Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush

In what shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with a pulse Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush ( http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/growth-of-income-inequality-is-worse-under-obama-than-bush.html) Yesterday, the President gave a speech in which he demanded that Congress raise taxes on millionaires, as a way to somewhat recalibrate the nation?s wealth distribution.  His advisors, like Gene Sperling, are giving speeches talking about the need for manufacturing.  A common question in DC is whether this populist pose will help him win the election.  Perhaps it will.  Perhaps not.  Romney is a weak candidate, cartoonishly wealthy and from what I?ve seen, pretty inept.  But on policy, there?s a more interesting question. A better puzzle to wrestle with is why President Obama is able to continue to speak as if his administration has not presided over a significant expansion of income redistribution upward.  The data on inequality shows that his policies are not incrementally better than those of his predecessor, or that we?re making progress too slowly, as liberal Democrats like to argue.  It doesn?t even show that the outcome is the same as Bush?s.  No, look at this table, from Emmanuel Saez (h/t Ian Welsh).  Check out those two red circles I added. ... Chart here ... Yup, under Bush, the 1% captured a disproportionate share of the income gains from the Bush boom of 2002-2007.  They got 65 cents of every dollar created in that boom, up 20 cents from when Clinton was President.  Under Obama, the 1% got 93 cents of every dollar created in that boom.  That?s not only more than under Bush, up 28 cents.  In the transition from Bush to Obama, inequality got worse, faster, than under the transition from Clinton to Bush.  Obama accelerated the growth of inequality. Income concentrations are relatively rare, but when they happen, sharp policy moves can retain a strong measure of equality.  It?s well-known at this point that President Obama did not want to make such moves.  TARP, cramdown, and the foreclosure fraud settlement suggest that his interests lie in preserving the capital structure of the large banks.  What about other policy priorities? Despite his recent speech, President Obama knows that his income tax proposal is going nowhere.  So let?s look at three recent policy choices that are going somewhere. 1) President Obama is on the verge of approving a Free Trade deal with Colombia, despite the murder of union organizers in that country.  Not content with establishing similar deals with Panama (which has to do with enlarging tax havens) and South Korea, the administration is now embarking on a much vaster Trans-Pacific Partnership deal with countries all over Asia.  And it?s being negotiated entirely in secret, with corporate and government officials the only ones allow to be in the room. Trade is a significant driver of lower wages. 2) President Obama just pushed for and signed the JOBS Act, which is a substantial relaxation of regulations and accounting requirements on corporations seeking to go public.  Bill Black has many four letter words to describe this bill, but it?s basically a license for Wall Street to commit fraud in the equity markets.  The SEC is beginning to promulgate instructions on how this will work. 3) President Obama just refused to issue an executive order forcing campaign spending disclosure by government contractors.  President Obama actually criticized the Supreme Court?s decision in Citizens United at a State of the Union address, but as with yesterday?s speech on raising taxes on millionaires, there was actually no there there. Read more at the link. J - I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. - B

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. Alexis de Tocqueville<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alexisdeto390854.html>; ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it > can bribe the public with the public's money. > The Federal Reserve Note will be a piece of history soon.

Yes, but what will replace it? Also, should we even be using a federal reserve note?  A piece of paper, from a private bank, with no material backing? On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions < casey@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

What's he supposed to do when every attempt to address the situation is blocked by Republicans? Surprised this article glossed over that very salient point. The article also fails to address the economic collapse which Obama inherited. Of course during such a time income will be low, and if the Republicans block all attempts to adjust taxes and benefits then of course more money will flow to the wealthy, especially when Wall St. caused the collapse. Republicans vehemently opposed tougher regulations on the banks as well. On 15 April 2012 13:03, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: > > Growth of Income Inequality Is Worse Under Obama than Bush ( > http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/growth-of-income-inequality-is-worse-under-obama-than-bush.html)

