Supporting politicians by your "class."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Why keep voting for millionaires to give you redress to your grievances? We need some new parties.

The 15K Party (Members earn 29k or less per year)

The 30K Party (Members earn 30k to 59k)

The 60K Party (Members earn 60k to 89k)

The 90K Party (Members earn 90k to 199k)

The 200K Party (Members earn 200k to 999k

The Upper Middle Class Party (Members "earn" 1M to 50M)

The Elite Party (Members "earn" 51M to 1B)

The People Who Control All The Shit Party (Members watch as their accounts get bloated)*



I think America would run smoother under this scenario.





*Required: Ability to block out the screams of misery from those you fuck over when you go to bed at night.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. I see the possibility for alliances.

:think:

[beyurslf]

2. I dont think I consider people who make a 1M a year "upper middle class"

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. What do you consider them?

It a framework. The numbers are only meant to be illustrative. They can be set anywhere. It's a concept.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. "F'ing fithy rich". That's what to call 'em.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. I'd be hard put to disagree with you.

:D

[mondo joe]

4. I don't believe in voting for people based on their income. eom

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Apparently someone does.

Check the incomes of the Congress. Senators and Presidents make particularly worthwhile subjects of scrutiny in this regard. Although the House is chock full of examples as well.

On a representative percentage it's off the charts.

[mondo joe]

6. Then you've assumed they are voted for BECAUSE of their income.

I wouldn't assume that.

How do you feel about education level?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. I'm assuming no such thing.

I'm noting the fact that Congress represents a tiny slice of the economic reality.


Voting by education level?

Judging by the statistical economic representation in Congress, it appears that 90% of Americans are idiots.

[mondo joe]

9. Sure you do. I specifically said "I don't believe in voting for people...

based on their income" and you replied "Apparently someone does".

"Does" what?

I don't know why you think you can only be represented by someone with the same income level.

And I don't know why you opted to not answer my education question, but I guess that's your choice.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. I heard(read) you.

"I don't believe in voting for people based on their income"

I believe you.

you replied "Apparently someone does". "Does" what?

Does believe in voting for people based on their income. If this weren't true why would our representation be so unrepresentative?

I don't know why you think you can only be represented by someone with the same income level.

I don't. I just think that it's probably a good place to start if you want someone in office who understands your lot in life. There are always exceptions.

And I don't know why you opted to not answer my education question, but I guess that's your choice.

I did, in a way. I'll be more on point. It's not as compelling an example. I would think most people would vote for people "smarter" than them. It would also require nationwide testing of a subjective nature. "Education" is much more elusive than "Jeffersons in the bank." That being said, I'm willing to give it a try. It's got to be better than this shit.

I responded to every part of your post. I'll strive not to let anything past my grasp in the future.

[mondo joe]

17. Do you think...

"Does believe in voting for people based on their income. If this weren't true why would our representation be so unrepresentative?"

Why? Maybe, because, like I said, people don't believe in voting for people based on income. If they did it might be MORE representative.

Do you think it's reasonable to elect people who are well educated with a track record of success?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Success?

We're nearing $10,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. The vast majority in Congress are repeat offenders. There's a 95% recidivism rate. That's called a "Track Record."

There are many more examples of "Track record" if you want them. :shrug:

[mondo joe]

23. Gee, during the Clinton administration we were paying down the debt,

and with a similar mix in Congress.

Was it their income that determined things then?

I have another question that I'll put in a separate post.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. See! A mild, and I mean mild, tax increase on the wealthy

yielded positive results.

Unfortunately, the long term record is not in accord with this anomaly.

Clinton bumped the income tax a few points. Surprise! :party: Money came pouring in.

The upper bracket is less than half of what it was 50 years ago. America's middle class golden age, I might add.

Thank you for making my point. :hug:

[mondo joe]

26. Was the income demographic significantly different in the Clinton years

than it is now?

I think you forgot your point, which was not taxation but income level of representation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. Lower income levels would probably opt to burden the classes

above them. Higher income levels would cut themselves a tax break(sound familiar?) People vote like they see themselves to be, not what they are.

See, I haven't forgotten my point at all. :party:


As far as the demographic goes, it is my understanding that the disparity in wealth continued under Clinton. It slowed a bit but it continued widening.

[mondo joe]

31. You failed to address my question. Is there a significant difference

in the income level between the congress under Clinton than Bush?

We can nicely test your hypothesis, since you acknowledge under Clinton taxes were more appropriately distributed than under Bush.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. No. Congress has always been rich.

While the citizenry hasn't been.

Thus the reason for the original post.


What exactly is your point?

[mondo joe]

36. So if Congress is always rich but Congress sometimes taxes the

wealthy more than it does at other times, your hypothesis (Lower income levels would probably opt to burden the classes above them) is disproven. The tax burden shifts without regard to the wealth of Congress.

Thanks.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. Have you ever heard the phrase "Watching out for your ass?"

Masses of people with sharp objects must be "soothed."

It would be suicide if they did what they really wanted to do (without the proper conditioning).

Have a great day/night.

[mondo joe]

46. Well now you've changed your mind.

If wealth determines how we'll be taxed, but the elected representatives are consistently wealthy, they should always tax us at the same rate.

But they don't.

Funny.

[mondo joe]

24. If I'm looking for someone who understands my "lot in life",

and I'm a black middle female, should I vote for the black candidate, the middle class one or the woman?

If I'm a gay low-income male, should I vote for the gay candidate, the low income candidate or the male candidate?

Should I vote for the candidate who looks the most like my demographic, or the one I think will do the best job?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. All three.

Vote for the black, middle female. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

A white, middle female probably would be good, too.

A brown, middle male would probably do okay by you, too.

See the constant? It's not about race, it's about circumstance.

[mondo joe]

29. Why isn't it about race?

What do you know about race?

And why did you ignore the gay issue?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. It is about race if you're creating categories of wealth.

What do you know about race?

As much as you do.

And why did you ignore the gay issue?

I'd answer but I'm being smothered by a straw man.

[mondo joe]

33. You see, you've decided that class is the only meaningful representation.

You're mistaken.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. I never said it is "the only meaningful representation."

Point to where I have.

Just give me a post#.

I'll be waiting over here.

"Ptooey. Straw gets stuck in your teeth."

Just give the post #.

No other information is needed besides a number. Thank you, in advance.

Just a number. A post number.

A number.

[mondo joe]

38. "It's not about race, it's about circumstance."

And the only circumstance you've given any weight to is class.

Tell me, if I'm a middle class gay black man which hypothetical candidate is more likely to represent my political interests:

The gay black upper class candidate
or
The middle class white homophobe?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. Number.

Before we move on, substantiate your penultimate post.

Either admit you were mischaracterizing my position or provide a post number.

[mondo joe]

42. I refer to your post 28.

Your position was accurately characterized.

Try to run away from it - I don't blame you.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. Where does "only meaningful representation" occur in that post?

See your accusatory post #33.

[mondo joe]

47. Well you're smart to run away from your own position, given what

it was.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. Good night and good luck. nt

[bvar22]

27. You already do (vote based on money).

The two party system is rigged so that only the most well funded get to play the game.

The Democratic Party criticism Against grassroots Democratic Primary candidates Hackett and Cegalis was "THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY" to compete in an election.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. Shh.

If we go about this quietly, the head is less likely to explode.

[NAO]

8. People do NOT identify with their class (by design and indoctrination)

there is a VERY strong, VERY pervasive, VERY constant indoctrination in the US.

We are taught:

- NOT to notice class differences

- To think of class differences as attributable to personal effort or lack thereof, NOT family inheritance

- To think of everyone as COMPLETELY class mobile (anyone can better themselves with a little hard work)

People cling to these notions for dear life, and have been taught to believe that they are at the core of "what America means".

Author Michael Parenti has done an excellent job of making these transparent notions visible in all areas of American life and culture.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. It would be interesting to see

a graphical representation of class mobility from birth to death.

I believe it would look like this:






y axis equals wealth @ birth
x axis equals wealth over time

[mondo joe]

11. Or maybe people don't feel they can only be represented by someone

of their economic class.

[NAO]

13. No, they do not believe that "class" is a valid category.

They think class is just a function of personal effort, and that it can be changed in either direction at will by anyone.

They do not identify with class because they do not see it nor consider it to be a way to group people. That would be un-American.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. That raises the question

"Is class a method by which people should be grouped?"

I say it's one of the most basic ways one can "group" individuals. What do you think?




eta: added emphasis

[mitchum]

35. And the majority of Americans die in the class into which they were born

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. Agreed.

I posited a representational graph in post #10. I don't have quantitative analysis but it's almost a surety.

IOW:

Rich babies die rich.
Poor babies die poor.
Middle class babies die middle class (circa 1950-1979)
Middle class babies die poor (circa 1980-present)?

[crispini]

39. You are correct, indeed. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Yep. Probably the best post in this horrid thread. nt

[taught_me_patience]

14. One problem...

Incomes are like penises... everybody exaggerates their own...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. So the politicians we vote for are exaggerated expressions of ourselves?

This is getting deep.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Gaaaa! $1m+ = "upper middle class"?? Make it stop!

The middle three quintiles of household incomes in 2003 was between $17,984 and $86,867. THAT'S MIDDLE CLASS.

If your household makes more than $154,120, you're in the top 5% of households. $1m is fantasyland. Calling that kind of rarified income "middle class" does a huge disservice to debate.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Don't sweat the numbers.

I agree with your figures. But when considering the actual power of any given quintile, 1M+ is where the real discussion begins.

Now, if we were to institute the new parties that I'm suggesting that would come back into line with what you are saying. We have to break away from what people think their "class" is and what it really is. E.g., when polled, most Americans think they're in the upper three quintiles. When in fact they're in the bottom three. By labeling the parties by income strata, it takes the guesswork out.

[Montagnard]

49. Makes sense to me

Since politics is all economics.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. Truth in advertising.