Since we have anti-trust laws in place to take care of those situations, I’m not sure why those would “count”. We’re talking here anout additional measures needed to be taken because the “problem” posited in the OP. If you think we need to strengthen anti-trust laws, that would be a different debate, would it not?
All debate aside:
- Iceland
- United States
[Nelson Muntz]Ha-Ha![/NM] 
Now, if you’d excuse me, I have an earthquake to catch…
If this were true, we would all be living our lives under the direction of the Hollywood elite activist (not that they don’t try, just saying all their wealth and media access still couldn’t ge it done).
While the rich may be able to get more media access in a personal nature, that’s not always true. How many times does the media show you close up scenes of some protest making it look like a huge crowd when in reality, it wasn’t.
However, when it comes to the actual voting, all out votes all still counted the same.
In a way we are talking about the future… not the near future of course. How far I don’t know. The founding fathers seem to have made the “rules” to last quite a while… but its been a while already. It will be a bit late when its already a “plutocracy”. To just trust the “system” and live on… ?
You don’t need to correct anything btw… you just need public awareness and therefore “popular” opposition to what might be political practices that promote corporation and government being in bed with one another too much… or moves that effectively take power away from “voting”.
Xtisme… even if there is no zero sum game… which is probable… the fact that the Richer are become even more richer means that disparities in “political purchasing” power will be even more extreme in the long term. The US will be even more like Brazil where the poor have the big number of votes… and the rich have the campaign funds. The middle class is taken along for the ride.
(The stratified society is a “future” scenario btw)
Just to add a note… I don’t think things are “bad” just because some are richer than others… but if current trends continue for a long time do you really beleive that things will stay the same even if a very small minority control ever larger portions of wealth ? I just can’t see how this won’t have some real impact on society and politics. (positive or negative)
But to think that very extreme wealth concentration is par for the course… hmmm…
JM: Most economists agree that the middle class is FAST DISAPPERING? Do you really believe that? Wesley Clark talks about the problem of home ownership, and yet according to Census data, home ownership in the US has been increasing, not decreasing-- from about 63% in the 1960s to about 68% in recent years.
But from what I’ve read, the increase in overall home ownership mostly reflects the fact that the US population is ageing.
In other words, it’s taking people longer and longer to be able to afford (or inherit) a house—but since the population as a whole is getting older, more of us are reaching that homeowning phase of life.
However, home ownership rates for younger segments of the population show a different trend:
The demographic change is reflected in the decline of younger householders in general—not just those with children—as a percentage of homeowners:
It’s certainly an exaggeration to say that the middle class is “fast disappearing” (well, depending on how you define “fast”, at least), but it seems pretty clear that the middle class is losing ground economically, with lower average income, higher housing/healthcare/education costs, increased debt, and increased dependency on two breadwinners per family.
Why would we not consider this a problem?
I’m with BrainGlutton on this one, although I’m finding it difficult to justify why. It’s not that I’m so foolish as to believe in forced equality, but I do see an increasing disparity as a problem.
Let’s try this: what is actually gained by allowing the large and growing wealth disparity we’re talking about here? I’m not talking about his Kim Stanley Robinson example of a 100x cap. I’m talking about a naeuseatingly large, uncapped disparity. What type of behavior does it lead to? Does it lead to a society one would want to live in? It seems to me that most everyone is OK with laws that are meant to encourage certain society-friendly behavior (e.g., lower taxes on married couples). What’s different in the case of unchecked wealth disparity?
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
Total taxpayer investment in K-12 education in the United States for the 2003-04 school year is estimated to exceed $501.3 billion…Even in this current time of war, taxpayer investment in education exceeds that for national defense. In addition to the K-12 money mentioned above, taxpayers will spend an estimated $350.8 billion for higher education in the same school year
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/governments/002939.html
with Social Security alone totaling $509 billion
http://www.eriposte.com/health/other/healthcare_US.htm
In the US we spend about 45% of healthcare spending as public money. We spent 1.8 trillion in 2004 so that is 810 billion in state funded healthcare.
So when you combine those 3 things you end up with about 2.170 trillion spent by the government on healthcare education and social security. None of these services is used by the rich by and large. The wealthy have private pensions, private healthcare and private colleges and k-12 schools. So even though the wealthy have alot of sway in the US, they also spend tons of money on services they will never use. When you add in other services like unemployment, food stamps (not that I am against these things I am just making a point) there may be 2.5+ trillion spent in the US on things that do not apply to the rich but that the rich still pay for.
So to say that the rich have somehow manipulated the system to make it work for them doesn’t add up, the richest 1-5% are paying about 60-70% (a guess) of the taxes and not getting many benefits back from doing it, the income goes to the poor, working class & middle class.
In retrospect the wealthy still get social security and medicare so those do not count. But they generally do not get unemployment, AFDC or a variety of other small programs (pell grants, etc) that can add up to hundreds of billions if you put them together. The point is if the rich owned the US they wouldn’t spend so much money on services that will never get to them.
Yea, they wouldn’t try to privatize social security or drop taxes and cut social programs or any- hey, wait, yes they would! And did!
2% of the 12.4% we pay into social security would get privatized, so its not like SS privatization is taking over SS, it would make up 1/6th of it.
Secondly, the wealthy still pay for services they never use, if the wealthy truly had superpowers in running america that would not be the case. Politicians are elected by votes, and the poor, working class and middle class greatly outnumber the wealthy, so the wealthy pay for services that go to the poor and middle class.
No, that is due to the people called “Democrats” who believe - get this - that social programs help against social problems like poverty, crime, etc.
If the poor and middle classes had the voting power, then why does so much of the budget go into pork barrel programs? We don’t even know what those programs ARE. The media quietly ignores them. Wonder why that is.
:rolleyes: That’s because even more rich people backed the Pub ticket. Bush had more than a two-to-one funding advantage.
Never, so far as I know. Do you have any examples?
The toppling of Saddam’s statue. But I doubt that’s the kind of example that *flickster wants brought up…
It’s misleading* to state it that way. And it’s just plain bad math to use these figures to arrive at your figure of “about 2.170 trillion spent by the government on healthcare education and social security.” In American political discourse, when we say “the government” without further qualification we always mean the federal government – which has sole responsibility for Social Security, but not for education or health care. According to your cite, federal spending makes up an almost negligible fraction of total education funding. See table at http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#2. The current federal budget, out of a total of $2.35 trillion, allocates $423 billion for defense, $248 billion for health, $293 billion for Medicare (a separate line item from “health,” for some reason), and a total of $91 billion for “education, training, employment and social services.” Social Security comes to $516 billion. Oh, and $177 billion for “net interest.” (Look for that last figure to go up a lot in future budgets.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process.
*Rush Limbaugh, on September 18, 2003, declared that the federal budget allocated $745 billion on education and only $300 billion on defense. That’s not misleading, it’s just a plain lie. See Misstating the State of the Union by mediamatters.org (Akashic Books 2004), pp. 84-85.
It is not default that people mean the federal government when they refer to taxes. I am referring to state, federal and local governments. If wealth inequality caused the rich to run the governments unfairly why would they pay large amounts in taxes for services that they do not use?
How did I mislead anyone? Nowhere did I say ‘just federal’ in my original post.
Much of k-12 education is (as far as I know) paid for locally with things like property taxes. The wealthy pay more on a per capita basis for property taxes since they live in bigger houses but they send their kids to private school and private college insted of public ones. They also pay 2.9% of their income to medicare and still have private insurance when they retire.
Yeah right. Democrats are sellouts just like republicans. When Clinton ‘reformed’ welfare democrats cheered while people had their safety net ripped apart. Even today democratic yesmen like Begala and Carville brag about Clinton ending welfare as we know it, totally indifferent to whether it helped or hurt people.
I am all for a social safety net, to me that is one of the major functions of a government. But if the rich had disproportionate amounts of power in the US state, federal and local governments then why do they pay huge amounts of taxes for things they do not use? They send their kids to private schools and private colleges but still pay about 1/2 of that $850 billion in taxes for education. They do not use medicare or medicad or ADFC or any of the programs designed to help the poor but they still pay over half of the 1 trillion+ those programs cost.
http://www.progress.org/tcs62.htm
PORK BARREL SPENDING GROWS Pork-barrel spending hit a record $18.5 billion last year, according to the latest annual report by the watchdog organization Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).
If an organization designed to find pork barrel spending can only find $18.5 billion of it then that is not a whole lot. That could just be (dammit) federal spending, maybe state pork barrel spending is higher I do not know.
Either way, the food stamp budget alone is higher than $18.5 billion.
http://www.frac.org/html/news/budget020602.htm
Food Stamps
The budget assumes that in 2003 the program will serve up to 20.6 million people at a cost of approximately $20.3 billion in benefits.
Food stamps do not benefit the rich, but the rich still pay for them (assuming the rich pay 60% of taxes since they have 60% of income, as a guess).