Posted on 09/14/2010 12:04:32 AM PDT by tysonbam
Liberals Defy Economic Reality
There is a fundamental problem when the people in power in America absolutely refuse to face facts. Nancy Pelosi is one of these people. I am blue in the face from screaming this but I feel obligated to say it again. I am not rich, I am not a crony, I am simply an economist who wants what is best for this country which is ultimately what is best for me. Liberals and Democrats without regard for the truth keep telling Americans that the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. Keeping the tax cuts for the top income earners is a massive giveaway to the wealthy. This is absolutely false.
The leaders in Washington have a complete disconnect from economic reality. Over the past 41 years 76% of the time the poor benefited from the rich getting richer or suffered from the rich getting poorer. Only 7% of the time did the poor get richer while the rich got poorer. That is undeniable reality and basic logic. If the person paying your check isn't making more money how in the world can you think you will make more money or your employer will hire other workers to share the work load? In the real world you can't.
Liberals and Democrats will tell you that the rich have a larger portion of wealth in America than in the past. They do, but the amount wealth is greater. We are dividing up a bigger pie. Outside of recessions we are all getting wealthier and that is a good thing. According to the US Census Bureau in 1967 the lowest fifth of income earners made $16,909 (adjusted to 2008 $). In 2008 they made $20,712 (2008 $). That is a 22.5% increase in income. The top 5% of income earners over the same time period went from $107,091 to $180,000 for an increase of 68.1%. Liberals and Democrats will tell you that this proves that the wealthy are piggy backing off the poor but this isn't factually true. If we analyze the content we find that there are three years where the poor got richer and the rich got poorer (1974, 2000, 2004), there are seven years where the rich got richer and the poor got poorer (1970, 1977,1982, 1992, 1996, 2001, 2003), and 31 years where the rich and the poor either got richer or poorer together. The poor are tied to the rich for better or worse. These are the cold hard facts. They aren't open for debate.
When liberals and Democrats say you are being cheated they are fantasizing about a world that doesn't exist. When they say tax the rich they are pretending that wealth is shifted from the rich to the poor. When they tell you we can't go back to the failed policies of the past and recommend 95% of tax policy proposed by Bush they are playing politics. This administration is all politics and no economics. Look at the numbers. They want your vote more than they want you to succeed.
Tyson Bam September 14th, 2010
----------------------------------
When you vote someone into the presidency without the experience of a hot-dog stand manager, you get turd-in-the-punchbowl results.
Liar = Obama.
Cheater = Feds.
Thief = Congress.
Con artist = Piss-Stream Media.
Throw 'em all out.
The Obama cult - It's hard to compete with a party that gives away the treasury.
Its an appeal to envy, and that is always going to work over reason.
All very true (apart from the third paragraph, which is utter nonsense. He should have left that out).
Even more specifically, the rich are the folks who are giving jobs to the poor. Only envy cares about the absolute difference between the two; compassion cares about how high the low end gets. Putting a ball and chain on the rich just lets the poor get poorer.
The last couple of sentences really carries the sense of that paragraph.
What’s wrong with the 3rd paragraph?
What he should be arguing is that although the rich are getting a greater share of the pie, that is not neccesarily a bad thing - because (as he states) that is good for the economy - they cand afford to pay for more workers and so on. It certainly doesn't mean there getting richer is at the expense of the poor.
Now wait a minute, he’s saying in 31 years during the observation period the fate of the poor followed the fate of the rich, whereas in fewer years contrary trends were seen. What’s wrong with that observation?
What’s wrong is that he is illustrating his contention with statistics that prove the opposite. They show quite clearly that overall we may all be getting wealthier, but the gap between the top earners and the bottom earners is widening. He’d be better off admitting that and then showing that it isnt neccesarily a bad thing.
Gap, gap, who gives a cr*p?
What matters is that changes in the fate of the rich (in either direction) drag along changes in the fate of the poor, most of the time, and it shows empirically and can be explained without elaborate economic theory.
Of course, he is right about the fate of the poor following the rich. 22.5% for one and 68.1% for the other is immensely better than -20% for everyone, which is what would happen if the commies had their way. Equality is all very well, but there's not much point in being equally poor and equally miserable.
If the last few years of Democrat rule have taught us anything, its that money equals power.
Again, that is to view the situation through the liberal lens, who thinks how well the poor do can only be measured as a fraction of how well the rich do, rather than as a comparison to the price of escaping dire need.
And fine, so the system can hobble itself by making wrongheaded people richer. Granted. I don’t see any way out of that risk but feel it’s a risk worth taking compared to all other alternatives that the world offers.
i thought it was a mathematics lens.
who thinks => who think
But evaluating the meaning of the math through the liberal lens. A Bill Gates getting richer than sin doesn’t imply squat has gone wrong unless the poor only can be happier if they acquire analogous luxury.
Of course the absolute gap will widen if the pie enlarges.
Agree 100% To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system going, apart from all the others that have been tried!
Oh, and if it looks like the fate of the rich climbs more steeply as a percentage than the fate of the poor does, remember this is looking only at the rich and poor in America. How many former grindingly dirt poor peasants have the jobs created by these rich in America lifted up in OTHER lands through international business?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.