I think the Occupy movement should definitely make this issue about race. This is a great way to win supporters from the mainstream, an excellent method of inspiring otherwise-uncertain people to jump over the fence and join the Occupy movement. There is no way it will backfire and turn people off. No way at all.
You base that on what?
Then, you mean it (Buckley v. Valeo) should not be overturned?
Not at all. Welcome to the class struggle, brother.
There doesn’t have to be one, as such. But different classes with their own interests – sometimes in common, sometimes in conflict – are real enough.
Spending and electorate power, even in the money race AARP is in the top 10 every year.
Lobbyists
Pacs
I am missing the point of this are you claiming that NAR, AARP, IEBW and NRA are ineffectual?
For reference, here are the cutoffs:
1% >= $510,000
5% >= $220,000
10% >= $160,000
But it’s not working. The upper middle class graduates of Ivy’s and other elite colleges working in Manhattan law firms, investment banks and professional services firms do not, by and large, identify with the guys banging drums out in Zuccotti Park.
The problem has nothing to do with income level. If I study hard, go to a good school, work 70+ hours a week at a job for 15 years, why shouldn’t I be earning $150,000 a year? What does that have to do with how much some waitress earns in Nebraska?
Do Hispanic-males-whose-fathers-were-immigrants-from-Central-America-whose-childhood-homes-had-dirt-floors make up the same proportion of the 5% as they do of the general population?
Buckley v. Valeo upheld the campaign contributions limitations. That is what should be overturned.
Should they?
Why not?
What about in the opposite direction…1%, .01%, .001%…:eek:
Who’s implicated then?
Well, if you substitute ‘Mexico’ for ‘Central-America’ then I’d fit into that category…which would mean that posters to this thread constitute around 5%. 
I think that OWSers, in general, have a lot of understanding challenges, but I doubt this is one of them. Personally, what I think they fail to grasp is that Wall Street™ isn’t the real problem…the problem is in Washington, regardless of whether you are a conservative or a liberal. Any real changes, if any, are going to happen there. I don’t know what to tell you about the vast, white/rich overclass, other than to get out more and stop frequenting the kinds of web sites you seem to enjoy. Dwarf porn is really the key.
No, to win, what progressives need to do is to appeal to the vast, mixed up moderate/middle ground voters, and get them fired up about voting for progressives and progressive political agendas. THAT would be useful. Trying to combat some shadowy white overclass is both futile and makes folks seem a bit, well, crazy. Like those guys who mutter to themselves on the subway. If you are into conspiracy theories, try lizard porn as an alternative, and embrace you new leather wearing, tail swishing, toothy overlords!
-XT
All kinds of reasons. Lower family support for education, lower expectations for their children, family history causing lower ambition, worse nutrition… I am sure you can think of many others. If you’re born poor, there are disadvantages. But they can be overcome.
Well, it’s a question of which progressive political agendas.
Abortion? Gay rights? Feminism? Doing quite well, thanks.
A living wage? Redistribution of wealth? Less well.
'Ere now, you had dirt! God, we’d have loved to have dirt, all we had was lava gravel with shards of feldspar and uranium mine debris. And damned lucky to have it!
Cite?
So, you are saying that Hispanic-males-whose-fathers-were-immigrants-from-Central-America-whose-childhood-homes-had-dirt-floors will end up disproportionately poor, in large part because society has failed them? (I can’t think of a better description of society failing an individual then to hear about an American who didn’t receive proper nutrition because his father was a poor immigrant).
Also, your explanation of why children of poor immigrants will tend to remain poor sounds like the description of a culture that must, mathematically, become increasingly stratified over time.
Where did I say “because society has failed them”?
Ah so you think the society should provide “proper nutrition” to everyone. What about housing, clothing, and entertainment? Equipment such as computers, cell phones and game consoles? Is that your model of a society that doesn’t “fail” its citizens?
Only if the society “failed” to teach you mathematics.
When you said that one of the reasons they were disproportionately poor was poor nutrition.
Do you think that society shouldn’t help children receive proper nutrition? Do you think that if we give starving people food, then next thing they’ll be asking for game consoles, so better to let them go hungry?
A society that lets its children become malnourished is pretty much a failure in my eyes, yes.
Cool, you can teach me mathematics, then. Explain to me how a society in which the poor remain disproportionately poor won’t become increasingly stratified. I look forward to your response.