Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 12:52 PM Apr 2015

The 99% is not valid percentage to be using...

I'm sorry, but about 47% of that 99% are right wingers who would never vote for the things you want.

So, that leaves 52% if you include right leaning independents...

It sounds nice like 99% of the people in this country aren't being represented... but it's just not accurate. Many of them are being represented by voting against the things you may hold dear.

That my friends is why being a democrat matters and the Democratic Party matters. That is why social justice matters.

You want some party that would represent the full totality of 99% of people in this country, dream on.... You could never get 99% of the people to agree on one thing.

82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The 99% is not valid percentage to be using... (Original Post) boston bean Apr 2015 OP
Hear! Hear! BlueCaliDem Apr 2015 #1
-1 L0oniX Apr 2015 #37
I think they are referring to those voting against their interest betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #2
So, the 1% isn't really the 1% either? nt boston bean Apr 2015 #3
OWS is an anarchist movement that was able to get some dems to adopt its memes betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #4
Everyone who uses the percentage meme... boston bean Apr 2015 #5
52% of voters disagree, but there eligible non-voters that may well agree betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #6
Oh, so 99% of people who vote agree on one issue? boston bean Apr 2015 #8
No 99% own less than 1% and have less political influence than 1% betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #9
99% of people can't agree on that.... don't agree on that... and have a different idea boston bean Apr 2015 #15
Doesn't matter whether they agree. It is a statistical fact meant to highlight the problem of betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #21
I'm pretty sure most LGBT do vote democratic... boston bean Apr 2015 #30
I agree with you about this -> "OWS isn't interested in electoral politics" Caretha Apr 2015 #71
Anarchism: a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint brooklynite Apr 2015 #76
Pfft Caretha Apr 2015 #81
!% of this country's population controls (aka "owns") 40% of its wealth. The Republican KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #7
Oh, so being against racism, sexism, and homophobia boston bean Apr 2015 #11
That's right. Republicans use racism, sexism and homophobia to divide the KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #18
So, women, minorities, LGBT need to take a back seat here. boston bean Apr 2015 #19
Sigh. "You folks". Please proceed - nt KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #23
Are you trying to sow division? Why can't we walk and chew gum at the same time? Comrade Grumpy Apr 2015 #29
Why are you asking me? I'm responding to arguments boston bean Apr 2015 #31
Snark much? Caretha Apr 2015 #72
The Communist Party of the USA was at the forefront of the civil rights KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #43
It's a question that in the asking reveals that the asker knows zip about the issues deemed 'social' Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #48
It sounds like you're suggesting gollygee Apr 2015 #60
I apologize if I gave that impression. Of course, Dems fight racism, sexism and KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #63
The point of wedge politics is to place it such that there are more of us on this side. n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2015 #10
The 99% is an economic group. CJCRANE Apr 2015 #12
Is part of this 99% is supporting Warren, Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley? boston bean Apr 2015 #13
Do you support LGBTQ rights? CJCRANE Apr 2015 #14
Sure as hell I do. But I'm for damn sure that no where near 99% of people in this country do. boston bean Apr 2015 #17
Do you support the right of all poor, working class and middle class people CJCRANE Apr 2015 #20
Sure I do. But do you? boston bean Apr 2015 #24
The 99% is just shorthand CJCRANE Apr 2015 #26
Does it include, women, LGBT, minorities and the particular issues they face boston bean Apr 2015 #27
It includes everyone who is not part of the 1%. nt CJCRANE Apr 2015 #42
I'll ask again: boston bean Apr 2015 #44
It's a label, not a strategy. But econonic empowerment of the "99%" by default will give more power CJCRANE Apr 2015 #45
Still not an answer to my specific question... but I guess this is as good as I will get boston bean Apr 2015 #46
You're making a category error. "African American" is a label. "Gay" is label. The "99%" is a label. CJCRANE Apr 2015 #47
And when things weren't so lopsided, women and minorities and LGBT faced boston bean Apr 2015 #49
I didn't say that. It's one struggle of several overlapping struggles. CJCRANE Apr 2015 #50
Words mean things. An identity is not a lable. Jesus. Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #51
As per my other reply CJCRANE Apr 2015 #53
If you knew anything about LGBT and women's politics, you would know how specious your argument is. Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #58
Downstream here in this thread, I am basically accused of being against wealth equality.. boston bean Apr 2015 #62
Black women make far less than White women. Why not remove them from the "Women Group" Bonobo Apr 2015 #69
But it is an economic group FRAMED as in opposition to "the 1%", which is where this breaks down... brooklynite Apr 2015 #77
Rec a whole lot treestar Apr 2015 #16
I think maybe it's a slogan for trying to build class consciousness... Cheese Sandwich Apr 2015 #22
That is what I am trying to get too. boston bean Apr 2015 #25
It means the middle class and poor should unite to take power from the super-rich Cheese Sandwich Apr 2015 #28
Do you think like others above that social issues are what is preventing boston bean Apr 2015 #33
I didn't read every single comment by other people posting in the thread. Cheese Sandwich Apr 2015 #52
You don't like it when people dismiss minority and womens rights as a non-issue betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #32
Where have I delcared it a non issue? boston bean Apr 2015 #34
You called it a meaningless slogan betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #36
The slogan is, the issues are not. boston bean Apr 2015 #39
You don't get the slogan. Don't use it betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #40
Who is insulting anyone? My pointing out that 99% of the people in this country boston bean Apr 2015 #41
We know who's side you are on in the fight against wealth inequality. n/t PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #56
And whose side is that? nt boston bean Apr 2015 #57
If 99% agreed with you you'd be happy with that % ...right? L0oniX Apr 2015 #35
Specific issues LOoniX. Thought that was obvious... boston bean Apr 2015 #38
Would require something we obviously lack as humans, agree.... AuntPatsy Apr 2015 #54
it appears to me as though some here PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #55
99% is a perfectly valid percentage to be using truebluegreen Apr 2015 #59
Sad but true LostOne4Ever Apr 2015 #61
99% makes the intended point perfectly. It is rock-solid icon for that purpose. GoneFishin Apr 2015 #64
Yes, the 99% does have people in it who disagree with us, but we know what's best for them alarimer Apr 2015 #65
The term 99% is not the name of a political party lunatica Apr 2015 #66
I strongly disagree. F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #67
99% is a reference to financial status. nt Bonobo Apr 2015 #68
100% of us need Trillo Apr 2015 #70
The percantage is off. raouldukelives Apr 2015 #73
"Centrists" were the ones that told gays to shut-up about marriage rights. Marr Apr 2015 #74
Nail meet head! Caretha Apr 2015 #82
Hillary Clinton quickly rose to membership in the 1% and is therefore DISQUALIFIED to serve the 99%. NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #75
sex panther "60% of the time, it works every time" NM_Birder Apr 2015 #78
In purely economic terms hifiguy Apr 2015 #79
It is about wealth and power, not political parties or leanings. Jamastiene Apr 2015 #80
 

betterdemsonly

(1,967 posts)
2. I think they are referring to those voting against their interest
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:08 PM
Apr 2015

but I think your stats are hyped too when you consider all those who don't vote. "Black Lives Matter" is recruiting people who traditionally didn't vote and electing non-traditional candidates in a red state. I think "Fight for 15," is doing that too, though the candidates maybe "Socialist Alternative like Salwant.

 

betterdemsonly

(1,967 posts)
4. OWS is an anarchist movement that was able to get some dems to adopt its memes
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:14 PM
Apr 2015

I am not into its memes and think anarchism a dead end, but when you consider OWS isn't interested in electoral politics, who are you talking to precisely?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
5. Everyone who uses the percentage meme...
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:17 PM
Apr 2015

If they don't mean the totality of the 99%, explain what they do mean.

52% of the people who do agree with them on one issue, but not all?

I mean, I just think it's better to state what you stand for. Because there is no way in hell 99% of people in this country stand for any one thing as a voting block of 99%.

 

betterdemsonly

(1,967 posts)
6. 52% of voters disagree, but there eligible non-voters that may well agree
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:20 PM
Apr 2015

but have been browbeaten psychologically. 99 vs 1 is not a measure of sentiment. It is a measurement of power. Even if many vote against their interests there are still about 1 percent of the population owning a disproportionate percentage of wealth and political power relative to 99% of the population.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
8. Oh, so 99% of people who vote agree on one issue?
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:22 PM
Apr 2015

I'm sorry, that is just not the case... The sentiment of a good portion of that 99% they are talking about agrees with them on NOTHING!

