Robert Reich asks Bill Moyers: ‘When do you reach a point where inequality is simply too much?’

[kpete]

Economist Robert Reich found himself slightly agreeing with former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum in an interview with Bill Moyers, arguing that while he doesn’t support “equality of results,” the problem with the U.S. financial system is a lack of equality when it comes to opportunity.

“The question is not inequality, per se,” Reich told Moyers on Friday. “The question is, at what point do you tip over, do you get to a tipping point where the degree of inequality actually is threatening your economy, your society, your democracy? When do you reach a point where inequality is simply too much? Where most of your people feel like the game is rigged.”

Reich told Moyers that when the country’s tax laws are weighed in favor of the wealthy, that creates an educational system that steers families in lower socio-economic tiers to schools that lack comparative resources.

“A lot of middle class and poor people actually are paying, particularly through social security taxes, which nobody talks about,” Reich explained. “They all want to talk about income taxes. They’re paying a much larger share of their income.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/20/robert-reich-asks-bill-moyers-when-do-you-reach-a-point-where-inequality-is-simply-too-much/

[dembotoz]

1. 2 questions, when is the tipping point and what do we do about it

i am rather fed up myself

[reddread]

2. past the tipping point by quite a while

what do we do about it?
Short of emulating Verizon and the other telecom traitors,
I cant think of anything.
well, maybe one or two completely non-violent tactics that would work,
but this is hardly the time or place to tip that hand.

[frazzled]

3. The what to do about it is the only real question

It seems that inequality is very easy to create (though it creeps up on you: it's been coming on for 40 years). But it's extremely difficult to get rid of. Talking about it and complaining about it are not the answers. We need real policies that can help to reverse the trend (whether it's at the tipping point yet or not). But it's a Catch-22: the entrenched interests have enough power to prevent such policies from being enacted. So that leaves us with (somewhat unpalatable) solutions like uprisings and revolutions.

It's really tough.

[Tigress DEM]

13. Historically, there used to be an 80/20 "rule" that was thought of as a general status quo

80% of the money in a society is usually held by 20% of the population
While the other 80% of the population gets by on the remaining 20%



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

You still have poverty, you still have struggle, but this seems to reflect the fact that about 20% of the population is driven by the ambition to be at the top of the heap while others are content to live in comfortable station.

I think when we got so much corporate greed going on and policies that began undermining the little bit of space there was for people to make a life for themselves and tipped PAST the 80/20 rule, then we wound up in an area that became completely unlivable for the people at the bottom and those in the middle trying hard to make ends meet and help those in need.

Go below the 80/20 rule and it's no longer a land of opportunity.

[Jefferson23]

4. Increasingly, this is the case: ...Where most of your people feel like the game is rigged.”

K&R

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Inequality can be resolved with one simple commitment:

Hold every sector of government accountable to the Fourteenth Amendment. We need a battalion of lawyers who are willing to go out and ferret out any agency who has lost their resolve to follow the Fourteenth Amendment in the performance of public duties.

It won't be difficult to sniff them out, because Economic Development agencies in local, county and state government are suspect of violations. If you have city officials intentionally networking with community leaders in the private sector, it should raise flags. Where there are public-private partnerships expect there to be the kind of collusion where money, business opportunities or favoritism are being funneled to favored individuals or groups, in return for their ability to shut-down a blowback from the public. I would not be surprised if there was also an additional link with money being kicked back to certain campaign coffers.

[reddread]

7. the easiest way in the world to make a cop laugh

mention the 14th Amendment.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. All the more reason we need a new Civil Rights movement which will bring attention

to how crucial the Fourteenth Amendment is to equality.

[Tigress DEM]

9. AND get CITIZENS UNITED protections for Corporate Fueled Bribery REPEALED.

Key Clauses of the 14th Amendment
Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment. They were:

State and federal citizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.
No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.
No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."
No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

Over time, numerous lawsuits have arisen that have referenced the 14th amendment. The fact that the amendment uses the word state in the Privileges and Immunities clause along with interpretation of the Due Process Clause has meant that state as well as federal power is subject to the Bill of Rights. Further, the courts have interpreted the word "person" to include corporations. Therefore, they too are protected by "due process" along with being granted "equal protection."



FULL

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. Maybe it would help if Obama would stop appointing Repubicans to high-level positions.

Isn't our desire to have Democrats the reason why we voted for Democrats?

[Laelth]

8. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[woo me with science]

11. Corporate money out of government and elections.

We need a nationwide stand for this, that is relentless and cannot be ignored.

[rrneck]

12. 'Bout twenty years ago. nt

[bvar22]

14. Nobody is talking about raising the Social Security Tax?

“A lot of middle class and poor people actually are paying, particularly through social security taxes, which nobody talks about,” Reich explained. “They all want to talk about income taxes. They’re paying a much larger share of their income.”

I remember someone "talking" about equalizing the Social Security taxes (FICA Deductions). Talked about that a lot.

What ever happened to that guy?
He would have made a good President.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.

[Mass]

15. When a certain government signed The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

and NAFTA. I wonder who was Labor Secretary during this time. Any guess.

Frankly, I have reached the point when those who were part of the Clinton administration are tiring me to the highest point. I do not know whether Reich was a good Labor Secretary or not, but it would be nice to recognize that the Clinton administration sawed the seeds of this problems. It may have seemed a good idea then because the economy seemed blooming, but have become terrible tools when left into the hands of Republican administrations.

When you are part of the government that said that "the area of big government is over" and call poor people to become personally responsible, you either make a HUGE apology or shut up.

[FarCenter]

16. India and Latin America have far greater inequality than the United States

So we are nowhere near maximum achievable inequality.