Guncrazy USA

The only thing?

Ohh well excuse the fuck out of me. Did I leave out that you think that it is a sign of an unhealthy society? Which again has not a fucking thing to do with the fact that they do happen and in great numbers. A fact you only want to dismiss.

Oh Pitt, again you just ignore what’s being said.

I haven’t dismissed DGU’s but I have pointed out that they point to a system that isn’t working and the higher the number the more shaky and unhealthy the system seems.

To you it seems the DGU’s are a good thing because it shows guns being used to tackle crime.

For example (and yet again I repeat myself) here is a reply (one of many on the subject) -

But the UK doesn’t have the high level of gun ownership but most crime figures in nearly all areas when statistical variables are taken into account are roughly the same.

(In the last few posts I’ve shown this in relation to rape, burglary and assault)

So guns don’t seem to be working as a deterrent and even with them, the figures are not that different.

Except in one area where there is a huge difference, gun related homicides.

Then this has to be seen in a societal context

Not only ares these attitudes of threat and suppression (that support gun ownership) linked to these figures it is also linked to others like the US having the highest prison population in the world and its continued use of execution as a deterrent.

To me this is not progress toward a better society.

I can understand why you would not like these replies, but my point is that you do not seem to be contending what I’m saying just dismissing it as wrong.

But why in your opinion are they wrong?

What arguments can you put forward to counter what I’ve said?

And if you have no countering arguments then shouldn’t you be re-accessing you viewpoint?”

That last sentence is as true today as when first said nearly a year ago.

**

Oh hell Pitt once again you bring up something that’s been covered over and over again.

Oh please do show me where this has been answered. “it’s a matter of opinion” does not cut it. Each law is made with a certain positive outcome in mind weather it be to lower murder, crime, violence or whatever. Show me where it has been successful?

But Pitt it is only a ‘matter of opinion’ that some regulation don’t have a positive outcome.

Remember you thought the proposals I’ve repeatedly presented were good, so you must have thought they would have a positive outcome?

The difference between us is that I wish to make the benefits widespread so things could change and you don’t preferring the status quo.

**

Which stats are you talking about? Let’s examine them, I think you have alluded to some but never given the statistic they were based on.

Omfg they have been shown to you multiple times, they are all over the internet.

I don’t believe they have been shown to me multiple times I think they have been alluded to a lot, which isn’t the same thing and if they’re all over the net then you should have any problems producing one.

I’d be very happy to look at one.

But we have been through this you contend that widespread legal gun ownership is a deterrent to criminals but this just doesn’t seem the case.

To repeat myself once more

“Few people have guns in the UK that number is very much higher for the US.

So if gun ownership worked as a deterrent to crime then the US crime rates should be vastly different from those in the UK and they are not. As shown there isn’t that much of difference (if any) except in one area, that of gun crime.

So despite much larger levels of gun ownership, harsh sentencing, the highest prison population in the world and execution as a deterrent, the US is still at the same level of crime as the UK, except in one area – gun related crime.”

**

Oh once again you make a statement without any mention of the counter arguments and criticisms that are already attached to the subject which you haven’t addressed?

You can criticize the fucking statement all you want, now provide some fucking FACTS to back them up.

LOL, fuck, fucking, fucker why all the bad language Pitt?

To repeat (again) an earlier post on the subject –

[pitt] “Page 72 Shows the increase of crimes involving gun use other than air weapons from 98-06. You have been shown this before yet you continue to ignore it.

[Balbus] Not sure what you are laughing at Pitt?

I read the report you linked to and it doesn’t seem to have what you claim, are you sure you read it?

Violent Crime (Chapter Five) begins on page 71, page 72 doesn’t seem to have anything on crimes involving guns and is in fact involved in an explanation of recording methodology.

Page 71 does say violent crime has “fallen by 43 per cent since a peak in 1995, but that would not fit in with your argument that “I have read violent crime in the UK has risen dramatically since the famous "gun Ban" (based on a BBC news piece on a pro-gun lobby group’s report)

Did you mean page 81 which shows a steady increase in gun crimes?

