General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA light came on for me this morning, while watching ...
Morning Joe. Though I didn't catch the whole segment, Mika and Joe were discussing HRC's handling of her mega-bucks speaker fees, and I guess, her wealth in general.From what I gather (as I haven't been following her responses closely), she is trying to distance herself from her wealth. If that is the case, then I suggest that HRC has the same mis-understanding of the 1% vs the 99% argument as the vast majority of conservatives.
As I understand, no one (except for a few on the far left) cares how much someone makes, it's more an issue of how that person views governmental/systemic policy/powers with respect to that wealth, i.e., do you favor policies that increase/protects your personal wealth, at the cost of the poor and working classes; or, do you favor policies that benefit the poor and working classes, despite their hurting/not benefiting you personally.
(I apologize if this is not clear ... I haven't had my 5th cup of coffee, yet)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)since she favors policies, such as TPP, which will hurt working Americans badly.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)You couldn't round up 10 people on the streets who know what TPP is if your life depended on it.
Her IWR vote falls under similar classification. Nobody outside of the most dedicated progressives gives a shit.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)she has a better chance of winning by convincing average Americans that she's "one of us" than winning by convincing them that her policies will be good for us. 
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)But when I compared it to NAFTA and said that it seems to make corporations sovereign over nations they understood the threat at least enough to verify what I was saying. Most of my non-political friends often believe me because I've right more often than wrong. Especially after Bush stole the 2000 election. I sortof predicted Bush would steal the surplus, crash the economy and get us into another war right after that election.
djean111
(14,255 posts)A new and now dropped acquaintance, who spouted Faux/Limbaugh crap all the time, sent me a cartoon of Elizabeth Warren, with war paint and an Indian blanket, listing her wealth and the value of her homes, asking why would we listen to her when she says the economic deck is rigged against the 99%. She also brought up the wealth of other Democrats.
I told her that Warren could have a trillion dollars, and that would not make what she said any less true. Tried explaining that ad hominem attacks were pointless. (Wish some on DU understood that, too!)
And I tried explaining that Democrats are not against money, it is how it is acquired and how it is used that is the problem.
Looks like Hillary does not understand that either.
I don't know why anyone on the '"Far left" would disapprove of wealth - do you mean Communists, perhaps?
Hillary should back away from the TPP, TPIP, etc., and things like that - not her wealth.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have seen, on this site, what could only be described as a general distain for all folks with wealthy.
djean111
(14,255 posts)never occurred to me to disapprove of wealth, just how it is acquired and how it is used.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)Most all democratic candidates have some wealth which they honorably earned.
And folks like Elon Musk are doing good things with their wealth.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)I assume you mean wealth that they didn't inherit--like the Waltons and the Koch brothers. Except that the Kennedys also inherited their wealth, as did many other "good" wealthy people.
Except that the Koch brothers, through their foundations, have funded hospitals, research, and scholarships, things that we can all agree are admirable.
It is better to judge people by the policies they support, rather than where and how they got their money, and what they choose to do with it.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)We all agree that Repubs do not usually share their wealth, either in a personal way or by the public policies they support. The Kochs are enigmatic in their funding. I have a good laugh every time I see some scientific PBS program funded by them. What do you make of such things?
The problem is that some on the far left bash Democratic candidates who have any wealth; few DUers fall into that group. I think that's what 1StrongBlackMan was addressing in his OP.
I totally agree that it's better to judge people by the policies they support.
Caveat: Although I do not judge candidates by wealth, I would like to know that our democratic candidates aren't crooks (there have been a very few but the vast majority of crooks, as we all know, are Republicans).
Oh, and Elon Musk supports liberal and especially environmental policies, as I'm sure you're aware of. 
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)get a "good laugh" out of any PBS funding provided by the Kochs. I have no idea what they believe about science, but find it hard to believe that MIT graduates would be neanderthals. Or Luddites.
I'm not here to defend them, but, believe me, as a cancer survivor, I am very glad that the David Koch Foundation has funded cancer research to the tune of $1 BILLION. That's $1,000,000,000.
What I make of it is that no one is ALL good, or ALL evil. And money is just money. I'm always glad to see good things done with it, regardless of its source. Those who would turn down donations on principle, are biting off their noses to spite their own faces. Foolish, IMHO.
A few years ago, one of the DeVoses, of Amway (Scamway) fame, ran for governor here in Michigan. Got his butt soundly kicked. His politics suck. The way his family made its $$ sucks. And they probably suck as people, as well. BUT--if your child needs specialized medical care in Western Michigan, you are probably very happy to have the Helen DeVos Children's Hospital available.
Even the Walton Family Foundation supports some environmental causes.
I am on the board of a non-profit animal shelter, and I am awed by the donations we receive., regardless of amount or source. There are poor people who work hard for a living, and donate an occasional $10. Then, there are the foundations that we occasionally receive grants from. We recently received a $10,000 grant, which we are going to use to replace our ancient broken-down van. To me, it doesn't matter what the politics of the donor, I'm just totally grateful that they care enough about something other than themselves to donate whatever they can.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)And I thank you!
It's ironic that the Kochs own polluting companies yet give $1 BILLION to cancer research.
They bash science and deny climate change on one hand yet fund PBS scientific programming on the other.
Edited to add:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/200405-reid-attacks-koch-brothers-during-climate-change-debate
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)and found some additional interesting info.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-biden-schumer-and-hillary-clinton-took-koch-brothers-money
The chart below represents direct donations to Democratic Party candidates from Koch Industries employees since 2006 according to OpenSecrets.org (2014 donations are based on FEC numbers through March 10) Retired Democratic Party members of Congress received another $291,000 but were not included in the chart.
The chart, which I was not able to c & p, listed about 35 Democratic candidates who received Koch $$.
I don't know what's up with that. Strongly suspect that like most business people, they know that if they want favorable legislation, they have to grease palms on both sides of the aisle??
Duppers
(28,120 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)They are hoarders plain and simple. Compulsive behavior disordered collectors of stuff, in this case wealth.
They seem to lack the empathy/compassion to see that feeding their wants, is endangering other people's needs. I can only see that as an addiction.
You do not treat additive people by feeding their addiction in ever increasing amounts.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,607 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)have I told you lately how much I ... 
you really have a way with words, woman.
Respect Knuckles coming at ya 
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,607 posts)I ... too...
You have a nice way with words too, ya know...
Welcome back, sweet girl...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
thanks
Duppers
(28,120 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Apparently she is surrounded by advisers that completely misunderstand the dynamics.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)of the Republican framing of 'class warfare' and 'wealth envy'. The problem is not whether or not individuals are particularly more wealthy than others, but that the continued concentration of wealth starves the rest of the economy of the money needed for it to operate. Which is why I tend to feel we need more strictures on intergenerational wealth transfers so as to move that sidelined cash back into the flow.
And Democrats really do believe in the 'rising tide that lifts all boats', but what we've got now is a diversion of the river to raise the part of the marina with the yachts, at the expense of the dinghies.
djean111
(14,255 posts)(and by that I mean not nearly enough) ration of life-preservers.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)You are absolutely correct- how much money a person has should mean nothing. The policies they espouse should mean everything, especially their actions in regards to said policies.
The mendacity of the Reagan/Bush years has infected many things. We expect our pols now to be corrupt.
surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)... many Americans (some whom aren't even "conservatives"
see wealthy people as being "out of touch" with the main issues in their lives.
People who have considerably less interest in politics than us use this as a short-cut, so they don't have to take the time and effort to figure out what a candidate's policies might be. These are people who will vote if they "like" one of the candidates, but tune out otherwise.
JHB
(37,159 posts)"Do you support policies that work for those trying to get ahead, or those that work for those who already are?"
The Clintons have spend so much time marching in the self-described "pro-business" parade that I have my doubts HRC will figure out that it's time to jump in front of a different parade.
Of course, she's not the only one in that position.
IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)some people do care what someone else has and feel resentment. I've seen it many times here on this board. Others will be more focused on policy positions. That's just human nature. And many wealthy liberals do support policies that benefit our weakest links as strenghtening society: everyone does better when everyone does better, and enlarges the pie and improves the overall economy.
Conservative thinking is grounded on the assumption that the pie is limited and if someone gains something then someone else must lose. There is no win-win with conservatives.
This thinking is evident in the ACA comments on any mainstream media article. Conservatives are sure they are paying somehow for someone else to get something they don't deserve. And even when they are (food stamps) they don't believe those dollars will be immediately sent right back into the economy at a faster clip than any trickle down bullshit from the 1%.
pansypoo53219
(20,974 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)There is a disconnect between the monied class and the rest of us about what wealth is and what it should be used for.
Gross accumulation or social responsibility.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)However, I think it's a little more complicated than that, and on a personal level, common Americans probably do have a general disdain for the wealthy. Furthermore, this disdain is probably somewhat justified, at least on a statistical basis.
Paul K. Piff
University of California, Berkeley, USA
Abstract
Americans may be more narcissistic now than ever, but narcissism is not evenly distributed across social strata. Five studies demonstrated that higher social class is associated with increased entitlement and narcissism. Upper-class individuals reported greater psychological entitlement (Studies 1a, 1b, and 2) and narcissistic personality tendencies (Study 2), and they were more likely to behave in a narcissistic fashion by opting to look at themselves in a mirror (Study 3). Finally, inducing egalitarian values in upper-class participants decreased their narcissism to a level on par with their lower-class peers (Study 4). These findings offer novel evidence regarding the influence of social class on the self and highlight the importance of social stratification to understanding basic psychological processes.
In Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2014, Vol 40(1) 34–43
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I am hesitant to sign on to "most common folks hare the rich" frame.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)However, when certain attitudes of the rich become apparent to average people, they are often turn-offs. The Romneys, for example, were incredibly insensitive to the feelings of average voters and were continually running afoul of their own arrogance in personal encounters. Like at their Nascar interactions, as perhaps you will remember.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)The people who most like to go on about a 1% vs. 99% dichotomy, are some of those closest to the 1% but seem pissed off they aren't in it.
I'm old school. I don't like the 1/99% breakdown because it doesn't conform with class as commonly understood, in either Marxist, Weberian, or other schools of analysis.
Also the idea that everyone in the 99 percent is in the same boat is absurd. A single parent trying to support children at $14k a year is hardly in the same situation as someone making $175k.
As for Clinton, those who oppose her use her wealth, her college years, and anything else they can to attack her, while excusing the same things in others. (Note the complete absence of condemnation about Biden's vote for the Iraq War). My guess is that it's not so much that Clinton doesn't understand the issues, but that she is trying to cut down on the ammunition available. The issue of her personal wealth is one that would come into play in the primary more than the general election.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You had to point that out!
"Revolutionaries are less concern about the system so much as their position in that system. "
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I wasn't speaking of revolutionaries as much as complainers. Revolutionaries work to bring about change. Complainers expect it to be handed to them.
Revolutions are complicated, but I'll leave that for another time. If I start, you'll never shut me up.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I largely agree. And you're right ... Let's right go there, or I'm gonna make DU suck, again.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)They oppose her because of her policies that would preserve a concentration of wealth for the 1%.
Like HRC, you seem to have missed the point entirely.
I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood your position.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)but tell me about the policies she has proposed that will further concentrate wealth in the hands of the 1 percent.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)She also suggested that raising the cap on FICA contributions would be a tax increase on the middle class. Of course that increase would only have affected those very near the top 1% of all income earners. There are others.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Not hers. Did you vote for Obama? That the President assigned her to negotiate TPP does not make it "her policy."
I suggest you check your math. There has never been a proposal to abolish the FICA cap but rather to increase it. The increase doesn't get near the 1 percent. It would increase taxes on those between $114k and whatever the top proposed rate was at the time, usually not much more than $200 k. Based on the poll that Cali did, that's about the average income of members of this board and not the 1 percent.
Another basic point about FICA you don't understand: It applies to earned income only--wages. Not investment income. The one percent don't earn wages from jobs like the rest of us. Even investment bankers and the like are able to claim their salaries as capital gains, which means they don't pay FICA at all.
