Skip to main content

It's not class warfare. Don't you dare call it class warfare. The Republicans may relentlessly pursue policies that favor the wealthy and hurt everyone else, but it most emphatically is not class warfare. The arbiters of appropriate political discourse will be most put out if you call it class warfare. You will not be welcome in the Village. You will not be invited to appear on the Sunday talk shows.

Class warfare is such an ugly term. To begin with, it suggests that we are a socially stratified nation, and that such stratification is at least to some degree based on money. Money is dirty. One shouldn't discuss money in polite conversation. And it's important that we be polite. And everyone knows that we are a melting pot. Everyone is capable of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, and don't even consider questioning the physics when there is neither a fulcrum nor a point of leverage. This is America. The land of opportunity.

Republican policies that hurt the less affluent and favor those that need no favors is not class warfare, but to discuss Republican policies that hurt the less affluent and favor those that need no favors is class warfare. The pundits will say so. The policies themselves are not class warfare, but raising awareness about them is. Wealth disparity is the fault of the disparaged. Unlike West Virginia Republican Senate nominee John Raese, the less affluent just didn't have the wisdom and foresight to inherit wealth. This isn't about class warfare, it's about knowing how to pick your parents. To those that plan ahead even of their being born go the spoils.

So, we have the widest income gap ever recorded. Clearly, this is because those on the wrong side of the gap not only made poor decisions before they were born, it's also because they are lazy. And the Republicans should be proud and honored that those who planned well ahead of their being born and who are not lazy are being protected. It's not class warfare. It's Social Darwinism. Which is why groups funded by or tied to those nice Koch brothers are financing the "grassroots" teabag "movement", protecting Wisconsin from the dangers of democracy, and who knows what else. It's why Karl Rove's American Crossroads, which is waging its own private ad war against Democrats everywhere, is funded almost entirely by billionaires. They're only doing their part for society. The right kind of society. The only society that matters. After all, that increasingly teeny tiny minority of the super wealthy needs protection against the perils of populism now being promulgated by Socialists and Communists and anyone else petty enough to be concerned with anyone else. It's not easy being a billionaire. It has to be one of the smallest minority demographics ever!

It isn't class warfare! Republicans may have killed the job creating Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Emergency Fund, and Republicans may have filibustered jobless benefits and state aid, and their own study shows that the tax plan promoted by the Democrats will do more for the disadvantaged than will the Republican tax plan, but people talk about such as if it's a bad thing! This is the agenda. This is by design. Those that didn't make the right decisions when choosing their parents, or who are too lazy to have accumulated vast riches and therefore have to work to survive, deserve to suffer! It's a question of values, and the Republicans value people with money. Nothing else and no one else matters. It's not class warfare. It's the divine right of the new aristocracy.

Alaska Republican Senate nominee Joe Miller thinks the minimum wage is unconstitutional. Oregon Republican gubernatorial nominee Chris Dudley says people don't understand the minimum wage, which he thinks is too high, and he also wants to cut the capital gains tax, which mostly would benefit wealthy people- such as Chris Dudley. Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle clearly is on board with the idea that the unemployed are just lazy, and Wisconsin Republican Senate nominee Ron Johnson and North Carolina Republican Senator Richard Burr seem to agree. Anyone see a pattern here? And South Carolina Republican gubernatorial nominee Nikki Haley might be the most visionary of all. She seems to think that the unemployed aren't just lazy, they're also on drugs. Just don't call it class warfare!

When disaster strikes, both natural and not, it is the poor and minorities that suffer most. From Katrina to the BP oil disaster to the global impacts of climate change, environmental consequences cause the most suffering among those already suffering from wealth disparities. In case you were wondering why Republicans so viciously oppose environmental regulations, now you know. Why should we waste time and energy and particularly money worrying about problems that mostly affect the people that didn't know how to pick their parents or who are lazy or on drugs? Those that can't buy their way out of crises deserve what happens to them! But it isn't class warfare!

From health care to education to mass transit to Social Security, if a government program helps those in need, Republicans oppose it. They will support tax cuts targeted for the wealthy, while opposing tax cuts targeted for those that aren't wealthy. The Republicans clearly have an overall ideology, and it is reflected throughout their agenda. Which isn't class warfare. But calling them on it is.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:04 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Which is why "bipartisanship" worked out so well (30+ / 0-)

    Spending the better part of a Congress where your party has majorities neither party has held in decades pursuing some non-existent consensus is 1 of the most brain-dead strategeries a party has ever pursued.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:07:18 PM PDT

    •  Depends What It Was Intending to Accomplish. nt (6+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:07:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This President has passed more legislation (6+ / 0-)

      favorable to the American people in 22 months than the last four did in 30 years.  And you are complaining about how it was done?

      Get 10 people you know to commit to vote Democratic on November 2; and ask them to each seek 10.

      by Blogvirgin on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:10:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The operation was a success, but the patient (22+ / 0-)

        is still dying.

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:31:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's because the patient was comatose and (4+ / 0-)

          on life support when this President took over.  There are no miracle drugs, only tried and true measures, some that are a shock to the system not unlike some cancer treatments which can nearly kill before restoring health.  He is not a quack. Only quacks guarantee immediate cures.

          Get 10 people you know to commit to vote Democratic on November 2; and ask them to each seek 10.

          by Blogvirgin on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:16:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You bet I'm complaining. I think I'll sue. (12+ / 0-)

            I'd sue for economic and political malpractice if I could.  I'd sue the guy for following 19th century ideas in the 21st century.  I'd sue him for failing to act aggressively when all disinterested economic advice suggested the stimulus needed to be at least twice as large as the one he gave the patient.  I'd sue him for failing to organize the network of grassroots supporters needed to sustain the electoral majority needed to sustain tax and debt financed stimulus spending.   I'd sue him for failure to present the progressive case, the case for massive government stimulus, the case for a serious role for government in the economy, to the American people.

            He's turned out to be a physician's assistant when we needed a doctor.  Unfortunately the doctors he's working for are 19th century quacks, who control the medical societies and the conventional wisdom, and are quick to recommend leaches and bleeding, when we actually need modern medicine.  

            If those same doctors didn't own the courts, I'd win my suit too.

            •  Who would have been a better doctor for this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              progressivebadger

              patient. Give me your best referral? One who was willing to accept the patient in 2008?

              Get 10 people you know to commit to vote Democratic on November 2; and ask them to each seek 10.

              by Blogvirgin on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:40:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  As we say to teenagers... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RFK Lives, Jim P

                who say "everybody does it"... if all your friends jumped off a roof, would you do it too?  

                Stupidity is still stupid, even if everyone in the crowd is stupid.  It doesn't get smarter just because everyone agrees that cautiousness and obliviousness to modern economic theory is the easy path.

                •  You did not answer the question. Nice dance, no (0+ / 0-)

                  dice. Who among the candidates who were running for President in 2008 would have been a better President than President Obama?  This is a direct and simple question. Can you answer it or will you give me another response filled with fantasy and what ifs?

