Off Topic Poker Forums

Making good financial decisions, such as saving $ to go to community college or something, will never be the end all be all decision that will lift them magically, but I feel like it's a situation where a lot of little things can add up. The ascension still seems rather difficult, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that can be done to at least help.

What kind of "good" financial decisions can a poor person make that will lead them out of poverty? The entrance costs to middle-class professions are generally much higher than the available wealth someone in poverty has.

This is a very good and extremely deep question. If you're making minimum wage, or close to it, you can make all the right financial decisions and still be breakeven or in the red.

Financial minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Let's be generous and say you're making $10/hour. $10/hour * 40 hours/week * 52 weeks/year = $20,800. Before any taxes you may pay (probably little to no income tax). Best case scenario is that you're young, single, with no dependents. In that case, you could sustain yourself on that salary. Maybe get a roommate and cut down on rent. Eat rice/beans every day to cut down on food costs. Be lucky enough to live close enough to your work/grocery store/doctor/etc. that you can walk, bike, or use public transit. Best case scenario - you can break even, maybe save a few bucks, and take out loans to get an education or valuable skill set. But when? You're working full time - so either take night classes (are there any close enough to you? no? well, you can't afford a car/payments/insurance/gas) or quit your job and go to school full time. Take out a mountain of loans to do so.

That's best case scenario and happens. There are a lot of people who do exactly what I described and succeed. They buckle down, take the lumps, get the education/skill set and get a good job. And it's a wonderful thing.

But make it 'realistic scenario'. Change any of those factors and it becomes difficult to impossible. Throw in raising a kid as a dependent - very expensive. How about being in a rural area that requires a car/car payments/insurance (you can skimp and get a clunker to avoid payments, but it will break down so you're still pumping money into it one way or another). What if you're expected to look after your ailing parents? How about if you have a medical condition that costs money?

So yea - I just wanted to illustrate sweetjazz's point. Even making the 'best' financial decisions is often not enough for people stuck in a cycle of poverty.

Rant over - I apologize that I am not citing any sources or research. I don't usually like to post this stuff without some objective backup.

Buy a gun and rob a bank?

Not if everyone at the bank had a gun.

Not wanting to derail, but you can be a CEO of an investment bank that acquires a massive portfolio of toxic assets, have the government bail your company out, and then walk away with literally tens of millions of dollars in annual pay.

The major inequality in America is that the poor judgments / decisions are a lot more costly the less wealth (and access to regulatory powers) that you have. The correlation between good decision making and hard work on the one hand, and wealth and well-being on the other is quite weak.

I agree. I define being "poor" as having little to no disposable income. While it's reasonable to assume someone under X income has little or no disposable income, that assumption doesn't hold true for higher incomes.

Housing prices are (still despite the bubble bursting) out of whack with income levels. One can still have a house, a car, and a job yet still be poor.

disposable income is usually defined as all sources of money minus taxes. you're talking about discretionary income, and i agree it's hard to debate that since i'm super cheap sometimes (breaking out the pennies to pay for stuff, getting tap water at restaurants, etc). and i find it weird that people think a house is a necessity. i consider any living quarter that's not exposed to the elements a necessity, a house is a luxury imo.

Assuming these figures are correct, I was surprised that > 20% make 6 figures or more. That makes my dream of making 6 figures in the near future seem both more attainable and less special.

household income, not individual income. you can still be special one day.

but it's interesting to note that as you go down the household income scale, families get smaller and there's usually 1 wage earner or less. which goes against the idea of working poor families who are still poor even though they try hard. from the popular images of the underclass i had in my mind, i expected there to be 2 wage earners all the way to the very bottom.

household income, not individual income. you can still be special one day.

Oh, missed that Wahoo!

Just saw this story scroll across my Facebook. The infographic is interesting.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money?utm_source=fp&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120801

Making good financial decisions, such as saving $ to go to community college or something, will never be the end all be all decision that will lift them magically, but I feel like it's a situation where a lot of little things can add up. The ascension still seems rather difficult, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that can be done to at least help.

It is not impossible, but IMO for the most part so difficult it merges with impossible.
I can give two examples. I've already talked about one kid from work who got into 4 colleges and can't pay to go (he also got his Congressional invite to Annapolis, but didn't get selected). And he has a lot of support from his mom and prep school etc., and did volunteer and after school programs for years. he can't afford community college. He's hoping to get the navy to pay for him to go to a school in FL.
Another kid was part of our Summer Leadership Internship this summer. It's basically a program where high school kids who come get paid $500 to attend classes on a college campus. They get 4 checks, and one of their dads called to ask when his son would get his last check - clearly because he needed/was going to use it. It is really, really, really hard to save for anything for the poor.

