Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why has it significantly accelerated in the Obama era?
Best answers are the ones you find yourself..., but real quick, two reasons come to mind.
One: the Great Recession drove the divide even further as people lost jobs, homes -- you name it, while the most wealthy were much better able to "ride the storm" with far less damage as a percent of their entire wealth.
Two: those following the issue of income and/or wealth inequality the closest have been pointing to the fact that the divide is growing more dramatic every decade, the problem more severe or dramatic as time goes on, as wealth continues to accumulate into the hands of the few.
One might say that "wealth begets wealth," and generally speaking they would be right.
It will take more than one POTUS to turn that golden rule around any...
Compare and contrast:
Poor person who rents, loses job, year one: no income, no wealth.
Poor person gets job, rents apartment, year two: some income, no wealth.
1 percenter: Great Recession, loses bonus, year one, makes only $5 million, after tax wealth another $4 million.
1 percenter: post Great Recession, still no bonus, year two, again only makes $5 million, after tax wealth now $8 million.
Look at this intersection of government appointees and Goldman Sachs, and yet again we see the propaganda oozing, the conservative spin without any check or balance.
I suppose we should never mind these federal government organizations are comprised of many who are pulled from all levels of government and private industry. You look at this quickie geke presentation, and you get the feeling that Goldman Sachs appointees somehow dominate these halls -- wrong.
Also the complete disregard for history and context, or maybe someone remembers what Goldman Sachs represented before it's fall? Founded in 1869?
Here we see the first Goldman Sacks executive listed, serving WAY back in 1995 under Clinton. Robert Rubin oversaw the loosening of financial industry underwriting guidelines that at the time most if not all conservatives loved to champion!
Now we see him on a list serving as yet another conservative propaganda piece, only this time as part of the problem.
Some people sure are good at blowing with the wind no matter the direction...
Big government programs and bureaucracies are inefficient, wasteful, and oftentimes criminally corrupt. The fact that one major party (the Democrat Party) views the government as the answer to almost every societal problem is a huge problem, compounded by the fact that the other party (the GOP) usually goes along with the continuous expansion of big government.
I can appreciate the intentions of people who view government as a vehicle to address societal ills. However, the track record of success is simply not present and to continue to believe otherwise is pure ignorance. We are overtaxing and overspending into our own destruction and the Democrats want to accelerate the process, with token resistance from a GOP that really only cares about its own survival. It is mindless.
Big government programs and bureaucracies are inefficient, wasteful, and oftentimes criminally corrupt. The fact that one major party (the Democrat Party) views the government as the answer to almost every societal problem is a huge problem, compounded by the fact that the other party (the GOP) usually goes along with the continuous expansion of big government.
I can appreciate the intentions of people who view government as a vehicle to address societal ills. However, the track record of success is simply not present and to continue to believe otherwise is pure ignorance. We are overtaxing and overspending into our own destruction and the Democrats want to accelerate the process, with token resistance from a GOP that really only cares about its own survival. It is mindless.
And this is the reason the rank and file Republicans are polling higher for the three outsiders, Trump, Carson and Fiorino. Well said!
Big government programs and bureaucracies are inefficient, wasteful, and oftentimes criminally corrupt. The fact that one major party (the Democrat Party) views the government as the answer to almost every societal problem is a huge problem, compounded by the fact that the other party (the GOP) usually goes along with the continuous expansion of big government.
I can appreciate the intentions of people who view government as a vehicle to address societal ills. However, the track record of success is simply not present and to continue to believe otherwise is pure ignorance. We are overtaxing and overspending into our own destruction and the Democrats want to accelerate the process, with token resistance from a GOP that really only cares about its own survival. It is mindless.
That's just your mirror thinking.
First of all, while conservatives see smaller government as an end in itself, liberals don’t see bigger government the same way. Think about it: while you often see conservatives crow about, say, reducing discretionary spending as a good thing just because the number is down, do you ever see liberals crowing about a rise in spending, never mind what on? Liberals want government to do certain things, like provide essential health care; the size of government per se isn’t the objective.
Moreover, much of government is quite efficient. Social Security runs on 1% overhead rate. Medicare rises have been 1% smaller per year than the rise in private insurance for 40 years.
Lastly, Obama hasn't presided over a rise in big government. You know who did? His predecessor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.