Originally Posted by Blart
I know the gifs I posted can be confusing, but Obama wasn't our president in the late 70's, when our country began cutting benefits to the lower classes, which has been ongoing.
Welfare benefits in the USA, per recipient, adjusted for inflation
Secondly, you don't know who I voted for, and you have no clue who I campaigned for, because just like your football & political opinions, you rush to judgements without adequate evidence.
For the record, I voted for Jill Stein and campaigned for Elizabeth Warren (she's now doing a ****ing awesome job taking on the banks
) and Alan Grayson
(who did a wonderful job stopping a war on Syria). If I lived in a swing state, I'd have held my nose and voted for Obama. Capitalism, imperialism, and environmental destruction with an embarrassed smile was much preferable to the bold-faced, unabashed capitalism & imperialism of Romney/Ryan.
It's funny that in your view widespread wealth disparity growth is driven by marginal cuts in welfare benefits (which don't really exist. We spend more on social welfare than ever before) But the insinuation doesn't pass even a basic economic sniff test. What is your graph saying? If we paid welfare recipients $240/month instead of $150, the wealth gap would meaningfully shrink? That wouldn't touch it.
The growth in wealth disparity is mostly a product of deindustrialization, and its impact on low and middle-class jobs. If you want the lower classes to catch up, they need decent work. Not a slightly larger federal check in the mail.