Occupy Wall Street protesters have touched a nerve with their slogan, "We are the 99 percent." It has focused attention on the ground gained by the rich even as a brutal economy has pushed the typical American family backward. Economic inequality may or may not become a central issue in the presidential race, but the candidates have at least one reason to hope it does not.
A look at the finances of those vying for the presidency shows that almost all of them rank at the very top of the country's earners. In other words, they are the 1 percent.
The possible exceptions are Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Representative Ron Paul of Texas, whose annual household earnings may not exceed the estimated cutoff of $700,000 for the top 1 percent, and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who has yet to file a financial disclosure.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=D5A418EFB732D64E293F9567A6820E41.w6?a=860334&f=77

Is this supposed to surprise us? I thought this was obvious as running for president takes millions of dollars. The 99% don't have the bank to run for office.

People need to wake up though. I am fine with people having opinions and protesting them, but it better be more than just "economic equality". This will never be. There will always be rich, poor, and people in the middle. Equal distribution of wealth doesn't work.

This is true (wish you could explain that to folks like Herman Cain who feel being 'rich' is a matter of personal responsibility)

to have RICH there must be poor to compare them to, however, Just because few things(if any) in life can ever be 100 percent equal or 100 percent perfect, doesnt mean we shouldnt make the effort to come as close as we can.

one major factor that distinguishes 'third world' from other countries, is the presence of a middle class and the GAP between the rich and the poor




The GAP between rich and poor in America is becoming unforgivably large, and we can do much better, we can try to keep from getting any worse.

I am not arguing that. Some people want equal distribution of wealth. Where everyone just makes the same money. Society would fall apart if that happened.

Now why I won't say people can just become rich some people are poor because of bad decisions. Not all but some. It usually starts small and just builds up. They don't study in jr high and high school. Then they think they can't get into college or a technical school. Have a baby, just snowball stuff.

Now some people have bad luck. Maybe they can't study or go to school because they have to take care of family or some other reason. These are things beyond their control and by the time they are out of the situation lots of doors have closed.

So I wouldn't say its necessarily true or false. It could be one or the other.

How about "less economic inequality" ? Or 'less corporate influence on politics' ?

I think that trying to implement total economic equality at this stage of our species development would be completely insane. It would be more out of place than trying to convince the vikings to be feminists.



Never? It may be many hundreds of years away, but I think you underestimate the possibilities of future technology.

We might always have hierarchies, and inequality of one kind of another, and jealousy and such... but it seems very possible to me that all of our current measures of wealth might one day be equally distributed.

Never? Yes I think so. If wealth will be equal then why would someone go to school for years to have a high stress job like a heart surgeon when they can work at a video store in a small town and watch movies all day for the same money. Money motivates. It motivates invention. It motivates technological advances. It motivates people to perform.

Re considering my previous opinions. I disagree with this. Perhaps with money not in the picture it would actually be BETTER. The motivation for doing jobs would merely be the sincere interest in the job and interest in a job is a much higher motivation for doing a good job than getting a paycheck is.

People would still feel empassioned about medicine enough to become doctors and nurses, they would still love children enough to become teachers,, and you would weed out all those who 'only' did it for the money.

In an idea imaginary society yes. I am talking about the real world and real people though. Why go to school all those years when you are missing out on income?

Because ofthe opportunity to gain knowledge and make a difference. That is my point. IF money werent in the equation anymore, the priorities would most likely no longer center around it.

Right. Look if people can get the same thing by being lazy they are going to take the lazy way. Maybe not everyone but enough people to negatively affect our advancement as a society. Lots of people do that. How many trust fund babies work? How many people that win the lottery quit their jobs? How many people abuse welfare? When people have access to "free" money they will spend their time low stress most likely leisurely activities.

Lets also look at a lot of Union workers. Its really hard to get fired from Union jobs and lots of those guys (not all) will do just enough work to keep their job. They get paid based on what the union dictates not by performance so there is no motivation to perform at a higher level than the minimum.

Also invention and such comes from the possibilities of money. You think we would have say the ipod etc if people couldn't make lots of money from it? You think they would put all that time and money into research if they couldn't pull in a big profit? Its all about risk reward. Technology would slow to a crawl if people were not always competing to have the best technology to pull in more profits.

So it would make sense to put another set of even hungrier Maggots in charge?

Without "money" as a factor in the equation..... how about "respect, admiration, sense of accomplishment, human compassion"..... these would work for me....

Much better than "greed, corruption, self gratification, control"....

Let's go back to barter..... like before "money" was designated as wealth?

In a "barter system", everyone "willing" has something to offer. If you didn't, you learned, invented or trained.

By the same token, people prospered by "engineering" a self support system...gardening, canning, weaving, building....

Not a bad trade-off in my book!

Dr's saw all patients and were able to charge according to their ability to pay, not on the quality of their insurance or health plan!

It would reciprocate thru the spectrum

wealth is not always measured in $$$$$$$

never say 'never'

winds of change are blowing indeed!!!!

Yep.... the only ones who would suffer are the bankers..... with NOTHING to offer!



Monetary systems destroy the world!

It would cost nothing for power, if workers, insurance companies, the gov't, lawyers, unions and so on, didn't "require" money to support their families. The resources are in place already!

The Treasury could print money for foreign imports and trade at no expense, or we could use our exports (if they haven't all been outsourced) to cover the national need for them.

I don't want communism, just self reliance as a base for growth rather than gov't regulation and whim!

alot of questions but to honestly answer ID say

I think a majority of trust fund babies still work, or invest, or do charity of some sort, because they dont have to be concerned with 'working'

however pay is set at 'union' jobs, employees still have contracts they must follow, and employers still can discharge for under performance, as set by their contracts, and can still determine qualifications
Most the wealth in america is not from 'hard work' but from 'smart investing'

Most people who win the lotto probably quit the job because the purpose of the job was ONLY income , again suggesting that removing that as the priority may cause people to rearrange what is important to them

Having been on welfare, I think few people can actually 'abuse' it,, its kind of like overdosing on water,, happens, but rare enough not to cause much concern

And I dont support 'free' money, I support EQUITABLE and LIFE SUSTAINING compensation in return for effort and community contribution..


The discussion of pay equitability gets tied up in absolutes and extremes. OF course, there needs to be sensible give and take required in terms of employment and compensation. The debate is not about 'giving' away money, it is about determining how to compensate people in a way that is a truer reflection of their effort and contribution to the economy.

Just like taxes, having zero percent tax would have the same effect as having 100 percent tax because they are both extremes. BUt there is someplace in between that would be the most productive way to balance the budget.

With wealth there is somplace in between 'giving away money' and letting people go on only earning what they need to continue working.

much of that technology is doing more harm than good and is overrated.