Two friends went camping in the woods. They were attacked by a bear who found their food stores easier to obtain than foraging for berries.

As they ran away from the bear one friend said to the other; "He's gaining on us and I don't think we can run much farther".

The second camper replied "I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you."

This story is simplistic, but it illustrates the nature of our economy where wealth is dependent upon "relative distribution". If we can relate the bear to the top 1%, (10% is too large for such purpose as it takes in many who would otherwise be "campers" and forces them to align with the bear. Yes, wealth distribution is that piss poor in America, and the change will not affect the outcome as much as one might imagine.) and the campers to the bottom 99% it becomes easier to see how America is divided in what should be the unification of purpose.

Much of this is due to a mistaken assumption surrounding money and how it is created. This disparity can only be realized by assuming money is in finite supply and in control of those who presently have it. This is the basics of "trickle-down" economics forwarded by practically every politician since RayGun and Thatcher, and it has been proven wrong since FDR ended the convertibility of the currency to gold in '34, effectively taking us off the gold standard domestically.

If our society suffers from any problem that can be mitigated by increased spending/money creation at the federal level that suffering is entirely a "POLITICAL DECISION", not economics. It is also the result of someone in power, likely a donor to the political class, who stands to benefit from that suffering, such as an underfunded and fearful labor supply. Keeping campers in competition with dire results from failure is how bears stay well fed and accumulate lots of nifty camping gear in the process.