[edit:  unified post for new page and edited for clarity etc.]

@ Pristine20:

But even if [what you said about finite resources] is true, it still wouldn't support your allegation of a bigger percentage of people being in "complete abject poverty", since most people in the US can be dragged down and still be higher than that extremely low bar. 

[edit2:  Not to mention that the resource transfer of dragging one U.S. citizen down into C.A.P. would doubtless bring more than one person up out of it, thereby lowering the percentage.  As horrible as such a practice would be, it still undermines your point.]

"the percentage of people living in complete and abject poverty has sky rocketed."

I doubt that that's true, although higher absolute numbers are very possible IMO due to the population explosion in many poor regions. If what you said is true, I'd bet that's one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest.

That last paragraph is just off the top of my head without numbers I can actually point to but it seems plausible to me -- rebuttal would be welcome (see sig).

The GINI Coefficient was 36 in 1969. 

Source: United States Census Bereau http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/state/state4.html

Not only are you wrong, but you are arguing over a factor that fluctuates around 40, and claim that something big has happened because we actually dropped instead having a continued increase in inequality.  In reality, the recession caused the short decline in the GINI Coefficient, but everything will go back to normal as the recession ends.  So, whatever point you have is meaningless, unless you argue that we should be in a recession all the time.

And I dont expect you to admit you are wrong.  In fact, I think the aluminum foil hat on your head looks good on you.

Sorry, but this line struck me.

You think the delta between the poor and the rich are due to inequality?

You think that somehow people are less "equal" today then they were in 1969?

You have a very strange view of equality. Also, I want to point out that each year, we get less capitalistic, and more socialists, and the delta between the poor and the rich keeps growing. Shouldn't that indicates something?

It is my theory, that the more you give to someone, the less willing they are to work, and a working man will always prosper past one who does not.

So ya, put a few million on government assistance, watch them learn to live within those means while the rest of the US prospers, and then watch the gap grow.

If then your solution is to take more from the rich and give to the poor, your crazy. That's the problem, not the solution.

America, as well as most of the world (except maybe Venezuela or something), has become more and more capitalist.  In America, since 1969 the minimum wage has decreased, the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, and all the while scientific achievement has grinded to a halt as the free market focuses on business and entertainment technology.  As I said before, scientific advancement in the last 40 years is nothing compared to the scientific advancement 40 years prior to that.

Economically speaking, I dont understand how you can argue that people are more equal today than they were in 1969.  I thought that your argument was the the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer more slowly.  As I said before, stating that the poor in 2009 are better off than the poor in 1969 is no better an observation than stating that the poor in 2009 are better off than the poor in 1069.

In what way has the American government become "More Capitalist"? Between social security, Medicare and Medicaid more money is spent on wealth transfers from the federal government today than any other expense; and more money is spent redistributing wealth today then at any other time in history. It could be argued that this ever increasing social spending is correlated to (and potentially causing) the increase in disparity between the rich and the poor.

Sorry, I had a hard time reading the rest of this after laughing so hard at your first line.

In 1967, my father could not eat in some places. There were schools he could not attend. My mother was not allowed to hold some jobs, or go to some schools. There were places it was unthinkable, for my family to live in 1969.

Jews today don't even think about any of that stuff. Today, we are far more equal then we were 40 years ago.

And to my point. If when I turned 18, the government had given me 20K to live off of, and said I would get this for the rest of my life, today I would be living off of 20K a year, and not the 4X I make now.

If your solution is to somehow take from the rich, the poor will be worse off in 50 years. Not better.

1) Can you factually back up your claim that scientific achievement has grinded to a halt due to business and entertainment technology?

2) A lot of the argument concerning the poor getting poorer (from my view) has to do with how they are poor, and what they get for being poor.

Also, your absolutely, totally wrong about being poor being a worse problem:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

May want to look at that. 12.3% of Americans were below the poverty line in 2006. In 1959 it was 22%. Crazy, eh? The fact is, you've brought no unemployment, no poverty statistics into this discussion, only the GINI coefficient. The problem with the GINI, as great as it is, it only measures the gap, not the quotent of what's involved within that gap. If you read up on why some are richer, it's due to savings and investments, not due to making more money (1% of Americans control 90%+ of the wealth, but the 1% only make <60% of the income per year. The discrepancy is due to savings). If you want to attack capitalism, attack consumer credit. It's the reason there are so many poor people in America - it's placing an incredible burden on the retarded of society. Of course, I don't know if the government can ban stupidity.

so far as I know, no-one would advocate such an idea, not least because there is no way, even with highly punitive taxation that any goverment could afford to give people 20k a year for life

welfare is designed to make sure people have a basic standard of life imo, not to make sure they have a salary for nothing, I would never advocate such a system

im in favour of the idea of welfare being done with products and vouchers rather than money, as money can be misspent much easier, so for instance, rather than giving someone who is unemployed £300 a month, you give them £250 a month in food vouchers and £50 a month in vouchers for other things they need, like clothing and hair cuts, etc. this way you make sure they are in the position to get a job as they are healthy (NHS), educated (state schools), well fed (food vouchers) and well clothed (clothing vouchers) as well as neat hair, etc (vouchers), in all this though, they get £0 in actual money, as the temptation for anyone with money, is to spend it on things they dont need

this way, people want to work, because if they want luxuries, like a tv or games console, they have to work for them, as for travel, give them special passes for any/all public transport, this way, not only can they get around for free, but they also dont use a car, thus helping reduce pollution. 

Well, I'm sorry that you are unable to actually comprehend what you are reading. 

Nowhere did I say anything about social issues, this is entirely economical.  Bringing up your parents being discriminated against (and I'm not downing you for that because my family was in the same boat), makes absolutely no sense at all.  When I say that minimum wage has decreased in value, unless Jews have a different minimum wage or something, there is no reason to say anything about social issues that are not related to the economic issue.

I will agree that as time passes that Americans gain more social freedom, even though that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that has been said in this thread.

1.)  Can you factually back up your claim that scientific advancement has not slowed over the years?  From 1970 onwards, what significant scientific progress has been made?  Furthermore, anything you can think of either hails in comparison to progress made in the early 20th century or it is probably an addition to previous work, such as applications of Schrodingers Equation or better quality computers.

This is a difficult request for both of us, expecially for such such a broad qualitative idea or question.  The best 'factual' evidence I can think of would be to somehow look at research funding over the years, but even then you would have to make a judgement calls that weaken the data.  All I can say is that it strongly suggests that scientific progress was more important in the past as it is today, ideas such as general relativity or schrodingers equation proves infinately valuable to todays economy, and those ideas were by people who just wanted to improve science.  Today, less people devote themselves to science for science's sake, and instead delve into the free market and try to make money off of water resistant make-up or some other 'invention' that doesnt propel mankind forward in the same way.

2.) Rich and poor is a human social construct, and what the view of poor is changes overtime.  Being poor in 2008 America is a heck of a lot better than being poor in 1200 England, so arguing that we should keep our idea of poor constant over time is unrealistic and unreasonable.  A poor person from 1200 England would feel like he is a king living in a New York slum, but people who live in that slum today do not feel as positive about their conditions.

3.) I have not stated that being poor is a worse problem, and by that I assume you mean that people today are living in worse conditions than people in the past. I stated that more people are becoming poor as the wealthy acquire higher percentages of wealth.