General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA suggestion to everyone, especially Occupy: ditch the phrase "1%" in favor of "Plutocrats"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plutocrat
plu·toc·ra·cy (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
There are a few 1%ers who are fighting for us: William Buffett, to some degree, and George Soros.
However, the ones that are destroying America and turning it into a Social Darwinist hell, are the plutocrats, the ones who want to turn america into a nation ruled by wealth and not wisdom.
Every person in America needs to be made familiar with the term Plutocracy. It is, along with Social Darwinism, the most precise definition for the greatest threat facing the working class today.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)got root
(425 posts)applegrove
(118,020 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,309 posts)not that many people under the age of 40 actually know what plutocrat means.
Most likely they'll think it has something to do with Goofy and Mickey.
randome
(34,845 posts)'1%' has more emotional resonance.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)the 1% has a definite resonance and shouldn't be thrown away.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)need to quit having semi-colons in them and convey concise ideas. The more complicated ideas and discussions can be made around a dinner table. I think Warren Buffet will forgive the 99% for the meme.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Buffet understands and has stated quite clearly that there is a Class War in progress and that his class is winning, hands down.
Occupy's meme remains powerful.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)That's how much the word "plutocrats" means to the average person.
What's wrong with the 1% or the super-rich?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)[img][/img]
Edited to add: But your reference to Idiocracy is quite accurate, too.
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)People tend to overestimate their standing. So either she is already the 99% (and is just bragging) or she could make some generous charitable contributions and become the 99% without any danger to her pampered way of life.
Which is all beside the point anyway, because my point is that "plutocrat" doesn't resonate with ordinary people. Definitions aside, liberals have ALWAYS been terrible at picking names for their causes, unlike the conservatives who come up with terrific names for terrible policies.
Besides, Pluto isn't even a planet any more.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)merely picked up on it. That phrase has been around for at least 30 years. I remember people in the 70s/80s using it to describe Reagan's policies.
It's good that Obama is using it though. It's part of a FIGHTING strategy rather than a "compromise" strategy.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the 1%-vs-99% meme has worked very well so far IMO.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)it up. But it certainly describes just exactly what we have now or will have if Romney wins this election. I can't bear/bare ? the thought of it.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Also owners works.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)I don't agree with a lot of what you have to say - but I think you are spot on here.
I think there was a missed opportunity to separate the Plutocrats, as you say, from those at the lower end of the 1%. There are enough people in that lower end, or who know people in that lower end, or who want to be people in that lower end, of the 1%, that a lot of potential support was lost.
I am sure mine will be an unpopular opinion. 1% is a great marketing slogan. As a few have mentioned here, it is easily understood, and simple to remember. But because of who it covers, it also alienates potential allies we need to enact real tax reform.
I was trying to find exact numbers on the breakdown of who makes up the top 1%. That led me to this article http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html which is written by a sociology professor at UC Santa Cruz. He links to this article http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/25/beyond-the-1-percent/ by a Reuters columnist for the numbers breakdown. I disagree with most of the Reuters article - but he is the source of the 1% breakdown
"Economically, those just entering the top 1 percent have nothing in common with those in the top tenth of the top 1 percent. Someone at the entry point for the top 1 percent would need 29 years to make $10 million, and more than 2,900 years to make $1 billion.
The point is that while all those in the top 1 percent are certainly well off, the vast majority still go to work every day.
Almost half of the top 1 percent, or 1.4 million taxpayers, make $344,000 to $500,000. More than 1.1 million make $999,999 or less."
I think if it had been coined "The Millionaires Club" or something like that, we would have seen real action on tax reform. These numbers are from 2008 Saez analysis linked to from the article
Percentile-Threshold-# of families-Average income in each group
Top 10% - $109,062 - 7,623,100 - $127,184
Top 5% - $152,726 - 6,098,480 - $211,476
Top 1% - $368,238 - 762,310 - $443,102
Top .5% - $558,726 - 609,848 - $878,139
Top .1% - $1,695,136 - 137,216 - $3,238,386
Top .01% - $9,141,190 - 15,246 - $27,342,212
The differences between 1% - .1% - .01% are astronomical. I'm not saying the top 1% should't be taxed more. I am saying we had a big softball with .1% or .01%, which would have been a MUCH easier sell.