True or False? The top 1% is at war with at least the bottom 80% of society economically

[AZ Progressive]

[LongTomH]

1. Totally true!

[Hortensis]

88. Nope. It's the top 0.1 to 0.01%, the "invisible" class

because they live lives we literally cannot imagine in ultra wealthy enclaves we never see but pay to maintain. Our public facilities that are also used by them have special entries that we paid for just for them, and special lounges, so they need never associate with us.

As Warren Buffet put it, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Our image of the very very rich — MacMansions, only scaled up; nice cars, only pricier; like us, but with more toys — is very very wrong. It’s also one reason we haven’t had a class revolt since the New Deal era. ... You and me, we live in a city. People like Chris Rock live in a city and get to travel a lot. Real Money lives in the world, everywhere, all of it. And most are loyal to none of it.

These people control most aspects of public life. Whether you live poorly or well, you work so they can be richer. You’re fired when they want you fired. You’re killed — in their wars; by their poisons; by their unaffordable health care system; by your poverty; by their police — when they want you to die.

Like fish in water, you live with their greed every day. You watch their propaganda (we call it “entertainment”). You vote for their candidates. Their touch and reach is everywhere, yet they’re invisible to us. The key to their destruction is to expose their lives to view.
Bill Moyers

And, of course, we can eliminate these entire classes any time enough of us want to. It's not that we don't have power. It's that we don't use it.

[MrMickeysMom]

2. If money were ammunition, I'd say it's an attempt at massive extinction to the under-class

Truth to power is the return ammunition.

[anotherproletariat]

52. Because the 1% doesn't want anyone to clean their houses, mow their lawn, cook and serve them at

restaurants, make their consumer goods? Heck, most 1% employ the bottom economic tiers...why on earth would they want to get rid of them?

[timmymoff]

58. They don't want them fully eliminated.

Just poor enough to have to continue working for them. Keep them in a bind so the upward climb or out is harder.

[MrMickeysMom]

99. Yeah, more that that ^

[dreamnightwind]

61. Yes, and there are some who think this is their solution to climate change

Eliminate the masses, there are plenty of resources for the Earth to support the chosen ones. Especially considering a new wave of automation is on the horizon, so the will need fewer workers.

I hesitate to put this out there, but I have long thought their plans are along these lines. They aren't stupid, so I'm assuming they actually have plans for mitigating climate change, but at this late date, with this little motion towards reforming our energy footprint, I don't see any path in place that will lead to a sustainable future for anywhere near the number of people currently on this planet.

It's possible, though, that greed and a system with a lot of momentum making it hard to change, are the better explanation for no substantive action on climate change. Let's hope so.

[MrMickeysMom]

100. This would remind me of another phenomenon where people don't matter...

I think we all can recall Madeline Albright being asked if the collateral damage - death of women and elderly and children were worth it...

You see in the end, it justifies their means. Some people have to "go"...

[reddread]

3. and each other to some degree

a few issues on the table with telecom and entertainment megaconglomerates and global trade.

we aint on the agenda except for doing the work and being squeezed dry daily.

[Recursion]

4. So absurdly simplistic that it can't be called true or false

That's a bumper sticker, not an analysis.

[Schema Thing]

6. Warren Buffett says it's absolutely true, and that his side is winning.

I personally see it happening in many ways, not all simplistic to relate, but all boiling down to: they get the money from everyone else. That's war.

[Recursion]

7. Name a metric by which the bottom 80% are worse off today than 25 years ago

If "the 1%" are waging a war against the rest of us, they seem to be doing a very bad job.

[reddread]

12. .

[Recursion]

13. That chart tells me nothing

We also saw a huge increase in the number of people going to college, both for demographic and economic reasons. Is per capita student debt up, and if so how much?

[Prism]

70. Dude, just admit when you're wrong

Jesus H. You asked a simple question. "In what way are people worse off now?" Student debt is like Example Fucking A in how the next generation is getting screwed. And you won't even recognize that.

