Five ways income inequality happened, and will continue

Nov 1, 2011 Full story: news.yahoo.com 6

As if on cue for an Occupy Wall Street commercial, the latest Congressional Budget Office report highlighted the large crevasse between the upper 1 percent of U.S. households and the rest of us. When it comes to income inequality, this is what U.S. politicians should be digesting now.

(thx, tc) Full Story

“FREEDOM”

Since: Dec 08

Bethel NY

#1 Nov 1, 2011
Only one counts...UNEMPLOYMENT 9'1% and STUCK.No Hope of getting better..with no leader!

OBAMAS SUPPORTERS in the streets now..If the BASTARDS had a job,like the world before OBAMA...This would not be!...

ITS THE FRIGGING SCREWED UP OBAMA ECONOMY STUPID!
DENG

Nanjing, China

#2 Nov 1, 2011
"As if on cue for an Occupy Wall Street commercial, the latest Congressional Budget Office report highlighted the large crevasse between the upper 1 percent of U.S. households and the rest of us."

IT'S DEFINED BY KARL MARX: CLASS WARFARE
Ron Paul Revolution

Nantong, China

#3 Nov 2, 2011
DENG wrote:
"As if on cue for an Occupy Wall Street commercial, the latest Congressional Budget Office report highlighted the large crevasse between the upper 1 percent of U.S. households and the rest of us."
IT'S DEFINED BY KARL MARX: CLASS WARFARE
Correct. In the U.S. there are several classes. The impoverished, lower middle classe, upper middle class, wealthy, super-wealthy. That what happens under free market capitalism.

Under Marxist-Maoist socialism in China you have three classes -- impoverished (government factory serfs), lower middle class (in the private sector), super-wealthy (in the private sector.
Ron Paul Les Paul RuPaul

Miami, FL

#4 Nov 2, 2011
So the idea of this article is that since the 99% are getting screwed by taxes, so should the top 1%?

How about giving the deals given to the 1% to the bottom 99%, and cutting spending accordingly?

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#5 Nov 2, 2011
"You will notice that the Occupy Wall Street crowds -- and the progressives who support them -- focus on bringing the wealthy down to earth rather than lifting the 99 percent. They have a nearly religious belief that too much wealth is fundamentally immoral and unhealthy for society. The economic systems they cheer on would coerce downward mobility for the sake of equality but ignore prosperity for the people they claim to represent.

If progressive were interested in mitigating inequality, they would support the dynamism of free markets to allow the merit of ideas, products and services to win the day rather than stifle companies and pick winners in the name of imagined "progress." Yes, "too big to fail" means banks, but it also means union-backed bureaucracies, political parties, car companies and green energy -- and more.

If they were interested in spreading wealth, they would support lifting barriers that inhibit markets and make life difficult for entrepreneurs and businesses rather than spreading the destructive notion that life can only be "fair" if we rely on dependency and entitlement and tear down those who have more." David Harsanyi
Ron Paul Revolution

Nantong, China

#6 Nov 2, 2011
GoodNewz wrote:
"You will notice that the Occupy Wall Street crowds -- and the progressives who support them -- focus on bringing the wealthy down to earth rather than lifting the 99 percent. They have a nearly religious belief that too much wealth is fundamentally immoral and unhealthy for society. The economic systems they cheer on would coerce downward mobility for the sake of equality but ignore prosperity for the people they claim to represent.
If progressive were interested in mitigating inequality, they would support the dynamism of free markets to allow the merit of ideas, products and services to win the day rather than stifle companies and pick winners in the name of imagined "progress." Yes, "too big to fail" means banks, but it also means union-backed bureaucracies, political parties, car companies and green energy -- and more.
If they were interested in spreading wealth, they would support lifting barriers that inhibit markets and make life difficult for entrepreneurs and businesses rather than spreading the destructive notion that life can only be "fair" if we rely on dependency and entitlement and tear down those who have more." David Harsanyi
Correct. Contrary to popular opinion, socialism, especially in a Fascist or Communist dictatorship model, does not 'equalize' wealth for anyone. All socialism is is state-centric capitalism instead of free market capitalism. But it's all capitalism. The only thing socialism has ever been known to do, scientifically and historically, is move redistribute that wealth from the free market elite to the socialist elite. But poor is still poor and always poor in either context. All socialism does is take the rest of the wealth away from those who were not quite as poor as the socialist elite that they needed to be -- destruction of upper middle class.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Warren Buffett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ronnie Chan Chichung's donations to university,... Sep 16 Paul Dornian 1
Top 9 Vacation Destinations For Wall Street Geeks Sep 12 Mostafa 1
Will the Prez Call Out...The Oracle? Sep 4 Burger King 5
Market Chatter- Corporate finance press digest Aug 26 Robert Burns 1
Praxair: The Value Of Pricing Power Aug '14 art 1
Hetty Green's ways similar to Buffett's (Aug '12) Jul '14 SLIF 7
Billionaires call on Congress to 'roll out the ... Jul '14 Amigo 24
•••
•••

Warren Buffett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••