How US politics works » Forum Post by Mumblefratz

The biggest get their fill while the smaller fight amongst themselves too much to dislodge those taking more than their share.

And you're OK with this?

No response to this?

I say this knowing full well I make about a tenth as much as you, Mumble.

Not sure where you live, in some countries a tenth of what I make is not all that bad given some form of UHC and Social Security. Certainly even in the US there are places where making half of what I make is actually far better off than I am. The point is that I don't believe that my making ten times what you make makes me any more valuable in any real sense than you nor does someone making ten times what I make, make them any more valuable than me. I thought I read somewhere about all men being created equal.

Or this?

I never asked for any such system. I never said that I expect to say screw this at a whim and get off the merry go round but I do think the system should be such that when someone has worked hard for their entire life they should not be semi-automatically screwed by the system and forced to eke out the rest of their existence on a diet of dog food.

That's pretty much the only other option than the wage-slavery you were railing against. Well, that or an agrarian peasant lifestyle.

Tell that to the 52.2% of young Americans that are unemployed whose best hope for a job is "do you want fries with that" or "welcome to walmart."

Had I stayed with Wal~Mart, I would be making not much less than I am now. Making 20+k a year may not be great, but it beats the hell out of not having a job at all. The benefits aren't great and the vacation policy sucks, but that's true of most small buisiness as well.

I consider myself to be part of that unwashed rabble and I feel far more solidarity and concern for their future than I do for the corporatists. It's always those that are the best off that cry poor mouth the most. I don't feel sorry for the rich. The rich make out, they always do.

I consider myself part of it as well, I just don't romanticize about it. Yes, there is some luck involved, but most of the poor people and sob stories I know personally were almost entirely self-inflicted in some way or another.

Not sure where you live, in some countries a tenth of what I make is not all that bad given some form of UHC and Social Security. Certainly even in the US there are places where making half of what I make is actually far better off than I am. The point is that I don't believe that my making ten times what you make makes me any more valuable in any real sense than you nor does someone making ten times what I make, make them any more valuable than me. I thought I read somewhere about all men being created equal.

I'm a firm believer in all men being created equal. I don't believe they stay that way. I don't think the poor should be allowed to die in the streets, but neither do I support using public money to pay for health care for someone who bitches about not being able to afford insurance while driving a brand-new SUV. I know some of these people, and they are not worth any sort of consideration.

WIllythemailboy

reply 50

And the difference in the numbers reflects how many people think the public option would be nice as an option, but should not be a right guaranteed or mandated by the government.

The difference in numbers reflects how the question was worded. To imply deeper meaning is pretty subjective.

There's an old saying that there are "Lies, damned lies and statistics" meaning that you can twist the result to mean pretty much whatever you want them to mean.

I have no great need to argue statistics with you particularly when they vary from one day to the next and depend on subtle variation in how the questions are asked.

Those that wish to believe Glenn Beck are free to do so. It really doesn't bother me one way or the other. You’re free to choose your heroes and I am free to choose mine. I was personally inspired by Michael Moore’s clip. I realize that others may view him differently although I would argue that at least Michael Moore does not incite people to violence as Glenn Beck does.

I'm a firm believer in all men being created equal. I don't believe they stay that way.

That's where we differ, because by your analysis that means I'm ten times "better" than you.

I disagree because I believe that a person's inate value is not dependent on their paycheck.

No response to this?

Apparently I am fine with it. I'm one of the few "low income" people in this country paying taxes at all, so any time those making 3 times what I do get hosed it brings a little smile to my face.

Winston Churchill said it best when he said "The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter."

You know why fundraising is so important to politics? The vast majority of voters make their choices based on name recognition. Seriously, the best indicator of who wins local and state elections is what percentage of the electorate recognizes your name. Couple that with the frighteningly large proportion of the populace that vote straight party tickets regardless of who's running or what they're running on, and you have a system where lobbying is a worthwhile expenditure of money. The vast majority of those who vote don't know, remember, or care what those they are voting for will do once in office.

Those that wish to believe Glenn Beck are free to do so. It really doesn't bother me one way or the other. You’re free to choose your heroes and I am free to choose mine. I was personally inspired by Michael Moore’s clip. I realize that others may view him differently although I would argue that at least Michael Moore does not incite people to violence as Glenn Beck does.

This may come as a shock to you, but I'm pretty sure I've said it before. I don't listen to Beck, and never have. I don't follow any one particular talking head, nor do i consider any of them a hero. If Moore wanted to really change something, he'd get his fat hypocritical ass elected and DO something. Hell, if Frankin can do it, Moore should have a cake walk.

