Income Inequality And Politicians

[Lil Red]

I watched an interesting show last night on PBS Independent Lens, called [url="http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/park-avenue/"]Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream[/url]. From the link:

[indent=1]Academy Award-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney ([i]Taxi to the Dark Side[/i], [i]Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room[/i]) presents his take on the gap between rich and poor Americans in [b][i]Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream[/i][/b]. Gibney contends that America’s richest citizens have “rigged the game in their favor,” and created unprecedented inequality in the United States.[/indent]

[indent=1]Nowhere, Gibney asserts, is this more evident than on Park Avenue in New York. 740 Park in Manhattan is currently home to the highest concentration of billionaires in the country. Across the river, less than five miles away, Park Avenue runs through the South Bronx, home to the poorest congressional district in the United States.[/indent]

[indent=1]In [i]Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream,[/i] Gibney states that while income disparity has always existed in the U.S., it has accelerated sharply over the last 40 years. As of 2010, the 400 richest Americans controlled more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of the populace — 150 million people. In the film, Gibney explains why he believes upward mobility is increasingly out of reach for the poor.[/indent]

It was pretty interesting on how the top 400 richest Americans (the 1% of the 1%) control so much of the wealth. Also interesting was the fact that in the 1960s (I think, can't remember) 1 CEO earned as much as 20 workers. Now that number is more like 1 to 220. The middle class is shrinking, and has been for quite some time. Americans are paying taxes at the lowest rate for years.

The documentary also talked about the 400 richest donating so much money to politicians that will keep their tax rate at an obscene amount (like 15% for hedge fund managers), politicians on both sides of the aisle, not just Democrats, not just Republicans. The part where they interviewed Jack Abramoff was particularly interesting in how politicians are bought and how lobbyists have so much power with politicians to get bills written. The part where I feel like the documentary went off track was spending so much time talking about Ayn Rand's philosophy taking over a lot of politicians, specifically Paul Ryan; when I think they could have focused more on much of the political system being broken and too much influenced by money. It also felt a little one-sided when it comes to politicians - they seemingly spent way more time talking about evil Republicans and not enough time also spent talking about evil Democrats. (I don't identify with either party any more, so spare me the commentary on that). The film briefly touched on Sen. Schumer, then talked almost exclusively about Paul Ryan being funded by the Koch Brothers.

Now I don't begrudge people their success, but when the income disparity is so high, something is wrong. What are your thoughts?

P.S. I'm trying to find the charts and information they used in the film, but not having much luck so far. If I can find it, I'll link it.

[url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/sisterrosemovies/2012/11/park-avenue-money-power-and-the-american-dream-november-12-pbs-check-local-listings/"]Here's a good sum-up from a Patheos blog[/url].
[quote]
For me the most compelling elements of this courageous film are
1) The seamless connection Gibney makes between the philosophy of Ayn Rand and the Republican and Libertarian parties (it includes footage of an interview between Mike Wallace and Ayn Rand);

2) The connection Gibney makes between the extremely rich and the Tea Party. Jane Mayer, an investigative journalist and staff writer for The New Yorker, says “If you can take the resentment of the middle class and point it downward rather than having it point upward to the people on the top of the 1% who are walking away richer than ever, then you can succeed politically”;

3) The “carried interest provisions” of the tax code that both Republicans and Democrats refuse to reform as it assured the wealthiest a standard 15% income tax while firemen in New York, where [url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/charles_schumer/300087"]Senator Charles Schumer[/url] (D-NY), who sits on the Senate Finance Committee and the subcommittee on Taxations, IRS Oversight and Log-term growth serves his constituents on Wall Street, the film says, but public servants, like firefighters in his district, pay double that in income tax.

4) How bills defending and upholding the rights of people and the poor used to be signed into law (political process) and now how bills are almost always written by lobbyists for major corporations that make a financial accommodation so their interests are served by proposed legislation. This is a very chilling part of the documentary.

5) The influence of the Koch Brothers is too vast to recount here; the film lists the non-profit organizations they influence through money or have founded themselves to influence the political process and education (I saw Christendom College and Loyola of Chicago and New Orleans on the list of Koch donation recipients but I had to pause the scene and then watch it frame by frame.) “Americans for Prosperity” is their latest political influence endeavor and the film states that it is their link to the Tea Party.

And by the way, Representative Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and Steve Swarzman have all been saying that 45% of Americans don’t pay (income) taxes; Romney upped it to 47% but he doesn’t seem to have originated the statement.[/quote]

The film actually says that the 45% don't pay taxes is incorrect because those people still pay taxes, like SS taxes, state taxes, gas taxes, liquor taxes, etc.

[url="http://www.hulu.com/watch/417228"]Film available here on hulu[/url].

[4588686]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1352837004' post='2509312']
I watched an interesting show last night on PBS Independent Lens, called [url="http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/park-avenue/"]Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream[/url]. From the link:

[indent=1]Academy Award-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney ([i]Taxi to the Dark Side[/i], [i]Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room[/i]) presents his take on the gap between rich and poor Americans in [b][i]Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream[/i][/b]. Gibney contends that America’s richest citizens have “rigged the game in their favor,” and created unprecedented inequality in the United States.[/indent]

[indent=1]Nowhere, Gibney asserts, is this more evident than on Park Avenue in New York. 740 Park in Manhattan is currently home to the highest concentration of billionaires in the country. Across the river, less than five miles away, Park Avenue runs through the South Bronx, home to the poorest congressional district in the United States.[/indent]

[indent=1]In [i]Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream,[/i] Gibney states that while income disparity has always existed in the U.S., it has accelerated sharply over the last 40 years. As of 2010, the 400 richest Americans controlled more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of the populace — 150 million people. In the film, Gibney explains why he believes upward mobility is increasingly out of reach for the poor.[/indent]

It was pretty interesting on how the top 400 richest Americans (the 1% of the 1%) control so much of the wealth. Also interesting was the fact that in the 1960s (I think, can't remember) 1 CEO earned as much as 20 workers. Now that number is more like 1 to 220. The middle class is shrinking, and has been for quite some time. Americans are paying taxes at the lowest rate for years.

The documentary also talked about the 400 richest donating so much money to politicians that will keep their tax rate at an obscene amount (like 15% for hedge fund managers), politicians on both sides of the aisle, not just Democrats, not just Republicans. The part where they interviewed Jack Abramoff was particularly interesting in how politicians are bought and how lobbyists have so much power with politicians to get bills written. The part where I feel like the documentary went off track was spending so much time talking about Ayn Rand's philosophy taking over a lot of politicians, specifically Paul Ryan; when I think they could have focused more on much of the political system being broken and too much influenced by money. It also felt a little one-sided when it comes to politicians - they seemingly spent way more time talking about evil Republicans and not enough time also spent talking about evil Democrats. (I don't identify with either party any more, so spare me the commentary on that). The film briefly touched on Sen. Schumer, then talked almost exclusively about Paul Ryan being funded by the Koch Brothers.

Now I don't begrudge people their success, but when the income disparity is so high, something is wrong. What are your thoughts?

P.S. I'm trying to find the charts and information they used in the film, but not having much luck so far. If I can find it, I'll link it.
[/quote]

Sometimes reality is partisan. The best recent book on this subject is Unequal Democracy: The Political economy of the New Guilded Age by Larry M. Bartles. It's not a hit piece. It's not some piece of poo book like Keith Olberman or Ed Schultz would put out (full of folksy 'wisdom' and self-aggrandizing anecdote but light on substance). It's a serious, wonkish book and very, very heavy on the statistics and numbers.


[i][size=4][color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Using a vast swath of data spanning the past six decades, Unequal Democracy debunks many myths about politics in contemporary America, using the widening gap between the rich and the poor to shed disturbing light on the workings of American democracy. [b]Larry Bartels shows the gap between the rich and poor has increased greatly under Republican administrations and decreased slightly under Democrats, leaving America grossly unequal. This is not simply the result of economic forces, but the product of broad-reaching policy choices in a political system dominated by partisan ideologies and the interests of the wealthy.[/b][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Bartels demonstrates that elected officials respond to the views of affluent constituents but ignore the views of poor people. He shows that Republican presidents in particular have consistently produced much less income growth for middle-class and working-poor families than for affluent families, greatly increasing inequality. He provides revealing case studies of key policy shifts contributing to inequality, including the massive Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the erosion of the minimum wage. Finally, he challenges conventional explanations for why many voters seem to vote against their own economic interests, contending that working-class voters have not been lured into the Republican camp by "values issues" like abortion and gay marriage, as commonly believed, but that Republican presidents have been remarkably successful in timing income growth to cater to short-sighted voters.[/font][/color]


[color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Unequal Democracy is social science at its very best. It provides a deep and searching analysis of the political causes and consequences of America's growing income gap, and a sobering assessment of the capacity of the American political system to live up to its democratic ideals.[/font][/color][/size][/i]

