There’s a great column at the New York Post today by Kyle Smith called Wealth inequality isn’t a ‘crisis’ — and voters know it.

Smith takes on the losing strategy of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — whom he refers to as the Grandpa Simpson of Economics.

Inequality certainly is a symptom of a persistent underlying condition: It may be the leading cause of bulls–t in America today. To put it simply, there is no inequality crisis.

And this:

The American tendency to respect, and expect, success runs counter to the progressive plan to tax it away. Not only does constant chatter about inequality tend to make Americans more supportive of free enterprise, but it also leads to a blanket suspicion about what the regulatory and taxation elves really mean to do.

It’s interesting to me that in contrast to Clinton and Sanders who vilify wealth and attack Free Market Capitalism, the frontrunner on the Republican side is a very successful businessman. I think that says a lot about how most Americans feel about wealth — they’d like to achieve it themselves.

Attacking the wealthy may work in college classrooms, but in the real world, where many of the people depend on a wealthy businessman for their jobs, wealth is something to aspire to, not attack.

Smith’s column discusses this excellently, and I recommend you read it.

He even points out that the Obama Administration stopped focusing on “income inequality” when poll testing showed it was a no-win subject.

A Washington Post piece last year delicately noted that Obama was laying off the inequality rhetoric because of “Democratic polling that found that talking about income inequality does not register strongly with the American public and risks accusations of class warfare.”

But “progressives,” (AKA Liberals, AKA Leftists, AKA Socialists) are one-trick ponies. They cannot win people over by the power of their ideas, so they try to win people over using anger, resentment and vengeance.

Shame that.

As Smith points out, “Even Americans of below-average income react negatively to inequality rhetoric.”

What I loved most about this column was Smith’s referring to Sanders’ supporters at Sandersnistas.

That made me laugh nearly as much as the Grandpa Simpson of economics line.

And, of course, it gave me an image idea.

Thanks, Kyle!


Read the whole column HERE.

If you like the work at Patriot Retort, please consider contributing

Hit the tip jar DONATE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!

4 thoughts on “Sandersnistas

  • October 18, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    “Bernie Sanders — whom he refers to as the Grandpa Simpson of Economics”

    Nah. The only thing yellow about Grandpa Simpson was his skin!

  • October 18, 2015 at 8:16 pm

    Suppose wealth inequality was eliminated by the government taking the property and savings of every individual in the United States and redistributing it equally to everyone. Some people seem to think that would make a perfect scenario. Just imagine we are in that scenario. Some people will live frugal and work hard and save what they can and invest it wisely. Others would be content with what they have and just use it up to sustain their lives. Others would go to Vegas and possibly loose everything in a short period of time. Then there would be those who would live lavish life styles or develop lavish drug habits and would end up charity cases but there would be no one to support the charities. All of this would lead to the country being in chaos. The only way to eliminate wealth inequality and still sustain life would be for the government to take away everything and then dish out the bare minimum it takes a little at a time for an individual to survive. That’s the principle of communism. I prefer the wealth inequality system.

  • October 18, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    Omg your graphic….Sandernistas. Your work is INCREDIBLE.

Comments are closed.

Simple Share Buttons
Simple Share Buttons