Since 1990, Corporate Profits Up 200%, Household Income Up 2% - BCA

[Wiseacre]

Here's a good speech from four years ago by our esteemed Fed chair. It would carry much more weight if he weren't one of the crowd that got us into this mess in the first place.

WASHINGTON -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke cautioned that widening economic inequality may make Americans "less willing to accept the dynamism ... so essential to economic progress." But he warned politicians to avoid responses that would make labor markets less flexible or create barriers to international trade and investment.

In an unusual speech for a central banker, Mr. Bernanke said a wiser approach to the problem would be to improve education and training and to cushion dislocations caused by technology and globalization. He cited such steps as making health and pension benefits more portable and offering retraining and job-search assistance to displaced workers. ...

Wandering beyond the boundaries of monetary policy, his area of responsibility, Mr. Bernanke said: "Although average economic well-being has increased considerably over time, the degree of inequality in economic outcomes has increased as well ... for at least three decades." A text of his speech was released by the Fed in Washington.

In his 15-page lecture, complete with 48 academic references, Mr. Bernanke documented the inequality evident in data on wages, household incomes and even baseball players' contracts. He also examined economic forces behind the trend, from changes in technology that have increased employers' appetite for more-educated workers, to the decline of unions, to the surge in chief executives' salaries, to the impact of globalization. He said the effect of the latter has been "moderate and almost surely less important than the effects of ... technological change." ...

[Bernanke] offered three principles that he said are "broadly accepted in our society" -- economic opportunity should be as widely distributed and equal as possible, economic outcomes needn't be equal but should be linked to a person's contributions, and people should get some insurance against very painful outcomes.

"We ... believe," he said, referring to Americans generally, "that no one should be allowed to slip too far down the economic ladder, especially for reasons beyond his or her control."

Mr. Bernanke, who served briefly as an economic adviser to Mr. Bush before becoming Fed chief a year ago, avoided any mention of tax policy, a favorite tool of Democrats interested in reducing the inequality produced by market forces. He noted that eliminating inequality altogether would be unwise.

"Our market-based economy, which encourages productive activity primarily through the promise of financial reward, would function less effectively," he argued. The dynamism that has propelled the U.S. economy for decades brings with it "painful dislocations" for some workers, he added. But he said, "If we did not place some limits on the downside risks to individuals ... the public at large might become less willing to accept the dynamism that is so essential to economic progress."

Fed Chief Warns of Widening Inequality - WSJ.com

Link didn't work, couldn't get the ful text of Bernanke's remarks. However, I saw nothing so far that suggests income inequality is such a big deal that must be addressed. He says it exists, no disagreement there. Show me where he says where the income disparity was at the expense of the middle or lower income folks. Look, if I got a hundred bucks to invest and you got a hundred thousand, whose going to get the most income growth next year, and the year after that.

 

[Flopper]

Well they kinda are..

What do you honestly think this "Too big to fail" stuff is all about? Most of the financial firms that were "too big to fail" were that way because they were flush with government cash in the form of government worker 401k accounts and other investments. Same with AIG which insures a good deal of government interests. And with most of these huge corporations, behind it are some very big government contracts. The money to pay for those government contracts comes from tax payers. And quite honestly, many of the high fliers in terms of income with many of these firms weren't around them for "30 years".

We have had a rather liberal interpretation of anti-trust laws for years. Government has actually encouraged the growth of these financial giants. Much of their growth is by gobbling up competitors. Today, many are too big too fail. If the crash of 08 happened tomorrow, the government would have to do the same thing or see the entire financial system of the country and world collapse.

WHAT? I thought the Dems fixed all that with the Dodd/Frank bill.

IMHO just creating a method of liquidation of large financial firms is not enough. It's better than nothing.

 

[Toro]

Link didn't work, couldn't get the ful text of Bernanke's remarks. However, I saw nothing so far that suggests income inequality is such a big deal that must be addressed. He says it exists, no disagreement there. Show me where he says where the income disparity was at the expense of the middle or lower income folks. Look, if I got a hundred bucks to invest and you got a hundred thousand, whose going to get the most income growth next year, and the year after that.

FRB: Speech, Bernanke--The level and distribution of economic well-being--February 6, 2007

I will not draw any firm conclusions about the extent to which policy should attempt to offset inequality in economic outcomes; that determination inherently depends on values and social tradeoffs and is thus properly left to the political process.

His speech is mainly an oversight of the empirical evidence regarding widening inequality.

However, I would suggest that when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board makes a speech about income inequality, he thinks it's a big deal. Otherwise, he wouldn't make a speech about it since it is outside of his purview.