 

betterdemsonly

(1,967 posts)
9. No 99% own less than 1% and have less political influence than 1%
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:25 PM
Apr 2015

It isn't about opinion polls. It is a measure of wealth, power and influence.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
15. 99% of people can't agree on that.... don't agree on that... and have a different idea
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:33 PM
Apr 2015

about this country...

So, just because there are wealthy in this country described as the 1%, doesn't mean that the whole 99% is in the same place or wants the same things.

I will agree there is too much money in our politics and that the rules are skewed, so I am a portion of the 99%, but there is a significant portion of that 99% who disagrees with me vehemently.

 

betterdemsonly

(1,967 posts)
21. Doesn't matter whether they agree. It is a statistical fact meant to highlight the problem of
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:38 PM
Apr 2015

inequality. It isn't an opinion measurement anymore than the fact that 2 to 8 percent of the population being gay or lesbian is an opinion measurement.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
30. I'm pretty sure most LGBT do vote democratic...
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:48 PM
Apr 2015

I'm pretty sure most black persons vote democratic.

I'm pretty sure most women vote democratic.

So, there is some truth there in the statistics behind which party and issues gets the support.

With the 99% there is not. It's a cute saying that in reality means nothing...

 

Caretha

(2,737 posts)
71. I agree with you about this -> "OWS isn't interested in electoral politics"
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:24 AM
Apr 2015

But you are incorrect to compare OWS with anarchism. OWS was a ground-up populism movement. A movement to show that no matter what party you affiliate yourself with, you are not part of the 1%, and as long as the economy is run by the elite, there will be no way for you to have any economic advantage.

The OP is trying to twist what OWS was about, and she is way off in some fantasy make-up thingy to prove "what point", I don't know, but I do know this, it wasn't about right vs left, or Dem vs Repub.

brooklynite

(93,878 posts)
76. Anarchism: a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:48 PM
Apr 2015

I would suggest that OWS evolved in this direction, in its attempts to set up a mini society at Zuccoti Park that avoided the used of any traditional governing structures (e.g. no delegated leadership).

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
7. !% of this country's population controls (aka "owns") 40% of its wealth. The Republican
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:21 PM
Apr 2015

Party represents the interests of that 1% but uses age-old tactics (racism, sexism, homophobia) to keep the 99% divided against itself. Don't make the mistake of confusing and conflating a 'class in itself' with a 'class for itself'. The task of the Democratic Party should be converting the former into the latter.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
11. Oh, so being against racism, sexism, and homophobia
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:27 PM
Apr 2015

is something people just fall for, because republicans are using that shit to divide us?

I'm sorry... makes not an ounce of sense.

I think the division may arise from those who are willing to toss the fight for better ideals out the window, because they think the above issues are just used for division.

Every single thing that has been done for those with less in this country, including the poor, are built off of social justice movements. So, if you want to ignore that be my guest, but I think it's a poor and losing strategy.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
18. That's right. Republicans use racism, sexism and homophobia to divide the
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:34 PM
Apr 2015

working class. Democrats try to unite the working class around its common class interests.

I'm going to ignore your silly straw-man attempts.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
19. So, women, minorities, LGBT need to take a back seat here.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:35 PM
Apr 2015

and the once you folks get this class issue straightened out you will then throw some support to those issues? Cause they aint going away.

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
29. Are you trying to sow division? Why can't we walk and chew gum at the same time?
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:48 PM
Apr 2015

Why not economic justice and social justice?

I don't get why it's supposed to be one or the other. We need both.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
31. Why are you asking me? I'm responding to arguments
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:49 PM
Apr 2015

that call it division.

So, can you please go respond where it might be more pertinent?

 

Caretha

(2,737 posts)
72. Snark much?
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:28 AM
Apr 2015

You are the OP of this thread. So you don't like a question posed to you....you tell them to go away? WTF?

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
43. The Communist Party of the USA was at the forefront of the civil rights
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:05 PM
Apr 2015

struggle in this country, long before it became fashionable in liberal circles. The old pre-Browder CPUSA would argue that social justice can only happen with economic justice, not independent of it.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
48. It's a question that in the asking reveals that the asker knows zip about the issues deemed 'social'
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:20 PM
Apr 2015

nor about the movements that advance those issues. What are the top historic issues of LGBT politics? First and still number one, discrimination in employment, fully legal in 29 States to this day, the big issue Harvey Milk organized around was also a jobs issue, teacher employment. When ACT UP started doing street actions to raise awareness about AIDS issues, what was target #1? Wall St. 'No More Business As Usual' was the tag line and profiteering Pharmaceutical Corps. ACT UP did protests on Wall St year after year, with mass arrests and big headlines. Where was the famous 'economic left'? Unable to protest and chew gum at the same time.

It's always been both, for those actually in these movements. It's only for the theoretical straights that do not actually take part that they seem separate.
LGBT groups are doing far more about the TPP and TPA than DU's blustering straight white populist crowd. Can you figure out why? Human rights yes....but also issues of intellectual property as related to medicines, issues of immigration, employment protections, on and on and on.
Back in June people from my LGBT Union organization joined Congressional Democrats in calling on the administration to halt these talks because of Brunei's horrific laws. Back in June, the DU folks who are currently shouting about TPP were promoting the Pope and saying that LGBT issues are insignificant 'social issues' compared to their own concerns.

As a person who first demonstrated for Universal Health Care as a 'gay issue' way back in the early 80'sI find it comical when straight folks yap about these 'social issues' that are not economic. The first 'gay rights' legislation to come to Congress did so in 1978. It was of course about jobs, the Equality Act, an early form of ENDA. How is job discrimination not an economic issue?
Why do you think that people who have been fighting for decades for equal protections in employment are not concerned with economic issues? That they need that explained to them by 'straights, the true left'? We don't, kid. It's you that needs the lesson. Sorry.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
60. It sounds like you're suggesting
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:41 PM
Apr 2015

that Democrats don't fight racism, sexism, and homophobia, but instead only concern themselves with class issues. That isn't so. Democrats fight racism, sexism, and homophobia, and also try to unite the working class around its common class interests.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
63. I apologize if I gave that impression. Of course, Dems fight racism, sexism and
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:01 PM
Apr 2015

homophobia. Maybe not quite as vociferously as my Socialist and Communist comrades do but Dems are most definitely on the side of the righteous and have been for the past 50 years.

Please allow me to elaborate: a Republican will tell a white laborer that he or she is superior to a black laborer merely by virtue of his or her skin color. That's what I mean by 'uising racism to divide the working class.' The reality is that class status is far more essential than skin color, gender or sexual orientation and, by that standard, black and white laborers are united by virtue of their membership in the working class.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
13. Is part of this 99% is supporting Warren, Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley?
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:29 PM
Apr 2015

If you can't get them to vote with you, what the hell good is it?

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
14. Do you support LGBTQ rights?
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:31 PM
Apr 2015

I assume you support those rights for all (even conservatives and Republicans), not just those who vote Democratic.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
20. Do you support the right of all poor, working class and middle class people
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:37 PM
Apr 2015

to get a fair piece of the economic pie?

Even those who vote against their own interests?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
24. Sure I do. But do you?
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:40 PM
Apr 2015

Cause you seem to think womens, minority, LGBT issues are not real issues... but are created only by the Republicans to "divide us"? That somehow we are the yoke around your neck, preventing a class utopia from being achieved.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
26. The 99% is just shorthand
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:42 PM
Apr 2015

for the "rest of us", people who are not super-rich and who are not making ground in this economy. The poor, working class and middle class and upper middle class.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
27. Does it include, women, LGBT, minorities and the particular issues they face
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:43 PM
Apr 2015

that causes them additional burden?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
44. I'll ask again:
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:08 PM
Apr 2015

Does it include, women, LGBT, minorities and the particular issues they face that causes them additional burden?

Please answer the full question. It's too simplistic to say the 99% includes everyone... Of course it does, it's almost 100%, but it is meaningless without specifics and ideas and strategies.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
45. It's a label, not a strategy. But econonic empowerment of the "99%" by default will give more power
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:12 PM
Apr 2015

to democratic forces and take it out of the hands of the cabal of bigoted billionaires who control the media and lobbyists.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
46. Still not an answer to my specific question... but I guess this is as good as I will get
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:14 PM
Apr 2015

and I'll make my own assumptions on what your answer is.

ie, we'll work on those issues some other day... so, please just support this and maybe we will get to you some other day.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
47. You're making a category error. "African American" is a label. "Gay" is label. The "99%" is a label.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:19 PM
Apr 2015

Using a label is not the same as making a strategy.

