Disparity in Income

When is the last time you got a job from a poor dude?   Would you rather work for a guy with little money or some guy who is filthy rich?   Which man do you think might give you more opportunity?   Better yet, would you prefer to take all the rich man’s money, give it to government and use that money to hire some bureaucrat who knows nothing about business to be your new boss in your new government job?

If you search the net for causes of the great depression you will find a litany of ridiculous articles attributing the great depression to a disparity in income.   If I make $100,000.00 dollars per year and my neighbor makes 5 million dollars a year, how does that huge disparity cause recession or depression?

The average American salary is around $36,000.00 per year, and according to Democrats, because some hedge fund manager is making 100 million dollars in one year, America is a downright mean nation because George Bush won’t increase his taxes and this is causing recession.

While I couldn’t quite stomach class warfare speeches at the Democratic National Convention exalting Obama as America’s great hope, I did tune in bits in pieces to find nothing new or changing in their platform: Everything is the Republican’s fault, George Bush is evil, John McCain is George Bush, rich people are screwing the poor, and Barack Obama is a our breath of fresh air.

Obama is fresh air only if you think undermining Constitutional protections by appointing more activist judges to the Supreme Court is a better direction for our country.   If you think the right to privacy is more important than the right to life (ROE vs. WADE), that property rights ought to be denied private citizens and arbitrated by city officials (KELO vs. CITY OF NEW LONDON), that terrorist combatants ought to be tried in American civilian courts instead of by military tribunal (BOUMEDIENE vs. BUSH), and that Heller vs. District of Colombia was a bad decision that affirmed the absurd idea that Americans ought to be able to protect themselves and have a handgun in their own domicile.

To complement the rhetorical disdain Democrats hurl at Republicans, Obama still did inculcate his singular narrow theme, the disparity in income ostensibly created by horrible conservatives is unjust, and to be fair, America must increase  taxes!   Democrats and Obama just won’t tell you what this policy will do to middle and lower class workers who end up without jobs when small business owners in the gun sights decide they aren’t interested in working harder just to give government more money.

In the April debate between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, Charles Gibson thoroughly explained how in each instance where tax rates were decreased under Reagan and under Bush government revenues increased; conversely, when rates were increase revenues dropped.   Gibson went on to explain, given this, Why increase rates at all?

Obama retorted, What I have said Charlie is that I would look at raising taxes for purposes of fairness, we saw an article today that the top 50 hedge fund managers made 29 billion dollars last year   Obama then went on to say that these billionaires are paying less in taxes than their secretaries.

Of course Obama never suggests we ought to decrease taxes that secretaries must pay.

There are three hundred million people in the United States and Barack Obama wants to make policy that affects us all because he thinks fifty people make too much money, and then he blames it on fairness.

Obama’s tax policies will hurt the economy, and they will hurt the people he says he wants to help far more than the people he targets, whether or not 95% (which is a lie anyway) get a tax break.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to figure this out.

Imagine yourself a small businessman.   You are one of the small business owners in the country whose aggregate efforts are responsible for creating 75% of the new jobs in our American economy.   You started your business when you were thirty, give or take five years and now after nearly two decades in business you are starting to make upwards of that magic 250K per year Obama thinks ought to be taxed at a much higher rate.   You make that money by employing people.   For each person you train, you manage, you educate, and that you inspire your reward is about $10,000.00 in annual income.   Your people make an average salary (and gain talent and experience only a small business owner could impart), but as you add employees to your organization your income continues to go up disproportionately to theirs because while they are paid for their individual efforts you are paid for the synergistic productivity of the business’s systematic whole.  

Because you’ve lived a fairly modest lifestyle investing in your business maintaining the same house you’ve already paid off years ago, and have continued to drive old automobiles because they still do the job your wealth grows as you pursue a modest existence.

That’s the bio for the average small business owner.

I wonder, since these small business owners have so much, and it is only fair that others share in their good fortune, will they enthusiastically work twice as hard to employ more people now that they are only going to be allowed to keep six or seven thousand dollars, instead of ten, for each of the employees they must manage train and watch over because some elitist politician in Washington who has never run or managed a small business thinks the disparity of income he is rewarded with for his efforts is unjust?

Something tells me he won’t, but then I’m not some dazzling politician, I’m just a dumb small business owner.


Copyright 2008 Jim Pontillo

36 thoughts on “Disparity in Income

  1. “you will find a litany of ridiculous articles attributing the great depression to a “disparity in income”

    So, do you actually have those articles handy? Because most everyone says that the depression was caused by uh the stock market collapse, the Smoots-Hawley Act, massive unemployment etc etc etc. The Depression was certainly CHARACTERISED by great income disparities, but what credible scholar says that caused it?

    “according to Democrats, because some hedge fund manager is making 100 million dollars in one year, “America is a downright mean nation””

    Can you provide a source for this quote?

    “While I couldn’t quite stomach class warfare speeches at the Democratic National Convention”

    What class warfare speeches? Can you provide quotes demonstrating the Democrats stirring up class antagonism?

    “activist judges”

    There’s no such thing. A judge’s duty is to interpret the Constitution according to the spirit of the law and the history of case law, as well as their own discretion as extremely experienced and knowledgeable practitioners of law. The purpose of the Judiciary being separate from legislature is to put a check on the will of the people. The people cannot be allowed to pass unconstitutional laws just because they think they are a good idea at that time. If you are seriously citing Roe Vs Wade as an example of “activist judges”, then perhaps you want to reach farther into the past? Brown vs. Education was an activist judge opposing the state’s right to provide public education; Brown vs. Louisiana was activist judges deciding that sedition against the Vietnam War was constitutional [it’s really their fault we lost the war]; Caminetti v. United States was activist judges deciding that only the letter of the law mattered and adultery was illegal; etc. Who cares that these things are defended in the Constitution? They defy majority will!

    You would do well to remember that the author of the majority opinion of the court in Roe vs Wade was appointed by Nixon.

  2. “Obama still did inculcate his singular narrow theme, the disparity in income ostensibly created by horrible conservatives is unjust”

    Everything I’ve heard from the Convention has been Obama talking about much more than income disparity; renewable energy, abandoning dependence on Arab oil, killing pork barrel projects and promoting useful government programs with the money etc. Why would you focus on one thing instead of the whole?

    Unless you just want to misinterpret and twist his words for your own gain.


  3. Crumb,

    The right to keep and bear arms was barely affirmed an individual right 5-4.

    The 2nd amendment is clear as day and four judges voted against it because they are not interested in upholding or protecting the Constitution, they are interested in changing it.

    That is activist.

  4. Yeah and Obama did talk about lots of other stuff, but who’s gonna believe a word he says when he asserts McCain won’t go after Osama Bin Laden in a cave, but he would. Please.

  5. Neocons have been used to foreign policy being their home turf for too long now. It would have been great to see the look on their faces as Obama destroyed them and stamped his own authority on foreign policy in front of millions of voters.

  6. The second amendment clearly states that

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    It does not say that people are entitled to guns for home or individual defense, but for a “well-regulated militia” i.e. an army of the people to overthrow a corrupt government. If there is no militia, there is no right to bear arms. The well-regulated militia, not the irregular citizen, is entitled to the right to bear arms. One could interpret this to allow everyone to bear arms, but the text plainly says that it is intended for the legality of well-regulated militias.

  7. So neocons, what dy’all think of Sarah Palin? On the one hand, she likes Gawd and gurns and opposes freedom for women. Sounds like the kind of gal Rush Limbaugh has wet dreams about.

