Rich Democrats Don’t Care About Income Inequality Any More Than Rich Republicans

[99th_Monkey]

Rich Democrats Don’t Care About Income Inequality Any More Than Rich Republicans
A new study questions preconceived notions about politics and income equality.
by Ethan Wolff-Mann * Sept. 23, 2015 * Time (business section)

The Democratic party might be know for promoting income equality, but according to a new study, its rich elites don’t care about it any more than Republicans.

Professors from U.C. Berkeley, Boston University, Yale Law School, and University of Maryland-College Park recently set up an experiment to test how groups with varying levels of “elite” status in society would distribute wealth. There were three different groups involved in the study—one representing average Americans (roughly 50/50 Republicans and Democrats), a group of “intermediate elite” University of California-Berkeley undergrads, and a group of Yale Law students, assumed to be in particularly high positions of wealth and influence in the future.



The results of the study were summed up by two of its authors in a Slate post, when they wrote:

Regardless of party, the elite donors whose money dominates politics, and the elite officeholders
whose decisions set policy, don’t value economic equality.

The researchers came to this conclusion after a series of experiments in which participants were asked to divide money between themselves and an anonymous person in order to gauge selfishness. A second element to the study was added due to the fact that it wasn’t always free to give money. In some cases, giving was cheap — for every $1 sacrificed, $10 went to the anonymous beneficiary. In other cases, it was expensive to give. Giving away $1 only meant that the other person received a measly 10 cents. To make the experiments more realistic, the wealth redistribution was real, and participants were paid out at the end of the study based on their decisions.

http://time.com/money/4046099/income-inquality-democrats-republicans/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. File under 'Colour me not shocked'.

The old 'We performed a study to show that water is wet'.

[billhicks76]

90. Amen

100% true but many Clintonites are in denial of this fact.

[stillwaiting]

96. Some of them around here state time and time again that they care more for social issues.

They say this repeatedly. They try and get others to NOT focus on income/wealth inequality after what has happened in this country over the last 4 decades.

It's a MASSIVE tell, and they truly are a huge obstacle to us ever beginning to correct the unjust income and wealth disparities that continue to widen year after year. They just don't care that more and more people in this country don't get to live a life with minimum amounts of dignity, and that there are terrible and unnecessary consequences for individuals, families, and communities that suffer from the cruel and unjust income and wealth disparities that make living in poverty a reality for more and more.

The wealth and income redistribution has been on a one-way track for the past 4 decades. It's time to change directions for awhile.

[Township75]

2. It doesn't surprise me one bit that this thread will sink to the bottom.

If it were only about rich republicans then it would have 100 replies by now.

[FreakinDJ]

10. Sad but true

[SCantiGOP]

18. No, it might have been taken seriously

Had the OP not shown Clinton and Bush together to imply that there is no difference between the two. That is ridiculous, false, misleading bullshit.

[merrily]

36. The photo is part of the Time article excerpted in the OP. nt

[Hortensis]

37. Exactly. This is pure, misleading right-wing propaganda brought here WHY?

Why is it that extremists here love vicious, anti-democrat right-wing propaganda as much as they do?

Now WHY it's garbage: Because attitudes of the top 10% of the top 1% hardly can be expected to mirror those of the remaining 99.9% of us, much less of the liberal half.

BTW, speaking of the top tiers, 144 billionaires have given away at least half their fortunes under the Giving Pledge program organized by Bill and Melinda Gates, that is, under their program alone. This is an international list, and I haven't gone over the list to see how many are Americans, but America has created a full half the world's billionaires. (I'm so proud. Are we a rich nation, or what!)

It is also well known that most who have joined the Giving Pledge are liberal or left-leaning in personality and political orientation. Happily, though, responsible conservatives are also respectably represented.

This is just a partial picture, of course. America has far, far, far more people who measure their wealth in the hundreds of millions than billionaires, the ultra-rich being about 30,000 or so in the U.S. out of 330,000,000 of us.

[JDPriestly]

61. The best way to share wealth is to support a safety net in your own country that makes

Access to education (to the highest level of the student's desire and capacity, good housing, health care and food equally available to all, rich or poor.

No questions asked. No means-testing. No pitting richer against poorer. Just doing it.

Charity is very "nice" but it establishes a relationship between a richer giver and a poorer receiver. The difference between the two is not to be measured in terms of greediness or generosity. The poorer person may or may not be greedier in his heart.

The difference between the two is not in much they do or do not want to give. The difference is in how much money they have.

Every person in our society should be able to have his/her basic needs met and then what is left over can be earned as the society chooses. In capitalism money that is left over after everyone has shelter, education food, healthcare, water and the necessiities goes according to the capitalistic system. No problem.

But first everyone's most fundamental needs should be satisfied to the extnt humanly possible.

Charity is great but it does not work efficiently.

Charity is a second best solution. I worked in non-profit fundraising for some years. My father also did a lot of it. Makes the donors feel great, but izt does not result in getting money where the need is greatest. It is really a bad way to help the needy. Sorry, but it is no way to approach the problem of helping the poorest among us. Great way to make the rich feel good about themselves. Great way to increase the social power of money.

Go to my church, and I will give you money. That is the essence of charity of the sort most often practiced by the rich. First prove you are really poor and needy and then I will give you a pittance from MY wealth.

We should start from the premise that certain human needs are net without question simply because all humans deserve shelter, nourishment, opportunity to learn to contribute to society to the best of their ability, good health and other necessities. Then we can talk about and enjoy watching the discretionary wealth find its way.

[Hortensis]

63. You're preaching to the converted, Priestly. :) Nothing irritates me

more than people who think we should be grateful to the ultrawealthy for funding our public colleges and other public works. Those are mostly conservatives, of course, who pride themselves on how responsible they are but somehow forget that funding colleges and retrofitting bridges is OUR job.

And since I believe we should see that all the very poor in all locations, including the elderly and disabled in their homes, have at least 2 meals a day EVERY SINGLE DAY to all our very poor, I see the typical occasional donations to food drives and Christmas meals as hypocritical and counterproductive.

I was simply pointing out some serious redistribution of income. And, yes, it's unfortunate that it is designated to charities instead of back to the people who produced that wealth, but what are they going to do, throw it out of helicopters?

[JDPriestly]

72. "throw it out of helicopters?"

That's kind of what our current haphazard charities do.

If you know where to go, and if you are willing to grovel a bit and get in line to wait your turn, there may be some gravy left over for you if you can prove you are poor enough.

That's close to dropping help out of a helicopter.

A negative income tax would be a better way combined with more public housing mixed in with other housing and not ghettoized as well as meals on wheels and other places where people can eat for very little maybe by showing an ID they get based on their status as recipients in a negative income tax system.

Why not figure out how to distribute necessities efficiently.

Means-testing requires a bureaucracy that costs a lot of money.

[Hortensis]

93. And just getting to those lines may be onerous or effectively

impossible. My husband is a Meals on Wheels volunteer.

I like your point about charity increasing the social power of money. I hadn't thought about it in that direction, but of course it does. Here in the South it has even more power than where we used to live. Most of our neighbors really do believe money and lack of it are measures of a person's worthiness. They have other criteria, of course, but that's the one right up front for quick assessment and tends to rule.

Their comfort with inequality probably explains the humble willingness of people who could pay more to accept charity for updating their library or some such thing with gratitude. What I see as undignified and abrogating responsibility they see very, very differently, as evidence of a natural order at work.

[JDPriestly]

94. Meals on Wheels is relatively well run.

Thanks to your husband.

[historylovr]

70. Well said, as always.

[totodeinhere]

77. Contrary to sinking to the bottm it's on the greatest threads page.

As it should be.

[SusanaMontana41]

86. KICK!

[RufusTFirefly]

3. There's abundant evidence of that sad fact right here on this site. n/t

[historylovr]

7. Yep. nt

[truebluegreen]

33. Yup.

[wildbilln864]

4. you got that right!

Hmm, they look like two old buddies don't they. And they probably are.

[LiberalArkie]

17. They knew each other via Jackson Stephens when Bill was Governor.

[Tommymac]

85. GW calls Bill his brother from another mother. Seriously.

They have become best friends.

From Time Magazine:

George W. Bush Says Bill Clinton Is His ‘Brother From Another Mother'

[Juicy_Bellows]

5. Of course!

Very sad, very true.

People with a lot of money think money is more important than those with little money. Strange that.

[historylovr]

6. K & R

[Octafish]

8. They work with Phil Gramm at UBS.

"Wealth Management"

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

It is so rewarding to see such Buy Partisanship.

