If Americans vote for old "Rs" and young "Ds" (as they seem to, see below), then:

Paul 20 AUG 1935
Gingrich 17 JUN 1943
Romney 12 MAR 1947
Santorum 10 MAY 1958

...whatever the candidates' respective merits (or lack thereof), then Paul, Gingrich and Romney are definitely "old enough" to win as R's. Santorum is just on the edge, and might be too young, since no R has been elected so young since the last 4T, when this pattern seems to have started.

President Obama, being an incumbent, doesn't have to worry (about his age, anyway).

From 8 JAN 2008:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

This isn't specifically S&H generational theory, but it was inspired by the presidential list in the Appendix of "Generations":

A list of the ages of the 1st term, non-incumbent winners on election day since 1932 (DOB; Election Day):

Reagan 69 yrs, 8 mos, 29 days (b. 6 FEB 1911) (4 NOV 1980)
[GHW] Bush 64 yrs, 4 mos, 21 days (b. 12 JUN 1924) (2 NOV 1988)
Ike 62 yrs, 0 mos, 21 days (b. 14 OCT 1890) (4 NOV 1952)
Nixon 55 yrs, 9 mos, 27 days (b. 9 JAN 1913) (5 NOV 1968)
[GW] Bush 54 yrs, 3 mos, 29 days (b. 6 JUL 1946) (4 NOV 2000)
Carter 52 yrs, 1 mo, 1 day (b. 1 OCT 1924) (2 NOV 1976)
FDR 50 yrs, 9 mos, 1 day (b. 30 JAN 1882) (1 NOV 1932)
Clinton 46 yrs, 2 mos, 15 days (b. 19 AUG 1946) (3 NOV 1992)
JFK 43 yrs, 6 mos, 3 days (b. 29 MAY 1917) (1 NOV 1960)

Truman, LBJ, and Ford aren't included, since their "1st term" came upon taking office to complete their POTUS's term; when they ran for president, they were already incumbents (and Ford lost anyway).

The "R's" are all of the old guys, the "D's" are all of the young guys.

A long time ago, I remember it being said that Americans vote for old "R's" & young "D's", but I haven't heard it recently.

DOBs for candidates on election day, 4 NOV 2008:

Paul 73 yrs, 2 mos, 15 days (b. 20 AUG 1935)
McCain 72 yrs, 2 mos, 6 days (b. 29 AUG 1936)
Thompson 66 yrs, 2 mos, 16 days (b. 19 AUG 1942)
Giuliani 64 yrs, 5 mos, 7 days (b. 28 MAY 1944)
Kucinich 62 yrs, 0 mos, 27 days (b. 8 OCT 1946)
Romney 61 yrs, 7 mos, 23 days (b. 12 MAR 1947)
Clinton 61 yrs, 0 mos, 9 days (26 OCT 1947)
Richardson 60 yrs, 11 mos, 20 days (b. 15 NOV 1947)
Hunter 60 yrs, 5 mos, 4 days (b. 31 MAY 1948)
Edwards 55 yrs, 4 mos, 25 days (b. 10 JUN 1953)
Huckabee 53 yrs, 2 mos, 11 days (b. 24 AUG 1955)
Obama 47 yrs, 3 mos, 0 days (b. 4 AUG 1961)

FWIW, according to this pattern, the "R's" are all easily "old" enough, except Huckabee; if elected, [he] would be the youngest "R" on the list, but still older than any of the "D's".

Obama, far from being "too young", is actually center-mass to be elected as a "D"; Edwards might actually be a bit too "old" (even tho' he looks like he's 12), while the other "D's" are "dinosaurs".

I don't know how race or sex might play on this. Blacks don't normally live as long as whites (making Obama slightly "older"), while women usually live longer than men (making Clinton "younger"); on the other hand, women might get gigged for age more than men (making Clinton"older").

Originally Posted by James50

1. The share of income going to the 1% fell from 23.5% in 2007 to 17.6% in 2009. The low point of the last 80 years was around 10%. What is the right number? Trickle down does have some truth to it (please PB, don't let your head explode ). That is, it takes some accumulation of capital to start a business. If income were evenly distributed, the only businesses that could be formed would be those of a tradesperson. It takes capital to make capital investments.

