[yetanotheracc]

So the share of income going to the top 1% has increased to new heights during the Obama presidency, yet the election of Trump - as opposed to his rival who was expected to continue Obama's policies - is seen as irrational?

[burke]

Yeah, well the problem is that while Trump campaigned on change, the actual changes he plans to implement will just centralize wealth at the top even more.

America had a chance with Bernie, but due to some combination of media attention, Clinton's ambition, DNC's corruption, Russian interference, increasingly-polarized news, and the generally anti-socialist slant of American political discourse, they threw it away.

Bernie was the "fuck this, change everything" candidate that actually had the disenfranchised's needs at heart. Trump claims the same but doesn't substantiate it.

EDIT: And honestly, I don't think Bernie would have been able to accomplish much, or that Obama has done much objectionable. I get the sense that Obama actually wants to improve things for the middle class, but is realistic about what he can accomplish with Republican houses shutting him down at every turn simply because any policy that helps the middle class appears anti-capitalist (i.e. socialist) when capitalism is increasingly synonymous with centralization of wealth as efficiency grows.

EDIT Again: This whole "campaign for the poor but systematically serve only large businesses, then tell everyone that the democrats -- who actually systematically care about humans a little bit -- are the devil" thing is kind of the GOP's M.O., and, as an outsider, I think it's disgusting. Trump is only an exceptionally bad example because he amplifies some of the standard GOP stances while mixing in his own crazy brand of narcissism.

[jnbiche]

> I get the sense that Obama actually wants to improve things for the middle class, but is realistic about what he can accomplish with Republican houses shutting him down at every turn

For the record, Democrats had total control of Congress when Obama first came into office.

[burke]

Indeed, and it's curious that a lot of the more would-be-impactful things have come later in his term when he faces stronger opposition. I don't have any explanation for this.

[xenadu02]

Republicans controlled Congress during most of Obama's presidency. Congress controls taxes, spending, and most money-related policies. In fact Republicans have been in control for the majority of the past few decades. It was their policies of cutting taxes, gutting government safety nets, "reforming" welfare, gutting banking regulations, and so on that have helped accelerate these trends.

Democrats lost election after election to them and so shifted their policies to match, hoping to chase votes.

Now we don't really have any populist politicians or political parties left.

It seems we are resigned to lurching from panic to panic with anemic growth until we hit the wall of another Great Depression. Then the pain will be so monumental that the 1%'s influence will be swept aside. What form things will take on the other side of that transition no one can say. I also wouldn't hazard a guess on how long it takes; The Panics of 1873, 1893, and 1907 didn't seem to teach anyone any lessons because they repeated the same anti-regulation low-tax "rah rah rah capitalism!" mistakes in the 1920s and triggered the Great Depression. In some ways you could say our systems worked too well to counter-balance the 2007 crisis; they prevented things from getting really bad and forcing change.

[ared38]

Totally agree, we drastically overestimate the power of the President. Congress does most of the things Presidential candidates promise to do, and local government rules everyday quality of life issues like criminal justice and education.

[JDiculous]

Trump's tax plan is more favorable to the wealthy than Hillary's

[jeffdavis]

What makes you believe that? If you look below the surface, that's far from clear.

[JDiculous]

Income tax rates under Trump's tax plan are clearly more favorable to the wealthy than what we have now or what they would've been under Hillary.

http://www.clark.com/tax-calculator-clinton-trump

[gjm11]

Would you care to be more specific?

[drieddust]

Do you think Trump is going to change that? Unless he is an idealist who can follow thorough and destroy his own fraternity. I have doubts.

[readams]

No this article talks only about taxable income. Wealth inequality is far more important and for some reason nobody talks about it.

[pg314]

It is far easier to get data about income (through tax records) than it is to get data about wealth.

[yetanotheracc]

I changed the wording. It does not affect my main argument, though.

[Glyptodon]

From that perspective neither mainstream candidate made any sense.

[rm_-rf_slash]

Trump planned to cut taxes bigly for the wealthy.

Clinton planned to raise taxes moderately for the wealthy, but supported globalization policies which created that wealth in the first place.