Tag: income inequality

Who turned Kentucky red? Why, Northeastern Democrats, of course.

This is really a droll NYT article, and not least because of this sentence: “THAT pattern is right in line with surveys, which show a decades-long decline in support for redistributive policies and an increase in conservatism in the electorate even as inequality worsens. ” So, so many hidden assumptions:

  1. That people agree with Democrats that income inequality is a huge problem (the Left doesn’t want to admit that it becomes a much smaller problem, once minimum daily calorie intake levels are reached).
  2. That people agree with Democrats that income inequality has anything to do with the real problems facing this country (the Left really doesn’t want to admit that redistribution is an inherently inefficient system, and that their policies do nothing to make it more efficient).
  3. That people agree with Democrats that the Democrats are essentially blue collar (they are, of course, instead a party riddled with rich people, political dynasties, celebrities, and whatnot).
  4. That people agree with Democrats that the Democrats are best suited to actually fix anything (the Left absolutely, completely, totally doesn’t want to admit that they couldn’t run an orgy in a bordello).

And at that, this isn’t the dumbest NYT article out there. The author actually finishes with a suggestion that Democrats make redistributive policies more efficient, cut down on waste, and encourage people to get off them.  Which is… true, but irrelevant: the Democratic party leadership isn’t about to give up that particular gravy train – and note: the Democratic establishment is who’s getting the gravy there…

Bottom line: things that elites like are not always the same things that the working class likes. Simple as that.  No, really.

Moe Lane

Income inequality actually isn’t poverty, and the American people know that.

Apparently people need to be told this.

The first thing to notice is that economic inequal­ity, however undesirable it may be for various reasons, is not in­herently a bad thing. Think about it: We could arrange for the members of a society to be economically equal by ensuring that the economic resources available to each member of the society put everyone equally below the poverty line. To make everyone equally poor is, obviously, not a very intelligent social ambition.

[snip]

It isn’t especially desirable that each have the same as others. What is bad is not inequality; it is poverty. We should want each person to have enough—that is, enough to support the pursuit of a life in which his or her own reasonable ambitions and needs may be comfortably satisfied. This individually measured sufficiency, which by definition precludes the bur­dens and deprivations of poverty, is clearly a more sensible goal than the achievement of an impersonally calibrated equality.

Continue reading Income inequality actually isn’t poverty, and the American people know that.

Is the sudden Democratic fixation on ‘income inequality’ backed by anything except its rear?

Serious question. I mean, you can’t read a Lefty these days (hey, it’s part of the job*) without them going on about how important income inequality is or how the Democrats are going to use income inequality as a springboard to electoral victory or (this is my favorite) how obviously we Republicans know that we have to get serious about income inequality and soon. It’s remarkably uniform on the Other Side, in fact. Remarkably uniform.

…Did I miss a bombshell poll or study? It’s OK to tell me, if I did. I mean, I know that I’m not perfect. Things can get past me and I won’t know until afterward. I won’t feel bad if it turns out that this is one of times when I just missed it; but I could have sworn that I would have seen it if it suddenly became clear that fighting income inequality was seen by the American public as the latest moral equivalent of war…

Moe Lane

*Although I suspect that it would infuriate many Left pundits to find out just how important a part of the job it was.