“It’s not class warfare. It’s math.”
Cute line from President Obama as he released his deficit reduction plan. I think in the end, something will be passed with no tax increases, or minimal if there are enough Republican moderates to break away from the Tea Party and buck the Norquist pledge. It depends on how well Obama plays the politics, and it does looking like he’s going for broke. At minimum, he’s learned that you have to start political negotiations with room to move – something he failed to do with health care reform and just about every other fight. I think he’ll get the payroll tax cut extension, despite the Norquist-exempt opposition. And the fact that Republicans are wigging out before they’ve even had time to read the thing suggests that they are concerned that they’re losing the narrative.
Of course, whatever passes isn’t going to have a huge impact. It’ll probably stop the hemorrhaging and generate some moderate job growth. But until we find something for high school educated men to do in a post-industrial US, I think we’re going to continue to slide in the long run.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street “Occupation” isn’t large, but it’s managing to gather some media attention. I just wish they hadn’t reincarnated the “Days of Rage” meme from the Weathermen. It pretty much marginalizes them. They did get a boost from Roseanne Barr who is running for President.
Addendum: Sen. Schumer is demanding that the tax proposal be put on the floor for debate and vote. Democrats are sensing blood here.
37 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 19, 2011 at 9:35 am
Joe Blow
Dream on. Rehash the Obama bullshit – make his stench priority. Hate to tell you this, but when it comes to religiously motivated believers (ideologues) “math” or fact absolutely does not matter. They win every time. Question is, which one is Obama? He talks one way and acts the other. When are you going to accept the fact that neither party can fix the problem rooted in corruption?
September 19, 2011 at 9:40 am
Sally
“It’s not class warfare. It’s math.” – - I like it, sort of like “It’s the economy, stupid!”
September 19, 2011 at 10:02 am
Dave Kirby
Interesting that the reeps are still claiming that the wealthy are “job creators”. The data shows that these folks are not creating anything except bigger piles of cash for themselves. Karl Marx, it turns out, was wrong about Communism but may have been a prophet when he said that Capitalism cannot support a middle class in the long run. The old saw that “the rich get richer” has never been truer than it is today. Will the tea baggers be the rich folks stooges. Stay tuned.
September 19, 2011 at 10:04 am
Plain Jane
Reposting from the Herald:
“The indisputable evidence shows that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer while tax rates for the very rich are at historic lows and funding for social programs is being cut as the numbers in need are increasing. Unions, public employees, the unemployed and the poor have been unceasingly assaulted since Reagan. Now that people are waking up and fighting back, they scream “CLASS WARFARE!” They do have a point. It’s not a war until both sides are fighting. Their claim of victimization is war propaganda, but no one who has been paying attention really believes it.”
I should have included the middle class in the list of assault victims.
September 19, 2011 at 10:16 am
Eric Kirk
I can’t remember the name of the Liberation Theologist, it may have been Leonardo Boff, who said in response to the accusation that he was advocating that the Church take sides in class war: “We’re not taking sides, we’re changing sides.”
September 19, 2011 at 10:47 am
Plain Jane
Isn’t it ironic that any Christian church would take the side of a rich in a class war?
September 19, 2011 at 11:25 am
Not A Native
PJ, Doesn’t seem ironic at all to me. Obviously, you and I have very different undertandings and experiences of the teachings and practices of Christian churches.
September 19, 2011 at 11:34 am
Plain Jane
I don’t think Christian churches all have the same teachings and practices, Nan. Many teach brotherhood and love, but some teach that wealth is a sign of favor from god and giving to the church earns them greater favor.
September 19, 2011 at 12:20 pm
moviedad
Nothing that Barak (It’s not because he’s black) Obama proposes is going to pass. If Barak (Some of my best friends are ‘Blacks’) Obama proposed that the wealthy should be granted a special citizenship that gives them special privileges, the ruling class still wouldn’t allow it. For them Barak (I dated a ‘Black’ girl in college.) Obama is a Socialist who practices “Crony-Capitalism” While hiding the fact that he is the Anti-Christ from the rest of us.
September 19, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Joe Blow
How about we shed a little light on this subject – OBAMA’s real intentions: The Geithner mystery solved – Don’t be misled by the title.
September 19, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Plain Jane
In November 2012 when the choices are Obama v Romney, Perry or Bachmann, who are you going to vote for, the person who talks the progressive talk or the talker / walkers on the far right, Joe? A moderate conservative is the lesser of the two evils, IMO.
September 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Eric Kirk
How about Roseanne Barr?
September 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Eric Kirk
According to his Tea Party primary opponent, John Boehner is a socialist.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/tea-partier-john-boehner-is-a-socialist-video.php?ref=fpblg
September 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Bolithio
Its mathematics:
September 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Plain Jane
I hope you’re joking, Eric. Roseanne Bar is funnier but no more qualified to be president than Palin or Perry.
September 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Plain Jane
Best post on the TPM comment thread linked above:
“I think there’s a split in the Tea Party”
“Apparently the fault line lies between the irrational, and the insane.”
September 19, 2011 at 7:48 pm
huufc
In April 2009 Obama said on MSNBC it would be wrong to raise taxes in a recession, he was right then. At least Jimmy Carter is no longer the worst President in the United States history, thanks Barry.
September 19, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Plain Jane
Which do you think does the most harm in a recession, Huufc, raising taxes on the rich or cutting social programs people need to survive and putting millions more on unemployment in a recession? Or do you think we should do neither?
September 19, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Plain Jane
And maybe you can explain what damage is done by raising taxes on people who are already hoarding wealth, not creating jobs? Wouldn’t that money do more good circulating through worker’s pockets to Main Street, to corporate coffers and back to worker’s pockets, as well as increased local, state and federal govt. revenues? Why is it so hard for people to understand that high numbers of unemployed cost the government not just the lost tax revenues but the increased cost of social programs and fired public employees cost just as much to keep alive as anyone else. Keeping taxes low for the richest by cutting programs desperately needed by the poorest and putting even more people out of work doesn’t make sense from any rational view.
September 19, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Thorstein Veblen
“We all know he can give a good speech” : Mitch McConnell
The one true fact that the Senate minority leader has ever said.
September 19, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Eric Kirk
In April 2009 Obama said on MSNBC it would be wrong to raise taxes in a recession, he was right then.
Well, considering that the wealthiest are sitting on a cache of money right now and doing nothing with it, I don’t see how the economy can be worsened by prying money out of idle hands.
September 19, 2011 at 8:45 pm
huufc
Well, thats what the President said.
I wonder what would happen if all of the evil rich’s money was taken from them and spent by the government for the desperately needed programs and then there was no money to continue the desperately needed programs. Where would we get the money then?
September 19, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, presumably this is the “productive class,” right? The money being put into the hands of consumers, these people should have no trouble earning it back.
September 19, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Eric Kirk
Getting censured hasn’t made Charlie Rangel shy. He crashed a party, outing Perry as an Hispanic lover I guess.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/charlie-rangel-crashes-secret-rick-perry-event-in-new-york-city.php?ref=fpblg
September 19, 2011 at 10:10 pm
skippy
A tax on the wealthy, taxing them the same as the middle class, would certainly be an uphill battle fought tooth and nail by Republicans. Could it end up as a ‘squid’ pro quo concession? ”We’ll give you your tax– if you give us the privatization of Social Security.”
“It looks like the president wants to move down the class warfare path. Class warfare will simply divide the country more, attack job creators, divide people, and it doesn’t grow the economy.”
~Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
~Warren Buffett
September 20, 2011 at 4:54 am
Plain Jane
Huufc seems to think money can only be spent once and then vanishes into some dark hole somewhere, never to be seen again. Why do so many on the right get hysterical and start whining “if you take all their money” every time the subject of raising taxes a few percent comes up? I’ll have to assume that’s the language they hear from their “news” of choice since so many use the same nonsensical rhetoric. Why do right wing working class people worry so about the wealth of people who care nothing for them or their ability to survive?
September 20, 2011 at 5:20 am
Plain Jane
”We’ll give you your tax– if you give us the privatization of Social Security.”
I doubt privatization will be the first step, but Obama has made it clear that “reform” of Medicare and SS are on the table in exchange for tax increases. I no longer trust Obama enough to believe any reform he attempts will be to the benefit of “ordinary” Americans. If they are changed to means tested programs, they will then carry the stigma of “welfare” and lots of people who need them will be too ashamed to fight for them and those who no longer qualify will fight tooth and nail to end them.
When the power elite want something unpopular accomplished, they use leaders who are trusted by the voters in that realm. Nixon’s detente with China, Reagan’s treaties with Russia, Clinton’s global trade deals, welfare “reform,” and financial “reform,” Obama’s health care “reform” are prime examples. A Republican wouldn’t be trusted to “reform” social programs because everyone knows they hate them. But put a Democrat in charge and it is naively believed they will protect workers and social programs. Only strong “anti-Communists” can be trusted to make treaties with Communist countries, etc. Watching political theater with that in mind changes it from drama to tragic satire.