                  Get 10 people you know to commit to vote Democratic on November 2; and ask them to each seek 10.

                  by Blogvirgin on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:10:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hey, you didn't answer my question either (4+ / 0-)

                    Why do only your questions get answers?  Or don't bother, since like yours, we know each other's answers already.

                    Of COURSE we are trapped with our incompetent doctor.  We all know the alternative doctors were  even worse, and that he's got tenure.  He knows that, and he knows that he doesn't even have to be competent because he is after all more competent than most of the other doctors in town.  

                    But let's not pretend that our lack of choice means that we have a competent doctor.  We just have a doctor who sucks less than most of the readily available alternatives.  The fact that you seem to think that proves something just shows me how lost you really are!

                    Why aren't we organizing to push him to at least bring on board people who have read modern texts and have a sense of what the modern standard of practice really is?

                    The conventional pooh bahs twaddle on endlessly about their being (or having been) no alternatives and how this is the best we can do and how maybe someday the patient will get better. If that sort of thinking makes you happy you are welcome to it.  Enjoy yourself.  Really.  Laisse le bon temps roule. One thing you can count on with that kind of rhetorical approach is more of the same... and apparently that's good enough for you.

                    I'm not particularly interested in Obama's success or failure, or at least not only in that.  I'm interested in our society's and our nation's success or failure.  If things can get better on Obama's foundations I'm all for it.  Unfortunately, the weight of scientific evidence suggests that they will not.  If things have to get worse in order to organize the political activity needed to get better, let the flood come.  

                    I doubt Obama has built a foundation that will last (hope I'm wrong) so I'm a little indifferent to him and his success as an individual politician (or doctor if we must continue the metaphor).  

                    Old fashioned patients (like you?) accepted whatever their doctor told them.  Modern patients research the issue and bring proposed treatments to their physician.  The progressive left is doing that, but the old fuddy wall street docs don't want to hear about ideas brought by the patients.

                    The one thing I can't bear is justifiers of an unacceptable status quo, and justifiers of the political and economic malpractice that we have been subjected too by the Republican and ConservaDem party.  To be enthusiastic about what has been done, even to be enthusiastic about it on the grounds of "what choice do we have?" is to put yourself in moral and political universe that I want no part of.

                    But really, if you like it so much enjoy it while it lasts!  Lots of Americans are feeling pretty sold out, but I'm glad it's working for you.

                    •  It is working for me, and for many others (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Onomastic

                      who actually live in the real world and not some fantasy.  There is no Superman, there are only real people.  

                      Those of us who have seen more than one campaign and have lived and worked under more than one President recognize that is a good man dealing with very difficult, very complex problems.  A man who has done more for this country in 22 months than the last four no six Presidents did in eight years, and that fact is also recognized by over 238 Presidental scholars who recently rated this President among our best, 15 and rising.

                      Do you think you know more than they do?  What are your credentials?  Their opinions are devolved from research and historical perspective and yours comes from where????

                      Too bad you are not as knowledgeable as they are and cannot appreciate this President for who he is and what he has done.

                      Get 10 people you know to commit to vote Democratic on November 2; and ask them to each seek 10.

                      by Blogvirgin on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 07:48:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Just so you know, in a medical lawsuit you have (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Onomastic

              to prove the doctor did not follow standard medical practice or you lose. Based upon your own comment, you lose.  

              Get 10 people you know to commit to vote Democratic on November 2; and ask them to each seek 10.

              by Blogvirgin on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:43:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I could win any case (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RFK Lives

                ...if the court wasn't owned by the medical society, and if I proved that the doctor was practicing to a standard of medicine that had been superseded by widely known and proven techniques that do work.

                Following 19th century medical standards when proven 21st century medical techniques are available is no defense in court... and if it is, it tells you about the corruption of the courts, not about what is the ethical thing for the doctor to do.

              •  Standard medical practice is a matter of opinion. (0+ / 0-)

                And that opinion lies solely with--you guessed it--the American Medical Association.

                Doesn't matter what the science says.  If the AMA says it's OK, then it's OK, even if research proves that other practices are more beneficial.  Witness our abysmally high C-section rates in this country despite no evidence they prevent cerebral palsy and plenty of evidence they increase maternal and neonatal mortality.

                Likewise.  If the politicians say they're doing the best they can do, who are we to argue.  The politicians get to set the standards for how well they're doing, and if we have any objections, too bad for us.  Never mind we're the ones who get hurt when they screw up.

                •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Jim P

                  The AMA has upheld standards of practice inconsistent with science for years.... for what that is worth.   That's just my point.   It's a metaphor, not a perfect analogy!

                  If the politicians say they're doing the best they can do, who are we to argue.

                  If you believe that you have no business here, no business voting, and no role to play in a democracy.

            •  Hmmmm..... (0+ / 0-)

              You think it's bad now?  
              You want to sue the doctor?
              Suppose you had the other 'doctor' and his brilliant accomplice, who were up for the job in '08?  That thought really makes me sick.
              Take a breath.  Rome wasn't built in a day, nor can all the ills of this country be 'cured' in less than 2 years.
              It will likely get worse before it gets better.
              But don't be so quick to sue.

              I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

              by Lilyvt on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:59:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Can we quit with the outdated metaphors (0+ / 0-)

              I'll do you one better.  We don't need to dismiss something on the grounds of how new an idea it is.  We ought to accept or dismiss its merits, instead, on whether it is empirically supported.

              Believe it or not, they have found a good use for leeches in modern medicine:  keeping circulation up in a reattached limb, reducing the likelihood it will have to be amputated.

              Likewise.  Democrats should not dismiss an idea just because it was presented a hundred years ago or because Republicans present it now.  Republicans should not dismiss an idea just because a Democratic politician is championing it.

              This is what's wrong with this country.  People want to keep up appearances and be fashionable.  I give half a damn about fashion.  I want substance.

              •  Silly metaphors are silly (0+ / 0-)

                But this one works pretty well.

                The use of leeches is real, but it is not integral to modern medical practice, so I think my use of the term makes the correct point.  

                Your complaint truly makes no sense to me.  I begin with a class based analysis of politics, combined with modern economic theory.

                I'm not dismissing anything because it is old or new, or Democratic or Republican.   But some ideas and structural relationships do persist across centuries, and one of those is the effort of capital to control the political process and make it do its bidding.   That's not a very fashionable statement, but it is the deep truth that we've witnessed play out under Obama. Capital (aka Wall Street) owns his administration, and business interests own the Congress.  From this, much else flows.

          •  These tried and true measures, the conventional (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miles

            wisdom, is precisely the thing at the root of our troubles. Our expert classes have proven their incompetence and dishonesty, and the proof lies in the ongoing collapse in foreign policy and economic realms.

            Your strawman of anyone "wanting immediate success" is a profound misrepresentation of the complaint. Know from this point you can make no convincing statement if you work with this completely false imputation.

            No such "pony" was demanded. The demand made, by a majority of the electorate across the nation, was for real change.