    But then she IS a woman, and she should be at home looking after the kids shouldn’t she? And what’s worse she cares for the ENVIRONMENT!!! What kind of lefty communist claptrap is that? Any thoughts?……

  8. Crumb,

    Militias are made up of “the people” now you want to have a debate about “well-regulated”?

    Read the court’s opinion, and notice the very prevalent theme that flows through the Constitution: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, no quartering of soldiers without “owners” consent, etc., the whole Bill of Rights is about “individual” rights. To suggest that the right to bear arms is somehow the only Amendment not conferred onto individuals is not just ignorant it is dishonest.

    It is the kind of thinking that requires the Constitution must be a “living document”, because this is the only way to interpret words to mean something they don’t mean.

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    How is that right mitigated by “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”

    If the 2nd Amendment meant what you want it to mean, it would have been written, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless…”

  9. I never gave an unless. I specifically said that the right to bear arms is meant to allow the people to organize into a well-regulated militia, as the amendment itself says. It does not say that the individual’s right to bear arms is meant to provide security of the homestead or vigilantism. It’s the old NRA attitude that what let Hitler rule Germany with an iron fist was that he took the guns away from the people. The second amendment makes it illegal for the government to disarm the people, BECAUSE THEN THEY COULD NOT OPPOSE A TYRANT.

    The spirit of the amendment is very clearly anti-authoritarian. It is utilitarian, not idealist.

    The judges can interpret this however they see fit. That’s why we have judges and haven’t replaced them with computers. If we just wanted to interpret the law based entirely on what came before, we wouldn’t need living, breathing human beings to apply their JUDGMENT to interpreting the law.

  10. The reolution was fought primarily by irregulars, citizen/soldiers that brought their own guns to the fight. The militia at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and therefore its meaning, was all ablebodied individuals who could grab their weapon off the mantlepiece and join the fight. The meaning of the 2A has been absolutely clear throughout our history, until the 1930s when the communists started infiltrating our government and trying to disable the American publics ability to perform a Jeffersonian cleansing. Try again, trolls.

  11. Crumb is a moron. You might as well try to reason with a 3 year old child. Crumb go back to Venezuala and tell Hugo you failed.

    You are no Goebbels you mental midget.

  12. Exactly. I’ve said it in my act for years: I’ve got nothing against “the rich” because they are the ones who keep giving me a little thing called “the paycheck”.

    Obama’s policies presuppose an efficient administering of his programs by the federal government.

    Throw some Oompa-Loompas in that logic and he’s living in a world of pure imagination.

  13. What you’ve described is that many people like to blame the rich for their woes in life. Now, keep in mind that the rich also blame the poor for some of the woes in society.
    The issue with Obama is that he’s telling people what they need and want to hear and they’re drinking like cool aid. Obama has found a niche market in America which is comprised of millions of people who think Bush and the Republicans have caused America to be in a recession. Despite the fact that both Clintons were despising one moment before the unification and now are praising Obama which translates into “Hypocrisy” in my book and I am wondering how much of the Clinton’s campaign debt Obama has absorbed so that Clintons are now kissing his rear end.
    The other problem is that America has a huge population of ignorant people. Sean Hannity has proven it. Your feed them the lines they want to hear and they will buy it. It’s that simple. If some other charismatic guy came buy and used the same smooth sales tactics, he too would become a favorite of the general population. What’s sad is that Obama’s tactics may actually put him in the White House where Congress will simply bow down to his “changes”. Despite the fact that people are losing their homes for making stupid decisions rather than what the Republicans did to them and that we haven’t had any terrorist attacks since 911 because of our anti-terror efforts, people will always blame the rich and the republics for their misfortunes in life.

