A scary thought, Obama, along with over half of Congress, are in the One Percent.

[MadHound]

Yet we allow these people to make the policy and laws for the 99%.

No wonder this country is so fucked up. Government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. +10

[bvar22]

64. Exactly!

The Great Wall Street Bailout did NOT "Save the Economy."
It saved the Jobs and Bonuses of a handful of Failed Wall Street Bankers,
and prevented hits to investment portfolios of those gambling on Wall Street,
INCLUDING those voting on this issue.
It was very easy and FAST for our Congress to reach Bi-Partisan Consensus
when their money was threatened by Paulson's Extortion letter.

[font size=5]
Paulson with Co-Conspirators

Now THIS is Bi-Partisanship![/font]


"And EVERYBODY has a SHARE" shouted Milo as the American Planes began dropping bombs on their own base.
--from Catch-22, a remarkable prescient novel by Joseph Heller, 1961.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[progressoid]

73. God I hate that picture.

[themadstork]

75. paulson always looks like such a creep

like a predator

[Ken Burch]

83. I'd definitely call the cops if I saw him hanging out by the playground.

n/t.

[FarLeftFist]

76. Isn't Obama trying to make himself pay more taxes? Also, didn't he grow up poor?

Nothing wrong with being in the top 1%, it all depends on how you got there.

[teddy51]

2. Now that I will buy, and it's super scary. n/t

[tabatha]

3. Obama has repeated that over and over - that he is in the 1% and wants his taxes raised.

[MadHound]

7. And yet with his actions, continues to hand out tax cut after tax cut.

Actions over words, actions over words.

[MH1]

11. Get a bill rasiing taxes on the wealthy passed by Congress and sent to Obama's desk.

(with no poison pill shit in it)

Then if he vetoes it, you have a point.

Otherwise you seem to be blaming Obama, but it is Congress that is the problem.

[MadHound]

12. Umm, let's see here,

He could have let the Bush tax cuts expire, but instead he did a pre-emptive, face plant cave three weeks before the drop dead date.

He could have let the payroll tax cuts, which are going to be used as a wedge to gut Social Security, expire. Instead, he is fighting hard for them. Remember, tax cuts and tax credits are the least effective forms of economic stimuli. In fact all of Obama's "stimulus" programs have consisted mainly of tax cuts.

Obama and Congress both deserve blame

[MH1]

23. Oh, right, I forgot, you WANT to RAISE TAXES on WORKING FOLKS by letting payroll tax cut expire.

Never mind then.

As much discussed in other places, this is only about Social Security if you want it to be. Obama did push a millionaire's tax to compensate for the payroll tax lost revenue. And there are about a gazillion other ways to handle SS. But yeah, I guess you'd rather let the economy crash again? That'll really help SS, sure.

[MadHound]

28. What funds Social Security? Oh, yeah, payroll taxes.

Where has that revenue come from to continue funding SS during the temporary payroll tax cut? Oh, yeah, General funds, the same general funds that can be voted on and politicized. Where will the replacement funds for this two month extension come from? Again, General funds. So now, instead of being funded by a system that can't be politicized or subject to votes, we are now transferring that funding mechanism to a process that is going to subject to politics, and won't be guaranteed. Thus, this opens up Social Security funding to cuts, being held hostage in Congress, etc. etc.

Why are you in favor of that? So you can get a modicum of tax relief at the expense of gutting a program that keeps millions out of poverty and despair? Sounds pretty selfish, pretty Republican to me.

Let the economy crash again? Really? I think not. As has been shown over and over, tax cuts and tax credits are the least effective form of economic stimulus going. For every dollar of tax cuts, the economy receives less than three cents in economic stimulus. Not a very effective way of stimulating the economy, as any decent economist will tell you.

But hey, keep pushing that 'Pug line of tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts. Like it has really worked so far

[MH1]

35. Tax cuts ARE effective stimulus IF the cuts are to the right people.

A tax cut to someone who won't spend it is ineffective. A tax cut to someone who spends every cent of their take-home is very effective. (Keynesian economics 101.)

And yes, the PAYROLL tax cut HAS worked so far.

AND IT IS THE ONLY KIND OF STIMULUS THAT CAN GET PAST THIS FUCKING CONGRESS.

Sheesh.

[MadHound]

37. No, their not

It doesn't matter at what wealth group the tax cuts are aimed at, poor, middle class or rich, it has been shown time and again that tax cuts are dismally ineffective when it comes to stimulating the economy.

And how has the payroll tax cut worked out so far. Millions are still out of work, millions are desperately underemployed, millions more have dropped out of the labor force entirely. Our middle class has shrunk, poverty has increased, AND NOT A DIME'S WORTH OF THESE TAX CUTS HAVE STOPPED THAT DOWNWARD SPIRAL!

As far as what can get by Congress, we had two years of hefty majorities in Congress for Obama to work with, yet nothing effective was done. Nor do we see the President actually trying to fight for anything truly stimulative. In fact just the opposite, giving out more and more tax cuts, tax cuts that threaten government services, increase our debt and now threaten Social Security.

Tax cuts are part of the reason our economy is in the crapper now, why do you think more tax cuts will help get us out of it?

[hfojvt]

43. yeah, taxes on working folks - which working folks?

The top 1% get 3% of the payroll tax cut. The richest 5% get 14.1% of the payroll tax cut, and the richest 10% get 26.7% of the payroll tax cut.

On the other hand, the POOREST 20% get a mere 3.8% of the payroll tax cut. About the same amount as the top 1% even though there are 20 times as many of them. The poorest 40% get 12.1% of the payroll tax cut.

So the bottom 40% gets less than half as much money as the top 10% from the payroll tax cut.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do want to raise taxes on those who are in the top 10%. That's kinda what being a progressive is all about.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

You know, there are certain lies that USED to come from the Republican party, lies like

"A tax cut for the rich is really a tax cut for working people"

and

"Tax increases will kill the economy"

and

"Tax cuts (for the rich) will create jobs"


For some reason, now those lies are coming from Obama and his defenders. I guess we are all Reaganites now. Thank God for Change We can believe in. I believe the Democratic Party has been changed into the moderate Republican Party.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

86. Well said.

[99Forever]

96. Thank you.

Keep speaking truth to power.

[pnwmom]

77. He extended the Bush cuts in exchange for a critically necessary UI benefits extension.

What are these other tax cuts you're referring to?

[MadHound]

87. No, he gave up those extensions for no good reason,

Far too early in the game that was being played, and when it was entirely unnecessary.

As far as the other tax cuts, check out the "stimulus package" and the debt ceiling deal.

[pnwmom]

89. Extending the Unemployment Insurance Benefits was critical for millions of families.

Apparently it didn't matter to you. Lucky you.

What other tax cuts in the stimulus package and debt ceiling deal are you referring to?

[MadHound]

90. I agree, but he gave up the tax cuts far too early in the game

He could have probably gotten UI extension without having to extend the tax cuts, but apparently Obama doesn't know how to play chicken. Please read for comprehension.

Go check out the various stimulus packages, and the debt ceiling deal for yourself. Filled with tax cut after tax credit after tax cut.

[dkf]

91. You want Obama to play chicken with the tea party over unemployment extensions?

You honestly think the tea party loves unemployment extensions? Really? Really?

[MadHound]

94. Yes, I think that he should have,

Most people, at the time, were thinking he would win that game. But instead, he did the preemptive cave.

[dkf]

98. Personally I think it's a bet you and he would have lost, but that is me.

Extending unemployment isn't part of tea party ideology, but if you think it is, then more power to you.

Honestly you need to google "tea party unemployment extension".

[bvar22]

97. The Extension was "important" for a relatively small percentage of Americans.

The Extension was for one year,
and did NOT include the Millions whose benefits had already expired.
If it was "critical", why didn't the President try to have them extended for those Millions too?
It was just as "critical" to them.

No.
The President negotiated poorly (by design),
and gave away BILLIONS to obtain a shiny crumb so that he could Market
this policy Cave In as Humanitarian Concern
to those who can't Do the Math.

