Americans make up half of the world's richest 1%

Science Chic wrote:
[snip]

Occupy Wall St isn't about income distribution, it's about ending the unfairness and corruption that have been incorporated into our system so that we all have equal opportunity for prosperity (measured in social mobility). What each person does with that opportunity is up to them and their own work ethic, but they deserve a fair playing field before the game even begins.

It's the terrible distribution of income that gives sense to the use of the 99% slogan, every day more widely adopted by the thousands of people that have decided to support the movement, and this is what gives it a universal character.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jose-fern ... 80729.html

The Occupy Wall Street movement has just passed its two-month anniversary. The protesters' calls for greater income redistribution and their denunciations of capitalism have become shriller, and the protests are becoming more violent and destructive.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 25678.html

As ThinkProgress’ Zaid Jilani cataloged earlier this month, the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations have helped shift media coverage away from conservative concerns about the federal debt and deficit to the more progressive (and important) issues of unemployment and unequal income distribution.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/1 ... succeeded/

Occupy Wall Street protesters have been criticized for not being specific in their policy proposals, but they have offered some broad outlines for where they want to take the country. They want less income inequality and less money in politics.

http://www.newstudentunion.com/2011/11/ ... ll-street/

I could go on and on, but I'm not getting paid for this and you don't have the server space to contain the many examples I can show you of how you're dead wrong. Not even a good deflection on your part.

Are they for something or against something? I totally believe most of those camping on the street want wealth redistribution. Some of their demands include student debt cancelled. Rewarding the spenders and penalizing the savers.

There may be some groups who don't want wealth distribution, but I would say they are the TEA Party side of OWS.

Science Chic wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I could go on and on, but I'm not getting paid for this and you don't have the server space to contain the many examples I can show you of how you're dead wrong. Not even a good deflection on your part.

Yeah, and some Tea Partiers want to expel every Muslim from the U.S., doesn't mean that all Tea Partiers are racist a-holes.

Well... goody... another deflection... and a Tu Quoque fallacy just to add a little spice to your deflection. What ever SC. We are not talking about the Tea Party, and we are not talking about Muslims, or religion, or global warming (just had to get that in) or the color of the eye shadow you are wearing today. We are talking about income inequality and income redistribution which you claimed had nothing to do with the Occupy movement. You're wrong. Just accept that fact. Like I said, I could go on and on with quotes from the Occupy movement, right and left wing news sources and pundits, with statements that part of their mission, part of their demands is based on income inequality and income redistribution.

You blew it.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I've noticed that our resident progressive won't touch this topic with a ten foot pole. It's easy to complain and rant about the 1 percent when YOUR not one of them, but now, as this article points out, globally 1/2 of all Americans are part of a 1 percent. I wonder how our progressive "friends" intend to correct this problem? Or is it sudden;y not a problem? Waiting... crickets... of course.

Old news - weak sauce.

http://mylovematters.com/home/2011/10/10/the-1-solution-to-wiping-out-poverty/
http://anuncomplicatedmind.blogspot.com/2011/11/poverty-as-moral-dilemma.html
Just two of many that discuss the issue(s) of world poverty and hunger. The first was posted 10/10/2011 and the second was posted 11/17/2011; both early on in the genesis of the "Occupy" Movement.

Perhaps it is time for the more "conservative" among all of us to get off their high horses and actually contribute something to help end world poverty and hunger themselves. Like most Americans, I cherish the privilege of living in this country. Unlike some Americans, however, I'm not willing, nor will I ever be willing, to pawn off our individual responsibilities to try to care, to the best of my ability, for those most in need. Maybe we should be looking at our national spending priorities as a means to help wipe out world poverty and hunger, as well. Way back in 2002, the Congressional Budget Office prepared an estimate of the cost of activities related to possible military operations in Iraq: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/38xx/doc3822/09-30-Iraq.pdf . I believe it is safe to say the actuals have exceeded the estimate. When one compares the costs associated with this military action versus the estimates presented in the first link provided in this post regarding what it might cost to wipe out world poverty, my personal choice of what we should be focusing our attention and resources on is, to me at least, a no-brainer.

Perhaps a more realistic assessment of wiping out world poverty can be found herein:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080519030557AALuxn9 how much to eradicate poverty? The answer is unknown; but I think deep down most of us believe that our governments could be doing more - a lot more. Any step in the right direction will bring us closer to reducing the impact of poverty around the world. Imagine the impact of diverting just 1% of the cost of the Iraq war to social construction, instead of destruction! The burden may not rest completely with the western nations, but if we don't start helping more constructively - who will?

Methinks your own "crickets" are chirping.

Science Chic wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Science Chic wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I could go on and on, but I'm not getting paid for this and you don't have the server space to contain the many examples I can show you of how you're dead wrong. Not even a good deflection on your part.

Yeah, and some Tea Partiers want to expel every Muslim from the U.S., doesn't mean that all Tea Partiers are racist a-holes.

Well... goody... another deflection... and a Tu Quoque fallacy just to add a little spice to your deflection. What ever SC. We are not talking about the Tea Party, and we are not talking about Muslims, or religion, or global warming (just had to get that in) or the color of the eye shadow you are wearing today. We are talking about income inequality and income redistribution which you claimed had nothing to do with the Occupy movement. You're wrong. Just accept that fact. Like I said, I could go on and on with quotes from the Occupy movement, right and left wing news sources and pundits, with statements that part of their mission, part of their demands is based on income inequality and income redistribution.

You blew it.

It's not a deflection, it's a comparison meant to prove a point, sorry you missed it.

It's a comparison that has NOTHING to do with the point or topic. Lady Jazzer is the Tu Quoque fallacy Queen around here... you can't even hold a candle to her. Stop while you have time. And now... how many other references do you need before you'll admit that one of the mission of the Occupy movement is income equality and redistribution?

zhawke wrote: Perhaps it is time for the more "conservative" among all of us to get off their high horses and actually contribute something to help end world poverty and hunger themselves.

I got halfway through my spaghetti dinner last night, and was getting full. Then I remembered the words of my dear departed Mother "There's people starving in..." (the location changed according to the nationality of the dish being served).

So, in honor of all the starving people in Sicily, I ate the rest of the spaghetti.

World poverty? One interesting change taking place these days is as the rate of child mortality falls, so has the birth rate. The original principal is that you have 5 children and maybe only 2 of them survive to adulthood to take care of you. So due to this and increasing urbanization, the birthrate around the world is declining except in Muslim nations. This should help to alleviate poverty and these developing countires are seeing higher growth rates than stagnant US and Europe.

And one other interesting trend, in Asian and India, females were being aborted so they could just have boys. But this trend seems to be reversing among families that are better off. Some believe that daughters with educations will do a better job taking care of thier parents. For countries without social security this can be a big factor.

Science Chic wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I could go on and on, but I'm not getting paid for this and you don't have the server space to contain the many examples I can show you of how you're dead wrong. Not even a good deflection on your part.

Yeah, and some Tea Partiers want to expel every Muslim from the U.S., doesn't mean that all Tea Partiers are racist a-holes.

Never heard of that one SC...do you have a source for that?