Democrats Are Making Income Inequality Worse

Democrats and O-Bots tirelessly beat the drum about “income inequality” mainly as a distraction from the fact Hussein Obama is the worst president ever and Harry Reid the worst Senate majority Leader ever. All the same the Democrats are the one whose policies exacerbate income inequality.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d5074e-aada-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html


quote:
“Today, we apply crony capitalism to agriculture. The legislation Obama lavishly praised redistributes wealth upward by raising prices consumers pay.”

“…the government’s monetary policy breeds inequality. Low rates are intended to drive liquidity into the stock market in search of higher yields. The resulting boom in equity markets — up 30 percent last year alone — has primarily benefited the 10 percent who own 80 percent of all directly owned stocks. Charles Wolf writes in the Weekly Standard: “The financial sector’s profits rose from 18 percent of total corporate profits preceding the recession in 2007 to 23 percent in 2013.”



Taxcutter says:
Yeah, Democrats. Tell us about income equality. Your policies are the biggest reasons for it. Why don’ t YOU do something about it?

Allowing liberals to continue picking winners and losers isn’t a logical plan for bringing fairness and prosperity back to our damaged economy.

 

If you think Obama is the worst President ever, look up the historical analysis of James Buchanan. Without James Buchanan's ineptitude, the Civil War would not have happened when it did. It was Buchanan's abandonment of the South that pushed them to secede when they did. He was supposed to be the candidate of the Southern planters but turned his back on them. Thus, when Lincoln, an abolitionist candidate won the presidency, the South had had enough. Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, and Ulysses Grant are also all arguably worse than Obama.

Obama is also not the champion of the poor. If he was, you'd be seeing the loopholes in the tax code being systematically eradicated. He's not doing that. Why not, you ask? Because he's not a progressive in the real sense. Obamacare is a law that benefits the insurance industry first and foremost. In fact, Obama is in the authoritarian-conservative quadrant of the two-axis spectrum. Of course, Conservatives only rely on that assessment when they wish to call him a tyrant. Like I've said before, the GOP doesn't know what the hell to make of Obama. He's both a dictator and a wimp, a champion of the rich and the poor. So many Conservatives don't realize you're just talking out your asses.

Here's a newsflash for you too. The middle class, you, pay less than your fair share of taxes if you objectively analyze it. Of course, I know you don't know what objective analysis means, so let me explain it to you. The rich pay 90% of this country's taxes. The government needs that money for more than just social welfare programs. In fact, more of your money goes to the Defense Department than it does to public assistance. So, what you are left with if you cut the rich's tax base is you are going to either have to raise the middle class's taxes, thus making your own tax burden higher, you are going to have to cut military spending, or you are going to have to borrow more money.

We all know the GOP has no problem borrowing money, it's only when the Democrats do it that it becomes an issue. Over half of the national debt in the past thirty-four years has been added by Conservative presidents. Reagan borrowed against Social Security to pay for his military expansion, H. W. Bush borrowed large amounts to pay for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and Dubya borrowed even more for Iraq 2.0 to unscrew the screwjob that his old man left the world.

You should be embarrassed you've supported the Tea Party since the Kochs co-opted the movement. Then again, they're smart enough to realize how stupid the average GOP voter is, and so it wasn't that hard of a sell. They just had to paint Obama as an evil Muslim foreigner who seeks to destroy American freedom, in other words, lie through their teeth.

If there was a real libertarian liberal government in the United States, so many of the now so-called Conservatives would be like "holy crap, I can dig this" because not only would government spending go down, after a few years, your taxes would drop through the basement.

 

Apparently the author of the article doesn't understand the concept of demand. Interest rates are low because demand is low.

 

Can someone explain this latest farm bill stuff to me? Because I'm not in the loop.

As far as I know, yes, farms may appear to have a higher capital value than the average house hold, but when I was growing up in rural Upstate New York, that higher value actually translated into large empty fields in the boondocks, and people worked VERY HARD to see that their crops or herds made it through that year because their livelihood depended on it.

So, what if farms "welfare" are ineffective money drains?! Are you saying that food is too expensive an industry to maintain? What are you going to eat if we cut all this stuff off? Are you kidding me?!

Was this a crap bill? Probably, but what can I say? This was intended to organize the best way forward that Washington DC can muster. We're lucky any policy got past at all with this government obstruction in recent years.

 

This guy explains it perfectly; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb0UNRl-paQ

 

Thanks for that video.

 

Grant is a top 10 president. Take it back.

 

You mean other than the fact that Obama doesn't unilateral make law on agricultural subsidies and doesn't set monetary policies?

Funny, it wasn't the Republicans who promoted a minimum tax on millionaries. It wasn't Obama and the Dems that proposed cutting income, estate and investment taxes for millionaires. It wasn't Obama and the Democrats who blocked Obama's legislation to create jobs. It wasn't Republicans who proposed repealing the Bush tax cuts.

The 1% apologists attempt to paint Obama and the Democrats as panderers to the 1% just like the Republicans is inane and the tactic should be obvious even to the most politically uninformed.

 

Capitalists have assured us that income inequality is the natural order, not only good but should be praised. Why are you denouncing income inequality?

 

Grant was a great general, but had no business running the country, he is a top ten President only if you're ranking the most corrupt or inept administrations.

On Wikipedia, they have an article regarding the historical rankings of the presidents, in no poll did Grant score in the first quartile, he was in the last quartile in the majority of the polls and in only one poll was he in the second quartile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Popular_opinion

See for yourself, he didn't crack the top ten in any poll.

 

Don't care what they say.

Passed some of the most important amendments.
Crushed the klan
Set us off on prosperity
Began the reconstruction process in earnest. Healed the country.

Corrupt? You must hate Obama. Solyndra alone is worth more then all of the cronyism in the grant administration adjusted for inflation.

Name a president that had to deal with such a divide other then Lincoln who engaged the issue. (As opposed to Johnson) that made more progress on civil rights, that was so ahead of their time on black issues, while created an environment of economic growth. He wins as a commander in chief, he had a great crisis, he advanced social liberties in the face of strong opposition. Top 10 for sure.

 

we are dealing with the here and now, and this guy sucks. He's a criminal, his AG is a criminal, Feinstein is a criminal, and Reid is a criminal......

 

OMG! Have you sworn out your complaint yet?

 

Isn't that the real problem of the right?

- - - Updated - - -

And you've proven none of them are criminals.

 

Good thing we finally got him out of the WH in 2009. The damage that criminal caused is costing us 5 1/2 6 years later.

 

I have no powers of prosecution.

You following the thinking of others without questioning those beliefs is the problem with the left, isn't it?

 

What criminal activities have Obama, Feinstein, or Reid done?

As for Holder, I do agree he is likely guilty of perjury due to Fast and Furious.

The 13th and 14th Amendments were ratified before Grant became President, and while the Fifteenth Amendment began the ratification process shortly before Grant was inaugurated, and he was a strong proponent of the Fifteenth, it was Congress that took the initiative to mandate that formerly Confederate states ratify the Amendment to regain Congressional representation.

Reconstruction started under Johnson, not Grant. Johnson, a Radical Republican, sought to punish the states that had rebelled. The way Reconstruction was undertaken was healing the same way rubbing salt into an open wound is healing. Had Lincoln's words been followed, Reconstruction would probably have ended around 1872 and there wouldn't have been as many issues that lasted for the next century-plus.

It's pretty difficult to say that Grant crushed the KKK, especially since they rebounded and kept a stranglehold on the South starting in 1877. Had he crushed the Klan, they wouldn't have rebounded immediately after he left office.

Prosperity is dubious at best, the economy of the latter 19th Century had numerous crises, one of which, the Panic of 1873 started in the first year of Grant's second term, and led to a depression that lasted into the 1880s. So yeah, if economic turmoil is prosperity to you, sure he helped with it.

Solyndra was an investment that went bad due to mismanagement within the business, not within the Obama Administration. Then again, Obama wasn't going to start a war to enable profiteering for Solyndra. Or did you forget Cheney's ties to Haliburton?

Want to talk about a divided country? Obama's had to deal with racism, both blatant and masked as well as multiple pieces of misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies each and every month of his Presidency thanks to the blowhards, dimwits, and morons within the GOP's propagandist mouthpieces.

So again, now that I have cleared up the obvious and blatant misstatements of history, Grant was not nearly as good a President as you claim.

 

LOL, yes of course, whatever Obama does is someone else's fault.

- - - Updated - - -

Obama, jobs are number one, except for all the other things first.

 

Taxcutter says:
Hussein Obama seems quite popular with the hyper-rich. They shower campaign contributions on him. I suspect they do so for a reason.

 

Duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh that is the case with EVERY president / politician. It's called Lobbying.

 

Opinion piece by Geo. Will and nothing more than that. No solid evidence to prover otherwise on his being the "worst" President.

 

Their policies are designed to entrap more people into poverty, they need the victim voter base.

 

Wall Street pays both sides of the game so they can get what they want regardless of who wins. If Romney was in office right now, there would literally be no difference in these policies and I would bet my life on it.

 

Obama division? Laughable. We don't like his spending, the lying and the outright corruption or the replay of economic fallacies from the 70s.

As for grant, reconstruction didnt go anywhere under Johnson. Grant campaigned on the amendments and enforced them against the klan. I will get you some speeches from the time I was reading on a civil war website. When I find it I will forward the link. Maybe change your mind on him. Way ahead of his time.

Here his one, will find that website here is the enforcement of the 14th:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=70255

The man.

I disagree about the guilded age. It was a fast and steady period of growth for the nation.

He did crush the klan when in office. Blacks were voting and getting elected in the south. The civil rights act of 1868 was passed at his behest. It would be struck down by an activist court, and wouldn't be repossess until 1964, but way ahead of his time.

What's wrong with Halliburton? No bid contract thing? That is how open ended contracts work. War is nt a known series of events in advance. They had to work for that money solyndra got it free. Protecting fracking secrets? How much US energy innovation are we going to let the world steal and not pay us for? They need trade secret protection.

 

He was opposed to QE and said that his fed chief would tighten the money supply as we called out currency manipulators with countervailing duties. No, I think it would be different. Romney at least discussed the issue. Obama bets on libs not understanding it and him keeping quiet.