Funny how in reading this article, you’d never
realize the Democrats have had control of the
Congress since 2006, the White House since 2008 and
even today control both the White House and the
Senate.

So, lets not forget the Dems extending out the Bush
tax cuts for millionaires (which is most Dems in
Congress), lets not forget that Obama and the
Democrats are right now trying to force the lower and
middle class to pay the bill for their wall street
bailouts and their wars and their wasteful ‘defense’
spending that exceeds the rest of the world combined.

Yet, in Demo-fantasy-land, its only the Republicans
that are somehow responsible for policies that make
the rich even richer despite the fact that it
continues today and even under Bush this stuff all
passed with lots of Democratic votes.

Everyone needs to remember that the Democrats are now
obviously as much the problem as the Republicans.

You’re welcome MichaelArchAngel.  Apologies for the typos in that off the cuff
rant….the first version got rejected for being over 4k characters and had to chop
away.  Should have cut out the word stupid in front of Hedges/Hitchens
names….the IQ’s are high, but on the points of there being no serious/worthwhile
difference between the parties and there being no value to voting for either (or
voting at all for some folks) they are just dead wrong.  Would love to have a
discussion with these folks one of these days.

@MichaelArchAngel, my friend, you write:

“I think the cures are implicit in the criticisms/blames:
—A return to Glass-Steagall
—progressive taxation at previous levels
—enforcement of anti-trust legislation
—big money out of elections
—repeal of Corporate personhood/citizenship.”
(my edit)

Dangerous to make such assumptions, Michael.
But I like your common-sense suggestions. 
I’d swallow 3 of ‘em whole and the others, too, with some tweaking.
As a package, these much better ideas than what I’m reading from the likes of Robinson, Krugman, Sirota, Hedges, Dionne, Scheer, et al, or (with respect) the vast majority of those posting on TruthDig, Salon and several other sites I frequent.

Seeing all Democrats and all Republicans as, essentially, the same and as all
being agents of a single indivisible homogenous “system” is, frankly, a sign of
some combination of ignorance, stupidity and/or totally toxic cynicism.

The folks who would have us believe that there is NO HOPE in any kind of
electoral politics and/or that the two parties are all the same have no practical
solutions to offer, no viable plans, no realistic vision.and noting positive to
offer as an alternative to simply allowing the trajectory of the status quo to
continue until there is some kind of collapse so that then the good people can
take over and have some kind of revolution. That’s a recipe for the total loss of
our democracy and a national bloodbath at best and the extinction of humanity
at worst.

We are where we are. We wish to get to a just and sane and sustainable society
in which we clean up our air, water, food and reverse anthropogenic global
warming and we make human rights /common human decency the central pillar
of all of our foreign and domestic policy and we provide universal high quality
single payer medical/dental care to everyone in this country and we provide
higher education /advanced professional schooling to ALL of our students at no
direct cost to them and we PUBLICLY finance ALL political campaigns (the
taxpayers will recoup those costs hundreds of times over since the
laws/policies that would result from that kind of honest/unbought and
unbossed governance would result in trillions of dollars in non productive
boondoggles/scams being eliminated from governance etc etc.

To get from where we are to the kind of ideal place we wish to me we will have
to traverse space and time….in the practical realities of realpolitik.  There are
no magic wands…..not in this world.  That means an ongoing and continuous
process of making choices between more and less harmful and more and less
beneficial actions. 

The folks here like Hedges and Hitchens who simply and stupidly advocate not
voting…or voting for a candidate with hop chance to win (in an election that will
be close…..or in a general election where we know that the winner will be one
of two candidates).....such folks are well intentioned (and often quite stunningly
brilliant!) but ultimately wrong.  The truism about “...the path to hell” comes to
mind.

Further it’s cheap and easy to be cynical.  It lets one off of the hook on all
manner of levels.

Anyone who can’t see the differences between a Thomas/Roberts/Scalia and a
Sotomayor is not in touch with political reality.  The same applies to a Gore vs a
Bush.

The OWS movement is WONDERFUL and GOOD and NECESSARY…but it is just
one of many avenues of action that need to be taken. 