            Appointing a plethora of Bush, Republican, and RepubliDem figures to key positions throughout, sustaining their policies and frame of reference was not, and cannot be honestly construed as, a qualitative change.

            Reality: the patient is dying, and nothing serious is being initiated to reverse the condition.

            Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

            by Jim P on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 09:07:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  A good way to put it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miles

          The really important issues have not been addressed at all. I am talking about the 3 Wars (Middle East, Drugs/Minorities, and Civil Rights) and the increasingly less progressive tax structure.

          Yes, the previous administrations drove the car over the cliff, but the current administration has done little to correct it. A laundry list of incremental changes is a distraction, not a solution.

          I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

          by shann on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 07:41:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  what accounts for Summers and Geithner? (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coral, RFK Lives, tovan, 3goldens, Jim P, susanthe

        ecstatically baffled

        by el vasco on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:36:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  U3/U6 remain intolerable, Stim $ is spent (16+ / 0-)

        and there's not even a remote possibility of further spending.  HAMP was an abject failure.  Inequality is at Gilded Age levels, and it's not changing any time soon.  There was never a pre-eleciton vote in either house on W's tax cuts.  The CFC recommendations loom post-election.  I won't even get into doubling down in Afghanistan.

        Nothing to complain about there.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:43:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So are you voting Republican so you can get more (0+ / 0-)

          of what triggered all of this or are you staying home so you can get more of what triggered all of this?

          How have Republican policies which you seem to be advocating returning to helped you?

          Get 10 people you know to commit to vote Democratic on November 2; and ask them to each seek 10.

          by Blogvirgin on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:11:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I gotta tell you (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CParis, Dartagnan, Matt Z, Cathy VA

          we can harp all over Obama's failures and the press seems a little determined to create that narrative but he has no doubt so far been the most successful Democratic President in fifty years, and I'm a big Clinton fan.  We have to be careful of drinking the Kool Aid about how awful Obama is.  I was, for instance, cynical about the all the things you write about.  I was furious about the health care bill but now the more I learn, the more I see that the health care bill is the most remarkable legislation.  43% of this country is uninsured or seriously underinsured.  If the bill survives, no more.  And somehow this is not reported.  This week we had the story about how McDonalds was cutting its insurance plan.  The media said oh lord Obama screwed up and now tens of thousands of McDonalds employees will lose their coverage.  But look past the media story and get to the facts.  McDonalds only insures people up to 2k a year, depending on the plan, but it really is not much better than that.  So if you work at McDonalds, leave work one day and fall down and cut your finger and get some stitches, you'll have 6k in bills.  You owe 4k because they only cover 2k.  In other words the coverage the employees  are losing is really no coverage at all.  Under Obama's plan, the employee can leave work, get hit by a car, have a broken back, two broken legs, brain damage and while in the hospital get diagnosed for cancer.  Obama's plan would cover that full time or part time employee in full.  IN FULL.  And all for less than what they were paying under the McDonald's plan.  And it reduces the deficit.  And it is fully paid for.  It is inspirational.  Think about what that means for lower class people, lower middle class people and middle class people.  It is a huge gain for the stability and growth of the middle class.  Every one who make under 30k a year never has to worry about bankruptcy, endless bills or foreclosure due to health care.  The stress of illness and how to pay the bills is gone.  It is an amazing boost.  And yet all we care about is a public option which even its most ardent supporters thought was seriously deficient.  It's weird.

          •  Clinton is one of the reasons (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RFK Lives

            that the middle class is disappearing and the poor are being ground down.  AFDC was no social panacea but it was a damn sight better than TANF--but we can thank Clinton that we have the latter and not the former.  If he'd only held his nose and signed the bill it would have been one thing, but he touted it as some kind of fantastic social policy.  I have a friend whose husband committed suicide and she's left raising their son and when she went to stay with her mother to get back on her feet, and she got a job because that was a TANF requirement, guess how much her employer paid her?  Jack and squat.  Last I checked that's slavery. Slavery is illegal.  But under TANF guidelines in New York they're allowed to do that.  And they get tax breaks as it is--I don't see why they shouldn't pay recipients something.  I don't know if that rule also applies nationwide but I wouldn't be surprised.  And recipients can't even go to school, that doesn't count as "work hours."  (College isn't work?  Really?)

            Then there's the way Obama talks about using adoption as a way to reduce abortion.  Don't even get me started, I'm in touch with adoption reform activists and they roll their eyes every time this comes up.  Women who relinquish already decided abortion wasn't for them.  Many of them wanted to parent.  The solution for women who want to parent?  "Oh, too bad, you're not fit because you're broke.  NO OTHER REASON."

            What about people who wanted to stay in their homes rather than foreclose?  No help for them.  But oh boy we'll bail out the banks.  Why?  New banks get started all the time.  Loans can be sold to other banks.  It really is no big deal.  We really can survive without the massive multinationals.  Oddly, we've managed that for three million years' worth of human history.  What's so different now?

            I don't think everything Obama does is bad, but I'm tired of all this uncritical defense from Democratic supporters.  I thought this was supposed to be a representative democracy.  Well, they can't represent us if we don't tell them when they are screwing up.  Unquestioning followers make a dictatorship, not a democratic republic.  That's a lot of what's wrong with the Republicans!

            •  I'm definitely not unquestioning (0+ / 0-)

              I put out a pretty compelling scenario as have others as to what has been accomplished.  I agree with a lot of what you said, especially about the foreclosure crisis.  But Obama didn't start that crisis.  He didn't create the health care crisis.  He didn't lose two wars.  He didn't literally destroy the economy.  He's the guy hired to clean it all up and it is not easy.  Some of the things he's done have not been great, even infuriating.  Others have been remarkable, especially health care.  You're right to feel frustrated.  But you also feel exactly the way republicans want you to feel and they have expended a lot of energy and money to try and foster that emotion.  

          •  I pretty much agree jasonb! (0+ / 0-)

            The HCR (or HIR, if you will) plan, while not perfect, still has a lot of good stuff in it. No pre-existing conditions. A significant boost in the amount of community health centers (and increase in funding for them). And college kids staying on until they're 26. Just to name a few.

            Speaking of the college kids thing, I work with a conservative. Nice guy, truth be told, and he told me the other day he LIKES the HCR bill & gave Obama credit for it. His son is in college so he doesn't have to worry about his son losing his health insurance.

            As Bill Maher has pointed out, Dems should be running ON this, not FROM it.

            A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

            by METAL TREK on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 10:43:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Presidents do not pass legislation. (0+ / 0-)

        They either sign it into law or they veto it.  Congress passes legislation.  If they pass it by a large enough majority, they can even override the President.

        But just because a President thinks a bill is a good idea doesn't mean he can just write up a piece of paper and sign it at his desk and presto, it's a law.

        It's just as odious to give Obama all the credit for something good being made a law as it is for Republicans to blame him for everything that goes wrong.

        And no, he didn't do the best he could do.  He has a bully pulpit and he's been seriously under-utilizing it.  And favoring the rich over the poor.  I said that if we were going to get another DLC stooge in the White House it might as well be Hillary Clinton because at least then we'd know what we were getting.  Oh no, no one wanted to listen to me.  Well, here you go.

    •  Well now the POTUS knows to declare (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blicero

      Martial Law and throw Republicans in Guantanamo

      Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

      by kid funkadelic on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:13:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Class warfare (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RFK Lives

      is a transversal line that cuts across both parties.  The democrats are only slightly less egregious.  Because of our financing system, both parties are largely representative of the corporations and ultra wealthy.  We must never forfeit that neither party is our friend and that we must fight tooth and nail for egalitarian justice.  I'm glad to see this diary here.  We have a number of neoliberal apologists on this blog as well.

    •  As it was planned (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RFK Lives

      They're politicians. They know what works and what doesn't. Creating the false illusion that it was either the Right/Ethical thing to do to compromise with Republicans or they somehow had no choice, allowed them to pretend they wanted more, yet in our great American system, we have to be "pragmatic" and accept what little crumbs are passed in the end.

      The WH and Democrats can both blame the system or Republicans, whichever was more convenient, and at the same time tell people to shut up and be happy with whatever they got because nothing better is possible.

      "I think we're an Oligarchy and I think it's getting worse." - Sen. Bernie Sanders

      by PoxOnYou on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:34:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pointing Any of This Out About the Right Has (39+ / 0-)

    gotten you thrown out of the Democratic conversation for 30 years.

    Welcome to the looney left, new hippie!

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:07:22 PM PDT

  •  Repubs have been getting away with shouting... (21+ / 0-)

    ..."class warfare" for years and the Dems always back off.

    Honestly, I think it's less the "village" condemning it (though they certainly do condemn it), than Democrats backing off the minute the Repubs start yelling it.

    The last time we broke a president, we ended up with Reagan.

    by Bush Bites on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:08:01 PM PDT

    •  Exactly. I wish they had the balls to say (6+ / 0-)

      "so fucking what" once in a while instead of heading for the fainting couch each time the Thugs are unhappy.

    •  But Pubs are using 'socialism' instead of (0+ / 0-)

      'class war', and it makes it all good. Dems can't shout back with 'capitalism' as everyone's convinced that 'capitalism' good, 'socialism' bad.

      Good reads overall this Sunday on Dkos, as usual. Laurence Lewis never disappoints.

      "A time is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will trigger a revolution." -- Cézanne

      by toilpress on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:34:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair Capitalism, Socialism for the Rich (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        toilpress

        And that's why the answer is --

          We oppose Socialism for the Rich
          We favor Fair Capitalism

        Why does a middle-class worker who makes $100,000 pay a payroll tax of 7.65% while a CEO making $1,000,000 pays a payroll tax of 0.8%?

        That's Socialism for the Rich.

        We need to support "Fair Capitalism"  and oppose "Socialism for the Rich".

        We support putting more cash in the worker's pockets.   For starters, how about having workers not pay payroll tax until their first $20,000.  And then extend the payroll tax so it doesn't end just north of $100,000.

        How would workers feel about the Democrats when they gave everyone a 7.65% raise on the first $20,000 that they earn?  And with the money left over by extending the tax, we could start talking about lowering the retirement age to 60.

      •  What the GOP wants isn't capitalism. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, SweetLittleOkie, toilpress

        It's robber baron-ism.  Big difference.  You can have the former without the latter.

        Once again we're letting the Right define the terms of the debate.  George Lakoff warned us about this;  wonder when we're going to listen?

  •  Thank you! I agree 100% and I am always (17+ / 0-)

    flummoxed when Republicans throw out that false "class warfare" charge against Dems and they don't know how to respond.

    Get 10 people you know to commit to vote Democratic on November 2; and ask them to each seek 10.

    by Blogvirgin on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:08:20 PM PDT

    •  Calling someone a liar, worse than the actual lie (10+ / 0-)

      I've always been perplexed how managers in the workplace think it is perfectly OK to lie, but if someone calls them a liar in public, suddenly that is a hanging offense. Like you suddenly crossed some invisible line of discretion.

      You would think the original act of lying would be a higher offense, especially given the fact that the act of calling them a liar would not even exist without them lying in the first place.

      This is the same thing as class warfare being less bad than you blowing the whistle on their class warfare.

      This is the same neo-con crap where they think they are "creating reality" as they go along. It is the height of egotistic narcissism. In many respects they are like serial killers. They try to get you to change your behavior, requesting you use good manners in a civilized nature, while at the same time nothing is out of bounds when it comes to their behavior. They lull you into thinking the world is civilized and then they ruthlessly attack. And nothing they ever do could possibly be wrong because Gods hand is guiding them. They've granted themselves the license to be immoral monsters. The rest of us are nothing but bugs on their windshield.

      Everything I write is within a margin of error of precisely 100%.

      by Bailey Savings and Loan on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:33:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Calling it "Class Warfare" sort of obscures (12+ / 0-)

    the point.

    It's really Corporate warfare.

    •  At this point, I think they're interchangeable. (12+ / 0-)

      The new feudalism is almost completely formed, working stiffs serfs and all.

      Not affiliated with or compensated, directly or indirectly, by any campaign, corporation, or special interest.

      by tovan on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:46:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the Democrats are now beholden to (9+ / 0-)

        corporations as much as the Republicans are--that's why Health Care reform--for Obama--had to proceed through a corporate template, or else it was doomed to failure.

        Identifying the "wealthy" as the culprits misses the unspeakable point--that American society is organized for corporations to continue to accumulate wealth. The problem is that this ethos has now tipped the scales against the needs of the society at large, perhaps permanently.

        •  Right on target. (6+ / 0-)

          Pardon the pun. The so called middle class and working class have been cheated and defrauded out of what they were rightfully entitled to for the past 30 years, culminating in the last Adminstration.
          With ten trillion dollars gone, er, funneled up to the top 1%, who will pay for the next bailout which will surely come like fires and floods in Malibu?

          What do we want? Universal health care! When do we want it? Now!

          by cagernant on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:59:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It may be my error, but I don't equate (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chirons apprentice, Dartagnan, Matt Z

          the Democrats in Congress with all democrats.  Many of our legislators belong to the priviledged-corporate-wealthy class themselves.  The Elect, if you'll forgive the pun.  What makes corporate Democrats different from corporate Republicans?  A varying modicum of social conscience, a quality we've seen absolutely none of among elected Republicans.

          Do we all depend on corporations and the corporate milieu?  Of course.  But corporations are not a monolithic entity.  They range from mega-multinational Corporate parasites (grab your torches and pitchforks!) to mid- and small and mom-and-pop corporations mostly just making useful products and surviving as best they can.  

          That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to rein in the egregious excesses of corporations.  We do have some leverage.  They depend on us serfs, after all, for both labor and funds to loot.  For example, I've read that small and independent investors fleeing the Market are causing some alarm on the Street.  People with a clue (like me) are investing locally and moving their funds to local banks and credit unions.