Edited November 13, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

[size=4]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203779.html[/size]
[size=4]
The most important issue rarely mentioned on the campaign trail this year is the gap between rich and poor in America. It is important for two reasons: The gap has been growing, and the choice between John McCain and Barack Obama likely will affect whether it narrows or expands.[/size][size=4]
That is the conclusion of [i]Unequal Democracy,[/i] a provocative new book by Princeton professor Larry M. Bartels, one of the country's leading political scientists. His most significant finding is that there is a partisan pattern to the size of the gap between the rich and the poor. Over the past half-century, he concludes, Republican presidents have allowed income inequality to expand, while Democratic presidents generally have not.[/size][size=4]
[b]Lest anyone think this book is a partisan hit job by a left-wing academic, Bartels goes to great pains in his introduction to preempt the counterattack he expects from critics on the right. "I began the project as an unusually apolitical political scientist," he writes, noting that the last time he voted was in 1984, "and that was for Ronald Reagan."[/b] He adds that in doing this work, "I was quite surprised to discover how often and how profoundly partisan differences in ideologies and values have shaped key policy decisions and economic outcomes. I have done my best to follow my evidence where it led me."[/size][size=4]
In Bartels's analysis, the period from the late 1940s to the early '70s was one of "rapid and remarkably egalitarian" growth in real incomes: Every group, from the richest to the poorest, experienced growth of between 2.4 percent and 2.7 percent per year. Since 1974, the pattern has skewed significantly toward the rich. Overall income growth has slowed, and it has slowed far more for those at the bottom than at the top.[/size][size=4]
Bartels acknowledges that there can be many explanations for growing income inequality, from globalization and structural changes in the U.S. economy to technological and demographic shifts. But he argues that it is wrong to assume there is no cause-and-effect relationship between government policies and income distribution. In fact, he asserts, "economic inequality is, in substantial part, a [i]political[/i] phenomenon."[/size]
[color=#000000][font='Times New Roman', times, serif][size=4]
Bartels comes to this conclusion by examining what happened to income inequality from President Truman to President George W. Bush. "Under Democratic presidents," he writes, "poor families did slightly better than richer families (at least in proportional terms), producing a modest net decrease in income inequality; under Republican presidents, rich families did vastly better than poorer families, producing a considerable net increase in income inequality."[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font='Times New Roman', times, serif][size=4]
He concludes that the income gap increased under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bushes, while it declined under four of the five Democratic presidents who have served during this period -- all except Jimmy Carter. That pattern, he asserts, "seems hard to attribute to a mere coincidence in the timing of Democratic and Republican administrations." Rather, Democratic and Republican presidents have pursued different economic policies, with Democrats generally focused more on raising employment and output growth, which disproportionately benefit poor and middle-class families. [b]Republicans have worried more about containing inflation, which has "negligible" effects on real income growth near the bottom of the income distribution but "substantial effects at the top," Bartels says.[/b] On tax policy, Republican presidents, especially since Reagan, have pushed tax cuts that have disproportionately helped the wealthiest Americans.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font='Times New Roman', times, serif][size=4]
Bartels uses the election of 2000 to illustrate, with a hypothetical example, how much difference presidential leadership realistically may make in the distribution of income in America. In Bush's first four years, families in the top 95th percentile of income received a 2-percent cumulative increase in real income. Middle-income families saw a decline of 1 percent, while poorer families saw a decline of 3 percent. Based on historical data for Democratic presidents, Bartels estimates that if Al Gore had been elected instead of Bush, the working poor would have seen an increase of about 6 percent, while the wealthy would have seen essentially no gain.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font='Times New Roman', times, serif][size=4]
Why don't voters hold Republican presidential candidates accountable for what appears to be such a clear pattern? Bartels doesn't buy the hypothesis that lower-income Americans vote against their own economic interests because they put more stock in social and cultural issues when they pick a president. He was one of the first to challenge that idea when it was advanced in Thomas Frank's book [i]What's the Matter with Kansas[/i] four years ago. Bartels argues that, nationally, the white working class has become more loyal to Democratic presidential candidates, not less. He contends that Republican gains have come mainly among middle- and upper-income voters, and that the overall shift away from the Democrats is almost entirely attributable to the partisan transformation of the South over the past 40 years or so.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font='Times New Roman', times, serif][size=4]
One of Bartels's most intriguing conclusions is that the political timing of economic growth has influenced voters, and that this has helped [i]Republican[/i]s, despite their overall pattern of increasing the gap between rich and poor. Republicans presidents, he concludes, have often generated significant economic growth rates in presidential election years, while Democratic presidents have not. If only election years are counted, families at every income level "turn out to have fared much better under Republican presidents than under Democrats," he writes. "Whether through political skill or pure good luck, Republican presidents have been remarkably successful in targeting income growth to coincide with presidential elections."[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font='Times New Roman', times, serif][size=4]
No political party or administration can be held responsible for the global economic changes that affect income inequality, Bartels acknowledges. But, he goes on to say, "It certainly seems fair -- and perhaps even useful -- to hold political parties accountable for the profound impact of their policies on the way those structural changes shape the economic fortunes of wealthy, middle-class and poor American families." ·[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font='Times New Roman', times, serif][size=4]
[i]Dan Balz is national political correspondent for The Post. A version of this review appeared first on The Post's blog "The Trail[/i][i]Isn't t[/i][/size][/font][/color]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1352837558' post='2509317']
Sometimes reality is partisan. The best recent book on this subject is Unequal Democracy: The Political economy of the New Guilded Age by Larry M. Bartles. It's not a hit piece. It's not some piece of poo book like Keith Olberman or Ed Schultz would put out (full of folksy 'wisdom' and self-aggrandizing anecdote but light on substance). It's a serious, wonkish book and very, very heavy on the statistics and numbers.
[/quote]

thanks for the book recommendation i don't mean to say that i'm mad that "Gee whiz, they didn't hit on both parties equally!" because I am Republican - I don't identify with either party, to be honest. just wished that they wouldn't have focused so much on one specific politician, but rather focused on how both parties are working the system. (i think that sentence is redundant to what i already said, but oh well. )

[4588686]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1352837927' post='2509320']

thanks for the book recommendation i don't mean to say that i'm mad that "Gee whiz, they didn't hit on both parties equally!" because I am Republican - I don't identify with either party, to be honest. just wished that they wouldn't have focused so much on one specific politician, but rather focused on how both parties are working the system. (i think that sentence is redundant to what i already said, but oh well. )
[/quote]