My Father and HIS Father were smart enough to STAND FIRM against the forces of the RICH,
and NOT cave in to these scams used by the Ownership Class to divide the Working Class.

The Bush Tax Cut should have NEVER been tied to the Unemployment Extension.
THAT was the Marketing Scam (hostage crisis) that allowed Obama to cave by design.
These issues should have been brought up independently.

LET the Republicans vote against the Unemployment Extension,
and then TIE IT AROUND THEIR FUCKING NECKS.

We have seen this same scam played by this administration Time after Time
as he gives away The Store for a few crumbs:
"He had to. What about the poor <fill in the blank>."
ALWAYS the SAME excuse.
Wise UP!





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[dmallind]

4. By income or wealth? $380k or $9MM IIRC.....

[MadHound]

5. His income last year was $1.73 million

His accrued wealth is far beyond that. He is, by any definition, in the club.

[dmallind]

29. More wondering about the 50% - Obama has avowed his own 1% status a few times. nt

[Lint Head]

6. This is a living example of the definition of insanity.

Doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. Nothing will changed until the people we elect to office have a real clue as to how the majority of us live. People comfortable with their money will do nothing to change the paradigm.

[randome]

10. Then define 'rich' for the rest of us.

This should never be about us versus them or poor versus rich. It's about what's right. Obama has a better sense of that than most people who have been elected to office, no matter what their tax returns say.

[Lint Head]

72. Do you speak for the "rest of us"?

No definition needed. It 'is' about rich versus poor. The system is game to the side of the arbiters of what is possible for the average person. There 'is' class warfare going on and the 1% started it. The poor and middle class are being attacked daily in word and deed.
Why is the middle class and poor asked to pay for a war that made billions for the 1% and was stared by the 1%? Why aren't the criminals who hijacked capitalism and backed politicians that supported torturing war criminals in jail?

Fence sitters change nothing.

[liberal N proud]

8. That fact goes a long way to explain the problems this country faces.

They are out of touch.

They have made it nearly impossible for any one not in the 1% to get elected.

[dkf]

92. Every President turns into the 1% on the day they are sworn in.

The perks that come with the office outdo anything a mere mortal will ever experience. Moreover the future income means they will stay in the elite.

No way around it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. But..but..they "feel our pain". Or, so they say.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. And their answers to our pain is to force austerity measure on us cloaked in

'shared sacrifice' BS which none of the 1% including Obama and his family, will be made to engage in. Niceeee!

Well after all, taxes are what the little people pay.

[phleshdef]

13. FDR and JFK were also both in the one percent. And unlike them, Obama earned it for himself.

Thats not a slight at either men by the way. Both were great men. But I have to point this out as it highlights how silly and trivial your point is.

I'm all for taxing the wealthy more and making sure that they pay their fair share. But this kind of bigoted demonization has to stop. You are encouraging prejudice feeling. Plain and simple.

[MadHound]

20. Despite the sparkle of Camelot,

JFK did indeed look out for the wealthy, lowering tax rates, especially for the rich.

FDR was starring down the barrel of a mass revolt if something wasn't done quickly.

Bigoted demonization of the wealthy? Sorry, but having suffered at the hands of the wealthy all of my life, I'm not inclined to give them a pass.

[phleshdef]

67. So you think its ok to generalize and attack people based on prejudices about their income?

Yes, its ignorant, bigoted bullshit. How much money you have has nothing to do with what kind of person you are and what your ideological leanings are. Plenty of poor people vote Republicans and worship at the alter of the free market. Plenty of rich people vote Democratic/progressive, believe their own damn taxes should be higher and see the wisdom in having a responsibly regulated market.

I really don't think such blanket judgements should be allowed here as its no different than the kind of bullshit you hear Republicans say about poor and unemployed people. In that sense it makes you no different than them. Hatred is hatred. Bigotry is bigotry. Prejudice is prejudice. Just because you are aiming yours at a class of people that are in good shape doesn't justify it. Hatred, bigotry and prejudice are wrong. And wrong is wrong.

[MadHound]

68. No, I think it is OK to point out that the majority of our ruling class is part of the One Percent

Draw your own conclusions. Personally, I think that fact right there is a large part of the reason that we're in the shape we're in. I think that most people would agree with me, with demonstrably good reasons.

[gulliver]

14. Um, they were elected by majorities.

If it is the result of democracy, it's valid. Unless you want to say democracy is scary. Then I'll have to agree. But it is the least scary of the alternatives.

[MadHound]

18. Considering that our "democratically elected leaders" are bought and paid

By the wealthy and corporate, their "democratic" election really doesn't reassure me that much. Over the years and decades the wealthy and powerful have rigged our election system to the point where the one percent benefits no matter who is elected to office.

[gulliver]

48. People don't vote.

What they don't use, they lose. If people voted all the time, they would care more. If they cared, the rigging would be harder and harder to do.

[MadHound]

49. Voting is only part of the game

Who pays for all of those election campaigns? By and large, the wealthy and powerful. Not to mention the legion of lobbyists who buy political influence, write the legislation, and guide it through Congress. A million dollar political ad campaign reliably yields enough gullible votes to put the hand picked representative of the wealthy and powerful into office, whether that rep is Democratic or Republican.

Most of those apathetic voters have dropped out because they realize that the game is rigged, so why bother to vote? It is a valid response to an outrageous situation.

But continue to blame the victim.

[gulliver]

53. It's valid, but self-defeating.

That's my point. Folks who don't vote won't find any shortage of validation. Not voting is a valid move in the game, as is voting Republican. Both are bad moves, though, with failing to vote Democratic slightly less "blameworthy" than voting Republican. The results do depend on voting, regardless of the chicanery, so non-voters must accept that while their position is valid, it produces worse results than voting.

[Telly Savalas]

71. A democracy that rests on the foundation of gullible voters is on shaky ground

A million dollar campaign won't influence the voting behavior of an informed and engaged citizenry.

That's not blaming the victim. It's simply observing a precondition for any meaningful change. We're stuck in a negative feedback loop where there's political apathy because people are fed up with the bullshit, but the bullshit thrives because people are apathetic. That apathy isn't going to be broken by calling attention to the injustices wrought by the current power structure - the vast majority already already sense that things are wrong.

What's needed is a positive alternative. Folks would be more apt to pay attention if they knew that there were candidates and officials out there that knew what they were doing and represented the interests of the people. But this will never happen until members of movements for social change identify capable members among their ranks and support their candidacies. Nobody else is going to do this for us. Money won't leave politics until it stops winning.

Moreover, "pressuring" our elected officials is a bullshit strategy. What's the pressure? That they're threatened with the prospect of being defeated by another plutocrat? That's supposed to make the powers that be shake in their shoes? Fuck pressure. We need to replace our elected officials if they're doing a bad job, not pressure them. But given that we're rolling into primary season for House and Senate seats and there's pretty much no discussion at DU regarding progressive challengers for these seats across the country, I get the sense that there's not much activity on that front.

[boxman15]

16. Not everyone in the 1% is evil.

Just because you are rich, that doesn't mean you don't give a fuck about anyone else.

Sure, I'd like to see more of the 99% in Congress, but income doesn't determine if a person is a good congressman or president or not.

FDR was in the 1% in his time, yet we all look back on him as a champion for the little guy, not for the 1%.

[MadHound]

19. And how many presidents have stepped up to the level of FDR in the past sixty years?

Oh, yeah. And don't forget, FDR was starring down the barrel of a massive revolt if he didn't do something to insure the welfare of the people.

[blindpig]

33. Doesn't matter....

it is their function in capitalist society which is objectionable. They appropriate the labor of others, that is unacceptable. They use the wealth derived from that stolen labor to control society for their benefit. Metaphysical determination got nothin' to do with it. It is their effect upon material condition of humanity, were not for that their unsavory behavior might be dealt with in the typical manner of social interaction.

[Ken Burch]

85. There aren't any FDR- or RFK-type rich people any more.

Almost all of our wealthy today back the 'pugs or the anti-populist wing of our party and think they are making up for it by writing checks to Bono or something.

Don't know if there ever will be again.

[Skittles]

102. not evil

but certainly out of touch

[teddy51]

17. And of course there's our money that they spend like it is there own. Bail out after bail out

and the 99%er's can just shut up and quit complaining about it. Or..

[Modern_Matthew]

21. Having more money than 99% of your fellow citizens should be worn as a badge of shame... nt

[SixthSense]

22. and those who aren't

are on their way to the 1% fast as they take advantage of legalized insider trading for members of Congress

it's like a massive bribe written into law to coerce any person who wins a seat to go along with the program

[Quartermass]

24. You're just now finding that out?

Especially when it costs over a hundred million dollars to run for President of the united states?

And when both Obama and his wife are given separate jumbo jets along with Air Force One?

This is something I've known for years.

It's one reason why I have no faith in the vote anymore.

[MH1]

25. Not really. Obama and many others were NOT in the 1% most of their lives.

There will always be a 'top 1%' and there will always be some people in it. (Like, 1% of all the people, ya know.)

And if someone lived most of their life NOT in the 1%, then I'm sure they have a different view than someone who inherited it.

What is more scary is the vast amount of money that must be raised from other 1%ers in order to be elected to Congress or the Presidency.

[MadHound]

31. Neither was Bill Gates and many others of the wealthy and powerful

Yet they continue to act like the money privileged One Percent as well.

Amazing how vast wealth changes many people.

[MH1]

36. Many of the wealthy and powerful are BEGGING for their taxes to be raised.

I believe Bill Gates is one. I know his father, Bill Gates Sr. is definitely one.

My, that's a broad brush you have in your hand.

[MadHound]

39. Ah, so you admire tax cuts and Bill Gates as well,

Obviously you aren't a teacher and haven't seen the destruction that Gates is wreaking with his education "reform".

[MH1]

52. I admire lower taxes for lower income people, higher taxes for the wealthier - a steep 'progressive'

rate structure.

As to Gates, I admire his support for the same sort of tax structure that I support, and that as a member of the 1%, he would support that even though it will cost him and his pals a lot of money.

I despise most of the products of Bill Gates' Microsoft corporation. I use it because I have to, but Windows, Office, and now SharePoint are very rightfully the butt of jokes among my set. They suck. But dang, Bill sure knew how to suck money out of us for that crap.

As to his work in education, I have no opinion, not being a teacher.

But you see, I can approve of one aspect of a person, without necessarily 'admiring' the whole person. I approve of Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq War, but I am one of the most virulently anti-Paul people you will find.

[mike_c]

26. same as it ever was....

Yep.

[blindpig]

44. Exactly so.

The set up has always been the same, those 'founding fathers' had no intent of giving the unwashed masses free rein, hence a sytem where popular opinion might be tharfed by the aristocratic Senate or a court vetted by them.

The reason that our abject condition has become so evident is that every capitalist crisis builds upon the last, gets worse in fact and as always the slack must be gotten from the working class's hide cause they ain't giving it up. The curtain of a civil capitalism is rent because they cannot afford to keep it up.

[LoZoccolo]

27. You know what I think is scary?

That the Republicans don't want people to vote for Democrats. Yet we don't stand up to people who advocate doing what they want.

[treestar]

30. These people are elected

And you can't prove that statement - 1% of the top wealthy people does not necessary equate with politicians.

In fact why would anyone among the richest bother? Let others take the abuse.

[MadHound]

34. These people are elected by a system that is rigged by the wealthy and powerful,

The Citizens United ruling is but the most recent manifestation of how the system is rigged.

And yes, you can go out and look for yourself. Obama, and over half of Congress, are part of the One Percent.

[treestar]

50. I don't see that as a given because you've said I can go out and look for myself

to be among the 1% requires a lot of wealth - even those we know of as rich and famous may not be in it.

