Well are you?

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you need such benefits, you would comply with one of the three requirements which are not all that hard to do. The point is because people are not complying, it must mean they don't need those benefits all that badly. I mean if somebody is going hungry, I mean really hungry, they will take two days to volunteer at a nursing home or hospital somewhere to get those benefits.

I do not agree with you in raising the minimum wage, so we don't totally agree. This prediction of out of control violence and crime is the exact same thing we heard in the 90's when the Republicans pushed through welfare reform. Welfare reform was a great success at the time, and there is no indication to show that the results of cutting programs this time would be any different.

We don't live in Haiti or South Africa. We live in the United States where any citizen can be whatever they desire.

If you don't want to put much effort into working, you can be poor. If you want to live better than poverty, you learn a skill or trade. If you want better than middle-class, you go to college and learn a field in demand. If you want to be wealthy, you can start your own business, sacrifice unnecessary spending and use that money for investments, become a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer or a number of other fields where there is great money at.

See, you don't have those options in other countries. That's why people are always trying to come here; because everybody does have that opportunity. But it takes a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risk.

It is literally easier to steal enough money for food than it is to kick a dedicated drug habit. If you really think otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

You don't agree with scientific studies done upon income equality? I won't argue with you. Since you obviously have a Ph.D. and peer reviewed papers, I shall let you publish your own work on the topic. However, until your own work becomes accepted, we shall have to go on our current understanding, which is a strong positive correlation between increasing income inequality and increasing crime and violent crime rates.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime

Again, if you don't agree with our understanding of the world then publish your own research on the matter. Until then you just look ignorant.

Now, the US is a first world nation, and we have a much larger degree of social and economic mobility than most other countries. That is undeniable. It also has nothing to do with the discussion on removing the welfare benefits on the impoverished to reduce tax burden (and size of government). Whether or not people move here to better themselves and whether or not you can move up or down the ladder has nothing to do with the fact that there is a bottom rung on the ladder and that the bottom rung is currently using a good deal of government assistance.

Again, if you want to speak from a logical or rational point of view and are actually looking to reduce welfare benefits...there is absolutely no way you can disagree with my point. Now, if you want to continue to wish the world operated in a way you deem fit or bring up unrelated points that have no bearing on the subject...then please, continue. I, for one, find it quite humorous.

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

You say violent crime is falling because of higher gun ownership huh?

When gun ownership has been going down, probably due to a reduction in violent crime.

The number of guns has been rising, the number of people with guns has been dropping.

Funny how you can make statistics say what you will.

Sorry about your comprehension disabilities. But what I said is an armed citizenry--not the amount of guns.

By an armed citizenry, I mean the change of laws that allow citizens to carry firearms and laws that give us the advantage to protect ourselves. What good is a gun if you are not legally allowed to use it for self-defense? It wouldn't matter if we had 400 million guns or 4000. If you can't use it for anything, what good are those guns?

Since the mid 90's, gun laws have changed to give the victim the benefit of the doubt than the criminal which is what took place in the 70's and so on.

In my state of Ohio, we weren't allowed to carry firearms until just a few years ago. You couldn't even legally use your firearm to protect your home without the risk of being sued. That changed with the adoption of CCW's and the Castle Doctrine.

Now we are a state that's one of the most liberal when it comes to firearm ownership and usage. Not only can I carry my gun just about anywhere I wish to, but I can drive my car with a loaded gun right on the passenger seat of my car, and it's perfectly legal.

 

[Never3ndr]

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

I'm always in a festive mood

On your income inequality notion, do you really think that the impoverished, who have little to no power, contribute to it based on the fact that they buy goods and services. Is your suggestion then that they hunt and gather? In a modern society you are literally forced to buy goods and services to survive. Suggesting otherwise is absurd. So then maybe your point is that, by surviving, the bottom creates inequality. Well, what happens to the small bit of wealth that they do spend? It has to go somewhere. And, you realize that where that money goes is dictated by the people in power, the people on top, right? Your fantastical scenario ignores the fact that the wealth could easily be distributed in a slightly more equal fashion and that the people on "top" are the people best placed to enact such a change. When the people on top refuse to distribute the wealth more equally is when we get inequality. Not when the people on bottom exist (survive)...such a notion is probably the most ignorant you have said thus far (which makes it the most humorous).

I'm not sure what your lengthy point has to do with reducing welfare benefits though which was the original topic of discussion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you need such benefits, you would comply with one of the three requirements which are not all that hard to do. The point is because people are not complying, it must mean they don't need those benefits all that badly. I mean if somebody is going hungry, I mean really hungry, they will take two days to volunteer at a nursing home or hospital somewhere to get those benefits.

I do not agree with you in raising the minimum wage, so we don't totally agree. This prediction of out of control violence and crime is the exact same thing we heard in the 90's when the Republicans pushed through welfare reform. Welfare reform was a great success at the time, and there is no indication to show that the results of cutting programs this time would be any different.

We don't live in Haiti or South Africa. We live in the United States where any citizen can be whatever they desire.

If you don't want to put much effort into working, you can be poor. If you want to live better than poverty, you learn a skill or trade. If you want better than middle-class, you go to college and learn a field in demand. If you want to be wealthy, you can start your own business, sacrifice unnecessary spending and use that money for investments, become a professional such as an engineer, a doctor, a lawyer or a number of other fields where there is great money at.

See, you don't have those options in other countries. That's why people are always trying to come here; because everybody does have that opportunity. But it takes a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, and a lot of risk.

It is literally easier to steal enough money for food than it is to kick a dedicated drug habit. If you really think otherwise you are living in a fantasy world.

You don't agree with scientific studies done upon income equality? I won't argue with you. Since you obviously have a Ph.D. and peer reviewed papers, I shall let you publish your own work on the topic. However, until your own work becomes accepted, we shall have to go on our current understanding, which is a strong positive correlation between increasing income inequality and increasing crime and violent crime rates.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime&Inequality.pdf

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime

Again, if you don't agree with our understanding of the world then publish your own research on the matter. Until then you just look ignorant.

Now, the US is a first world nation, and we have a much larger degree of social and economic mobility than most other countries. That is undeniable. It also has nothing to do with the discussion on removing the welfare benefits on the impoverished to reduce tax burden (and size of government). Whether or not people move here to better themselves and whether or not you can move up or down the ladder has nothing to do with the fact that there is a bottom rung on the ladder and that the bottom rung is currently using a good deal of government assistance.

Again, if you want to speak from a logical or rational point of view and are actually looking to reduce welfare benefits...there is absolutely no way you can disagree with my point. Now, if you want to continue to wish the world operated in a way you deem fit or bring up unrelated points that have no bearing on the subject...then please, continue. I, for one, find it quite humorous.

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

You say violent crime is falling because of higher gun ownership huh?

When gun ownership has been going down, probably due to a reduction in violent crime.

The number of guns has been rising, the number of people with guns has been dropping.

Funny how you can make statistics say what you will.

Sorry about your comprehension disabilities. But what I said is an armed citizenry--not the amount of guns.

By an armed citizenry, I mean the change of laws that allow citizens to carry firearms and laws that give us the advantage to protect ourselves. What good is a gun if you are not legally allowed to use it for self-defense? It wouldn't matter if we had 400 million guns or 4000. If you can't use it for anything, what good are those guns?

Since the mid 90's, gun laws have changed to give the victim the benefit of the doubt than the criminal which is what took place in the 70's and so on.

In my state of Ohio, we weren't allowed to carry firearms until just a few years ago. You couldn't even legally use your firearm to protect your home without the risk of being sued. That changed with the adoption of CCW's and the Castle Doctrine.

Now we are a state that's one of the most liberal when it comes to firearm ownership and usage. Not only can I carry my gun just about anywhere I wish to, but I can drive my car with a loaded gun right on the passenger seat of my car, and it's perfectly legal.

No comprehension difficulties whatsoever.

If you LOOK at what I posted, I showed the number of people who own guns has GONE DOWN, even though the number of guns has gone UP.

So, you might have thought violence went down because you saw statistics that "show" something, but you didn't take a close enough look.

So, if in Ohio you couldn't carry a gun until a few years ago, then you'd have seen a massive drop in violence after that event, right? So you'd be able to prove your point, right?

However Ohio has seen a steady drop in violent crime since 1990.

A steady-ish drop in murder and rape since 1991.

 

[OKTexas]

are you better off now than you were eight years ago

No.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

I'm always in a festive mood

On your income inequality notion, do you really think that the impoverished, who have little to no power, contribute to it based on the fact that they buy goods and services. Is your suggestion then that they hunt and gather? In a modern society you are literally forced to buy goods and services to survive. Suggesting otherwise is absurd. So then maybe your point is that, by surviving, the bottom creates inequality. Well, what happens to the small bit of wealth that they do spend? It has to go somewhere. And, you realize that where that money goes is dictated by the people in power, the people on top, right? Your fantastical scenario ignores the fact that the wealth could easily be distributed in a slightly more equal fashion and that the people on "top" are the people best placed to enact such a change. When the people on top refuse to distribute the wealth more equally is when we get inequality. Not when the people on bottom exist (survive)...such a notion is probably the most ignorant you have said thus far (which makes it the most humorous).

I'm not sure what your lengthy point has to do with reducing welfare benefits though which was the original topic of discussion.

No, you brought up several points at once. I addressed each of them.

We don't live under a government that appoints people to be wealthy or poor. We decide our level of success on our own. There is no "distribution" in that way. We make wealthy people who they are regardless if it's buying necessities such as food at the grocery store or buying a new X-Box from Microsoft. Necessities or luxuries, we exchange our cash for something in return. It's a mutual deal. If you don't want to distribute your wealth to the top, then you can live out in a cabin in the woods and hunt to survive.

The people at the top distribute their wealth the same way you distribute yours. They invest their money into things that will make them larger, better or wealthier. Given the fact we exchanged our money for their goods, there is nothing they owe us no more than if you bought a used car from me. We agreed to make the deal, we both got what we wanted, we shook hands and parted ways.

Now if you don't like what I'm charging for my automobile or you don't approve of my wealth, you have the choice to accept or decline, just like you do when you consider buying cereal or orange juice at your grocery store.

In other words, we created the wealthy. We created this income gap that you speak of. The rich didn't do it because they don't possess that kind of power. After all, it's our money that we go out and work for that they get from us.

 

[Never3ndr]

No, you brought up several points at once. I addressed each of them.

We don't live under a government that appoints people to be wealthy or poor. We decide our level of success on our own. There is no "distribution" in that way. We make wealthy people who they are regardless if it's buying necessities such as food at the grocery store or buying a new X-Box from Microsoft. Necessities or luxuries, we exchange our cash for something in return. It's a mutual deal. If you don't want to distribute your wealth to the top, then you can live out in a cabin in the woods and hunt to survive.

The people at the top distribute their wealth the same way you distribute yours. They invest their money into things that will make them larger, better or wealthier. Given the fact we exchanged our money for their goods, there is nothing they owe us no more than if you bought a used car from me. We agreed to make the deal, we both got what we wanted, we shook hands and parted ways.

Now if you don't like what I'm charging for my automobile or you don't approve of my wealth, you have the choice to accept or decline, just like you do when you consider buying cereal or orange juice at your grocery store.

In other words, we created the wealthy. We created this income gap that you speak of. The rich didn't do it because they don't possess that kind of power. After all, it's our money that we go out and work for that they get from us.

So, what you are saying is that you haven't even been given a basic education in economics...well, now it all makes sense. The absurdity of a statement like "the people at the top distribute their wealth the same way you distribute yours." Speaks to your basic lack of understanding.

Let me give you a hint. Let us say that you are poor. So, let's say you only take in $2,000 a month (after taxes). Now, let's say that your food generally costs $400 a month, that is 20% of your income. Gas, let us say, is $100 a month (5%). Rent, let us say is $800 a month (40%) and lets say other necessary bills / expenses are $400 a month (20%). These aren't really outlandish hypotheticals (actually maybe super undercutting expenses, but its just an example), and still leaves you with $300 extra cash (15%) of your income to play around with.

Now, by your logic, that "a person at the top distributes their wealth the same way you yours," let us examine an example case where we are rich. Let us say that we take in $1,000,000 a month (after taxes). This would mean, by your logic, that we spend 20% of that on food ($200,000), 5% on gas ($50,000), 40% on rent ($400,000), 20% on other bills and expenses ($200,000) which then leaves us with 15% ($300,000) to play around with.

Perhaps, broken down in a hypothetical like that, you can see how absurd your case is. Now I'm not saying you have to believe me. You are more than welcome to go to the corner of your street and keep screaming that "The end is nigh!" with your sandwich board sign. Just don't pretend that you actually have a real reason for your argument, because at this point, you don't.

If you really want to convince me, I am just asking that you take 6 months - a year of your time to go study some basic economical theory so that we can at least be on the same playing field. Your grasp of basic economics appears to not even exist at this point due to your outlandish claims.

 

[wrathbone]

are you better off now than you were eight years ago

Fuck N O!........ROARRRR.....

 

[rightwinger]

Obama economy: Welfare dependency peaks as rich get richer

Obama economy my ass. This is still Reagan's economy ie tax rates and policy. It's even the GOP's health plan lol. 8 more years of Dems might turn this ship around, if Pubs allow it...

Reagan got the economy he wanted. Low taxes, low regulation, low wages

A capitalists heaven

 

[wrathbone]

Ouch!

 

[rightwinger]

90% of which is to bail out Main St and help the victims of your corrupt GOP world depression. STILL 3-400 billion a year. Brainwashed functional MORON.

Right. Do you know what 90% of 9 trillion dollars is??

Buy yourself a calculator there Sparky. I'm sure it comes with instructions.

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

I could just see Republicans celebrating if the banks and US auto industry had failed on Obama's watch. You wouldn't see a Democrat as President today

 

[francoHFW]

Obama economy: Welfare dependency peaks as rich get richer

Obama economy my ass. This is still Reagan's economy ie tax rates and policy. It's even the GOP's health plan lol. 8 more years of Dems might turn this ship around, if Pubs allow it...

Reagan got the economy he wanted. Low taxes, low regulation, low wages

A capitalists heaven

ACTUALLY, only the rich and giant corps got lower taxes in the long run. In reaction to lower federal aid, states and localities raised their taxes and fees, all of which hit the nonrich much harder, so that today EVERYONE pays 20-30% on average, and all the new wealth goes to the richest, and consumer demand is weak. Great job, greedy idiot rich GOP...

 

[ChrisL]

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

I'm always in a festive mood

On your income inequality notion, do you really think that the impoverished, who have little to no power, contribute to it based on the fact that they buy goods and services. Is your suggestion then that they hunt and gather? In a modern society you are literally forced to buy goods and services to survive. Suggesting otherwise is absurd. So then maybe your point is that, by surviving, the bottom creates inequality. Well, what happens to the small bit of wealth that they do spend? It has to go somewhere. And, you realize that where that money goes is dictated by the people in power, the people on top, right? Your fantastical scenario ignores the fact that the wealth could easily be distributed in a slightly more equal fashion and that the people on "top" are the people best placed to enact such a change. When the people on top refuse to distribute the wealth more equally is when we get inequality. Not when the people on bottom exist (survive)...such a notion is probably the most ignorant you have said thus far (which makes it the most humorous).

I'm not sure what your lengthy point has to do with reducing welfare benefits though which was the original topic of discussion.

No, you brought up several points at once. I addressed each of them.

We don't live under a government that appoints people to be wealthy or poor. We decide our level of success on our own. There is no "distribution" in that way. We make wealthy people who they are regardless if it's buying necessities such as food at the grocery store or buying a new X-Box from Microsoft. Necessities or luxuries, we exchange our cash for something in return. It's a mutual deal. If you don't want to distribute your wealth to the top, then you can live out in a cabin in the woods and hunt to survive.

The people at the top distribute their wealth the same way you distribute yours. They invest their money into things that will make them larger, better or wealthier. Given the fact we exchanged our money for their goods, there is nothing they owe us no more than if you bought a used car from me. We agreed to make the deal, we both got what we wanted, we shook hands and parted ways.

Now if you don't like what I'm charging for my automobile or you don't approve of my wealth, you have the choice to accept or decline, just like you do when you consider buying cereal or orange juice at your grocery store.

In other words, we created the wealthy. We created this income gap that you speak of. The rich didn't do it because they don't possess that kind of power. After all, it's our money that we go out and work for that they get from us.

No. If you are born poor, you are at an incredible disadvantage. Some people get breaks, like for instance Donald Trump, who started off life in a wealthy family, whereas others start off with nothing to work with.

 

[francoHFW]

The New BS GOP has done a great job cutting all the programs that gave the nonrich a fair chance...to protect the low taxes the rich pay...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Glad to see you are in such a festive mood.

The United States has been on the decline in violent crime and in particular, gun crime violence since the mid 90's. Although I would attribute that to armed citizenry, I don't (and nobody does) have evidence to support my theory.

It does not discount the FBI statistics that show this decrease regardless of the economy. But I digress to address this income inequality concern of yours:

What is income inequality? It means some are making more money than others? Who is responsible for this income equality? The people at the bottom.

Yes, that's correct, you read it right. The people that are responsible for income inequality are people just like you and me. How? That's quite simple.

Sometime this week, you are going to transfer your wealth to the top; not just you, so am I, so will everybody on this blog.

Sometime this week, you might buy a Microsoft program, an I-pad, an I-phone. Sometime this week, you may stop at McDonald's for lunch, or perhaps Wendy's or Burger King, all very wealthy organizations. Maybe you don't eat fast food, but you do buy gas, don't you? Well guess what? You transfer your money to the top with every fill up. And what about that cell phone you use everyday? Think middle-class people own those companies? What about your cable or satellite service? That's right, transferring more of your money to the top. You do realize that your roof shingles and perhaps asphalt driveway is mostly oil, don't you? Don't replace those items if you don't want to transfer your money to those multi-billion dollar oil companies.

Yes, we all transfer our money to the top. In fact, most people do it repeatedly every single week. In return for giving our money to those evil rich people, they provide us with products and services such as the computer you are using or the internet service to which we can communicate from across the street or across the globe.

I'm always in a festive mood

On your income inequality notion, do you really think that the impoverished, who have little to no power, contribute to it based on the fact that they buy goods and services. Is your suggestion then that they hunt and gather? In a modern society you are literally forced to buy goods and services to survive. Suggesting otherwise is absurd. So then maybe your point is that, by surviving, the bottom creates inequality. Well, what happens to the small bit of wealth that they do spend? It has to go somewhere. And, you realize that where that money goes is dictated by the people in power, the people on top, right? Your fantastical scenario ignores the fact that the wealth could easily be distributed in a slightly more equal fashion and that the people on "top" are the people best placed to enact such a change. When the people on top refuse to distribute the wealth more equally is when we get inequality. Not when the people on bottom exist (survive)...such a notion is probably the most ignorant you have said thus far (which makes it the most humorous).

I'm not sure what your lengthy point has to do with reducing welfare benefits though which was the original topic of discussion.

No, you brought up several points at once. I addressed each of them.

We don't live under a government that appoints people to be wealthy or poor. We decide our level of success on our own. There is no "distribution" in that way. We make wealthy people who they are regardless if it's buying necessities such as food at the grocery store or buying a new X-Box from Microsoft. Necessities or luxuries, we exchange our cash for something in return. It's a mutual deal. If you don't want to distribute your wealth to the top, then you can live out in a cabin in the woods and hunt to survive.

The people at the top distribute their wealth the same way you distribute yours. They invest their money into things that will make them larger, better or wealthier. Given the fact we exchanged our money for their goods, there is nothing they owe us no more than if you bought a used car from me. We agreed to make the deal, we both got what we wanted, we shook hands and parted ways.

Now if you don't like what I'm charging for my automobile or you don't approve of my wealth, you have the choice to accept or decline, just like you do when you consider buying cereal or orange juice at your grocery store.

In other words, we created the wealthy. We created this income gap that you speak of. The rich didn't do it because they don't possess that kind of power. After all, it's our money that we go out and work for that they get from us.

No. If you are born poor, you are at an incredible disadvantage. Some people get breaks, like for instance Donald Trump, who started off life in a wealthy family, whereas others start off with nothing to work with.

There are not that many Donald Trumps in our country. Most of our wealthy today did not inherit it, they worked for it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right. Do you know what 90% of 9 trillion dollars is??

Buy yourself a calculator there Sparky. I'm sure it comes with instructions.

8.1 trillion duh. What's your idiotic point? Missing the forest for the trees. Most of O's deficit is from fixing W's mess DUH.

Of course it is. It's never the Democrats fault. It's like I've always said, the best part of being a Democrat is never having to say you were wrong.

Where am I wrong ferchrissake? ANY argument AT ALL? Thanks for the W corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION. 2 trillion in bailouts, 800 billion for UE and welfare one year, STILL 300 billion NOW. With the GOP blocking ALL solutions. Wake UP!

You wake up. Nobody forced DumBama to bailout anybody. That was his decision alone. He spent over a trillion on Commie Care which we didn't and don't need. He spent close to that on his Pork Bill that didn't do squat for the economy. And how many billions on Clean Energy???

The corrupt world depression started under Clinton and those clown liberals that believed every black and poor person should be able to own their own home whether they could afford it or not. Without that, we would have never had a "W Depression."

I could just see Republicans celebrating if the banks and US auto industry had failed on Obama's watch. You wouldn't see a Democrat as President today

Democrat voters could care less about banks and auto companies. For crying out loud, your number one presidential contender is under FBI investigation. Doesn't phase the Democrat voter one bit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, you brought up several points at once. I addressed each of them.

We don't live under a government that appoints people to be wealthy or poor. We decide our level of success on our own. There is no "distribution" in that way. We make wealthy people who they are regardless if it's buying necessities such as food at the grocery store or buying a new X-Box from Microsoft. Necessities or luxuries, we exchange our cash for something in return. It's a mutual deal. If you don't want to distribute your wealth to the top, then you can live out in a cabin in the woods and hunt to survive.

The people at the top distribute their wealth the same way you distribute yours. They invest their money into things that will make them larger, better or wealthier. Given the fact we exchanged our money for their goods, there is nothing they owe us no more than if you bought a used car from me. We agreed to make the deal, we both got what we wanted, we shook hands and parted ways.

Now if you don't like what I'm charging for my automobile or you don't approve of my wealth, you have the choice to accept or decline, just like you do when you consider buying cereal or orange juice at your grocery store.

In other words, we created the wealthy. We created this income gap that you speak of. The rich didn't do it because they don't possess that kind of power. After all, it's our money that we go out and work for that they get from us.

So, what you are saying is that you haven't even been given a basic education in economics...well, now it all makes sense. The absurdity of a statement like "the people at the top distribute their wealth the same way you distribute yours." Speaks to your basic lack of understanding.

Let me give you a hint. Let us say that you are poor. So, let's say you only take in $2,000 a month (after taxes). Now, let's say that your food generally costs $400 a month, that is 20% of your income. Gas, let us say, is $100 a month (5%). Rent, let us say is $800 a month (40%) and lets say other necessary bills / expenses are $400 a month (20%). These aren't really outlandish hypotheticals (actually maybe super undercutting expenses, but its just an example), and still leaves you with $300 extra cash (15%) of your income to play around with.

Now, by your logic, that "a person at the top distributes their wealth the same way you yours," let us examine an example case where we are rich. Let us say that we take in $1,000,000 a month (after taxes). This would mean, by your logic, that we spend 20% of that on food ($200,000), 5% on gas ($50,000), 40% on rent ($400,000), 20% on other bills and expenses ($200,000) which then leaves us with 15% ($300,000) to play around with.

Perhaps, broken down in a hypothetical like that, you can see how absurd your case is. Now I'm not saying you have to believe me. You are more than welcome to go to the corner of your street and keep screaming that "The end is nigh!" with your sandwich board sign. Just don't pretend that you actually have a real reason for your argument, because at this point, you don't.

If you really want to convince me, I am just asking that you take 6 months - a year of your time to go study some basic economical theory so that we can at least be on the same playing field. Your grasp of basic economics appears to not even exist at this point due to your outlandish claims.

When I said the wealthy distribute their wealth the same way you and I do, I mean they use extra income for a nicer home, a nicer car, a vacation home if they desire, and most importantly, they have investments.

I know wealthy people. I have a few in my family. They are the hardest working people I know. Yes, they live large. They take European vacations, go to Vegas all the time staying at the nicest hotels. I had a friend that hit the lottery, and when all was said and done, even he took a mortgage out for his home.

I guess it all depends on what you consider wealthy. Wealthy to me is far less than a million dollars a month take home. Heck, if I brought home one-tenth of that I would consider myself pretty wealthy.

Just like what you consider poor. $2,000 a month after taxes is not poor. Lower middle-class, perhaps, but not poor. That's well over twice the poverty level. But then again, you already knew that with your basic education in economics, didn't cha???

 

[MaryL]

Lost my job to Obama care. And if that isn't bad enough, I get penalized if I don't buy into that contrived health care program that nearly bankrupted my company and put me out of a job. I am not kidding. Trip them then kick them when they are down economics. People voted for the man and his plan? Look out, the ricochet of that is TRUMP.

 

[Never3ndr]

When I said the wealthy distribute their wealth the same way you and I do, I mean they use extra income for a nicer home, a nicer car, a vacation home if they desire, and most importantly, they have investments.

I know wealthy people. I have a few in my family. They are the hardest working people I know. Yes, they live large. They take European vacations, go to Vegas all the time staying at the nicest hotels. I had a friend that hit the lottery, and when all was said and done, even he took a mortgage out for his home.

I guess it all depends on what you consider wealthy. Wealthy to me is far less than a million dollars a month take home. Heck, if I brought home one-tenth of that I would consider myself pretty wealthy.

Just like what you consider poor. $2,000 a month after taxes is not poor. Lower middle-class, perhaps, but not poor. That's well over twice the poverty level. But then again, you already knew that with your basic education in economics, didn't cha???

You mention that the wealthy distribute their wealth the same way your or I do...yet you also mention investments. If you ACTUALLY have wealthy friends then you know that a SIGNIFICANT portion of their income is either put into investments or generated from investments. Now, if you had poor friends you would know that expecting a poor person to have 80% of their income go into investments is simply unrealistic. This was the point of my hypothetical, to show, in no unclear terms, exactly how asinine your assumption is.

Being that you know wealthy people you know they work hard...and, in many cases, worked hard to get there. I won't deny that...I don't have super wealthy friends but many of my mates from university have been through grad school entering into upper middle class and I'll be the first one to say that they put in some unreal hours to do that and, even today, still can grind out 12-14 hour days...easy. However, I grew up poor...I'm assuming you didn't since you have no basis in reality when talking about the poor...and a lot of my childhood friends remain "not well off." I can tell you that there are some of them that can put in MORE hours then my upper-middle class friends. Why? I know several that work two jobs to make ends meet. I know one guy that generally puts in 80-90+ hour weeks 7 days a week and cannot really afford to take much time off (his wife is a stay-at-home mom).

Do many of the wealthy work hard for their money? Sure. However, you'd be an idiot to suggest that some of the poor don't do the same (not saying all the poor are like this, but just that they generally work lower-end labor intensive jobs and either cannot financially gain the technical skills to increase their income or don't really have the desire to (my uncle would drive trucks for free if it really came down to it).

You are correct, bringing home $24,000 is double the poverty-line in the US. Maybe I'm arrogant in saying so, but if you told me you made $24,000...I'd consider you poor. Perhaps it was misleading to suggest that since it isn't "technically" below the line, so I won't argue if you want to classify that as lower middle class.

Back to the original point (on income inequality), the wealthy do NOT distribute their wealth in the same way the poor does. (If you really want to argue that they do, just do the same that I did for you. Construct a realistic cost / expense sheet for a "poor" person and a "wealthy" person and show, in plain terms, why you believe the poor and wealthy do distribute their wealth in the same way.) As we know the wealthy are generally in situations to gain greater power while the poor are in positions to generally just "bend-over" and take it, we can easily see that the ones with the power, the wealthy, are the only ones in a realistic position to affect the income gap. Given the situation (as we are in now) that they distribute their wealth in an especially unfair manner, it requires government intervention in order to get things back into reasonable order.

Remember, I'm a fan of capitalism and a meritocratic society. I believe that income gaps SHOULD exist, and, in some cases, be especially vast. However, I understand that there are limits to this and given the research and studies that have been given, I believe that we are reaching a more extreme point and that it would be beneficial to swing back in to a somewhat less extreme gap bringing us a bit more in line with some other 1st world countries.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I said the wealthy distribute their wealth the same way you and I do, I mean they use extra income for a nicer home, a nicer car, a vacation home if they desire, and most importantly, they have investments.

I know wealthy people. I have a few in my family. They are the hardest working people I know. Yes, they live large. They take European vacations, go to Vegas all the time staying at the nicest hotels. I had a friend that hit the lottery, and when all was said and done, even he took a mortgage out for his home.

I guess it all depends on what you consider wealthy. Wealthy to me is far less than a million dollars a month take home. Heck, if I brought home one-tenth of that I would consider myself pretty wealthy.

Just like what you consider poor. $2,000 a month after taxes is not poor. Lower middle-class, perhaps, but not poor. That's well over twice the poverty level. But then again, you already knew that with your basic education in economics, didn't cha???

You mention that the wealthy distribute their wealth the same way your or I do...yet you also mention investments. If you ACTUALLY have wealthy friends then you know that a SIGNIFICANT portion of their income is either put into investments or generated from investments. Now, if you had poor friends you would know that expecting a poor person to have 80% of their income go into investments is simply unrealistic. This was the point of my hypothetical, to show, in no unclear terms, exactly how asinine your assumption is.

Being that you know wealthy people you know they work hard...and, in many cases, worked hard to get there. I won't deny that...I don't have super wealthy friends but many of my mates from university have been through grad school entering into upper middle class and I'll be the first one to say that they put in some unreal hours to do that and, even today, still can grind out 12-14 hour days...easy. However, I grew up poor...I'm assuming you didn't since you have no basis in reality when talking about the poor...and a lot of my childhood friends remain "not well off." I can tell you that there are some of them that can put in MORE hours then my upper-middle class friends. Why? I know several that work two jobs to make ends meet. I know one guy that generally puts in 80-90+ hour weeks 7 days a week and cannot really afford to take much time off (his wife is a stay-at-home mom).

Do many of the wealthy work hard for their money? Sure. However, you'd be an idiot to suggest that some of the poor don't do the same (not saying all the poor are like this, but just that they generally work lower-end labor intensive jobs and either cannot financially gain the technical skills to increase their income or don't really have the desire to (my uncle would drive trucks for free if it really came down to it).

You are correct, bringing home $24,000 is double the poverty-line in the US. Maybe I'm arrogant in saying so, but if you told me you made $24,000...I'd consider you poor. Perhaps it was misleading to suggest that since it isn't "technically" below the line, so I won't argue if you want to classify that as lower middle class.

Back to the original point (on income inequality), the wealthy do NOT distribute their wealth in the same way the poor does. (If you really want to argue that they do, just do the same that I did for you. Construct a realistic cost / expense sheet for a "poor" person and a "wealthy" person and show, in plain terms, why you believe the poor and wealthy do distribute their wealth in the same way.) As we know the wealthy are generally in situations to gain greater power while the poor are in positions to generally just "bend-over" and take it, we can easily see that the ones with the power, the wealthy, are the only ones in a realistic position to affect the income gap. Given the situation (as we are in now) that they distribute their wealth in an especially unfair manner, it requires government intervention in order to get things back into reasonable order.

Remember, I'm a fan of capitalism and a meritocratic society. I believe that income gaps SHOULD exist, and, in some cases, be especially vast. However, I understand that there are limits to this and given the research and studies that have been given, I believe that we are reaching a more extreme point and that it would be beneficial to swing back in to a somewhat less extreme gap bringing us a bit more in line with some other 1st world countries.

Sorry to disappoint, but I was raised middle-class. My father was a bricklayer and my mother worked part-time at restaurants. I too am middle-class. I'm a truck driver and landlord.

But when I was younger, we were also poor. My father simply worked more hours. During the summer months, he would work seven days a week and many nights to boot. I remember because I helped my father on side jobs during the summer for extra money. He would come home from his full-time job, have dinner, read the paper for about ten minutes or so, and told me to get in the van because we were going to work.

I remember as s child working well into the night. When the sun started to go down, he would have me fetch his spot lights out of his work van so he could continue working.

But I want to address your point about how the wealthy distribute wealth: What would you expect them to do that would make things better?

 

[Never3ndr]

But I want to address your point about how the wealthy distribute wealth: What would you expect them to do that would make things better?

Honestly, I understand that, given the selfish reality of humans, that most people are going to part with their wealth...unwillingly.

Now, there are certainly examples otherwise. Bill Gates has done extensive work in charities and starting a lot of organizations that benefit communities. Google has made a name for themselves by recruiting the absolute pinnacle of talent in our industry (I'm in tech as well) by really concentrating on their employees, encouraging their growth, and going out of their way to take care of them.

But there are certainly corporations / families that abuse their power. The most obvious example is the Walton family which, if you know even an inkling about them, grossly abuse their absurd wealth and make the brunt of it off the back of minimum wage workers. To decrease the income gap (again, I don't believe in eliminating it, only in giving people a "fair shake" to increase their contributions to society) I would just propose an increase in minimum wage standards to a level where they could get by with little to no governmental assistance if working a full-time position. This, coupled with a decrease in welfare benefits will decrease the burden on the tax paying population, and, by increasing the burden on these workers to be more responsible for themselves, increase incentive to move beyond the lowest end of labor. Additionally, increasing the minimum wage really wouldn't effect many (or any) of the more responsible wealthy individuals...it wouldn't even touch the Gates Foundation...just adversely affect those as the Walton's, who pigeonhole their wealth and grossly abuse the power that it grants. It should also be noted that it wouldn't be likely to remove them from being the vast billionaires that they are...it would just retard their income growth rates which, in a competitive market, should increase incentive to innovate and perhaps restructure allowing them to deliver something even better.

Edit: Just a note about your father, sounds a lot like my pops. My pops worked 2-3 jobs his entire life in order to put food on our table...it was a hard living for him and seeing how worn down he was growing up, really put it in my head that I needed an education so that I could happily work a 9-5, come home, and spend time with my family rather than plop down, exhausted, inbetween shifts.