If Romney Ran, This Is How Left Wing Media Was Going After Him

Note: This was written a day before Romney announced he was not running.  However, I am still publishing it because it exposes the political bias of one of the most leading newspapers in the country.

In the always Democrat-loving Washington post, there was a recent article: "How big is Mitt Romney’s California house? Here, compare it to yours".

The writer, Philip Bump, obviously knows that 99.99999% of his readers don't own an 11,000 square foot plus home; or, even one half that size.

So, what you do is enter the square footage of your home and then push a button that reads "OK. Humiliate me!".  (Note: I added the exclamation point because I feel its what the writer was thinking when he, or whoever helped him, designed the software)

After doing so, an image representing the size of your house is then superimposed on an image of the first and second floor plans and garage of Romney's California home.  Of course, after you see the results, your wealth envy is supposed to take over and you are supposed to become angry at this rich white guy.

Basically, the sole purpose of this exercise is to disqualify Romney from ever talking about income inequality because rich people simply aren't allowed to talk about ways to improve wealth disparity of others.  Even though Romney founded a company that created 5,400 good paying jobs which, in effect, reduces income equality.  My guess is that the only job the writer of this article ever really created was his own.

But, perhaps, the writer believes that only people below Romney's wealth level are qualified to talk about income inequality.  Thus, Romney with a net worth of $250 million is disqualified.  Yet, it is OK for the $195 million Democrat John Kerry to talk about it.  This, aside from the fact that his wife is a billionaire.  And, of course, Nancy Pelosi, with a net worth of a mere $35 million, can say all she wants as well.  Obama, too, at just $12.2 million -- the 21st richest of all Presidents -- is a shoe-in to talk about income disparity if the $200 million rule is applied.  Even though, under his watch, we have record numbers of poor; the rich got richer; and income inequality deepened.

Then, there's poor Hillary Clinton. With her and Bill's combined wealth at $55 million, she is wholly qualified to talk about how to elevate the poor in America.  Especially, if she runs for President. Now, isn't she?

This whole Washington Post article is nonsense.  People like Romney, only became super rich because they created companies that created jobs.  And, that kind of job creation is why the U.S. is one of the top five countries in the world; when measured by the five elements of the United Nation's Human Development Index: life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life.

Personally, I would prefer to listen to a job-creator like Romney talk about how to reduce income inequality by stimulating the private sector than any Democrat who only believes that poverty can be erased through handing out taxpayer money.  If the latter was true, why, then, after 50 years of the Democrat's War on Poverty, do we still have such record high levels of it?

I think this article was written out of fear.  The fear that Romney might get nominated and elected President in 2016 and actually do something that Democrats can't seem to do: Create jobs and lift people out of poverty by not simply giving handouts.  A fact that would seriously wound the liberal opinion that only government spending keeps people out of poverty.  In fact, if the government does create a job, it is primarily because the top 10% of income earners pay 71% of all taxes.

Lastly, before I get the typical drivel comment from some Democrat that Romney's Bain & Company took over other companies and cut jobs, you need to know the facts.  Bain generally took over companies that were in or near financial trouble. Companies that probably would go bankrupt and, as such, result in an even greater loss of jobs.  Now, while 22% continued on to bankruptcy and in many cases were forced to close their doors, 70% became success stories and, as such, bankruptcy was averted and jobs were saved.  The final 8% continued to struggle and continue to remain in business for at least 8 years after Bain divested itself.

References:

Philip Bump: Washington Post: How big is Mitt Romney’s California house? Here, compare it to yours: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/28/how-big-is-mitt-romneys-california-house-here-compare-it-to-yours/

Washington Post hires ultra-liberal former union bully: Bump: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/22/washington-post-hires-ultra-liberal-former-union-bully-and-nobody-bats-an-eye/

Bain & Company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_%26_Company

Mitt Romney's Worth: https://www.google.com/search?q=romney+worth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Kerry's spouse worth $1 billion / Amount is twice what was thought: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Kerry-s-spouse-worth-1-billion-Amount-is-twice-2711166.php

2011: The 50 Richest Members of Congress: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Kerry-s-spouse-worth-1-billion-Amount-is-twice-2711166.php

Nancy Pelosi defends income equality push:  http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/nancy-pelosi-income-inequality-101899.html

Barack Obama Worth: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/barack-obama-net-worth/

Obama is right to be worried about income inequality — it’s gotten a lot worse under his watch: http://theweek.com/articles/452344/obama-right-worried-about-income-inequality--gotten-lot-worse-under-watch

Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/4/incomes-fell-most-families-past-three-years-while-/

Clinton's Net Worth: https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton%27s+net+worth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Human Development Index: List of Countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

That's rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all


Middle Class Shrinks Further as More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/business/economy/middle-class-shrinks-further-as-more-fall-out-instead-of-climbing-up.html

Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs': https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4551919160687115242#editor/target=post;postID=434593128244509030

Democrat Senator and possible Democrat nominee for the Presidency Elizabeth Warren:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/439207-there-is-nobody-in-this-country-who-got-rich-on

Top 10% Pay 71% of all taxes: 2014 Tax Day Chart: Who Pays the Most?: http://dailysignal.com/2014/04/15/2014-tax-day-chart-pays/


Romney at Bain Capital: Big Gains, Some Busts - WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694

To Hillary, Bill was the King of Income Inequality

On June 13, Hillary Clinton was about to relaunch her presidential campaign after its horrible launch weeks ago, that came amid all the Clinton Foundation scandals.  But, prior to her appearance, a close campaign confidant leaked an excerpt of the speech she was about to give in the Business Insider magazine. It concerned income inequality. The text follows:

Republicans think it’s time to go back to the old top-down playbook that failed us before.  They think it’s time for lower taxes for the super-rich and fewer rules for the biggest corporations. We’ve seen this before.  And we can’t let it happen again.

Really? Failed us?  This from a woman who makes more money giving a one hour speech than nearly 4,000 minimum wage workers would make in a year working 40 hours a week with no vacation or sick days?  Not exactly an "I really feel your pain moment"!

That aside, one measure of income inequality is how the top 10% of the nation's income earners fare against the rest of us.  To that point, let me thank two liberal (actually socialist) French economists for the following chart:

As you can clearly see, in 1928 (a year prior to the Crash of '29), the top 10% were almost earning 50% of what all the rest of the country earned.  Then came the market crash, the Great Depression, World War II, and the Korean war, so that by 1953, the super rich had only controlled a little more than 32% of all incomes.  Until Democrat Jimmy Carter became President, the richest incomes meandered sideways from 32-1/2 percent to 35% with the years under Republicans Nixon/Ford being the most stable.  Then, in 1979, under Democrat Jimmy Carter, the current increase in super rich wealth began. From that point forward, the rich not only regained their high percentage of income earning power they enjoyed from pre-1929 levels, but exceeded it by now earning in excess of 50% of all incomes in 2012 and under Democrat Barack Obama's watch.  Further, under Obama, we have historically high levels of poverty. 

Interestingly, the steepest and least interrupted growth in income inequality occurred during the years that Hillary's husband, Democrat Bill Clinton was in office from 1993 to 2001.  During those years -- starting in 1995 -- the super rich grew from 41% of incomes to nearly 47% by 2000.  A gain of nearly 15% in just 4 years.

Once again, Hillary is making a campaign issue out of a lie.  More often than not, gains in the rich's earning power increase under Democrats because the super wealthy feed off higher government spending, policies, and regulation. For example, right now, the rich are making money hand-over-fist in the stock market which is reaching record highs because interest rates have been so low.  At the same time, those who are lucky enough to have some money in the bank are seeing interest rates that are less than inflation; meaning that they are losing money on every penny of savings they have.

Hillary may talk like "Robin Hood" regarding the rich, but she's not going to do anything about it. Hillary and Bill love the rich.  That's who pays them for all those speaking engagements and that's who supports the Clinton Foundation.  These are also the very people who will give Hillary enough money to run her billion dollar campaign. 

References:

Hillary Clinton, in Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges to Close Income Gap: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/hillary-clinton-attacks-republican-economic-policies-in-roosevelt-island-speech.html

Hillary Clinton's 'talking points' for 'friends and allies' just leaked: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-talking-points-for-friends-and-allies-just-leaked-2015-6

Chart source: How do we know income inequality is getting worse?: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dreaming-of-a-better-gini/

That's rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all

How Did the Clintons Become So Rich? [and help their rich friends at the same time]: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-did-clintons-become-so-rich


pb

Hillary Sure Loves Income Inequality When Fund Raising

Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton slam income inequality; with the rich getting richer at a fast rate while the poor and middle class have languished.  But, when Bernie talks income inequality he walks the walk.  Almost all his donations are small and come from  common people who have donated millions to his campaign.   Hillary, on the other hand, utilizes the rich and famous for her donations.

Last weekend, actor George Clooney hosted a $353,000 per couple dinner as a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.  That's the price to be seated at the table with both Clooney, his wife, and Hillary.  However, if you find $353K a little too steep, you can always buy a cheap-seat next to the kitchen for a mere $33,000.

Hillary once complained that there is something wrong when the average CEO makes 300 times what the average worker makes.  However, this false claim has been debunked because the average CEO pay is really about 4-1/5 times the average worker's pay.  The 300 times number, is again,  another of her distortions based on just 350 top-paid CEO's.

But, one thing is sure, $353K for a dinner is more than 6 thousand times more than what you or I would pay at a fine-dining restaurant in America.  That's some real income inequality.  Even the cheap meal at $33K is more than 1100 times what the average, per-person cost would be for you and I.  In response, a supporter of Bernie and a neighbor of the Clooneys threw a $27 per seat meal on his behalf.

I think this "little" gala meal for Hillary disqualifies her from ever flapping her jaw about income inequality and CEO pay.

One more thing.  How is it that Hillary can receive a $353K donation from members of the  Hollywood elite or, even, a $33K donation, when you and I are restricted to a personal maximum of $2700 per election?

References:

Clinton asks for $353K to sit with the Clooneys: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-george-clooney-fundraiser-221207

Clinton Misuses Stat on CEO Pay: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/clinton-misuses-stat-on-ceo-pay/

Average eater check in restaurants in the United States in 2013, by restaurant type (in U.S. dollars): http://www.statista.com/statistics/295801/average-eater-check-in-restaurants-by-restaurant-type-us/

Clooney's neighbor throws Saturday fundraiser for Sanders [$27]: http://www.businessinsider.com/george-clooneys-neighbor-threw-a-counter-fundraiser-for-bernie-sanders-as-hillary-clinton-arrived-for-a-hollywood-fundraiser-2016-4

Federal Election Commission: Campaign Donation Limits: http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1516.pdf

pb

With More Than 50 Years Of Affirmative Action, Have Blacks Benefited Economically?

To those on the political left, the recent decision by the Supreme Court to side with the will of the Michigan voters to ban Affirmative Action quotas for college admissions is tantamount to promoting state-wide racism.  But, to many others, Affirmative Action unfairly uses racial discrimination to fight racial discrimination; especially in college admissions where some well qualified non-Blacks can be denied enrollment because the college must meet a Black enrollment quota.  So, in theory, by broadly forcing quotas for education and employment, African Americans should have greatly improved their economic stations in life.  But, is this the case with more than 50 years of active Affirmative Action behind us?  To that question, one need only look at this chart:

Click on Chart to Enlarge

What this clearly shows is that, while all median incomes by race have improved since 1965, Black  incomes have consistently remained at roughly 65% of what all races, combined, are being paid.  Of course, some would argue that this only proves that racism still exists in America. On the contrary, this just proves that Affirmative Action is a complete failure.  A failure because Blacks are still falling behind in their incomes.  As I have written before, education is the only true key to erasing income inequality. 

To that point, one need only to look at a few statistics.  When it comes to race and educational attainment rates, 84% of Blacks hold a high school diploma and 19% hold a college degree.  Compare that to Whites statistics of 87.6% and 30.3%; respectively.  Then, too, when Blacks do go to college, the graduation rate is only 32% as compared to 50% for Whites.

Forcing colleges to enroll less qualified students, who are more likely to not graduate, while rejecting more qualified applicants, who are more likely to graduate, is not only unjust but a waste of our country's limited college education availability.  To solve income inequality among Blacks, we need to address why there are higher percentages not graduating from High School. At the same time, we need to improve the quality of education so that Blacks, entering college, can have a reasonable expectation of graduating.  Otherwise, simply sending them to college without the proper educational background is a totally fruitless endeavor.

To me, the Supreme Court's decision may actually turn out to be a positive for African Americans because no longer can they depend on Affirmative Action to get them into college.  As a result, if they truly want to go, they will have to seriously work harder to achieve that goal.  Thus, a better educated Black America should emerge with more sharing in the American Dream.

References:

U.S. top court upholds Michigan ban on college affirmative action: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/22/us-usa-court-race-idUSBREA3L0Y820140422

Median Income Falls For 5th Year, Inequality At Record High: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html

Failing Education: The True Cause Of Income Inequality:  http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/search?q=income+inequality

Education Attainment By Race: https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0229.pdf

U.S. College Graduation Rates By Race: http://edpond.blogspot.com/2012/04/us-college-graduation-rates-by-race-by.html

Inequality: Hillary's Vacation in the Hampton's

Hillary Clinton is always talking about income inequality on the campaign trail; excoriating CEO's for their million dollar plus salaries and benefits. Once, she said we need to "topple" the top one percent of all wage earners in the country.  She should look in the mirror. She is in that one percent.

While taking a break from campaigning, she and Bill will spend two weeks in the Hampton's in a multi-million dollar mansion at a rental cost of $100,000 for two weeks.  That's almost twice what the average family makes in a year, and it's 2-1/2 times what the average home in bankrupt, beat down Detroit sells for.

Enough with the hypocrisy!

References:

Hillary: We Must Topple the 1 Percent: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/417227/hillary-we-must-topple-1-percent-jim-geraghty

Hillary Clinton surprises with early attack on CEO pay: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/13/us-usa-election-clinton-inequality-idUSKBN0N421620150413

Hillary Clinton Highlights Income Inequality: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/13/hillary-clinton-highlights-income-inequality.html 

EXCLUSIVE: Sea views, sweeping lawns, and a private beach - how Hillary Clinton plans to spend break from campaigning among 'ordinary Americans' in $50,000-a-week Hamptons home: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202295/Sea-views-sweeping-lawns-private-beach-Hillary-Clinton-plans-spend-break-campaigning-ordinary-Americans-100-000-week-Hamptons-home.html

Median Sales Price in Detroit - Trulia: http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Detroit-Michigan/market-trends/

Median Household Income: https://www.google.com/search?q=real+median+household+income+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
 

Failing Education: The True Cause Of Income Inequality

This year -- an election year -- Obama and the Democrats think they have a winning issue in proposing spending measures and legislation that would fight income inequality.  For any Democrat, the rallying cry to getting those measures passed and, subsequently, getting themselves elected (or reelected), will be that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer; and, that they are the ones watching out for the poor while the Republicans only want to protect the rich.  Thus, we will be going back to the 2008 campaign when Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that we need to "spread the wealth around."

However, the real reason that we have income inequality in this country has to do with something that the Democrats are completely complicit in: Sustaining a failing and highly unionized educational system for the sole purpose of garnering union votes.  It is actually the level of someone's education that determines whether or not a person will be able to share in the wealth of this country and not a bunch of Democrat-sponsored "band aids" such as raising the minimum wage, or extending unemployment benefits, or whatever.  There is no better proof of that than this chart:

Statistics are for workers 25 or older (click to zoom)

Now, it doesn't take a PhD to see the direct correlation between education and income levels and education and unemployment rates.  So, the real solution to income inequality is a better educated population. 

In a world where Americans must compete for the best jobs and, where those jobs are heavily dependent on math and science, we continue to fall behind.  In recent tests conducted by the  Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), our high school teens ranked 27th in math against the 34 other most economically developed counties in the world.  We also dropped to 21st place in science after having been in 17th place in 2009; and, slipped from 14th place to 17th place in reading.  All, under Obama's watch.

Also, as a country, we are experiencing horrible college graduation rates.  Once again, according to studies done by the OECD, only 34% of Americans enrolled in college actually graduate after 4 years.  While some might fail to graduate for economic reasons, the vast majority fail to complete college because they came unprepared.  Proof of this comes from the results of the 2012 ACT college readiness tests.  Only 67% of those tested had enough English comprehension skills to compete in college.  Other scores were even more frightening with reading proficiency at 52%; math at 46%; and, science at a mere 31%. But, the most disturbing fact of all was that only 25% were proficient in all 4 categories.  Realize, too, that the students taking the ACT are those with aspirations of moving onto college.  God only knows how poorly those who didn't take the test would have done.

In December, there were 4 million job openings in this country. Yet, only 74,000 -- of 10.8 million looking for work -- actually found a job.  This is an awful statistic but it proves my point; and, the problem is only intensified when you add in the nearly 9 million workers who have completely given up looking for work.

It is becoming increasingly more difficult to match worker education levels to the kind of high paying jobs that are being created; or, could be created.  As a consequence, those jobs are either eventually filled with imported labor -- people here on work visas -- or just wind up being shipped overseas where they can be filled with a better educated workforce. Thus, every year, America's workforce is increasingly made up of "dumbed-down" workers.  That's also why -- since the employment recovery began in 2010 -- half of all the jobs that were so-called created were low income positions.

The recession clearly exposed the education problem when so many poorly educated Americans lost their higher paying jobs.  Jobs that paid well because those workers had achieved some level of seniority.  Today, those same workers are being forced to literally start over at the bottom rungs of the uneducated workforce ladder.  This is why we have record numbers -- 46.5 million -- in poverty. Numbers that haven't declined in over three years of a supposed employment recovery.

Over the last few decades, there have been dozens of proposals on how to improve education in America.  But, all have been rejected, completely out of hand, by Democrat politicians on behalf of "their" teachers' unions.  That's because those proposals would either jeopardize the size of existing union membership; or, would have changed how teachers are paid; or, would have disciplined or fired poor performing teachers; and, would have eliminated the stupid concept of tenure.  Never once was the best interest of the student taken into any consideration.

References:

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: US teens lag in global education rankings as Asian countries rise to the top: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/03/21733705-us-teens-lag-in-global-education-rankings-as-asian-countries-rise-to-the-top?lite

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: College Graduation Rates: http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/the-us-ranks-14th-in-college-graduation/

U.S. News And World Report: High School Student Not Prepared for College, Careers: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2012/08/22/high-school-students-not-prepared-for-college-career

2012 ACT results (see chart on page 7): http://media.act.org/documents/CCCR12-NationalReadinessRpt.pdf

BLS: Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

BLS: December 2013 Employment Situation Report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Half Of All Jobs Created In The Past 3 Years Were Low-Paying: Study: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/low-paying-jobs_n_3266737.html

Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/

Thomas Piketty: Another Socialist Solution To Income Inequality

For years, the rock star economist for the political left was Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.  His endorsement of taxing wealth and encouraging massive government spending -- as a means of driving the economy -- has been music to the ears of all those who love and worship big government.  Now, the left has found a new leader to follow.  He is a French economist by the name of Thomas Piketty.  The recently released English language version of his book -- Capital in the Twenty-First Century -- has every socialist-minded politician and media type going gaga over his proposed solution to income inequality.

Essentially, Piketty believes that capitalism -- and democracy -- is doomed to collapse because it creates an ever increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.   It does this because, over time, capitalism spawns a faster growth rate in the return on capital investment versus any real growth in wages. Thus, the rich, by using their wealth as investment, are able to grow their status much quicker than the majority of citizens.  So, Piketty's solution to this fatal flaw of capitalism is to force the rich out of existence by imposing an 80% tax on incomes above $500,000 and a 50-60% tax on those with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000. This way there will be no rich and our democracy will be saved.

But, then there's this:  What if society is actually able to eliminate all of that rich class? What then?

Well, first of all, all those people who had careers that support  the rich would lose their jobs.  Jobs such as the staff of upscale restauranteurs, landscapers, caterers, housekeepers, expensive fine artists and craftsmen, boat and private airplane builders, and so many others.  Then, too, high taxation of the so-called "rich" will only reduce overall spending. Since our economy is 70% driven by consumer spending, we would be sure to fall into a recession.  Additionally, the $200,000-and-above crowd are givers.  Not necessarily in direct charitable giving, but as the primary supporters of the arts and culture in America. They are a dominant source of non-Pell grant college scholarships and fellowships.  Most private colleges and hospital expansions would not happen if it weren't because of their generosity. Without outside donations, does anyone think that a religious college or university would receive a grant from the federal government? Not with the ALCU jumping in to cite the separation of Church and State.

More importantly, the rich provide an essential economic benefit to society by providing the seed money to promote the development of inventions, new products and new businesses; all of which create new jobs.  Under Piketty's flawed beliefs, the concept of wealth investment would simply cease to exist. And, don't think for one minute that the government, with all that new found money is going to pick up the torch and act as America's new Venture Capitalists.  All it would do is fuel more crony capitalism so that we wind up with endless failed ventures like Solyndra.

The problem I have will people like Piketty is that they never once have a solution that elevates people  out of poverty.  Their answer is to always attack the rich; as if they are somehow the wealth takers and not the wealth creators.  Economists aren't sociologists; but, they should be. Only then would they understand what the real reasons are for income inequality.  Totally missing in most left-wing proposals is the concept of income mobility where 80% of the of the rich, today, are first generation millionaires; and, in as little two generations, much of that wealth (60%) will be gone.  At the same time, nearly 85% of all Americans have wealth greater than their parents.  Studies have also shown that between 86% and 95% of all those who were once living in poverty would shed that condition in as little as 15 years.  The bottom line is that people, whether they be rich or poor, are likely to reverse that status, through their own initiative, in just a few years.  Because of capitalism, poverty is not necessarily a permanent condition.


If Mr. Piketty is so sure of his beliefs, he should implement them in his home country of France and then we'll see what that country looks like in, say, 5 or 10 years.  Lastly, Picketty's book is so hot that 80,000 copies were sold in just two months and it is now back-ordered.  Apparently, it is a must read among all socialist Democrats. At a list price of $39.95, it's pretty pricey.  So, I guess it's Mr. Piketty's goal to get rich before anyone can impose that 80% tax on his rich-guy income.

References:

Thomas Piketty Revives Marx for the 21st Century: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303825604579515452952131592

Piketty's 'Capital': A Hit That Was, Wasn't, Then Was Again How the French tome has rocked the tiny Harvard University Press : http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117498/pikettys-capital-sold-out-harvard-press-scrambling

The Facts About Income Mobility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vDhcqua3_W8

29 Valuable Facts About Millionaires and Billionaires: http://facts.randomhistory.com/millionaires-facts.html

Laughably, At Davos, The World's Richest Want To Solve The World's Income Inequality

Every year,  in Davos, Switzerland the world's most powerful meet to kick around issues confronting society in what is known as the World Economic Forum (WEF).  Last year, the Wall Street Journal noted that, of the 2500 attendees, 70 were billionaires, and the rest were mere millionaires and other extremely powerful people.

So, it is interesting that one of the reports coming out of the WEF reveals the fact that just 85 billionaires hold as much wealth as does the bottom half of all humans who live on this planet; arguing that income inequality is a growing and damaging problem.  I'd just love to be a fly on the wall and listen to what the world's richest think the solution to that problem is.

References:

85 richest people own as much as bottom half of population, report say: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-oxfam-world-economic-forum-income-inequality-20140120,0,7080817.story#axzz2qxEXoTZW

Wall Street Journal: The 70 Billionaires at Davos: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/01/25/the-70-billionaires-at-davos/

The Jill Abramson Firing: A Story of Income Inequality and Gender Bias?

America's newspapers, especially those that have the most liberal editorial staff, love to write stories and opinion pieces which expose all of the nation's social ills.  This year was no exception when those same liberal news organizations, in following the Obama's politically motivated lead, decided to write an onslaught of stories regarding widespread gender bias and income inequality for women in this country.  So, its almost laughably ironic that the queen of all liberal newspapers, the New York Times (aka the Grey Lady), is ensnared in a controversy of its own gender bias and income inequality with the firing of its first-ever female Executive Editor, Jill Abramson.

Rumors are flying all over the place as to why she was fired.  The New Yorker claims she was terminated for asking to be paid equal to that of her predecessor, Bill Keller.  There's also the rumor that she was let go for stating that this White House is the most secretive she has ever seen in her many years of covering Presidents.  Then, too, feminists believe that there is proof of gender bias because it was reported by The New Yorker that she was ousted for being too "pushy" and "bossy"; two adjectives that would never be used to describe a male.  Lastly, fuel was added to the fire when she was quickly replaced by a man.

Now, I can't address issues of her management style because only the people who worked for her can; and, that has to be a consensus of many and not one or two disgruntled personnel.  Nor do I have any inside track on whether or not her White House comment was the reason for her dismissal, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't partially true.  What I can address is this "equal pay for equal work" nonsense that appears to be swirling around her dismissal and which has been continually stirred up by the President and the Democrats as a means of garnering votes this coming Fall.

The concept of "equal pay for equal work" is too simplistic. It assumes that everybody will do a given job equally.  But, that is a fantasy; especially when you are talking about Abramson's Executive Editor's position at the New York Times which entails deciding what stories will be written and in what order or priority they will be given.  The concept of equal pay completely ignores self initiative and achievement, performance on the job, education and background, seniority, and so many things that determine what someone should be paid in our merit based system of pay.

First of all, there's the experience levels of Bill Keller versus Jill Abramson.  Keller was the "Times" Executive Editor for 8 years before he gave notice that he wanted to leave in 2011.  He apparently was well liked.  Jill was only on the job for 3 years; ultimately ending in a firing.  Keller was also a Pulitzer Prize winner.  So, in essence, Keller should have been paid more for his years of experience and background. That brings us to the reason why American female journalists, in general, are paid less.

According to a recently released study titled "The American Journalist in the digital Age: Key Findings," women journalists are only paid 82% of what their male counterparts are paid; and this is about the same as the general working population of women.  Now, as that report aptly points out, the disparity between men and women is only 2.4% for journalists working less than five years.  But, with 15 to 20 years of work experience, women are paid 21.4% less than men.  While the report gives no direct reason for this, another section titled "Female Journalists Tend To Leave Profession Earlier" indirectly explains the very reason for the increasing pay disparity. Simply, by leaving their profession early, they don't build up their salaries through years of compounding raises. Thus, when averaged in the aggregate, women are paid less.

Lastly, there's the issue of Abramson being replaced by a man.  This is simply ridiculous.  What this implies is that, once a woman is elevated to high level position, all successors should necessarily be  women.  Its like saying, Hillary Clinton should not be President because when Obama leaves he should be replaced by another Black.
 
References:

New Yorker: Why Jill Abramson Was Fired: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/why-jill-abramson-was-fired.html

Jill Abramson: 'This is the most secretive White House I have ever dealt with': http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/01/jill-abramson-this-is-the-most-secretive-white-house-181742.html

Did the NY Times Fire Jill Abramson For Being 'Bossy'?: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikatulshyan/2014/05/14/did-the-ny-times-fire-jill-abramson-for-being-pushy/

The American Journalist in the digital Age: Key Findings: http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf

Equal Pay Day Theatrics: A Comedy Or A Tragedy: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/04/national-equal-pay-day-theatrics.html

Hillary Clinton's Selective Outrage Over CEO Pay

Last week, the New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton sought the advice of more than 200 experts on how to solve the problem of income inequality.  After all that advice, her solution to the  is to express her outrage over CEO pay.

Rather than come up with any ideas that would give 156 million workers better pay by creating better jobs, her solution is to somehow reduce the salaries of the roughly 19,000 CEO's who head up publicly traded corporations and who are paid, on average, $153,000 a year.  In expressing her outrage she claims that the average CEO is paid 300 times what the average worker is paid.  Well, try dividing $153,000 by 300 and you get a average of $510 a year. 

The fact is, that Hillary, once again, is distorting the facts.  Her "300 times" claim is based on a published work of a liberal think tank called the Economic Policy Institute.  Their claim is that the top 350 CEO's make an average of $15.2 million in annual compensation (salary and benefits, incentives, and forward stock options).  So, were supposed to be angry at every CEO in America because 350 make more than what Hillary and a bunch of other liberals think they should.

But, one has to wonder why that liberal study only looked at the top 350 and not the top 400 or, even the top 500 CEO's.  Well, the reason is that the top 350 are the exception and not the rule.  For example, Mary Barra, the head of General Motors, received $4.4 million in total compensation (salary and incentives) last year.  Apple's CEO got paid $4.2 million.  The new head of Ford just received a compensation package of $5.25 million.

But, where is Hillary's outrage over the insane salaries in Hollywood where the top stars make between 20 and 30 million dollars per movie.   Or, the NBA where the average basketball player is paid $5.5 million.  And, what about her own salary?  Since leaving the State Department, she has average 3/4 of million dollars in income per month.   That's $9 million a year, or the equivalent of the combined incomes of the CEO's of General Motors and Apple Computer.

We are in a country where the working class is hurting.  The middle class makes less now than they did in 2010 at the height of post-recession unemployment.  Instead of spending time talking to a bunch of liberal economists and academics on how to fix the inequality problem, maybe she should spend time with the CEO's who are real job creators; and, stop bashing them about their salaries.  If she's going to be outraged about incomes, Hillary should try looking in the mirror before she lectures anyone else.


References:

New York Times: With advice from more than 200 policy experts, Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to answer what has emerged as a central question of her early presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/politics/economic-plan-is-a-quandary-for-hillary-clintons-campaign.html?_r=1

Hillary Clinton surprises with early attack on CEO pay: http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-surprises-early-attack-ceo-pay-190527044--finance.html

Average CEO Pay in America: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_%28CEO%29/Salary

Number of Publicly Traded Corporations in U.S.: https://www.google.com/search?q=publicaly+traded+corporations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=off&q=number+of+publicly+traded+companies&revid=1307038320

Economic Policy Institute: CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less: http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/

Since exiting the Obama administration in February 2013, she has raked in an estimated $750,000 per month with her nonstop speaking appearances and the advance for her new book, according to an analysis by Bloomberg: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-brought-12-million-16-months-leaving-state-department-article-1.1874339

Mary Barra Salary: https://www.google.com/search?q=mary+barra+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

The New Ford CEO Pay: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/07/02/ford-ceo-mark-fields-pay/12085859/

Apple CEO Pay: https://www.google.com/search?q=Apple+CEO+pay&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Average NBA Pay: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+nba+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

List of highest paid film actors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_paid_film_actors

Real Median Household Incomes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Record American Wealth?

Recently, the Federal Reserve reported that Household Worth hit a record $80.7 trillion dollars.  The Drudge Report headline said it all: "Boom: Household Net Worth Hits Record High..."

Now, if you read that headline and you are an average Joe or Jane in America, you are probably scratching your head because you just know, since this recession, that you are still hurting.  The report claims that the record wealth was due to improved home prices. Really? Home prices are nowhere near the record median price of 2005:

Then, too, there are more Americans in poverty than ever:

Add to that the fact that the median household income has fallen for 5 years in a row and you have to wonder what the Federal Reserve was smoking when they came up with that "record" wealth story. 

Well, the primary problem with the Fed's calculation is that it heavily weights stock market gains.  But, most of those gains primarily benefit the rich and rich stock market funds.  Even Obama had to admit that 95% of the income gains under his Administration went to the top 1%.

The bottom line is that the Fed's numbers are completely deceptive.  Americans are not better off now than they were before the housing bust and the recession. All that their Quantitative Easing initiatives (QE1, QE2, and QE3) did is benefit the wealthy individuals, hedge funds, and major corporations.  Meanwhile, all that spending never reached the little guys of our society. 

References:

Household Worth in U.S. Climbs by $2.95 Trillion to Record: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-06/household-worth-in-u-s-rose-by-2-95-trillion-in-fourth-quarter.html

Median Income Falls For 5th Year, Inequality At Record High: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html

Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/

Hillary Touts Bill Clinton's Wage Growth

Yesterday, I briefly caught a Hillary Clinton stump speech in Indiana, in which she stated  that the last time there was wage growth in this country, was when her husband was President (1993 to 2001).  Then, she said it all stopped when a Republican replaced him.  And, yes, if you look at the following chart, she would be correct.

Click on Image To Enlarge

Neither George Bush nor Barack Obama have been able to get the real median household income back to the 1999 peak that occurred during Bill Clinton's presidency.  However, what is also true, is that wage growth under Clinton was all due to the largest increase in income inequality, with the top 1% of incomes generally patterning the peaks and valleys of the chart above (as noted in the following chart).

Click on Chart to Enlarge

At the same time, the bottom 90% (the bottom line on that graph) improved very little under her husband's years in office.

The truth is. that Bill Clinton was in office  during a time when more millionaires were created than ever before.  It was the core years of the dot-com and the Internet revolution.  What is also true is that, as seen above, the top 1% recouped their losses quickly after the Great Recession.  On the other hand, it shows that despite these gains, median incomes continued to fall through 2012.  Thereby implying that 99% had substantially greater losses in income through 2012.   Of course, that doesn't speak well for the current Democrat in office, now does it? 

One last note.  Growth in wages stopped a year before Bush got into office because the dot-com bubble burst; sending the stock market reeling.  Contrary to Hillary's assertion, George Bush had nothing to do with that, or 9/11, which also caused incomes to fall until they bottomed out in 2004. Then they continued to rise again until the Great Recession hit.


References:

Real Median Household Incomes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N

This chart shows why Hillary Clinton wants to ‘topple’ the 1 percent: http://fusion.net/story/123719/hillary-clinton-income-inequality-topple-1-percent/

 Dot-com Bubble: https://www.google.com/search?q=dot+com+bubble&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Fact Checking Obama's Statement on Women and Income Inequality

While there were dozens of half-truth's and outright lies that I could have written about following the President's State of the Union address, none are more outrageous than these two minutes:

First of all, the fact that women only make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns would be an accurate statement if we were all listening to his speech in 2004.  If the President took the time to read the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report on this exact topic, he would have read the following on the very first page:

 "In 1979, women working full time earned 62 percent of what men did; in 2011, women’s earnings were 82 percent of men’s."

And, that 82 percent is up from 81 percent in the previous year.

More importantly, the 82 percent number doesn't even come close to justifying Obama's statement that women should get equal pay for equal work.  That's because it is an average of all kinds of jobs that are held by the two sexes.  For example, more men work in higher paying heavy equipment and construction jobs than women; while woman dominate in lower paying positions such as cashiers, waitresses, and housekeepers.  Often, women choose these lower paying jobs because they give them more flexibility to care for their families.  In terms of college degrees, the highest paying jobs are in engineering.  Yet, less than 20% of those holding those degrees are women.

Now in terms of income inequality, the President seems to have conveniently forgotten that "he" signed  the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law in 2009.  Along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the Ledbetter law insures that woman have the right to sue whenever there is "true" income equality.  "True" meaning that the income disparity isn't as a result of differences in skill, responsibility, merit raises, or seniority.

Then there was the statement that a woman deserves to be able to have a baby without losing her job.  Well, again, Obama has forgotten that we already have a law that protects women from that, or even as a result of having to take care of a sick family member.  It's called the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.  The overview of that law is as follows:

• Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
• the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;
• the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;
• to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition;
• a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job;
• any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on “covered active duty;” 

The concept of equal pay for equal work is the basis of socialism and unionization and not capitalism.  So, yes, a woman might be paid less than a male coworker because of a lack of things like education/experience, responsibility, seniority, or merit raises.  At the same time, two men, working the same job, might also be paid differently for the very same reasons.  That's why, to my knowledge, there hasn't been a slew of lawsuits being filed since the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was passed.

Once again, this President is distorting the facts in order to garner women's votes; and, he knows quite well that many woman (and, of course men, too) won't fact check all his lies.

References:

BLS Reports: Women in the Workplace: February 2013: http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2012.pdf

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009

Equal Pay Act of 1963: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963 

U.S. Department of Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act: http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/

Engineering by the Numbers: http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/2011-profile-engineering-statistics.pdf

Which College Degrees Earn the Highest Wages?: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/5-best-and-worst-paying-college-degrees/

Decades of Decline In Salaries For Non-College Degreed Workers

Last February, Pew Research issued their latest results for college vs non-college educated worker's incomes for those aged 25 to 32.  In my opinion, the most important item in Pew's commentary is this pictorial:

 

Obviously, the chart shows that having a college degree pays off.  However, it also shows that the demand for college degreed workers is high; resulting in ever-increasing salaries.  In fact, the demand is so high that many of these jobs remain unfilled. That is why, every month, this country must issue 125,000 new work visas to foreign workers in order to fill the void. Most of these openings are for high tech positions in Information Technology.

At the same time, the number of opportunities for non-degreed employees is falling, indicating that too many undereducated workers are vying for too few jobs.  As a result, employers can offer lower wages and there will still be enough jobless willing to accept that lower wage.

If we want to solve income inequality in this country, something needs to be done about our failing educational system, and the fact that getting a college degree is the linchpin for getting a better job and higher pay.  Our leaders need to emphasise the importance of education and, at the same time, stop talking down big business because, without big corporations, the best paying jobs wouldn't exist.

References:

Cutting Through The Fog: Failing Education: The True Cause Of Income Inequality: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/01/failing-education-true-cause-of-income.html

Pew Research: The Rising Cost of Not Going to College: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-going-to-college/

NumbersUSA: 125,000 brand new foreign workers with work permits each month: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/august-19-2009/125000-brand-new-foreign-workers-work-permits-each-month-heres-proof.h

 

Dispelling the Myth That George W. Bush Only Benefited The Rich

We've heard it all before.  According to Obama and the Democrats, the George W. Bush tax cuts only benefited  the rich.  Thus, apparently, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during the Bush years.

However, thanks to a post by Jim Lindgren, in a Washington Post blog, we get this very enlightening chart:

As the chart shows, of the last four out-of-office Presidents, the incomes of the lowest 20% of our population under George W. Bush increased the highest at 18.4%.  At the same time, the top 20%, saw declines of  6% in their incomes.  Under Clinton, the poor only saw income increases of 13.3%; but, the richest 1% saw their income rise by a whopping 84.1%.  Reagan was the biggest benefactor of the rich with a 90.9% increase in their incomes in his 8 years.

That, then, brings us to Obama.  Under his stewardship we have a record number of people in poverty: 46.5 million and a 49-year high; as a percent of population. Further, Obama has had to admit that, since being in office, 95% of all the income gains have gone to the top 1%.

If this was a fairy tale, and Obama had a magic mirror, his "fairest of all" question would definitely result in George W's face reflecting back at him.   


References:

Jim Lindgren:  If we want more income equality, should we return to the economy of George W. Bush?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/28/if-we-want-more-income-equality-should-we-return-to-the-economy-of-george-w-bush/

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all


Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/

On The Minimum Wage Hike: Timing Is Everything

On the very day that the Senate Democrats are planning to make a show of voting for a $10.10 minimum wage,  it was reported that the economy in the first quarter only grew by one-tenth of one percent.  Just a tenth of a percent above dead stalled.
   
Yet, the Democrats feel obliged to further damage this already-fragile situation by hiking the minimum wage and, in so doing, force higher prices for a consumer base that has already seen its income decline for 5 straight years.
   
This, so 1/2 of one percent of our population or 1.6 million workers, can see their salary kicked up 41%. With this, the Democrats think they can stir up their political base as they approach the Fall elections.  And the economy be damned as they ignore how complicit the last minimum wage increase was in making this the worst recovery ever.
   
Now, ask yourself this. Are you going to get a 41% wage hike so you can afford the inflationary prices caused by this latest increase?  Are the working poor, those on welfare assistance, and those on fixed incomes going to benefit from it?  No.  This will only create further income inequality by weighing down those already at the bottom.

References:

April 30: $10.10 Wage Bill Set To Die In The Senate: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/204766-1010-wage-bill-set-to-die

April 30: US economy slowed to 0.1 percent growth rate in Q1: 
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20140430/us-economy-gdp-09b1567225.html

Median Income Falls For 5th Year, Inequality At Record High: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html

Characteristics of a minimum wage worker: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

Obama and the Democrat's Priorities Are Out Of Step With America's

Every year, Pew Research conducts a poll to determine what America thinks the nation's priorities should be. The result of this year's poll are as follows:

At the very top, the economy, jobs, terrorism, education, and social security are what American's are most concerned about.  Yet, we have a President who seems to think he's done a good job on the economy, jobs, and terrorism; and, at the same time, completely ignores any meaningful programs to fix our broken education system.  It is interesting to see that there really hasn't been any significant drops in either the economy or jobs as priorities since the President took office in 2009.  I guess that's why, in other polls, many Americans still think we are in a recession.

But, what's more disturbing, is that many of Obama's  priorities -- global warming, infrastructure,  immigration, and income inequality (dealing with the poor) -- are either at the bottom or, in the case of income inequality, are in the bottom half of this year's list.

All too often Obama and the Democrats claim they are more in sync with what Americans need or want.  If that was really true, the Pew poll would be just the inverse of what it really is.

The Occupy Movement Is Alive and Well For Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

In 2011, the news was filled with coverage of protests by the "Occupy Wall Street" movement driven by the concept of income inequality. The demonstrations were directed towards the top one percent of income earners.  Since then and recently, there has been nary a word about "Occupy".  That is until Hillary and Bernie began running for President. While not actually declaring themselves members of "Occupy", their words say otherwise.  Bernie, the consummate socialist, would tax the top one percent at 90%.   Hillary, after seeing the following chart by the far left Economic Policy Institute, said that top one percent should be "toppled":

Click on Chart to Enlarge

Of course, what Hillary Clinton was aghast at was that, since 1979, the income of this country's top one percent grew by 153.6%, while those at the the bottom only saw a growth of 17.1%.  Thus, she is implying that the wealthy got that way by suppressing the wages of the working poor.

Now a few points about that chart.

Most of the growth in the top one percent's earnings occurred in the years that Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton, was President (January 1993 to January 2001).  Since his leaving, that group has basically saw-toothed its way sideways; being significantly hurt in 2000 and 2008 by recessions. Also, the recovery to the 150% mark was much faster under Obama than it was under Bush.  Clearly, the top once percent seem to benefit from Democrat Presidents.

But, who are these so-called one percenters and why have their incomes grown so rapidly.

Most people seem to think that the one-percent crowd is made up of millionaires and billionaires.  But understand that this country has about 10 million people whose net worth is over a million dollars; or, about 3 percent of the population.  We have approximately 1745 billionaires; representing just 2 one-thousandths of a percent of our population.

The reality is that, according to the IRS, the top one percent are individuals or families with incomes just over $380,000; and, the average pay of all the one percenters is less than $1 million at $717,000.  Just 235,000 tax returns in 2009 were for people and families making over a million dollars a year.  8,274 returns were for those making $10 million and above.  There really aren't a lot of extremely rich tax returns being filed.

So, why has the one percent's incomes grow so rapidly?

Well, we have a lot of people that are being paid drastically increasing annual incomes over the last few decades.  The average NFL player in 1969 was making just $25,000.  If adjusted for inflation, that would be a little above $156,000 today.  Yet, the average NFL salary is now $1.9 million dollars.  An average NBA player is at $5.15 million.  A major league baseball player: $3.2 million. Rapper Jay-Z has an annual income of $56 million. Kanye West $30 million.  Both Celine Dion and Britney Spears earned $15 million a year each from just their Las Vegas shows.  The 31 year-old Mark Zuckerberg is worth $41.7 billion for creating a premier social media site called Facebook.  Bill Gates is the richest man in the world with a net worth of almost $80 billion for co-founding Microsoft.  And the list goes on.

The growth of wealth spans all areas of the economy.  At the same time, tax policies, government regulations, and a decline in education has driven the high paying jobs off- shore.

References:

Average America vs the One Percent - Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/average-america-vs-the-one-percent/

How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make?: http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

Average Pro Player Salary: https://www.google.com/search?q=average+pro+player+salary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
 

Another Hillary Joke: She and Bill Pay Ordinary Income Taxes

In another one of her "book-tour" interviews, Hillary Clinton tried to diminish her wealth by saying she and Bill pay "ordinary" income taxes, unlike most millionaires who take advantage of the tax code to underpay their obligations.

Well, in 2008, when Hillary was running for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency,  Bill Clinton released several years of tax returns.  In the latest-available 2007 return, the Clinton's earned, after adjustments, $20.4 million and only paid $5.1 in taxes.  Thus their effective tax rate was 25%.  That is 10 percentage points below the "ordinary" rate of 35% for someone making as much as they did.  An income level, by the way, that puts them squarely in the same infamous, anti-Democratic, disgusting income-inequality level of the top 1%.

Once again, Hillary Clinton is either delusional or just plain stupid. But more than likely, she just thinks she can lie and no one will check the facts.  She is a 1-percent-er who wants us all to believe that she is somehow, just like the rest of us in that big 99% tent that the anti-wealth "Occupy" movement was all about.

References:

Hillary Clinton: ‘We pay ordinary income tax’: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/22/hillary-clinton-we-pay-ordinary-income-tax/

Clinton Releases Tax Returns: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/04/clinton-release.html

Federal Tax Brackets: Selectable by Year: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm


We are the 99%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%25

Everyone talks about the 1% -- but who are they exactly? -- http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/

Are We Really Better Off Since Obama Took Office?

In front of adoring crowds at one of his all-too-many campaign style events, President Obama has claimed that "By almost any measure, we are better off since I took office" or that America is stronger under his watch.

The problem with such statements is that they are factually untrue when looking at the broader state of our union.

Sure, the President can claim that overall unemployment is down from where it was when he took over the reins of government in January 2009.  But, to get there, overall unemployment rose to a rate of 10% in the first year-and-a-half of his presidency.  Something that the so-called "stimulus" was supposed to avoid by promising that the unemployment rate wouldn't go above 8%. Even now, 5 years passed the end of the official end of the recession, this country still has an unemployment rate that is a full point above pre-recession levels.

Our major cities have extraordinarily high unemployment rates.  Chicago, Obama's home town, is still at 8.0%; and, that's just recently down from a January 2014 rate of 9.6%.  Detroit, now in bankruptcy, had an unemployment rate of  17.7% in July.  A city like Atlantic City, that depends heavily on Americans spending leisure-time money, is suffering from cash-strapped tourists unable to indulge in what they have to offer. The casinos are closing and the unemployment rate sits at 13.7%. More worrisome is the fact that our three largest cities -- Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago -- are dangerously close to following Detroit into bankruptcy.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is stuck at a 5-year growth rate of about 2%. This is, at least, the worst recovery since World War II and, some say in the history of the United States when using alternate methods of calculating GDP.
Then there's the overall economic health of America.  For 5 straight years the median incomes of this country have fallen and income inequality has risen to a record high.  Half the jobs created under this President's watch were low income/low paying.  When he took office, only 30 million Americans were on food stamps.  Today, that number is 47 million; a 56% increase.  Similarly, only 38 million Americans were living in poverty.  Today, that number is a record 47 million and has stood at 15 percent of the population for the last 2 years. Thus, as the population grows, so does the amount of people left in poverty.

Of course, the real elephant in the room is the amount of debt that Obama has left us with; a number that only gets worse by the day.  At the beginning of his first term, the federal debt was $10.6 trillion.  Today, it is closing in on $18 trillion; just $250 billion from the current number (as of this writing) of $17.756 trillion. A number that, for the first time in this nation's history, is greater than the total annual economic output of the country.  Of those advanced economies in the world, only Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain can claim debt levels above their economic output. All of which are near bankruptcy and on the brink of bringing the European Union to its knees.

When we see people standing behind President Obama and nodding in agreement that things are better, you have to wonder what planet they're from.  Most other Americans (74% in one poll) still think that we never recovered from the recession.  And, in so many ways, they're right.

References:

By almost any measure, we are better off since I took office: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/07/10/obama_by_almost_every_measure_we_are_better_off_than_when_i_took_office.html

Obama claims US is 'stronger' than 'when I first came into office' as economy weakens, debt soars, America loses global influence and border crisis deepens: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722926/Obama-claims-US-stronger-I-came-office-economy-weakens-debt-soars-America-loses-global-influence-illegal-immigrants-flood-border.html

Half Of The Jobs Created During The Recovery Were Low-Paying: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/14/2008591/jobs-recovery-low-paying-minimum-wage/

Chicago Unemployment Rate Falls to 8.0%: http://www.worldbusinesschicago.com/news/chicago-unemployment-rate-jul2014

Detroit Unemployment Rates:  https://ycharts.com/indicators/detroit_mi_unemployment_rate

Unemployment rises in most US states in July: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140818/BIZ/308180072

 Another Atlantic City Bust: Trump Plaza Closes: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-plaza-4th-atlantic-city-casino-shutdown-25528499

3 huge cities flirting with bankruptcy: http://money.msn.com/investing/post--3-huge-cities-flirting-with-bankruptcy

Obama’s economic recovery: officially the worst in US history: http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/41366829334/obamas-economic-recovery-officially-the-worst-in-us

Median Income Falls For 5th Year, Inequality At Record High: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html

47 million Americans on food stamps: http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/09/SNAP-participants.jpg

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all

America's Poverty Rate Stuck At 15 Percent For Second Straight Year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/poverty-america-census_n_3940812.html

 74% said we are still in a recession: http://patch.com/new-hampshire/concord-nh/is-the-recession-over-yet#.VBR1qmNAVLU

U.S. Federal Debt Exceeds GDP: http://jamesviser.com/?p=995