US Politics - The old thread is dead, long live the old thread

[Wise Fool]

So there you have it. That's what the 1% wants from you.

I read an article with some compelling arguments that it's not the 1%, but the 0.01%. Worth a read.

[aceluby]

I read an article with some compelling arguments that it's not the 1%, but the 0.01%. Worth a read.

Yeah, it's roughly 300 families that control most everything.

[Altherion]

In completely unrelated and more or less non-partisan news, New York State has become the 11th state to agree to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which would apportion the Electoral College votes of signatory states based on the national popular vote, but only if enough states sign to make the total number of votes so apportioned enough to elect the President. The addition of New York brings the total number of votes in the compact to 165 or just slightly over 60% of the number needed for the compact to go into effect. This thing started with Maryland in 2007 and has been slowly gaining steam. If some of the larger solidly Republican states can be persuaded to sign up, the compact will have a pretty good chance of going into effect.

[TrackerNeil]

More possible evidence that O'Malley is running in 2016.

What I wonder is to what extent he thinks he can actually challenge Clinton versus whether he just thinks its a good opportunity to build name-recognition in the future.

I think there's certainly a segment of the left that has Clinton fatigue and worries she's a sell-out or what have you, but I will be surprised if its enough to beat Hillary.

Still, if one attempts to imagine a scenario in which Clinton could lose, it would have to be someone to her left with pretty good credentials, and O'Malley seems to have that. Not sure if he inspires people the way that Warren does, but perhaps he's just not well-known enough?

I think O'Malley is a really intriguing candidate, although I suspect if Hillary declares he won't. That's a shame, I suppose, but better to have too many attractive candidates then too few. In any case, his participation in the primary would pull the party discussion to the left, where IMO it sorely needs to go.

[Guest]

I read an article with some compelling arguments that it's not the 1%, but the 0.01%. Worth a read.

Yeah, it's an important distinction. I believe that a family physician making right at $200K/year would technically be in the 1% of earners in the United States. And that's not really what people are angry about at all. I totally understand and largely agree with some of the populist rage out there, but I also worry about demonizing the wrong people.

I like going with "plutocrats" as our term of derision.

[TrackerNeil]

Yeah, it's an important distinction. I believe that a family physician making right at $200K/year would technically be in the 1% of earners in the United States. And that's not really what people are angry about at all. I totally understand and largely agree with some of the populist rage out there, but I also worry about demonizing the wrong people.

Honestly, in this nation we tend to err on the side of wealth, so I myself am not so concerned.

[Paladin of Ice]

I totally got the satire... unfortunately I also think that many people actually believe what you wrote.

Oh, so do I, which is why it's a biting little piece of satire, has as much venom in it as it does, and can trip someone up.

[Mudguard]

Yeah, it's an important distinction. I believe that a family physician making right at $200K/year would technically be in the 1% of earners in the United States. And that's not really what people are angry about at all. I totally understand and largely agree with some of the populist rage out there, but I also worry about demonizing the wrong people.

I like going with "plutocrats" as our term of derision.

Top 1% makes about 400K/year.

There's nothing inherently wrong with making that much money, and many people in this category are democrats/liberals. Obama is a top 1%er. George R.R. Martin is almost certainly part of that group. To attribute political or moral views to this group of people as a whole, or worse, to demonize people just because they make a certain income level, seems pretty stupid to me. Why would someone demonize a group of people just because of their income level? Envy? I'm not accusing you in particular of this; I'm just bringing it up because I've seen multiple posters bashing 1%ers.

[Shryke]

Top 1% makes about 400K/year.

There's nothing inherently wrong with making that much money, and many people in this category are democrats/liberals. Obama is a top 1%er. George R.R. Martin is almost certainly part of that group. To attribute political or moral views to this group of people as a whole, or worse, to demonize people just because they make a certain income level, seems pretty stupid to me. Why would someone demonize a group of people just because of their income level? Envy? I'm not accusing you in particular of this; I'm just bringing it up because I've seen multiple posters bashing 1%ers.

Because people in that group wield an inordinate amount of political power to the detriment of everyone else.

[Mudguard]

Because people in that group wield an inordinate amount of political power to the detriment of everyone else.

Not everyone in that group spends their money in pursuit of some political agenda. As I said before, Obama is a member of that group, and his income has nothing to do with his political power.

If this issue is the inordinate use of money to influence political agendas, then the attack should be on just that. Call out people who actually spend their money in politics, like the Koch brothers, like Soros, like Bloomberg.

[Mudguard]

You'd probably see fewer posts demonizing 1%-ers if members of that group weren't constantly going around telling the rest of us how hard they have it making several hundred thousands of dollars a year or more and telling us we should be kissing their asses on a constant basis.

Yeah, go ahead and attack the person making that statement. That person doesn't speak for that group of people. Is Obama demanding that you kiss his ass on a constant basis because he pays so much tax?

[Shryke]

Not everyone in that group spends their money in pursuit of some political agenda. As I said before, Obama is a member of that group, and his income has nothing to do with his political power.

If this issue is the inordinate use of money to influence political agendas, then the attack should be on just that. Call out people who actually spend their money in politics, like the Koch brothers, like Soros, like Bloomberg.

A large portion of those that are politically active within that bracket do. Which is what everyone is talking about and is and has always been obvious to the non-pedants.

You need to get over this shtick.

[Wise Fool]

Top 1% makes about 400K/year.

There's nothing inherently wrong with making that much money, and many people in this category are democrats/liberals. Obama is a top 1%er. George R.R. Martin is almost certainly part of that group. To attribute political or moral views to this group of people as a whole, or worse, to demonize people just because they make a certain income level, seems pretty stupid to me. Why would someone demonize a group of people just because of their income level? Envy? I'm not accusing you in particular of this; I'm just bringing it up because I've seen multiple posters bashing 1%ers.

Envy? Nonsense. As someone well under the poverty level in the US, I can definitely say that my life is totally easy and free of any kind of real hardship. I have indoor plumbing, TV, internet - even a cell phone! - so compared to all those hard-working, self-made Real Americans whose hard-earned tax dollars buy me steak and lobsters, I've got it made. Really, I think it's they who're the jealous ones!

[Mudguard]

A large portion of those that are politically active within that bracket do. Which is what everyone is talking about and is and has always been obvious to the non-pedants.

You need to get over this shtick.

The term 1%er has always just referred to the wealthy and hasn't been just tied to those spending their money on advancing a political agenda. If you just randomly ask a bunch of people what would qualify a person in the 1%er group, I bet most would just say someone who made a lot of money. To Triskele, it was simply someone who made above 200K/year. In the Atlantic article, it was simply a person making above a certain level of income. In numerous news articles, the term 1%er is simply tied to income level.

[Shryke]

The term 1%er has always just referred to the wealthy and hasn't been just tied to those spending their money on advancing a political agenda. If you just randomly ask a bunch of people what would qualify a person in the 1%er group, I bet most would just say someone who made a lot of money. To Triskele, it was simply someone who made above 200K/year. In the Atlantic article, it was simply a person making above a certain level of income. In numerous news articles, the term 1%er is simply tied to income level.

What's your point here?

The income level and those spending their money/influence on a certain type of political agenda are tied together.

[DanteGabriel]

Just going to post a little Ramsay bait, more stereotypical liberal crap on the Bundy Ranch issue:

First, this entire incident speaks to the continued power of right-wing mythology. For many of the protesters, this isn’t about a rogue rancher as much as it’s a stand against “tyranny” personified in Barack Obama and his administration.

Second, it won’t happen, but right-wing media ought to be condemned for their role in fanning the flames of this standoff. After years of decrying Obama’s “lawlessness” and hyperventilating over faux scandals, it’s galling to watch conservatives applaud actual lawbreaking and violent threats to federal officials.

Finally, I can’t help but wonder how conservatives would react if these were black farmers—or black anyone—defending “their” land against federal officials. Would Fox News applaud black militiamen aiming their guns at white bureaucrats?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/15/bundy_ranch_and_bureau_of_land_management_standoff_what_right_wingers_anger.html

Seriously though. Do the mental exercise. A black rancher says he won't obey the federal laws applicable to his area, gathers milita around him, and threatens federal agents. How does the right wing outrage-o-sphere react?

[Mudguard]

What's your point here?

The income level and those spending their money/influence on a certain type of political agenda are tied together.

My point was that your definition of 1%er is wrong.

Your next statement that people need money in order to spend money doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

[TerraPrime]

I am also curious as to the whereabouts of these freedom-loving, individual-rights-protecting Libertarians when say, the NYC was doing racial profiling of stop-and-frisk. Was NYC too cold for their outrage to gain momentum?

[Shryke]

My point was that your definition of 1%er is wrong.

Your next statement that people need money in order to spend money doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

Right, except it's not. Especially in it's common usage.

[Shryke]

I am also curious as to the whereabouts of these freedom-loving, individual-rights-protecting Libertarians when say, the NYC was doing racial profiling of stop-and-frisk. Was NYC too cold for their outrage to gain momentum?

May as well ask where they were when the Black Panthers were standing up for gun rights to help blacks protect themselves from actual corrupt and tyrannical government enforcers.