Posted on 01/07/2014 3:34:22 PM PST by Kaslin
It's no mystery what the left intends to make its next life-or-death issue: income inequality. Liberals are all popping off about it. It's everywhere, from Obama's speeches to liberal think tanks to liberal reporters.
It's almost as if they were conspiring to distract us from Obamacare. Nah!
On "Meet the Press," PBS anchorwoman Judy Woodruff sounded the alarm, not as a dispassionate reporter but as a progressive advocate. While acknowledging Obama's problems with Obamacare, she breathlessly insisted, "At the same time, the argument for doing something about the economy, the argument for addressing inequality, is such a compelling argument."
Behold the liberal mindset. It's apparently only of passing concern to Woodruff that Obamacare caused cancellations of millions of policies of insurance for people. That is so last year.
The important thing is that liberal icon Barack Obama forced quasi-socialized health care through Congress, and any harm it causes people must take a back seat to advancement of the progressive agenda, which is ostensibly designed (in the progressives' minds) to prevent harm to people. Ignore the foolish inconsistency. Nor does it matter that Obama lied about the harm his sacred plan would cause. The progressive agenda is marching forward.
Liberals must now shift our attention to the next issue they can preen about and showcase their moral superiority.
Notice that Woodward didn't say, "We need to get the economy moving again and get people back to work." She conflated "doing something about the economy" with "the argument for addressing inequality."
News flash: You don't do something about the economy by obsessing over income redistribution. The two are connected, but not in the sense that liberals believe they are.
While Obama liberals scoff at conservatives for their alleged "trickledown" approach to economics, they make the preposterous counterargument that you grow the economy "from the middle out," by which they mean you fuel economic growth by redistributing income.
You don't generate economic activity by punishing producers and taking their earnings and giving the money to others. How in the world could that expand the economic pie?
More likely, as history demonstrates, it will shrink the pie by disincentivizing all groups from producing. The wealthy will produce less because when you increase taxes on something (in this case, productivity and success), you get less of it. The recipients will mostly produce less because they are rewarded for not producing.
So "addressing inequality" is connected to "doing something about the economy" but in precisely the opposite way the left implies. Efforts to misuse the tax code to equalize outcomes -- as opposed to using it for the purpose of securing funds for constitutionally prescribed federal government functions -- will usually harm the economy.
Some liberals probably don't even believe their own propaganda that redistribution stimulates economic growth. In 2008, Obama told ABC's Charlie Gibson he favors increasing capital gains tax rates despite the fact that such increases had resulted in less revenue for the government. "It's a matter of fairness, Charlie."
For Obama, it was more important to punish the "rich" than to help the poor. That's his mindset -- and it's warped.
Don't get me wrong. Obama and his fellow leftists are fixated on redistributing wealth, but a major component of that, as witnessed by his attitude on increasing the capital gains rate, is that the wealthy need to be punished -- even if it means hurting lower-income groups.
The irony of all this is that these liberal policies often result in exacerbating income inequality. Obama can pretend, once again, that he's an innocent bystander, but income inequality is getting worse under his presidency.
A half-century and trillions of dollars in government transfer payments have not helped the poor. Even The New York Times is grudgingly conceding that after 50 years, "the war on poverty declared 50 years ago by President Lyndon B. Johnson has largely failed."
Whether or not liberals are able to process the reality that their programs have failed, they will not abandon them, because class warfare and government dependency programs are their ticket to power. CNN's Candy Crowley unwittingly admitted as much when she asked Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker why any unemployed American or minimum wage worker would become a Republican.
It's not that conservatives don't care about the poor. It's that we do care about the poor -- and everyone else. We believe that our free market solutions generate economic growth, stimulate upward mobility and improve the economic lives of far more people, including the poor and middle class, than any other system. History vindicates us.
The left will always win the "look at how much I care about you" contest. But it loses in the "actually caring" department because at some point, people have to be presumed to have intended the damaging results their policies have consistently caused.
Liberals can posture about how much they care and they can try desperately to change the channel from Obamacare, but the devastating harm that program has caused to millions already may finally have punctured their pretense of caring and their shameless practice of attempting to exempt themselves from accountability for their policies.
Marxist just make up phrases to trick the masses. When the Clintons, Obamas and Gore’s give up their money, then we’ll talk.
Pray America is Waking
I want an income equal to Obama’s.
Seems like the best way to combat this new Income Inequality narrative is to actually ask for specifics from the Income Inequality cheer leaders.
The first step to income equality should be the deportation of the illegals. While the left will use this issue the crony capitalists are waging class warfare on working class Americans and the GOP is complicit. Republicans could take this issue from the Dems and uphold conservatism at the same time.
Thanks Kaslin.
Breakout: Lawmakers Enlist Powerful New Wage and Wealth Gap Warrior - The Pope
Yahoo! Finance | Matt Nesto
Posted on 1/7/2014 2:51:33 PM by justiceseeker93
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3109322/posts
Hey Judy, why don’t you work for minimum wage? Then you’ll be on par with the folks who work at WalMart. Or better yet empty your bank account and ‘’spread it around’’ you dumb bitch.
On "Meet the Press," PBS anchorwoman Judy Woodruff sounded the alarm, not as a dispassionate reporter but as a progressive advocate. While acknowledging Obama's problems with Obamacare, she breathlessly insisted, "At the same time, the argument for doing something about the economy, the argument for addressing inequality, is such a compelling argument."Let me help you out here, Libtard Woodruff:
Anything less, bugger off!
Meh. Chump change.
More like Warren Buffett's
Yep, if you want more income, be more valuable. Otherwise, you're assuming that you deserve something of what someone else has just because you exist.
Income is a direct measure of the value you provide for the person paying you. This is what makes an income tax, especially a progressive income tax, so immoral - it punishes your productivity.
I’m not rich but I would like to live like the rich. I think a logical conclusion to the income inequality movement is that poorer folks should be able to live like the rich.
Therefore, I’m looking for a wealthy liberal celebrity who has a huge mansion that I would like to move into and share.
Right now, I call dibbs on Barbra Streisand’s luxurious beach home in Malibu. I bet she has more bedrooms than she personally can use and the food/drink is probably first rate.
I know she’ll be happy to have the chance to show that her lib beliefs are not just window dressing.
It’s the latest in a long string of mantras used for turning our formerly free nation into a communist state.
Income inequality is about the dumbest one yet.
However, since they have been infiltrating our schools for 60 years, most people hear it and go, “Uh, YEAH! Income inequality, man!” without realizing that it does NOT mean more for them, but rather more for the bloated unconstitutional government to use to destroy us all.
bkmk
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.