Regardless of one's position on a political axis, without information and understanding, one is doomed.

They give you a weird look, call you a conspiracy theorist and then fix their gaze on the commercial break they were trying to ignore moments earlier.

Truthful, incisive criticism of TPTB is not tolerated and our entire pop culture is geared to making people who do look bad.

Meaning, I am guessing, Moderate Democrats? I kind of think that right now Moderates aren't the problem - yes they could be doing more as could our Moderate president, but we also have a Tea Party that thinks a corporate oligarchy isn't a bad idea at all (if they think at all).

Bryant

Reich Wing extremists and love and faith to corporatist (which also heavily describes "moderate" political figures) then the Teabaggers wouldn't have much impact. Their power and influence is greatly magnified by "bipartisanship" and Turd Way validation of their ideology.

Increasingly the results of elections and polls are making clear that the same old, long disproved ideas that Republicans cling to are less and less accepted by an increasing number of voters. Yet, somehow Democrats skitter around Republican bullying as if they (Repubs) have overwhelming popular support.

Great illustrations on that website.

Don't allow a sense of morality to sway you, don't question things, pull the lever, get the treat and don't forget to DVR the dancing stars.

and the rich are winning.

they have convinced everyone else that it's more pleasant to wish for future wealth than to fight economic oppression.

Yes, most people misunderstand actual wealth distribution. That includes people from the entire political spectrum, pretty much.

I think this DailyKOS story, like many stories there, has used a deceptive headline for their story. That's too bad, since many only bother to read headlines and skip the actual content.

The framing of this issue of progressives vs moderate Dems is off.

The goal should be to convince non-aligned centrists and more liberal Republicans. If you can convince those folks, you will be able to move the needle here

The old "we're making steady progress" thing.

Seems more like were falling off a cliff to those that are looking at these numbers.

in our clearly failed political system, I'd say the OP makes perfect sense.

It is de jure, especially with the SCOTUS "Citizens United" ruling.

If you want to see the way this country is going taken to its (il)logical conclusion, watch the original version of Rollerball.

And who will stop them?....just do the math...they are growing their wealth at astounding speed...when they own it all, and that is a mathematical certainty, it will be a new feudal system, where the 1% own all the real property, and the rest will work for them at their pleasure...or starve in a cardboard box under some bridge.

Get ready for the coming corporate wars.

I dont expect it would happen here.

It's the people who believe they are still fighting the Cold War and the choice is between Capitalism as handed down by God Almighty or Communism which came out of Satan's ass.

Communism is part of the capitalist world system.
Without capitalism, communism doesn't exist.

....sorry,...old enough to remember when churches talked about that "root of all evil" stuff.

not money itself

And those with the highest balances are the most unbalanced.

If you mean the Soviet and Chinese systems-that ain't Communism. Frankly not sure what you mean.

Capitalism can exist without communism, but communism cannot exist without capitalism.
Communism just changes the ownership of the products of labor from the bourgeoisie industrialists to the proletariat.

The Occupy movement got violently squashed by the puppet politicians and police forces that do the bidding of the 1%.
In some places and contexts now, you become classified as a terrorist if you organize a protest.
Yet such is our only recourse now.

Remember these?
The French Revolution
The overthrow of the Russian Czardom
Recent revolution in Egypt

The only route to change is now a long and protracted violent uprising by the American people.
That's the only way that it has ever been in history.

Maybe an exception is the ending of the Dark Ages in Europe. There was no single violent event that ended those times
of fuedalism. The Dark Ages lasted 500 years, however, and ended in a very very slow and gradual way.

The plague killed so many people that the aristocrats had to compete for the food and services provided by commoners. Wages rose, the printing press allowed for the development of the bourgeoisie, revolution in the 18th century.

the country would grind to a halt, yeah, I know that wont happen, but that tactic would work.
Violence only measures how well you are at killing, not if you are right or wrong, or moral or just.

Maybe an exception is the ending of the Dark Ages in Europe. There was no single violent event that ended those times
of fuedalism. The Dark Ages lasted 500 years, however, and ended in a very very slow and gradual way.

the Plague caused massive social upheaval on the order of what you are talking about on a continental scale.

I also note the fact - it is not all about the much ballyhooed 1%. The top 1% seems to have 35% of the wealth, but the top 9% has 40% of it.

