"incestuous corporate boards" happens to be the best way to describe the phenomenon. Why resort to slanderous insinuations?

Did you read the the second link? Here it is again:

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21631

Furthermore, the poverty rate decreased over the time Webb himself mentioned, making his points irrelevant. Here is that link again:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3toPresent.jpg

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

But the poverty rate has jumped since Bush has been in office.

The US economy as a whole has grown, so naturally there is a tendency for poverty to drop. But the rich have increased their wealth at a ridiculously higher rate than the poor in the last few decades. Years of Republican tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations have been some of the main culprits in this phenomenon.






So you would be perfectly happy if in the next 10 years the top 10%'s income tripled and the poverty rate went down .01%? If not you should rethink your statement.

Yes, and I'm not rich and don't expect to be. What matters is helping the poor, not hurting the rich.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Then by all means, risk your earning power on a poor person!

Why do so many wish to punish success, and reward failure? This is goofy. Reward success! Discourage failure! Our economy is the envy of the world because we do reward success.

Oh well, move to Cuba and make your wealth there. At least you will receive a government rice cooker, and the finest in medical care Cuba can provide.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Keeping the ratio between the wealthiest and the average worker constant over time does not hurt the rich. Advocating favorable policies for the rich that allow them to continue the expanding gap in unfairly helping them. CEOs didn't work any harder 40 years ago than they do now. Since another poster complained I left out athletes and Hollywood types, I'll include them. Pro athletes and actors/actresses are essentially the same now as they were 40 years ago. Some might argue that athletes worked harder back them. The only difference is the wealth.

And yes, the gap between rich and poor is very relevant. If the rich are to get richer, let's cut the poverty rate in half.

The figure is calculated as:

total federal income taxes paid by top 1% / total AGI of top 1%

If this figure was calculated based on gross income (not Adjusted Gross Income), the denominator would be much larger for the top 1% as compared with the lower brackets, since AGI is the result after deductions. Thus, the "1/3" would be much smaller.

that ensures that the fruits of America's expanding prosperity are increasingly funnelled to the wealthiest Americans, we are essentially hurting the poor and middle class by depriving them of the prosperity they've contributed to our country. It's folly to assume that economic growth is dependent on this expanding gap.

All other things being equal, attempts to redistribute wealth discourage both the rich and the poor from producing and hurt the overall economy, thus making not only the rich poorer but also making the poor poorer. If the goal is to punish the wealthy, then socialism works, but it also hurts the poor. The bottom line is this: Would you rather raise the standard of living of everyone or lower everyone's standard of living? I choose the former.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Okay...so you think it would be just fine if the average American was living in nearly same conditions as in the early 1900s while the richest Americans were all living like kings. As long as the poor were slightly better off then they were 100 years ago then anyone who talked about class inequality is a fool.


You are attacking the straw man by claiming I want to punish the rich. I don't want to take money from the rich but I don't mind doing it if it helps the poor.