Economic Inequality: The Greatest Conflict in US Society Today.

[Unkotare]

Here we go. Smells like another lefty wants to play wannabe revolutionary although he knows he is completely full of shit. Fucking drama queens.

 

[georgephillip]

None of you sheep have ever told me how someone making more money than you prevents you from making more yourself.

Because some of the 1% earn their money by shipping millions of middle class jobs to China.
They keep their money by bribing politicians for 15% tax rates thereby shifting the tax burden from investments (in China) onto wages and salaries in the US.

No one is obligated to give you a job. What private enterprise does with their businesses is none of your business.

And politicians have passed laws that make it legal for them to be bribed.

So let's cut the head off the snake and get our politicians back under control and force them to play by the same rules that the rest of us have to.

Private enterprise doesn't exist without public infrastructure, like roads, schools,and courts.
Public infrastructure depends on tax revenue from millions of middle class jobs.
Therefore, what private enterprise does with millions of middle class jobs is the public's business everywhere principles of political equality apply.

Politicians have passed laws making bribery legal because the 1% paid them to do so. Getting our politicians back under control (as if they ever were) would seem to require erecting a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, and that would be in direct opposition to the last 5000 years of human history.

 

[Katzndogz]

The whole idea of becoming WORTH a job making high wages never occurs to the slugs does it?

 

[georgephillip]

The whole idea of becoming WORTH a job making high wages never occurs to the slugs does it?

Were the millions of middle class Americans who've seen their jobs outsourced in the last four decades WORTH their wages?

Who makes that determination?

The 1% or the 99%?

 

[thereisnospoon]

According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center about two-thirds of Americans now believe there are "strong conflicts" between rich and poor in the US. That share represents a 50 percent increase from a 2009 survey in which 47% of those polled said there were strong conflicts between economic classes.

For the first time conflict between rich and poor eclipsed tensions over race and immigration in the survey which polled 2,048 adults between December 6 to December 19.

"Independents, whose votes will be fought over by both parties, showed the single largest increase in perceptions of conflicts between rich and poor, up 23 percentage points, to 68 percent, compared with an 18-point rise among Democrats and a 17-point rise for Republicans.

"Sixty-eight percent of independents believe there are strong class conflicts, just below the 73 percent of Democrats who do. (The survey’s margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for results based on the total sample.)

“'The story for me was the consistency of the change,'... 'Everyone sees more conflict.'”

Occupy That!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/more-conflict-seen-between-rich-and-poor-survey-finds.html

It's purely political. The premise of wealth or income inequality is nothing more than a political platform forwarded by the democrat party.
The purpose is to create a group and pit that group against others. And to create a bad guy to run against.
Some system we have.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Occupy Wall Street completely changed the national conversation.

And now the Republicans are putting up a candidate who is a poster child for everything that is wrong with our tax system.

Thank you, Republicans!

OWS showed all of the people who work for a living and do the right thing that democrats support and defend freeloading pricks who have nothing better to do that set up tents on public property, steal from each other, accuse legitimate businesses of all types of vile filth
And when regular folk demand their government officials start standing up for THEIR right, the freeloaders suddenly claim THEY are victims.
The only thing OWS accomplished is informing responsible people that there are far too many individuals who are demanding someone else fund their mistakes and poor choices.
Newsflash...There is no 'national conversation'...Nobody cares about these bums in the tents.

 

[Katzndogz]

The whole idea of becoming WORTH a job making high wages never occurs to the slugs does it?

Were the millions of middle class Americans who've seen their jobs outsourced in the last four decades WORTH their wages?

Who makes that determination?

The 1% or the 99%?

The EMPLOYER in his or her SOLE AND ABSOLUTE discretion.

This regime is at war with the most productive of its citizens. The wealthy are not only taking jobs, they are taking themselves out of the country. Workers, ordinary people who are still capable of earning are subject to being fiscal combatant and they are renouncing their citizenship. The most productive rats are leaving this sinking ship.

More Americans Are Renouncing Citizenship - NYTimes.com

AllGov - News - Tax Evaders Renounce U.S. Citizenship

Start telling employers they have to keep unproductive people on the payroll because they "need a job". See how far that gets you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How about you dumb leftists crack open an intro to microeconomics book and learn about equilibrium prices and supply/demand for unskilled workers instead of crying to yourselves about how unfair the world is.

When will retarded righties catch up to the economics of poverty:

"The survey attributed the change, in part, to 'underlying shifts in the distribution of wealth in American society,' citing a finding by the Census Bureau that the share of wealth held by the top 10 percent of the population increased to 56 percent in 2009, from 49 percent in 2005."

The world is unfair because the rich consolidate state power and use it for their own selfish ends, ask Adam Smith if you're still confused.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/more-conflict-seen-between-rich-and-poor-survey-finds.html?_r=1

Hey Georgie...Poverty statistics are misleading and incomplete.
Next most people who live in poverty either do not know anything else or live in poverty by choice.
The problem your side has is your solution to poverty is exactly what has not worked for the last 70 years. Social programs invented to eliminate poverty have created a permanent underclass of one dead end generation after another.
Instead of education and training for job skills, you offer them a monthly check.
How's that working out for them?
You see a poor neighborhood and ask yourself why the government isn't giving these people more money so they don't have to live like that. Normal people see a poor neighborhood and envision opportunity for those living there. All we get from you is " how dare you ask these people to work their way out of poverty?"

 

[thereisnospoon]

According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center about two-thirds of Americans now believe there are "strong conflicts" between rich and poor in the US. That share represents a 50 percent increase from a 2009 survey in which 47% of those polled said there were strong conflicts between economic classes.

For the first time conflict between rich and poor eclipsed tensions over race and immigration in the survey which polled 2,048 adults between December 6 to December 19.

"Independents, whose votes will be fought over by both parties, showed the single largest increase in perceptions of conflicts between rich and poor, up 23 percentage points, to 68 percent, compared with an 18-point rise among Democrats and a 17-point rise for Republicans.

"Sixty-eight percent of independents believe there are strong class conflicts, just below the 73 percent of Democrats who do. (The survey’s margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for results based on the total sample.)

“'The story for me was the consistency of the change,'... 'Everyone sees more conflict.'”

Occupy That!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/more-conflict-seen-between-rich-and-poor-survey-finds.html

And yet the GOP thinks they can win the election by representing the 1% to the detriment of the 99%.

Please elaborate. Explain the comment. Facts and links only.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Pay people to do nothing or they will get mad.

The most sensible answer is to start spanking them really hard.

The 99% is about to make their voice heard. The gutter slugs will get what's coming to them.

You're confusing Mitt with OWS when it comes to that spanking.

68% of political independents currently believe conflicts between rich and poor pose the biggest threat to this country. You can thank Mitt and OWS for that.

The real gutter slugs live on Wall Street, and they will probably do just fine regardless of which corporate tool wins the White House next November.

First.. Wall Street investment companies an financial institutions are among Obama's biggest financial contributors.
Second, you don't get to spew statements that contain statistics and not get called on them. Go find some links and post here...
68% ..of what? Of whom?

 

[thereisnospoon]

We import skilled workers from Asia because they work for a fraction of what US graduates demand and are entitled to. Any consequences of "illegal" immigration stem from the richest 1% bribing Republicans AND Democrats for "Free" Trade agreements that plunder the economies of the immigrants' home countries and result in massive waves of desperate migrants seeking some way of feeding their families.

Likewise our decline in manufacturing stems from our 1% bribing politicians for tax and trade policies that favor outsourcing millions of US middle class jobs to slave wage states like China. That's something that didn't happen in states like Germany where labor unions have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for.

This explains why the richest 1% of Germans take home the same share of German income today that they banked in the 1970s while the American 1% have nearly tripled their share of US national income during that same time period.

In 1947 the median family income was $23,400, that doubled to $47,400 in 1977 and reached $58,400 in 2005. Compare that to incomes of those in the 99.99th percentile who saw their earnings swell from $2,000,000 in the late 70s to $10,000,000 in 2009.

Which economic group has had more influence on US tax and trade policies over that time?

Any remedy to problems like these probably starts with erecting a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, something the evil rich would likely oppose since much of their wealth would be taxed into productive as opposed to speculative pursuits.

There is indeed a monumental problem with the income disparity that has been creeping up with the return of conservatives to power, starting in 1980. Take a look at the state of the economy. This is what the conservative economic model looks like. This is what free trade and bank deregs gave us. Only an idiot cannot see it.

Our old economic model created history's largest middle class. What is this new one doing? Well it is gonna cause more disorder and chaos that we have seen since the Great Depression. What happens when the unemployment checks run out? With no jobs for those folks? You better button down the hatches and hang on. The future don't look so nice,and who knows what lies on the other side? It is times like these, that make socialism look good to some, although not to me. Yet this is what inevitably happens when the gov't no longer seeks to build up the middle, and instead allows the natural course of capitalism to proceed.

