Income inequality increasingly growing under Obama, up big since Dubya

[disappoint]

We have 8 years of Bush's policies to reflect on. Clearly, history dictates that it would be less.

No we have 13 years of Bush's policies to reflect on.

 

[MagickMan]

No we have 13 years of Bush's policies to reflect on.

Obama = Dubya 2.0

He's no socialist, just another paid politician padding the pockets of the rich folks who got him into office.

 

[compuwiz1]

We need a president and Congress with the guts to dismantle white privilege, among others. That's the source for much of the income inequality. America is the land of white privilege - among the greatest source of societal and governmental welfare humanity has ever experienced.

That's just fucking racist. I don't even know what to say to this. You have rich everywhere, from every ethnicity, but there are still those who proclaim that whitey is holding them down. Welcome to over 100 years ago moron!

 

[hans030390]

Bush also didn't start his presidency with a massive, worldwide recession, in which most of the recovery has, again, gone straight to the top thanks to policies Obama has tried to remediate but has been unable to do so thanks to obstructionist conservatives.

We have the history and studies available to identify what policies would be best at addressing growing income inequality, but conservatives have clearly demonstrated their unwillingness to consider these ideas. Thus, we are in the situation that we are in. Why do you act surprised?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Despite President Obama’s view that growing income inequality is hurting the nation, it’s actually gotten worse during his tenure, at least according to one measure.

It's all Obama's fault. Only the President is responsible for the nation's economic policy. In fact, the President can enact economic legislation independently. No other government bodies are in any way responsible for economic policy and for introducing and passing legislation. The President can wave a magic wand and enact economic policies effortlessly.

 

[Doppel]

We need a president and Congress with the guts to dismantle white privilege, among others. That's the source for much of the income inequality. America is the land of white privilege - among the greatest source of societal and governmental welfare humanity has ever experienced.

You are quite possibly the most devout racist on the forums. Go find some other forum to spew this.

As to the question in the OP I don't know how to change it nor do I see a chance of it changing.

Is this true?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101348398

The combined wealth of the world's richest 85 people is now equivalent to that owned by half of the world's population – or 3.5 billion of the poorest people – according to a new report from Oxfam.

So 85 PEOPLE. Not top 1% or anything else, 85 PEOPLE are as worth as much as half the human population. I am fairly sure the value of any one of those people is not equivalent to 41,000,000 people.

 

[TerryMathews]

By all means post all the laws Obama has signed since becoming president that has cause this increase in inequality.

Then just for shits and giggles, post how many republicans voted against said policies.


This should be fun!

PPACA disproportionately affects the middle, working class due to the effect his 15 features have had on premiums. Every Republican voted against it.

You're right, this is fun!

 

[HomerJS]

Income gap began widening just before 1980 and has continued since. Obama has begun to addresses it. That's where any changes need to begin.

 

[Lash444]

So let's see... manufacturing leaves the country. Automation appears to be replacing workers at a pace that eclipses new work for them. cost of living continues to go up. well folks, I'm no genius, but I think all of these things are going to continue to tighten the grip for the foreseeable future. companies are producing more with fewer workers. who benefits in that situation? the rich.

but yes, this thread is about Obama. given what was said above, you'd be a fool if thought any other president would have a different outcome. the way I see it, technology is going to allow us to produce more and more with fewer and fewer people. I haven't seen anything so far that could lead me to conclude otherwise.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Income gap began widening just before 1980 and has continued since.

That's pretty much true.

Obama has begun to addresses it.

Like he's addressed the telcos spying, or the NSA, or helped other nations by shafting a program to provide low cost critical medications for poor nations, something the Bush administration was interested in. Then there's the Trans-Pacific treaty, which advances the slide downward.

Nope Nope Nope.

That's where any changes need to begin.

If that's the case then take up religion and pray because help will come from above before any person who had the ability and character to materially make changes would be supported by the people who control us.

Where changes need to begin isn't with those pimps. They don't want or need to do anything because the Faithful make tin gods out of them and defend them against all. The light bulb needs to go on with us and not accept whatever is shoveled our way and then justify it.

It's not good enough.

 

[Matt1970]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanOWorms
We need a president and Congress with the guts to dismantle white privilege, among others. That's the source for much of the income inequality. America is the land of white privilege - among the greatest source of societal and governmental welfare humanity has ever experienced.

You are quite possibly the most devout racist on the forums. Go find some other forum to spew this.

As to the question in the OP I don't know how to change it nor do I see a chance of it changing.

Is this true?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101348398

Quote:
The combined wealth of the world's richest 85 people is now equivalent to that owned by half of the world's population – or 3.5 billion of the poorest people – according to a new report from Oxfam.

So 85 PEOPLE. Not top 1% or anything else, 85 PEOPLE are as worth as much as half the human population. I am fairly sure the value of any one of those people is not equivalent to 41,000,000 people.
__________________

It's not that the top 85 people are all that rich, the top 20 people aren't even worth $1Trillion, it's that the bottom 1/2 of the population is extremely poor.

 

[fskimospy]

PPACA disproportionately affects the middle, working class due to the effect his 15 features have had on premiums. Every Republican voted against it.

You're right, this is fun!

Not income.

 

[boomerang]

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/low-information-voters-adding-faces-to-the-voices-t12897.html

France Adopts Reaganomics (Again)

 

[Genx87]

Still, it’s likely not all Obama’s fault. As a more recent paper from Saez and his Berkeley colleagues notes, the U.S. has the worst income inequality in the developed world in large part because lawmakers, financiers and the wealthy have colluded for years to keep much of the nation’s money in the hands of the rich.

Until we figure out how to stop the above, the shipping out of good paying jobs for the middle and lower masses will continue and more and more people will slip down as they take the McWage jobs in place of a real wealth and knowledge creating job. Tax policies are ever more favoring the rich, so called free trade has opened the floodgate on trade....we're trading our jobs for their plastic trinkets. Allow the banks (ah, run by the rich) to throw money at those with dwindling wages to try to keep their lifestyle, and more importantly, their consumption growing....and when it fails, bail the banks out, well because they're too big to fail.

Throw in a tad of more immigration to help drive the wages down....more visas because we don't have the technical skills needed (i.e. meaning that the top can't get by with paying what they want for technical skills so they want to import cheap labor).

A cycle that will continue until a 20's like RESET button is hit and the cycle starts over...

Again, keep chipping away at the foundation and eventually, the building falls....just a matter of time.

Ahh I had this argument with senseamp yesterday. A govt run by the rich isnt going to pass policy unfavorable to themselves.

 

[TerryMathews]

Not income.

It reduces AGI.

And also, let's address a logical fallacy on your part and the lib's part: taxes and ancillary costs play as much a part in this as stagnant wages. If a guy makes $10k and pays $2500 in taxes, it makes no difference to him whether you lower his taxes $1250, or raise his income $1250. His AGI and discretion at income would be the same either way.

You're taking a two variable equation (simplified), and saying "Let's only concern ourselves with one variable." When in reality both are broken.

 

[rudeguy]

"income inequality"

This is really a thing now? So are we all supposed to make the same amount of money? WTF does this even mean?

 

[Mursilis]

Here's the basic problem with any form of democracy. The average citizen is usually just smart enough to figure out (eventually) they're getting screwed

(exhibit a)

Income gap began widening just before 1980 and has continued since.

but is easily fooled into thinking someone in power is actually addressing the situation.

(exhibit b)

Obama has begun to addresses it.

 

[Engineer]

Ahh I had this argument with senseamp yesterday. A govt run by the rich isnt going to pass policy unfavorable to themselves.

Like I've said....we can either figure out how to stop and reverse course or be prepared to hit the reset button after the system finally gets a BSOD....

 

[Double Trouble]

Growing income inequality is a really bad thing.

I'm glad Obama draws attention to it. I wish he would do more to actually combat it. I wish he could do more to actually combat it.

Are you really delusional enough to think Obama actually cares about this issue, or has any inclination to fix it?

:biggrin:

This has very little to do with Obama directly, it's not the result of anything done in the last 5 years, it's been building for 40 years. That said, it's getting worse, not better, which if nothing else tells us whatever strategies are being used to decrease the gap are obviously not working.

I sincerely doubt that Obama could propose any legislation whatsoever without the GOP decrying it as evil socialism and obstructing it in every way possible.

True enough, but he managed to pass other lousy legislation like obamacare, so that's not a valid excuse.

 

[fskimospy]

It reduces AGI.

Median income is calculated pre-tax due to the fact that people of the same income can be in wildly different tax situations. Do you want to try again?

 

[Double Trouble]

Obama has begun to addresses it. That's where any changes need to begin.

😵

You actually believe this? Are you that devout of a follower?

Neither Obama nor any of the other candidates over the past few decades would possibly do anything that would decrease the gap between the rich and the poor. They are all beholden to those with the money, or they are themselves part of the ultra rich. Why would anyone think congress or the president would be interested in decreasing that gap? What percentage of congress is a millionaire?

 

[fskimospy]

It reduces AGI.

And also, let's address a logical fallacy on your part and the lib's part: taxes and ancillary costs play as much a part in this as stagnant wages. If a guy makes $10k and pays $2500 in taxes, it makes no difference to him whether you lower his taxes $1250, or raise his income $1250. His AGI and discretion at income would be the same either way.

You're taking a two variable equation (simplified), and saying "Let's only concern ourselves with one variable." When in reality both are broken.

No, I'm telling you that your attempt to explain the phenomenon in the article doesn't actually affect the phenomenon in the article. If you took into account after tax income and government transfers it is quite possible inequality has declined. (I'm not really sure though).

If we are going by your standards the truth could very well be the exact opposite of the point you were trying to make. See why this distinction is important?

 

[TerryMathews]

Median income is calculated pre-tax due to the fact that people of the same income can be in wildly different tax situations. Do you want to try again?

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were concerned about the actual problem, not a stated restriction in your median calculation.

Serious question: do you understand that people's health care costs reduce their AGI and discretionary income?

 

[TerryMathews]

If you took into account after tax income and government transfers it is quite possible inequality has declined. (I'm not really sure though).

If that's the case then we've solved the problem haven't we?

I mean, what you all are proposing to fix inequality is higher taxes on the largest wage earners and higher estate taxes. Both of those would count into the pile you dont want us to look at. Or, stated another way, youre not calculating against the numbers you want to effect.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were concerned about the actual problem, not a stated restriction in your median calculation.

Serious question: do you understand that people's health care costs reduce their AGI and discretionary income?

I am concerned about the actual problem, but what you wrote:

1.) didn't address the phenomenon under discussion and

2.) even granting your premise, selectively chooses to look at one policy that alters AGI without looking at the other policies that would act to reduce the disparity. This is bad analysis all around.