Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because this is inequality taken to absurd extremes. 1 in 6 people in this country are consistently hungry, while a very small group of people own 40% of our wealth. That is crazy.
1in 6 are hungry? Bullshit. Show me one starving person in this country, that is not some victim of abuse by their guardians or choose to be on a hunger strike.
You make out like the friggin wealth pie is a limited value. That is just so damn stupit.
By your measure everyone in this country could be 10000000 times richer tomorrow and you would still bitch that the wealth pie is not being distributed in equal portions. OMG
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?
1in 6 are hungry? Bullshit. Show me one starving person in this country, that is not some victim of abuse by their guardians or choose to be on a hunger strike.
You make out like the friggin wealth pie is a limited value. That is just so damn stupit.
By your measure everyone in this country could be 10000000 times richer tomorrow and you would still bitch that the wealth pie is not being distributed in equal portions. OMG
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 CHOICE in what they spend on...
They will buy smokes, but not buy food.. they will not shop wisely in terms of their food... etc...
1 in six are not 'hungry'... it is another made up bullshit tear jerker stat
Earlier in the present controversy over increasing income disparity the word inequity was often applied to the issue of wealth distribution. Sean Hannity was the first right wing propagandist I heard introduce the word inequality, commonly used in discussions of racial issues, into the discussion of income disparity. The inappropriate use of that word was quickly adopted by proponents of corporatist ideology because it cleverly conveys the impression that Progressives ("Liberals") aspire to the communist model -- which is absolutely false.No if I had wanted to say that I would have said that, what I said was that gross inequality of wealth is a SYMPTOM of a problem that isn't good for the country and that attacking the SYMPTOM will never resolve the root cause.
Yes but that comes with experience.
Folks these days want a "living wage" at age 19 when their first yard ape is born.
Out of college I did landscaping work, surveying, sold insurance, put up siding and inside sales. Then I started doing repo and bail bounty work, then as an investigator in a law firm and then in 1982 I went out on my own. The first year I made a profit of $7500 and that came to about maybe $3 a hour if that. The second year I made a profit of $12,000 and the third year $15K. Last year in this business after 31 years I made about $110,000 profit and put in an average of 55 hours a week.
That is what everyone that is self employed has to work to make good money.
And most new businesses fail and folks lose money.
We need to confront and call out all of these "people need a living wage" nuts. If you are making the minimum wage DO NOT HAVE KIDS and educate yourself or throw your shingle out there and take a risk but DO NOT HAVE KIDS until YOU CAN AFFORD THEM.
My first child was born when I was age 30.
But we know folks still that act irresponsibly and then expect others to bail them out when they fall flat on their face.
Inequality is more times than not a direct result of people over and over and over and over and over again making bad decisions expecting different results.
I have an even more convoluted story to tell involving even more shit work, unpaid internships and weed-out, test your mettle positions than you. My first kids (twins) were born when I was in my forties. I hear you about getting established before embarking on a life changing adventure but I don't think anyone should have to go through what I did.
Maybe there's a happy medium.
And what does that have to do with the OP hinting around that somehow there should be a 'wealth regulator'...Because that is what this boils down to. The 'something should be done about this' mantra. It's really quite boring.
The video presents an idea. You have a perception of wealth should be.What is the point in posting the vid then?
Because this is inequality taken to absurd extremes. Unfair extremes. 1 in 6 people in this country are consistently hungry, while a very small group of people own 40% of our wealth. That is crazy.
Fine. End of story.
The result is there is nothing legal or just that can be done to change anything.
Our system is proved to 'do the best for the most'.
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.
God you're so dumb. I never said anything about the wealth pie being distributed in equal portions. No one has fucking said that.
You also arent paying attention to the actual stats. The small group of individuals who 40% of our wealth are far more than just 100x wealthier than the poor. Your Bob and Jill scenario hardly puts the actual inequality in perspective.
Feedingamerica.org
(Their stats are straight from the Dept. of Agriculture's definition of food insecurity).
You misunderstand obesity and poverty. The reason why we have poor obese people is because junk food is cheap. Healthy food is not. Could these people be smarter about what they buy? Sure, but eating healthy is still difficult when you are poor.
Bullshirt. Healthy food is cheaper than junk food.
You may want to rethink that statement. You're not making yourself look very intelligent.
I don't know how many times I need to explain this. What is wrong with you people? Did you just choose not to read any of the posts of mine in this thread? I have probably explained this to at least 10 people in this thread.
Okay, I will explain myself ONE more time, but this is it. If the rest of you are too damn lazy to read my other posts, you are out of luck.
While I favor the CONCEPT of wealth inequality, I am very much alarmed of what it has become in this country. Did you even watch the video? I can't even tell. Maybe you just chose ignore the facts presented in the video, but if you haven't watched it, watch it because maybe then you will understand what the hell I am trying to beat into your skulls.
1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth. That. Is. Bad. Do i need to explain why that is bad? I hope not.
Yes, explain why it's bad.
I already have. Many times. Are you too lazy to read my posts or do you really not get it?
1in 6 are hungry? Bullshit. Show me one starving person in this country, that is not some victim of abuse by their guardians or choose to be on a hunger strike.
You make out like the friggin wealth pie is a limited value. That is just so damn stupit.
By your measure everyone in this country could be 10000000 times richer tomorrow and you would still bitch that the wealth pie is not being distributed in equal portions. OMG
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?
Where do you get this shit from? Liberal psychobabble nonsense.
"Food insecurity"..Another bleeding heart term used to further a cause.
Hey genius, there are some 40-50 million people being fed with food stamps.
So where are the so called 'food insecure' people?
You'll have to do much better than that.
You misunderstand obesity and poverty. The reason why we have poor obese people is because junk food is cheap. Healthy food is not. Could these people be smarter about what they buy? Sure, but eating healthy is still difficult when you are poor.
No.. it is not... you know how many packs of seeds you can get with the money you send on a value meal?? you know how many healthy veggies that yields??
You know how many chicken legs or thighs you can get when they are on sale at $0.99 a pound once in a while? You know they can keep in a freezer wrapped in cheap plastic wrap surrounded with cheap tin foil?
You know how much cheaper it is to buy fresh produce than it is to buy fast food?
To say healthy food 'is not cheap' is a flat out lie.. but that is par for the course for you and your ilk
Stop comparing store bought food to fast food. Try again.
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.
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?
Where do you get this shit from? Liberal psychobabble nonsense.
"Food insecurity"..Another bleeding heart term used to further a cause.
Hey genius, there are some 40-50 million people being fed with food stamps.
So where are the so called 'food insecure' people?
You'll have to do much better than that.
You clearly have no understanding of poverty. "Food insecurity" is a term defined by the department of agriculture. It is not "liberal psychobabble". Go to the dept of agriculture's website to see for yourself. Here are some stats for you that will be difficult for you to swallow:
15% of the US population lives in poverty.
The average household income receiving food stamps is $744.00 per month.
The average food stamp recipient receives $133.00 a month, or less than $1.50 per meal.
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.
God you're so dumb. I never said anything about the wealth pie being distributed in equal portions. No one has fucking said that.
You also arent paying attention to the actual stats. The small group of individuals who 40% of our wealth are far more than just 100x wealthier than the poor. Your Bob and Jill scenario hardly puts the actual inequality in perspective.
Feedingamerica.org
(Their stats are straight from the Dept. of Agriculture's definition of food insecurity).
Have you realized that you are the only one arguing in support of this nonsense?
And since when do a bunch of liberal appointees to a government agency get to be taken at their word in defining anything? A though there is no agenda there. Come on.
Your argument is fading fast.
Wealth inequality, wealth gap, redistribution,....All buzz terms invented by liberals with a need for a cause.
Occupy Wall Street died a quick death because A) it had no leadership. B) It had no clear message. C) the general demands were absurd.
This wealth "thing" goes down the same road. To nowhere.
Ok..I will proceed to utterly destroy your statement.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.
You misunderstand obesity and poverty. The reason why we have poor obese people is because junk food is cheap. Healthy food is not. Could these people be smarter about what they buy? Sure, but eating healthy is still difficult when you are poor.
What has more nutritional value, a whole chicken at about $2.50 per pound or a one pound bag of Wise potato chips at $4?
Which one of these will last longer? Which of these food items can make three meals?
What is more expensive...One dozen Grade A Large eggs or three Egg Mc Muffin meals at McDonalds? Which is capable of making several meals and is capable to be placed as an ingredient in other foods?
What costs more, one can of Campbells Soup a one lb bag of egg noodles and a small beef brisket or three fast food burger meals?
Because with about 30 mins in the kitchen I can make a casserole with the beef, soup a little corn starch to thicken the sauce and some grated cheese and maybe throw in a can of spinach and that will last me a week. The fast food stuff is one meal that costs just about 75% of the ingredients above can last several meals.
The point is most poor people that are obviously over fed on crap are also too fucking lazy to make nutritious meals on a budget.
