Romney Wants to Sacrifice Our Health to Become President

[Arnold]

Romney Wants to Sacrifice Our Health to Become President
by Miles J. Zaremski, Attorney, Writer and Commentator ~ source

During the third debate, Romney stated, "Come on our website, you'll look how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years. We do it by getting -- by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. By the way, number one -- get rid of Obamacare". As with much of what Romney says or advocates that fact-checkers find to be false, untrue, deceptive or misleading, eliminating Obamacare will not reduce the budget. As scored by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, repealing the president's health plan will increase the budget by $109 billion over the next ten years.

For uncommitted voters, or those who think they have decided but who have yet to vote, consider this: Obamacare was enacted to stem the tide of millions of Americans from being able to access or afford health care. Without the means to maintain our health, none of us have anything at all -- we cannot enjoy our freedoms, our work, our community and certainly our families and loved ones. But Willard Mitt Romney wants to take away from us the ability to enjoy what the Declaration of Independence provides for us -- life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- by telling us, falsely, that he wants to get rid of Obamacare right after he becomes president, and get rid of it because it only adds to a deficit that requires reduction. Of course, at the same time, particularly during the third debate on foreign policy, he wants to add to the budget $2 trillion in defense spending that the military industrial complex says it does not need.

More incredulous is that the former Massachusetts' governor tells us that the health plan he created for the citizens of Massachusetts, "Romneycare" (upon which Obamacare is principally based, including the individual mandate) is not workable on the federal level, as each state should decide how its citizens should be able to afford and access their health. Romney fails to tell the American public that Romneycare was supported by nearly $400 million in federal monies to insure the uninsured for his program.

Further, he tells us that he has a health plan to replace Obamacare that will provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. Yet moments after he said this, one of his senior advisers had to say that pre-existing conditions would be covered only if the insured had continuous coverage that provided for it. In other words, if you lost your insurance for any reason, the new Romney plan would not cover your pre-existing conditions.

The debates for 2012 are now history with 14 days left before we elect our next president. Health care and our ability to afford and access any health care system has been a critical issue in the campaign. Indeed, Obamacare already provides benefits and more are on the way starting in 2014. At the end of the day, however, do we all want someone in the Oval Office who does not tell us the truth about the new health care program which is already the law of the land and who simply wants to get rid of it on false pretenses, or do we want to have a leader who had the courage and tenacity to move forward on establishing a health law, the first in many, many decades, and then who ensured its passage that has become a genuine start to ensuring all Americans have a right to health care -- and the ability to access and afford what it takes to remain healthy?

The person we want in the White House is the one who will not sacrifice our health to get there. The answer for who that person should be could not be any clearer now.

 

[LAM]

this is exactly what happens in a society when there is a large financial/wealth gap between the working class and the very top. they can afford to supply all of the services that they need. they need labor, they outsource it, they need capital they borrow it, they need medical care they buy it...

Americans should have paid closer attention to world history instead of reality tv, sports and celebrities....

 

[Gregzs]

Meanwhile the bastards in Congress voted to cover their own asses at the cost of taxpayers...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/u...-health-law-provision-to-attack-gop.html?_r=1&


[h=1]Democrats Use Health Law to Assail Republicans[/h][h=6]By ROBERT PEAR[/h]WASHINGTON ? A little-noticed provision of the new health care law is causing big headaches for some members of Congress in this year?s elections. And it is likely to cause even bigger headaches for lawmakers next year.
The provision, written into the law at the behest of a Republican senator, says members of Congress must get their health benefits through new insurance exchanges being established in every state.

Republicans have voted repeatedly to repeal the whole law. Now, in a barrage of television ads, Democrats are roasting those Republicans, saying they voted to give themselves ?taxpayer-funded health care for life.?
The accuracy of the commercials, judged even by the loose standards that often apply to political advertising, is open to question.

Democrats say the commercials are accurate. Under the law, they say, members of Congress would be removed from the federal program that provides health insurance to most federal employees and retirees. Repealing the law, they say, would restore that coverage.