Also, it would seem that even a poor boy like me is almost in the top 40% of wealth distribution. According to the 2002 census of wealth, 8.5% of households had more than $500,000 of wealth, 11.1 had more than $250,000 and 20.3 had more than $100,000. So only 39.9% of households had more than $100,000 in net worth. That was over a decade ago so my own $105,000 in net worth (approximately) probably does not put me in the top 40%, but close to the median, I am guessing.

Still seems odd though, since I have spent most of my working life in the bottom quintile, meaning 80% of households have been making more money than me.

In some ways though, wealth distribution is skewed by age. For example, a whopping 31% of households in 2002 had less than $10,000 in net worth - that was about 34 million households. However, 14 million of those 34 million were fairly young people - under age 35. Those are young people, just starting out in their careers, having kids, etc. Those in that group who have decent paying jobs may not stay in the under $10,000 group for very long. Only 16.2% of those age 65 and older have less than $10,000 in wealth whereas 12.9% have over $500,000 and 16.8% have over $250,000 and 28.9% have over $100,000.

The standard way, in the US, for working people to accumulate wealth is to a) build up equity in a home over time and b) have that home also appreciate in value. The question is - is a good life possible even without the accumulation of a lot of wealth?

Sometimes I think I am very stupid to have accumulated the wealth I have. After all, what does that represent? It represents money that I worked for, but never spent. I mean, who is better off, somebody with $105,000 in net worth who has taken one trip to Europe, or somebody with, say $90,000 in net worth who has taken four trips to Europe? And what about kids and grandkids? There are some things, aren't there, that are, as the Mastercard commercials say, "priceless'. IF there was some way to do it, I would jump at a chance to trade that $100,000 for a couple of grandkids.

The country music song says "We've got a roof over our heads, and the kids have all been fed, and the woman I love most lies right beside me in our bed. Lord give me the eyes to see, exactly what it's worth, and I will be the richest man on earth."

But also note - top 20% not top 1%. I cannot say that enough. Because that 19% of Haves is the Democratic Party base, and they only give trickle down to the bottom 60% of have nots.

...are the ones who control the political agenda, even if they "only" have 35% of the overall wealth.

Also, your description of the standard way for working people to accumulate wealth, doesn't work when something like the rigged housing bubble comes along... Many working people bought houses at the top of the market, not knowing there was a bubble, just buying into the "ownership society" and believing all the hype about homes could not depreciate.

Finally: "that 19% of Haves is the Democratic Party base"? I'm sure some of them are Democrats, but I'm equally sure that most of them are Republicans. Where in bloody heck do you get the idea that they are "the Democratic Party base"?

It's true the Democratic Party leaders are more and more catering to their richest donors, including individuals and corporations, so in that sense, the 19% surely have more influence with the party than in the past. And it's a crying shame, because for that very reason, the Democratic Party has lost its populist cred, to the point that few people any more even defend unions (for example).

Oh well -- I read your whole post and found it confusing and wanted some clarification.

because they make up most of the donor class.

Why, for example, did NEITHER party suggest raising taxes for households making over $100,000 a year? Because Democratic Party leaders always throw that group into the "middle class". But, according to CTJ in 2010, only 20% of households make more than $88,000 a year. So why can't some of those fortunate people pay a little bit more in taxes?

Because they seem to own the Democratic Party. Thus I describe our current politics like so.

The Democratic Party represents the haves - those in the 80% to 99% group.

The Republican Party represents the have-mores - those in the top 1%.

Neither party gives a rat's a$$ about those in the bottom 60% even though we should be a clear majority and should really be represented by both parties.

As for unions, I remain somewhat ambivalent about them. It seems to me that since the time of Gompers that all they have done was create another privileged class. So now some workers are either lucky or very skilled and they get those good paying union jobs. Bully for them, but again, it does not do much for those in the bottom 60%. But we, the lower paid, non-union worker get to hear about trickle down, Maybe a union worker, like, say Tom Brady or some airline pilot or pro baseball player would say "my awesome pay and benefits trickle down to you, so you need to support MY awesome pay and benefits." Many of those union members and particularly union leaders are members of the top 1% (by income) and are no more populist than the next upper classer.

To me, the "working class" is the bottom 60%. Do we have labor leaders today who can say, sincerely, "If there is a lower class, I am in it."?

Waiting for someone to hand you a union membership on a platter? Can't pick up a phone and call a labor local to see what it takes to start an organizational campaign at your place of employment?

And you use a professional football player as your example of a typical union member? Are you serious?

For a genius, you certainly can't seem to figure out some rather simple things.

But you certainly seem to enjoy blaming organized labor for your own plight...why is that?


Another "drag them all down to my level" instead of "how can I raise myself up to their level" labor-hating post.

another form of the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and stop blaming people richer than you for your own problems."

A "labor-hating" post? Well, I happen to be a working man, and your post was loaded towards hatred of me. So how is that not labor-hating?

I happen to prefer the pre-Gompers unions, of Eugene Victor Debs and Terence Powederly, for example. Back when unions were about changing the system, rather than just getting a bigger piece of the pie within the system.

But "labor" to me means more than just "union workers". At their historical peak, union workers were never more than about 35% of all workers, and at present are only about 15% of all workers. Well, my own concern is with people in the bottom 60%. As Eugene Debs said "If there is a lower class, I am in it." Those union workers, by the success of their union, often are not in the lower classes.

Am I supposed to be on their team, or are they supposed to be on my team? Maybe if they get "dragged down to my level" then they will fight on OUR side, instead of staying up their, singing "I've got mine" and casting aspersions down at lower class workers who are not all rah-rah union.

...in particular, these days, that "Neither party gives a rat's a$$ about those in the bottom 60%". That is absolutely self evident to anyone who is paying even a little attention to the matter.

But as to the 1% vs. the 20%, yes it's true that both parties pander to the top 20%. But the 1% are actively controlling the agenda, not just being pandered to. They start think tanks whose purpose is to control the political agenda (e.g. ALEC, The Heritage Foundation, etc.), they start non profits to encourage privatization of schools (e.g., the Broad Foundation). These groups are not founded by the 20% but by the 1%.

About unions, though, I must disagree heartily. Unions are the reason we have some semblance of a civilized workplace, such as: overtime pay, 40 hour weeks (i.e. weekends off), no child labor, paid holidays, and many other benefits that we did not have before we had a unionized labor force. Yes unions were sometimes corrupt -- but you show me, please, any organization created by humans that is perfect? The possibility of corruption is a sad fact of human nature, and it can and does manifest itself in many ways in many organizations. I would say that right now the corruption problem is worst at the top of the corporate class and the financial class, while unions are struggling for survival.

You complain about those lucky stiffs who still have union jobs, and that is exactly what the ruling class wants you to think: that if we are not in a union and make less than those in union jobs, it is somehow the fault of those who are unionized, and therefore we need to tear down the unions. Yes, I know you did not say to tear down the unions; you said you were ambivalent about them. But then you went on to spout typical anti-union stuff, which I found both surprising and distressing.

The unionized work force is at its lowest level in 30 years (maybe more but I know it's at least 30). Not surprisingly, the income that goes to workers overall has not kept pace with corporate profitability. Gosh, I wonder why that is?

Anyway thanks for the reply, it's good we can have a conversation about these issues.

Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2013, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

except I find that concept of "union" to be divisive of the labor class. Because instead of having one "working class" we have a working class that is divided into two groups - a union group, which has better pay and benefits and a non-union group. As such, the union group becomes an "upper class" of the working class.

My question is, does that upper class care about the lower class? The unions' main purpose is to get and maintain better wages and benefits for its own members. As such, it does very little, or next to nothing for the huge swath of the working class who are not members.

Further, it seems right now that about half of all union members are not working for corporations, they are working for the taxpayers. Unless they are working at the Federal level, they are being paid from a regressive tax system. In all 50 states, the top 1% pay a lower tax rate than the bottom 20%. Now, if I lobbied to change those tax rates, it would probably mean that those union workers, being above the median income, would end up paying more taxes.

So which side would they be on?

...when you say that unions do "very little, or next to nothing for the huge swath of the working class who are not members", you are ignoring the historical reality. When unions represented more of the work force, their rising wages meant that wages in general rose also.

Nowadays, with the shrinking union base, they have less and less influence, both for those they directly represent and overall. Nowadays, we often hear of unions agreeing to forgo raises for 1, 2, even 5 years in return for job security. And since they are a smaller percentage of the working class, they have less and less power, which is just how the ruling class wants it.

So sure, it may be true that current union members would be on (what we view as) the "wrong" side of an issue such as the tax rates as you present the issue. But overall, it would be a better solution to have more unions, not less unions.

Maybe we need to consider how to organize the 90% en masse. But that is certainly easier said than done.

Unions have done what they have always done, fought to keep the wages of their members at some respectable percentage of management and owners. We should all have that. We shouldn't blame the unions that they are doing what everyone else should be doing.