You want to know what a less fettered capitalism leads to? Look outside! Yet the Republicans want more of it! Personal liberty! Well, when half of america is in poverty or about to be in poverty, personal liberty over a job isn't a hard choice to make. Folks have to eat. And when they dont, they get pissed off and start hanging the folks they think are at fault. The rich folks better hire some more security guards and expand the police force is all I can say. The shit will hit the fan, and you can take that to the fucking bank.

There are plenty of available jobs out there.
There is no unfettered capitalism here. In fact the marketplace is over regulated....Or better described as regulated i the wrong places.
For example. I have always opposed interstate banking. Not in the sense that banks should be prohibited from doing business across state lines, but the sheer size of the large national banks have made it possible for these huge companies to shove customer service to the farthest back burner.
If my wife were not employed by a large bank, we'd be doing out business with a regional or even a credit union. Where you walk into the branch and the teller knows you by your first name. Where you go to apply for a loan and the officer knows you because he or she is your neighbor.
Ok, off track a bit there...
Umm, half the people are NOT in or near poverty. Please stop making up shit. It's embarrassing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center about two-thirds of Americans now believe there are "strong conflicts" between rich and poor in the US. That share represents a 50 percent increase from a 2009 survey in which 47% of those polled said there were strong conflicts between economic classes.

For the first time conflict between rich and poor eclipsed tensions over race and immigration in the survey which polled 2,048 adults between December 6 to December 19.

"Independents, whose votes will be fought over by both parties, showed the single largest increase in perceptions of conflicts between rich and poor, up 23 percentage points, to 68 percent, compared with an 18-point rise among Democrats and a 17-point rise for Republicans.

"Sixty-eight percent of independents believe there are strong class conflicts, just below the 73 percent of Democrats who do. (The survey’s margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for results based on the total sample.)

“'The story for me was the consistency of the change,'... 'Everyone sees more conflict.'”

Occupy That!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/more-conflict-seen-between-rich-and-poor-survey-finds.html

And yet the GOP thinks they can win the election by representing the 1% to the detriment of the 99%.

Millions of eligible US voters routinely see no one worth voting FOR, even in presidential elections.

If that 30%-40% of the total electorate could be convinced to vote AGAINST every Republican AND Democrat incumbent running for reelection next November, the corporate strangle hold on US politics would be greatly weakened.

Many states already have established third party candidates appearing on their ballots.
The 1% will vote Republican OR Democrat automatically.
The 99% could trump that by FLUSHING a hundred incumbents from DC in a single news cycle.

More unsubstantiated numbers. When will you ever learn.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because some of the 1% earn their money by shipping millions of middle class jobs to China.
They keep their money by bribing politicians for 15% tax rates thereby shifting the tax burden from investments (in China) onto wages and salaries in the US.

No one is obligated to give you a job. What private enterprise does with their businesses is none of your business.

And politicians have passed laws that make it legal for them to be bribed.

So let's cut the head off the snake and get our politicians back under control and force them to play by the same rules that the rest of us have to.

How will destroying government FORCE the folks who BOUGHT AND OWN government to bend to the will of the people?

If anything making government less powerful makes BIG CAPITAL even more powerful.

Of course given that BIG CAPITAL already owns government, and BIG CAPITAL is also the force behind giving government and corporations still more power over the people?

The whole question of what to do to recapture democractic control of the ( laughable)democratic republic is pretty much unanswerable by LEGAL MEANS.

How is forcing politicians to play by the same rules we have to play by destroying government?

Politicians passed the laws that makes it legal for them to sell their influence so they are the first that should be blamed. If it is illegal to offer congressmen stock bribes then businesses would have to stop doing it or risk the consequences. Right now there are no consequences because the fucking politicians have made it that way to benefit them.

You can blame business all you want but tell me who made the process of legally bribing politicians possible?

The fucking politicians that's who.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because some of the 1% earn their money by shipping millions of middle class jobs to China.
They keep their money by bribing politicians for 15% tax rates thereby shifting the tax burden from investments (in China) onto wages and salaries in the US.

No one is obligated to give you a job. What private enterprise does with their businesses is none of your business.

And politicians have passed laws that make it legal for them to be bribed.

