Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

# What do you think of wealth distribution in America?

Posted by   + Show Post

I just saw this video on YouTube and I'm aghast!!!

What say you?

by on Apr. 9, 2013 at 3:31 PM
Replies (21-30):
by on Apr. 9, 2013 at 6:01 PM
I thought this article was interesting and provides a different perspective for wealth inequality. From http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/

By CATHERINE RAMPELL

12:51 p.m. | Updated Updated with additional explanation of how the chart controls for different costs of living around the world.

I had a review this weekend about “The Haves and the Have-Nots,” a new book by the World Bank economist Branko Milanovic about inequality around the world. My favorite part of the book was this graph, next to which I actually wrote “awesome chart” in the margin:

Branko Milanovic, “The Haves and the Have-Nots,” p. 116. The graph shows inequality within a country, in the context of inequality around the world. It can take a few minutes to get your bearings with this chart, but trust me, it’s worth it.

Here the population of each country is divided into 20 equally-sized income groups, ranked by their household per-capita income. These are called “ventiles,” as you can see on the horizontal axis, and each “ventile” translates to a cluster of five percentiles.

The household income numbers are all converted into international dollars adjusted for equal purchasing power, since the cost of goods varies from country to country. In other words, the chart adjusts for the cost of living in different countries, so we are looking at consistent living standards worldwide.

Now on the vertical axis, you can see where any given ventile from any country falls when compared to the entire population of the world.

For example, trace the line for Brazil, a country with extreme income inequality.

Brazil’s bottom ventile — that is, the poorest 5 percent of the Brazilian population, shown as the left-most point on the line — is about as poor as anyone in the entire world, registering a percentile in the single digits when compared to the income distribution worldwide. Meanwhile, Brazil also has some of the world’s richest, as you can see by how high up on the chart Brazil’s top ventile reaches. In other words, this one country covers a very broad span of income groups.

Now take a look at America.

Notice how the entire line for the United States resides in the top portion of the graph? That’s because the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom ventile is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.

Now check out the line for India. India’s poorest ventile corresponds with the 4th poorest percentile worldwide. And its richest? The 68th percentile. Yes, that’s right: America’s poorest are, as a group, about as rich as India’s richest.

Kind of blows your mind, right?

Now you might be wondering: How can there be so many people in the world who make less than America’s poorest, many of whom make nothing each year? Remember that were looking at the entire bottom chunk of Americans, some of whom make as much as \$6,700; that may be extremely poor by American standards, but that amounts to a relatively good standard of living in India, where about a quarter of the population lives on \$1 a day.

As Mr. Brankovic writes:

One’s income thus crucially depends on citizenship, which in turn means (in a world of rather low international migration) place of birth. All people born in rich countries thus receive a location premium or a location rent; all those born in poor countries get a location penalty.

It is easy to see that in such a world, most of one’s lifetime income will be determined at birth.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Apr. 9, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Do you want the Waltons and the others in the 1% to share with the rest of us? If you do, then you believe in redistribution of wealth and that's Socialism. Oh well....

Quoting HunnyBabie:

THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!

That's apalling!!!  How can 6 ppl own more than 40% of the rest of a nation???  I'm a conservative, so I'm not looking to the government to fix anything.  I think their laws and regulations are what created this problem in the first place; the market has no room to self-correct or self-regulate.

You know I keep those 6 ppl rich.  Well, I don't, but DH does; he says things like we can't afford to shop anywhere else.  It sickens me that they just sponge off the rest of us like that!!!  I always hated WalMart; now I hate it even more!!!

Quoting Sisteract:

What's really interesting is when you breakdown the top 1% -  the vast majority pf the wealth is held by the top 0.4% of citizens- The 6 Waltons (WM owners) hold as much wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans- 6 people!

Quoting HunnyBabie:

I think that's what the democrats (socialists) want us (the bottom 99%) to think.  Then socialism looks a whole lot better, with all that equality going on and all.

Can you believe the top 1% guy with his ten stacks???