The problem is that that was the 04/05 report if you had actually looked at the 2006/07 report it says the “police recorded offences involving firearms fell by thirteen per cent between 2005/06 and 2006/07” and goes on to explain that “there was a significant increase in the number of firearm offences recorded between 1998/99 and 2001/02 (figure 3.7) though figures may have been partially influenced by some forces implementing the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard prior to its national introduction on 1 April 2002”

So the increases may just be down to differing recording methods.”

**

Once again we have covered this a thousand times already.

Yes we have, don’t it make sense to keep guns away from the US citizens because they seem more inclined to use them -- yada yada yada

Yet you have never explained how this would actually realistically be accomplished nor how since there is no relationship between crime and gun availability, what fucking good your restrictions will do.

Again you show your complete and utter bias – “since there is no relationship between crime and gun availability” –

No what you mean is that in your opinion there is no relation, but as pointed out several times now - with arguments you will not address - that isn’t a solid fact just an interpretation.

As to what I would do I’ve written at length about it to reproduce just parts of it would take a page or two.

But I don’t think it would make any difference you still wouldn’t take of any notice of it.

**

Double speak, fact bending, misquoting might mean it has been “covered” in your mind but in fact the questions being asked of you have never been answered.

Again with the accusations you never ever seem able to show any proof of.

I fear that many pro-gunners do not think much about the social, economic and cultural factors preferring to look to guns as a means of suppressing the problems rather than dealing with them

You have never quietened that fear in fact you have made it stronger.

Although asked many times you refuse to discuss in any reasonable or rational way these factors. Look above all you do when asked to do so is refuse, saying that I’d have the audacity to ask questions of your views so you will not give them.

But as for guns and there supposed use in tackling crime, you seem very willing to lie and cheat to try and defend them.

That is very strong evidence that my statement is true - that many pro-gunners do not think much about the social, economic and cultural factors preferring to look to guns as a means of suppressing the problems rather than dealing with them.

**

 

Pitt you smile while you lie and you just keep on doing it.

Yes yes I know anyone not conforming to your POV must be a liar or a gun nut and therefore must be silenced.

Silenced, LOL

I don’t want to silence you, I want you to speak.

I’m actually trying everything I can to get you to talk, I want you to respond, I keep asking you to.

Please, please address the counter arguments and criticisms of your views that I’ve presented.

I keep repeating them in the forlorn hope that you will eventually say something; speak in defence of your arguments.

All I’m getting at the moment is dishonestly and tricks.

**

What is the point?

Preservation of freedom that is the point. I am free to own guns, I have passed all normal challenges to gun ownership, I have passed extra challenges to gun ownership while applying for CCW’s in two different states. And I will not sit idly by while some namby pansey gun fearing without reason work feverishly to take them away from the law abiding person who just wants to target shoot, compete, collect, hunt, protect themselves and property.

And you would still be able to own guns even if my proposals were turned into law (remember the ones I’ve stood by were all thought reasonable by you).

But I think we are getting to the real you

The person that thinks anyone with the audacity to oppose what you say is a “namby pansey” who fears guns.

You say that you will not sit idly by while some namby pansey’s stop you doing what you want.

So these debates to you were never about looking at the issues in a rational or reasonable way or about approaching the subject with an open mind, NO this was about winning the argument – so it is not surprising that you ignore the arguments of namby pansey’s that don’t fit in with your viewpoint.

It was just another con, another trick.

You were never going to take seriously any argument that opposed your own because they had to come from gun fearing pansies, not people like you, a real man that could handle his weapon.

So it doesn’t really matter whatever is said, if it doesn’t fit in with what you believe it’s wrong.


**

 

Pitt

So you are still going to ignore the ‘carrot and stick’ issue?

Why is that?

 

Dear Pitt, this is important so please read carefully.

Before we can even think of moving on we need to look at your reply to the ‘carrot and stick’ issue, because it is very clear you have a problem with your approach to debate.

**

Carrot and stick.

You say ‘it makes no sense’ but then go on to show in you explanation of why it make no sense that you could hardly have read my argument let alone understood it.

You say –

“For example, I suggest prison terms for persons prohibited from possessing weapons who are cought with weapons (again this is already law). You claim this is threat and intimidation ie the stick. You suggest prison terms for persons prohibited from possessing weapons who are cought with weapons and you call it an incentave ie the carrot”

But that’s not what I said at all.

