General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStunning visual display of wealth distribution .. absolute must see for EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.
makes me shake with anger.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)srican69
(1,426 posts)and they have the lawmakers/SCOTUS in their pockets ... that effectively checkmate for the rest of us.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)They are robbing us blind.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)demosocialist
(184 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think it deserves a permanent spot on DU's front page. This video says what DU is about for me.
srican69
(1,426 posts)waddling in.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)If this video doesn't explain why cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits are necessary, nothing does.
President Obama explains the need for a Grand Bargain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022507426
backtoblue
(11,343 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)Thanks for showing us this, srican.
srican69
(1,426 posts)His support started fraying after he read a bunch of books on the financial meltdown and now espouses some democratic value with a fair bit of regularity.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)CosmicDustBunny
(80 posts)srican69
(1,426 posts)vanlassie
(5,670 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The median income (not wealth, income) is ~$40,000, represented by a stack of $100 dollar bills about 4cm (~1.6 inches) tall.
The top of the range is a stack 50km, or approximately 30 miles high.
LooseWilly
(4,477 posts)Fast forward through, at about the 6:04 mark the graph breaks up and shows the ideal, the supposed, and the actual superimposed over each other in different colors. The dark grey one that scrapes the top of the window actually shows the top of the "actual" graph for a second or three, before "folding" back into a single image.
It's a beyond-skyscraper-in-Topeka stark contrast.
Jessy169
(602 posts)I read a study published by a university -- can't remember which one -- about a year ago that did some serious number crunching to demonstrate that if every person on earth consumed resources at the same rate as the average American consumer, we would need 6 (or 7? -- can't remember) planet earths to provide all the materials necessary.
I hate the wealth inequality as much as anybody, mostly because I hate the wealthy people who buy the politicians. They corrupt everything with their wealth.
But on the "up" side, putting all of that money into the hands of just a few does cut way down on consumption in America -- just saying. If each American had an extra $5000 to spend each year, for example, how many of us would invest that in clean energy production and research, and how many of us would go out and buy a new car, new clothes, new whatever -- or party at the sushi restaurant a couple of extra times per month.
I realize it is delusional on my part to suspect that secretive and hidden powers in the world are manipulating the world economy to take the money -- and consumption -- out of the hands of the 90% or so and put it in the hands of the already super-wealthy who simply invest it. But the part of me that wants to believe there is some kind of method behind the madness often makes me wonder.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)That would help our economy. And damned few, if any, of the uber-wealthy are spending money on clean energy and research, as is obvious by the amount of legislation that favors big oil. If we're serious about clean energy, we need the government to fund it in a big way, because the oil companies' idea of innovation is extracting oil and gas from increasingly difficult venues.
The only method behind the madness is that people with money are using that money to influence things so they will have even more money. Any benevolence towards the 99% is a rare and unintended side effect.
LooseWilly
(4,477 posts)Stay with me here... if "putting all of that money into the hands of just a few does cut way down on consumption in America" ... why not go that extra step and put all that money into absolutely no one's hands??... that way we could cut consumption in America to nearly ZERO!!
We could just "simply invest it" all.
Since we're keeping it out of everyone's hands, why don't we create a new mechanism to manage all that investment... a mechanism that isn't people... we could call it a Magic Investment Mechanism... or, something like... a "Government".
Maybe that would really be a method behind the madness worth wondering over. Zero consumption. 100% production.
Everyone can work just for room and board. And maybe some weed or booze to help pass the time before bed.
Utopia.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)mnhtnbb
(31,388 posts)malaise
(268,993 posts)kairos12
(12,860 posts)Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)so that the 1% can put gold plated fixtures in the guest baths of all of their vacation mansions.
Let's hear it for the grand bargain.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)And...and...deficits don't matter so you're either for us or against us!!!
So if grandma needs to give up her social security it's because freedom isn't free!!!!!
And Bush didn't want to scare the children...
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)GeoWilliam750
(2,522 posts)Even my brother the non-union, solid republican truck driver thinks that we are setting up the conditions for a French Revolution.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)The pieces and connections need to be out of play permanently, resources redistributed.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Forward this everywhere.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Mr_Jefferson_24
(8,559 posts)...ever publicly speaks of distribution of wealth in the US. This was part of the Occupy movement's loose platform -- wealth inequality. MSM and Left Gatekeepers alike changed it to "income inequality" ALWAYS taking care NEVER to use the phrase "wealth inequality."
We should take care not to let government and/or media choose the language on ANY issue for us. When we allow this, we also allow them to steer us away from the heart of the issue. For example, when we let them turn "wealth inequality" into "income inequality" what typically follows is a debate about minimum wage rather than the obscenely disproportionate distribution of wealth, how it happened, and what to do about it.
As another example, when we let them change the phrase "election theft" via EV machines to "voter fraud," the discussion turns toward how to prevent a non-citizen from voting, or a citizen from voting multiple times instead of how to prevent private corporations who control these machines and associated software from silently stealing elections for the GOP (a practice we know has been rampant over the last decade).
The chosen language/terms/phrases in debate and discussion is/are very important -- if you let your opponent(s) choose it for you, you'll lose.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)how that wealth distribution changed from 1980 to the present.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Milliesmom
(493 posts)How depressing, pocket change indeed!
bench scientist
(1,107 posts)sharing, thanks!
x 1,000,000,000,000,000
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)4bucksagallon
(975 posts)but it is better to go to the youtube channel and watch and vote there IMHO, it may get it more exposure.
AndyA
(16,993 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)I've already posted this to my facebook page two weeks ago. I think a whopping two people responded.
I'm literally surprised this thread has as many recommendations and kicks as it does. Whenever I post something about economic unfairness, it sinks like a stone and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't frustrated beyond belief when this happens. I just don't understand why they always sink. Is it because "preach to the choir" doesn't put asses in the seats? Is it because we just feel so helpless to do anything about it all that doesn't require ubiquitous sit ins/protests at corporate offices/general strikes?
Is it because deep down inside, there's literally no one to vote for in terms of a true progressive economic platform; that the government is largely controlled by center-right to neo-fascists who still desperately cling to Reaganomics trickle-down?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and start to grasp the fact that they, the corrupt Global Corps who bought our government have begun the process of turning the US into a third world nation. Once it's done, 'jobs' will return, they won't need China anymore.
kath
(10,565 posts)People really need to see this.Wish it could stay on the Greatest Page for more than a day...
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Edit for: Nevermind I figured it out.