I disagree because I believe that a person's inate value is not dependent on their paycheck.

As in various other things, it's not the size it's how you use it. If you are living on credit cards to keep up with the Joneses and buying a house for ten times your salary on the sub-prime market, you have no buisiness complaining when your life goes to hell for any reason at all. No, the particular reason it goes to hell may not be under your control, but you sure set up the conditions to make it as devastating as possible.

If Moore wanted to really change something, he'd get his fat hypocritical ass elected and DO something.

Not everyone is cut out to be a politician. I think that Moore does in fact influence change in the best way he knows how.

As in various other things, it's not the size it's how you use it.

I can't disagree with this.

If you are living on credit cards to keep up with the Joneses and buying a house for ten times your salary on the sub-prime market, you have no buisiness complaining when your life goes to hell for any reason at all.

I don't disagree with this either. I'm a firm believer in living within your means. I personally only drive Chevys that I've paid for in cash and keep them for at least 8 to 10 years. I also no longer own a house and have no intent of buying one in a market that is still hugely overpriced. Once I retire I'll buy a house in a part of the country that has a much lower cost of living than where I currently live.

The thing is you are assuming that the primary reason people get themselves into financial trouble is because of their own financial stupidity. Of course there are people for which this is true. The question is, is this the primary cause and I don't believe that it is.

But we're mostly talking about healthcare here and we clearly have different views because I *do* believe that healthcare is a right (unlike driving a new SUV) and pretty much the rest of the developed world agrees with me, not you.

Apparently I am fine with it. I'm one of the few "low income" people in this country paying taxes at all, so any time those making 3 times what I do get hosed it brings a little smile to my face.

I can understand this but why then do you stop at those making only 3 times what you get? Why are you so intent on protecting the guy that makes 100 times what you get because that's effectively what you're doing.

The thing is you are assuming that the primary reason people get themselves into financial trouble is because of their own financial stupidity. Of course there are people for which this is true. The question is, is this the primary cause and I don't believe that it is.

It is much like being obese. Most people don't die from being fat, but it contributes to most chronic health problems. No, your idiotic morgage isn't the PRIMARY reason you went bankrupt, but it sure as hell contributes.

But we're mostly talking about healthcare here and we clearly have different views because I *do* believe that healthcare is a right (unlike driving a new SUV) and pretty much the rest of the developed world agrees with me, not you.

I think even most of the right wing would agree to a single payer system if it absolutely assured the same access and quality the current system does (well, as long as those damn dirty foreigners can't get it [e digicons][/e] - I personally could care less if illegals are included, as long as they're contributing the same as everyone else). That's not possible - even Medicare isn't completely single-payer and that's the standard everyone always raises.

Besides, even the far left aren't willing to pay the 50%+ tax rates that Europeans pay to cover such systems - and they have far less infrastructure and military costs to cover.

I can understand this but why then do you stop at those making only 3 times what you get? Why are you so intent on protecting the guy that makes 100 times what you get because that's effectively what you're doing.

Because they are already getting sufficiently hosed, even after accounting for how much more they are making. Seriously, the top 3.2% of the population should not be paying more than half the total taxes, especially since they account for less than a quarter of the total income. Yes, they have plenty to spare, but those in the middle should be contributing and they simply aren't.

The preceding numbers were taken from official IRS numbers from 2007, using $200k as the cut off point.

No, your idiotic morgage isn't the PRIMARY reason you went bankrupt, but it sure as hell contributes.

I have no idiotic mortgage, in fact I have no mortgage at all. I suspect that there are many people like me as well as many people whose mortgages are *not* idiotic. Are you assuming that 50% of the population *do* have idiotic mortgages. If not 50% then what percent of the population do you think it is? What data do you have to support this assertion?

Besides, even the far left aren't willing to pay the 50%+ tax rates that Europeans pay to cover such systems - and they have far less infrastructure and military costs to cover.

You're confusing multiple issues here. Let's use the French as an example.

Of course the French pay much higher taxes overall than we do. The point is that the portion of their overall taxes that are due to their UHC system is actually pretty small. The French social security tax alone is about 40% of their gross wages but that has nothing to do with funding their healthcare system. Basically the French pay a little more than $3,000 per person per year in taxes to cover the entirety of their healthcare system. This covers everyone for everything.

In comparison to this we in the US are paying over $7,000 per person per year on healthcare but in our case this money comes both from taxes, to cover medicare and such, as well as from individuals and companies paying health insurance premiums. If you break this $7,000 down you'll find that we're actually already paying about $3,000 per person per year in taxes and $4,000 per person per year split between individuals and companies.

Obviously these numbers are approximations but if you look around you'll find that they're pretty close to reality. The point is that we in the US are *already* paying as much in taxes for our healthcare system as the French are and then we still pay even more privately on top of that.

Ideally we could fund the entirety of a single-payer healthcare system that covers *everybody* in the US for what we're *already* paying in taxes just for Medicare and the like. Of course nothing is ideal and we wouldn't be able to capture all of those savings given that we are obviously not going to instantly and completely change over to a French style healthcare system but this gives you an idea of the magnitude of the saving possible. We could truly have a single payer system that covers everybody in the US for *half* of what we're paying now.

As far as illegals I see no reason that they should be prohibited from buying into any part of the plan as long as they don't get any taxpayer subsidy. I mean illegals can buy insurance now and as long as they receive no subsidy they would be paying their full share.

Because they are already getting sufficiently hosed, even after accounting for how much more they are making. Seriously, the top 3.2% of the population should not be paying more than half the total taxes, especially since they account for less than a quarter of the total income. Yes, they have plenty to spare, but those in the middle should be contributing and they simply aren't.

Boy they certainly have you brainwashed into a good little corporatist peasant. They sure do love you at Halliburton. Of course they couldn't give a fuck about you personally but I'm sure Dick Cheney's $100 million feels so much more secure knowing that someone making $20K is worried about making sure he not only keeps every penny of it but can continue increasing his wealth at the fastest rate in the countries history while the middle class gets poorer and poorer. Congratulations, you are your own worst enemy.

Who cares if the top 1% pay 50% of all taxes or the top 2% pay 75% or whatever it is. It really doesn't matter. Before Reagan the top tax rate was 70%. The current top tax rate is half that at 35% and that only comes into play for any income over $372,950. I make $180K and so I manage to barely make it into the 33% bracket with the bulk of my income taxed at 28% and the rest mostly at 25%. Your $20K is taxed at about 13%. If you want to tax me more then I'm OK with that as long as you also tax those above me proportionately more as well.

You don't pay any taxes unless you make money and if you pay more in taxes that just means you made that much more money. In any case for every dollar you're "giving" the government you're getting to keep almost another $2.

So it makes you smile to hose the family of four making three times what you make for a total of $60K+ just as long as Dick Cheney continues to make his money? That is really fucked up thinking.

Earlier, Mumble scoffed me for getting prosaic about a point he thought best summed up in A + B = C form. The intervening wrangle about polling 'data' re the health care saga is a fine example of why it is seldom reasonable to expect a mathematically logical public policy debate. Opinion polls are pseudo-science at best, and when they are about political matters the problems get even worse. Churchill was right about how frustrating it can be for an idealistic small-d democrat to talk to an 'average' voter. But he also said, "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." This mess bites, but it's the best that we have so far.

That earlier too-postmodern chunk of typing from me and Mumble's response has kept me thinking, and last night Stephen Colbert took me back to the roots of my formal training via some damned good laughs about what whores people like Senators Max Baucus and Pat Roberts are. In fancy-talk, US politics is a pluralist democracy with a strong interest group system. From some dem theory POVs, interest groups as a class are good things because they provide a form of 'representation' in a very large, very complex society like ours. But if you leaven your basic democratic thinking with a bit of concern for less-than-democratic values such as efficiency or justice, you quickly find yourself sorting interest groups into at least a couple-few buckets stationed along some sort of good/evil, like-'em/hate-'em spectrum. Sometimes I want them all done away with, but my scholarly imagination is too weak to imagine what would happen with consequent power vacuum and chaos scares me.

Maybe David Brooks is right and what we really need is some sort of come-to-your-messiah-of-choice moment that restores our national tradition of pragmatic penny-pinching. If we didn't have so many of our governments, friends, family members, and neighbors kited out of their gourds on what amounts to financial crack (easily-acquired debt), maybe we could have a civic life where people were equally comfortable disagreeing in town halls and on legislative floors and socializing warmly afterwards. Believe it or not, DC kinda used to work that way. Almost makes me miss the Cold War and drunken Senators snoozing at their desks in the chamber.

WIllythemailboy

reply 59

Because they are already getting sufficiently hosed, even after accounting for how much more they are making. Seriously, the top 3.2% of the population should not be paying more than half the total taxes, especially since they account for less than a quarter of the total income. Yes, they have plenty to spare, but those in the middle should be contributing and they simply aren't.

The preceding numbers were taken from official IRS numbers from 2007, using $200k as the cut off point.

One of the reasons those at the top are increasing their wealth at such an incredible rate is that they have the clout to influence government in ways that benefit them. Those in the middle don't have that clout, especially when at least half of them are more concerned with the welfare of the top 1% than the rest of the country. Maybe that trickle-down stuff got beat into people's brains harder than anyone realized. Those at the very top are all about privatizing their profits while they socialize as much risk as possible, laying it off on the rest of us when the fecal matter hits the propeller.

Those at the very top are all about privatizing their profits while they socialize as much risk as possible

Great phrase.

Privatizing their profit while socializing their risk.

Great deal if you can get it.

Mumblefratz

reply 63

Those at the very top are all about privatizing their profits while they socialize as much risk as possibleGreat phrase.

Privatizing their profit while socializing their risk.

Great deal if you can get it.

Isn't that exactly what the current heath care debate is about? The middle and lower class holding on to their own money while forcing others to subsidize their benefits?

No, the health-care debate is about the insuarance companies holding onto their profit margins while forcing the rest of the country to pay for absurdly overpriced medical procedures.

Isn't that exactly what the current heath care debate is about? The middle and lower class holding on to their own money while forcing others to subsidize their benefits?

And precisely what money is it that they have to hold on to? Pretty tough to do when living from paycheck to paycheck, assuming of course they're lucky enough to have a paycheck.

As I said the Cheney's of this world appreciate your concern for their well being. Too bad they couldn't care less about you.

I have no idiotic mortgage, in fact I have no mortgage at all. I suspect that there are many people like me as well as many people whose mortgages are *not* idiotic. Are you assuming that 50% of the population *do* have idiotic mortgages. If not 50% then what percent of the population do you think it is? What data do you have to support this assertion?

Sorry, pronoun confusion on my part; you clearly stated you did not have a mortgage earlier. I was paraphrasing an argument I used elsewhere. Replace "your" with "their".

As for what percentage, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 8% of all mortgages, so maybe 4-5% of all households.

As far as illegals I see no reason that they should be prohibited from buying into any part of the plan as long as they don't get any taxpayer subsidy. I mean illegals can buy insurance now and as long as they receive no subsidy they would be paying their full share.

At least on that we're in complete agreement.

Boy they certainly have you brainwashed into a good little corporatist peasant. They sure do love you at Halliburton. Of course they couldn't give a fuck about you personally but I'm sure Dick Cheney's $100 million feels so much more secure knowing that someone making $20K is worried about making sure he not only keeps every penny of it but can continue increasing his wealth at the fastest rate in the countries history while the middle class gets poorer and poorer. Congratulations, you are your own worst enemy.

Maybe if the middle class wasn't carrying an average debt load higher than their average income they wouldn't be getting poorer and poorer. You say you believe in living within your means, stop subsidizing people who refuse to do so.

Case in point, the current reform bills will be handing me subsidies for my health care. Even if they include employer pension and health care contributions I won't be anywhere close to the $40k+ that they think I need to be able to make it on my own. Yes, that's for a single person living alone. The family cutoff is upwards of $80k. It's a sliding scale of subsidy, but still pretty unnecessary. Outside of extremely high cost of living areas, there is no reason people making that much need to be subsidized if they are willing to live within their means.

Level off the playing field between large employer coverage groups and the individual market and there is no reason to be subsidizing the middle class.

Who cares if the top 1% pay 50% of all taxes or the top 2% pay 75% or whatever it is. It really doesn't matter. Before Reagan the top tax rate was 70%. The current top tax rate is half that at 35% and that only comes into play for any income over $372,950. I make $180K and so I manage to barely make it into the 33% bracket with the bulk of my income taxed at 28% and the rest mostly at 25%. Your $20K is taxed at about 13%. If you want to tax me more then I'm OK with that as long as you also tax those above me proportionately more as well.

Don't worry, at the rate the government is hemorraging money that 75% tax rate will be back, and applied to anyone making over $100K. Apparently you're fine with that.

So it makes you smile to hose the family of four making three times what you make for a total of $60K+ just as long as Dick Cheney continues to make his money? That is really fucked up thinking.

I'm fucked up for cheering when someone's effective tax rate goes from zero to anything higher than that? I'm fine with that definition.