I def agree Steppin. I'm not sure what the solution is though. Reallocation of current tax money is a necessity based on how unbelievably inefficient government spending is and that could help.

This is a very good and extremely deep question. If you're making minimum wage, or close to it, you can make all the right financial decisions and still be breakeven or in the red.

Financial minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Let's be generous and say you're making $10/hour. $10/hour * 40 hours/week * 52 weeks/year = $20,800. Before any taxes you may pay (probably little to no income tax). Best case scenario is that you're young, single, with no dependents. In that case, you could sustain yourself on that salary. Maybe get a roommate and cut down on rent. Eat rice/beans every day to cut down on food costs. Be lucky enough to live close enough to your work/grocery store/doctor/etc. that you can walk, bike, or use public transit. Best case scenario - you can break even, maybe save a few bucks, and take out loans to get an education or valuable skill set. But when? You're working full time - so either take night classes (are there any close enough to you? no? well, you can't afford a car/payments/insurance/gas) or quit your job and go to school full time. Take out a mountain of loans to do so.

That's best case scenario and happens. There are a lot of people who do exactly what I described and succeed. They buckle down, take the lumps, get the education/skill set and get a good job. And it's a wonderful thing.

But make it 'realistic scenario'. Change any of those factors and it becomes difficult to impossible. Throw in raising a kid as a dependent - very expensive. How about being in a rural area that requires a car/car payments/insurance (you can skimp and get a clunker to avoid payments, but it will break down so you're still pumping money into it one way or another). What if you're expected to look after your ailing parents? How about if you have a medical condition that costs money?

So yea - I just wanted to illustrate sweetjazz's point. Even making the 'best' financial decisions is often not enough for people stuck in a cycle of poverty.

Rant over - I apologize that I am not citing any sources or research. I don't usually like to post this stuff without some objective backup.

Luke, I actually tried a hypothetical income breakdown (I think it's on the first page).

However having a roommate isn't a long term sustainable thing either. When I was in my younger 20s I didn't even make 10 bucks an hour, and believe me uncle sam still takes his cut!

Since we've been discussing this I tried to find an old pay stub from when I was making approximately 9/hr, but I can't find any (that was over 8 years ago now).

The majority of Americans fall into the category of "the government takes out too much in taxes, but gives you some back in the form of a refund".

I actually saw an interesting thing on the news today (and it's actually applicable to me), but over the past 2 years 52% of college grads can't find jobs in their field.

Steppin and I talked about this in the other thread, but having a degree doesn't mean what it used to. I actually decided to NOT go to law school because it would jack me up financially. Taking on 150k worth of student loan debt to have a less then desirable chance to get a job is not such a great idea.

So many comments here.

Danish people are poor. Average income doesn't mean squat. What counts is income/cost of goods. Denmark minimum wage is $25/hr. But taxes are enormous, and an Applebee's level dinner for two costs > $70. Homes are tiny. Food is expensive. Cars and gas are expensive. That money isn't worth much unless you can spend it out-country.

Inflation in currency is heavily flawed. When Ron Paul says we have devalued the dollar 98% in 100 years, he fails to account for the vastly higher quality of goods those dollars now buy. In 1965, $2,400 bought you a Mustang that had a 60,000 mile life expectancy at best. The equivalent today buys you a modern Mustang that has A/C, air bags, intermittent wipers, antilock brakes, far better interior, far better sound system, electronic locks and windows, dozens of other improvements, and a life expectancy of > 150,000 miles. Is the currency devalued? Yes, but not nearly as much as a straight analysis would suggest.

Some inflation is good. To see why, imagine a deflationary system where the value of the dollar goes UP each year. The super-rich and modestly rich would have far less incentive to invest. Rather, they make effective money just by doing nothing.

The political debate over the disappearing middle class is sophomoric. Much of the supposed imbalance between rich and poor comes from loss of jobs that pay 50-90K. These jobs largely disappeared because of globalization, not tax policy or some major failure of the U.S.

