Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Obama and the 7%

    Obama and the 7%

    The Rich get Richer

    When the Washington Post endorsed President Obama for his first term in office, part of the paper’s pitch was economic:

    OF COURSE, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama’s economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health.

    (Bold text mine)

    How did that work out?

    A Pew study says … not so well.

    From 2009 to 2011, the mean wealth of the 8 million households in the more affluent group rose to an estimated $3,173,895 from an estimated $2,476,244, while the mean wealth of the 111 million households in the less affluent group fell to an estimated $133,817 from an estimated $139,896.

    These wide variances were driven by the fact that the stock and bond market rallied during the 2009 to 2011 period while the housing market remained flat.

    Affluent households typically have their assets concentrated in stocks and other financial holdings, while less affluent households typically have their wealth more heavily concentrated in the value of their home.

    Will we now see Occupy Pennsylvania Avenue?

    [Please note this post was completed and pre-scheduled prior to the Sabbath.]

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    David, nice comeback to Stephanie’s tweet, in hopes that it burst her bubble.

    The truth is that the rich will get richer in most scenarios, since they have a large resource base to effectuate change in their favor…that is, unless the laws are applied equally, and beneficial loop holes are removed.

    We have people in congress who are susceptible to lobbyists because they get richer themselves in the process. It is human nature to “Game the system.” What we as a nation need to do, is to change the system not with lip service, but with actual reform. I am not holding my breath unfortunately, and it may be that change comes in a much more dramatic, and possibly violent manner. I am praying for the best, but preparing for the worst.


       
       0 
       
       0
      David Gerstman in reply to Paul. | April 28, 2013 at 6:28 am

      Paul, Stephanie was in agreement. She was replying to Ken Gardner and she retweeted my tweet (in agreement).


       
       0 
       
       0
      Neo in reply to Paul. | April 28, 2013 at 9:25 pm

      Adjust the time frame back to start in 2007 or early 2008 and most of this ginormous gain disappears.

      The rich lost the most in the “Panic of 2008” so they have the most to gain back.

      On the flip side, “the poor don’t invest.” You have to play the game to win the game.

    The pie has gotten smaller (2% GDP) so the inequality looms larger.

    (“Please note this post was completed and pre-scheduled prior to the Sabbath.” Duly noted, Lord Sabbath concurs.


     
     0 
     
     0
    ZooMaster | April 27, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    But the important thing to remember here is that the Great Class Warrior didn’t work toward the equalization of class so much as he worked (and failed SPECTACULARLY) to simply transfer the great wealth of private individuals from the “old elites” to the “new elites.” He truly does believe in The System, I should think, it’s just that he ALSO believes that The System will work better when he replaces the old guard with the likes of his own self and AlGore and the other persons of whom he approves.

    We have already seen OPA: The Tea Party. The people, throughout our nation, who protested government corruption and the distortion it sows throughout society, especially when it promises people material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification without consequence, which is not possible in our common reality.

    The issue is four-fold. First, the meaningful metric is cost-of-living. Second, whether people of means are willing to corrupt the system in order to favor their interests. Third, whether people will demand the wrong relief for their circumstances and ambitions. Fourth, whether opportunists will exploit differentials and gradients to advance their own political, economic, and social standing.

    Anyway, the TP came, they saw, they raised awareness, and were demonized for opposing the progressive order.


       
       0 
       
       0
      David Gerstman in reply to n.n. | April 28, 2013 at 6:30 am

      I know that the Tea Party is the sane equivalent of OWS (et al.) However, my question was meant more, when will the Lefties acknowledge that the policies they favored failed to accomplish what they claim they would?


     
     0 
     
     0
    Conservative Beaner | April 27, 2013 at 10:57 pm

    Sounds like liberal/progressive projection to me. I don’t need a gun to “compenstate” for any perceived shortcomings but I think the lib/progs have some issues of their own to worry about.

    Maybe if they were to concentrate on their own problems they would just leave us alone, then again maybe not.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend