In November, Americans will have a chance to speak their minds.
And there's one thing everyone should agree on:
America just isn't working right now.
It's not just Americans who aren't working. It's America itself, a country whose economy once worked for almost everyone, not just the rich.
In the old America, if you worked hard, you had a good chance of moving up.
In the old America, the fruits of people's labors accrued to the whole country, not just the top.
In the old America, there was a strong middle class, and their immense collective purchasing power drove the economy for decades.
No longer.
Over the past couple of decades, the disparity between "the 1%" and everyone else has hit a level not seen since the 1920s. And there is a widespread and growing sense that life here is not fair or right.
If America cannot figure out a way to fix these problems, the country will likely become increasingly polarized and de-stabilized. And if that happens, the recent "Occupy" protests will likely be only the beginning.
The problem in a nutshell is this:
In the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.
And that's not just unfair.
It's un-American.

Arathain gets it.

If the wealth disparity continues to grow, then the masses WILL rise up and take violent action.

Horse ****. That comes off as crazy as Elmo saying that liberty loving patriots are going to take up arms against the government. Maybe on the lunatic fringes both are true, but the truth is that no matter how much I might agree with Elmo philosophically, I enjoy my relative comfort too much. The same can be said for those who enjoy first world comfort without enjoying Warren Buffet's wealth. To do what you are suggesting they would have to relinquish all comfort and essentially become Somali pirates. It ain't happening, Stan.

I suggest you read (and understand) more history.

He's not incorrect. People will ***** and moan about the wealth gap, but if they are meeting their own needs, it's not enough to generate violence on a wide scale.

While that's true Arathain, my post specifically stated if the wealth disparity continues to grow. If that happens, the poor will continue to get less and less and will eventually hit that threshold of not having their needs met.

2011 London riots showed that is not the case. Well fed, housed, bored underclass burned and looted, and only state force broke it down, after 3 days. That's not revolution, but it puts informed self interest in another light.

I suggest you read (and understand) more history.

2011 London riots showed that is not the case. Well fed, housed, bored underclass burned and looted, and only state force broke it down, after 3 days. That's not revolution, but it puts informed self interest in another light.

While that's true Arathain, my post specifically stated if the wealth disparity continues to grow. If that happens, the poor will continue to get less and less and will eventually hit that threshold of not having their needs met.

While that's true Arathain, my post specifically stated if the wealth disparity continues to grow. If that happens, the poor will continue to get less and less and will eventually hit that threshold of not having their needs met.

While that's true Arathain, my post specifically stated if the wealth disparity continues to grow. If that happens, the poor will continue to get less and less and will eventually hit that threshold of not having their needs met.