Here's an excellent letter to the 53% guy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/1 ... hat-53-Guy

It outlines, i think, the progressive point of view very well.

I am fully on board with this letter.

There is a rather frightening fascist tendency in the USA, indicated in the linked discussion. The idea that people should just love being exploited because it makes them tough and competitive is dangerous, and serves the interests of a plutocratic elite. Fascism encourages people to welcome their own oppression. The USA is in some danger of allowing Wall Street to take over democracy. I looked up the 53% reference in the letter and found it here, with the argument that the 'occupy wall street movement' is a bunch of spongers and losers, while the 53% are those who pay tax. This is a really complicated argument. Growth requires competition, but stability requires cooperation. It is a dialectic.

I support what the Occupy Wall Street folks are doing. I love the 99% aspect. I'm not a freeloader... I'm a healthcare executive and retired Air Force Master Sergeant. The press will try to discredit the movement by showing a few marginal folks who are there.... but there are many of us who support their ideas. I'm a 99er. A proud member of the working-class and I believe it's time for real change... New social engineering where 400 people don't control more wealth than that of half of all Americans' wealth put together.... and that 1% controls nearly 80% of the national wealth.

I've feared the rise of Social Darwinism in America. In fact, I wrote a dystopia about the post-9/11 landscape called Against Nature. A global pandemic is the catalyst and the nation quickly plunges into a dystopian society... I fear we're not too far from it now. In my novel I used many of the misdeeds of Bush/Cheney and I put the Tea Party Social Darwinists in charge.... the end result was a frightening and all too plausable dystopian thriller

It's promising to see this type of behavior. It'll also be interesting to see how it all plays out. I hope a worthy leader emerges from this gaggle.

The writer makes some good points, but there's an underlying assumption that simply by increasing our taxes on the wealthy, we will automatically have better health care, education, etc. I don't share his confidence that a bigger government will ever mean anything but more waste, fraud, and a continued move towards a welfare state. To see what happens when a government's spending exceeds its revenues, look no further than what is happening in Greece, Spain, and Italy.

The Wall Street movement has at least one thing right and that is that big business has way too much influence. Our government has to represent all of the people or it simply doesn't work. I do think the wealthy can pay a higher share of taxes in America, but I also think such tax increases can only go so far before the law of unintended consequences kicks. Corporations and businesses actually creates wealth and if the government intrudes too much in our system of free enterprise it stifles the economy and everyone loses.

Robert Tulip wrote:There is a rather frightening fascist tendency in the USA, indicated in the linked discussion. The idea that people should just love being exploited because it makes them tough and competitive is dangerous, and serves the interests of a plutocratic elite. Fascism encourages people to welcome their own oppression. The USA is in some danger of allowing Wall Street to take over democracy. I looked up the 53% reference in the letter and found it here, with the argument that the 'occupy wall street movement' is a bunch of spongers and losers, while the 53% are those who pay tax. This is a really complicated argument. Growth requires competition, but stability requires cooperation. It is a dialectic.

I just want to thank you for using the phrase "plutocratic elite," and I'm wondering why I haven't heard it thrown around more in learned circles. That's a brilliant explanation of what is happening to us and to our world.

He should have called him "kid" a few more times to be extra condescending.

Here’s how a liberal looks at it: a long time ago workers in this country realized that industrialization wasn’t making their lives better, but worse.

That might be how a "liberal" looks at it, but that's a pretty distorted view of history. Basically you're complaining that industrialization didn't go from farming to modern factory jobs instantaneously, while romanticizing the life of the farmer.

Dexter wrote:He should have called him "kid" a few more times to be extra condescending.

Here’s how a liberal looks at it: a long time ago workers in this country realized that industrialization wasn’t making their lives better, but worse.

That might be how a "liberal" looks at it, but that's a pretty distorted view of history. Basically you're complaining that industrialization didn't go from farming to modern factory jobs instantaneously, while romanticizing the life of the farmer.

Another point in this piece that is fairly skewed. The American dream is different for everyone and is not arrived at by a precise number of hours in the work week. One person might like living in a small apartment with no lawn maintenance and just enough money to go out and see a movie on the weekend. Someone else might want to live in a fancy house, big yard, a boat, nice cars, etc. One dream probably requires more work hours than another. The "kid" wasn't complaining about how many hours he worked.

The writer seems to expect the government to be there to lend a helping hand for anyone who gets into trouble. That may not be as easy to accomplish as he makes out. Nothing in life is guaranteed and real life has many bumps along the road We simply can't rely on the government to take away the pain and uncertainty of reality. To think the government can is probably unrealistic at best and dangerously over-dependent at worse.

The writer seems to expect the government to be there to lend a helping hand for anyone who gets into trouble.

For the ideas discussed, the government is deeply involved. Income disparity has grown tremendously since the 1960's, as a result of policy drift and deregulation. Those are government controlled variables. The government is tasked with regulating the wealth inequality. There is no one else to do that job. It is extremely complex, and rife with pro's and con's from multiple points of view. As complex as it is, the numbers don't lie. That's why it's taken so long for the mass public to realize what's happening, the numbers are finally at a point where you can't deny the implications.

I do think the wealthy can pay a higher share of taxes in America, but I also think such tax increases can only go so far before the law of unintended consequences kicks. Corporations and businesses actually creates wealth and if the government intrudes too much in our system of free enterprise it stifles the economy and everyone loses.

That's part of the problem. The policy has slowly drifted to the point where inequality sparks mass outrage. With mass outrage usually comes change in larger chunks, rather than a slow steady drift. I believe the highest bracket tax rate would be sustainable at 50%, perhaps more. Not as high as it had been earlier this century, but higher than it is now. But to jump to that percentage in a single shot would wreak havoc. We must drift towards the number, rather than jump towards it. The problem is, as soon as the drift reaches a certain point, the grassroots movement will die, and the plutocracy will once again have the upper hand to reverse the drift.

An idealized government would realize that over taxation of the wealthy is every bit as harmful as under-taxation. Many of our founding fathers wrote about this at great length. They realized that both sides are dangerous, so the middle ground must be diligently held to. The middle ground has meant a 91% tax rate for decades on the wealthiest of Americans. Strange that a number that high would represent the "middle ground", but history has shown us that it was a sustainable rate. What would unsustainable have been? 92%? 95%? 99%?

We have obviously gone much too far in the opposite direction, and I say that while still tipping my hat to the dangers of over taxation. Balance is key, and we are unbalanced as a nation.