Republicans say that the attacks are unfounded, and that the Democrats are misrepresenting the effect of the law on coverage for retired members of Congress.
In any event, the criticism, if it sticks, could be politically damaging. Lawmakers of both parties have often said their goal is to provide all Americans with health insurance as good as what Congress has.

In a typical ad, the campaign of Ann McLane Kuster, the Democratic candidate for Congress in the Second District of New Hampshire, says that Representative Charles Bass, the incumbent Republican, ?voted to cut Medicare for you while voting himself taxpayer-funded health care for life.? In upstate New York, Dan Maffei, a Democrat, assails the Republican, Representative Ann Marie Buerkle, saying she tried to privatize Medicare while ?voting herself a tax-subsidized health care plan that she will be eligible for even after she retires.?

Similar television advertisements have been run in California by Democrats trying to unseat Representatives Brian P. Bilbray and Mary Bono Mack, both Republicans.

In Michigan, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running an advertisement that says Representative Dan Benishek, a Republican, ?voted to give members of Congress taxpayer-funded health care for life.?
In another commercial, the committee says that Representative Tom Latham, Republican of Iowa, ?voted himself taxpayer-funded health care for life,? but ?wanted to gut Medicare, basically do away with it,? for older Americans.

House Majority PAC, a leading Democratic ?super PAC,? has run advertisements saying that Representative Chip Cravaack, a freshman Republican from Minnesota, ?voted to give members of Congress taxpayer-subsidized health care for life,? even as he tried to make older Americans pay more for their health care.

In an interview, Mr. Cravaack said the attack was based on ?a deceitful stretch of the imagination,? and he asked: ?How can you possibly think that repealing Obamacare would provide me with health care for life? I do not understand the correlation.?
However, Andy Stone, a spokesman for House Majority PAC, defended the commercials.

?The ads show the hypocrisy of Republicans who want to protect their health insurance while eliminating protections for people with pre-existing conditions and for children who want to stay on their parents? insurance to age 26,? Mr. Stone said.
Jesse F. Ferguson, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said, ?It?s no surprise Republicans don?t like us pointing out the truth ? that their vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act would reinstate the perk of taxpayer-funded government health care for members of Congress.?

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed the original requirement for lawmakers to get coverage through insurance exchanges. He has long said that ?Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country.?
The television ads are based on two premises: that members of Congress now have taxpayer-financed coverage for life, and that the 2010 health care law will eliminate it.
The facts are more complicated than the ads.

Members of Congress and retired members are eligible for insurance coverage under the same system as other federal employees. This system, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, covers eight million federal workers, retirees and dependents.

The 2010 health care law says that the only health plans available to members of Congress, as a benefit of their employment, are health plans created under the law or offered through insurance exchanges.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress, says this section of the law implies that members of Congress ?will no longer be eligible to enroll? in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

That raises vexing questions for lawmakers. Under the program for federal employees, the government pays a hefty share of the premiums: 72 percent, on average. Will this money still be available to help pay premiums when members of Congress get coverage through the exchanges, starting in 2014?

The government contribution averages more than $10,000 a year for family coverage and more than $4,500 for individual coverage.

In writing the legislation, members of Congress apparently assumed that the federal contribution to their premiums would continue, but the law is silent on the question.

Though the law generally requires members of Congress and certain Congressional aides to get their coverage through insurance exchanges, it says nothing about retiree health benefits.

How the new law affects retiree benefits is unclear, say lawyers at the Congressional Research Service and at the Committee on House Administration, which is responsible for bills affecting lawmakers? pay and benefits.
Federal employees can often keep their coverage in retirement if they have been continuously enrolled in the federal employees health program for five years immediately before retiring.

Without getting into the fine points of health policy, Democrats are unleashing more ads. One says that Representative Sean P. Duffy, Republican of Wisconsin, voted to ?give Congress taxpayer-funded health care for life.?

Justin Richards, the manager of the Duffy campaign, said: ?Sean Duffy doesn?t get health care for life, not even close. His health care is the same as any federal employee from the F.B.I. agent to the park ranger.?

 

[DOMS]

repealing the president's health plan will increase the budget by $109 billion over the next ten years.

