Inequality in America - How we arrived where we are / whats your opinion?

[gstewart44]

Well that's what years and years of runaway inequality will do to once proud people...Its ashame its gone that far...
.
 BTW,,,ever heard the expression,,,"No bad employees....just bad supervisors."  ....Lead or get out of the way....

..TM7

TM - do you think that perhaps years and years of government handouts without obligations sustained and grew the population of "entitlement" recipients?    I do not ignore that inequality has existed, and LBJ's Great Society was the creation of social programs to eliminate the inequalities of poverty and race.   These programs have been expanded to the point that they are acting like a cancer.....spreading beyond what the host can provide.   To that end it has been a failure.     We now have generations of families that "know" that they do not have to work and will still get handouts.     Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a very wise liberal/progressive,  spent much of his political career trying to develop a workable way for government to assist people out of poverty and warned against the AFDC program paying women with children only if the father was out of the household.      In 1994 Moynihan agreed that correction was needed for a welfare system that possibly encouraged women to raise their children without fathers: He is quoted "The Republicans are saying we have a helluva problem, and we do."   
 Inequality still exists because failed government social programs are a huge part of the problem. 
 
I am a firm believer in that there can be bad employees as well as bad supervisors.   I have been in healthcare with an independant non profit organization for two and a half decades.    I have worked with substandard employees and tried to show them how to improve their skills and thankfully it has worked out positively for the majority.    I have also worked with poor supervisors to teach them better supervisory skills that allow their teams to functions more smoothly.  But the bottom line is,  some of the line staff and supervisors had to be let go because of poor attitude, non functioning skill sets or criminal behavior.    I believe this is the situation in most walks of life.   
 
"there are no bad employees, only bad supervisors"....... I don't buy into your absolute.   

[45-70.gov]

Very good example of the "I got mine, to h_ll with you" mentality so prevalent among the rightys.

you  are exactly correct
i got  mine.....NOBODY  GAVE IT TO ME...i earned it and invested in it
and if you didn't get yours and live in america....
.YOU JUST DIDN'T WANT IT,  OR UNBELEIVABLY STUPID


people come to this country not even speaking our language 
and do  fantastic and have a great life


WHILE AMERICAN BORN AND RAISED  AMERICANS  WALLER  IN  PITY  AND DISPARE


THOSE LOOSERS  MAKE ME SICK.....THEY  ARE PATHEDIC


AND THEY WILL CONTINUE THEIR DOWNWARD SPRRIL ....DEEPER INTO POVERTY
UNTIL THEY LOOK INTO THE MIRROR FOR THE ANSEWRS

[Oldshooter]

people come to this country not even speaking our language 
and do  fantastic and have a great life

Good point, immigrants are still coming here and starting businesses and earning better livings than they had at "home" .  They don't have a clue that things are unequal here they just get off their behinds and go get it. Of course they aren't used to a nanny state making sure the " chirrens" are fed.

[mcwoodduck]

Well that's what years and years of runaway inequality will do to once proud people...Its ashame its gone that far...
.
 BTW,,,ever heard the expression,,,"No bad employees....just bad supervisors."  ....Lead or get out of the way....

..TM7

TM - do you think that perhaps years and years of government handouts without obligations sustained and grew the population of "entitlement" recipients?    I do not ignore that inequality has existed, and LBJ's Great Society was the creation of social programs to eliminate the inequalities of poverty and race.   These programs have been expanded to the point that they are acting like a cancer.....spreading beyond what the host can provide.   To that end it has been a failure.     We now have generations of families that "know" that they do not have to work and will still get handouts.     Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a very wise liberal/progressive,  spent much of his political career trying to develop a workable way for government to assist people out of poverty and warned against the AFDC program paying women with children only if the father was out of the household.      In 1994 Moynihan agreed that correction was needed for a welfare system that possibly encouraged women to raise their children without fathers: He is quoted "The Republicans are saying we have a helluva problem, and we do."   
 Inequality still exists because failed government social programs are a huge part of the problem. 
 
I am a firm believer in that there can be bad employees as well as bad supervisors.   I have been in healthcare with an independant non profit organization for two and a half decades.    I have worked with substandard employees and tried to show them how to improve their skills and thankfully it has worked out positively for the majority.    I have also worked with poor supervisors to teach them better supervisory skills that allow their teams to functions more smoothly.  But the bottom line is,  some of the line staff and supervisors had to be let go because of poor attitude, non functioning skill sets or criminal behavior.    I believe this is the situation in most walks of life.   
 
"there are no bad employees, only bad supervisors"....... I don't buy into your absolute.   

.
Yes, Its my opinion that runaway inequality over the years is compounded by the social welfare programs and vice versa.  But as far as the ruling elite are concerned the cost of these social welfare-net programs is a drop in the bucket relative to the reward they extract from the system_ _especially if you can spread the cost to all other tax payers.
.
If I hear of high turnover departments, I think towards bad supervison or unfair supervision. Yes, there are bad employees, drugs, theft, violence, mental issues, etc...good supervisors should recognize bad employees and shouldn't hire them.  Afterall, a bad employee is worse than no employee at all.
.
Because runaway inequality is inherent and rampant in our system, there will now take some radical and inventive practices to undo it. Do not look at private sector or capitalist motivated private corps to do this entirely as inequality is inherent in their thinking to begin.  Likely, when things get bad enough, and the system has been thoroughly pilfered and corrupted, and the masses riot from hunger and boredom_ _some 'leader' may come along to re-organize the system of things and put people back to meaningful lives.  Likely along the lines FDR did.....and the far right will continue to sabotage and terrorize any effort to do so.
Do you see another path?
.
.
..TM7

TM-7
The social programs have spent more since 1964 than if they had just given every one in the country 100,000 on their 18th birthday.  We now have a bunc of government programs that need to have poor to take care of them.  There are thousands of government employees that need to expand the poor inorder to expand their budgets.  As Shootall said, I have worked in his area and too have seen guys hired, trained, and then the social worker and community actavist come by to have a talk with him and I do not know exactly what is said but they tend to get fired.  I can tell you when I worked at a McDonalds they talked with one of the cooks on his break out in the parking lot and he came back in and tripple dropped the same baskets of french fries and burned them and the oil right before lunch so he could be fired.  No French fries at McDonalds will get you fired. 

[gstewart44]

  Likely, when things get bad enough, and the system has been thoroughly pilfered and corrupted, and the masses riot from hunger and boredom_ _some 'leader' may come along to re-organize the system of things and put people back to meaningful lives.  Likely along the lines FDR did.....and the far right will continue to sabotage and terrorize any effort to do so.
Do you see another path?
...TM7

TM - sadly I don't think Programs along the lines of FDR would work today.    The quality of character of our our parents and grandparents that lived through the boom of the 20s, then the Great Depression and WWII is sorely lacking today.    The CCC put hundreds of thousands to work and built the infrastructure of America - young men WANTED to work and there was pride in doing any job - not to mention it kept food in your belly and you could send home your earnings to help the family......
 
 "meaningful lives" today revolves around cell phones, video games and handouts.    Intervews at our local high schools reveal that today's kids believe that you have to cheat to get ahead, and it is ok because everyone does it.  Very few in this generation of young adults know how to exist without technology  - "We" as a country are losing the survival skills and ingenuity that made our country great.  Too many today rely upon "Government" for there answers....
 
I fear the path that we are on has all the precursors to Germany circa 1930.....If/when the economy fails the real chaos will begin...riots in the big cities, then a rush by government to 'restore order' meaning DHS thugs enforcing a police state.   Those that have retained survival skills will square off against the sheeple that are rounded up and controlled like government robots.

[45-70.gov]

feeding the  poor  animals  is the root cause  of INEQUALITY

[45-70.gov]

IT MIGHT BE THAT THEY DO  CARE  MORE....BY NOT FEEDING THEM

[ironglow]

From TM7;
   Likely, when things get bad enough, and the system has been thoroughly pilfered and corrupted, and the masses riot from hunger and boredom_ _some 'leader' may come along to re-organize the system of things and put people back to meaningful lives.  Likely along the lines FDR did.....and the far right will continue to sabotage and terrorize any effort to do so.
Do you see another path?
...TM7
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
   TM;
   When this marvelous, heroic figure shows up to "save civilization" .. will you back his efforts to be "put in charge" of everything.
   Before anyone jumps onto that bandwagon...they should stop and consider just who this is likely to REALLY be!
   The "world" is looking for just such a "savior" as we speak!
 
  NOTE: We who study the Bible, have been reading of that "path" for nearly 2,000 years!

[ChungDoQuan]

Ever read "A People's History of the United States?"

[ironglow]

From TM7;
   " IG...I don't know IG exactly how it will turn out.....probably get worse before better, seems like Getstewart thinks FDR type recovery is not likely due to the decline of our people and civilization.  Runaway inequality complicates  the rebuilding of America as nobody thinks they're geting a fair and square deal..  Strange mainstream religious occult theories about future events also complicate the rebuilding of America, as if some dreadful fait accompli awaits America.....you wouldn't believe how many people believe that!."
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
   I think the whole "inequality" argument is bogus.  The so-called "poor" really do not have it too bad, compared to the "average" when I was a youngster.  I believe these people are being stirred up by professional "poverty pimps".  Many of these "poor" aren't even working ..and a portion of them don't even intend to work !  How can they expect to get beyond poor byu operating in that spirit?
  I hasten to remind you of the facts I stated in my post #320.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
    personal observation to draw upon.
  The "poor" are better off than they have ever been!  Let me take you back to my own experience circa 1950, and compare it with the whining poor of today.  Compare the following with today's "poor"..
 
  The folks in  my neighborhood; 
  1) Had no television, although almost all had a radio..usually just one.
 
 2) About half had a telephone.. of course none had a cell phone, and none of the kids had their own phone.
 
 3) Each family had a car or truck..Dad had a Model A truck, but walked to work in the winter (radiator alcohol was expensive and tended to evaporate)
 
4) About 75% had indoor plumbing..for the rest of us it was pump & carry every pail full.
 
 5)  "Going out to dinner" was about a 3 times a year event, and then only the parents.
 
 6) Fresh vegetables..came from the garden..and were produced by family labor.
 
 7)  Meat came either from the barn or the woods..occasionally from the local butcher..who my Dad did the killing for.
 
   By 1950 we had a refrigerator..as most did, but until then vegetables were what mom canned..or the sauerkraut & pickles she put up.
 
 9) No such thing as... food stamps, WIC, HEAP (we cut our own wood..or bought coal), or any of the other "lean on" programs; and the folks would have refused them if there were.
 
 10) Clothing had patches, sometimes patches upon patches.  We didn't need to buy jeans already half worn out.  ..And when they were worn out..it was HONEST wear.
 
  I could go on but I would hope you realize, the "poor" are better off now than ever.  With today's "safety net" (something that barely existed in 1950), almost nobody has a viable reason to stay "poor" unless they have taken on extra, unnecessary baggage; such as drink, dope, illegitimate child births, laziness or a criminal record.
   Then again, today's "poor" are material wise, better off that we in our neighborhood (lower middle class), were in 1950..
 
  Back then of course, most believed very much in God...and lived accordingly..
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
     Now, tell me that the "poor" of today have it much tougher than the youngsters in my neighborhood did about 1946 to 1950..
  Add to this, that Dad worked awfully hard..but with 10 youngsters and refusal to accept charity..it wasn't easy.
   Having lived my young life under those conditions..can you expect me to shed tears for the "poor" who run around with I-pad phones , gold chains, Nike shoes, have 2-3 televisions and tons of electronics at home, pay no rent and get several hundred $$$ in food stamps every month...plus many other bennies they never pay for..
  Yeah; hold the phone while I cry them a river!
 

[ChungDoQuan]

And most of the differences in now and the 1950s are due to passage of time, allowing worldwide progress and invention, not because our poor are not really poor.

[Oldshooter]

the extent of poverty in America, homeless, hunger, health, hopelessness, and depression...its much worse than you think as the 1% continue to mine and extract from the system..

  I believe that is exaggerated by people that use it for their own purposes. Besides if  IG , me and millions of others think so its more than 1%.  Seems at least 48% thought so in the last election.  That 1% you speak of is responsible for most of the jobs and businesses that have made this country what it used to be.  ( not bad grammar ).


I am not optimistic about the future of this country if the idea that being successful is a bad thing when it comes to entrepreneurship.  The 1% is bad = nobody is going to make it.   Besides that , if you destroy the present 1% you only change the description of the  1% . See Russia after the revolution. See Cuba after the revolution. See Venezuela after  the revolution.  See china after the communist take over.  See my point.

[gstewart44]

TM - I have worked with the "poor" - those existing "below the Federal Poverty line"   for over two decades delivering health services.  Your observation that "inequality is relative" rings quite true but today's "poor" are far better off materially than the "poor" of the late '80s or '90s.   When I first got into this field, 60% of the individuals receiving social service subsidies were white, about 20% black, about 18% hispanic, and various others for the remaining 2%.   The white recipients by and large were unemployed young females with little education or skills that kept making wrong choices and delivering babies they could not support.  The hispanics were mostly migrant families who worked very hard in the agricultural fields and had a complete family unit, just not any opportunities to rise out of the manual labor pool (again due to lack of education).  Many of the black families again were not easily employed due to lack of education. 
 
Fast forward to today.    The individuals getting social service subsidies are about evenly split between the races/ethnicities.   the common thread with most all the groups we treat has been lack of education with the young and loss of jobs with the older crowd.    What concerns me the most is the younger ones are mostly single mothers with multiple children, no father around and they are recieving food, housing, electric, phone and healthcare subsidies that the GAO has averaged out to be valued at $60k per year.     For NOT WORKING,   HAVING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, with NO FATHER in the picture......Literally the system is now designed to reward poor choices and entrap generations into the lifestyle. 
 
The ones that are in the worst shape are unemployed white males with some education/skill set but no dependants.    There is very little assistance for them.     I find fault with a system of government designed and run programs that perpetuates the problem it says it is there to help eliminate.   People are going to take the path of least resistance/easy way out whenever they can.   So we have several generations that have grown up in a culture where they do not have to  work for rewards and have the expectations that they are "owed" something. 
 
this is not the work ethic that I or my family grew up with.     
 
Also - what I describe above is what is going on in my neck of the woods.    things may be very different (i'm sure they are) in other parts of the country.

[SHOOTALL]

Thing is is the liberals/progressives have some how changed how poor was determined , from lacking food and shelter to not having disposable income .

[gstewart44]

Thing is is the liberals/progressives have some how changed how poor was determined , from lacking food and shelter to not having disposable income .

Bingo.....and that's the way votes are bought.

[45-70.gov]

IT MIGHT BE THAT THEY DO  CARE  MORE....BY NOT FEEDING THEM

wild animals are given  more respect then poor people

[ChungDoQuan]

Thing is is the liberals/progressives have some how changed how poor was determined , from lacking food and shelter to not having disposable income .

Bingo.....and that's the way votes are bought.

The far right policies are what put them there. Last poverty level was established by the red team.

[Oldshooter]

Listen Barry, I say that because I'm starting to believe you may be Barry.  The "far right" isn't anymore responsible for ALL  the countries woes than the far left is. 
 
Far right did it, 30 years of far right caused these problems. Etc etc.

Everyone since R Reagan has spent all their time destroying or removing his legacy. Problem was that it worked it hasn't worked well since and your guys are as responsible as anyone is.

I'm pretty much done with reading your spew. And for sure done with this thread.

[gstewart44]

The far right policies are what put them there. Last poverty level was established by the red team.



Poverty levels are figured out every year by what ever team controls the Administration via the Dept of Health and Human Services.   For the past 5 years it has been the BLUE team.    I know what I'm talking about - I get the reports every year and have to apply it to the patients we treat.   You are going to drown yourself if you keep vomiting up this kind of drivel.

[Empty Quiver]

And what shall we do about this?


The great and powerful OZ has been exposed, what shall be done TM7. I believe shouting at the wind has been tried, to no avail. All of those subject to voter intervention are in on it. Large capacity magazines are illegal in NY, and ammo can hardly be found, so shooting them is out.


Those in charge are not interested in fairness, and have no reason or desire to change there position. It would be best to find a way to either join them or work within the system that is available. Reading the Bible to a hog will not bring him religion.

[scootrd]

Jamie Dimon (Scumbag in a three piece suit)  who thinks he is above the law (because as he put's it "I'm richer than You")
is back in the news.

“I approve.” With the discovery of those Two words that Jamie Dimon, the chairman and C.E.O. of JPMorgan Chase, wrote in an email on January 23, 2012, the most prominent banker on Wall Street has been directly tied to the burgeoning “London Whale” trading scandal.

In the months leading up to the bank losing billions of dollars, Dimon ordered his underlings not to give the bank’s regulators information they had requested. Dimon signed off on a strategy that understated the risks being taken by the bank’s traders, including Bruno Iksil, a derivatives trader known as the Whale which resulted in $6 billion loss on credit derivatives
A spokesperson for JPMorgan said: “While we have repeatedly acknowledged significant mistakes, (oh so that's what you call them ) our senior management acted in good faith and never had any intent to mislead anyone.” (give me a break)

The Permanent SubCommittee on Investigations held a lengthy hearing Friday. One of the first witnesses, Ina Drew, the bank’s former chief investment officer, who lost her job as a result of the Whale scandal, put the blame squarely on the bank’s London office.

Senator Carl Levin, for one, isn’t buying that story.  C.E.O. Jamie Dimon, who personally approved a temporary limit increase, and voilà, the breach was ended,”  At first glance, the strategy he approved was designed to reduce the dangers to the bank rather than increase them.  However, the Chief Investment Office merely changed the mathematical model it used to measure the risks attached to its portfolio, a sleight of hand that—on paper, anyway—lowered the estimate of its potential losses by fifty per cent. According to Levin, that was just the beginning of the deception and negligence on the bank’s part.

“JPMorgan executives ignored a series of alarms that went off as the bank’s Chief Investment Office breached one risk limit after another, Rather than ratchet back the risk, JPMorgan personnel just re-engineered the risk controls to silence the alarms. It is difficult to imagine how the American people can trust major Wall Street banks to prudently manage derivatives risk when bank personnel can readily game or ignore the risk controls meant to prevent financial disaster and taxpayer bailouts.”

With the Justice Department eager to show it isn’t a Wall Street patsy, the prospect of criminal charges can’t be dismissed. Over the coming weeks, the bank’s high-priced lawyers will be desperately trying to persuade the feds that Ina Drew was right when she suggested that any deliberate deception, if there was some, was confined to Chase’s London office.

For Dimon, the former golden boy, everything depends on this story holding up.

Even when you try and regulate these guys , they just ignore and do whatever they want anyway.

[ChungDoQuan]

People just do not understand how powerful these companies are. I've used Goldman-Sachs as an example of a company that is too big, because they're total worth is 9 times the national deficit of the whole USA. They are ranked # 290 on the list of top corporations worldwide by total worth. The top ten are oil companies.

[mcwoodduck]

People just do not understand how powerful these companies are. I've used Goldman-Sachs as an example of a company that is too big, because they're total worth is 9 times the national deficit of the whole USA. They are ranked # 290 on the list of top corporations worldwide by total worth. The top ten are oil companies.

I wish more companies had net worths of 9 times the national debt.  Maybe we would not have a national debt if we had more companies. or on the reverse maybe we should spend less so we would not have such a large debt. 
With less debt and lower taxes more compitition will spring up and will knock down Goldman Sachs and their support of the Democrats.  The two are very close in people running both and have intermarried between the leadership of both.

[45-70.gov]

People just do not understand how powerful these companies are. I've used Goldman-Sachs as an example of a company that is too big, because they're total worth is 9 times the national deficit of the whole USA. They are ranked # 290 on the list of top corporations worldwide by total worth. The top ten are oil companies.

i have a good chunk  of change invested with  goldman-sax

[ChungDoQuan]

People just do not understand how powerful these companies are. I've used Goldman-Sachs as an example of a company that is too big, because they're total worth is 9 times the national deficit of the whole USA. They are ranked # 290 on the list of top corporations worldwide by total worth. The top ten are oil companies.

I wish more companies had net worths of 9 times the national debt.  Maybe we would not have a national debt if we had more companies. or on the reverse maybe we should spend less so we would not have such a large debt. 
With less debt and lower taxes more compitition will spring up and will knock down Goldman Sachs and their support of the Democrats.  The two are very close in people running both and have intermarried between the leadership of both.

290 companies are not enough? Face it, if that's no t enough, then no amount of huge companies is going to fix the economy. 

And, many people don't have a "chunk of change" of any size, to invest in anything, except groceries. 

[Empty Quiver]

290 companies are not enough? Face it, if that's no t enough, then no amount of huge companies is going to fix the economy. 

And, many people don't have a "chunk of change" of any size, to invest in anything, except groceries. 

Have many people ever had a chunk of change to invest?


Your focus seems to be on large and successful companies. I find many ideas on how to knock them down to size. What makes you think smaller profits will equal fewer poor? I'm serious here what will reducing the wealth of some do to increase the wealth of others? Robin Hood strategies do not count CDQ, a twelve page pdf file is not needed nor are fifteen links. Make this simple enough a fellow working man can grasp it.

[magooch]

You can have all the theories in the world and blame this big corporation, or that, but it comes down to a couple of things; there's too many people who have made poor choices, had poor luck and a government that hasn't taken the necessary steps to get about 20 million illegals the heck out of this country.


We're never going to deter people from making bad choices as long as there are handouts from the government that subsidizes those bad choices.  We're never going to unleash the pent up potential of our economy as long as the government places more and more costs and restrictions on doing business.


This country depends on affordable energy to flourish and we know now that we've got energy sources in spades.  We're making great progress in energy development in spite of the federal government getting in the way in every way possible.  Governments at every level, but especially at the federal level needs to get the hell out of the way. 


Most of all, people have to quit making bad choices.  We're stuck with the worst choice the people have ever made for the next four years and and it is questionable if this country can survive an idiot like Obama for another year--let alone four.

[ChungDoQuan]

Well, ok, in pidgeon economics: There are "X" amount of dollars. When 1/2 of "X" amount of dollars gets sucked out of the economy affecting 98% of the population, and concentrated into the economy affecting the top 2% of the population, there is less money in the 98% to be had. When that happens, the economic differences will only get worse for the 98%.

[jhm]

     I have told this story here several times, but here goes AGAIN when I was a Kid in Detroit I delivered the Detroit News, and I had a lady customer who on Sundays also wanted a Detroit Free Press so I would ride my bike down to Fort st. & Livernois to a Motts hamburger spot and buy a Detroit Free Press from a older man who sold paper out of a plywood shed in front of Motts, he said many times to me that if I would save a quarter out of every dollar I made I would not have to sell papers out of a wooden shed like he did, Well I am 66 yrs. old today and have been retired or semi- retired for many yrs. now and havent sold any papers out of a shed yet!!  Moral of the story start preparing in your youth while you are young, you cant wait until the week you retire to start planing for it!  So many live with the idea that someone or the Govt. will take care of them so they do nothing, and it dont matter how much you make or how many bad things come up, we as a human race have delt with tight budgets B4 and had to deal with emergency spending since the beginning of time.  If that old man was still alive I would like to shake his hand for the advice he gave this 12/13 yr. old KID.  Jim

[ironglow]

I can see the same old debate here.. 
  The Left: 
  Feed the poor..don't show them where "poor choices" have put them ..keep them begging for tidbits..that way we get their uninformed votes..
 
The Right: 
     Feed the poor temporarily...show them where poor choices have put them..and allow them to take their places beside us...and they can choose for themselves.
 
   It may seem jaded, but after being given a fresh start.. "tough love", is the only thing which can give them any form of freedom and dignity.
 
  Those who cannot fend for themselves should be cared for , but multi-generational parasitism should be rooted out.  I see such multi-generational parasitism as an element, even in some rural counties here in NY.
  Whether "Mr Big" is honest or dishonest should have no bearing upon whether "John Doe on welfare" is willing to free himself from  living under such political bondage.