The Cruel Economy / Poverty

[voguy]

I'm often amazed at how those who cry for the redistribution of wealth to "save the poor" are often the LEAST likely to practice what they preach.

I get it that we want to "help" people, but helping is not stripping one person of what they rightfully earned to hand it over to another. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the very top 1% which my liberal friends seem to group the other 57% in with.

When those who say I have to "share" are presented with the idea that they have to also have to "share" proportionally, they become oddly silent.

At the risk of being tagged as a religious zealot, there is something to that "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." But I would add that we have to target our masters, (politicians and lawmakers), to prevent us from becoming a socialist or indebted society. There is a reason we're called sheeple.

[Riddick]

The Middle Class REALLY Isn't Doing That Well

$400. What's the significance of that figure, you ask? A Fed survey from two years ago found nearly half of Americans could not afford a $400 emergency expense.

In short: families have saved less and relied on credit to cover emergency expenses — leaving many that appear to be financially secure, but are quietly braving financial thin ice. FULL STORY

[Riddick]

John Oliver on the burgeoning divide between The Middle Class & The Mega Rich - Just because politicians can't or won't talk about it doesn't mean no one should!

[voguy]

The Middle Class REALLY Isn't Doing That Well

No, it's not. By the fed's own numbers there has been a thirty-seven percent decrease in the affluence to the point where more that eighty percent are now living paycheck to paycheck. What has happened to the middle class has been a travesty. And contrary to what the news says, it's not because they are spending on "stuff".

[Riddick]

The Income You Need to Live "Comfortably" In 50 U.S. Cities

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2 ... tably.html

[Riddick]

The top 1% of the population controls 40% of the nation's wealth. Think about that for a minute. Income inequality gets a lot of attention these days - But income inequality has an upside that makes it less dangerous than its cousin, wealth inequality. Vox explains.


Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is.

[Riddick]

From the downturn and onward into the less than robust recovery way too many families, hard-working, educated, with all the trappings of a middle class life, who were supposed to have the American Dream have instead in a kind of slow motion way watched themselves become part of a new class of "working homeless", something we last saw in the Great Depression eighty some years ago

[Cherry Kelly]

As noted - in the last 6 yrs, this administration has declared that the cost of living has NOT gone up and not giving seniors any COLA raises. Yet we have seen even the most basic needs go up and up in costs.

Take utilities. The coal mines are almost gone or closed because OH GEE they are used to help create more electricity for people, but gee so called global warming (doesn't exist) and the C02 - and oh gee it is bad bad for you. The pushing of electric cars - where they going to get electricity? Has anything been built to create electricity without coal plants? OH ya, but the electric companies are passing the new costs on to customers. AND it also affects water as well ... and on and on. Gee food prices go up as well. BUT gee the cost of living hasn't gone up?

Seeing more and more homeless and the big push on "tiny homes" - and the costs of those have skyrocketed over the years. They've run out of places to house the poverty groups who now - due to ACA have to work fewer hours in large companies, thus they have to work 2 and 3 jobs and are still falling further behind to where - they lose their homes, their cars and more.

[voguy]

the administration are liars at an epic level by making the numbers appear good when they are poor. Case in point, where I lived, they stated that only 4.2% of people in our ward were unemployed. But in another agency they showed that 58% of the people were on public assistance. So how to you make those agree? Simply, you don't count the public assistance numbers, and those who just drop off the roll aren't counted. Then you don't count those who went from FT with bennies to PT with no bennies, and what is left you compare against who is going to the unemployment office.

Meanwhile the housing market dropped by 11%

And while costs have gone up, you still find senior citizens and veterans denied basic services.

It's a scam.

[voguy]

Interesting take....

Know Thy Enemy: a Classier Take on Class Warfare
by Sable Levy - 2016-04-27

In case you didn’t know it, the ultra-rich are widely vilified—particularly within movements such as Occupy Wall Street and the political campaign of Bernie Sanders, which has captured the hearts of many a burgeoning millennial. Who are the ultra-rich? And why are they widely vilified? Many are executives, or work in industries such as finance, law, medicine, and technology—with the top 1% having an average household income of $1.2 million in 2008, according to federal tax data.⁠ While some inherited substantial wealth, many are self-made.

As for their vilification, it has a lot to do with what is called greed. Did ever a word sound more vicious? Greed is ugly, sinful avarice; the root of all evil; or so, at least, many of us are taught. While some look at the ultra-rich and see success, others see only greed. A growing belief that the profit motive equals greed has given rise to a present-day phenomenon: anyone who runs a profitable business is a target for people to hate. Given the beliefs that the profit motive is equivalent to greed, and that greed is evil, it’s easy to understand why the ultra-rich are widely vilified.

But is the animus justified?

