George W Bush, income equality champion! (:rolling eyes:)

Man, having the Volokh Conspiracy over at WaPo is gonna be fun:

The president under whom the poorest quintile enjoyed the largest increase in after-tax household income was George W. Bush. And the two administrations under whom the richest quintile and richest 1 percent fared the worst were the two Presidents Bush. Among Barack Obama’s four immediate predecessors, the two biggest income equalizers were George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Just to be clear, I am not pining for the good old days of the economy of George W. Bush.

But George W. Bush was the most successful of our recent past presidents in achieving very substantial increases in incomes for the poorest quintile (+18.4%), while keeping gains for the richest quintile and richest 1 percent at modest levels.

Via AoSHQ. The reason why this is hysterical is because it basically sets up the WaPo’s readers with a nasty-to-them observation: if you like income equality, you must love George W. Bush.  Which means that the aforementioned readers now have to decide which Lefty shibboleth to give up.

Moe Lane

PS: Personally, I think that trying to view the Bush administration through the lens of income inequality – or, indeed, anything except national security – is a mug’s game.  After 9/11, the focus permanently changed.  But I don’t mind at all taking advantage of the confusion of my enemies…

4 thoughts on “George W Bush, income equality champion! (:rolling eyes:)”

  1. I see more conservatives in the comments section then I ever have before. A good sign?

  2. A friend recently posted on Facebook that income in top 1% grew 31.4% from 2009 to 2012 while income in 99% grew by 0.4%–than went on to question his conservative beliefs (I had no idea conservatives controlled Washington).

    I am considering sending him a copy of Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics (I just finished it). Anyone else have any good suggestions for economics or public policy books that might better illustrate the problem of focusing on income inequality.

    Frankly, I’m bummed. Than there’s this.

  3. Quibble. The idea that the readers must give up one etymological identifier or another is based on the false presumption that lefties have an underlying rationality that, as yet, has not been successfully proven.
    I fully expect them to give up neither, and simply resort to regularly cursing Volokh et al.

  4. Reminds me of Lady Thatcher’s retort to the supposed growth of income inequality during her tenure: they would rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich did not do so well. It’s a YouTube video well worth watching.

Comments are closed.