That makes sense to me, see. Maybe it's the 'income inequality' framing that is so problematic - it's like it's specially designed for fiscal conservatives to reject.
I've been meaning to ask people this for a while, tbh - it's completely unclear from the OWS movement itself and from the coverage.
What do you automatically reject about it?
It's exactly about how unequal the overall income distribution is. That shit is important.
Eh, it's possible that OWS helped to re-anchor Democrats as agents of populism and what the party used to be about. And it's also impossible to do anything more than speculate that that even happened. Is there some observable, measurable way we can even account for the influence of OWS as of the spring of 2012?
Nope, but neither is there any measurable way we can account for the influence of the Tea Party, outside of a few completely powerless ultra right wing nut jobs in congress. They haven't affected any serious policy change, or actually done anything but talk.
Again, the primary success of the Tea Party has been making Sarah Palin really rich for getting up and spewing right wing propaganda at her adoring fans.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If you're upset that the top earners pay the most in taxes and a large swath of the citizenry doesn't pay any taxes then you should care about income inequality.
Can we define "success" for the Tea Party? They got some candidates elected in 2010, but they also lost some elections pretty fabulously. None of their policies has actually taken hold, they don't actually hold any power, and in fact, the movement has all but sputtered. It's spoken about mostly as an afterthought now. The GOP has to sort of appease them in the primary, because they are riled up enough to vote...but I'm not sure how the Tea Party has had any actual success other than yelling "Boogey man!" a lot and making Sarah Palin rich on the speaking circuit.
The Tea Party and the wave it spawned had a huge impact on state level races and that's where all the real damage is happening. The GOP got alot of governorships and state legislatures and they are gerrymandering the shit out of the nation to preserve GOP power into the next decade and gutting state level governments.
Party precinct leaders as well. The Tea Party went for the institution it could exert influence on, and OWS avoided that altogether. One will have an impact on the primary and the election, and one pretty obviously will not.
the media went back to "unemployment still fucking sucks." Income inequality has gotten approximately zero air time, and I see no real sign that it will in the future
is ridiculous. People didn't even TALK about income inequality before.
People don't talk about income inequality now, in any meaningful way. A single throw-away line during a mostly meaningless interview ("Complaints about income inequality are just envy") does not equate to "shifting the narrative."
I actually hear it talked about all the time now, both in casual conversation like this and on political analysis shows. I think you're way underplaying the fact that this is actually a thing we are talking about now. Doesn't mean we are any closer to change, but people are at least discussing the issue and realizing it's an issue to be discussed.
Salvation, where do you get your news from? I could easily see income inequality being practically absent from right-leaning sources. This isn't trying to be snarky or condescending in any way. It's just an assumption on my part, and it'd go a long way in explaining why you think it's such a non-issue while alot of use hear about it on a fairly regular basis.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Can we define "success" for the Tea Party? They got some candidates elected in 2010, but they also lost some elections pretty fabulously. None of their policies has actually taken hold, they don't actually hold any power, and in fact, the movement has all but sputtered. It's spoken about mostly as an afterthought now. The GOP has to sort of appease them in the primary, because they are riled up enough to vote...but I'm not sure how the Tea Party has had any actual success other than yelling "Boogey man!" a lot and making Sarah Palin rich on the speaking circuit.
The Tea Party and the wave it spawned had a huge impact on state level races and that's where all the real damage is happening. The GOP got alot of governorships and state legislatures and they are gerrymandering the shit out of the nation to preserve GOP power into the next decade and gutting state level governments.
Except that a lot of their policy changes are being flatly rejected by constituents. See; Walker, Scott in Wisconsin.
They may have won some minimal gains, but have had almost no actual success in affecting lasting change along their ideological lines.
Eh, it's possible that OWS helped to re-anchor Democrats as agents of populism and what the party used to be about. And it's also impossible to do anything more than speculate that that even happened. Is there some observable, measurable way we can even account for the influence of OWS as of the spring of 2012?
Nope, but neither is there any measurable way we can account for the influence of the Tea Party, outside of a few completely powerless ultra right wing nut jobs in congress. They haven't affected any serious policy change, or actually done anything but talk.
Again, the primary success of the Tea Party has been making Sarah Palin really rich for getting up and spewing right wing propaganda at her adoring fans.
Yeah, that's not correct. The Tea Party's power remains pernicious to this day.
Meet Herman Cain. Tea Party candidate, GOP front-runner as of 4 months ago, and for all we know, presumptive nominee at this point, if allegations of grab-assery and sexual assault hadn't come to light.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Eh, it's possible that OWS helped to re-anchor Democrats as agents of populism and what the party used to be about. And it's also impossible to do anything more than speculate that that even happened. Is there some observable, measurable way we can even account for the influence of OWS as of the spring of 2012?
Nope, but neither is there any measurable way we can account for the influence of the Tea Party, outside of a few completely powerless ultra right wing nut jobs in congress. They haven't affected any serious policy change, or actually done anything but talk.
Again, the primary success of the Tea Party has been making Sarah Palin really rich for getting up and spewing right wing propaganda at her adoring fans.
Yeah, that's not correct. The Tea Party's power remains pernicious to this day.
Meet Herman Cain. Tea Party candidate, GOP front-runner as of 4 months ago, and for all we know, presumptive nominee at this point, if allegations of grab-assery and sexual assault hadn't come to light.
Show me the lasting policy changes the Tea Party has affected, that aren't being fought by their own constituents. Yay, they had a candidate. They had Michelle Bachman too, the real sweet heart of the Tea Party, but she isn't in the race anymore either.
Can we define "success" for the Tea Party? They got some candidates elected in 2010, but they also lost some elections pretty fabulously. None of their policies has actually taken hold, they don't actually hold any power, and in fact, the movement has all but sputtered. It's spoken about mostly as an afterthought now. The GOP has to sort of appease them in the primary, because they are riled up enough to vote...but I'm not sure how the Tea Party has had any actual success other than yelling "Boogey man!" a lot and making Sarah Palin rich on the speaking circuit.
The Tea Party and the wave it spawned had a huge impact on state level races and that's where all the real damage is happening. The GOP got alot of governorships and state legislatures and they are gerrymandering the shit out of the nation to preserve GOP power into the next decade and gutting state level governments.
Except that a lot of their policy changes are being flatly rejected by constituents. See; Walker, Scott in Wisconsin.
They may have won some minimal gains, but have had almost no actual success in affecting lasting change along their ideological lines.
It's a little early to expect lasting change from a movement exploded in the last off-year election cycle.
Can we define "success" for the Tea Party? They got some candidates elected in 2010, but they also lost some elections pretty fabulously. None of their policies has actually taken hold, they don't actually hold any power, and in fact, the movement has all but sputtered. It's spoken about mostly as an afterthought now. The GOP has to sort of appease them in the primary, because they are riled up enough to vote...but I'm not sure how the Tea Party has had any actual success other than yelling "Boogey man!" a lot and making Sarah Palin rich on the speaking circuit.
The Tea Party and the wave it spawned had a huge impact on state level races and that's where all the real damage is happening. The GOP got alot of governorships and state legislatures and they are gerrymandering the shit out of the nation to preserve GOP power into the next decade and gutting state level governments.
Except that a lot of their policy changes are being flatly rejected by constituents. See; Walker, Scott in Wisconsin.
They may have won some minimal gains, but have had almost no actual success in affecting lasting change along their ideological lines.
Walker hasn't been recalled just yet, and if polling is any indication he may actually retain the governership after the recall election. If he does, that will basically validate the Tea Party.
Can we define "success" for the Tea Party? They got some candidates elected in 2010, but they also lost some elections pretty fabulously. None of their policies has actually taken hold, they don't actually hold any power, and in fact, the movement has all but sputtered. It's spoken about mostly as an afterthought now. The GOP has to sort of appease them in the primary, because they are riled up enough to vote...but I'm not sure how the Tea Party has had any actual success other than yelling "Boogey man!" a lot and making Sarah Palin rich on the speaking circuit.
The Tea Party and the wave it spawned had a huge impact on state level races and that's where all the real damage is happening. The GOP got alot of governorships and state legislatures and they are gerrymandering the shit out of the nation to preserve GOP power into the next decade and gutting state level governments.
Except that a lot of their policy changes are being flatly rejected by constituents. See; Walker, Scott in Wisconsin.
They may have won some minimal gains, but have had almost no actual success in affecting lasting change along their ideological lines.
It's a little early to expect lasting change from a movement exploded in the last off-year election cycle.
Why? Everyone expects the OWS to have affected all this lasting change so far, despite being a loosely coupled movement of people just fed up with the status quo. Why can't I expect the same of the Tea Party, a significantly more organized movement that actually has candidates in office.
