If the gap between rich and poor has grown a lot during the Obama administration, why are Democrats using it as a 2016 platform.?

[BatmanUSA 105]

Are the Democrats really going to get serious about the gap between rich and poor.? and how can they use this fact for their gain considering the gap has widened during the Obama Presidency.?

[Pooky 3,840]

Are the Democrats really going to get serious about the gap between rich and poor.? and how can they use this fact for their gain considering the gap has widened during the Obama Presidency.?

To hoodwink those same people again, by saying "But the Republicans would have been even worse!"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well they probably wouldn't have been better either - since disparities in living standards have grown across the developed world.

[Pooky 3,840]

Plus, Obama ran on a platform of nothing in 2012 and still won. Maybe the Democrats want to see just how far they can push the envelope in 2014, to see just how much policy Hillary really needs for 2016.

[GandD 5,966]

Plus, Obama ran on a platform of nothing in 2012 and still won. Maybe the Democrats want to see just how far they can push the envelope in 2014, to see just how much policy Hillary really needs for 2016.

All he had to do was look slightly better than Romney. I don't think everyone that voted for Obama thought he was Jesus Christ. Its always between a douche and a #######.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Are the Democrats really going to get serious about the gap between rich and poor.? and how can they use this fact for their gain considering the gap has widened during the Obama Presidency.?

It's a platform that will garner votes. Whether or not they are serious about it is another story. There are just as many rich democrats as there are rich republicans. Is it reasonable to think that any of them want to part with their money?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If the gap between rich and poor has grown a lot during the Obama administration, why are Democrats using it as a 2016 platform.?

Because Republicans.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well they probably wouldn't have been better either - since disparities in living standards have grown across the developed world.

Indeed. The growing income and wealth gap is also nothing new - this has been going on for decades. Interesting, too, is the fact that income inequality in the US is actually on par or behind that of our peers in Europe - before taxes and transfers, that is. After taxes and transfers, income inequality is greatest here. We have one party in this country that is willing to address the issue and one that is dead set to aggravate it.

Interesting details here:

It is widely believed that America’s income distribution is the most unequal among developed economies; but reality is more complicated. Income can be measured in two ways: market income before taxes and transfer payments, and disposable income after taxes and transfer payments. Surprisingly, inequality of market income before taxes and transfer payments in the US is similar to that in many other developed countries, including those with egalitarian reputations like Sweden and Norway. Britain and even Germany have higher inequality of income before taxes and transfers than the US.

Among developed countries, the US does have the most unequal distribution of disposable income after taxes and transfer payments. That is not because the US has the least progressive tax system; indeed, its tax system is considerably more progressive than those of most European countries, Canada, and Australia, all of which rely on regressive value-added taxes as an important source of revenue.

But, among developed countries, the US has the least generous and progressive transfer system. The US spends a much smaller share of GDP on family-assistance programs – including cash transfers, tax breaks, and direct government services – than its developed-country counterparts, where reliance on regressive consumption taxes to fund progressive transfer programs has kept income inequality significantly lower.

Over the last 30 years, US economic policy aggravated rather than ameliorated income inequality. Both taxes and transfers became less progressive as market-income inequality widened. Indeed, according to a recent study, the decline in tax and transfer progressivity accounts for about 30% of the growth in post-tax-and-transfer income inequality in the US during this period.

The US needs a more progressive and redistributive tax and transfer system to combat rising inequality in market incomes. But this is unlikely, at least in the near term. Republicans are implacably opposed to increases in social-welfare programs and higher taxes on the wealthy to finance them.

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/laura-tyson-describes-what-the-us-should-do-to-enhance-economic-growth-and-distributional-equity#4E1oW59YlrUEE1JH.99

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Rich Democrats don't want you to know how rich they really are, or how they control the boardrooms in the financial, investment, and insurance worlds.