~WHOA~

If we re-distributed the wealth to make sure that everyone who is NOW "poor" had $1M, then they'd no longer be poor...they'd be millionaires.


But, of course, they'd still be "poor", because the bar of "What IS Poor" would simply have been raised to $1M and what is "well off" would have been raised, as well.


What you've described is "socialism" at best and "communism" at worst, and is not going to - nor should it - work in the U.S.



Nahhh, pure, unfettered, unmanipulated, and unf***ed with "Capitalism" is the best system...one in which everyone truly DOES have equal opportunities for their hard work to improve one's lot in life; not allowing some to start the race 400 yards UP the track to ensure better odds of success.

In our 238-year history as a nation, we've yet to try it.

Ohhh no. If I wanted to say total distribution of wealth to be even. I would have said that. What I said was redistribution of wealth. this doesn't necessarlly have to be even. In fact there are may ways of not having it even and our economy would be better off.

The thing is right now the general wealth of our economy is so skewed that almost 30% of the general populace, are considered below the poverty level. That is the level in which people need to survive without any assistance. This level changes when the cost of living increases and not by how much people make. Well there is a percentage change by regional, and poplulace, but it doesn't change like you have stated. where if everyone had a million dollars then there would be no poor, because everyone's poor or rich. This may be true by concept but not in practice.

Another tangent, Communism is flawed because there is no fesable way to do this. If you wand to see a chart about what I'm talking about look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Keep in mind that these graphs are 2009 data so they are 5 years off, but I can tell you that the system we have hasn't helped the situation.

Bu-bu-but this isn't what I said...or even wrote...so why you're ascribing it to me now, is beyond me.


I most assuredly DID NOT write that by giving everyone $1M, everyone is either rich or poor; I most assuredly DID infer that the percentages remain the same, we simply raise the bar on what constitutes "poor".


I believe the majority of U.S. citizens feel very similarly to the way I feel...and to what 'dodo' (I believe it was) alluded to...most of us have no problem helping out those in need...who are there by misfortune/accident/circumstance - NOT because of the consequences of their freely chosen actions.


I don't see the problem with the *welfare assistance* program Jesse Ventura introduced while the (Republican) Governor of Minnesota, that (Democrat) President Clinton introduced years ago...

...but we've all abandoned.


For those who've hit what should be a temporary bump in the road, help for 'X' amount of time...paying for schooling, paying for housing, paying for child care; once the program's completed, you get no more, and you're on your own. Oh, and no *Bonus Bucks for Bonus Babies* borne and born while receiving assistance.


Seems like a good plan that helps the truly needy, all the while NOT creating assistance-dependent/assistance-preferring folk.



But, what do I know? I'm "a libtard"...or so it's been decreed, by those in the 'no'.

While the brokeass liberals are figuring on how distribute other peoples money, the working class is too busy working on surviving.



One other thing. Gubament don't have money of their own to distribute.

Then what did you mean by this statement



Because as I understood it you meant that if all the wealth were redistributed so that every one would be rich as in millionaires. if that's not what you meant I am sorry that I'm misinterpreting your words.

Then you said in the next sentence


meant that all the millionaires would be "poor". so there would be a union of the set of poor and the set of rich hence Poor or Rich. If I'm misinterpreting your words again that wasn't my intent. Just trying to understand your view.

and yes since we are in an upturn the "help" that we've initially placed in because of the downturn is no longer needed. There is still the issue that people are just not being paid enough to do the work they do. How do we solve this?

<--- "Working Class"

Working with so much class, I no longer am "too busy working on surviving"; I'm actually living.



Agreed...the Government has no money, save what is provided to them via taxation in all forms and interest payments on loans, both foreign and domestic.

However, they DO control the policies that dictate who will be taxed and to what extent. THAT is what ensures the top 20% retain control of the 80% of the American Pie...leaving 80% to fight over the remaining 20%.


Oh, and in case anyone is confused, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE participating in THIS online discussion is part of the top 20%,


though many of you are cheering them on, as IF you are.

I meant exactly what I wrote: which, coincidentally is the definition OF "a millionaire": someone who has $1M. If we gave everyone who is POOR $1M, they'd no longer be "poor".

