So http://dkva.net/wo5m-call-blocker-for-lumia/ A spy sweeper for iphone This mobile tracker per android When http://haciendajireh.com/ouas/phone-spy-samsung-2ak/ Skin http://heartofafiercewoman.com/spy-mobile-computer-yyn/.
FacebookTwitter

The Income Inequality Canard

By on Dec 4, 2013 | 37 comments

Share On GoogleShare On FacebookShare On Twitter

Head in Hands

 

You may have noticed that the media is once again throwing around the term “income inequality” in recent days. If you’re attuned to the political environment, you probably know why. Democrats are in trouble and they need a narrative change. ObamaCare is wreaking havoc on a fifth of the US economy and there’s an election a year from now.

The Democrat Media Complex needs a new shiny. Democrats need to figure out a way to buy some votes and they’ve settled on raising the federal minimum wage. Now, they’ve lost this battle over and over again for years, but they’re desperate. They can’t run on their economic record. They can’t run on ObamaCare. It is time to reach deep into the well and break out the class warfare nonsense. A debate about raising the minimum wage, based on the economic realities – aka facts – of such a move, is a losing one for Democrats. They need to go the “feelings” route.

Enter “Income Inequality.”

How do you convince people that there’s this horrible thing out there needing to be fixed? How do you get people to “feel” a sense of panic so they don’t apply reason to any proposed solutions? The first step is to make it sound like it’s the biggest problem ever. You direct people’s attention to the “evil rich” and all their stuff and you stir up a collective envy of these things the rich have and you don’t. You talk about how the top (insert whatever convenient percentage) of people have (insert whatever percentage of wealth / stuff) and how this, THIS, is why your life sucks. Everything would be better – you’d have more stuff! – if only the “evil rich” didn’t have as much stuff.

They think like this. The leftist brain is wired somehow to think that if the rich are less rich, the poor will be less poor. This is core progressive dogma. It isn’t backed up by a shred of data, but they believe it. It is their religion, except that there’s never been one “miracle” or any other hint that it’s true.

They even have experts on the subject. Yes, allegedly smart people have spent their lives studying “income inequality” and they’re experts on it. And, you guessed it, these experts thought Obama’s speech on the topic today was “historic.” That must have been some speech! Let’s see what he proposed and why it got income inequality experts all tingly.

A few key takeaways from the speech: Obama described the decline in economic mobility as a direct consequence of inequality — as opposed to arguing that lack of mobility is itself the problem — and as the product of trends that are decades in the making. He cast the need to ensure that ”opportunity is real” for our children as “the defining issue of our time.”

Ah, I see. It’s not the crappy economy, the lack of jobs, burdensome regulations, the refusal to exploit our vast natural resources, ObamaCare, or the like. No, people. The problem is the rich have too much stuff. Inequality is why the economy sucks. (I can’t even imagine actually believing this nonsense. Let’s move on.)

Obama also argued that current levels of inequality and lack of opportunity as out of sync with the country’s founding values, noting that “the premise that we’re all created equal is the opening line in the American story,” and that the way to preserve that promise is to ensure that “success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit.”

Pretty rich coming from Obama who was hoisted up through the political ranks without either.

And, crucially, Obama described the overall problem as the result of the rich pulling away from the rest. He noted that the share of the country’s wealth is increasingly going to the top while tax cuts for the wealthiest have cut into investments that benefit the rest, emphasizing that this has made it harder for poor children to escape poverty. Meanwhile middle class incomes have stagnated thanks to technological advances and declining unions. Result: The “basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed.”

By the way, when Leftists say “investments” they mean “government spending.” Now re-read that paragraph and remember that the country has spent trillions of dollars fighting a War on Poverty for over 50 years. There is no lack of “investments.” They just don’t ever work the way the Left imagines they do. A rational person would look at the track record of these “investments” and say, “Hmmm. Maybe this really isn’t the most efficient way to lift people out of poverty.” Leftists, however, see the problem as “Dammit! We’re not spending enough! Let’s soak the rich some more.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m itching for some policy details to see how they plan to fix this horrible income inequality thing. How do they propose to address this crisis? Let’s see:

Obama discussed the need to prioritize growth; for universal pre-K education; to raise the minimum wage; tax and trade policies that encourage companies to grow here; more investments in worker retraining; proposals to reduce the cost of going to college; and other ideas.

We’ll go in order.

Prioritize growth? I’m skeptical. Do they even know what growth means? Have these people ever grown anything besides the government budget? Wait, that’s probably what they’re talking about. Growing “investment” – aka government spending. Because that always works.

Universal pre-K. Huh? I thought the problem was income inequality?

Raising the minimum wage. There it is! They want to buy votes, period. Raising the minimum wage will cause a rounding error in income inequality. The impact of raising the minimum wage on income inequality would be so small it wouldn’t even register. But it’s something, they’ll say. It’ll feel good. Trust us this time, baby. You know we love you.

Tax and trade policies that encourage companies to grow here. Now this might actually do something. Thing is, this is lip service. Democrats will never follow through with this without demanding some other policy that will effectively negate the economic growth from good tax and trade policy. “Oh, yeah. Here are some incentives for you to grow here. And in a couple of years, we will figure out a way to take it from you.” It’s how they roll.

More investments in worker training. Does anyone know what this means? We hear it all the time and for the life of me, I can’t figure out what it means. Which workers? Train them to do what? Where? WTF are they talking about? Companies train their workers because they need them to be productive to make money. The government doesn’t need to “invest” in this and none of it will have an impact on income inequality. You train workers to do the job you’re paying them to do. You don’t hire someone at $x / hour and then give them a raise after you train them. You hire them at $x / hour and you train them to do the job that pays $x / hour. If they excel, you promote them and give them more money. What does the government have to do with any of this?

Proposals to reduce the cost of going to college. That’s nice. The problem is that the stuff they propose to reduce the cost of going to college actually winds up making college more expensive. Tinkering with college loans does absolutely nothing to reduce tuition. And while being college educated does lead to higher paying jobs, in 10 years those people will be considered “rich” and used as evidence that income inequality is out of control. Neat trick, right?

So you see, it’s all a canard. “Income inequality is the defining issue of our time,” Obama said today. No it isn’t, but even if it were, they’re not proposing anything to actually address it. They just really need you to think they are so that you forget how badly they’ve governed over the last few years. They just want to raise the minimum wage.

End of story.

The following two tabs change content below.
RB has been battling Progressive “logic” online since 2002. A lifelong Conservative originally from New York City (Queens), he spent his formative years watching Jimmy Carter being the worst President in modern times and then Ronald Reagan being the greatest President in modern times. A firm believer in American Exceptionalism, Free Enterprise, and Limited Government (Madisonian, to be exact).

37 Comments

  1. JeddMcHead

    December 4, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Well done! As a “recovering liberal” (clean since the mid 90′s) I salute you, RB, you nailed it.

  2. Matt Given

    December 4, 2013

    Post a Reply

    I think there are 3 more things worth pointing out in the faux “income inequality” debate.

    (1) Those who rail against income inequality like to evaluate groups of people, like the rich or the poor, without accounting for the characteristics of the individuals in those groups. For example, we’d all expect a well educated 50 year old who has spent a career in a chosen field, and risen to somewhere near the top of that field, to make more than a 23 year old who is fresh out of college and just entering the workforce, right? Not according to the income inequality crowd. That 50 year old gets lumped into ‘the rich’ and the 23 year old gets lumped into ‘the poor.’ Is that something we are supposed to solve? It also doesn’t account for education level. Do we really expect someone who choses to work on cars for a living to make an equal income with someone who has chosen to get an MBA from Wharton, or be a neurosurgeon? Income Equality hacks analyze the statistics as if these differences are a problem.

    (2) Income inequality hacks do not account for individuals moving from poor to rich and visa-versa. A thoughtful analysis of the stats from generation to generation show that children of poor parents have great opportunity to move up in income strata. Similarly, children of the very rich tend to move down. Individuals are different than statistical group. But, they analyze the groups as if the very same flesh and blood people are always poor and the very same flesh and blood people are always rich. In reality, individuals move up and down within a generation and children move up and down from parents.

    (3) There is no society, now or in history, that has achieved the Income Equality that the left aspires to. In fact, many societies that employ or more leftist system of governance have a greater disparity between the haves and the have nots.

    Keep up the good work!

    • mmmjv

      December 5, 2013

      Post a Reply

      I don’t know one person who says that the just out of school 20 year old should be making as much as the experienced 50 year old. I have no problem with people making huge amounts of money, but when the company that they’re supposed to be running starts to go under and they expect the people working pay check to pay check to take pay cuts while their own salary of tens of millions of dollars stays untouched, heck goes up in some cases like Hostess, then yes that is greed

      • Matt Given

        December 5, 2013

        Post a Reply

        I don’t think anyone knows one person that would think a 20 year old and 50 year should make the same, but that’s how the statistics are analyzed to show this great income inequality gap. I’m just pointing it out.

    • Boris Wigglebotton

      December 6, 2013

      Post a Reply

      Matt – There is probably a lot of confusion in the income inequality debate, but I don’t think you are representing it correctly. Most people understand the value of experience and education. I think the debate is more about the quality and pay scale of available jobs, as well as the preferential treatment of the wealthy (ie. Mitt Romney paying 0% taxes while the rest of us dumb schmucks pay 25-30%). I’m not saying there are not people who are envious of the wealthy – Lord knows I’d like a bit of that cash – but I think that our friends on the right are fond of dismissing the whole debate as envy, or class warfare, and this is simply a dodge to avoid a subject which they feel sounds a little too much like Marxism. Also I would check out your assumptions regarding income inequality and “leftist system(s)” as income inequality in the US (according to the Gini coefficient) is far higher, almost double, that of the Scandanavian countries which still have a more decidedly socialist policy mix.

      • Matt Given

        December 6, 2013

        Post a Reply

        Boris – You’re right, most people do understand the link between education, experience, age and earning potential. It’s intuitive. My critique is with the constructs of the studies so frequently cited to prove that income is somehow unfairly distributed. Simply, age, experience, and education are left out as accountable variables by those that want to represent income inequality as occurring by some other variable. It’s indicative of an agenda driven study. All you need to do is look through the demographics – if any are published – of the different groups, usually quintiles from poor to rich, to see the same. My point is, you should fully expect variables in income distribution. And in a market that is relatively freer than its compares (like Scandinavian countries), the distribution will be wider as, on the margins, achievement yields greater rewards and failure a bigger downside. Yet, the publishers of these studies do not account for, much less disclose these elements as their agenda driven and hold conclusions that are fait accompli. “There is a wide distribution of income. This is bad, no matter the reason. Government must do something.”

        Anyone who digs one layer below the surface can see the warts on these studies and the conclusions that are drawn from them.

        The Gini coefficient has flaws. The 2 big ones are that it considers relative, not absolute income (or wealth). For example, if the poorest person in the US still made 100K / year and the richest person made a gazillion-billion / yr, the US would have a “high Gini.” Another country might have a lower Gini but no one has any income. Where would you rather live?

        Second, Gini fans are great at separating income and wealth when it proves their point. If you plot a Gini that incorporates wealth on your Scandinavian examples, you get a very different answer, as is the case with most countries that are closer to a socialist system.

  3. Marbran

    December 5, 2013

    Post a Reply

    I’m really getting sick of the “college opportunity” meme, as well. College has become a money making, leftist enterprise in control and indoctrination, which explains why government assistance for college is so readily available. Just 30 years ago, you still had to demonstrate that you were academically ready for college before they would accept you, young or old, which meant that only the best and brightest were usually accepted. It was competitive, and fostered hard work and dedication if you wanted to “get in.” The funding for the education was a lesser matter, and could be worked out via grant, loan, etc.

    But since colleges have turned into money machines, with the quality of the education being a secondary or even tertiary concern, and with the proliferation of online education, everyone and anyone is told they should go to college, get a degree, and prosper. Except, getting any old degree doesn’t guarantee anyone anything, especially if you get a degree in a field that is flooded, like education or business. The US has more people in college per capita than most any other nations, yet we rank 40th in ability. 40th!! And this rube wants to commit more Americans, many of whom are unable to handle today’s surprisingly paltry college education workload, with more debt that they are likely never to pay off, which will then become “our nation’s problem to fix” no doubt via increased taxes and more wealth redistribution.

    Unbelievable.

  4. johninohio1

    December 5, 2013

    Post a Reply

    When they say “train workers” they mean train those who have lost their middle class jobs in declining industries. The problem is that getting training for a job that is unrelated to your old job puts you at the bottom of the recruiter’s list because of a lack of experience. Training isn’t enough. And if you’re older than about 45, you’re seen more as a liability–one reason being that if they hire you, they can’t pay you more than a kid with the same level of training and experience. Therefore, you’re going to start looking for a better job on your first day there. Don’t get me wrong. Retraining will work for some, but “some” isn’t good enough. And the money spent training people for jobs they’ll never get makes training a make-work project for trainers.

  5. johninohio1

    December 5, 2013

    Post a Reply

    “Universal pre-K.”
    Code for free/cheap babysitting so mothers can get jobs–except that there aren’t enough jobs, and mom can do pretty well on wefare, anyway.

  6. johninohio1

    December 5, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Inequality of incomes is inherent to any free market system because the fundamental principle is that money should flow to those who put it to work successfully. No business can even get started without a chunk of cash, whether your own or invested by people who have a lot. And they have a lot because they’re good at recognizing a good idea and an able business person. Money that’s been distributed to everyone without regard for business acumen will never be invested, only spent on already existing products and services. If pools of cash are drained in this way, there will never be innovation and the new jobs that it creates.

  7. mmmjv

    December 5, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Cons have no business at all complaining about class warfare. They engage in class warfare constantly and always against the working people. When you call working people “takers” or “moochers who think the government owes them a living” that’s class warfare. When you always blame the working people regardless of the facts that is class warfare. When the cons blames the union for Hostess going under when the union had in fact accepted a pay cut while the upper management didn’t, in fact they gave themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses and pay raises, that is class warfare.

    • johninohio1

      December 5, 2013

      Post a Reply

      People who work for a living are, by definition, producers, the very ones we conservatives are trying to protect. The moochers are the ones who aren’t getting as much as they want and want government, not economic imperatives, to decide how much they are worth to the economy.
      The problem with liberals is that, though they fancy themselves as spiritual or non-materialistic, actually measure a persons worth as a human being by how much they have and get. So naturally, if you aren’t in the upper 1%, your humanity is being devalued. Thus it becomes a moral issue to liberals. Thus, “Social Injustice”, “social” meaning “economic”.
      And oh, how liberals do love feeling morally superior. And it doesn’t cost them a cent.
      Is America great, or what?!

      • mmmjv

        December 5, 2013

        Post a Reply

        No, the “moochers” are the ones whose income isn’t high enough for them to have to pay income taxes, just as Mitt. If he’s not too busy hunting varmints if you will. It’s the cons who measure people’s worth by how much they have. If you’re rich then to the cons you’re a god. As far as being morally superior if you mean compared to cons we are

        • johninohio1

          December 5, 2013

          Now you want to hate on Romney? You’re flailing, buddy.
          But I do thank you for confirming my opinion of liberals. I bow to your superior virtue.

        • Boris Wigglebotton

          December 6, 2013

          Nobody is “hating on Romney”. mmmjv is exactly right. Conservatives regard the “job creators” as demi-gods whose wealth and income (oh wait it’s not income it’s Capital Gains!) is not to be sullied by taxation. This is a caste system upheld by the self-hating working class right to place people such as Romney in the First Class Cabin of our economy to protect them from the teaming smelly masses in the back of the plane. Oh hail great job creator! We are not Worthy!

      • Boris Wigglebotton

        December 6, 2013

        Post a Reply

        During slavery economic imperatives directly decided how much people were worth. By your standards that was the most moral system I suppose.

    • johninohio1

      December 5, 2013

      Post a Reply

      Anyone calling themselves conservatives can say anything in a blog. I haven’t seen one claim the unions were to blame for Hostess going under, though it doesn’t matter. Is it a fact? Who knows. Did management give themselves bonuses as the company failed? Who knows? If they did, it’s their company–they can do whatever they want. If they hadn’t taken bonuses would the company have survived? Highly unlikely. Does it matter to you that Hostess was bought out and their products will be back on the shelves, and the employees will continue to have jobs? Doubtful. Your moral indignation is too precious to permit facts to get in the way.

      • mmmjv

        December 5, 2013

        Post a Reply

        You haven’t heard anyone claim the union was at fault for Hostess going under?? Did you type that with a straight face? How about Forbes? http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/11/22/shame-on-the-gluttonous-bakery-union-members-blasted-twinkie-killers/ or the National Review “Blame Unions for the Hostess Bankruptcy” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/333668/blame-unions-hostess-bankruptcy-james-sherk or these people here on Faux Noise http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/fox-blames-union-hostess-bankruptcy-ignore These people on Faux Noise also blame the union http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/16/fox-ignores-hostess-array-of-troubles-to-scapeg/191440 or how about Katie Pavlich, news editor at townhall.com? “Labor Unions Kill the Twinkie and 18,000 Jobs” http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/16/labor_unions_kill_twinkie_and_18000_jobs Did you think I wouldn’t be able to find this stuff?

        Yes the management gave themselves huges bonuses and pay raises and yes it is their company and they can do what they want THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S THE UNIONS FAULT. Would the company have survived if they hadn’t taken those bonuses and pay raises? Why does that matter? The fact is it doesn’t. What does matter is that they took huge bonuses and pay raises while the union had already accepted a pay cut, that is what matters. Does it matter to me that Hostess was bought out? I will never again buy or eat another Hostess product, not after the way they screwed the workers.

        • johninohio1

          December 5, 2013

          Well, if conservatives and capitalists say something is true, then it must be false. That’s my take on this comment.
          So, what you’re saying is that as a reward to themselves for getting the unions to cut their earnings, they gave themselves bonuses, but since the cuts were too little, too late to save the company, it’s whose fault the company went bankrupt? Is it the unions for not accepting a bigger cut, or management for not holding out for a bigger cut? And how big was the cut in dollar terms compared to the bonuses? And should every company that passes out bonuses ask you to pass judgement on the rectitude of so doing? Or your sugar daddy, the feds? Is there any limit to what you would like to control?

        • mmmjv

          December 6, 2013

          You don’t have an answer do you? You’ve lost the argument and so you’ve resorted to asking dumb questions. I have no idea why they gave themselves huge bonuses and pay raises other than that they’re greedy. Who’s fault is it the company failed? Hey, here’s a way to paraphrase that question, WHO WAS RUNNING THE COMPANY?. I’ll say it again even though I doubt it will ever sink in. THE UNIONS TOOK A PAY CUT AND MANAGEMENT GAVE THEMSELVES MILLIONS IN BONUSES AND PAY RAISES. I don’t care what the ratio of pay cut to bonus and pay raise was. THE UNIONS TOOK A PAY CUT AND MANAGEMENT GAVE THEMSELVES MILLIONS IN BONUSES AND PAY RAISES. What part of THE UNIONS TOOK A PAY CUT AND MANAGEMENT GAVE THEMSELVES MILLIONS IN BONUSES AND PAY RAISES do you not get? What part of the unions made a sacrifice to keep the company going and management didn’t is too complicated for you to comprehend? This isn’t debateble, it’s not like they both made sacrifices and you can argue that one side or the other should have given more. This is a case of THE UNIONS TOOK A PAY CUT AND MANAGEMENT GAVE THEMSELVES MILLIONS IN BONUSES AND PAY RAISES.

        • johninohio1

          December 6, 2013

          Basically, I think you’re making a big deal out of nothing. This kind of thing happens all the time. All it proves is that people aren’t perfect and neither are the systems of economics, law and everything else we come up with. The problem, it seems to me, is that you expect way more than you should, and believe you’re smart enough to tweak capitalism, or replace it with a fully socialist system, and make it perfect. It ain’t gonna happen. It’s too complex for you or anyone else to anticipate all the consequences and plan for them. Pure capitalism, which we don’t have, actually, is an open system where millions of people all over the country make millions of decisions every day. You want to replace it with a centrally directed system in which the “best and brightest” make all the decisions and force those millions of people to obey their rules and decisions. It ends in chaos. It ends in economic stagnation.
          Human nature doesn’t change. The corrupt people, or type of people, who end up wealthy as capitalists, when forced into a socialist system, will become the corrupt commissars of the new system. An all powerful system attracts people who want to be all powerful. In case you haven’t noticed, that is the current trend.

        • mmmjv

          December 6, 2013

          This isn’t “nothing” This is the unions accepting a pay cut while management gives themselves millions in bonuses and pay raises and the rightwing saying the unions are to blame. That is not nothing

    • RBPundit

      December 6, 2013

      Post a Reply

      “Cons have no business at all complaining about class warfare. They engage in class warfare constantly and always against the working people. When you call working people “takers” or “moochers who think the government owes them a living” that’s class warfare.”

      Yeah, conservatives are constantly engaging in class warfare by trying to make it easier for companies to create jobs. Jobs are so anti-worker.

      Please.

      We don’t call working people takers and moochers because working people are, by definition, not takers and moochers. We call takers and moochers, “takers and moochers.”

      • mmmjv

        December 6, 2013

        Post a Reply

        There is a deep contempt, I’d say even a hatred, of working people on the right. It’s not only “takers” and “moochers” but it’s also things like Newt Gingrich being cheered when he advocated people losing their jobs. It’s the knee jerk reaction of the right to always blame the workers, even in the case of Hostess. It’s calling it “class warfare” to mention that CEOs make hundreds of millions of dollars and then complaining about bus drivers making tens of thousands of dollars

        • Boris Wigglebotton

          December 6, 2013

          “There is a deep contempt, I’d say even a hatred, of working people on the right.” – It’s absolutely true! They claim to value work but they don’t.

        • RBPundit

          December 9, 2013

          I like how you guys keep talking about conservatives like if we’re not “working people” too. That’s really cute how you do that.

          Adorable, even.

      • Boris Wigglebotton

        December 6, 2013

        Post a Reply

        “We don’t call working people takers and moochers” – But, essentially, you do. You (conservatives in general – I don’t know about you specifically) like to claim how those on SNAP are living high on the hog, for example, buying sushi and bon bons while not doing a lick of work. You already have in your mind a story that explains why 48 million people in this country are a total failure at life and it is always their fault because they are lazy, and taking away food stamps and other gov’t help will somehow spur them to get off the couch and combing the want ads. You conveniently ignore the fact that many poor people with families work 2 or more jobs and still can’t afford to feed their kids healthy food. You completely fail to explain why, if people don’t want to work, that the number of people on food stamps doubled after 2008, as if there was this mass movement to quit your job so that the $4 a day you can get on SNAP would start rolling in like manna from heaven. mmmjv does not lie here – I see this from conservatives all…. the …. time…. and they STILL want to cut billions from food stamps!

    • Boris Wigglebotton

      December 6, 2013

      Post a Reply

      This is something which bears repeatedly pointing out. Since the 1% rely on blaming the poor for wrecking the economy they must demonize them as lazy lie-abouts when nothing could be further from the truth. A large portion of the impoverished work their butts off, more so than the typical middle-class worker, which makes it all the more galling when the insensitive self-righteous bullies on the right call them lazy. The incessant war on the poor — perfected to an art form by St. Reagan — is unbearable to endure, but the right needs to hammer it home repeatedly because they understand that if the poor ever took a break from their struggle to survive and became truly politically active and fought back the whole free ride and “corporations are people” whining would be over for the richy rich crowd. It could just yet happen (see: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders).

  8. theashtree

    December 5, 2013

    Post a Reply

    “Ah, I see. It’s not the crappy economy, the lack of jobs, burdensome
    regulations, the refusal to exploit our vast natural resources,
    ObamaCare, or the like. No, people. The problem is the rich have too
    much stuff. Inequality is why the economy sucks.”

    People believe this. And it is quite horrifying.

      • theashtree

        December 6, 2013

        Post a Reply

        I agree with that. But then the fundamental question is: How do we fix the actual problem? Many people my age are starting to realize that government cannot really help us, what with bureaucracy and career politicians.

        • Boris Wigglebotton

          December 6, 2013

          I don’t think all politicians are the same, but there is a lot of money in politics and it doesn’t come from the poor or middle class, so government is not likely to work for the middle class or the impoverished. It’s not that it can’t it just won’t. First thing is to get money out of politics but the opposite is happening and has been for a while.

        • theashtree

          December 6, 2013

          I agree with that, too. Grassroots organizing is the way to go. But since money in politics probably isn’t going anywhere, what do we do in the interim? I mean, if the system is damaged, I don’t see the point in giving it more power over my life.

  9. Boris Wigglebotton

    December 6, 2013

    Post a Reply

    If you think income inequality is a myth, then I would like to see your arguments as to why it supposedly doesn’t exist. Or maybe you simply think it doesn’t matter. Or maybe you think it’s all “the governments fault”? Sure, the Democrats are playing a familiar political card but it’s a ploy that works. It works because poverty exists on a large scale in this country and middle-class wages have stagnated and people look around and see the stock market at record highs (even if it’s a bubble) and crooked Wall Street execs buying their way out of prison. How are they able to do that? Not only is there economic inequality there is a virtual caste system in our country where the wealthy can screw over the rest of us and walk away unharmed. The bankers can gamble with house money, win millions and get bailed out when they lose. CEOs sit on each other’s boards of directors and vote each other ever skyrocketing pay packages simply because they can while their workers have to go on food stamps. The Democrats may be inept or even part of the problem but unlike you they don’t deny that there is a problem. Why should people vote for the party that does?

  10. hal8196

    December 6, 2013

    Post a Reply

    If the college professors and administrators and politicians are so worried about income inequality, I have an idea. Let’s cut their pay and benefits in half and eliminate all unnecessary elective college courses and cut the cost per credit hour to enable college tuition to be more affordable. They are all hypocrites!

  11. johninohio1

    December 6, 2013

    Post a Reply

    Ok, I’ve read all your heart rending complaints. Now I would like to know what kind of world you would like to create. What would be utopia? And please make an effort to be realistic and rational. How do you deal with the Soros’, the Romneys,the Gates, of the world. Or would there be any?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. WWGO – December 5, 2013 | Irascible Musings - […] The Income Inequality Canard | Pocket Full of Liberty […]

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>