  14. Amusing how lefty Looons strive to narrow the SECOND amendment down to a miniscule speck in the form of an obscure pigeon hole (in this case you must be a registered dues paying militia member) or else you must forfeit your right to bare arms, and are thusly a criminal heathen who should be jailed for societys protection. (maybe throw in a little buggery for punative damages)

    In contrast, the FIRST amendment you EXPAND that like a freaking hot air balloon to include every perverted sick whim one can fathom, from depicting christ with a banana up his ass as art, to burning and pissing on the american flag in the middle of Arlington cemetary, as if somehow the framers of the bill of rights would be OK with that.
    Yeah..I’m sure they’d back ya on those issues just as surely as your demented take on the 2nd amendment.

    And Obama’s just another in a long line of condescending snotty liberal elitest star-bellied sneeches, so thats why I’m voting for that old buzzard McNumnuts and that nutty eskimo broad he hitched his wagon to.

  15. Way to go assuming the founding fathers thought sedition was not protected by the Bill of Rights [it is] and they set unwritten limits on free expression [they didn’t]. Note that I did not say that gun control is RIGHT, only that the second amendment has a specific purpose in stating the right to bear arms, and it is not the one you suggest [shooting trespassers I suppose]. It is a pragmatic means of keeping a corrupt government out of power when politics fails. That doesn’t mean that the people cannot also have the right to a gun for personal use and defense; that right is not found in the second amendment.

    Whereas sticking a bandanna up Christ’s ass and wearing the US flag in a sporting uniform [illegal under the flag code] ARE protected by the first amendment because they are two of the many different ways one can express oneself.

  16. I believe any clear thinking person would agree freedom of speech was originally framed so anyone could publicly criticize what they think is an unjust government body without the fear of reprisal, but has been distorted to include much more peripheral nonsense and bad taste (abused if you wish).

  17. I suspected all along you were reasonable, a neccessary ingredient for healthey debate (better watch out you’ll turn conservative then I’ll have no one to disparage)

  18. Though by the same token, just because there is no right specifically listed in the Bill of Rights that people have absolute free expression, that doesn’t mean the right does not exist. Just the same as the right to bear arms for personal defense. The difference is that the second amendment clearly states its intent [people have guns so they can overthrow a bad government] but the first amendment simply promises free speech/expression. That can be very easily interpreted as maximum free speech, because the country can’t grow with censorship in the way.

  19. Fine Crumb,

    How are we going to overthrow bad government if government can legislate we can not possess arms individually? And are you saying I can possess arms as long as I form a militia amongst my neighbors? Is this the liberal interpretation?

  20. I don’t know if you pay attention, Jim, but I have denied the usefulness of gun control on this site and advocated for the NRA to teach responsible gun use.

    Going by a constitutionalist interpretation of the Constitution, the purpose of the second amendment is to encourage organized [i.e. useful and effective] militias to combat corrupt governments. The Bill of Rights was written during the Napoleonic Wars; after the American and French Revolutions, in a time when nobody was sure how successful democracy would be or whether Rousseau was right and it was just “electing our own dictators”. There was a very good reason to fear corrupt, authoritarian governments and the perversion of fledgling democracy, as happened in France [Napoleon].

    If you want, go ahead and pass an extra amendment that includes the right to bear arms for sporting and defense use. The second amendment clearly states the right to bear arms, but gives it a specific purpose. There’s no reason you can’t clarify it with an extra amendment.

    If you want to start another Waco, go ahead. It seems the militia idea has been obsolete ever since the Civil War ended states’ rights and WWII established a standing army.

  21. Think about it, if you were to create the world from scratch without knowing where you would end up on the social ladder (whether you would be at the top or the bottom) you would create a social democracy, wouldn’t you?

  22. Uh duh matt, no, because it is instinctive to hate commie-unism and the only reason we have socialist marxist scum like Hussein Mammy Obammy is because of the liberal indoctrination camps [education] that came about as a result of the Fall!!


  23. Crumb,

    I am paying attention, however, how is that a conclusion, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, can somehow be mitigated to deny people the right to keep and bear arms by a preface that states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”?

    Nothing in the prefatory clause gives government the authority to withhold arms from the people. Furthermore, when we investigate Constitutional intent, we search for an overriding theme. There is a clear theme which ventures to protect “individual” rights from government at all costs.