Using the label "the 99%" is just a way to highlight the financial disparity betweeen the majority of people and the super-rich.

However, strategies that follow from trying to narrow that disparity would be to impose a higher top marginal tax rate, a higher minimum wage, stronger labor unions etc.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
49. And when things weren't so lopsided, women and minorities and LGBT faced
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:23 PM
Apr 2015

no issues?

I see where you are going and my assumptions are correct. You think class will fix the social ills of this country. You couldn't be more wrong. Why do you think there are social justice movements for the above, that aren't just based in labels, but with specific strategies and goals?

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
50. I didn't say that. It's one struggle of several overlapping struggles.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:27 PM
Apr 2015

We can fight for a higher minimum wage and minority rights at the same time. They are part of the same thing and reinforce each other.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
51. Words mean things. An identity is not a lable. Jesus.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:27 PM
Apr 2015

la·bel
ˈnoun: label; plural noun: label
1. a small piece of paper, fabric, plastic, or similar material attached to an object and giving information about it.

Identity:
noun: identity; plural noun: identities
1. the fact of being who or what a person or thing is.

CJCRANE

(18,184 posts)
53. As per my other reply
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:29 PM
Apr 2015

we can fight for a higher minimum wage and equal rights for everyone at the same time. They are part of the same thing and reinforce each other.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
58. If you knew anything about LGBT and women's politics, you would know how specious your argument is.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:19 PM
Apr 2015

The 'equal rights for everyone' part. 29 States allow discrimination in employment against LGBT people, no recourse, no protections. Correcting that injustice was the first stated legislative goal of the LGBT movement, Congress has still not passed such law.
The 29 States that allow discrimination are of course also the States with the lowest minimum wages, weakest protections for all workers.
The first 'gay issue' I voted on was Briggs Amendment, which was also a jobs issues 'Should we fire all the gay teachers, yes or no'.
Up thread I pointed out that the first 3 occupations of Wall Street were ACT UP events, 'gay protests' with mass arrests on Wall St, targeting the financial piracy and Pharma profiteers.
So jobs, fair wages, equal protections, these are key and founding issues of the LGBT movement and rather obviously also the women's movement.

Why in the world do you think you need to explain that to anyone who is LGBT? If we demonstrate on Wall St against Corporate piracy, that's a 'social issue' but if straights do the same, it's 'economic'?

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
62. Downstream here in this thread, I am basically accused of being against wealth equality..
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:53 PM
Apr 2015

When women make less than men for the same work.

It's funny how all of that is just seems to be forgotten in the midst of all of this....

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
69. Black women make far less than White women. Why not remove them from the "Women Group"
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 03:14 AM
Apr 2015

by your logic?

brooklynite

(93,878 posts)
77. But it is an economic group FRAMED as in opposition to "the 1%", which is where this breaks down...
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:53 PM
Apr 2015

There is a large chunk in the middle that are not in the top 1%, but also aren't in the poverty group at the bottom, and don't hold income or wealth against those who have it. You can argue that they "vote against their economic interests", but that's not necessarily an irrational choice, anymore than it is when I vote against my (1%ish) economic interests by supporting progressive taxation, Government spending and a social safety net.

I think the biggest problem is with those (here) who imagine that "the 99%" will be rising up en-masse any day now to bring economic and political justice to the land. It's an illusion that's going to lead to eventual disappointment.

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
22. I think maybe it's a slogan for trying to build class consciousness...
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:39 PM
Apr 2015

It draws a sharp distinction between the middle class and the super rich.

It describes how the middle class has more in common with poor people than they do with the top 1%.

It's a slogan for people who acknowledge that class is real, that class conflict is already existing, and we want to drive this wedge to win over the 99% as much as possible to fight on the right side of social and political battles.

Like any slogan, it's simply a shorthand way to invoke larger ideas with just a few words. But like any slogan it can be deconstructed to show how it's incomplete or inaccurate if taken literally.

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
28. It means the middle class and poor should unite to take power from the super-rich
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:48 PM
Apr 2015

That is the meaning.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
33. Do you think like others above that social issues are what is preventing
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:51 PM
Apr 2015

us from uniting against that 1%?

That we are falling for some republican folly and aren't bright enough to figure it out?

Cause I certainly don't believe that.

And I am not making an accusation, I am asking..

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
52. I didn't read every single comment by other people posting in the thread.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:27 PM
Apr 2015

But thanks for not jumping to conclusions.

Look there are a bunch of racists and homophobes in this country. That's undeniable. You made that point in the OP. I think you're right about that. And it's also true that those people are voting Republican.

I agree with you. We can't relax our commitment to human rights and social empowerment on these so-called "social issues" in hopes of appealing to racists and gay-haters.

What we can do is offer them a different positive vision to identify with. Instead of blaming their troubles on black people, they should instead blame the people who are really responsible, which is the economic elite who run the country.

So we ought to offer class consciousness as a competing vision to racism and other harmful social identities. Economic class is a wedge to help splinter up the racist, gay-hating, anti-women coalitions.

If the left doesn't organize the workers along class lines with a positive vision of class solidarity, then the right wing will definitely swoop in and organize them along racial and religious lines, and with other hateful and oppressive ideas.

 

betterdemsonly

(1,967 posts)
32. You don't like it when people dismiss minority and womens rights as a non-issue
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:50 PM
Apr 2015

What right have you to declare wealth inequality a non issue? Let's just face the fact that minority and women's rights aren't the problems the centrist democrats are currently ignoring. It is actually Labor that is being ignored. Let's just face the fact that Warren and those democrats concerned with wealth inequality are also concerned with minority and women's rights. It is the centrist dems that are excluding the interests of the poor and middle class. You say it is because those groups aren't consistent in their support for democrats but neither are women and minorites. There are plenty of right wing women, gays and ethnics.

 

betterdemsonly

(1,967 posts)
40. You don't get the slogan. Don't use it
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:00 PM
Apr 2015

but don't insult people who consider it a useful description of wealth inequality.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
41. Who is insulting anyone? My pointing out that 99% of the people in this country
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:02 PM
Apr 2015

don't agree with people who use it, is somehow insulting?

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
35. If 99% agreed with you you'd be happy with that % ...right?
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:56 PM
Apr 2015

You think 99% of Americans would not agree with the principles of life, liberty and justice for all? I think there are some things 99% can agree on.

You want some party that would represent the full totality of 99% of people in this country, dream on


I don't get where you pulled that one out of.
 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
55. it appears to me as though some here
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:45 PM
Apr 2015

are trying desperately to create the appearance of divisions which do not exist.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
59. 99% is a perfectly valid percentage to be using
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:37 PM
Apr 2015

if one is referring to policies that benefit everyone except the filthy rich, who don't need any more help, bless their hearts. You can say the economicinterests / well-being of the 99% can be represented by the (Elizabeth Warren wing of the) Democratic Party, whether or not all of the voters "get" it. "Good for the 99%" ought to be the yardstick we measure policy by.

LostOne4Ever

(9,267 posts)
61. Sad but true
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:48 PM
Apr 2015

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Those 47% are so set in their hatred of women and racial/sexual/gender minorities that they are willing to cut off their own nose to spite their face.

But to be honest, I think we are better off without those kind of people anyways. I rather ally myself with a member of the 1% who cares about the rights of everyone and puts social justice ahead of their own economic self interest than a republican member of that 47%.[/font]

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
65. Yes, the 99% does have people in it who disagree with us, but we know what's best for them
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:53 PM
Apr 2015

And it isn't what they vote for.

So A vote for a true progressive is also a vote for programs that ALSO help the part of the 99% who disagrees with us, whether they see it that way or not.

I'm not about just helping people who agree with me. A rising tide lifts all boats, etc., etc.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
66. The term 99% is not the name of a political party
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 05:14 PM
Apr 2015

You're confusing political parties with who has the most money. Sure there's a correlation of sorts, but the entire concept of the 99% as put forth by Occupy is that 1% if the population controls all the wealth in this country. and as the Supreme Court (also not to be counted as the 99%) has given the 1% all the political power.

F4lconF16

(3,747 posts)
67. I strongly disagree.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:13 AM
Apr 2015

It refers to inequality and class issues. I fight for the laboring class, the 99%. It is a useful meme that highlights the current wealth dynamics: essentially, the fact that 1% of the population controls 40% of the capital. When I say I fight for the 99%, I'm not referring to only those who support my fight--I'm also referring to the right wing laborers. No one is talking about getting 99% to agree on anything.

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
70. 100% of us need
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:10 AM
Apr 2015

Food, air, and water. Historically, the natural earth provided that for us.

When civilization occurred, often ascribed to agriculture, the unnatural concept of money evolved. A few, often labeled as 1%, took more than their fair share. They ended up with far too much money relative to the rest. That is what distinguishes the 99%.

While what you say is true, that the 99% is fractured based on conflicting beliefs about many things, the money and relative fairness issue is the major commonality. It has often been observed that divide and conquer is an often used tactic to gain unfair advantage.

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
73. The percantage is off.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:36 PM
Apr 2015

Some of that 99% are integral to the 1% maintaining that stranglehold. Whether through investments or labor, they assure it remains business as usual.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
74. "Centrists" were the ones that told gays to shut-up about marriage rights.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:45 PM
Apr 2015

We were told that it was just too much to ask-- we had to be pragmatic and just be quiet. They've done this repeatedly, across a range of social issues. The issues were only advanced because liberals did not just shut-up.

So it's odd to see centrists now trying to beat liberals over the head with the social issues that liberals got passed, to make them shut-up once again and support yet another corporate shill.

Their faction of the party that doesn't actually give a shit about social issues or economic justice. They care about the careers of specific politicians, and that's about it.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
75. Hillary Clinton quickly rose to membership in the 1% and is therefore DISQUALIFIED to serve the 99%.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 12:46 PM
Apr 2015

Now that we've established that, lets find someone qualified.

Average 2011 Income: $13,801,055

Oh, hell, every time I do a little research it just gets worse! I think I should turn this into a new OP! What do you think?

[font size=3]Clintons’ Income May Reach Top 1% of the 1% [/font size]



The Clintons’ annual income easily puts them in the top 1% of Americans. But they may have reached the top 1% of the top 1%, according to publicly disclosed income data.

The Clintons’ wealth has become a central topic of discussion during Hillary Clinton‘s book tour after Mrs. Clinton described her family as “dead broke” exiting the White House and later seemed to draw a distinction between her family and the “truly wealthy.” She conceded Wednesday that she had used “inartful” terms to describe her financial circumstances, and emphasized that she has spent her career pushing for economic policies to help American workers.
More In Hillary Clinton

As we reported recently, according to their 2012 income disclosed in government forms, the Clintons made at least $16.7 million in income that year, largely from Bill Clinton‘s speeches. That total is based on income disclosed in forms that provide income ranges, and the $16.7 million total uses the minimum amount from each stated range.

The nationwide level to make the top 1% of households in 2012 was $567,719, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. And the level for the top 0.1% was about $2.9 million, a bar the Clintons easily surpassed.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/27/clintons-income-may-reach-top-1-of-the-1/

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
80. It is about wealth and power, not political parties or leanings.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:22 PM
Apr 2015

You are making a good point about getting people to agree to one thing and about the 99% breaking down into all sorts of political leanings, but that is not what the 1%/99% thing is about. It is about the fact that 1% owns so much while 99% owns so little and has so little coupled with the fact that wealth equal power to change things while poverty equals no power at all.

You are correct about people who vote against their own best interests being a part of that 99%, but they are still part of the 99% because even many of them do not own a pot to piss in, much less have the power to change that fact, no matter who they vote for. Never forget that for many of us in the Bible Belt/southeast, the most liberal Democrat many of us can find is the one who doesn't openly agree with the Republicans on trying to enact laws that specifically attack the GLBT community, women, persons of color, and that is only if we are lucky. Usually, later we find out they do hate us just the same as the Republicans, because they vote right along with them on outrageous laws against us.

So, while you are right that 99% of America isn't going to agree with each other politically, it doesn't change the fact that 1% owns so much and has so much power while the other 99% owns so little and has no power to change things. The percentages are about wealth, not political parties. There are 1%ers who are Democrats as well. It still doesn't change how wealth=power and poverty=no power. THAT is what the percentages are about.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The 99% is not valid perc...