Income Inequality flourishes under Obama

[krazen1211]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/income-inequality-flourishes-under-obama/2012/04/17/gIQAlUz0NT_blog.html

While the president prattles on about the Buffett rule, it is interesting to note what real income inequality looks like and what causes it. The New York Times reports: “The number of New Yorkers classified as poor in 2010 increased by nearly 100,000 from the year before, raising the poverty rate by 1.3 percentage points to 21 percent — the highest level and the largest year-to-year increase since the city adopted a more detailed definition of poverty in 2005.”



It's amazing how one with such an awful track record on inequality can even pretend to campaign on inequality.

[greenforest32]

Neoliberals like Obama are really not concerned about inequality. Their belief is that the problem is not of distribution, but of an insufficient total amount.

Romney would undoubtedly be worse than Obama.

The fundamentals of mainstream U.S. politics are too shallow

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, the idea that a constantly growing economy is possible or would be inherently desirable if it was is about as ridiculous as my university's outgoing chancellor's obsession with measuring success by on-campus construction and size of freshman classes, and it's an idea that like pretty much everyone else in positions of power in this country Obama falls significantly prey to.

[Redalgo]

This further underlines a point I've been trying to make with fellow students at the university for a long time - that President Obama is a social liberalist rather than a social democrat or democratic socialist. There is nothing bad about that, really. It's simply that any talk on distribution from him is generally going to be geared towards increasing the net availability of economic opportunities and fighting poverty which comes from too many months of unemployment that is out of ones control. I consider the president a proponent of the liberal "workfare" regime and not particularly concerned about income disparities. Though to be fair here, he is also in a political environment where he is unable to reach most of his policy goals, and is pressured to act like more of a centrist than he is.

As things stand, I'm reluctant to vote for President Obama in the fall but will need to wait and see.

[Jacobtm]

Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.

[krazen1211]

Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.

Income inequality also flourished under Clinton and Carter.

You chumps are great at talking about income inequality of course.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Income inequality flourished under every post-stagflation President with the arguable exception of Bush I.

[King]

Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.

Income inequality also flourished under Clinton and Carter.

You chumps are great at talking about income inequality of course.

Yes, income inequality has been on the rise for 40 years straight, so obviously we should stop talking about it.   That whole deficit stuff is just a bunch of hooey, too, and people were unemployed since before any of us were born.  Also, taxes exist.  Republicans and Democrats should stop talking about issues which have occurred at any one point in the past because doing otherwise is just hypocrisy.

[Vosem]

Where to even start? I'll try chronological order:

Neoliberals like Obama are really not concerned about inequality. Their belief is that the problem is not of distribution, but of an insufficient total amount.

Insufficient total amount is a bigger problem than inequality, but that doesn't mean inequality isn't a problem. Go on the street and ask someone if they'd rather have more money or if they'd rather have some random billionaire lose most of his money. It's going to be pretty unanimous.

Romney would undoubtedly be worse than Obama.

In the sense that Romney would prioritize total amount over inequality to a far greater extent than Obama? This is one of the reasons I support him, and he is 'better' than Obama, but to each his own, I suppose.

Yeah, the idea that a constantly growing economy is possible or would be inherently desirable if it was is about as ridiculous as my university's outgoing chancellor's obsession with measuring success by on-campus construction and size of freshman classes, and it's an idea that like pretty much everyone else in positions of power in this country Obama falls significantly prey to.

Two thoughts spring to mind about this one:
a) Your university's outgoing chancellor sounds like a total idiot, judging just by what you said.
b) As to your first line, it's impossible, but I don't understand why it wouldn't be very desirable if it was possible. As it is, the best idea is to have it grow as much of the time as is possible.

Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.

Thankfully. The solution to income inequality isn't to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, but rather encourage the growth of the economy and general and jobs; when a poor person has a job, they can make money, and if the economy is growing, over time they can make more money, lessening the problem of inequality. The rich don't need help -- but it would be unfair to hinder them in order to help somebody else.

Income inequality flourished under every post-stagflation President with the arguable exception of Bush I.

True. It only started being a real issue recently, though, so much of this increase wasn't noticed by the general electorate until relatively recently.

Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.

Income inequality also flourished under Clinton and Carter.

You chumps are great at talking about income inequality of course.

Yes, income inequality has been on the rise for 40 years straight, so obviously we should stop talking about it.   That whole deficit stuff is just a bunch of hooey, too, and people were unemployed since before any of us were born.  Also, taxes exist.  Republicans and Democrats should stop talking about issues which have occurred at any one point in the past because doing otherwise is just hypocrisy.

I personally find this exchange hilarious. Jacobtm thinks he's criticizing Republicans (in actuality, most Americans would view that as a compliment - the term 'redistribution of wealth' has become very demonized). Then, krazen replies by saying income inequality flourished under Carter and Clinton -- which is true, but which has nothing to do at all with what Jacobtm said. Then, King mocks krazen by sarcastically declaring that if we shouldn't talk about income inequality, we also shouldn't talk about a whole host of other economic issues - missing that krazen started this thread about income inequality, and continues discussing inequality in the post King quotes (not sure how that line of discussion is a reply to Jacobtm, but it is a line of discussion) -- Krazen's post had nothing to do at all with what krazen or Jacobtm said.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, the idea that a constantly growing economy is possible or would be inherently desirable if it was is about as ridiculous as my university's outgoing chancellor's obsession with measuring success by on-campus construction and size of freshman classes, and it's an idea that like pretty much everyone else in positions of power in this country Obama falls significantly prey to.

Two thoughts spring to mind about this one:
a) Your university's outgoing chancellor sounds like a total idiot, judging just by what you said.
b) As to your first line, it's impossible, but I don't understand why it wouldn't be very desirable if it was possible. As it is, the best idea is to have it grow as much of the time as is possible.

a) He is, hence why he's outgoing. As it is, we're still stuck with the asinine new buildings built to house departments that never asked for them and a glut of low-grade off-campus housing that's creating the closest thing Amherst has ever experienced to suburban sprawl.
b) Eh, different values, I suppose. What I meant was that if a constantly growing economy was possible I'd still prioritize other concerns over it from time to time (hence not 'inherently' desirable, though this is perhaps subpar word choice, I'll admit).

[greenforest32]

Neoliberals like Obama are really not concerned about inequality. Their belief is that the problem is not of distribution, but of an insufficient total amount.

Insufficient total amount is a bigger problem than inequality, but that doesn't mean inequality isn't a problem. Go on the street and ask someone if they'd rather have more money or if they'd rather have some random billionaire lose most of his money. It's going to be pretty unanimous.

It's a good thing the wealthy and corporations don't make any money at the expense of the public at large.

[opebo]

krazen, this critique would have some validity if Mitt Romney were the socialist we need.  But of course he is not.

[Badger]

Poverty increased in the middle of a recession? Someone get this man a Pulitzer!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

As things stand, I'm reluctant to vote for President Obama in the fall but will need to wait and see.

I'm not an Obama footsoldier, but a vote for anyone else is a vote for Romney.

[Redalgo]

As things stand, I'm reluctant to vote for President Obama in the fall but will need to wait and see.

I'm not an Obama footsoldier, but a vote for anyone else is a vote for Romney.

Maybe, or maybe not. Continuously voting against my interests for the candidates of a party that has no interest in changing the system doesn't seem like a great idea to me and, unless Montana is going to be a battleground state again this cycle, my vote will probably be "wasted" either way.

Aside from that, I am not at all a big fan of the "you are either with us, or with them" point of view.

[Badger]

Further worth noting that the article doesn't even address "income inequality", just an increase in the poverty rate (in one city no less). Trash journalism at it's finest.

And Krazen liked it?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Ah shucks, I guess I'm going to have to vote for Romney now.

[Oakvale]

The most important thing I got out of this thread is that Badger has apparently joined the Republian Party.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And we know how much Republicans hate income inequality.

[TJ in Oregon]

The most important thing I got out of this thread is that Badger has apparently joined the Republian Party.

I have a feeling it's for the same reason as why I'm a registered Democrat.

[Democratic Hawk]

This further underlines a point I've been trying to make with fellow students at the university for a long time - that President Obama is a social liberalist rather than a social democrat or democratic socialist.

Correct. The president is no social democrat or democratic socialist. I wouldn't consider him even a Christian Democrat (though that's something exclusive to continental Europe)

If the president does indeed have a vision of activist government I'd say its more premised on facilitating 'cradle-to-grave' opportunity

He's probably somewhere between the welfare state liberalism, of the center, and the neoliberalism, of the right. I hear no clarion calls for 'leftist' populist protectionism, while I find it shocking that big business has not created one net job since 1977

Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.

Income inequality also flourished under Clinton and Carter.

You chumps are great at talking about income inequality of course.

Hasn't it been that way, more or less, since the Oil Crisis of 1973 brought the curtains down on the Golden Age of Capitalism - aka the post-war economic expansion?

Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.

You mean taking the top two rates of income tax back to more Clinton era, fiscally responsible, levels of 36% and 39.6%, on individuals earning >200k and joint-filers earning >250k. Nowt 'radical' about that

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank you, Krazen, for proving us that Obama is right-wing. We already knew though.

[fezzyfestoon]

Of course, Obama is nothing more than the rare compassionate Corporatist that will hang onto us as we dangle off the side of a cliff. Which is regrettably the better of our only two options, what with the other being for the Republicans to let us fall, jump off themselves, and put 100% faith in the concept of the over-privileged voluntarily relinquishing a fraction of their dominance for the sake of the United States surviving as a legitimate Democracy by miraculously lassoing the nation to safety with their generous offerings of work placement.

[minionofmidas]

Don't you mean "private offerings of charity"?

[hopper]

Its just a thing just to gin up the liberal base for Obama. I mean Obama has taken more money from Wall Street than any other politician(yes that includes Republicans.)

I'm tired of politicians ginning up their bases with class warfare or stuff like Obama is not a US Citizen. Its just such comedy watching the political parties in campaign mode all the time catering to the extreme of their political bases.