Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Zelandakh]

Certainly.

This is all pointless Richard. The information being asked for was already provided in the previous link. Drews is either trolling as usual or just too dumb to understand simple numbers. I would love to think it was the latter - at least then we could feel sorry for him - but sadly it is almost certainly for former, sticking to form as the pathetic little sh!t that he is.

[johnu]

The article does not talk about 401K programs, but I would suspect that another significant portion of stock ownership resides in 401Ks. Again, the wealthy tend not to use 401Ks, they have better, more sophisticated ways of investing.

 

As a matter of fact, highly paid employees participate at a much higher rate than than the lower paid because they have no problem saving more money. There are IRS nondescrimination tests that 401(k) plans have to pass each year which are designed to make sure that highly paid employees do not overly benefit from the plan. Lower paid employees needlessly waste their paychecks on things like rent, food, utilities and transportation and many don't have any money leftover to put into 401(k) plans.

 

There are limits on the maximum pay that can be used in determining contributions ($275,000 for this year) and maximum deferral limits ($54,000 for 2017), so 401(k)'s are a smaller part of the retirement savings for the very rich, but highly paid employees could accumulate several million dollars before retirement in a 401(k) which isn't pocket change.

[Winstonm]

It's a shame Fox News isn't included in the Disney deal as replacing Hannity with Goofy seems fitting.

[Winstonm]

Huffington Post gets my nomination for headline of the year with this today:

 

Go FCC Yourself

[ldrews]

Certainly.

 

I am part of the 1% (At least if you are measuring income. Still have a ways to go in terms of wealth, but I expect to be there in the not too too distant future)

A few of my friends are also in the 1%, some in the .1%, one in the .01%.

 

Other than a couple people whose money is tied up in weird family trusts and the like, most of us have fairly boring investment portfolios.

Heavy on no load index funds and the like

 

When I am in the market (I am not right now) I tend to have a lot of money in the Powershares QQQ series 1 Trust ETF.

 

Very few of "my" crowd has money in weird tax avoidance schemes, real estate trusts, or the like.

 

I suspect that this is because most of use made our $$$ in tech. I suspect that if my friends were more involved in - say - finance the results might be different.

 

But, for the lower end of the 1%, whole lotta of stock in our investment portfolios (almost has to be by definition since a bunch of our $$$ is in 401Ks, IRAs, and the like and its much easier to have those in pretty vanilla investments)

 

Thank you. That is interesting. I wonder if your situation and your friends' situation is common among those people whose income/wealth comes from involvement in the high tech fields. It would be interesting to compare to other sources of income/wealth.

[Winstonm]

More bad news for Don (the Scam) Trump:

 

Donald Trump's Approval Ratings Crumble In Iowa, a Decisive State for Republicans

Newsweek Linley Sanders,Newsweek 7 hours ago

Reactions Sign in to like Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email

Iowa, the state that sets the agenda for presidential races and handed Donald Trump a decisive victory in 2016’s election, now overwhelmingly disapproves of his performance and believes the country is on the wrong track, a new poll showed Wednesday.

 

This follows a trend of other Republican stronghold states, like Alabama and Tennessee, turning away from Trump as he scores record-low national approval ratings.

 

In a poll from The Des Moines Register, only 35 percent of Iowans approved of Trump's presidency. Meanwhile, 60 percent disapproved, citing his perceived "unprofessionalism," lack of clear vision and questionable integrity as president. Trump won the state last year with 51 percent of the vote—10 points over his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. He also came in second in the Iowa GOP caucus earlier in the year, scoring only one delegate less than the winner, Ted Cruz.

 

Only question left is how long will it take the base to admit they, too, were scammed?

 

And there is also this. Tick-tock, tick-tock...

[hrothgar]

And now Ryan is making noises about retiring...

 

I don't believe for a minute that thi has anything to do with being sick of the job or completing his work, rather, he is involved in this whole money laundering scandal and is trying to lower his profile to help save his rep when Mueller comes a calling...

[hrothgar]

And, from what I am hearing the Kushner indictments are going out today

 

(Some chance still that it will be next week, but today is quite probable)

[jjbrr]

Huffington Post gets my nomination for headline of the year with this today:

 

If by headline of the year you mean plagiarism of the year, yeah, HuffPo did a great job!

 

gofccyourself.com has been super popular for quite a while now.

[Winstonm]

And, from what I am hearing the Kushner indictments are going out today

 

(Some chance still that it will be next week, but today is quite probable)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbfMlk1PwGU

[barmar]

Had you read the article you would have found the following:

 

 

Since the bulk of stock ownership is in mutual funds, pension funds and insurance holdings, and I doubt that the 1% have much of their money in mutual funds, pension funds, and insurance holdings, then the bulk of the benefits would appear not to go to the 1%. The article does not talk about 401K programs, but I would suspect that another significant portion of stock ownership resides in 401Ks. Again, the wealthy tend not to use 401Ks, they have better, more sophisticated ways of investing. And my understanding is that the 1% tend to have their money in real estate, real estate limited partnerships, etc., not stocks. Do you have credible information to the contrary?

Did you read the article that was linked to above, and which I summarized? More than 90% of the stock market is owned by the richest 20%. The bottom 50% have almost nothing in the market. I believe they were including indirect ownership through mutual funds and 401ks. Most poor people either don't have access to 401k programs or they can't afford to contribute to them.

 

I'll bet most rich people contribute the maximum they can to 401k programs. The tax-free earnings and company matches make them excellent investments, even if you have access to other types of investments.

[ggwhiz]

And now Ryan is making noises about retiring...

 

I don't believe for a minute that thi has anything to do with being sick of the job or completing his work, rather, he is involved in this whole money laundering scandal and is trying to lower his profile to help save his rep when Mueller comes a calling...

 

Nah. Just my gut feeling that he is about power more than money and would be looking to distance himself from the coming GOP mess before his presidential run.

[rmnka447]

How wealth inequality now affects and has historically affected the middle and lower classes is more compelling information than the narrative you present. To expand your knowledge base, the affects of wealth inequality is an area you may want to research.

 

So what's your solution for solving "wealth inequality"? So far, I mostly hear progressives proposing some sort of income redistribution. Unfortunately, if you take away all the money from the wealthy, you still won't solve the problem. Then what do you do when there's no windfall to redistribute?

 

A key part of the tax reform is to give US businesses the chance to compete on a fairly level playing field in a global environment. If we keep penalizing and disadvantaging them, it'll mean the continued loss of jobs and wealth from this country which certainly exacerbates wealth inequality issues.

[rmnka447]

It's a shame Fox News isn't included in the Disney deal as replacing Hannity with Goofy seems fitting.

 

Hannity really drones on about his perceptions of our country and progressives. But no matter how other worldly he gets, he still can't match Rachel Maddow on MSNBC or some of the CNN crowd for completely Goofy off the wall commentary.

[rmnka447]

Certainly.

 

I am part of the 1% (At least if you are measuring income. Still have a ways to go in terms of wealth, but I expect to be there in the not too too distant future)

A few of my friends are also in the 1%, some in the .1%, one in the .01%.

 

Other than a couple people whose money is tied up in weird family trusts and the like, most of us have fairly boring investment portfolios.

Heavy on no load index funds and the like

 

When I am in the market (I am not right now) I tend to have a lot of money in the Powershares QQQ series 1 Trust ETF.

 

Very few of "my" crowd has money in weird tax avoidance schemes, real estate trusts, or the like.

 

I suspect that this is because most of use made our $$$ in tech. I suspect that if my friends were more involved in - say - finance the results might be different.

 

But, for the lower end of the 1%, whole lotta of stock in our investment portfolios (almost has to be by definition since a bunch of our $$$ is in 401Ks, IRAs, and the like and its much easier to have those in pretty vanilla investments)

 

I sort of suspected as much as a lot of your commentary speaks of being privileged.

 

But it isn't only the wealthy that benefit from the stock market being up. There are a lot of lower middle and middle middle class retirees who are dependent on IRAs to survive. And a big part of those IRAs right is a portfolio of stock market mutual funds. In addition, those people who don't have IRAs, but have "pensions" are also dependent on the stock market as the pension funds behind their pensions are heavily invested in the stock market also.

 

Now if you want to say anyone with an IRA is wealthy, that's not quite right. Many companies offer employees an option to take a lump sum pension payment when they retire. Many of those employees choose to take that lump sum because of the vagaries of business survival and because the lump sum offers more in regular payments from an IRA than they would get from pension payments from their employer over the long term.

[Zelandakh]

So what's your solution for solving "wealth inequality"? So far, I mostly hear progressives proposing some sort of income redistribution.

Reducing wealth inequality involves a redistribution of wealth by definition. That can be done directly (such as through taxation) or indirectly (for example by increasing the federal education allowance for poor schools and university grants to improve opportunities, eventually resulting in an improved average income for these groups) but if you do not take some wealth away from the top and redistribute it to the bottom then you are not addressing the issue.

 

 

But it isn't only the wealthy that benefit from the stock market being up.

Did you bother to read the link posted a short way up? It is not only the wealthy benefiting but it is overwhelmingly the top 10-20%. That means that market gains increase the wealth gap rather than helping to close it.

[hrothgar]

I sort of suspected as much as a lot of your commentary speaks of being privileged.

 

I've always admitted to being highly privileged.

 

Born in the US in the late 60s...

You don't get much more privileged than that...

 

College professors for parents.

I got to take college level classes starting in middle school

 

Raised in Poughkeepsie NY. Nice little enclave of IBMers and college types who were willing to invest heavily in public education.

 

Graduated near the top of my class from places like MIT and Wesleyan without a penny of student debt

 

***** yeah, I'm privileged and I know it... That why I feel so strongly about public education and the like. So other people have the same opportunities that I did.

 

At the same time, I'm not disconnected enough from what its like to work for a living to be talking about pension plans in 2018...

 

Many companies offer employees an option to take a lump sum pension payment when they retire. Many of those employees choose to take that lump sum because of the vagaries of business survival and because the lump sum offers more in regular payments from an IRA than they would get from pension payments from their employer over the long term.

[Winstonm]

 

A key part of the tax reform is to give US businesses the chance to compete on a fairly level playing field in a global environment. If we keep penalizing and disadvantaging them, it'll mean the continued loss of jobs and wealth from this country which certainly exacerbates wealth inequality issues.

 

I purposefully cut out your quote in order to emphasize the propaganda that you are buying into. My advice? Quit it.

 

Now, as far as redistribution is concerned, the idea is to take some from the top - 5%-10% - I don't know, but to give that to the poorest, those who spend 100% of their income on things like food, shelter, transportation, etc. They will not horde the extra money but spend it - increasing demand and justifying a reason to expand businesses and increase hiring.

 

The problems have occurred since the 1980s and is caused primarily by productivity increases being held by capital without a reasonable share going to labor. A lot of that was caused by the reduced ability of labor to bargain as unions.

 

Now, technological advances will make it quite difficult to restore some semblance of balance.

[y66]

From The Secret Post-Alabama Fantasy of the Anti-Trump G.O.P. Establishment by Susan Glasser

 

The fantasy voiced by anti-Trump Republicans in Washington, one that they would only speculate about off the record, is that Trump’s base grows so small and the losses in next year’s midterms are so large that the President decides not to seek reëlection. Call it the burn-the-Republican-village-in-order-to-save-it scenario. That possibility had Michael Needham worked up when I spoke with him after Moore’s defeat. Needham is the C.E.O. of Heritage Action for America, the lobbying and advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation, which is known for pushing a hard-line conservative agenda on Capitol Hill and instilling fear in congressional Republicans who buck it.

 

Since Trump’s win, Needham has worried that establishment types in his own party prefer to see Trump as a temporary nightmare imposed upon the G.O.P. rather than as a symptom of a political movement in crisis. If Trump is just a black-swan event, there’s a solution: no more Trump, no more problem.

 

But Needham thinks that is a fantasy. A few hours after Moore’s defeat, Needham was dreading a mainstream-G.O.P. victory dance. “There’s a Republican establishment that continues to seem to ignore this populist impulse going on around the country and the forces seeking to harness those impulses toward nihilistic ends,” he told me. “It’s hard to imagine a more nihilistic candidate than Roy Moore. But until our guys get serious saying institutions matter, and having a healthy Party matters, and, equally important, find inspiring policies that speak to this moment and recognize they are not inspiring voters and causing them to lash out in increasingly unconventional ways, we will continue to be stuck in this stalemate.”

 

Needham told me that he had no doubt that Bannon would not back down from the civil war, or from his nemesis, the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. And, in fact, that certainly seems to be the case, based on the angry smoke signals emanating from Bannon’s Breitbart headquarters. (A headline on the Web site on Thursday morning declared, “Bannon Least Culpable!”) Needham said that he was not looking forward to the post-game quarterbacking about Moore, or to the entire next year of midterm-election politicking. “Look, there’s some good policy work being done,” he told me. “But it’s being ignored in exchange for this dumpster fire.”

 

Just in case I hadn’t gotten the point, Needham returned to it later in our conversation. He said that it wasn’t just the Bannonite nihilists, or the recalcitrant Swamp creatures up in their comfortable Capitol Hill lairs, or even Trump, for that matter, who caused people to support Moore. “There’s an underlying sickness in the Party that is causing people to vote like that,” he said.

Inspiring policies from the mainstream G.O.P.? It could happen.

[kenberg]

I've always admitted to being highly privileged.

 

Born in the US in the late 60s...

You don't get much more privileged than that...

 

College professors for parents.

I got to take college level classes starting in middle school

 

Raised in Poughkeepsie NY. Nice little enclave of IBMers and college types who were willing to invest heavily in public education.

 

Graduated near the top of my class from places like MIT and Wesleyan without a penny of student debt

 

***** yeah, I'm privileged and I know it... That why I feel so strongly about public education and the like. So other people have the same opportunities that I did.

 

At the same time, I'm not disconnected enough from what its like to work for a living to be talking about pension plans in 2018...

 

 

 

I am going to add my variant on this, since I think this issue of privilege needs to be though about correctly.

 

I've always admitted to being highly privileged.

 

Same here!

 

Born in the US in the late 60s...

You don't get much more privileged than that...

 

Change 60s to 1939 for me, then again I agree.

College professors for parents.

I got to take college level classes starting in middle school

 

Here is where we diverge, but this is not at all a complaint. My father was an immigrant, his parents were dead by the time he was 12, his older brother helped him finish elementary school, then he went to work. He installed weatherstripping. My mother ran away from home when she was 14 or so. They had a tough life. I had a childhood that I look back on with pleasure. I feel very privileged to have had the childhood I had. Rich? Hardly. But you donn't have to be. Security is very important. being rich isn't. Learning? I bought George Gamoy's One Two Three Infinity when I was 13 and started reading Scientific American. When I was 16, in the summer, I sat in on a Physics class at the University of Minnesota. No charge. And Pauk Rosenbloom gave Saturday lectures on mathematics for those crazy kids like me who were interested. Sidebar: A young and not very tactful visitor to the U once commented about the tragedy of the brilliant Rosenbloom putting all of his energy into education. James Serrin responded "Yes, Paul used to be ten years ahead of everyone else, now he is only five years ahead of everyone else". But cars were a big part of my adolescence. I turned 15 on Han 1, got my learner's permit on Jan 2, got my license in March, bought a car, a 47 Plymouth, in April. Working on cars, mine and others, was a big part of my life.

 

Raised in Poughkeepsie NY. Nice little enclave of IBMers and college types who were willing to invest heavily in public education.

 

The Twin Cities in Minnesota was wonderful in the 40s and 50s. When I was 13 my friend Roger and I tool a bike trip up along the St. Croix river, a few days on our own. Two tears later, after I bought the car, we took a road trip. It is absolutely not necessary to be born to wealth to have a memorable childhood/adolescence.

 

Graduated near the top of my class from places like MIT and Wesleyan without a penny of student debt

 

Well, I graduated!. I had a tendency to do what I wanted, and not do what I didn't want to. I failed one class that was easy but boring. I never came. I did fine on the exams but the instructor gave a daily attendance quiz, 10 points a shot. He could have turned in my F by Thanksgiving. I did the same in some other classes but there they gave me a break as long as I did well on the exams. Once in the student union, after an exam, I was telling a friend about how a problem I couldn't solve. The instructor, who i did not recognize, was standing nearby. "You should come to class, you would learn how to solve problems like that". Of course other classes I liked. Some I really liked. Mathematics of Fluid Flow (Hugh Turritin) . History and Philosophy of Religion (Paul Holmer). These are a couple of the many I really liked. John Berryman was a nut but he was also great.

 

***** yeah, I'm privileged and I know it... That why I feel so strongly about public education and the like. So other people have the same opportunities that I did.

 

And we are in complete agreement here. I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, or what you think about cultural issues, is it not completely obvious that everyone benefits when young people have an opportunity? And opportunity starts with a secure childhood and access to education. This is clear to everyone, is it not?

 

At the same time, I'm not disconnected enough from what its like to work for a living to be talking about pension plans in 2018...

 

 

Here is what I really want to get at in this maybe overly long post. We get entirely too hung up on the 1 percent issue. It is absolutely not necessary, or in my opinion even particularly important, to be at the top of the wealth ladder. My parents bought me a set of socket wrenches for my 16th birthday. A phonograph for my 13th, with 3 LPs. Stan Kenton, Billy May and a third one. This was very nice and I remember it 60 plus years later. Security, education, opportunity. That's where it's at. From a Loretta Lynn song "They say to have her hair done Liz flies all the way to France". Let her. It's ok. Carly does my hair. Nearby, and she does a good job.

 

Sorry if I have gone over the top with this, but I regard the issue as important.

[Winstonm]

From my experience, the populist movement of today is comprised of the same people who elected Democrat John Kennedy in 1960 - that the Democratic party has allowed that group to be horn-swaggled by social conservative planks into believing that Republicans are on their side is a condemnation of the Democratic party as it was - and a clear message as to where it needs to head.

[RedSpawn]

So what's your solution for solving "wealth inequality"? So far, I mostly hear progressives proposing some sort of income redistribution. Unfortunately, if you take away all the money from the wealthy, you still won't solve the problem. Then what do you do when there's no windfall to redistribute?

 

A key part of the tax reform is to give US businesses the chance to compete on a fairly level playing field in a global environment. If we keep penalizing and disadvantaging them, it'll mean the continued loss of jobs and wealth from this country which certainly exacerbates wealth inequality issues.

????

 

Multinational corporations are doing just fine in this global economy. They are not disadvantaged and have manipulated several governments to systematically reduce their corporate tax liability across the globe. Further, as we give the multinational corporations these unnecessary tax breaks, the likelihood that the tax savings will trickle down to the unemployed and underemployed masses is remote.

 

We are marching toward a lowly-paid service economy and our politicans are doing very little to help Main Street.

 

The recipients of this glorified form of corporate socialism will continue to invest their tax savings in stock buyback programs and in mergers and acquisitions which will further imperil the job security of the gainfully employed masses.

 

Multinational companies have no incentive to increase their payrolls or headcount when they can generate respectable earnings per share (EPS) metrics though company stock buyback programs which reduce the total number of shares outstanding and artificially inflate EPS figures. These multinationals will also continue to generate "value" for shareholders by vertically integrating with other industries and reducing redundancies in business processes through layoffs and reengineering.

 

None of this bodes well for Main Street.

[johnu]

And now Ryan is making noises about retiring...

 

I don't believe for a minute that thi has anything to do with being sick of the job or completing his work, rather, he is involved in this whole money laundering scandal and is trying to lower his profile to help save his rep when Mueller comes a calling...

 

TV political pundits seem to agree that this is because he is facing a very credible challenge in the 2018 election and a loss would put a serious dent in his 2020 presidential hopes.

[y66]

From my experience, the populist movement of today is comprised of the same people who elected Democrat John Kennedy in 1960 - that the Democratic party has allowed that group to be horn-swaggled by social conservative planks into believing that Republicans are on their side is a condemnation of the Democratic party as it was - and a clear message as to where it needs to head.

I'm pretty sure you can make a case that quite a few of the people who voted for Trump in 2016 voted for Obama in 2008 and also that Trump way outsmarted the people running Clinton's campaign when it came to winning over voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Keith Ellison (D-MN) is rewriting part of the playbook for the Dems. His idea is that the Dems need to be out there knocking on doors and talking to voters 365 days a year, not just once every 4 years and not just posting here in the water cooler. That was definitely part of the story behind the Dems' success here in Virginia in November. He has probably also been praying for the GOP to pass a tax bill that favors corporations and 1 percenters which will kill any remaining illusions that the reachable 10 percent of Trump's supporters have about who Trump and the GOP are in this for.

[cherdano]

Another Trump achievement ldrews can put on his list: the Center for Disease Control is no longer allowed to use the words “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html

 

That'll show these liberal elites, trying to prevent the spread of diseases based on "science" or "evidence".