At some point we progressives/radicals (in the evolutionary sense of the term ;-
) will HAVE to, literally, assume the powers of government through lawful.
peaceful and democratic processes…..IF we wish to actually *achieve* the ends
briefly described above.  It is my own belief that if/when most people
understand those ends and see them as attainable, that the “99%” WILL rally
round the cause.

The progressive caucus of the Democratic party would, I dare say, agree with
most of the policy ends described above.  They represent a significant per cent
age of the currently elected Democratic party…....we need to expand their
numbers to the point where they/we are the majority/supermajority needed to
make the changes required to achieve our policy ends. 

That means lots and lots and lots of hard work and organizing and politicking
over a period of YEARS!!!  Simply snapping our fingers and simply complaining
won’t result in any systemic transformation…......at some point we must legally
seize the levers of power….and that requires a shared long term strategic vision
that is implemented by *LOVINGLY* utilizing the operational tactics of hard
core real politic.

Moody*s Analytics reported in 2010 the top 5% of earners account for 37% of all
consumer outlays.The bottom 80% account for 40%.
The top 10% capture 50% of all earnings.
In other words—The economy of the top 10% is fine and Does Not need the
unemployment and inequality levels to improve.
The problem is American Corporate Media .
Their propaganda supports a corrupt political and economic system.
James Madison ,4th President of the United States put it well;
A popular democracy without a press system that informs and
engages people is a prelude to a tragedy or a farce or both.

@MichaelArchAngel, you ask: “...are you aware that finding causation does not require the pejorative
“blaming” right?

Ok, fair enough. 
But my point, and I believe Balkas is on the same page, is that ER (and other columnists, in my view) focus on finding fault and laying blame. 
Or, to be generous, “finding causation,” as you put it.

But when it’s time to suggest solutions?
New courses of action?
A way to fix things?
That’s when they leave the building.

It’s not just hard right Republicans that contributed to wealth inequality. We’ve had two democratic presidents in the past 30 years. Carter decreased reulatory oversight. Clinton did great damage with NAFTA and repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Obama continues the democratic love-in with Wall Street. Democratic senators watered down the so-called Volcker Rule and the Dodd-Frank Law to the point where they are completely useless. Both parties are responsible for this mess. A real journalist would have said as much.

The data has long supported what many of us have known and felt for ages: 30
years of greed, deregulation and tax loopholes accessible only to the very wealthy
and a legal system full of wrangling and maneuvering has resulted in devastating
imbalances to the social and economic system.  May the OWS movement continue,
spread and result in concrete actions taken in the political sphere.
http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/category/the-bk-dame-says/

@balkas, you write:
“all columnist ever do: (is) blame/accuse and blame/accuse some more. goddevil forbid they’d look for causes what ails us or offer solutions.”

I’ve noticed the same thing & have come to the conclusion such pundits are self-styled specialists. 
Like the doctor you’d trust to diagnose your illness, but is best kept away-y-y-y-y from the operating room.

robinson wld have us believe that the splitting individual
u.s politicians into just two factions: democrats and
republicans is not systemic.

obviously, it is of the system to split politicians into ‘good’
ones and ‘bad’ ones. or one set less evil than another;
while in fact the ‘good’ cop or ‘good’ pol may be equally
evil as the ‘bad’ cop or ‘bad’ pol

he also wants us to believe that any victimization of any
americans is not systemic, but primarily done by
republicans?

if we are to talk about victimization of people in u.s, then
i suggest we blame [blame itself is not much of use, tho]
dead men who set up the system that permits
victimization and not only the living people who simply
obey the system.

if my memory serves, that’s all ?all columnist ever do:
blame/accuse and blame/accuse some more.
goddevil forbid they’d look for causes what ails us or offer
solutions.

i suggest we don’t read such pieces. if i read columnists’
pieces, i first cheque for the inevitable: blame, blame, half
truths, etc., and after i encounter the first one i stop
wasting my time.

ok! one cannot avoid some blaming/accusing; however,
assiduous omission of causes i call deceiving—and it is
also systemic and intentional. tnx

“Wealthy individuals and corporations have disproportionate influence over public policy because of the often decisive role that money plays in elections.”
—ER

For one, I don’t mind George Soros and the Koch Brothers leap-frogging each other w/political donations, as long as we get to watch (full transparency).

But living US citizens only.
But no more corporate donations. 
No more contributons by labor unions.
No more PACs.

