Welfare Queens? Welfare Kings Rule the Land

Don

"Since "welfare queens" and the idea of "givers versus takers" are the topic is "du jour" again, let's look at the forgotten takers: the "welfare kings" on the corporate side.
Section 5010 of the U.S. tax code is a very interesting piece of federal law. Not to pick on my friends in the liquor industry, but we the taxpayers subsidize "flavored" liquors to the tune of $1.1 billion every 10 years. Think about it: when I turned 18 (yes I'm that old), I'd walk into a bar and there would be plain vodka, plain rum, plain gin, etc. Today, walk into a bar and there are thousands of flavors to be had. Why? Well because Section 5010 of the Internal Revenue Code gives distillers a "discount" for adding flavor. Makes sense right? Don't get me wrong. I love my citrus flavored vodka with club soda. It's refreshing but I'm not sure if it's $1.1 billion worth of refreshment in these tight times."

"Or take the domestic sugar industry. Case in point: I hate Valentine's day but not for reasons you may think. It's a made-up holiday so people tell each other they love each other. That's ridiculous. So I'm forced to tell you I love you on this day or I'm in the doghouse? Um, not so much. If you have to be reminded to tell your loved on that you love them, then you pretty much suck anyway. This past V-Day, I was waiting in the green room for an appearance on MSNBC and I struck up a conversation with a representative from the candy industry. We were talking about this very issue of corporate subsidies and he told me this year, the U.S. government will buy back $80 million worth of sugar from the domestic sugar producers and store it in warehouses because prices didn't meet government targets. I really kind of like being single, independent, carefree but I'll be damned if I want my federal government propping up the domestic sugar industry so husbands across America can go buy crappy chocolate for their less-than-pleased spouses.
Or take the domestic oil and gas industries. They make the liquor industry look destitute. We the taxpayers subsidize companies like Chevron, Exxon and Shell to the tune of $7 billion a year. This confuses me. This confuses most Americans.
If you want to dive into the weeds on corporate subsidies, read this. It'll blow your mind."

"While we're at it, let's look at America's small businesses. Every small business is allowed certain deductions, from business meals to gas or mileage to depreciation of computers. What is a deduction, really? It's taxpayer-subsidized welfare. Greedy small business owners!
According to the Cato Institute, we the American people subsidize corporate America to the tune of more than $90 billion annually, while individual people on welfare only pull down around $59 billion. I like simple math. It's easy for me to understand. Corporations are getting the better end of that bargain but I don't hear Sen. Mitch McConnell and Reps. Jack Kingston and Bill Cassidy – the latest decriers of welfare – declaring a war on the corporate CEOs (who are actually driving real Cadillacs). The hypocrisy is staggering.
Let me be clear: These provisions may be good policy. You're welcome to make that decision. My point is, if we are going to keep having a conversation about "welfare queens" then I'm going to wholeheartedly keep talking about the "welfare kings of industry." After all, giving is giving and taking is pure and simple taking.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Here's a great interactive map where you can pinpoint current data on "welfare queens" by state and congressional district. And Congressman Kingston, you best be thankful that a majority of the kids in your district can't vote or you'd lose reelection."

Don

Obviously, there are two sides to the "Welfare" issue and only on side usually gets in the Mainstream Media.

"Welfare Queens" on a local scale are wealth multipliers and the Bankster "Welfare Kings" stop the flow of the money.

Could the bad "welfare queen" image be because they are powerless in the Mainstream Media?

Why doesn't "welfare," subsidies to the rich trickle down, but the rich get richer?

Actual dollar reveal Corporate America to be the larger "welfare queen," and does that trouble you?

Does Corporate USA have too much political power and influences politicians to get these "wellie" benefits?

Is the "welfare Queen" argument invented by Corporate USA to distract citizens from the higher dollar "Corporate Wellies?"

Poll Question: Who is the Welfare Queen/Welfare King?

1. Bag lady from Detroit.
2. All those low income scumbag wellies.
3. Carl Icahn.
4. The Military/Industrial/Corporate complex.
5. The Banksters.
6. Big Pharma.
7. Big Energy.
8. Quicker Liquors.
9. Big Corporate USA.
10. Big Money.

I don't know how to contact a moderator to get the poll questions attached as a poll. I screwed up and know it was because I went "back" when creating the post. If a mod reads this, I would appreciate the help. Thank you.

Poll Question: Who is the Welfare Queen/Welfare King?

1. Bag lady from Detroit.
2. All those low income scumbag wellies.
3. Carl Icahn.
4. The Military/Industrial/Corporate complex.
5. The Banksters.
6. Big Pharma.
7. Big Energy.
8. Quicker Liquors.
9. Big Corporate USA.
10. Big Money.[/QUOTE]

ALL OF THE ABOVE.

None of those people should be getting ANYTHING from the Government.

Typically...you have a problem with terminology. There is a world of difference between taking from others and giving it to someone for nothing and allowing people to keep and invest more of what they have actually earned. You DESPERATELY want to equate the two. Thats...sad.

Let's look at reality here. Both forms of "welfare" are the current "law of the land" and got to be so only by getting approval from the majority of our congress critters and being signed by the POTUS. Please include for each of these "horrible" welfare laws, exactly which congress critters voted for them - I will bet that many of them are still in power. You will also find bipartisan support for the vast majority (if not all) of these laws. Congress critters need massive amounts of campaign cash to maintain their positions of power, as well as the votes of the majority of we the sheeple. I also imagine that you, personally, have voted for those that supported the very same "welfare" laws that you now protest.

VanceMack said:

Typically...you have a problem with terminology. There is a world of difference between taking from others and giving it to someone for nothing and allowing people to keep and invest more of what they have actually earned. You DESPERATELY want to equate the two. Thats...sad.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about, nor is the article about, "earned" money. We are discussing subsidies and also called welfare. There are two types and you surely misunderstand the terminology. Some investing is a wealth multiplier and creates jobs, but Corporate Welfare is not.

Tigger said:

Poll Question: Who is the Welfare Queen/Welfare King?

1. Bag lady from Detroit.
2. All those low income scumbag wellies.
3. Carl Icahn.
4. The Military/Industrial/Corporate complex.
5. The Banksters.
6. Big Pharma.
7. Big Energy.
8. Quicker Liquors.
9. Big Corporate USA.
10. Big Money.

Click to expand...

ALL OF THE ABOVE.

None of those people should be getting ANYTHING from the Government.[/QUOTE]

You forgot one of the largest and most ridiculous ones:

The database tracks $256 billion in farm subsidies from commodity, crop insurance, and disaster programs and $39 billion in conservation payments paid between 1995 and 2012.

EWG Farm Subsidy Database

DaveFagan said:

I'm not talking about, nor is the article about, "earned" money. We are discussing subsidies and also called welfare. There are two types and you surely misunderstand the terminology. Some investing is a wealth multiplier and creates jobs, but Corporate Welfare is not.

Click to expand...

No...I didnt misunderstand the article, nor do I misunderstand you. Deductions are not welfare.

Do you file taxes? Do you claim allowable deductions and exemptions? If so...why are you such a horrible scumbag welfare queen?

DaveFagan said:

Don

"Since "welfare queens" and the idea of "givers versus takers" are the topic is "du jour" again, let's look at the forgotten takers: the "welfare kings" on the corporate side.
Section 5010 of the U.S. tax code is a very interesting piece of federal law. Not to pick on my friends in the liquor industry, but we the taxpayers subsidize "flavored" liquors to the tune of $1.1 billion every 10 years. Think about it: when I turned 18 (yes I'm that old), I'd walk into a bar and there would be plain vodka, plain rum, plain gin, etc. Today, walk into a bar and there are thousands of flavors to be had. Why? Well because Section 5010 of the Internal Revenue Code gives distillers a "discount" for adding flavor. Makes sense right? Don't get me wrong. I love my citrus flavored vodka with club soda. It's refreshing but I'm not sure if it's $1.1 billion worth of refreshment in these tight times."

