U.S Budget Cuts

They wanted unrealistic pensions, etc. No very much unlike the state of social security, etc

Here we ago again. What exactly is "unrealistic" about SS pensions which barely pay the bills and which today are financed exclusively by incomes under $110,000, completely exempting every dollar earned above that amount? You don't think there's enough money above that amount to continue paying benefits?

And is it really necessary to point out that SS is fully funded for about 20 years and that even then, when it supposedly goes "bankrupt", it will still pay over 75% of scheduled benefits with no changes at all, and that 75% benefits in 2034 will still be higher than those paid today, if economic growth continues at the current, far from spectacular rate of the last 20 years or so.

And before you tell me that SS trust fund is just a paper fiction, kindly explain why Treasury Bonds held by China and Goldman Sachs aren't also fictions. Or are we just nullifying the Treasury bonds held by American working people, and honoring everyone else's Treasury bonds?

Do these myths never die?

You having worked hard and honestly for your money, is not a double blind study for how others acquire their wealth....merely a personal experience. Listened to a Detroit businessman interviewed on the radio yesterday urging the city to move forward with bankruptcy...(He recently invested over a Billion in downtown property)...and said "let's get this thing turned around"....tough shit about the pensions and medical plans of old people working for the city as firemen, linesmen, utility workers, cops etc....feels a lot like a Banana Republic these days

You again mixing things :-) You mix hard work, being smart (I do not know that is "smart" exactly in this meaning) and being rich as consequence. As 90% of people who are very smart, work very hard live poor. Sometimes it is just physically impossible to be rich (in modern understanding) in some places and times.

I mostly talked about real way to get more money. And I told that even if you get it "fair" using "hard work". I am sure that 99% of rich man think so :-) In reality it means that someone below get less for their work, work that sometimes had been much harder.

You also mix thing of "how good to be personally rich" with "how good for society is to allow valuable member who solves society problems or provide valuable goods or services to live in acceptable conditions and to allow him to persue his ideas". They are not the same.

Don't equate monetary poverty with lack of happiness

and

The 'poor' have dreams. Dreams of becoming rich.

Match perfectly :-)

In fact, it is common thing to talk that poor choose to be poor. And they really do not need proper compensation for their work. Ouch, I forgot, they work not hard enough. :-)

Just because there is no great solution, people should not adopt a bad solution.

People use solution that works. As soon as you have big amount of super poor, be sure that hand of free market will guide them right to your "rich" house :-)

Some are poor, some are rich, some are ugly, some are good looking, some are smart, some are dumb, some want to work hard, some don't. Can't make us all the same.

Exactly, you just mixed all things :-) People can't be smart universally, same for dumb. Some work not hard enough, but they are minority, most people work hard.

Don't equate success with exploitation. Because you will have looked past the sacrifices that took to become successful.

I do not equate anything. I just asked for some scheme how to get millions without exploiting others.

In fact all and any richness originate from simple fact that you get more and some get less. In nature it just means that top individuals are dominant and periodically use force to get more for themselves and their offsprings. In our world people made many systems including laws that contradict with morality and big private and government systems to pay less to poor and get more to the rich.

There are lots of 'millionaires' that work really hard for their wealth. These people tend not to be corrupt.

What you understand under corruption?

I find 'wealth redistribution' as a concept to be dis-genuine. So you fool some one with the hope of making millions, only to later take it away.

Please, tell me how exactly you can get millions and not exploit others? If you, being rich, do not look this people in the eyes sometimes, it does not mean that they do not exist :-)

@Vitaliy_Kiselev you think the super rich would be effected? You're too optimistic. There are lots of 'millionaires' that work really hard for their wealth. These people tend not to be corrupt. It's the multi zillionairs that tend to be the crooks. They will never be effected by any redistribution. It's the next two of three rungs that if effected.

Redistribution of wealth is not good. It penalizes the honest and does not solve the problem. Get to the root of the problem.