With an aging legal population, a growing illegal population, I wonder how much the costs of health care are going to increase anyway?

Ten billion a year? Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and social security account for 41% of the national budget. The budget for 2012 amounts to $3.729 trillion dollars. That means that the those three categories account for 1.528 trillion dollars. That's a whopping .6% of the amount we spend taking care of the American people. That's not six percent, that's six percent of one percent.

The USA gives out $25 billion in foreign aid each year. Cut some of that shit and the problem of the "increased" cost of not doing Obamacare is solved. Cut out all the foreign aid and we're even better off.

I don't believe for a second that Obamacare is good for the USA in its current form. Maybe, just maybe, it was when Obama first outlined it, but in order to get it passed, Obama had to do several backroom deals. Before he did that, the healthcare-related corporations didn't want it. After those shady deals, they like Obamacare now. That cannot be good for the people.

 

[heckler7]

The gang does politics - YouTube

 

[Little Wing]

i'm afraid one of the asshole plans of Romney to make money would be to sell off public lands. a lot of Mainers would like to see this bitch dead. Roxanne Quimby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romney To Nevadans: I Don't Know 'What The Purpose Is' Of Public Lands (Hint: They Pump $1 Billion Into the State Economy)

 

[Zaphod]

i'm afraid one of the asshole plans of Romney to make money would be to sell off public lands. a lot of Mainers would like to see this bitch dead. Roxanne Quimby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romney To Nevadans: I Don't Know 'What The Purpose Is' Of Public Lands (Hint: They Pump $1 Billion Into the State Economy)

He doesn't know because he lives in a little fantasy world where business will fix everything.

 

[Swiper]

He doesn't know because he lives in a little fantasy world where business will fix everything.

only govt can fix everything efficiently. it never lies, cheats or steals from us.

 

[Zaphod]

only govt can fix everything efficiently. it never lies, cheats or steals from us.

And business NEVER EVER fucks you in the ass.

 

[troubador]

As scored by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, repealing the president's health plan will increase the budget by $109 billion over the next ten years.

Yeah, because according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office part of the spending increase is covered by tax increases that are included in the law. So don't confuse "increase the budget" with increase to the tax payer.

That includes employees(ie labor) paying a 40% tax on comprehensive health care plans.

 

[troubador]

this is exactly what happens in a society when there is a large financial/wealth gap between the working class and the very top.

The U.S. has the second highest median income behind Luxembourg(like they count). Why is the wealth gap a problem if the middle earners are making more here than somewhere else where the gap is smaller? I understand the stagnating mobility of the middle and lower class is a problem but why is the wealth gap a problem per se? I mean, I'd rather have a $500K house and live next to a five million dollar house than live in a shack next some other shacks.

 

[Big Pimpin]

i'm afraid one of the asshole plans of Romney to make money would be to sell off public lands. a lot of Mainers would like to see this bitch dead. Roxanne Quimby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romney To Nevadans: I Don't Know 'What The Purpose Is' Of Public Lands (Hint: They Pump $1 Billion Into the State Economy)

Good. There's no reason our broke government needs to own ~30% of the land in this country (and the majority of several states). Sell most of it off and pay down the debt.

We are countless trillions in debt, but LW the liberal doesn't want to give up a couple of federal parks in ME because she's ENTITLED to it! It's HERS to enjoy! Fuck the national debt! Fuck Romney the evil doer!

 

[Big Pimpin]

i'm afraid one of the asshole plans of Romney to make money would be to sell off public lands. a lot of Mainers would like to see this bitch dead. Roxanne Quimby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romney To Nevadans: I Don't Know 'What The Purpose Is' Of Public Lands (Hint: They Pump $1 Billion Into the State Economy)

Roxanne Quimby is an American businesswomen notable for founding the Burt's Bees personal care products company with beekeeper Burt Shavitz.[SUP][1][/SUP]

Quimby was originally from Lexington, Massachusetts,[SUP][2][/SUP] a daughter of an engineer and salesman father. Although her family was business oriented, she initially took a different path, going to art school in San Francisco, where she was influenced by the "back to the land" ideas of Helen and Scott Nearing.[SUP][1][/SUP] In 1975 she and her boyfriend George St. Clair moved to Maine, bought a tract of land near Guilford, built a cabin and outhouse, and lived a rustic lifestyle.[SUP][1][/SUP] In 1978, the couple had twins; a little later, St Clair left the family.[SUP][2][/SUP] Eventually, she met Burt Shavitz and in 1984 began selling candles made of his beeswax at local fairs. After achieving a $20,000 profit the first year,[SUP][1][/SUP] the business grew steadily; in 1991 it introduced its best received product, a lip balm. In 1993, Quimby bought Shavitz's stake in the company; in 2003 she partially and in 2007 fully divested herself, leaving with an estimated total of $350 million.
After turning Burt's Bees over to outside investors, Quimby used her new fortune to deepen her long running conservation advocacy. The most visible action was the purchase of over 120,000 acres of Maine forest, which she then placed off limits to hunters, loggers, and other users. She has since proposed a donation of 70,000 acres of her land towards a new Maine Woods National Park, which will put thousands out of jobs. An additional donation of 30,000 acres would be managed like a state park and would allow activities such as hunting and snowmobiling.[SUP][1][/SUP]
As of 2011, she is a resident of Portland, Maine, where she leads a number of philanthropic organizations in the area.[SUP][1][/SUP]

Talk about liberal wealth envy. This woman goes from nothing to worth hundreds of millions of dollars then purchases 120K acres for the people to enjoy now she wants to spin off the land and let 30K acres of it be enjoyed by snowmobilers and hunters.

Definitely sounds worth killing her for if I was liberal.

 

[Big Smoothy]

In the first post OP Romney says - once again - he'll repeal Obamacare (American Health Care Act).

All I am asking is, "what is your health care plan, Mr. Romney?"

He has no plan. He has no alternative. He only wants to repeal Obamacare.

Romney has not talked about this issue nor the rising health care costs that are squeezing the working and middle-class.

 

[Luxx]

In the first post OP Romney says - once again - he'll repeal Obamacare (American Health Care Act).

All I am asking is, "what is your health care plan, Mr. Romney?"

He has no plan. He has no alternative. He only wants to repeal Obamacare.

Romney has not talked about this issue nor the rising health care costs that are squeezing the working and middle-class.

Obama Care should've been thought about after everyone has a job. Will the government arrest anyone that cant afford Obama care? There is so many ppl out of work in my area, I doubt they will be buying ins.

 

[Big Smoothy]

Obama Care should've been thought about after everyone has a job.

Employment will never be 100%.

Will the government arrest anyone that cant afford Obama care?

The govt. never was going to arrest anyone. Do you mean the "penalty?" *cough* "Tax?"

There is so many ppl out of work in my area, I doubt they will be buying ins.

Please tell us more about your area and the unemployment situation. I know many parts of FL (and the country are rough).

I am not sold on Obamacare. I just want Romney to have something. The US health care system is a complete failure.

 

[Dale Mabry]

The U.S. has the second highest median income behind Luxembourg(like they count). Why is the wealth gap a problem if the middle earners are making more here than somewhere else where the gap is smaller? I understand the stagnating mobility of the middle and lower class is a problem but why is the wealth gap a problem per se? I mean, I'd rather have a $500K house and live next to a five million dollar house than live in a shack next some other shacks.

Because it's not the size of the gap, it's the concentration of people at the top. If the distribution were more even the size of the gap would be irrelevant. The problem lies in the fact that so few people are at that top portion of the curve controlling most of the money. Because we are a consumption based economy this doesn't work because these people save a large chunk of that money or invest it. Investing does nothing productive to our economy if consumption doesn't also increase. So you have people with most of the money buying stuff they need and then socking it awa while people who need stuff are just scraping by so they start saving. This depresses consumption and you have what we have right now, which is not going to change without government intervention. Basically you have a pissing contest between people hiring and people buying. People won't buy because they have no money and people won't hire because no one is buying. If one of those groups balks then the system starts working again. The problem is the buyers can't balk because they don't have any money and the job creators won't balk because they know the government will step in and either give them more money or prolong unemployment/handouts. It's really a lose/lose for the working class because they never see any of the benefit, only an eventual tax increase.

 

[LAM]

The U.S. has the second highest median income behind Luxembourg(like they count). Why is the wealth gap a problem if the middle earners are making more here than somewhere else where the gap is smaller? I understand the stagnating mobility of the middle and lower class is a problem but why is the wealth gap a problem per se? I mean, I'd rather have a $500K house and live next to a five million dollar house than live in a shack next some other shacks.

skewed statistics due to the large population in the US which accounts for 25% of the total population of the OECD. nothing more than the total GDP of the country divided by the number of people in the workforce. painfully obviously what an utter useless statistic that number is. an issue brought up by the economists at the OECD years go.

 

[LAM]

only govt can fix everything efficiently. it never lies, cheats or steals from us.

the reduction of purchasing power of labor wages by the monetary authority which controls our currency is the biggest source of the theft. and for the central bank in the US you can thank Alexander Hamilton for that.

 

[troubador]

skewed statistics due to the large population in the US which accounts for 25% of the total population of the OECD. nothing more than the total GDP of the country divided by the number of people in the workforce. painfully obviously what an utter useless statistic that number is. an issue brought up by the economists at the OECD years go.

You described mean not median.

 

[LAM]

You described mean not median.

regardless, the top 400 households in the US have more combined income than the bottom 50% of US workforce or almost 80million people. and those that don't see the problem with that in a consumption based economy will never understand economics at any level.

 

[Big Pimpin]

regardless, the top 400 households in the US have more combined income than the bottom 50% of US workforce or almost 80million people. and those that don't see the problem with that in a consumption based economy will never understand economics at any level.

But is that necessarily the fault of the top 400 households?

 

[jay_steel]

Big Pimpin you are missing the point here. It is your responsibility to be an entrepreneur, make money, and then give it to people who you do not agree with... Why shouldn't some one who stayed up for days perfecting their business or studying hard. Who made every sacrifice for every $ they made and to make it to where they are. Who ran the risks of investing their money in their company have the privileged to keep their money. It is only right that they pay higher taxes to help people who are on drugs, welfare, who do not wake up until noon, who have criminal records, and who do not apply them selves. It is their job to ensure every ones kids get free health care, get to go to college for free. I mean whose responsibility do you think it should be seriously big pimpin...Who should have to take care of these starving kids? Their parents? No its not their fault they have 6 kids and no job its the rich people in America's fault. I mean Who responsibility is it to provide them free birth control, why should they have to pay for it..

 

[troubador]

regardless, the top 400 households in the US have more combined income than the bottom 50% of US workforce or almost 80million people. and those that don't see the problem with that in a consumption based economy will never understand economics at any level.

Why bother responding if you can't or won't explain it.

 

[Dale Mabry]

Big Pimpin you are missing the point here. It is your responsibility to be an entrepreneur, make money, and then give it to people who you do not agree with... Why shouldn't some one who stayed up for days perfecting their business or studying hard. Who made every sacrifice for every $ they made and to make it to where they are. Who ran the risks of investing their money in their company have the privileged to keep their money. It is only right that they pay higher taxes to help people who are on drugs, welfare, who do not wake up until noon, who have criminal records, and who do not apply them selves. It is their job to ensure every ones kids get free health care, get to go to college for free. I mean whose responsibility do you think it should be seriously big pimpin...Who should have to take care of these starving kids? Their parents? No its not their fault they have 6 kids and no job its the rich people in America's fault. I mean Who responsibility is it to provide them free birth control, why should they have to pay for it..

It's not the responsibility of the entrepreneur to make it rain on the people below them. However, when we get in to a situation as the one we are in now, either those guys have to make it rain or the government has to step in and force them via taxation and redistribution. I don't like this and few people do, but it's not the responsibility of government to make sure the wealthy stay wealthy unless that works in concert with the growth of our country. Is that fair? Absolutely not, but if they were paying a liveable wage in the first place .gov wouldn't need to get involved. While there are certainly exceptions to the rule, the rule as it pertains to business is that most people who run companies are more interested in profit/stock price than anything having to do with the day to day lives of their employees. This means paying them as little as possible and squeezing as much productivity out of them as possible.

 

[jay_steel]

I can agree with allot of things you just said Dale. It just pisses me off how irresponsible people are with money. You get people who make 15-25k a year trying to live a life style of people they see on TV. There is no reason some one who does not make that much money needs expensive 300$ jeans or 22 inch wheels. I see it all the time, you can drive around out low income neighborhoods and see people in dumps driving 30k cars. While a good portion of them collect gov't assistance and then sale drugs to make more money. Now I know before LAM gets all upset and says its only 1% i don't care if its .5% the % is growing over the years. Where will we be in 20 years from now if we keep enabling and not instilling a hard work ethic.

I agree in helping people that need help that is what the system is made for. Helping the construction worker get paid while he is laid off during the winter, or the guy who lost his job because there is no more need for it and he needs gov't assistance to go to school to learn a new field. I agree with that, but why do we enable laziness. I have never heard a plan to motivate people to get out of poverty. I just see more free things being added and things making it easier for them. Such as EBT cards, why wouldnt you want to get off food stamps now that you have a card and you can get ebt cash back.

Or Financial aid some of these kids are ruining the school system. My step dad is a professor at our city college and his class is so packed there is a long waiting list every semester and many kids can not get into it that need the class, but he loses 25% of his class as soon as they get their aid money. So it just screws kids waiting for the class and they suck up the money. The system has to many flaws in it that allows people to take advantage of it. Hold them accountable for their actions that is all I want to see. If you get any thing lower then a B in the class you get a bill for a percent of the class and if you get a D you pay back the entire aid for that class.

 

[troubador]

The problem lies in the fact that so few people are at that top portion of the curve controlling most of the money. Because we are a consumption based economy this doesn't work because these people save
a large chunk of that money or invest it. Investing does nothing productive to our economy if consumption doesn't also increase. So you have people with most of the money buying stuff they need and then socking it awa while people who need stuff are just scraping by so they start saving.

I'm confused about the cause and effect in your statement. Are you saying that the few people at the top controlling most of the money entails people who need stuff are just scraping by or that the increase(change) in the concentration of wealth at the top causes a decrease in wealth at the bottom? Like I pointed out the U.S. with it's large wealth gap has middle earners making more than other countries so it doesn't make sense that wealth concentration being at the top causes a decline of wealth at the bottom but maybe the acceleration of wealth accumulation at the top does? In the 19th century wealth inequality was roughly the same yet per capita income more than doubled.

The problem lies in the fact that so few people are at that top portion of the curve controlling most of the money. Because we are a consumption based economy this doesn't work...

Or is the real problem that we are a consumption based economy? Every country that has risen toward the top has done so by production and innovation right? I think I understand the problem you're pointing out but is aiming to reduce income equality an effective long term solution?

 

[jay_steel]

^^^ bingo... on consumption based..

The problem is we are competing against countries that have different moral responsibilities to their people. We may see it as unfit, but they see it as they employ people even if it is for 2$ a day. Are we just so spoiled in America that we no longer know what hard work even is? We call China a slave labor county, but where would those people be with out apple? Prostitution, trafficking, fields, and drug cartels as drug mules? I have been to many of the third world counties being in the Navy and spoke with many of them and most will do any thing to get a job that pays bare minimum. Never said that is right, i believe in human rights, but in a country like china that is so over populated it seems all most like it is the only option.

Obama knows its impossible to stop businesses from outsourcing and so does every politician. Honestly I think outsourcing is the only thing keeping this country alive. There is no way Americans can afford products 100% made in America at our wages. Either that or we do not want to live that life style of giving up things that we like. Any one that does not agree with outsourcing then put your money where your mouth is and give up your cell phones, computers, and ect and only use American made products. Until your willing to do that, I have no interest in hearing from you.