If you don't care because it doesn't affect you, just say so, and save us all the pretense that you're some kind of evidence-based concerned citizen. Then you don't have to type it and no one has to read it. It saves all of us time!

No one cares about your pretending to be liberal positions. No one's even remotely fooled, and certainly no one cares in the slightest except for you.

[Recursion]

71. WTF are you talking about? I agree student debt is one way we're worse off

It's still a bad chart to make that point with.

[Prism]

72. Oh for fuck's sake.

Your question: "Name a metric by which the bottom 80% are worse off today than 25 years ago"

You were shown.

You still bitched about it. Have to go four degrees of privileged neckbeard, "Well this chart, manha manha manha . . . ."

It's fine that you don't care. I don't care if you do. It's the pretense that's obnoxious.

And the fact that you didn't have even that example accessible in the forefront of your noggin tells me all I need to know about how concerned you are about anything at all. That you couldn't think of, on your own, one example where 80% of the population was getting absolutely soaked, says that you don't give the subject much thought at all.

But I bet you self-identify as liberal still. For some bizarre reason.

Great, you're not Trump.

It's a fucking low bar.

[Recursion]

74. Awesome, we agree student debt is a way we're worse off

Hell, I'll even throw out my list of ways things are worse:

student debt
climate change
incarceration
inequality
infrastructure maintenance
reliance on fossil fuels (this ties in with #2 but deserves its own bullet point)
healthcare costs

As well as the ways things are better:

wages and income for middle and working class Americans
debt-to-income ratios
employment rates
working-age labor participation rates
personal crime
poverty
homelessness
the race and gender income gaps are smaller now

This isn't some simple level you can pull. We've seen the poverty rate decreasing as inequality increased, for instance; that's actually been pretty much the pattern since the early 1990s (except for 2009-2011 when both increased). Does that mean undoing the inequality would undo the reduction in poverty? No idea, but I'd rather find out before I took on inequality as a target in itself worth addressing. If you had to pick a time to live in the US it's not remotely clear that there would be a "better" time than now; which was my original complaint about the absurd oversimplification of the OP.

[Prism]

79. Now blend those two lists together

You can do it with a little bit of effort, and you can see how the various statistics relate and are massaged to provide a certain narrative.

I'll help you with one example.

African American employment rates vs African American incarceration from the 1990s to today.

Guess how those numbers relate to one another?

And I can't even figure how you figured labor participation rates. Even accounting for the aging out of labor participants due to Baby Boomer retirement, the discouraged worker segment remains historically high (and that even allowing for people who retired earlier than they wanted to due to the recession and anemic recovery).

And then there's household debt vs. disposable income. While it has improved over the last four years, it is far worse than it historically has been over the past 30 years.

Anyone on the ground would know this. I know this. I work in social services. I see the crunch on both the state budget and the increase in struggling families living in poverty. I was just hanging out in the main reception of Social Services on Thursday, noting how crazily crowded the waiting area was. I've been doing this for about five years now, and not only are we dealing with an unusual amount of elderly and disabled, but we are seeing more and more blatantly unemployed and priced out families needing basic necessities as the economy increasingly closes to them.

Google all the massaged charts you like to explain to people why they're so much better off these days.

Then lecture them all about it.

I'm sure they'll much appreciate it as they attempt to feed their kids. Lucky you, this is just a dishonest intellectual exercise on a message board. Super neat for you. Thanks for all you contribute.

[Recursion]

80. Huh? Discouraged workers are 0.3%, which is an historic low

I have no idea how that talking point get embedded so deeply in the DU psyche, but the discouraged worker rate is very low right now:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

U-3 is 5.0%, U-4 is 5.3%, meaning 0.3% of the labor force are discouraged workers. 0.6% used to be considered "good".

[Prism]

85. I don't think you know how to read these graphs

You're looking at the U3 vs the U4. But the actual measurement of unemployment and underemployment is the U3 vs the U6.

Or, rather, I think you do know how to read this, and you're seeking out the best interpretation that accommodates your prejudicial judgement of the situation.

The U6 has been pretty variable. Right now, it's the best it's been since 2008, however, it was as low as 7.1% in 2000.

So, again, you tossed out that thought. "How are people worse now than 25 years ago?"

It's just so exhausting. Statistics aren't, "I have an idea of how things are, now let me cherry pick some stats to reflect that." That's not how science or truth work.

I'm all ears on how you've yet to be not wrong in this thread. You just haven't managed it so far.

[Recursion]

86. I don't think you know what "discouraged worker" means

It's defined as U4 minus U3. You brought it up; I showed you it's lower than average right now. You insist that you meant something else (U-6 is people working part-time who want to work full-time, not "discouraged workers&quot .

It even says so. In the table.

[Prism]

91. A technicality and part of the problem

Discouraged workers are, by definition, people who have not sought work in the past four weeks. They may have looked in the past year and found nothing, but only if they didn't specifically look for work in the last four weeks are they counted as discouraged.

I'd say not finding a job in the past year is pretty fucking discouraging, wouldn't you?

This is what I mean by playing with statistics. Are you concerned about the actual people involved, or are you trying to toy with statistics to tease out a narrative?

As a liberal concerned about employment, I try to grasp the whole picture. All of the U's, what's being said by them, what it's reflecting in the labor force.

Instead, you're looking for narrow definitions, trying to tease out numbers to reflect a reality that simply doesn't exist.

And my question is, to what end? To what benefit? Why paint this rosy picture and attempts to deny reality? Cui bono?

Rather than zeroing in on problems, your posts are forever cherry-picking graphs that attempt to claim, "We're all better than ever!"

No, we're not. Not by a long shot. Even the most generous of employment graphs show us nowhere near the historical lows of circa 2000. And your intentional ignoring of full vs part time employment is not particularly helpful.

If you are all about being a Democrat, as you insist, you'd be looking to solve problems rather than denying their very existence.

[Recursion]

92. God forbid we speak accurately about these things

And my question is, to what end? To what benefit? Why paint this rosy picture and attempts to deny reality? Cui bono?


Because we've seen more income and wage gains in the past 25 years than we saw in the 25 years before that. I'd rather not roll back the changes we made that made those increases possible.

[merrily]

82. True. Only the charts you post and/or agree with are both informative and authoritative.

[Prism]

87. They're so god damned cherry-picked

George Washington is standing around, scratching his balls, and going, "Uh, should I be chopping this down or not?"

[merrily]

90. But, they're from the Government, which has no incentive whatever to

fudge things like how much better everyone is doing than they were doing in the 1970s or how low unemployment is, or how few "discouraged" job seekers there are. Various administrations that have changed methods of accounting for and reporting things like unemployment have had great reasons to do that, other than trying to make themselves look better and to lull us. I just can't remember right now what those valid reasons were, but that doesn't mean anything. I'm also very sure that everyone who got discouraged looking for a job or settled for early retirement or underemployment, or three part time jobs instead of one good paying full time job called the government to make sure all those things were reflected in the statistics

As far as the Father of Our Great Nation, I have a difficult enough time imagining him sleeping around on Martha and having wooden teeth, thank you very much.

[Prism]

93. It's pointless to argue

I had a feeling. I work in social services, and I see every single day the escalation of people seeking assistance from the state. But that's anecdotal evidence. I know that. And I was curious about my experience vs reality, so I started digging into the numbers.

This shit is so massaged and technically contrived, I cannot believe any self-proclaimed liberal would not only believe it, but proselytize it to others. Now, of course, because we have a Democratic President, the claim is that any criticism of these manipulated numbers as anything less than wondrous is a right-wing smear (it always is). But I spent a lot of time digging, figuring what the government was saying, and relating that to how people were living and operating in the job market

I understand my job is absolutely geared to see worst case scenarios. I'm primed to see people fail. I'm absolutely primed to see women and minorities not get jobs. But I also know when the statistics ignore their plight or elide over it so that their destitution isn't counted so the politicians look better.

It just blatantly pisses me off.

I'm flat out fucking tired of, "Well, those people don't count. For, you know, reasons."

This isn't how Democrats are supposed to fucking work.

[merrily]

94. A well educated, hard-working relative whom I absolutely adore lost his job.

It was not the fault of the economy. His employer died. What was the fault of the economy was that my relative was unable to find another job. He ended up working three part time jobs, with three commutes, no paid sick or vacation days, etc. He had a stroke was back at work in under a week. I cry every time I think about it, which is often, like right now. Anecdotal, though.

[Prism]

95. We all live under the new economy

I'm in my mid-30s. Educated. I have a full-time job with social services with full benefits. ($24, which is why the ACA pisses me off to no end. How do I pay $24/month while my friends are paying $400/month for far worse coverage? Someone explain.)

However, I work a second job, because I'd be living close to paycheck-to-paycheck otherwise (government work does not pay). Depending what's going on, I'm working 60-75 hours a week to live a basic, middle-class existence. I could survive on my main job, but I'd always be worried, "What if I get sick? What if my car gets wrecked? How do I pay for retirement?!" I grew up poor, so I always want a buffer. And besides basic survival, I do like to have the option to travel here and there. Nothing fancy. Visit my elderly parents in Chicago while I still have them, maybe a weekend in Vegas or Disneyland with the boyfriend once or so a year.

You know, what a single-income used to do for people twenty or thirty years ago.

And it's funny. I have no time to myself at all. Wake up at 5:45AM, go to gym, home, shower, leave for work at 8:30, leave there at 4:30, work second job til 9:30, maybe socialize for an hour before going home and all that entails. On weekends, study for my tech certifications (studying to be a software engineer, because fuck this shit, I want money). That's my week. That's how I afford things.

And I consider myself lucky as shit. I have no time for anything at all, and I consider myself crazy fortunate. How stupid is this system? I see grown ass adults, with kids, working at Target for $12/hr. And it's nothing. They want better. They can't have better.

But, wait, some asshole has a chart, and he's going to explain why they're fine, and everything's fine, and isn't it all awesome?!

It's. So. Maddening. The richest, most powerful nation in the world should not be asking its citizens to live this way, and yet here we are.

It's so stupid. Every time I see someone who can't manage what I have, I get angry. People want to work. They want to have pride and provide and earn their keep. They're just not fucking allowed to. And then we blame them for it.

And if we, as Democrats, can't get mad about that, what can we be mad about?

Wait, someone said bitch, and I think chalk was used over the weekend. Well, that's important.

[merrily]

96. As you said, the millions of stories like yours and my relatives are merely anecdotal.

They do not have a government or other establishment imprimatur, like those totally honest and accurate charts.

[reddread]

15. ..

[Recursion]

18. Homelessness is going down, not up

I'm glad shelters are showing more willingness to accommodate families. You're not?

[reddread]

22. you are dreaming.

[Recursion]

23. Again, homelessness is going down, not up

http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/the-state-of-homelessness-2014

[reddread]

25. Im not going to waste three sentences arguing with you about homelessness

[reddread]

16. ...

[Recursion]

32. What should that look like, to you?

If anything I'd like it a little higher, so that our debt to GDP ratio was more like Canada's.

[reddread]

17. ....

[Recursion]

20. OK, I absolutely agree PTSD is worse now than 25 years ago. Wars have that effect.

So, yes, that's one place the country is worse off than 25 years ago, though I don't see what that has to do with "the bottom 80%" (richer people are more likely to serve in the military than poorer people, so if anything it's the opposite).

[reddread]

21. .....

[Schema Thing]

26. 25 years is in itself not a good metric, and not a particularly relevant metric. The war...

... stretches back as long as human history. Slave owners and Robber Barrons were big winners, and their offspring continue to use their asymmetrical (by virtue of having all the leverage money provides) power against the non-wealthy class.

FDR fought back valiantly, and won some important battles, but he hasn't had many allies in positions of power since.


Warren Buffett was just pointing out that his side are making out particularly well these days, wrt inequality in America.

Now quit being a silly person. You're better than this.

[Recursion]

29. Everybody is making out particularly well these days, though

Inflation-adjusted income and wages at every quintile are higher now than they've ever been except for a brief point right before the 2008 collapse.

[Schema Thing]

37. The poor and lower middle class are not doing "particularly well".

If you don't have basic economic security, you aren't doing well. You are, by definition, "insecure".


I assure you, that's not a fun place to be. I understand you are a govt employee, no doubt with a certain amount of job security, and possibly even a pension? Good for you, but don't be a "Bougie" dick about it by infering that things are good for most everyone else simply because they aren't as bad as they might have been at one time.

Economic security. It's what humans need in order to relax and be something more than worker drones, fighting for scraps to feel more secure. It's what the rich deny everyone else by taking hoovering up all.the.money.

[Recursion]

40. I am not a government employee (I contracted for a while)

If you don't have basic economic security, you aren't doing well.

OK, but, again: wages and incomes, adjusted for inflation, are higher now than at any point in the past (again, except for I think two quarters right before the 2008 collapse).

Economic security. It's what humans need in order to relax

OK, what does it mean to you? Because lower unemployment and higher wages sounds like what it should mean, and that's what we have right now.

[reddread]

46. have you moved back to America?

[Recursion]

47. 6 more weeks. Counting down.

So sick of this place...

[reddread]

48. dont.

you clearly gave no idea what our economy amounts to.

[Recursion]

49. Well I won't be sleeping in my car like I was in grad school for a while

Until the car got stolen. But for example the Mississippi town I grew up in is much, much better than it was when I was growing up there. There are actually storefronts on main street that aren't boarded up, as well as jobs. Honestly the whole sun belt is doing a lot better than when I was a kid.

I'd definitely rather live there now than 20 or 30 years ago.

[reddread]

53. get there then

no place like home.

[Whimsey]

50. You need to understand descent and distribution

and the tax laws effects. Robber baron had nothing to do with it. It is tying up estates and money distributions for centuries. Look up the rule against perpetuities, which cut back on this, but which states are now abolishing. History is everything, but too many continue to ignore it.

And Reagan was the first one in my lifetime to start to roll back the safeguards against estate aggregation. This has been a republican agenda - you earn the wealth your offspring should benefit from it. Instead of redistributing it. How many Bernie supporters are willing to redistribute the wealth their parents have accumulated? That really is the first step.

[Recursion]

54. I'd love a 100% estate tax, personally

And yeah, I definitely agree the aggregation of wealth is a huge problem that by nature has been getting worse every year.

[Whimsey]

59. It's not by nature, it is by design.

It is legislated. Has Bernie addressed that? Why not? ERTA was passed my first year out of law school. (I was in estate and estate tax law). It has only gotten worse. As politicians have gotten richer, they want to pass that wealth to their offspring. It is the biggest tie up of wealth in this country but everyone wants to tax income. Many high income persons are self-starters. Why would you want to discourage people who actually grow things? It has made this country great. Different story with the kids.

[Schema Thing]

101. Well, I think more Bernie supporters than any other candidates, for sure.

We seem to be in agreement, although of course my point about robber barons and all fiscal raiders does stand.

[reformist2]

39. It's been a disaster.

[Recursion]

42. What has? The past 25 years?

Again, what metric are you using? Wages and incomes adjusted for inflation are higher. Unemployment is lower. The discouraged worker rate is lower. What are you saying is actually worse now than 25 years ago?

[chknltl]

5. Only where they can get away with it legally.

That us why they own so many of our lawmakers.

[NewImproved Deal]

8. True. And members of the Rainbow Oligarchy don't get a pass...

[link:|

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. False.

They have the means to be independent of the bottom 80%.
The bottom 25% are mired in a grim fight to keep a roof over their heads and enough food on the table.
26% to 80% have just enough to be consumers and are driven by Consumerism to live as much like the top 1% as they can and, for the most part, are so mired in debt that they are also one or two accidents from the bottom.
81% to 99% have enough that they live the dream of being the 1%, and spend the better part of the means chasing a near-impossible dream.

