3 ms·

I think the author misses some of the point of the "99%" rhetoric. It's not that someone in the 98th percentile making a 6 figure salary doesn't feel well off,

by stult 9y ago

I think the author misses some of the point of the "99%" rhetoric. It's not that someone in the 98th percentile making a 6 figure salary doesn't feel well off, it's that they don't feel any control over the political system. In the post-Citizens United landscape, multi-millionaires and billionaires who can afford to solo fund a PAC have outsized influence over politicians and government agencies. The impression that control has been ceded to such people is reinforced by their increasing monopoly on the accrual of tangible political benefits, which manifest in the forms of tax breaks and favorable regulatory decisions. And for those of us who are younger, student loan debt has delayed the meaningful accumulation of wealth via home purchases (plus not paying rent) and investment savings even when we earn such high salaries, so our annual incomes don't reflect our true economic status relative to prior generations.

smsm42 9y ago
Rich people has always had large influence in politics. Being rich means commanding a lot of resources, that's literally the definition. Having a lot of resources makes you influential. It's not the only way to have influence - one can be poor or average and still influential - but it's definitely one of the ways. Pretending that something - be it "Citizens united" decision or anything else - created this situation is extremely naive and ignores the whole human history and history of politics. Wealth, influence and politics are always interlinked, at least in a free lawful society - in a totalitarian one, property means nothing, and resources are distributed in other way, so influence is gained in other ways. All that said, money don't matter as much in politics as some of the propaganda tries to tell. They are important, but they are not everything. There are numerous examples in US history alone where the candidate who spent the most lost, and the candidate who was the richest lost. By now, there's enough money on each side of any issue that the money on the sides is no longer the issue. As for student debt etc. - this is the result of applying "feel good" solutions without considering the economic consequences. If you inject a huge stream of money into education system by providing unlimited federally supported loans, you get the prices go up, and you get the debt. And if you support home ownership and wealth accumulation by home ownership, house prices necessarily skyrocket and newcomers get priced out of the market. You can not have one without the other.
- cmiles74 9y ago
  While this makes sense, I don't think you're going to make much progress convincing those suffering from oversized student loan debt that they are the expected "economic consequences" of a policy you believe to have been misguided. In this particular thread, it rings especially painful: the article discusses the way the upper 20% maintain their hold on power and resources; raising the cost of education clearly helps that goal. The poster to whom your responding points out that their loan debt is so large that they will not have the opportunity to have an income similar to those who graduated with similar credentials a generation previous, something unique in US history. If we don't take steps to correct the situation, eventually only the upper 20% will be able to afford higher education. Regardless of how we might feel about government meddling, we all should be able to agree that it's anti-American to make higher education a privilege only the wealthy can enjoy. You point out that the rich have always had more influence in politics then the poor, and this is obvious and has always been the case. By no means does this make the Citizens United decision less important, I'd argue that this is a tangential point. Citizens United has allowed corporations more weight to their voice then most of the US citizenry, wealthy or poor! In my opinion, the upper 20% have much more to fear from corporate interests than the lower 80%.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > I don't think you're going to make much progress convincing those suffering from oversized student loan debt that they are the expected "economic consequences" of a policy you believe to have been misguided If they don't somehow get convinced of that, they will continue suffering, and their children would be suffering even more, until some catastrophic event forces the change of policy out of necessity. Or until some genius figures out that if we nationalize the whole thing, we could hide the spending inside the voluminous budgets nobody ever reads, and charge the same money now charged as loan payments through taxes, and everybody would be so happy for their "free" education. > The poster to whom your responding points out that their loan debt is so large that they will not have the opportunity to have an income similar to those who graduated with similar credentials If the price is too high, maybe it's time to stop buying and look for a different solution? Instead of declaring upfront "our aim is for everybody to buy X, no matter the price" and then acting surprised when the price of X is shooting up? > By no means does this make the Citizens United decision less important Oh, CU decision is very important. It recognized that if you have right to criticize Hillary Clinton privately, you also have right to criticize her collectively, i.e. band together with similar-minded people and create an organization dedicated to that goal. The alternative would be late-Soviet type of political life - where you could say a lot of things while you are in your own kitchen, but once you get out in public and try to make a difference, the state would control what you can say and how you can say it. I agree, it is a very important decision that confirmed citizens' right exist even if they start become a nuisance to the powerful people, and not only when they are inconsequential. > Citizens United has allowed corporations more weight to their voice then most of the US citizenry, Corporations are US citizenry (well, then can have foreign shareholders, but it's largely insignificant given US economy size dominates the rest so much). Who you think they are made of, Martians? > Citizens United has allowed corporations more weight to their voice then most of the US citizenry, What are "corporate interests" and why should we fear them?
jeffbax 9y ago
Harping on the eternal boogeyman that is Citizens United, after an election where Clinton almost lost to Bernie's small donor army and Trump overcame her significantly higher spending seems a little… much. That so many people latch on to the outcome of a case, that was fundamentally about political speech against a very contentious political family, as "clearly wrong" because they are allergic to the large, varied nature of what a corporation can be made up of and equate it to always be evil money -- well they kind of lose me there too regardless of what side of the political spectrum you fall. If you think Citizens United is bad, are you also against companies like Apple being vocal about climate policy or state bathroom laws?