[BuelahWitch]

23. Phil Gramm, one of the architects behind the abolishment

of Glass-Steagall.

[Octafish]

71. It really is a small world.

Foreclosure Phil

Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown.

David Corn
MotherJones.com
May 28, 2008

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited—at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania.

But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.

It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork—far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."

Subprime 1-2-3

Don't understand credit default swaps? Don't worry—neither does Congress. Herewith, a step-by-step outline of the subprime risk betting game. —Casey Miner

CONTINUED…

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/foreclosure-phil

And very, very bad.

[jalan48]

9. Can anyone imagine Bernie Sanders hanging out with George Jr. like this?

It's sad to see how low Clinton has gone-Bush is a war criminal and here they are all lovey dovey together.

[hifiguy]

13. Not surprising, considering that Little Boots

considers the Clintons to be "honorary members" of the Bush Crime Family and thinks of HRH as "a sister-in-law."

[jalan48]

27. And the Hillary supporters are ok with this because?

[hifiguy]

28. They think, for some demented reason,

that HRH is infallible as well as "inevitable."

They are lining up and drinking the Kool-Aid with extraordinary fervor and blind belief.

[merrily]

38. Bernie can hang with anyone, but he would not push for the same or similar policies.

[jalan48]

42. I guess I just don't see him in a photo with George Jr. yucking it up.

[merrily]

45. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This one's worth double.

Carter won't get near Bubba, even for a historic photo op.

[CajunBlazer]

66. Oh for gosh sakes! Does that mean Obama is a....

conservative because he is lined up between the Poppa and Ding Dong Bush. You don't know some of you could tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative if it hit you in the face.

I'll tell you one thing, if Hillary wins the nomination we all better hope that she wins the general election because if the Democratic nominee doesn't win, the only thing standing between us and total conservative domination will be the fact that the Republicans probably won't have a super majority in the Senate.

Nothing wrong with being for Sanders, hey I like the guy, but you ought follow his example and stay positive about your choice for the democratic nomination and abstain from derogatory comments about other Democrats in the race. Don't take chance of losing war while trying to win the battle.

[merrily]

68. Huh? Posting a photo of Presidents means I can't tell a conservative from a liberal now?

And somehow that circa 2008 photo is about the 2016 Hillary-Saanders primary race?

Gee, with reasoning like that....

But, what am I going to believe? Your disconnected rant, or my own lying eyes?

https://www.quora.com/What-does-Jimmy-Carter-think-of-Bill-Clinton

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-felsenthal/jimmy-carter-and-bill-cli_b_94926.html

[LiberalArkie]

107. Or Jimmy Carter. You remember how he was snubbed.

[NRaleighLiberal]

11. of course they don't. "I've got mine, screw you" knows no party lines.

[Thespian2]

34. YES

What you said plus 1,000,000,000,000...

[hifiguy]

12. The one and only difference between most rich "Democrats"

and rich Repigs is that the rich "Democrats" can't abide and don't want to be seen with the jebus-wheezers. And that is IT.

[LiberalArkie]

14. And a rich white person is not racist to a rich back person, but to none rich blacks, now that is a

different story. Wealth overcomes everything. A lot of the wealthy have foundations where they and their family benefit.

[hifiguy]

29. A dear friend of mine in law school was from a VERY well-to-do

AA family in SoCal - movie and real estate money. He told me that his dad once told him "Son, if you have enough green they don't see the black."

Just repeating what he told me.

[LiberalArkie]

32. Or the immigrant status, or the yellow skin or red skin or even jail time.

"Just show me the financials"

[zentrum]

15. Agreed. But

……rich Democrats are sort of like the old Republican Party used to be on social issues, and will make slightly better nominations to the Supreme Court and that really matters.

Though without a Progressive economic policy, the social fabric falls apart anyway.

[cantbeserious]

16. Riddle Me This - How Could HRC Ever Feel The Pain Of The 99%

eom

[LiberalArkie]

19. She nor Bill never would be able to comprehend it.

[cantbeserious]

20. Roger That - HRC Represents The 1% First And Always - A Perfect 1% Stealth Canididate

eom

[99th_Monkey]

24. The Clintons ARE in top-tier of 1%-ers themselves as well. "CLINTONS’ INCOME TOPS 99.9% OF AMERICANS"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/top-1-try-top-01/

[hifiguy]

31. For someone who was 'dead broke' when Bubba left the WH in 2001

she has managed to amass about $1.5 million per year since then.

Net worth: $22 million Source: http://getnetworth.net/hillary-clinton-net-worth/

You don't make that kind of cash building houses for Habitat for Humanity and monitoring elections. You make it the old-fashioned way - by sucking up and selling yourself to TPTB.

[merrily]

39. See link at Reply 50 for info on Clinton finances.

[hifiguy]

44. Bubba's?

That is getting top dollar when you sell yourself to the highest bidder. And they got Chelsea safely married off to a hedge fund manager.

Guess they're set for life and the next few generations. No wonder Bubba and the Chimp are such bosom buddies.

[merrily]

50. I may have to edit that post. It seems closer to their combined INCOME that year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/07/30/5-million-50-million-or-even-more-just-how-rich-is-hillary-clinton-heres-why-we-dont-know/

[hifiguy]

54. WHAT?

Oh, Hillary, that shining tribune of the common folk.

Jebus riding a unicycle juggling fish.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

97. Hey now.

Watch how you speak about our 'champion'...

[pocoloco]

106. So broke they took the furniture with them,

but had to return it!

LOL

[pampango]

25. If FDR could comprehend it, I suspect Bill and Hillary could too. Whether they do or not is a more

subjective question.

[RufusTFirefly]

35. I suspect that FDR's poliomyelitis radically altered his outlook on life

Suddenly becoming "disadvantaged" may have given him empathy for others who had to endure various hardships. Also, it probably didn't hurt to have a relentless wife who had a powerful sense of social justice.

I could be wrong, but I see nothing similar in the biography of formerly "dead broke" Hillary Clinton.

[redruddyred]

88. yes

eleanor came from a wealthy background but was severely emotionally abused thru her early life. fdr did not treat her well either.
fdr was more privileged but the illness taught him empathy.
I don't have the same positive impression of tr or kennedy; TR worked from a different set of principles while kennedy was more imperialistic than we like to remember.

[merrily]

40. We don't know what motivated FDR. However, FDR never tried to play like he had no money.

[hifiguy]

55. Nor did his distant cousin Theodore.

[JDPriestly]

64. Teddy Roosevelt and the Kennedys were wealthy but also

Understood poverty. Some very poor people are incredibly greedy.

That is not the issue in my book.

I view it as how do we organize our wealthy society so that our basic needs, those of all of us, are met, so that is a priority.

I know very generous wealthy people. And some of them will give away lots of money and then turn right around and evict some poor family because the dad lost his job and could not pay the rent. We can do better than that.

Having a sense of equality with others may be more important than generosity. Being able to understand the human right to material dignity may be more of a key and to issues of race and gendgender not just with regard to money.

Compassion is the key.

[Fred Sanders]

46. All 99% are not in pain. And 99% means an annual income of under 389K*.Broad brush painting

makes for poor evidence for outrage.

*corrected

[cantbeserious]

48. Know Thy Enemy - Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks - And Their MIC, Media And Political Minions

eom

[Fred Sanders]

49. Who are not the young students still in college included in this single social study.

Obama graduated Harvard law school, Kerry - Yale and Boston College.

[cantbeserious]

51. And Your Point Is

eom

[Fred Sanders]

52. You first.

[cantbeserious]

57. Not Taking Your Bait

eom

[merrily]

69. Too facile and too low. On income alone, it's $389,000 per annum. (And 50% are below $52,000)

However, income alone is not the determinant. Wealth is a factor as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/

[Marr]

91. ^ Exhibit A for the title of this thread.

[Fred Sanders]

103. The title of the thread is based on a false premise. Folks want to go with it, be my guest.

Lots of non-Democratic Party members are critical of the party and use false premise, which I have already proven.

[SoapBox]

21. Ugh.

No more Bush and No more Clinton.

[SammyWinstonJack]

74. +1000000

[marym625]

22. Tell me, over and over and over and over again

You don't believe we're on the eve of destruction

2011 updated version

[RufusTFirefly]

41. Are you a misogynist, mary? Or simply a hater? Which one is it?

Rufus T. Firefly (speaking to the recently widowed Mrs. Teasdale): Will you marry me? Did he leave you any money? Answer the second question first.

