute what I have been posting about? So in a nutshell I am saying, there's a record wealth gap, we have a consumer driven economy, the consumer has less and less expendable income due to and extended (and current) period of flat wages and this poses a threat to our econonical stability.
Where am I wrong?

You're wrong because you ignore the historical evidence based facts that show government wealth redistribution guarantees an economic failure.

 

[saveliberty]

So, despite historical evidence based facts, people want to stay with the status quo and just let our middle class driven consumer driven economy become a thing of the past?
Why do I say this? Because with less and less expendable income, the working middle class (who makes up the majority of the consumer class) won't be able to contribute to our economy. There is no demand if people can't afford to create demand.
"Business/producers are free to act on their judgment, they generate the kind of wealth that has lifted us out of poverty" And extended flat wages lift the working class out of poverty? Recent facts don't bear that quote out!
So, how about someone factaully refute what I have been posting about? So in a nutshell I am saying, there's a record wealth gap, we have a consumer driven economy, the consumer has less and less expendable income due to and extended (and current) period of flat wages and this poses a threat to our econonical stability.
Where am I wrong?

You are wrong in assuming the pricing structure will be stagant. You are wrong in assuming supply will not adjust. You are wrong in assuming government is the answer. Your just pretty much wrong.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well I'm wrong, yet I presented facts, you folks just tell me I'm wrong without supporting evidence. That's not what i asked for.
Also, you are assuming that I want to incorporate government. Can anyone plase highlight where I stated that?
The premise of my contribution to this thread is that I state a clear threat to our economy is the growing wealth gap (transfer of wealth upwards). I state why it is, in easy to understand and realistic terms.
There's a wealth (no pun intended) of articles about the wealth gap from all sides of the issue, just do a Google search.
Thank you!

 

[saveliberty]

You stated an opinion. No sources or links. What part of basic economics is giving you a hard time?

 

[Vanquish]

I do think that private individuals play the primary role in beating poverty...but i think the whole "screw the poor" "the government sucks" attitude is ridiculous. Government has to work and be viable, otherwise why do it. Of course once we're past that...the devil's in the details of size and scope.

Almost all countries have centrally planned economies whether you can adjust your brain to that or not. And helping the poor helps all of us...but yes there should be a limit to the government's powers to do so.

I just think it's hilarious to act like helping the poor is a bad thing.

 

[midcan5]

The only period in American history in which propaganda of the RealClear corporate sort did not prevail in setting the tone was the thirties during the great depression, prior to that and since corporate money controls the message.

It is hypocritical to criticize Nancy Pelosi that she does not give to charity or does not support the working person. How would you know that? And since greed is a conservative value why does it even matter?

In the quote below you can add Obama after Clinton. Propaganda controls the minds of the right so strongly they will make America a banana republic as they sing corporate songs of riches. Riches they hope for, often in the next world.

"Not only does there seem to be widespread social fragmentation and disillusionment with democracy in the United States, but the possibility of reversing this sense of alienation appears to many of us to be already lost. Any democratic president who wants to institute the desperately needed reforms in health, welfare and the environment faces one of two options. He can stick by his reform program and suffer a loss of public confidence through orchestrated campaigns to publicly portray him as 'too liberal' and ineffectual (the Carter image) or too indecisive or sexually indiscreet (the Clinton image). Alternatively, a reforming democratic president can move further to the Right, forget his promises and become part of the propaganda campaign. Given the history of democratic propaganda in the United States, some of us doubt that another Roosevelt or New Deal is possible. The political system is now so attuned to business interests that this kind of reformer could no longer institute the substantial health, welfare, education, environmental and employment reforms the country needs." Andrew Lohrey "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy"

 

[kiwiman127]

You stated an opinion. No sources or links. What part of basic economics is giving you a hard time?

==============
I tried to post links but there is a requirement of these boards that one must have at least 15 posts before one can post a link.
So, that's why i suggested using Google, as I noted there is a ton of articles that back everything I have posted.
FACT; There is a wealth gap that is so large that one this size has not seen since just before the Great Depression.
FACT; Wages have been flat since the 2001 recession.
FACT; Over two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending.
FACT; Due to flat wages, the working middle class has less expendable income.

Everything I have stated is very easy to verify. As I post on here more, you'll find I use links all the time to back my posts. I don't use BS partisan references either. People who use partisan references do not legitimize their opinions at all.
Now, "What part of basic economics is giving you a hard time?", turn that questuion around to yourself. Explain to me how the US economy can sustain itself with the backbone that drives our economy experiencing the inability to contribute to this country's economy because of less expendable income? Do the math.

