Skip to comments.Grand Old Parity
Posted on 02/27/2013 1:06:51 PM PST by Sir Napsalot
LAST month Emmanuel Saez, a celebrated economist at the University of California, Berkeley, issued another depressing report on income inequality. Among other things, Mr. Saez examined how real family incomes changed in the United States from 2009 to 2011, the first two years of the recovery. The richest 1 percent of Americans, he found, saw their incomes grow, on average, by more than 11 percent. As for the other 99 percent? You guessed it: incomes shrank by nearly half a percent.
The phenomenon is hardly new. The yawning gap between rich and poor has been growing since the 1970s and reached a 90-year peak in 2007, just before the financial crisis. The Great Recession narrowed the gap a bit, but now, once again, the richest Americans are vacuuming up what wealth is out there, a trend that Mr. Saez expects to continue.
I am a capitalist and a lifelong Republican. I believe that, in a meritocracy, some level of income inequality is both inevitable and desirable, as encouragement to those who contribute most to our economic prosperity. But I fear that government actions, not merit, have fueled these extremes in income distribution through taxpayer bailouts, central-bank-engineered financial asset bubbles and unjustified tax breaks that favor the rich.
This is not a situation that any freethinking Republican should accept. Skewing income toward the upper, upper class hurts our economy because the rich tend to sit on their money unlike lower- and middle-income people, who spend a large share of their paychecks, and hence stimulate economic activity.
But more fundamentally, it cuts against everything our country and my party stand for. Governments role should not be to rig the game in favor of the haves but to make sure the have-nots are given a fair shot.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well, hello. The Rich just like to gather more and more wealth to sit on it.
The 'have-nots' more often than not make bad decisions. There is no cure on stupid, unless you learn from it. But in fact, Dems (esp Obama) had been promoting irresponsible behaviors for a long time.
You can not continuously bail out the 99% (a misnomer).
When Obama gets through there will be no more middle class.
Only rich and poor with those who are poor not having a snow balls chance in hell of getting rich.
It is incomprehensible to leftists, but the more a Gov’t directs, mandates, regulates and picks winners and losers in an economy, the greater income disparity becomes.
At present, our activist Government and the Federal Reserve are absolutely guaranteeing that connected crony-capitalists and statists will get richer, while everyone else has their wages eroded by ZIRP, inflation, and taxes.
When one of the nation’s most respected banking officials leads off with “I am a capitalist and a Republican”, and then goes on to argue for Socialist redistribution for the next eleven paragraphs, you just know we are SOOOOOOO SCROOOOOOOOOD.
I was going to say her suggestions in the piece seemed right out of Obama’s 2013 SOTU, but couldn’t be sure I comprehend her correctly. ===> Seemed like it’s not just me.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.