Occupy Wall St.

[magogian]

Oh seriously, why does it always come down to the legalization of marijuana . . .

Legalization would balance the budget? You must be smoking some good stuff there, and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The annual deficit is over 1 trillion dollars and will be hundreds of billions of dollars for years.

I don't know how credible the follwoing article is, but it suggests that the tax revenue from the taxation of marijuan may be around $6 billion a year. Time to Legalize Marijuana - 500 Economists Endorse Marijuana Legalization

 

[BobD]

After reading some of the posts and watching the news, I'm beginning to think there are some, who would be happy to see us all wearing gray wool outfits, with fur hats and a red star, while standing in bread and cheese lines...as long as we can get stoned and sleep at the park or in front of city hall.

 

[gkautz10]

After reading some of the posts and watching the news, I'm beginning to think there are some, who would be happy to see us all wearing gray wool outfits, with fur hats and a red star, while standing in bread and cheese lines...as long as we can get stoned and sleep at the park or in front of city hall.

judging by the path we are on now, that is going to happen regardless....

 

[gkautz10]

Oh seriously, why does it always come down to the legalization of marijuana . . .

Legalization would balance the budget? You must be smoking some good stuff there, and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The annual deficit is over 1 trillion dollars and will be hundreds of billions of dollars for years.

I don't know how credible the follwoing article is, but it suggests that the tax revenue from the taxation of marijuan may be around $6 billion a year. Time to Legalize Marijuana - 500 Economists Endorse Marijuana Legalization

I see where you are coming from and I have never smoked weed in my life so I could care less if it was legalized. But chipping away at the debt at a rate of 6 billion a year is a start.

 

[Corry]

I’ll never understand how anyone can say less social freedom is a good thing. It comes down to choice. The more choices you have the higher quality of life you can enjoy. Pun intended.
While you may only receive 6 billion in tax revenues think of all money that will be gained from the reductions of incarcerations. For the record I don’t smoke marijuana, but what another person chooses to ingest in their body is their business.

 

[NankerPhelge]

Thanks, Wooley. I hope I made it clear that this 5% was pretty much a guess. But I don't see where your post really answers the question. One bloke says that the top 1% "control" 89% of the wealth. I don't know what this means, or what it means to "control" wealth. Seems pretty nebulous to me. On the other hand, your Congressional Budget Office table may be closer to the original discussion I was having with Jason. If the top 1% make 18.1% of the income, then that is one number we were looking for. If that is the case, for the sake of discussion, then would it be fair to expect that 1% to contribute more than 18.1% of the total tax revenue? If so, why?

Firstly, there is a difference between wealth and income. Wealth (i.e. assets) is even more skewed than income.

Secondly, if the top 1% paid taxes directly in proportion with their income, that would require a flat tax rate. That kind of idea would represent a drastic redistrubtion of wealth in favour of the rich, and would result in one of two things: either the poor would become even worse off, or secondly government finances would be even worse off. Neither is even remotely acceptable. From an academic standpoint, it's not even something that's endorsed by Adam Smith or other free market ideologists until the last ten years.

The reality is the that modern "conservatives" are far more right wing and pro-rich than even the founders of right wing ideology. The modern right is engaged in an all out attack on taxation and the legitimacy of government. It's an incredibly dangerous way of thinking, and makes no sense to me.

Finally, the reality is that every great power has risen when the middle class becomes ascendant, and has fallen when they the society becomes corrupt and becomes controlled by the wealthy. That the United States is simply ignoring this now and is engaged in an all out attack on the middle class for the benefit of the rich is concerning. Moreover, that it's simultaneously tied to an attack on academia and science baffles the mind.

I simply cannot understand how the modern "conservative" thinks, and given that they despise academia and science, there really is no reasoning with them.[/QUOTE]

Wow! No unsupported conclusory statements in this post, are there?

This is one of the things that keeps me coming back here. The opportunity to reap the benefit of such erudite commentary.

 

[CanadianIrish]

Wow! No unsupported conclusory statements in this post, are there?

This is one of the things that keeps me coming back here. The opportunity to reap the benefit of such erudite commentary.

Which statements would you like me to back up with numbers? I wasn't aware that one had to back up saying "the sky is blue", but I'm happy to do so. What exactly do you disagree with?

 

[enrico514]

US has a spending problem not a revenue problem... you guys are focussing on the wrong part of the equation.

 

[CanadianIrish]

US has a spending problem not a revenue problem... you guys are focussing on the wrong part of the equation.

Here is the first great lie of the right wing. This is simply completely unsupported by facts, and the right wing never provides facts to back it up, they simply state it as gospel and hope people believe them.

In reality (where I like to live), the US spends less as a percentage of GDP than almost any other Western country (39%). Unfortunately, they collect much less in taxes than any other Western country (27%). Examples of other countries spending as a percentage of GDP and taxes collected as a percentage of GDP are: UK 47/39; Germany 44/40; Canada 40/32; France 53/45; Spain 41/34.

Were the US to only reduce spending in order to balance the budget, they would need to drop spending to below 30% of GDP. That would put the country on a similar level to Rwanda (26), Kazakstan (27), Morocco (29) and Namibia (29) and behind such luminaries as Lybia, Oman and Slovenia (40).

No other country in the civilized world has taxes as low as the US, every other country spends as much and the vast majority spend significantly more.

The right wing needs to face reality and stop spewing lies in the hopes of deceiving the ignorant.

 

[enrico514]

Here is the first great lie of the right wing. This is simply completely unsupported by facts, and the right wing never provides facts to back it up, they simply state it as gospel and hope people believe them.

In reality (where I like to live), the US spends less as a percentage of GDP than almost any other Western country (39%). Unfortunately, they collect much less in taxes than any other Western country (27%). Examples of other countries spending as a percentage of GDP and taxes collected as a percentage of GDP are: UK 47/39; Germany 44/40; Canada 40/32; France 53/45; Spain 41/34.

Were the US to only reduce spending in order to balance the budget, they would need to drop spending to below 30% of GDP. That would put the country on a similar level to Rwanda (26), Kazakstan (27), Morocco (29) and Namibia (29) and behind such luminaries as Lybia, Oman and Slovenia (40).

No other country in the civilized world has taxes as low as the US, every other country spends as much and the vast majority spend significantly more.

The right wing needs to face reality and stop spewing lies in the hopes of deceiving the ignorant.

I agree that taxes should be higher in the US... hence there is no revenue issue for the time being. What is scary is the increase in outlays Vs. GDP in the US in the recent past. Get spending under control than address increasing revenues. As for comparing countries like Canada and France to the US... you simply cannot do it... totally different countries who have different social contracts/understandings with their citizens.

 

[Dacian_Irish]

Maybe the economy is designed to crash...How the hell do you pay off debt with more debt!! If our economy crashes so does Europe's, Russia's and most of all China. Maybe the US knows that it needs to keep these countries down and it only has a few years to do it until Russia and China are superpowers.

The more I look at what is currently going on this world the more I am convinced this country is run by the CIA... lol.. We are literally in every country in the world doing covert missions. Why? Is it necessary to go to Uganda?

If were in debt and in such bad shape then why are we so active in world? We should be more active at home bringing this country back up.

 

[magogian]

Here is the first great lie of the right wing. This is simply completely unsupported by facts, and the right wing never provides facts to back it up, they simply state it as gospel and hope people believe them.

In reality (where I like to live), the US spends less as a percentage of GDP than almost any other Western country (39%). Unfortunately, they collect much less in taxes than any other Western country (27%). Examples of other countries spending as a percentage of GDP and taxes collected as a percentage of GDP are: UK 47/39; Germany 44/40; Canada 40/32; France 53/45; Spain 41/34.

Were the US to only reduce spending in order to balance the budget, they would need to drop spending to below 30% of GDP. That would put the country on a similar level to Rwanda (26), Kazakstan (27), Morocco (29) and Namibia (29) and behind such luminaries as Lybia, Oman and Slovenia (40).

No other country in the civilized world has taxes as low as the US, every other country spends as much and the vast majority spend significantly more.

The right wing needs to face reality and stop spewing lies in the hopes of deceiving the ignorant.

What a cute post . . .

First, let's define what we are talking about. You are talking about total spending, federal and state. The discussion is generally about federal spending, so let's stick with that.

This chart, United States Government Spending History - Charts, provides a useful breakdown of spending over time. The red is federal spending. You can see a marked increase the past few years.

Tax revenue figures are low because of the recent recession and current poor economy. The US federal income tax system is highly progressive, which means that tax receipts are very sensitive to the changes in income for the wealthiest. Thus, you have high volatility in tax receipts depending on the business cycle. And we are currently at a pretty low point. As the economy recovers, federal income tax receipts will increase dramatically without requiring any tax increases by the government. This chart is useful, US Federal Revenue Chart in United States 1996-2016 - Federal State Local

So, essentially, we've had a marked increase in federal spending (nearly $1 trillion since the beginning of the recession, US Federal Spending in United States 1996-2016 - Federal State Local) that corresponded with a substantial decrease in tax receipts (about $400 billion). That explains our current system and current deficit. We would still have a very alrge deficit if federal income tax receipts were at their pre-recession levels because of the increase in federal spending.

How about those lies?

To add another point. It is actually quite hard to increase taxes and get a commiserate increase in revenue. Historically, the US has rarely been able to get even 20% in federal tax revenue as a percent of GDP, Federal outlays and revenues, 1930-2015 as a percentage of the GDP - Federal Budget Charts - National Priorities Project

We are already near that limit. Raising taxes won't get much more out of our economy while providing all sorts of negative effects (income diversion, idling, etc.).

 

[Mr. Larson]

Maybe the economy is designed to crash...How the hell do you pay off debt with more debt!! If our economy crashes so does Europe's, Russia's and most of all China. Maybe the US knows that it needs to keep these countries down and it only has a few years to do it until Russia and China are superpowers.

The more I look at what is currently going on this world the more I am convinced this country is run by the CIA... lol.. We are literally in every country in the world doing covert missions. Why? Is it necessary to go to Uganda?
If were in debt and in such bad shape then why are we so active in world? We should be more active at home bringing this country back up.

Genocide/crimes against humanity is enough reason for me.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Here is the first great lie of the right wing. ...In reality (where I like to live), the US spends less as a percentage of GDP than almost any other Western country (39%).

I'll give you a pass on this since you're Canadian, but the "US" has 50 additional taxing and spending jurisdictions, which we call "States".

 

[Dacian_Irish]

Genocide/crimes against humanity is enough reason for me.

Really? So why don't we invade Mexico too, oh and how about Myanmar, and while were at it why not just invade all of Africa.

Look genocide and crimes against humanity are done on both sides of the war! The worst thing we could is get involved because it does not work. The world is too big to police it.

Let me ask you this then. Is Libya better off? They are now under Sharia Law.... How many civilians died from NATO bombs? Is the civil war still going on?

Did Libya have a debt before the war?

Do your research!!!!!

 

[Mr. Larson]

Really? So why don't we invade Mexico too, oh and how about Myanmar, and while were at it why not just invade all of Africa.

Look genocide and crimes against humanity are done on both sides of the war! The worst thing we could is get involved because it does not work. The world is too big to police it.
Let me ask you this then. Is Libya better off? They are now under Sharia Law.... How many civilians died from NATO bombs? Is the civil war still going on?

Did Libya have a debt before the war?

Do your research!!!!!

Are you proposing that the world's largest superpower goes back to George Washington's advice to steer clear of foreign entanglements?

So over a million displaced people is no big deal to you?

Here's a slideshow of living conditions for the displaced people:

Uganda's Secret Horrors - ABC News

Not sure how you are throwing Libya at me with this last post. I commented on Uganda. You specifically asked if there was any reason to have a presense in Uganda.

Also I addressed the chaos in Mexico and Mexican drug cartels in an earlier post on this thread.

 

[Dacian_Irish]

Are you proposing that the world's largest superpower goes back to George Washington's advice to steer clear of foreign entanglements?

So over a million displaced people is no big deal to you?

Here's a slideshow of living conditions for the displaced people:

Uganda's Secret Horrors - ABC News

Not sure how you are throwing Libya at me with this last post. I commented on Uganda. You specifically asked if there was any reason to have a presense in Uganda.

Also I addressed the chaos in Mexico and Mexican drug cartels in an earlier post on this thread.

My point is how do you know which side of the conflict to support when atrocities are committed on both sides. America is supposedly broke and in more debt than ever. So why are we going to help now. What resources does Uganda have? They have oil and other minerals! And the Chinese have recently made trade deals with neighboring Congo.

Don't be so naive! You really think our govt cares about the people of Uganda? They probably care just as much as they did about the people of Rwanda and Sudan.

 

[CanadianIrish]

I'll give you a pass on this since you're Canadian, but the "US" has 50 additional taxing and spending jurisdictions, which we call "States".

Every country in the Western world has other taxing and spending jurisdictions, the figures I provided were for all levels of government. Frankly, that's what we should be looking at, because it's very easy for the federal government to download spending onto lower levels. Looking at the federal government alone doesn't tell the whole story. Congrats on the outrageously arrogant post though, my pet polar bear and I enjoyed it while we were snow shoeing in to work here in the frozen tundra.

 

[CanadianIrish]

What a cute post . . .

First, let's define what we are talking about. You are talking about total spending, federal and state. The discussion is generally about federal spending, so let's stick with that.

This chart, United States Government Spending History - Charts, provides a useful breakdown of spending over time. The red is federal spending. You can see a marked increase the past few years.

Tax revenue figures are low because of the recent recession and current poor economy. The US federal income tax system is highly progressive, which means that tax receipts are very sensitive to the changes in income for the wealthiest. Thus, you have high volatility in tax receipts depending on the business cycle. And we are currently at a pretty low point. As the economy recovers, federal income tax receipts will increase dramatically without requiring any tax increases by the government. This chart is useful, US Federal Revenue Chart in United States 1996-2016 - Federal State Local

So, essentially, we've had a marked increase in federal spending (nearly $1 trillion since the beginning of the recession, US Federal Spending in United States 1996-2016 - Federal State Local) that corresponded with a substantial decrease in tax receipts (about $400 billion). That explains our current system and current deficit. We would still have a very alrge deficit if federal income tax receipts were at their pre-recession levels because of the increase in federal spending.

How about those lies?

To add another point. It is actually quite hard to increase taxes and get a commiserate increase in revenue. Historically, the US has rarely been able to get even 20% in federal tax revenue as a percent of GDP, Federal outlays and revenues, 1930-2015 as a percentage of the GDP - Federal Budget Charts - National Priorities Project

We are already near that limit. Raising taxes won't get much more out of our economy while providing all sorts of negative effects (income diversion, idling, etc.).

Firstly, all recent studies of the Laffer Curve has shown that the US is far beyond the peak, and that increasing taxes will actually increase income. If you don't believe, I'll give you the links.

When you say that revenue as a percentage of GDP is down because of the recession, you seem to be ignoring that the inverse applies with respect to spending. Not sure how that escaped you, but ok, sure that's a fun way to criticize my "cute" post.

As for revenue, even if I were to use figures from the 1990s, the US is still well behind the rest of the Western world when it comes to revenue. This isn't an isolated incident, the reality is that it's marginally worse using today's statistics but it's an ongoing problem. Moreover, if you look at the years when revenue has spiked, the majority of the "spike" comes from local and state revenue, not federal.

Finally, I think it's comedic that you would describe the US tax system as "highly progressive" when most other countries in the West have far more progressive tax rates. In fact, Germany already has a 'wealth surcharge' designed to tax the super-wealthy to help with the current economic troubles. Most of Europe has something similar, but to conservatives this is either communism or the end of the world. In reality, it's returning to the tax rates of the 1990s, or 1970s or possibly even the 60s. I suppose conservatives think the US was communist then or something, who knows.

 

[Mr. Larson]

My point is how do you know which side of the conflict to support when atrocities are committed on both sides. America is supposedly broke and in more debt than ever. So why are we going to help now. What resources does Uganda have? They have oil and other minerals! And the Chinese have recently made trade deals with neighboring Congo.

Don't be so naive! You really think our govt cares about the people of Uganda? They probably care just as much as they did about the people of Rwanda and Sudan.

Regretfully, I do not.

 

[magogian]

Firstly, all recent studies of the Laffer Curve has shown that the US is far beyond the peak, and that increasing taxes will actually increase income. If you don't believe, I'll give you the links.

When you say that revenue as a percentage of GDP is down because of the recession, you seem to be ignoring that the inverse applies with respect to spending. Not sure how that escaped you, but ok, sure that's a fun way to criticize my "cute" post.

As for revenue, even if I were to use figures from the 1990s, the US is still well behind the rest of the Western world when it comes to revenue. This isn't an isolated incident, the reality is that it's marginally worse using today's statistics but it's an ongoing problem. Moreover, if you look at the years when revenue has spiked, the majority of the "spike" comes from local and state revenue, not federal.

Finally, I think it's comedic that you would describe the US tax system as "highly progressive" when most other countries in the West have far more progressive tax rates. In fact, Germany already has a 'wealth surcharge' designed to tax the super-wealthy to help with the current economic troubles. Most of Europe has something similar, but to conservatives this is either communism or the end of the world. In reality, it's returning to the tax rates of the 1990s, or 1970s or possibly even the 60s. I suppose conservatives think the US was communist then or something, who knows.

Apparently, your ignorance is quite comedic. Just check out this explanation, The Tax Foundation - No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as U.S.. If you take the ratio of the share of taxes of the richest decile against their share of market income, you find that the US is the most progressive.

 

[woolybug25]

Maybe someone should change the name of this thread to "Unlimited Politics Thread", because it has obviously warped far away from just the Occupy Wall Street topic.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't want to get into a rant on this, but at my engineering firm we constantly joke about how we're in the "1%" but most of us paid ~$200k for an education and spent ~5 years of our lives going through tough coursework that most people don't want to take or can't take to get there... and then those of us who had to take out student loans or have to support a family are forced to live over an hour away from the office and commute in our crappy used Toyotas and Fords to even afford living in the DC area. I'm comfortable because my parents saved money for my education and I'm single with no one to support but myself... but damn, people need to realize how much income the "1%" actually earns, what it took to get there, and that a 2 bedroom apartment in the DC area runs you $3000+ a month.

Perhaps they are put off by the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality that seems to be prevelant among those whose parents had the means to put their children through college is unpaletable to them. Perhaps they find it unacceptable that they worked their way through college or worked their entire lives only to have their jobs shipped overseas where people are willing to work for pennies on the dollar all because it produces a bigger profit for the largest companies in the country. The beneficiaries of good fortune joking continuously about how their incredible saccrifices and hard work got them their (with help from mommy and daddy, of course) is hard to swallow.

I'm not trying to minimize the amount of work you had to do to complete a difficult program of instruction or the effort your parents made to put you in a positon to succeed (I'm trying to do the same for my four children), but get over yourself. To boast that your saccrifices were somehow more difficult or noble than a single parent who works two or three jobs to put food on the table and a roof over the head of his or her family is simply outrageous. The fact is that the majority of people in this country don't have the same fortune you have had. Many of these people would be thankful to have your crappy used Toyota or Ford, let alone have a decent job to commute an hour to.

This is a protest about the haves and have nots. It is about having equal opportunities available to all Americans. The disparity in income in this country is extreme and becoming more and more so as time passes. In order to get ourselves out of the insane debt that this country has built over the past decade, it has become fashionable to talk about spending cuts, which translate to cutting social programs that far more than 1% of the citizens in the nation need to help them survive or to get ahead. Among those programs is student loans and grants. If these are cut, it compounds the inability of those with meager means to help their children get ahead in the future. Work through the logic of continuing on the same path we are on right now, where the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to fall deeper and deeper into a hole they won't ever be able to climb out of. Eventually, this country will be controlled by a handful of super-companies that weild all of the wealth and power of this country. Their children will be the only ones with the means to attain the education required to qualify them to run the companies (and the country).

This "movement" has been around for a couple of months. I wonder how those who are complaining about these protestors might have ridiculed the founding fathers of this nation - especially when the Red Coats arrived to "keep the peace". Heck, they might have been doing just fine with British rule so why rock the boat? We're already talking about taking away their safety net, their potential to get ahead and their ability to make a decent wage, let's not take away their constitutional rights as well. No matter how misguided they are not to see how the more fortunate look down on them for not understanding their incredible saccrifice.

 

[woolybug25]

.

 

[magogian]

The beneficiaries of good fortune joking continuously about how their incredible saccrifices and hard work got them their (with help from mommy and daddy, of course) is hard to swallow.

I'm not trying to minimize the amount of work you had to do to complete a difficult program of instruction or the effort your parents made to put you in a positon to succeed (I'm trying to do the same for my four children), but get over yourself. To boast that your saccrifices were somehow more difficult or noble than a single parent who works two or three jobs to put food on the table and a roof over the head of his or her family is simply outrageous. The fact is that the majority of people in this country don't have the same fortune you have had. Many of these people would be thankful to have your crappy used Toyota or Ford, let alone have a decent job to commute an hour to.

.

What crap. While there are many single parents or lower income families that work hard and barely make ends meet, generally the wealthier work harder than the poor. This article summarizes some of the research on the topic. Do the Rich Work Harder? - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Further, the average worker has more leisure time than the past, with those gains concentrated on the lower income scales. So, if anything, things are getting easier (on the whole). Of course, plenty of poeple are suffering, but let's deal with the facts.

Finally, why does income inequality matter? The average or median person today is insanely wealthy compared to someone fifty years ago. The single biggest health problem for the poor is OBESITY, not hunger. Many poor people have 2 or more cars, flatscreens, etc. Why does it matter if the richer people have $500 million or $1 billion? It doesn't and shouldn't.

 

[GoIrish41]

What crap. While there are many single parents or lower income families that work hard and barely make ends meet, generally the wealthier work harder than the poor. This article summarizes some of the research on the topic. Do the Rich Work Harder? - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Further, the average worker has more leisure time than the past with those gains concentrated on the lower income scales. So, if anything, things are getting easier (on the whole). Of course, plenty of poeple are suffering, but let's deal with the facts.

Finally, why does income inequality matter? The average or median person today is insanely wealthy compared to someone fifty years ago. The single biggest health problem for the poor is OBESITY, not hunger. Many poor people have 2 or more cars, flatscreens, etc. Why does it matter if the richer people have $500 million or $1 billion? It doesn't and shouldn't.

This is complete horsesh*t. Even if it was true, which it isn't, That the CEO of a company works more hours than the janitor does not translate into working harder.
this is the most idiotic comment I have seen on this entire thread
Is this research, as you suggest, or the bias, uninformed observations of a dumb a**? If the author can't understand why income disparity is detrimental to this country he isn't smart enough to be an authority on anything.

 

[woolybug25]

What crap. While there are many single parents or lower income families that work hard and barely make ends meet, generally the wealthier work harder than the poor. This article summarizes some of the research on the topic. Do the Rich Work Harder? - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Further, the average worker has more leisure time than the past, with those gains concentrated on the lower income scales. So, if anything, things are getting easier (on the whole). Of course, plenty of poeple are suffering, but let's deal with the facts.

Finally, why does income inequality matter? The average or median person today is insanely wealthy compared to someone fifty years ago. The single biggest health problem for the poor is OBESITY, not hunger. Many poor people have 2 or more cars, flatscreens, etc. Why does it matter if the richer people have $500 million or $1 billion? It doesn't and shouldn't.

You are completely misunderstanding his point. The point is that opportunity to become highly educated, highly employable and get opportunities are activities of the already wealthy and privileged. Sure, people in high paying positions usually work more hours than say, a oil change mechanic. But that highly paid employee most likely didn't have the socio-economic issues that the mechanic had to deal with. He could go to a good high school, his parents could pay for college, he was able to take advantage of the many relationships the privileged have. If you think for a second that a kid from the inner city raised by a single mother has it just as easy as a kid growing up in the Hampdens, then you are out of your freakin' mind. To get to the same level of opportunity, its apples and oranges.

 

[magogian]

This is complete horsesh*t. Even if it was true, which it isn't, That the CEO of a company works more hours than the janitor does not translate into working harder.
this is the most idiotic comment I have seen on this entire thread
Is this research, as you suggest, or the bias, uninformed observations of a dumb a**? If the author can't understand why income disparity is detrimental to this country he isn't smart enough to be an authority on anything.

Thanks for making it quite clear who the "dumb a**" is.

 

[magogian]

You are completely misunderstanding his point. The point is that opportunity to become highly educated, highly employable and get opportunities are activities of the already wealthy and privileged. Sure, people in high paying positions usually work more hours than say, a oil change mechanic. But that highly paid employee most likely didn't have the socio-economic issues that the mechanic had to deal with. He could go to a good high school, his parents could pay for college, he was able to take advantage of the many relationships the privileged have. If you think for a second that a kid from the inner city raised by a single mother has it just as easy as a kid growing up in the Hampdens, then you are out of your freakin' mind. To get to the same level of opportunity, its apples and oranges.

A child raised by a single mother in the inner city has it tough, very tough. And, unfortunately, it is very unlikely that child will have a succesful life. However, the predicatment of largely African-American inner city youths is a quite distinct challenge from the broader socio economic challenges in American society, or say the Wall St. protestors, who are mostly white and middle class.

The challenges to inner city youths would not be solved if just "the 1% paid their fair share." If anything, throwing money at the problems of inner city families has not solved the problems, but rather created a cycle of dependency. Prior to the "Great Society" legislation and its progeny, African Americans had much more stable families, higher rates of marriage,and lower rates of single parents. Now, they are being socially and economically decimated by this trend, which money has little to nothing to do with it.

 

[woolybug25]

Thanks for making it quite clear who the "dumb a**" is.

I don't see your humor.

But i'm guessing you didn't have a good, rational, reasonable response... so instead, you called him a dumb a**. Good for you. Even if his comment would have been stupid (I didn't see it that way), your response was was intellectually weak.

I'de side with a dumb a** over an a$$hole any day.