35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality

[Two Thumbs]

8. Inequality is a worldwide problem. In the UK, doctors no longer occupy a place in the top 1% of income earners, London plays host to the largest congregation of Russian millionaires outside of Moscow, and also houses more ultra-rich people (defined as owning more than $30 million in assets outside of their home) than anywhere else on Earth.


they can than their socialist health care


it's funny when leftist prove their ideas are bad.

 

[danielpalos]

One example of subsidies is USA's military providing protection for oil companies operating in the middle east. Including deaths and injuries to servicemen protecting these for profit companies and the american taxpayers footing the bill, sometimes health care costs for life for some service men, the oil companies are getting a pretty sweet deal. And sometimes they manage to pay no taxes at all, like exxon. Since oil products are one of usa's biggest exports, it's certainly not about getting oil to the homefront or america won't survive.

The Surprising Truth About Oil and Gas Company Corporate Tax Rates - US News

Another who cannot understand what subsidies means? I pretty much gave you the definition....

What money did the US Government give to these oil companies?

BTW....Us military protecting American interests pretty much sums up what their mission statement is...and the first priority of our government is to protect our interests.....

Protection is NOT subsidies....try again.

Protection is a subsidy when that company chooses to work in dangerous areas... How is it in US interest to spend $2+ trillion on a war and
little under 15 billion on on renewable and energy efficiency in the last 10 years...


Over the 37-year period from the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) inception at the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 1978 through FY2014, federal funding for renewable energy R&D amounted to about 17% of the energy R&D total, compared with 15% for energy efficiency, 26% for fossil, and 38% for nuclear. For the 67-year period from 1948 through 2014, nearly 12% went to renewables, compared with 10% for efficiency, 25% for fossil, and 49% for nuclear.


View attachment 45041

So they continue spending more on Fossil Energy.

Darkwind you have been had... US with interest payments is racking up a bill of $6 trillion dollars on a war to secure oil in just one country.
The laugh is the Middle East doesn't sell oil to US (well in no real high quantities), but they sure as hell love the GOP fascination with

Make up your mind is it 2 trillion or 6 trillion or is it 18 trillion?

Where is the links to break down the cost of those two wars?

1. NEW YORK The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional$490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.Mar 14, 2013

Iraq war costs U.S. more than 2 trillion study Reuters

I just googled 'Cost of Iraq war'

By that accounting the Democrat "War on Poverty" cost us $467 Trillion

All "wars" even abstractions such a crime, drugs, poverty, and terror should be under our warfare-State "defense spending" category.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I couldn't keep reading, all that whiny crybaby bullshit that someone else cookie is bigger

 

[danielpalos]

Do remember the GOP shutting down the government because the wealthy would not continue to receive more tax breaks...

The government was shut down for 4 years?

Obama threatened to withhold Social Security checks unless he got his way

I think you better off stop read right wing garbage websites and actually understand the law. There was no money to cover the checks...

Your lack of understanding of the way government works is amusing
Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 - CBS News

Isnt it funny that every time there is not enough money to send out checks, its never the bottom feeding leaches on welfare that are in question?
Those that worked their whole life can go without now, but those that do nothing for society are always protected.

I think it is even more "funny" that the clueless and Causeless and Lazy right never wants to end our useless boondoggles and generational forms of theft that are our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; but, always finds a way to blame the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

so we should stop worrying about crime? drugs? and terror?
but lets get back to the original.
why is it that social security is always being threatened, yet not once do I remember welfare in danger of no checks being sent.

Did we have wars on crime, drugs, and terror in 1929? Why do we need them now. Is the Right claiming we really really do need Socialism and just complains about socialism for fun?

I think it is about politics; people on social security may pay more attention to politics than Persons on welfare.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The government was shut down for 4 years?

Obama threatened to withhold Social Security checks unless he got his way

I think you better off stop read right wing garbage websites and actually understand the law. There was no money to cover the checks...

Your lack of understanding of the way government works is amusing
Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 - CBS News

Isnt it funny that every time there is not enough money to send out checks, its never the bottom feeding leaches on welfare that are in question?
Those that worked their whole life can go without now, but those that do nothing for society are always protected.

I think it is even more "funny" that the clueless and Causeless and Lazy right never wants to end our useless boondoggles and generational forms of theft that are our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; but, always finds a way to blame the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

so we should stop worrying about crime? drugs? and terror?
but lets get back to the original.
why is it that social security is always being threatened, yet not once do I remember welfare in danger of no checks being sent.

Did we have wars on crime, drugs, and terror in 1929? Why do we need them now. Is the Right claiming we really really do need Socialism and just complains about socialism for fun?

I think it is about politics; people on social security may pay more attention to politics than Persons on welfare.

In 1929 terrorist attacks were not an issue, in part due to the fact that the weapons were not there, or was there a quick and reliable method of transportation. However if you go back and look at the middle east I believe you will find that there were terrorist massacres of Israelis, and that Saudi Arabia did in fact have a war against terrorism.
As far as a war on drugs and crime, yes, there were both, although the drug of the day was alcohol and the war was called prohibition, it was for all intents the same.
Along with the prohibition that period was also an era for crime families, so yes again, there was a war on crime.

I will concede to you that those on social security are more likely to follow politics and notice their income is being threatened, however I have to wonder how fast the news would spread if welfare did come under attack.

 

[danielpalos]

I think you better off stop read right wing garbage websites and actually understand the law. There was no money to cover the checks...

Your lack of understanding of the way government works is amusing
Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 - CBS News

Isnt it funny that every time there is not enough money to send out checks, its never the bottom feeding leaches on welfare that are in question?
Those that worked their whole life can go without now, but those that do nothing for society are always protected.

I think it is even more "funny" that the clueless and Causeless and Lazy right never wants to end our useless boondoggles and generational forms of theft that are our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; but, always finds a way to blame the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

so we should stop worrying about crime? drugs? and terror?
but lets get back to the original.
why is it that social security is always being threatened, yet not once do I remember welfare in danger of no checks being sent.

Did we have wars on crime, drugs, and terror in 1929? Why do we need them now. Is the Right claiming we really really do need Socialism and just complains about socialism for fun?

I think it is about politics; people on social security may pay more attention to politics than Persons on welfare.

In 1929 terrorist attacks were not an issue, in part due to the fact that the weapons were not there, or was there a quick and reliable method of transportation. However if you go back and look at the middle east I believe you will find that there were terrorist massacres of Israelis, and that Saudi Arabia did in fact have a war against terrorism.
As far as a war on drugs and crime, yes, there were both, although the drug of the day was alcohol and the war was called prohibition, it was for all intents the same.
Along with the prohibition that period was also an era for crime families, so yes again, there was a war on crime.

I will concede to you that those on social security are more likely to follow politics and notice their income is being threatened, however I have to wonder how fast the news would spread if welfare did come under attack.

So, is it ok for the right repeat the historical mistake of Prohibition with our current War on Drugs and not also subsidize with our tax dollars, all of the issues that brought us higher crime rates and a disrespect for the law.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Isnt it funny that every time there is not enough money to send out checks, its never the bottom feeding leaches on welfare that are in question?
Those that worked their whole life can go without now, but those that do nothing for society are always protected.

I think it is even more "funny" that the clueless and Causeless and Lazy right never wants to end our useless boondoggles and generational forms of theft that are our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; but, always finds a way to blame the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

so we should stop worrying about crime? drugs? and terror?
but lets get back to the original.
why is it that social security is always being threatened, yet not once do I remember welfare in danger of no checks being sent.

Did we have wars on crime, drugs, and terror in 1929? Why do we need them now. Is the Right claiming we really really do need Socialism and just complains about socialism for fun?

I think it is about politics; people on social security may pay more attention to politics than Persons on welfare.

In 1929 terrorist attacks were not an issue, in part due to the fact that the weapons were not there, or was there a quick and reliable method of transportation. However if you go back and look at the middle east I believe you will find that there were terrorist massacres of Israelis, and that Saudi Arabia did in fact have a war against terrorism.
As far as a war on drugs and crime, yes, there were both, although the drug of the day was alcohol and the war was called prohibition, it was for all intents the same.
Along with the prohibition that period was also an era for crime families, so yes again, there was a war on crime.

I will concede to you that those on social security are more likely to follow politics and notice their income is being threatened, however I have to wonder how fast the news would spread if welfare did come under attack.

So, is it ok for the right repeat the historical mistake of Prohibition with our current War on Drugs and not also subsidize with our tax dollars, all of the issues that brought us higher crime rates and a disrespect for the law.

Depends on what drug you are talking about, Heroin? Crack? Meth? yes, be as aggressive as you can.
Non Addictive drugs like a hit of acid, or something? no, its not worth the time or the money or the ruined lives over them. No different from alcohol, the only problem I see with it is that there is not a good test to indicate level of impairment when driving.

 

[danielpalos]

I think it is even more "funny" that the clueless and Causeless and Lazy right never wants to end our useless boondoggles and generational forms of theft that are our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; but, always finds a way to blame the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.

so we should stop worrying about crime? drugs? and terror?
but lets get back to the original.
why is it that social security is always being threatened, yet not once do I remember welfare in danger of no checks being sent.

Did we have wars on crime, drugs, and terror in 1929? Why do we need them now. Is the Right claiming we really really do need Socialism and just complains about socialism for fun?

I think it is about politics; people on social security may pay more attention to politics than Persons on welfare.

In 1929 terrorist attacks were not an issue, in part due to the fact that the weapons were not there, or was there a quick and reliable method of transportation. However if you go back and look at the middle east I believe you will find that there were terrorist massacres of Israelis, and that Saudi Arabia did in fact have a war against terrorism.
As far as a war on drugs and crime, yes, there were both, although the drug of the day was alcohol and the war was called prohibition, it was for all intents the same.
Along with the prohibition that period was also an era for crime families, so yes again, there was a war on crime.

I will concede to you that those on social security are more likely to follow politics and notice their income is being threatened, however I have to wonder how fast the news would spread if welfare did come under attack.

So, is it ok for the right repeat the historical mistake of Prohibition with our current War on Drugs and not also subsidize with our tax dollars, all of the issues that brought us higher crime rates and a disrespect for the law.

Depends on what drug you are talking about, Heroin? Crack? Meth? yes, be as aggressive as you can.
Non Addictive drugs like a hit of acid, or something? no, its not worth the time or the money or the ruined lives over them. No different from alcohol, the only problem I see with it is that there is not a good test to indicate level of impairment when driving.

The point is Prohibition not Only doesn't work; there is no Constitutional and social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that historical mistake, last millennium. Why blame the least wealthy for any crime resulting from Prohibition in modern times.

It isn’t drugs; but the abomination of hypocrisy that is the real problem for one nation under a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge, but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books to prove our sincerity to even a god.

But, hey; why teach something that important to the "greater glory of our immortal souls" in school on Sundays.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

so we should stop worrying about crime? drugs? and terror?
but lets get back to the original.
why is it that social security is always being threatened, yet not once do I remember welfare in danger of no checks being sent.

Did we have wars on crime, drugs, and terror in 1929? Why do we need them now. Is the Right claiming we really really do need Socialism and just complains about socialism for fun?

I think it is about politics; people on social security may pay more attention to politics than Persons on welfare.

In 1929 terrorist attacks were not an issue, in part due to the fact that the weapons were not there, or was there a quick and reliable method of transportation. However if you go back and look at the middle east I believe you will find that there were terrorist massacres of Israelis, and that Saudi Arabia did in fact have a war against terrorism.
As far as a war on drugs and crime, yes, there were both, although the drug of the day was alcohol and the war was called prohibition, it was for all intents the same.
Along with the prohibition that period was also an era for crime families, so yes again, there was a war on crime.

I will concede to you that those on social security are more likely to follow politics and notice their income is being threatened, however I have to wonder how fast the news would spread if welfare did come under attack.

So, is it ok for the right repeat the historical mistake of Prohibition with our current War on Drugs and not also subsidize with our tax dollars, all of the issues that brought us higher crime rates and a disrespect for the law.

Depends on what drug you are talking about, Heroin? Crack? Meth? yes, be as aggressive as you can.
Non Addictive drugs like a hit of acid, or something? no, its not worth the time or the money or the ruined lives over them. No different from alcohol, the only problem I see with it is that there is not a good test to indicate level of impairment when driving.

The point is Prohibition not Only doesn't work; there is no Constitutional and social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that historical mistake, last millennium. Why blame the least wealthy for any crime resulting from Prohibition in modern times.

It isn’t drugs; but the abomination of hypocrisy that is the real problem for one nation under a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge, but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books to prove our sincerity to even a god.

But, hey; why teach something that important to the "greater glory of our immortal souls" in school on Sundays.

So you think Heroin should be legal?

 

[danielpalos]

Did we have wars on crime, drugs, and terror in 1929? Why do we need them now. Is the Right claiming we really really do need Socialism and just complains about socialism for fun?

I think it is about politics; people on social security may pay more attention to politics than Persons on welfare.

In 1929 terrorist attacks were not an issue, in part due to the fact that the weapons were not there, or was there a quick and reliable method of transportation. However if you go back and look at the middle east I believe you will find that there were terrorist massacres of Israelis, and that Saudi Arabia did in fact have a war against terrorism.
As far as a war on drugs and crime, yes, there were both, although the drug of the day was alcohol and the war was called prohibition, it was for all intents the same.
Along with the prohibition that period was also an era for crime families, so yes again, there was a war on crime.

I will concede to you that those on social security are more likely to follow politics and notice their income is being threatened, however I have to wonder how fast the news would spread if welfare did come under attack.

So, is it ok for the right repeat the historical mistake of Prohibition with our current War on Drugs and not also subsidize with our tax dollars, all of the issues that brought us higher crime rates and a disrespect for the law.

Depends on what drug you are talking about, Heroin? Crack? Meth? yes, be as aggressive as you can.
Non Addictive drugs like a hit of acid, or something? no, its not worth the time or the money or the ruined lives over them. No different from alcohol, the only problem I see with it is that there is not a good test to indicate level of impairment when driving.

The point is Prohibition not Only doesn't work; there is no Constitutional and social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that historical mistake, last millennium. Why blame the least wealthy for any crime resulting from Prohibition in modern times.

It isn’t drugs; but the abomination of hypocrisy that is the real problem for one nation under a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge, but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books to prove our sincerity to even a god.

But, hey; why teach something that important to the "greater glory of our immortal souls" in school on Sundays.

So you think Heroin should be legal?

It used to be used for medical purposes, legally.

In the U.S.A., the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was passed in 1914 to control the sale and distribution of diacetylmorphine and other opioids, which allowed the drug to be prescribed and sold for medical purposes.--Source: Heroin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Do we need a nanny-State to simply tell us to handle our drugs better than our drugs handle us?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yet, the right believes that Capitalism is what increases wealth for the People and not socialism.

Capitalism has brought a billion or so Chinese out of poverty, Not Socialism , in recent years. Socialism is just a different type of power play.

Dude, Socialism has built entire cities. Only bad management has prevented the social concept of, from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

Really...Which ones?.....Holy shit....
Ya know what? I think you are here just pulling everyone's chain. I think you're full of shit.
You don't believe a word you post. You are just here to increase your post count.

Sure; I will do it merely because I have a social work ethic; unlike the lazy right who need to be spoon fed information by their Nanny.

Ordos China A Modern Ghost Town - Photo Essays - TIME

There is no such thing as a "social work ethic".....

 

[thereisnospoon]

hunger is hunger . To quote that old Armenian lady , in the USA even the homeless run around with a chicken leg in each hand SwimExpert !!

In the US, the wealthiest even get to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested, corporate welfare.

You have an example of this corporate welfare?

Danny boy is just spewing left wing loon talking points......Useless as tits on a bull.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That is utter crap. The "Poor" in America live better than did the relatively wealthy in pre-Industrial times.

You want to try that again? You really want to argue that the modern day poor American lives better than, say, Benjamin Franklin or George Washington did back in their day?

You're trying to make a flat earth argument. Poverty is relative to one's environment/community/culture. This is a fact to which there can be no contestation among reasonably intelligent people who are educated on the matter. If you can't understand how and why poverty is relative, then you need to do some research into the subject so that you can become educated. After that, I'm sure we could have a delightfully stimulating conversation/debate about the various causes of poverty in America, what (if anything) should be done to address it, etc.

On the other hand, if you seriously want to hold onto the claim that today's poor "live better" than well-to-do people from history, then you should go shake hands with Stephanie and Rdean, all the Trump enthusiasts and birthers, all the folks who say that gay marriage is causing human-goat sex, and every other batshit crazy lunatic on here.

Define "the poor".

 

[thereisnospoon]

35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality - Salon.com

Interesting and disturbing.

Republicans call these good things.

Says what republican? These are 35 examples of what happens when those in power help each other out, wether it's one guy giving money to the other, or one guy making laws to help the other make more money. It's called crony capitalism!! And it keeps happening when people keep buying what people in power tell them to think. And what you told to think from those in power that it's the fault of all one group that's not themselves. Why has the middle class shrunk so much under this champion of the middle class, who has been getting everything he wants?

Those 35 things are liberal clap trap.....Just another example of class warfare.
The goal.....Use the threat of government sanctions to take from the producers and give to the non producers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

hunger is hunger . To quote that old Armenian lady , in the USA even the homeless run around with a chicken leg in each hand SwimExpert !!

In the US, the wealthiest even get to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested, corporate welfare.

You have an example of this corporate welfare?

One example of subsidies is USA's military providing protection for oil companies operating in the middle east. Including deaths and injuries to servicemen protecting these for profit companies and the american taxpayers footing the bill, sometimes health care costs for life for some service men, the oil companies are getting a pretty sweet deal. And sometimes they manage to pay no taxes at all, like exxon. Since oil products are one of usa's biggest exports, it's certainly not about getting oil to the homefront or america won't survive.

The Surprising Truth About Oil and Gas Company Corporate Tax Rates - US News

UGH......
Cry me a river....
Look genius, like it or not, the economic health of the entire planet is dependent upon the free flow of petroleum and petroleum products.
Guarding facilities is in our national security and national economic interest.
Deal with it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In 1929 terrorist attacks were not an issue, in part due to the fact that the weapons were not there, or was there a quick and reliable method of transportation. However if you go back and look at the middle east I believe you will find that there were terrorist massacres of Israelis, and that Saudi Arabia did in fact have a war against terrorism.
As far as a war on drugs and crime, yes, there were both, although the drug of the day was alcohol and the war was called prohibition, it was for all intents the same.
Along with the prohibition that period was also an era for crime families, so yes again, there was a war on crime.

I will concede to you that those on social security are more likely to follow politics and notice their income is being threatened, however I have to wonder how fast the news would spread if welfare did come under attack.

So, is it ok for the right repeat the historical mistake of Prohibition with our current War on Drugs and not also subsidize with our tax dollars, all of the issues that brought us higher crime rates and a disrespect for the law.

Depends on what drug you are talking about, Heroin? Crack? Meth? yes, be as aggressive as you can.
Non Addictive drugs like a hit of acid, or something? no, its not worth the time or the money or the ruined lives over them. No different from alcohol, the only problem I see with it is that there is not a good test to indicate level of impairment when driving.

The point is Prohibition not Only doesn't work; there is no Constitutional and social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that historical mistake, last millennium. Why blame the least wealthy for any crime resulting from Prohibition in modern times.

It isn’t drugs; but the abomination of hypocrisy that is the real problem for one nation under a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge, but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books to prove our sincerity to even a god.

But, hey; why teach something that important to the "greater glory of our immortal souls" in school on Sundays.

So you think Heroin should be legal?

It used to be used for medical purposes, legally.

In the U.S.A., the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was passed in 1914 to control the sale and distribution of diacetylmorphine and other opioids, which allowed the drug to be prescribed and sold for medical purposes.--Source: Heroin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Do we need a nanny-State to simply tell us to handle our drugs better than our drugs handle us?