Regarding the inevitable gross “free enterprise” income imbalance (according to Robinson)...“secret= ly they (the hard-right conservatives) love it—as long as the process involves depriving the poor and middle class to benefit the rich, not the other way around,” is a misleading statement.
  1. The implication is that “hard right conser- vatives”, to think that way, would have to be rich. Yet beyond a disproportionate number of Republican Congresspersons, bankers and corporate robbers, by far the largest number of “hard right conserva- tives”, according to my experience, are far from rich, but more like middle to lower middle.
  2. But they don’t think of economic disparities as “problems” but as “inevitable and just deserts”. Poor people are to blame for being poor. They did something wrong or didn’t do something right, so they “deserve” nothing and are “entitled” to nothing.
  3. A main cause for this defensive thinking is probably that many hard-right conservatives are “lower-middle” which is right next door to “poor”
and they are both slow to think critically, and also scared. Far back in their minds,the thought is bound to occur occionally that they may need help from rich friends someday? Besides, if the poor “deserve” to be poor, the rich must “deserve” to be rich, right?
  4.Which also means that they “deserve” to be in the middle—which they hope they are, but the evidence is getting pretty thin, and that undermines their entire “deserve/entitlement” theory,  Then what?

So it DOES matter who gets elected and there IS a difference between the two
parties, eh?

Article: “The hard-right conservatives who dominate
the Republican Party claim to despise the
redistribution of wealth, but secretly they love it—as
long as the process involves depriving the poor and
middle class to benefit the rich, not the other way
around.”

Exactly. And do they ever love it.  They’re
fighting tooth and nail to keep it.  Wealth
redistribution works for them. Why one only needs to look
at all the “redistribution” (theft) they have.

Re:

Your comment: “Liberals are likely to use the CBO
report to buttress the case for taxing “the rich”
more. But they ought to think instead about
subsidizing them less.”

“Liberals”(who ever they are) ought to subsidize the
rich less AND tax them more.  In fact, there’s no
reason for the rich to be getting government
assistance of any kind at any time.  Like Walmart
who gets property tax breaks for bringing their low
wage jobs to every community around the country. 
Working at Walmart isn’t a job, its a sentence.

That’s right, according to that same CBO study, the
share of government transfer payments going to the
poorest 20 percent of Americans has declined from 50
percent to 35 percent. And the share of those
payments going to the wealthiest 80 percent has risen
from 50 to 65 percent. In other words, the
entitlement state is ever less about keeping the poor
out of destitution, and ever more about subsidizing
the health care and retirement benefits of the likes
of Warren Buffett. Liberals are likely to use the CBO
report to buttress the case for taxing “the rich”
more. But they ought to think instead about
subsidizing them less.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281500/how-make-it-america-contd-daniel-foster

JohnM, you’ve hit on a key element.

It’s about mobility.
Classes, Haves & Have-Nots, quintiles, 99% vs. 1%,  however you want to slice.
We will always have winners and losers, it’s having a chance to play again in a fair game that counts.

If one can go from zero to Hero (and back again), with a big middle-class sandwiched between, that’s the best we can reasonably hope/work for.

Level fields, Si.  Equal outcomes, No!

“while we’ve become wealthier overall, these new
riches have largely bypassed many Americans and
instead flowed mostly to the affluent. Perhaps my
memory is faulty but I don’t remember voting to turn
the United States into a nation starkly divided
between haves and have-nots. Yet that’s where we’ve
been led.”

When did we get to vote for equal outcomes for
income? Marx claimed to do that but while the ruling elite lived very well everyone else equally shared
poverty and shortages.

7 reasons why Obama is wrong on income inequality

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/7-reasons-why-obama-is-wrong-on-income-inequality/

The Treasury Department’s latest study on income
mobility in America found that during the ten-year
period starting in 1996, roughly half of the
taxpayers who started in the bottom 20 percent had
moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
Meanwhile, half of all taxpayers ended up in a
different income group at the end of ten years. Many
moved up, and some moved down, but economic growth
resulted in rising incomes for most people over this
period.
Another recent survey of over 500 successful
entrepreneurs found that 93 percent came from middle-
class or lower-class backgrounds. The majority were
the first in their families to launch a business.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/full-text-paul-ryans-speech-heritage