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

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.

What is your solution that we can specifically cover. What I mean is can we pick one part of the world to start at and then go from there. We can select a continent if you would like and then further discuss, or select one of our own 50 states? Do we have an actual desire or willingness to possibly give up what is necessary to help others? I am not sure from reading your post how to engage? Maybe I woke up way to early today (0400)? The yahoo article indicates investment and debt eradication but would presume that there are the unknowns attached to this type of assistance. Does it simply come down to not talking about it and simply giving our help, individually, to others on a personal level. Giving up our current lives to live the life of a missionary for example is not for all of us. Do we simply live on hope, faith and believe we are being directed by a greater power when helping others or is it our hearts. Maybe this is all unattainable and pure bulls**t since we are nothing more than mortal beings.

Sh** I am rambling now and have know f'ing idea where my mind is at this time......So without blabbing any further....

Anything we try to do to "help" the rest of the world will only be done buy borrowing more money and making our children's futures even more bleak. We can thank capitalism for our better standard of living and we can kiss that standard of living goodbye (and our ability to help) as we more further from it.

AspenValley wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I wonder how our progressive "friends" intend to correct this problem? Or is it sudden;y not a problem? Waiting... crickets... of course.

My economic ideas are not exactly "progressive", but I will comment on your question.

It's not a "problem" that some people are richer than others, per se. What is a problem is when trends come into play that promote a smaller and smaller group controlling more and more of the nation and world's resources. Because what happens then is that social mobility, the ability to start at the bottom and through hard work move up in society becomes limited and eventually impossible. I wouldn't like to see America resemble India or Brazil, with a few families controlling unimaginable wealth while millions and millions live in squaor and semi-starvation with little to no hope of improving their lot.

I wouldn't suggest that it is any kind of answer to simply confiscate the wealth of the top 1%, whether that be of the nation or of the world, but I DO think there is ample evidence that supporting policy and institutions that tend to flatten out the wealth distribution curve a little leads to a culture where people who work hard can be assured of having a fairly decent existence and some measure of economic security, along with a chance for rising economic status for those with talent and ambition. That is increasingly untrue in this country. There are millions of working families today who through lack of affordability of healthcare, for example, risk being thrown into poverty and crushing debt from a single catastrophic illness. There are millions of working families in America today who are one paycheck from economic disaster or whose earnings are not enough to lift them out of actual povery. To me, that is the sign of a society that has gotten out of balance. Espeically when you consider that the productivity of American workers has gone up and up for decades, yet their share of the economic fruit of that labor has remained stagnant or actually increased.

I don't say the solution to that problem is to just raise taxes on the rich, but I do think if we don't pay more attention to systematic destruction of the working and middle classes by the wealthy, our children and grandchildren may think of us the greatest of all fools.

Personally I just don't know how you can accomplish some type of equality without making others or someone feel unequal? What would be equal, 100% of the population, 85% I just can't believe that eqaulity can be achieved no matter what we try to accomplish.

"flatten out the wealth distribution curve a little" - define "a little" and I can guarantee that your little might be too big or not little enough?

Example 1:
We seem to have discussed health care to death on this site, yet are we ready to possibly have DNA databases further determine the type of coverage a person receives or does not receive or for that matter who can or cannot be born?

I don't want to start a war here just curious how others think compared to the "nuts as a squirrel" on this end...

LLIB wrote: Anything we try to do to "help" the rest of the world will only be done buy borrowing more money and making our children's futures even more bleak. We can thank capitalism for our better standard of living and we can kiss that standard of living goodbye (and our ability to help) as we more further from it.

Unfortunately I would have to agree with you as stated....

correction:
Unfortunately I would have to agree with your statement.

So if wealth redistribution is the goal, just where do you want to start and how do you intend to implement it? I also take it that wealth distribution begins with artificially pumping up the wages of jobs that millions can do. The problem with all this caring, is that it never works. There are good reasons why people remain poor, be it economically, materialistically etc. within any one country... it's because they choose to do so or don't know how improve their lot in life. Somehow people think that we can control things such as being poor, uneducated, etc. You simply can't. Not everyone is talented enough to play a professional sport, not everyone is smart enough for college, not everyone is motivated enough to work their way up social classes, yet they want all that more talented, smart and motivated people attain. Give everyone an opportunity for college, "leave no student behind" are idealistic and have only served to lower the standards of an education system so that those who simply don't have the smarts can get through college. You also can't motivate people who would rather spend the winter goofing off because the only want to work the summer.
The US is not Ethiopia yet in terms of problems in sustaining basic life. I can see where basic aid to help these people fend for themselves is warranted, but first you need to solve the social strife that keeps these people from benefiting from such aid. High reproduction rates in hunger-ravaged countries are typical reproductive strategies whose purpose is for the species to survive. Fecundity is a fundamental strategy of many different life forms where infant mortality is high because of environmental conditions. Regardless of the clothes we wear and intellect possessed, we are just like other animals as far as nature is concerned we live within the constraints nature imposes on us. It does not care if you are rich or poor, it simply acts and that goes against the grain of all compassionate beings, meaning that you are fighting a loosing battle because you are not going to change how nature behaves and doles out living conditions.

znovkovic wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I wonder how our progressive "friends" intend to correct this problem? Or is it sudden;y not a problem? Waiting... crickets... of course.

My economic ideas are not exactly "progressive", but I will comment on your question.

It's not a "problem" that some people are richer than others, per se. What is a problem is when trends come into play that promote a smaller and smaller group controlling more and more of the nation and world's resources. Because what happens then is that social mobility, the ability to start at the bottom and through hard work move up in society becomes limited and eventually impossible. I wouldn't like to see America resemble India or Brazil, with a few families controlling unimaginable wealth while millions and millions live in squaor and semi-starvation with little to no hope of improving their lot.