Two problems with this. One is that the idea of "trickle down economics" doesn't start from an agrarian economy trying to industrialize, it starts with a mature industrial economy. In an agrarian economy trying to industrialize, capital formation is the main problem, the thing requiring the most attention, because there isn't a whole lot of wealth available and it takes a certain amount to get things started. In a mature industrial economy, capital formation can be taken for granted as it always exceeds consumer demand. Trickle down economics is wrong -- completely not just in part -- because all growth is limited by the necessity in shortest supply. In a mature economy that is consumer demand, unless for some reason there's a shortage of a crucial raw material (like oil in the 1970s). Any necessity that exists in larger quantities than the one in shortest supply is in a surplus state, and increasing it will accomplish nothing. The second problem is your hypothetical in which all incomes are literally equal. To begin with this is not a real-world plausible condition, so it isn't really anything to worry about. But also, if all incomes were equal, most incomes would be much higher, savings rates for most people would therefore be higher as well, so there would still be capital formation. There's quite a bit of uncertainty about where the sweet spot is where further improvement in income equality would begin to hurt the economy. I'm guessing it's somewhere before we get to perfect equality, but I could be wrong about that! In any case, it's certainly much closer to perfect equality than we are today.

4. 33% of the 1% identify as Republicans. 26% as Democrats. The article says this difference is significant. I am surprised how close the two numbers are. These low percentages are hardly the basis for a class revolution.

What this says to me is that both parties are on the take. They are both corporatists, both in service to the wealthy elite. Since either party will support his/her monetary interests, a member of the 1% may support one or the other on some other basis, such as social issues or foreign policy.

5. Only 25% of the income of the 1% comes from interest, dividends, and capital gains. The Buffetts of the world are even rarer than I thought. 75% of the 1%'s income is taxed at ordinary personal income and corporate tax rates.

The income dividing point that makes one a member of the 1% is something slightly north of $300,000. That's not a truly high-flying income, it's an upper-middle-class income, what a brain surgeon or high-powered trial lawyer might pull in, and obviously either of those is mostly earning his income through work -- it's just very, very well-paid work. The 1% was a catchy talking point for Occupy, but should not be taken as a hard-and-fast dividing line. For those at the truly stratospheric levels, making millions a year, I'm reasonably certain most of their income will be from investments. There are however fewer such people than there are six-figure folks.

Originally Posted by James50

Spend an evening listening to MSNBC, then come back and talk about who is loud and abrasive.

James50

I see loud and abrasive types on both sides.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Two problems with this. One is that the idea of "trickle down economics" doesn't start from an agrarian economy trying to industrialize, it starts with a mature industrial economy. In an agrarian economy trying to industrialize, capital formation is the main problem, the thing requiring the most attention, because there isn't a whole lot of wealth available and it takes a certain amount to get things started. In a mature industrial economy, capital formation can be taken for granted as it always exceeds consumer demand. Trickle down economics is wrong -- completely not just in part -- because all growth is limited by the necessity in shortest supply. In a mature economy that is consumer demand, unless for some reason there's a shortage of a crucial raw material (like oil in the 1970s). Any necessity that exists in larger quantities than the one in shortest supply is in a surplus state, and increasing it will accomplish nothing. The second problem is your hypothetical in which all incomes are literally equal. To begin with this is not a real-world plausible condition, so it isn't really anything to worry about. But also, if all incomes were equal, most incomes would be much higher, savings rates for most people would therefore be higher as well, so there would still be capital formation. There's quite a bit of uncertainty about where the sweet spot is where further improvement in income equality would begin to hurt the economy. I'm guessing it's somewhere before we get to perfect equality, but I could be wrong about that! In any case, it's certainly much closer to perfect equality than we are today. What this says to me is that both parties are on the take. They are both corporatists, both in service to the wealthy elite. Since either party will support his/her monetary interests, a member of the 1% may support one or the other on some other basis, such as social issues or foreign policy. The income dividing point that makes one a member of the 1% is something slightly north of $300,000. That's not a truly high-flying income, it's an upper-middle-class income, what a brain surgeon or high-powered trial lawyer might pull in, and obviously either of those is mostly earning his income through work -- it's just very, very well-paid work. The 1% was a catchy talking point for Occupy, but should not be taken as a hard-and-fast dividing line. For those at the truly stratospheric levels, making millions a year, I'm reasonably certain most of their income will be from investments. There are however fewer such people than there are six-figure folks.

