Wealth gap is at critical mass

#251
#251
utvolpj said:
Education and experience could also be considered inherited items. Just like their dad
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. But you can't just erase where/who they come from.

In my view, that's the problem with this debate. Fairness is not something we can ever achieve. Some will just have to work harder than others whether it's due to intelligence, upbringing, environment etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#252
#252
lawgator1 said:
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But I am saying that when you concentrate such enormous wealth into the hands of

26

such that it equals the wealth of

3,600,000,000

that's an enormous problem waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
How is it 'waiting to happen'? When one of the 26 dies off? IS that when the 25 say... OK.. now we got 'em right where we want 'em? Or is that when the 3.6B say that and storm the castle? Are you really this paranoid in real life? Step back from the ledge.

You know when this wealth gap will close? When idiot liberals like you and luther stop promoting idiotic degrees from universities that earn a fraction of what they cost and start promoting trades again andresponsible debt/equity of personal finances. It is YOU elitist liberals that are causing this problem with free college for everyone mantras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#253
#253
Normally when the government needs a cleansing of the poor they just create a war and start drafting. That always gets a few million off the books.

Kinda shocked we haven’t had another much needed war lately but I am sure it’s coming.

Damn I am cynical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#254
#254
Grand Vol said:
Here's a prime example of wasteful spending in the military budget. Something utterly simple.

Uniforms.

It used to be easy, four services wearing common uniforms with distinct service dress (Class A if you will) signifying their branch. Two major patterns, woodland and desert, that worked reasonably well. They weren't perfect, but they worked well enough. So, we had a common battle uniform across the services only separated by the service tape and various accouterments. However, the USMC decided it needed to update it's uniform back close to 20 years ago. Spent a lot of money designing and testing three distinct patterns, finally fielded two (desert and woodlands) and they work exceptionally well since computer technology was a part of their design, the first time that had ever been done. The functionality of the uniform was debatable, but overall, it worked fairly well.

The Army, not to be outdone, says they need a new one as well. Because who lets the Marines outdo them, right? Test all sorts of patterns and all sorts of designs. Finally settles on a pattern that doesn't quite work in any environment, though the major colors are supposed to blend into urban, woodland and desert environments. Functionally, the uniforms are quite nice with body armor in mind and pockets in the right places.

Problem is, the camouflage scheme is and continues to be a horrid disappointment. The so called "Universal Camouflage Pattern" royally sucks in damn near every environment. Billions of dollars wasted only to turn around to purchase and issue a color scheme they already tested a decade prior that already showed it was a better camouflage design and already was in use by other nations and in general service in Afghanistan after they figured out their camouflage sucked and the soldiers deserves some form of concealment.

Of course, the USAF can't be left behind. Can't learn from the Marines (two distinct, but awesome patterns) or the Army (extremely functional) and design something that blended the best attributes of the sister services. Nope, let's design a uniform that's basically takes the worst attributes of both the Marines and the Army and add a fourth color, a slate blue for distinctness, in a pattern that doesn't work for ****. Oh, and now we have to use another camouflage pattern for special operations since they flat refused to use that abomination.

And the Navy...never to be outdone, take the digital camouflage pattern of the Marines and makes it into shades of blue...

Yes, blue that blends in with nothing but...water. Helpful like. And by the way, issue two other patterns entirely to the special operations forces because, again, they would refuse to wear that abomination.

Four services, four different combat uniforms, billions of dollars wasted.
Click to expand...
That Navy uniform was one of the dumbest things I have seen a military do. Do they still sport them?
 
#255
#255
NorthDallas40 said:
Thinking back to the money locked up at the turn of the 20th century by just a few industrialists in America I’d say we’re good

Rockefeller, DuPont, Vanderbilt, etc etc...

Yeah really not much has changed.
Click to expand...

You are about 10% right and 90% wrong.

The wealth gap was terrible at the turn of the 20th century. It got worse leading up to the Great Depression. FDR changed that with a lot of his policies which both Rs and Ds followed to some degree until about the 70s.

Since then it has again gotten continually worse.

So a lot did change and now it's reverting back.

My questions is we can all agree that one person (or 26) can't own 100% but I mean can they still own 50%?

Even if they can, should they?

A lot of points being made about "well, the poor can go find the rich and take it"

Yeah, I get there isn't an easy solution but part of it in the US anyways is about securing basic necessities to all (Healthcare) so that your actual income means something.

I know that sounds like scary socialism to a lot of you on here, but too bad.

I will cede part of it is simply the age we are living as inequality is growing throughout the world. But no one can argue the US isn't horrid as far as the developed countries go.
 
#256
#256
zaqhhh said:
You are about 10% right and 90% wrong.

The wealth gap was terrible at the turn of the 20th century. It got worse leading up to the Great Depression. FDR changed that with a lot of his policies which both Rs and Ds followed to some degree until about the 70s.

Since then it has again gotten continually worse.

So a lot did change and now it's reverting back.

My questions is we can all agree that one person (or 26) can't own 100% but I mean can they still own 50%?

Even if they can, should they?

A lot of points being made about "well, the poor can go find the rich and take it"

Yeah, I get there isn't an easy solution but part of it in the US anyways is about securing basic necessities to all (Healthcare) so that your actual income means something.

I will cede part of it is simply the age we are living as inequality is growing throughout the world. But no one can argue the US isn't horrid as far as the developed countries go.
Click to expand...
nah I’m pretty sure I was in the ballpark. You had our ultra rich families while the working man had next to no labor protections. It was very bad late 19th early 20th century that’s a fact. “The Gilded Age”

How American Inequality in the Gilded Age Compares to Today

One statistic cited by the Gilded Agedocumentary is that, by the time of that 1897 ball, the richest 4,000 families in the U.S. (representing less than 1% of the population) had about as much wealth as other 11.6 million families all together. By comparison, as of November 2017, the three richest individuals in the U.S. had as much wealth as the bottom half of the population. According a recent CNN analysis of Federal Reserve data, as of the end of 2017, the top 1% of Americans held 38.6% of the nation’s wealth
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#257
#257
GAVol said:
They'd have a pretty good shot based on their education and experience.
Click to expand...

And they got those things purely on merit, right?

It's well-known Jared's daddy paid for him to get into Harvard and NYU Law.
 
#266
#266
volinsd said:
Not to step on GV's toes here, but socialism isnt funding nor had any part in the military jack. Sure, taxpayers have paid for military personnel and equipment, but the framers of our country along with the rest of the population knew it was needed and MOST would give freely to that notion even today. Its called patriotism and security.

Patriots know this.

Now socialism on the other hand is taking one persons things and distributing it to any lazy jackwagon who wont work. Only idiots cant see the problems with this "idea".

Now....if you don't think paying brave americans to do things that others are too afraid or selfish to do, in order to protect you and your family.....you just need to GTFO!

Seriously...just leave the country that is so bad in your mind and go check out some other ones until you find that perfect socialist utopia you dream of.
Click to expand...

You should just stay at home:
Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Your definition is lazy and shows a tremendous right wing loon indoctrination. Throwing the word patriot around like it's a Q crumb that only the most red hatted americans are even capable of much less me even questioning his patriotism.
You didn't step on any toes, just tripped over your own. Rage on little Redhat.
 
#269
#269
LouderVol said:
I dont think everyone wants the military. And ours has gone far beyond self defense.

With the glut that is our military spending and the fact that our troops spend more time in classrooms than on the yard or the range I would say there is plenty of wasted socialized money there.
Click to expand...
Well since the military is in the constitution and so are guns, the I thinks the Fed should supply me any weapon I want if you are going to consider the military a socialist endeavor.

I could give two sh!ts about what a ****ing socialist thinks about our military. These are the same people that **** in their bath water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinsd
#270
#270
lawgator1 said:
Oxfam report: world's 26 richest billionaires own same as total wealth of the 3.8 billion poorest - CNN

26 people have as much wealth as 3.8 billion people have, collectively. Forget the debate of process, communism, tax policy, capitalism, inherited wealth, etc.

With the internet and readily available information, I think we are getting to the point where the 3.6 billion aren't going to be willing to put up with this much longer. The world is heading for an inevitable collision between the haves and the have nots.
Click to expand...

They earned it so it only makes sense to take it away from them and give to those who didn't earn it. Better yet, set up a system where it's impossible to get ahead and this can't happen again. It's the only humane thing to do.

If only Stalin or Lenin were still alive to provide some guidance. I'll bet some college kid is around with a Che Guevara shirt on that would be willing to provide some valuable wisdom and knowledge. I hope this helps.

If you need help moving into your new cardboard box, let me know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#273
#273
Grand Vol said:
I'm retired military.

There is a lot of waste in the military budget and fat that could be trimmed in the service. The military budget system should un-**** itself first, then we can look at cuts if needed.
Click to expand...
I agree. Lots of money spent on b.s. not enough on the important things they need.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top