The Myth of the ‘Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor’
It gets repeated so frequently and so persistently that many assume it must be true: the rich are getting richer and the poor have been left behind in ever-larger numbers, especially during the eeeeeevil Bush administration.
Baloney.
Let’s take a look at the latest inflation-adjusted Census Bureau data from 2003 through 2007 (data is from Table A-3 at page 40 of the Bureau’s annual “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States” publication; this Bureau page has the link to the PDF publication; more historical detail is here):
I’m using 2003 as the starting point for two reasons. First, the negative effects of the Internet bubble that occurred during the Clinton administration and of the 9/11 attacks didn’t wear off until that year. Second, the investment-related Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends, along with across-the-board cuts in marginal rates, finally took effect that year. The Bush tax cuts in 2001 were, unfortunately, relatively ineffectual, because they represented a one-time stimulus instead of long-term change.
Note that in the last four years the Bureau has tracked:
- The 10th percentile cutoff went up by more than the cutoffs for the richest three percentiles. The rich did not get proportionally richer than the poorest of the poor.
- In the aggregate, it’s fair to say that no income group “lost ground.”
- The Gini coefficient, which is a statistical measure of income inequality — a value of zero would mean that everyone has the same income, and a value of one would mean that one person makes all the income — barely budged, and the budge was in the direction of less inequality.
What’s more, the gains at the lower income levels are probably understated. That’s because the Census Bureau’s inflation-adjusted numbers don’t fully take the “Wal-Mart effect” into account. The linked OpinionJournal.com column cites outside research showing that “Wal-Mart’s 1985-2004 expansion of sales resulted in a 9.1% drop in the price of food at home, a 4.2% drop in the price of other goods and commodities, and a 3.1% decline in consumer prices overall, saving the average working family about $2,329 per year.”
I remember reading some report on RCP that had charts showing that income growth for middle-class and below had hardly moved. This is the chart that gets most referenced, in my experience.
Of course, it doesn’t take into account the new purchasing power of the lower classes. It also doesn’t factor in the Bush tax cuts that took those lower classes off the federal tax roles. They take the raw numbers and say, “Aha!”. (Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.) They simply offered no context or balance. This is the source of the problem.
It’s just like the chart that showed the economy grew more in the post-WWII era under Dem Presidents than under Republicans. Nevermind that the Dems got the huge post-war boom. Nevermind that when they screwed up, the Pubs got put into office to clean up the mess. Interestingly, they didn’t go back to the Depression-era and include those numbers. The decline under FDR would’ve balanced out the post-war boom.
It would’ve been nice if the above charts could’ve been put side-by-side for comparison.
#1, you can be selective and get the “nobody’s getting anywhere” answer you want if you start looking places other than the Census Bureau.
One of the more popular ones is to say that the hourly rate paid to workers hasn’t budged in decades, which according to BLS it hasn’t (in real terms). Trouble is, the pool of employees included in “hourly” rates is smaller, because more people are in salaried or commission-based situations as a % of all workers. Those remaining in hourly positions tend to be less skilled so it’s not surprising that the result is what it is.
“The Myth of the ‘Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor”
The comparison here is flawed. The debate is not about how much each bracket is getting richer but the disparity between brackets. It’s between the 20th percentile and lower AND the 80th percentile and higher. That’s quite a gap. Then you have to pair how many people are in each percentile.
“The debate is not about how much each bracket is getting richer but the disparity between brackets.”
I take it you failed reading comprehension…
“The rich did not get proportionally richer than the poorest of the poor.”
Tom, I see that Steve Conover’s Skeptical Optimist is in your blogroll. Don’t know if you’ve seen the following article he posted a while back, related to this subject: The rumor about “stagnant middle class incomes” is false. It discusses the point Marc raises and the shift you noted. And for poor vivo’s benefit – based on census data, the Dems’ approach (and leftists’ in general) focuses on a problem that is largely resolving itself.
Also related:
- Purchasing Power Propaganda
- Obamanomics: Which will it be? (after this week, I think we know)
- When will the budget move into balance? (Personal favorite)
vivo:
You are making the assumption that the people in the lower percentiles are the same people. While that is certainly true for some, there are a great many who take advantage of the opportunities offered by our capitalist system to move up.
Other than the permanent victim class created by the liberals, recent immigrants sing the praises of this land of opportunity. They have made sacrifices and have been rewarded with lifestyles unimaginable in their homelands.
Regardless of which demographic you choose to look at, I find the whole argument of income gaps as specious.
1. It’s wealth envy pure and simple.
2. The “pie” of money is not finite. You want to make more money? bake a bigger pie.
3. As a percentage, the abject poverty rate in the US is extremely small. Only here can a “poor” person own a TV, have satellite and a cell phone. By any other standard in the world, poor people in America are wealthy.
4. The vast majority of people transition from one group to the next. Very few people remain in the lowest percentile their entire life. And if they do there is no hope for them in any system.
John: Nicely said.
Beyond comparing the US poor with other parts of the world, consider what the US was like 35 or 40 years ago. Think about all the things we have in our houses today. Poverty level in 2009 would be solid middle-class in 1970.
Good point, John. Our ‘poor’ live as no other poor on earth.
The rest of the train doesn’t leave the station until the locomotive does. Many of us live lives today that couldn’t be purchased at any price by ‘the rich’ a half century ago. I don’t care how far ahead of me others get, because their economic activity and investments help fuel an economy that gives me opportunities for progress. In fact, the relationship is symbiotic. Being rich among the poor would be a dead end, economically, while being surrounded by people obtaining the means to purchase what you have to sell could make you even richer still.
And yet, we’re told ‘trickle down’ doesn’t work.
The Democrats are the Party of Misery. They
need it to survive along with the social welfare
industry. The higher the social welfare spending the higher the crime and poverty rate.
The greatest predictor of the evils of society
is the rate of single parent families. Whoops
I just stepped on the patron saint of the
Democrat Party-the single mother. Sorry.
Leftists don’t like WalMart because it is an
American success story. It makes money and
provides a useful function to ordinary people.
Because of this WalMart is an object of hatred
to leftists outside the US as well, only more.
“The debate is not about how much each bracket is getting richer but the disparity between brackets.”
OK, let’s go with that thought. Why should anyone give a damn? Bill Gates has most definitely widened the gap between himself and the vast majority of his fellow citizens. But so what? Those supposedly on the bottom in the United States often drive their own cars, carry around a cell phone, own a digital TV, and eat out at least four to five times a week. Their lives have most assuredly improved greatly in the last fifty years.
I am in agreement about the general priciple put forward here. However, please note that those on disability, even if they get themselves on Section 8, Medicaid, etc, are still quite poor. The average SSD check I see coming up for my mentally-ill clients is about $700/month.
It is because of this that I so deeply resent the amount of money we, through our government, give to less-worthy causes. If we weren’t throwing so much money at the showy and whiney, we would have more for the needy.
Using cherry-picked figures is no way to build a case.
The plain fact is that the rich have become obscenely more rich, while most of us suffer stagnating wages while prices rise.
This chart doesn’t even speak to the absurd incomes in the top 5%. Nice try, but nobody who is serious is buying this BS.
Peace.
DS
- Using cherry-picked figures is no way to build a case.
True. But one needs at least ONE reference. Notably, you didn’t provide any.
- The plain fact is that the rich have become obscenely more rich,…
Your opinion, not “plain fact”.
- … while most of us suffer stagnating wages while prices rise.
Not. Guess I was prescient. See links in the preceding post. Want more? Work harder. Invent something people can’t do without. Write a hit song or, better yet… get a relevant education. Lots of options.
- This chart doesn’t even speak to the absurd incomes in the top 5%.
What’s absurd about them? Again – this is your opinion.
How about The Myth that This Article Contains Accurate Figures?
- The average SSD check I see coming up for my mentally-ill clients is about $700/month.
AVI, if you’re working in this field you also know that an enormous number of SSDI recipients – who are also receiving State aid in most cases – are simply milking the system when they could be working. “Too depressed to work,” “unable to work due to after-effects of past drug abuse,” “too obese to work” … the list goes on. There are millions of people with these basic complaints receiving SSDI. An entire legal industry has grown around this phenomenon, comprising firms who do nothing but figure out how to get people on SSDI (naturally, they get their cut, just like the personal injury guys).
Similarly, most clinic facilities are in a conflict-of-interest position with many clients where, once they declare them fit they lose the State income they’re receiving to ‘treat’ them, which has recently begun to include in-house pharmacies, providing another avenue for conflict-of-interest abuse. I know of several individuals who have been trapped in years of useless group therapy because the facility refuses to declare them fit to work. I’m also aware of numerous individuals who are on multiple prescription regimens (up to 14 different meds in some cases) because the clinic’s in-house pharmacy makes a profit on whatever the clinic’s therapists prescribe.
In short-term treatment clinics, conversely, turnaround requirements for diagnosis are unreasonably accelerated due to the push for cash flow through immediate reimbursement – either from the State or ins. co. Axis I and II diagnoses are demanded after only one intake session with a new patient, for instance, and much of that diagnosis is computerized based on answering questions on a computer form. “I once bought $50 in lottery tickets for Christmas gifts,” for instance, turns into a gambling problem. That’s one of numerous examples.
I guess my point is that the persons you describe, who really do need help, are getting less than they need because they’re getting it from a system that is already completely broken. And it’s completely broken because we’ve allowed systems that provide this type of welfare to run completely open-loop.
If taxpayers had any idea how much of their money was being used to bus drug-dealing gang members to facilities for “relapse therapy” – at which they spend their time selling drugs; if they knew how much money was being spent on food, meds, therapy, housing allowances and livery service for people who are “too depressed to work” they would be rioting in the streets. It’s not so much that money is spent on the high-profile stuff, it’s that so much of it is wasted through corruption, incompetence and conflicts of interest – all engendered by the notion that the State (i.e., the taxpayer) should shell out money for anyone who demands it.
That’s the nub of the issue. People who believe in markets believe that the public sector is a zero-sum game, and the private sector isn’t. People who believe in government believe that the private sector is a zero-sum game, and the public sector isn’t. Of course, all empirical evidence supports the former.
Let me clue you in on what every community organizer knows: a single individual can live comfortably on $700/mo, if they’re living in $150/mo public housing, and getting food stamps. Paying full price is for fools.
@14
goy,
I’m not your librarian. Learn to use the internet.
http://www.tolerance.org/teach/activities/activity.jsp?ar=972
My opinion and “plain fact”. Bonus points!
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2854
Actually, forming a union would be much more to the point. You didn’t refute the decline in real wages. In fact your citations support my contention. Too bad you didn’t finish the article.
Again, look at your own citations, or check the links above. It is not hard to see that the highest income earners are fleecing the rest of us. This is why the GOP will not be in power again for a long time.
Peace.
DS
Emphasizing false disparities encourages class warfare, on which the Democrats depend. In the Democrat Hegemony, “things” can never get better & harping on your dire personal situation (relative to that rich bastard over there) is their bread & butter & political future.
Barack Obama is an irresponsible President in constantly harping on the notion that the economy is in an awful state.
In doing this, day in and day out, he is fear mongering and enhancing the notion that only a behemoth, all encompassing federal government can save the day.
Appalling.
This entire discussion has always struck me as odd in that we`re arguing about RELATIVE poverty, not ABSOLUTE poverty. No one who wishes to be taken seriously even argues that “the poor” (those Americans in the last quintile of income) haven`t made significant progress in the past 50 years. It`s just that they haven`t made the progress that “the rich” (those in the upper quintile) have made.
“The poor” are NOT always the same people and , as a group, they have made enormous economic gains in the last half-century. The average “poor” household now has a lifestyle and material comforts only enjoyed by the upper-middle class in 1959.
All arguments proceeding from the notion that “the poor” are somehow destitute and suffering material needs do not reflect reality. In fact, when these arguments COMPARE the gap between “the poor” and “the rich”, all that is evident is that the gap is based on perceived poverty. In other words…ENVY.
- I’m not your librarian.
Not my job to make your case, bub. Learn to support your own assertions or don’t make them (I’d suggest the latter). Links to SPLC propaganda and the opinions of obscure bloggers with MAs in sociology don’t exactly qualify, irrespective of whatever lies they’re telling you in college – certainly not as a response to what Tom has posted here, and Steve has compiled at the Optimist.
But here’s your real problem – and it’s indicative of the basic flaw in pretty much everything you post here: It is not hard to see that the highest income earners are fleecing the rest of us.
High income earners aren’t “fleecing us” – you OR me – based on any evidence you’ve provided. They simply earn more. Don’t like that? See my earlier post for suggestions. Nutshell: get off your ass, get a real job and quit pretending the pot of money is finite. It’s not.
“Middle Class” is the new term for “My Constituents”. Which happen to be 95% black. The oppressed have come up in status since inauguration day.