Those two examples are both clearly wrong, and obviously so.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)As a blue collar working man I fully understand FICA only applies to earned income. Why do you find it necessary to insult those you disagree with? Did you read your post?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Correcting you is not insulting you. It is simply false that raising the cap will primarily affect the 1%.
I am not saying I oppose lifting it. In fact, I think it should be applied on investment income as well. However, your conclusion that Clinton's statement was false is itself false.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)which is only fair. In other words the GOP 1% are selfish greedy bastards.
valerief
(53,235 posts)poverty, then something is really, really wrong with the world. And it is.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)It's the real divide.
FDR and the Kennedys that some claim to idolize, didn't seek to power to get richer. They saw it as a duty or that their survival and the world they wanted to live in, like HRC, was and is dependent on all people gaining. The quality of life for all being key to their happiness, too.
Those who support Rush, or did Romney, the Tea Party and the Libertarians, are all about the other side of what power is about. To get richer and stand above those they regard as their inferiors. It's considered necessary to their survival, to keep others below them. Their happiness is rooted in maintaining a superior social position by encouraging inequality.
The question people must decide is what they enjoy. Many of us cannot enjoy our prosperity knowing that others are perishing. That's the first group that I described. The second group feels that they will not get to enjoy their prosperity with all those other people nibbling at the corners of what they think belongs to them.
I need more coffee, too. And to fix my keyboard which is acting up very badly now.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)HRC had President Obama's campaign team! This is an issue that she could have got way ahead of and gutted before it got into the boat.
My concern is, her acknowledging her wealth would force her to pivot to the policies that she supports (and doesn't support) ... and "campaign-wise", it is much to early for that ... no matter how much we would want her to.
For the record, I suspect HRC will come out much farther to the Left than most here thinks she is.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)it will not do much to change my opinion. She has betrayed her true position too many times for me to believe she is in actuality some sort of Robin Hood.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)on these days, I don't expect a "Robin Hood" and will settle for the "Non-Sheriff candidate".
Besides, Jobs is a more important issue (to me) than income inequity. And, in these particular times, so is Foreign policy.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If I understand it correctly, HRC had a hand in crafting the TPP.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)all I have seen is projections and anticipated effects, based on assumptions pulled from thread bare facts.
But what I HAVE seen (by inferential deduction, from the recent Asia Times article) is that the U.S.'s (and other Industrialized nations') issue of "normalizing wages, workplace/worker protections and environmental protections" was accepted, though somewhat weakened by adding a "decision period", rather than, the proposed immediate sanction of nations that violate the wage, workplace/worker protections and environmental protection rules. (I can't find the article; but it was linked to another post about the horrors of the TPP, that we don't really know much about).
Rex
(65,616 posts)They vilify the Left when it has money...but fawn all over the Right billionaires and pretend they are perfect creatures that can do no wrong.
They make a big stink about the fees collected by Hillary, but don't say shit when Palin or one of their own does the exact same thing!
Fuck em.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NOT defined what we mean when we talk about the 1% ... the vacuum allows the right to call it "wealth envy" and attack those on the left with wealth, as disingenuous.
We need the those on the left with wealth to embrace their wealth and distinguish how their policy desires differ from those on the right. And those of us on the left with lesser wealth need to clearly spell out what we are talking about when we talk about the 1%.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They are the ones that have the most money and like to do social engineering on nations the most. Of course my idea of wealthy is NOT someone that makes between 200k-1m or even the rare numbers that make it into the 100 million club or 1 billion club. I am talking about people like the Koch brothers and their plan to use their money to change the country for the worse. Unlimited funds that help create groups like Citizens United and Third Way Dems...we don't have anything like that on the Left.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We DO have people that have that kind of Koch-like money, they just choose to spend it differently.
But I agree, you have de-coupled income level from the use of it to exercise power and influence.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Being "in the 1%" is a cultural identifier, like race, religion, or gender. It may make it hard for someone to empathize with people who encounter a different set of problems, but it's irrational to judge someone just on the basis of their wealth.
It's a good theme, though, because it threatens an implied conservative argument to the opposite: that wealth is a sign of competence and hard work and moral uprightness. They don't like any stigmatizing of the wealthy, because what they'd really like to scream from the rooftops is that rich people are the rightful owners and rulers of the world, and everyone else should just be greatful they don't swim off to their solid gold Ayn Rand islands and leave us all bereft of hedge fund managers and real estate speculators.