Quoting Sisteract:

The bottom 99% are never going to get ahead in the new America- and that might grow to the bottom 99.6%-

by Platinum Member on Apr. 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM
1 mom liked this

Great advice. I am sure any single mom. Or family that is barely making ends meet at Walmart will decide, "I will just quit and get a better job"

Because there are so many fantastic jobs out there, right?

People who believe in Corporatocracy baffle me.

I believe in Democracy and Capitalism. Neither work when all the money is bottled up in an extremely small portion of the country.

For Capitalism to thrive it needs a strong big middle class.

Quoting fullxbusymom:

They shouldn't have too.  Walmart was NEVER meant to be a career.  It was meant to be a low paying menial job.  They pay NO LESS than Target, Kohls or any other similar store.  There rates are competitive with any other chain store and if people don't like it they don't have to work there.

Did anyone suggest that?

This does show that they could afford to pay their employees more. In fact I think one study stated if they raised every employee at Walmarts salary by 3 dollars an hour it would only cost the consumers about 50 cents a visit (This is assuming is not possible to ask one of the richest families on the planet to accept a little less profits).

This would curb the inequality. No one is saying, "Let's steal/take all their money and give it out". People are saying, "Perhaps, some of the biggest employers in the country can afford to pay better wages".

Perhaps the growth of income is extremely disproportionate. And this doesn't mean we don't want people to be successful and rich. People can still be extremely rich and share some of those profits with the people they employ.

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by Silver Member on Apr. 9, 2013 at 6:11 PM
1 mom liked this

Yup so sorry that I feel people who worked hard created an empire should be forced to pay more out simply because they are rich.  I am FAR from rich and still think they are entitled to every penny they earn and don't have an obligation to do more than anyone else does.

Why is it only Walmart that gets kicked in the teeth, why not any other big corporate chain nobody bitches about them and they don't pay any more than anyone else does.

Great advice. I am sure any single mom. Or family that is barely making ends meet at Walmart will decide, "I will just quit and get a better job"

Because there are so many fantastic jobs out there, right?

People who believe in Corporatocracy baffle me.

I believe in Democracy and Capitalism. Neither work when all the money is bottled up in an extremely small portion of the country.

For Capitalism to thrive it needs a strong big middle class.

Quoting fullxbusymom:

They shouldn't have too.  Walmart was NEVER meant to be a career.  It was meant to be a low paying menial job.  They pay NO LESS than Target, Kohls or any other similar store.  There rates are competitive with any other chain store and if people don't like it they don't have to work there.

Did anyone suggest that?

This does show that they could afford to pay their employees more. In fact I think one study stated if they raised every employee at Walmarts salary by 3 dollars an hour it would only cost the consumers about 50 cents a visit (This is assuming is not possible to ask one of the richest families on the planet to accept a little less profits).

This would curb the inequality. No one is saying, "Let's steal/take all their money and give it out". People are saying, "Perhaps, some of the biggest employers in the country can afford to pay better wages".

Perhaps the growth of income is extremely disproportionate. And this doesn't mean we don't want people to be successful and rich. People can still be extremely rich and share some of those profits with the people they employ.

by Platinum Member on Apr. 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

That makes me want to puke.

by Platinum Member on Apr. 9, 2013 at 6:17 PM
2 moms liked this

I have -NEVER- heard anyone say that Walmart is the only corporation that does this. Never. It's just a big glaring example. So it is the one used most often.

And again. We are not talking about people who are "rich". That's vague and doesn't touch what we are talking about. We are talking about people in the top .001% that employees people and doesn't give them a livable wage and continues to squeeze down on them.  And if those people try to Unionize they fire them.

Capitalism. It has winners and losers. For there to be winners, there has to be losers. The problem occurs when the game gets rigged. And the same person wins, every time. When all the money is bunched together in a minute portion of our country. Capitalism no longer works.

Corporatocracy is what you end up with. Where the only time Congress seems to come together and push something through is when Corporations ask for it.

