Edwards, Damned Edwards, and Statistics
---
Class warrior John Edwards this past Sunday:
(Click to enlarge.)
The only epilogue required is to note, yet again, that these figures are only for income taxes. Where the working poor are indeed oppressed is of course not federal income taxes but Social Security taxes, which seize one-eighth of working-class Americans' paychecks to fund a high-risk, low-return intergenerational transfer scheme that is in severe fiscal distress. Anyone who claims to champion the working poor should make meaningful Social Security reform his highest fiscal priority.
John Edwards?
But not deaf:
When did "The American Dream" start to mean "having someone else pay for everything"? When did "progressive social policy" start to mean "an unlimited and unapologetic willingness to spend other people's money"? When did "the new social compact" (Edwards' term) start to mean "the new socialism"?
More thoughts from Brink Lindsey.
---
Actually, I have another post script: When Edwards rails against "big, multinational corporations" (as he did this past Sunday) he is of course damning the owners of those corporations — the shareholders. Who exactly does he think those shareholders are?
As a general rule, the stock of "evil" or "tax-privileged" blue-chip American mega-companies such as Exxon ("Big Oil"), Merck ("Big Pharma") and Cigna ("Big Insurance") is owned largely, often overwhelmingly, by the middle class — either directly (including via mutual funds and similar investment vehicles) or indirectly (via pension funds, including — gasp! — government employee pension funds). Not to mention all the (vicariously evil) universities, hospitals, scholarship funds and other non-profit institutions that rely on endowment income — do such institutional endowments tend to serve the poor, the rich or the middle class? (Recent example here.) So whom, consequently, does Edwards serve by declaring such corporations, and the income they generate, "the enemy"?
It's a pity that socialist megalomaniacs like Edwards have so corrupted the word "populist" that it is now essentially a synonym for "ignorant."
---
For those confused by the title, see here.
Mr. Edwards said that a big-stick-carrying approach was the only way to effect change. Corporate resistance, he said, had ... resulted in a kind-to-the-rich tax policy[.]"Reality:
(Click to enlarge.)
The only epilogue required is to note, yet again, that these figures are only for income taxes. Where the working poor are indeed oppressed is of course not federal income taxes but Social Security taxes, which seize one-eighth of working-class Americans' paychecks to fund a high-risk, low-return intergenerational transfer scheme that is in severe fiscal distress. Anyone who claims to champion the working poor should make meaningful Social Security reform his highest fiscal priority.
John Edwards?
He does not believe we need to reduce benefits, change the retirement age or increase the burden on average workers.In other words, he's blind.
But not deaf:
Edwards will fight to keep the promise of social security by ending the Social Security tax exemption for workers making more than $200,000 a year.To Edwards, the answer to everything, absolutely everything, is class warfare. Everything.
When did "The American Dream" start to mean "having someone else pay for everything"? When did "progressive social policy" start to mean "an unlimited and unapologetic willingness to spend other people's money"? When did "the new social compact" (Edwards' term) start to mean "the new socialism"?
More thoughts from Brink Lindsey.
---
Actually, I have another post script: When Edwards rails against "big, multinational corporations" (as he did this past Sunday) he is of course damning the owners of those corporations — the shareholders. Who exactly does he think those shareholders are?
As a general rule, the stock of "evil" or "tax-privileged" blue-chip American mega-companies such as Exxon ("Big Oil"), Merck ("Big Pharma") and Cigna ("Big Insurance") is owned largely, often overwhelmingly, by the middle class — either directly (including via mutual funds and similar investment vehicles) or indirectly (via pension funds, including — gasp! — government employee pension funds). Not to mention all the (vicariously evil) universities, hospitals, scholarship funds and other non-profit institutions that rely on endowment income — do such institutional endowments tend to serve the poor, the rich or the middle class? (Recent example here.) So whom, consequently, does Edwards serve by declaring such corporations, and the income they generate, "the enemy"?
It's a pity that socialist megalomaniacs like Edwards have so corrupted the word "populist" that it is now essentially a synonym for "ignorant."
---
For those confused by the title, see here.
Posted by Kip on
18 December 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
