The extreme irony of the Clinton/Sanders debate over income inequality is striking

[Samantha]

Senator Sanders comes out swinging against income inequality and saying "we have to tell the top one-percent you can't have it all." Hillary Clinton immediately incorporates campaigning against income inequality into her platform. (Adopting a plank from an opponent's platform dampens the opponent's ability to differentiate him or herself from your campaign. It dulls an edge that person might have in the contest.)

Some probably do not realize how ironic Hillary Clinton attacking this issue is since she and Bill are in the top one-tenth of the top one percent; in other words, the same group Bernie was describing as those receiving 99 percent of all new income.

"What we're seeing, Chris, right now is that for 40 years, the American middle class has been disappearing. Millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages despite a huge increase in technology and productivity," Sanders said. "And what we have seen during that period is a massive transfer of trillions of dollars from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and income inequality, where you have 99 percent of all new income today going to the top 1 percent."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/19/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/

and

Hillary and Bill Clinton have pulled in so much money through speeches since January 2014 that their income is more than 99.9 percent of all Americans.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/top-1-try-top-01/

In the real world, who believes that Hillary Clinton will champion eliminating the disparity income inquality creates among the American classes of people when she and her husband are in the exact group targeted to take a massive haircut?

Sam

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Samantha.

[Samantha]

3. Always a pleasure to see you on my threads

Thanks for the recommendation.

Sam

[Uncle Joe]

5. The feeling is mutual.

Peace to you.

Joe

[leftofcool]

2. "Mom, Hillary is stealing ideas from me again"

[Samantha]

8. It has really become embarrassing, hasn't it?

It has just happened so often.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[Betty Karlson]

11. If she likes Sanders's ideas so much, she might as well endorse him. eom

[Samantha]

12. Good one, Betty Karlson

and thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[Betty Karlson]

14. I like your threads. Please know that they are widely appreciated.

Kind regards,

Betty

[Samantha]

27. That is so sweet of you to say -- thank you so much

Kind regards back at ya!

Sam

[msongs]

4. two well off highly privileged people showing their concern for the masses lol nt

[Samantha]

6. Not exactly the same, msongs

Bernie Sanders' net worth is about $700,000. Among Senators, he has a very modest amount of money. In other words, that amount will not get one into the top one percent.

But a very good try.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[merrily]

36. Please see Reply 35. Sorry, but "good try" is an overstatement.

[merrily]

35. Ridiculous. Bernie was born into poverty and anti-Semitism, not long after the Holocaust.

Hillary born into a wealthy suburb and WASPdom. He went to work helping poor people. Hillary went to work helping Republican politicians.

[CharlotteVale]

7. I don't buy for an instant that Hillary gives a rip about

income inequality unless it's her own huge income.

[Samantha]

9. That is exactly what I am saying except you were a tad more blunt about it!

That statement does prove you are in the real world, however.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[Betty Karlson]

10. K&R for truth.

I remember the same argument being raised in 2008. Back then the response was:

"But the only reason Obama doesn't have the same wealth as the Clintons, is that Obama doesn't have it YET. Just watch what he'll do after his presidency."

And there I was, thinking that what happened DURING the presidency was the actual issue...

[Samantha]

15. Money, money, money, money

makes the political world go 'round.

It is always about the M O N E Y; you just have to learn to parse every word. The exception to that is Bernie Sanders campaign. He is very literal and when it is about the money, he tells everybody.

Sam

[Betty Karlson]

16. Sanders is about money too:

He mentions often enough how too much of it is in the hands of too few. And so many of today's problems are connected to that issue: from institutional racism to LGBT inequality to health care disparities to institutional gender inequality to... need I go on?

[Samantha]

19. I agree with you

and I am sure many here at DU would. Stress is literally the number one killer of Americans. It causes many emotional and physical threats to our minds and bodies. Financial stress is horrendous. If many of the changes Sanders endorses come through, the lives of so many will be so much better.

Sam

[Betty Karlson]

21. Couldn't agree more - the lives of almost everyone will be better.

(Even the racists, misogynists, and gay-haters will have better lives: professor Niall Ferguson has shown that in a society with less income disparitty and less economic volatility, all kinds of prejudice are significantly reduced, and people are more comfortable accepting "the other".)

[Samantha]

26. That is very interesting

I never really focused too much on income impacting prejudice, meaning increasing one's income can decrease one's prejudice. But if there is another thing besides money most of us need, we do need to all start trying to get along better. I really am so sorry to see the bitter demeanor on display today, open hate, open nastiness -- people have no shame. I should say SOME people .... Of course, we have a lot of good people, it is just they are the quiet ones we don't notice as much.

Sam

[Betty Karlson]

37. It's not just about income:

it's about overall wealth distribution, and the economic development needs to be steady (no boom and bust cycles).

[Marty McGraw]

13. she has no real

awareness for what it takes to lead a country away from the grips of the tyrannical road we have been treading toward these past decades and really takes for granted the machinery involved at all levels that really makes a country strong. She may well one day wake up to it - she is bright but has focused way too much on protecting her own disregarding the best way to protect her own is by allowing the rest of the populace to rise out of despair themselves and live more harmoniously together.

[Samantha]

17. That is her problem - you hit it

I do think she is bright but I do not think she is magnanimous or even sympathetic when it comes to middle and low income people. I do not believe a Clinton administration would do a lot to positively impact the lives of the poor and the disabled. I also think Clinton would be open to making big changes to Social Security, and perhaps even Medicare.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[Betty Karlson]

18. She may be bright, but she is a follower not a leader. eom

[Samantha]

20. I do not see her as much of a leader either

I no longer read threads about her, I don't listen to her when she speaks. I also think she has run a dirty campaign, and it is probably going to get worse. So I just have moved into an arena where I tune her out.

Sam

[merrily]

34. The best education money can buy, but she failed the Washington D.C. bar exam

Some people are smart in that they can memorize. Some are smart in that they can think. Bill is both. I am not sure about Hillary. She has said some awfully tone deaf things in her day.

[Betty Karlson]

38. She continues to triangulate rather than answer questions.

And she surrounds herself with more tone-deaf guys and gals. Just think of DWS's comments about medical marijuana use, or her disparaging remarks regarding millennial women.

[merrily]

39. My personal observation: When she's asked something for which she has obviously prepared, such as

a question she or her advisors should have expected, she does well. Otherwise, her replies, affect, almost anything, can go off by a lot.

[Betty Karlson]

40. Spot on observation.

That's why she is a follower, not a leader: she can't answer anything without a team of focus-grouped and polled-up advisors telling her how to asnwer.

[Samantha]

42. Are you serious?

I did not know this. I guess she must have passed the bar exam eventually since she practiced law in Arkansas for several years.

I am surprised to read this.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[merrily]

43. Yes, I'm serious. She later passed the Arkansas bar exam which is much easier. nt

She did not make failing the bar exam public for many years.

Every jurisdiction has its own exam. You can, for example, pass the New Jersey bar, but that does not mean you can practice law in other states.

[Fumesucker]

22. 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils

Hillary claims the Bible as her greatest influence, I wonder if she has ever read that verse.

[Samantha]

24. I think she compartmentalizes her religion from her politics

I am very familiar with that quote and I do believe it is essentially accurate. There might be a tiny portion of the population that is evil just because that is their natural bent. Charles Manson is an example.

Thanks for posting on my thread, Fumesucker.

Sam
PS What exactly prompted you to take that screen name? I am just curious....

[Fumesucker]

31. I had just returned from a bike ride where I had been sucking diesel fumes for miles

It wasn't one of my better days and I wasn't planning on sticking around at the time.. But this place grows on you..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1207696

[Samantha]

47. Yes, DU does kind of grow on one

It can even become addictive. And the only known cure is to say something online that is so atrocious you are immediately tombstoned. Proceed with caution.

Sam

[Jack Rabbit]

23. K/R

Thanks, Sam

[Samantha]

28. You are welcome, Jack Rabbit

It was my pleasure.

Sam

[lob1]

25. I agree with every thing you said. K&R.

[Samantha]

50. I don't believe I have run into you before, lob1

But is very seldom anyone tells me they agree with everything I said. So, of course, I hope you stick around for awhile and be sure to look for my threads so you can contribute that same thought!

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[hfojvt]

29. I still think it is foolish to narrow the focus

Now it's not even the legendary 1% it's the top 0.1%?

Ridiculous.

Here's the database that nobody cared about http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023937994

Note, just 20% of the income going to the legendary 1%. Even less to the mere top 0.1%.

What about the other 9% that make up the top 10%? - about 28% of the income, or more. That's a bigger slice of the pie than the mere top 0.1% gets.

Once a politician starts talking like that, they are going to start proposing "middle class" bullsh*t. Just like Obama has, and just like Clinton did in the last primary.

Here's an example - the Bush tax cuts. Obama made most of them permanent - in the name of the middle focking class. Consider the Bush tax cuts themselves. Most of those tax cuts did NOT goto the top 0.1%. Not even close.

Even the top 1% "only" got 26% of the tax cuts. The bulk of them went to the mythical middle class. Those in the 60th to 99th percentile got 57% of the tax cuts.

Here are the figures (again - with the 'Republican plan basically being - keep the Bush tax cuts) http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

Thus, IF you believe Bernie's rhetoric (which I do NOT) then the Bush tax cuts must have DECREASED inequality since they gave more money to the "middle class" than the did to the top 0.1%.

Of course, NO politician, not even Bernie, can afford to tell the truth, which is this "earth to the top 10% - YOU are rich. YOU are richer than 90% of the rest of us. The top 1% and the top 0.1% are not ALL of the problem. YOU are a big part of it too."

Until Bernie says something like that, he is only PRETENDING to represent the bottom 60% - just like everybody else.