    Just read the clauses, the 1st Amendment, 2nd, 3rd, 4th… They all venture to protect the individual from government abuse of power. How can it rationally be said, the Constitution guarantees the right to speech, religion, due process, etc. but not the right to bear arms. It is illogical within the context of the document to consider that was its intention.

    Also, when there is debate over such an interpretation, the only remedy is to site historical precedent and fact supporting an argument.

    Scalia went the extra mile including much historical information for the majority opinion, while the dissent included little and what was provided was somewhat incoherent.

  24. “There is a clear theme which ventures to protect “individual” rights from government at all costs.”

    Yes, and the line “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” serves to protect the freedom of the people against an undemocratic government. Whether this is their own or a foreign government, the second amendment provides the right to bear arms with the purpose of keeping oppressive powers from violating the Bill of Rights. It is not a right to take the law into their own hands via vigilantism or shooting burglars in the face, but a right to the tools to defend themselves. And we must remember, that there is a standing army now and the states no longer need militias to defend themselves from outside threats.

  25. Crumb,

    Yes it is allowed to shoot burglars in the face if they are robbing you at home. (Check recent Texas case.)

    Also, how are people in their homes suppose to protect themselves from criminals who break in with guns?

    “…and the line “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” serves to protect the freedom of the people against an undemocratic government…”

    How on earth do these words serve to protect people against undemocratic government…they are just words…people need instruments to uphold the intent of words.

    Furthermore, the whole point of the Constitution is to define certain fundamental rights which are beyond the reach of democratic vote. The right to bear arms as other Constitutional Amendments are beyond the reach of government prerogative. Government does not have authority to throttle these fundamental privileges.

    As you say, if the people want to change the Constitution through the Amendment process and repeal the 2nd Amendment, so be it. That 9 judges on a panel, however, believe they can choose which Amendments they like and which they don’t is completely offensive to American tradition.

  26. A recent Texas case is not from 1810 so I guess it isn’t as relevant as you think to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

    People without guns can defend themselves with baseball bats or knives or something. Chances are, if you confront an armed robber with your own gun, you will get shot anyway because they have the element of surprise and are professionals. A gun is by no means a guarantee of safety. Of course, I never said that nobody should be allowed to have a gun for their own defense so I guess you’re arguing with the wind!

    “How on earth do these words serve to protect people against undemocratic government”

    There used to be a thing called the separation of powers. What that meant was that the Supreme Court was not in the pocket of the president or his party, and the Legislature was not a slave to partisanship and executive toadying. If congress passed a law that defied the second amendment – a law that tried to disarm the militias – then it would be an illegal law to be vetoed by the president or Senate or struck down by the courts if all else failed. The US Constitution was designed with checks and balances so that corruption could be winnowed out by other government bodies. It depends on the government being trustworthy at some point because every branch is kept in check by the others.

    If you genuinely believe that the Constitution is “just words” then maybe you should build a shack out in the Dakotas and start hoarding canned goods and ammo.

    Government does not have the right to throttle the rights in the Constitution, true [not that it’s ever stopped them]. But they do if they are authorized by the people. If the American people vote for a fascist party and get them elected on a platform of abolishing democracy, so be it. Perhaps Rousseau was right after all; democracy is just the right to choose our dictators.

    As far as the second amendment goes; the judges are there to judge and interpret.

  27. Crumb,

    What the hell are you talking about???!!!

    How on earth do you argure with someone who lets the air out of theri own tires?

    Jim, are you crazy? You can’t argue with this guy. He will just play opposite day with you and say the opposite of whatever you say.

    I do that sometimes, but I do it on purpose just to be obnoxious.

    Crumb is whacked.

  28. Jim, don’t let the air out of your tires. You don’t want to swerve out of control if you puncture one.

Comments are closed.