I make it very, very clear that the law and punishments such as prison are the stick not the carrot.

“I’ve presented a few ideas, they’re aimed at making peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile, which is the carrot, while I still feel that for the time being we may still need a stick, tough laws, but I hope that in time they would not be so necessary.”

If you are getting such clear and fundamental points wrong then it is clear that you are not reading my posts or you are reading only what you want into them rather than what is actually written.

If you are not going to listen to what people say - let alone try and understand what they say - is there any point in talking to you at all?

**

So hopefully you have read this post and can now try and reply to my original question that you seem to be ignoring –

“You talk of getting tough and coming down hard, which is the stick, but what about the carrot, what social, economic or even political changes are you offering to alleviate the problems that can be behind the crimes?”


**

 

Just dropping in to say i hate guns

Get rid of your stupid guns


Im not getting tangled up in this one seriously though, itll take forever. Guns just suck, ok

 

I do actually realise the statement was hardly glowing with intelligence, thank you

The thing is ive been through this in an INTELLIGENT manner so many damn times on this forum over the years and on others.

I was tired but i stil have opinions, so i gave my thought of the moment

And neutered rabbits? Are you stalking me or something? Yeah ive talked about how my bunnies are neutered on these forums recently...but youre just creeping me out, man

I had a right to give my (not very intelligent-seeming) answer. Theres no need to get personal, or weird

 

Exactly.

Man can kill one another in more ways than you can imagine. I can kill you with my bare hands. Hating the idea of guns because they kill is absurd.

They are engineering marvels, something man has created that must be embraced. Not just because of their usefulness in survival is unsurpassed but because they are good fun too.

I love how taking liberties is the exact polar opposite of liberal thinking.....

*grasps gun* "Out of my cold dead hands"

 

Thank you Pitt this perfectly highlights the problems I’ve been talking about -

[balbus] “I’ve presented a few ideas, they’re aimed at making peoples lives more attractive, comfortable and worthwhile, which is the carrot, while I still feel that for the time being we may still need a stick, tough laws, but I hope that in time they would not be so necessary.”

[pitt] “Lol what a bunch of crap. You also make proposals that are “sticks”. These “sticks” of yours are aimed at guns and gun laws which is the topic of this thread. Your “carrots” are social/economic programs which many have merit and are worthwhile endeavors but have nothing to do with guns”

ONE – You don’t reply to what was said.

Remember you asserted that I was presenting tough laws and prison as a carrot.

To quote – “I suggest prison terms for persons prohibited from possessing weapons who are cought with weapons (again this is already law). You claim this is threat and intimidation ie the stick. You suggest prison terms for persons prohibited from possessing weapons who are cought with weapons and you call it an incentave ie the carrot”

I show you are wrong.

You don’t apologies; you don’t admit your mistake – no – you go off at a tangent hoping people will not notice you were wrong.

I’ve repeated this same answer to basically same assertion about 7-8 times (for sure in posts - 970, 994, 999, 1006, 1140, 1142, 1150) and yet you are still refusing to address what’s being said.

TWO - You once more try to misinform.

You say – “social/economic programs” – when I’ve said repeatedly that it isn’t about supporting a particular ‘programme’ it is about trying to understand what societal factors are involved and working to solve them.

THREE - You then once more try to imply that social, economic and cultural issues have nothing to do with the gun issues.

I’ve explained repeatedly why I think it has and although you have denied or ignored what I’ve said you still refuse to address what I’ve said.

That is the point I can repeat myself many times and still you don’t address what I say.

**

So hopefully you have read this post and can now try and reply to my original question that you seem to be ignoring –

And just when are you going to address the things I have posed to you for the last 118 pages?

ONE – You ignore the question, again.

“What social, economic or even political changes are you offering to alleviate the problems that can be behind the crimes?”

This question has been asked by me probably about a hundred or more times since first raised a year ago – it still remains to all intents and purposes unaddressed. You refuse to answer it claiming that I would have the audacity to question what you might say.

TWO – I have addressed what you’ve been saying, often I’ve said it many times, but you are not bothering to listen to what’s been said.