So the 1% are happy, living lives that are close to alien to everyone else.

War isn't necessary.

They have already won.

[JaneyVee]

10. True or False? Broadbrushes are hard to create nuance and detail.

[Fresh_Start]

11. False

they don't even know the 80% is there..
just little ants not worth consideration.

[AZ Progressive]

14. They have basically said "fuck off" to the rest of society

They don't want to pay taxes, they are stashing a lot of money offshore, they don't see themselves as part of society and part of the capitalist ecosystem. They've been trying to dismantle regulations and trade barriers and anything that keeps the people from being able to demand liveable wages. Now they are trying to take away as many jobs as possible and make it harder than ever to find a job due to automation.

In addition, they keep on driving the prices of everything up, and its the bottom 80% that suffer the most.

[Corporate666]

19. Pretty much everything you just said is false.

The top 1% pay a higher effective tax rate than anyone else.

Saying "they are stashing a lot of money offshore" is untrue. Some are, but claiming millions of Americans are all doing it is just a baseless charge.

How many have you interviewed that don't see themselves as part of society? I know a few and they definitely see themselves as members of society - they eat and shit and go to work just like many of us and they love and get depressed and get sick and go to hospital like everyone else.

It's not the 1% that are trying to "dismantle trade barriers", it's the politicians, and they are doing it because it's good for America. It is proven that our quality of life increases with trade. Protectionism has been tried and it's been proven to fail. Luddism has been tried and failed. It's just stupid social and economic policy.

People can demand any wages they like. It doesn't mean they will get it. Thinking you can legislate prosperity is like thinking you can legislate away crime. If the conditions exist for crime to happen, it will. If the conditions for prosperity exist, it will happen.

And the last line about the 1% driving prices up displays a fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding about economics. The claim is simply false.

[BootinUp]

27. The influence of millionaires and billionaires on our govt.

is out of hand. Their hordes of cash are used to perpetuate an unhealthy society. There should definitely be more incentives for that money to be put to good use instead just gambling on Wall Street and buying lobbyists.

[AZ Progressive]

35. Talking points, talking points

Sounds more like you are a Republican. I've heard that bullshit before from conservatives.

The top 1% pay a higher effective rate, except that they only pay social security taxes on the first $118,000, they pay only 15% capital gains tax rate on money that they park in securities (which is why CEOs get paid in stock much more than in a regular salary) and a whole lot of other ways the rich make their money, they pay a much lower tax rate. The rich can even have their own personal corporation pay for certain expenses, and only pay taxes on the "profits"! In addition, there are so many tax deductions that one that is rich can receive (like the mortgage deduction and many business deductions) that poorer people can't always take advantage of. You'd have to be a fool (or a rich employee or independent contractor) to have to pay that full tax rate.

If they cared more about society they wouldn't mind paying their taxes. Instead they support politicians that lower taxes and thus help starve the budgets, leading to cuts in other government services.

"It's good for America" until America can't defend itself in a war because it lacks a manufacturing base. Destroying the bargaining ability of workers in America and reducing their ability to get disposable income is not "good for America". Capitalism relies on money being circulated and is in deep trouble if some people are hoarding all of the money and everyone else doesn't have money to spend.

Basically you are saying: "Sorry, America just can't produce good jobs anymore, tough!" while the rich are stashing trillions of dollars overseas because they don't want to pay taxes for that money.

And yes, the 1% are driving up prices because they are buying houses and other things and everyone else can't afford the things. Many foreign investors are buying real estate in America and are driving prices up. A lot of real estate was bought by the 1% during the last recession as well. All that excess money they have they have to find a place to park it.

[BillZBubb]

44. The corporatist response! What a pant load.

Your comments on trade are sophomoric and ignore the facts. You are either dishonest or ignorant.

[Hydra]

24. George Carlin summed it up well:

"They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else."