Mind you, I don't actually WANT any of the change the Tea Party would espouse...but hey, if it's such a successful movement, where's the beef?
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Well the thing with income inequality is that it's kind of like water. Too much is bad (feudalism) but too little is also bad (communism). All the data seems to point to the US heading in the wrong way, but I view it as more of a symptom of a problem rather than a problem in and of itself. You could fix income inequality overnight with an insanely progressive tax scheme, but that really wouldn't address the crony capitalism/regulatory capture bullshit going on due to the corrupting influence of money in politics.
I also personally detest the whole 99% vs. 1% thing OWS popularized. I get that you need something catchy to attract a wide base but there's plenty of doctors, lawyers, engineers, athletes, actors, musicians and so on in that 1% that have nothing to do with what's wrong in America.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Can we define "success" for the Tea Party? They got some candidates elected in 2010, but they also lost some elections pretty fabulously. None of their policies has actually taken hold, they don't actually hold any power, and in fact, the movement has all but sputtered. It's spoken about mostly as an afterthought now. The GOP has to sort of appease them in the primary, because they are riled up enough to vote...but I'm not sure how the Tea Party has had any actual success other than yelling "Boogey man!" a lot and making Sarah Palin rich on the speaking circuit.
The Tea Party and the wave it spawned had a huge impact on state level races and that's where all the real damage is happening. The GOP got alot of governorships and state legislatures and they are gerrymandering the shit out of the nation to preserve GOP power into the next decade and gutting state level governments.
Except that a lot of their policy changes are being flatly rejected by constituents. See; Walker, Scott in Wisconsin.
They may have won some minimal gains, but have had almost no actual success in affecting lasting change along their ideological lines.
Oh hell no they aren't.
Wisconsin is only notable because they had the barest chance to stand up and fight back. In a ton of other states the Koch Brother/Tea Party spawn are having free reign.
And here's the thing: even in Wisconsin, the voters can't stop them. They are already elected. The policies aren't being flatly rejected, they are being IMPLEMENTED. Because no matter how much the voters might dislike it, it's too late to do anything about it.
You are kidding yourself if you think the Tea Party didn't win big at the lower levels in 2010 and isn't using that power to wreck alot of harm right now.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Can we define "success" for the Tea Party? They got some candidates elected in 2010, but they also lost some elections pretty fabulously. None of their policies has actually taken hold, they don't actually hold any power, and in fact, the movement has all but sputtered. It's spoken about mostly as an afterthought now. The GOP has to sort of appease them in the primary, because they are riled up enough to vote...but I'm not sure how the Tea Party has had any actual success other than yelling "Boogey man!" a lot and making Sarah Palin rich on the speaking circuit.
The Tea Party and the wave it spawned had a huge impact on state level races and that's where all the real damage is happening. The GOP got alot of governorships and state legislatures and they are gerrymandering the shit out of the nation to preserve GOP power into the next decade and gutting state level governments.
Except that a lot of their policy changes are being flatly rejected by constituents. See; Walker, Scott in Wisconsin.
They may have won some minimal gains, but have had almost no actual success in affecting lasting change along their ideological lines.
It's a little early to expect lasting change from a movement exploded in the last off-year election cycle.
God I hope those racist anarchists don't have lasting change. The Tea Party has Boehner by the balls in the house, and is currently in the process of destroying the states whose rights they so love (Come down to Florida, I'll show you what a Tea Party government can do). The Tea Party will destroy itself through No True Scotsmanning and by staying well outside the majority opinion on things like gay rights and reproductive rights and tax law.
They're also responsible for pushing something like 20% of Republicans (including myself) into Camp Obama.
Hell, when I come back to the states in the fall there's a good chance that I'm going to at least change to independent (Massachusetts and semi-open primaries FTW).
The Tea Party has had a big impact in destroying the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and I'd say Reagan.
Eh, it's possible that OWS helped to re-anchor Democrats as agents of populism and what the party used to be about. And it's also impossible to do anything more than speculate that that even happened. Is there some observable, measurable way we can even account for the influence of OWS as of the spring of 2012?
Nope, but neither is there any measurable way we can account for the influence of the Tea Party, outside of a few completely powerless ultra right wing nut jobs in congress. They haven't affected any serious policy change, or actually done anything but talk.
Again, the primary success of the Tea Party has been making Sarah Palin really rich for getting up and spewing right wing propaganda at her adoring fans.
