Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/g...story.html

Jim Demint- big gov't benefits the rich.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-...efits-rich

Also true.

(04-22-2014 11:41 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/g...story.html

Are you saying that like it's a bad thing?

(04-22-2014 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:41 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/g...story.html

Are you saying that like it's a bad thing?

What did you think of Will's article? I think he nailed it like he usually does.

(04-22-2014 10:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:41 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/g...story.html

Are you saying that like it's a bad thing?

What did you think of Will's article?

Pfft. fitbud can't read at that level.

Here is the Gini coefficient, generally regarded as the most comprehensive indicator of income inequality (higher = more unequal) for the US since 1967, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/da...nequality/

Year Gini Coefficient
2010 0.397
2009 0.404
2008 0.403
2007 0.394
2006 0.411
2005 0.409
2004 0.405
2003 0.401
2002 0.405
2001 0.409
2000 0.405
1999 0.399
1998 0.393
1997 0.394
1996 0.393
1995 0.388
1994 0.395
1993 0.389
1992 0.360
1991 0.355
1990 0.359
1989 0.362
1988 0.355
1987 0.353
1986 0.355
1985 0.348
1984 0.342
1983 0.340
1982 0.340
1981 0.334
1980 0.331
1979 0.335
1978 0.333
1977 0.332
1976 0.328
1975 0.327
1974 0.326
1973 0.330
1972 0.336
1971 0.328
1970 0.326
1969 0.326
1968 0.333
1967 0.340
For suggested citations, see http://www.census.gov/main/www/citation.html
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsmar11.pdf[PDF].

Note the change by presidential administration:
Nixon -.007
Ford +.002
Carter +.003
Reagan +.024
Bush I +.005
Clinton +.045
Bush II -.002
Obama Incomplete (down .006 for two years shown, but that does not include what has happened since)

The two best periods for economic growth were Reagan and Clinton, and those had by far the greatest increases in income inequality.

(04-22-2014 11:41 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Op/ed, but it gives evidence, and I happen to agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/g...story.html

That is their objective.

(04-23-2014 10:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The two best periods for economic growth were Reagan and Clinton, and those had by far the greatest increases in income inequality.

Which makes perfect sense.

"Risk" will ALWAYS have a higher rate of return than no-risk. Workers/Employees don't take risk. Owners do. While it is certainly true that a diversified portfolio of risks can virtually eliminate most risks, there are STILL risks taken (if only the risk of timing of those returns and the need to front expenses hoping to get paid back later which the poor cannot do) there is an inherent advantage to having financial reserves.

The poor are virtually assured of having only the ability to grow their wealth equal to a combination of inflation plus their upward mobility. The wealthy have these, PLUS the advantage of those reserves. So they will ALWAYS make more than the poor and grow faster than the poor.

If you take this away and basically make it so that the poor are rewarded more than the rich (which is the ONLY way to really reduce this gap) then the rich won't utilize their reserves because there is no reason for them to do so, or they at least won't utilize them 'here' (under our taxing authority).

This concept is simple, but lost on the left. They seem to think they can eliminate the upside for the wealthy without discouraging them from taking those risks at all or seeking ways to avoid that elimination.

(04-23-2014 10:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The two best periods for economic growth were Reagan and Clinton, and those had by far the greatest increases in income inequality.

Yes and the lifestyle of the average “poor” person in America is astonishingly comfortable by any normal standard, even in times of great income inequality.

It's obvious that the general improvement in living standards that has taken place in the United States over the last generation has enormously benefited the poorest Americans. Yet by defining the “poor” as those Americans who have the lowest cash incomes, liberals take all improvements in living standards out of the equation.

In modern America poverty is not so much a material condition but is characterized by drug abuse, alcoholism, mental illness and illegitimacy, among other things.

(04-23-2014 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  (The Left) seem to think they can eliminate the upside for the wealthy without discouraging them from taking those risks at all or seeking ways to avoid that elimination.

This forms the predicate for Obama’s desire to wage class warfare and ramp up redistributive policies to the maximum extent possible.

(04-23-2014 11:06 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The two best periods for economic growth were Reagan and Clinton, and those had by far the greatest increases in income inequality.

Yes and the lifestyle of the average “poor” person in America is astonishingly comfortable by any normal standard, even in times of great income inequality.

It's obvious that the general improvement in living standards that has taken place in the United States over the last generation has enormously benefited the poorest Americans. Yet by defining the “poor” as those Americans who have the lowest cash incomes, liberals take all improvements in living standards out of the equation.

In modern America poverty is not so much a material condition but is characterized by drug abuse, alcoholism, mental illness and illegitimacy, among other things.

(04-23-2014 10:55 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  (The Left) seem to think they can eliminate the upside for the wealthy without discouraging them from taking those risks at all or seeking ways to avoid that elimination.

This forms the predicate for Obama’s desire to wage class warfare and ramp up redistributive policies to the maximum extent possible.

Well said