[Nuke]

ive always said that trickle down has been replaced by trickle east.

[redsniper]

I was talking about popular revolution, not exterminating the poor btw. Seems to be the historical outcome of unchecked wealth disparity.

[The E]

But do note how a vocal portion of the poor in the US has been convinced that instituting measures to rectify this is unamerican and against their best interests.

[Thaeris]

I was talking about popular revolution, not exterminating the poor btw. Seems to be the historical outcome of unchecked wealth disparity.

Careful Red, the Patriot Act and the Smith Act are working against you, there.

As per the video, thank you for posting that.

I'd argue that failure to correct for frivolous legislation/court rulings and the current state of corporations are the factors causing the ugly state of the curve - social programs are not going to fix that. When you and I cannot simply decide to engage in a profitable, productive endeavor because we do not have the capital for licensure, that's bad. When I cannot get health care because the current legal environment dictates that (a.) prices charged for services become unreasonable and (b.) I must buy insurance, which may or may not be a non-governmental tax, that's immoral. When the cost of living becomes too high to be reasonable, I cannot engage in a business of my own design within an easily attainable set of requirements or a degree of security, and the only primary sources of employment I can elect to pursue may very well prevent me from engaging in successful business of my own via what may be called insurmountable competition, that might as well be criminal.

*EDIT*

For some reason, I quoted the wrong post.

[redsniper]

But do note how a vocal portion of the poor in the US has been convinced that instituting measures to rectify this is unamerican and against their best interests.

Oh well yeah, it's brilliant... if you're one of the folks on top. We're not nearly to the point of violent revolution I think. Like I said in my first post, it will have to be so bad that the poor are literally going to starve, or otherwise have a greater chance of dying if they _don't_ revolt.

[Nuke]

But do note how a vocal portion of the poor in the US has been convinced that instituting measures to rectify this is unamerican and against their best interests.

Oh well yeah, it's brilliant... if you're one of the folks on top. We're not nearly to the point of violent revolution I think. Like I said in my first post, it will have to be so bad that the poor are literally going to starve, or otherwise have a greater chance of dying if they _don't_ revolt.

oh goodie, better stock up on ammo.

[deathfun]

But do note how a vocal portion of the poor in the US has been convinced that instituting measures to rectify this is unamerican and against their best interests.

Oh well yeah, it's brilliant... if you're one of the folks on top. We're not nearly to the point of violent revolution I think. Like I said in my first post, it will have to be so bad that the poor are literally going to starve, or otherwise have a greater chance of dying if they _don't_ revolt.

oh goodie, better stock up on ammo.

7.62 x 39mm and a **** ton of SKSs

[Black Wolf]

But do note how a vocal portion of the poor in the US has been convinced that instituting measures to rectify this is unamerican and against their best interests.

Yep. For all my problems with the US right wing, I can't deny that they're fantastic at politics. Convincing anyone earning less than 100,000 to vote for them is an achievement - convincing very nearly exactly half the country to do it is undeniably an act of legitimate political genius.

Policies? For a start, next time when you install windows on your machine consider installing linux and giving the spared 100$[or whatever it will cost] to the poor. For a start. Then talk about policies.

Yep, that should definitely be a priority. Forget adjusting the income tax brackets to something close to the world average for developed nations, or eliminating loopholes in the same system, or overhauling corporate tax, or increasing capital gains to a sensible level, or upping the minimum wage. Your problems are primarily the result of the Windows OS.

[Phantom Hoover]

i thought the u.s. right wing had basically rightshifted themselves into oblivion by chasing the tea party crazies so fervently the moderates upped and left

[Mongoose]

But do note how a vocal portion of the poor in the US has been convinced that instituting measures to rectify this is unamerican and against their best interests.

Yep. For all my problems with the US right wing, I can't deny that they're fantastic at politics. Convincing anyone earning less than 100,000 to vote for them is an achievement - convincing very nearly exactly half the country to do it is undeniably an act of legitimate political genius.

I understand where this sentiment comes from, but I also think it does the issue something of a disservice by over-simplifying things.  Just based on the sentiments I hear from right-wing people I interact with on a daily basis, for them, it's not so much about whether or not they directly benefit of a policy, but instead about the underlying fairness of that policy as they see it.  Most of them feel like people shouldn't be punished for being financially successful, with higher taxes on the wealthy constituting a "punishment" in their view.  In turn, they feel like the government shouldn't be providing "handouts" (i.e. excessive social services), as in their view it devalues hard work and being able to better yourself.  This ties into an underlying faith in the "American Dream," the idea that anyone in this country can start from nothing and become successful if they just work hard enough.  Unfortunately, studies have shown that income class mobility in this country is currently at almost an all-time low, but that doesn't seem to have dissuaded that belief that they, too, might be making the big bucks someday.  Now you may think that these views are absolute nonsense, or credit the Republican Party with spinning the issues in this manner, but I don't think it's entirely cut-and-dry.

Of course there are also more single-issue voters who make their decisions based more on social issues and don't care much about economics, but that's true for people in both parties.

[BrotherBryon]

i thought the u.s. right wing had basically rightshifted themselves into oblivion by chasing the tea party crazies so fervently the moderates upped and left

No they have become stronger than ever. When the right wing took so many hits on the federal level they shifted their focus to the state level and they have been slinging the crazy at the state level even more than they ever were on the federal level.

I think the GOP's and Tea Party's scare tactics with socialism have been masterful at leading the ignorant and stupid ranks of the poor into their camp. You would think with the collapse of the Soviet Union the big red scare card would have worn it self out by now.

Moderates are a dieing breed these days, both sides are becoming increasing more polarized and pushing them out. The right wing is just the loudest so you don't notice the increase in polarization in the left wing as much.

[General Battuta]

At least at the presidential level a whole bunch of these (very important) issues like income inequality are frighteningly irrelevant. You can accurately model the US political system and presidential voting base using the following model:

Team A and Team B compete for the presidency. Every election cycle we have an incumbent team and a challenger team. Team A and Team B can be treated as identical and interchangeable. For this discussion let's call Team A the incumbent.

If the economy grows during Team A's presidency, as measured by something like change in real income, give Team A a point. If the economy shrinks, give Team B a point.

If we're at war, give Team A a point.

If the incumbent president has already had a four-year term, give Team A a point.

Congrats! You've called the presidential election! This is obviously a little bit of an oversimplification - there are weights on these points - but not nearly as much as you'd think. This is why predictions that one party or the other has effectively been 'finished' at the presidential level are, so far, premature: the actual policies and issues the parties espouse don't play into the outcome of presidential races, and all it takes to put a party back in competition is a bad economic run. (Ironically, the state of the economy is pretty much outside the president's control.)

I don't know nearly as much about the legislative branch so I can't speak to it as well.

[Dilmah G]

It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism is a pretty good book on the legislative side. Polished it off a few months ago myself.

[Apollo]

i thought the u.s. right wing had basically rightshifted themselves into oblivion by chasing the tea party crazies so fervently the moderates upped and left

No they have become stronger than ever. When the right wing took so many hits on the federal level they shifted their focus to the state level and they have been slinging the crazy at the state level even more than they ever were on the federal level.

I think the GOP's and Tea Party's scare tactics with socialism have been masterful at leading the ignorant and stupid ranks of the poor into their camp. You would think with the collapse of the Soviet Union the big red scare card would have worn it self out by now.

Moderates are a dieing breed these days, both sides are becoming increasing more polarized and pushing them out. The right wing is just the loudest so you don't notice the increase in polarization in the left wing as much.

I find the Rebublican Party's fear of socialism rather amusing, considering that most of them support socialist programs... not that they'd admit it, of course. They're still right-wing overall, but in that regard they're center-left.

It really irritates me when I hear the terms "communist" and "far-right" applied to people who are very clearly neither. The former is a giant exaggeration and the latter is just stupid (the Republicans are not neo-Nazis). This type of mudslinging prevents an honest debate on policy.*

*Speaking generally. I'm not accusing you.

[Black Wolf]

It really irritates me when I hear the terms "communist" and "far-right" applied to people who are very clearly neither. The former is a giant exaggeration and the latter is just stupid (the Republicans are not neo-Nazis). This type of mudslinging prevents an honest debate on policy.*

By the standards of just about any other developed nation, the US Republicans are pretty far-right.

[The E]

Republicans are not Neo-Nazis. There are two axis which you can use to categorize political parties, one marks the social/fiscal side from conservatism to liberalism, the other the preferred governmental model (authoritarian to liberalism). The original Nazis were conservative and authoritarian; while the american right wing tends to be conservative in fiscal/social issues, but preferring a libertarian government (A government that governs least, in other words).

[MP-Ryan]

while the american right wing tends to be conservative in fiscal/social issues, but preferring a libertarian government (A government that governs least, in other words).

Actually, this isn't entirely true.  Most of the right-wing wants a small government, but they very much want an interventionist government on certain issues.  The only area where most far-right Americans appear to prefer libertarian governance is on taxation; on matters ranging from foreign policy, to immigration, to social policy, to specific issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, the right-wing actually falls largely into the authoritarian realm.

There are some interesting analyses on the Political Compass, but the plots for recent US Presidents, for example, fall well within the authoritarian/conservative (top-right) quadrant.

In general, the majority of the US populace leans well within the authoritarian sphere of politics.  Populations of socialist* democratic countries (Canada, UK, Germany*, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Australia, etc) tend to lean more centrist/libertarian.

[Phantom Hoover]

At least at the presidential level a whole bunch of these (very important) issues like income inequality are frighteningly irrelevant. You can accurately model the US political system and presidential voting base using the following model:

Team A and Team B compete for the presidency. Every election cycle we have an incumbent team and a challenger team. Team A and Team B can be treated as identical and interchangeable. For this discussion let's call Team A the incumbent.

If the economy grows during Team A's presidency, as measured by something like change in real income, give Team A a point. If the economy shrinks, give Team B a point.

If we're at war, give Team A a point.

If the incumbent president has already had a four-year term, give Team A a point.

Congrats! You've called the presidential election! This is obviously a little bit of an oversimplification - there are weights on these points - but not nearly as much as you'd think. This is why predictions that one party or the other has effectively been 'finished' at the presidential level are, so far, premature: the actual policies and issues the parties espouse don't play into the outcome of presidential races, and all it takes to put a party back in competition is a bad economic run. (Ironically, the state of the economy is pretty much outside the president's control.)

I don't know nearly as much about the legislative branch so I can't speak to it as well.

I knew it was too good to be true.

[Luis Dias]

I think the big question for me is to what extent the same systems that have created such enormous inequality have also helped improve standards of living for everyone - the 'rising tide lifts all boats, though some more than others' model. I think by this point it's clear that this model is incomplete and that the enormous postwar wealth spike is linked to systems that do not consistently help the notional average American.

Not only that, but if there ain' no more "World Wars" to reset the inequality factors, then this hockey stick graph will only increase in scope, more and more and more. We will get into a point where 0.01% of the world's population controls 50% of its wealth. All in the name of freedom, no less.

[Apollo]

while the american right wing tends to be conservative in fiscal/social issues, but preferring a libertarian government (A government that governs least, in other words).

Actually, this isn't entirely true.  Most of the right-wing wants a small government, but they very much want an interventionist government on certain issues.  The only area where most far-right Americans appear to prefer libertarian governance is on taxation; on matters ranging from foreign policy, to immigration, to social policy, to specific issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, the right-wing actually falls largely into the authoritarian realm.

There are some interesting analyses on the Political Compass, but the plots for recent US Presidents, for example, fall well within the authoritarian/conservative (top-right) quadrant.

In general, the majority of the US populace leans well within the authoritarian sphere of politics.  Populations of socialist* democratic countries (Canada, UK, Germany*, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Australia, etc) tend to lean more centrist/libertarian.

According the the Political Compass, Obama is a far-right authoritarian and I'm a slightly left-wing libertarian, despite our largely identical social views (excluding drug legalization) and my lack of enthusiasm for entitlement programs (which, being far-right, he should almost certainly be more opposed to than I am). Also, being a right wing-extremist, he's probably a horrible racist imperialist dictator who believes in the inherent inferiority of the poor (a Fascist, perhaps a neo-Nazi). Does that describe him in any way?

Mitt Romney also appears to be only slightly more right-wing than Obama. Both of them (and Benjamin Netanyahu) aren't far off from Bashar al-Assad.

I always thought of it as center-left, but apparently the United Kingdom is far-right! Who knew?

I wouldn't put any stock in that scale. Those examples speak for themselves.

Also, I found the test quite lacking. It was largely "do you support these right-wing positions" rather than "which positions do you support". It looks rigged to place everybody farther to the right than they actually are.

It really irritates me when I hear the terms "communist" and "far-right" applied to people who are very clearly neither. The former is a giant exaggeration and the latter is just stupid (the Republicans are not neo-Nazis). This type of mudslinging prevents an honest debate on policy.*

By the standards of just about any other developed nation, the US Republicans are pretty far-right.

That's because by the standards of most developed nations the center is a few points to the left. America also has that problem, but to a lesser degree.

Many Republicans believe that a significant number of poor people are just lazy, which is a center-right position. The far-right view would be something along the lines of "poor people have bad genes" or "poor people are inferior because they're black". Some conservatives hold those positions, but they are far from commonplace.

Other components of far-right politics are extreme nationalism (imperialism), extreme racism (ties in to the former), and authoritarianism. The Republicans are fairly nationalist, but they have only a small-to-moderate degree of racism, and outside of issues like gay marriage, abortion, and other "family values" they're not particularly authoritarian.