"Or take the domestic sugar industry. Case in point: I hate Valentine's day but not for reasons you may think. It's a made-up holiday so people tell each other they love each other. That's ridiculous. So I'm forced to tell you I love you on this day or I'm in the doghouse? Um, not so much. If you have to be reminded to tell your loved on that you love them, then you pretty much suck anyway. This past V-Day, I was waiting in the green room for an appearance on MSNBC and I struck up a conversation with a representative from the candy industry. We were talking about this very issue of corporate subsidies and he told me this year, the U.S. government will buy back $80 million worth of sugar from the domestic sugar producers and store it in warehouses because prices didn't meet government targets. I really kind of like being single, independent, carefree but I'll be damned if I want my federal government propping up the domestic sugar industry so husbands across America can go buy crappy chocolate for their less-than-pleased spouses.
Or take the domestic oil and gas industries. They make the liquor industry look destitute. We the taxpayers subsidize companies like Chevron, Exxon and Shell to the tune of $7 billion a year. This confuses me. This confuses most Americans.
If you want to dive into the weeds on corporate subsidies, read this. It'll blow your mind."

"While we're at it, let's look at America's small businesses. Every small business is allowed certain deductions, from business meals to gas or mileage to depreciation of computers. What is a deduction, really? It's taxpayer-subsidized welfare. Greedy small business owners!
According to the Cato Institute, we the American people subsidize corporate America to the tune of more than $90 billion annually, while individual people on welfare only pull down around $59 billion. I like simple math. It's easy for me to understand. Corporations are getting the better end of that bargain but I don't hear Sen. Mitch McConnell and Reps. Jack Kingston and Bill Cassidy – the latest decriers of welfare – declaring a war on the corporate CEOs (who are actually driving real Cadillacs). The hypocrisy is staggering.
Let me be clear: These provisions may be good policy. You're welcome to make that decision. My point is, if we are going to keep having a conversation about "welfare queens" then I'm going to wholeheartedly keep talking about the "welfare kings of industry." After all, giving is giving and taking is pure and simple taking.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Here's a great interactive map where you can pinpoint current data on "welfare queens" by state and congressional district. And Congressman Kingston, you best be thankful that a majority of the kids in your district can't vote or you'd lose reelection."

Don

Obviously, there are two sides to the "Welfare" issue and only on side usually gets in the Mainstream Media.

"Welfare Queens" on a local scale are wealth multipliers and the Bankster "Welfare Kings" stop the flow of the money.

Could the bad "welfare queen" image be because they are powerless in the Mainstream Media?

Why doesn't "welfare," subsidies to the rich trickle down, but the rich get richer?

Actual dollar reveal Corporate America to be the larger "welfare queen," and does that trouble you?

Does Corporate USA have too much political power and influences politicians to get these "wellie" benefits?

Is the "welfare Queen" argument invented by Corporate USA to distract citizens from the higher dollar "Corporate Wellies?"

Poll Question: Who is the Welfare Queen/Welfare King?

1. Bag lady from Detroit.
2. All those low income scumbag wellies.
3. Carl Icahn.
4. The Military/Industrial/Corporate complex.
5. The Banksters.
6. Big Pharma.
7. Big Energy.
8. Quicker Liquors.
9. Big Corporate USA.
10. Big Money.

Click to expand...

Excellent post, and only 8 replies, I just got off the other post on this same section, which I felt was idiotic, and it has 6 pages of replies. intelligent people need to team up and be more organized in getting their message across...

Rocketman said:

You forgot one of the largest and most ridiculous ones:

The database tracks $256 billion in farm subsidies from commodity, crop insurance, and disaster programs and $39 billion in conservation payments paid between 1995 and 2012.

Click to expand...

I'm 100% in agreement on that as well. It is NOT the role of Government to ensure the outcomes of any personal or private business endeavour.

VanceMack said:

No...I didnt misunderstand the article, nor do I misunderstand you. Deductions are not welfare.

Do you file taxes? Do you claim allowable deductions and exemptions? If so...why are you such a horrible scumbag welfare queen?

Click to expand...

Well, yes - those of us who take tax deductions for interest on our homes or for the children in our family ARE getting welfare from the govt. As someone mentioned earlier - we voted for this; as a country we have decided mortgage interest deductions good, credit card interest deductions bad (they used to be allowed). We've decided a child tax credit is good, credits for solar power good, credits for energy efficient devices good -but they are all welfare in terms of redistributing money. Renters are pretty upset by the mortgage interest deduction, by the way.

So when you complain about someone getting food stamps - best look to what YOU are getting from the government.

I personally would prefer to up the food stamp budget and lower the budget for sugar subsidies. Unfortunately, the elected representatives (who get lots of money from business, not so much from food stamp recipients) are voting differently.

paddymcdougall said:

Well, yes - those of us who take tax deductions for interest on our homes or for the children in our family ARE getting welfare from the govt. As someone mentioned earlier - we voted for this; as a country we have decided mortgage interest deductions good, credit card interest deductions bad (they used to be allowed). We've decided a child tax credit is good, credits for solar power good, credits for energy efficient devices good -but they are all welfare in terms of redistributing money. Renters are pretty upset by the mortgage interest deduction, by the way.

So when you complain about someone getting food stamps - best look to what YOU are getting from the government.

I personally would prefer to up the food stamp budget and lower the budget for sugar subsidies. Unfortunately, the elected representatives (who get lots of money from business, not so much from food stamp recipients) are voting differently.

Click to expand...

There ya go. As long as you are willing to wear the "Yes...I am a scumbag welfare queen" label and not the "Look at me, Im a hypocritical douchebag complaining about others receiving the same benefits I receive" label, I'm cool with that.

VanceMack said:

There ya go. As long as you are willing to wear the "Yes...I am a scumbag welfare queen" label and not the "Look at me, Im a hypocritical douchebag complaining about others receiving the same benefits I receive" label, I'm cool with that.

Click to expand...

Want to know how really scumbag I am? I married my second husband mainly so a) he could be on my health plan and b) so I could get more of a tax deduction when I sold my house (for married couples, $500,000 profit is protected from taxes; single people only $250,000, and I was going to have more than $250,000 profit on my house).

Yet another welfare benefit many of us get from the govt ... but somehow, I don't see conservatives out there demanding THAT one be stopped.

(oh yes, we love each other - but I didn't have any big urge to get officially married until I saw the economic benefit...)

paddymcdougall said:

Want to know how really scumbag I am? I married my second husband mainly so a) he could be on my health plan and b) so I could get more of a tax deduction when I sold my house (for married couples, $500,000 profit is protected from taxes; single people only $250,000, and I was going to have more than $250,000 profit on my house).

Yet another welfare benefit many of us get from the govt ... but somehow, I don't see conservatives out there demanding THAT one be stopped.

(oh yes, we love each other - but I didn't have any big urge to get officially married until I saw the economic benefit...)

Click to expand...

Probably because most conservatives see a difference between a handout that isnt earned and a legal and legitimate tax deduction. Thats just a guess though. More telling would be the person that bitches about wealthy people and corporations getting it while taking advantage of it themselves.

VanceMack said:

Probably because most conservatives see a difference between a handout that isnt earned and a legal and legitimate tax deduction. Thats just a guess though. More telling would be the person that bitches about wealthy people and corporations getting it while taking advantage of it themselves.

Click to expand...

Well, this is probably for a different thread -but why would an increase in the value in my house be an "earned" deduction? It wasn't from improvements I made .... I sold in 2005, when the market was high. "I got lucky" to somewhat misquote the Deft Punk song. Why SHOULDN'T I pay taxes on something that increased in value even if it was less than $500,000 in value?

Don't get me wrong - I'm thrilled to have gotten the deduction - but why don't renters get any kind of deduction? Again, my house increasing in value - how is that earned?

And I personally value giving govt money more to food snap programs than to sugar subsidies. An "unearned handout" is in the eye of the beholder.

paddymcdougall said:

Well, this is probably for a different thread -but why would an increase in the value in my house be an "earned" deduction? It wasn't from improvements I made .... I sold in 2005, when the market was high. "I got lucky" to somewhat misquote the Deft Punk song. Why SHOULDN'T I pay taxes on something that increased in value even if it was less than $500,000 in value?

Don't get me wrong - I'm thrilled to have gotten the deduction - but why don't renters get any kind of deduction? Again, my house increasing in value - how is that earned?

And I personally value giving govt money more to food snap programs than to sugar subsidies. An "unearned handout" is in the eye of the beholder.

Click to expand...

The difference would be that a tax exemption is still the government allowing you to claim a legal exemption to keep more of what you have already earned. The government is NOT saying to you "Hey...well done...your house appreciated in value...here is a sweet check for 6k." Now...if the desire is to end ALL exemptions...well as you said, thats probably a different thread, but I'd be fine with that. Kill the EIC, Kill all exemptions...flat tax. Good ideas.

I respect the desire to give more. Rather than give more to the fed (I'm personally not altogether convinced they are trusted stewards of taxpayer dollars, but again...thats just me), perhaps you should contribute more directly to a local food bank. Heck...live large and dont claim your donation! Our organization provided Thanksgiving and Christmas meals to 65 families and presents for 73 kids. Most of that came from handshakes and private contributions. There are lots of ways people can help without going through the government.

VanceMack said:

The difference would be that a tax exemption is still the government allowing you to claim a legal exemption to keep more of what you have already earned. The government is NOT saying to you "Hey...well done...your house appreciated in value...here is a sweet check for 6k." Now...if the desire is to end ALL exemptions...well as you said, thats probably a different thread, but I'd be fine with that. Kill the EIC, Kill all exemptions...flat tax. Good ideas.

I respect the desire to give more. Rather than give more to the fed (I'm personally not altogether convinced they are trusted stewards of taxpayer dollars, but again...thats just me), perhaps you should contribute more directly to a local food bank. Heck...live large and dont claim your donation! Our organization provided Thanksgiving and Christmas meals to 65 families and presents for 73 kids. Most of that came from handshakes and private contributions. There are lots of ways people can help without going through the government.

Click to expand...

While there are private charities and they do good work - their work of necessity is uneven. If you don't happen to live in their area of service, you don't benefit. The govt can give evenly, based on pre-determined criteria (a millionaire can go to a food bank; but a millionaire cannot get food stamps)

Also, some charitable giving is religion-based and requires people to hear a sermon or other religious messages. One locally turned down a volunteer because they weren't Christian. That's fine; that's their choice; but that's another reason why I prefer to have it done through the govt and through my taxes.

And no, there is minimal difference between me getting a tax break when I sell my house and someone getting food stamps; we are each getting money that otherwise would have gone to the govt to fund various programs.

DaveFagan said:

Poll Question: Who is the Welfare Queen/Welfare King?

1. Bag lady from Detroit.
2. All those low income scumbag wellies.
3. Carl Icahn.
4. The Military/Industrial/Corporate complex.
5. The Banksters.
6. Big Pharma.
7. Big Energy.
8. Quicker Liquors.
9. Big Corporate USA.
10. Big Money.

Click to expand...

All of the above, though corporations pay far more taxes than they recieve in actual subsidies in most cases. So in reality they are subsidizing the govt. Except they pass the tax down to us in costs, so in reality we are just paying more taxes, corporations simply collect it for the govt.

In any case, whats your plan of action?

Proving corruption on behalf of the wealthy does not diminish the extreme problem of welfare fraud and, worse, creating welfare dependency and lifestyle.

paddymcdougall said:

While there are private charities and they do good work - their work of necessity is uneven. If you don't happen to live in their area of service, you don't benefit. The govt can give evenly, based on pre-determined criteria (a millionaire can go to a food bank; but a millionaire cannot get food stamps)

Also, some charitable giving is religion-based and requires people to hear a sermon or other religious messages. One locally turned down a volunteer because they weren't Christian. That's fine; that's their choice; but that's another reason why I prefer to have it done through the govt and through my taxes.

And no, there is minimal difference between me getting a tax break when I sell my house and someone getting food stamps; we are each getting money that otherwise would have gone to the govt to fund various programs.

Click to expand...

Yes...we see that every day. Literally TRIPPING over millionaires lining up at the county relief organization. :roll:

Look...you like big gov...you want to give MORE to big gov...you SHOULD. You CAN. Dont wait for big gov to force you or to take it from you. You can give more in taxes than you have to. I think you absolutely should. And start right now. Oh...and dont claim any exemptions on your taxes either.

joko104 said:

Proving corruption on behalf of the wealthy does not diminish the extreme problem of welfare fraud and, worse, creating welfare dependency and lifestyle.

Click to expand...

What's proven is the Corporate welfare is much more prevalent than poor people welfare fraud. We should adjust our mitigation priorities proportionately. This issue, like many others goes back to the Mainstream Media failure to keep the citizens informed objectively, accurately and truthfully. The MSM needs reform. The gov't disbursement policies need reform. Regulation agencies need to end their revolving door management with the Industries they allegedly regulate. Probably when pigs fly. eh?

DaveFagan said:

What's proven is the Corporate welfare is much more prevalent than poor people welfare fraud. We should adjust our mitigation priorities proportionately. This issue, like many others goes back to the Mainstream Media failure to keep the citizens informed objectively, accurately and truthfully. The MSM needs reform. The gov't disbursement policies need reform. Regulation agencies need to end their revolving door management with the Industries they allegedly regulate. Probably when pigs fly. eh?

Click to expand...

More Corporate Wellies. Yep. Bigger and Better. Unbelievable and we're the ones getting our pockets picked, again. I'm really against this redistribution of the Wealth. As if we haven't given more than enough to the banks, traders, stock market, and all manner of paper shufflers. Where are the jobs programs. Jobs at LOCAL levels require LOCAL level implementation. All the schemes are grandiose to allow the money to be funneled away at the top. Business per usual. Bend over.

"The Shocking Numbers Behind Corporate Welfare."
"State and local governments have awarded at least $110 billion in taxpayer subsidies to business, with 3 of every 4 dollars going to fewer than 1,000 big corporations, the most thorough analysis to date of corporate welfare revealed today.

Boeing ranks first, with 137 subsidies totaling $13.2 billion, followed by Alcoa at $5.6 billion, Intel at $3.9 billion, General Motors at $3.5 billion and Ford Motor at $2.5 billion, the new report by the nonprofit research organization Good Jobs First shows.

Dow Chemical had the most subsidies, 410 totaling $1.4 billion, followed by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire-Hathaway holding company, with 310 valued at $1.1 billion.

The figures were compiled from disclosures made by state and local government agencies that subsidize companies in all sorts of ways, including cash giveaways, building and land transfers, tax abatements and steep discounts on electric and water bills."...snip
"The size and range of the subsidies the tool has uncovered helps explain the burdens taxpayers must bear because so many major corporations rely on welfare for much or all of their profits rather than earning them.

Such burdens are especially hard on the poor. The bottom fifth of households in all but one state pay a larger share of their income in state and local taxes than the top 1 percent of earners. This means that corporate welfare effectively redistributes from the poor to those rich enough to own corporate stock."...snip
"Good Jobs First found that just 965 companies collected 75 percent of the value from 25,000 subsidy deals identified in Subsidy Tracker 2.0.

Boeing’s $13.2 billion is a bit more than its pretax profits for the last two years. It is also equals a stunning 70 percent of the $18.2 billion of equity owned by Boeing shareholders.

Measured against the number of commercial jetliners sold — 648 last year, at an average of nearly $79 million per plane — these subsidies come to more than $20 million per aircraft.

While the subsidies did not go just to commercial jets and were not for one year, those figures give some perspective to the huge amount of money that taxpayers lavish on Boeing.

Boeing declined to comment.

Second on the subsidy list is Alcoa, the old Aluminum Co. of America, which benefits from 91 subsidies totaling $5.6 billion. On the basis of its pretax income for last four years, that amounts to all the pretax profits Alcoa shareholders can expect for the next 189 years.

Alcoa operates in 35 countries, so I also calculated its state and local subsidies against its share of U.S. business for the last three profitable years. Measured this way, the subsidies equal 17 years of pretax U.S. profits.

These facts may surprise Alcoa shareholders, since the company makes virtually no mention of these gifts from taxpayers in its annual 10-K disclosure report. The only mention of subsidy is in terms of how Medicare drug benefits for retirees will lower annual pension costs, explaining about a nickel on each dollar of subsidy that Alcoa collects from American taxpayers.

In response to the findings, Alcoa said that, due to complexities in electricity pricing and to closing part of its New York smelting operation, the value of the subsidy was significantly less than Subsidy Tracker showed.

Taxpayers who want to understand the full dimension of their burdens should demand that Congress require and pay for detailed annual statistical reports showing every federal, state and local subsidy received by corporations, including the value of indirect subsidies like those perpetual rights of way to pipelines and other legal monopolies.

Without that information, we have no idea of the true cost of welfare or the cost of propping up companies that, evidently, cannot make their way on their own."
"David Cay Johnston, an investigative reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize while at The New York Times, teaches business, tax and property law of the ancient world at the Syracuse University College of Law. He is the best-selling author of "Perfectly Legal", "Free Lunch" and "The Fine Print" and editor of the forthcoming "Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Inequality."