Now you will protest, "the kids won't eat that stuff"....TOUGH! A hungry person will eat stone soup if he is hungry enough. The problem is the parents are not able to say "NO" to their kids whining they want Mc Donalds.
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?
Where do you get this shit from? Liberal psychobabble nonsense.
"Food insecurity"..Another bleeding heart term used to further a cause.
Hey genius, there are some 40-50 million people being fed with food stamps.
So where are the so called 'food insecure' people?
You'll have to do much better than that.
You clearly have no understanding of poverty. "Food insecurity" is a term defined by the department of agriculture. It is not "liberal psychobabble". Go to the dept of agriculture's website to see for yourself. Here are some stats for you that will be difficult for you to swallow:
15% of the US population lives in poverty.
The average household income receiving food stamps is $744.00 per month.
The average food stamp recipient receives $133.00 a month, or less than $1.50 per meal.
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.
God you're so dumb. I never said anything about the wealth pie being distributed in equal portions. No one has fucking said that.
You also arent paying attention to the actual stats. The small group of individuals who 40% of our wealth are far more than just 100x wealthier than the poor. Your Bob and Jill scenario hardly puts the actual inequality in perspective.
Feedingamerica.org
(Their stats are straight from the Dept. of Agriculture's definition of food insecurity).
Have you realized that you are the only one arguing in support of this nonsense?
And since when do a bunch of liberal appointees to a government agency get to be taken at their word in defining anything? A though there is no agenda there. Come on.
Your argument is fading fast.
Wealth inequality, wealth gap, redistribution,....All buzz terms invented by liberals with a need for a cause.
Occupy Wall Street died a quick death because A) it had no leadership. B) It had no clear message. C) the general demands were absurd.
This wealth "thing" goes down the same road. To nowhere.
god you're so dumb. I never said anything about the wealth pie being distributed in equal portions. No one has fucking said that.
You also arent paying attention to the actual stats. The small group of individuals who 40% of our wealth are far more than just 100x wealthier than the poor. Your bob and jill scenario hardly puts the actual inequality in perspective.
Feedingamerica.org
(their stats are straight from the dept. Of agriculture's definition of food insecurity).
have you realized that you are the only one arguing in support of this nonsense?
And since when do a bunch of liberal appointees to a government agency get to be taken at their word in defining anything? A though there is no agenda there. Come on.
Your argument is fading fast.
Wealth inequality, wealth gap, redistribution,....all buzz terms invented by liberals with a need for a cause.
Occupy wall street died a quick death because a) it had no leadership. B) it had no clear message. C) the general demands were absurd.
This wealth "thing" goes down the same road. To nowhere.
d) the plutocracy started to worry so they called out their attack dogs.
HA!.....Ok, so in what manner, other than a lot of police overtime, did OWS have any impact?God you're so dumb. I never said anything about the wealth pie being distributed in equal portions. No one has fucking said that.
You also arent paying attention to the actual stats. The small group of individuals who 40% of our wealth are far more than just 100x wealthier than the poor. Your Bob and Jill scenario hardly puts the actual inequality in perspective.
Feedingamerica.org
(Their stats are straight from the Dept. of Agriculture's definition of food insecurity).
Have you realized that you are the only one arguing in support of this nonsense?
And since when do a bunch of liberal appointees to a government agency get to be taken at their word in defining anything? A though there is no agenda there. Come on.
Your argument is fading fast.
Wealth inequality, wealth gap, redistribution,....All buzz terms invented by liberals with a need for a cause.
Occupy Wall Street died a quick death because A) it had no leadership. B) It had no clear message. C) the general demands were absurd.
This wealth "thing" goes down the same road. To nowhere.
I am the only one arguing this? Are you listening to yourself? You have no perspective.
So far you have said nothing but fluff. When you are you going to get to the facts?
HA!.....Ok, so in what manner, other than a lot of police overtime, did OWS have any impact?Have you realized that you are the only one arguing in support of this nonsense?
And since when do a bunch of liberal appointees to a government agency get to be taken at their word in defining anything? A though there is no agenda there. Come on.
Your argument is fading fast.
Wealth inequality, wealth gap, redistribution,....All buzz terms invented by liberals with a need for a cause.
Occupy Wall Street died a quick death because A) it had no leadership. B) It had no clear message. C) the general demands were absurd.
This wealth "thing" goes down the same road. To nowhere.
I am the only one arguing this? Are you listening to yourself? You have no perspective.
So far you have said nothing but fluff. When you are you going to get to the facts?