[Samantha]

44. I looked at your chart and will say I did not understand it because of its format

So I ventured out to see what other people are saying, and it appears that there is a dispute even among the experts. I particularly liked Elizabeth Warren's position, but it does become apparent that the ingredients in the mixing of the recipe often impact the results of the end product.

For instance, some economists use pre-tax income; others do not. Some do not include government payments such as Social Security. Some include capital gains; others do not.

The one question I ask is since "deferred compensation" has been such a gold mine in the past for avoiding paying income taxes for as long as ten years, is that a factor in anyone's formula? I have not even seen that mentioned. A great example of this for instance is Dick Cheney's claim that while serving as Vice President he received no income from Halliburton, a corporation which greatly profited from the war on Iraq. And of course, there is also the Carlyle Group, of which George W. Bush's father is (or was for a long time) a member. That group also greatly profited. After the Bush/Cheney era was over, it was reported Dick Cheney had received deferred income from Halliburton the eight years he was in office. He just could not access it until his tenure as Vice President was over.

But the long and short of the controversy for me is the essence of the truth, not the literal dime. Looking back at Warren's statement (article dated January 13, 2015), and the author did fact-check her claims, here are come compelling statements (unfortunately, I am limited to quoting only 4 paragraphs):

The data supports her claim. Adjusted for inflation, the top 10 percent of earners in the United States made, on average, $144,418 in 1979 and $254,449 in 2012. That’s about 76 percent growth.

The bottom 90 percent of earners, on the other hand, made $33,526 in 1979 and $30,438 in 2012. That’s a decrease of about 9 percent.(emphasis added)

* * *

Warren said, "The average family not in the top 10 percent makes less money today than they were making a generation ago."

According to one measurement, the bottom 90 percent of American earners had a lower income in 2012 than they had 30 years ago.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/13/elizabeth-warren/warren-average-family-bottom-90-percent-made-more-/

In all honesty, I can't debate the literal percentages with you because I am not an expert in the field so I do not play one on DU! But it is apparent from what many people are saying that low and middle class Americans are not compensated fairly while the wealthy are receiving more than their fair share of this so-called recovery. Warren is considered an expert on economic issues pertaining to the middle class, so I believe she does generally buttress what Sanders says.

Politico rated Warrens statements as mostly true. I personally have great respect for Bernie Sanders, and I believe he would not have made the statements I quoted had he not had reputable sources for the data.

Best regards,

Sam

[silvershadow]

30. She grabbed the issue like it was a life-preserver on the Titanic. nt

[Samantha]

45. It is possible that is the way she viewed it

but my gut tells me that her perceived life-preserver is not going to hold.

Great analogy. Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[senz]

32. Hillary will say anything that she thinks will get her more votes

or weaken her opponent.

[merrily]

33. Notice, she does NOT talk about wealth inequality. At least not that I have heard.

I think the strength of the Draft Warren movement may have been as responsible as Sanders for Hillary's including income inequality in her spiel. However, what the federal government CAN do about income inequality is very limited.

Raise the minimum wage. Sure. Institute some kind of progressive payroll tax. Sure. And that's if she gets the Republicans, for whom she has expressed such contempt publicly, to go along. But, what tends to happen when the minimum wage increases? Prices increase even more. Yadda yadda, purchasing power levels back to static or worse. And the federal government is not going to cap salaries in the foreseeable future. So, while MacDonald's may, under a President Hillary, find itself having to pay at least $12 an hour to every employee one fine day, nothing stops executive salaries from going up by millions of dollars a year per executive. Net result? We'll still have income inequality and those making minimum wage may, at best, be SOL as far as increased purchasing power.

Wealth inequality, on the other hand..... But again, you have to get Republicans to go along. Not only has Bernie been better about that, but the enthusiasm of Bernie's supporters far exceeds the enthusiasm of Hillary's supporters. So, down ticket Democrats may benefit. Bernie may not have to deal with a majority Republican Senate.


A look back. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/politics/economic-plan-is-a-quandary-for-hillary-clintons-campaign.html

I don't remember if it was in this article or another about her 200+ person economic team --January 2015 is stuck in mind for some reason, not February--but one of her advisors said the task was to come up with a plan that sounded good to most Americans without scaring or offending rich people. Uh huh.

[Samantha]

48. Thank you for your thoughtful post

You made some excellent points.

Sam

[Scuba]

41. K&R Great thread. Thank Sam.

[Samantha]

49. Thanks, Scuba

Today has been the most wonderful day at DU in a long time. So much good news, so much excitement. Things are really shaping up and people are truly paying attention.

Sam

[libdem4life]

46. So many Democrats don't give a shit where she gets her millions.

That's when the top few rule the bottom Peasants...who have nothing to say about what the Oligarchs, do say, act or pontificate. (That would be The DC Beltway that has little to do with the politics of the Peasantry)

Beats me...maybe they think some of it will trickle down, oh wait...maybe they are still waiting since the 80's?????? Not much trickling.