>> ... all that changes from administration to administration is hwo is robbed and who
>> is gifted.
I'll grant that so-called "progressives" (aka Democrats) are slightly less forthright about funneling money up the food chain. However, to say that any of the recent crop is actually interested in forcing a more fair distribution of wealth than the capitalist economy accomplishes is reaching very far indeed.
The most recent "progressive" (Clinton) only stopped the bleeding of the bottom 80%. In real terms, their wealth just stopped diminishing. For instance, during the Reagan-Bush "greed is not enough" period, the top 1% went from holding roughly 7% of all private wealth to holding more than 12%. The "progressive" President Clinton didn't do anything about that massive shift upwards, but he did manage to stop the bleeding. The distribution of private wealth remained almost constant under his direction. Does that mean he "redistributed" wealth? I think not.
Interesting and very simple to see why the economy boomed during this period. It was aided significantly by the fact that, at least for 8 years, Joe and Molly sixpack saw that they weren't losing ground. This was enough to boost their confidence (which is a necessary feature for our economy to thrive) and they went shopping, fueling demand, etc., etc. It amazes me that "supply-siders" still don't get it. You used to have to give Joe and Molly some money to spend (i.e. redistribute wealth); now it appears that all you have to do is stop stealing from them (supply-side economics) and they'll respond.
My point is that the choices for Joe and Molly don't matter much: either status quo or lose ground. Although, I'll concede that insofar as status quo is better than losing ground, it may make a difference yet who is in charge.