by stult 9y ago

smsm42 9y ago

Rich people has always had large influence in politics. Being rich means commanding a lot of resources, that's literally the definition. Having a lot of resources makes you influential. It's not the only way to have influence - one can be poor or average and still influential - but it's definitely one of the ways. Pretending that something - be it "Citizens united" decision or anything else - created this situation is extremely naive and ignores the whole human history and history of politics. Wealth, influence and politics are always interlinked, at least in a free lawful society - in a totalitarian one, property means nothing, and resources are distributed in other way, so influence is gained in other ways. All that said, money don't matter as much in politics as some of the propaganda tries to tell. They are important, but they are not everything. There are numerous examples in US history alone where the candidate who spent the most lost, and the candidate who was the richest lost. By now, there's enough money on each side of any issue that the money on the sides is no longer the issue. As for student debt etc. - this is the result of applying "feel good" solutions without considering the economic consequences. If you inject a huge stream of money into education system by providing unlimited federally supported loans, you get the prices go up, and you get the debt. And if you support home ownership and wealth accumulation by home ownership, house prices necessarily skyrocket and newcomers get priced out of the market. You can not have one without the other.

cmiles74 9y ago
While this makes sense, I don't think you're going to make much progress convincing those suffering from oversized student loan debt that they are the expected "economic consequences" of a policy you believe to have been misguided. In this particular thread, it rings especially painful: the article discusses the way the upper 20% maintain their hold on power and resources; raising the cost of education clearly helps that goal. The poster to whom your responding points out that their loan debt is so large that they will not have the opportunity to have an income similar to those who graduated with similar credentials a generation previous, something unique in US history. If we don't take steps to correct the situation, eventually only the upper 20% will be able to afford higher education. Regardless of how we might feel about government meddling, we all should be able to agree that it's anti-American to make higher education a privilege only the wealthy can enjoy. You point out that the rich have always had more influence in politics then the poor, and this is obvious and has always been the case. By no means does this make the Citizens United decision less important, I'd argue that this is a tangential point. Citizens United has allowed corporations more weight to their voice then most of the US citizenry, wealthy or poor! In my opinion, the upper 20% have much more to fear from corporate interests than the lower 80%.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > I don't think you're going to make much progress convincing those suffering from oversized student loan debt that they are the expected "economic consequences" of a policy you believe to have been misguided If they don't somehow get convinced of that, they will continue suffering, and their children would be suffering even more, until some catastrophic event forces the change of policy out of necessity. Or until some genius figures out that if we nationalize the whole thing, we could hide the spending inside the voluminous budgets nobody ever reads, and charge the same money now charged as loan payments through taxes, and everybody would be so happy for their "free" education. > The poster to whom your responding points out that their loan debt is so large that they will not have the opportunity to have an income similar to those who graduated with similar credentials If the price is too high, maybe it's time to stop buying and look for a different solution? Instead of declaring upfront "our aim is for everybody to buy X, no matter the price" and then acting surprised when the price of X is shooting up? > By no means does this make the Citizens United decision less important Oh, CU decision is very important. It recognized that if you have right to criticize Hillary Clinton privately, you also have right to criticize her collectively, i.e. band together with similar-minded people and create an organization dedicated to that goal. The alternative would be late-Soviet type of political life - where you could say a lot of things while you are in your own kitchen, but once you get out in public and try to make a difference, the state would control what you can say and how you can say it. I agree, it is a very important decision that confirmed citizens' right exist even if they start become a nuisance to the powerful people, and not only when they are inconsequential. > Citizens United has allowed corporations more weight to their voice then most of the US citizenry, Corporations are US citizenry (well, then can have foreign shareholders, but it's largely insignificant given US economy size dominates the rest so much). Who you think they are made of, Martians? > Citizens United has allowed corporations more weight to their voice then most of the US citizenry, What are "corporate interests" and why should we fear them?

jeffbax 9y ago

Harping on the eternal boogeyman that is Citizens United, after an election where Clinton almost lost to Bernie's small donor army and Trump overcame her significantly higher spending seems a little… much. That so many people latch on to the outcome of a case, that was fundamentally about political speech against a very contentious political family, as "clearly wrong" because they are allergic to the large, varied nature of what a corporation can be made up of and equate it to always be evil money -- well they kind of lose me there too regardless of what side of the political spectrum you fall. If you think Citizens United is bad, are you also against companies like Apple being vocal about climate policy or state bathroom laws?