Supporting politicians by your "class."

Why keep voting for millionaires to give you redress to your grievances? We need some new parties.

The 15K Party (Members earn 29k or less per year)

The 30K Party (Members earn 30k to 59k)

The 60K Party (Members earn 60k to 89k)

The 90K Party (Members earn 90k to 199k)

The 200K Party (Members earn 200k to 999k

The Upper Middle Class Party (Members "earn" 1M to 50M)

The Elite Party (Members "earn" 51M to 1B)

The People Who Control All The Shit Party (Members watch as their accounts get bloated)*



I think America would run smoother under this scenario.





*Required: Ability to block out the screams of misery from those you fuck over when you go to bed at night.

:think:

It a framework. The numbers are only meant to be illustrative. They can be set anywhere. It's a concept.

:D

Check the incomes of the Congress. Senators and Presidents make particularly worthwhile subjects of scrutiny in this regard. Although the House is chock full of examples as well.

On a representative percentage it's off the charts.

I wouldn't assume that.

How do you feel about education level?

I'm noting the fact that Congress represents a tiny slice of the economic reality.


Voting by education level?

Judging by the statistical economic representation in Congress, it appears that 90% of Americans are idiots.

based on their income" and you replied "Apparently someone does".

"Does" what?

I don't know why you think you can only be represented by someone with the same income level.

And I don't know why you opted to not answer my education question, but I guess that's your choice.

"I don't believe in voting for people based on their income"

I believe you.

you replied "Apparently someone does". "Does" what?

Does believe in voting for people based on their income. If this weren't true why would our representation be so unrepresentative?

I don't know why you think you can only be represented by someone with the same income level.

I don't. I just think that it's probably a good place to start if you want someone in office who understands your lot in life. There are always exceptions.

And I don't know why you opted to not answer my education question, but I guess that's your choice.

I did, in a way. I'll be more on point. It's not as compelling an example. I would think most people would vote for people "smarter" than them. It would also require nationwide testing of a subjective nature. "Education" is much more elusive than "Jeffersons in the bank." That being said, I'm willing to give it a try. It's got to be better than this shit.

I responded to every part of your post. I'll strive not to let anything past my grasp in the future.

"Does believe in voting for people based on their income. If this weren't true why would our representation be so unrepresentative?"

Why? Maybe, because, like I said, people don't believe in voting for people based on income. If they did it might be MORE representative.

Do you think it's reasonable to elect people who are well educated with a track record of success?

We're nearing $10,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. The vast majority in Congress are repeat offenders. There's a 95% recidivism rate. That's called a "Track Record."

There are many more examples of "Track record" if you want them. :shrug:

and with a similar mix in Congress.

Was it their income that determined things then?

I have another question that I'll put in a separate post.

yielded positive results.

Unfortunately, the long term record is not in accord with this anomaly.

Clinton bumped the income tax a few points. Surprise! :party: Money came pouring in.

The upper bracket is less than half of what it was 50 years ago. America's middle class golden age, I might add.

Thank you for making my point. :hug:

than it is now?

I think you forgot your point, which was not taxation but income level of representation.

above them. Higher income levels would cut themselves a tax break(sound familiar?) People vote like they see themselves to be, not what they are.

See, I haven't forgotten my point at all. :party:


As far as the demographic goes, it is my understanding that the disparity in wealth continued under Clinton. It slowed a bit but it continued widening.

in the income level between the congress under Clinton than Bush?

We can nicely test your hypothesis, since you acknowledge under Clinton taxes were more appropriately distributed than under Bush.

While the citizenry hasn't been.

Thus the reason for the original post.


What exactly is your point?

wealthy more than it does at other times, your hypothesis (Lower income levels would probably opt to burden the classes above them) is disproven. The tax burden shifts without regard to the wealth of Congress.

Thanks.

Masses of people with sharp objects must be "soothed."

It would be suicide if they did what they really wanted to do (without the proper conditioning).

Have a great day/night.

If wealth determines how we'll be taxed, but the elected representatives are consistently wealthy, they should always tax us at the same rate.

But they don't.

Funny.

and I'm a black middle female, should I vote for the black candidate, the middle class one or the woman?

If I'm a gay low-income male, should I vote for the gay candidate, the low income candidate or the male candidate?

Should I vote for the candidate who looks the most like my demographic, or the one I think will do the best job?

Vote for the black, middle female. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

A white, middle female probably would be good, too.

A brown, middle male would probably do okay by you, too.

See the constant? It's not about race, it's about circumstance.

What do you know about race?

And why did you ignore the gay issue?

What do you know about race?

As much as you do.

And why did you ignore the gay issue?

I'd answer but I'm being smothered by a straw man.

You're mistaken.

Point to where I have.

Just give me a post#.

I'll be waiting over here.

"Ptooey. Straw gets stuck in your teeth."

Just give the post #.

No other information is needed besides a number. Thank you, in advance.

Just a number. A post number.

A number.

And the only circumstance you've given any weight to is class.

Tell me, if I'm a middle class gay black man which hypothetical candidate is more likely to represent my political interests:

The gay black upper class candidate
or
The middle class white homophobe?

Before we move on, substantiate your penultimate post.

Either admit you were mischaracterizing my position or provide a post number.

Your position was accurately characterized.

Try to run away from it - I don't blame you.

See your accusatory post #33.

it was.

The two party system is rigged so that only the most well funded get to play the game.

The Democratic Party criticism Against grassroots Democratic Primary candidates Hackett and Cegalis was "THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY" to compete in an election.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

If we go about this quietly, the head is less likely to explode.

there is a VERY strong, VERY pervasive, VERY constant indoctrination in the US.

We are taught:

- NOT to notice class differences

- To think of class differences as attributable to personal effort or lack thereof, NOT family inheritance

- To think of everyone as COMPLETELY class mobile (anyone can better themselves with a little hard work)

People cling to these notions for dear life, and have been taught to believe that they are at the core of "what America means".

Author Michael Parenti has done an excellent job of making these transparent notions visible in all areas of American life and culture.

a graphical representation of class mobility from birth to death.

I believe it would look like this:






y axis equals wealth @ birth
x axis equals wealth over time

of their economic class.

They think class is just a function of personal effort, and that it can be changed in either direction at will by anyone.

They do not identify with class because they do not see it nor consider it to be a way to group people. That would be un-American.

"Is class a method by which people should be grouped?"

I say it's one of the most basic ways one can "group" individuals. What do you think?




eta: added emphasis

I posited a representational graph in post #10. I don't have quantitative analysis but it's almost a surety.

IOW:

Rich babies die rich.
Poor babies die poor.
Middle class babies die middle class (circa 1950-1979)
Middle class babies die poor (circa 1980-present)?

Incomes are like penises... everybody exaggerates their own...

This is getting deep.

The middle three quintiles of household incomes in 2003 was between $17,984 and $86,867. THAT'S MIDDLE CLASS.

If your household makes more than $154,120, you're in the top 5% of households. $1m is fantasyland. Calling that kind of rarified income "middle class" does a huge disservice to debate.

I agree with your figures. But when considering the actual power of any given quintile, 1M+ is where the real discussion begins.

Now, if we were to institute the new parties that I'm suggesting that would come back into line with what you are saying. We have to break away from what people think their "class" is and what it really is. E.g., when polled, most Americans think they're in the upper three quintiles. When in fact they're in the bottom three. By labeling the parties by income strata, it takes the guesswork out.

Since politics is all economics.