Come on Gellie, this isn't just a republican issue, and if you look at it with an open mind you'll see that.  He has the power of veto, he can stop a budget in it's tracks, same with tax cuts. He signed the bail outs. Obama is a Wall Street puppet just as much as anyone in Washington. Look at his donor list, and the things he has done in office.  More telling I think are those things he said he was going to do, that once in office were no longer his priority. Don't believe the hype is a sequel..... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Actually TARP was signed into law by Bush. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Should have been more specific, had the auto bail out in mind. Not to mention the ARRA and his other bailout and "stimulous" plans. he has continued failed programs at every turn, including many he campaigned directly against. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

In what ways do you think the auto bail out and ARRA were failures? Judah > > Should have been more specific, had the auto bail out in mind. > > Not to mention the ARRA and his other bailout and "stimulous" plans. > > he has continued failed programs at every turn, including many he > campaigned directly against.

The Auto bail out maybe wasn't a failure, but wasn't within the constitutional powers allotted to the government in my opinion. The ARRA didn't create anywhere near the jobs it was supposed to, and I know you've seen the issues with the "green" companies that it supplied with millions of dollars and how they are failing left and right.  Again I also think that this level of interference in the economy is unconstitutional. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Judah McAuley <judah@wiredotter.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

ARRA has done some amazing things, really, but you might not have seen them. It has, hands down, done more to modernize healthcare IT than anything in decades. I see it because that's where I work. If I didn't work in that field, I probably wouldn't know because it doesn't seem to get talked about in the media. I think it also did what it set out to do: stem the bleeding of jobs. I would have liked to have seen a much bigger stimulus package in order to really move things. A large contingent of economists at the time pointed out the that size of the stimulus compared to size of GDP was so small that it would be rather difficult for it to have a substantial effect. But, I guess, politically they felt like it was as much as they could swing. Weak, but there it is. And if you look at the numbers, you'll see that private sector job losses started to stabilize and then improve as the stimulus got passed and then put into action. Overall numbers were still dragged down by continued slashing of public sector jobs. Those losses seem to have finally stabilized, so we'll see how things look going forward. As to the constitutionality of the measures, I can understand your trepidation. TARP and ARRA were, at least, introduced into Congress and voted on. I'm rather more worried about the much larger behind the scenes machinations by the Fed. No oversight, no public votes, no transparency what so ever. And they dwarfed TARP and ARRA put together. Seems like a classic example of distract and divide. Get people focused on the little stuff that you let them see and hope they ignore the man behind the curtain. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I've spoken plainly of my dislike of the Fed here, and I agree that they are a blight on our nations monetary policy. That doesn't take away from the governments intervention in things it has no business being involved in.  As to economists, many of them (Harvard, U of Chicago, Nobel winners) think that economic stimulus is and has been a failed idea. http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/16/stimulus-arra-government-spending-krugman-prescott-opinions-contributors-ohanian.html As a matter of fact over 200 of them got together to buy a full page ad in one of the NY papers (can't remember which but it should be googlable easily) to directly appose what the government was doing, and it's misinformation at the time. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Ever hear of the necessary and proper clause? The Auto bail out maybe wasn't a failure, but wasn't within the constitutional powers allotted to the government in my opinion. The ARRA didn't create anywhere near the jobs it was supposed to, and I know you've seen the issues with the "green" companies that it supplied with millions of dollars and how they are failing left and right.  Again I also think that this level of interference in the economy is unconstitutional. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Judah McAuley <judah@wiredotter.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I am, but lets examine it shall we? "The Congress <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress>; shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers>;, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." - Section 8 Clause 18 You could also argue pints in the "general welfare clause" to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; As well as the "commerce clause" To regulate Commerce <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce>; with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. However I would then argue that while all that is true, the tenth amendment to the constitution, part of the bill of rights, effectively closes those loop holes.  The bill of rights was required to get the constitution ratified, as I'm sure you know.  It placed much more severe limits on what the government could and couldn't do.  I could likely go on to make a 9th amendment argument about the validity of using public funds in such a manner, and devolve into a 16th amendment discussion about how the tax system has been perverted and that the entire budget of the federal government shouldn't even be as large as these "necessary and proper" actions. Not my first time at the ball game my friend. On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

And this is what I am talking about. Republicans have BLOCKED (again) debate about the President's Buffet rule which would have tried to even out the disparity and the inequality. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/us/politics/buffett-rule-debate-blocked-by-republicans.html

If our government pulled back in size and scope into the limits imposed by the constitution, our budget wouldn't be near the size it is today, ans income tax would be a thing of the past. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Yeah...blocked debate...not voted against it...but blocked debate.  That is being obstructionist.  When are republican voters going to wake up realize that they don't give a shit about you unless you can contribute thousands and millions of dollars to their campaign coffers? And this is what I am talking about. Republicans have BLOCKED (again) debate about the President's Buffet rule which would have tried to even out the disparity and the inequality. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/us/politics/buffett-rule-debate-blocked-by -republicans.html

Yep.  And when they approved the Health Care act, pundits stated that polls showed that 7 out of 10 Americans didn't want it, so Congress was going against the will of the people. Polls today show 7 out of 10 Americans want the Buffett act.  So where were the pundits calling for Congress to comply with the will of the people today?  Strangely silent. > > Yeah...blocked debate...not voted against it...but blocked debate.  That is > being obstructionist.  When are republican voters going to wake up realize > that they don't give a shit about you unless you can contribute thousands > and millions of dollars to their campaign coffer

*crickets chirping* Yep.  And when they approved the Health Care act, pundits stated that polls showed that 7 out of 10 Americans didn't want it, so Congress was going against the will of the people. Polls today show 7 out of 10 Americans want the Buffett act.  So where were the pundits calling for Congress to comply with the will of the people today?  Strangely silent. > > Yeah...blocked debate...not voted against it...but blocked debate.   > That is being obstructionist.  When are republican voters going to > wake up realize that they don't give a shit about you unless you can > contribute thousands and millions of dollars to their campaign coffer

I'm still waiting on Jerry Barnes who started this thread to respond to this latest development :-) On 16 April 2012 23:55, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com>wrote: > > *crickets chirping* > >

*crickets get louder* I'm still waiting on Jerry Barnes who started this thread to respond to this latest development :-) On 16 April 2012 23:55, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com>wrote: > > *crickets chirping* > >

"I'm still waiting on Jerry Barnes who started this thread to respond to this latest development :-)" Which development? Obama is protecting and enriching elitists while preaching the gospel of wealth distribution.  That's the only development I see that is worth considering. On the elitist, here's an interesting blog entry: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/10/13/the-rich-support-mccain-the-super-rich-support-obama/ It is based on a survey by a wealth management company.  Here's an excerpt: "More than three quarters of those worth $1 million to $10 million plan to vote for Sen. McCain. Only 15% plan to vote for Sen. Obama (the rest are undecided). Of those worth more than $30 million, two-thirds support Sen. Obama, while one third support Sen. McCain." While the 1% may be a majority Republican, it looks like the 1/4% are Democrats.  They know where their bread is buttered. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I know, shouldn't be surprised to see political hit pieces like this, but sometimes the sheer lack of intellectual honesty still gets me. In a recession, poor and middle class people lose ground faster than the wealthy because they lose jobs and don't have any income other than jobs. Job loss also usually starts from the bottom up. The only way you eliminate a CEO job is if the company folds. You'll generally eliminate a number of other positions prior to that happening. So, in short, people who have a lot of money prior to a recession tend to be able to have multiple revenue streams. They also tend to have jobs that less likely to be eliminated. They may see the value of their investments dip some, they may see their salary reduced some, but they have a built in cushion because of the type and diversity of revenue streams. People who are poor or middle class do not have either the diversity of revenue streams or the cushion against losing those revenue streams. Hence, a recession increases income disparity. Not that hard to figure out, really, pretty simple economics. Now they could try and argue that the policies that Obama wants to put in place won't reduce income disparity in the future, but that wouldn't be nearly as much fun as a partisan hack job of an article, so why put in the effort, right? Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----