Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (301798)	9/1/2006 3:32:52 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571981

I wonder how many of the top 1% lost their health insurance during the past five years? Involuntarily lost their insurance and didn't get new insurance? Probably a very small percentage, but that has no connection with the statement "the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle classes!", even when combined with an increasing number of uninsured people overall. Of course its related. As people make less and less income or their income does not keep up with the cost of living, they give up more and more of the services in their lives. It may start out with no longer going to a movie or out to dinner; then as conditions worsen, it may be less meat in their diets; eventually they have to let their health insurance slide, and then finally the car and the apt. or house. In the last few years as the poor and middle classes have gotten squeezed, they are giving up their health insurance. The same thing has not happened to the upper class. You have this habit of asserting one idea, and then "proving" it with arguments that support an entirely different idea. Arguably the new idea you present might be significant, but it isn't the same as the old idea. Again, increasing poverty and the loss of health insurance are related. I am not trying to insert a new argument but rather giving you more evidence to support my original argument. You made, and continue to repeat that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor, but you continue to fail to even make arguments for that idea, instead making arguments for the similar ideas that the gap in wealth is increasing, or that more people are uninsured, or even that by some measures income for those on the bottom has gone down marginally. None of those show anything about one change in income being at the expense of anyone else's change. Hmmmm.......I think you either can't read or you don't want to hear it. I have posted article after article to you that has shown the problem both verbally and through graphs, supporting the contention that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor, and you continue to come back with the same BS. Are you reading the stuff I post to you, or simply ignoring it and coming up with the stuff put out by the right to stop this issue from getting 'legs'? If you stole $100 from me, while John made a $10000 profit from a stock trade, I would have gotten poorer, and John would have gotten richer, but his extra wealth was not obtained at my expense (unless you stole the money on his order and gave it to him afterwords). Let's assume there is an economic pie worth $1000. Ten years ago, the rich controlled 80% of that pie while the poor controlled 20%. Ten years later, the rich now control 85% of that pie and the poor control 15%. Would you agree that the rich got richer at the expense of the poor? Yes or no? And Tim, I don't want a long winded answer. Yes or no will suffice.