You are correct that spending has increased over time, but government control over the economy has decreased over time.  I am specifically thinking of deregulation and privatization.

Do you consider government spending as a factor of captialism or socialism, or do you do consider freedom of the market as a factor of capitalism or socialism?  I consider the freedom of the market to define capitalism and socialism, as taxes are the norm for pretty much every system of government ever devised and increasing or decreasing taxes doesn't have much of an affect on government idealogy. 

If North Korea decided to cut taxes for everyone while keeping the same economic practices, I wouldnt say that they were suddenly more captilalist.

Well, I'm sorry that you are unable to actually comprehend how the world works.

Here is my economic opinion, and I will use an analogy so you understand.

When every human being in the US is born, they are given a set of tools to they can utilize to improve their lives economically. Those tools include the ability to go to any school they strive to go to. To go to any University they earn entrance into. To work any job they qualify for. To live anywhere they can afford to live.

All these tools are at that baby’s disposal over the course of his life. What he does with those tools should be of no concern to Government. His outcome based on the use or lack thereof, should be of no concern to government.

What government is for, is to make sure those set of tools are available for everyone. Today they are. 40 years ago, they weren’t. If you can’t see how this affects economic equality, I can’t help you.

I'm sorry have you or have you not been argueing that infact "The recession didn't hit the rich harder" and that "The difference in Gini Coeefficent isn't due to the fact that the new money created is created by those with good edcucations."

You don't even know what your argueing anymore because you've been proved wrong too many times.

The Gini coeeficient is lower then it's been in years.... and one of the lowest values it's ever been.  It's not fluctiating around 40.  Since in the 90's... as I stated reporting methods changed.  It's at 38.8.

 Lowest it's been since waaaay back when you say things were at it's most equal.   Also that number was for families.  Not Households.

So no.  It wasn't at 36... it was 38.6... in 1969 it was aprox 39.  Higher then this year!  Note how Households is higher then Families.

What the heck are you talking about? You start talking about something completely unrelated to the discussion and act like you've just proven your point.  Surely no one would argue that we dont have more social rights today than we did in the past, but that has nothing to do with the decrease in minimum wage over the years.  Unless you are arguing that civil rights comes at a price, and that price is lower minimum wage and a larger gap between rich and poor.

Combustion occurs when methane and oxygen react to form carbon dioxide and water.  And Ronald Reagan was the 40th president.

Less people make minimium wage then they did back then Manus....

as has been stated countless times before. 

Your minimium wage arguement is without basis... since many less people make minimium wage in the bottom 20%... and many less people are under the poverty line. 

Poverty line being a much better indicator then minimium wage for the status of the poor.

Kasz, poor Kasz.  First you say that I argue for things that I haven't, then you go on to state incorrect evidence to prove your point.

The gap between wealth and poor has continually increased in recent times.  If you look at the graph I posted a long time ago, it has the change in GINI coefficient methodology, that you keep mentioning for no reason, and it shows that the regardless of methodology, the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow.

I'll post it again, but I cant be bothered to photoshop a picture of Mickey Mouse on it to get your attention.

How many people make minimum wage or how many people live in poverty has absolutely nothing to do with the gap between rich and poor.

Obvioulsy less people are going to make minimum wage if minimum wage is lower, and less people are going to live in poverty if you keep the same or similar definition of poverty over time.

Once again.... the change in the Gini coeefficent is due to wealth being generated the most by the rich. Do you know what the Gini Coeefficent is.

Also... this year once again... one of the lowest ever. Next to 38.6.

So... yeah. Your wrong.

The gap between the rich and poor is getting larger.... because New Wealth is generated by the rich... and mostly stays with the rich.

This is meaningless.  Since EVERYONE is getting richer as a result.

Which would you rather live in?  A country like the US where everyone gets richer?

Or a  poorer country with a more equal Gini coeefficent where everyone is poorer then the poor in America?

Do you know how the poverty line works?  It gets adjusted upwords per year.

You just don't seem to understand the basics of this argument... to go over again.

1) Economic Growth is mostly spurred by the rich.  Therefore economic benefits will fall mostly with the rich.

2) Regardless of that fact, economic growth hits everybody.  The economic growth actually hits the poor higher then everyone but that top 1% who is making it all happen.  Bottom 20% hit higher growth then top 20%.

3) Due to the global recession, the Gini coeefficent has dropped to levels that match the lowest levels ever recorded in the US.  This proves my asertions.  Take away all that growth that was caused in the last few years... and the rich take the hit.

4) The number under the poverty line has shrunk.  Less people are living in poverty in this country then ever before. (Or at least before this year.)  Everybody in this country has MORE Then they did during the times you are decrying as the "golden age".

5) Real dollars are seen by all economists to be slightly inflated and making comparisons over any large period of time leads to inflation.  The past looks richer when it isn't.

You are mad at a system because it allows people to hit big highs... while makes the poor better off... because I don't know if you understand how the economy works... but wealth isn't a fixed thing.

The world economy grows and shrinks.

The Gini coeefficent is only a great tool in measuring "the poor getting poorer"  in a fixed value economy.

I mean... I think this year is the perfect proof to my point.

Due to the situation the Gini coeeffficent is as low as it's ever been.

Would you rather be a poor person now?  Or 4 years ago when the Gini coeefficent was 4-5 points higher?

I'll take 4-5 years ago thanks... i'd rather not have now be the norm.

Funnily enough I read something interesting that is tenuously link to your debate Kasz and manusjustus. This week in new scientist they had an article on how to build the perfect world and one of them was to redefine poverty, it's just based on wealth and the condition you live in. But research suggested that many people that live in poverty are happier with their lives than many people who are rich. They have inner peace because of factors like they tend to lead more fulfilling traditional lives and so on. It was quite interesting.