 

[Wiseacre]

Thank you Toro for a great link, that was good stuff and I would pretty much agree with everything Bernanke said. But he didn't really go into the consequences of income inequality, nor did he talk much about the top 1% getting the Lion's share of the increases in income over the past 20-30 years. Mostly he focused on why the lower income percentiles aren't making more money, and why the middle and upper wage earners are getting a bigger piece of the pie. Good stuff, everybody oughta read it IMHO.

He doesn't mention it, but I think it's true that those at the top of the income ladder are in the most advantagious position to increase their incomes as the economy grows. As I said earlier, if I have $100 and you have $100,000, and we both invest our money then chances are your income growth will be much higher than mine. Look at whre the stock market was around 30 years ago, hovering around 800. Today it's over 12,000, that's a lot of growth. Is it not reasonable then that the rich guys profited the most over that time? It also allowed those who did invest less money to improve their incomes, so it's not like the rich guys were the only ones who profited.

I do think there should be some changes in laws regarding governance of public corps though. Similar to what European countries do, there's gotta be some restraint or at least transparency with some more stringent stockholder rights for executive compensation. If the stockholders are fine with paying multi-millions to the top guys, fine. But I don't think this lind of thing is going to move the needle too much with respect to income inequality. I also think it's not the big deal the democrats make it out to be. I've never given a damn what Bill Gates or Warren Buffett make, or Michael Jordan or whoever the top movie stars are making. Sure, it's almost obscene sometimes, but it's not coming out of my pocket. So I don't care and neither should anyone else.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thank you Toro for a great link, that was good stuff and I would pretty much agree with everything Bernanke said. But he didn't really go into the consequences of income inequality, nor did he talk much about the top 1% getting the Lion's share of the increases in income over the past 20-30 years. Mostly he focused on why the lower income percentiles aren't making more money, and why the middle and upper wage earners are getting a bigger piece of the pie. Good stuff, everybody oughta read it IMHO.

He doesn't mention it, but I think it's true that those at the top of the income ladder are in the most advantagious position to increase their incomes as the economy grows. As I said earlier, if I have $100 and you have $100,000, and we both invest our money then chances are your income growth will be much higher than mine. Look at whre the stock market was around 30 years ago, hovering around 800. Today it's over 12,000, that's a lot of growth. Is it not reasonable then that the rich guys profited the most over that time? It also allowed those who did invest less money to improve their incomes, so it's not like the rich guys were the only ones who profited.

I do think there should be some changes in laws regarding governance of public corps though. Similar to what European countries do, there's gotta be some restraint or at least transparency with some more stringent stockholder rights for executive compensation. If the stockholders are fine with paying multi-millions to the top guys, fine. But I don't think this lind of thing is going to move the needle too much with respect to income inequality. I also think it's not the big deal the democrats make it out to be. I've never given a damn what Bill Gates or Warren Buffett make, or Michael Jordan or whoever the top movie stars are making. Sure, it's almost obscene sometimes, but it's not coming out of my pocket. So I don't care and neither should anyone else.

I've been around since Harry Truman was President, so I lived through a good portion of the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society. It was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city upon the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the close of the 1960's, due to a weak and splintered Democratic party caused by the Vietnam War and political assassinations. It ushered in a conservative era that has continued ever since. It has been a disaster, a negative mirror image of the liberal era. Ronald Reagan was the biggest socialist in history. He is the pied piper on the road to serfdom. He began a systematic dismantling of all the gains the middle class had secured. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He looted Social Security to cover the shortfalls of his tax cuts for the wealthy. And the whole 'small businessman is the engine of growth' was cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

Conservatives have built nothing in 30 +years...NOTHING. They have only destroyed and torn down everything our grandparents and parents built together as ONE nation, one people. America now lead the world in incarcerating human beings...THINK about THAT...The United States of America, the 'city upon the hill' America has 5% of the world population and 25% of the worlds prison population. America arrests and imprisons MORE of their citizens per capita that China or Russia!

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail.

There is either major changes coming or a revolution. Crony Capitalism is not a 'free' market. Regulatory capture has allowed corporate lawyers to write laws that solely benefit their corporations and make unethical business practices 'lawful'. Corporate welfare is our biggest and most destructive 'entitlement'. It has allowed corporations to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

America sorely needed another FDR, we got Herbert Hoover.

 

[expat_panama]

Here's a good speech from four years ago by our esteemed Fed chair...

No, that's not the speech by Bernanke, it's a leftist mangling of what Bernanke said that pushes Marx's 'from each his abilities to each his needs' and tosses in a falsely attributed graphic. Here this is the link to the original speech where he also said:

Although we Americans strive to provide equality of economic opportunity, we do not guarantee equality of economic outcomes, nor should we. Indeed, without the possibility of unequal outcomes tied to differences in effort and skill, the economic incentive for productive behavior would be eliminated, and our market-based economy--which encourages productive activity primarily through the promise of financial reward--would function far less effectively.​

There's an enormous difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The wages, income, and earnings shown in the graphic are all outcome. Bernanke was correct in stressing that we don't want that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here's a good speech from four years ago by our esteemed Fed chair...