Where Corporations are people, and money is speech.

Quoting fullxbusymom:

Yup so sorry that I feel people who worked hard created an empire should be forced to pay more out simply because they are rich.  I am FAR from rich and still think they are entitled to every penny they earn and don't have an obligation to do more than anyone else does.

Why is it only Walmart that gets kicked in the teeth, why not any other big corporate chain nobody bitches about them and they don't pay any more than anyone else does.

Great advice. I am sure any single mom. Or family that is barely making ends meet at Walmart will decide, "I will just quit and get a better job"

Because there are so many fantastic jobs out there, right?

People who believe in Corporatocracy baffle me.

I believe in Democracy and Capitalism. Neither work when all the money is bottled up in an extremely small portion of the country.

For Capitalism to thrive it needs a strong big middle class.

Quoting fullxbusymom:

They shouldn't have too.  Walmart was NEVER meant to be a career.  It was meant to be a low paying menial job.  They pay NO LESS than Target, Kohls or any other similar store.  There rates are competitive with any other chain store and if people don't like it they don't have to work there.

Did anyone suggest that?

This does show that they could afford to pay their employees more. In fact I think one study stated if they raised every employee at Walmarts salary by 3 dollars an hour it would only cost the consumers about 50 cents a visit (This is assuming is not possible to ask one of the richest families on the planet to accept a little less profits).

This would curb the inequality. No one is saying, "Let's steal/take all their money and give it out". People are saying, "Perhaps, some of the biggest employers in the country can afford to pay better wages".

Perhaps the growth of income is extremely disproportionate. And this doesn't mean we don't want people to be successful and rich. People can still be extremely rich and share some of those profits with the people they employ.

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by Whoopie on Apr. 9, 2013 at 6:37 PM
3 moms liked this
Best comment on this subject, EVER!

I have -NEVER- heard anyone say that Walmart is the only corporation that does this. Never. It's just a big glaring example. So it is the one used most often.

And again. We are not talking about people who are "rich". That's vague and doesn't touch what we are talking about. We are talking about people in the top .001% that employees people and doesn't give them a livable wage and continues to squeeze down on them.  And if those people try to Unionize they fire them.

Capitalism. It has winners and losers. For there to be winners, there has to be losers. The problem occurs when the game gets rigged. And the same person wins, every time. When all the money is bunched together in a minute portion of our country. Capitalism no longer works.

Corporatocracy is what you end up with. Where the only time Congress seems to come together and push something through is when Corporations ask for it.

Where Corporations are people, and money is speech.

Quoting fullxbusymom:

Yup so sorry that I feel people who worked hard created an empire should be forced to pay more out simply because they are rich.  I am FAR from rich and still think they are entitled to every penny they earn and don't have an obligation to do more than anyone else does.

Why is it only Walmart that gets kicked in the teeth, why not any other big corporate chain nobody bitches about them and they don't pay any more than anyone else does.

Great advice. I am sure any single mom. Or family that is barely making ends meet at Walmart will decide, "I will just quit and get a better job"

Because there are so many fantastic jobs out there, right?

People who believe in Corporatocracy baffle me.

I believe in Democracy and Capitalism. Neither work when all the money is bottled up in an extremely small portion of the country.

For Capitalism to thrive it needs a strong big middle class.

Quoting fullxbusymom:

They shouldn't have too.  Walmart was NEVER meant to be a career.  It was meant to be a low paying menial job.  They pay NO LESS than Target, Kohls or any other similar store.  There rates are competitive with any other chain store and if people don't like it they don't have to work there.

Did anyone suggest that?

This does show that they could afford to pay their employees more. In fact I think one study stated if they raised every employee at Walmarts salary by 3 dollars an hour it would only cost the consumers about 50 cents a visit (This is assuming is not possible to ask one of the richest families on the planet to accept a little less profits).

This would curb the inequality. No one is saying, "Let's steal/take all their money and give it out". People are saying, "Perhaps, some of the biggest employers in the country can afford to pay better wages".

