Skip to comments.Inequality: Obama picks the wrong war
Posted on 12/11/2013 7:37:23 AM PST by Kenny
President Obama has his answer to Lyndon Johnsons War on Poverty. It is a war on inequality.
The presidents formal declaration of hostilities came last week in a speech at the Center for American Progress, predictably praised as brilliant by his journalistic cheerleaders and touted by the White House as setting out the cause that will define the rest of his presidency.
While LBJs war on poverty is nothing to emulate it costs $900 billion a year, yet has manifestly failed in the stated goal of uplifting the poor at least it had a clear, compelling rationale. Who can disagree that it would be better if fewer Americans were poor? Obamas implicit argument is that it would be better if fewer Americans were rich, or at least if they werent quite so offensively rich.
He relied on dubious research and tendentious analysis to make his case, without ever admitting what, for him, must be the crux of the matter. Surely, income inequality offends his egalitarian sense of justice and aesthetics, and even if he didnt believe it had harmful real-word effects, he would wish the top 1 percent werent so wealthy as a social good in and of itself.
There is no doubt that we long ago exited the economic Golden Age of the mid-20th century, and we arent going to return to it. Obama could give a speech about that and never need to make a questionable claim. But he wants to make a case for war.
In his speech, the president said that inequality is bad for the economy and cited one study showing that greater income inequality means more fragile growth and more frequent recessions. Of course, one study can show almost anything.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Actually, this socialist view has defined his entire presidency.
This is an issue on which the conservatives and the GOP should be able to hammer Obama on.
We’re being told by Obama that income inequality is the big issue of our time???? Really???? Then let’s have that discussion. Let’s talk about why this is.
Let’s talk about the fact that highly skilled jobs pay more than minimum wage jobs at fast food places. Let’s talk about why pay scales for various jobs have evolved as they have. Let’s talk about whether neurosurgeons should be paid well, for their skills and years of training which get them to the point where their skills save lives.
Let’s talk about whether it would be fair to expect doctors, in this example, to go through years of training, etc. but not be compensated for any of that. Let’s talk about whether fewer people would want to be doctors, and whether that’s good for Obama’s vision of a utopian society.
I think this is an issue on which the GOP could easily win the debate, if we can have a fair debate on these issues. Income inequality as such, on its own, is not a bad thing, unless one is a good communist.
IMO he has officially given up trying to actually govern, and has outsourced the remainder of his term to John Podesta and the Centers for American Progress. This is THEIR agenda.
Lamenting wealth inequality is another variation on the old theme of Republicans are heartless plutocrats.