President Obama's class warfare mentality misreads American mood

[Liability]

It is interesting to see that even The Washington Compost is starting to catch on.

Statistics show rising income inequality in the United States. But, contrary to the impression created by the Occupy protests, and media coverage thereof, statistics also show that Americans worry less about inequality than they used to.

* * * *

Maybe Americans are Okunites — as in Arthur Okun, the late Yale economist and author of the 1975 book, “Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.”

Okun saw free markets as a source of unparalleled human progress — and of big gaps between rich and poor. Indeed, he argued, markets are efficient partly because they distribute economic rewards unevenly. Government should try to smooth out income stratification, but such efforts risk undermining incentives to work and invest.

Hence the “big trade-off”: channeling income from rich to poor, Okun wrote, was like trying to carry water in a leaky bucket. He wanted to move money from rich to poor without “leaking” so much economic growth that the whole process became self-defeating.

The American public intuitively shares Okun’s concerns. * * * *

* * * *

In short, the public wants fairness but retains a healthy skepticism about the federal government’s ability to achieve it.

As such, Gallup’s numbers do not bode well for President Obama’s effort, launched in a Dec. 6 speech at Osawatomie, Kan., to win reelection as a soak-the-rich populist.

The president, like Okun, acknowledged that the free market created “prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.” But he explained the recent rise in inequality too simplistically, as the result of financial deregulation and the “breathtaking greed” it enabled.

And rather than tackle the big trade-off directly, Obama tried to sidestep it. Rising inequality “hurts us all,” he argued, implying that more widely distributed income would essentially pay for itself through higher growth. He alluded to a recent study showing “that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.”

* * * *

Excerpted from -- Obama’s simplistic view of income inequality - The Washington Post

The full read is interesting.

I think it gets to heart of why the whole Occuturd wail about "income inequality" has never resonated with me.

I don't wanna live in a grey world where we all have to "earn" roughly the same amount no matter what we do or how hard we labor or how clever our inventions and products might be. Accordingly, I ENDORSE income inequality. It's ok that some people make more than I do. If I want more, I can work harder or smarter.

 

[imbalance]

Liberty and equality, taken to their logical extremes, are contradictory.

I'll choose liberty.

 

[Liability]

Liberty and equality, taken to their logical extremes, are contradictory.

I'll choose liberty.

I am not sure that's accurate. I can see how, under some circumstances, it can be true, however.

We are all perfectly equal, in one sense, in that we have the very same entitlement to fundamental rights (regardless of whether we actually all get the benefit of those rights).

One of the rights we share equally is the natural and inherent right to be free.

Equality of opportunity does not entail equality of outcome. So, again, income "inequality" doesn't offend a proper sense of justice. Or, at least, it should've.

 

[Mustang]

It is interesting to see that even The Washington Compost is starting to catch on.

Statistics show rising income inequality in the United States. But, contrary to the impression created by the Occupy protests, and media coverage thereof, statistics also show that Americans worry less about inequality than they used to.

* * * *

Maybe Americans are Okunites — as in Arthur Okun, the late Yale economist and author of the 1975 book, “Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.”

Okun saw free markets as a source of unparalleled human progress — and of big gaps between rich and poor. Indeed, he argued, markets are efficient partly because they distribute economic rewards unevenly. Government should try to smooth out income stratification, but such efforts risk undermining incentives to work and invest.

Hence the “big trade-off”: channeling income from rich to poor, Okun wrote, was like trying to carry water in a leaky bucket. He wanted to move money from rich to poor without “leaking” so much economic growth that the whole process became self-defeating.

The American public intuitively shares Okun’s concerns. * * * *

* * * *

In short, the public wants fairness but retains a healthy skepticism about the federal government’s ability to achieve it.

As such, Gallup’s numbers do not bode well for President Obama’s effort, launched in a Dec. 6 speech at Osawatomie, Kan., to win reelection as a soak-the-rich populist.

The president, like Okun, acknowledged that the free market created “prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.” But he explained the recent rise in inequality too simplistically, as the result of financial deregulation and the “breathtaking greed” it enabled.

And rather than tackle the big trade-off directly, Obama tried to sidestep it. Rising inequality “hurts us all,” he argued, implying that more widely distributed income would essentially pay for itself through higher growth. He alluded to a recent study showing “that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.”

* * * *

Excerpted from -- Obama’s simplistic view of income inequality - The Washington Post

The full read is interesting.

I think it gets to heart of why the whole Occuturd wail about "income inequality" has never resonated with me.

I don't wanna live in a grey world where we all have to "earn" roughly the same amount no matter what we do or how hard we labor or how clever our inventions and products might be. Accordingly, I ENDORSE income inequality. It's ok that some people make more than I do. If I want more, I can work harder or smarter.

It's an Op-Ed piece, not a news story.

I would say that the continued OWS demonstrations paint quite a different picture of what average people think since large scale protests only happen when people are really fed up with the status quo. When that fact is combined with images of millions of people losing their homes to foreclosures while the uber wealthy lead ever more extravagant lifestyles, you should ask yourself a question. Do Americans have more confidence that they'll end up being members of the 1 percent, or do Americans have increasing fears that the standard of living for themselves and their children will decline in the coming years?

 

[Inthemiddle]

1) Why is Obama instantly lumped into the OWS movement? It's clear they hate him.

2) Why does the conservative fringe always talk about class warfare? They're the only ones who do. It's like Christians telling non-believers to beware the traps of Satan.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1) Why is Obama instantly lumped into the OWS movement? It's clear they hate him.

It's clear that his campaign was behind it, the SEIU thugs who pulls his puppet strings are the majority of the bodies at OWS Shit-ins.

The Shitter movement isn't just Astroturf, it's Obamaturf.

2) Why does the conservative fringe always talk about class warfare? They're the only ones who do. It's like Christians telling non-believers to beware the traps of Satan.

The insane left wages class warfare.

 

[Liability]

It is interesting to see that even The Washington Compost is starting to catch on.

Statistics show rising income inequality in the United States. But, contrary to the impression created by the Occupy protests, and media coverage thereof, statistics also show that Americans worry less about inequality than they used to.

* * * *

Maybe Americans are Okunites — as in Arthur Okun, the late Yale economist and author of the 1975 book, “Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.”

Okun saw free markets as a source of unparalleled human progress — and of big gaps between rich and poor. Indeed, he argued, markets are efficient partly because they distribute economic rewards unevenly. Government should try to smooth out income stratification, but such efforts risk undermining incentives to work and invest.

Hence the “big trade-off”: channeling income from rich to poor, Okun wrote, was like trying to carry water in a leaky bucket. He wanted to move money from rich to poor without “leaking” so much economic growth that the whole process became self-defeating.

The American public intuitively shares Okun’s concerns. * * * *

* * * *

In short, the public wants fairness but retains a healthy skepticism about the federal government’s ability to achieve it.

As such, Gallup’s numbers do not bode well for President Obama’s effort, launched in a Dec. 6 speech at Osawatomie, Kan., to win reelection as a soak-the-rich populist.

The president, like Okun, acknowledged that the free market created “prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.” But he explained the recent rise in inequality too simplistically, as the result of financial deregulation and the “breathtaking greed” it enabled.

And rather than tackle the big trade-off directly, Obama tried to sidestep it. Rising inequality “hurts us all,” he argued, implying that more widely distributed income would essentially pay for itself through higher growth. He alluded to a recent study showing “that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.”

* * * *

Excerpted from -- Obama’s simplistic view of income inequality - The Washington Post

The full read is interesting.

I think it gets to heart of why the whole Occuturd wail about "income inequality" has never resonated with me.

I don't wanna live in a grey world where we all have to "earn" roughly the same amount no matter what we do or how hard we labor or how clever our inventions and products might be. Accordingly, I ENDORSE income inequality. It's ok that some people make more than I do. If I want more, I can work harder or smarter.

It's an Op-Ed piece, not a news story.

No shit, Sherlock. This just in: sunrise comes in the MORNING!

I would say that the continued OWS demonstrations paint quite a different picture of what average people think since large scale protests only happen when people are really fed up with the status quo. When that fact is combined with images of millions of people losing their homes to foreclosures while the uber wealthy lead ever more extravagant lifestyles, you should ask yourself a question. Do Americans have more confidence that they'll end up being members of the 1 percent, or do Americans have increasing fears that the standard of living for themselves and their children will decline in the coming years?

The OWS occuturds are not a representative sampling of the American people. So, your example doesn't serve to paint any different picture.

Wishful thinking on the part of another lib sheeple doesn't qualify as factual material.

One of the many problems you chowder heads have is the inability (or unwillingness, perhaps) to even properly identify your terms and define them.

You caterwaul about [ZOMG!!!] "income inequality" but you are grunting and inarticulate at best about what you propose is a viable alternative. If I work harder, and better and smarter and more productively or more creatively than you do, and I "produce" more or better goods or services, why the FUCK would I want to make the same as you?

And, what would your incentive be to become a more productive employee?

[BTW, when I say "you" and "I", I don't mean you and me literally. We're just place holders for this discussion. I disagree with you LOTS of times. But for one moment of candor, I'll concede that you aren't actually stupid. My honest position about you and your thinking is that you are simply not well thought out.]

 

[jgarden]

Nearly half of Congress members are millionaires - a status shared ...
Home | Mail Online...
17 Nov 2011 – According to a new study, at least 249 out of Congress' 535 members are millionaires.

Half the Members of Congress are Millionaires | NationofChange
www.nationofchange.org/half-members-congress-are-millionaires-...
16 Nov 2011 – Half the members of Congress enjoys “1 percent” status as millionaires, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics. ...

Half the members of Congress are millionaires | iWatch News
iWatch News | Investigation. Impact. Integrity. › Politics › Congress
15 Nov 2011 – Half the members of Congress enjoys “1 percent” status as millionaires, according to a new study by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Half Of Congress Enjoys Millionaire Status, Study Shows | Fox News
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...lf-congress-enjoys-millionaire-status-study-s...
19 Nov 2011 – A new study shows about half the lawmakers in Congress are millionaires, and that their net worth has risen steadily since 2008 despite the ...

Congress of Millionaires (Infographic) | Occupy Protests & The ...
Congress of Millionaires (Infographic) | Occupy Protests & The Wealthy 1% | Millionaires & Distribution of US Wealth | LiveScience
22 Nov 2011 – Nearly half of Congress is composed of millionaires, according to a new study. 6 Odd Historical Tax Facts · 10 Historically Significant Political ...

Nearly half of US Congress members are millionaires
Nearly half of US Congress members are millionaires
25 Nov 2011 – Two studies published this month point to the transformation of the United States into a plutocracy.

Half of Congress are millionaires, study says - NYPOST.com
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/politics/www.nypost.com/.../congress_millionaire_club_... - United States
20 Nov 2011 – WASHINGTON — About half of Congress' members are millionaires, and their net worth has risen steadily since 2008 despite the financial ...

Nearly half in Congress are millionaires, including Cantwell ...
blog.thenewstribune.com/.../nearly-half-in-congress-are-millionaires-...
Talking WA politics. Nearly half in Congress are millionaires, including Cantwell, McMorris Rodgers. Post by Rob Hotakainen on Nov. 15, 2011 at 6:39 pm | ...

Study: Nearly Half of Congress Members Are Millionaires - Truthdig
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...../study_nearly_half_of_congress_members_are_...
15 Nov 2011 – The shiny ideal of representative democracy starts dimming a bit when one considers factors and figures like those charted in a new study ...

Report: Nearly Half Of Congress, 67% Of Senate Are Millionaires ...
Report: Nearly Half Of Congress, 67% Of Senate Are Millionaires | Mediaite...
20 Nov 2011 – With Americans increasingly becoming concerned about the state of income inequality in their country, a new report is showing that the ...

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...oZm9Ag&usg=AFQjCNHf4sbaT_186cMRdT6PhCT-FatmTw

President Obama's class warfare mentality misreads American mood - all one has to do is to look as far as the 112th US Congress to see that the best interests of the wealthy, the top 1%, are being well represented.

Almost half the all members of Congress are millionaires and were it to reflect the economic status of Americans, there would be only 5 millionaires in the House and Senate, not 249!

 

[Uncensored2008]

President Obama's class warfare mentality misreads American mood - all one has to do is to look as far as the 112th US Congress to see that the best interests of the wealthy, the top 1%, are being well represented.

Almost half the all members of Congress are millionaires

The other half are Republicans.

and were it to reflect the economic status of Americans, there would be only 5 millionaires in the House and Senate, not 249!

Why don't you demand that Nancy Pelosi step down?

 

[Listening]

Liberty and equality, taken to their logical extremes, are contradictory.

I'll choose liberty.

I'll be with you.