poverty level is not a measure of wealth disparity. You want to be looking at comparitive GINI. It's a sophisticated mathematical model that real economists use to measure wealth disparity.

GINI shows nothing other than the number of rich vs poor in the country

That's not true. GINI doesn't care how many people there are in the population. It does not even concern itself with quality of life. It deals only with how total wealth is distributed across the population. You have strayed considerably from the originally point, which was that low taxes and weak regulation always leds to high wealth disparity.

the scale goes from 0 to 1. Economists consider anything above .4 to be bad. Hong Kong and Honduras are in the low .5s. United States is in the mid.4s. sweden is in the .2s.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, the Congress is concerned about the debt, the people are concerned about the debt, the markets are concerned about the debt, the world is concerned about the debt and what we’re doing here today, because we live with a world fiat dollar standard and so the whole world is engulfed in this very serious problem. I do not understand, though, that if the debt is the problem – and I agree, the debt is the problem – that for us to come here and raise the debt by 2.4 trillion dollars is the solution. That just baffles me. I think it’s a distraction, because when a country gets indebted to the degree that we’re indebted, the country always defaults. This is historic, especially if the country is a significant country. On occasion, a small country will quit sending the checks and they’ll go bankrupt, we’re not going to do that, but we will default because the debt is unsustainable. This year it is said that we have a debt increase of 1.6 trillion dollars, but that’s not true. If you count what we borrowed from the pension funds, the Social Security and highway funds, it’s 2 trillion dollars. But if you include the increase in the entitlement obligation, it’s 5 trillion dollars. So this is a huge, huge problem.

But the argument here is, how do you default. And it is said that if we don’t raise the debt limit, we’re going to default and not send out the checks. I don’t believe that for a minute, somehow or another the checks are going to go out. But if you really wanted to live within the technicalities of law, there’s a very simple thing you could do. We owe the Federal Reserve 1.6 trillion dollars. Well, that’s not a real debt, they bought those treasury bills with money out of thin air. We could just write that off or quit paying the interest, tide ourselves over and get down to serious business to cut back and live within our means. And that would be a solution. But to increase the national debt will only encourage another type of default, and that’s what we’re going through. We’re engaged in the most difficult and a very bad way of defaulting; and that is through the destruction of the currency. Today we have an inflation rate of 9%, and that is defaulting. So if a government can default and print money, and if they can get a 50% inflation rate over a period of time, they’ve cut that debt in half. That is the goal, that is what’s happening, and that is very, very serious. Just in these last 3 years in dealing with this crisis, the dollar has been devalued 50% against gold, and gold, of course, is the best measurement of the value of a currency and it’s been that way for thousands of years and it cannot be denied because it’s economic law. So we are defaulting, and when the American people go out and start buying goods and services, like they are now, they’re recognizing it costs a lot of money. So right now, we’re in the early stages of rampant inflation, which means we’re going to be hit with higher prices and higher interest rates. That is going to be a tax. So I see the only solution, and that is to cut spending.

Now the reason we don’t cut spending is one side loves entitlement, and the other side loves war. And even this token attempt of a 100 billion dollars of cuts when we have this huge, huge deficit. But there’s no mention of cutting military spending. I don’t want to cut defense spending. This military spending doesn’t defend us, it makes things worse. Our problem in this country doesn’t come only from the Congress, it comes from the people. The people still have a strong appetite for big government programs. They’re not willing to cut, they think government can take care of us from cradle to grave, and that we can be the policeman of the world. So someday, we as a country, we as a people, and we as a Congress, will have to say, “What should the role of government be?” The founders had a pretty strong suggestion, they wrote a constitution that said the government should be very limited, and the government should be protecting our liberties and providing national defense and a sound currency. We don’t do any of that. We’ve embarked on a course that was destined to end badly and this is where we are today. So if we don’t understand this, this default will not be because we don’t send out the checks – we will send out the checks – it will be defaulted on because people will get their money back, or they will get their Social Security checks, and it won’t buy anything. That is much, much worse than facing the fact that we not raise the debt limit and work our way out of this. That is devastating economically, and it’s devastating politically, because if we just saw a taste of what happens, how the anger is built when you see other countries in Europe now defaulting and can’t pay their bills. So this is more significant than ever, because we provide the reserve currency of the world.

The debt ceiling debate is providing plenty of opportunity for political theater in Washington. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling are throwing around the usual scare tactics and misinformation in order to intimidate opponents into accepting more debt and taxes. It is important to distinguish the truth from the propaganda.

First of all, politicians need to understand that without real change default is inevitable. In fact, default happens every day through monetary policy tricks. Every time the Federal Reserve engages in more quantitative easing and devalues the dollar, it is defaulting on the American people by eroding their purchasing power and inflating their savings away. The dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value against gold since 2008. The Fed claims inflation is 2% or less over the past few years; however economists who compile alternate data show a 9% inflation rate if calculated more traditionally. Alarmingly, the administration is talking about changing the methodology of the CPI calculation yet again to hide the damage of the government’s policies. Changing the CPI will also enable the government to avoid giving seniors a COLA (cost of living adjustment) on their social security checks, and raise taxes via the hidden means of “bracket creep.” This is a default. Just because it is a default on the people and not the banks and foreign holders of our debt does not mean it doesn’t count.

Politicians also need to acknowledge that our debt is unsustainable. For decades our government has been spending and promising far more than it collects in taxes. But the problem is not that the people are not taxed enough. The government has managed to run up $61.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities, which works out to $528,000 per household. A tax policy that would aim to extract even half that amount of money from American families would be unimaginably draconian, and not unlike attempting to squeeze blood from a turnip. This is, unequivocally, a spending problem brought about by a dramatically inflated view of the proper role of government in a free society.

Perhaps the most abhorrent bit of chicanery has been the threat that if a deal is not reached to increase the debt by August 2nd, social security checks may not go out. In reality, the Chief Actuary of Social Security confirmed last week that current Social Security tax receipts are more than enough to cover current outlays. The only reason those checks would not go out would be if the administration decided to spend those designated funds elsewhere. It is very telling that the administration would rather frighten seniors dependent on social security checks than alarm their big banking friends, who have already received $5.3 trillion in bailouts, stimulus and quantitative easing. This instance of trying to blackmail Congress into tax increases by threatening social security demonstrates how scary it is to be completely dependent on government promises and why many young people today would jump at the chance to opt out of Social Security altogether.

We are headed for rough economic times either way, but the longer we put it off, the greater the pain will be when the system implodes. We need to stop adding more programs and entitlements to the problem. We need to stop expensive bombing campaigns against people on the other side of the globe and bring our troops home. We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery. And we need to drastically rethink government’s role in our lives so we can get it out of the way and get back to work.

Watch this

Bad link...

On the other, after clicking the play arrow, click on Citizens United vs. FEC 2011 found on the right side bar

The Supreme Court case has been "thoroughly debunked"?

Interesting how you filter through posts... responding to the simplistic versions, while not attending to the moral aspect that you invoked earlier.

I'll place dollars to donuts that most of the poor in Hong Kong live better than the middle class in Honduras.

Sweden is a terrible example for you to use, because they are a very free country economically, more free than the USA. Their low income disparity is due to high taxation on citizens (not business), with families usually only taking home 40% of their paycheck. On top of that, there is a very high tax rate of 25% on food.

Well spider...

Explain how, in your own terms.