“His Emptiness” is passing out cash to whomever shall support him and his party with votes and donations. This is just recycling the cash to the Dumocrat coffers. This is economical warfare on “We The People”, the taxpayers.
@22
goy,
Everything you have posted supports my position. What more evidence do you need?
I’ve covered this topic for you before. You can’t see that those who benefit from government should pay their fair share to support it. You deny the facts in your own citations.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the finite resources of the world go to the highest bidder.
You can keep on lying to yourself that everyone can make it big, but that doesn’t make it true.
Peace.
DS
- Everything you have posted supports my position.
Not so far.
- I’ve covered this topic for you before.
LOL. Having failed miserably there, you persist. A better approach might be to apply your energies to bettering your economic situation. You might start by getting an education that translates into the ability to get an actual job.
- You can’t see that those who benefit from government should pay their fair share to support it.
Wrong.
You’re assuming, again with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that anyone who earns what you think an “absurd” income is benefiting from the government.
You’re also ignoring the documented fact that higher earners are already paying far more than their “fair share” to support everyone else. For example, the top 5% earners – that was approximately 9M people in 2006 – pay over %60 of all income tax paid in a country of over 300M. I’m sure you think that’s not enough. The top 50% earners pay virtually all income tax paid. Obviously that doesn’t satisfy you either, even though many of those in the remaining 50% are simply handed money paid by the former – it’s called “tax credits” to disguise what it really is: socialist federal welfare. You obviously haven’t the slightest clue what “fair share” really means.
Your “resources of the world” is a red herring – resources are not at issue here. We’re talking about the ability to generate wealth, which America proved long ago, through capitalism, imagination, self-government and the will to work is infinite. And only to the extent that flawed socialist ideology is allowed to destroy that ability – as it miraculously did last year at precisely the point in time BHO needed it to – has it ever faltered.
If Oprah Winfrey can go from less than nothing to multi-billionaire, what’s your pathetic excuse?
I really like the way you approach the problem of equality: you’re talking about purchasing power via the “Wal-Mart effect,” and using numbers where appropriate – gini doesn’t really tell us if the poorer here are utterly powerless or not.
I think that you might want to broaden the issue even more, though, for future posts. The thing is that we’re always uncertain about the economy to a degree nowadays, even those who spend way more than they have (I assume the logic there, if not outright ignorance, is “carpe diem”). No one goes to college expecting a job unless they get technical expertise; what are the degrees of satisfaction in work – do people stick with the job they get for a while? What about all the loans we take to pay for various items – are we doing this b/c we overestimate how much we deserve, or are there things perceived as necessary demanding that we spend more than we have? Also, questions about bureaucracy: it feels like everything requires 10 forms to fill out before anything gets done, it feels like any task is contingent on getting it by many other people, few of whom are actually qualified to comment on one’s work.
I’m saying all this because I think the inequality rhetoric resonates with Americans not because of inequality, but because there’s something about the job market and the economy that doesn’t let us feel free. I remember a professor telling me in undergrad how he could just walk to another college and ask for a job back in the day, and he’d be fine. I remember hearing stories about a recruiting culture among businesses that actually looked for talent.
All I see now are really decadent businesses and very narrow-minded start-ups seeking a profit model that hoards rather than shares. Something’s strange with how “capitalism” works nowadays.
@25
goy,
You don’t understand your own cited evidence, which shows clearly that the gap is getting wider. The Skeptical Optimist had to look back six years before Bush to get that gap to behave.
You don’t understand how taxation works, or that payroll taxes are part of the tax burden, or that middle class income earners are paying a larger share of taxes since 2001.
You don’t understand the role of government in protecting property, providing infrastructure, and managing financial markets.
You don’t understand that wealth is not infinite – it is limited by resources.
I could continue to do the research and show you the evidence, but you have demonstrated that you know how to find the evidence, but are incapable of understanding it.
Best of luck.
Peace.
DS
#25 goy, great points in general, esp on taxes paid and income mobility.
David S – The SPLC is NOT a source. The underlying data is. That is not present or mentioned in the classroom propaganda you linked to. The SPLC has provided plenty of reasons not to be trusted over the years.
It also “cherry picks.” One graph is from 1979-2003, which conveniently is just before one recession began and shortly after a downturn ended, respectively.
Shocking, really, to see graphic evidence that the bottom 50% of earners pays a grand total of 3% in federal income taxes. (something like 30-40% of that group pays no federal income taxes at all.) The top 5% of earners pays about 60%, the top 10% of earners, 70% of all federal income taxes.
Barack’s plan seems to be that the top 5% of earners will eventually pay 80-90-…100%? of total federal income taxes, while free lunches are passed around to all the people who sit all day at their computers, complaining about the size of someone else’s lunch.
This is the way the Democrat party insures loyalty, promising free lunches you didn’t earn through your own endeavors.
(The real cost, however, is to the soul of he who becomes conditioned to feeding at the government trough.)
Tax Graph
Signed,
~there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch
David S: I looked at your charts and read your arguments. Since you think you are an economist please explain how I fit into your poor getting poorer argument. In 1998 I was in the lowest bracket, making way less than 24K. (your referenced chart shows a -2% in income growth for that group) I am now in the 3rd group making more than $42,1K a year. (your referenced chart shows an increase of income for that group of 15%). America is the land of plenty, you just have to get off your duff and go find what you want. When I was in the lowest group I did NOT get public aid, I worked hard, went to college and got a good job. I can’t stand people who sit around saying it can’t be done, give me some of your money in the form of welfare!
If David S is in the education system, that makes excellent evidence for home schooling.
@30
Ms. A,
Good for you! You are among the <10% who achieve upward mobility. Statistically, however, most people in your situation will not.
America is a land of plenty, but there are also many people who don’t make enough to get by. Even people who work hard, go to college and get a good job can be laid off.
Nobody says it can’t be done. However, the likelihood of you making it into the top 5% of income earners is vanishingly small.
When it comes to welfare, the rich make out much better than the poor. You and I are stuck in the middle getting squeezed.
Peace.
DS
- You don’t understand your own cited evidence, which shows clearly that the gap is getting wider.
And you don’t understand the point of the article, which is that the gap, in and of itself, doesn’t have any intrinsic significance because of the rest of the phenomenon, quote: “The rich got richer, the middle class got richer, and the poor got richer”. Your problem is that the middle class and poor didn’t get richer enough… for you… based on your subjective, socialist, class-baiting criteria.