It's why conservatives ASSUME we're saying wealth itself is a bad thing. That's why they think they can undermine, say, OWS by pointing out that protesters own computers or cellphones. They think the argument is that having or owning anything is bad, when in actuality the argument has always been that wealth does not entitle people to disproportionate power, particular given that power is frequently abused to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Because they're stupid that way.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is where the OWS argument gets lost in translation ... the common understanding of OWS argument is not about power; but rather, about disproportionate money ... and that's hard to argue against when the common OWS call is: INCOME INEQUALITY.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The spiraling wealth *gap* is indicative that we are catering to the wealthy disproportionately. OWS was a response to the fact that the supposed geniuses on Wall Street claiming to have just created wealth through their own brilliance in fact foisted a species of "pump and dump" speculative fraud on the entire world.
The premise as I saw it is that neither the economic crash nor the accelerating wealth gap could occur without tilting the playing field grossly toward wealthy interests. For example, not just de-regulation and tax breaks, but also the implied protection of American taxpayers should anything go wrong. Or VERY wrong, as was the case. Privatized reward based on socialized risk, etc.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)and if she continues to do so, she's going to lose before she starts.
Most people don't give a rip how much she's paid to speak for an hour, they want to know what she's going to do about a 99% who often can't afford safe living conditions, nutritious food, adequate health care (even under ACA) and saving for retirement. If she starts talking about that stuff and how it can be done (raising wages, instituting a Wall Street transaction tax to cover health care subsidies and other social safety net problems, and a proportional wage act that would stop the looting of corporations by their top executives, she will be unstoppable.
That's the choice, Hillary. Blow this and get used to retirement.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)has a framing problem. Besides with the politically aware, the vast majority negatively affected by wealth disparity, i.e., those that can't afford safe living conditions, nutritious food, adequate health care (even under ACA) and save for retirement, haven't connected with, nor care about that frame ... the care about the fact that they can't afford safe living conditions, nutritious food, adequate health care (even under ACA) and saving for retirement.
I think if she started talking about those things, she'd be in the exact place she is, except maybe she'd pick up the DU vote (or, at least, those not pre-disposed to not vote for her).
I think her better tact would be to confront, directly, infrastructure investment, the social safety net, healthcare and shoring up SS.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)People care very much that they're falling more behind and losing more quality of life year after year because wages have gone nowhere but down since the late 70s.
And yes, she needs to talk about all the things you mentioned. Our whole economy has systematically been looted by a handful of men at the top, leaving the rest of us with bare subsistence living (if we're lucky) while we confront the rotting infrastructure on a daily basis. Retirement with Social Security is being viewed with alarm and despair (yes, I'm that age) as a whole generation has been bilked out of pension after pension and "service charged" out of 401K plans and cut loose in their 50s to make do on a patchowork of jobs until they're 62.
The system no longer works for the American people. That's the bottom line and that is what needs to be the campaign theme, not "I might be rich, but I'm just like you." That didn't work for Romney and it won't work for H. Clinton.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)1) OWS could not succeed, because it split into 10, 15, you name it issues and because the powers in office crushed it. You are correct. If they had chosen inequality as the only theme, they might, just might have fared better.
2) Especially after the crash in 2008 many people did lose a lot, and many their jobs. This led to insecurity, anger, and yes, to jealousy. Thus, for many people the feeling of being discarded by the politicians, especially the wealthy one became:" Nobody cares" mantra.
3) People learned not to trust a word of any politician - and I have become one of them, I suppose. Look at all the promises made after the crash and what actually happened with the banks for instance. Loans should have gone to the people instead of banks and huge corporations.
There are a lot of other reasons, but basically HRC is unable to really connect with the average American, unlike her husband.
Does that make sense?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I'm a committed social-democrat, in the Western European sense of the term, but I don't have a problem with people being rich. It's not like approaches that tried to eliminate the wealthy worked out very well. In fact I wish I had ten times as much money as Hillary Clinton. The world would be a better place if I did.