That makes sense to me, see. Maybe it's the 'income inequality' framing that is so problematic - it's like it's specially designed for fiscal conservatives to reject.
I've been meaning to ask people this for a while, tbh - it's completely unclear from the OWS movement itself and from the coverage.
What do you automatically reject about it?
It's exactly about how unequal the overall income distribution is. That shit is important.
Let me see if I can explain - if income inequality is an indicator of bad things happening in the economy, fixing the bad things is a sensible course. OWS makes it sound like income inequality is the problem, rather than being a big warning sign that there are problems that need to be addressed. If the inequality is the problem, things like a 100% tax on income over $500k and a massive redistribution effort will fix it, and that sort of idea is a) the sort of thing a fiscal conservative would expect to hear from OWS, and b) the sort of thing a fiscal conservative would reject out of hand.
I'm exaggerating to get the point across here, but I hope that sort of illuminates what I mean.
"Income Inequality bad!" sounds like "let's take rich people's money and stop them from making so much"
"Income inequality tells us things are badly out of whack with middle class compensation" tells me something entirely different.
Eh, it's possible that OWS helped to re-anchor Democrats as agents of populism and what the party used to be about. And it's also impossible to do anything more than speculate that that even happened. Is there some observable, measurable way we can even account for the influence of OWS as of the spring of 2012?
Nope, but neither is there any measurable way we can account for the influence of the Tea Party, outside of a few completely powerless ultra right wing nut jobs in congress. They haven't affected any serious policy change, or actually done anything but talk.
Again, the primary success of the Tea Party has been making Sarah Palin really rich for getting up and spewing right wing propaganda at her adoring fans.
Yeah, that's not correct. The Tea Party's power remains pernicious to this day.
Meet Herman Cain. Tea Party candidate, GOP front-runner as of 4 months ago, and for all we know, presumptive nominee at this point, if allegations of grab-assery and sexual assault hadn't come to light.
Show me the lasting policy changes the Tea Party has affected, that aren't being fought by their own constituents. Yay, they had a candidate. They had Michelle Bachman too, the real sweet heart of the Tea Party, but she isn't in the race anymore either.
I guess what you're trying to argue here is that we have to see nothing short of our first Tea Party President before we can no longer handwave their influence away?
As far as the (what is it you wanted to learn about?) "lasting policy changes the Tea Party has affected" go, we needn't look very hard at all.
Were you following the GOP race back in October? Herman Cain's entire platform was based around simplifying the tax code. 9-9-9! It's something the Tea Partiers have been clamoring for since day one. (Since it would reduce the tax burden of its corporate sponsors.) It didn't take long before Romney, Perry, Bachmann, and every other candidate had their own embarrassing "Me too!" plans for simplifying the tax code as well.
This is one of many, many examples. To just dismiss the influence the Tea Party continues to have on the GOP is just foolish at this point. We've even seen countless articles from Republican writers, four years worth of writing, acknowledging their influence, denouncing their influence, trying to posit ways of cutting ties to these people and returning to Republican values, and so on.
But I guess we could just pretend this isn't a thing?
That makes sense to me, see. Maybe it's the 'income inequality' framing that is so problematic - it's like it's specially designed for fiscal conservatives to reject.
I've been meaning to ask people this for a while, tbh - it's completely unclear from the OWS movement itself and from the coverage.
What do you automatically reject about it?
It's exactly about how unequal the overall income distribution is. That shit is important.
Let me see if I can explain - if income inequality is an indicator of bad things happening in the economy, fixing the bad things is a sensible course. OWS makes it sound like income inequality is the problem, rather than being a big warning sign that there are problems that need to be addressed. If the inequality is the problem, things like a 100% tax on income over $500k and a massive redistribution effort will fix it, and that sort of idea is a) the sort of thing a fiscal conservative would expect to hear from OWS, and b) the sort of thing a fiscal conservative would reject out of hand.
I'm exaggerating to get the point across here, but I hope that sort of illuminates what I mean.
"Income Inequality bad!" sounds like "let's take rich people's money and stop them from making so much"
"Income inequality tells us things are badly out of whack with middle class compensation" tells me something entirely different.
Income Inequality is bad on it's own. It's not just a sign of other things, it is a bad thing period.
"Let's redistribute rich people's money" is like half of the description of the progressive tax system.
Income inequality is itself a problem, because wealth needs to be fairly spread out to keep it flowing through the system. If a few thousand people are very rich, that generally means that many millions are very poor.
Eh, it's possible that OWS helped to re-anchor Democrats as agents of populism and what the party used to be about. And it's also impossible to do anything more than speculate that that even happened. Is there some observable, measurable way we can even account for the influence of OWS as of the spring of 2012?
Nope, but neither is there any measurable way we can account for the influence of the Tea Party, outside of a few completely powerless ultra right wing nut jobs in congress. They haven't affected any serious policy change, or actually done anything but talk.
Again, the primary success of the Tea Party has been making Sarah Palin really rich for getting up and spewing right wing propaganda at her adoring fans.
Yeah, that's not correct. The Tea Party's power remains pernicious to this day.
Meet Herman Cain. Tea Party candidate, GOP front-runner as of 4 months ago, and for all we know, presumptive nominee at this point, if allegations of grab-assery and sexual assault hadn't come to light.
Show me the lasting policy changes the Tea Party has affected, that aren't being fought by their own constituents. Yay, they had a candidate. They had Michelle Bachman too, the real sweet heart of the Tea Party, but she isn't in the race anymore either.
I guess what you're trying to argue here is that we have to see nothing short of our first Tea Party President before we can no longer handwave their influence away?
As far as the (what is it you wanted to learn about?) "lasting policy changes the Tea Party has affected" go, we needn't look very hard at all.
Were you following the GOP race back in October? Herman Cain's entire platform was based around simplifying the tax code. 9-9-9! It's something the Tea Partiers have been clamoring for since day one. (Since it would reduce the tax burden of its corporate sponsors.) It didn't take long before Romney, Perry, Bachmann, and every other candidate had their own embarrassing "Me too!" plans for simplifying the tax code as well.
This is one of many, many examples. To just dismiss the influence the Tea Party continues to have on the GOP is just foolish at this point. We've even seen countless articles from Republican writers, four years worth of writing, acknowledging their influence, denouncing their influence, trying to posit ways of cutting ties to these people and returning to Republican values, and so on.
But I guess we could just pretend this isn't a thing?
Meanwhile, OWS has caused our President to... pretend OWS isn't happening while shitting all over their policy positions. Democrats in the House and Senate... co-opted the rhetoric for ephemeral political point-scoring and then moved on. Democratic governors and mayors... arrested, beat, gassed, pepper sprayed, and dispersed them.
The largest scalp claimed by the OWS movement was... pressuring the dean of St. Paul's, in London, to resign.
It's pretty awesome how you went from a poll of American voters to secret Republican overlords in four short sentences.
I also worked in a Babylon 5 reference. I'm good at the writing!
So you're saying that the debate questions should be "Who are you?" and "What do you want?"
...
You know, those might actually be better questions than some of the ones I've heard.
I can see it now. The next debate moderated by Sebastien who keeps on asking the two questions to the candidates.... you know I think we might be onto something here.
I don't think it would work. The Inquisitor only cares about "who you are in the dark". The debates are too public, and we'd never get to the truth of their characters. He'd have to take them into an isolated room to determine their worth to the Vorlon cause American people.
Though zappng Rick and Mitt with electricity whenever they lie does have a certain appeal.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I guess we have different working definitions of income inequality. If 99 people are making $10/hr and 1 guy makes $11/hr I still call that income inequality. It's a sliding scale to me. In any meritocratic economy you will and should have some income inequality. What's the definition you guys are using?
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
I guess we have different working definitions of income inequality. If 99 people are making $10/hr and 1 guy makes $11/hr I still call that income inequality. It's a sliding scale to me. In any meritocratic economy you will and should have some income inequality. What's the definition you guys are using?
If I'm making $10 an hour and my boss is making $40 an hour, that's fine.
If, over the course of two years, my income increases to $11.50/hr, and my boss' income increases to $400/hr... there's a problem.
Income inequality is itself a problem, because wealth needs to be fairly spread out to keep it flowing through the system. If a few thousand people are very rich, that generally means that many millions are very poor.
Lack of liquidity sounds like the problem in your description, again, and income inequality a good indicator that the problem exists, or perhaps a good indicator that the problem has occurred.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to argue this - I'm just trying to tell you how it sounds from the other side of the aisle. Perception is important! If you want to get a message out that resonates with conservatives, you have to frame it in ways that don't sound like secret messages to fellow socialists.
