Hate to tell you this, but most politicians in Washington (Dem/Rep) are all pretty rich to the point where they are alienated from teh common man. Even simple Earl Blumenauer is worth $5-6M thanks to somce good real estate investing.

You are right, the rich don't really care about working people unless it keeps them in power.

Same as the Old Inequality

“The work ethic is not a traditional value. It is a Johnny-come-lately idea. In ancient times, work was considered a disgrace inflicted on those who had failed to amass a nest egg through imperial conquest, profitable marriage, or in forms of organized looting” Barbara Ehrenreich

I love this one:

"Two: The presence of extremely wealthy people in our midst unleashes social dynamics that frustrate the hopes and dreams of average Americans and aggravate the stresses of everyday life."

Just the mere PRESENCE of rich folks makes average folks into victims. Well, that's enough for me. Take their wealth. Distribute it to the rest of us. Wouldn't want to feel "stressed."

I wouldn't give a flip about inequality if we also had plenty of social mobility, as used to be more the case.

These days, if you want to not even become super-rich but just provide for yourself and family and retire comfortably, it's not enough to get a college degree and work hard. And if you start out with modest means, college is often beyond reach anyway -- unless you go into the military first.

I think there would be even more entrepreneurship, risk-taking and innovation if there were more of a safety net. Accessible healthcare would be a good start.

It is because of opinions like the one offered above by "Trying not to scoff" that I think it's more productive to frame the debate in terms of inequality of opportunity, or mobility -- both of which have gotten worse over the past 30 or 40 years -- rather than inequality of outcome, which penalizes the talented and the innovative, those who contribute more than average, along with the lazy, lucky slugs.

Hey -- Mr “Conservative Majority” himself, Rob Kramer, just threw Blue Oregon a big wet kiss on KKKXL.

Congratulations! You know you’ve arrived when the pip squeaks from the con’s back bench start lobbing spit wads your way.

Well, I am all for people aspiring to wealth, but when wealth becomes a dominating power beyond the ability to provide creature comforts, then it becomes the "root of all evil"

I believe that there is a role for government to moderate the accumulation of financial power that turns a democracy into an oligarchy.

Once we get to a point where life is a game of Monopoly with Park Place and Boardwalk fully developed with hotels, it time to play another game.

According to the Treasury Department, between 1995 and 2005, the median income increased by 24.2% in constant dollars. The lowest quintile increased by 90.5% while the highest quintile increased by 10.0%. Of those in the next to lowest quintile, only 17% dropped into the lowest quintile while almost half moved into a higher quintile. 58% of those in the lowest income quartile moved into a higher income quintile, which was similar to the mobility observed in similar studies going back to the 1960s.

Correction: 58% of those in the lowest income quintile moved into a higher income quintile...

Bill H: Of course, we can trust Bush's Treasury Department to give us a report we can count on . . . . like the ones they used to justify the war.

And of course, we can count on the Treasury Department to take an impartial view of the economy's winners and losers . . . when they're not busy bailing out their Wall St. buddies.

Then again, maybe we need to look deeper into Treasury's numbers: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_patricia_071118_the_income_mobility_.htm

The Treasury Department's report is no different than Phil Gramm's message to Americans: "quit your whinning -- the fact that you think you're working harder but still falling behind is a mental illusion."

Well, contrary statistics comes from the Commerce Dept which shows that from 2000 to 2006 (the latest year to have stats published) the number of people below the poverty level rose by a full percentage point - from 11.3% to 12.3%.

To me this is the most important statistic to watch as it demonstrates how our econonmics treat the most underpriveliged in our country.

<h2>Today people rail about LBJ's Great Society and War on Poverty programs but the simple truth is that he did cut the poverty rate in half, never to return to 20%-plus numbers prior to 1963.</h2>