Perhaps the growth of income is extremely disproportionate. And this doesn't mean we don't want people to be successful and rich. People can still be extremely rich and share some of those profits with the people they employ.

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by Silver Member on Apr. 9, 2013 at 6:38 PM
2 moms liked this

What you seem to be missing is that Walmart and the other 'rich' people/companies/corporations have gotten rich by working between the regulations that ran the rest of the jobs out of the country. Worse, those same people/companies/corporations now hold a monopoly on jobs AND goods and services that are available. I don't know about you, but the wallyworld mantra of 'if we don't have it, you don't need it' makes me itch ~ especially when you consider that the quality of what they offer is somewhat less than poop. It's the lowest common denominator if what won't fall apart before you get it home or won't kill you within hours of eating it.

Stop saying that no one has said let's take their money and give it to other people. That is exactly what is being said ~ because the things our dear old Uncle Sammy 'need' money for fall under welfare programs exclusively. He doesn't need permission to fund the military or the infrastructure. He has it (regardless of what a pathetic job he does as far as managing it). Each of our congresscritters slip their own pork into every bill that gets signed. The funds that are always low are the welfare funds ~ including the ones Uncle Sammy managed to shove down our throats and stolen from our paychecks all these years.

Walmart upping it's minimum wages isn't the solution. Walmart is part of the problem.

At the end of your post, you got right to all those excuses that I already stated I have no time for. If 'we the people' aren't willing to fix the problem, then 'we the people' are stuck with it. Uncle Sammy does not care about 'you' or any other part of 'we the people'. Uncle Sammy will get his, and 'we the people' are only there to fund that for him.

'We the people' vastly outnumber both that which constitutes Uncle Sammy, and those few rich people. If 'we' stop funding them, they WILL go away. They WILL be far less rich. Local businesses and jobs that pay living wages would come back ~ provided 'we the people' also demanded that our congresscritters do their jobs or send them to obedience training and keep them on a short leash afterwards.

You can't grovel in front of something you want to change.

You are talking about the people in the bottom of our country. Did you watch the video? It is talking about our entire country.

No one has said, "Let's take their money and give it to other people". But if you look at Walmart for example. They are one of the richest families on the planet. Yet their employee's don't make a liveable wage.

There was a study done that suggested they could raise the salary of all their employees by three dollars and it would only cost consumers 50 cents a visit. This is assuming the owners can't take a cut in profits and have to pass it all on to the consumers.

If the people who make up the bottom of our country had jobs that provided livable wages it would be an incredible boost to our economy. Not only would they be able to pay rent, buy their own food, and spend their money at various other places/save it. But the government wouldn't have to give so much in Public Assistance either.

When we allow our countries biggest employers that has profits in the billions squeeze down so hard on our country that people feel they have to work off the clock to keep their job. A job that is toward the bottom of the barrel.

Inequality is what will come. And while it is true a "free" market will self correct. The self correcting of all the money being bundled a the very top and not circulating is the whole thing crumbling and starting over again. Hence why some people want to focus on it.

And what you said toward the bottom is a catch 22. Some people can only afford to work at walmart. Then when you have the people who are employed by walmart I imagine they do all their shopping their as well.

Those people squeezing down on the bottom, the ones who abuse tax loopholes, and the ones out sourcing all their jobs. Know what would happen if they left? Someone would replace them. And perhaps that person might give out livable wages to the people left behind. Perhaps that person will pay taxes.

If the people abusing the system, abusing the people, abusting their power, and commiting fraud all left. It wouldn't be the end for our country. Other people would fill the whole they leave behind.

If the people in this country would be more concerned with doing something than with spending money they aren't doing something to make (or on crap that they don't NEED), this wouldn't be such an issue.

People need food, shelter, and clothing. Many have that, but they feel they deserve better food, shelter, and clothing.