Chances are that family of four is paying effectively nothing in terms of income tax. I won't speculate what Cheney's effective tax rate is, but it's certainly higher than that. I agree that some people make little enough they do not need to be taxed on their income. I don't agree with where that line has been drawn.

No, the health-care debate is about the insuarance companies holding onto their profit margins while forcing the rest of the country to pay for absurdly overpriced medical procedures.

Yeah, they make oh so much on health insurance. That whole 3.3% they make is so totally worth the trouble. Hell, they might be better off pulling out of the market entirely and investing in CDs, they might get a better return.

Now if you had complained about prescription drug makers you might not have made yourself look quite as much like an ass, but you didn't, because you haven't bothered to learn anything about the subject before spouting off.

And precisely what money is it that they have to hold on to? Pretty tough to do when living from paycheck to paycheck, assuming of course they're lucky enough to have a paycheck.

They do account for 75% of total income for the country. Of course, that includes people like you making far more than they need as well. I make less, let's change the tax code to punish you for out earning me.

Yeah, they make oh so much on health insurance. That whole 3.3% they make is so totally worth the trouble.

Then why have they spent $400 million dollars as an industry *this year alone* trying to influence the health care debate?

I agree with you. I suggest we switch to a single-payer system and save the health insurance industry all the "bother", we'd actually be doing them a kindness.

let's change the tax code to punish you for out earning me.

OK, *now* you're starting to make sense.

They do account for 75% of total income for the country.

You might want to do a little reading about the difference between wealth and income. They are two entirely different things. From an income point of view 1 hundred people earning $10K per year is the same as one person earning $1 million per year but they are two entirely different animals. The point is *discretionary* spending. Someone making $10K a year essentially has zero discretionary spending whereas someone making $1 million a year has quite a lot of it.

It’s the difference in wealth that is huge in this country and becoming huger every minute. In terms of financial wealth the top 1% own 42.7%, the next 19% own 50.3% of it and the bottom 80% of the country own 7.0% of the financial wealth in this country and that dichotomy is accelerating.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Wealth, not income, is the division between the haves and the have-nots and if you want to address that problem then we need a wealth tax *not* an income tax, but if you want to hear the right squeal like a pig just mention that concept to them.

I agree with you. I suggest we switch to a single-payer system and save the health insurance industry all the "bother", we'd actually be doing them a kindness.

Seveal analysts have said that would be the best move they could do. I want to see the collective heart attack the left has when they pass health care reform, only to see two or three major companies announce they're dropping all existing policies, effective before the public option comes online. Overnight you'd see millions of uninsured Americans, and what's the government going to do about it? Force them to stay in buisiness?

OK, *now* you're starting to make sense.

The inability to detect sarcasm is a serious medical condition. I've heard many people joke that the left's version of a "fair" tax is one where everyone gets a $50k personal deduction, but there's a 100% tax after that. It's beginning to sound like you would support that.

You might want to do a little reading about the difference between wealth and income. They are two entirely different things. From an income point of view 1 hundred people earning $10K per year is the same as one person earning $1 million per year but they are two entirely different animals. The point is *discretionary* spending. Someone making $10K a year essentially has zero discretionary spending whereas someone making $1 million a year has quite a lot of it.

I'm quite aware of the difference.

It’s the difference in wealth that is huge in this country and becoming huger every minute. In terms of financial wealth the top 1% own 42.7%, the next 19% own 50.3% of it and the bottom 80% of the country own 7.0% of the financial wealth in this country and that dichotomy is accelerating.

It's no shock that most of the wealth held by the lower classes is locked in their homes. Maybe if they weren't living off of home equity loans and credit cards they could put something together. It's a good thing pension payments are taken out before people see their checks, the majority of Americans would be chronically unable to save if that money was under their control. I didn't look all that hard, maybe you can find a graph comparing average savings rates to financial wealth for the past 40 years or so, I'm willing to bet there's a distinct correlation.

Wealth, not income, is the division between the haves and the have-nots and if you want to address that problem then we need a wealth tax *not* an income tax, but if you want to hear the right squeal like a pig just mention that concept to them.

Isn't that what property taxes, captial gains taxes, and inheritance taxes try to do now? you're quite correct about the right squealing, but it sure wouldn't be limited to them. Guess what, that would put your retirement savings into play. How long would your nest egg last if they started skimming off 5-10% a year, even after you retire? Talk about an way to actively discourage saving, you would intentionally be fostering a spend-it-now way of life.

@Willy

I really don't understand where it is you're coming from and what it is you think should be done. You say you make $20K+ per year but then talk like someone that has a trust fund brimming with cash.

I agree with many of the things that you've mentioned. Living within your means, saving money, a distain for credit cards, an intolerance for conspicuous consumption. These things and more are things that I've lived my life by. In fact the reason that I’m the financial position I am is because I have worked hard my entire life and saved and not spent frivolously.

However while I’ve pretty much lived my life by the ideals that you’ve espoused I also realize that you do need to be making enough money to actually be able to carry through and implement them. There is a “critical mass” of income you need to eventually get beyond living from paycheck to paycheck. Its fine to say that folks should save but there is simply no way someone limited to a minimum wage job or thereabouts can ever do so.

The question is how do you save money while making so little of it yourself?

I'm not being facetious. I honestly want to understand. In particular the idea that you seem particularly fine with screwing the “middle class” every chance you can get but then get extremely defensive when it comes to the uber rich. It couldn’t be that you feel that way because the reason you get by making so little is that you still live with your parents who happen to be rich? I’m not trying to insult you; I’m really just trying to understand.

One thing that I dislike about these topics is where folks get all upset and end up spewing hate for the other side. I realize that there are many people that feel the way you do and I’m fine with that even though I don’t happen to agree with you. I don’t believe that someone is intrinsically evil because they believe as you do but on the flip side it annoys me when people assume that because I believe as I do that I’m somehow looking to get a free ride because nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve worked hard pretty much every day of my life for the last 40 years and I expect I’ll have to work hard for at least another 5 years before I’ll be able to retire. However when I do retire it will be on money every penny of which I’ve *earned*. No one has ever given me a damn thing, not even my parents, and I’ve never asked anyone to do anything that I’m not willing to do myself.

Case in point, the current reform bills will be handing me subsidies for my health care. Even if they include employer pension and health care contributions I won't be anywhere close to the $40k+ that they think I need to be able to make it on my own. Yes, that's for a single person living alone. The family cutoff is upwards of $80k. It's a sliding scale of subsidy, but still pretty unnecessary. Outside of extremely high cost of living areas, there is no reason people making that much need to be subsidized if they are willing to live within their means.

Hmm ...

How much you pay for rent? The average 1 bedroom apartment in the Boston area is $1,400 per month and that's not a luxury apartment and that's not in a fancy neighborhood although luckily it's not in the ghetto either. If you're willing to take your life in your hands and live in the ghetto with the rats and the roaches you could probably cut that down to $1,100 or even $1,000 per month. Of course you also could probably live somewhat cheaper at the "Y" or with a bunch of roommates.

$1,400 per month for rent alone not counting utilities eats up $16,800 of your $20K+ income. Boston is a reasonably high cost of living area but not "extremely" so.

It’s the difference in wealth that is huge in this country and becoming huger every minute. In terms of financial wealth the top 1% own 42.7%, the next 19% own 50.3% of it and the bottom 80% of the country own 7.0% of the financial wealth in this country and that dichotomy is accelerating.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Now these are numbers clear and simple enough to discuss with 'ordinary people,' and yet it seems almost no one wants to think about them seriously. I read Domhoff's Who Rules... book back in the mid '90s (maybe 4th edition?). The point isn't that most middle- and lower-class people with 'wealth' have it locked up in their homes. It's that the fat lion's share of all other forms of wealth is held by a shrinking minority, and that very concentration of wealth is a fundamental problem for a society that aspires to be even moderately democratic, such as the US republic.

The less quantitative 'data' in Domhoff's book also adds a telling facor to the analysis: these rarified circles, while being slightly open to losing and gaining members, are on the whole a highly insular society within the general society of the nation. Not only do they tend to have residences close to one another, but their children are schooled together, 'marrying down' is uncommon, and their social networks tend to re-inforce their class identity and facilitate the business of maintaining their class power. The Bohemian Grove page on Domhoff's site looks to be interesting refresher that almost makes me miss grad school. Off to read more, thanks to Mumble for letting me see that one of my favorite scholars is posting copiously on the web these days. Trust a good old lefty to just give away his work...

"the way politics work in the US" - is, they DON'T work.

Systems is currently busted, flush all the politictians and start over.

Mumblefratz

reply 72

$1,400 per month for rent alone not counting utilities eats up $16,800 of your $20K+ income. Boston is a reasonably high cost of living area but not "extremely" so.

That is simply bogus. I have found 3 bedroom duplex/apartments for $600 a month. Located by a hospital, not in any "ghetto" and well furnished.

False data leads to false assumptions, which lead to bad decisions.