"When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus 1 percent," ... "you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God." Mitt Romney
So, I found out that the presidential candidates are a lot like the rest of us, except they have multiple houses and millions of dollars in wealth. Oh, and that Mitt Romney pays less in taxes that I do.
Oh, and when we raise the issue of wealth, benefits, privileges, influence, power, etc, we're accused of ..class warfare. The lord of the manor, Mr. Romney, probably thinks we're committing ..sacrilege for challenging the divine order of the universe, in which the rich get richer and the middle class--the arrogant and inglourious basterds--is falling further behind.
The gaps between the middle class and the poor is also growing, not because the middle class is advancing but because poverty is increasing in the US. Personally, I don't feel better off when more people fall behind me. If I'm not moving while a fraction of the top captures most of the wealth generated, then I have no problem committing sacrilege. As for "class warfare" it seems to me that the ..war is over and the elites have won it!
Take for example, Gingrich's statement (which was met with roaring applause) that ..Obama put more people on food stamps than any other president of recent. Hmm. People falling into poverty and ..applying for food assistance is Obama's fault. There's no logic in this. Or, that the constant Republican motto, "Get a job!" Well, 1/3 of those who receive food stamps work. Assuming someone makes minimum wage, and assuming (big "if" here) he has a full-time job, that may not be enough to meet basic needs, especially if there's family involved. These wages, vary form $5.15 to 9.04, nationally--though there are 9 states that have no MW or is below the fed standard of $7.25. [US Dpt of Labor] Working FT making $300 a week isn't a lot, and if the Repubs had their way, there would be no minimum wage. Plus the lower working class would have to use these 300 bucks to buy food, health insurance, and an education.
Paul Krugman wrote this the other day, and, as usual, he nailed it:
And there’s every reason to believe that our low economic mobility has a lot to do with our high level of income inequality.
Last week Alan Krueger, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, gave an important speech about income inequality, presenting a relationship he dubbed the “Great Gatsby Curve.” Highly unequal countries, he showed, have low mobility: the more unequal a society is, the greater the extent to which an individual’s economic status is determined by his or her parents’ status. And as Mr. Krueger pointed out, this relationship suggests that America in the year 2035 will have even less mobility than it has now, that it will be a place in which the economic prospects of children largely reflect the class into which they were born."
But, we live in a la-la land, where conservative memes, like viruses, still roam the minds of millions of our compatriots. Like, more wealth to the top, fewer taxes [I shouldn't be too upset that Romney pays less % in taxes than I do, especially after learning the GE paid no taxes!], and less protection for the consumer and the environment lead to more prosperity and, of course, more freedom. Tsk...