What separates the U.S. economically? On the most basic level, strong property rights. Consider why most countries in Central and South America have continued to lag so badly. If someone builds something highly successful, it is nationalized/ stolen. China is having significant problems with this. There is much less incentive for mid- and high-level entrepreneurs. On another level, it is the relatively low burden of bureaucracy. As a doctor, it is hard not to puke writing that. But consider India. Why does the Indian economy suck? It's the culture of bribes and bureaucracy. Even if you know people, it takes many months or more and large amounts of bribe money to get a company started, and even then that company has no assurances that ever-greater bribes and permits won't be required. As a lesser example, consider Germany, the cornerstone of Europe. In Germany, to start a business, you have to have 50K or so in "ground capital," which I believe is used to prepay taxes and so forth. In the U.S., to start a business, you print business cards. THAT is why we're so far ahead.

Arguments about loss of manufacting remind me of military planning. Still making WW2 assumptions. The U.S. produces much of the world's tech advances and software. These are real goods, not some ephemeral service industry. We are major exporters of tech. Yes we build that iPhone in China, but China cannot design it.

Fractional reserve banking allowed the industrial revolution to happen. Without easy credit, businesses cannot grow quickly. I do believe there should be substantial limits on derivatives and current allowed leveraging. Alan Greenspan fucked us all by allowing the much higher leveraging that underlay much of 2008-9. I also believe in full auditing of the Fed, since the Fed is using 2006 as their benchmark for "normal." in 2006, we were grossly over-revving the economy with government deficit spending and super-easy mortgage borrowing > easy student loan and credit card borrowing. This created false success. The Fed and government will continue to chase this as it is always easier to do so than to radically cut spending, which is the only way I see right now to avoid currency meltdown. The dollar will be the last currency standing, but it's going down, and the younger you are, the worse the price you will pay for this. It's too complicated for the median voter to understand, so like the politicians, most of us just ignore the inevitable. You cannot continue running these deficits without dire consequences, and you cannot balance the budget by taxing the rich alone.

Too late for more, but there is a lot more. We ARE screwed, but it's the government doing it, not the economy or some inherent decay in America. And we're still 23% of the world's economy.

Danish people are poor. Average income doesn't mean squat. What counts is income/cost of goods. Denmark minimum wage is $25/hr. But taxes are enormous, and an Applebee's level dinner for two costs > $70. Homes are tiny. Food is expensive. Cars and gas are expensive. That money isn't worth much unless you can spend it out-country.

The standard of living in Denmark is pretty high:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

So many comments here.

Danish people are poor. Average income doesn't mean squat. What counts is income/cost of goods. Denmark minimum wage is $25/hr. But taxes are enormous, and an Applebee's level dinner for two costs > $70. Homes are tiny. Food is expensive. Cars and gas are expensive. That money isn't worth much unless you can spend it out-country.

You are discounting what those taxes get them. Let's say that half of that $25/hr goes to taxes, so take home is $12.50/hr. Look what they get for their 50% in taxes. They get better educations as a whole than we do. They all have access to college. And to healthcare. Danish people aren't poor. Some Danes are, some aren't. As for things being 'expensive', from whose perspective? Cars are less necessary there than here, and they drive less miles. If homes are small (relative to what?), that would seem to indicate a strong real estate market, as builders try to maximize space because they can sell all those homes (assuming they aren't homes built hundreds of years ago).

Inflation in currency is heavily flawed. When Ron Paul says we have devalued the dollar 98% in 100 years, he fails to account for the vastly higher quality of goods those dollars now buy. In 1965, $2,400 bought you a Mustang that had a 60,000 mile life expectancy at best. The equivalent today buys you a modern Mustang that has A/C, air bags, intermittent wipers, antilock brakes, far better interior, far better sound system, electronic locks and windows, dozens of other improvements, and a life expectancy of > 150,000 miles. Is the currency devalued? Yes, but not nearly as much as a straight analysis would suggest.

Are you saying $2400 now would get you a better mustang than $2400 then, or that the currently new $25K mustang now is a better car than the new back then mustang?

The political debate over the disappearing middle class is sophomoric. Much of the supposed imbalance between rich and poor comes from loss of jobs that pay 50-90K. These jobs largely disappeared because of globalization, not tax policy or some major failure of the U.S.

Supposed imbalance? Are you saying there isn't one? I'm not sure I agree that most of the imbalance is due to the loss of 50-90K jobs, although in comparing 2010 to 2003, there is a decline in those earnings and an increase in those earning less than 45K. And I agree that it did not occur due to tax policy. Failure though is the wrong word I think. Those job losses occurred in part due to becoming a credit economy and in part due to globalization. These are things the US has done that have had consequences. Consequences which have weakened the foundation of the economy, because eventually (we see it now), people aren't going to spend into the economy. So failure isn't the right word. One consequence of capitalism is that it will look for cheap labor, regardless of in which boundary that labor is located.

What separates the U.S. economically? On the most basic level, strong property rights. Consider why most countries in Central and South America have continued to lag so badly. If someone builds something highly successful, it is nationalized/ stolen. China is having significant problems with this. There is much less incentive for mid- and high-level entrepreneurs. On another level, it is the relatively low burden of bureaucracy. As a doctor, it is hard not to puke writing that. But consider India. Why does the Indian economy suck? It's the culture of bribes and bureaucracy. Even if you know people, it takes many months or more and large amounts of bribe money to get a company started, and even then that company has no assurances that ever-greater bribes and permits won't be required. As a lesser example, consider Germany, the cornerstone of Europe. In Germany, to start a business, you have to have 50K or so in "ground capital," which I believe is used to prepay taxes and so forth. In the U.S., to start a business, you print business cards. THAT is why we're so far ahead.

While I agree that currently we are ahead of S.A. and India, that gap is closing fast. India's economy does not suck, it's in fact burgeoning. Nor is it hard to start a business there (my uncles in India have started many). And this is despite the crippling corruption and bureaucracy to which you refer. I concede it is harder for a foreign company to start up over there. And those are huge problems in India that have prevented it from running us down.

Arguments about loss of manufacting remind me of military planning. Still making WW2 assumptions. The U.S. produces much of the world's tech advances and software. These are real goods, not some ephemeral service industry. We are major exporters of tech. Yes we build that iPhone in China, but China cannot design it.

The US produces the innovation, not the product. And even then, much of that innovation is coming from bright minds imported from abroad - who can and do go back to their home countries. This is another area where our lead is disappearing. Just because we still have a lead doesn't mean we're maintaining the distance. Being innovators (such as we are now) and not also producers shrinks our economy. If 40% of the iphone is profit, 60% of the money spent on it leaves the country.

Fractional reserve banking allowed the industrial revolution to happen. Without easy credit, businesses cannot grow quickly. I do believe there should be substantial limits on derivatives and current allowed leveraging. Alan Greenspan fucked us all by allowing the much higher leveraging that underlay much of 2008-9. I also believe in full auditing of the Fed, since the Fed is using 2006 as their benchmark for "normal." in 2006, we were grossly over-revving the economy with government deficit spending and super-easy mortgage borrowing > easy student loan and credit card borrowing. This created false success. The Fed and government will continue to chase this as it is always easier to do so than to radically cut spending, which is the only way I see right now to avoid currency meltdown. The dollar will be the last currency standing, but it's going down, and the younger you are, the worse the price you will pay for this. It's too complicated for the median voter to understand, so like the politicians, most of us just ignore the inevitable. You cannot continue running these deficits without dire consequences, and you cannot balance the budget by taxing the rich alone.

Fractional reserve banking isn't going anywhere. It's the only way we create wealth in this country. As for the last sentence, there have been more cuts in spending in the last 3 years than there have been tax increases on the rich. You cannot balance the budget without both cutting spending and increasing revenues. The fact that no one wants their taxes is go up blinds them. I don't think the median voter cannot understand, I think the median voter does not want to understand because it means something unpalatable will happen in order to get the mess fixed. Much easier to blame the president, whether this one or the last one. Nobody wants to step up and assume a little extra burden, when in reality everyone has to.

Too late for more, but there is a lot more. We ARE screwed, but it's the government doing it, not the economy or some inherent decay in America. And we're still 23% of the world's economy.

The government is the strap on around the waist of big business. For me, the screwer is the one wearing it, not the device itself.

The standard of living in Denmark is pretty high:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

and please let us know how long the Danish system will work when they can match the system load of the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-born_population_in_2005

what is the impact on inequality when pretty much every poor and persecuted person in the world who can walk/swim/fly tries to immigrate into your country? this type of inequality is not caused by the US. and what of the rise of status of these people once they come to the US? do we get any credit for that?

anyways, this type of "my country's so much better" back and forth is so petty. every country has different demands and constraints. the Danish system works, in Denmark, but it's hubris to think that system can be transplanted or scaled into all other countries. the US has been trying and failing with their own similar hubris for over 50 years now.

and i'm criticizing everybody on this one, myself included.

and please let us know how long the Danish system will work when they can match the system load of the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-born_population_in_2005

what is the impact on inequality when pretty much every poor and persecuted person in the world who can walk/swim/fly tries to immigrate into your country? this type of inequality is not caused by the US. and what of the rise of status of these people once they come to the US? do we get any credit for that?

anyways, this type of "my country's so much better" back and forth is so petty. every country has different demands and constraints. the Danish system works, in Denmark, but it's hubris to think that system can be transplanted or scaled into different countries. the US has been trying and failing with their own similar hubris for over 50 years now.

Germany is very similar to Denmark.

what is the impact on inequality when pretty much every poor and persecuted person in the world who can walk/swim/fly tries to immigrate into your country? this type of inequality is not caused by the US. and what of the rise of status of these people once they come to the US? do we get any credit for that?

Once those people come to the US, then the jobs they can or can't get are of course relevant to income inequality. As for the rise of status, I think what draws immigrants here is opportunity, not necessarily immediate rise in status. We will probably always get the immigrants from 3rd world despotic regimes, but higher level immigrants are eventually going to stop coming here if the income trend continues. Income inequality is already the cause of our illegal immigration issues.

Germany is very similar to Denmark.

and Germany's immigration demographics is very dissimilar to the US.

Once those people come to the US, then the jobs they can or can't get are of course relevant to income inequality. As for the rise of status, I think what draws immigrants here is opportunity, not necessarily immediate rise in status. We will probably always get the immigrants from 3rd world despotic regimes, but higher level immigrants are eventually going to stop coming here if the income trend continues. Income inequality is already the cause of our illegal immigration issues.

and the millions of poor Europeans immigrating into this country in the previous 100 years did what exactly? those poor, uneducated people seeked out those opportunities (granted by inequality, yes) and rose themselves up. their children and their children's children rose through the social ladder, and now they're the upper class of this country.

What's your point? Now is not then, that's the decline. I think the decline is just starting, it'll take decades to actually happen.

....... Income inequality is already the cause of our illegal immigration issues.

Another WTF statement. Does anyone really believe this?

If "inequality" truly was the "cause", they would stay in their own country. The correct word is "opportunity" and higher-wages.

But the principal cause of ILLEGAL immigration in th US, is Political Correctness and "Gaming the System" (votes). No one wants to do anything about it. And if they do, the DOJ sues them. It is not enough to try to achieve the agenda of "FAIRNESS" and "EQUALITY" for LEGAl immigrants and US Citizens.
............. I know of no other country that has this same issue -- and does nothing about it. It is completely basic. Illegals cut in front of the LEGAL immigrants, and make it more difficult for them to get their start -- while at the same time, driving down wages for LEGAL immigrants or entry-workers.
.............. Basically, the administration is rolling out the red carpet, as well as the past administration(s). Why? Election year, and Hispanic vote (as well as potential illegal votes)
FYI: you ought to see the paperwork I filled out to live in Mexico. They want to know how much money is in the bank. Basic economics: Can I pay my way? OR am I going to leech off of their economy. They want to see copies of utilities etc etc. Very strict......but then there is corruption ("mordida" or bribe).....which could make it easier for me -- or anyone with cash. Corruption drastically undermines the system.

NOTE: I do NOT think illegal immigration is the principal cause of "the decline". However, it is an example of backwards thinking in the US about "fairness" an "equality". For sure, it is a very basic issue that most countries do not have to deal with on such a large scale.


A big part of the problem in the "decline" question in the US is political correctness -- which undermines accountability and responsibility.



.=================
Very interesting article for anyone watching the economic crisis in Greece. Again IMO, illegal immigration is not the main issue, but still....it is an issue

.......Greece is the first point of entry for 80% of immigrants reaching the EU.........Greece has frequently come under criticism for its handling of immigrants. Amnesty International accused it of treating asylum seekers like criminals and holding them in detention centres.

Greece has frequently called on other European nations to do more to help tackle illegal migration into the EU, arguing that it bears a disproportionate burden.

What's your point? Now is not then, that's the decline. I think the decline is just starting, it'll take decades to actually happen.

i think your point was that a stream of poor, uneducated people into a country works to progressively lower wages and increase inequality, and i pointed out a time period when there was a stream of poor, uneducated people into the country whereupon something exactly the opposite happened.

of course, correlation is not causation, and the prosperity of the US during this past period could have been in spite of the immigration.

............. I know of no other country that has this same issue. It is completely basic. Illegals cut in front of the LEGAL immigrants, and make it more difficult for them to get their start -- while at the same time, driving down wages for LEGAL immigrants or entry-workers.

i highly doubt the illegal immigrant job market overlaps with legal immigrant job markets. but i'll stop there as i'm just going off anecdotal evidence being from a legal immigrant family and having never once considered working in a chicken factory or picking grapes for a living.

.............. Basically, the administration is rolling out the red carpet, as well as the past administration(s). Why? Election year, and Hispanic vote (as well as potential illegal votes)

A big part of the problem in the "decline" question in the US is political correctness -- which undermines accountability and responsibility.

i'm no history expert, but from watching Gangs of New York, it seems to me that buying the immigrant vote is not a new thing.

i guess my general gripe for putting up all these buts is that you can't cite evidence of "The Decline" and ignore past history where the same things have happened without a decline.

i'm more inclined to think of our current path as a regression to the mean rather than decline. it's very hard to predict the future, and i think saying it's a decline, period, full stop, is taking a trend and extending it unnecessarily to its extreme. of course, my view can be taken to its extreme as well in not acknowledging systemic problems until the last day when it all falls apart.

i highly doubt the illegal immigrant job market overlaps with legal immigrant job markets. but i'll stop there as i'm just going off anecdotal evidence being from a legal immigrant family and having never once considered working in a chicken factory or picking grapes for a living. .........

It is necessary to look at the arguments made for illegal immigrants.
"They do jobs that no one else will do etc."

I do not believe this. I believe that if the illegals are removed (accountability and responsibility), someone will do the work (and businesses will pay) -- provided the workers are not already being subsidized by the government. AND....if we do need more immigrants -- they should come legally (green card, workers permit, etc)

I think the overlap is more likely to affect those who do not speak good English and manual labor workers. Have you been to Home Depot and seen the groups of illegal workers standing outside for "under-the-table" tax-free work? Always amazes me. Free pass.


An argument against the minimum wage (libertarian?) is that it keeps entry-level workers from getting work. If an employer has to pay X amount of taxes/permits/fees on top of $10/hour for someone who doesn't know anything, the employer is less likely to hire that entry-level worker.
(a little off topic, but in regards to entry-level worker disadvantage)

In short, people will do the work -- unless the government interferes with subsidies (cradle-to-grave welfare etc).

EDIT: it is also a false picture of illegal immigrants to believe they are all farm-workers toiling in the fields like slaves. Not true. They work in most manual-labor industries -- including home construction. A Hispanic owner with a bunch of illegals, can definitely take market-share from a law abiding owner of a construction business.
It is an invisible economy (that slips by the tax system).

i guess my general gripe for putting up all these buts is that you can't cite evidence of "The Decline" and ignore past history where the same things have happened without a decline.

I like your approach of looking at history. We should learn from our past, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Here is my simplified explanation of decline. I am taking for granted that we are talking about ECONOMIC decline, vs social.

Frankly, I believe that there is an attempt (purposeful or "unintended consequences") to neuter the spirit and pride of US citizenry. The social agenda of some, only cares about "fairness" and "inequality". In order for them to make things more "FAIR", there is an agenda to neutralize the wealthy and those that are productive (The Ant and The Grasshopper)

The argument is no longer about common-sense -- but about moral superiority. "I care more than you, so I must be right." If anyone speaks up for common-sense, words like bigot or racist are thrown in the air (diluting those words). Think about it. Today, if someone disagrees with the US President, the news media starts jabbering about "racism". Sick, but true.

But as you said, "nothing new". Take FDR for instance (Great Depression). The guy prolonged the Great Depression with all of the government social programs. Keynesian Economics.
......Today, the argument goes, that FDR "did not spend enough", and that he should have spent more -- for a faster recovery. Same goes for Communist failures. The argument goes that, "They did not do it right (or spend enough)".
......I disagree with both of these arguments above. It is Keynesian Economics, that claims government can manipulate the economy in its ups-and-downs (and print money freely). Unfortunately, an economy with trillions and trillions of daily transactions can not be controlled -- and should be unleashed for full potential.

In Summary, I am a very strong believer in US productivity. Tear down the bloated government (bureaucracy) and nanny-state -- and allow the people to create businesses without demonizing them. I truly believe that there is no country that has more productive workers than the US. No one can stop the US -- except itself. That is why so many people want to go to the US. The opportunity for self-fulfillment without government harrassment (which is changing with the social experiments).