 

[saveliberty]

I do think that private individuals play the primary role in beating poverty...but i think the whole "screw the poor" "the government sucks" attitude is ridiculous. Government has to work and be viable, otherwise why do it. Of course once we're past that...the devil's in the details of size and scope.

Almost all countries have centrally planned economies whether you can adjust your brain to that or not. And helping the poor helps all of us...but yes there should be a limit to the government's powers to do so.

I just think it's hilarious to act like helping the poor is a bad thing.

No one is stopping you from helping the poor. No one here said it was bad. This country was founded on individual rights. You suggest we trade those for a nanny state. No thanks.

 

[Capitalist]

The only period in American history in which propaganda of the RealClear corporate sort did not prevail in setting the tone was the thirties during the great depression, prior to that and since corporate money controls the message.

It is hypocritical to criticize Nancy Pelosi that she does not give to charity or does not support the working person. How would you know that? And since greed is a conservative value why does it even matter?

In the quote below you can add Obama after Clinton. Propaganda controls the minds of the right so strongly they will make America a banana republic as they sing corporate songs of riches. Riches they hope for, often in the next world.

"Not only does there seem to be widespread social fragmentation and disillusionment with democracy in the United States, but the possibility of reversing this sense of alienation appears to many of us to be already lost. Any democratic president who wants to institute the desperately needed reforms in health, welfare and the environment faces one of two options. He can stick by his reform program and suffer a loss of public confidence through orchestrated campaigns to publicly portray him as 'too liberal' and ineffectual (the Carter image) or too indecisive or sexually indiscreet (the Clinton image). Alternatively, a reforming democratic president can move further to the Right, forget his promises and become part of the propaganda campaign. Given the history of democratic propaganda in the United States, some of us doubt that another Roosevelt or New Deal is possible. The political system is now so attuned to business interests that this kind of reformer could no longer institute the substantial health, welfare, education, environmental and employment reforms the country needs." Andrew Lohrey "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy"

Sounds like you don't like a mixed economy and yet you are asking for more of it.
Hahahahaha...........
BTW
This is not a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic and we are trying to keep it.
Do you feel that some personal failure or short coming is preventing you from going out and doing your own armed robberies rather than enlisting the unconstitutional power of government to perform this for you? If you want to steal, to satisfy some moral code of altruism, do it yourself.

 

[saveliberty]

Greed is typically wanting what someone else has. It seems you want something from me, without my consent. Not only is that greed, but stealing.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The only period in American history in which propaganda of the RealClear corporate sort did not prevail in setting the tone was the thirties during the great depression, prior to that and since corporate money controls the message.

It is hypocritical to criticize Nancy Pelosi that she does not give to charity or does not support the working person. How would you know that? And since greed is a conservative value why does it even matter?

In the quote below you can add Obama after Clinton. Propaganda controls the minds of the right so strongly they will make America a banana republic as they sing corporate songs of riches. Riches they hope for, often in the next world.

"Not only does there seem to be widespread social fragmentation and disillusionment with democracy in the United States, but the possibility of reversing this sense of alienation appears to many of us to be already lost. Any democratic president who wants to institute the desperately needed reforms in health, welfare and the environment faces one of two options. He can stick by his reform program and suffer a loss of public confidence through orchestrated campaigns to publicly portray him as 'too liberal' and ineffectual (the Carter image) or too indecisive or sexually indiscreet (the Clinton image). Alternatively, a reforming democratic president can move further to the Right, forget his promises and become part of the propaganda campaign. Given the history of democratic propaganda in the United States, some of us doubt that another Roosevelt or New Deal is possible. The political system is now so attuned to business interests that this kind of reformer could no longer institute the substantial health, welfare, education, environmental and employment reforms the country needs." Andrew Lohrey "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy"

Greed is also a characteristic of the dimwits, they just deny it and lie to the American people. It is more the dimwit dems that want to make this country into a socialist country, the idiots like Bill Ayers and Geore Sorros countrol the strings of obama and his stooges.

 

[Chris]

What's next - nationalized health care, regulation of financial institutions, clean air and water?

 

[Revere]

Water and air already is clean.

 

[Capitalist]

What's next - nationalized health care, regulation of financial institutions, clean air and water?

A bull market in global cooling, invest now!
BTW
Short global warming.

 

[code1211]

Ah, Bush was no conservative. Now there's a headline.

How anyone can hear the name "Bush" and think "Conservative" is beyond me.