Obama’s allies – Big City Mayors

The President is holding a confab with big city mayors and the new mayor of New York City, Bill DiBlasio, will be in attendance. That should tell you everything you need to know about the agenda.

They’re going to be talking about the most pressing issues for cities today. Income inequality. Improving city schools.

While we don’t know who will be there other than DiBlasio, it’s a good bet that the new Sandinista mayor of NYC isn’t far out of the political “mainstream” of this group. It’s interesting that the one subject that they should be discussing, but that won’t make the agenda, is the financial health of those 17 cities. It’s a very good bet most of them aren’t all that far from being Detroit.

“Income inequality” is nothing more than the new progressive buzzword for “we need to raise taxes on the rich” so we can buy more votes from the lazy.

As far as improving education, while the mayors will be crying for more money, they’ll refuse to address the problem that is destroying education in our cities, teachers’ unions and Common Core. Teachers’ unions are the current problem, Common Core will be the ultimate dumb-down tool. If Mayor DiBlasio wants to improve his city’s schools, he could start by getting rid of the $22 million per year the Rotten Apple is spending on “teachers” who are confined to the city’s “rubber rooms” where they keep their pedophile “teachers” who they won’t fire.

Welcome to the world of “progressive leadership” where the problems that will destroy us and obvious solutions to real problems are ignored in favor of feel-good talking points.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Curmudgeon Subscribe 150h

Obama's Press Sec Laughs Off Obama's Imperial Exclusion of White House Press Corps
And teachers want respect…
  • Commander_Chico

    “Income inequality” is nothing more than the new progressive buzzword for “we need to raise taxes on the rich” so we can buy more votes from the lazy.

    It also means wages should rise in tandem with productivity per-worker.


    • jim_m

      Funny that you claim that you want wages to rise with productivity and yet you are a big supporter of unions which fight against the idea of paying people according to their productivity. Socialism is built on the premise that people should be given what they need not what they deserve or what they earn. Hypocrite much?

      • Brucehenry

        The benefit of the gain in productivity has gone to the rich as opposed to the workers at an ever increasing rate as union membership has declined. Blind much?

        • jim_m

          Two separate issues. If the unions had their way the benefits of increased productivity would still not go to those who provided it. They would go to union members and their overseers (wealthy union officials who do no work and are effectively a form of parasitic management).

          • Brucehenry

            Very convenient logic and exceptionally talented handwaving.

          • jim_m

            Hey, look at my other comments and the many citations I am providing to demonstrate that income inequality is actually getting worse based on obama’s policies. Income inequality got worse under both obama and Clinton than it has under both Bush’s combined.

            The only one doing the hand waving here is you Bruce, who refuse to accept the facts that the expressed concern for income inequality is nothing but a pose and that the real goal of the left is to create a permanent upper class that is inaccessible to the rest of us.

          • Commander_Chico

            What’s your solution for workers to get more, if not collective bargaining?

          • Try taxing them less.

            It’s not what you make, it’s what you keep.

          • jim_m

            They could do a number of things: They could come up with an idea that expands the goods/services the organization can offer and get rewarded for that. I have done that several times.

            They could also decide that if the company is not compensating them properly for their labor that they can go elsewhere and get paid better. I have done that as well.

            The latter idea has the end result that if the company wants to keep competent workers it will be forced to pay more money to retain them. I have seen this in some companies where they have complained that they train workers and then the workers go off to other companies who will pay more for the same expertise. Either they found ways to pay their employees more or they focused on non-monetary compensation to make themselves the “employer of choice”.

            Why is it that the left thinks that I should be able to get a job as a fry cook at McDonald’s, never apply myself, never seek to advance in the organization, and yet that I should be paid ever increasing sums of money that would keep me equal to someone who works their way up the corporate ladder?

            Not every job is a career.

  • Brucehenry

    Oh yeah sure, income inequality is bogus, “nothing but a progressive buzzword” — except for this info:


    • jim_m

      If income inequality were really such a concern then why do left wing policies actually increase income inequality at a fast rate than conservative ones?

      You have to admire President Obama for choosing to give a speech declaring that the fight against “growing inequality”–specifically economic inequality–is “the defining challenge of our time” and the “focus” of “all our efforts”–given that:

      a. Five years into his presidency he so far hasn’t done anything to stop growing income inequality–the problem has gotten worse on his watch.

      b. He doesn’t have any proposals (“It’s time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act”) that come close to solving the problem as he defines it.

      c. His one big previous initiative to reduce inequality–the Affordable Care Act–may now be hopelessly screwed up due to his own inattention and non-competence.

      d. His remaining big domestic initiative–”comprehensive” immigration reform–would almost certainly make inequality worse by vastly increasing the number of unskilled workers bidding down wages at the bottom of the income scale, with the profits from the cheap labor going to business owners at the top.

      So we see that the left only cares about income inequality as a campaign issue, but is resolved to do nothing about it.

      We can also see that the obama admin is intent on making the situation worse because they are more interested in making themselves and their friends rich:

      In other words, is it a bad thing for a country to have some really rich people? Again, it depends on how they got rich.