- You don’t understand … that payroll taxes are part of the tax burden, …
My previous post notwithstanding, right? You’re confusing payroll taxes with payroll tax rates. Go back and watch that Warren Buffet interview one more time. You might get it after a fifth listening.
- … or that middle class income earners are paying a larger share of taxes since 2001.
“Middle class” being defined as what? You don’t (can’t) say. Larger share than what? You don’t say. Why? Because your socialist college indoctrination prevents you from understanding what’s happening here. As such, this statement is laughably meaningless – especially with, again, no supporting evidence whatsoever.
The census data referenced in Conover’s article demonstrates that the median income level has risen – just look at the graph. Significantly, middle class income earners, taken as a group, are paying an increasing share of tax – compared to the bottom 50%, which now pay almost nothing – because their numbers are increasing, as a group. Duh. This is what’s known in the real world – where people support families, purchase homes, pay bills, etc. – as economic progress. The most interesting aspect of this phenomenon is something you’re also willfully ignoring – upper class earners are steadily paying a larger share of all taxes paid as well.
You can actually check this for yourself – note how each year since 2002, the higher income brackets have paid increasing, not decreasing percentages of all taxes paid. Interesting how them tax cuts worked, huh. One sees the same phenomenon in the corporate tax revenues, which rose to all-time historic levels because of the economic boom stimulated by those tax cuts.
- You don’t understand the role of government in protecting property, providing infrastructure, and managing financial markets.
Since you failed to make one, I can only guess that your “point” here is that higher earners are “benefiting” disproportionately from the government due to all these things. You appear to believe that their “fair share” should be based on what they earn. Here’s a news flash for you, Zippy: everyone benefits from these things, not just the people who spend the extra years in school, put in the extra work and/or take on the extra risks to earn a higher salary. You want to penalize effort and productivity, which is one of the fatal, fundamental flaws in socialism.
- You don’t understand that wealth is not infinite – it is limited by resources.
Absolutely, 100%, pure-D Wrong. I can generate wealth from nothing but my own creativity – and have. That creativity, and my ability to continue to use it, are not limited in any way by your red herring “finite resources”. I can apply this principal to just about anything that doesn’t involve extracting real, finite natural resources from the environment. Wealth generation by any other means has no set limit.
- I could continue to do the research…
Another empty statement. So far you’ve done exactly squat to back up your assertions. To say nothing of “research”.
@29. tanstaafl: - Shocking, really, to see graphic evidence that the bottom 50% of earners pays a grand total of 3% in federal income taxes. (something like 30-40% of that group pays no federal income taxes at all.)
Yes. I can only wonder how different things would be if everyone in the country understood the implications of those figures. To say nothing of the “tax credit” scam (read: federal welfare program), which BHO wants to triple in size.
@33
goy,
The poor have been getting poorer. The rich have been getting richer. I can’t state it any more plainly, and I refer you to your own reference.
Payroll taxes are regressive because they don’t cover all earned income – this is an easy fix the right wing has been fighting for decades.
Middle class can be defined in any way you like, you will still find that the tax burden has shifted away from the rich, toward lower income earners.
Not in relation to their larger share of all income.
Your “economic boom” has gone bust. So much for using tax cuts and cheap money to grow the economy.
I don’t want to penalize anyone. I want a tax structure that is fair and that provides the best opportunity for all. Effort and productivity have little to do with income. I just want everyone to pay their fair share. You would prefer that the poor just hurry up and die, unless they are willing to work for peanuts.
You can generate wealth all you want, but that doesn’t mean it is infinite. All wealth depends on the real, finite planet upon which we live.
Our economy depends on consumers to consume. By shifting more resources to the wealthy, reducing the purchasing power of the vast majority, the GOP has created the greatest economic meltdown since WW2. There is no ‘myth’ of the widening gap. It is real.
The Republicans under Bush have led us back to the same precipice that Hoover discovered. Welcome to the depression that Bush built.
Peace.
DS
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
Can’t the moderator do something about these severely misinformed windbags? It’s getting to be like the Politico, with these brain-farts.
@34. David S:
- The poor have been getting poorer.
Not according to the data. Go back and read it again, it might help.
- Payroll taxes are regressive because they don’t cover all earned income…
Payroll taxes don’t apply to all earned income, Zippy, despite the left’s desire to redefine it.
- Middle class can be defined in any way you like, you will still find that the tax burden has shifted away from the rich, toward lower income earners.
Not according to the data – at least not in any way that isn’t explained by the increase in relative number of middle class people, as opposed to the relative number of “rich” which, again, you can’t define.
- Not in relation to their larger share of all income.
The only place it makes sense to use this “larger share” as a reference is in your class-baiting, socialist mind, where total income is somehow limited by what the State says it can be. That idea comes from your socialist indoctrination that all production should be controlled by the State. But again, the ability to generate wealth in a capitalist economy is not limited by anything other than its participants’ imaginations and willingness to work. Higher earners’ larger “share” of total income is generated by their efforts, not by “stealing” increasingly larger pieces of some finite pie. More effort, more income. Less effort, less income. The key there being that the size of the pie changes with both.
- Your “economic boom” has gone bust.
Yes, it went into decline, coincidentally, as soon as the Dems took hold of Congress, which prompted the market and industry to cut back in preparation for the reaming they knew was coming. The problem was exacerbated by “affordable loans”, CRA and Raines’ “Riskless” Real Estate securities which torpedoed the credit markets. Presto – instant recession, courtesy of leftist, Dem policies!
I don’t want to penalize anyone.
That’s a lie. You want to tax people based on their “share” of total income, which is absurd.
- I want a tax structure that is fair and that provides the best opportunity for all.
No you don’t. You want a tax structure that redistributes wealth based on some arbitrary criteria – decidedly NOT based on the effort one expends to get it. This is clear in your monumentally stupid claim that “Effort and productivity have little to do with income.” Effort and productivity have everything to do with income. Even if you’re the wealthiest woman on earth, the income you receive on your stocks, bonds and other investments depends completely on the effort and productivity that goes into making those investments increase in value.
- I just want everyone to pay their fair share.
Another blatant lie. You’ve clearly indicated that you want no such thing. You can’t see the inherent unfairness in 5% of the tax-filing population footing over 60% of the total income tax bill for a nation of over 300M people. You haven’t the foggiest idea what “fair” is.
- You would prefer that the poor just hurry up and die, unless they are willing to work for peanuts.
You have no idea what I’d prefer, Zippy.
- You can generate wealth all you want, but that doesn’t mean it is infinite.
You just contradicted yourself, Zippy. If I “can generate wealth all I want” then the potential for generating wealth is BY DEFINITION, infinite. Again – contact your university. Request a refund immediately.
- Our economy depends on consumers to consume.
You have obviously NOT been paying any attention. Consumers have been going into historic levels of debt in their consuming frenzy. The real problem – one of them, anyway – is that consumers have been consuming well beyond their ability to cover the cost.
@35
Cybergeezer,
Wahh! Wahh! Mean lefty quoting facts – hurting my brain.
I cite my sources, and I keep it clean.
DS
PS – I’ve had a few posts blocked and delayed at this site, but most moderators are intelligent enough not to block direct replies to others’ questions.
- I cite my sources…
Right. NYT agitprop. Funny.
You make several mistakes, as your own referenced sources show. One of the mistakes was failure to use adjusted dollars (the tables expressed in “2007 Dollars”) of the Census Bureau source.
That would have showed the old claim was true:
Bottom Top
Year 20% 5%
2007 20291 177000
2003 20274 173749
% diff 0.1% 1.9%
@36. goy:
Reduction in real income.
That what I just said.
The size of the pie has barely been growing, and the rich are taking almost all the growth. Productivity has gone up, but incomes have not. The only substantial correlation to more income is being rich to begin with.
Blaming the Democrats for the current crisis is dishonest, and you know it.
Why is this absurd? A penalty is punishment – there is no punishment here. I’m advocating for a reasonably progressive tax regime that would prevent the kind of situation we currently find ourselves in. Good for all.
I want to tax people according to their ability to pay. That’s not arbitrary – it is common sense. The rich get richer by extracting productive effort from workers, who are reimbursed less than the value of their contribution.
If 5% of the tax-filing public earns more than 50% of the income, more than 50% of the taxes collected ought to come from that same group. Is this so hard to understand? Or should we all pay a flat fee to be American citizens? What is your ideal tax structure? Obviously my idea of fair is different from yours.
If you want infinite wealth, you’re just an idiot. Go ahead and generate wealth as fast and as efficiently as you like – you will never generate infinite wealth. Are you truly that dense?
I agree. I think the solution is to implement tax policy to ensure that income distribution is fair enough for consumers to consume at a level that can maintain the economy. Half of our nation subsists on wages so meager that they can’t meet a basic standard of living. An economy based on consumption cannot endure when consumers are impoverished.
Based on your arguments, you think any and all socialism is bad. I disagree.
Peace.
DS
40. David S:
[link]Reduction in real income.
You honestly expect anyone to take the assessment of, quote, “a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice” over that of the WSJ. Sorry, Dave, if that’s really true you have much bigger problems than needing, desperately, to get a refund of your college tuition.
That what I just said.
Then we’re agreed. One wonders why you bothered to obfuscate the issue by even bringing it up.
The size of the pie has barely been growing, …
Wrong again. GDP – the only relevant metric on this – has been growing steadily. Perhaps not as fast as you might like, but then explosive growth is as bad or worse, if excessive, than no or negative growth.
… and the rich are taking almost all the growth.
“taking”??? There you go again, Zippy, thinking the “rich” are “taking” anything from anyone. If the pie is growing due to wealth disproportionately generated by the so-called “rich” (which you still can’t define), then naturally the portion attributed to that segment will be larger. Duh. Did you fail basic algebra or something?
Blaming the Democrats for the current crisis is dishonest, and you know it.
I “know” absolutely nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary.
Clinton (Dem) taxed excessively in his quest for a “surplus”, which the government has no business maintaining. This delayed the recovery from the early ’90s recession by years. The Republican Congress lowered cap. gains tax in ’97 and stimulated the boom Clinton takes credit for. Remaining excessive taxes (Dems), the tech bubble, loss of confidence in the market due to Enron/Worldcomm shenanigans (run during Dem administration) and 9/11 (the direct result of Dem wag-the-dog foreign policy) all conspired to destroy that boom in 2000-01, resulting in the Clinton recession he’s never taken credit for. Republican tax cuts once again led to economic growth, all-time-high federal tax revenue and a trend toward a balanced budget (even while recovering from 9/11, funding two wars and enabling a spendthrift Congress) until, bam, Dems take over Congress and the economy starts to die again, culminating with the destruction of the credit sector caused by “affordable loans”, CRA, Raines’ “Riskless” Real Estate Securities™ and Dems running interference in 2004 to prevent OFHEO oversight from doing its job.
Don’t tell me the Dems aren’t solely responsible for the ruined economy, Zippy. FDR prolonged the Depression for years unnecessarily. BHO will do exactly the same.
- Why is this absurd?
Because, Zippy, in the words of the infamous Joshua/W.O.P.R., in that game, “the only winning move is not to play”. If you’re going to be penalized by the State taking more because you’ve produced more, then the best contribution is Zero, at which point you’re given “tax credits”, aka socialist federal welfare, for contributing nothing.
- A penalty is punishment – there is no punishment here.
You’re absolutely delusional. If you spend a decade in school, then work 80-hour weeks, then leverage your home and take on the risk of a business mortgage as well as the responsibility for employees’ welfare, all to achieve success at a business that makes you wealthy – and then the state decides they’re going to take a larger percentage of what you earned simply BECAUSE you produced more than some @sshole with a philosophy degree and a basement full of band equipment who produced absolutely nothing, that’s a penalty.
- I’m advocating for a reasonably progressive tax regime that would prevent the kind of situation we currently find ourselves in.
The only thing wrong with the current situation is that too few participants in the economy are paying too large a portion of the taxes paid. You’re advocating changes that would make that situation much worse.
- I want to tax people according to their ability to pay.
Oh, really?? Sorry Zippy, but you just let the mask slip. This is, precisely, ‘from each according to his gifts, to each according to his need’ – a concept that has failed, utterly, with the attendant murder of millions, in every case where it’s ever been tried.
- That’s not arbitrary – it is common sense.
Bullshit. It’s completely arbitrary. Who determines “ability to pay”? You? The State? Based on what? The only non-arbitrary mechanism would be based on the burden one imposes on society.
- The rich get richer by extracting productive effort from workers, who are reimbursed less than the value of their contribution.
Your opinion, not supported by fact. Workers are paid what they agree to be paid. But your indoctrination tells you this is wrong. Your indoctrination tells you that some other authority – the State – should determine who is reimbursed what. Essentially, you want to set yourself or some proxy up as the arbiter for a different arrangement when you have no authority whatsoever to interpose in the agreement between an employer and an employee.
- If 5% of the tax-filing public earns more than 50% of the income, more than 50% of the taxes collected ought to come from that same group.
According to what, “ability to pay”? That’s nothing more than your opinion, based on a flawed ideology that has been a universal failure.
- Obviously my idea of fair is different from yours.
Obviously your idea of “fair” is based on a debunked ideology that has no place in the 21st Century. Enough lives were sacrificed to proving it wrong in the 20th.
- If you want infinite wealth, you’re just an idiot.
Not a question of what I “want”, Zippy. You’re missing the point entirely. Bill Whittle actually explains this better than I have the patience to do here – at least for the benefit of someone so willfully obtuse:
This process applies to pretty much any enterprise you want to pursue, subject to the limitation I noted earlier. Think about it.
- Go ahead and generate wealth as fast and as efficiently as you like – you will never generate infinite wealth.
You, uh, just contradicted yourself. Again.
- I think the solution is to implement tax policy to ensure that income distribution is fair enough for consumers to consume at a level that can maintain the economy.
Sorry, a tax policy isn’t going to accomplish this. You need consistent, stable economic growth to accomplish this in the long term. Tax penalties imposed on those who are more productive are anathema to economic growth. This has been demonstrated clearly for the past 30-50 years. If – as the government – you want to enrich the public, stop taxing businesses and capital gains. Economic growth will be thereby guaranteed. You only need to learn to spend within the resulting budget. Politicians seem incapable of comprehending this, let alone doing it.
- Based on your arguments, you think any and all socialism is bad. I disagree.
Wrong. Based on an observation of history and current events, I note that socialism has either failed miserably (DPRK,USSR) – again, with attendant loss of life in the tens of millions and the utter decimation of at least one global superpower – is in the process of failing (EU[SSR]), or morphing into something else (PRC) everywhere it’s ever been tried. You disagree because you’re either ignorant of history, or current events, or you’re one of the oblivious die-hards who think socialism will work, someday, somewhere, if it’s just “done right”.
1. The only fair tax is a flat tax but would be very difficult to implement so late in our nation’s history.
2. My hypothesis is that the progressive tax structure has increased any divergence between the poorest and the richest among us. Today, because of the tax system and government involvement at every level, the greatest return on investment is to hire a lobbyists.
3. Every business tax is a regressive tax because it becomes part of the price paid by the poor. This also applies to any cost of regulation.
Further, I suspect if we divided up what Bill Gates pays his tax accountants and lawyers among everyone who has commented here, we would all have a pretty good annual income.
I think David is trying to say the “rich” pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes. It would be better for him to argue for a flat tax, aka Ross Perot. Everything else he is saying is just blubber trying to make this point.
I think the real shocker here is how much taxes the government takes. Everyone can agree here, even David, the system need help. Its a shame each party refuses to work for a middle ground. If I had a plan to decrease the income disparity, It would be to allow the few upwardleyminded to benefit everybody instead of punishing them. Only then will you see a marked decrease in the “rich get richer poor get poorer” thinking. Which the data shown here disproves.
@41
goy,
Is the ‘Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor’ a real phenomenon?
The answer is yes.
Since you asked nicely, I won’t tell you anything about how Democratic administrations consistently achieve stronger economic performance or how Republican administrations have created an eleven figure deficit. That would just confuse you. If I explained to you the specific actions of the Bush administration that caused the bubbles that we see bursting, you would not acknowledge them. I have tried before.
Socialism does not mean what you think it does. Totalitarianism and socialism are not one and the same. The kinds of tax changes I am talking about are on the order of less than 5%. Nobody is going to miss out on the American Dream over this.
You don’t seem to understand history, you don’t seem to understand how to read a chart, and you clearly are confused about what “infinity” means.
The best way to save your ass and mine is to make sure that our economy supports the growth that you say is so important. That growth cannot occur when wages are falling.
Clinton’s term provided robust growth throughout the economy, with huge increases in employment. Times were good, and the wealth was shared somewhat. The growth under Bush was almost entirely in ‘paper’ assets. Employment stagnated, interest rates were kept low to maintain a housing bubble, and the house of cards has come crashing down.
The best way to ensure future prosperity is for unions to take a strong role in rebuilding the social safety net, and enacting tax and regulatory policy that protects consumers and prevents runaway deficit spending such as we have seen under the past 5 Republican administrations.
You may not agree with me, but at this point, that only makes me more confident that you don’t know jack.
Peace.
DS
PS – My oh my how time flies when you are having fun…
From NY Times, July 18, 2005:
Some of us saw this coming a long time ago.
David S and all,
The lower group, as it stands now, is made up predominatly of wage earners just graduating from high school and Uni. Those who are just making their way into the tax system.
Since we don’t normally start our children off with silver spoons in their mouths; this will always be so.
The media is all about telling you of the “Unfortunate”, not the truth.
David, haven’t you been part of the lower wage earners? I have, now I’m a part of the higher wager earners. But then again, I’m old. Soon to go on Social Security. Soon to have my wage drop to the lower end. Along with the rest of the Baby Boomers.
The Baby Boomers are going to inflate the lower bracket soon. Who do we blame for getting old?
Steve
@45 Steve:
At Least 65% Of Grown Up Children Are In A Household Within One Quintile Of Their Parents’ Household
We have a problem in the USA. The sooner we face it, the less painful it will be.
Peace.
DS
PS –
– Alan Greenspan, June 2005
#46 David S – That is an interesting stat. What does it mean, though? How do we translate it? Lessee….
This country PRODUCES wealth out of all proportion to its population. However, we are drifting towards socialism; losing that capitalist, can-do spirit. Our young are less capable with a college degree today than their fathers were with a high-school education. They are less honest, too. More than half cheat their way through college. They are satisfied with punching a clock, and expect that somehow, THAT will get them the kind of lifestyles they “deserve”.
Fact is, they get paid what they’re worth, which ain’t much. Before I became disabled, I outworked other workers. My pay reflected it. Hiring people was the hardest thing. It was impossible to find really good employees. Know why I outworked others? Because I worked in the hot sun of the Mojave desert in the Summer for $2.25/hr shoveling turkey manure. I learned how to really WORK! I EARNED that money! Try to find young people these days with that work ethic.
Finally, all your rants here about inequity is just childish thinking. It’s not fair! It’s not fair! Waah! It’s this kind of childish thinking that is behind Marxism. What is this assumption that the growth of earnings should be fair? All that matters is that everyone has the same rules to play by; that all have the same opportunity to get rich. Equal opportunity, not equal results. Marxism creates equal results: everyone is miserably poor except the ruling elite.
We can argue ’til we’re blue in the face, but you stick by your faulty assumptions and hear what you want to hear. It is reflecteed in your constant self-contradiction. Also, occasionally, you let the truth slip out: Marxist thinking. You’re an ideologue. You quote stats, but offer no basis for your underlying assumptions. You thus misinterpret the facts you offer.
I offer this: I am mostly blind. I’m arthritic. I have high blood-pressure. I have one year of college. I never made more than $40k/yr, because I was never a people person. I’m better about that now… too late. Still, I bet you are better-educated than I, and more tech-savvy. However, I will bet you that those who read these blogs, who are also employers, would choose me over you for hiring every time. They would, because they know I shovelled sh!t for minimum wage in the desert sun, and was happy to have the work. I was hungry! Forget college. That work ethic is incredibly hard to find!
Anyone want to back me up on that bet? Any employers out there?
David,
Sorry you didn’t understand what I was trying to say. I thought it was clear enough.
Steve
David S,
I don’t usually quote Wiki because I think it’s gotten a little political recently, just like you. But I did find this statement and hope it clears up some of the missunderstanding you have with the point I was trying to make in my first posting. I believe the source is the US Census Data.
Per Wiki:
Age of householder
Household income in the United States varies substantially with the age of the person who heads the household. Overall, the median household income increased with the age of householder until retirement age when household income started to decline.[25] The highest median household income was found among households headed by working baby-boomers.[25] Households headed by persons between the ages of 45 and 54 had a median household income of $61,111 and a mean household income of $77,634. The median income per member of household for this particular group was $27,924. The highest median income per member of household was among those between the ages of 54 and 64 with $30,544. The group with the second highest median household income, were households headed by persons between the ages 35 and 44 with a median income of $56,785, followed by those in the age group between 55 and 64 with $50,400. Not surprisingly the lowest income group was composed of those households headed by individuals younger than 24, followed by those headed by persons over the age of 75. Overall, households headed by persons above the age of seventy-five had a median household income of $20,467 with the median household income per member of household being $18,645. These figures support the general assumption that median household income as well as the median income per member of household peaked among those households headed by middle aged persons, increasing with the age of the householder and the size of the household until the householder reaches the age of 64. With retirement income replacing salaries and the size of the household declining, the median household income decreases as well.[25]
David S: Now I’m sure you can dig up another link that may put this data into question (you can find anything on the internet); but don’t you think what it quoted above is just common sense?
Steve
37. David S:
I have no, repeat NO questions for YOU. I can plainly see someone having a symbiotic relationship with themself.
(I meant to post this yesterday, but I had better things to do.)
Disparity in income is much different than disparity in SPENDING. This piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html?_r=1) exposes real difference between the rich and the poor and it turns out that’s it’s not very much. Those who harp on income inequality hide the fact that you have kids working for minimum wage while they go to school but have access to their parents income. Anyone who retires with cash in the bank but only has Social Security income is “poor.” And let’s face the reality that a huge percentage of government assistance recipients are getting paid cash under the table. They would not be counted as poor if there real income was reported.
David S.
As an owner & manager of rental property, my experience tells me that Socialists like you always ignore the most important reality of poverty.
The majority of people living in poverty in the U.S. are simply incapable of making the good decisions neded to remove themselves from poverty. Time after time after time, I have watched people unable to learn from mistakes destroy themselves by making the same bad choices over and over again. Those that are able to realize that they themselves hold the power to improve there existence (like Ms.Atitude did) ALWAYS over come the obstacles and find and make opportunities to better themselves. For those that choose not to move up (and it is a choice no matter what Liberal crud you spew), no amount of money or aid will ever improve things. Speaking personally, after years of spending my own time and money trying put people on the right path I have come to realize that the drive to improve & thrive MUST come from within for any outside assistance to work, but if a person has the drive, then outside assistance is unnessary
From the Bill Whittle link…
So write this on your palm, because there will be a test in the afterlife: if you want to help the poor by taking from the rich, all you can do is take all that they have. Take from the industrious, the ambitious, the clever and the hardworking long enough, and they will go somewhere else and get rich — again.
Like I said months ago; “His Emptiness” is going to make Jimma Carta look good. He’s now waving his magic wand at the mortgage business.
Putin is watching closely and taking notes for his “new” form of socialism.
It’s looking like the best way to eliminate the national debt, is to audit every Dumocrat, and collect the arrears and interest.
I would like to see the 99%-also I would like too see how the taxes have changed for each group- finally-four years is not a great number to draw conclusions- in fact it appears as one is looking for data to support one’s preconceived notions (the Walmart effect is hilarious-perhaps we should also factor higher education and healthcare)- the truth is median America has stagnated for 20-30 years.
Median income is a non-statistic when you don’t control for age. If the workforce is growing, logically, that means the youngest generation of workers is larger than the older age groups. Younger workers don’t earn as much because they lack experience, so the median income will go down, even if every worker has received a raise.
52. kastaco:
“The majority of people living in poverty in the U.S. are simply incapable of making the good decisions neded to remove themselves from poverty.”
I agree, a sad reality.
@52 kastaco:
What you say has merit, but you ignore that the initial conditions faced by an impoverished and uneducated person are not entirely of their own creation. Certainly it is possible to move up with hard work and effort, but you profoundly misunderstand if you believe everyone can make it “to the top”.
Fundamentally, it is not important to economic growth that people have much income mobility, but it is important that personal incomes grow in proportion to the growth of the economy to sustain that growth. The widening gap between rich and poor is a symptom of this problem.
I would also argue that outside assistance may not be necessary, but in many cases it would make the difference. Nobody survives in our society without assistance of some kind.
Peace.
DS
RE: the Wal-mart effect. I’m not going to use any self-serving references with cherry-picked data. I’m just going to go with what I know from my own experience since 2003 my grocery bill has gone up by 1/3 (even that’s conservative) — and I now buy generics instead of name brands as I did before. I’m not sure who IS seeing this supposed Wal-mart effect, but it isn’t me. Democrats may depend on class warfare, but I guess I differ in that I think my fellow Americans aren’t such sheep — if it wasn’t believable it would get no hold in the minds of average Americans.
Of course one other myth that plays into the weeping, wailing and whining crew’s meme: No one moves from one quintile to another. Ever. No way. No how. If you’re in the bottom fifth, youwill never, ever move on up.
That is, of course totally false. Or at least it would be if the government would just get the hell out of the way.
Should not some composite index normalize Gini trends with demographic trends? Is not our population becoming proportionately older, even as the Gini remains stagnant? Folks tend to make more money in peak earning years. If we have proportionately more folks in peak earning years, yet the Gini remains stagnant, that would seem not to be a good thing. Combine that with growing chasms at the very highest incomes, i.e., the accelerating number of billionaires with disproportionate influence on our politicians, and I doubt this is healthy for a representative republic. Not sure I trust your presentation.
@61. joated:
Nobody is denying that there is some income mobility – but look at the numbers and it’s clear that the income disparity is the bigger problem for our economy. Without a thriving underclass engaged in productive labor, capital is worthless.
Peace.
DS
PS – Many people move up one or even two quintiles during their most productive years, but most move back down as they age as well. Less than 1 in 20 will make the climb into the top quintile from the bottom. Even this is deceiving, because the disparity within the upper quintile is massive.
Just don’t deceive yourself – capital is nothing without labor. Keeping the masses productively employed is crucial for capitalism to thrive.
Here, to me, is the root of the problem: GREED! I just can’t fathom how ANYBODY could be worth a $14 million bonus. I’m going to catch a lot of flack for this, but I’ll say it anyway: We, as a country need a maximum wage. Not to bring the Richy Riches of the good ol’ US down so much as to bring the others that got a degree, work hard and contribute to a company up. (Isn’t the same thing happening right now with the executives of the banks and such (that accepted bailout money) having their incomes brought down to no more than the President makes?)
Just think: The rule could be that within each company, the CEO (or highest paid) is not allowed to make more than 10 times the amount of the lowest-paid (bonuses included). So, if that dude is cashing in for 1 million a year, then his secretary gets no less than $100,000.
The moral of the story: The CEO is still raking in the cash and now so is his secretary. It means that everybody wins!
Call me a marxist/commie/socialist or whatever you would like.
Hang on while I call the fire department-cause I’m sure to be flamed for this one!
By the way, I’m a staunch conservative who has voted Republican in every election that I could since being old enough to vote.
Flame away!!!
A very interesting and compelling case. A related issue is the tendency of some pols to use “household income” stats to represent “family income.” Median household income in the lower groups hasn’t risen so much in part because of the changing nature of households — more retired people, more single retirees, more young, pre-marriage single people setting up separate households, more single mothers, etc. It would be interesting to merge these two approaches to analyzing the numbers to see what the reality is.
Check out my blog at:
http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/
It is also interesting to see people use and compare raw profits rather than profit margins. Once percentages come into the conversation – the socialists tend to shut up, if they wish to maintain a thread of respect.
David S.
You’re an effing troll from Huff-Po.
Take your juvenile B.S. back there. You’re boring us!
@67. Cybergeezer:
I understand that being exposed to reality disturbs you. Please remember not to read my posts if you are easily offended. Thanks!
Peace.
DS
“- If 5% of the tax-filing public earns more than 50% of the income, more than 50% of the taxes collected ought to come from that same group.
According to what, “ability to pay”? That’s nothing more than your opinion, based on a flawed ideology that has been a universal failure.”
??? Much emotion! Not surprising, because not all important factors are reducible to simple computation. Hence, class warfare, often based more on selfishness than on basic empathy or decent principles.
A few concerns:
1) Folks making just enough to get by tend to become debt slaves to credit extenders. Folks with capital above what they need to pay basic debts tend to have opportunities to increase leveraging as such capital increases, not necessarily by reference to merit, skill, or industry.
2) Folks who take advantage of opportunities for leveraging wealth are also taking advantage of resources they do not necessarily own, or resources in which all have an interest.
Such as: Common environmental resources; access to means for reorienting public “education” and perceptions; influencing payback networks of fellow promoters and dolers of corporate welfare; influencing political means for keeping the working class utterly dependent.
COMMENT: Who more deserves access to such resources: The Vet who gave his arm and leg to protect us; or the sharpie who benefits from insider advantages?
NOTE: Lib Socialists and Blueblood Repubs work in concert to keep the working class utterly dependent, Socialists more so than Capitalists.
3) Great disparities in wealth distort economic markets as well as “political markets,” and often reduce the dream of opportunity to engage in free expression (both in speech and in enterprise) to something not unlike a hoax.
BOTTOM LINE: A principled position would advocate for Fair Markets, to be no more monopolized or regulated than necessary to moderate reasonable opportunity for all to enjoy freedom of political expression and economic enterprise.
To achieve this, both ends of such markets should be moderated.
That is:
(1) Governmental intrusion against business should be no more than necessary to preserve fair markets; and
(2) Consumption of wealth should be taxed progressively, to protect an otherwise free republic from the rise of a political aristocracy of wealth, ever increasing in its capacity for insider leveraging.
For protecting fair markets for economic and political expression against Lib and Blueblood depredations, we need to factor more than the Gini index.
Is it not obvious that the greater part of American society is being reduced to the mind control and benumbed direction of abusers on both ends of our political spectrum?
What we need are some Red Assed Moderates!
@44. David S: - The answer is yes.
Not according to the available data.
- Socialism does not mean what you think it does. Totalitarianism and socialism are not one and the same.
Very sadly proposed straw man, since that’s not at all what I think, nor have I inferred as much.
- Clinton’s term provided robust growth throughout the economy, with huge increases in employment.
Dead wrong. Clinton’s first term stunted recovery. It wasn’t until the cap. gains tax reduction in 1997 that the economy saw any real growth. Nothing Clinton did – other than sign the Republicans’ bill – did anything to provide growth.
- The best way to ensure future prosperity is for unions to take a strong role in rebuilding the social safety net, …
Absolutely wrong. You will never have a strong economy if business is saddled with the level of taxes required to provide everyone with a “safety net”. Europe is proving this for you right now.
Everyone has made very valid points. Certainly in this economy, we can see the gap widening, as millions have lost jobs in ’09 and ’10 alone. With faith in God, determination to achieve, and those that create home-based business as supplemental or sustainable income, we can overcome the diversity set forth. Granted, we do in fact have issues with jobs being lost to other countries, a flood of immigration, and pay cuts, there is no need for citizens of this country to point fingers and blame others for their misfortunes. The key to success is in our own hearts and minds.