the bankruptcy reform act and the fallout from that are some of the large issues. the ultimate conclusion, at least from what we know so far, about what went on in iraq. but ultimately because the pendulum shifts back and forth. it has shifted too far to the right, now. there needs to be a correction.
I'm not really sure what the disconnect is with you, because the point of this article is obvious and indisputable - income inequality has increased in both the short and long term - due in no small part to GWB's policies as far as the short-term goes. There is nothing partisan about that - it is simply a fact that the rich have gotten richer at a much, much, much faster rate than the rest of us. If you were going to assume the standard right wing position on this point - you would argue "yeah but who cares, income inequality never hurt anybody" Instead you are making silly claims about real wages being depressed by tax cuts (which apparently, after a few days, you finally modified to "stagnated", ) which don't appear in the text. Really, it's not that hard to understand this. There are really no legitimate grounds to dispute the factual conclusion that income disparities are increasing.
Whatever - I think most people read into it the article the way I did. I'm not taking your opinion of the standard right-wing position. I'm just saying the article is obviously slanted.
I think people are giving GW way too much credit for making rich people richer. Sure the tax cut help a bit, but people didn't get rich from tax cuts. The rich have always accumulated wealth faster than the rest, no matter who is the president. With innovation and luck, smart people usually gets ahead. And with today's market, those people who get ahead, get ahead much faster (better communication, access to the global market). Clinton didn't make Bill Gates the richest man alive, and GW didn't make the people at google billionaires.
I think you could read into it that he was talking about real wages but he never mentioned that. My own reading is that Krugman is looking at a variety of factors in regard to building and maintaining wealth. While wages are one factor with more access to things like the stock market and credit there are many other factors. Its a fair question if the policies you cited depress real wages but its tangential to the article.
I don't think Krugman is saying that Presidential policies have made more people rich but have made it easier for the wealthy to build and maintain their wealth while the middle and lower classes are having a harder time hanging on to their own.
of course he made them richer, he gave them a tax cut. as you say, the rich don't need help getting richer, SO WHY GIVE THEM THE CUT?
Short of introduce a wealth tax where you tax people's net worth, its hard to re-distribute the wealth among the population. Even if you re-distribute wealth, those people who got ahead before will get ahead again, unless you are living in a communist country. My point is the widening of the wealth gap has less to do with tax cuts/hikes, but more to do with the global economy/information age. (Just think about the insane amont of wealth Bill Gate accumulated during the Clinton years, he sure has widen the gap between himself and the average joe) The big jump in productivity over the past 15 years also helped to create this crop of super rich.
My point is the widening of the wealth gap has less to do with tax cuts/hikes, but more to do with the global economy/information age. When accounting for payroll taxes (medicare and social security), the tax structure is now nearing the point of being regressive from the middle class to the upper class (it is still certainly still progressive for the poor). If you tax the rich at a lower net rate than the middle class, that definitely affects the wealth gap. When looking at the income + payroll taxes as a percentage of disposable income, then the entire system is currently regressive, which means that the rich suffer less of the "burden" as a percentage of disposable income. Another area where tax cuts/hikes affects the wealth gap is dividend and capital gains taxation. The wealthy make a far larger portion of their net income from investments than from wages, and they pay a much lower rate on that income. So again, we tax the wealthy relatively less than the middle or lower classes, expanding the wealth gap. The information age and structural changes in the economy do have some impact on this as well, though.
I said you guys are giving him TOO MUCH credit. I am guessing the goal of tax cut was to stimulate the economy.
I am guessing the goal of tax cut was to stimulate the economy. Well, sort of. Keep in mind, Bush started pushing this tax cut when he first started running from President (late 1999?) and the economy was good. At the time, the justification for it was that we had a surplus and we should give the money back to the people. Then, when the economy went bad, the exact same tax cut became a tax cut to stimulate the economy. Strange, though, that nothing changed in the proposal. Tax cuts designed for economic growth and tax cuts designed as simply "we pay too much across the board" should be designed and targetted very differently. What we got was a tax cut designed as a "our general tax level is too high" that was used to try to stimulate growth - essentially, a very badly planned cut if that was the goal.
So would you say people making 100k a year as upper class? what about 150k? As for social security, you are suppose to get back what you put in, so you really shouldn't count that in your calculation. Wealth gap increases because some people are getting richer. The very words of "getting rich" means widening the wealth gap (someone is getting richer relative to his/her peers). And that's not a bad thing, you want to reward innovation, growth, competition. If narrowing the gap is the goal, then everyone eventually will be making the same amount of money, have same amount of wealth, we all know how well that system worked. Cap gain tax is very much related to capital investment, which drives the economy. Everyone benefits from that.
that is an absurd statement. as a matter of fact, i'm pretty sure that i've never given the imbecile credit for a damn thing. i'll bow to the dark side and give credit to: noun: rove beetle*rowv 'beetl The Rove Beetle is found in or near decaying organic matter, especially dead animals. He is an early visitor to corpses and feeds on larvae of all species. He lays his eggs in the corpse, and the emerging larvae are also predators. He also eats dung and feeds on other insects that are found in decaying matter, such as maggots. When disturbed, the Rove Beetle raises the tip of its abdomen and may squirt a foul-smelling mist at its enemies.
So would you say people making 100k a year as upper class? what about 150k? Depends on the size of their family, where they live, etc. As for social security, you are suppose to get back what you put in, so you really shouldn't count that in your calculation. Except we all know that's not the case, and making policy on what you know will not happen is a bad idea. Social Security cannot and will not pay what people put into it 30 years from now. And while the rich person can afford to give up some money each year and get the equivalent of a 2% or so return 40+ years from now, the poor person cannot. So it again hits the poor much harder. Wealth gap increases because some people are getting richer. The very words of "getting rich" means widening the wealth gap (someone is getting richer relative to his/her peers). This isn't necessarily true. The idea of getting rich could mean increasing the quality of life, or getting rich relative to the citizens of other countries. The wealth gap increases when the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer. If narrowing the gap is the goal, then everyone eventually will be making the same amount of money, The goal is not to narrow the gap. It is to keep it in a relatively stable range. Cap gain tax is very much related to capital investment, which drives the economy. Everyone benefits from that. Two things here. First, telling the poor person "hey, we're going to cut the rich guy's taxes by $500, and he'll invest it and maybe it will come back to benefit you 5 years from now" isn't a great strategy. The poor person needs the money now, and if you give him the tax cut, he will spend it immediately and put it right back in the economy which also spurs growth, and eventually it will trickle up to profits for the rich. But in the latter case, if things don't go quite as planned, you helped the person that needed it the most. Second, this goes to supply side economics. The whole theory in supply side economics is that giving money to the wealthy drives investment which then helps everyone (the whole rising tide thing). The whole theory there is counter to the wealth gap - the growing wealth gap is saying that the rich are benefitting far more than the poor. Supply side economics basically says that giving money to the rich helps the poor and that the wealth gap won't grow.
Fact bias continues, even corrupting ex-ayn rand boy toy and part time adminstration shill Alan Greenspan http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050614/ts_csm/ataxing_1 what a partisan slanter - talking about stagnant real wages like that....
"The cause of this problem? Education, according to Greenspan. Specifically, high school education. US children test above world average levels at the 4th grade level, he noted. By the 12th grade, they do not. "We have to do something to prevent that from happening," said Greenspan." Thanks Sam. I guess Greenspan attributes this phenomenom to education - something Krugman never mentioned in his article. I, for one, never denied the wage gap. I just don't jibe with Krugman's reasoning that tax cuts, bankrupcty reform, and death taxes are the causes of this. Those are the specific policies that he outlined in his article.
