Income inequality is the new buzzword to get people to embrace Marxism and abandon capitalism
Despite the fact that income inequality has increased under Mr. Obama’s policies, the left is making the false claim that Mr. Obama’s policies are exactly what are needed to fix it. The left pretends they are attacking the evil rich but it is the capitalist system in the United States that they are attacking. The end result of the income inequality argument, which the left hopes to see, is to make Americans think like socialists and abandon capitalism.
If capitalism can make men too rich and engender income inequality, then socialism must be the answer, even though we know socialism widens the gap between rich and poor by eliminating the middle class. Socialism rewards the elite few with riches on the backs of the middle class.
Socialist economist Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed in the New York Times extolling the victory of leftist Bill De Blasio in the New York City mayoral race and socialist Elizabeth Warren’s argument that Social Security must be expanded. Even so, he pondered, will Obama’s vision of inequality is “the defining challenge of our age” be realized?
Krugman and others of his ilk hope to use income inequality as the reason to inflict more leftist policies on the nation. Krugman believes we need to spend more money we don’t have though that is clearly something that has not worked so far.
How enticing it is to want to lift up the poor and strengthen the middle class while demonizing the rich.
Krugman blames the debt surge on the rising inequality though he admits he can’t prove it and never looks at the possibility that the spending, which has not lifted the economy up, is adding to the debt and causing a loss in jobs and wages.
He blames the crisis solely on deregulation and thinks we jumped from bailing out banks to austerity. He can write this knowing that since 2008, our budget deficits have been over a trillion dollars each year, double anything Bush ever achieved in his spending sprees. That is hardly austerity.
Krugman, like so many other leftists, do not want the issue depoliticized which is understandable since they can’t win on the merits and their goal is really to inculcate our society with a new type of socialist mindset.
Mr. Obama has called for making income inequality his major issue even though it has gotten much worse under his administration, and Krugman is bolstering the argument with partial truths.
Krugman clearly omitted the fact that the Democratic Congress pushed banks into giving mortgages to people who could ill afford them, particularly if they were minorities, a practice which weakened the solvency of the banks, helping to cause the economic crash in 2007. This is something Hillary Clinton has admitted happened.
Check out the chart below which shows the inequality that has grown during the Clinton administration and then the Obama administration:
Graph via gateway pundit
Marxists like Obama believe in social engineering. They see big government as the means by which all things, particularly income, can be made equal. In order to make the changes he wants, he also has to convince us that we believe income inequality is unjust and the government can and should resolve the problem.
This is what the living wage is all about. A living wage is a Marxist tenet, nicknamed the ‘iron law of wages’ which declares that wage rates are determined by the cost of the means of subsistence required for the bare maintenance of the labor force.
It defines a society in which the quality or strenuousness of the work is not the factor in determining wages, but rather it is what the government determines is enough for a person to live.
Right now you see unions, who are working hand-in-glove with the Administration, strike at the fast food industry, sending workers making minimum wage into the streets with placards demanding a living wage for unskilled labor. Many of them are minorities with sad stories to tell.
It is not about them, though many might think it is. They are being exploited to send a message that a living wage is the right thing to do.
The unions don’t expect the employees to get increases in wages of up to $15 an hour (with Obamacare costs, it would be about $17.50 an hour). What they expect is for people to come to their way of thinking.
They are operating from the mindset that a Marxist utopian vision can succeed even though it has failed every time it has been tried.
Mother Jones, a Soros publication, picked up on the Obama declaration of inequality becoming ‘the defining challenge of our time.’ Mother Jones’ author Kevin Drum wrote a piece yesterday, coinciding with Krugman’s article and Huff Po’s and several others, titled, ‘The Fight Against Income Inequality Has Already Been Half Won’.
The article declares that conservatives believe high income inequality is necessary for growth, and the more the better.
Of course that has never been the argument of conservatives who want balance, but Drum states that argument is all but dead.
The argument that never was is dead!
Conservatives believe that a strong middle class is necessary to encourage the poor and the middle class strive for a better life. They don’t demonize the rich though they rail against the corrupt relationship between Wall Street and DC.
The top 40% of wage earners in this country, which they would call the rich, are paying all the federal taxes, in fact, they are responsible for 106% of the taxes according to the CBO.
Drum asks the reader if high inequality hurts economic growth. He says, ‘This shift in our default assumption represents huge progress.’ He adds, ‘After all, if the answer is yes, it’s one more reason to favor policies that reduce inequality. But even if the answer is no, all it means is that growth is independent of inequality.’ This is the argument that is half won and the basis for his article.
We must support Obama’s policies of social engineering income and economic growth, no harm can come of it.
Leftists like Drum want an equal distribution of wealth – except for their elite friends – which is orchestrated by government policies.
How do they achieve it? By redistributing the wealth of the citizens according to their values and by using inequality as the buzzword meant to gender sympathy and support. They must also make people dependent on the government for their necessities such as healthcare and by extending entitlements far beyond the usual helping hand.
They are very clever. As they destroy the middle class and make their rich cronies richer, they use the very thing they created – huge gaps in income inequality – as the reason to do even more of what they have been doing.
John Podesta has come back in to the White House to make Obama’s platform a reality. One of his goals is to make sure that the redistribution of wealth through Obamcare is not thwarted. Another goal is to seize control of the economic sector in much the same way.
He will do it all by circumventing Congress. It is his skill and it is what he was sent in to do.
Newt Gingrich explained it quite well yesterday in a panel discussion with statist Robert Reich. He said every major city is a poverty center run by Democrats..
video via weasel zippers