Is your problem with our system as stated in the Constitution? Because that is our system. If we fail to use it well and let ourselves be influenced easily by slick ads and pretty faces - isn't it up to us to take more adult responsibility?

And what system would be better?

[MadHound]

54. It requires an income of approximately 563,000,

And assets approximating one million dollars.

With their present Congressional income ranging around 150,000, added to their investment, pension and other such income, most Congressional members easily reach the income requirement. Since over half of Congress possesses assets of one million dollars or more, they also have attained the wealth requirement. The information is readily available, go find it for yourself rather than trying to get it spoon fed to you.

My problem with the system isn't the Constitution per se, but rather how the Constitution has been distorted with time to favor the wealthy. If you don't understand that this distortion has occurred, and how it has effected our political process you are either historically ignorant or incredibly naive. Your choice.

Actually a return to a stricter Constitutional approach would be better in many cases. Given that we've now seen a number of wars and military actions take place without the benefit of Congressional sanction, a return to a stricter interpretation of war making potential would be a good thing. Then again, some seriously Constitutional changes are in order, for instance an Amendment to publicly fund each and every campaign for office(no private funding) would be key in wresting the grip that the wealthy and powerful have on our government.

There are many improvements that can be made, or do you not agree with that as well?

[treestar]

58. 150000 is not 563000, and it is a full time job

Most of them have to raise money to run. I recall Perot supposedly being able to pay for his own campaign.

How has the Constitution been distorted to favor the wealthy? It's not the law that has been distorted (many rulings favor the poor). The distortion has been caused by voters too shallow to see beyond who looks "most Presidential" and "seems like someone you'd want to have a a beer with."

The worst distortion in the Constitution is the Senate, giving disproportionate power to states with low populations (which often happen to be red, but that distortion could go either way). The filibuster makes it worse. So the biggest improvement to be worked for is eliminate the filibuster. Then maybe work on a representative Senate (a long way away, I realize).

[MadHound]

60. Did you miss the part where I included other additional income?

Or are you deliberately ignoring it.

As far as having to raise money, how do you think that most candidates raise that money? It certainly doesn't come out of their own pocket, but rather is given to them, for the most part, by wealthy donors, which is how the interests of the wealthy are considered top priority. Perot is a rare exception. But of course you already know this, you are simply being obstinate and obtuse for reasons I can only speculate on.

It's not the law that's been distorted? Really? Are you that naive? Wow! I suppose that rulings such as Citizen United, the laws regarding lobbyists, campaign finance, on and on, mean nothing to you. The number one factor that determines who is going to get a particular office is the money that is spent.

Your analysis is shallow, self serving, and either deliberately ignoring pertinent facts, or perhaps worse, genuinely ignorant of how things work in this country.

[NavyDem]

38. My knowledge of history is shaky at times.

Have we ever had a President or Congress that was not rich (or at least rich relative to the rest of the population when they served)?

Legitimate question. I would think President Lincoln (again, my knowledge of history is shaky here).

[MadHound]

41. Several presidents were not personally wealthy,

But the monied class in this country has always insured that their interests are put ahead of the rest, almost from the inception of this country.

[NavyDem]

46. Thank you. NT.

[MadHound]

47. If you want to explore this in greater detail,

I recommend Howard Zinn's classic, "The People's History of the US."

[Skidmore]

40. Oh, jeez...

Like the 99% don't own part of the blame...and we do. We got lazy as citizens and did not demand accountability. We refused to pay for elections and left it to the wealthy to buy candidates and offices. We did not do the leg work. IN the 1990s, we participated in their get rich quick schemes and bought the notion that the whole nation could live the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Yeah, Obama is one of the old uberwealthy. Satan incarnate. Peddle that cart of BS elsewhere.

[MadHound]

45. Oh, cute, blaming the victim

Look, you may have been sitting on your ass, but don't think that others were. I suggest you go do some reading and research. Or you can just continue to make yourself look foolish and blame the victim.

[Skidmore]

66. So you are

a victim??? Who's a victim?

