[Wheatfield]

Mike seems to view it as acceptable to have a minimum wage job and live in your car in the parking lot of your place of employment.
Another forum I am on, one of the people in the northern states mentioned that in the winter, she can only afford to heat her apartment enough to keep the pipes from freezing. She can't afford more than that.
One of the things Mike is (in my humble opinion) wrong about is calling minimum wage earners outliers, people living with mommy and daddy, people living with a Sugar Daddy spouse, etc.
There is a huge % of people for whom minimum wage or close to it is one of life's realities, and it isn't something they are ever going to break out of.
Your rich elite have sold your manufacturing to the Chinese, so much for the blue collar jobs where a person could actually earn a living at (at least after the unions managed to make sweat shops a thing of the past).
OTOH, perhaps sweat shops are making a come back.
In Wisconsin, apparently being shot in the head by your boss isn't sufficient grounds to leave your work station and seek medical help.
Cookie factory boss 'shot employee in the head' after aiming at birds | Mail Online

[Chwisch87]

American's are for the most part sheep. They have fallen asleep to dream about the american dream. Because you have to be asleep to believe it.

They came to podium, they used their news networks, their pundits. They all promised the same thing. If you cut taxes on the rich, you will be rich someday. And you don't want to have high tax rates when you become rich do you? They came do your door and told you there was a problem. There never was a problem though. There was a nice slow steady and stable growth. You had a great manufacturing job with a union. You exported all across the world. You made 70,000 dollars a year... a nice pension, bought a new car ever 4 years and send your 2.2 kids to college. You retired at 65 and enjoyed medical coverage too.

But there was a problem. There was the welfare queen, and the food stamp drunk. Of course these characters never actually existent. It played role... almost too perfectly. That man down the street, you never met him, but you were convinced he was trying to steal from you, your hard earned money. Maybe he had fallen on hard times and needed a little help to get back up.

So you voted into office a man who promised you a better life. He spoke nicely, he told you how great you were. You loved it. He turned you against your neighbor. But you thought you were better off. Today you live paycheck to paycheck. You have no savings. The bank is threatening to foreclose on your home.

They have come again to make their final push. They scream even louder now. Its the government ... THE GOVERNMENT!!!! THEY ARE THE PROBLEM!!! FASCISM HAS COME TO TAKE YOUR FREEDOMS!!!! THEY WANT TO TAKE ALL YOUR MONEY AND GIVE TO SOMEONE ELSE!!! WE MUST GET RID OF IT ALL !!!!

They scream DEREGULATION!!!! DOWN WITH SOCIALISM!!!!!

Yet they got rid of regulations a long time ago... remember that??

And yet you stay asleep. But who can blame you, when you wake up all you hear is the screams. When you are asleep you can at least dream about which you have to asleep to actually believe.

[B Grace]

Okay, I'll ask my question again. What is the desired outcome here? I see a lot of people complaining about currrent conditions and a few placing blame on a few individuals but I see nothing stating hard facts on why some Americans are wealthier than others, why the situation will never change, or why that isn't necessarily a bad thing. As for living on minimum wage, yes, I know it smells profusely because I did just that for three years of my life. The real point of minimum wage is it can never be considered a lifetime wage but rather it must be seen as a starting point. Every American who is living on a minimum wage must be looking for a better job every day of their life - no exceptions. It's nothing more than working hard and trying to succeed and, no, not every one will succeed. Every American must also educate him or herself as much as possible. I do know several folks in my high school classes just flat didn't care about succeeding and, to be frank, I'm not bothered now to see they are not included in list of the top 400 of wealthiest Americans. I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that very few of those 400 wealthiest Americans are high school dropouts.

How many Americans here have expensive cell phone plans? Huge monthly cable TV bills? Two cars in the driveway that are less than ten years old? How about expensive camera gear? How many of you consider yourselves in the ranks of the less wealthy?

The old rule of wisdom is you can't bring yourself up by bringing others down. It applies to everyone, not just the wealthy. So what is the desired outcome? Should half of all Americans rise up and kill the 400 wealthiest citizens? Should we push for better schools and jobs, more opportunity for people to move up from minimum wage jobs?

[shooz]

Although side tracked at times by the blame game.
I've been arguing for the latter.

[GeneV]

Okay, I'll ask my question again. What is the desired outcome here? I see a lot of people complaining about currrent conditions and a few placing blame on a few individuals but I see nothing stating hard facts on why some Americans are wealthier than others, why the situation will never change, or why that isn't necessarily a bad thing. As for living on minimum wage, yes, I know it smells profusely because I did just that for three years of my life. The real point of minimum wage is it can never be considered a lifetime wage but rather it must be seen as a starting point. Every American who is living on a minimum wage must be looking for a better job every day of their life - no exceptions. It's nothing more than working hard and trying to succeed and, no, not every one will succeed. Every American must also educate him or herself as much as possible. I do know several folks in my high school classes just flat didn't care about succeeding and, to be frank, I'm not bothered now to see they are not included in list of the top 400 of wealthiest Americans. I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that very few of those 400 wealthiest Americans are high school dropouts.

How many Americans here have expensive cell phone plans? Huge monthly cable TV bills? Two cars in the driveway that are less than ten years old? How about expensive camera gear? How many of you consider yourselves in the ranks of the less wealthy?

The old rule of wisdom is you can't bring yourself up by bringing others down. It applies to everyone, not just the wealthy. So what is the desired outcome? Should half of all Americans rise up and kill the 400 wealthiest citizens? Should we push for better schools and jobs, more opportunity for people to move up from minimum wage jobs?

The situation has changed. That is the point. The very top has gotten much richer, and the vast majority has gotten less wealthy. Who is bringing whom down? Some wealth disparity is inherent in a primarily capitalist system, but when it grows as it has here, it is a symptom of some basic problems that are dangerous if not addressed.

Your question about the goal has been answered several times. The desired outcome is to bring the majority up. That will help the top as well in the long run, as you cannot, in a modern democracy, sustain a society like the one that is developing. It may require some tax readjustment in the short run, as the bottom half does not have the money to invest. It may also require some readjustment as to what we, as a society, consider to be a legitimate way of making money as well.

And no, I don't think that most are buying expensive cars and cameras on the bottom half's income. Someone will have to prove that beyond a few exceptions.

[Nesster]

A lesson that we all should have learned in 2008 was just how fragile this house of cards economic system we live in is. A hurricane and an insurance company with a cash flow problem started a chain reaction that almost brought down the country. Having a good healthy number of local farmers will make a huge difference if large corporations go bankrupt.

I'm quoting this from the farmer thread as it is so applicable here - and parallels the thing about the housing market I posted here a page or two back...

Leaving aside considerations of 'fairness' and 'ethics' and 'fruits of hard work' and 'american dream' and so on... policies that result in extreme concentration of income and wealth make for a less stable system, economically, politically, and ecologically.

Economically - just like with taxation, the big money comes in from the millions of small potatoes - when incomes stagnate or regress, individual social costs increase, and the tax burden puts more emphasis on the mass market, demand slackens, and people end up over extended... A casino mentality is easily generated, both intentionally through advertising and inadvertently due to human nature: the selling of tax breaks for the rich hinge on the idea of a windfall coming MY way some day, the periodic bubbles are that much more enticing for people hoping to make it up a rung or two to where the spoils of the system start to accrue (or so they think)... And as has been pointed out many times, the excess capital and cash flying around the wealthiest ends up with fewer places to go.

The foundation of the economy, consumer wise, is weakened making the entire superstructure weak.

Politically, I've already mentioned the selling of 'lotto' wishful thinking... but there are other real dangers, the electorate as we've seen can become volatile, demagoguery finds a foothold, resentment grows. The win streak of corporate interests will sooner or later encounter a political counter action.

Ecologically - the cheap goods for low paid people aren't exactly green; and the domination of corporate interests in politics limits what conservation and planning for the future we can do as a nation. In fact, we might say that keeping large parts of the population economically insecure plays into the hands of corporate interests: people are afraid and thus subject to blackmail, people are concerned about making ends meet rather than larger issues...

Okay, I'll ask my question again. What is the desired outcome here? I see a lot of people complaining about currrent conditions and a few placing blame on a few individuals but I see nothing stating hard facts on why some Americans are wealthier than others, why the situation will never change, or why that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The idea that some Americans are wealthier than others isn't what's at stake here - it is generally agreed that some are wealthier, some are more talented, and some work harder than others - the liberal position is that society as a whole benefits when opportunity is equalized, not the result. Conservatives don't see that.

The equalization of opportunity means that there ought to be compensating mechanisms to lessen the effects of wealth and priviledge - so that education and job advancement become available to people otherwise locked out of the system. The equalization of opportunity ironically is where liberals may have a meeting with conservatives around small business - although the liberal's bias is more towards ensuring large corporate interests don't choke out small business.

As long as there are taxes, tax expenditures and deductions, government contracts and regulations, there will be in effect relative income redistribution. Conservatives don't see this, it's not in the world view. The effect of the flatter tax rates (and continued expenditures) is a relative redistribution of wealth (and under the supply side thinking, ideological justification for income redistribution as well) to the wealthy.

Some of the effects of this I've ennumerated above.

As I've said, Oprah will still be Oprah, and Gates Gates, and Tiger Tiger, even if their taxes were higher: they would still be influential, wealthy, at the top of their heaps... Nobody is saying this shouldn't be so! But the rest of the society might well be healthier and more stable.

[jeffkrol]

Well lets start with considering all income as INCOME and taxing it at the "normal rate".. You either earned that money (thus it is income) or it was a windfall (which should even be taxed higher as "sharing the pain").
Universal health care so our people actually can 1)work better/more efficient 2)free themselves from "job slavery" so they can better themselves 3)practice true "christian" beliefs 4)unburden them for the economic collapse of their life savings due to a "health crisis"...
We need to, at least "level the playing field". Then talk about "investments" in the lesser off.
Answers are simple, practice.. not so much...
As long as you make more than bank rates investments (regardless of taxes) will still drive money into them.
Stop the incessant propaganda that it is "your fault your not rich"
Currently paying the banks and allowing people to "own" their home would kick start the economy...... Also politically unacceptable.

[GeneV]

The "lotto" mentality comes from the top down. We need to recognize that exemptions to capital gains taxes have not had the desired effect in their current form.

Universal health care independent of the employer levels the playing field for small business as well.

[redrockcoulee]

Okay, I'll ask my question again. What is the desired outcome here? I see a lot of people complaining about currrent conditions and a few placing blame on a few individuals but I see nothing stating hard facts on why some Americans are wealthier than others, why the situation will never change, or why that isn't necessarily a bad thing. As for living on minimum wage, yes, I know it smells profusely because I did just that for three years of my life. The real point of minimum wage is it can never be considered a lifetime wage but rather it must be seen as a starting point. Every American who is living on a minimum wage must be looking for a better job every day of their life - no exceptions. It's nothing more than working hard and trying to succeed and, no, not every one will succeed. Every American must also educate him or herself as much as possible. I do know several folks in my high school classes just flat didn't care about succeeding and, to be frank, I'm not bothered now to see they are not included in list of the top 400 of wealthiest Americans. I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that very few of those 400 wealthiest Americans are high school dropouts.

How many Americans here have expensive cell phone plans? Huge monthly cable TV bills? Two cars in the driveway that are less than ten years old? How about expensive camera gear? How many of you consider yourselves in the ranks of the less wealthy?

The old rule of wisdom is you can't bring yourself up by bringing others down. It applies to everyone, not just the wealthy. So what is the desired outcome? Should half of all Americans rise up and kill the 400 wealthiest citizens? Should we push for better schools and jobs, more opportunity for people to move up from minimum wage jobs?

It is a given by most people that governments need to cut their deficiets, which are in part created not by government spending but by the downturn of the economy caused by .... does it matter it does exist.

So the government cuts its spending, and that hurts those at the lower end of the socio-economic range far more than it does those in the middle or at the high end. So how do those at the high end contribute to assisting with the problem of the deficient, by asking for tax decreases.

What should be done is a combination of cut backs and freezes that affects the poor and the working poor the most and tax surcharges on the rich's income so taht they too contribute to solving the problem, one that they may have had much more in creating that those who are so adversely affected.

There is a high corelation between the sucess of your parents and the success that you will enjoy, and it is higher in the States than in many other of the developed countries and higher than one would suspect. But the current atttitude seems to be lets make it really hard for the poor to suceed and make it even easier for the better off to do so and then simply claim it is their fault for not being as sucessful as 'ourselves'.

Or you can go the opposite direction and completely cut all services to the poor and pass those savings on to the rich. That will be the end result if the trend of always cutting taxes for the rich and cutting services that the poor depend on to partially pay for them. There are 93 countries that have greater distribution of wealth than the US. How many more countries should pass you on that stats? The US is most likely the best country to live in for the rich but for the working class, especiall at the lower end of it, are you better off than Canadians, Swedes, Kiwis or Danes? Do you want to be? It is better for the poor and working class and maybe the middle class to be poorer if it makes the rich richer? How much will the rich suffer if they have to pay an extra 1% income tax? How much will the poor suffer if health care is seriously curtailed and higher education becomes out of reach? Those are questions that you can answer for yourself.