No, that's not the speech by Bernanke, it's a leftist mangling of what Bernanke said that pushes Marx's 'from each his abilities to each his needs' and tosses in a falsely attributed graphic. Here this is the link to the original speech where he also said:

Although we Americans strive to provide equality of economic opportunity, we do not guarantee equality of economic outcomes, nor should we. Indeed, without the possibility of unequal outcomes tied to differences in effort and skill, the economic incentive for productive behavior would be eliminated, and our market-based economy--which encourages productive activity primarily through the promise of financial reward--would function far less effectively.​

There's an enormous difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The wages, income, and earnings shown in the graphic are all outcome. Bernanke was correct in stressing that we don't want that.

You really need to read on...you have cherry picked a small excerpt of his speech to support your agenda.

I am really sick of this Marxist shit. I am a liberal. I never studied Marx or any of his teachings. Why is it liberals understand the rules of a 'free market' and conservatives seem to be unaware of what a free market is, and what the rules need to be?

Here is something for you to contemplate. How do you explain that the Soviet Union is more conservative than America? What would a conservative in Russia believe? What orthodoxy would he want to conserve...capitalism?

What about China? Is it a country full of liberals running around?

革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂，使团结涣散，关系松懈，工作消极，意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律，政策不能贯彻到底，党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Combat Liberalism - Chairman Mao Zedong

 

[rdean]

Here's a good speech from four years ago by our esteemed Fed chair...

No, that's not the speech by Bernanke, it's a leftist mangling of what Bernanke said that pushes Marx's 'from each his abilities to each his needs' and tosses in a falsely attributed graphic. Here this is the link to the original speech where he also said:

Although we Americans strive to provide equality of economic opportunity, we do not guarantee equality of economic outcomes, nor should we. Indeed, without the possibility of unequal outcomes tied to differences in effort and skill, the economic incentive for productive behavior would be eliminated, and our market-based economy--which encourages productive activity primarily through the promise of financial reward--would function far less effectively.​

There's an enormous difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The wages, income, and earnings shown in the graphic are all outcome. Bernanke was correct in stressing that we don't want that.

You really need to read on...you have cherry picked a small excerpt of his speech to support your agenda.

I am really sick of this Marxist shit. I am a liberal. I never studied Marx or any of his teachings. Why is it liberals understand the rules of a 'free market' and conservatives seem to be unaware of what a free market is, and what the rules need to be?

Here is something for you to contemplate. How do you explain that the Soviet Union is more conservative than America? What would a conservative in Russia believe? What orthodoxy would he want to conserve...capitalism?

What about China? Is it a country full of liberals running around?

革命的集体组织中的自由主义是十分有害的。它是一种腐蚀剂，使团结涣散，关系松懈，工作消极，意见分歧。它使革命队伍失掉严密的组织和纪律，政策不能贯彻到底，党的组织和党所领导的群众发生隔离。这是一种严重的恶劣倾向。

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

Combat Liberalism - Chairman Mao Zedong

Actually, when you look at "communist revolutions", Russia, China and other Asian Countries, the first people the Communist regime get's rid of are the "liberals". College educated, intellectuals and so one are always the first to go.

So Republicans shouldn't worry. They are safe.

 

[Dot Com]

Capitalism has to be tempered by good tax policy and decent laws.


If the right would stop this idiot montra about "tax cuts" and "deregulation" is the answer to everything then we could make this system work for all people.

They refuse and the resaon they refuse is they want more of what you see here in the OP.

The really sad thing is everyday cons have been conned by these people into voting for the distruction of our governments ability to make capitalism work for all.

Thats ALL THEY EVER DO when elected. They never saw a water table that was too good to contaminate w/ mercury.

 

[whitehall]

Give us a break from the non-stop tiresome socialist rants against the private sector. Where do you people get your statistics? From George Soros? During the post WW2 period the median income of American families went from around $4,900 per year in 1950 to around 30,000 in 1990. The median income in 2010 was around $67,500. That's substantially more than 2%. Here's some advice socialists. Come out of the political closet and say it loud "I'm socialist and proud". Quit trying to camouflage your agenda and tell us what a great economist you think comrade Stalin was.

 

[kiwiman127]

Give us a break from the non-stop tiresome socialist rants against the private sector. Where do you people get your statistics? From George Soros? During the post WW2 period the median income of American families went from around $4,900 per year in 1950 to around 30,000 in 1990. The median income in 2010 was around $67,500. That's substantially more than 2%. Here's some advice socialists. Come out of the political closet and say it loud "I'm socialist and proud". Quit trying to camouflage your agenda and tell us what a great economist you think comrade Stalin was.

