do you remember some years ago when there was a strike by the west coast longshoremen and the goods from Asia were held up for weeks or months? One of the laments was that some senior longshoremen, with copious overtime, were making around 100K. Huge outcries of outrage. How dare they want to strike, etc. But did anyone care that CEO's were putting pay packages together that had no bearing on reality and were not even based on performance? These pay packages were negotiated by compensation lawyers with director committees made up of cronies. No, that was deemed fair market value, although there was no competitive pressure at all. Now we know better, but the pay packages are still insane for essentially failed CEO's. These guys are hired administrators to run the company in the best interest of the shareholders, just like the labor is hired to produce the best products. I am not for government wage controls, but for much greater regulation of annual reporting, what is taxable, deductible, etc. so shareholders know what is happening.

I did not say that the US invented egalitarianism but capitalized on the statement that the US invented something to be more egalitarian hence a US invented product for an egalitarian society. I don't totally disagree with a shrinking middle class however the causes are truly complex as you say. Middle class usually pertained to our industrialized base but that base has mostly moved to countries that have substantially cheaper labor. Labor is the largest overhead cost of any product. Although there may have been a time when unions had some worth but I believe they are the primary cause of the labor exodus. Highly skilled people should be paid accordingly but unskilled labor should not expect much. Guess who most of the sign wavers are in strike lines that want "equal" (read disproportionate) pay and benefits. I know who they are.

I did not say "Americans invented egalitarianism". But I did say that the estate tax was an American invention to promote a more egalitarian society.
I don't believe in socialism or communism as an economic model. But I do believe the road we are on is eroding the middle class, and as such, needs to be addressed. Post WW 2 we had a thriving middle class that could afford to spend time with the family, needed only a single breadwinner, could send their children to college, could afford to get sick, had a chance for a decent retirement, etc. Now, not so much. More Americans are under the poverty line, bankruptcies are on a record pace, our banks are casinos, and the income disparity is huge. The reasons are complex and require a lot of hard thinking to find a path that allows for free market economics, but still provides an element of security for those who labor for a living.
And please, don't give me the 'America, love it or leave it' line. I am staying because I love this country…but we should not be afraid to regain and improve upon what we once had.

I think "US invented egalitarianism" is rather strongly worded in favor of a not so desired nor accepted society in the US. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Left-Libertarianism, Progressivism, etc. I don't know too many people that subscribe to tried and failed philosophies such as those but invariably there will be some that think that everyone should be economically equal no matter and deserve a smashed chicken and a bottle of vodka just for breathing. If you want to be a socialist, move to a socialist country, Len.

and that is what happens when I try to condense my comments with 750 keystrokes. Marx and Engles wrote the Communist Manifesto in Europe and it was published in London in the mid 1800's. Although there are a lot economic philosophies involved, the gist was the plight of the proletariat under the thumb of the bourgeois, particularly in the capitalistic society emerging from the Industrial Revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution had other agendas, including the incredibly lopsided feudal society run by an indifferent Czar, but the application of Marx's economic model was the result. But the point still stands that an open society with a large, diverse and empowered middle class will not collapse in revolution. Interestingly enough, the estate tax that the right has as a rallying point, is the result of legislators in 1916 that wanted to prevent American dynasties as an aftermath of the "robber baron" era when the disparity of wealth was huge. It is an American invention to promote a more egalitarian society.

We agree on addressing the issues of the middle class but disagree on which party would do it better. I can live with that.
By the way, you meant other countries that had joined in on the Industrial Revolution and manufacturing, not Russia, right? I don't remember them having much manufacturing in 1917. Wasn't the whole issue that the economy there was still mostly agricultural and feudal, despite the attempts of Peter the Great and others over the centuries to propel them forward into the modern world? That the serfs (most everybody in Russia back then) farmed the land for the owners and barely made a living, so they revolted? Cheers, MGM

is a phrase from the bottom up. Republicans use it anytime sometime discusses the growing income gap and the shrinking middle class. I was pointing out that it is in fact coming from the top. If you recall, the Russian Revolution was really a reaction to capitalism gone rampant, with people working 12/7, low pay, no security, child labor, dangerous worksites in the growing industrial countries. Venezuela is a modern version of what can happen if the middle class disappears or becomes powerless. If the working poor take over, you have what you describe. That is why the linchpin of democracy and a free market economy is a strong, secure middle class. The very rich don't need others to survive, they can go anywhere, and the very poor have nothing to lose. We, however, provide the economic base, the educational base and the stability of a nation. I want to keep it that way.

Well, there's another point of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats. You think it's class warfare and we don't. That was the rallying cry for the Bolshevik revolution, so excuse us if it tends to be a bit off-putting to hear our current nation spoken of in those terms. It's also one of those terms that will not tend to win older voters or historians to Barack Obama, as we can remember that, once people got on the Bolshevik bandwagon, they overthrew the society that was, and left it never to be the same again. Words matter. If you use words like "class warfare" many people will take them to mean "quick, violent change" or "revolution." Cheers, MGM (I don't think you meant to say that, but am pointing out the historical context of the words you used)

I am not sure why there is so much pent up rage against the lowest quintile of our country. If a 19K/year worker(probably working 50 hours/week at 2 jobs making 7.00/hr) gets some assistance to keep a roof over his head, he represents all the deadbeats in the world. On the other hand, if a failed CEO gets booted, he walks out with 200 million in shareholder money because of sweetheart deals made in secret. Then he is a hero. Or hedge fund managers who make 100's of millions a year in commissions and fees, want to base their taxes on long term capital gains of 15%, then we let him. It is not even his money at risk, so how can it be his capital gains. Because Congress says so. I'll tell you who is not carrying his weight in this country and it isn't Mr. 19K. He's giving all he's got and the others are taking all they can. There is class warfare alright, and it is being waged by those at the top upon those at the very bottom.

I didn't realize what you were trying to accomplish -- it didn't make any sense to me. Gotcha.