For example your assertion over the carrot and stick was addressed by me just after you first made the claim. And you are still refusing to address what I’ve said.

Don’t you see?

If you ignore what I’m saying it doesn’t matter if I address something once or a hundred times, you’re still not going to pay any attention.

**

but what about the carrot, what social, economic or even political changes are you offering to alleviate the problems that can be behind the crimes?”

again your basic premise to this question is linking crime to gun availability. This has been shown to be inaccurate; you claim otherwise but offer nothing to back up this claim. So again I ask what do these social programs have to do with “gun crazy”?

ONE – Again you are just not addressing what’s been said, you are just giving excuses for not addressing what has been said.

TWO – Again this just shows you haven’t read anything I’ve written and have not addressed the comments I’ve already made on these issues.

What is the point in me repeating them if you will just ignore them and again refuse to address what is said?

**

Post 1182 – Yes this is just your accusation of a ‘three-fold increase’ that you brought up just recently and a number of similar accusations made over the year since the ‘dramatic increase’ post back in September 1st 2006.

I have given you my counter arguments and critic of your comments since then and basically they still remain unaddressed.

Once more I ask you what is the point of me repeating them if you are just going to ignore them once more and still refuse to address what is said?


**

Pitt

You are not listening to me and I don’t think you are ever going to listen to me or in fact anyone that criticises your opinions, because they are just pansies that aren’t worth listening to.

All you seem to do these days is play tricks, snipe, bitch and whine.

As a source of information on the gun issue your use has become so limited as to be worthless it is the blind belief of the acolyte, who sees all ‘heretics’ as – “namby pansey” gun haters.

Frankly man you have become very boring.


**

 

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Gonna have a tough time getting that repealed. Just a thought.

 

gshdgns

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Gonna have a tough time getting that repealed. Just a thought"

**

What people have the right?

Where can you bear the arms?

Do you have to be in a well regulated militia?

What is a ‘free state’?

What if the state sees you as a threat to its security, do you loose the right?

It says you have the right to keep and carry arms, but what rights have you to shoot them?

**

 

Thank you, the reply was exactly what I wanted.

It helps highlight the point I was hoping to make.

**

The ‘right’ to “keep and bear arms” seems to be seen by many as a provisional right, that is, it is only a right, if someone fit a certain criteria.

For example the age or criminal record of an individual can have an affect on the ‘right’.

**

And although this might be part of the US’s constitution there is some disagreement as to what provisions should or can be placed on it.

For example the provisions attached to the right can change depending on where in the US you may be. So the ‘people’ of one state may have a greater or lower ‘right’ to keep arms than the people of another.

Also where the ‘people’ can carry, or ‘bear’ those arms is also subject to provisions, there are, again, limits to the ‘right’.

Even amongst pro-gunners there is disagreement as to the ‘limits’ that should be placed on the ‘right’.

Some argue that there should be no limits, that anyone; child, criminal or psychopath should have as much right to keep and bear arms as any other individual.

Others see that as crazy.

I myself would call for more, better targeted and much clearer regulation, aimed at reducing harm.

**

 

The City of Washington D.C. has banned firearms. Problem is they are smuggled in illegally and shootings continue.

It would be nice to think of the problem in D.C. as merely technical and some well enforced regulation would curtail the shootings.
Like prohibition of drugs, people will work around the law to get guns illegally.
Especially if they are easy to get in the next state, or country.

The problem in D.C. is also a culture problem, gun culture is a problem. I've heard the rap music with firearms discharging in the background. Guns are wrapped up with street credibility and membership in gangs.

Americas gun issue has a city component and a country component both with thier own issues.

 

The thing is that the second amendment doesn’t seem to be an impediment to even significant gun regulation.

But as I’ve said many times the problem to me seems to be that an over concentration on guns only distracts from social, economic and cultural problems.

I think gun regulation can help but it is not the be all and end all.

You see there seems to be a general attitude among many Americans that accepts the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

From one side some pro-gunners see personal gun ownership as the means to tackle crime and ignore the social aspects and some anti-gunners seem to feel that gun control alone can tackle guns being used in crime.

To me gun regulation is about harm reduction while trying to get to tackle the other contributing factors.

