The above begs to consider....Our nation's charter begins with "We the People," and the "one percent" lose sight of it. Otherwise ...
What is a taxpayer without representation but a disenfranchised citizen?
What are the "one percent" when they hold wealth as their virtue?
What is the economic standing of the disinfranchised?
How has "one percent" virtue grown in the last four decades?
Read on ... Income Growth For Bottom 90 Percent Of Americans Averaged Just $59 Over 4 Decades
Another day, another mind-blowing fact about the staggering difference between the haves and the have-nots. Incomes for the bottom 90 percent of Americans only grew by $59 on average between 1966 and 2011 (when you adjust those incomes for inflation), according to an analysis by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston for Tax Analysts. During the same period, the average income for the top 10 percent of Americans rose by $116,071, Johnston found.
To put that into perspective: if you say the $59 boost is equivalent to one inch, then the incomes of the top 10 percent of Americans rose by 168 feet, Johnston explained to Alternet last week.[...]
Incomes for the bottom fifth of Americans, for instance, grew about 20 percent between 1979 and 2007, according to a 2011 study from the Congressional Budget Office. During the same period, members of the top 1 percent saw their incomes grow by 275 percent.[...]
The six heirs to the Walmart fortune had a net worth equivalent to the bottom 41.5 percent of Americans combined in 2010, according to an analysis from Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute.
[End of excerpt]
There exists THAT kind of wealth, and Greensburg's "one percent" can't find it in their hearts to help the homeless have a place to stay warm and dry.
For shame. For shame.