These are dangerous and extremely addictive narcotics. Most human beings are incapable of understanding even the smallest aspect of their chemical makeup nor the tragic and sometimes fatal results from even casual use.
You're not getting your way. So shut up.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

In 1929 terrorist attacks were not an issue, in part due to the fact that the weapons were not there, or was there a quick and reliable method of transportation. However if you go back and look at the middle east I believe you will find that there were terrorist massacres of Israelis, and that Saudi Arabia did in fact have a war against terrorism.
As far as a war on drugs and crime, yes, there were both, although the drug of the day was alcohol and the war was called prohibition, it was for all intents the same.
Along with the prohibition that period was also an era for crime families, so yes again, there was a war on crime.

I will concede to you that those on social security are more likely to follow politics and notice their income is being threatened, however I have to wonder how fast the news would spread if welfare did come under attack.

So, is it ok for the right repeat the historical mistake of Prohibition with our current War on Drugs and not also subsidize with our tax dollars, all of the issues that brought us higher crime rates and a disrespect for the law.

Depends on what drug you are talking about, Heroin? Crack? Meth? yes, be as aggressive as you can.
Non Addictive drugs like a hit of acid, or something? no, its not worth the time or the money or the ruined lives over them. No different from alcohol, the only problem I see with it is that there is not a good test to indicate level of impairment when driving.

The point is Prohibition not Only doesn't work; there is no Constitutional and social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that historical mistake, last millennium. Why blame the least wealthy for any crime resulting from Prohibition in modern times.

It isn’t drugs; but the abomination of hypocrisy that is the real problem for one nation under a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge, but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books to prove our sincerity to even a god.

But, hey; why teach something that important to the "greater glory of our immortal souls" in school on Sundays.

So you think Heroin should be legal?

It used to be used for medical purposes, legally.

In the U.S.A., the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was passed in 1914 to control the sale and distribution of diacetylmorphine and other opioids, which allowed the drug to be prescribed and sold for medical purposes.--Source: Heroin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Do we need a nanny-State to simply tell us to handle our drugs better than our drugs handle us?

Used to be legal to hang someone for stealing, think we should drop the nanny state on our affairs of justice?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Yet, the right believes that Capitalism is what increases wealth for the People and not socialism.

Capitalism has brought a billion or so Chinese out of poverty, Not Socialism , in recent years. Socialism is just a different type of power play.

Dude, Socialism has built entire cities. Only bad management has prevented the social concept of, from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

Really...Which ones?.....Holy shit....
Ya know what? I think you are here just pulling everyone's chain. I think you're full of shit.
You don't believe a word you post. You are just here to increase your post count.

Sure; I will do it merely because I have a social work ethic; unlike the lazy right who need to be spoon fed information by their Nanny.

Ordos China A Modern Ghost Town - Photo Essays - TIME

There is no such thing as a "social work ethic".....

actually there is.
anyone that does social work of any type needs to be certified, this requires college credit, one of the courses is ethics.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dudes. the most convincing proof of all; is how Capitalists of Wealth are willing to lie to stockholders while crying Nanny(-State); please bail us out.

It is not a "convincing proof" of anything to bleat out a trite platitude devoid of meaningful connection to the actual world.

Lying to your Capital stockholders while asking for a socialized bailout is a "trite platitude devoid of meaningful connection to the actual world"?

Just sad lack of a social, hard work ethic on the part of the socially immoral right; are capital morals better?

Look Forget "social" "socialism", social anything....It's not happening here.
To answer your question....Yes....ANYTHING is morally superior to socialism......
The only thing that socialism creates is a system where the people are well controlled, there is no liberty and all wealth is confiscated by government in the name of 'equality'....That equality leaves the population equal....Equally miserable....
Those who dream of socialist utopia are too weak to think and do for themselves.
There is no "share"....There is no "pie"....There is no such thing as "wealth inequality"....Such a concept presupposes that wealth should be equal in the first place. FALSE.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you think income inequality in America is so bad and holding you down try your luck in another country I hear Greece is lovely.

I am on the left; I don't mind having a social hard work ethic for free; unlike the capital right who is too lazy to have a clue or a Cause.

Dude....Only the weak minded and dependent do causes.
"Social work ethic for free"?......What the hell does that mean...
Causes are for assholes.