So let's cut the head off the snake and get our politicians back under control and force them to play by the same rules that the rest of us have to.

Private enterprise doesn't exist without public infrastructure, like roads, schools,and courts.
Public infrastructure depends on tax revenue from millions of middle class jobs.
Therefore, what private enterprise does with millions of middle class jobs is the public's business everywhere principles of political equality apply.

Politicians have passed laws making bribery legal because the 1% paid them to do so. Getting our politicians back under control (as if they ever were) would seem to require erecting a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, and that would be in direct opposition to the last 5000 years of human history.

So you're telling me that politicians took illegal bribes to pass laws that make it legal to bribe them?

And FYI businesses pay far more in taxes to fund infrastructure than individuals do.

Anyone who owns trucks knows this. They pay higher tolls, federal and state mileage fees as well as gas taxes.

You pay property taxes right? Does that tax bill include every piece of furniture in your house? How about every stamp or paper towel.

Not only do businesses pay real estate property taxes but they pay an annual property tax on every single thing the business owns.

So you are upset about a subject about which you know nothing.

 

[georgephillip]

We import skilled workers from Asia because they work for a fraction of what US graduates demand and are entitled to. Any consequences of "illegal" immigration stem from the richest 1% bribing Republicans AND Democrats for "Free" Trade agreements that plunder the economies of the immigrants' home countries and result in massive waves of desperate migrants seeking some way of feeding their families.

Likewise our decline in manufacturing stems from our 1% bribing politicians for tax and trade policies that favor outsourcing millions of US middle class jobs to slave wage states like China. That's something that didn't happen in states like Germany where labor unions have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for.

This explains why the richest 1% of Germans take home the same share of German income today that they banked in the 1970s while the American 1% have nearly tripled their share of US national income during that same time period.

In 1947 the median family income was $23,400, that doubled to $47,400 in 1977 and reached $58,400 in 2005. Compare that to incomes of those in the 99.99th percentile who saw their earnings swell from $2,000,000 in the late 70s to $10,000,000 in 2009.

Which economic group has had more influence on US tax and trade policies over that time?

Any remedy to problems like these probably starts with erecting a wall of separation between private wealth and the state, something the evil rich would likely oppose since much of their wealth would be taxed into productive as opposed to speculative pursuits.

There is indeed a monumental problem with the income disparity that has been creeping up with the return of conservatives to power, starting in 1980. Take a look at the state of the economy. This is what the conservative economic model looks like. This is what free trade and bank deregs gave us. Only an idiot cannot see it.

Our old economic model created history's largest middle class. What is this new one doing? Well it is gonna cause more disorder and chaos that we have seen since the Great Depression. What happens when the unemployment checks run out? With no jobs for those folks? You better button down the hatches and hang on. The future don't look so nice,and who knows what lies on the other side? It is times like these, that make socialism look good to some, although not to me. Yet this is what inevitably happens when the gov't no longer seeks to build up the middle, and instead allows the natural course of capitalism to proceed.

You want to know what a less fettered capitalism leads to? Look outside! Yet the Republicans want more of it! Personal liberty! Well, when half of america is in poverty or about to be in poverty, personal liberty over a job isn't a hard choice to make. Folks have to eat. And when they dont, they get pissed off and start hanging the folks they think are at fault. The rich folks better hire some more security guards and expand the police force is all I can say. The shit will hit the fan, and you can take that to the fucking bank.

There are plenty of available jobs out there.
There is no unfettered capitalism here. In fact the marketplace is over regulated....Or better described as regulated i the wrong places.
For example. I have always opposed interstate banking. Not in the sense that banks should be prohibited from doing business across state lines, but the sheer size of the large national banks have made it possible for these huge companies to shove customer service to the farthest back burner.
If my wife were not employed by a large bank, we'd be doing out business with a regional or even a credit union. Where you walk into the branch and the teller knows you by your first name. Where you go to apply for a loan and the officer knows you because he or she is your neighbor.
Ok, off track a bit there...
Umm, half the people are NOT in or near poverty. Please stop making up shit. It's embarrassing.

"According to the Census figures, the median annual income for a male full-time, year-round worker in 2010 — $47,715 — was virtually unchanged, in 2010 dollars, from its level in 1973, when it was $49,065, said Sheldon Danziger, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

How have the 1% done since 1973?
They've nearly tripled their share of US income.

I suspect you hit the nail squarely on its head with your comment about misplaced regulation.
Many small businesses are deliberately buried under mountains of regulations, and that too works to the benefit of the parasites among the 1%

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is indeed a monumental problem with the income disparity that has been creeping up with the return of conservatives to power, starting in 1980. Take a look at the state of the economy. This is what the conservative economic model looks like. This is what free trade and bank deregs gave us. Only an idiot cannot see it.

Our old economic model created history's largest middle class. What is this new one doing? Well it is gonna cause more disorder and chaos that we have seen since the Great Depression. What happens when the unemployment checks run out? With no jobs for those folks? You better button down the hatches and hang on. The future don't look so nice,and who knows what lies on the other side? It is times like these, that make socialism look good to some, although not to me. Yet this is what inevitably happens when the gov't no longer seeks to build up the middle, and instead allows the natural course of capitalism to proceed.

You want to know what a less fettered capitalism leads to? Look outside! Yet the Republicans want more of it! Personal liberty! Well, when half of america is in poverty or about to be in poverty, personal liberty over a job isn't a hard choice to make. Folks have to eat. And when they dont, they get pissed off and start hanging the folks they think are at fault. The rich folks better hire some more security guards and expand the police force is all I can say. The shit will hit the fan, and you can take that to the fucking bank.

There are plenty of available jobs out there.
There is no unfettered capitalism here. In fact the marketplace is over regulated....Or better described as regulated i the wrong places.
For example. I have always opposed interstate banking. Not in the sense that banks should be prohibited from doing business across state lines, but the sheer size of the large national banks have made it possible for these huge companies to shove customer service to the farthest back burner.
If my wife were not employed by a large bank, we'd be doing out business with a regional or even a credit union. Where you walk into the branch and the teller knows you by your first name. Where you go to apply for a loan and the officer knows you because he or she is your neighbor.
Ok, off track a bit there...
Umm, half the people are NOT in or near poverty. Please stop making up shit. It's embarrassing.

"According to the Census figures, the median annual income for a male full-time, year-round worker in 2010 — $47,715 — was virtually unchanged, in 2010 dollars, from its level in 1973, when it was $49,065, said Sheldon Danziger, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

How have the 1% done since 1973?
They've nearly tripled their share of US income.

I suspect you hit the nail squarely on its head with your comment about misplaced regulation.
Many small businesses are deliberately buried under mountains of regulations, and that too works to the benefit of the parasites among the 1%

There is no such thing as "share" of income.
Where did the figure of $49,065 come from? What does it mean?
Anyone can throw out numbers with impunity to support a particular point of view.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No one is obligated to give you a job. What private enterprise does with their businesses is none of your business.

And politicians have passed laws that make it legal for them to be bribed.

So let's cut the head off the snake and get our politicians back under control and force them to play by the same rules that the rest of us have to.

How will destroying government FORCE the folks who BOUGHT AND OWN government to bend to the will of the people?

If anything making government less powerful makes BIG CAPITAL even more powerful.

Of course given that BIG CAPITAL already owns government, and BIG CAPITAL is also the force behind giving government and corporations still more power over the people?

The whole question of what to do to recapture democractic control of the ( laughable)democratic republic is pretty much unanswerable by LEGAL MEANS.

How is forcing politicians to play by the same rules we have to play by destroying government?

Politicians passed the laws that makes it legal for them to sell their influence so they are the first that should be blamed. If it is illegal to offer congressmen stock bribes then businesses would have to stop doing it or risk the consequences. Right now there are no consequences because the fucking politicians have made it that way to benefit them.

You can blame business all you want but tell me who made the process of legally bribing politicians possible?

The fucking politicians that's who.

Big.....OOPS....Noooooo...... BIG CAPITAL....I guess that is the next boogey man.

 

[georgephillip]

There are plenty of available jobs out there.
There is no unfettered capitalism here. In fact the marketplace is over regulated....Or better described as regulated i the wrong places.
For example. I have always opposed interstate banking. Not in the sense that banks should be prohibited from doing business across state lines, but the sheer size of the large national banks have made it possible for these huge companies to shove customer service to the farthest back burner.
If my wife were not employed by a large bank, we'd be doing out business with a regional or even a credit union. Where you walk into the branch and the teller knows you by your first name. Where you go to apply for a loan and the officer knows you because he or she is your neighbor.
Ok, off track a bit there...
Umm, half the people are NOT in or near poverty. Please stop making up shit. It's embarrassing.

