http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

Great video..

Obummers "Dreams from my father" come to reality, and Robmes fast road to continue this great work....

Enter "ROBAMNEY" the bankers greatest machine clone!

This vid should be required viewing in every "middle" school in America...By the time they reach high school, it's already too late....

The American Way or The European Way...That is the Question?

Or

Trickle Down Economics V Social Democracy

And meanwhile the FED is bailing out the EURO with Billions of Dollars!
Europe has gone to the Dogs!
What Social Democracy?
Brussels?

I think he meant socialist utopia..

Central Bankers/Birds of a Feather...scratch my back and I will scratch yours

No invictus....real world

Conrad is a European in American Clothing

calling me a European is insulting!
Got nothing to do with that Gang in Brussels!
They even give Politicians a bad name!

More like ...you scratch my back, I'll stay off of yours....for a bit... they have their own country to rob before THEY can share

there is Gold in them thar Greek,Italian,Spanish Irish and Portuguese Banks!

I think this fits in here...if not apologies Invi

Observing that the gap between rich and poor
was getting wider, the BBC's Jeremy Paxman wondered whether someone could
become too rich. The capitalist system is destined to create a financial elite as
the big fish get bigger and bigger. The financial barons provide the money and
organization for all the utopian dreamers who believe in a command and control
society. But the Devil's greatest trick is to persuade man that he does not exist.
The ablility of the hidden hand to manipulate policy depends upon concealment.
It has been assisted by the widespread apathy towards public affairs, generated
largely by the relative tranquillity of life in the West over the last sixty years.
However, through the internet, it is becoming much easier to demonstrate
and communicate both the existence of the cartel and the cumulative toxicity of
its various activities. Support for the party line will dwindle as soon as its real
purpose and its beneficiaries are exposed.

I love it when someone broadens the topic avenue and turns it into a super highway with multiple lanes...I think this yummy "cut and paste" will fit in perfectly.....

Why Socialism and Wealth Redistribution Don’t Work and Cause MORE Poverty, Inequality, and Injustice
By Capitalist in Chief

Those rich people don’t need all that money. They don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And a lot of good can be done if all that money is taken away from those people, who don’t need it anyway, and is given to other less fortunate people so that they can have better opportunities to advance their lives.