September 20, 2011 at 8:04 am
skippy
PJ, privatization of Social Security may be an unrealistic scenario at this juncture; it failed to gain ground under the Bush administration. But the idea still looms large in the Republican background.
What you may not be aware of: Insurance brokers issuing your medical insurance plan receive a whopping 6% (give or take) commission– for doing nothing. Oh, they didn’t tell you about that? If you– or your employer– pay for health insurance, the assigned broker/agent is collecting that easy and big 6% commish money for every policy sold or renewed, per person, every year. At a local meeting of our insurance brokers last week, they reportedly railed openly against government health care. Why? It would likely cut into the far-too-easy cumulative commissions they’re receiving now.
In the same way, stock brokers benefitting from the privatization of Social Security could line their pockets substantially further. Of course, the far greater effect would be the billions of dollars flowing onto Wall Street like water from a faucet. It’s a twofold windfall. This is why some Republicans have been hammering to privatize the whole Social Security enchilada and freeing up the money for their friends.
Let’s see if a squid pro quo is waiting in the wings.
September 20, 2011 at 8:16 am
Plain Jane
I agree, Skippy. Not to mention the up to 30% slice of health insurance dollars that the industry takes to process our bills and pay them compared to 3% to administer Medicare.
September 20, 2011 at 8:59 am
Anonymous
Seems pretty un-patriotic and un-American for the uber-rich not to want to pay their fair share of taxes to help America out of the hole she is in.
September 20, 2011 at 9:33 am
Plain Jane
Obama moves left for the 2012 election, but Young Turks believe it’s nothing but cynical posturing because he knows he can’t get it passed.
September 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm
olmanriver
Rich Win, You Lose
By Dave Johnson On September 12, 2011 ·
Why are “capital gains” taxes so much lower than taxes on other income? The reason capital gains taxes are lower is because most of the income of the rich is from capital gains. And the reason most of the income of the rich is from capital gains is because capital gains taxes are lower.
Our System
“Capital gains” are the gains, or profits, made from the investment of capital — the big pools of money that a few of us have the great responsibility and burden of being stuck with. The theory is that the few among us who have bundles of money (capital) use that money to start businesses or buy stocks or property (or race horses) and thereby “create jobs.” (For more on how businesses and the wealthy “create jobs,” click here and then click here.)
If the value of the business or property (or race horses) goes up those wealthy few make even more money (gains). This ability to obtain these huge gains is a benefit offered to those who have lots of money in the first place. Thus the term “capital gains.” These gains are differentiated from the gains the rest of us make from … working … because the rest of us do not have the intelligence and wisdom of having those huge pools of money to invest.
Incentives
In our system the income gained from these investments by these wealthy few is therefore taxed at a special very, very low rate, because they have the wisdom and intelligence to have large sums of money available to invest, and the rest of us do not. This low rate is considered an “incentive” to those who have these large accumulations of money, to try to persuade them to make these huge profits. They require these “incentives” to make huge profits, because otherwise they might not be interested in making the huge profits that can result from owning most of the property and stock and race horses (and yachts and private jets and multiple homes and million-dollar cars.) So that is why they must be given the incentive of these very special low tax rates – to persuade them to make investments that reap huge profits that they otherwise would not want to make.
The link
September 20, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Anonymous
Skippy, Plain Jane, and y’all …………. do you understand the difference between iincome tax and capital gains tax? There is a difference, you should check it out and educatg yourselfs before letting loose with the happy fingers.
September 20, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Daniel Webster
It’s not the ‘what the difference’ is, it’s the ‘why the difference’ is that we wonder at. Scuse the spellin, I’m not that educatged.
September 21, 2011 at 3:44 am
Anonymous
Gee whiz Daniel, I guess that answers the question!
What about Obama’s comments to “Joe the Plumber” caught on video about the “redistribution of wealth”? Redistrubution of wealth sounds kind of like robbery to me. I’m not even half way to Obamas’ lowest “rich” level and the mention of that pisses me off.
September 21, 2011 at 6:33 am
Anonymous
Anonymous doesn’t understand that we DO understand different sources of income are taxed at different rates but don’t think they should be. He apparently has no problem with redistributing the wealth of the working classes into the investment portfolios of the richest, but any reverse in that concentration is robbery. What a tool!
September 21, 2011 at 6:35 am
Plain Jane
CRAP! The post of a minute ago, not showing yet because it was anonymous, was by me. I keep forgetting to re-fill in the name form when I clear my cookies.