Collectively Americans have gotten the governance to be expected from a lazy citizenry. Period. If you don't want to be a victim, you participate and, like it or not, the majority of Americans did not participate. A simple look at the stats for voting in elections will bear that out.

Now if you would climb down off of your horsey there, you may come to realize that you probably not the only one tending a flame.

[themadstork]

74. Man I get so sick of the "the people are lazy and stupid" card.

And you think you'd see it less at a place called democratic underground.

Thanks for your posts in this thread.

[NNN0LHI]

42. FDR and JFK came from ultra-wealthy families. Hoover and Nixon had middle-class backgrounds

[NutmegYankee]

51. Oddly enough, the salary of the President puts him in the top 1% of all income earners alone.

I suspect every president will will be a 1%er

[Ikonoklast]

56. 'Income earners' is one thing.

The wealthiest people in this nation do not rely on income earned, their wealth comes from unearned income.

[sarcasmo]

55. I would have thought the number to be higher.

[ProSense]

57. Net worth

201-:

DeMint $65,000
Baucus $160,000
Rubio $834,998
Sanders $914,996
Sherrod Brown $1,025,000
Rand Paul $1,269,999
I can think of things a lot more scary than someones net worth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2010&filter=S&sort=A

[Skidmore]

69. Interesting to note that the wealthiest top 6 Senators are all Dems.

[CakeGrrl]

59. So are you going to bump POTUS' salary down to < 50k/yr?

Silly post.

[MadHound]

61. Wow, way to miss the entire point of my post,

Sad, but not surprising. Did you miss the fact that I included over half of Congress in my post? Try rereading without your brain being set to automatically defend anything that you perceive as negative. Of course, the fact that you do react to this as some sort of attack on Obama only goes to show that you know, deep down in your heart, that such wealth disparity is not a healthy thing for our government or country.

[SomethingFishy]

62. Silly to think that someone worth millions

is disconnected from the reality of a family of4 living on 40 or 50 grand a year?

Well just call me Silly Willy then.

Maybe the OP was hinting at getting rid of corporate money, lobbyists, corporate personhood, and public financing of campaigns. But that would be just SILLY...

[Ken Burch]

84. I don't know about that

Something DOES have to be done to re-open politics and life for the non-bazillionaire majority.

[Justice wanted]

63. No offense. But it took you that long to realize that.

[MadHound]

65. No offense taken, but then again I've found that it's a good thing to restate

The Obvious now and again.

[Justice wanted]

81. Agreed.

[pauldp]

70. To quote the title of another post "welcome to reality". nt

[Cali_Democrat]

78. Some of the responses in this thread are downright amusing

It's like some people just can't accept reality.

[jefferson_dem]

95. Totally agree!

[Cali_Democrat]

101. Yup

It's like people are totally unaware of the fact that the 1% controls the government.

[certainot]

80. jeez, i didn't know there were some good folks in the 1%

until you said that about the 1% i wanted to get the guillotine!!

[JoePhilly]

82. SO are Romney, Newt, Perry .... now what???

Or should we all just stay home and pretend they are all the same?

[MadHound]

88. Funny how all the major contenders are of the class,

Don't you find that rather chilling, or are you ready to welcome our corporate overlords?

[jefferson_dem]

93. Like YA!

Anyone who is "rich" sucks really really bad!

...talk about reductionism.

[lunatica]

99. Sometimes the realization is like running into a brick wall

Now that we think in terms of the 99% and the 1% it's a lot easier to see. OWS already changed things in this regard, no matter what happens to the movement. The lexicon is part and parcel of our conceptual thinking. Everyone, even those who disagree get the concept.

It's funny how 'naming' the idea can crystallize it into making it easy to understand.

[Zorra]

100. Support Occupy if you really want to see all this changed.

The 1% is in control of the government.

They are never going to let you vote them out.

Belief in the current illusion of democracy is preventing change.

Make a real difference. Occupy. Unite in solidarity. Change our world for the better forever.

The movement for democracy has begun. The only thing that can change the world is you.

We are the 99%. The people, united, can never be divided.