With guns ease of access is the first thing to be dealt with, if people are murderous or liable to use intimidation in crime, do you give them easy access to a very efficient means of murder and therefore of threat?

So it would involve such things as mandatory gun safes, so people’s guns would be less likely to be stolen, licensing, and mandatory psychological testing to try and weed out those with emotional and mental problems.

But the main thrust of the policy would be aimed at trying to make peoples lives more, attractive, comfortable, inclusive and worthwhile so they have more to loose from transgressing and are not likely to experience the intensity of stresses that might make them act in a destructive manner.

**

 

Pitt

All your points have been covered by us before (some many times) I’ve given you plenty of time to address my counter arguments and criticisms you have refused to do so.

I will ask you again - what is the point of me repeating myself if you have already completely ignored what I’ve said (often many times)?

**

As I’ve said the reason I believe many Americans are ‘gun crazy’ is because so many Americans seem to see them as a means of dealing with societal problems (within a framework of threat and intimidation), which means that many Americans basically end up ignoring such problems.

So the ‘gun issue’ has become a distraction from what should be the real concerns, which is truly crazy.

For example someone like Pitt is very willing to give a lot of thought, time and energy into defending guns as a means of controlling societal problems, but seems to have given little or no thought to those problems other than in the most basic or rudimentary way.

He is not alone and it’s not just a problem with pro-gunners, many on the other side of the fence seem to become fixated on guns being the problem without giving the thought it deserves to why the guns are being used for criminal purposes.

So you get the simplistic viewpoints often expressed in this debate of ‘guns are good’ or ‘guns are bad’

The problem is that some pro-gunners would therefore argue that the gun issue should be taken off the agenda, but the problem with that is that gun’s, the gun culture, and the attitudes that underpin the support for gun ownership seem to be very much tied up with the way social issues are perceived.

For instance if the gun issue was put aside I don’t believe many - if not most - pro-gunners would then suddenly start looking at alternative solutions to social problems and others I fear wouldn’t think about them at all, but carry on in their apathy, looking to their guns to get them through.

I would really be happy to be proved wrong but after more than a year in this debate I thing somehow that it would have already happened so I do not hold out much hope.


**

 

Oh my poor Pitt

Are you a child or just a very childish adult?

What is the point of you repeating things I’ve already given counter arguments to and criticised against?

And what is the point of me repeating those arguments and criticisms when you have repeatedly refused to address them?

**

 

What I’ve been trying to explain is that only when many Americans attitudes toward the problems confronting their society change will solution to those problems be even contemplated.

The difficulty is (as has been seen) many are unwilling even to consider their viewpoint let alone examine its validity or worthiness.

**

At the moment many Americans seem to accept the idea of suppression as a means of social control (of which guns are a part) and this mindset seems to get in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

For example – a number of pro-gunners seem to imply that the best way of dealing with the issue of gun related crime is to increase the number of peopled executed like the idea that a victim of violent crime (of aggrieved relative) could be given the right to shoot their attacker(s).

But is that dealing with the reason why a person has turned to crime or used violence?

Another extension of this is the feeling that criminal on criminal killings are unworthy of note or even beneficial to society.

The feeling is one of ‘good riddance’ rather than a feeling that these are tragedies that need understanding.

The feeling I get is of a society that looks to blame the individual rather than trying to understand what social factors have shaped that person.

For many it seems to come down to the persons supposed character flaws or weaknesses.

They’re a drunk, an addict, they’re greedy, hedonistic, materialistic, godless, deviant, spendthrifts or many other things and this is the reason for turning to crime. But are people born a thief or murderer or does circumstance have a hand?

This is often accompanied with the implication that the ‘decent’ person would not do such things, whatever the circumstance. There seems little feeling of empathy or understand, they don’t seem to think as on old saying goes ‘there but for the grace of god go I’.


**

 

Society is always going to have some problems.


More so if agitators tell people how miserable they are.

Our Agitators are providing scripts and lines for the lumpen protelariat
that go in the direction of: all wealth is ill gotten or all wealth is earned off
the backs of the poor. Seems peoples right to thier posessions in in question.
and No justice, no peace.

A cluture of resentment.

