http://www.theguardian.com/money/20...wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report? This has gone from an American problem to a world wide one, and it could have devastating affects if some better form of balance isn't established. It comes down to numbers, and you can call it what you want, envy, greed or what ever but if people feel put down long enough there will be an uprising, but this one could be the thing that tips off WW3. This is going global, and if some are terrified of a one world government, then you better pull your collective heads out of your rears and get with reality. There are far more poor and underpaid people out there than there are mega wealthy, and even if they get a platoon of people to guard themselves, it won't matter one whit if a 100,000 people storm a building because they are hungry, cold and feel outcast. At that point it comes down to, death may seem like a release and weapons will strike no fear into them. History is repeating itself, the mess that was the great depression is setting itself up, the only thing holding it back at this moment are the few social programs keeping the populous at simmer instead of a full boil. If the GoP gets their way in the long run and cuts off the final strings of the old Welfare programs, they better invest in bunkers and hideouts because it's going to get ugly fast. The race for greed will be their own downfall.
Not Hilary, but Bernie would. That's if we vote out the big business suits and put real people into office. We don't need Trumps, or Romneys. We do not want businessmen as our political leaders. They are self serving and will only advocate policy that helps themselves. We need to stop the talk that electing these guys will help America. You do not run a country like you run a business.
The GOP knows better not to do away with welfare because many urban areas would be out of control due to civil unrest.
Hate to break this to you but America didn't create the poor rich class structure. America just made it so that we all have a fighting chance in deciding which one we want to be on. You think these socialist communist (*)(*)(*)(*)holes don't have their 1%? Please tell me you don't actually think that, because they damn well do. The difference between them and the U.S. is a person born in that structure will never become the next millionaire because the government will assume control of evey dollar he/she generates. You peolpe think electing a socialist wealth redistributer means you all get rich? You wont! You'll just have more peolpe to join you at your level because socialism and communism brings everybody but the ruling elite down to the lowest common denominator.
So if the rich lost all their money and this inequality between the haves and have nots didn't exist anymore, the poor being no better off at all, would you still be complaining? No, of course not. Jealousy is at the root of this left-wing argument.
I wonder how they are calculating this. Is this a measure of personal income, or is it also a measure of the amount these wealthy have control of, but which is actually in the form of infrastructure we all have access to, such as banks, factories, hotels, etc etc?
The GOP knows that putting more and more people into welfare as the Democrats do with their policies leads to anarchy and that their policies enable people to build their own wealth and pull themselves out of poverty. The Democrats believe that the more people they push into poverty and welfare and government dependence the more voters they have and stirring up the envy and jealousy of the "evil rich" is one of the tools to use. If you work hard all your life and save putting your future ahead of your instant gratification with "stuff" and end up with about $500,000 in savings having paid off your house and any other debts to retire upon, why should you care how much wealth the top 1% has, it has nothing to do with you and your success and taking responsibility for yourself.
Notice how these left-wing socialists are not happy about it simply being a problem within America, or a problem among developed countries? No, they are upset that the rich people around the world are better off than the poor people around the world. What they want is a worldwide redistribution. They want the poor in America, who are rich compared to almost everywhere else in the world, to be made even worse off when they are forced down to the halfway point between themselves and African bush people who live on a few dollars a year.
Ayuh,..... Got a question,..... When, durin' the entire history of mankind, has this been any different than it is in this report of yer's,..??..??
They also do not want to consider that most of the poor are poor because they live in destitute countries run by corrupt big governments who keep them poor. The poor in this country would be in the top 25% worldwide I would imagine if not higher. Why does some rich person in American get blamed for that worldwide poverty and somehow become the subject of some income redistribution to those countries?