I'll admit that I like nice things. I like quality things. I don't go out and buy things and stuff them in closets. I don't buy something new every year ~ I use what I have until it wears out or breaks. I don't buy name brand clothes ~ and won't ... just the thought of crawling around in the pig pen when a pig is farrowing in \$300 jeans makes my head hurt! I grow the food we eat. I don't 'need' to go out to eat, to get drunk (I don't drink in any case), I don't use drugs, I watch movies on Netflix or not at all, I don't have cable (and don't miss it), etc.

Do I think everyone should make the same choices I made? No. What I do think is that if you 'want' things you don't 'need', you are suffering from envy and greed ... and possibly have some delusions of grandeur.

All that being said, when the economy doesn't support a living wage, when rent prices are artificially jacked up because of HUD, etc. and people are hungry, cold, overheated, or living on the street there are problems. I absolutely agree with that.

What I do NOT agree with is the idea that the people who have made money are obligated in some way to share that money with those who have not. The problem is not caused by some people (even a very few people) hoarding all the money.

Some of the problem stems from the very people who are doing without. Some made some very stupid and/or bad choices. Some just aren't as smart as others, some never learned to apply themselves, and some are plain lazy.

Others are caught in an ongoing cycle of abuse, poverty because of their location, or have had medical issues.

Out of all of those, ONLY the medical issues are not by an ultimate choice. And, ALL of the things I have listed except medical conditions are directly caused by government intrusion and design. Wages suck because of gov't. regulations. Same goes for job availability. Same goes for people making bad choices.

What? Huh? The government did that? Yup. It has taught people that no one is wrong, and that it will pay them for making bad choices ... even when they make the same ones over and over. The public schools run by the government teach this outright. So do our colleges. After 30+ years of this crap, we have a nation full of incompetents who are now being taught to blame the people who have made money. They are being taught this by the government that is out of money, and needs to keep the people it taught to be incompetent from gnawing on Uncle Sammy's ankles. Uncle Sammy says blame the rich (but don't look at the income of those who constitute Uncle Sammy!) so he's on a concerted campaign to tax them more, redistribute that wealth, and pacify 'the people'. Until the rich pack up and leave and take all their lovely money with them.

Considering it was also Uncle Sammy that taught the people to just be consumers instead of producers after the regulations ran business out of the country, none of this is surprising.

It's only going to get worse. Uncle Sammy really is broke. His credit rating is dropping like a lead balloon. His respect from others is in the trash can. And, his ability to just print more money is about to go bye bye. When that happens, a whole lot more bad things are going to get dumped on the people who keep holding their hands out thinking Uncle Sammy will fill them.

As for the video, and the observation that about the Walton's ~ how many people who feel that it's wrong for so few people to have so much money ALSO shop in their stores or work and shop there? If you don't like it, STOP helping them. Start paying attention to which corporations 'buy' your vote in Congress and start holding your congresscritter accountable. Tell THEM, every day if possible, that you want America back instead of the corporate run nightmare they have created. Don't just tell them, demand it.

The wealthy have no one to blame but 'you' for being wealthy. Boycott the corporations and the products they sell. Hit them where it absolutely will hurt. Get your food from local sources instead of Cargill and Tyson. Stop buying cheap 'made in China' crap. Buy American. Only. If everyone did this for even one month the effect on these companies would be staggering. If they did it for 6 months, the bastages wouldn't be able to afford a congresscritter. Yes ~ it really is that simple.

That is the choice Americans have. Suck it up, change your own habits, and demand that our elected servants start serving Americans ... or accept that 'you' are part of the problem, that 'you' enable the rich people you envy, and that 'you' don't actually care enough to fix the problem.

