Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The New York Times Explains Why Good News is Bad
In what can only be called a bizarrro world opinion piece today, the NYT editors put the ultimate spin on recent census bureau information about incomes--it's all bad news to the cognoscenti and it's all Mr. Bush's fault. No, really. Behold, beginning with the lead: The Census Bureau reported yesterday that median household income rose 0.7 percent last year — it’s second annual increase in a row— to $48,201. The share of households living in poverty fell to 12.3 percent from 12.6 percent in 2005.
OK, income is on average up and poverty is down. (And look at our 'poverty.' People in the slums of any South American city would laugh at us calling American homeowners with two cars, air conditioning and two color TVs poor. It's a point worth remembering).
So how can 'income up, poverty down' be bad news? Like this, answers the far seeing NYT editors:
The gains against poverty last year were remarkably narrow. The poverty rate declined among the elderly, but it remained unchanged for people under 65. Analyzed by race, only Hispanics saw poverty decline on average while other groups experienced no gains.
So two group gains and the others stay where they were. Still not bad news for any sane person.
Over all, the new data on incomes and poverty mesh consistently with the pattern of the last five years, in which the spoils of the nation’s economic growth have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthy and the extremely wealthy, leaving little for everybody else.
I see, those who earn a lot of money earned even more money and those who only earn a little money only earned a little more. Oh, the horror!
What do we need to do to end this endless cycle of misery and inequality? The NYT knows:
What are needed are policies to help spread benefits broadly — be it more progressive taxation, or policies to strengthen public education and increase access to affordable health care.
Oh, I see, I get the picture, we need socialism. We need Robin Hood robbing the rich and giving to the poor and more money into our failing government schools and free health care for the poor. The NYT supporting these suspect 'fixes' is like seeing the sun at mid-day. Unfortunately, making a more progressive tax rate hurts the economy and actually rakes in less money to the government. More money doesn't mean better schools. otherwise Washington DC's schools would be the best and not the worst in our nation, a national disgrace, in fact. Health care? I thought the subject was earnings? How would socialized medicine run by the government help poor people earn more money? The truly poor get medicaid already.
Final words of wisdom: Unfortunately, these policies are unlikely to come from the current White House. This administration prefers tax cuts for the lucky ones in the top five percent.
Tax cuts for the rich, the lucky ones--not the hard working risk takers, just the lucky ones. Of course.
OK, income is on average up and poverty is down. (And look at our 'poverty.' People in the slums of any South American city would laugh at us calling American homeowners with two cars, air conditioning and two color TVs poor. It's a point worth remembering).
So how can 'income up, poverty down' be bad news? Like this, answers the far seeing NYT editors:
The gains against poverty last year were remarkably narrow. The poverty rate declined among the elderly, but it remained unchanged for people under 65. Analyzed by race, only Hispanics saw poverty decline on average while other groups experienced no gains.
So two group gains and the others stay where they were. Still not bad news for any sane person.
Over all, the new data on incomes and poverty mesh consistently with the pattern of the last five years, in which the spoils of the nation’s economic growth have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthy and the extremely wealthy, leaving little for everybody else.
I see, those who earn a lot of money earned even more money and those who only earn a little money only earned a little more. Oh, the horror!
What do we need to do to end this endless cycle of misery and inequality? The NYT knows:
What are needed are policies to help spread benefits broadly — be it more progressive taxation, or policies to strengthen public education and increase access to affordable health care.
Oh, I see, I get the picture, we need socialism. We need Robin Hood robbing the rich and giving to the poor and more money into our failing government schools and free health care for the poor. The NYT supporting these suspect 'fixes' is like seeing the sun at mid-day. Unfortunately, making a more progressive tax rate hurts the economy and actually rakes in less money to the government. More money doesn't mean better schools. otherwise Washington DC's schools would be the best and not the worst in our nation, a national disgrace, in fact. Health care? I thought the subject was earnings? How would socialized medicine run by the government help poor people earn more money? The truly poor get medicaid already.
Final words of wisdom: Unfortunately, these policies are unlikely to come from the current White House. This administration prefers tax cuts for the lucky ones in the top five percent.
Tax cuts for the rich, the lucky ones--not the hard working risk takers, just the lucky ones. Of course.
Labels: New York Times Decline
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:20 PM 