I wouldn't suggest that it is any kind of answer to simply confiscate the wealth of the top 1%, whether that be of the nation or of the world, but I DO think there is ample evidence that supporting policy and institutions that tend to flatten out the wealth distribution curve a little leads to a culture where people who work hard can be assured of having a fairly decent existence and some measure of economic security, along with a chance for rising economic status for those with talent and ambition. That is increasingly untrue in this country. There are millions of working families today who through lack of affordability of healthcare, for example, risk being thrown into poverty and crushing debt from a single catastrophic illness. There are millions of working families in America today who are one paycheck from economic disaster or whose earnings are not enough to lift them out of actual povery. To me, that is the sign of a society that has gotten out of balance. Espeically when you consider that the productivity of American workers has gone up and up for decades, yet their share of the economic fruit of that labor has remained stagnant or actually increased.

I don't say the solution to that problem is to just raise taxes on the rich, but I do think if we don't pay more attention to systematic destruction of the working and middle classes by the wealthy, our children and grandchildren may think of us the greatest of all fools.

Personally I just don't know how you can accomplish some type of equality without making others or someone feel unequal? What would be equal, 100% of the population, 85% I just can't believe that eqaulity can be achieved no matter what we try to accomplish.

"flatten out the wealth distribution curve a little" - define "a little" and I can guarantee that your little might be too big or not little enough?

Example 1:
We seem to have discussed health care to death on this site, yet are we ready to possibly have DNA databases further determine the type of coverage a person receives or does not receive or for that matter who can or cannot be born?

I don't want to start a war here just curious how others think compared to the "nuts as a squirrel" on this end...

Agreed. There is no such thing as equality. No two people are created equally or we would be clones. Indeed ambiguous terms mean different things to different people depending on whether they are looking up or down on a particular situation.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: So if wealth redistribution is the goal, just where do you want to start and how do you intend to implement it? I also take it that wealth distribution begins with artificially pumping up the wages of jobs that millions can do. The problem with all this caring, is that it never works. There are good reasons why people remain poor, be it economically, materialistically etc. within any one country... it's because they choose to do so or don't know how improve their lot in life. Somehow people think that we can control things such as being poor, uneducated, etc. You simply can't. Not everyone is talented enough to play a professional sport, not everyone is smart enough for college, not everyone is motivated enough to work their way up social classes, yet they want all that more talented, smart and motivated people attain. Give everyone an opportunity for college, "leave no student behind" are idealistic and have only served to lower the standards of an education system so that those who simply don't have the smarts can get through college. You also can't motivate people who would rather spend the winter goofing off because the only want to work the summer.
The US is not Ethiopia yet in terms of problems in sustaining basic life. I can see where basic aid to help these people fend for themselves is warranted, but first you need to solve the social strife that keeps these people from benefiting from such aid. High reproduction rates in hunger-ravaged countries are typical reproductive strategies whose purpose is for the species to survive. Fecundity is a fundamental strategy of many different life forms where infant mortality is high because of environmental conditions. Regardless of the clothes we wear and intellect possessed, we are just like other animals as far as nature is concerned we live within the constraints nature imposes on us. It does not care if you are rich or poor, it simply acts and that goes against the grain of all compassionate beings, meaning that you are fighting a loosing battle because you are not going to change how nature behaves and doles out living conditions.

I agree! The scary part of this would be to actually implement a DNA database to determine who gets what and why bother giving birth to those who don't have the right genetics? I wonder who would determine and develop such a system.... :Whistle

Well, now that we've got an admission that not everybody is "created equal" we can tone down the bullcrap that everyone can hit the job-market with the same skills, smarts, education, and creativeness to be CEO's, or self-employed, or climb up the "ladder" based on their industriousness... Thanks for pointing that out. I've been saying that for years. Unfortunately, conservatives are incapable of understanding it.

LadyJazzer wrote: Well, now that we've got an admission that not everybody is "created equal" we can tone down the bullcrap that everyone can hit the job-market with the same skills, smarts, education, and creativeness to be CEO's, or self-employed, or climb up the "ladder" based on their industriousness... Thanks for pointing that out. I've been saying that for years. Unfortunately, conservatives are incapable of understanding it.

Everyone is "created equal", but not with equal skills. Everyone has the opportunity to succeed. No, everyone may not be a genius, nor have super skills allowing them to do the few jobs that require those skills. I do agree that not everyone has the same opportunity for a good education, but that is the fault of the democrats and the teachers unions. If we all had a voucher for whatever school we wanted to go to, everyone COULD get the best education.

No, not everyone can be a CEO, but to many of us, that isn't "Success". I know lots of people who make a decent living, will never be rich, but are very happy. $$ doesn't=happiness. If you work hard, you will make a decent living in this country.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Well, now that we've got an admission that not everybody is "created equal" we can tone down the bullcrap that everyone can hit the job-market with the same skills, smarts, education, and creativeness to be CEO's, or self-employed, or climb up the "ladder" based on their industriousness... Thanks for pointing that out. I've been saying that for years. Unfortunately, conservatives are incapable of understanding it.

Everyone is "created equal", but not with equal skills. Everyone has the opportunity to succeed. No, everyone may not be a genius, nor have super skills allowing them to do the few jobs that require those skills. I do agree that not everyone has the same opportunity for a good education, but that is the fault of the democrats and the teachers unions. If we all had a voucher for whatever school we wanted to go to, everyone COULD get the best education.

No, not everyone can be a CEO, but to many of us, that isn't "Success". I know lots of people who make a decent living, will never be rich, but are very happy. $$ doesn't=happiness. If you work hard, you will make a decent living in this country.

And if you don't... the socialist left will always be there to bail you out.