"According to the Census figures, the median annual income for a male full-time, year-round worker in 2010 — $47,715 — was virtually unchanged, in 2010 dollars, from its level in 1973, when it was $49,065, said Sheldon Danziger, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

How have the 1% done since 1973?
They've nearly tripled their share of US income.

I suspect you hit the nail squarely on its head with your comment about misplaced regulation.
Many small businesses are deliberately buried under mountains of regulations, and that too works to the benefit of the parasites among the 1%

There is no such thing as "share" of income.
Where did the figure of $49,065 come from? What does it mean?
Anyone can throw out numbers with impunity to support a particular point of view.

Assuming you believe in the existence of "income":

The median income divides households in the US evenly in the middle with half of all household earning more than the median income and half of all households earning less than the median household income."

There is such a thing as a "share" of the total income earned by every working American each year.
In 1973 half of all working Americans earned more than $49, 065 and half earned less.
The richest 1% of Americans earned about 8% of total US income at that time.

In 2007 they earned about 23.8% of total US income which was approximately the same percentage the 1% earned in 1928.

Do you thinks it's coincidental that each of those two latter years immediately preceded major economic downturns?

Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thereisnospoon]

"According to the Census figures, the median annual income for a male full-time, year-round worker in 2010 — $47,715 — was virtually unchanged, in 2010 dollars, from its level in 1973, when it was $49,065, said Sheldon Danziger, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all

How have the 1% done since 1973?
They've nearly tripled their share of US income.

I suspect you hit the nail squarely on its head with your comment about misplaced regulation.
Many small businesses are deliberately buried under mountains of regulations, and that too works to the benefit of the parasites among the 1%

There is no such thing as "share" of income.
Where did the figure of $49,065 come from? What does it mean?
Anyone can throw out numbers with impunity to support a particular point of view.

Assuming you believe in the existence of "income":

The median income divides households in the US evenly in the middle with half of all household earning more than the median income and half of all households earning less than the median household income."

There is such a thing as a "share" of the total income earned by every working American each year.
In 1973 half of all working Americans earned more than $49, 065 and half earned less.
The richest 1% of Americans earned about 8% of total US income at that time.

In 2007 they earned about 23.8% of total US income which was approximately the same percentage the 1% earned in 1928.

Do you thinks it's coincidental that each of those two latter years immediately preceded major economic downturns?

Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no "share".. For there to be a "share", that would require the existence of something finite.
Because wealth is created and never stagnant, wealth grows. Therefore no "share" can be defined.
You people on the political left hold on to the notion of the zero sum game. That is a fantasy that you must deal with on your own. The rest of us are not concerned with said fantasy

 

[Charles_Main]

According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center about two-thirds of Americans now believe there are "strong conflicts" between rich and poor in the US. That share represents a 50 percent increase from a 2009 survey in which 47% of those polled said there were strong conflicts between economic classes.

For the first time conflict between rich and poor eclipsed tensions over race and immigration in the survey which polled 2,048 adults between December 6 to December 19.

"Independents, whose votes will be fought over by both parties, showed the single largest increase in perceptions of conflicts between rich and poor, up 23 percentage points, to 68 percent, compared with an 18-point rise among Democrats and a 17-point rise for Republicans.

"Sixty-eight percent of independents believe there are strong class conflicts, just below the 73 percent of Democrats who do. (The survey’s margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for results based on the total sample.)

“'The story for me was the consistency of the change,'... 'Everyone sees more conflict.'”

Occupy That!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/more-conflict-seen-between-rich-and-poor-survey-finds.html

And yet the GOP thinks they can win the election by representing the 1% to the detriment of the 99%.

You guys live in a world of Day Dreams and altered Reality.

If what Obama and the Democrats have done is looking out for the 99% then I would hate to see what not looking out for them would look like.

Failed Policies, Failed Ideas, and Finger Pointing. That is all the left has.

the Left is trying to claim the speak for 99% of Americans. Strange Considering only 20% of American identify as Liberal. Who they actually speak for is the roughly 49% who's income are Deductions mean when it is all said and done they Pay no Federal Income tax. They also Represent the 11.3% of Americans who are in a Labor Union.

They do not speak for, Look out for, or Represent the 99%. Never have, never will. They Clearly do not represent anyone who's income is high enough that they actually pay Federal Income Tax. They do not Represent the Productive, and Successful, and no matter how many times they claim it, they do not represent the Middle Class, Nor more than Republicans do.