[redruddyred]

89. are you really groucho marx? will you marry me?

answer the first one first

[PowerToThePeople]

26. Duh.

I do not call them Democrats.

[jkbRN]

30. Those would be the dems that are bankrolling HRC

Sad days.

[merrily]

43. It's not only the bankrolling. It's things like the media, the debate schedule, claiming

that no one should challenge her in the primary--which was happening from 2012 until a few months ago, etc. It's all part of the undemocratic pattern around this primary and it's not pretty.

[treestar]

47. But there are in favor of a social safety net for the poor

"income equality" is a different proposition. Republicans don't care about that and don't want any social safety net.

[Shandris]

56. I offer this only in the spirit of consideration, but why do you think that the...

...wealthiest Democrats know one single, solitary bit more than a wealthy Republican about what 'the disadvantaged' go through? Even if I assume that they actually do 'believe in a social safety net' (and I don't, but assuming I did), how would they even know what a safety net looks like, having never been in a situation to need...well...safety?

I'm certain there's the (very, exceedingly, almost mythical) rare example who defies this rule, but that only reinforces the rule itself.

[Fred Sanders]

59. You have to have been "poor" to understand anything about the poor and therefore can not fashion

political, monetary or social policy that might assist the poor over the wealthy?

How does that work?

[Shandris]

62. Yes, as a matter of fact you do.

There are things that you do not know that you are not aware that you do not know. Being aware of those things is something that generally only happens when you have to encounter them, and that only happens when you're poor (or, very rarely, when you're directly caring for someone who is that poor and unable to do so for themselves, like in the case of Power of Attorney).

So yes. The wealthy can not make policy worth one damn concerning those of us down here. They never have, and experience tells me they never will.

((Note: All uses of 'you' in this post are meant in the general, and not to the poster.))

[treestar]

83. As long as they want a decent social safety net

They don't have to understand what it's like. At least they are willing to pay taxes for the safety net.

[TeddyR]

53. What do you mean by "income inequality"?

I'm trying to understand the proposition in the context of a free market/capitalist economy. What's the solution, assuming that we aren't going to devolve to communism? I'm not naïve enough to think that everyone has equal opportunity, but I also don't think that we should take money from those who have worked for it and distribute it to others.

[99th_Monkey]

60. It's called taxing the very rich, at much higher rates, like we had w/ the Eisenhower Administration

It's not rocket science. It's not like we haven't done that before. Hell, Ike was a Republican, and
he favored the rich paying their fair share, giving back to the society that helped make them rich. And
it's no coincidence that back in the 50's - 60's we had a strong middle-class, and a robust economy.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

[TeddyR]

65. Why would you tax the very rich

At a higher rate than the sort of rich, or the not so rich? I understand and support the "rich" - whatever that might be - paying a somewhat higher tax, but I'm not convinced they should pay "much higher rates." Isn't the "fair share" of the rich the same percentage as the not so rich? I mean, we aren't soviet Russia, right?

[hifiguy]

67. It's called progressive taxation,

and it was the law of the land from the Thirties until Zombie King Raygun. It worked.

[gollygee]

79. Progressive taxation = Soviet Russia?

Really?

[geek tragedy]

102. We are not Soviet Russia, and this is not a Republican website.

Perhaps you should keep that in mind the next time you voice your agreement with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul om basic economic policy, using their hyper shrill comparisons to the Soviet Union.

Or, better yet, go back to the Gun group where your rightwing ideology is a better fit.

[gollygee]

75. "those who have worked for it"

I've got to call bullshit on that. The super rich did not work for it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

99. Do you think that anyone can really 'earn' a billion dollars a year?

That what any one person does is even really 'worth' a hundred million dollar salary? When you look at millions of people working their guts out day in and day out, working when sick, working in pain, and getting 8 or 10 bucks an hour, is there anything that anyone else can do that is truly 'worth' earning thousands of dollars an hour? Or is it simply that our capitalistic system is so seriously warped that people are given ridiculous amounts of money for doing very little, merely because they interact with the flow of incredible amounts of money?

And if you can understand why it's ridiculous that we allow a system to give thousands of dollars an hour to people for shuffling papers or throwing a ball around, can you then maybe understand why we might want to turn around and 'take money from those who have worked for it' and spend it on those who work a hell of a lot harder, but are paid a pittance?

[Uncle Joe]

58. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, 99th Monkey.

