You can't seem to make any change in this country unless it will also benefit the rich somehow.How Obama lost the middle class
The poor and the wealthy have fared better under Obama than the majority of Americans in the middle.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-obama-lost-the-middle-class-150142099.html
it's called benefiting everybody. You democrats don't want to help your so called "middle class" if it also helps the "rich." And so your whole progressive movement has ground to a halt. You have let your bitterness and jealousy overtake common sense. You will never be happy until no one owns a yacht or a private jet. You don't gauge success by how much you can help people, you gauge it by how low you can bring the top down.You can't seem to make any change in this country unless it will also benefit the rich somehow.
Nonsense. Empowering the rich further simply gives them more power over and from within government. And they don't need more power.it's called benefiting everybody. You democrats don't want to help your so called "middle class" if it also helps the "rich." And so your whole progressive movement has ground to a halt. You have let your bitterness and jealousy overtake common sense. You will never be happy until no one owns a yacht or a private jet. You don't gauge success by how much you can help people, you gauge it by how low you can bring the top down.
Pretty well agree. The best counter to a plutocracy is a big, strong middle class.the setup is obvious.
the cronies want a worker drone class... not an upper middle and lower upper class that can compete for resources... young women (if you follow clinton's budidies and young men if you follow hollywood news) and politicians.
you couldn't empower a rich man if your life depended on itNonsense. Empowering the rich further simply gives them more power over and from within government. And they don't need more power.
I like premise 5. That is a good topic. I have been against the traditional point of sale consumption tax, but that is a different take. I'll have to think about it a while.Why have weddings and houses gotten so ridiculously expensive? Blame inequality.
by Robert H. Frank on January 16, 2015
"I've been studying inequality for more than 30 years, and for most of that time it's been an issue well out of the limelight. And so I've been delighted to see it enter the political conversation in a big way recently.
"But something major is missing from that conversation, which centers on questions of fairness. Fairness clearly matters, but focusing on it presupposes a zero-sum competition between different classes. That's consistent with the conventional view that inequality is good for the rich and bad for the poor, and so the rich should favor it while the poor should oppose it. But the conventional view is wrong.
"High levels of inequality are bad for the rich, too, and not just because inequality offends norms of fairness. As I'll explain, inequality is also extremely wasteful.
"It's easy to demonstrate that growing income disparities have made life more difficult not just for the poor, but also for the economy's ostensible winners — the very wealthy. The good news is that a simple change in tax policy could free up literally trillions of dollars a year without requiring painful sacrifices from anyone. If that claim strikes you as far-fetched, you'll be surprised to see that it rests on only five simple premises."
The five premises >>