The revelation for me was the "and less for everyone else." That is, until I read 1984. The 1% are BORED and secretly(not so secretly?) insecure. They need constant reassurance that they are the "Elite" and someone to abuse to make themselves feel better. They also need constant subsidizing, since they do very little actual work.

They are winning the war because most people don't think they are being fought against until it happens to them.The biggest crybabies imaginable are destroying our world. It needs to stop.

[cantbeserious]

28. Totally True

eom

[Waiting For Everyman]

30. True squared. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

33. I don't think the 1% parasites are trying to kill their hosts, they're just too singularly focused

be able to stop themselves.

[HooptieWagon]

34. True. Been over 35 years now.

And the DLC has been collaborating for 25 years.

[AZ Progressive]

36. And how can Hillary supporters think that we'd support the accomplices...

to this war on the American people?

[jamese777]

67. A lot of the American People...

appear to be supporting 1%'er Donald Trump ($4.5 billion).

[AZ Progressive]

68. They are looking for a strongman and though he's rich, he's also antiestablishment

For awhile, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson were siphoning supporters from Trump, which shows that they were looking more for an antiestablishment candidate rather than just Trump.

[Baobab]

38. Wealth is concentrating very quickly but -war- unfortunately the US policy of trade deals is the war

So our leadership is at war against us and the whole rest of the world for the 0.01%

Eventually a very very small number of people will own most of everything, and at the same time, jobs are going away- the smart thing would be to improve safety nets, instead they are trying to quietly gut them, permanently (by giving corporate entitlements to prevent them from occurring and to dismantle the ones that exist now) while pretending to do the opposite.

For example we're fighting what amounts to a war against public health care and public higher education - as well as against drug price controls and public water systems-

It doesnt make good business sense- There is an optimal level to everything but we're ignoring that and trying to push policy that is extreme- extremely wrong- we're pushing an extreme ideology - which leads me to believe that they expect things to get a lot worse, fast- and they want a system that has absolutely no wiggle room for the worlds poor unless they have absolutely nothing- and then they get little-. Do they want morals and compassion completely out of the picture? I don't know but it seems that way to me from what I know so far.

Rich people would not go along with this IF THEY KNEW-

[AZ Progressive]

43. Basically the only way you can survive in decent shape is if you are in the top 20%

And I know this because this is what happened to El Salvador, where you have to be a professional in order to afford a decent life. I see much of what is happening in America to have already happened in El Salvador.

[BillZBubb]

41. False! The war is over, the 1% already won.

The few 99'ers left in the fight are like the Japanese soldiers still holding out in the hills a decade after the war ended.

Even the Democratic party hobnobs with the 1% now.

[hibbing]

60. Yes, it is over n/t

[Whimsey]

45. False

Ten years is nothing. Go back forty years to when I was in college. I'm guessing my debt was higher than today. We did not have the low-income grants we do today.

[stevenleser]

51. I don't think so, nor did Occupy Wall Street...

... Insomuch as one of their main slogans was "We are not against the 1%, we are against policies that benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99%".

I've met plenty of Warren Buffet type 1%'ers who believe it's completely OK if they are taxed more and that money goes to infrastructure and social programs to help people.

[CoffeeCat]

55. I think my husband said it best...

We were discussing the "one percent attitude" of some of the rich.

How BP killed The Gulf to save money on basic safety and equipment. How CEOs make exhorbitant salaries and pay their workers less and don't provide health insyrance. How big Ag mass produces unhealthy, sugary, processed food that make them rich while we get heart disease. How Wall Street made trillions before imploding the economy, while many lost their homes...and in and on and on.

I said to my husband, "Are they thing to kill us?

His reply, "Don't be silly. They're not trying to kill you. They just don't care if you die."

I thought that pretty much summed it up.

[uponit7771]

76. +1, the top 1% live in their own worlds

[wundermaus]

56. It is crime against humanity when globally almost a billion people are starving

and there are a handful of billionaires who horde the the wealth to end it.
There is something fundamentally corrupt about a system where sociopathic behavior is rewarded. An adjustment must be made to correct this anomaly.