Instead we should be trying to figure out how we can get more workers organized.

that's the way Samuel Gompers made them under his leadership fo the AFL. Then the CIO emerged and the AFL took them over too, becoming the AFL-CIO.

See, for example, the story of Terrance Powderly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_V._Powderly

and the idea of "craft unionism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft_unionism

Divide and conquer indeed.

But the rich are rigging the game. I have Zero chance of being a CEO of a company. The health care system will screw me penniless if I have no insurance and need them. I know people who spent huge sums of money trying to start a business but the system stopped them. If things were more fair both parties would be pushing for a higher minimum wage. Outsourcing and the Jack Welsh attitude about business had ruined countless careers. The wealthy just pass their wealth onto their siblings who don't even have to try and do something for themselves. The list goes on and on. But I do believe we should strive to be happy and appreciate those around us. You need empathy and caring to find happiness and they are not traits of the right wing element. I could go on and on.
Airplane.

... not very Turd Way or Buypartisan of you!

Are you some sort of pinko commie or what?

the super-rich.

Take a listen.

After all, 37% of those making under $30,000 voted for Romney. If there are conservatives at that income level, there could also be moderates. 43% of those making $30,000 to $50,000 voted for Romney and 53% of those making over $50,000 voted for Romney and just 54% of those making over $100,000

...soit is not "indisputable."

too generous or fooled yourself in calling them moderates? Maybe there is no middle. The middle won nothing. Maybe there are three political spectrums afterall. Those that are concerned about only social issues on both the Right and Left and those calling themselves in the middle only concerned about wealth. Maybe those calling themselves the political middle are playing both extremes for the fools. And I find people that prosper on greed have no moral center whatsoever.

Maybe they could borrow it from their parents. Ha! Kidding. That was my stupidhead Romney impression. Obviously, their parents wouldn't have much wealth either.

Hey, you know who does have lots of wealth? The top 1%. The bottom 40% should look there.

I'm not holding my breath.

of all the wealth.
While the Bottom 40% has maybe 1%.
And the middle class gets squeezed
eventually joining the Bottom 40%.

And we're waiting for what?

We know this already. More to the point of it all would be what to do about it-- any ideas besides preaching it to the choir here?

I have some, if anyone is actually interested in something other then venting anonymously on a discussion board. I think a few others have some of the same ideas.

It means hard work, though.

On edit:

I've always considered myself somewhat of a moderate. Should I be insulted here?

The problem as I see it; is that we all need to work together.

I think before that can happen; there has to be agreement on what the problem is.

The 1% aren't the problem the 47% are the problem. That would be the 47% that voted for Romney. They are the problem because they believe the only problem is Obama. While Obama may not be perfect; he's not the only problem, he's nowhere near the biggest problem.

Everyone beats up on the 1%, but the politics in this country are controlled by the .01%. If you think about it; the 1% are doctors and lawyers and other professionals. They're just as vulnerable as the rest of us. It is the super rich that have the only voice in this country.

It's not about actual wealth as much as it is financial invulnerability. They're the ones that can crash the whole system and know that they will still be wealthy.

and we got a lot of legislation passed.

Unions came to be, too, but that doesn't seem like the best course now-- legislation is.

First thing is to get the latest voter registration list and find your local Democrats. Knock on doors and get as many as you can to meetings where specific races and legislation are discussed and plans are made. Get the Democratic club in your area on the move or nothing will happen. Once it's on them move, reach out to the registered but with no party, or at least something that isn't Republican or teabaggy. Around here we have about 30% of voters declaring no party but they will listen when issues interesting to them come up.

Once you've got your issues and campaigns agreed to, swarm your current legislators with your demands. Work with established lobbying organizations, even if you don't like some other stuff they do, to increase the mass on issues.

Letters, phone calls, showing up anywhere they appear... Make them realize you exist.

If you don't get what you want, find a candidate you think can win (even if not perfect) and get some new shoes because you'll be wearing them out fast. Work that list of Democrats and sympathizers and do not be afraid to piss people off the day before the election with 20 phone calls. Walk the street and knock on doors so they see you're a real person and have a picture of your candidate to give to them. Not a lot of reading, just catchy graphics.

In short-- learn how to run a campaign to win it.

Get talking points from other general campaigns, and make them personal. Women's issues are not just abortion, but child care and other family issues that everyone can get on board with. Immigration is Juan and Maria who do such a good job down at the dry cleaners and that great little Chinese restaurant. And so it goes-- make it personal to your contact.

Through all of this you're sneaking in the idea of taxing the shit out of the rich, increasing the estate tax (maybe even making it an income tax on the inheritors) reducing the influence of money guys like Romney over the real innovators, inventors, and entrepreneurs...

We did it here-- keeping our Congressman in the face of an enormous and spendworthy teabagger campaign and then electing our guy in a local election with almost 70% in a Republican district.

I know, some places are so red it seems impossible, but you gotta try. And even here it takes a lot to overcome the inertia of just staying home and griping.

How do we know that the people we put into office will continue to work for us?

Particularly when they need the big donors to get re-elected.

emails from Citigroup's CEO or one of their corporate officers to their senior staff flat out called the economy of the US a 'plutonomy'.

The numbers and percentages mean nothing, w/o a discussion and explanation of the "why."

Is it because the system is rigged? How?

Is it because of the recession?

What were the numbers before the recession?

Is it because of the tax system?

The numbers are very disturbing on the face of it, for sure. And common sense says that there's something very wrong going on here...but to say these numbers are the direct result of a rigged system (meaning hopelessness) without saying how the numbers got to be this way, is not absolutely convincing to me.

I guess it would help to use the numbers before the recession, to get a clear picture of the system, since things were supposedly going okay until the recession.

Having said all that, to justify the logic part of my brain...I must say that in my gut I feel it...I feel that a great injustice is going on in this country. Sales of expensive purses and shoes are up, yachts are up, luxury car sales have been doing fine all through the recession I heard. There has been no recession for the wealthy part of our country. And yet they resent having to pay one dime toward Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security, none of which they'll ever need.

The other 10% is the decline of union power in the country.

The top rate for wages should be right at around 50% and for dividends it should be at 35%.
Having it as low as it has been for the last 33 years or so has piled massive amounts of wealth into the hands of the richest Americans.

And the decline of unions pushed wages for middle class people lower.

Add those two things and you end up with wealth piling up for a small amount of folks and everyone else scraping to get by.

The conspiracy of the corporate cabal is, like most, impossible to pull off without someone shearing off and telling all about it.

I could look at sacred cows of both sides and see where both the left and right were full of shit, but also where they had a point. However, in the 21st century, any hope of "centrism" is useless, because the right successfully infected the national organism b y mounting a two pronged attack: hardcore fascists on the right, and Judas goat traitors that called themselves "blue dogs." The billionaires simply kept shoveling gold to the furnaces, more than they would if they just paid their share of taxes, but the result is that the country is titled right, and by titled, I mean that if someone breaks your left leg, you wind up having to stumble along using your right just to move.

We cannot depend on presidents anymore, because we have finally seen the thing we never learned in civics class, that a congess and judical branch that are on the same page can hamstring an executive branch. For those people that say "well that never stopped W. from getting what he wants!" you need to keep in mind that W. was backed BY THE PLUTOCRATS, and CONTROLLED BY them. Congress, including the same people that the left likes to lionize, took a dive (yeah Pelosi, I include you). Meanwhile, these same spineless servants get to filibuster Obama, and look like they are taking a risk, while anyone with a brain knows that the rand pauls and Marco Rubios are making the billionaires happy. The same goes double for Judas goats like Max Baucus, and even Harry Reid.

So, the point is, while we need a center, there needs to be a hard tip to the left, just to undo the screwed up bearing of this country, before we can talk of a center.

I don't think any "moderate" or "centrist" thinks this is acceptable. I think your ire is misguided. Let's re-direct toward those who actually deserve it.

graph tied to yet another graph: bracket the wealth for each color, and tie it to a graph showing how many people have that "color" of wealth. I think a visual representation would have more impact than a simple sentence. Yes, we can see that the top 20% of people have 85% of the wealth, but directly showing how many people, in millions, are in that near-invisible lowest bracket would be damning.

as a centrist, but now I see myself as a Leftist when considering the Government we have. I don't see a center. There is no need for procrastination when it comes to dealing with this current political environment of obstructionists. The extreme Right must be dealt with period, because they threaten my liberties. I didn't vote for Obama to compromise either. The Right didnot put him in Power and those that did, are not sheep. The Right thinks we are and that is expected from their insults of the people that voted for Obama. If this Democratic President and Democrats in Congress enact the Right's platform, they will be toast as a Party. And to the Pundits making claims this is about Obama's Legacy, no it is not. It is about us. He was not put in office for his own Ego.

.

in this thread was worth clicking on the thread. It was classic.