I have put my money where my mouth (fingers) is. I walk the walk. I have for almost 20 years now (living in cities ... I've only had my little farm for 3 years). I grew my own food. What I couldn't grow I bought from farmers and farmer's markets. I got meat from local farms. I bought in bulk and canned and dehydrated food in season rather than living on chemically treated imports. I didn't buy on credit or run up bills. I actually saved money instead of spending it. I chose the smallest dwelling I could cram my stuff into ~ and learned to get rid of crap I didn't need. That meant lower utility bills, less expenses for furniture, clothing, and 'stuff'. When I did buy something it was because I needed it, and I bought the best I could afford and made in America. Right now it 'costs' me less than \$300 a month to 'exist', and I am living a life I love. I made the choice to do so. For those who say not everyone has it so easy, I was dumped in a state where I knew no one, with three boys under the age of 5, with no car, and no money. I found a derelict trailer and convinced the owner to let me live there in exchange for cleaning it and repairing it until I got a job. I got three jobs. I walked to work (over 11 miles daily). I dragged groceries home in a little red wagon. My first purchase was beds and clothing, then a junk car. Once I had those I worried about getting the electricity turned on. So yeah ~ I've BEEN there. Hungry, poorer than dirt.

Did I get any help? Yup. One month of foodstamps (the emergency allotment) that was cut off when I got the first two jobs. I got books from the library for the repairs on the dinky trailer. I bought seeds with some of those food stamps and planted another garden. Some of my coworkers scrounged canning jars from yard sales for me before I got a vehicle. In any case, I didn't allow myself the 'luxury' of feeling sorry for myself ~ I just went to work on fixing the problems in my own little part of the world. I did that while dealing with RA and SLE (sans medication because of allergies). I did so because those boys were mine to raise, feed, clothe, and shelter ~ and because I deserved a much better set of living conditions. When I don't accept excuses, it's because I know that most excuses aren't anything BUT excuses.

by Platinum Member on Apr. 9, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Show me the person saying we should take money from the rich.

No one is saying that. What our government does with our tax money is what they do with our tax money. That doesn't equate taking money from people.

Unless you are talking taxes. And that is a whole other discussion.

Walmart is part of the problem. A livable wage is part of a solution. Just because it is not the solution you seek doesn't make it part of a solution. Again. Doing something is FAR more effective than doing nothing and just wishing things would change.

Walmart is in the business of paying people the bare minimum. Which creates people who can only afford goods from stores like walmart (Especially those that work their and can stretch their money further).

Our news stations also fall under huge corporations. The last time people tried to stand up against the power of money corrupting our government it didn't go so well. The DHS labeled them as threats before they start camping out all over our country. They sent messages to banks and corporations in the area warning them, and got in contact with law enforcement groups.

The mainstream media only aired the craziest individuals they found, and only highlighted the negative parts. They did anything and everything to marginalize and discredit the group.

Us out numbering them doesn't matter if people are not allowed to organize.

What you seem to be missing is that Walmart and the other 'rich' people/companies/corporations have gotten rich by working between the regulations that ran the rest of the jobs out of the country. Worse, those same people/companies/corporations now hold a monopoly on jobs AND goods and services that are available. I don't know about you, but the wallyworld mantra of 'if we don't have it, you don't need it' makes me itch ~ especially when you consider that the quality of what they offer is somewhat less than poop. It's the lowest common denominator if what won't fall apart before you get it home or won't kill you within hours of eating it.

Stop saying that no one has said let's take their money and give it to other people. That is exactly what is being said ~ because the things our dear old Uncle Sammy 'need' money for fall under welfare programs exclusively. He doesn't need permission to fund the military or the infrastructure. He has it (regardless of what a pathetic job he does as far as managing it). Each of our congresscritters slip their own pork into every bill that gets signed. The funds that are always low are the welfare funds ~ including the ones Uncle Sammy managed to shove down our throats and stolen from our paychecks all these years.

Walmart upping it's minimum wages isn't the solution. Walmart is part of the problem.

At the end of your post, you got right to all those excuses that I already stated I have no time for. If 'we the people' aren't willing to fix the problem, then 'we the people' are stuck with it. Uncle Sammy does not care about 'you' or any other part of 'we the people'. Uncle Sammy will get his, and 'we the people' are only there to fund that for him.