The above paragraph seems to be the essence of liberal economic thought. I realize that many liberals these days object to the notion that what they really want is socialism. However, arguing nomenclature is of no substance. Therefore, I’m just going to say that the philosophy described above falls under the umbrella of socialism, and just call it that.
We can argue fairness all day long, but for now I want to tell you what happens when socialism or whatever you wish to call it, is deployed in an attempt to correct the perceived economic (or “social”) injustices of the world.
Many people who support socialism, do so because they want a fair, poverty free world, with justice for all. Therefore, if you support socialism, i.e. wealth redistribution and a large government that deploys a heavy set of social programs to achieve all that, I would just like to let you know of the following:
The socialist methods deployed to supposedly achieve a better world unleash an AVALANCHE of negative side effects that utterly dwarfs any of their original intentions, and brings more poverty, more inequality, more injustice, less prosperity, and more misery. This is because those methods go against an essence of human nature that cannot be changed even by people with the best of intentions.
Yes, socialism exacerbates the very problems it claims to solve.
Disagree? Then read on!
Unintended Consequences of Socialist Policies
There are several reasons why socialism, and specifically wealth redistribution by means of taxing the rich, does not work. All of these reasons stem from one important fact of life:
People have a strong desire to do whatever is in their own perceived self interest!
The following are detrimental unintended consequences of socialism that stem from the above fact and undermine everything socialism is meant to accomplish:
Much of the money that goes to the government ends up being wasted, resulting in ineffective government programs, and less wealth for EVERYBODY. Learn more.
Many are tempted to assume that money collected by the government goes to help the poor and downtrodden. However, much of that money ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, those who have the most resources and ability to lobby for it. Learn more
Socialism concentrates money and power in the hands of the government. When government grows, the greedy and corrupt don’t go away. Conversely, they now have a more powerful tool in their hands, the government itself. Learn more
The richer you are, the easier it is for you to avoid increasing taxation and leave the bill to the middle class. Learn more.
A soak-the-rich, high tax strategy inhibits the economy. And who is hurt the most by a slow economy? Not the rich! Learn more
The transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love. Learn more
High taxes and government regulations make it more difficult to start and grow a business, thereby leaving much greater opportunities for those who are already rich and have the resources to overcome those difficulties. Learn more
Social programs create more demand and need for those very programs in a self perpetuating cycle because given government handouts, people come to expect and rely on them. And therefore, you can never spend enough, because the more you do, the greater the need to do so becomes. Learn more
Social programs are a disincentive to work and act responsibly. After all, if some or all of your needs are taken care of, and if someone else picks up the tab whenever something goes wrong, why would you worry about such minor details as work ethic, productivity, financial responsibility and family obligations? Consequently, when productivity takes a downturn, leading to a shrinking economy, guess who suffers… everybody! Oh and as always, the rich suffer the least. Learn more
A combination of the above points causes a vicious cycle of decreasing revenues and increasing demand for social spending that results in a socialist government running out of money and having ‘no choice’ but to perpetuated tax increases to every level of society, rich and poor. Learn more
Because of the avalanche of problems socialist policies cause, no amount of social spending and taxation will ever overcome the problems it is supposedly set out to solve.
The Road to Poverty, Inequality, and Injustice
Socialism causes poverty because it slows economic growth and progress through government waste, taxation on productive economic activity, discouraging innovation and the creation of hurdles for business. In addition, socialism causes poverty because it creates a disincentive to work and act responsibly.
Socialism causes inequality because much of the money that goes to the government ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, it’s easier for wealthy individuals to avoid taxes, and it creates hurdles for business that the wealthy find easier to overcome. Socialism is a way for the rich to shut the door behind them, preventing those who are on their way up from reaching their destination.
Liberalism tends to liken inequality to injustice, therefore, just by using the standards set by liberal thinking, socialism causes injustice because of the inequality it promotes. But more directly, socialist policies (wealth redistribution, social programs, and regulation) necessitate a larger, more powerful, more meddling, government that becomes a powerful tool for the wealthy, politically connected, and bureaucrats on “power trips” to take advantage of the rest of society.
The Price of Socialism
Because of the avalanche of unintended consequences, socialist policies are at best extremely limited in what good they can do. Yet, many politicians represent those as some grand solution to humanity’s problems and completely neglect all the problems socialist policies cause. This is akin to touting a “miracle” cure for cancer, yet failing to mention it causes blindness, brain damage, and eventual cardiac arrest. Socialism’s avalanche of unintended consequences cuts deep into any benefits that society might derive from social programs. And anyone, especially voters and politicians, should be aware and honest about the real price that socialism demands.
First, there is little chance that, on average, a middle class person would come out ahead with government entitlements he/she receives after subtracting all the extra taxes and economic costs he/she bares for those entitlements. This is because, the government can not raise enough revenue just from those considered rich to cover the cycle of decreasing revenues and increasing demand for social spending brought on by socialist policies. We only need to look at the high level of taxation on the middle class of European social democratic states to see this is indeed the case.
If you are not a person who is poverty stricken, and you’re not going to run a welfare scam, then do not believe for a second that the government will take from the rich on your behalf. You will pay through income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, inflation etc.
And then there are the poor. They earn too little for the government to take anything of significance, and can come out ahead in dollar amount given aid from the government. It’s great for them if they’re perfectly happy being perpetually impoverished, living the austere life at a near subsistence level given to them by the government.
But overall, the poor will also pay a price! And so will everybody else… but as always, not so much those who are very rich. This price is lesser economic opportunity. Yes, the very thing that the socialists supposedly champion for the poor. More specifically, we have greater unemployment and less business opportunity. Western Europe for instance, with all its socialist policies and supposed compassion, has boom-time unemployment rates that are roughly what the United States gets during recessions.
And to top it all off, there’s the price of slowed innovation, entrepreneurship and technological advancement.
Conclusion
The government can either completely help a small number of people, or slightly help a large number of people. What it absolutely can not do is completely help a large number of people. It’s just impossible to expect a small minority, i.e. the rich, to support the rest of the population. It cannot happen! The government can’t solve everybody’s problems. It has never happened, and never will happen.
But mustn’t we help people in need? Yes, we should help some who can’t take care of themselves. However, the more money we spend on this via the government, the more significant the unintended consequences become, devastating not just those whom we want to help, but many others. And therefore, wealth redistribution and social programs are not the answer to some great society and a better world order and should be kept to a minimum. But unfortunately, when faced with poverty and social problems, the socialist response is even more socialism, the very thing that makes those problems worse.
If you are reading this and you are a rich Hollywood type who supports Barack Obama, the socialist in chief, or perhaps you think that Obama is not socialist enough, then in the name of fairness, I accept donations of a million dollars, or any other amount, so that I won’t have to be personally affected by the damages of socialist policies. You don’t need nor deserve all that money anyway. Seriously, I know you weren’t going to give it all to a charity. So in the name of fairness, contact me here to make arrangements. And since the donation is 100% voluntary and doesn’t involve the government, it won’t suffer from all those pesky unintended consequences.
Otherwise, if you are not a rich Hollywood type, then good luck with all of the above.

America is not failing the 1%

Then again there is "The Third Way"

THE FUNCTION OF POVERTY
The standard of living of the average American has to decline...
- Paul Volcker, Chairman of The Federal Reserve, New York Times, 18 October
1979, p.1, Volcker Asserts U.S Must Trim Living Standard.
'Money is power'. Well, to be precise, it's the gap between the rich and poor
that counts. The objective of the elite is to maintain the capitalist structure as it
is with one vital difference. There will be no middle class in the New World Order.
Under public-private partnership, the middle class, free markets, and consumer
choice will be replaced with a neo-feudal society in which the Money Trust
dictates to an impoverished populace through a supranational technocracy. This
is international socialism, run for the benefit of the financial elite who own the
economy and control the emerging continental Politburos. The polite name for it
is 'The Third Way', but less deferential commentators call it 'corporate fascism'.
The corporations need government to restrict consumer choice in the market
place, allowing the cartel to determine what we can buy, sell, or even do in our
own homes. The 'Third Way' is the path to utopia for our self-appointed
philosopher kings, advocated by the likes of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Gerhard
Schroder - their senior political puppets. There is no difference between
ostensibly right and left wing political parties about the eventual destination,
even if they appear to be travelling at different speeds towards it.
Real power, then, is achieved when the ruling class controls the material
essentials of life, granting and withholding them as if they were privileges, as
George Orwell reflected:
From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to
all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great
extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used
deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be
eliminated within a few generations But it was also clear that an all-around
increase in wealth threatened the destruction... of a hierarchical society. In a
world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house
with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motorcar or even an
airplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality
would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer
no distinction. Such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and
security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are
normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for
themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later
realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it
away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of
poverty and ignorance... It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups
somewhere near the brink of hardship because a general state of scarcity
increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction
between one group and another... The social atmosphere is that of a besieged
city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between
wealth and poverty.

Am I Rich?

If you make 50k or more a year, you are in the top 1% of income earners in the world. If you earn $1,500 or more a year, you are in the top 20% of income earners.

Economics is not a 0 sum game, we can grow the pie. Why the war against prosperity?

Fabulous question Spider....

This reminds me of what our founding fathers were running from when they left their home along with the relentless religious dictatorship.