In what ways does / has income inequality shaped the 2016 American Presidential election ?

People are saying that income inequality is becoming a big problem and believe this is true. I think that inequality does shape the 2016 American Presidential election because people vote based on what they need. Just like the Canadian election this year the middle class voted for the liberal party because they promise to be better for the middle class. Just as Trump as said to do the same but for the poor. The voted trends bases off of what the person running is willing to do. the amount of americans who said that everyone has an equal chance to get more ahead in todays economy fell short about 17% since early 2014.

How Income Inequality Will Affect the 2016 Election

"Income inequality" has become a powerful phrase in American political discourse as of late, especially since the advent of the 2016 presidential election process. The roots of the problem are deep; many economists believe that the current movement towards higher wealth inequality started in earnest during the Carter administration. Since the turn of the century, wage growth has stagnated, a trend that was exacerbated by the 2008 recession. Recent polls indicate that approximately two thirds of Americans, particularly those in the middle income bracket, are dissatisfied with the way wealth is distributed in their country. Candidates from both major parties have taken note of this revelation and have begun discussing the issue, either in passing or as a key plank in their platform.

Nobody has benefited more from the emergence of income inequality as a principal concern than Bernie Sanders. He has been passionate about this issue for the entirety of his career, yet is proposing the same old solutions that all socialists have before him, such as massive increases in taxation and over-regulation of the economy. His incessant focus on income inequality and his enmity toward the 1% has forced his competitor for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, to shift to the left, which could prove problematic in the general election. She has taken on a more liberal, populist tone in her stump speeches, as well as in televised debates against Sanders. It remains to be seen whether she has a genuine interest in the topic or is insincerely speaking about it simply because her wildly popular opponent is.

Republicans, who have traditionally decried any effort to discuss problems stemming from income inequality, have begun to recognize the overall sentiment of the nation. None of them have referred to income inequality by name but many have made allusions to the economic hardships faced by their compatriots or even the lack of upward mobility in America. Donald Trump, the populist Republican frontrunner, has declared his undying affection for the poorly educated and has vowed to "make great deals," which he believes will bring jobs back to America. Of course, it must be recalled that Trump’s companies employ far more foreign workers than they do American. Cruz and Kasich, the other two remaining Republican candidates, have preferred to concentrate on other issues and have not outlined any concrete plans to address income inequality.

Until the nominees have been selected and the general election has commenced, nobody will know for sure to what extent the conversation on income inequality will impact the way that Americans cast their ballots in November. If Sanders manages to overcome Clinton's nearly insurmountable lead among superdelegates, income inequality will become one of the central foci of the election. The more likely scenario is that Clinton will triumph over the Vermonter; if this is the case, income inequality will still be discussed on the campaign trail but not with as much rabid fervor. The eventual Republican nominee will be thrust into the role of responding to either Clinton's or Sanders' position. He will also have to make the case that the proposed resolutions put forward by either Democratic politician will be economically unsustainable and will fail to augment the number of middle class households in America.

America's Rocky Income

America's Rocky Income

Mitt Romney Political Cartoon

Throughout the 70’s Americans noticed a rise in paycheques, which happened to remain at an all time high until the end of the 1980’s. However since then, many middle class Americans have noticed a sudden halt in those paycheque numbers. It is known that mid class Americans are indeed making less than they did in 2000. Those gains , made in the 70’s and 80s’  faded away, and were completely wiped by the crash that began and ended in 2007 and 2008. Since then,  Americas economic growth has regained its balance , however, there have been new claims that unemployment benefits have fallen to lower levels in the past 15 years. 
One can imagine that with this new presidential election, voter/citizens have taken notice to the bumpy past and somewhat unstable present and future of Americans income. 

An embarrassing Republican past could also be another reasons why the income equality topic has shaped the 2016 election. After past Republican candidate , Mitt Romney’s embarrassing performance discussing income inequality, as he came across as pompous and out-of-touch with his audience, the Republicans today are inoconculting themselves against what happened to the wealthy businessman .  “I would be surprised if income inequality is discussed even more in this election than the last..." said, Elizabeth Rigby , a political scientist at George Washington University. 

Income Inequality

A key issue in the 2016 American Presidential election affecting society today is income inequality. This is a major problem for the Americans, a problem that has not been resolved.

The way income inequality is happening makes the issue more badly. Basically the rich have come up with clever ways and means of taking out more money from the middle and poorer classes of the American society. After that they redirect this money to the top to benefit themselves and the worst part is, it is perfectly legal.

The consequences behind this issue is that the top one percent grow are growing richer, while at the same time, the people who make 99 percent of the American society are losing income and are struggling just to get by. Income inequality is a key issue now and if not stopped the problem will grow and affect the future of America. Sad to say, this is the track the Americans are currently on. The only good news that comes out from this for the society is that it’s that time of year again, the Presidential election. This is their chance to elect a leader who will put an end to these problems. 

Bernie Sanders is trying to target the issue more than the other candidates and because of that, he has gained a large number of supporters. Unfortunately he has failed to come up with real policy proposals that will solve income inequality. Bernie has come up with some actions, like breaking-up the large banks, but this will not actually solve the problem. In order to take out the problem, the person who is going to take charge and end it has to be bold and smart. As of now, all the candidates running claim they will stop income inequality with the job, but none of them have proposed realistic ideas to solve it, meanwhile they should be tackling the problem.   

Income Inequality in the American Presidential Election

Income inequality has become a huge problem in the United States with the top .1% making at least 6,000,000 while the majority of the population earns about 35,000 per year. Of course this has come into play with politics and especially in campaigning for the upcoming election. Candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, although on opposite sides of the playing field, have both worked this idea of income inequality into their platforms. Whether it be on wages, unions, or taxation of the wealthy versus the middles class the best way to win over the majority of voters is to address their issues. Currently it seems that the rich keep getting richer while the middle class lays stagnant or even decreases. It is clear that inequality is at an all time high and despite some inequality being necessary for growth what they really need is a strong middle class that will feed the economy. For middle class voters it would of course make sense to elect someone who is ready to take on their needs, and so with candidates like Sanders hammering away at the problem with inequality he would most likely be a beneficial choice for most Americans. As the election draws nearer there has been an increase in citizens worrying about who will be elected as their next president and whether or not real issues like income inequality will be addressed and fixed.

Economic Inequality and the Election

Class Warfare

    Class warfare is returning to the presidential campaign. The major contenders are increasingly making middle-class wage stagnation and the vast earnings of America's super-rich a focal point of their bids for the White House.

    Hillary Clinton, the democratic front-runner, promises to put the middle class first and says that if she were elected president she would take steps to reduce income inequality, give everyday people more advantages and cut the power to Wall Street and the super rich. She supports raising the taxes on the wealthier Americans and increasing the minimum wage to help the middle class and the poor.

     Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist and Clinton's main competitor for the Democratic presidential nomination, he has been attacking billionaire Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, with more frequency. "But what we have got to do is not let Trump and these other people divide us up. Latinos who are picking tomatoes for eight bucks an hour are not the reason that the middle class of this country is disappearing. Muslim kids who are going to schools studying to be engineers are not the reason we have income and wealth inequality."

    Trump has called Bernie Sanders a "wacko." but Trump understands the anger Sanders faces and he is taking a populist approach but with a different emphasis. He calls for higher taxes on hedge-fund managers, who are among the richest people in America, but he is mostly going after what he says is entrenched power and stagnant leadership in Washington. Donald is giving many white working class people who don't have college degrees a voice in this election. They feel left behind in the economy and ignored by the nation's leaders. They see this great nation as the rich get Richer and the poor stay poor. Trump's argument that he will mostly finance his own campaign, so he won't be beholden to special interests, has a special resonance with his core constituencies. The issue with this though is that most of Trumps financial support comes from his fathers hard work in developing their brand, succeeding in the american dream.

    In conclusion, economic inequality and class warfare is one of the main topics being focused on in this presidential campaign. As nice as it would be to have everyone to be economically equal, sadly it is a goal that is not reach able. It is not a black and white topic. 

Blog Post: In Class Question (Inequality)

In what ways does/has income inequality shaped the 2016 American Presidential election? 

Ever since World War II practically all-working Americans saw a rise in their paychecks. Until the 1980's when those gains started to become uneven, in the divided working classes. The middle class has fallen victim to most of the income cuts. Meaning that they now earn less, and anything that they were able to make extra profit off of, was practically wiped away because of the deep recession in 2007. Even though there is still strong economic growth and the stock marked is booming, income for the middle class has been stuck, expect for those at the top. This has affected the 2016 American Presidential election because 2/3 of Americans have claimed to be unsatisfied with the way income and wealth is distributed in the U.S. So if 2/3 (a majority) of Americans want to see a change in those areas, that will begin to shape the agendas of those in the election. Making it a priority for each candidate to create some change, in order to grab hold of the majority of voters.