Why does America have worse economic inequality than almost any other developed nation? Because of the Republican Party. It’s that simple. Why is the Republican Party the way it is? That’s a more complicated question.
A short answer is that the Republican Party is the way it is because of a series of laws and judicial rulings and some unfortunate byproducts of our Constitution that allow them to be that way.
Winner-take-all elections, money as speech, corporations as people, no Fairness Doctrine, gerrymandering, the Senate, Super PACs, and racial and religious divisions and anxieties explain most of it.
Or, another way of putting it is that rich people have arranged things this way with an assist from our Founders and a bunch of plutocratic judges. The right has always been unnaturally strong in this country.
OT, but wow:
“You get nothing. I get that for free.”
Well DAMN!
At some point the obvious had to be said. One can only hope that Boehner checks himself into rehab over Christmas.
Sorry. Behind subscription firewall. Maybe someone will find a work-around.
Well, yes, the WSJ are repugnant and capitalists, not that I reject the latter, the former defenitely must get their due. Mr Obama: please let the repugnants turn in the wind, oh please, the country will take care of itself until the first week of January and then the repugnants will come to heel, beg you for your blessing to avoid their complete meltdown. Compromise doesn’t mean that both or all sides have to do it, one side can compromise and the other can remain uncompromising. Did you know that, Mr. Obama?
The absolute level of inequality wouldn’t be so bad if it was accompanied by a high level of mobility between income levels, but we are also near the bottom of the pile in economic mobility.
This is not a good situation.
So if once in a while somebody who starts life as a slave becomes an owner of slaves, the existence of a society stratified into slaves and their owners is OK with you?
Ah.
Equal opportunity liberalism.
Other than completely inventing the concept of “once in a while,” and thereby turning my comment completely on its head, that’s a great comment. The meaning of the phrase “high level of economic mobility” is exactly the opposite of your straw man about “once in a while.”
Except for the part where you equate being low-income with being a slave. That’s pretty fucking offensive, actually.
So, no, not really a very good comment.
I do love this theory, though, that you can have a high level of economic mobility in a slave society.
Wait…WHAT?!?
Prior to tax transfers we’re less unequal than those countries (I think? I thought I saw that somewhere). I’m not saying that tax transfers are bad; I think the most effective means to lift people out of poverty and elevate their income is handing them cash (not these bullshit benefits and food stamps).
However, it doesn’t bode well for the power structure itself. Those transfers are going to constantly be attacked by the wealthy because the poor and middle class lose political power when they lose buying power prior to said cash transfers.
The big push for gun control in this country began in California under Governor Ronald Reagan, and was a response to the Black Panthers.
So…yeah.
watching LaPierre’s speech now – horrifying. the guy is really sick
I have a theory: the gun lobby is engaging in a trolling strategy. They’re deliberately saying offensive and inflammatory things so that we’ll talk about how terrible they are, instead of talking about what we should do with gun regulation.
Interesting, very plausible assessment
It’s interesting that Alexander Hamilton in his day stood for both Big Money and Big Government. Their interests were united at that point, and Jefferson hated them both. And Hamilton’s policies definitely encouraged an unequal distribution of wealth, but not for its own sake. The real idea was to encourage large accumulations of capital so that the government could get its hands on them in an emergency. And then of course over time the custodians of the capital came to believe they’d done it all themselves and didn’t see why they should have to share with anybody.
America is the way it is because there are politicians who can be bought. Empirical evidence shows that those politicians are in both parties. Well, that situation has been there since the beginning of the Republic. Why is is now so much worse?
That is what got Republicans to the point of appointing plutocratic judges.
I could go on.
But rich people have arranged things this way with the consent if not the collaboration of the folks who are being hurt.
And Democrats have participated in this process. That’s what Blue Doggery was all about.
you’ve missed the single most important cause of inequality in America – the decline of the labor movement.
“The right has always been unnaturally strong in this country.”
It was supposed to be strong; there is nothing unnatural about it.
6 year terms in an anti-majoritarian senate selected by state legislatures.
Life tenure for Supremes appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
Presidential electors selected by the states in whatever manner pleases them; electors free to vote for anyone; congress free to certify their vote or not.
Marbury vs. Madison.
Extra seats in the house for slave states.
Sure, it was the most democratic constitution in the world when adopted since it rejected monarchy, hereditary office, lords spiritual, and even hereditary prestige.
But it went as far as humanly possible within the framework of 18th Century republicanism to exclude the people from power and permanently cement government of the powerful, by the powerful, and for the powerful.
In contrast, the parliamentary regimes that resulted “by accident” as European monarchies and aristocracies were shorn of power within structures of state inherited from feudalism are generally much more democratic than what we Americans endure.
And to this day many Democratic pundits with reputations for solid liberalism would oppose most of the democratizing reforms now and again suggested by political scientists and constitutional scholars of progressive bent.
You, for example.