Skip to comments.Obama Calls Income Gap 'Morally Wrong' -- After Widening It
Posted on 08/01/2013 5:21:49 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
Obamanomics: The president has been decrying the growing gap between rich and poor in the U.S. to help sell his retread tax-and-spend proposals. But those policies have already produced record levels of income inequality.
In his speech in Illinois last week, and at events since, Obama described income inequality in the starkest terms. "This growing inequality is morally wrong," he said, and "undermines the very essence of America."
To be sure, income inequality is a standard trope for liberals, who always use it to advocate more wealth redistribution.
And Obama's latest focus neatly coincides with his plans to push for more federal spending and taxes on the "rich" in coming budget battles.
But what Obama conveniently leaves out of his sermons is that income inequality has grown faster on his watch than any time in the past two decades, at least.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Like Krugman on stimulus, Obama will just say the “inequality” gap widened because we didn’t redistribute enough.
Reality is, it’s not income inequality, it’s effort inequality. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity, Obeyme believes in equal outcome.
A Godless politician cannot define morally wrong anymore than he can define morally right. he can only take a stand and incite the mob to join the chorus.
Fed’s $85 billion per month QE certainly isn’t aimed at helping the poor.
He should give these kind of speeches while he is standing on Martha’s Vineyard next to the Yachts.
I posted this the other day and thought it was worth repeating. (Shameless Vanity Bump):
The pay gap or income equality is only morally wrong in cases of equal production. For instance:
Suppose I own a coal mine. I hire two guys to dig coal for me. One guy is weak and lazy and only digs up a ton a day. The second guy is strong and hard-working and digs up 2 tons a day. What would be fairpaying them the same amount (thus eliminating income inequality) or paying them according to their output?
Suppose I hire a third guy who is of a scientific bent and who invents a digging machine that can extract 100 tons of coal a day. He had worked for years developing the machine, which cost him a great deal of money to manufacture. By employing his machine in my coal mine, I can generate profits equal to that of 100 times that of my slow worker, or 50 times that of my fast worker. Is it fair if I pay the inventor the same amount that I pay digger one or digger two? Or is the pay gap that would occur if I pay the inventor an amount proportionate to his production unfair?
Liberals try to answer hypotheticals like this by begging the question and presuming that everyone is equal. That is, we all contribute equally, so we all should be paid equally. Its called socialism. It has never worked and never will. With equal pay, digger two will slow down until he reaches the output level of digger one. And the inventor would never risk his time and capital to make a device for which he would never be compensated.
Once again, and completely unsurprisingly, odumber is absolutely wrong on economics, society, and human nature. (I.e. he’s a leftist liberal) Income inequality is a fact of life. Some people will be satisfied with very little. Sure, they may make a lot of noise about wanting more, but they won’t actually put in the effort to improve their lot. Others will strive for more and achieve more, often far more. So too bad odumber, we are always going to have those who just get by on the government handouts, maybe augmented with a little criminal enterprise, and those that become millionaires. ... Don’t try to change that, because you can’t - in a free society.
Meanwhile, Zero lives like a sultan, spending hundreds of millions on his and Moochelle’s never-ending vacations.
You hit the nail directly on the head.
Our Declaration of Independence states that all men are “created” equally, it doesn’t say we all should make the same salary. Salaries are predicated on worth. What is a person worth to those who pay that salary.
Obviously if that person is sitting home doing nothing but making babies and crying about not having a job instead of looking for one he/she is not worth much, In fact not worth what we are already paying them.
Ask Obama if we should all be making what he makes for doing nothing but destroying America.
Pushing a statist healthcare law intended to politically enslave the population is morally wrong.
Taking dozens of vacation days while the country economically languishes is morally wrong.
He needs to leave this country while his skin is still in one piece.
That's what Marxists do, while they're spouting off their "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" garbage.