Good rant.

Eisenhower & Mark Hatfield Republicans of old, and this 'new breed' that's
divorced from science, common sense and any trace of human decency whatsoever.

Yes some of them get pretty bad. But they are encouraged by a crazed system - capitalism. The whole point of the game of capitalism is to acquire wealth at the expense of others. It is an inherently unequal system in which bad behaviors like greed are not only encouraged but desired.

Change the system and we might see better behavior. Shaming isn't going to do it because the rewards are too great for the ones at the top.

The system rewards these behaviors.

At least, based on past and current performance, so I'm with you there. Shaming will do little good, but getting more and more voices into this 'discussion' just might. Any slant on the issue could be just the one to tip more and more people onto the correct and necessary side of this equation.

What else is there?

we have a chance here to go back to the mid 1900s where a middle class actually existed. It's not sustainable for the long term, but in the short term we could get our house in order (tax and redistribute appropriately) and maybe stave off global warming. It's worth a shot rather than just letting it all blow up. Meaning, there will eventually be a revolution if the current system is not at least reigned in.

A thug with a gun lacks decency as well. Bad behavior is bad behavior. That sort will behave badly no matter what economic system we follow. The only difference is how much damage they can do.

I just don't agree with your analysis.

"hating" the rich and wanting a government that isn't up for sale.

I was working in a building in the middle of Los Angeles' Skid Row on one of the upper floors.

Suddenly I was drawn to the window that overlooked the street below and I saw two men. One was lying motionless in the gutter across the street, flat on the ground. Blood oozed from his torso onto the pavement. The second man was leaning over that bleeding body. I watched the second man reach into the pockets of the helpless body on the ground, feel around, grab something, drop change onto the ground into the blood and run away. A little later, I heard a siren and the bleeding body was picked up.

That to me was the picture of greed. It doesn't make any difference whether the greedy person is rich or poor. Greed is overwhelming. We might say that the poor person really needed the money or whatever he was stealing. But taking what you need from someone who is bleeding on the street, that is to me an indelible image of greed.

And that is what the vultures of finance do. They grab from the pockets of the poor in suffering countries. They steal the futures of poor Americans, taking their houses and their dreams. But they are no different from the man stealing from the body in the gutter.

We do not always recognize our own greed.

In most areas of the country $400k per year puts you in the 1% category. Many of those people are not greedy conservatives. They are not predators, they don't value money over people, they do not use the "economy as a weapon." They are not the problem.

These uninformed broad brush statements get old, IMO. Not everyone who makes a lot of money is your enemy.

I checked and I don't think I am. And I know from personal experience the OP is incorrect.

claim otherwise.

As another poster stated below, it's the 1% of the 1% that is the problem. And even some of them are die hard liberals. Look at Costco or Starbucks for instance.

It's a broadbrush statement that fails when compared to facts. Not everyone who does well economically is your enemy, and it is silly to treat them as such.

this an "individual merit" issue. I see this most often from right-wingers. They don't want their system brought down because they benefit from it (at least the wealthy republicans - I see the less well-off republicans as confused at best). They don't want to talk about systemic issues and will resist it with every core of their being.

And I am acquainted with many other liberal small business owners. We don't treat employees or anyone else as described in the OP even though we may make a very good living. And I can promise you that if my taxes go up much more so that the mega corps can continue to pay nothing I won't be the loser in the equation. My employees will because I will go out of business.

It doesn't help if liberals don't understand what the systemic issues are. Focus on the mega corps that pay no taxes, and subsist on corporate welfare instead of this silly 1% stuff.

if they are high income but are buried in debt they are not living the life (or controlling the wealth) the way a 1%'er is.

It most definitely is an attempt to water down the issue.

but it really is the .001% that need to be targeted...like the koch brothers with a combined worth of more than 65 billion

There are people with more money than God that do not have to work for a living and play chess using the rest of us as pawns. They buy off governments. They start wars for profit.

I am not talking about the Warren Buffets, Oprah Winfreys or even the local heart surgeon that work for a living so perhaps my definition of "1%" and yours are different ... ???

I have no issues with the wealthy. I have issues with governments around the world allowing the few people with the vast majority of wealth to control whether people in China can breathe or find safe water or whether the apples in my local Kroger are so modified they aren't actually nutritious.

Anyways, I think we agree - and hope that clarifies.

Contrary to popular belief, most people that make $400K and less than a few million a year, work extremely hard. I can't speak for how hard those that make over a few million a year work because I do not know anyone like that personally.

400K maybe in the top 1% of earners but they are not in the top 1% of wealth holders.

greed for money and power. I think you're described it well.

They are dangerous predators. I suspect it may even be built into their DNA -- the Bushes would be a good example.

A few hundred thousand dollars doesn't go as far as it used to. A few hundred million on the other hand...

You are correct.

what the exact definition of the 1% ers is? Is it anyone and everyone who makes above a certain threshold
of income? If that is true, what is the income line where one would be considered a 1%er?. Do rich entertainers,
politicians, public figures all belong to the 1%. I would like your thoughts on this issue.

Warren Buffet's wealth doesn't mean much compared to the Saudi Kings or Wellington Management or a few other huge worldwide players.

Bad behavior knows no economic level but when bad actors with that much economic resources behave badly it does infinitely more damage. I'm really thinking on a world scale.

Seriously, I know plenty of wealthy people who support progressive economic AND social policies. And use their assets to try to elect Democrats to implement them. And plenty of those progressive candidates (Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson) are happy to come to us to finance their campaign.

But then, you knew that. The point of this thread was just to vent, right?

talking about systemic issues is difficult or non-desirable for some. For various reasons.

are in the 1% who shares with others, the Clintons are in the 1% and they share through their foundation, Bill and Linda Gates share with others, Warren Buffett is happy to share with others, I don't know where the notion that the 1% are selfish. My parents was not rich by any means but was always ready to share and help others, they taught their children to share with others. I have my choices of which to share but I am not 1% and I still share. Jimmy Carter has shared with others for years, let us not degrade those who share needlessly. Brooklynite, you are an example also.

Are they criminals against humanity too?

The hardened criminals are the 1%.

there are members of the 1% that are part of the working class. They are not the ownership class. Many work for the owners for their dough also. Many lack even an inkling of solidarity with "those other" workers beneath their social station and their full support of the system of capitalist social relations that impoverishes other workers is the main problem.

Only about 10% of the people in this country earn over $70,000 a year. It's from that point that the capitalist race to the bottom begins. I don't know the exact breakdown, but the vast majority of the other 90 percent earn far less than that, 50 % exist on less than $27,000 a year, while millions of others exist right at or below the poverty level, and millions more are born into and live in abject poverty. Only about 10% or so of the population has any decent security, can make house, car, insurance payments without taken on large amounts of debt, and don't worry about food and such.

As a few others have said... demonizing various rich assholes and the "capitalist winners" kind of misses the point. They are products of the system in which we live also. We are all corrupted by the same source... the capitalist economic system. Blaming the rich for playing the system doesn't really get to the source though many are still high grade assholes. There are high grade assholes among the "middle class" and the poor also. Whether one qualifies as an asshole as an individual really has little to do with changing social conditions and the systematic exploitation of the whole of the working class.

People come to be corrupted and greedy by societal systems that promote greed and corruption and domination over others. Systems built on a foundation of domination, corruption,exploitation and theft are not corrupted by the greed of humans. Humans are not born evil, greedy, or corrupted - for all intents and purposes - they are just born into the social conditions of their time.

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." --Karl Marx