Sure. I didn't take it as you being partisan. But I do think the focus on Paul Ryan has merit. He exemplifies the very worst of the republican party and the fact that he is funded by the Koch brothers is just evidence of what anyone paying attention knows: all this small government croutons on the right is a scam. The goal of the state withering away is a goal shared across the political spectrum (Marx wrote more eloquently about the withering of the state than Ron Paul ever has) and is a very noble goal. But this croutons from Ron Paul and the Austrians is a palpable scam for the wealthy. A neurotic fixation on inflation, the gold standard, et cetera. There is a reason that people like Paul Ryan (and Ludwig Von Misses before him) are funded by the plutocracy and it is not because there policies have any realistic opportunity at helping the poor or disempowering the extremely wealthy from rigging the game.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW2UeoYWl3E

[Lil Red]

i think that post is gonna give winchester an attack.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1352837004' post='2509312']
Now I don't begrudge people their success, but when the income disparity is so high, something is wrong. What are your thoughts?

P.S. I'm trying to find the charts and information they used in the film, but not having much luck so far. If I can find it, I'll link it.

[/quote]This isn't from the film, but it's charts and graphs for basically the same thing about the distribution of wealth.

[url="http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html"]http://www2.ucsc.edu...wer/wealth.html[/url]

This is interesting when you look back 90 years and see what percentate of America's wealth is held by the top 1% has (or hasn't) changed. [b]Table 3: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.[/b] Bottom 99 percent Top 1 percent [b]1922 63.3% 36.7%[/b] 1929 55.8% 44.2% 1933 66.7% 33.3% 1939 63.6% 36.4% 1945 70.2% 29.8% 1949 72.9% 27.1% 1953 68.8% 31.2% 1962 68.2% 31.8% 1965 65.6% 34.4% 1969 68.9% 31.1% 1972 70.9% 29.1% 1976 80.1% 19.9% 1979 79.5% 20.5% 1981 75.2% 24.8% 1983 69.1% 30.9% 1986 68.1% 31.9% 1989 64.3% 35.7% 1992 62.8% 37.2% 1995 61.5% 38.5% 1998 61.9% 38.1% 2001 66.6% 33.4% 2004 65.7% 34.3% [b]2007 65.4% 34.6% [/b]
.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Anomaly

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1352839440' post='2509336']
i think that post is gonna give winchester an attack.
[/quote]
When he reads more, he'll convert. It's amazing that in spite of the massive donations from Goldman Sachs, Ron Paul didn't win. Weird.

[Winchester]

loloecd

[Aloysius]

The wealthy may like part of what Ron Paul wants to do, but not all of it, there is a reason that the wealthy were opposed to him. It's not as simple as saying he wants to de-regulate; shaking up the federal reserve would absolutely shake the foundations of the elite's stranglehold on wealth, and while a gold standard or some variation of it (like competing currencies which is actually the realistic direction Paul wanted to go in) can be exploited to some extent it is nowhere near as easy for the elite to get away with sitting on top of the mountain while the gap widens to its extremes as it is with the pure Fiat money system; it's certainly not a magic fix everything solution, but it's also not some racket being pushed by the super wealthy (if it were, it would probably have a lot more traction than it does currently)

this is not to say Ron Paul's economics are perfect, but a shake-up like that is absolutely a step in the right direction that would not at all benefit the super-rich, and I don't think it's fair to put him in the same category as, say, Paul Ryan, who actually represents the type of system that benefits the highly wealthy. pure Austrian economics is far from perfect, but it is also the kind of thing that the super wealthy don't actually want. remember, pure Austrianism doesn't bail them out when they fail, it would shut off the gravy train from many directions for the elites. the super-wealthy folks did not want Ron Paul to have a chance.

and really, when it comes to the real inflation caused by central banks, it's not the super-wealthy that are hurt by it. I think that's where Paul Krugman misses a point here: the people that really suffer from the type of inflation that is caused by the Federal Reserve is NOT the banksters that sit at the mouth of the money river and get to spend at pre-inflationary rates, it's not until the money trickles down to the little guy that it loses its value. the modern revival of gold bug-ism is not being leg by banksters, the banksters are perfectly happy with the Fiat system, it benefits them way more than the gold standard would.

[Ed Normile]

"America’s richest citizens have “rigged the game in their favor,"

Don't tell that to Cam Newton NFL #1 draft pick who received a $22 million dollar contract or Sam Bradford who in 2010 signed for $78 million dollars. Talent pays off as does ability.

ed

[Socrates]

I hold to the heretical and scandalous idea that it is not the place of government to forcibly redistribute wealth or equalize incomes. Neither is it the job of the government to subsidize corporations, be they wealthy or otherwise.

Liberty and forced equality of outcome are incompatible goals, and in those Commie crapholes where the government pursues redistribution of wealth most earnestly, there is neither prosperity nor equality.

I say repeal the sixteenth amendment, and cut 90% of government spending, and stop punishing prosperity.


Also, there's nothing more moronic than the currently-fashionable idea that wealth is somehow created by government fiat, as if it were somehow shat out of politicians' arses to be spread around equally by federal bureaucrats.

The material prosperity of nations should be measured by the actual living standards of all, not by some arbitrary gap between the richest and poorest in a given country.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1353455527' post='2513929']
I hold to the heretical and scandalous idea that it is not the place of government to forcibly redistribute wealth or equalize incomes. Neither is it the job of the government to subsidize corporations, be they wealthy or otherwise.

Liberty and forced equality of outcome are incompatible goals, and in those Commie crapholes where the government pursues redistribution of wealth most earnestly, there is neither prosperity nor equality.[/QUOTE]

Like Germany?

[QUOTE]I say repeal the sixteenth amendment, and cut 90% of government spending, and stop punishing prosperity.[/QUOTE]

Why?


[QUOTE]Also, there's nothing more moronic than the currently-fashionable idea that wealth is somehow created by government fiat, as if it were somehow shat out of politicians' arses to be spread around equally by federal bureaucrats.[/QUOTE]

As usual you are either unable or unwilling to understand the point of view you claim to be attacking.

[QUOTE]The material prosperity of nations should be measured by the actual living standards of all, not by some arbitrary gap between the richest and poorest in a given country.
[/quote]

Income inequality isn't a problem in a political system?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1352872936' post='2509751']
"America’s richest citizens have “rigged the game in their favor,"

Don't tell that to Cam Newton NFL #1 draft pick who received a $22 million dollar contract or Sam Bradford who in 2010 signed for $78 million dollars. Talent pays off as does ability.

ed
[/quote]
He's talking about capitalists, not employees.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1353464822' post='2513985']
He's talking about capitalists, not employees.
[/quote]


You really need to compile quotes like these, it would make an amusing read.

Do you think these people I mentioned are not capitalists?

[b] [i]cap·i·tal·ist[/i]/ˈkapÉ™tlist/[/b]
Noun: A wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.


I guess you assume they will stick the money in a sack and bury it in their backyard, or maybe give it all away?

The film lil red watched was your basic class division piece aimed at children to put enmity between the two groups. A sane adult mind would realize that the wealthy in a capitalist society provide the industry and business that employes those not skilled enough or talented enough to create wealth on their own, hence they need a job to provide them with their needs. The idiot who pointed out those who do not pay taxes, which is actually 57%, pay gas tax food tax etc. must have forgot to mention that the 1% pay that too, as well as supporting them by their tax monies.

When we become a total socialist country the wealthy will move their enterprise to a capitalist society where they can earn a living as they should , for example take the wife of billionaire financier Marc Rich, Marc Rich ? you say, well kiddies he was the self made billionaire charged tax evasion, fraud, and trading with the enemy (Iran) who President Bill Clinton pardoned his last day in office for a sizable "contribution" to his Presidential library. Denise rich, Marc's widow who inherited all his billions of illegally obtained monies and an avid contributor to the democrat party and Obama's election and re-election recently decided that the tax increases that her Man Obama is enacting were too much for her to part with so she renounced her citizenship and moved overseas. Its funny how the socialists do not mind redistribution, until it effects their wealth.

ed