President Obama, like the vast majority in the progressive chorus, has whined about “income inequality.” According to this post, income inequality has shrunk during this administration. Unfortunately, it’s shrunk for the wrong reasons:

In the last two years, it’s way down. Recessions are bad for the rich. If you care about inequality per se, recessions are great. That appears to be true, so in 2009 the top 1% I calculated at 17.6%. I’ve seen other calculations a tad under 17%, but it’s basically gone from 23.5 to 17. What’s interesting about 17 is that inequality in 2009 is actually lower than it was during any year of Bill Clinton’s second term.

“The Rich” have taken a hit during this administration. Thanks to President Obama not getting the economy running, the percentage of money millionaires made is 20% less than when President Obama took office. Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit, has frequently called President Obama the “Worst. Jobs. President. Ever.” Later this am, I’ll be emailing Jim to let him know that I’m adding another title to President Obama’s list: The. Biggest. Wealth. Destroying. President. Ever.

Most presidents increase the country’s wealth. President Obama’s policies have shrunk American wealth. It isn’t just “the rich” that’ve gotten hurt, either. There are more people on food stamps now than ever before. The middle class has shrunk significantly.

At some point, people will know that President Obama a) a harmful to their bank accounts’ health, b) has pursued policies that won’t ever create wealth or prosperity and c) has increased debt, both personal and national, at a faster rate than any other president in U.S. history.

President Obama’s stimulus fed his political allies. His policies have assisted his rich bundlers and union thugs alike. Everyone else has pretty much gotten the shaft.

Personally, I don’t care about income inequality. I worry about whether the economy is creating wealth. If it’s creating wealth, the jobs will come. It isn’t healthy to worry about income inequality. It’s important, though, to use that as motivation to propel yourself higher.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “President Obama, the wealth destroyer”

  • eric z. says:

    I hate to be a stickler for detail, but what is this author talking about? That the wealthy took their capital losses when they were unfortunate enough to have bet on securitized mortages because they were priced at a higher expected return, all things being equal, than treasuries? All things turned out to not be equal and some gamblers –

  • eric z. says:

    [cont’d I don’t know what did a publish] … gamblers – with their LEVELS OF DISCRETIONARY WEALTH that you and I, Gary, do not have. I cry. I weep real tears for the poor buggers. I am depressed for the remainder of the day.

  • eric z. says:

    Gary, does that article really make any sense to you, in context and apart from lifting a snippit – the print equivalent of a sound-bite? To me it is pure hogwash. If it makes sense to you, please explain how it is relevant to anything and how it in your view makes itself cogent to you in ways I miss? I’d appreciate that.

Leave a Reply