"Don't talk about the income divide..Poor people just ENVY the Rich!

It's kind of ironic that I now feel American's 2-party democracy system may be the hardest type of government to change in today's world. You know it's bad, but can't do jack squat about it.

 

Couldn't agree more. I also hate how people who are considered "outside the box" have no real legitimate chance at becoming president like Ron Paul.

 

Not only do we envy them, we should not question them about it either.

 

you think people should earn the same income?

 

jesus, non sequitur much?

 

If you are concerned/upset about disparate incomes, logically you think they should be less disparate, i.e. more equal.

 

Your first response to someone being concerned about the wealth gap/vanishing middle class shouldn't be, "so you think people should earn the same income?" if you want to be taken seriously.

 

wealth gap and income gap are not the same thing

 

In the context of this discussion, we're talking about wealth in terms of distribution, so... don't get too tripped up on semantics.

From the OP:

Plus, even if you wanted to split the hairs between literal 'wealth gap' and 'income gap', it's not like both aren't a problem and very much related to one another.

 

if the wealthy were more patriotic they would voluntarily pay more taxes.

 

I have to applaud the GOP/Fox spin on this one: "the bitter politics of envy!" It even matches Obama's bitter beer face, so they win again.

There's no real truth or legitimacy in calling it bitter or envious. Historically, nations and empires are on the brink of ruin when they reach the type of income (and wealth) disparities that we now "enjoy."

You just can't run a plumbing system if you keep all the water in one part of the house. It's like the rich have so tilted the system that you have 4-inch pipe in one room and 1/64" pipe for everyone else -- not very fun to try to get a glass of water for most of us. So if you want to call it "envy" when an increasing number of people can't even get by, despite working their tails off, and then we're told our government will fold because politicians keep giving the rich further tax breaks? Fine, call it what you want, but it's the most obvious and predictable reaction in the history of our species.

 

Trickle down economics will save us.

 

Nobody hates the rich, everybody wants to be rich. The problem is not millionaires or envy of millionaires. THE problem with wealth distribution in the US is the cumulative effect of money influencing politics, to direct the flow of wealth to themselves, making them wealthier, to spend more money on politics. After a period of time in this cycle, the general welfare of the people is severely under-represented compared with the welfare of the ultra-wealthy.

It's a simple and obvious concept. It is not evil, it is just a execution of self interest, where we have let the power of 'Money' supersede the power of the people. The Citizen's United decision has become the final straw in breaking the legitimacy of the democratic process in America.

The advantage of numbers is still there for The People. The ability to organize and inform is becoming easier everyday, But greed has no limits and is not restrained by morality. Money's power to buy people's actions is formidable, the appearance of disinformation as truth is indistinguishable, owning the traditional outlets of information means owning the narrative. You can direct or distract the national discussion as needed.

There absolutely is a conflict of interests and the ultra-rich are winning for now. Just go back and look and the charts and graphs in the Occupy thread to see who is becoming better off and who is becoming..extinct.

Here's a story from today's news (probably planted by anti-Romney forces)
that looks at the philosophical disconnect between the interests of capitalism and the interests of the The People:

What kind of capitalist is Romney?
By Michael Lind, Special to CNN
updated 8:28 AM EST, Fri January 13, 2012

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/opinion/lind-romney-bain/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

(CNN) -- In a presidential primary season distinguished so far by the absence of substantive debates, the controversy over whether Mitt Romney and his partners at Bain Capital should be considered job creators or job destroyers raises a profoundly important issue.

Beyond the concerns about the loss of American jobs to off-shoring or automation and the food-fight tactics of Romney's rivals is a legitimate question about what kind of capitalism 21st century Americans should want.
The choice is between "stakeholder capitalism" and "shareholder capitalism." According to the theory of stakeholder capitalism, corporations are and should be quasi-public entities with responsibilities to the nation-state and to the communities in which they are embedded. The corporation should make a profit and provide a fair return to investors. At the same time, workers who contribute their labor to the company have a legitimate interest in it as well as investors who provide capital. Managers serve the company and the country, not merely the investors.

In the theory of "shareholder capitalism," the corporation exists solely for the purpose of the investors, whom the managers serve as agents. In shareholder capitalism, short-term profits are the only goal, and if that means laying off workers instead of retraining them or reassigning them, breaking up the company and selling the assets to enrich private equity partners and shareholders, so be it.

The stakeholder conception of the firm is still the norm in Europe and East Asia, as it was in mid-20th century America. But beginning in the 1970s, the shareholder conception of capitalism prevailed in the United States.
Republicans urge no more Bain attacks Gingrich attacks Romney and Bain GOP field's faiths show acceptance

From the perspective of shareholder theory, private equity firms like Romney's are promoting efficiency, even as they make short-term profits by dismantling or destroying companies and laying off their workers.
From the different perspective of stakeholder capitalism, the emphasis on short-term profits for investors at the expense of all other considerations, including the well-being of employees and local communities, has been a tragic mistake.

What are the implications? If America continues to favor shareholder capitalism, there is no guarantee that policies to favor American business will preserve or create jobs or help anyone other than investors. On the other hand, if the United States were to move away from shareholder capitalism toward stakeholder capitalism, the law might limit hostile takeovers of companies or require workers and even local governments to have a say in corporate decisions. In some cases this might preserve jobs and factories at the expense of innovation and efficiency.

As a practitioner of the shareholder capitalism of the last generation, Mitt Romney as president would probably support policies that assume that the short-term interests of investors like Bain are identical to the long-term interests of the economy. By the same token, he would probably resist policies that increased the influence of managers, workers and local communities over companies at the expense of shareholders and financiers.
Nominated as secretary of Defense by President Eisenhower in 1953, former General Motors CEO Charles "Engine Charlie" Wilson, a symbol of old-fashioned stakeholder capitalism, told the Senate that "I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa."
Does Mitt Romney, today's symbol of shareholder capitalism, believe that what is good for Bain is good for America? If he wins his party's nomination and this year's presidential election, Americans will find out.

 

It's not simply a matter of income or wealth disparity, it's also a matter of lack of mobility--studies have shown that the income mobility of the U.S. is worse than that of the "socialist" EU countries.

I suspect this is often due to the factors discussed by Dubious above-- the wealthy gains power through political influences, and use such influences to achieve policies that favor maintaining or improving the position of the currently wealthy (which may or may not benefit the rest of the population). So, we end up deregulating Wall Street, give massive tax cuts to the wealthy (in terms of income, estate, and capital gains tax), and enact or fail to enact various other policies that tend to increase income/weath disparity and often at the same time decrease income/wealth mobility.

Here's one article discussing what happens when the governing elite is removed from the concerns of the non-wealthy: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/13/americas_dangerously_removed_elite/

Even Romney admits that it is a legitimate policy issue-- he just wants to limit the policy discussion to "quiet rooms," where it wouldn't hurt his chances of becoming the President.

 

Holy cow.

 

It's hard for the poor to become rich and it's hard for the rich to enter heaven.

Everyone in a casket is buried broke.

 

I'd rather not go to my casket earlier than necessary because I'm poor, or have my non-casket time be really crappy due to some fartknockering hoarders enabled by the government.

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oK3eP9rh4So#t=0m19s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Do you want extremely rich people who have everything to lose setting the rules of the game, or do you want somebody who has at least a basic conception of fairness to do so?

Easy question, easy answer. And that's basically what the difference between Dems & Repubs boils down to today.