I know, shouldn't be surprised to see political hit pieces like this, but sometimes the sheer lack of intellectual honesty still gets me.
In a recession, poor and middle class people lose ground faster than the wealthy because they lose jobs and don't have any income other than jobs. Job loss also usually starts from the bottom up. The only way you eliminate a CEO job is if the company folds. You'll generally eliminate a number of other positions prior to that happening. So, in short, people who have a lot of money prior to a recession tend to be able to have multiple revenue streams. They also tend to have jobs that less likely to be eliminated. They may see the value of their investments dip some, they may see their salary reduced some, but they have a built in cushion because of the type and diversity of revenue streams. People who are poor or middle class do not have either the diversity of revenue streams or the cushion against losing those revenue streams. Hence, a recession increases income disparity. Not that hard to figure out, really, pretty simple economics. Now they could try and argue that the policies that Obama wants to put in place won't reduce income disparity in the future, but that wouldn't be nearly as much fun as a partisan hack job of an article, so why put in the effort, right? Judah On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > In what shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with a pulse > > Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush ( > http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/growth-of-income-inequality-is-worse-under-obama-than-bush.html) > > Yesterday, the President gave a speech in which he demanded that Congress > raise taxes on millionaires, as a way to somewhat recalibrate the nations > wealth distribution. His advisors, like Gene Sperling, are giving speeches > talking about the need for manufacturing. A common question in DC > is whether this populist pose will help him win the election. Perhaps it > will. Perhaps not. Romney is a weak candidate, cartoonishly wealthy and > from what Ive seen, pretty inept. But on policy, theres a more > interesting question. > > A better puzzle to wrestle with is why President Obama is able to continue > to speak as if his administration has not presided over a significant > expansion of income redistribution upward. The data on inequality shows > that his policies are not incrementally better than those of his > predecessor, or that were making progress too slowly, as liberal Democrats > like to argue. It doesnt even show that the outcome is the same as > Bushs. No, look at this table, from Emmanuel Saez (h/t Ian Welsh). Check > out those two red circles I added. > ... > Chart here > ... > Yup, under Bush, the 1% captured a disproportionate share of the income > gains from the Bush boom of 2002-2007. They got 65 cents of every dollar > created in that boom, up 20 cents from when Clinton was President. Under > Obama, the 1% got 93 cents of every dollar created in that boom. Thats > not only more than under Bush, up 28 cents. In the transition from Bush to > Obama, inequality got worse, faster, than under the transition from Clinton > to Bush. Obama accelerated the growth of inequality. > > Income concentrations are relatively rare, but when they happen, sharp > policy moves can retain a strong measure of equality. Its well-known at > this point that President Obama did not want to make such moves. TARP, > cramdown, and the foreclosure fraud settlement suggest that his interests > lie in preserving the capital structure of the large banks. What about > other policy priorities? > > Despite his recent speech, President Obama knows that his income tax > proposal is going nowhere. So lets look at three recent policy choices > that are going somewhere. > > 1) President Obama is on the verge of approving a Free Trade deal with > Colombia, despite the murder of union organizers in that country. Not > content with establishing similar deals with Panama (which has to do with > enlarging tax havens) and South Korea, the administration is now > embarking on a much vaster Trans-Pacific Partnership deal with countries > all over Asia. And its being negotiated entirely in secret, with > corporate and government officials the only ones allow to be in the room. > Trade is a significant driver of lower wages. > > 2) President Obama just pushed for and signed the JOBS Act, which is a > substantial relaxation of regulations and accounting requirements on > corporations seeking to go public. Bill Black has many four letter words > to describe this bill, but its basically a license for Wall Street to > commit fraud in the equity markets. The SEC is beginning to promulgate > instructions on how this will work. > > 3) President Obama just refused to issue an executive order forcing > campaign spending disclosure by government contractors. President Obama > actually criticized the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United at a > State of the Union address, but as with yesterdays speech on raising taxes > on millionaires, there was actually no there there. > > > Read more at the link. > > > J > > - > > I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. - > B > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:349853 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