I did NOT say, that the whole system gets reset and EVERYBODY gets $1M. I simply stated that when you reset the barometer as to what constitutes "poor", it doesn't change what IS "poor".


Having said that, all of us can fight 'til we're red - or blue - in the face, and it's not going to change The Facts. Factually-speaking, no matter what others may say or believe about losing jobs because of it, whenever minimum wage is raised, our economy does better...

"...'Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion,' it says. The vast majority of people impacted, over 95 percent, will be impacted positively..."


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/18/3303201/cbo-minimum-wage/

Ah! I see where the communication issue was. it's not that every one has a million dollars, its that some will have more then 1 million. That makes sense now. I apologize for misinterpreting your words.

By the way. I stopped responding to willing's statements because their is no point. one too many fallacies to even begin. and two why not just report it and be done.


Oh and loved the article. It's awesome!

gosh Server, Im falling in love the more I read,,lol

first of all, I see the current caste system as modern slavery

not in the sense of it being legal to whip, rape, hang, strip of name and identity and heritage,, ANYONE,,,,certainly

but in this sense

whereas slave OWNERS 'provided' their own food and board in RETURN for labor and work,,,,it was clear as the slave you were the laborer someone else owned

in modern day

the OWNERS no longer house the laborers in their own home or feed them from their own supplies,, BUT instead they throw CRUMBS (cash) their way from which they are to find their own room and board,,,,yet, because it is just crumbs, they cant afford to pay a 'tax' and as a non taxpayer, they are basically OWNED by the taxpayers

because they are seen as merely 'takers' with no citizen rights that the taxpayers cant adjust to their own liking (monetary priorities)


I believe the key to successful 'wealth distribution' is 'education'

the wealthiest aren't out working hard for their money as they preach to others, they are allowing MONEY TO WORK FOR THEM

what most impoverished people are born into or live amongst does not provide clear or simple access to the resources or networks that lead to that happening and instead are just trained up to be slave laborers to line the pockets of the OWNERS who will tell them what they can eat and if they can reproduce

lift the access and make abundant resource and networks available for people to be in a 'taxpaying' bracket, and things would change drastically

THIS IS IN FACT A LIFES GOAL OF MINE TO BE INVOLVED WITH,,,,,

but then the more narcissistic wealthy and middle class (a SPECIFIC subgroup within the wealthy and middle classes and NOT the whole group)

couldn't have so many too look down upon as less deserving and hard working,,,

Awww thanks for the compliment.

I do agree with you mostly. I just feel what we got is more like serfdom or perpetual indentured servitude.

Yep! Education does help. So does being active in your role to do things like, boycotting Walmart for having the highest amount of employees on Food stamps and taking advantage of both their consumers and employees. Advocating for higher wages. You know what we could do? We could Assemble peacefully at Mc. Donald's everywhere saying that they should pay their people more!

Oooh better yet form a retail union! Except without the dues.



Still waiting on suggestions as to how to fix the issues mentioned guys!

when I start my nonprofit, I will have saved this for the wonderful suggestions,,, ty server

Thanks!!!

being poor is an attitude

being broke is a condition

one way to fix it is to know the difference between wants and needs

"... for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him [Christ] who gives me strength." - Philippians 4:11-13

Just food for thought.

tell that to taxpayers who are upset about 'takers',,,,they should be 'content' too,,,,


lol




but I get it, we CAN endure all things,(well, at least until we die) but, assuming we wish to live, that's quite different than whether everything we endure is right or cant or shouldn't be changed for the better,,,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

interesting view on slavery

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." --Robert LeFevre

http://mises.org/daily/5753/Occupied-by-Government

How is it,folks who CHOOSE not to work can afford internet and Iphone bills, then say they NEED welfare?

Free Wi-Fi and "Obama Phones"

which actually "...started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson....",


and is actually paid for by the telecom companies...NOT by tax dollars.


http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

You're welcome.




P.S. For the record, it's becoming clear why some prefer to make their statements-presented-as-facts, which they end with a ".", rather than ending their snide remarks with a "?".

Please, reread.

This is a question regarding those who CHOOSE not to contribute.