These pronouncements can be an excuse for establishment people to voice fears and arm up. These pronouncements may also be an excuse to vote for punative, cohercive laws and prison construction.

Seems the far right, and far left feed of each other in this theater of the absurd. Seems that David Duke and Al Sharpton give each other a reason for being.

What greater gift to Karl Rove than Al Sharpton participating in Democratic presidential debates!

Meanwhile the standard of living of even poor people in America is beyond the aspirations of those 1920's immigrants who were the grandparents of the baby boomers.

In America, even poor people have electricty, television, microwaves, take-out-food, fake fingernails, multiple pair of shoes, cell phones, Ect.

The genuine poor are in the developing world; where meat, cooking oil and shoes are valuable commodities and who's posession mark the difference between merely poor and genuinely destitute.

Our society continues to provide programs and debate new solutions to poverty. It never enough for the agitators.

 

My dear, dear Pitt

I’ve given a full account of my ideas and answered the questions put to me, but what is the point of me repeating them when you take no notice of anything I say, as your most resent replies clearly show.

If you had read my posts (for example in the ‘carrot and stick’ sequence) you would have the answers you demand now, but as is obvious from that sequence you ignored what I said even when it was repeated many times.

What is the point of me repeating it again if you are just going to ignore it and just make the same accusations over and over as if I’d said nothing?

There is nothing I can do to stop you acting like a child or a jackass but what is the point of your behaviour?

What do you think it accomplishes?

**

 

What I’m talking about is the rejection of the communal in favour of an individual-centric idea of society.

A person is said to have control over their actions and to an extent they have but the choices and actions open to people are not all the same and even what consequences that can arise from actions may very well be different due to that persons circumstance.

For example someone with money for a good lawyer is much more likely to get a better deal from the courts than someone who’s been appointed a lawyer that doesn’t have the time or inclination to put up a defence.

But it can also be about the type of crime.

Guns are a means of intimidation, the whole carrying of a concealed weapon movement is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.

In domestic disputes adding a gun can make a bad situation worse.

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest lever of criminal.

Could it be said that gun ownership is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determining the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

**

Here is an interesting look at the US justice system
Apart from the noose, this is an everyday story of modern America
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2170644,00.html


**

 

Piney

You seem to be implying that US society is basically ok, with little need for improvement? That it has a few problems but these are blown out of all proportion by mean spirited ‘agitators’ who cause a totally unfounded feeling of concern among the ‘lumpenproletariat’ about what is happening in their society?

There is also a hint that you believe in a deserving and undeserving poor, that the deserving poor haven’t got such things as electricity, microwaves and televisions and so that those that do shouldn’t complain. It lowers the bar at which point people can have rightful grievances and a legitimate reason to complain and to such a level that basically that right disappears.

**

But let us look at what I call the attitude of suppression, threat and intimidation (which includes guns) – The US has the highest prison population in the world with vast numbers in prison but also even greater numbers on probation and parole. Many of these have lost the right to vote and find it difficult to find legitimate employment. With so many in the penal system there is little chance of rehabilitation with often threat and intimidation being the main way of keeping order.
The US is amongst the highest executing nations along side such free and enlightened countries as China, Iran, and Pakistan, although it still as one of the highest murder of in the world.
It has a very punitive legal system that in the main harder on the poorer classes.

Does that seem like a healthy society?

**

Millions have little healthcare coverage while I believe the US’s military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next fourteen countries combined.

I’m also told that many people are just one or two pay check away from poverty, and that many Americans are working longer hours for no or little gain.

An America were the top 20 percent’s income went up in real terms by 68% while the income received by the bottom 80%’s income declined over the past twenty years.

Where “Thirty years ago, the richest 1 percent owned less than a fifth of America’s wealth. Now, according to a recent report by the Fed Reserve Board, they own more than a third. Not since the days of the robber barons of the 19th century have we seen this much wealth concentrated in so few hands.”

Is that healthy? To me it is a step back to periods of oligarchic dominance.

**

Also the US’s political system doesn’t seem to be working the way it should, it seems to be overly favourable to the often short term interests of the few rather than it being about the long term welfare of the many.

**

Can you tell me what programmes are being directed toward targeting these problems and what new solutions you would suggest?

**