Obama Attacks - Media Ignores - Define Rich

A new kind of politician? Watch till the end.

5 star,comment,subscribe,email to others.

***Visit http://capitalistobserver.blogspot.com***

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• barack
• obama
• john
• mccain
• smear
• attack
• media
• olbermann
• cafferty
• matthews
• o'reilly
• commentary
• analysis
• political
• gotcha!

[STEEPPOW]

Excellent video.

[stick1to2the3issue]

It is never good to come to a conclusion like you do based on income alone. Even still, the per captia income statistics do not support your premise that entitlements are good for income growth. According to government census statistics between 1967-81 per capita income was $16,782. From '81-'07 it was 23,537. From 1959-81 the poverty rate was 11.6%. From 81-'07 it was 10.9%.

[stick1to2the3issue]

Collectivists like to quote the stat that the richest 1 percent make 22 percent of income. Individualists like to quote the stat that the richest 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes.

Given that two thirds of the federal budget is spent on entitlement programs (financed mostly by the richest 5-10%) I find it puzzling that that you claim that under supply side economics government fiscal policy transfers money from poor. Government policy transfers money to the poor under both (in America).

[stick1to2the3issue]

You are right that I am forming postulations on my experience and philosphical worldview, and straying from hard data in this case. I do not think that my statements were unreasonable, but acknoweldge that it remains just an opinion. I do not feel it is nonsensical to say that by and large, a society that places a larger degree of emphasis on classism than individualism will have a larger degree of the victimhood mentality and jealousy leading to laziness and poverty.

[stick1to2the3issue]

It is my fault for not being clear enough on this point. The point is that the average family has less people in it today than in the past. Average income may have been 42k 20 years ago, but family size was higher, so that 42k had to go a lot longer. Today families are smaller yet average family income remains the same or better. Not to mention technological advances that allow families who make the same money as those in the past to have more "stuff" (plasma tv's, cell phones, laptops etc.)

[stick1to2the3issue]

The vice of Capitalism is the enequal sharing of blessings. This has always been the case (better than the equal sharing of misery under socialism). Nevertheless the argument remains that rigid defintions of classes based on income figures ignore social mobility, regional variance and underlying family size demographics. They ignore the rich senior citizen who has almost no income but is living off of savings. They ignore the 27 year old law student or doctor.

[stick1to2the3issue]

(part 5) Rather than owning up to one's own laziness, irresponsible decisions, procrastination, undisciplined personality, it is much easier to just blame those who have success and console oneself with the notion that they gained at your expense. This is human nature, and those who attempt to divide individuals into classes only enable these misguided complaints. Sorry for the short response ;).

[stick1to2the3issue]

(Part 4) position in society as a fixed category, they are more apt to fall into a victim mentality - blaming the "oppressive" class above them for depriving them of "fairness". Rather than aspiring to succeed by honest gain without emploring the government to use coercion to steal from their fellow man, they aspire to "make things fair". This leads to a victim mentality which is by far the largest cause of poverty. It is human nature to not want to take responsibility for failure. (cont.)

[stick1to2the3issue]

(part 3) In addition your assessment of why conservatives don't like to pigeon-hole individuals into rigid classes is incorrect.

Setting aside the obvious inherant innaccuracies and over simplifications that grouping people in these terms connote (such as the idea that the economy is a fixed pie) there are more convincing reasons why these terms are unhelpful.

Conservatives know that class warfare is highly destructive, especially for the poor. When an idividual thinks of his (cont.)

[stick1to2the3issue]

(part 2)

regional variance in cost of living. In some areas (ny city, silicon valley) making 50,000 would not be enough to get by.

3. Family income statistics (which almost everyone cites as their data (especially paul krugman) to explain how the growth of the past 30 years has gone mostly to the rich) skew the results because demographically, the size of families are declining meaning a family making 35,000 today is better than the average "middle class" family in the past. (cont.)