Con_Alma;1572018 wrote:Just I said, we aren't there yet. The wealthy continue to get wealthier. I hope for your sake this the beginning to your prophesy as you claim. SOunds like that's the only hope for those in need of such an economic revolution.

I think it is needed. The present economic trends are not auspicious for the social well being of our nation.

Keep hoping. You've still go t a chance! Lol Hope and Change!!!!

isadore;1572022 wrote:I think it is needed. The present economic trends are not auspicious for the social well being of our nation.

It's clear that you think it's needed. What's also clear is that it isn't happening. The wealthy have the same control over their wealth that they had last month. Nothing has changed.

isadore;1571873 wrote:I see the Reagan tax cuts as making the shift to making the rich, richer and the poor poorer. thanks ronnie

The poor have been getting poorer for so long I would have thought they would have all died off by now.

Con_Alma;1572024 wrote:It's clear that you think it's needed. What's also clear is that it isn't happening. The wealthy have the same control over their wealth that they had last month. Nothing has changed.

Nothing has changed
what Louis XVI April, 1789 "Nothing has changed"
Nicholas II 1917, February, 1917 "Nothing has changed"
Wall Street Broker September, 1929 "Nothing has changed"

QuakerOats;1572027 wrote:The poor have been getting poorer for so long I would have thought they would have all died off by now.

yes I know Ebenezer, it would make you happy to see that decrease in the excess population.

isadore;1572029 wrote:Nothing has changed
what Louis XVI April, 1789 "Nothing has changed"
Nicholas II 1917, February, 1917 "Nothing has changed"
Wall Street Broker September, 1929 "Nothing has changed"

I agree.

Con_Alma;1572031 wrote:I agree.

well that is 4 votes for nothing has changed, hopefully you will survive the future better than your three compatriots in the status quo brigade.

My survival won't be based on hope.

Isn't your wish that something does change? Isn't that in and of itself an acknowledgement that it hasn't changed yet? I agree, it hasn't changed.

Con_Alma;1572033 wrote:My survival won't be based on hope.

Isn't your wish that something does change? Isn't that in and of itself an acknowledgement that it hasn't changed yet? I agree, it hasn't changed.

sir or m'am gosh a ruddies I started thread to comment on the problem that existed, and to offer possible solutions to it.

BUT solutions do not spring out of the head of zeus as Athena did,
The problem is present obviously
Possible solutions are considered and discussed
There is growing notice of the problem and support for CHANGE.

gosh a ruddies 80% of the people only have 5% of the non home owning wealth

????what are we talking about, you keep moving the goalposts. Wealth or "non home wealth?...Upper 1%? upper 20%? Are you talking about taxing overall wealth or just income?

Let me get this straight....because 1% of the population owns 30 or so% of the "wealth" we should increase taxes on the next 19% income (just because they have some wealth acculminated)....and then funnel those taxes directly into the pockets of the lower 80%...that somehow would increase those people's "non home" wealth?


Let's see....we could raise tax revenue $250 Billion....and then just give that to the 250 million people in the lower 80%....about $1000 apiece. Do you think that money would be used for " non home" wealth acculmination?:RpS_razz:

isadore;1572035 wrote:sir or m'am gosh a ruddies I started thread to comment on the problem that existed, and to offer possible solutions to it.

That's great. I commented on those offerings.

...and it seems that we agree that nothing has happened yet with regards to those solutions.

Con_Alma;1572045 wrote:That's great. I commented on those offerings.

...and it seems that we agree that nothing has happened yet with regards to those solutions.

gosh a ruddies what was written
that for an extended period of the 20th century the United States moved successfully against the maldistribution of wealth. And then came the Reagan era, yuck. But now we maybe prepared to do something about it again.

HitsRus;1572042 wrote:????what are we talking about, you keep moving the goalposts. Wealth or "non home wealth?...Upper 1%? upper 20%? Are you talking about taxing overall wealth or just income?

Let me get this straight....because 1% of the population owns 30 or so% of the "wealth" we should increase taxes on the next 19% income (just because they have some wealth acculminated)....and then funnel those taxes directly into the pockets of the lower 80%...that somehow would increase those people's "non home" wealth?


Let's see....we could raise tax revenue $250 Billion....and then just give that to the 250 million people in the lower 80%....about $1000 apiece. Do you think that money would be used for " non home" wealth acculmination?:RpS_razz:

gosh a ruddies if we started taxing wealth we would have access to a lot more than a puny 250 billion

if we started taxing wealth we would have access to a lot more than a puny 250 billion

You were fretting about less than that in lost tax revenue causing this mass "maldistribution of wealth". So "We" need more?...and who is this "we" that wants 'access' to all this wealth?

isadore;1572087 wrote:gosh a ruddies what was written
that for an extended period of the 20th century the United States moved successfully against the maldistribution of wealth. And then came the Reagan era, yuck. But now we maybe prepared to do something about it again.

Yeah, I read that.

When you begin doing something about it, the wealthy will adapt based on those new efforts and will continue to increase their wealth.

Con_Alma;1572096 wrote:Yeah, I read that.

When you begin doing something about it, the wealthy will adapt based on those new efforts and will continue to increase their wealth.

they were restricted successfully for several decades; America can and should do it again

They can restrict them for several centuries and the result will be the same for the wealthy.

It's not going to happy quite yet. The economy is too fragile to have the big wealth pulled back. Politicians aren't willing to risk their own livelihood and the legislature if Executive Office favorable enough to get it done.

Are we going to repeat the same things again?

HitsRus;1572095 wrote:You were fretting about less than that in lost tax revenue causing this mass "maldistribution of wealth". So "We" need more?...and who is this "we" that wants 'access' to all this wealth?

the government to reduce the debt, provide for the needy, and widen the portals of opportunity nearly closed down by reaganesque policies at the national and state level. For example Free post secondary education for all would be a good start.

Con_Alma;1572110 wrote:They can restrict them for several centuries and the result will be the same for the wealthy.

It's not going to happy quite yet. The economy is too fragile to have the big wealth pulled back. Politicians aren't willing to risk their own livelihood and the legislature if Executive Office favorable enough to get it done.

Are we going to repeat the same things again?

gosh a ruddies if they restrict them for several generation that will be several generations of these rich losing many of their illgotten gains. That will work great.

There are forces building in the nation to do something about it as the polls, president and Pope show.

isadore;1572111 wrote:.... For example Free post secondary education for all would be a good start.

...and there ya go. Now I understand.

isadore;1572115 wrote:gosh a ruddies if they restrict them for several generation that will be several generations of these rich losing many of their illgotten gains. That will work great.

There are forces building in the nation to do something about it as the polls, president and Pope show.

Those generations won't reside in the US any longer. They will continue to grow their wealth elsewhere.

No matter what the polls state the momentum is, it isn't happening today.

The combined world economy outside of the US is greater than that if the US.

Con_Alma;1572118 wrote:Those generations won't reside in the US any longer. They will continue to grow their wealth elsewhere.

No matter what the polls state the momentum is, it isn't happening today.

The combined world economy outside of the US is greater than that if the US.

If the program is enacted with some foresight, they will be restricted in removing their illgotten gains.
No it is not happening today, but the momentum is building.

And you are right the rest of the world does have more combined wealth than the US, so?

Con_Alma;1572116 wrote:...and there ya go. Now I understand.

away to increase opportunity as the GI Bill did after WWII