Well, not all rich people are evil, of course. Nonetheless, lots of highly ambitious people are seen as greedy even when they contribute nothing but immense value to society. If it is true, as many people believe, that the ultra-rich necessarily achieve (at least some of) their wealth by exploiting and preying on the non-rich, then the animus would seem justified. So, let’s explore that claim, which points to some nuances of wealth, and try to determine whether it is true.

Is wealth predicated upon adverse exploitation?

For dictators, slave-owners, shysters, and others of their ilk, the answer is certainly “yes.” It is important to note, however, that there are essentially two ways a person can make money. Herein lies the nuance. You can either create a product or provide a service that people are voluntarily willing to exchange money for, creating trade-based value; or you can employ coercive, unjust means to make a profit—wherein money ceases to reflect the creation of value, but rather the plundering thereof.

right-enemy-wrong-enemy.png (28.58 KiB) Viewed 3174 times

Some rich people deserve our scorn, but most of them do not. Placing all rich people in one category blinds us to the crucial distinction inherent in how money can be made. The only people who deserve to be vilified for their money are the ones who acquired their money unjustly—whether through cronyism, fraud, rent-seeking, or predation.

Sometimes someone makes a point so well, you simply have to let them do the talking.

Steve Conover, who created the above graphic, writes: “Focusing on the right enemy would present a target-rich environment that includes anyone (of any income level) who is cheating to win, any business or union (of any size) with its snout in the public trough, any politician filling that trough and feeding those snouts for reciprocal gain, and any group using the political system (at any level) to maintain its monopoly, or its winning ‘edge’ against less-well-connected competitors.⁠

“Among ‘the rich’ are many entertainment superstars, artists, CEOs, inventors, and entrepreneurs who got where they are because they produced things that entertain us, make us more productive, save us money, or save us time. Can we really say with a straight face that all of them are villains because of their huge incomes? Of course not. They are rich because they earned it—and because they earned it, they do not deserve to be targets in a class war.

“The distinguishing characteristic of the enemy is not the level of income or wealth; rather, it is whether that income or wealth was earned. The true heroes in our economy are the producers and earners, and those who protect them; they can be found all the way up and down the income ladder, and class warfare should defend and reward them instead of targeting them. Conversely, the proper targets are the class that includes cheaters, predators, pirates, and parasites— who can also be found at all income levels, whether they are hiding under beds to get away with stealing watches, or head-faking trusting clients to steal capital gains.

So, should we all embrace this nuanced view of wealth?

Naturally, I think yes, we should. But to tell you the truth, I’d much rather hear your thoughts on the matter. That would be a lot more interesting. So tell me, what do you think?

[Raggedyann]

I don't know of anybody who hates rich people for the sake of hating rich people. Most normal thinking people hate the system that allows rich corporations to prey on the poor.

Interesting VO, that you can defend nuances regarding rich people but you can't understand nuances regarding poor people.

[Doka]

When you get rid of all the rich, you will understand and see a whole world of nothing but poverty and hope-less-ness , It is not a place Any of us want to be or see!

If one has to have an enemy, take a good look at every heads of any government and the politicians, they make the Rules they have the Gold.!

No one on this board is FOR people being poor, but it can be very helpful to understand how we are ALL are going to get there.

Voguy didn't do the poverity, is not for the poverty.

[Raggedyann]

When you get rid of all the rich, you will understand and see a whole world of nothing but poverty and hope-less-ness , It is not a place Any of us want to be or see!

If one has to have an enemy, take a good look at every heads of any government and the politicians, they make the Rules they have the Gold.!

No one on this board is FOR people being poor, but it can be very helpful to understand how we are ALL are going to get there.

Voguy didn't do the poverity, is not for the poverty.

Where the hell did I say we should get rid of rich people? As for the rest of your post, it seems to me you are actually repeating my thoughts using different wording.

[Riddick]

To paraphrase Spider-Man's motto, one might say 'WITH great wealth comes great responsibility'. OK, as if of all stripes we DON'T know some do, some don't live responsibly: so let's see if they'd all do better with a 2x4 to the head? And who all's wielding it? COERCION: The essence of governance. Who's the beneficiary?

Paraphrasing JFK, ask NOT what the Mega Rich have done for this country - ASK, what has this country done for the Mega Rich (compared to middle-class working folk)? Big banks behave badly, are bailed out, get bigger than ever. How special. Bring down the economy? No prob! Here, have some taxpayer money.

"Oh it's great to be a bankster! Give us your dough, or we'll crash ya" It's a Big Club, & you & I AIN't in it

[Doka]

Raggedyann:

"Interesting VO, that you can defend nuances regarding rich people but you can't understand nuances regarding poor people."

I apologize Ra, it read out to me as just another "ankle bite" to me. Not ,that Voguy can't take care of himself. Now where is your post, that you said the same thing I did, only in different words, I have looked all over for it?