'We the people' vastly outnumber both that which constitutes Uncle Sammy, and those few rich people. If 'we' stop funding them, they WILL go away. They WILL be far less rich. Local businesses and jobs that pay living wages would come back ~ provided 'we the people' also demanded that our congresscritters do their jobs or send them to obedience training and keep them on a short leash afterwards.

You can't grovel in front of something you want to change.

You are talking about the people in the bottom of our country. Did you watch the video? It is talking about our entire country.

No one has said, "Let's take their money and give it to other people". But if you look at Walmart for example. They are one of the richest families on the planet. Yet their employee's don't make a liveable wage.

There was a study done that suggested they could raise the salary of all their employees by three dollars and it would only cost consumers 50 cents a visit. This is assuming the owners can't take a cut in profits and have to pass it all on to the consumers.

If the people who make up the bottom of our country had jobs that provided livable wages it would be an incredible boost to our economy. Not only would they be able to pay rent, buy their own food, and spend their money at various other places/save it. But the government wouldn't have to give so much in Public Assistance either.

When we allow our countries biggest employers that has profits in the billions squeeze down so hard on our country that people feel they have to work off the clock to keep their job. A job that is toward the bottom of the barrel.

Inequality is what will come. And while it is true a "free" market will self correct. The self correcting of all the money being bundled a the very top and not circulating is the whole thing crumbling and starting over again. Hence why some people want to focus on it.

And what you said toward the bottom is a catch 22. Some people can only afford to work at walmart. Then when you have the people who are employed by walmart I imagine they do all their shopping their as well.

Those people squeezing down on the bottom, the ones who abuse tax loopholes, and the ones out sourcing all their jobs. Know what would happen if they left? Someone would replace them. And perhaps that person might give out livable wages to the people left behind. Perhaps that person will pay taxes.

If the people abusing the system, abusing the people, abusting their power, and commiting fraud all left. It wouldn't be the end for our country. Other people would fill the whole they leave behind.

If the people in this country would be more concerned with doing something than with spending money they aren't doing something to make (or on crap that they don't NEED), this wouldn't be such an issue.

People need food, shelter, and clothing. Many have that, but they feel they deserve better food, shelter, and clothing.

I'll admit that I like nice things. I like quality things. I don't go out and buy things and stuff them in closets. I don't buy something new every year ~ I use what I have until it wears out or breaks. I don't buy name brand clothes ~ and won't ... just the thought of crawling around in the pig pen when a pig is farrowing in \$300 jeans makes my head hurt! I grow the food we eat. I don't 'need' to go out to eat, to get drunk (I don't drink in any case), I don't use drugs, I watch movies on Netflix or not at all, I don't have cable (and don't miss it), etc.

Do I think everyone should make the same choices I made? No. What I do think is that if you 'want' things you don't 'need', you are suffering from envy and greed ... and possibly have some delusions of grandeur.

All that being said, when the economy doesn't support a living wage, when rent prices are artificially jacked up because of HUD, etc. and people are hungry, cold, overheated, or living on the street there are problems. I absolutely agree with that.

What I do NOT agree with is the idea that the people who have made money are obligated in some way to share that money with those who have not. The problem is not caused by some people (even a very few people) hoarding all the money.

Some of the problem stems from the very people who are doing without. Some made some very stupid and/or bad choices. Some just aren't as smart as others, some never learned to apply themselves, and some are plain lazy.

Others are caught in an ongoing cycle of abuse, poverty because of their location, or have had medical issues.

Out of all of those, ONLY the medical issues are not by an ultimate choice. And, ALL of the things I have listed except medical conditions are directly caused by government intrusion and design. Wages suck because of gov't. regulations. Same goes for job availability. Same goes for people making bad choices.