[jamese777]

57. The top 1% & income taxes:

The Tax Policy Center calculated that the top 1 percent had 16.5 percent of total income in 2015 and they pay 43.6 percent of all federal income taxes.
The top 1% of incomes also pay 27.9 percent of all federal taxes which includes income, payroll, corporate, estate and excise taxes.

[Whimsey]

62. Top 1%

Taxes are relevant.

The 1% can pay more taxes. But Bernie's plan puts a lot of the pain on those under the 1%. He said so on Bill Maher months ago. And, when you talk about taxes, should you include all taxes including state, employment, real estate, federal income, etc? Because that is where the rub comes in. And some state have no sales tax and others do. And should there be a federal income tax deduction for other taxing districts too?

People really do not understand how regressive the tax system started to become under Reagan. But in some ways, his rise was in direct response to the overreaching of the left in the 1960's.

As I have told my daughters, politics is like a pendulum, if it swings too far to the left, it counterswings the same to the right. The trick is to move the base to the left, and that only works if it's an incremental change. That is why Bernie will fly and die. In twenty years he will be a footnote.

[jamese777]

65. Top 1%'ers are not created equal

The minimum income to be in the top 1% for 2016 is $333,000. The president of the University of New Hampshire is the highest paid public official in that state. He makes $333,000.

[Whimsey]

84. Bet Bernie and Jane were in the 1% when she was a college president.

His salary is $175,000, hers would only need to be $160,000. Is that why they are not releasing their old tax returns? Wonder what their rate was.

[BillZBubb]

63. Oh those poor babies. They paid a lot of taxes!

If you're making $1 million/year and you pay 30% in taxes, you net $700,000. I think they can make do on that.

If you're making $30 K/yr and pay 30% in taxes, you are hurting.

The 1% need to pay more, a lot more.

[jamese777]

66. Sure

There have been polls that show that a majority of people in the top 1% of incomes by and large don't mind paying taxes.
The minimum salary under the collective bargaining agreement that can be paid to a second round draft pick or a rookie free agent in the National Basketball Association is $545,000. For rookie first round picks its between $4 million minimum for the first player chosen and $950,000 for the 30th player picked and we're talking about 22-23 year olds.

[senz]

73. Is that why they stash it in the Cayman Islands, Swiss banks,

and various other off shore accounts?

[creeksneakers2]

64. Not totally either

In some areas the interests of the rich and poor overlap. They need workers. We need jobs. They want to sell products. We want to buy products.

In other areas there is conflict. They want the tax burden shifted to us. We want the tax burden shifted to them.

I think conflict is a better word for it than war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. The comfort of the rich relies on an abundant supply of the poor. Voltaire

[uponit7771]

75. This line of thinking suggest the top 1% even know about the rest of society, they're in their own..

... worlds

[elleng]

77. True.

[merrily]

78. Neither. The 1% are driven by insatiable need for money, power and having their way

about everything. The need no casus belli, no personal animosity, etc. against the rest of us do what they're doing. We're just collateral damage about whom they don't much think or much care.

I feel quite confident that if someone showed them a way to get what they want without hurting anyoneone else or spending another dime or minute, at least some of them would use it, while others could not be arsed to change. Nothing personal, though.

[dchill]

81. Answering the rhetorical question: TRUE

It's been class warfare since Reagan's trickle down economics, and the Democratic party's enthusiastic capitulation to it.

[My Good Babushka]

89. Of course it's true

The poor are the money trees of the rich, in many ways. And laws are set up to make those money trees very easy to shake.

"the organization of society as a whole “like layers on a cake, with those at the highest level of each layer exploiting those below.”"
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/making-money-off-the-poor/?_r=0

[surrealAmerican]

97. It's a "war" they have already won.

The bottom 80% or so are living under an occupation now. The next 19% is where the "war" is now being waged.

[Vattel]

98. bad question. "at war with" is way too vague and ambiguous