It is clear to me that we need a drastic change in the current USA tax code so that the wealthy and big corporations cannot shield most of their income from taxation.( including inherited wealth). A simple tax code would put many tax lawyers and accountants out of work, but these smart people could be retrained as engineers and scientists. Right now I don't support either the GOP or Democrat positions.

Originally Posted by James50

The other implication of having more of the 1% in finance is that their share of income will be much more volatile.

What I found interesting was the backside of these statistics…

OK, we'll look at these incongruities, item by item.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

1. The share of income going to the 1% fell from 23.5% in 2007 to 17.6% in 2009. The low point of the last 80 years was around 10%. What is the right number? Trickle down does have some truth to it (please PB, don't let your head explode ). That is, it takes some accumulation of capital to start a business. If income were evenly distributed, the only businesses that could be formed would be those of a tradesperson. It takes capital to make capital investments.

I’m sure that the current numbers are closer to the 2007 values than those from the depths of the crash. I doubt we'll be able to say anytime soon. Financial data tend to run about 2 to 4 years behind.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

2. 25% of the people in the 1% will not be there a year later. The article calls this stable. To me, that doesn't seem very stable at all.

Is this surprising? How many of those in this group fluctuate in between doing well and doing very well, in large part for the reason I'll address under item 3.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

3. 28% of the 1% do not have a college degree. 50% only have a bachelors. So, not only is it possible to get rich without a college degree, its possible to get uber-rich without going to college.

OK, and who are these high-earning highschool grads? Some have skills that may be acquired in college, but have no direct relationship to actually graduating. Athletes and performers fall in that group, as do many others inthe arts world. Then there are the much more common folks earning big bucks in sales. It doesn't take a college degree to sell cars to people without college degrees. In fact, it may be advantageous to not have one. The same applies to real estate. By definition, sales is volatile. It's also not suitable for most of us. You either have the personality for it or you don't.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

4. 33% of the 1% identify as Republicans. 26% as Democrats. The article says this difference is significant. I am surprised how close the two numbers are. These low percentages are hardly the basis for a class revolution.

If you move that to the top .1%, I'll wager the percentages shift strongly Republican. The folk in that group tend to be the makers and shakers.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

5. Only 25% of the income of the 1% comes from interest, dividends, and capital gains. The Buffetts of the world are even rarer than I thought. 75% of the 1%'s income is taxed at ordinary personal income and corporate tax rates.

See my response to items 3 and 4. This isn’t surprising at all. There are a lot lof doctors and lawyers in that group, along with the athletes, performers and sales folks. They all may get paid to work, but they have little in common with common working stiffs.

Originally Posted by James50 ...

It’s weird how journalists like to look at data.

James50

Where you parse the data tends to drive the story. OWS picked 99%. They should have chosen 99.9%.

Originally Posted by James50

OK, I agree you could hear it that way, but aren't you still amazed that a college professor is making this much money? Forget about the greedy financiers for a minute, what about these big educational institutions that pay no taxes and are lavishly supported with government loan policies? I wonder what percent of the 1% works in academia?

Let's just say that I bet you won't catch Elizabeth Warren riding in coach.

James50

I would hope that we can support a large part of our intelligencia through non-business related instiutions, because we are already tilted far too much in the pro-buisness direction today. We need a brain trust dedicated to the commonweal. This may not be the ideal way to accomplish it, but until a much better alternative arrives, I'll settle for this.

The last thing we need in this country is universal group think. We already have too much.

Originally Posted by James50

Spend an evening listening to MSNBC, then come back and talk about who is loud and abrasive.

James50

This is FoX for the left, though not the true left so much as the Democrats. Is it abrasive? Of course it is. So what? If it gets to be a dominant as FoX in driving policy, you might have a point. Right now, they are manning the trenches.

Interesting stats. I have a few comments below.

Originally Posted by James50

What I found interesting was the backside of these statistics. eg.

1. The share of income going to the 1% fell from 23.5% in 2007 to 17.6% in 2009. The low point of the last 80 years was around 10%.

Like others, it will be very interesting to see 2010 and 2011 stats when they come out. I expect they will be higher than 2009; the question is how they will compare to 2007.

2. 25% of the people in the 1% will not be there a year later. The article calls this stable. To me, that doesn't seem very stable at all.

3. 28% of the 1% do not have a college degree. 50% only have a bachelors. So, not only is it possible to get rich without a college degree, its possible to get uber-rich without going to college.

Change that to "was". I'm sure that may in the 1% are Silents or Boomers; nowadays, corporations are much more likely to require college degrees and MBAs. The exceptions would be entertainers, athletes, and entrepreneurs.

I'd be interested to see the educational requirements of the 1 percent under age 50.

4. 33% of the 1% identify as Republicans. 26% as Democrats. The article says this difference is significant. I am surprised how close the two numbers are. These low percentages are hardly the basis for a class revolution.

The magnitude of the difference is small, but I'm sure it is statistically significant. What that means is that the difference is real and not due to chance. Of course, if the difference is small but statistically significant, a fair question might be "so what".

5. Only 25% of the income of the 1% comes from interest, dividends, and capital gains. The Buffetts of the world are even rarer than I thought. 75% of the 1%'s income is taxed at ordinary personal income and corporate tax rates.

Its weird how journalists like to look at data.

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would hope that we can support a large part of our intelligencia through non-business related instiutions, because we are already tilted far too much in the pro-buisness direction today. We need a brain trust dedicated to the commonweal. This may not be the ideal way to accomplish it, but until a much better alternative arrives, I'll settle for this.

The last thing we need in this country is universal group think. We already have too much.

The costs of things provided by business have trended downward for some time. There are two areas which have maintained a growth rate greater than the economy as a whole for many decades. They are health care and higher education. If you are looking for parts of the economy that need to be cut down to size, you should start with these two sectors.

Heck, I would be satisfied if people would just recognize that these two sectors are in fact businesses. They have economic interests which they pursue with the same vigor as the most self-interested for-profit entities you can imagine. Both of them will eventually need to be brought to heel or they will continue to grab a greater and greater portion of whatever pie is left for the rest of us.

Elizabeth Warren and her ilk have supped at the table of government provided credit for many years. She has benefitted enormously from this government created bonanza. It is unlikely she would ever do anything to jeopardize it. In that respect, she is no different from any other part of our current plutocracy.

James50

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In a mature industrial economy, capital formation can be taken for granted as it always exceeds consumer demand.

There are two aspects to managing capital. One is the presence of capital and the other is the willingness to deploy it to create businesses. It is this latter point that is the rub. If there is a $1M in capital disbursed evenly among 1000 people, it is very unlikely you would ever be able to organize enough of those people to create a capital seed large enough to start a job creating business. Give the typical person a $1000 and the most likely thing they will do is put it in the safest place they can find. The safest place is not as seed capital for a small business most of which fail. No, they will find a bank savings account somewhere or worse, blow it on some consumer item. On the other hand, if there are 10 people among the 1000 that have $5000 each, you are much more likely to be able to form a risk taking enterprise. This is a form of trickle-down.

James50

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Like others, it will be very interesting to see 2010 and 2011 stats when they come out. I expect they will be higher than 2009; the question is how they will compare to 2007.

You are not the only one to think this way, but with the almost daily announcement of cuts in employees and bonuses in the investment banking world, I think that we are no where near 2007 in the income distribution. Unfortunately, it will be a while before we find out.

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If you move that to the top .1%, I'll wager the percentages shift strongly Republican. The folk in that group tend to be the makers and shakers.

Warren Buffett, George Soros, and Jamie Dimon are all in the 0.1% and vote democratic. I bet the percentage does not change significantly between the 1% and the 0.1%.

EDIT: one beneficiary of the XL pipeline decision was Warren Buffett. Pipelines are direct competition to the railroads. Berkshire-Hathaway owns all of BNSF railroad. Of course, rail transportation is more expensive than pipeline transport.

From the EIS:

Even in a situation where there was a total freeze in pipeline capacity for 20 years, it appears that there is sufficient capacity on existing rail tracks to accommodate shipping projected WCSB crude oil production through at least 2030, even taking into account CAPP‟s increased production forecasts in 2011 (EnSys 2011). The rail system in North America is extensive, well-integrated, and transports bulk commodities, (coal in particular) in far greater quantities than would be required to accommodate transporting additional crude oil production in the WCSB over the next several decades. A study conducted on behalf of the Association of American Railroads (Cambridge Systematics 2007) found that, as of 2005, much of the rail capacity in the U.S., including capacity across the border from Canada, was operating well below capacity. Based on that study, and statistics from the Department of Transportation, EnSys (2011) conservatively estimated that the existing cross-border rail lines from Canada to the U.S. could accommodate crude oil train shipments of over 1,000,000 bpd.

And from a Burlington-Northern spokesperson:

“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., told Bloomberg News. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul,” she said.

I bet they are.

I am sure Mr. Buffett will keep up his support for the democratic party.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

There are two aspects to managing capital. One is the presence of capital and the other is the willingness to deploy it to create businesses. It is this latter point that is the rub. If there is a $1M in capital disbursed evenly among 1000 people, it is very unlikely you would ever be able to organize enough of those people to create a capital seed large enough to start a job creating business. Give the typical person a $1000 and the most likely thing they will do is put it in the safest place they can find. The safest place is not as seed capital for a small business most of which fail. No, they will find a bank savings account somewhere or worse, blow it on some consumer item. On the other hand, if there are 10 people among the 1000 that have $5000 each, you are much more likely to be able to form a risk taking enterprise. This is a form of trickle-down.

James50

At this point in time, capital is not a problem. We have far more of it than we can deploy. Yet, we continue to reward captial formation, when what we really need is vastly more demand. And the demand we need is not more geegaws. We need infrastructure first of all, but let's not forget risk-taking ventures that might generate the next great idea. Neither will be funded by the private sector, though the private sector will be there to take the profits once they've been identified and thoroughly vetted.

The estimate on NASA's Apollo program was somewhere between $4 and $10 in spin-offs for evey tax dollar spent. Newt may be a bit on the erratic side, but another effort like that would be good for everyone. If private enterprise wants to run something similar outside the domain of governement, I'm good with that too.

Instead of space this time, lets focus on non-depletable energy.

Originally Posted by James50

You are not the only one to think this way, but with the almost daily announcement of cuts in employees and bonuses in the investment banking world, I think that we are no where near 2007 in the income distribution. Unfortunately, it will be a while before we find out.

James50

The reports are that banks are making even more than they did in 2007, and that the gambling has not stopped. It does seem to be true that Wall Street investors' business and profits are down though. Maybe regulations are seeing to that, or maybe a lot of more-common folks have less money to invest.

I bet the percentage does not change significantly between the 1% and the 0.1%.

Bets are not facts. Remember James, the left is fact-based.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

At this point in time, capital is not a problem. We have far more of it than we can deploy. Yet, we continue to reward captial formation, when what we really need is vastly more demand. And the demand we need is not more geegaws. We need infrastructure first of all, but let's not forget risk-taking ventures that might generate the next great idea. Neither will be funded by the private sector, though the private sector will be there to take the profits once they've been identified and thoroughly vetted.

The estimate on NASA's Apollo program was somewhere between $4 and $10 in spin-offs for evey tax dollar spent. Newt may be a bit on the erratic side, but another effort like that would be good for everyone. If private enterprise wants to run something similar outside the domain of governement, I'm good with that too.

Instead of space this time, lets focus on non-depletable energy.

I am all for an all out national push on energy independence. Space can wait until we have the extra resources. However, I think that we should start with nuclear power and develop alternates as fast as possible. It will still be a long time before the 'green' energy sources can provide a large fraction of our energy needs. Long term solar power looks promising.

Originally Posted by radind

I am all for an all out national push on energy independence. Space can wait until we have the extra resources. However, I think that we should start with nuclear power and develop alternates as fast as possible. It will still be a long time before the 'green' energy sources can provide a large fraction of our energy needs. Long term solar power looks promising.

I found this to be a good review .



Power paradox: Clean might not be green forever - environment - 30 January 2012 - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328491.700-power-paradox-clean-might-not-be-green-forever.html?page=1

..."It is clear that continuing to rely on fossil fuels will have catastrophic results, because of the dramatic warming effect of carbon dioxide. But alternative power sources will affect the climate too. For now, the climatic effects of "clean energy" sources are trivial compared with those that spew out greenhouse gases, but if we keep on using ever more power over the coming centuries, they will become ever more significant.

While this kind of work is still at an early stage, some startling conclusions are already beginning to emerge. Nuclear power - including fusion - is not the long-term answer to our energy problems. Even renewable energies such as wind power will have to be used with caution, because large-scale extraction could have both local and global effects. These effects are not necessarily a bad thing, though. We might be able to exploit them to geoengineer the climate and combat global warming."...
..."We humans use a little over 16 terawatts (TW) of power at any one moment, which is nothing compared with the 120,000 TW of solar power absorbed by the Earth at the same time. What matters, though, is the balance between how much heat arrives and how much leaves (see "Earth's energy budget"). If as much heat leaves the top of the atmosphere as enters, a planet's temperature remains the same. If more heat arrives, or less is lost, the planet will warm. As it does so, it will begin to emit more and more heat until equilibrium is re-established at a higher temperature."...


..."But if you boil your kettle using energy from fossil fuels or a nuclear power plant, you are adding extra heat. "The only energy that is not going to additionally heat the Earth is solar and its derivatives," says Chaisson, referring to sources driven by the sun's heat - wind, hydro and waves."...

Originally Posted by radind

I am all for an all out national push on energy independence. Space can wait until we have the extra resources. However, I think that we should start with nuclear power and develop alternates as fast as possible. It will still be a long time before the 'green' energy sources can provide a large fraction of our energy needs. Long term solar power looks promising.

NASA isn't very expensive compared to the rest of the budget, we can do both at the same time.

Originally Posted by Odin

NASA isn't very expensive compared to the rest of the budget, we can do both at the same time.

And let's not focus exclusively on NASA. Here in New Mexico we are kept pretty much aware of the great role wealthy space enthusiasts are now playing in the development of spacecraft and everything that goes with it. I find this to be a healthy development, and dimly think this parallels the development of aircraft early in the Great Power Saeculum.

Pat, from over 100 miles north of the New Mexico Spaceport.

Originally Posted by James50

OK, I agree you could hear it that way, but aren't you still amazed that a college professor is making this much money? Forget about the greedy financiers for a minute, what about these big educational institutions that pay no taxes and are lavishly supported with government loan policies? I wonder what percent of the 1% works in academia?

Let's just say that I bet you won't catch Elizabeth Warren riding in coach.

James50

With all due respect James, I still don't think you fully understand what the 99% are saying. No, they don't hate rich people. Nor do they think that all rich people are evil, or do they feel that all their money should be taken away from them and given to the poor.

Their beef is that there is unequal distribution of wealth or power in this country. And 1% of the people are controlling everything by buying politicians and influencing them. They feel that idea of democracy is a shame. 99% of the people really don't have voice anymore. It's almost as we are living under a dictatorship or monarchy type government, except that we don't even know the names of our leaders, because they are pulling the strings in secret by buying off politicians and influencing them to enact policies that benefit only them and hurt the rest of us.

It really has more to do with those who people who are filthy rich and use their money as a means of power. Not every rich person in this country has Obama's private cell phone number. And there in lies the difference.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Only 40-60% of eligible voters in the United States participate in national elections (congressional and presidential,) and they consistently vote to keep those same leaders in power.
If you do the math, you can see that The People could easily kick the dictators out, if We really wanted to.
But I think that most people on this board still plan to vote for Obama, right?

Yes, I agree. We do keep re-electing all these guys. But, but, but... there is reason for that too. It's pretty clear that the politicians who raise the most money generally win. It's pretty hard for the average guy to compete with these guys. Now do you think I would I have a chance in hell in becoming president or even a congressperson? I don't have access to the big donors. I don't have the money to buy commercial ads to fight someone like Romney in a race. Even billionaire Huntsman couldn't compete with Romney because he couldn't raise enough money. It's not just having money that counts, it's having the inside track to the powers that be help put you in office.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Only 40-60% of eligible voters in the United States participate in national elections (congressional and presidential,) and they consistently vote to keep those same leaders in power.
If you do the math, you can see that The People could easily kick the dictators out, if We really wanted to.
But I think that most people on this board still plan to vote for Obama, right?

I agree, but what do you say for those who are considering to vote for Obama because they voted for a GOP dictator most of their experience? Many of my peers are in this camp. Now if there were other choices, awesome...but it's still going to come down to two lame choices.

Replacing those who work for the 1% is possible. Unfortunately, enough of us are still in that co-dependent state of "this is just how it is in our country."

If the Norweigians kicked the politicians out who represented the 1%, so can we.

How Swedes and Norwegians broke the power of the ‘1 percent’

by George Lakey | January 25, 2012, 10:22 pm



While many of us are working to ensure that the Occupy movement will have a lasting impact, it’s worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They “fired” the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different.


Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn’t find oil, but that didn’t stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls “an enviable standard of living.”


Neither country is a utopia, as readers of the crime novels by Stieg Larsson, Kurt Wallender and Jo Nesbro will know. Critical left-wing authors such as these try to push Sweden and Norway to continue on the path toward more fully just societies. However, as an American activist who first encountered Norway as a student in 1959 and learned some of its language and culture, the achievements I found amazed me. I remember, for example, bicycling for hours through a small industrial city, looking in vain for substandard housing. Sometimes resisting the evidence of my eyes, I made up stories that “accounted for” the differences I saw: “small country,” “homogeneous,” “a value consensus.” I finally gave up imposing my frameworks on these countries and learned the real reason: their own histories.


Then I began to learn that the Swedes and Norwegians paid a price for their standards of living through nonviolent struggle. There was a time when Scandinavian workers didn’t expect that the electoral arena could deliver the change they believed in. They realized that, with the 1 percent in charge, electoral “democracy” was stacked against them, so nonviolent direct action was needed to exert the power for change.

http://wagingnonviolence.org/2012/01...the-1-percent/

Originally Posted by ASB65

It really has more to do with those who people who are filthy rich and use their money as a means of power.

And how do we find these people? I see no reason to exclude Elizabeth Warren from this group. She is filthy rich and is no doubt using her money to seek power. Folks who support both OWS and Elizabeth Warren are making the assumption that she will voluntarily act in ways that will reduce her wealth and power. I don't know that that is a good assumption. In particular, she is extremely unlikely to act in ways to rein in the higher ed industry. I don't mean to make a pinata out of Elizabeth Warren, but am only trying to point out the totally selective nature of the 1% moniker.

Also, its clear to me, that the power of OWS is precisely the idea that the rich are evil. I don't see how you can deny that. Without that motivating moral judgement, the movement would collapse.

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

The PTB tell them that there are only two choices, so they see only two choices.
Anything else is labeled "crazy" or "wasting your vote." People eat that stuff up.

Most people I know who don't vote, say they don't because either they aren't comfortable with voting for either candidate or they feel like their vote doesn't really matter anyway. (I happen to be in the latter camp. I know for a fact that no matter who I vote for in this next general election, the Republican nominee is going to win my state.) And yes, people do eat that stuff up about wasting your vote on the third party candidate, but when was the last time in recent history that a 3rd party candidate won the presidency? I guess, we would have to go back to Lincoln. So if they feel like they are wasting their vote, their is quite a bit of evidence to support that. Is there anyone out there who truly believes that a 3rd party candidate could actually win the 2012 election?

Personally, I feel the electoral college needs to eliminated. I think the person who gets the most votes (all votes across the country totaled) should win. This would solve the issue I have knowing that no matter what, my state's electoral votes are going to be given to the Republican candidate since we have a disproportionate number of Republicans in this state. (Not one person I was able to vote for in the 2010 election that wasn't a Republican won. This goes all the way from the person running or governor down to the local dog catcher in my town.)

And furthermore, I know people like to talk about the founding fathers and almost put them on the pedestal of being deities, but the reason why they set up the electoral college was to ensure that the uneducated rabble wouldn't elect someone who they didn't feel could govern the country or was a complete moron. Remember the founders fathers were the 1% of their day and age too. And yes, the founding fathers did make painstaking attempts to ensure the balance of power in our government, but I don't think they could have possibly foreseen the event of television, and advertising that could reach the masses, and all the other things we have today that influence people and how they vote.

Originally Posted by James50

And how do we find these people? I see no reason to exclude Elizabeth Warren from this group. She is filthy rich and is no doubt using her money to seek power. Folks who support both OWS and Elizabeth Warren are making the assumption that she will voluntarily act in ways that will reduce her wealth and power. I don't know that that is a good assumption. In particular, she is extremely unlikely to act in ways to rein in the higher ed industry. I don't mean to make a pinata out of Elizabeth Warren, but am only trying to point out the totally selective nature of the 1% moniker.

Also, its clear to me, that the power of OWS is precisely the idea that the rich are evil. I don't see how you can deny that. Without that motivating moral judgement, the movement would collapse.

James50

Well James, I can't speak to what in the Elizabeth Warren's heart or what her motivation might be. You could be right about her. Since I don't know her personally, I can't say for certain. However, there are people that I can look at who I have gut feeling about what their intentions might be and clearly use their money and power as a means to be king makers or influence politicians. Donald Trump comes to mind. He just seems like a snake to me. And notice how the candidates running in the Republican primary wanted his backing and support? Whenever one of them had lunch with him it made news.