Economic inequality and the lack of a (real) progressive party in the United States

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Last Friday, Chris Rock was interviewed on Bill Maher's show Real Time, and the subject of health care reform came up.

When Maher asked if he saw health care reform the prism of race and as a civil rights issue, Rock said no. He sees health reform as a “people rights issue.” Rock also recounted his family’s experience with the health care system – first when he was poor compared to when he was rich. “I had my father get sick when I was 22. And I was poor, alright. And my father had an ulcer, and it exploded and you know all these toxins get in your blood. And basically, my father died, whatever, 50 days after his ulcer. So I had a father get sick while I was poor,” the comedian recalled.

“My mother got sick when I was rich. And my mother, you know… I don’t really want to get into it, but my mother was sicker than my father. And my mother’s alive. My mother’s fine, OK? I remember going to the hospital to see my mother and wondering, ‘Was I in the right place?’ Like, this was a hotel, like it had a concierge, man. “… if the average person really knew the discrepancy in the health care system, there would be riots in the streets, OK? They would burn this motherf**ker down!”

(source)

But health care isn't the only arena where inequality exists in the United States, and frankly what's puzzling is why the average person doesn't understand this or isn't angered about it. American workers are responsible for higher productivity over the last 30 years, and are some of the most productive in the world, but their salaries have been essentially stagnant. Why the indifference? Case in point, nearly two years since the near collapse of the United States economy in October 2008, there **still** hasn't been a single law written by Congress to prevent this from happening again, with some of the firms responsible STILL giving out bonuses. Of course, both political parties are responsible for what has happened: the large infusion of money and lobbyists into the legislative process has prevented any real concrete action to prevent it. Democrats became the 2nd Republican party in a rush to the right after Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, for a variety of issues (that's another post). Bill Maher has stated it essentially correct "Over the last thirty years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital." There really isn't a progressive party even with the Democrats, and Mr. Maher chastises the President and the party pretty harshly for that:

Here's some specific information in the form of charts on some of the worst cases of economic inequality in the United States. Be warned, it's very bandwidth intensive.

The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the "Roaring Twenties"

One half of Americans owns only 2.5 percent of the total wealth:

Half of America has 0.5% of the stocks and bonds:

Look at that gap grow!

The last two decades have been great, unless you're a typical American worker!

Real earnings have not increased (for the typical worker) for 50 years:

And with that, any real chance of upward economic mobility:

Republican tax cuts have significantly increased the wealth gap in the United States:

While the richest households' income taxes are getting lower and lower:

If you're not in the top 1 percent, you're getting a bum deal!

Source with citations on where the information was gathered is also listed. I want to thank wes_wilson for his post in another community about this information!

Comments

Re: Why the "average person" (and even many poor people) aren't outraged:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except that there's some irony in that the early misadventures of the USA really *should* have resulted in utter defeat. The only reason the UK lost the war was that it had a string of incompetent generals and prove unable to protect its allies. The War of 1812 would have been an utter curbstomp without the tiny matter of the French would-be world conqueror and his invasion of Russia.

Agreed on the solipsistic view of WWII, albeit the Brits tend to do the same thing themselves and *also* forget the USSR was the one that did most of the actual Nazi-killing.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Except that there's some irony in that the early misadventures of the USA really *should* have resulted in utter defeat.

Which actually makes it even WORSE, because we arguably got REWARDED for doing THE WRONG THINGS.

It'd be like, say, your mom telling you to wear your helmet when you go bike riding, and then, when you don't, the resultant bump on your head results in doctors detecting a brain tumor that would have killed you otherwise.

If you, as a kid, understood what had just happened, it would pretty much guarantee that you did the opposite of what your mom told you for the rest of your life.

The only reason the UK lost the war was that it had a string of incompetent generals and prove unable to protect its allies.

Well, THAT, plus the fact that India was just SITTING there, waiting to be plundered.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would hardly call the devastation the Revolutionary War brought to the South a reward, neither would I call the expansion of the Slave Power from that war and the War of 1812, which also saw the end of Indigenous people having a strong foreign ally to keep us away from them a good thing.

Well, that's not exactly the way the conquest of India happened.

What about the Pacific?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

While it's fairly obvious to even a minor student of History that you are correct about the USSR being the reason the Allies won in Europe, that wasn't the only theater of the war, and even tho they managed to declare war on Japan at the last minute, they weren't a whole lot of help to us there.

Re: What about the Pacific?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Oh, absolutely. They did, however, deal a brutal defeat to Japan at Khalkin Ghol that prevented a German victory at Barbarossa, but Khalkin Ghol had nothing to do with *our* war against Japan.

Re: What about the Pacific?

[rev-proffessor.livejournal.com]

The Chinese, Aussies, every other country being steamrolled by Imperial Japan... Nope, no body but US in the pacific...

Re: What about the Pacific?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"The Chinese, Aussies, every other country being steamrolled by Imperial Japan"

That's kind of the point, not that no one else was fighting. Heck, even the British got steamrolled. Your sarcasm is misplaced.

Re: Why the "average person" (and even many poor people) aren't outraged:

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Come on old thing, most Brits over forty know that both Russia and the US were essential to winning WWII. However we have never forgotten that though we started in Sept '39, you guys joined in in Dec '41, six months after Germany invaded Russia in operation Barbarossa, and trampling over the Nazi-Soviet pact.

In fact you chaps didn't even declare War on Hitler's Germany then. Germany decalred war on you.

Just giving historical context. :)

Re: Why the "average person" (and even many poor people) aren't outraged:

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wonder what FDR would have done if Germany hadn't declared war.