Hmm. And concentration of power, money, land and production power in few hands of course solves the problem :-)

Also definitely having millions of extremely poor who are ok to kill you just for food also play big part in stabilization :-)

A natural, free system, actually does lead to a large majority middle-class, small poverty class, and small (in terms of amount of wealth) wealthy class

Can you tell us few examples? As few examples of unrestricted free capitalism that I know have huge poverty class, small servants class (aka, by error, as middle class) and small (but very big in terms of amount of wealth) elites and military top.

@bwhitz

The mainstream message is that the 1% "have it all", rich people exploit you, businesses exploit you, government involvement in every aspect of you life is the only solution

Strange! The U.S. class warfare propaganda I see in major media promotes exactly the opposite view -- politicians, very rich people and TV talking heads constantly telling much poorer people it's time for sacrifice, that if they're not rich it's their own fault for being lazy or stupid, that there's a national emergency for which we have to cut social security benefits, that raising taxes on billionaires will destroy the American economy, that we can print unlimited amounts of money to bomb third countries but not for anything useful at home, and that hedge fund managers who destroy jobs must be called "job creators" or you're a commie.

It is true that most Americans, including Republicans, actually support redistribution of wealth, but since public opinion is of no consequence in our system, that's irrelevant.

In other words, large majorities of the American public actively reject your view of how society should be organized -- e.g., they don't believe it's acceptable for the top 1% to own 40% of the national wealth because, supposedly, wealth is not a zero sum game-- but it prevails as public policy anyway, to a degree not seen in other industrial democracies.

So what in world are you complaining about?

I do not agree with this view. But it is mainstream view that is beamed to us 24 hours each day. So it is absolutely common to think so :-)

Not at all. The mainstream message is that the 1% "have it all", rich people exploit you, businesses exploit you, government involvement in every aspect of you life is the only solution. Forgot if you actually live in the US, or not now, but this is the message I've heard my entire life, non-stop. It's even more prevalent the last few years. Tea Party and small-government movements are mocked by the media, conservatives are called "racists" "misogynists" "bigots", ect. The message is "hate money and the wealthy". It's on Facebook, it's shared on YouTube, it's in mainstream movies like "Elysium". Pure leftist (American left-ist) propaganda.

I suggest to check few videos I posted not long time ago.

I have watched them. The one on "population and energy" was very good and also supports my point that wealth is not calculated on resources alone.

If "Population X" has, let's say, 100-Energy Units and 50 people. They are wealthy and well-off. If "Population X" has the same 100-Energy Units, but now 200 people... the same energy has to be spread across more of the population. Therefore, decreasing the individual's wealth. Lowering everyone's standard of life. The resources do not change here. What does change, is how they are used, and in what amount. That is what determines the level of "wealth" in this situation. Resources may be necessary, but they are not sufficient in determining wealth by themselves.

No, because wealth is not based on resources alone. Ideas, innovations, creativity are where real "wealth" comes from. Were early human-monkeys in evolution "wealthy" simply because nobody owned the resources of the planet at that time? Not really.

I do not agree with this view. But it is mainstream view that is beamed to us 24 hours each day. So it is absolutely common to think so :-)

Reality absolutely do not match your claims. As strange as it is, life level is directly related with consumed energy (also can check post with map and numbers I posted). And it is for energy and resources that elites and corporations fight. Are ideas and innovations important? In some areas they are, sometimes very important even. But such areas are fewer each day. Monkeys are good in repeating and making copies. So ideas spread pretty fast.

Intellect level and geniuses density is really almost the same across nations (due to very high variability that is bigger than racial difference). Yet life level and available goods differ very much.

I suggest to check few videos I posted not long time ago.

It's actually stupidity I fault and I'm not in agreement that greed is in our DNA. The top earners in this world and especially the US seems to live by a philosophy that "only everything" is enough while we, the people, are actually calmly tolerating a system in which our healthcare WHETHER WE LIVE OR DIE) is a business that cheats us out of service we pay dearly for at every opportunity they get, while our leaders tell us how truly exceptional we are (apologies to VK if I'm going off topic):)