Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
first of all, is this paragraph from this article. By its description, I am an "income absolutist"..

The willingness to conflate real poverty with income inequality is what I call income relativism. If you're concern is fighting poverty, then you're an income absolutist. If your concern is politics and class warfare, then you are an income relativist.

but onto the article:

Abortion isn't the only litmus test in modern liberalism. There's poverty, too.

This was demonstrated anew last week, when the Economic Policy Institute (the innocuously named intellectual arm of organized labor) released "Pulling Apart." The 66-page study sings the same song of rising inequality that America's Left has wailed for four decades. Predictably, it warns us once again of potential dangers (which somehow never materialize) of genuine class warfare.

Yes, American poverty is tangibly real, and tragic, for anyone with eyes to see. Homeless people litter the cold corners of our streets, and ragged poor scrape by even more invisibly in rural areas. But the liberal interpretation of how the poor become and remain poor is the larger tragedy, because it has become a barrier to progress.


and:

This incessant glibness of liberal politicians and activists who imagine themselves the only champions of the poor is what blinds them to new ideas. Their worldview supposes that poverty is (1) an intractable flaw in free-market capitalism, (2) deep and persistent, and (3) made worse by globalization cum neo-imperialism. Amazingly, none of the charges holds water when tested against real-world data.


more at the link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kane200601300839.asp
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 19
..This incessant glibness of liberal politicians and activists who imagine themselves the only champions of the poor is what blinds them to new ideas...

I'm surprised people never get tired of that kind of glibness. Set up a straw man--liberals only care about inequality while conservatives presumably care about absolute growth. Must choose one or the other--why? Then use some carefully chosen stats, unsourced, to "prove" your point.

Absolute growth is important.

What Bush metric do you want to compare to Clinton's first five years? (Assuming arguendo Clinton's policies were liberal and Bush's are conservative) Private sector payrolls--the best welfare policy? Real income growth? Personal savings? GDP growth? Number of people on foodstamps?

Pick a stat.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Their worldview supposes that poverty is (1) an intractable flaw in free-market capitalism,

It is true, simply because no-holds-barred capitalism entrenches wealth and political power, which is then used to stack the game in their favor.

Liberal income redistribution policies made sure there were consumers available to buy everything capitalism has to offer, and, more importantly IMHO, allowed significant numbers of people to turn their labor into capital and start small businesses. This process lead to the largest sustained period of economic growth in history.

But your policies would take us back to the economic and political conditions that existed 200 years ago, creating a monetary feudalism.

(2) deep and persistent,

So far, certainly.

and (3) made worse by globalization cum neo-imperialism.

That's right, and this is partly because of the power of global players vs the weakness of local players, and partly because local governments will leverage the global player to stay in power themselves.

Local innovation can rarely compete against the resources of massive foreign interests. Globalization invests in areas where the resources are high and the labor is cheap. When these change or another opportunity presents itself, global entities move on, leaving the formerly employed with no capital or infrastructure of their own. This is usually exacerbated by the local political structure which used the wealth they gained from the global player to entrench themselves at the expense of local development and infrastructure.

There are no global entities which can police the actions of global capital players, and they are making out like bandits. The ability to move from labor pool to labor pool holds labor hostage. Global players already control or strongly influence a good number of smaller governments. The process may take decades, but it's already well on its way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
..There are no global entities which can police the actions of global capital players, and they are making out like bandits. The ability to move from labor pool to labor pool holds labor hostage....

Only because that is the policy of the so-called free traders and the so-called globalists.

Will take those faux folks (I have a right to my everday low WalMart price) seriously when the came out for globalized labor.

Specifically, 1.2 billion or so Chinese. A billion or so east Indians. Let's say 100 million of those Chinese yearn to breathe free. Let's say 100 million Indians would love to take advantage of the great economic opportunities in the US.

When I see the faux globalists and the faux free traders propose and pass a bipartisan immigration bill that removes all immigration "tariff" barriers, allowing those two hundred million into the US--plenty of room--, then we can take the faux globalists and the faux free traders seriously. But not before.

Very occasionally you see this strong globalist case. Not long ago in Forbes (surprise!) an economist made the case that any preference for American labor over foreign labor is xenophobic racism. (Except presumably war fighting labor). When Steve Forbes is elected and the DemoCans pass that Patriotic Free Immigration bill, we can take the faux globalists and the faux free traders seriously.

Until then, just more self-interested yip-yap, eh? Gimme my every day low price.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What Bush metric do you want to compare to Clinton's first five years? (Assuming arguendo Clinton's policies were liberal and Bush's are conservative) Private sector payrolls--the best welfare policy? Real income growth? Personal savings? GDP growth? Number of people on foodstamps?


We get to remember that the Clinton administration's claim to fame was

The Longest economic expansion in history

Nearly 21 million new jobs.

Lowest unemployment rate in three decades. (4%)

Highest home ownership on record.

Lowest poverty rate in two decades. (12.7%)

Broadly shared income growth. Real income growth of 10%

Now, admittedly, we all danced to that tune, and we all rejoiced.

And now, weather we wish to admit it or not, we must accept that it was built on the house of cards of the unregulated Stock Market Bubble.

**** Now Note

The loss of the above items are important, and many catastrophic, but more important !!

When that bubble popped, when the Banking systems of the world (who were also dancing along with us) were caught in the explosion, the faith in the US as a stable economic investment took a hit.

The US still remains the strong baseline currency, but where many countries would hold mainly US currency notes, after the failure of the Tech Boom due to poor regulation, the world banking systems began balancing their currency holdings with other currencies to prevent getting burned again.

We lost big due to that lack of Control by the Clinton Administration.


There is an article on Greenspan today

It has an interesting comment:

"In 1979, the earnings of the top ten percent of employees were just over three times higher than those of the bottom ten percent; by 2004 they were more than six times higher. Real wages of people without a college degree sank on his watch, while the real incomes of stock-owners and corporate managers and professionals soared to dizzy heights. The rich got very, very much richer on Greenspan`s watch, a process boosted yet further by his support for President George W Bush`s tax cuts."

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/business/article_1093458.php/Thanks_Mr_Greenspan


So, those who have taken the time and effort to educate themselves, advance themselves, invest, strike out on their own .... Make more ....

Is this not what we have been taught America is all about?

Now, it's bad?

Bears
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

(Assuming arguendo Clinton's policies were liberal and Bush's are conservative)

not a safe assumption. clinton's policies are conservative. bushs are psychopathic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
(Assuming arguendo Clinton's policies were liberal and Bush's are conservative)

not a safe assumption. clinton's policies are conservative.

No. They weren't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

The era of big government is over. But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves. Instead, we must go forward as one America, one nation working together to meet the challenges we face together. Self-reliance and teamwork are not opposing virtues; we must have both.

I believe our new, smaller government must work in an old-fashioned American way, together with all of our citizens through state and local governments, in the workplace, in religious, charitable and civic associations. Our goal must be to enable all our people to make the most of their own lives -- with stronger families, more educational opportunity, economic security, safer streets, a cleaner environment in a safer world.

To improve the state of our Union, we must ask more of ourselves, we must expect more of each other, and we must face our challenges together.

Here, in this place, our responsibility begins with balancing the budget in a way that is fair to all Americans. There is now broad bipartisan agreement that permanent deficit spending must come to an end.

I compliment the Republican leadership and the membership for the energy and determination you have brought to this task of balancing the budget. And I thank the Democrats for passing the largest deficit reduction plan in history in 1993, which has already cut the deficit nearly in half in three years.


http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/other/sotu.html

i was only being halfway glib.
Print the post Back To Top