PBS's Mark Shields: Income Inequality Is a 'National Security Issue'
The hyperventilation of media members concerning income inequality in America reaches a new high with each passing day.
Case in point, on Inside Washington Friday, PBS's Mark Shields, with a straight face no less, said this disparity is a "national security issue" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
MARK SHIELDS, PBS: In 2005 and 2007, the after-tax income of the top fifth was greater than all the income of the other 80 percent. Now I don’t know why anybody objects to this because a rising tide lifts all yachts, and that’s really what we’re looking at. And I think that the distribution of income, its inequality, is in the final analysis a national security issue, and it has to be examined that way.
I surprisingly agree with Shields, but certainly not for the same reason.
Income inequality is becoming a national security issue because the President, the Democrats, and the media are fanning the flames of discontent in the country.
The more people like Shields and the politicians they support encourage the Occupy movement, the more likely incidents like what we saw in Oakland will occur until people are sadly killed.
At that point, the security of the most successful members of our society will indeed be at risk increasing the likelihood of violent clashes.
If Shields is really concerned about this, maybe he should stop unfairly blaming the rich for all the nation's problems.
It's his one-sided reporting and that from those like him that cause the sentiment pictured below:
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
When it comes to inequality,
Submitted by ant on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:00pm.
When it comes to inequality, nothing stands in such sharp contrast, for me, as the 53% working Americans' lifestyle, treatment, and tax burden compared to the DC political classes and their pets, the excused and mollycoddled welfare and illegal immigrant population. If security is the issue, it's the job security of the Washington set.
When all other arguments
Submitted by kareling on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:02pm.
When all other arguments fail, say it's a national security issue. Even childhood obesity has been called a national security issue.
For liberals everything can
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:39pm.
For liberals everything can be made into a national security issue...except actual national security.
Not income inequality
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:03pm.
Unless you consider the bogus potus being anti-Capitalistic like he has been in which he's called those making $200,000 a year "millionaires."
It would be more accurate to say that this bogus potus IS a national security issue.
-Jon
Shields is right, when those
Submitted by jkwtrading on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:10pm.
Shields is right, when those whom " have not" come to my house to "have", I guarantee they will feel very insecure.
A national security issue?
Submitted by michael lofrano on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:16pm.
A national security issue? Yeah. So is the lack of free diapers.
The funny thing is the our
Submitted by ThePickle on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:24pm.
The funny thing is the our President with a net worth now in the millions is firmly ensconced as a member of the 1% club. And the screeching howling dimwit dervishes have yet to denounce him as a member of the "fat wallet" crowd they so despise.
If any of these nitwits had an ounce of intellect they would see that by targeting Corporations they are making their lot in life even worse because, unlike most of us, Corporations can and will leave a country that has chosen to make doing profitable business next to impossible and restructure in a more business friendly Country. They also KNOW that, despite all their loud mouth protestations, even the scummy low life dweebs of the OWS still want the items those evil Corporations produce.
When you become to greedy as an employee, when you organize and demand you be given more and more, there will come a point when that employer says:
"You know what I don't need this shiite, I can make my product anywhere I want and these idiots will still buy it so why don't I just move to China, Mexico or any other of dozens of nations around the globe that would LOVE to have my business re-locate to their shores."
And yes they will be denounced for shipping jobs over seas BUT, while they make take a minor hit in backlash, I have yet to hear of a company declaring bankruptcy AFTER moving to foreign soil.
not to mention
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:36pm.
they are both shilling their books with free national airtime while they hang out in the White House and gets to play Fire Marshall while he campaigns on our tax dollars.
these assclowns should be arrested
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:35pm.
for language abuse
In the last ten years I have seen these libtards take very important descriptive language words like 'terrorist', 'national security issue', etc., and apply them to their trivial subject matter. QED. I suppose it's because their subject is trivial and everyone knows it so they have no hesitation in escalating the rhetoric to try to get someone to pay attention.
I've seen this blantantly used in the numbers game. If no one is paying attention just add a few zeros until they do. When one asshat was caught out at it he said the subject was too important to be ignored and that justified doing 'anything' to get people's attention. Tells you all you need to know about libs.
These people like Shields
Submitted by inquiringmind on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:35pm.
These people like Shields blather about income inequality and those in the finace world who don't create anything.
Wonder how Brian Williams, Katie Couric and Keith Olbermann feel about the millions they make while not creating anything.
Well, maybe dissent. They are good at creating that.
argh
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:38pm.
Where is Krauthammer? He'd kick all their smarmy butts.
Just in case anyone really lives in la la land, allow me.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:45pm.
I have generated reports for extremely large corporations and in these reports have seen the top salaries corporation wide. These people can make between 2 and 50 million a year, plus bonuses. But guess what? If they don't give enough back to the company in value they're shown the door and that is the point. They jockey for the top spots and bargain for payment just the way we all bargain for a better deal buying a house or even a car.
And yes, sometimes a person bargains and gets more for a position than they deserve. Take the oval office for example.
Excellent analysis, Noel!
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:43pm.
They do want to create chaos so that they can have the government clamp down.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste."
And apparently, if one isn't available, do what you can to create one.
Until
Submitted by Tjexcite on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 1:01pm.
Until they look at sports then they need to go away with income inequality. Millionaires who play for billionaires and take the money of thousandaires to watch play a game. There is no "rising tide lifts all yachts" when they earn what they earn vs. what a small shop owner earns.
It should not be 'no CEO earns 5 mill." it should be "No baseball players earn 5 mill."
Noel, and when did this occur - during "warm fuzy Clinton era?"
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 1:33pm.
Reference: Supplemental data to Congressional Budget Office (.XLS)
Without question, a change in income distribution began to take place following economic recovery from the the deep double dip recession in the beginning of the Reagan years. I find it a bit curious as to why the CBO was requested (surely was by a Democrat) to conduct this study with 1979 as the starting point - as opposed to say, 1983, or so - except for the fact that the share of after-tax income for the lowest quintile took a substantial hit in their share of income from 1979 (7.1%) to 1983 (5.4%). By 2007 (last year of the study) this lowest quintile's share of income stands at 5.1%. What's interesting is that it remained almost dead level during the entire period (1983 - 2007).
The bottom quintile took the big hit following the malaise of the Carter economy and the recessionary period that Reagan inherited. From the perspective of how the bottom one-fifth performed, there's little here to talk about if the study had 2003 as it's base year.
Now for the top 1%. Yep - it's taken off.
Here's what they say: "The income share of top 1% is at a level not seen since the roaring 20's."
According to Figure 3, "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007," the "Share of Total After-Tax Income, by Income Group," of the top 1% rose from 7.7%, in 1979 to 10.2% in 1993. Then, during the Clinton era - that warm and fuzzy era - it rose to 15.6% of all income -- up 5.4 percentage points.
Enter President Bush. By 2007, last year of the study, this data point had risen to 17.1% -- up a whopping 1.5 percentage points.
Here's what they say: "The top 1% of households saw their after-tax incomes grow by 275% from 1979 to 2007."
According to Figure 2, "Cumulative Growth in Average After-Tax Income, by Income Group," the growth of the income share of the top 1% rose 47.3% from 1979 to 1993. From 1993 to 2000, their share rose from 47.3% to 190.8%, and this share continued rise to 277.5%, in 2007. Once again, the big leap occurring during the Clinton years.
Was out to dinner last night with libs. Yep, OWS came up - CEO pay came up - as did, "where's Clinton when we need him?" I pulled out my little chart in my wallet, Average CEO Pay to Average Worker Pay, with the Reagan, Clinton and both Bush administrations highlighted, and instantly the "blame everything on Bush or Reagan folks," announced - "We really don't want to talk about politics."
I note. Our national media has no problem pointing to - blaming either President Reagan, President George W Bush (or simply Republicans) for all of this; however, the one name - era - I have never hear mentioned in the national MSM (in print or on network or cable news) is Bill Clinton.
Just mention his name folks - that's all I ask.
Oh, I have no idea as to why Shields cherry picked 2005 and 2007, do you?
(;~> gary
The Final Marxist Solution
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 1:40pm.
This is not a new piece of Shields' et al ideology. They've always felt this way, and freely admitted it to each other at their cocktail parties and otherwise smoke filled back rooms. It's just that now they really believe they've got the go ahead to talk openly about it. They think the hope-y change-y thing-y started in '08 is finally ready for this particular truthy-ness, and that regular Americans will be gobsmacked into accepting it.
Mark Shields is a National Security Issue
Submitted by Scottyb4292 on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 2:00pm.
Mark Shields is telegraphing to America's enemies that we are weak and he invites them to invade us with his arguments. Mark Shields should be physically catapulted off our shores toward Iran so that the national security interests of our country can be strengthened.
In case you don't know by now, I'm being sarcastic in order to make a point. Mark Shields is being silly and ought not be taken seriously by anyone.
People on blogs say all the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 2:26pm.
People on blogs say all the time they make all the money and we get the scraps. What we have here is a failure to see our covetousness.
The facts....
Submitted by jmigyanka@msn.com on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 2:48pm.
.....Top 1% of Wage Earners Pay 39% of All Federal Income Taxes paid in the USA.
Top 5% of Wage Earners Pay 53% of All Federal Income Taxes paid in the USA.
Top 10% of Wage Earners Pay 64% of All Federal Income Taxes paid in the USA.
Top 25% of Wage Earners Pay 86% of All Federal Income Taxes paid in the USA.
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 97% of All Federal Income Taxes paid in the USA.
Bottom 47% of Wage Earners Pay 0% of All Federal Income Taxes paid in the USA.
Since when security based upon income?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 4:37pm.
Since when is a nation's security based upon the individual income of the individual members of that society? As far as I know, that's the first time it has ever been suggested. It's an absurd suggestion, of course, as individual income has nothing at all to do with it, but I can't understand why it's even being made?
National security, just like every other type of "security" in the world, is based upon two simple concepts: preparedness and effectiveness. The ability to quickly mount a defense and the ability to carry it out. How fast can people arm themselves and how fast they can get to the "front." Individual income, how much money one person has as opposed to another, has very little, if anything, to do with it. When needed, people will arm themselves however they can and will make their way to the "front" however they can. It doesn't matter of those "arms" are shovels in which to dig out the victims of an earthquake or a blizzard, boats in which to save the victims of a flood, or even if it is spears, knives, and guns in which to defend ourselves from attack, rich or poor, "income disparity" or not, people will react as quickly as humanly possible. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be.
The idea that individual income equates to national security is absurd. If everyone is poor, the nation still exists, as long as people want it to. If everyone is rich, the nation still exists, as long as everyone want's it to. If incomes varies, the nation still exists, as long as everyone wants it to. This is because it's not money that defines a nation, it's unity. When that unity is disrupted or destroyed by dividing people up into classifications based upon income, or race, or whatever, and creating friction between those two newly separated groups simply because you HAVE separated them, then, and only, then is the security of the nation threatened.
By separating people according to income brackets, or race, or weight, or whatever, as some people like to do, we are actually disrupting unity, destroying it, and directly threatening the security of the entire nation, just as history, time and time again, has shown us will happen every time it occurs. The only way people will act the same, and, most importantly REACT the same, is when they are treated the same no matter what the individual's circumstances are, no matter what their income bracket, or race designation, or weight classification, actually is. As long as people are treated alike, they will, by far and large, act alike. This is something else that history teaches us. You would think that someone as "educated" as Mark Shields would understand that.
I swear, the more "educated' someone becomes, the less they learn from history.
The most ironic aspect of all of this is that the very same people who are forcing us into neatly defined categories of race, income, ect, tell us that this behavior is causing a lot of problems. The "bankers" are treating black as differently than whites, for example. Well of course they are, because YOU segregated the blacks and the whites into your own neatly defined categories and used that as a means to control one group of people to benefit another, something you've been doing for decades. Of course people will treat the to groups differently, because you designate them differently and TOLD them to treat each other differently! What did you expect to happen?
You group people separately so you can treat those groups of people separately and then tell them that they shouldn't be separated into groups like that and not threat each other differently like they end up doing! That's exactly what you're doing! It's confusing, to say the very least. It's also self-defeating. You can't erase income inequity by categorizing people according to income, just like you can't erase racism by categorizing people according to race. It'll never work. It's self-defeating! The very process of categorizing people is what creates the perception of inequity! Why is that so hard to understand?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
There Is An Optimum Distribution of Wealth
Submitted by Avitar on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 4:21pm.
Distribution of wealth just isn't anything like Obama or Shields thinks it should be.
If the top One percent of income earners do not have about half the total wealth our tax system is too progressive and the nation is fore going total wealth that more concentrated capital formation would provide.
Every reduction of the upper end puts downward pressure on the income of the lower end of the income scale.
In the best of arrangements the rich get richer and the poor get richer
Poor get richer and rich get poorer is a very temporary condition anywhere
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is something that happens with Government help.
In the FAIR state the rich get poorer and poor get poorer and the Government wonders where them money went.
The optimum is perception of equality
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 5:20pm.
The optimum is to let the wealth "distribute" itself according to individual perception, not to try to "balance it" according to some categorized perception of "equality."
Here's how I look at it:
You make money, I make money, therefor we're equal. It doesn't matter if you make more money than I do, or less money that I do, we both make money so we're both doing the same thing and, therefor, we're equal.
You're a human, I'm a human, therefor we're equal. It doesn't matter if your a black human and I'm a white human, we're both humans, so therefor we're equal.
With that simple philosophy, that everyone is equal, I am able to accept people as equals, the rich as well as the poor, the black as well as the white. Therefore I will treat you in equal terms and equal manners. Attack me and I will defend myself from you. Black, white, rich, poor, it doesn't matter. I will defend myself equally in any case. Help me and I will thank you. Black, white, rich, poor, it doesn't matter, my gratitude is equal in any case.
In this way, I actually create equality. I have achieved the goal that so many people seek, or claim to seek. This is because I know, that "equality" is an individual perception. It's MY perception, not someone else's. It's not the perception of the ACLU. It's not the perception of the OWS. It's not even the perception of my family. It's no one's perception but my own. And that's all it ever can be.
As long as I perceive you as equal, you actually are equal. Even if you do not perceive me as your equal, it doesn't matter as I perceive you as my equal, and, therefor, your perception of inequality will not affect my actions in any way whatsoever.
That's what everyone should be doing. It's the only way it works. That is, after all, the goal, right? Our Founding Fathers thought so, which is why they declared that all "men," all people, are "created" equal. They, themselves created that equality through their own perceptions. It didn't come from God, it didn't come from Government, it came from within themselves. It comes from within all of us. Which, if you think about it, is the only place it can reside: within ourselves.
You know, it's ironic that we humans have been telling each other this for thousands and thousands of years, through religion, philosophy, education, literature, culture, ect.. Yet, even after all this time, so many people, too many people, even "educated" and "cultured" people, have yet to figure it out. As my dad use to say: how many times does reality have to slap you upside the head before you figure it out?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
If Bill Gates earns $100,000 SLEEPING...
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 4:43pm.
...that hurts me HOW?
I've been waiting for a coherent explanation on that for a DECADE.
Anyone?
Bueller?
Top 1 Percent
Submitted by tomaspain on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 7:33am.
The Tax Foundation uses IRS data to report that the threshold AGI number for the top 1 percent is about $344,000. The president's salary is $400,000 and I'm sure his royalty income brings his AGI over the threshold. That makes President Obama part of the 1 percent along with all the other "greedy" rich folk.
As long as WE are funding PBS
Submitted by jessieH on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:45am.
As long as WE are funding PBS & NPR, they should be reporting the real news & keep their comments to themselves. They are not getting funding for their ideas or the propaganda they keep spewing.
There is a good reason why the founders did not give this power.
Submitted by thestalkinghorse on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:38pm.
1. Wealth is not "distributed" in the United States; it is earned.
2. There should be no income tax in America. What an American earns is nobody's business, least of all the government. The individual outranks the government in all but a few circumstances.