I have only meet one person I respect with that point of view and that is my cousin who only buys 100% American made. She doesnt own a cell phone, computer, or any thing because she is anti outsourcing. Gave up her car and bought a bike made in the US and every thing. She is a fucking twack job, but I respect her. Also her bills have doubles on clothing, food, and every expense. Only reason she is able to do this is because her parents are millionaires.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I'm confused about the cause and effect in your statement. Are you saying that the few people at the top controlling most of the money entails people who need stuff are just scraping by or that the increase(change) in the concentration of wealth at the top causes a decrease in wealth at the bottom? Like I pointed out the U.S. with it's large wealth gap has middle earners making more than other countries so it doesn't make sense that wealth concentration being at the top causes a decline of wealth at the bottom but maybe the acceleration of wealth accumulation at the top does? In the 19th century wealth inequality was roughly the same yet per capita income more than doubled.

Outside of not paying employees well enough which is a problem, there is no direct cause and effect between the two. The primary issue is that in order for the top to get their wealth via investment, the idiots at the bottom have to spend more than they make. In that way they are linked because Apple stock wouldn't be where it is at if everyone was responsible with money. That's why it is laughable when a wealthy person says the poor should just save, if that happened the wealthy person would see a considerable amount of his net worth evaporate. As for your example of the 19th century being prosperous, people were building their own houses, essentially given land, and grew their own food. Plus, there were no Ipads/iphones or big screens for people to waste their money on, all you really had was booze, which you could make yourself. Our economy wasn't so reliant on consumption back then.

Or is the real problem that we are a consumption based economy? Every country that has risen toward the top has done so by production and innovation right? I think I understand the problem you're pointing out but is aiming to reduce income equality an effective long term solution?

A consumption based economy is precisely the problem, but do you expect that to change? Reducing income inequality could work as a strategy but probably wouldn't with the way our government works. It would need to be redistributed in a way that people who would produce get the money and the turds sink. IMO, the turds sinking is exactly what we need, but that includes the rich turds that are basically handed everything. I am 100% cool with the estate tax. In fact, I say don't even tax it, when you die it comes out of circulation unless you have minors that need to be taken care of. The world would be a much better place if everyone had to pull their own weight. We'd certainly be more productive.

To really fix the problem you would need to completely change people's way of thinking. I used to be the person wasting money on shit I didn't need and life is so much better not doing that. Try telling that to the masses, you would inflict "hardship" all the way around. Less consumption means less jobs means even less consumption, etc. Eventually that hits the top via massive losses on investment and now every American has to lower their standard of living substantially. You'd be hard-pressed getting elected on that platform, although it looks like Romney's gonna make a go of it, albeit under the guise of a tax cut.

 

[Dale Mabry]

^^^ bingo... on consumption based..

The problem is we are competing against countries that have different moral responsibilities to their people. We may see it as unfit, but they see it as they employ people even if it is for 2$ a day. Are we just so spoiled in America that we no longer know what hard work even is? We call China a slave labor county, but where would those people be with out apple? Prostitution, trafficking, fields, and drug cartels as drug mules? I have been to many of the third world counties being in the Navy and spoke with many of them and most will do any thing to get a job that pays bare minimum. Never said that is right, i believe in human rights, but in a country like china that is so over populated it seems all most like it is the only option.

Obama knows its impossible to stop businesses from outsourcing and so does every politician. Honestly I think outsourcing is the only thing keeping this country alive. There is no way Americans can afford products 100% made in America at our wages. Either that or we do not want to live that life style of giving up things that we like. Any one that does not agree with outsourcing then put your money where your mouth is and give up your cell phones, computers, and ect and only use American made products. Until your willing to do that, I have no interest in hearing from you.

I have only meet one person I respect with that point of view and that is my cousin who only buys 100% American made. She doesnt own a cell phone, computer, or any thing because she is anti outsourcing. Gave up her car and bought a bike made in the US and every thing. She is a fucking twack job, but I respect her. Also her bills have doubles on clothing, food, and every expense. Only reason she is able to do this is because her parents are millionaires.

If you think about it, if every millionaire did that trickle down would probably work.