Now the middle class has, on the average, $2,000 less income yearly to spend, and any variation on the cost of goods puts them over the line to the point that they can no longer afford to buy the widgets (any goods or services) that the rich want to supply. That has greatly affected the credit markets, along with the unbridled greed exhibited by the financial institutions that did not self-regulate as the Rethugs unrealistically expected them to do, but engaged in extremely risky financial behavior. This risky behavior has resulted in the Rethugs socializing the losses of the markets after they have already wrung all the profits out while they were still privatized.

The solution that democrats are seeking is to roll back the tax cuts to the wealthy that the Rethugs gave them as a reward for their wealth, and put more money in the hands of the middle class and the working poor who, we feel, will put the money to better use. What Dems expect is that this will create demand, which is what produces more profits, and hence, more jobs. It’s easy to say that Dems are trying to redistribute the wealth, and to repeat it many times so that you may be tempted to believe the lie. But Democrats believe that the rising tide floats all boats, meaning that we are only trying to level the playing field and restore the fiscal house that the US was in before GWB privatized the profits and socialized the risks. Our methods will include addressing the deferred maintenance of our infrastructure and assisting in the creation of whole new green industries.

Personally, I hope that is what we will hear from Barack Obama on Wednesday, and every day after that till the election!

You can’t redistribute it unless you distribute it first – and the last 40 years has been all about concentrating it. Wages for most people have been stagnant when measured against inflation or worse if tracked against the GDP.

Here’s one of those things that conceals what has been going on. When economists look at the average wage, median wage, etc. and call any rise in it inflationary, there’s a big panic and the government is called on to take action. But, let a small minority at the top see their wages balloon, it hardly gets any attention because the number of individuals involved is small, even though the amounts of money are huge. And it has other pernicious ways of working out.

Say there’s an across the board 3-5% raise to keep up with inflation. Sounds reasonable, right? Except that 3-5% is a lot different for someone making say $40,000 a year versus someone making 300-400 times that. (That gap between the shop floor and the executive suites.)

See, there’s a real difference between someone trying to make enough money to keep one household going versus someone who can afford to have 8 houses or more (Non-random example) There’s a minimum amount of money needed by every person just to meet necessities – food, rent/mortgage, healthcare, etc. – and you’re not really progressing economically until you start being able to accumulate income above that minimum. Otherwise you’re effectively living at subsistence levels; one piece of bad luck and you’re screwed. You can’t save, you can’t invest, and you can’t get ahead because you have nothing left over.

In the absence of rising income for people in this situation, there are few choices: try to find a better paying job, work several jobs, or borrow now in hopes that tomorrow you can pay it back.

Giving money to people who already have vast amounts does nothing to make the situation better – there’s no trickle down because the rich ARE rich because they’re good at hanging on to what they have. Give a billionaire 10 million, and he’ll try to shield it from taxes, invest in something to make even more money out of it, and maybe buy some stuff.

Give that same 10 million to ten thousand people of middle class income or lower, they’ll use it to help pay bills, send their kids to college, get health care, and buy things they need to live – not just luxuriate. They’ll put it right back into the economy, creating jobs and keeping the economy working.

Take that 10 million and put it into infrastructure – rebuilding bridges, replacing aging water/sewer systems, new/better schools, investing in green infrastructure – again jobs are created, there’s a multiplier effect as that money moves through the economy, and quality of life improves for everyone.

For forty years Republicans have been telling us the measure of a successful society is how much wealth it creates, and they measure it by counting millionaires. If you measure it by counting how many people have enough food, housing, education, and health care, you get a rather different answer.

How hard is that to understand?

That was too easy.

Juvenile, yes, but too easy.