I guess we have different working definitions of income inequality. If 99 people are making $10/hr and 1 guy makes $11/hr I still call that income inequality. It's a sliding scale to me. In any meritocratic economy you will and should have some income inequality. What's the definition you guys are using?
If I'm making $10 an hour and my boss is making $40 an hour, that's fine.
If, over the course of two years, my income increases to $11.50/hr, and my boss' income increases to $400/hr... there's a problem.
it's easy to demonize the top 1% because they are by and large investors and bankers who do nothing more than push money around and siphon off a bit more than their fair share, while they think of new ways to fuck everyone else over.
Just to give you an idea about how much the OWS movement has stalled lately, a local independent newspaper her in Boston (the Pheonix) recently ran an article about how the local OWS chapter couldn't decide whether they would allow Level 3 Sex offenders to their meetings.
it's easy to demonize the top 1% because they are by and large investors and bankers who do nothing more than push money around and siphon off a bit more than their fair share, while they think of new ways to fuck everyone else over.
No they aren't. Top 0.1% maybe.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I guess we have different working definitions of income inequality. If 99 people are making $10/hr and 1 guy makes $11/hr I still call that income inequality. It's a sliding scale to me. In any meritocratic economy you will and should have some income inequality. What's the definition you guys are using?
If I'm making $10 an hour and my boss is making $40 an hour, that's fine.
If, over the course of two years, my income increases to $11.50/hr, and my boss' income increases to $400/hr... there's a problem.
No argument here, I was just asking what we are calling income inequality.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Income inequality is itself a problem, because wealth needs to be fairly spread out to keep it flowing through the system. If a few thousand people are very rich, that generally means that many millions are very poor.
Lack of liquidity sounds like the problem in your description, again, and income inequality a good indicator that the problem exists, or perhaps a good indicator that the problem has occurred.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to argue this - I'm just trying to tell you how it sounds from the other side of the aisle. Perception is important! If you want to get a message out that resonates with conservatives, you have to frame it in ways that don't sound like secret messages to fellow socialists.
I'm a Conservative and the income inequality argument rings just fine with me. The way to solve the tax problem that the GOP is bitching about isn't to tax poor people more, it's to get our middle class back. Right now there's literally no one who can absorb the burden of expanding the base. The people with the money have to pay the taxes, that's how society works.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Well the thing with income inequality is that it's kind of like water. Too much is bad (feudalism) but too little is also bad (communism).
The A (edit: clarity) lack of income inequality isn't communism, nor is making sure that those who produce the wealth receive equal pay to those who oversee them (edit) a bad thing.
I also personally detest the whole 99% vs. 1% thing OWS popularized. I get that you need something catchy to attract a wide base but there's plenty of doctors, lawyers, engineers, athletes, actors, musicians and so on in that 1% that have nothing to do with what's wrong in America.
"Plenty"?
Based on a 2010 study by Jon Bakija et al. covering data since 2005, doctors are 1.85% and lawyers are 1.22% of the One Percent. "Other occupations such as farmers, scientists, pilots, real estate professionals and entertainers each comprise about 0.5% of the 1 Percenters."
So ~3.57% of the 1% are unfairly targeted by the slogan. Maybe 4%, if you want to round up.
yeah that is only counting salaries. in the bottom half of the 1% those professions are more common, once you hit the upper half? pretty much entirely finance and investment areas. and it only gets more concentrated as you go up.
Some points: the media's default position is fuck poor people, anything that even makes them contemplate their existence as anything other than their servants is a good thing.
OWS lost me when it became obvious they were totally uninterested in participating in the political process. That's just dumb.
The Tea Party's main accomplishment was removing a lot of the code the GOP has been using for years and now they're just doing what they want and talking about it openly. Which is kind of nice while also being totally horrifying.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
the media went back to "unemployment still fucking sucks." Income inequality has gotten approximately zero air time, and I see no real sign that it will in the future
is ridiculous. People didn't even TALK about income inequality before.
People don't talk about income inequality now, in any meaningful way. A single throw-away line during a mostly meaningless interview ("Complaints about income inequality are just envy") does not equate to "shifting the narrative."
I actually hear it talked about all the time now, both in casual conversation like this and on political analysis shows. I think you're way underplaying the fact that this is actually a thing we are talking about now. Doesn't mean we are any closer to change, but people are at least discussing the issue and realizing it's an issue to be discussed.
Salvation, where do you get your news from? I could easily see income inequality being practically absent from right-leaning sources. This isn't trying to be snarky or condescending in any way. It's just an assumption on my part, and it'd go a long way in explaining why you think it's such a non-issue while alot of use hear about it on a fairly regular basis.
The Economist and NPR, with a dash of Washington Post, MSNBC, and BBC thrown in for good measure. I abhor the American media and try to avoid it, but still end up exposed to a fair bit of it via osmosis, and it doesn't seem to be an issue that anyone's really paying attention to directly (there's plenty of indirect stuff, like union condemnation or whatever.)
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I'll second this. I'm pretty plugged in, and I don't even know why they feel income inequality is socially bad. No one in the wider media sphere has discussed it apart from mentioning that OWS is hella mad about how much less they make than the 1%.
Posts
What do you automatically reject about it?
It's exactly about how unequal the overall income distribution is. That shit is important.
Nope, but neither is there any measurable way we can account for the influence of the Tea Party, outside of a few completely powerless ultra right wing nut jobs in congress. They haven't affected any serious policy change, or actually done anything but talk.
Again, the primary success of the Tea Party has been making Sarah Palin really rich for getting up and spewing right wing propaganda at her adoring fans.
This shit doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Party precinct leaders as well. The Tea Party went for the institution it could exert influence on, and OWS avoided that altogether. One will have an impact on the primary and the election, and one pretty obviously will not.
Salvation, where do you get your news from? I could easily see income inequality being practically absent from right-leaning sources. This isn't trying to be snarky or condescending in any way. It's just an assumption on my part, and it'd go a long way in explaining why you think it's such a non-issue while alot of use hear about it on a fairly regular basis.
Except that a lot of their policy changes are being flatly rejected by constituents. See; Walker, Scott in Wisconsin.
They may have won some minimal gains, but have had almost no actual success in affecting lasting change along their ideological lines.
Yeah, that's not correct. The Tea Party's power remains pernicious to this day.
Meet Herman Cain. Tea Party candidate, GOP front-runner as of 4 months ago, and for all we know, presumptive nominee at this point, if allegations of grab-assery and sexual assault hadn't come to light.
Show me the lasting policy changes the Tea Party has affected, that aren't being fought by their own constituents. Yay, they had a candidate. They had Michelle Bachman too, the real sweet heart of the Tea Party, but she isn't in the race anymore either.
It's a little early to expect lasting change from a movement exploded in the last off-year election cycle.
Walker hasn't been recalled just yet, and if polling is any indication he may actually retain the governership after the recall election. If he does, that will basically validate the Tea Party.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Why? Everyone expects the OWS to have affected all this lasting change so far, despite being a loosely coupled movement of people just fed up with the status quo. Why can't I expect the same of the Tea Party, a significantly more organized movement that actually has candidates in office.
Mind you, I don't actually WANT any of the change the Tea Party would espouse...but hey, if it's such a successful movement, where's the beef?
I also personally detest the whole 99% vs. 1% thing OWS popularized. I get that you need something catchy to attract a wide base but there's plenty of doctors, lawyers, engineers, athletes, actors, musicians and so on in that 1% that have nothing to do with what's wrong in America.
Wisconsin is only notable because they had the barest chance to stand up and fight back. In a ton of other states the Koch Brother/Tea Party spawn are having free reign.
And here's the thing: even in Wisconsin, the voters can't stop them. They are already elected. The policies aren't being flatly rejected, they are being IMPLEMENTED. Because no matter how much the voters might dislike it, it's too late to do anything about it.
You are kidding yourself if you think the Tea Party didn't win big at the lower levels in 2010 and isn't using that power to wreck alot of harm right now.
God I hope those racist anarchists don't have lasting change. The Tea Party has Boehner by the balls in the house, and is currently in the process of destroying the states whose rights they so love (Come down to Florida, I'll show you what a Tea Party government can do). The Tea Party will destroy itself through No True Scotsmanning and by staying well outside the majority opinion on things like gay rights and reproductive rights and tax law.
They're also responsible for pushing something like 20% of Republicans (including myself) into Camp Obama.
Hell, when I come back to the states in the fall there's a good chance that I'm going to at least change to independent (Massachusetts and semi-open primaries FTW).
The Tea Party has had a big impact in destroying the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and I'd say Reagan.
Thumbs up for astroturf.
They almost made the US Gov't default!