You need to educate yourself.
The salaries you quoted, included inflation. Using REAL dollars (constant dollar value), wages have actually gone down in the last thirty years.

 

[Bfgrn]

Give us a break from the non-stop tiresome socialist rants against the private sector. Where do you people get your statistics? From George Soros? During the post WW2 period the median income of American families went from around $4,900 per year in 1950 to around 30,000 in 1990. The median income in 2010 was around $67,500. That's substantially more than 2%. Here's some advice socialists. Come out of the political closet and say it loud "I'm socialist and proud". Quit trying to camouflage your agenda and tell us what a great economist you think comrade Stalin was.

In 1950 a brand new car cost $1,500 and the gas to run this car was only 18 cents a gallon

 

[Toro]

Here's a good speech from four years ago by our esteemed Fed chair...

No, that's not the speech by Bernanke, it's a leftist mangling of what Bernanke said that pushes Marx's 'from each his abilities to each his needs' and tosses in a falsely attributed graphic. Here this is the link to the original speech where he also said:

Although we Americans strive to provide equality of economic opportunity, we do not guarantee equality of economic outcomes, nor should we. Indeed, without the possibility of unequal outcomes tied to differences in effort and skill, the economic incentive for productive behavior would be eliminated, and our market-based economy--which encourages productive activity primarily through the promise of financial reward--would function far less effectively.​

There's an enormous difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The wages, income, and earnings shown in the graphic are all outcome. Bernanke was correct in stressing that we don't want that.

You're right. The Wall Street Journal is a leftist instrument that hires Marxists to push a radical left-wing agenda on freedom-loving Americans. Just like Barron's.

 

[editec]

You can play all the money games you want to prove that the incomes are or have been on the rise.

But the REAL measure of increaing wealth can only be shown if you can show that the QUALITY OF LIFE has gotten better.

It hasn't for the majority of Americans.

Statistics like number of people who are forced onto government social safety net programs; the number of personal bankruptsies; the number of people losing their homes; the number of people who cannot find stand up jobs with living wages, give us a clearly picture of the state of the economy than the GNP, or median incomes, or the FAKE inflation rates.

The American lower and middle classes, that is to say about the lower 80% of the population, has been working more hours for a continuing lower standard of living since about the early 1970s.

 

[sparky]

ah, but we're ever so motivated via the glorious biscuit of mammon to press on though....

 

[expat_panama]

...I am really sick of this Marxist shit. I am a liberal. I never studied Marx or any of his teachings...

You may not have wanted to say that you have a very strong opinion on something you "never studied".

Studying Marx is easy, I did a book report on "The Communist Manifesto" in high school because it was only 30 pages long. The core of Marxist ideology is the equality of outcome ("each according to his ability, to each according to his need") that's so disastrous. It's the basis for the redistribution of wealth AKA "spread the wealth around", and that's why Bernanke panned it in his speech and why the WSJ lied saying Bernanke favored it.

 

[expat_panama]

...The Wall Street Journal is a leftist instrument that hires Marxists to push a radical left-wing agenda on freedom-loving Americans. Just like Barron's."

LOL, a lot of people actually believe that! The real problem with the 'dead tree press' is that they're generally biased, sensationalist, and shallow. OK, that's being negative and we should always try to point out what's good. How about we say that the mainstream newspapers are soft, strong, and absorbent.

 

[Bfgrn]

You can play all the money games you want to prove that the incomes are or have been on the rise.

But the REAL measure of increaing wealth can only be shown if you can show that the QUALITY OF LIFE has gotten better.

It hasn't for the majority of Americans.

Statistics like number of people who are forced onto government social safety net programs; the number of personal bankruptsies; the number of people losing their homes; the number of people who cannot find stand up jobs with living wages, give us a clearly picture of the state of the economy than the GNP, or median incomes, or the FAKE inflation rates.

The American lower and middle classes, that is to say about the lower 80% of the population, has been working more hours for a continuing lower standard of living since about the early 1970s.

Then Senator-elect Jim Webb wrote an excellent op-ed on this back in 2006. Webb was Secretary of the Navy during in the Reagan administration.

Class Struggle

BY JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia.

Opinion & Commentary - Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com

 

[editec]

The purpose of government is to see to it that the quality of life of its citizens is good.

CLEARLY in the last generations they government has forgotten that THAT is its mission.

 

[Bfgrn]

The purpose of government is to see to it that the quality of life of its citizens is good.

CLEARLY in the last generations they government has forgotten that THAT is its mission.

One of my favorite quotes from 2 of my favorite Presidents...

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy