Barack Obama, most of the Democrat Party and pretty much all the Occupy Wall Street hooligans are
Trotskying I mean trotting out the tired Marxist myth that Republicans only care about the rich and that the rich are a bunch of evil thieves who somehow stole “the people’s” money by somehow forcing them to buy stuff. The entire movement is based on the servile, mindless philosophy of people who believe that somebody else owes them whatever they think they deserve to have.
I was glad to come across this editorial byInvestor’s Business Daily:
Busting The 1% Vs. 99% Myth
Oct 18, 2011
Inequality: President Obama’s class-envy strategy is built on a false premise — that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. Amazingly, such zero-sum thinking is influencing public opinion.
Twice as many Americans support the anti-Wall Street protesters as oppose them. And even Rasmussen is polling that nearly half of Americans support proposals to soak the rich.
This is an emotional response to both the hard economic times and dishonest political rhetoric. People are buying into the notion peddled by the left that the rich steal from people. It’s a pernicious myth left over from preindustrial Marxism.
The left says current levels of income inequality echo the late 1920s and the Gilded Age. They’ve zeroed in on the richest 1%, citing Census Bureau data showing these top earners “grabbing” more income than the bottom 90%.
But the census stats are misleading.
For one, they are a snapshot of income distribution at a single point in time. Yet income is not static. It changes over time. Low-paying jobs from early adulthood give way to better-paying jobs later in life.
And income groups in America are not fixed. There’s no caste system here, really no such thing even as a middle “class.” The poor aren’t stuck in poverty. And the rich don’t enjoy lifetime membership in an exclusive club.
A 2007 Treasury Department study bears this out. Nearly 58% of U.S. households in the lowest-income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher level by 2005. The reverse also held true. Of those households that were in the top 1% in income in 1996, more than 57% dropped to a lower-income group by 2005.
Every day in America, the poor join the ranks of the rich, and the rich fall out of comfort.
So even if income equality is increasing, it does not mean income mobility is decreasing. There is still a great deal of movement in and out of the richest and poorest groups in America.
The beauty of our free-market system (what’s left of it), is that even among the thousands of Wall Street protesters thumping, “We are the 99%,” there are those who might not be able to say that a decade or so from now. Some might go on to profit from an Internet start-up. Others might get a rap contract. Anything’s possible in America.
One of those street agitators might even become president, following in the shoes of Obama, who’s now one of the 1-percenters he mocks.
Another problem with the census data is they don’t include the noncash income received by the lowest-income households. Each year, the poor get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for housing, food and health care. None of these transfer payments, a lot of it paid for by the 1%, is counted as income by the Census Bureau.
One report estimates that the share of total income earned by the lowest-income group would rise roughly 50% if such welfare were considered.
Likewise, the share of total income earned by the top income quintile would drop about 7% if taxes paid to fund welfare were considered.
Census doesn’t take into account the equalizing effects of taxes. Though they earn more than 45% of total income, the top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the total income-tax burden. The top 1%? They shoulder a whopping 40% of the tax load.
Federal Reserve and other data — which include all financial and nonfinancial assets, including bank accounts, investments, houses and cars — give a more complete picture of the gap. When you count all wealth, not just income, inequality has not gotten worse.
The top 1% account for 35% of total wealth, compared with 37% in 1922. In fact, the worst wealth disparity ever was in the 1990s under President Clinton.
That last sentence of the article bears repeating:
“In fact, the worst wealth disparity ever was in the 1990s under President Clinton.”
Democrats love lies. Their souls swim in lies. Lies and hypocrisy define Democrats. Take away the lies and the hypocrisy and Democrats simply dematerialize like the Cheshire cat.
Democrats have fabricated the narrative that the streets were paved with gold under Bill Clinton. They cite Clinton’s tax hikes as proving that high taxes and a healthy economy go hand in hand.
That it erally isn’t true doesn’t mean a thing to them.
For one thing, Bill Clinton LOWERED the capital gains tax even as he raised the income tax. That offset is completely off the modern Marxist Democrats’ radar now, but it was an essential offset, a sine qua non without which there would have been no healthy economy. Because low taxes HELP create a healthy economy. It is simply a fact.
Another thing that is important to consider is that a primary cause of the economic health of the 1990s had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Bill Clinton. The presidents who created that condition – the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening of many markets that had previously been completely inaccessible to the United States – were Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
In the short-term aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union there was – unsurprisingly – a severe recession. Why was this not surprising? Two reasons: Because 1) investors don’t like uncertainty; and the world was a very uncertain place the first few years after the U.S.S.R. imploded as breakaway republics and unaccounted-for nuclear weapons abounded. And because 2) Western Europe went into a deep recession due to the fact that suddenly they were inheriting the shambles of the Soviet economy that had resulted from all the liberal socialism of the communist Soviet Union. Our major trading partners got weaker, which reduced their purchase of American products, which in turn affected the American economy. Obama has in fact been using that very same argument to try to claim that he wasn’t responsible for the failure of his economy the last three years.
By the time Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, the world was beginning to recover from the collapse of the Soviet Union. New markets were opening. We were about to enter boom times.
But that still leaves a third thing to consider about the Clinton years. They didn’t start out so well: remember 1994? Remember that historic asskicking of Democrats in the midterm elections? Things weren’t going well at ALL; and it wasn’t until after the American people wisely elected Republicans to take over both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate that things BEGAN to start going well.
Democrats give Bill Clinton total credit for “balancing the budget.” But the fact of the matter is that balancing the budget was THE VERY FIRST PLATFORM OF THE FAMOUS REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA. Things that were instrumental to balancing the budget – such as welfare reform – were FORCED on Bill Clinton. Clinton vetoed welfare reform TWICE before signing the same thing he’d vetoed into law. And then Clinton took credit for the thing he’d twice vetoed that was ultimately shoved down his throat. And with the help of a completely dishonest media, he managed to sell that lie.
But all in all, the 1990s (under the wise leadership of Republicans who controlled two of the three political branches of government after 1994) were good years. And they were years in which the wealthy had the largest share of the wealth in America of ALL TIME.
Which simply proves that the demagogic, Marxist, dishonest tirades that Obama, Democrats and liberals are screaming about today about “the rich paying their fair share” is simply a flat-out lie.
After pointing out that Democrats are liars and hypocrites, let me also point out that they are stupid people. Because believing lies and constantly putting up double-standards doesn’t make one more intelligent; it makes one more stupid. And the problem with Democrats today is that they are radically committed to a depraved, dishonest and perverted view of the world which cannot possibly be true because everything they believe has been refuted by history time after time.
And so they claim that socialism works when in fact it has failed every single time it has ever been tried. And they claim that Bill Clinton’s tax policies more fairly distributed wealth when in fact it did the exact opposite.
What we have seen again and again is that when taxes are lowered, the rich have more incentive to invest and risk their money creating jobs. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE REWARDED FOR DOING SO AND THEY ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY EARN. Conversely, when demagogues demand that “the rich pay their fair share” (when all dishonest lies aside the facts are that they already pay FAR more than their “fair share“), the rich shelter their money and the economy contracts instead of expanding. The rich aren’t going to risk their wealth with job-creating investments if they are demonized. And you tell me how many poor people have given you a job and made you rich.
Another way to put it is this: we tax cigarettes to reduce smoking; so why in the HELL do Democrats want to tax investment???
“First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”
And yet here he is, trying to do what he himself said was “the last thing you want to do.”
Which is another way of saying the first thing the American people should want to do is throw this useless bum out of the people’s house.
This is breathtaking stupidity; and yet the stupider I believe Democrats are, the more right I turn out to be.
Barack Obama understands that Democrats are unbelievably stupid people who live in a world of lies. And he’s counting on that stupidity to try to lie his way to re-election. That’s the bottom line.
If you want to see liberal hypocrisy in action, just look at the Occupy Wall Street movement and the liberal media coverage of the movement. These are people who have every single Apple gadget in their hands, but are decrying the very capitalism that Apple so profitably exploited. The fact of the matter is that Apple has a FAR higher profit margin than either the oil companies or the banks that these loathsome hypocrites demonize, but consistency is simply not a virtue they care about. Furthermore, they have nothing to say about the greatest crony capitalist boondoggle ever seen: the Obama-backed Solyndra fiasco. And if that isn’t enough to demonstrate the hypocrisy that the left wallows in, consider the fact that the “whiteness” of the Tea Party demonstrators was brought up by the mainstream media over and over and over again to decry the movement as “racist.” And yet where are all the charges of racism now when the leftwing Occupy Wall Street movement is every scintilla as “white” as the Tea Party was??? Ninety-nine percent of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are WHITE. And they are clearly racist, too as they blame all the problems in their terrible useless lives on the Jews. But suddenly no one in the mainstream media seems to care about the whiteness of the mob – or this particular mob’s active racism – any more.