That's........that's not nothing.
Let me see if I can explain - if income inequality is an indicator of bad things happening in the economy, fixing the bad things is a sensible course. OWS makes it sound like income inequality is the problem, rather than being a big warning sign that there are problems that need to be addressed. If the inequality is the problem, things like a 100% tax on income over $500k and a massive redistribution effort will fix it, and that sort of idea is a) the sort of thing a fiscal conservative would expect to hear from OWS, and b) the sort of thing a fiscal conservative would reject out of hand.
I'm exaggerating to get the point across here, but I hope that sort of illuminates what I mean.
"Income Inequality bad!" sounds like "let's take rich people's money and stop them from making so much"
"Income inequality tells us things are badly out of whack with middle class compensation" tells me something entirely different.
I guess what you're trying to argue here is that we have to see nothing short of our first Tea Party President before we can no longer handwave their influence away?
As far as the (what is it you wanted to learn about?) "lasting policy changes the Tea Party has affected" go, we needn't look very hard at all.
Were you following the GOP race back in October? Herman Cain's entire platform was based around simplifying the tax code. 9-9-9! It's something the Tea Partiers have been clamoring for since day one. (Since it would reduce the tax burden of its corporate sponsors.) It didn't take long before Romney, Perry, Bachmann, and every other candidate had their own embarrassing "Me too!" plans for simplifying the tax code as well.
This is one of many, many examples. To just dismiss the influence the Tea Party continues to have on the GOP is just foolish at this point. We've even seen countless articles from Republican writers, four years worth of writing, acknowledging their influence, denouncing their influence, trying to posit ways of cutting ties to these people and returning to Republican values, and so on.
But I guess we could just pretend this isn't a thing?
Income Inequality is bad on it's own. It's not just a sign of other things, it is a bad thing period.
"Let's redistribute rich people's money" is like half of the description of the progressive tax system.
Meanwhile, OWS has caused our President to... pretend OWS isn't happening while shitting all over their policy positions. Democrats in the House and Senate... co-opted the rhetoric for ephemeral political point-scoring and then moved on. Democratic governors and mayors... arrested, beat, gassed, pepper sprayed, and dispersed them.
The largest scalp claimed by the OWS movement was... pressuring the dean of St. Paul's, in London, to resign.
I don't think it would work. The Inquisitor only cares about "who you are in the dark". The debates are too public, and we'd never get to the truth of their characters. He'd have to take them into an isolated room to determine their worth to the Vorlon cause American people.
Though zappng Rick and Mitt with electricity whenever they lie does have a certain appeal.
If I'm making $10 an hour and my boss is making $40 an hour, that's fine.
If, over the course of two years, my income increases to $11.50/hr, and my boss' income increases to $400/hr... there's a problem.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Lack of liquidity sounds like the problem in your description, again, and income inequality a good indicator that the problem exists, or perhaps a good indicator that the problem has occurred.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to argue this - I'm just trying to tell you how it sounds from the other side of the aisle. Perception is important! If you want to get a message out that resonates with conservatives, you have to frame it in ways that don't sound like secret messages to fellow socialists.
Quoted for emphasis.
hows that for a start?
Really.
No they aren't. Top 0.1% maybe.
No argument here, I was just asking what we are calling income inequality.
I'm a Conservative and the income inequality argument rings just fine with me. The way to solve the tax problem that the GOP is bitching about isn't to tax poor people more, it's to get our middle class back. Right now there's literally no one who can absorb the burden of expanding the base. The people with the money have to pay the taxes, that's how society works.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/the-top-1-executives-doctors-and-bankers/
No.
It looks like that source is only measuring the top 1% of people that get chump compensation.
OWS lost me when it became obvious they were totally uninterested in participating in the political process. That's just dumb.
The Tea Party's main accomplishment was removing a lot of the code the GOP has been using for years and now they're just doing what they want and talking about it openly. Which is kind of nice while also being totally horrifying.
It's the exact study jdarksun was referring to. I agree capital gains should be included.
The Economist and NPR, with a dash of Washington Post, MSNBC, and BBC thrown in for good measure. I abhor the American media and try to avoid it, but still end up exposed to a fair bit of it via osmosis, and it doesn't seem to be an issue that anyone's really paying attention to directly (there's plenty of indirect stuff, like union condemnation or whatever.)
My original statement was over the line and I apologize.
Here's a good talk about how income inequality harms societies.