...it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.
So the UN-transparent Administration is a benefactor to 'the rich.'
Monday, November 07, 2011
Who "Takes Care" of the Rich? (Surprise!!)
Kinda interesting.
...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. --IBD quoted at Gateway
So the UN-transparent Administration is a benefactor to 'the rich.'
...it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.
So the UN-transparent Administration is a benefactor to 'the rich.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There's so much wrong with that blurb and the original sources to which it links that's it's not even funny. Grad students in stats take semester long courses to understand Gini coefficients and it's trotted out here without comment. Glad you're comfortable believing it at face value.
Feel free to refute. You won't even have to 'splain Gini!
Without citing anything, I'll just make an assumption because I've seen this misleading stuff before. The first graph looks the way it does because the bulk of the negative effects on top income from the 2008 financial crisis were credited during the Bush years. Take 2008-2009 out of the picture and I'm sure the income inequality stats look rather consistant from Clinton to Bush to Obama. Top tier income is highly effected by equity price volatility.
The bottom line is this: Income inequality has exploded since 1980. There have been pauses in this expansion (the tech & real estate bubble collapses), but the parabolic trend is clear. Republican supply siders are fully responsible for creating this monster during the Reagan years, but there's no question that BOTH parties are responsible for continuing this regressive policy favoring rich people since then.
Also, I wonder what the first graph would look like if it showed only 1% instead of 5%.
Also, it's kind of misleading to compare an eight year average against two single years.
Post a Comment