(from Coolidge by Amity Shales)
". . . Balance was all; wherever there was dispute, or costs, he must nonetheless seek the islands of agreement, the middle ground. If there was to be a war, then finding that middle ground, sacrificing principles for the duration would be even more important. Spending would be especially important, however much Coolidge personally deplored it. . .
(from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB40001424052702303519404579352551767664072?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB40001424052702303519404579352551767664072.html by James Piereson)
""Income inequality" has emerged as the issue du jour in U.S. politics, threatening to displace the unpopular health-care law and the slow-growing economy this election year. Speeches and columns now routinely attack the banks or "the undeserving rich" and call on Washington to do something to redistribute income from the "super rich" to the poor and middle class. Democrats from President Obama to the new mayor of New York City are leading the charge on behalf of the "99%."
This crusade is based on three questionable claims. One is that the wealthy are mostly Wall Street bankers benefiting from rising stock and real estate prices, or executives who pay themselves extravagant salaries. Another claim is that such people unfairly benefit from a system that taxes capital gains at half the highest marginal rate paid by those who earn salaries and wages. Then there is the assertion that the "super rich" have abundant funds that can be taxed to improve the living standards of everyone else.
All of these claims are false. By promoting them, the president and his supporters may hope to distract attention from ObamaCare and the economy. Yet they are igniting hopes they can't possibly fulfill. . ."
(from http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/index)
" . . . This shared prosperity of the postwar years was no accident or lucky combination of circumstances. A "rising tide" of robust economic growth does not necessarily lift all boats. Political struggle and policy choices determine whose boats rise. The inequality of the 20th century's early years actually began closing before economic growth took off in the 1940s, as a consequence of the political response to the Great Depression. . . "
(from me. . . )
Mr. Piereson seems content with making the sole point that wealth inequality is basically untrue because the 1% of the population holding the majority of wealth does not consist exclusively of bankers and Wall Street wizards but includes sports, movie, rock and roll and other 'entertainment' types in addition to 'business' executives who draw salaries. And this point alone contents Mr. Piereson that there is no inequality of wealth (with no mention of course about caring for the less fortunate) and that ". . . At a time of slow economic growth, mounting government debt, a stalemated politics and the impending retirement of the "baby boomers," the attacks on the "one percent" look more and more like a diversion from America's real problems."
