Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rush explained the wage disparity yesterday

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:50 AM
Original message
Rush explained the wage disparity yesterday
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 09:08 AM by underpants
I heard this yesterday.

Here is what the transcript says.

This is the dirty little secret about the minimum wage, because it doesn't end up doing good things. It loses jobs, it raises prices, and the myth that there's families of four out there living off minimum wage. You know what nobody ever calculates here, folks? It's like when we do the poverty numbers. I'm going to get these out here in just a second. I've got it buried in the stack. When we calculate poverty; we never calculate any kind of government programs that people in poverty get. We simply calculate their wages, and if their wages are below the poverty line, they're said to be in poverty. But we don't add in the food stamps and all the other assistance that people in poverty get in this country, and that skews the whole thing. It's like that number that 16% of all wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. Those figures are absolutely worthless because the percentage of wealth that is calculated does not include the wealth -- and it is wealth, if you total it up -- that people in poverty receive as the good graces of the American people who pay for these social programs. Let me get the numbers, it will be the best way to illustrate it for you and rework the percentages.

Okay, let's do this. Instead of the top 1% making 16% share of total income, let's reduce it to 10%. Because liberals who love arbitrary numbers, as in the minimum wage will say, "Yes, that would be fair; 16% is unfair; 10%, that would be fair." Well, guess what, ladies and gentlemen? The calculation is wrong! This whole 1%, 16% thing is wrong. The figures are wrong. The conclusion is wrong. It's not new math or old math. It's simple arithmetic. They used the wrong total income. They leave out Social Security; they leave out transfer payments, tax-free income, income fudging income, and underground money income. They leave out -- the transfer benefits to people who are not in the top 1% changes the total income by almost 35%. When you factor in the income that is not tabulated in this 1%, get 16% of all, 35% of total income is not calculated, and when you add 35%, the top 1% are not getting 16% of all wealth. It's much less, because 35% of all wealth is not being counted. Thank you Alan Reynolds, Wall Street Journal today.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121406/cont...

This was hilarious to listen to. He actually said later on that only EARNED INCOME is counted in these figures.... well I don't know if that is true but if it is that only makes it worse. The top 1% make drastically more than the "working class" from unearned income. Amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Frank Cannon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
1. Those Lucky Ducky poor people! They get EVERYTHING!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. Back on the oxycontin Rush? That makes no sense to me.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. dittoheads love stats-----they can manipulate them over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well, I'll go along with part of paragraph one, on the condition that
he is admitting we need social programs to elevate those people below the poverty line. I mean, what Rush admitted is that without government assistance, many people can't make it. So if he is now an advocate of government assistance for those who need it--good on him, and welcome aboard, Mr. Limbaugh.

I mean, I would think that with his basic ideology that government shouldn't assist people in need, he'd be all for raising the minimum wage to a living wage standard. That way, people wouldn't need as much assistance. Then he should be for stricter government regulations over arbitary employment termination, to keep people off unemployment and welfare.

As it stands, what these comments mean is that Rush is in favor of keeping the minimum wage low to protect businesses, and making up the deficit between earned income and what people need to live on with government assistance. This government assistance not only helps the individuals in need, but it directly funds these businesses who underpay their employees, by allowing them to keep paying below-market wages and have the government make up the difference.

I guess Rush is a bit too progressive for me. I guess I'm an old-fashioned conservative--I prefer to see people and businesses earn their own money, and government only help out the truly needy. Raise the minimum wage and stop all these subsidies to cheapskate employers and deadbeat citizens. Make businesses work for their money, rather than relying on government assistance.

Seriously, does Rush even attempt to be consistent? I've said for years that he has no real ideology, he just spouts out whatever his masters tell him to. His complete lack of ideological consistency proves it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jakem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
5. I dunno...
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 09:15 AM by jakem
even with this stunning bit of logic, poor people still seem poor...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost4words Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. Welcome to DU Jakem!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Hi jakem!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
6. He makes 25 million a year, so he is speaking to protect his. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. This sounds like just so much drug induced rambling to me. Does
he ever get around to "proving" his calculations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
8. Rush playing 3 card Monty with numbers - like a conman
confusing his Marks.

not only did that make no sense, but I would doubt the real number is anywhere near as low as 16% of the income for the top 1%. How the hell did he get that? I've always heard at least double that or far more. I wonder if he did not want to say 40-50% (which again is probably more accurate) because he's afraid to let his listeners hear a high number in case it sticks in their heads...

Also, to claim that poor people, even with assistance, are wealthy is completely batshit crazy. Honestly, the times when friends, family, or myself have had to rely on assistance, none have been proud of it and usually make every effort to get off the dole. The RW assumption that everyone on it is abusing the system and loving it is complete crap. Sure, some probably do, but....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I was listening to it thinking 'Shouldn't it be SIXTY percent?'
There is a link on that page that the 16% comes from which links to an IRS page...well it means to actually it links to a 404 error page.

I was thinking 16%??? First off why even bring it up and secondly I think you have the number wrong pighead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CANDO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. try this link
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 02:52 PM by CANDO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KKKarl is an idiot Donating Member (662 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
10. ..
What he would like is to do away with social programs & the minimum wage so we can bring back all those jobs that have gone to China. Then GW can talk about how the un-employment rate is at 0%. This will cut back on transportation costs for his rich buddies. So that the rich can get richer & the just die. I guess the people in the restaurant business haven't found a way to outsource jobs to other countries yet. But give them time they will come up with something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 16th 2014, 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC