Where to even start? I'll try chronological order:
Neoliberals like Obama are really not concerned about inequality. Their belief is that the problem is not of distribution, but of an insufficient total amount.
Insufficient total amount
is a bigger problem than inequality, but that doesn't mean inequality isn't a problem. Go on the street and ask someone if they'd rather have more money or if they'd rather have some random billionaire lose most of his money. It's going to be pretty unanimous.
Romney would undoubtedly be worse than Obama.
In the sense that Romney would prioritize total amount over inequality to a far greater extent than Obama? This is one of the reasons I support him, and he is 'better' than Obama, but to each his own, I suppose.
Yeah, the idea that a constantly growing economy is possible or would be inherently desirable if it was is about as ridiculous as my university's outgoing chancellor's obsession with measuring success by on-campus construction and size of freshman classes, and it's an idea that like pretty much everyone else in positions of power in this country Obama falls significantly prey to.
Two thoughts spring to mind about this one:
a) Your university's outgoing chancellor sounds like a total idiot, judging just by what you said.
b) As to your first line, it's impossible, but I don't understand why it wouldn't be very desirable if it was possible. As it is, the best idea is to have it grow as much of the time as is possible.
Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.
Thankfully. The solution to income inequality isn't to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, but rather encourage the growth of the economy and general and jobs; when a poor person has a job, they can make money, and if the economy is growing, over time they can make more money, lessening the problem of inequality. The rich don't need help -- but it would be unfair to hinder them in order to help somebody else.
Income inequality flourished under every post-stagflation President with the arguable exception of Bush I.
True. It only started being a real issue recently, though, so much of this increase wasn't noticed by the general electorate until relatively recently.
Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.
Income inequality also flourished under Clinton and Carter.
You chumps are great at talking about income inequality of course.
Yes, income inequality has been on the rise for 40 years straight, so obviously we should stop talking about it. That whole deficit stuff is just a bunch of hooey, too, and people were unemployed since before any of us were born. Also, taxes exist. Republicans and Democrats should stop talking about issues which have occurred at any one point in the past because doing otherwise is just hypocrisy.
I personally find this exchange hilarious. Jacobtm thinks he's criticizing Republicans (in actuality, most Americans would view that as a compliment - the term 'redistribution of wealth' has become very demonized). Then, krazen replies by saying income inequality flourished under Carter and Clinton -- which is true, but which has
nothing to do at all with what Jacobtm said. Then, King mocks krazen by sarcastically declaring that if we shouldn't talk about income inequality, we also shouldn't talk about a whole host of other economic issues - missing that krazen started this thread about income inequality, and continues discussing inequality in the post King quotes (not sure how that line of discussion is a reply to Jacobtm, but it is a line of discussion) -- Krazen's post had
nothing to do at all with what krazen or Jacobtm said.
