Posted by Curt on 30 May, 2007 at 7:25 pm. 4 comments already!


Hillary Clinton promises to combat rising inequality and rising pessimism in the United States workforce.  Translated into english this means raising our taxes, repealing the cuts that are already in place.  So lets look at a few things about our current economy.  Now, just reminder, Bush inherited a economy that was going into a recession (beginning in March of 2001, yes I know this is two months after Bush took office but unless his immediate policies effected the economy in two months we know that it was the Clinton policies that created this recession)…just food for thought when you look at the below data:

All this after 9/11, after Afghanistan and Iraq.

But Hillary is going to combat this rough economy?  Whatever happened to Democrats like John F. Kennedy?

Those days are now long gone.  Now The Democrat party shall be forever known as the Socialist party. 

Nevermind that the top 1% of earners in this country pay 36% of ALL federal income taxes paid already.  She wants to tax more and more and more.

Her words could be from Karl Marx for god sake.  One in the same….Hillary and Karl, made for each other.

But wait a second…being similar to Karl Marx is bad enough, but similar to the Nazi platform?

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:  an end to the power of the financial interests . We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand. . . the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education. . . . We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents. . . . The government must undertake the improvement of public health — by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor — by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the . . . materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of  "The Common Good Before the Individual Good ."

Meanwhile she tells a crowd today that the rug is being pulled out from underneath the middle class:

Senator Clinton told members of the Culinary union that corporate America was trying to pull the rug out from under the middle class.

She said, "I have nothing against rich people… but what made America great is the middle class."

Clinton credited the union movement with building the middle class. She said she thinks it should be easier to join unions and said she supports a union-supported method of organizing called "card check."

But Steven Pearstein writes in todays Washington Post about a new economic study that shows that the middle class is indeed shrinking, not because people are getting poorer…rather because they are graduating to upper class:

as economist Stephen Rose points out in a provocative new monograph, rumors of the demise of the American middle class are greatly exaggerated. In fact, living standards for most Americans are improving. Not everyone is flipping hamburgers or working at Wal-Mart. To the degree that the middle class is shrinking, it is because more people are rising out of it than falling from it.

Rose is not your standard-issue conservative market apologist — far from it. He left medical school to get his PhD in economics, then alternated between teaching and community organizing. He served on the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee and in the economics shop of the Clinton Labor Department. Along the way, he’s worked for a couple of think tanks and blue-ribbon commissions.

[…]This doesn’t mean the middle class isn’t shrinking. In fact, from 1979 to 2004, Rose calculates, the percentage of households in the "middle class" category — those with incomes of $30,000 to $90,000 — fell to 39 from 47 percent. But it would be hard to describe that as bad news when the proportion of well-off households — those with incomes of more than $90,000 — rose by nearly nine percentage points. During the same time frame, the percentage of households that were poor or near-poor remained about the same.

One of the favorite liberal story lines is that the only way middle class families have been able to maintain their standard of living is by forcing mom to work more hours. But that, too, turns out to be an exaggeration. By looking just at married couples at various points in the income ladder, Rose found that for all but the poorest households, inflation-adjusted income was higher in 2004 than in 1979 even after factoring out any increase in spousal work hours.

[…]It is also a myth that the Great American Jobs Machine is producing mostly lousy, low-paying service jobs. Rose simplifies the government data by putting all jobs in three categories: "elite" jobs, encompassing managers and professionals; "good jobs," such as those held by supervisors, skilled blue-collar workers, craft workers, police, firefighters and clerical workers; and "less skilled" jobs, such as those held by unskilled machine operators, laborers, sales clerks and waiters. Looking at it that way, it turns out that the number of lousy, low-skilled jobs has been on a long, steady decline since 1979, while the number of "elite" jobs has been growing steadily. The number of "good" jobs has declined marginally as skilled office work has replaced skilled factory work.

Wages rising, inflation staying low, unemployment low, tax revenues high, deficit lowering, after-tax income up substantially…..all bad in Hillary’s eyes.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x