开云体育

The middle class has been having issues for 30 years. It didn't suddenly start with Obama.

For decades, basically since the Industrial Revolution, as the productivity of workers increased, their wages increased..... until about 1980, and the advent of the PC, and Reagan getting into office, that is.

Since that point in time, workers wages have stagnated, while the richest people in America have seen their wealth jump by leaps and bounds. Again, these are FACTS, remember, not my opinion - unlike the OPINION piece you cite below, where the author talks about her opinion about what Obama's has had as his focus.

So, when worker's productivity soared as a result of computers being more and more involved in speeding up the way they could accomplish their jobs, their wages didn't go up to keep up with those productivity gains as it has in the past.

That's not Obama's fault.

And then your comment about Obama not being willing to compromise? That's demonstrably false too - he has compromised a great deal. The FACTS show us that it's the other side of the aisle that's unwilling to compromise - like with the amount of filibusters from Republican Senators, for example. Like with the content of Obamacare being things that the Republicans had proposed and supported in years past, rather than it being a universal care offering that Democrats had long supported. Like the stimulus bill being almost half tax cuts, although tax cuts aren't nearly so stimulative as other ways to spend money to help out when consumer spending gets greatly restricted during a terrible recession. Asserting that he's not willing to compromise, that Democrats aren't willing to compromise, just isn't an honest attempt to discuss this topic.

And you act as though Obama is the first politically partisan president ever. He's not. They all are.



-----Original Message-----
From: zimowski <zimowski@...>
To: ibmpensionissues <ibmpensionissues@...>
Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 12:47 am
Subject: [ibmpensionissues] The Inequality President




The Inequality President
The rich have done fine under Obamanomics, not so the middle class.

I found this WSJ article to be very thought provoking. How exactly does Obama expect to help the middle class if he's unwilling to compromise on his socialistic views and reach across the aisle to work with Republicans? I know he's an intelligent man. What I don't understand is why he thinks speeches filled with partisan tenor will help him achieve his goals any more than they have over the past 4+ years.

Here's the first few paragraphs. You can read the rest at
.

President Obama made his fourth or fifth, or maybe it's the seventh or eighth, pivot to the economy on Wednesday, and a revealing speech it was. We counted four mentions of "growth" but "inequality" got five. This goes a long way to explaining why Mr. Obama is still bemoaning the state of the economy five years into his Presidency.

The President summed up his economic priorities close to the top of his hour-long address. "This growing inequality isn't just morally wrong; it's bad economics," he told his Galesburg, Illinois audience. "When middle-class families have less to spend, businesses have fewer customers. When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy. When the rungs on the ladder of opportunity grow farther apart, it undermines the very essence of this country."

Then the heart of the matter: "That's why reversing these trends must be Washington's highest priority. It's certainly my highest priority."

Which is the problem. For four and a half years, Mr. Obama has focused his policies on reducing inequality rather than increasing growth. The predictable result has been more inequality and less growth. As even Mr. Obama conceded in his speech, the rich have done well in the last few years thanks to a rising stock market, but the middle class and poor have not. The President called his speech "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," but no President has done worse by the middle class in modern times.