One of Bill Maher's "New Rules" this week was something to the effect of:
"You can't use windmills in your campaign ads if you have voted against every bill that could have allowed any to be built."
Maher goes on to talk about how (adulterous, treacherous, offensive, hypocritical [my words]) John Edwards, whose smarminess just seems to rub me the wrong way (especially since I think that baby's his) did NOT get to speak at the convention.
This is justified, save for the IMPORTANT fact that John Edwards is a champion of the poor for the Democrats. I always sort of felt like he took up this mantle as a way to ride straight to the White House, but even so, he has taken up the mantle.
As Maher described, without Edwards there, no one spoke passionately of the increasing gap between rich and poor, the decimation of the middle class, or the fact that the top 1% of America's wealthiest earn 21.2% of income.
To be fair to Mr. Bush, this is a generally bi-partisan issue, as if you look at the graph to the right, it is clear that during the Clinton years the wealth gap increased just about as much, if not more, than during the first four years of Mr. Bush's Presidency.
However, the Clinton wealth gap arose during a time of unique economic growth, spurned on by internet millionaires (& billionaires) made overnight. The Bush rise comes from extensive tax cuts to the wealthy, while loose economic policies (some implemented by Clinton, perhaps) have allowed predatory lenders to poach the accounts of the poorest and middle-classest Americans.
Also to be considered, these are the newest numbers available, from 2005. Who KNOWS what the present numbers look like. Something tells me that the line has not steadied or declined, but rather continued to shoot upward.
Posts
