[Split] $1,000,000 in the U.S.

[Tunnelcat]

The rich do own the government, especially the newest and youngest members of congress.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01 ... ealth.html

[callmeslick]

The rich do own the government, especially the newest and youngest members of congress.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01 ... ealth.html

by the way, I heard these numbers the other night and thought to myself that having $1 million in total worth isn't really all that 'rich' in today's society. I think the real story is that the median for the whole nation is so low. Therein lies the problem. Seriously, we've always sent our wealthier members of society to Congress since day one in the US, partially because they could afford to give up building their assets to do so, back at the outset. Still, given the average age of Congresspeople, and that having a million dollars in net worth means merely that you own a decent house and a couple of cars with maybe a half-million or a wee bit more in investments certainly doesn't make one all that wealthy. Hell, the family allowance for Federal Inheritance Taxes(the amount protected from taxation) is $5.2 million, and THAT makes one borderline 'rich'. A closer look will, indeed find you members of Congress worth over 100 million, which is talking big money, but a median of 1.1 million bucks? Meh!

[Krom]

LOL! You know, the thing about stereotypes is they wouldn't exist if they weren't sometimes reflected in reality. Well, everyone has their blind spots I guess.

Slick, you are a very intelligent person from what I have read around here, and seeing woodchip & company bounce off of you is always entertaining. However, saying a million dollars isn't "rich" in America is pretty comically stupid.

Sure you can argue that a person can spend a million dollars in no time at all so it isn't *that* much, or there are plenty of people worth tremendously more than just a million dollars. But on the other hand I could comfortably live off a million dollars for 20-30 YEARS and most other people I know could too. Actually if it was a million dollars cash with no taxes due on it, I could probably stretch it to 50 years without giving up much. Put in that perspective, it is definitely a LOT of money and it is far out of the reach of pretty much everyone I know and I'd venture almost everyone posting here. So just try to keep that in mind sometimes.

[snoopy]

I agree with Krom.

I'm still fairly young... but I see myself as a typical middle class american. If I look at my current assests - debts, I'm nowhere close to a million dollars.

I think a lot of the country aspires to be worth a million dollars when they retire... and work their whole lives to (maybe) get there.

[Foil]

Some numerical context: $1.1million in assets puts someone in the top 9% in the U.S.

Sure, it pales in comparison to the very top, but by any given definition of "rich", a millionaire is "rich" for 90%+ of U.S. folk.

[Edit: From a personal perspective:
I make a little less than the median for a software engineer with my experience, my wife and I own two old cars, we're paying a mortgage on a decent condo, and have a little set aside. That may not seem like a lot to some, and it's nowhere near a million, but I'm well aware of where I am in the net worth spectrum, and where I come from, so I consider myself very "rich".]

[callmeslick]

Retirement is going to be a real challenge for anyone in the US who ISN'T worth around a million dollars in net worth, and anyone who says that they can live for 20 years off a million bucks might be surprised at the reality in a lot of neighborhoods. My point wasn't, however, around those facts but more to Foil's numbers. Sure, a million in net worth puts you in the top 10%, but isn't some sort of fabulous level of wealth, IMHO. And, the fact that the MEDIAN for the Congressional freshman is $1.1 million means that half of them don't even have that, so I am not in awe of how wealthy they are, but it IS disturbing that $60K is the median for the whole population, given the overall wealth of our nation. I'm not shocked, given the level of poverty we allow, and so many powerful foes to raising minimum wages, fighting unions and doing everything toward keeping working, middle class Americans from advancing financially. Bottom line is this(and I'll address this to Krom's razzes): I am aware that a million dollar net worth is significant, to some degree, but looking at the comments above, some from people who fight every attempt to even the playing field, I am astounded that the electorate in the US doesn't start unifying around basic economic self interest. You continue to do everything to make MY life easier, and likewise for the rest of my peers, to whom a million dollar net worth was something you were born with, and build upon from there. Why? I don't ask for the help. Yet, lowering my taxes, fighting the concept of a social safety net, and allowing middle class wages to continue to sink for 3 or 4 decades now is EXACTLY what far too many working people line up to support.

[Foil]

...anyone who says that they can live for 20 years off a million bucks might be surprised at the reality in a lot of neighborhoods.

$1mil over 20 years = $50,000 / year.

That's honestly pretty comfortable living in most places. In most places, that'll get you a good house and a workable car (or two). Even in the most expensive cities, it's certainly enough to find a place to live, get transportation, and eat.

[callmeslick]

fine, Foil(and thanks for the split), but factor in health insurance costs, assume more than one individual(spouse, kids, anyone?), INFLATION, and you don't exactly leave much wiggle room.
Now, to get to my thoughts that had me request a split of the thread onto this topic:

1. Let's assume that 90% of the public isn't worth 1 million dollars, and that 75% of the public has utterly NO chance of getting there, or putting their children into the position to get there,either.
2. Also, let's accept the provable fact that for that 90%, real income has been flat or dropping for over 20 years. More like 35 or so.
3. Try to take my word for this, as the insinuation made on the original thread was that few of you all were ever going to see this from my financial perspective: the well-off in the US are doing REALLY well. I mean REALLY, REALLY well. I've essentially lived off capital gains alone this year, and my other assets(real estate mainly) are rising rapidly in value as well.

Now, given these 3 facts/assumptions of fact, my question becomes:
Why doesn't the electorate representing the other 90% simply rise up and DEMAND a change in certain rules? Why, for instance, are my cap gains taxed at a lower rate than salary income? Reagan thought they should be the same. Why are many of my peers allowed to shelter income in offshore accounts and avoid tax liability(I refuse on principal, resisting continual advice to do so)? Why is there any question about raising the annual income level for which Social Security taxes should be assessed? Why would there not be a MASSIVE demand to raise the minimum wage, when study after study has shown doing so to NEVER hurt the US economy? I can go on and on, but I think I've made the core point. Consistently, the working people of the US have been unable or unwilling to find consensus on issues that would be to ALL of their financial self-interest. Consistently, those people have allowed themselves to be pitted, one against the other, over 'social' issues, or been sold OBVIOUSLY bogus theories like 'trickle down' economics, which many still wish to return to, even though they have proven a miserable failure. My question is WHY? It was suggested, as I note above, that most of you all will never see a million dollar net worth. If so, then why do you allow the rules of the game to be written by families whose children are born to that level of wealth, and in most cases, have been of that status since the 18th century? The one gift all Americans are given, that potentially levels ALL playing fields, is the power of the vote. IMHO, the working/middle/poorer class citizenry have pissed away that gift. They have accepted a system that requires both parents to work(to the social detriment of the children), that makes home ownership ever more difficult and puts more and more power into the hands of roughly 3% of their fellow citizens. WHY?

[Spidey]

Because there is no honest political debate in this country.

There is no consumer education…see point number one.

No one actually knows how an economy works…see point number one.

The education system is a failure…see point number one.

Etc…etc.

[callmeslick]

Because there is no honest political debate in this country.

whose fault is this, in your estimation? It would seem to me that the facts are available, in this Internet age, for all to see. Why can't we have honest debate, without a bunch of smokescreens and distractions? The issues I touched on are very real, and many of them are supported by one of the two 'major' parties, or at least some of its representatives. Thus, the ideas get brought up, but the public, to my mind, simply doesn't act on them or consider them rationally.
One of the points I get in hot debates with liberals on other fora about is the whole '1%' idea that sprung out of the Occupy movement. I always try to point out that the 1% are not the problem. Those folks are usually focused ONLY on their own wealth and chosen method to grow it, beyond any reasonable need, even past providing for future generations of descendants. The folks that ought to be of concern are the next 4%, to over-simplify. Those folks, traditionally, looked kindly upon the concept of economic mobility or at the very least, the concept of a strong middle class. Those folks really don't wish to live in a status like the wealthy in Mexico, with bodyguards and secluded from the masses. Those folks were generally raised with the idea of 'noblesse oblige': an obligation to help those less well off. That group is starting(or really has been on the way for a while) to lose patience with the rest of the nation, who seemingly are more concerned with shallow pleasures, celebrity worship and obviously stupid political 'talking heads' than their own future. If the other 95% loses the sympathies of the 4%, the ride to hell in a handbasket becomes much more rapid, IMHO.

[Spidey]

whose fault is this, in your estimation?.

Really smart people who can’t have an honest debate, because their politics won’t let them.

Someone who would claim that the huge public debt has absolutely no affect, people like that.

[callmeslick]

whose fault is this, in your estimation?.

Really smart people who can’t have an honest debate, because their politics won’t let them.

Someone who would claim that the huge public debt has absolutely no affect, people like that.

well, the last part would actually be true, at present, since we are WAY below the traditional alarm threshold for debt to GDP, and the deficit is dropping every year(as it should, during an economic rebound). The first part, I disagree with, as I encounter a lot of VERY smart people, all with their chosen politics(from extreme left to pretty damned conservative) and NONE of those folks has any trouble having honest debate with any of the rest of us. Why? Maybe because they are smart enough to know that opinions can vary, but you can't disagree on what the FACTS are.

Sad to say, Spidey, you seem more interested on this particular topic, to offer glib responses than to have a serious discourse yourownself. Why?

[Spidey]

Because you are the type of person I am referring to, didn't you figure that out?

You can't really believe the debt has absolutely no affect, only a stupid person could actually believe that.

[callmeslick]

Because you are the type of person I am referring to, didn't you figure that out?

oh, I caught your snarky implication, but it's a pantload of crap. Sorta funny you accuse me of avoiding honest debate, and then come up with that bunch of lameness when I dump an opportunity to do so in your lap.

You can't really believe the debt has absolutely no affect, only a stupid person could actually believe that.

how so? I stated my point, and the effects upon the working person started WAY before the debt was remotely close to the present, even during times we were running a SURPLUS. Blaming the debt is yet another of those wedge side-issues that divide to conquer.

Oh, and to refer to yet another snide remark you made about your neighbor down the street: What you don't seem to get is that, socioeconomically speaking, you have FAR MORE in common with that 'breeder' you dismiss that you do, or ever will, with me. But you are so busy slagging on her that you shoot yourself in the foot for my benefit. Why?

[CUDA]

UHM
having a surplus on a budget and having debt are not the same thing. Economics isnt your strong suit is it?

[callmeslick]

UHM
having a surplus on a budget and having debt are not the same thing. Economics isnt your strong suit is it?

my point was that the debt was lower, and the annual budget was paying it down. Once again, another person on this board, presented with a perfect opportunity to debate a truly important issue, instead chooses to mock me, despite the fact that I clearly have every bit as good a grasp on economic complexities as you. Now, my question to you is why you aren't addressing my points above, and instead, choose to wander off on one of the exact tangents I cited that have been used to distract people from unity around self-interest? Right now, the debt is FAR less of a problem to the future of this nation than is the extent of the gap between rich and not-rich, because that latter leads to KNOWN, PROVABLE, HISTORICALLY VERIFIABLE negative outcomes in every society in which it has occurred. We have a 30 Trillion dollar economy, for a nation of 300 million people, and you folks all acted like having a million dollars in net worth during a lifetime in unobtainable for you. Why is that acceptable? I'll toss out another example, which I've been dealing with in the past few months(after the passing of my mom over the summer). The Family Exemption, the amount of valuation one can pass to a family member with ZERO Federal tax is 5.2 Million dollars, and, when one parent passes, any part of that $5.2 million not utilized, goes to the surviving spouse. So, hence, in many families, the heirs can receive $10 million bucks free of Federal taxes. Now, I don't necessarily endose a zero cap, or massive(say, over 30%) Federal taxes, but how can someone like you, CUDA, accept this status quo, and then wring your hands over the deficit, or debt? I am not even going into sheltered trusts, either, but frankly, a reasonably fair set of rules around inheritance taxes would address the deficit/debt thing pretty effectively. Sadly, the bill of goods that gets sold to chumps who will NEVER approach eligibility for inheritance tax is that such a tax would be bad for the average person. That is both ludicrous, counter to their self-interests, and serves as yet another wedge issue to smokescreen the working people ever making progress.

[CUDA]

instead chooses to mock me,

well seems like "you reap what you sow" is true huh

[callmeslick]

instead chooses to mock me,

well seems like "you reap what you sow" is true huh

still have nothing to offer? Enjoy your status quo. I put out this subject matter in response to the sheer number of folks here that were astounded at my estimate that $1 million in net worth isn't exactly rich, and their assertion that such a net worth is out of reach for them. I assert that shouldn't be the case, but for the fact that the rules are badly skewed to favor inherited wealth, to their own detriment. Sadly, the responses(save Foil and maybe Krom) to date have been personal attacks and smug dodges. I think I am starting to see exactly WHY so many of my peers have been moving, steadily, into the 'screw 'em' camp over the past two decades........

[CUDA]

And you mentioned the debit was lower.

Thats democrat math." We still spent more, just not as much as we planned so we lowered the debt".

Fyi none of the "surplus" went to lower the debt. Because there never was a surplus, we just didnt put as much on the credit card as we had originally planned.

[callmeslick]

And you mentioned the debit was lower.

the word is 'debt' and no I didn't. Ever. I said the problem I cited was still going on when the debt was lower. Read for comprehension, please.

Thats democrat math." We still spent more, just not as much as we planned so we lowered the debt".

Fyi none of the "surplus" went to lower the debt. Because there never was a surplus, we just didnt put as much on the credit card as we had originally planned.

actually, if you go back and look, some of the surplus WAS being used by 2000 to pay down outstanding debt, without issuance of new notes. Feel free to look it up. Then, of course, GWB found that concept to be reprehensible and gave the surplus money back to me and my peers. I should give all of you here a big 'thank-you' for that gift, especially the cap gains tax drop, which made me, literally, tens of thousands of dollars over the ensuing decade.
Others made millions out of that gift. What do YOU have to show for it?

edit-to answer my own question: what you have to show for it is a vastly higher debt, and the need for massive deficit spending to bail the nation out of the fiscal collapse brought on by folks speculating wildly with the money pouring in from Bush's cash givaway to the wealthy. Worked out well for most of you, huh? Wanna know how much it hurt the top 5%? Look it up.

[CUDA]

And you mentioned the debit was lower.

the word is 'debt' and no I didn't. Ever. I said the problem I cited was still going on when the debt was lower. Read for comprehension, please.

Thats democrat math." We still spent more, just not as much as we planned so we lowered the debt".

my point was that the debt was lower

no it wasnt. Again your understanding of economics is lacking at best. Having spent less then you budget does not lower the debt

and it was autocorrect that typed debit :p

[callmeslick]

And you mentioned the debit was lower.

the word is 'debt' and no I didn't. Ever. I said the problem I cited was still going on when the debt was lower. Read for comprehension, please.

Thats democrat math." We still spent more, just not as much as we planned so we lowered the debt".

my point was that the debt was lower

no it wasnt. Again your understanding of economics is lacking at best. Having spent less then you budget does not lower the debt

and it was autocorrect that typed debit :p

so you continue to assert that the national debt was not lower in 1998 than it is currently? And, then you assail me for lack of understanding?
Freaking hilarious. READ WHAT I WROTE, please........ I did, at NO time, suggest that the current debt was lower, I repeat. I merely stated that the war on working people by this economy took place at the same rate when the debt WAS lower than present. I did, also, state that the deficits are dropping(not the DEBT) which is to be expected in a recovery, so there is no need for panic over the debt, as we are within the range that is considered easily manageable, so long as the economy runs ok, and the spending/revenue balance gets re-established(like we did under Clinton, for example).

[callmeslick]

wow. I'm starting to get the impression that folks are either happy with the top 5% sucking off ever more of the total economic output, or that the other 95% are simply too stupid to grasp that it is even happening in front of their eyes. You folks are disappointing me.

[Spidey]

Slick you are sooo full of ★■◆●…you present an absolute…then say it’s a perfect opportunity to debate the issue…lol…you really are an idiot.

How to hell do you have a debate with someone who has taken an absolute position?

I could give you actual affects the debt has on the economy and the government’s ability to do big construction projects…but having already taken an absolute position, your only possible option would then be blatant denial. Which seems to be your basic MO.

Insults and denial……that’s you in a nutshell.

[callmeslick]

Slick you are sooo full of ****…you present an absolute…then say it’s a perfect opportunity to debate the issue…lol…you really are an idiot.

what absolute? I presented what seems the be the reality, and ask why? Hardly anything 'absolute' about it. And, what do I get in response? Personal attacks? Like that is going to address the questions, or change the facts.

How to hell do you have a debate with someone who has taken an absolute position?

once again, what absolute position have I established? Hell, I don't even HAVE an absolute position on what to do, I am just astounded that people don't see that politics are being used to prevent folks with common self-interests from acting in those interests, and that is merely my opinion.

I could give you actual affects the debt has on the economy and the government’s ability to do big construction projects…but having already taken an absolute position, your only possible option would then be blatant denial. Which seems to be your basic MO.

This is NOT true. Our debt load, and moreover, the ability to reconfigure the revenue stream to address it, are well within reach, if addressed realistically. Why do you insist that I not pay more? Why do you insist that I get all the benefits, when you yourself seem to indicate that more would be accomplished by way of spending on infrastructure. Why are you so focused on a debt situation that was a direct result of those gifts to me?

Insults and denial……that’s you in a nutshell.

you might wish to learn how to operate a mirror.

[flip]

I'll tell you just how ludicrous I find it all. There are 314 million people in the U.S. Give them all a million dollars each. Capitalism I believe is as good as it gets. It caters to the Yin/Yang nature of man, but every 50 years or so, all debt must be cancelled or it gets out of hand.

[callmeslick]

I'll tell you just how ludicrous I find it all. There are 314 million people in the U.S. Give them all a million dollars each. Capitalism I believe is as good as it gets. It caters to the Yin/Yang nature of man, but every 50 years or so, all debt must be cancelled or it gets out of hand.

you talking personal or private debt? Because, at both the corporate or public level, it is routine to carry debt at all times, so I am not sure what you are calling for, or why that is a good thing.

Oh, and if you give everyone a million bucks, that would be equal to 10 years worth of GDP. Now that, I'd agree would be a troublesome debt problem, although the instant hyperinflation that would result might negate it.......

[Krom]

You seem to be overlooking that it doesn't really matter who the general public elects, the real power is in the hands of the people that have the influence to write the bills. So for instance, take the ill fated SOPA from a couple years back ("Stop Online Piracy Act"). While the bill was on the floor a senator asked the sponsor of the bill to clarify the meaning of a particular section, so the sponsor turned to the RIAA lawyer behind him and asked what the section meant because he didn't know himself. Now, I'm not sure about what state he came from, but I'd imagine it is a pretty safe bet to assume that the people that voted for him did not vote for the industry lawyers standing behind him who actually wrote the bill. So why is it the non-elected special interest lawyers who are very much motivated by being on the payroll of the top 5% are the ones wielding the actual power there? Why did it take such an extraordinary display of civil disobedience, protests and Wikipedia blackouts to temporarily stop that bill? (If you don't think it will be back with a different name in a couple years, I've got a bridge to sell you.)

The legislators in Washington and even at the state levels don't actually read or write their own legislation. It doesn't even matter who the general public votes for, because whoever is elected is just going to go with whatever the [insert special interest here] lawyer standing behind them gives them to do. Some of the regulars around here like to pick on the glaring examples like ACA with its "let us pass it so we can show you what is in it" and however much of it wasn't even written before it was voted on shenanigans, but the really funny (or unfunny) part is that is probably not very different from the normal way a bill moves about in Washington.

Yeah, vote for someone who won't do that, sure. You could probably spend your entire fortune searching and not find a single person like that who would and still be electable against the paint job the top 5% would put on the opposing candidate, and even if you did, they would never succeed since the entire rest of the system would be always be working against them. Not that it would take much to shoot such a candidate down, just saying something like "They are an evil vegetarian and want to take away all your cheeseburgers!" would probably be enough to doom any campaign, but that is mostly because cheeseburgers are the only joy left in the lives of the other 95% and any ★■◆● that tries to take them away is going to get pummeled.

[Foil]

There are 314 million people in the U.S. Give them all a million dollars each.

Where is this 314 trillion dollars coming from?

-------

Are you referring to this image making its way around, proving only that Americans are bad at math?

"Um, that comes out to $1.13 a person..."

[Foil]

...every 50 years or so, all debt must be cancelled or it gets out of hand.

you talking personal or private debt? Because, at both the corporate or public level, it is routine to carry debt at all times, so I am not sure what you are calling for, or why that is a good thing.

I believe he's referring to the Hebrew concept of jubilee.

[Foil]

Back to the original topic:

I'm starting to get the impression that folks are either happy with the top 5% sucking off ever more of the total economic output, or that the other 95% are simply too stupid to grasp that it is even happening in front of their eyes.

IMHO:

Part of it is fatigue; the "x% has y% of the money" message was oversaturated a couple of years ago, and people are now shrugging it off as a talking point from the last major election cycle.

Part of it is partisan; the aforementioned message almost always came from a political figure on the left, so it gets auto-rejected by those on the right, regardless of its value.

[callmeslick]

You seem to be overlooking that it doesn't really matter who the general public elects, the real power is in the hands of the people that have the influence to write the bills.

which, technically speaking, are the people who get elected.

So for instance, take the ill fated SOPA from a couple years back ("Stop Online Piracy Act"). While the bill was on the floor a senator asked the sponsor of the bill to clarify the meaning of a particular section, so the sponsor turned to the RIAA lawyer behind him and asked what the section meant because he didn't know himself. Now, I'm not sure about what state he came from, but I'd imagine it is a pretty safe bet to assume that the people that voted for him did not vote for the industry lawyers standing behind him who actually wrote the bill. So why is it the non-elected special interest lawyers who are very much motivated by being on the payroll of the top 5% are the ones wielding the actual power there? Why did it take such an extraordinary display of civil disobedience, protests and Wikipedia blackouts to temporarily stop that bill? (If you don't think it will be back with a different name in a couple years, I've got a bridge to sell you.)

ok, I see your point, Krom. The elected are too heavily influenced by the money and 'expertise' of the few. That, to my mind, would still seemingly be a trigger to de-elect those in office, and hold their feet to fire more closely when they do get elected. That sort of civic engagement by ALL the people was precisely what Jefferson and others envisioned when they designed our system of governence. And, while I was being glib by suggesting that the 95% are too stupid to pay attention, they HAVE lost attention to the point where they allow themselves to be snookered. Oh, and I agree with the Piracy bill guess on your part.

The legislators in Washington and even at the state levels don't actually read or write their own legislation. It doesn't even matter who the general public votes for, because whoever is elected is just going to go with whatever the [insert special interest here] lawyer standing behind them gives them to do. Some of the regulars around here like to pick on the glaring examples like ACA with its "let us pass it so we can show you what is in it" and however much of it wasn't even written before it was voted on shenanigans, but the really funny (or unfunny) part is that is probably not very different from the normal way a bill moves about in Washington.

both houses' versions of immigration bills are similar. The Senate version is 1800 pages, the House's is likely close to that.

Yeah, vote for someone who won't do that, sure. You could probably spend your entire fortune searching and not find a single person like that who would and still be electable against the paint job the top 5% would put on the opposing candidate, and even if you did, they would never succeed since the entire rest of the system would be always be working against them. Not that it would take much to shoot such a candidate down, just saying something like "They are an evil vegetarian and want to take away all your cheeseburgers!" would probably be enough to doom any campaign, but that is mostly because cheeseburgers are the only joy left in the lives of the other 95% and any ★■◆● that tries to take them away is going to get pummeled.

likely, you are correct. Still, I keep getting to the simple math(and here, Spidey and CUDA, is where the deficit/debt issue comes into play). We cannot grow the economy adequately to boost the working class, nor pay for the entitlements that are universally demanded, or the defense that is equally demanded, with the current revenue stream. 5% of our populace not only has the resources to make up the difference without ANY real strain, is benefitting from tax laws that hugely prefer them over the working people, and hold only 5% of the electoral might. It should be easy to make the case and hold to it, for overcoming the status quo and bettering the entire nation. Yet, it doesn't happen, or if anything, the status quo gets steadily more unfair. You, Krom, make VERY valid points as to why, but then, I get to this question: Is the American public simply getting the system they deserve, because they became too lazy, or too uninvolved with boring old politics? There is a reason, I have become convinced, WHY I and my peers grew up getting introduced to, and immersed in, politics from an early age(roughly age 14 in my case). There is a reason virtually all of us stay connected and informed to a greater extent than a lot of the citizenry. It is IN OUR SELF-INTEREST. If the rest of the nation chooses not to play the game, then, whose fault is that?

edit--as an aside, reading through letters and old newspapers from a century or more ago, I am convinced that the average working American (farmers, shopkeepers, all but recent immigrants) had a FAR better grasp on, and interest in, the politics and events of their day.

[snoopy]

wow. I'm starting to get the impression that folks are either happy with the top 5% sucking off ever more of the total economic output, or that the other 95% are simply too stupid to grasp that it is even happening in front of their eyes. You folks are disappointing me.

I think the question is how to address the issue. I don't necessarily trust the government to be a good "Robin Hood" taking from the rich and giving to the poor... but maybe in the long run it's what's needed.

I'd like to see people prosper according to their skill and productivity. That means that I don't want to see the filthy rich doing nothing and living off the interest. I don't really want to see people winning giant lotteries or making huge amounts by betting on the stock market, either. Finally, I don't want to see people having success living off of government handouts, either.

I don't know how to get there... but I want to see people succeeding when they are good at what they do to produce for the country, and failing when they fail to produce. I guess that may not make me all that good of a capitalist... but it also doesn't make me a good socialist.

[Krom]

I agree that the general population doesn't pay attention anymore and that a lot of it is definitely for the lazy and stupid reasons, but it is also fairly easy to see some of the reasons why it turned out that way.
First, the level of education the 95% get compared to what you got is tremendously different, you might as well be from a different planet. It is a bit harder to call someone stupid and lazy when they were never taught or even exposed to any alternative ever. Public schools educate students as if they were canned goods on an assembly line, so unsurprisingly the final product comes out acting like mass produced canned goods. I never really get why some people act so surprised when their assembly line for robots actually produces robots, what were they expecting, unicorns and fairies?
Second, you comment about how you were introduced to and immersed in politics from an early age, do you realize how much time and resources that likely cost? The other 95% don't have the time or the resources, they never had enough to be heard in politics beyond voting which is now barely a shadow of its former power. The 95% electorate doesn't have the education, the time, the coherence, or the financial leeway to make that difference today and the system has evolved to keep it that way.

[Tunnelcat]

There's something else this country has never experienced or worried about, class-ism, or a class-based society. People in this country have been focused into the racism thing for so long, and have been living in a large, comfortable viable middle class for so long, that the class society that's now beginning to form here is not even a twinkle in their mind's eyes. Americans really need to talk to the Europeans. They know a thing or tow about a class society, and that's where we're heading.

[Heretic]

@ Krom Hear Hear, but has it not always been this way since the beginning of time. The rich were highly educated and poor wasn't.

[callmeslick]

wow. I'm starting to get the impression that folks are either happy with the top 5% sucking off ever more of the total economic output, or that the other 95% are simply too stupid to grasp that it is even happening in front of their eyes. You folks are disappointing me.

I think the question is how to address the issue. I don't necessarily trust the government to be a good "Robin Hood" taking from the rich and giving to the poor... but maybe in the long run it's what's needed.

I'd like to see people prosper according to their skill and productivity. That means that I don't want to see the filthy rich doing nothing and living off the interest. I don't really want to see people winning giant lotteries or making huge amounts by betting on the stock market, either. Finally, I don't want to see people having success living off of government handouts, either.

I don't know how to get there... but I want to see people succeeding when they are good at what they do to produce for the country, and failing when they fail to produce. I guess that may not make me all that good of a capitalist... but it also doesn't make me a good socialist.

actually, it makes you a version of Ayn Rand. The problem lies in the fact that your system sounds great, if everyone starts with the same set of benefits and cash pool. To do that, you would almost have to adopt Andrew Carnegie's concept of a 95% inheritance tax, and make those who are heirs to family fortunes start out with nothing extra. That isn't very likely.

[callmeslick]

I agree that the general population doesn't pay attention anymore and that a lot of it is definitely for the lazy and stupid reasons, but it is also fairly easy to see some of the reasons why it turned out that way.
First, the level of education the 95% get compared to what you got is tremendously different, you might as well be from a different planet. It is a bit harder to call someone stupid and lazy when they were never taught or even exposed to any alternative ever. Public schools educate students as if they were canned goods on an assembly line, so unsurprisingly the final product comes out acting like mass produced canned goods.

possibly true to a greater extent today, but the facts in my case are that my ENTIRE education was in public systems, mainly because I fought to stay out of private school growing up, and rejected acceptance from a couple well-regarded Ivy League schools later on. Even my graduate degree is from a state school. The difference is that I was raised with the expectation of excelling at academics(had I not, I would have been in some prep school someplace, whether I wanted it or not), and preparing for responsible adulthood.

Second, you comment about how you were introduced to and immersed in politics from an early age, do you realize how much time and resources that likely cost? The other 95% don't have the time or the resources, they never had enough to be heard in politics beyond voting which is now barely a shadow of its former power. The 95% electorate doesn't have the education, the time, the coherence, or the financial leeway to make that difference today and the system has evolved to keep it that way.

well, I can agree that much of the personal intros to politicians was entirely due to my family name, and connections of my heritage, but as for routine involvement, I've yet to see a campaign that didn't WELCOME high-school students and other young people to participate in the ground game. Doing so, believe it or not, WILL get you noticed and in touch with politicians. However, doing so is WAY more boring than texting your pals with pics of your body parts, and dreaming of being a wannabe celebrity. In short, as ever, you want the reward, do the work. It's a simple equation.

[callmeslick]

There's something else this country has never experienced or worried about, class-ism, or a class-based society.

you're kidding, right?

People in this country have been focused into the racism thing for so long, and have been living in a large, comfortable viable middle class for so long, that the class society that's now beginning to form here is not even a twinkle in their mind's eyes. Americans really need to talk to the Europeans. They know a thing or tow about a class society, and that's where we're heading.

you've had a class-based society in the US since it's founding, frankly. Check out the ranks of the 5% in question. The majority hail from families who were upper tier and fully resident in this country before 1800. Mine goes back to 1663 in Virginia, and I still own land that was purchased from the English Crown. I say that for the purposes of disputing your claim, and could introduce you to a ton of folks who are in that top 5% and can gladly fill you in on their family's multi-generational prominence in states from Massachusetts to Louisiana. Just beginning to form? No, just beginning to pay attention.

[Spidey]

JFTR and I have stated this many times, I am not a totally against tax increases, as I have said many times…I have to see proof of restraint, before I will give my blessings.

We are borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar we spend, give the government a few trillion more dollars a year, and that will probably go up to 50 cents per dollar…sound like bad math…no bad governing.