i dunno if transportation is an accurate measurement of equality. i mean, i ride a city bus. weve got enough money to spend on a beater car for me, but financially it just makes more sense to use the bus. meh.

fwiw, i think the poor use public transportation, not personal vehicles.

yah, transportation is definitely not the way to argue this. cus the 400 richest people in america have the potential to own a bazillion supercars, but theyre smart enough with money that they realize they only need a handful at most.

Ok; then name a different area then Monte? Can this example not be used in any circumstance?

Air conditioning, running water, emergency rooms, police, air planes, etc?

Explain where we have it worse?

Just name a point of time in history of the USA that you think the poor had it better; compared to the rich; in terms of income equality in real terms.

This is really a very very telling example; of how people are fooled by inflation. The numbers get bigger; but the real value doesn't change.

im honestly confused what youre trying to argue here. this is what i think you are arguing:

1) the uberrich:poor income ratio doesn't matter because
2) the american poor are richer now than any time in world history
3) the poor have enough to get by, so allow the rich to keep their money, since they use their money in better ways than the poor do?

this is what im thinking (and some of these points might be 100% wrong, im naive):

1) the uberrich now are richer than they have been in the past because they are being taxed at a lower rate than before (say 20 years ago)
2) we should tax them at a greater rate
3) the middle class has been fooled into thinking they are the same as the uber-rich, and therefore are against raising taxes

however, im not for the govt using this windfall from increased taxes to stay big or support whatever programs. i would rather we still decrease the size of the government, and use that windfall towards responsibly lowering our deficit.

How do you judge the size of the government? Is it by employees or spending or what? If it's by spending let's call a spade a space and admit we really haven't gotten any new services in the last 11 years. The immense increase in the "size" then of the government comes from defense contracts and war spending.

Space=spade seriously autocorrect

yah i guess spending would be an adequate measure of my idea of size of govt. if you can make the existing stuff more efficient, decrease their spending yet keep their effectiveness (i.e. eliminate corruption), then sure, go for it.

in the end, ive got two high priorities for my govt: no corruption, and no deficit.

Yeah in which case you must hate neo-con fiscal policy too huh?

In that generally they dramatically incease spending and the deficit without improving or providing new services.

i dont really know what neocon means?

im pretty simplistic/idealistic in my govt views. no deficit spending, and always have the ideal of not being in deficit. so as of the last 20 years, i pretty much hate democrats, republicans, and everybody. ive grown quite callous towards the american govt as a whole.