There are appox. 14 million unemployed in the US, so lets say with underemployed

[teddy51]

we will take it to 30 million. Look what it would cost just one of these Billionaires to give 30 million to these people. What the hell is 30 million to someone like Gates or Buffet. So even if we expanded that a little, and helped a few more folks out, say to 2 billion, that is a drop in the bucket.

Now I used Gates and Buffet as examples, but we also have the Koch brothers with (I think) 35 Billion each. Why the hell is this so hard to do in a country where so few have so much, and many have so little?

[PETRUS]

1. And further...

...unemployment and underemployment is a consequence of policies advanced by the wealthy elite. Trade policy, monetary policy, financial deregulation, the "strong dollar" policy, restrictions on workers' right to organize & strike, etc. all benefited the Gates and Buffets of the nation while leaving others behind. The upward redistribution of wealth was not an accident or even the result of unfettered market.

[teddy51]

2. But my point is, if they gave the 300 plus Americans a fraction of their wealth

then everyone would be happy and there would be no cause for what we are seeing today. I know, that is all to simple and makes sense, but wouldn't that be the way to go if you wanted to keep peace?

[PETRUS]

3. That's true.

But lots of people have a visceral problem with that kind of redistribution. What people need to understand is the way the rich engineered the legal framework to promote their own interests at the expense of the masses, and that the wealth accumulated at the top is not a natural phenomenon, or fairly earned.

Edit to add: I don't know that people would be "happy." Most people want the ability to provide for themselves, not charity. And we'd still be left with an oligarchy/plutocracy. People want democracy, too.

[teddy51]

4. I understand your edit input, but my scenario would certainly get people on their feet

and would keep them out of harms way until they could take the next step. I guess I am just to naive to grasp what would be best for the world as a whole. Very upsetting.

[PETRUS]

5. Things do need to be more evenly distributed.

I don't disagree with you. Your basic premise - that there's enough to go around - isn't wrong. I'm just pointing out that it's useful to know how we got to where we are, that it wasn't an accident, and that we need a new set of policies to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.