In fact, if the GOP tax plan becomes law, we may be looking at a future where our 1,600 richest hold more wealth than the nation’s entire middle class.
Through most of human history the 1% owned ALL the wealth and the 99% owned nothing…slavery and serfdom were the norm.
Having grown up in a world of middle classes in the US and other industrial nations we view a world with a middle class as normal when such a world has been a blip on the radar screen of human history.
Lord is mistaken if he thinks the 1%'s goal is 1600 people owning as much wealth as the entire middle class. Their goal is the 1% owning everything and the 99% owning nothing. The GOP is racing toward that goal at 100 miles per hour. Corporate Democrats are racing toward it at 60 miles per hour. The GOP will indeed get the 1% to the finish line faster, their current tax cuts combined with stacking the judiciary providing booster rockets.
As Warren Buffett said in 2004 “There is a class war and my class is winning”.
Can you say NEOFEUDALISM ?
Your comment reminds me of one of the late columnist James J. Kilpatrick’s rules for good writing.
Kilpatrick said: “Do not suppose that the ‘lion’s share’ means the greater part; the lion’s share is the whole works.”
Looks like the GOP has the one percent well on its way to the lion’s share of the wealth.
The term “lion’s share” comes from lions making a kill and eating most of the prey’s body, leaving a few scraps for the other carnivores like birds of prey, jackals, other felines, etc. to fight over the scraps.
The 1% will probably leave a few scraps for the 99% to fight over.
One of my retired relatives claims they have already cut his Medicare by about a third. Can Congress do that?
A couple of points.
First, I don’t think it’s true that through most of human history 1% owned all the wealth. In many cases, yes, in the middle ages in Europe, but not so in many others, for example, native American culture for centuries. We like to assume that to make our current fixation with winner take all economics seem less wretched.
Second, Americans do get to vote, and this economy is their fault when they keep voting for a party that believes, as much as anyone believes in his or her god, that unfettered free market capitalism is sacrosanct and all forms of wealth redistribution are immoral (and that, in their mouths and hearts, is the right word).
Yes, the Democrats blow this horn too, but clearly not as loudly or as proudly, hence Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Robert Reich ans so on.
So please do not tear up because there is no choice in this matter. There was a choice in Alabama and next November, there will be a very important choice in most states.
Believing in the wonder of unfettered capitalism is as childish as believing in the tooth fairy, or at this time of year, Santa Claus. Younger Americans seem to be onto this, and not a moment too soon. Most over 40 are utterly addicted to old American dreams that will never come true.
So it was an economist a while back on the Joe Scarborough who called this tax cut THEFT. And the people around the table were taken aback-----but it was this morning Scarborough himself was calling this tax cut what it is–THEFT. And yes it is a dagger right in the heart of the middle class.
I have no problem with a 20% rate for corporations without loopholes----and there should be a 5% on all those who make a profit on the wealth of OUR nation ----and this 5% should be returned to the owners of this country as a dividend.
And this is most important-----people are already whispering this but it needs to be screamed from the roof tops----CUT THE BLOATED MILITARY BUDGET–!!!
Don’t fall for this brainwashing that domestic programs need to be cut. The reason for these large deficits is MILITARY spending.
That’s absolutely correct. When the native people were subjugated by the USA, a major reason for doing so was to prevent the pioneers and settlers from taking up native cultures and lifestyles. The rich USAns knew they couldn’t take advantage of people if they all started living like Indians. The sophistication of native societies were not well documented by white people because it didn’t fit in with their narrative/ reasons for eliminating native people, but native communities were often highly developed and very sophisticated. So much so that the white people really just could not understand what it was they were witness to when they did visit the native villages. For example, many tribes were matriarchal, yet when in history recorded by white people do you find political relations with or treaties signed by women chiefs during the colonial era?
Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. The wealthy don’t buy “consumer goods”. The middle class does. Destroy the middle class and who will be buying the food, appliances, and cars the the wealthy manufacturers make. How long will it take for this unstable economy to collapse?
We need to hold the Republicans to their pledge that they will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or the health bill. That is what they pledged. If these items add to the deficit so be it - the Republicans can’t control defense and military costs. We spend as much as all the rich countries combined do on defense and for the most part it has gotten us no where.
That’s the oddest way of defining this “middle-class” that I’ve seen. Are we supposed to be so enthusiastically defending this comparatively privileged class? It’s not even in the statistical “middle”. I am far more concerned about the misfortunes of that bottom 40 percent…
I am sick unto death of well-meaning liberals and progressives focussing again and
again on the damage being perpetrated by our plutocracy, to the middle class, some-
how as though working class people, blue collar people, either don’t exist any more,
or are somehow immune to the rapacity and violence of our truly-needy elite. As
long as academics and intellectuals continue to fail to connect the dots between the
agony and uncertainty of the working class and the middle class, we’ll just spin out
into another series of flabby, narrow minded reformist efforts…doomed to failure
because it is not inclusive and general enough.