WSJ - Yes Edwards is correct - under Bush there are 2 America's

[papau]

In what is surely Democrats' favorite story of the day, the Wall Street Journal 's Hilsenrath and Freeman front that many economists believe the economic recovery has indeed taken "two tracks,"Noting data that suggests that affluent Americans have benefited most in this economic recovery.

No link - the above from the ABCNote

[aden_nak]

1. Attack journalism from those liberals over at the Wall Street Journal. ;)

[mhr]

2. Imagine That Poor Schmucks Like Myself Have Been Saying This 4 Years Now

Damn, it takes these eggheads a long time to catch up.

Overpaid, pompous assholes that they are!

[Inland]

8. Yes, but you get to say "no shit, Sherlock"

as you watch the majority of Americans fall behind economically.

[AP]

3. Top 10% of Americans have gotten about 10% wealthier each of the last

three years, while people in the middle and below have seen their wealth stagnate. Meanwhile, the number of people starving, and every other indicator of the repercussions of poverty have increased.

And these two statistics aren't unconnected.

In an economy that isn't getting any better, how are the wealthier getting wealthier? Two ways: (1) an unfair tax code and (2) paying wages that aren't keeping pace with inflation.

The rich -- people who make money off of capital ownership (which is wealth derived from someone else's labor), rather than by their own labor -- are making money because they're reducing the cost of their inputs, and they're making sure that the profits from doing that are taxed at lower and lower rates.

The polarization of wealth is precisely how Bush's political base has managed to do so well in an economy that is going nowhere.

Democrats believe in spreading the benefits of capitalism down to the people. Republicans like to concentrate them at the top and narrowly, even if it means that capitalism is less productive.

[UpInArms]

4. further proof of the short-sightedness of the repugs

as if it were needed - because they do not understand that to sustain their wealth and affluence they must acknowledge and support a entire world community and if that community disintegrates, so do they.

One cannot build walls high enough or strong enough to keep the world at bay.

[Mountainman]

6. They are thinking only short term. Immediate gratification

In the long term this will hurt the country but I'm sure that the wealthy feel they can buy themselves out of anything if they have enough wealth.

During the great depression, those with real tangible wealth did OK. I think that the wealthy feel the same way now. They will build walls and moats around their homes and hire armed guards to protect them from the rest of us as we go about our daily hard scrabbling to survive.

[AP]

7. It's just smash and grab. They know the Democrats will bail out the ...

economy. But they want to get as much as they possibly can, no matter what the economic consequences are, so that they can ensure that they're on top when the economy gets rescued.

FDR rescued the economy in the 30s and 40s by democratizing it -- by empowering the middle class and by rewarding work. But the people who were super rich going in to the 30s (Rockefellers, DuPonts, Morgans, Prescott Bush) still came out of the 30s and 40s with a great deal of power and that was because of their smash and grab attitude going into the 30s.

[Vogon_Glory]

5. Just Watch the WSJ's Op-Ed Downplay That News! n/t

[DaveSZ]

9. Do you have the link?

I'd love to read this.

:)

[spooky3]

11. I think you have to subscribe (paid) to WSJ to get it.

[Retrograde]

10. The Haves and the Have-mores?

or is it more like 3: the Haves, the Have-mores, and everyone else?