American Budget Cuts

That doesn't follow. What caused the middle class and poor to start losing real wealth rather than continually gaining it, like what has been historically happening? Why don't you do that for me? I only recall pointing out that the rich already tend to give to charity and that removing a burden they didn't have in the first place wasn't likely to increase their amount. Thats not a moral judgment or tooting their horn, its just an assessment of what would or wouldn't motivate a change in behavior.

Look, suppose that there is another planet with aliens on it who have a machine which can churn out real wealth at a stratospheric rate. Since it is just them and us in this scenario, when they switch on their machine the aliens become immensely wealthy very quickly. There is only a finite amount of wealth in the system, but it almost immediately becomes concentrated on the alien's planet.Why exactly do we care? Progress on our planet continues unabated, everyone increases in real wealth at the same rate they did before. The aliens being super-rich isn't relevant.Yes, in this example the planets are isolated. But what if they were right next to each other, or we were talking about the same country? What exactly is the interaction thats going to be so horrible? A system which is basically summed up as retaining control of your resources. Do you really think that the wealth yielded from investments is just some sort of strange technicality of our economic system, or is it a deserved kickback for real benefit? Conceptually, yes, but as I have said before if you are going to draw a distinction you need to point out where the economic system diverges from morality. Otherwise you are just asking for miscommunication.For the sake of expediency I am going to assume that legal economic transactions are at the very least morally neutral until indicated otherwise. I can't read your mind Straggler. They don't "run" a free market. There isn't any "running" to be done, thats what makes it free. People are free not to have anything to do with the rich, but they do so because its in their self interest to borrow their wealth. For everyone, don't you get that? When the rich invest their money the people who take that investment do so of their own free will because it makes them wealthier than they would otherwise be able to achieve. Everyone benefits, otherwise they wouldn't participate.Is that "OK", or did you have something else in mind other than mutual benefit?

Perhaps you should check the data, like I did.

No, as the hypothetical illustrated. The skyrocketing of a total in no way limits the increase or size of a subset. If you had even tried in the slightest you would see that.I don't have time for the rest of your shit.

No. Its simple:The rich are getting richer. The poor are also getting richer. This is in real terms, not relative to each other. I cited data to support this. Both can buy more things of real value. The rich are getting richer at a faster rate which widens the divide, thats all. Data was cited to support this as well.Poor: Base of 10, +1 every year.
Rich: Base of 1000, + 100 every year.Result: Poor's personal total gets steadily larger while their percentage share of the overall total gets steadily smaller. Not a mathematical impossibility, really quite simple.

I guess you would have to do your research wouldn't you? Luckily for you I posted historical graphs of the real purchasing power for the wealthy and poor which are already adjusted for things such as inflation! There is no reason to just sit there and wonder... go, look at it.

Nope. The fact that a resource is finite has direct practical consequences of how much of that resource is available.Point? This is the sort of claim I was trying to pry out of you. Make a case for this, not just a statement.

No, I can't personally account for massive numbers of financial investments which I was not privy to. However, you are the person crying foul. Can you elaborate on what you think is uncouth about the process? Did they break the law, should the law be changed and on what grounds, what?

As of yet, yes. I am awaiting your argument to show me the problem. 99% of the population is competing for 99% of the wealth as investment capital. Why would you consider that stifling competition? Most rich, detached, stuffy old men actually offload the responsibility of intelligently investing their money onto people who are experts in certain fields and are not detached. These companies sell varieties of expertly-chosen investment packages so these wealthy old men are not constantly personally choosing which stocks to buy and sell to grow their fortunes. Perhaps you have heard of some of these companies. Actually there is more. Almost all of the wealth of the rich is invested, meaning it is available as investment capital. If everyone had the same amount of money and that wasn't more than they could invest in increasing their personal efficiency, then there would be essentially no investment capital available.Concentrating the wealth in a smaller percentage of the population actually increases the amount of investment capital out there. What are you talking about? Even a flat tax rate would leave governments completely unaffected by such a distribution. If you get taxed the same amount per dollar then its irrelevant who holds it. And they can always just raise taxes. Interestingly this is more attractive as the vast majority of the burden doesn't fall on the vast majority of voters... I already addressed the government side of things, but even in the private sector this would only apply if the rich suddenly decided to stop going for the most profitable investments (determined by market forces of the people). Now I'm not going to complain about this "what if" scenario, but why exactly would they change up the game exactly? Couldn't this equally apply to others suddenly deciding to ignore profit motives and do whatever? These are the same choices have always existed. Personally I think its more likely for a person who lives in luxury with the benefit of access to superior education and advisors to be convinced to behave wisely. At the very least it seems conducive to altruism. I haven't seen an argument that it isn't, why don't you try to come up with one?

That nobody was arrested? Don't you think its appropriate to assume that the vast majority of transactions made in the economic system were done legally? Explain why exactly the outcome is a bad thing.