Inequality gap got bigger under… Obama?

Yup, you heard that right. In fact, it is even more damning because, well read for yourself:

In his weekend radio address, President Obama decried that “over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier.” Although he was trying to leverage the Occupy Wall Street movement, the income gap has been a longstanding concern of his.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama said, “The project of the next president is figuring out how do you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth that George Bush has been so enamored with.”

But it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama. What’s more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

Frankly, when you understand what the leftist politicians definition of “social justice” really translates into – they pick who wins and who loses – it comes as no surprise that their friends & donors, the ones pushing whatever idiotic things the left tells us are the must have of the future, end up getting enormous amount of wealth transferred from the US tax payers to them.

Solyndra was just an obvious example of what the left’s “social justice” politics does: it throws other people’s money at bad things, enriching those that cozy up to the leftists. There is a reason that companies like GE and money bundlers like that Kaiser fella behind Solyndra love leftist big government types.

The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush’s eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama’s first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it’s climbed 5.7% since he took office.

Meanwhile, during Clinton’s eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980.

Want to know what else has grown disproportionally during the Obama years? The misery index. The dollar is worth shit, US debt is up $5 trillion in a short 3 years, people sucking at the government’s teat are at a record high, and those looking for something paid by other people now don’t even feel shame when they demand more and are called on it. But the LSM isn’t going to report that. Not when the guy in the WH has a (D) next to his name, and certainly not when they rigged the candidate coverage during that election to get him there.

To the extent that income inequality is a problem, it’s not clear what can be done to resolve it. Among the contributing factors:

Here is a hint: income inequality isn’t a problem. Admit that we are not all equal and work from that. We are never ever, all going to cross the finish line at the same time because human nature makes that impossible. Some people think that shit like this is what should determine income, while others, the ones with the income, actually feel work – and yes, work that doesn’t involve manual labor is work and not ignoble as you Marxists fuckwads want to pretend it is – makes the difference. The later are right. The former are envious and greedy. How much wealth is enough? None of you fucking business. Espeically when it is crooks in government trying in an obscene way to dictate that. Class warfare sucks ass.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    I’m not sure where he’s getting his figures. Income inequality tends to rise during good economic times and fall during bad ones. Income inequality peaked in 2007 and has fallen since as the economy has gone to shit. I’m working on a big post on this. But the biggest problem is using “household” income. Your typical high-income household has five times as many people working as your typical low income household.

    Thumb up 0

  2. AlexInCT *

    I’m not sure where he’s getting his figures.

    I followed the link to the US Census Bureau.

    Income inequality tends to rise during good economic times and fall during bad ones.

    These numbers seem to contradict that, and frankly, even if the gap grows faster during booms, the fact remains everyone is gaining.

    Income inequality peaked in 2007 and has fallen since as the economy has gone to shit. I’m working on a big post on this.

    Actually, I would have expected it to grow in these days where the corny capitalists where able to funnel trillions to their rich buddies while the more and more of the people they pretend to help end up having to suck at the government’s teat to make ends meet. And that’s what these numbers show. Maybe the assumptions where all wrong? Or maybe things are really skewed because of the crony capitalists. I think it is a combination of both.

    But the biggest problem is using “household” income. Your typical high-income household has five times as many people working as your typical low income household.

    Where do we find these houses with 5 earners, Hal? India? Cause I think they would be downright anomalies here in the US. And the highest income usually tend to be two earner couples. The profits are really fat if you are politicians like Dodd, Franks, Pelosi, and Reid, just to name a few….

    Thumb up 0

  3. Poosh

    OK, after reading the background, this man isn’t fit to have children let alone be a judge. How does a degenerate such as he get to power? He should be in jail, this is disgusting. I can understand beating a child who beat another child or did something bad or dangerous, as that’s appropriate parenting. But this clearly has nothing to do with discipline and more to do with pathological problems this judge has. He is no better than a parent who lets his child run wild.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    Looks like a good example of using stats in a way that suits your argument.

    The biggest problem is the world economy.

    Tell me Alex, which specific measures undertaken by Obama can be shown to have had a direct influence on increasing income inequality?

    To the right, income inequality must be inherently a good sign, because it suggests the rich are less restrained. Of course what is ignored is that there is finite amount of wealth. That extra accumulated $1 came from somewhere. It didn’t appear out of thin air (if it did, there would be chronic inflation, in which case the whole concept of wealth would be meaningless).

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    Several economists have demonstrated that income inequality has grown more rapidly under Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations. Income-tax policy has been cited as one of several factors that contributed to inequality. Republican President Ronald Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from over 70 to 28 percent during his tenure in office, which greatly contrasted with the very high top marginal tax rates in place during the period of great income equality, the “Great Compression”.[66]

    Larry Bartels, a Princeton political scientist, looked at average annual pre-tax income growth from 1948 to 2005, which encompassed most of the egalitarian Great Compression and the entire inegalitarian Great Divergence (up until the time he did his research) and published his findings in the book Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (Princeton University Press: 2008). His calculations showed that pre-tax income increased overall about 1.42 percent for people in the lowest quintile of the population and 2 percent for those in the top 5%. His research did suggest that income inequality increased under Republican administration and not under Democratic administration. Timothy Noah in the series “The United States of Inequality” summarized Bartels’s findings below:

    In Democrat-world, pre-tax income increased 2.64 percent annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 2.12 percent annually for the upper-middle-class and rich. There was no Great Divergence. Instead, the Great Compression—the egalitarian income trend that prevailed through the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s—continued to the present, albeit with incomes converging less rapidly than before. In Republican-world, meanwhile, pre-tax income increased 0.43 percent annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 1.90 percent for the upper-middle-class and rich. Not only did the Great Divergence occur; it was more greatly divergent. Also of note: In Democrat-world pre-tax income increased faster than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all richer and more equal! But in Republican-world, pre-tax income increased slower than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all poorer and less equal! Democrats also produced marginally faster income growth than Republicans at the 95th percentile, but the difference wasn’t statistically significant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Role_of_presidential_partisanship

    Thumb up 0

  6. AlexInCT *

    Tell me Alex, which specific measures undertaken by Obama can be shown to have had a direct influence on increasing income inequality?

    You must have missed the bullshit of the last 3 years, huh? Seems you also missed my two examples – GE and Solyndra – which are Obama administration wealth redistribution beneficiaries that made out like bandits. And then at a time when those having to go to the government for food are at a record high. Read some of the things that have been done by him and his crew of jackasses. I am neither inclined to waste my time going around with you only to have you shift the goal posts when you lose the argument as usual. Our economy is in the shitter because the crony capitalists and “social justice warriors” of which Obama is the top dog have fucked it up.

    Here is what I will tell you, CM. 9 out 10 people I talk to are worse off now than they where before Obama took over. The other is lucky, or like me, a hard worker and always trying to do better rather than wait for another asshole to improve things. Come the election that’s gonna show.

    have a nice day.

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    You don’t seem to understood the question: Which specific measures undertaken by Obama can be shown to have had a direct influence on increasing income inequality?

    The system under which Solyndra got finanical backing was created under Bush, so that doesn’t help you at all. In fact it trips you up. That’s aside from the fact that it isn’t a specific meansure that has a direct influence on increasing income inequality.

    The rest of what you say is close enough to an admission that you know you’re just talking shit again. I’ll look forward to Hal’s analysis. I imagine it’ll be pretty good.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Poosh

    A bizarre entry into wiki, which originates from Slate (lol). It should probably be removed, it has no business being there other than for partisan purposes. Originates from this CBS special.

    Krugman’s name did pop up so … lol

    Thumb up 0