I couldn’t tell you the exact cause of the increase in income inequality, either. It may be a combination of all the things I mentioned and more. To the extent that government policy has played a role, I think people are justifiably angry that their government, which is supposed to represent everyone equally, has passed laws which favored one group over another. And those that were favored are a small minority of the population, and the ones who least needed to be helped.
I read a short article about how Donald Trump has been chosen to moderate an upcoming debate among the Republican candidates. It said each one had already met with him privately, or were planning to do so. Think I could get Newt, Mitt, et al., to drop by my place for a little one-on-one chat? Neither do I.
I do believe that rich CEOs act just as entitled, to their stock options and golden parachutes, as any Occupy protester does to a job. Didn’t hear that in Carolla’s rant, either.
Which laws? What should we repeal? Seriously, help me out here. What is the remedy you envision? What policy or law was the problem, and what should change?
I sincerely hope you find the time to brush off the ol’ dictionary then, because none of those words I used have anything to do with being hateful. Well, perhaps abrasive comes close, but it is still a far cry from hateful.
You mean Citizens United, not Citizens vs. United.
Also, that was a case involving whether or not the government had the write to ban a documentary critical of a powerful politician running for election during the election season.
Are you saying that you think the government has the right to ban books and films critical of politicians as the plaintiffs in the case argued?
If so, does that mean you felt that the FEC should have banned Fahrenheit 911 during the 2004 election season for violating McCain-Feingold?
I’m glad you brought that up, for the cause you need look no further than conservatives drive to limit bank regulation. The OWS crowd is pissed at the entire clusterfuck.
Evil Captor and BPC have a list started already. I’ll give it some thought to see if I agree with their choices or have any to add, but let’s work with what we’ve got so far.
Socialism is an economic model that works in many successful countries, I’d love to hear why proposing it is treason. But rest assured, that is not what they are saying. Cherry picking clowns at a Tea Party rally would bring me to a similar conclusion, do you believe that movement is treasonous?
Like I said, it’s much easier for you to denigrate the people than confront their argument.
ETA: Do you know what ‘jingoistic’ means?
Okay, but please include how the items on the list will reduce income inequality. I’m not looking for some irrefutable syllogism, but I’m not seeing how the inventory changes what people get as income, how it shifts the percentages around. Some items on the list could well change what people get to keep, I suppose. And some, like increasing capital gains taxes, tend to reduce overall tax revenue, BTW.
Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research recently came out with a new book, The End of Loser Liberalism that goes into a good bit of detail about how government policies have redistributed wealth upwards over the last thirty years. He shows the effects of government policies on income distribution in ways that aren’t as obvious as taxes and wealth transfers. It’s a pretty good read on those issues. And it’s available as a free download at the link.
It’s kind of ludicrous to claim that we have a set of rules in this country, and that since everybody operates in the same environment, the outcomes they get must be fair. After all, it’s all the same rulebook! If a CEO makes millions, well, that’s the rules, become a CEO if you don’t like it. If a guy gets cancer and doesn’t have insurance, well, that’s the rules, instead of complaining about the rule get yourself some insurance. If there’s a rule that says capital gains get taxed at a lower rate than other income, well, that’s the rule, instead of complaining about the rule get yourself some capital gains and join the party. Tired of politicians granting special favors for the rich and connected, the answer is to become rich and connected yourself and get your own special favors instead of complaining.
Except, why exactly is income earned from capital gains taxed at a lower rate than income earned from cleaning toilets, or playing basketball? We want to encourage capital investment? Except after the last two decades we’re awash in capital. Money for capital investment is everywhere, the problem is they can’t find business enterprises worth investing in. So why exactly do we need to subsidize capital gains?
And on and on. There are dozens of common sense things that can be done to improve our situation, yet the answer is that things are perfect the way they are. This is America dammit, and change is impossible!
What a great idea! At the same time, I might as well get some cake as well, right? You really do seem a bit out of touch about what the majority of people are going through at the moment. Out of work? Worried about feeding your family? Laid off by a company that is sitting on piles of cash? Just get yourself some capital gains and you’ll be golden!
I’m not sure I can lay out an exact, point-by-point prediction of what effect each of those items would have. I’m also not sure why I should have to. When provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed, or the Bush tax cuts enacted, were there exact predictions on how those laws would change income distribution? What was the case for passing them, and whose interests have they turned out to serve?
I admit that I don’t have the education in economics or public policy, nor the divine foresight, to answer your question directly. That’s partly what politicians are for. I would like them to make the case for how they are serving my interests. I don’t expect them to cater to me, or my income strata, exclusively, but I don’t care to be neglected, either.
That said, I’ll have to find time to read that link waterj2 posted.
Well this is an old argument of conservatives and easily countered: they are saying essentially that if you don’t like some aspect of society, instead of countering it in the public arena, you should try to adjust yourself to whatever social conditions exist. It’s a false dichotomy, there’s no reason in the world why you can’t do both.
For example, suppose you are unemployed and are having a hard time finding a job. You feel that the recent economic unpleasantness is responsible for a great deal of the difficulty you are finding. Conservatives would say just shut up and redouble your efforts at finding a job. But there’s no reason you can’t speak out, support Occupy Wall Street in any number of ways, even participate, and still look for a job personally. In fact, that is undoubtedly a socially responsible way of responding to your situation: seek to better your situation on your personal level and at the same time seek to better the situation at the societal level, too.
That particular argument of conservatives is purest bullshit.
Not looking for some sort of irrefutable syllogism. Just some explanation. I don’t see how Glass-Steagall changes the distribution of income at all, for example. That’s not what it did. It was intended to reduce undue risks in certain economic markets. There are good arguments for re-instituting this, but minimizing income inequality isn’t one of them.
Raising taxes seems to be the only direct option. But if a large portion of the “inequality” is associated with business income, do we really see that as a sound strategy when unemployment is hovering around 9%? And the top 1% already pays 35 - 40% of Federal income taxes; the top 10% pays about 70%; the top 25% pays 85 - 90%. At what point do we discard the canard that the rich need to “pay their fair share”? If we need more money, we need more money. But the affluent already pay most Federal income taxes, almost all of it.
Glass-Steagall, or the repeal of part of it in 1999? I would say the repeal allowed people to make riskier, higher-yield investments with, as it turned out, no actual risk involved. I suppose it opened up that opportunity to everyone, but those with money to invest were the only ones who could take advantage.
Lower taxes create jobs, is that what you’re saying?
And yet they have more money than their counterparts from a generation ago. They could afford to pay more with no loss of buying power or standard of living, they just wouldn’t be gaining as fast as they have been. Everyone seems to agree that getting out of our budget deficit will require sacrifice; so what have the top 1% been asked to sacrifice?