The Current State of American Politics

Comments

1
Republicans think this is The United States of The Privileged Few And Corporations. They are destroying our quality of life.
2
@1 nicely put. (just a couple edits i've supplied)

Vince, let's show Minnesota how we compromise here on Slog. We are above bickering, name-calling, blaming.

"The Federal Reserve think this is The United States of The Privileged Few. They are destroying our quality of life"
3
It's not the 'republicans'...
..it's their backers: the wealthy.

You could say that they would rather see the other classes suffer through a government shutdown, and underfunded social programs (like public schools) than to have to give up the gold trim on their golf carts.

The dem vs rep is just a manufactured distraction.
It's really selfish wealthy vs. society.
4
@2 You are delusional.
5
@3 You are not delusional
6
Again recalling the opening pages of 'A Tale of Two Cities"... Where will the stomped-down proles act first?
7
@6: they won't. things have to get much, much worse to wake americans out of their cheap-energy torpor.

and when they do, the only narrative they think they understand is the right's. they'll turn to president bachman.

keep pounding the square peg into the round hole, america!
8
Geez, Louise, get real. There will never be a President Bachmann.

President Romney, on the other hand, is starting to look like it's a done deal.
9
@8- yep, exactly.
10
since the GOP seems to be winning aren't the Dems just stupid?

Here we have a perfect chance for a hugedefault in the USA govt. Why doesn't Obama say "okay on august 3d we will supsend al payments to huge corporations every single program they benefit from is first to be chopped...i will also suspend payments to members of congress..."

you know, grow some balls and stop begging the gop to give in?

they're just not that into us.
11
President Romney, on the other hand, is starting to look like it's a done deal.

5280, I think Republican nominee Romney is a done deal, but not President Romney. A lot depends on what happens with the economy between now and the election.
12
Roma, everything depends on what happens with the economy. But that's not looking real hopeful right now, is it?
13
Not now, but things could improve between now and the election and what matters will be the state of the economy in the months leading up to the election.
14
Republicans are nothing less than economic terrorists. Isn't there, like, a war on terror, or something? Aren't we supposed to be shooting terrorists?
15
Instead of letting Republicans frame it as a dread "tax increase," the Democrats could be -- but won't -- be advocating a "tax equity" where the wealthy pay at least the same income tax share they paid during the Reagan administration.
16
@15 Because that is a nonsensical use of the word "equity". Wouldn't equity imply everyone pays the same percentage of income? Or even the same dollar amount?
On a practical level the better off will have to pay more than they do now, but what many on the left miss is how obnoxious it is to call people "greedy" for wanting to keep their own money or say that people who already pay for the bulk of our country's expense do not pay their "fair share".
17
Do you know why they pay the bulk? Because everyone else's income flatlined or dropped except for theirs. They have two options - drop the income disparity or be willing to pay more to the country that gave them the opportunity to become that rich.
18
@14: The Boston Tea Party was an act of economic terrorism too.
19
@17: Except of course for the people who didn't use to be well off, but are now. Their income grew significantly. There is an amazing amount of economic mobility in this country despite the whining claiming otherwise.
20
The problem with raising taxes on the wealthy is that Americans have been taught (by the wealthy) to believe that THEY can become wealthy also. They're looking forward to that and don't want to have to be taxed then. In the meantime, they'll continue being poor but voting Republican.
21
Is that the problem? Really? That would make more sense if younger people tended to be conservatives instead of the other way around. I don't very many 40+ year old middle and lower middle class Americans oppose more progressive taxation because they are looking forward to when they are rich.
22
don't believe the hype. its not just the republicans. democrats want to take us to the same place, just a little slower. token resistance here & there by an isolated democrat is just that, token resistance.
23
@15: OK, sure - let's switch a 28% rate during the Reagan years with the 35% we have now.
24
@19 bullshit. The US ranks very low in terms of upward economic mobility. downward is another story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17…
25
Interesting result of plutocrats in office: Gov. Dayton is in that top 1.9%. He know exactly how little impact the tax increase will have on his people. The republicans will do ANYTHING to prevent settling this mess...
26
@24 That is missing almost all of my point. That is a study about intergenerational income disparity. I was referring to an individual's economic mobility. I don't doubt that they are related, but are clearly different things.
More importantly, that study was about the correlation of economic advantage from one generation to the next. Given the incredibly low estate taxes in the US that study is a waste of time. Of course economic advantage is passed on when actual wealth passes freely from one generation to the next. If this were a conversation about estate taxes, we'd probably be much closer to viewing things the same way.
27
@26, I call more bullshit. There has been very little upward mobility no matter how you care to measure it. All statistics on the matter show that wages for the middle class and working class have fallen precipitously while compensation for the wealthiest has exploded. To argue that there is upward mobility based on the existence of a small handful of outliers is ludicrous.
28
@17,

They don't pay the bulk of government revenue. Traditionally, what they've paid has been exactly in line with how much income they earn as a percentage of GDP. So, let's say the top 1% earns 28% of the wealth. In the past, they paid 28% of government revenue, exactly in line with how much of the country's wealth they own.

However, thanks to the continued lowering of marginal tax rates and the increase of regressive sales and use taxes, the rich are paying LESS than their share, despite what morons like Homesick want to think.
29
@28: "28% of the wealth" - What are you quantifying as wealth?
30
@18 - Actually, the Boston Tea Party was a response to economic terrorism. It was a response to rampant corporatism. The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America. This country was in fact founded by those willing to shoot the GOP types of the time.
31
#19, Homsick,

"There is an amazing amount of economic mobility in this country despite the whining claiming otherwise"

Actually, studies say completely different, there is really very little true overall economic mobility over the past several decades in America, and far less than the majority of OECD countries. America has been far outdistancing most countries in the race to the bottom.

Back in 2000, many thought I was disturbed when I stated that the only way to save America was to kill all Republi-CONS, have a massive purge of the democratic party, and completely raze Wall Street.

Wonder what they think of me today?????
32
@16 etc. - The rich benefit from the government FAR more than the poor, even on a per-tax-dollar basis. And from your comments I suspect that in your ideal world, it would be even more so.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor under bridges." What most governments do best, in this country not least, is protect the property of the rich. For the really poor, as well as for many minorities, the government is a net taker rather than a giver, because even if they didn't pay a cent in taxes (and they do, just not federal income tax), the government helps the rich take away their rights (Wisconsin anti-union legislation, drug war, etc.).

-- Sick of Homesick
33
Homesick, let's back up. Someone posted a citation to support their point that it is difficult for a person in the US to move up the economic ladder, that it's harder here than in most other 'Western' countries, and that it's harder now than it's been in decades.

You seem to state that the reverse is true, that it's relatively easy for someone to move up the ladder--that "there is an amazing amount of economic mobility in this country". First, can you quantify what you mean by an 'amazing amount'? Second, can you back up your assertion with a source?

Thanks.
34
@ 31

I assume many of our feelings would oddly mirror theirs?

although I've often fantasized about replacing Andrew Breitbart's blood with acid lately. that's more a scientific curiosity though.
35
we are all self proclaimed know it alls are politics are distorting what happened to logic is it to late for us to see we need to survive wake up the needs of the many outway the needs of the few spock for president