What? Huh? The government did that? Yup. It has taught people that no one is wrong, and that it will pay them for making bad choices ... even when they make the same ones over and over. The public schools run by the government teach this outright. So do our colleges. After 30+ years of this crap, we have a nation full of incompetents who are now being taught to blame the people who have made money. They are being taught this by the government that is out of money, and needs to keep the people it taught to be incompetent from gnawing on Uncle Sammy's ankles. Uncle Sammy says blame the rich (but don't look at the income of those who constitute Uncle Sammy!) so he's on a concerted campaign to tax them more, redistribute that wealth, and pacify 'the people'. Until the rich pack up and leave and take all their lovely money with them.

Considering it was also Uncle Sammy that taught the people to just be consumers instead of producers after the regulations ran business out of the country, none of this is surprising.

It's only going to get worse. Uncle Sammy really is broke. His credit rating is dropping like a lead balloon. His respect from others is in the trash can. And, his ability to just print more money is about to go bye bye. When that happens, a whole lot more bad things are going to get dumped on the people who keep holding their hands out thinking Uncle Sammy will fill them.

As for the video, and the observation that about the Walton's ~ how many people who feel that it's wrong for so few people to have so much money ALSO shop in their stores or work and shop there? If you don't like it, STOP helping them. Start paying attention to which corporations 'buy' your vote in Congress and start holding your congresscritter accountable. Tell THEM, every day if possible, that you want America back instead of the corporate run nightmare they have created. Don't just tell them, demand it.

The wealthy have no one to blame but 'you' for being wealthy. Boycott the corporations and the products they sell. Hit them where it absolutely will hurt. Get your food from local sources instead of Cargill and Tyson. Stop buying cheap 'made in China' crap. Buy American. Only. If everyone did this for even one month the effect on these companies would be staggering. If they did it for 6 months, the bastages wouldn't be able to afford a congresscritter. Yes ~ it really is that simple.

That is the choice Americans have. Suck it up, change your own habits, and demand that our elected servants start serving Americans ... or accept that 'you' are part of the problem, that 'you' enable the rich people you envy, and that 'you' don't actually care enough to fix the problem.

I have put my money where my mouth (fingers) is. I walk the walk. I have for almost 20 years now (living in cities ... I've only had my little farm for 3 years). I grew my own food. What I couldn't grow I bought from farmers and farmer's markets. I got meat from local farms. I bought in bulk and canned and dehydrated food in season rather than living on chemically treated imports. I didn't buy on credit or run up bills. I actually saved money instead of spending it. I chose the smallest dwelling I could cram my stuff into ~ and learned to get rid of crap I didn't need. That meant lower utility bills, less expenses for furniture, clothing, and 'stuff'. When I did buy something it was because I needed it, and I bought the best I could afford and made in America. Right now it 'costs' me less than \$300 a month to 'exist', and I am living a life I love. I made the choice to do so. For those who say not everyone has it so easy, I was dumped in a state where I knew no one, with three boys under the age of 5, with no car, and no money. I found a derelict trailer and convinced the owner to let me live there in exchange for cleaning it and repairing it until I got a job. I got three jobs. I walked to work (over 11 miles daily). I dragged groceries home in a little red wagon. My first purchase was beds and clothing, then a junk car. Once I had those I worried about getting the electricity turned on. So yeah ~ I've BEEN there. Hungry, poorer than dirt.

Did I get any help? Yup. One month of foodstamps (the emergency allotment) that was cut off when I got the first two jobs. I got books from the library for the repairs on the dinky trailer. I bought seeds with some of those food stamps and planted another garden. Some of my coworkers scrounged canning jars from yard sales for me before I got a vehicle. In any case, I didn't allow myself the 'luxury' of feeling sorry for myself ~ I just went to work on fixing the problems in my own little part of the world. I did that while dealing with RA and SLE (sans medication because of allergies). I did so because those boys were mine to raise, feed, clothe, and shelter ~ and because I deserved a much better set of living conditions. When I don't accept excuses, it's because I know that most excuses aren't anything BUT excuses.

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by JENN on Apr. 9, 2013 at 7:26 PM
1 mom liked this

If you didn't earn  or weren't born into it, what right to it do you have? Im sure as hell not giving up the little bit of money we make to make those who wont do for themselves more comfortable.