Be Prepared for the F-Bomb!

[Gaspar]

It has already begun, but be prepared to hear it a lot more during this election.  The president does not have a track record with the economy, jobs, foreign relations, domestic relations, or growth, so it is expected that his entire platform will revolve round his new theme of "Fairness."  With OWS as his brownshirts and a slew of new graphic design, monikers, posters, and effigies, he will push the concept of redistribution and fairness as his primary platform.  According to the New York Times, this is his road to success, and as long as people remain unemployed this will resonate with them.


http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/morning-examiner-obama’s-wealth-spreading-success/253591
Well, The New York Times has even more good news for Obama this morning. According to IRS data, the share of income received by America’s richest 1 percent dropped from 23% in 2007 to 17% in 2009. Obama’s wealth redistribution plan is already a stunning success. But if everybody is now more equal, if the rich’s share of the wealth has fallen by a stunning 17% in just two years, then why hasn’t that been “good for everybody” as Obama told Joe the Plumber it would be?

University of Chicago’s Steven Kaplan explains, “If you want to reduce inequality, all you need to do is put the economy in a recession. If you want the economy to do well, as all of us do, then you’ll get more inequality.” Kaplan continued, “It’s very interesting that [income inequality] has become such a big topic now when the numbers are back to where they were in the 1990s. People didn’t seem to be complaining about it then.”

People weren’t complaining about income inequality in the 90s because they had jobs. When people have jobs, they don’t care if their neighbor has a nicer car than they do. But Obama’s job creation record is a complete failure. The 2012 election cannot be about jobs, it has to be about something Obama can solve … like income inequality. By making us all poorer, Obama is doing a fantastic job fighting income inequality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/business/economy/recession-crimped-incomes-of-the-richest-americans.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&src=tp&adxnnlx=1323872676-rtrV1nZ4MkOvqBLk1YTctw

Yesterday several Democrats unveiled the Restore the American Dream for the 99 Percent Act. in a press conference, and chanting the fairness mantra.
“What I believe the 99ers are doing are asking the question why there’s a 275 times difference in wealth between the wealthiest and the poorest in America,” she said. “I think they are pushing fairness, justice and equality.”

Today OWS protesters will start to ramp up the protests by blockading businesses', hand-cuffing themselves to the doors of buildings where people are employed, all while taking on the new "Fairness" mantra in their signs and imagery.  

[guido911]

Listen to this jack@ss Trumka confess to paying more than his "fair share" in taxes at a salary of $283K.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW4qz3WrK3Y&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[nathanm]

Income and wealth are not the same thing, Gaspar. Moreover, Obama's policies have nothing to do with the change. (he hasn't implemented any policies that would change it) It's called a recession. 2009 was a bad year for the market, if you recall. It'll be interesting to see what 2010 looks like. It would be nice if the IRS stats weren't two years behind.

[swake]

You need to read the full article Gasp. The drop in income for the rich was largely due to the stock market crash, which happened when Bush was president. Stocks are up under Obama and the article states they also think the income of the wealthy increased during 2010 and since. Under Obama.

This is also a quote from the article:

But Harry J. Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University, argues much of the recent growth at the top reflects insider privilege instead of real productivity. “The notion that the really high earners are earning it has become very questionable,” he said. “Look at outrageousness of the damage they imposed on the rest of the economy and the cost being born by middle-income Americans.”  “There’s been rising income inequality all over the world, but nowhere as much as in the United States,” he said.

[Gaspar]

You need to read the full article Gasp. The drop in income for the rich was largely due to the stock market crash, which happened when Bush was president. Stocks are up under Obama and the article states they also think the income of the wealthy increased during 2010 and since. Under Obama.

This is also a quote from the article:

I understand that.  It has nothing to do with reality, it has to do with what President Obama will campaign on and this is the platform that is available to him.  He has already adopted the "Fairness" mantra as his primary campaign position, so it follows that he will utilize any data available to show a track record of promoting fairness and push for like goals.

He has two motivated voting blocks that he can capitalize on.  One is the die-hard democrat base that he relied on in the last election with his platform of Hope & Change.  The other is the rising tide of the angry entitled, who demand fairness (primarily because they were not the recipients of Hope & Change).  He has chosen to incorporate the latter into his message and use the momentum of their movement to energize his campaign.

[AquaMan]

I tried RA. Just couldn't make it past his lead. My journalism background tells me that everything you need to know in a story is contained in a good lead paragraph. After that its just details.

OWS as Obama Brownshirts?! And anyone kept reading?!

[nathanm]

Again, if a writer conflates income and wealth, you can pretty much ignore the rest because the conclusions are based on that bit of bunkum.

[guido911]

Maybe "blue shirts".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1QiSi0_kTo[/youtube]

[Teatownclown]

I bet this galls you, Gassie.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45657166/ns/today-today_celebrates_2011/t/time-magazine-reveals-its-person-year/#.TuigCFbcOVo

[Gaspar]

Again, if a writer conflates income and wealth, you can pretty much ignore the rest because the conclusions are based on that bit of bunkum.

I'm not conflating anything.  that's not the subject of this post, not do I give a rat's a$$ about it.

As a follow up I just heard that OWS here in Tulsa is chained to City Hall, chanting about fairness this morning.

[nathanm]

I'm not conflating anything.  that's not the subject of this post, not do I give a rat's a$$ about it.

As a follow up I just heard that OWS here in Tulsa is chained to City Hall, chanting about fairness this morning.

I don't know about that, but I saw a lone protester at 6th and Main this morning.

And yes, your post makes no sense if the author is claiming that a temporary drop in income changes the picture of wealth inequality, which is precisely what is claimed.

[Gaspar]

I bet this galls you, Gassie.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45657166/ns/today-today_celebrates_2011/t/time-magazine-reveals-its-person-year/#.TuigCFbcOVo

That is awesome!  These are truly your days my friend.
The era of AOX/FOTD/Teatown has come!
You should change your avatar to that.  Actually. . .stand by. . .

[Teatownclown]

LOL! I'm certainly a trend setter.

But it's getting harder to motivate others....there's a general depression out there.


Inspiration move me brightly....

[Gaspar]

Just for you Tea.

[we vs us]

So what's the problem with fairness?  As a campaign theme and as an economic idea it has a long and respectable history in American politics.  Presidents beginning with TR (an, ahem, Republican) have championed "a fair shake" for more than a century.  

And TR, as progressive as he was, was certainly no Commie.  Was he, Gaspar?  

EDIT: and lest we forget, there're plenty of good verifiable, measurable reasons to think that our economic system, as it stands, is unfair.