[leveymg]

73. And, who went to Yale Law School? Hint:

It wasn't the selfish guy on the right who didn't even have the brains to set up a foundation for himself and his wife and child.

[Fred Sanders]

104. Jealously is a green eyed monster, and threads like this are good evidence of that truth.

I for one do not begrudge the Clintons or the Obamas earned wealth through years and years of higher education and hard work and obvious sacrifice.

Isn't that the American Dream? Why the potty mouths in the thread over individual success??

These folks could make a LOT more money than the salary of a Presidento of the Free World.

Folks are being ridiculously blind.

[DFW]

115. Someone ought to recall under what circumstances Bill Clinton and Barack Obama grew up

Bill Clinton says, "I've been poor and I've been rich and I like rich better." No one bought their way into law school, or, in Clinton's case, a Rhodes scholarship. I get the argument that they may have lost sight of their origins since (validity of that argument is another thing), but putting either in the same social strata as the Bush family is just factually wrong. Both have seen and lived on the other side of the tracks.

[orpupilofnature57]

76. Republican Lites, not Democrats .

[RKP5637]

78. Yep, when it comes to $$$$$$'s often R = D = I. n/t

[cheapdate]

80. There might some truth in this study, but a "group of Yale Law students"

is not necessarily a perfect stand-in for fully-grown, mature, financially successful individuals who support Democratic policies.

[99th_Monkey]

81. I know

if the "study's" results weren't so consistent with what we see with 3rd Way, DLC, Blue Dogs, et al. then
I'd be skeptical too, of the 'study's veracity.

But as some have commented on this OP ... "Duh" . and "water is wet". etc.

[cheapdate]

82. Income inequality is a hugely important issue.

The rich won't allow serious changes without a fight.

[99th_Monkey]

84. And last I checked, the fight is on

thanks to Bernie's incredible courage to stand in the breach and say "hell no. enough is enough. Who's with me?"

bless his big heart.

[Marr]

92. I wish the dialogue were about *wealth* inequality rather than *income* inequality.

The truly wealthy don't have what most of think of as an 'income'.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

100. +everything. nt

[cheapdate]

108. 100% agree with you.

[sabrina 1]

87. Voters figured that out quite a while ago. See the poll numbers for both Political Parties. And see

the rise in registered Independents.

[Recursion]

95. And Americans care little about global income inequality

Human nature.

[GoneFishin]

98. For people who are both Democrats and also Wealthy Privileged Elites, to which group do you

think their stronger allegiance will be?

[daleanime]

101. Bookmarked

I want to go over that study later, I'm curious about the way it was set up.

[TM99]

105. Not surprising in the least.

Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

And this explains why I see the current New Dem leadership is not all that different from the GOP leadership.

When it comes to economic justice, they both say NO!

The difference between the two?

When it comes to social justice, the GOP says NO, and the New Dems say yes, but with caveats. As long as social justice does not involve economic justice, then we are fine with it especially if a change in position leads to more votes.

But that is the deal, you just can't separate social and economic justice. At its core, institutionalized racism must be fought on both fronts.

Traditional Dems know this. That is one very important reason Sanders is surging.

[99th_Monkey]

110. +10 nt

[whereisjustice]

109. These people care very deeply... you'll have to excuse me, sniff... about the injustice of it all

Please people, stop calling them rich. It's just a slur. They are facing severe challenges doing simple every day tasks like finding places to hide all their money.



?v=1398689053

?quality=80&w=840

[99th_Monkey]

111. Just "everyday people", in a pigs eye. n/t

[StarzGuy]

112. The Gated Community Elete...

...will never know what a life is like for someone like me; nor will they ever care. If I had the wherewithal to move to a democratic socialist country I would move. However, I'm stuck in the US where economic inequality is the norm and will never change.

[99th_Monkey]

114. "will never change"?

Don't you think we should do absolutely everything we can to elect Bernie,
and see if we CAN change it?

We all know it's going to be a tough fight, but a fight well worth fighting, no?

[Rex]

113. People that pay attention noticed the country go from regulated capitalism to plutocracy.

They just can't do much about it, but they do notice. The PTB do their best to pretend nothing unusual is going on and in the DC Bubble you can do that. Mainstreet, not at all.

People pay attention, only idiots think they get away with smoke and mirrors bullcrap on the corporate infotainment channels.