Myself I am on my second TV getting our first as a wedding present in 1975 and my newest car is 13 model years old having had it for 2 years now. I consider myself middle class and have a good paying job and a master's degree but in the past two decades I have had years of almost no income. It is nor always easy or even possible to find and get those better paying jobs. Not everyone starts at the same place, has the same skill sets or desire. Does anyone say that all should be the same wealth? Is it not just a matter of sharing the pain? Why should the poor have to pay for the slowdown of your economy in the way of spending cuts but the rich actually get rewarded.

[Nesster]

Why should the poor have to pay for the slowdown of your economy in the way of spending cuts but the rich actually get rewarded.

Bravo, well said!

[shooz]

The rich have contract lawyers and lobbyists.
The poor/middle class don't.

[Wheatfield]

The situation has changed. That is the point. The very top has gotten much richer, and the vast majority has gotten less wealthy.

What you are describing is countries that are ruled by dictators.......
I guess be glad that your corporate rulers are less despotic than say a Gadaffi for example.
How long before government employees start being laid off in favour of chain gangs wherever possible? It would be a great way to reduce taxes if you went back to convict based labor for road construction and maintenance and the like.

[Chwisch87]

Okay, I'll ask my question again. What is the desired outcome here? I see a lot of people complaining about currrent conditions and a few placing blame on a few individuals but I see nothing stating hard facts on why some Americans are wealthier than others, why the situation will never change, or why that isn't necessarily a bad thing. As for living on minimum wage, yes, I know it smells profusely because I did just that for three years of my life. The real point of minimum wage is it can never be considered a lifetime wage but rather it must be seen as a starting point. Every American who is living on a minimum wage must be looking for a better job every day of their life - no exceptions. It's nothing more than working hard and trying to succeed and, no, not every one will succeed. Every American must also educate him or herself as much as possible. I do know several folks in my high school classes just flat didn't care about succeeding and, to be frank, I'm not bothered now to see they are not included in list of the top 400 of wealthiest Americans. I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that very few of those 400 wealthiest Americans are high school dropouts.

How many Americans here have expensive cell phone plans? Huge monthly cable TV bills? Two cars in the driveway that are less than ten years old? How about expensive camera gear? How many of you consider yourselves in the ranks of the less wealthy?

The old rule of wisdom is you can't bring yourself up by bringing others down. It applies to everyone, not just the wealthy. So what is the desired outcome? Should half of all Americans rise up and kill the 400 wealthiest citizens? Should we push for better schools and jobs, more opportunity for people to move up from minimum wage jobs?

You can't educate yourself.. No one is going to take you seriously unless you have a degree that someone else gave you. Sure you can make it without college but you have to one of those few super charismatic people who can convince a lot of investors to give you money or have something you can make to sell to everyone else like a book.

Before Reagen, we had the new deal and basically 50 years of slow, steady and stable growth. There was no major economic up swings or down swings. Wall street casino markets were kept out of main street and the Rich paid at least 50% of their income to the government.

Sure, there are people who don't care ... this is not about that. This is the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. I mean right has somehow made it into a bazarro world where anything counter to these claim is class warfare. If you are 90% of america, your income has gone DOWN over the past 30 years. There is no denying this. Your dollar does not go as far as it did 30 years ago.

Its basically all about keeping the poor, poor. Do you want to invest in the facebook IPO??? Tough cus you have to have at least 20 million in net assets to do that... Its the same story over and over again. The game has been rigged for a long time now.

I mean its not a war on saying you shouldn't be rich. Its simply just if you make millions of dollars a year, more of your % income should go to the government than if you make 25000. The tax rate when Eisenhower was in off was 90% on the top bracket ... Today they say the entire economy is going to fall down and die if we raise it to 35%.

I mean compared to Europe, which has much higher government services than we do ... all really have to do is raise taxes slightly and the budgets will be balanced.

[shooz]

Here's the difference between reality and perception.
This a bit out of date, so it's even worse now.

[B Grace]

The idea that some Americans are wealthier than others isn't what's at stake here - it is generally agreed that some are wealthier, some are more talented, and some work harder than others - the liberal position is that society as a whole benefits when opportunity is equalized, not the result. Conservatives don't see that.

This is wrong. The conservative view is simply that opportunity flows from commerce and business and not our government. Be careful not to throw conservatives such as myself into the same lot as the radicals. Real Americans believe in opportunity for everyone even though that opportunity may not come in the form a person is expecting. The best thing that can happen for all Americans right now is for us to bring unemployment down. That depends on American companies selling products and services to Americans who are willing to spend their money.