Building up the poverty stricken here in the US.

[THE Bigzoman]

they're investing in derivatives and conquering companies in order to sell out american labour to cheap slaves over seas. but this is good and you only need worship the free marketeers so they may spray a few golden showers your way.

For the so called "slaves" in foreign countries, what is the alternative to their job?

[Shakari]

Yes lets tax the rich to feed the poor because who needs rich people to invest and hire poor people, we can all just live off welfare and shop at walmart and use obama phones.

GO LRN TO ECONOMICS

Legalize pot. Let poor people grow pot. Poor people now rich. Thanks free market.

You need to learn a bit more about reality imo, the rich don't invest in anything that does not pay back huge profits to themselve and they pay the absolute bare minimum to achieve it, so they ain't doing anyone but themselves any favours. You basically saying: Look here's 1000 new jobs, you can't afford to live of the wage I'm giving directly but hey I'm providing new jobs .... like it or lump it.

It just adds to the problem, and besides your idea of economics clearly isn't working at all as 80% of the US's money is tied up in the top 1% of the countries population ie the rich. Didn't used to be that extreme but its is now and its getting worse.

As it is the rich just get richer and the poor either stay poor or become destitute...

Go free market ... yeah not.

So yes lets tax the rich as they have more money than they can spend in 2 life times let alone one.

And its funny the only people who are against any help for the 99% of the other people who live in your country are the 1% who hold all the power and money despite being easily able to afford it.

[Deleted]

Firstly, investments aren't always directed at more labor being hired. Some are invested in capital growth, which can actually have the opposite effect.

Secondly, even if investment was directly brought into recruiting more labor, it doesn't mean that it's invested in the domestic labor within a country.

Finally, there really isn't a debate concerning the wage gap from economists as far as I can see. At least not in the sense that people tend to portray,

I could use Wallstreet's success to claim that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the economy.

That is basically what leftists are doing in order to cover for Obama.

Banks are sitting on tons of money. Why should they invest that money in an unstable market? Would you risk your money if there was no stability? Would you risk your money if suddenly without warning the government decides to tax you an extra 20%?

There is no clear direction from Washington at the moment so investors are understandably apprehensive. After all, it's their money.

[drwelfare]

You want to know why people spend the entirety of their food stamps each month? Because if they didn't, then their monthly amount would be reduced. How do I know? Because I was on food stamps for 4 months while trying to find a job after being terminated from the job that allowed me to move out of my parents' house. I got $300, and I spent all $300 in 1 day for the entire month, on food for myself and my dogs. I even went to various church food banks. Only did that for 2 months, because I got tired of getting expired food and moldy bread (I got 1 year old peanut butter, 8 month old meat, etc). I tried to get on welfare (because I had no income, and was denied unemployment), but was refused because I was a single man with no children.

That is why they spend it all each month. I was told by the food stamp office people to make sure I spent it all because if I didn't, my food stamps would be reduced.

Is it a flaw in the system or their to ensure dependency on the program.

Reminds me of a family member who was going to a union apprentice program, if he takes it his government assistance gets cut off and he makes more on that than he would in the union program.

[Spiffums]

Yes lets tax the rich to feed the poor because who needs rich people to invest and hire poor people, we can all just live off welfare and shop at walmart and use obama phones.

GO LRN TO ECONOMICS

Legalize pot. Let poor people grow pot. Poor people now rich. Thanks free market.

Without a support price it would turn out like Tobacco. It's not much of a cash crop anymore in America and Pot would suffer the same fate.

[Kraenen]

For the so called "slaves" in foreign countries, what is the alternative to their job?

tribalism is actually a much more viable alternative to corporate expansionism in these countries. i've seen the damage done and the land raped; some things that wouldn't have happened if the society had been much more *gasp* conservative and stuck to their values, and stuck to their way of life instead of being conscripted into the dependent, layered society that we have. Call them free all you want, it's almost a tautology at this point to say that. They just don't have the power the multinational corps have, and if everyone is free, the strongest and most powerful are always going to end up the most free.

[Wells]

The Government has been buying out stock to make it seem the economy is getting better.

Citation required.

[Arcanist]

The US has the second highest child poverty rate in the developed world. So much for teh most freest, most bestest country in teh wurld.

The fact that the question of whether or not children should be fed decent food and get an adequate education, is still being asked by our enlightened center-right politicians is actually pretty disgusting.

Child poverty and widespread ignorance sure is congruent with a "free society!"

[Zython]

I could use Wallstreet's success to claim that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the economy.

That is basically what leftists are doing in order to cover for Obama.

So what you're saying is that supply-side economics don't work.

We've been trying to tell you all that for about 30 years now. Of course, like Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Rights; conservatives fight against it tooth and nail, until it proves popular, at which point they take credit for it.

Banks are sitting on tons of money. Why should they invest that money in an unstable market? Would you risk your money if there was no stability? Would you risk your money if suddenly without warning the government decides to tax you an extra 20%?

News flash: There's always risk. We shouldn't give rich people free money because risk is "scary". If they don't want to deal with it, maybe they should hand control over to people who do.

[Hooked]

Poverty in china is making less than $1.50 a day. In the usa its making less than 16,000 dollars a year. I feel sorry for the poor in america, I truly do, it must be so hard.

[Resies]

Poverty in china is making less than $1.50 a day. In th usa its making less than 16,000 dollars a year. I feel sorry fo the poor in america, I truly do, it must be so hard.

people have it worse else where, so you can't have any problems

[Zannis]

Yes lets tax the rich to feed the poor because who needs rich people to invest and hire poor people, we can all just live off welfare and shop at walmart and use obama phones.

GO LRN TO ECONOMICS

Legalize pot. Let poor people grow pot. Poor people now rich. Thanks free market.

Pot industry employs tens of thousands, leaving bulk of 46 million under the poverty level untouched (2012 census figure).

[Kulanae]

You can't give people things......they need to earn it. If you want a positive example of how a neighborhood can rebuild itself with desire and hard work coupled with private investment, look no further than Harlem. It is an awesome success story.

[Deleted]

I say we should tax the rich more in favor of the poor, all this bullshit about rich people creating jobs is what it is: bullshit. Rich bankaccounts mean millions of dollars sitting around in huge stacks doing nothing but becoming bigger (out of the little mans pocket).

Lets grab the torches and pitchforks and do some revolution folks!

For the so called "slaves" in foreign countries, what is the alternative to their job?

Another job.

And its funny the only people who are against any help for the 99% of the other people who live in your country are the 1% who hold all the power and money despite being easily able to afford it.

Or people who see themselves as temporarely poor millionares. Wich is a pretty common thing in the US I think.

[Gheld]

The problem is that the so called "elite" of our society have completely taken the formula for "hard work pays off" out of whack.

Let's just say that the average labourer handles 20,000 pounds of goods per day (at a medium personal income of roughly 40K/year)

Now, in order for me to believe that hard work pays off, then somebody who makes 10 billion dollars a year would have to do about 250,000 times as much labour as the average labourer. Or roughly 5 billion pounds of goods a day. Enough to fill 100,000 45 foot intermodal containers with goods. A typical modern container ship holds about 16,000 TEU of stock, or divide by 2, 8000 40 footers, but we'll cut them some slack, for doing all that extra work.

So in order for hard work to pay off, linearly, when I see multibillionaires doing the equivalent workload to being out there towing 12.5 container ships across the ocean PER DAY 5 days a week soley on their own muscle power, only then will I say "THOSE GUYS ARE RICH BECAUSE THEY WORK THAT MUCH HARDER. STUPID LAZY POOR PEOPLE."

Other than that, they are delusional if the think that come the day their ivory tower teeters and falls, the people rushing to them are coming to their aid. Because really they'll just be coming to pluck their carcasses clean.

[Arcanist]

The problem is that the so called "elite" of our society have completely taken the formula for "hard work pays off" out of whack.

Let's just say that the average labourer handles 20,000 pounds of goods per day (at a medium personal income of roughly 40K/year)

Now, in order for me to believe that hard work pays off, then somebody who makes 10 billion dollars a year would have to do about 250,000 times as much labour as the average labourer. Or roughly 5 billion pounds of goods a day. Enough to fill 100,000 45 foot intermodal containers with goods. A typical modern container ship holds about 16,000 TEU of stock, or divide by 2, 8000 40 footers, but we'll cut them some slack, for doing all that extra work.

So in order for hard work to pay off, linearly, when I see multibillionaires doing the equivalent workload to being out there towing 12.5 container ships across the ocean PER DAY 5 days a week soley on their own muscle power, only then will I say "THOSE GUYS ARE RICH BECAUSE THEY WORK THAT MUCH HARDER. STUPID LAZY POOR PEOPLE."

Other than that, they are delusional if the think that come the day their ivory tower teeters and falls, the people rushing to them are coming to their aid. Because really they'll just be coming to pluck their carcasses clean.

Hard work often does not pay off. Success is mostly determined by being in the right place at the right time, knowing the right people, and being born into the right starting conditions.

That's the problem with the protestant work ethic. It exalts suffering and casts poverty as noble. All of this twists people into voting against their own interests.

[Gheld]

Hard work often does not pay off. Success is mostly determined by being in the right place at the right time, knowing the right people, and being born into the right starting conditions.

That's the problem with the protestant work ethic. It exalts suffering and casts poverty as noble. All of this twists people into voting against their own interests.

No. It's about coming up with an idea first, and then applying intellectual property laws to physical goods in order to monopolize that idea.

Or it's about using wealth as a political influence in claiming resources on, and beneath publicly owned land.

[Cybran]

I say we should tax the rich more in favor of the poor

Because that worked out so great for France, right? Now their president is forced to beg companies to hire poeople during his new year's address.

[Dezerte]

Because that worked out so great for France, right? Now their president is forced to beg companies to hire poeople during his new year's address.

Implying that the way France did it is the only way.

[Grizlus90]

Cute. But by your logic the richer the richest are, the most jobs will be created. Yet we see the opposite.

Therefore, yes, tax the rich. They can afford it. Tax them so damn much that they are forced to employ people to reduce their taxes. Problem solved.

Or to the point where they move themselves oversees as well as their business and then who will we tax?