A few weeks ago, I contrasted Elizabeth Warren's critique of income inequality in America with Obama's. The critiques are substantively similar, laying primary responsibility for the widening wealth and income gaps on Republican tax, labor and regulatory policy and citing similar stats showing that virtually all productivity and output gains over the last several decades have gone to the wealthiest. But Warren is more laser-focused on Republican and Wall Street malfeasance: Obama acknowledges contributing causes as diverse as global competition and domestic racism. And interestingly, where Obama cites four stats to illustrate the growing gap, Warren concentrates her fire with one pair:
Now what about Hillary Clinton, who officially kicked her campaign off with a speech on Roosevelt Island yesterday?
Molly Ball points out quite rightly that Clinton is being credited with a more full-throated populism than she voiced:
Since 1980, how much did the 90% get of income growth in this economy -- from 1980 to 2012, the 90% got zero. None. Nothing.Zero. None. Nothing. You could hang a campaign on that, no?
Now what about Hillary Clinton, who officially kicked her campaign off with a speech on Roosevelt Island yesterday?
Molly Ball points out quite rightly that Clinton is being credited with a more full-throated populism than she voiced:
