PDA

View Full Version : Socialism? The Rich Are Winning the US Class War


L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 03:06 PM
Monday 25 October 2010

by: Bill Quigley, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis


The rich and their paid false prophets are doing a bang-up job deceiving the poor and middle class. They have convinced many that an evil socialism is alive in the land and it is taking their fair share. But the deception cannot last - facts say otherwise.

Yes, there is a class war - the war of the rich on the poor and the middle class - and the rich are winning. That war has been going on for years. Look at the facts - facts the rich and their false paid prophets do not want people to know.

Let Glenn Beck go on about socialists descending on Washington. Allow Rush Limbaugh to rail about "class warfare for a leftist agenda that will destroy our society." They are well compensated false prophets for the rich.

The truth is that for several decades the rich in the US have been getting richer and the poor and middle class have been getting poorer. Look at the facts, then make up your own mind.

Poor Getting Poorer: Facts

The official US poverty numbers show we now have the highest number of poor people in 51 years. The official US poverty rate is 14.3 percent or 43.6 million people in poverty. One in five children in the US is poor; one in ten senior citizens is poor. (Source: US Census Bureau.)

One of every six workers, 26.8 million people, is unemployed or underemployed. This "real" unemployment rate is over 17 percent. There are 14.8 million people designated as "officially" unemployed by the government, a rate of 9.6 percent. Unemployment is worse for African-American workers, of whom 16.1 percent are unemployed. Another 9.5 million people who are working only part-time while they are seeking full-time work, but have had their hours cut back or are so far only able to find work part-time, are not counted in the official unemployment numbers. Also, an additional 2.5 million are reported unemployed, but not counted because they are classified as discouraged workers in part because they have been out of work for more than 12 months. (Source: US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics October 2010 report.)

The median household income for whites in the US is $51,861, for Asians it is $65,469, for African-Americans it is $32,584, for Latinos it is $38,039. (Source: US Census Bureau.)

Fifty million people in the US lack health insurance. (Source: US Census Bureau.)

Women in the US have a greater lifetime risk of dying from pregnancy-related conditions than women in 40 other countries. African-American US women are nearly four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women. (Source: Amnesty International Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA.)

About 3.5 million people, about one-third of which are children, are homeless at some point in the year in the US. (Source: National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.)

Outside Atlanta, 33,000 people showed up to seek applications for low-cost, subsidized housing in August 2010. When Detroit offered emergency utility and housing assistance to help people facing evictions, more than 50,000 people showed up for the 3,000 vouchers. (Source: News reports.)

If you’ve been reading Truthout for quite a while and haven’t donated lately, please make a tax-deductible contribution today. We can only do it with you on board!

There are 49 million people in the US who live in households which eat only because they receive food stamps, visit food pantries or soup kitchens for help. Sixteen million are so poor they have skipped meals or foregone food at some point in the last year. This is the highest level since statistics have been kept. (Source: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.)

Middle Class Going Backward: Facts

One or two generations ago it was possible for a middle-class family to live on one income. Now, it takes two incomes to try to enjoy the same quality of life. Wages have not kept up with inflation; adjusted for inflation, they have lost ground over the past ten years. The cost of housing, education and health care have all increased at a much higher rate than wages and salaries. In 1967, the middle 60 percent of households received over 52 percent of all income. In 1998, it was down to 47 percent. The share going to the poor has also fallen, with the top 20 percent seeing their share rise. (Mark Trumball, "Obama's challenge: reversing a decade of middle-class decline," Christian Science Monitor, January 25, 2010.)

A record 2.8 million homes received a foreclosure notice in 2009, higher than both 2008 and 2007. In 2010, the rate is expected to be rise to three million homes. (Sources: Reuters and RealtyTrac.)

Eleven million homeowners (about one in four homeowners) in the US are "under water" or owe more on their mortgages than their house is worth. (Source: "Home truths," The Economist, October 23, 2010.)

For the first time since the 1940s, the real incomes of middle-class families are lower at the end of the business cycle of the 2000s than they were at the beginning. Despite the fact that the American workforce is working harder and smarter than ever, they are sharing less and less in the benefits they are creating. This is true for white families, but even truer for African-American families whose gains in the 1990s have mostly been eliminated since then. (Source: Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz, State of Working America.)

Rich Getting Richer: Facts

The wealth of the richest 400 people in the US grew by 8 percent in the last year to $1.37 trillion. (Source: Forbes 400: The super-rich get richer, September 22, 2010, Money.com.)

The top hedge fund manager of 2009, David Tepper, "earned" $4 billion last year. The rest of the top ten earned: $3.3 billion, $2.5 billion, $2.3 billion, $1.4 billion, $1.3 billion (tie for sixth and seventh place), $900 million (tie for eighth and ninth place) and in last place out of the top ten, $825 million. (Source: Business Insider, "Meet the top 10 earning hedge fund managers of 2009.")

Income disparity in the US is now as bad as it was right before the Great Depression at the end of the 1920s. From 1979 to 2006, the richest 1 percent more than doubled their share of the total US income, from 10 percent to 23 percent. The richest 1 percent have an average annual income of more than $1.3 million. For the last 25 years, over 90 percent of the total growth in income in the US went to the top 10 percent earners - leaving 9 percent of all income to be shared by the bottom 90 percent. (Source: Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz, State of Working America.)

In 1973, the average US CEO was paid $27 for every dollar paid to a typical worker; by 2007 that ratio had grown to $275 for every $1. (Source: Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz, State of Working America.)

Since 1992, the average tax rate on the richest 400 taxpayers in the US dropped from 26.8 percent to 16.62 percent. (Source: US Internal Revenue Service.)

The US has the greatest inequality between rich and poor among all Western industrialized nations, and it has been getting worse for 40 years. The World Factbook, published by the CIA, includes an international ranking of the inequality among families inside of each country, called the Gini Index. The US ranking of 45 in 2007 is the same as Argentina, Cameroon and Cote d'Ivorie. The highest inequality can be found in countries like Namibia, South Africa, Haiti and Guatemala. The US ranking of 45 compares poorly to Japan (38), India (36), New Zealand, UK (34), Greece (33), Spain (32), Canada (32), France (32), South Korea (31), Netherlands (30), Ireland (30), Australia (30), Germany (27), Norway (25) and Sweden (23). (Source: CIA, The World Factbook.)

Rich people live an average of about five years longer than poor people in the US. Naturally, gross inequality has consequences in terms of health, exposure to unhealthy working conditions, nutrition and lifestyle. In 1980, the most well-off in the US had a life expectancy of 2.8 years over the least well-off. As the inequality gap widens, so does the life expectancy gap. In 1990, the gap was a little less than four years. In 2000, the least well-off could expect to live to age of 74.7, while the most well-off had a life expectancy of 79.2 years. (Source: Elise Gould, "Growing disparities in life expectancy," Economic Policy Institute.)

Conclusion

These are extremely troubling facts for anyone concerned about economic fairness, equality of opportunity and justice.

Thomas Jefferson once observed that the systematic restructuring of society to benefit the rich over the poor and middle class is a natural appetite of the rich. "Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to ... the general prey of the rich on the poor." But Jefferson also knew that justice can only be delayed so long when he said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."

The rich talk about the rise of socialism to divert attention from the fact that they are devouring the basics of the poor and everyone else. Many of those crying socialism the loudest are doing it to enrich or empower themselves. They are right about one thing - there is a class war going on in the US. The rich are winning their class war and it is time for everyone else to fight back for economic justice.

http://www.truth-out.org/socialism-the-rich-are-winning-us-class-war-facts-show-rich-getting-richer-everyone-else-poorer64514

Taco John
10-28-2010, 03:22 PM
I don't believe in a class war, or in class warfare.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 03:33 PM
I don't believe in a class war, or in class warfare.

You can reject that characterization, but you can't deny the facts presented.

Taco John
10-28-2010, 03:56 PM
Meh. Ebbs and flows. Wealth contracts and expands based on economic factors that can't be controlled no matter how hard you try. The best thing that you can do is protect the individual liberties of every individual and hope they all make the best decisions for themselves.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 04:00 PM
Ebbs and flows.

That would be a most inaccurate interpretation of the data (which depicts a long-term trend, i.e., a disparity that has been growing progressively wider - not "ebbs and flows.")

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 04:03 PM
In 1973, the average US CEO was paid $27 for every dollar paid to a typical worker; by 2007 that ratio had grown to $275 for every $1. (Source: Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz, State of Working America.)

This statistic ought to give everyone pause.

I don't know how the righties can put a positive spin on this.

Jay3
10-28-2010, 04:20 PM
And the wealth distribution problem in America is only the tip of the iceberg -- Americans are wealthier than the vast majority of the world population. It behooves us to begin the redistribution of American wealth immediately.

We need to just spread it all out. Dissipate it.

Taco John
10-28-2010, 04:21 PM
This statistic ought to give everyone pause.

I don't know how the righties can put a positive spin on this.


I don't have a positive spin for it. I believe this kind of disparity is a direct result of Keynesian policies of the Federal Reserve. I find it to be evil. I don't believe the solution to it is to paper over the evil and hope that giving more power to government will make it go away. Truly, it will only make it worse.

If someone has you in a headlock, the solution to the problem isn't to give that person a bat. They'll just beat you over the head with it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 04:22 PM
And the wealth distribution problem in America is only the tip of the iceberg -- Americans are wealthier than the vast majority of the world population. It behooves us to begin the redistribution of American wealth immediately.

We need to just spread it all out. Dissipate it.

People who vote republican are proponents of wealth redistribution - from the middle class to the top 1%.

In fact, that's really the GOP's only job.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 04:23 PM
I don't have a positive spin for it. I believe this kind of disparity is a direct result of Keynesian policies of the Federal Reserve. I find it to be evil. I don't believe the solution to it is to paper over the evil and hope that giving more power to government will make it go away. Truly, it will only make it worse.

If someone has you in a headlock, the solution to the problem isn't to give that person a bat. They'll just beat you over the head with it.

You already know I agree with you (and Ron Paul) about the Fed.

But, if by "giving more to government" you mean giving the government power to intervene in the affairs of the Fed (which you probably don't) then no sale.

Taco John
10-28-2010, 04:26 PM
You already know I agree with you (and Ron Paul) about the Fed.

Then we have nothing to argue about, because this is truly the issue that I care anything about. It is the center of our universe of problems. Everything else is merely a bandaid over a gushing wound hardly worth arguing about.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 04:30 PM
Then we have nothing to argue about, because this is truly the issue that I care anything about. It is the center of our universe of problems. Everything else is merely a bandaid over a gushing wound hardly worth arguing about.

Then perhaps the only disagreement is over the solution.

I, for one, believe government should be empowered to intervene in the activities of the Fed, and, yes, to abolish it altogether.

I also believe the U.S. Treasury Department (not a private central bank) should take over the job of printing U.S. dollars.

Taco John
10-28-2010, 04:31 PM
But, if by "giving more to government" you mean giving the government power to intervene in the affairs of the Fed (which you probably don't) then no sale.

Giving government more power to intervene in the affairs of the Fed! LOL!

This is like giving my son the power to ground me from poker night. Good luck son. Have fun trying that one.

We just tried that, and the end result was a neutered bill that looks up The Fed's skirt with a blindfold on. And no one cared. Everyone was too busy arguing over Lindsay Lohan and David Koch to really worry about the real issues.

Jay3
10-28-2010, 04:45 PM
The Fed is the government.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 04:50 PM
Giving government more power to intervene in the affairs of the Fed! LOL!



Then how do you propose to exercise control of the Fed?

Form a vigilante group and storm the HQ with pitch forks? Ha!

Your "baby out with the bathwater" outlook on the role of government makes about that much sense.

Taco John
10-28-2010, 06:08 PM
Then how do you propose to exercise control of the Fed?

Form a vigilante group and storm the HQ with pitch forks? Ha!

Your "baby out with the bathwater" outlook on the role of government makes about that much sense.


Baby out with the bathwater? I wish. I take a more get the baby out of the viper urine approach, and destroy every last viper with fire.

Taco John
10-28-2010, 06:09 PM
Then how do you propose to exercise control of the Fed?

Seriously though. My answer is persistance.

Ron Paul has been fighting this battle since the 70's. Nothing is going to happen overnight.

mhgaffney
10-28-2010, 08:27 PM
Persistence is pointless unless you have the correct analysis.

You can't reform the fed. You have to abolish it. One of our greatest presidents, Andrew Jackson, understood this -- and refused to renew the charter on the fed of his era (1820s-30s).

In the early period of our nation there was a lot of opposition to a centralized bank. As a result the bankers had to settle for a 20-year charter.

The present day fed has no expiration date. It is forever unless we put this issue in the spotlight and make it stage center.

Taco John
10-28-2010, 08:52 PM
Not saying anything that I don't know.

Anything but abolishment is just rearranging deck chairs as far as I'm concerned.

Taco John
10-28-2010, 09:09 PM
I've discovered why LABF sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about when he uses the term "corporatism."


In contemporary usage, "corporatism" is often used as a pejorative term against the domination of politics by the interests of business corporations (Corporatocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy)) based on the inaccurate interpretation of "corporat" in corporatism as referring to business corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism


Corporatism doesn't mean what you think it does, chief.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 09:32 PM
I've discovered why LABF sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about when he uses the term "corporatism."


In contemporary usage, "corporatism" is often used as a pejorative term against the domination of politics by the interests of business corporations (Corporatocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy)) based on the inaccurate interpretation of "corporat" in corporatism as referring to business corporations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism


Corporatism doesn't mean what you think it does, chief.

That's a ridiculous exercise in semantics.

If you were serious about this, then you wouldn't use that Mussolini quote of yours so often.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 09:34 PM
Seriously though. My answer is persistance.(sic)

Ron Paul has been fighting this battle since the 70's. Nothing is going to happen overnight.

Persistence in what?

There were others fighting the battle long before Ron Paul came along, FYI.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 09:36 PM
Baby out with the bathwater? I wish. I take a more get the baby out of the viper urine approach, and destroy every last viper with fire.

By analogy, then, you would have no government at all?

Taco John
10-28-2010, 09:51 PM
I would have no Federal Reserve at all.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-28-2010, 09:54 PM
I would have no Federal Reserve at all.

Neither would I.

mhgaffney
10-29-2010, 03:23 AM
At the tea party rally I attended -- the issue of abolishing the fed never arose.