      Sutirtha Bagchi of the University of Michigan’s business school and Jan Svejnar of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs studied how inequality correlates with economic growth. In general, more inequality meant slower growth, and less inequality meant faster growth.

      But in many countries, over various time periods, growing inequality had no effect on economic growth. The new study suggests that an increase in inequality hurt the economy when the rich were getting rich
      through political connections.

      That is, inequality hurts the economy when “a large share of the national wealth is held by a small number of politically connected families,” as the authors put it. . . . When a country’s wealthiest people got their wealth as Pangestu and Fridman did, inequality places a drag on the economy. When a country’s wealthiest got wealthy through market means, the resulting inequality has no negative effect on economic growth.

      This jibes with what we know about free markets. If people can get rich by providing valuable things at good prices, then society will get more valuable things at good prices—and people across the income spectrum benefit. But if people get rich by pocketing subsidies and using the state to crush competitors, then they gained their wealth at the expense of everyone else.

      Let’s dispense with any charade that obama and the left give a damn about poverty or anything else other than making themselves rich at the expense of everyone else.

      • Brucehenry

        Nice blockquote, but the last sentence in the next to last paragraph is my point.

        If liberal policies increase inequality, why is it that from 1947-1979, the zenith of the US welfare state, inequality decreased, but from 1979 to today, the era of Reaganomics and “Third Way” Democratic triangulation and sucking up to big banks for campaign contributions, it exploded?

        • jim_m

          The difference between the era of Reaganomics and the era of obama is that Reaganomics deregulated industry and enabled free market competition. By contrast obama has dramatically increased regulation for the purpose of being able to select winners and losers and choose the winners based on political affiliation.

          As the citation says: Income inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. It is only bad when it is the result of political manipulation that allows people to win without generating any benefit to society at large.

          But then this is what you want.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, income inequality was about at this point in 1928 when the shit hit the fan. It reached that point again in 2008 just as the shit hit the fan again. It only dropped a little since, in my opinion because of the propaganda of the media outfits like FOX and Talk Radio and other willing or unwitting dupes of the super rich.

            If the shit hits the fan too many more times the super rich may find themselves on the wrong end of the pitchforks and torches crowd. They better wise up and find themselves an FDR to save their own asses.

          • jim_m

            In 1928 the problem wasn’t income inequality, it was a bubble market. You cannot seriously be wanting to compare the two instances (unless you are going ot argue that the obama admin’s use of QE has created a bubble market, in which I believe there may be some cause for concern).

            And you are incorrect. Income inequality did not grow more under Bush than it did under either Clinton or obama:

            it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.

            What’s more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

            The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush’s eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

            In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama’s first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it’s climbed 5.7% since he took office.

            Meanwhile, during Clinton’s eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980.

            Once again Bruce’s ideology is overridden by fact.

          • Brucehenry

            Except that that wasn’t my argument. I said 1947-1979. Were Clinton or Obama president in that period? Or were they president in the period I characterized as one of “Reaganomics and ‘Third Way’ Democratic triangulation and sucking up to big banks”?

            Unlike you I don’t blame everything on the party I don’t belong to. There’s plenty of whoring going on on both sides of the aisle.

            George Carlin had an over-the-top rant that expresses my frustration in a humorous way. Well, darkly humorous.

          • jim_m

            My point was that income inequality has gotten worse because of Clinton and obama and not because of the conservative ideas.

            Also, you have not contradicted my point that it is not the inequality itself but how that inequality is created. You still refuse to acknowledge that obama creates income inequality by using government to select winners and losers based on political connections rather than letting the market choose them by who provide the greater benefit to society.

          • Brucehenry

            Thanks for posting linky links refuting arguments I didn’t make!

          • jim_m

            You are still denying that obama makes income inequality worse. Your arguments are the equivalent to “Oh look, a shiny!”

          • jim_m

            And here is another citation telling you that income inequality has increased more under obama than Bush.

            Here’s how Saez’s math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.

            Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

            But feel free to continue to live in ignorance and think that obama is making everything better.

          • jim_m

            FDR prolonged the great depression. I would say that we have exactly that with obama. What we need is someone who wants to improve the economy rather than make himself and his friends rich.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, even assuming your laughable revisionist history is correct, FDR arguably saved capitalism for the wealthy. Because if he hadn’t ameliorated the worst of the symptoms of Hooverism, we may have gone Fascist under somebody like Huey Long, or Red under someone like Henry Wallace.

          • jim_m

            I will simply note that you hold up as examples two democrats.

            I don’t ever want to hear from you that fascism does not belong on the left when you are using a dem as the prime example of how fascism would take over the US.

          • Brucehenry

            Oooohh what a gotcha.

          • jim_m

            Pretty much

          • Brucehenry

            We’ve gone over and over the evolution of right vs left/Republicans vs Democrats over the years. We aren’t gonna persuade each other.

          • jim_m

            No. I am resigned to the fact that your ignorance is invincible. 😉