          Not affiliated with or compensated, directly or indirectly, by any campaign, corporation, or special interest.

          by tovan on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:39:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  corporate feudalism (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tovan, Dartagnan, Matt Z, Prairie Gal
    •  Yeah, the top 1% against all n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

      by coral on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:58:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the classy commentary (12+ / 0-)

    Now back to calling voters.  Readers -- what are you doing this week to elect Dems?

    "So if you don't have any teeth, so what? ... Isn't that why they make applesauce?" -- GOP leader Rush Limbaugh

    by Seneca Doane on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:10:37 PM PDT

  •  There has to be more programs to help the poor (7+ / 0-)

    The poor makes $250,000.00 or more a year as you know.

    Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

    by kid funkadelic on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:10:39 PM PDT

  •  Rove looked like he was having an aneurysm on (24+ / 0-)

    Faux trying to shield his dirty firehose of Chamber money.

    You ALWAYS know you've hit pay dirt when he blows a gasket like that. He can't put a lipstick on that pig.

  •  How about Wealth Warfare? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, bablhous, tovan, Matt Z

    Those who have, want more...want it all...yea even unto your social security.

    "I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." Richard Feynman

    by leema on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:12:48 PM PDT

  •  Republican War On The Middle Class. (10+ / 0-)

    Period. They wipe us out, paves the way to savage the poor, even worse than they have.

    Vote or say hello to Rand W Bush, Sharron W Bush, Christine Witch Bush, Mitch W Bush, W Bush Boehner, and the End Of America!

    by Ky DEM on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:14:11 PM PDT

  •  It wasn't class war until the middle class (15+ / 0-)

    woke up and found they had been traded to the working classes and poor for a handful of legislators and wealthy bankers. Now that the middle class has realized what the working classes have known all along, it is probably time they started listening to us for a change. You have been voted off of the wealthy island and onto ours, we didn't invite you.

  •  Sorry, there's no way the hyper-wealthy could (13+ / 0-)

    ever engage in class welfare.  Despite their billions, they have no class.

    "Bring back pre-existing conditions. Vote Republican."

    by rontun on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:15:56 PM PDT

  •  Every opportunity I get (21+ / 0-)

    I will point out the petty misanthropy of the republican party.  They are petulant, greedy children who need to be called on their bullshit time and time again.

    Politeness and courtesy be damned.  I'm tired of the selfishness, greed and hypocrisy of these people.

    Everyone who bitches about the minimum wage should live on it for 30 days.  Give them one month's wage, at the minimum wage after taxes, to start.  The must then work 40 hours/week at minimum wage, pay rent, utilities, groceries, transportation costs and all the other incidentals that come up.  If they can get through the month easy peasy, then they can bitch.

    If not, then STFU!

    Progressive...Democrat...Proud! - me

    by TigerMom on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:20:45 PM PDT

    •  pff. Minimum wage? (0+ / 0-)

      Even on $10 or $11 an hour most of them couldn't do it.  If you move to a low-cost-of-living area, all the jobs are somewhere else and you have to drive to them.  First time your car breaks down and you don't have money saved up for repairs because you had to spend it all on gas, you're screwed.

      There was a lot of criticism of Barbara Ehrenreich that she was too whiny and unrealistic when she wrote Nickeled and Dimed.  But I saw myself in that book and I bet I'm not the only one.

  •  We get lectured by the DC Dems when we (8+ / 0-)

    use this term.

    •  You can't even use the word "capitalism" (12+ / 0-)

      without provoking accusations of being a Communist. You have to use the terms "business" or "the market" instead. "Business" is warm and fuzzy because it sounds so inclusive-- everyone involved in commerce sees himself as "in business" in some way, even if he works for a wage. "The market" is an even better word because it suggests a perfect, objective, impersonal force that is omnipotent, suprarational, and infallible in serving the public good.

      But don't use the word "capitalism." That suggests you're talking about a system of production relations that is also a system of social-political relations,that it is historically contingent, not eternal, and that it could be superseded by something else. Don't you dare to suggest that.

      Don't use the word "labor" either-- that sounds too Commie. Safer to talk about "employees."

      The section of the newspaper dealing with commerce and finance is always called the "Business News," never the "Capital and Labor News" or even the "Business and Labor News." Labor is not newsworthy except as it is engaged in something but threatens profits.

      The businessman is always a job-creator. He never kills jobs, even when he's bankrupting a competitor laying off his own workers to lower production costs. Only taxes and government regulations kill jobs.  

      •  Reality (7+ / 0-)

        In "Reality" Wall Street is a massive tumor on the American economy.
        Progressives these days are promoting sustainable capitalism.
        We shouldn't let them get away with using the word "socialism".
        The battle of words is important, it's really where
        the GOP/FOX/TEAPARTY (now referred to as the Theocrat Party), have managed to gain leverage. (Frank Luntz)
        They have their zombies programmed to react viscerally, emotionally, whenever they send out the dogwhistle. Then there's an element that isn't totally convinced, and they're pulled in by the mass emotionalism, and just at the right time, these guys will sound "reasonable" or "moderate" and that sells the deal. They're constantly vibrating between inciting the whacks and presenting a simulacrum of "common sense".

  •  And when I have tried to talk to Evangelical (17+ / 0-)

    right wing about this and helping the poor and caring for the least of these..their answer is always...

    We do that, the churches care for those in our congregation who are poor, have needs, are going through problems and more.  We just do not think it is the goverment's job. We think people should seek that help from their churches. There are always members who will take in those who are about to be homeless and we will take care of our members. If people just went to church, they would find help and God would help them.

    Well several years ago, a friend was in dire need and her church helped her a little here and there but in order to get the help, she was required to attend services every time the church doors were open and become involved. These type of far right churches do not help outsiders.

    Meanwhile our local United Church of Christ along wtih the Episocopal church sponsor food banks, free meals to ANYONE in the community, free clothing and when possible, help with housing. And they Ask for NOthing in return.  

    I have never known of a right wing Evangelical church such as the Teabaggers attend who will help non Christians or non church goer in crisis.

  •  And on another note (17+ / 0-)
    it's not warfare, they are going for the out-and-out destruction of the middle class in favor of a permanent pool of working poor - cheap, endless supply of labor.

    The republicans have systematically gone after every institution that raises the masses - manufacturing, education, healthcare, etc.  Keep them sick, dumb and struggling for work.

    They are rotten to the core.  And I make no apologies for that statement.

    Progressive...Democrat...Proud! - me

    by TigerMom on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:24:29 PM PDT

    •  They do this because they get their money (4+ / 0-)

      from corporations whose governing boards and largely rubber-stamp shareholder bodies have made the collective and eminently logical decision to influence politics to their benefit. It is the natural outgrowth of a society inherently based on capitalism, greed, and the primacy of accumulation of wealth at the expense of the society as a whole.

      There are plenty of wealthy people who have a sense of social responsibility. The overwhelming impetus behind the policies that control the Republican party is not the preservation of individual wealth so much as it is the perpetual continuation of wealth accumulation through the corporate structure.

      •  You make an excellent point (7+ / 0-)

        But I would argue that preservation of individual wealth is as important, and goes hand-in-hand, with corporate wealth accumulation.  And in those cases, it is the investor class, not the working class, that is the primary beneficiary.

        There is a philosophy/ideology that elevates investor income above wage income, as if working for a daily wage is somehow inferior to earning money through stock trades and investments.  It is an elitist attitude that denigrates the majority of Americans who get up everyday and do jobs that are meaningful, necessary and essential to our quality of life.  The waitress at my local diner provides a service more important to me than any investor on Wall Street.  But the republicans don't see it that way.

        I also agree that there are wealthy people who have a strong sense of social responsibility, but their voices, save for a few (e.g. Gates, Buffet) seem strangely silent when it comes to the issue of the wealthy having to sacrifice for the greater good.

        Progressive...Democrat...Proud! - me

        by TigerMom on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:56:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, actually, they don't need more cheap labor, (5+ / 0-)

      at least not here in the US-- even cheaper labor is always available overseas.

      The expanding ranks will be of the non-working poor, and it will be cheaper to spend more on policing, prisons, and walled compounds than trying to provide welfare services for them.

      •  I would also add to your comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous

        it will be cheaper to spend more on policing, prisons, and walled compounds than trying to provide welfare services for them

        and profitable as more correction facilities become privatized.

        Progressive...Democrat...Proud! - me

        by TigerMom on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:52:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama to home owners. Screw you. (3+ / 0-)

    "WHITE HOUSE: NO NEED FOR FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM"

    And that's the follow up to Obama covering for mortgage company fraud.

     White House Mostly Overlooked Foreclosure Fraud Concerns, Sought Banks' Help With HAMP

    Guess we know where Obama stands on the class warfare, Obama's stands with the Wall St. banks vs. home owners and working Americans.

    •  that's not right. (5+ / 0-)

      He vetoed the funky notary law.
      The bankers are doing a slowdown of their own.
      There's blame to be laid, but a complete stoppage would have unleashed a mega-backlash.
      I'm for some kind of interim solution, but nothing can get done til after the election.

      •  true enough, but foreclosures have been an (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bablhous, LadyIsland

        obvious problem for the past two terms, and little federal effort has been made to deal with it. the HAMP program, e.g., was underwhelming. The failure of cramdown is another example.

        we need more than we've seen out of the prez and Congress in this area.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:43:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well duh! Who watered down the HAMP program? (0+ / 0-)

          That was all the Republican's side.  Obama is not leading in a vacuum. You see the battle of votes senate votes happening daily.  So vote for more Democrats and make it happen!

          "A lie repeated may be accepted as fact, but the truth repeated becomes self evident." -elonifer skyhawk

          by Fireshadow on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:12:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Obama does little, literally. (0+ / 0-)

        Vetoed the notary bill but ignores the millions of fraudulent foreclosures due to..get ready...false notarizations...and then after Obama covers up the fraud...sees no reason to give homeowners relief from the fraud.  Let the foreclosures continue! Yeha...one term, here he comes.

    •  Please translate from HuffPo headline-ese (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      to English and you will find the story a bit different.

      •  Sure Translation = Obama hates homeowners. (0+ / 0-)

        Seems clear enough, Obama ignores the massive fraud perpetrated by banks and mortgage companies on homeowners and then says it sees no reason to halt the millions of illegal foreclosures Obama helped banks perpetrate.

        Obama hearts Wall St, banks, mortgage companies.

        Americans being forced out of their homes, not so much.

        In class warfare Obama sides with the rich.

  •  "warfare" implies two sides; dems have laid down (6+ / 0-)

    so long that repubs just get their way; not much "war" going on anywheres but iraq and afghanistan.

    "Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell" - Edward Abbey

    by stormserge on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:27:12 PM PDT

  •  There... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego, Catte Nappe

    ...is less of a need than ever for unskilled and semi-skilled labor these days. Most unskilled labor has been replaced by automation, and "management" and paper-pushing jobs have been replaced by better office productivity and computer systems. The kind of work a lawyer would have handed off to a secretary years ago they just do themselves.

    Certainly it's not like the rich have gotten more greedy lately, just that the dynamics have changed toward automation and outsourcing because of technological and political progress.

    But that's the tradeoff of technology. You gain productivity at the expense of those who previously did the work. Globally we all get richer collectively, but particular people lose their jobs, and it's the poor and middle class in developed countries that really take it on the chin as the rich make deals with the truly poor instead of the previous middle class.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:28:28 PM PDT

    •  "Certainly it's not like the rich have gotten (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      opinionated

      more greedy lately" Of course they have. Certainly.

      •  So... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        ...rich people of 2010 are more greedy than 1990's rich people? I doubt that. People are people.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:40:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they're scared (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Notreadytobenice

          They screwed up Wall Street so bad, they're in a panic. They're very insecure, but they can't help doing more of what caused the initial problem. They're so afraid of a collapse they want to get what they can as fast as possible, which of course makes a collapse more likely.
          We have to have a stable Wall Street, (which means real regulation) and we really need the "transaction fee" proposed by Rep. deFazio.

          •  You are personalizing this too much (0+ / 0-)

            "Wall Street" is thousands of people with differing and sometimes flatly contradictory motivations. Saying that "Wall Street" did this or that is like saying that Daily Kos wants or doesn't want something: some or many people might, but it's hard to pin the entity itself down at all.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 07:03:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Questioning that (0+ / 0-)

      If technology is such a central driver of concentration of wealth, why do so many technologically advanced nations have relatively low levels of concentration of wealth, and why do so many less technologically advanced nations have relatively high levels?

      Using CIA Gini as a measure, what, about technology and concentration of wealth, office automation and the like, would make the United States so very different from Sweden, Norway, and Austria, and put it in the neighborhood of Cameroon and Rwanda?

    •  Except that the current destruction of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous

      middle class is a matter of wages that were deliberately decoupled from productivity gains over the same period that taxes on the wealthy were slashed and union-busting tactics implemented.

      This isn't simply the work of 'gains in technology'.  This was indeed deliberate warfare by the greedy, for the greedy, upon the workers who had previously dared to share in some of the wealth.

      If you feel insulted by anything I've said, find out if it was intentional. I'll let you know if you ask.

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 07:20:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Tax the Rich." (12+ / 0-)

    That's all any Democrat has to say. And WPA is what made America great. Look at our institutions. We need a new WPA to put people back to work.

  •  There's no Class Warfare because the War is over. (8+ / 0-)

    We lost.  

    It'll stay that way until we get ordinary people having a meaningful presence in our mass media. Then we'll get around to, maybe, talking about accountability for our political and financial elites.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:30:01 PM PDT

  •  It's only class warfare when the peons fight back (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, 3goldens, JSW from WA, Matt Z, bobsc

    "Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy" Hermann Goering (NRSC?)

    by irate on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:30:04 PM PDT

  •  o/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Lady Libertine

    The 10/10/10 Earthship is lauching a few minutes late. Please stop by... WOW~ do we have some incrediblely wonderful and uplifting and thrilling stories and images and quotes to share.

    Thanks all. Catch you there!

    What did you do when you knew? boatsie

    by boatsie on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:30:42 PM PDT

  •  Perception more important than Reality... (0+ / 0-)

    The Emperor may be naked but if the peasants don't believe it, does it matter?

  •  oh, they think it's class warfare, too-- (7+ / 0-)

    but to them, it's against the rich.

    arguing with my crazy-lady teabag neighbor,
    who is without health insurance, and is one
    minor ailment away from losing her home and
    business, i've learned this:

    "if you don't continue this tax cut for the rich,
    it's class warfare, and just another step in our
    country's journey to socialism."

    imagine that.  

    •  Isn't it frustrating? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, mama jo

      I have Tea Bagger acquaintances in the same situation. They are dirt poor, living on government benefits for years, yet are terrified of "Socialism" and absolutely detest President Obama. They consider him an evil monster. Nothing I say makes any difference.

      •  frustrating, indeed. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        during the health-care debates,
        said neighbor told me about putting off
        a biopsy, because she couldn't afford it,
        and the doctor was "pretty sure" it was nothing.

        i was appalled, and told her that hopefully
        with the passage of some reform, her situation--
        and the situations of so many like her!--
        would improve.

        indignantly, she told me that even if this bill
        passed, and even if she could get coverage,
        she'd Refuse It! that's right!  she doesn't
        Want It, this socialist bull-shit!!

        [i'm thinking her opinion might have been
        swayed just a Tad by Beck, Limbaugh, and foxnews,
        which she listens to all freakin' day.]

      •  Hmmmm.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        They are....living on government benefits for years, yet are terrified of "Socialism"....

        What's wrong with this picture?
        They're scared of the very thing they're living on.  
        How odd.
        Who do you suppose put the fear of 'socialism' into their heads?

        I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

        by Lilyvt on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:24:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  WOW !!! this post nails it down hard. (4+ / 0-)

    Thank you for saying this so thoroughly, lucidly and with feeling.

    ecstatically baffled

    by el vasco on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:33:39 PM PDT

  •  The warfare metaphor doesn't resonate w/ me (3+ / 0-)

    There sure are classes as in stratification but warfare? Warfare requires two sides engaged in battle. What I see is more like indifference - compassionate indifference from Democrats generally motivated toward emergency relief and subsistence level assistance, always making sure that the haves have enough and don't slip into being have-nots, and depraved indifference from Republicans. No one seems to care about the have-mores and that indifference is costing us all way too much.

    "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy," Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins.

    by kck on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:34:26 PM PDT

    •  i think the diary point is war hasn't started.... (0+ / 0-)

      by the working class - yet.

    •  ?"Warfare requires two sides engaged in battle."? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Ezekial 23 20

      Soooooo...... air bombing a country is not warfare if nobody shoots at the sky?

      I'm sorry, you're just wrong. The systematic harvesting of the sweat and blood of the poor through legal and illegal means of financial trickery to accumulate wealth to the top 2% IS CLASS WARFARE!

      Yup.... plain and simple. Consciously or unconsciously, class warfare.

      "A lie repeated may be accepted as fact, but the truth repeated becomes self evident." -elonifer skyhawk

      by Fireshadow on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:05:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, technically... (0+ / 0-)

        Definition of WARFARE

        1. military operations between enemies : hostilities, war; also : an activity undertaken by a political unit (as a nation) to weaken or destroy another <economic warfare>
        1. struggle between competing entities : conflict

        I don't really know precisely and could be wrong, after all it is just a metaphor, right?. The bombing of a country is clearly an act of war, terrorism, an atrocity, but technically it may not be warfare since it's not a between two sides situation, it's a unilateral act of attack with intention to kill.

        I guess I don't believe there is a "systematic harvesting of the sweat and blood of the poor" (although the results may be the same) so much as a relentless pursuit of maximum accumulation and ever increasing profit with indifference to the future of the society. I'm sure there are some people who think in the terms of warfare but I don't believe that's the basis of our problem.

        It is important because if we're in a war we need to be armed, know who to fight, when to pull the trigger.

        If we simply have an imbalance of power and need to retake political and legal power then that's a lot harder and trickier.

        I do believe the warfare metaphor works well for Democratic vs. Republican parties but not for the haves vs. have-nots, not for economic imbalance, increases in poverty, and our de facto choice not to eradicate poverty in the US.

        "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy," Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins.

        by kck on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:45:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Trouble with class warfare (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ezekial 23 20

    is that we don't win.

    CLEAR Act would sell carbon shares to fuel producers and would return 75 percent of the resulting revenue in $1,100 checks to every American.

    by mrobinson on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:39:09 PM PDT

  •   The ... (0+ / 0-)
    ...term "class warfare" is rich man code for: "Shut your fucking white trash/Mexican/ Negro/Muslim mouth."

     

    I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I become a messageboard genius. Stay thirsty, my friends. -(Message from The World's Most Interesting Kossack)

    by wyvern on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:40:40 PM PDT

    •  Hmmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

      The ....term "class warfare" is rich man code for: "Shut your fucking white trash/Mexican/ Negro/Muslim mouth."

      Could also be...."Shut your fucking white trash/Mexican/ Negro/Muslim/Jewish/Women/LGBT/Anyone who isn't just like me, mouth.
      Come to think of it, that's an awful lot of 'others' who have been figuratively relegated to the 'back of life's bus', good thing those rich guys have gated communities should all the riffraff really get angry.  

      I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

      by Lilyvt on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:41:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What, after all, is class (7+ / 0-)

    What, after all, is class if it is not wealth?  And it is not too hard to draw a line between wealth and no wealth.  

    If the Democrats wanted to regain the long-term majority status that they held from the New Deal to Reagan, all they have to do is ask all American households to do a balance sheet.  They could even provide a website that helped people to do it.

    Sadly, a lot of Americans understand their debt as a monthly obligation rather than an almost permanent deduction from their assets.  And, other than home equity & retirement accounts, what assets do most Americans have?  I'd really like to know.  More than than, I'd like them to know.

    At some point in time, the white working class has to stop blaming everything on blacks, women, gays, immigrants, etc.  And I think one reason that they haven't yet is that there is no one in the country's political leadership who addresses this directly.  Whenever anyone does (e.g., Howard Dean's remarks in 2003), they are shouted down.  Books have been written (e.g., What's the Matter With Kansas?) but I am guessing that few people in the white working class read those books.  

    It's a message that has got to be delivered as forcefully and consistently as the right-wing's campaigns of bigotry and fear.

    •  Class is not only wealth, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psnyder

      but the accumulated social and political advantages from wealth that allow the holder to maintain his wealth and deny all calls to share any of it.

      •  So, it's wealth (0+ / 0-)

        So, it's wealth and all that wealth allows.  Stated another way, it comes down to wealth. Not to be a smart ass, but that's the way I see it.  Wealth is not only the essential element of class, it is the easiest to see.

        My point was that wealth could be  and should be addressed politically without resorting to vague language like "the rich" instead of actual numbers.  It would not be too hard to get a lot of Americans to take a hard look at their net worth, and to compare it with the people who describe themselves as middle class or small business persons.  

        We should add, by the way, the social and political advantages of wealth.  Like the way the senator's office calls you right back when you have a problem.

  •  It would make sense to raise taxes on the rich (7+ / 0-)

    even if we just threw the money away. The same goes for a steep increase in inheritance tax for any estate of greater than a few million dollars.

    However, with reasonable tax rates on the affluent we could use the money to have truly affordable, universal health insurance right now, just like the other industrialized nations of the world. We could have longer school years and longer school days so that our kids could compete with the rest of the world. We could have a lot of things that the rest of the industrialized world takes for granted. We just need the money to fund these things.

    We know where the money is, let's tax it.

    •  Spite as tax policy. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, VClib, coffeetalk, IPLawyer

      That's why people are suspicious of the left.

      •  You'll have to say more than that. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not seeing the spite in the comment, unless you're suggesting that a preference for policies that promote greater socioeconomic equality and that tend to mitigate the pathologies of great concentrations of power is inherently spiteful. Nietzsche might regard such policies as expressions of ressentiment, but I don't think we're under any obligation to measure ourselves according to his philosophy.

        Teabaggers are Koch suckers (not that there's anything wrong with that).

        by psnyder on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:27:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Re (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      even if we just threw the money away. The same goes for a steep increase in inheritance tax for any estate of greater than a few million dollars.

      Destroying wealth is good now? Wow.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:50:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The demonization of the inheritance tax, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ezekial 23 20

      it's Luntzian transformation into the "death tax," and the unremitting Republican push to end it altogether, are all about allowing a permanent inherited aristocracy to establish itself. That's one reason that, when Republicans control government, they drop their pretense at being "deficit hawks" and hasten to empty our treasury into the pockets of the families whom they figure they can count on to support them ever after, unto the seventh son of the seventh son. It's unAmerican, but that's of no concern to our modern, internationalized aristocracy (hey, Erik Prince: how's Abu Dhabi?).

      Teabaggers are Koch suckers (not that there's anything wrong with that).

      by psnyder on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:19:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ignorance and misperceptions (5+ / 0-)

    We recently had this LTE in our paper

    Re: "Poverty rates for kids rising -- More families showing up at shelters reflect U.S. census numbers," Wednesday news story.
    In the 1960s, Congress passed bills that began the War on Poverty, one of President Lyndon Johnson's ideas. Should not poverty be decreasing since the federal government has spent billions for almost 50 years to fight poverty?
    Or is the fact that as the central government grows larger, the level of living of citizens goes down only a coincidence? Is the saying true that the government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them?

    http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallas...

    When Johnson left office, the minimum wage was $1.30 - equivalent to $7.52 in 2009 dollars. We only began getting it back near that level a few years ago.

    In August of this year there were 3509 "cases" receiving TANF assistance in Dallas County (average monthly payment of $185). 6518 children were covered.
    http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/...

    There hasn't been a war on poverty - we surrendered years ago.

  •  New DNC Ad Targets Money...FOREIGN Money: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW

  •  The major problem is that in order to ..... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opinionated, JSW from WA, Matt Z, JeffW

    have a just society, you have to have moral leaders.  The worship of cash, moola, geld, money, is antithetical to a moral society.  It corrupts the people who have it, without having a solid understanding of their own good fortune and obligation to make society better in return.  This kind of corruption spreads rapidly through our politicians, in part because they need huge amounts to run a campaign.  The best thing we could do as a society to stop this would be public funding for national campaigns in which there would be both a limit on campaign spending and a limited time for the campaign itself (as it is congress and presidents are involved in the next campaign within a very short time of being elected!)  Outside funding of any kind should be banned.  However this will never happen and with the Supreme Court decision to essentially allow unlimited funding for political campaigns will make this country less democratic and even less of a republic than it is now.  Welcome to the Plutocracy of America!

  •  Bush Didn't Start Class Warfare. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JSW from WA, Matt Z, JeffW, kid funkadelic

    Bush just built on what Reagan started. It's been going on for thirty years. We didn't start this fire.

  •  At the risk of stating the obvious to anyone (6+ / 0-)

    with an historical knowledge, the elite disguised the class warfare in racial garb in the time of of William Jennings Bryan, a Black man in the White House only restirs that century + old simmering pot.
    They play Black off against White when the only color that matters is green (and I ain't talkin' 'bout the environment here folks).

    Pancho needs your prayers it's true, but save a few for Lefty, too. Townes van Zandt

    by DaNang65 on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 04:55:20 PM PDT

  •  Class Warfare (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    Why have the Dems done such a lousy job of educating those making less than 250,000(or whatever the number is)that voting GOP is like, gee, voting against your own interests? I may be putting my naivete on display, but I ask myself this question constantly. I JUST DON'T GET IT! HELP ME UNDERSTAND!

    •  Your question has multiple answers (5+ / 0-)

      One is that many Dems compete with the Repubs for rich donors and don't want to offend them.

      Another is that anyone who tries the type of education you suggest gets accused of trying to start class warfare. Refuting the accusation is easy in terms of marshaling facts to support the refutation, but difficult in that it requires consistently standing up to the right-wing noise machine and many so-called centrists in the Democratic Party and the media, which takes more guts than most but a few Dems have.

      •  And those who do... (0+ / 0-)

        Get targeted for electoral defeat by the big money interests.

      •  End the Class Warfare! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joedennis

        Exactly right!  And that's why we need to start begging people to stop the class warfare.

        The next time someone says - Why shouldn't the rich keep their tax cuts, are you a socialist, I think a good answer is:

        No, I'm extremely opposed to Socialism.  We've had Socialism for the Rich for too long now, and it needs to end.

        The Republicans used to hammer on welfare until the Democrats started talking about "Corporate Welfare".  That effectively neutralized their argument.

        To neutralize the Republican argument on tax cuts for the rich, we simply need to start talking about "Socialism for the Rich".

        Right now a self-employed middle-class worker pays federal tax of over 36% on $100,000 of income.  Meanwhile a wealthy investor pays a maximum of 15% in capital gains, and that's only when he sells -- if he ever does.  And it doesn't even include all of the tax evasion and shelters which actually lower that rate.

      •  Answer to my Q (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks for taking time to give me a lucid answer. Joe

    •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks for informing me and taking time to do so-Joe

  •  Right on. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Lady Libertine

    Right on.
    Nothing to add.

  •  ahhh but you forget (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Matt Z

    those leading the Parade in Punditryville,

    are no longer at war,

    they have been granted entry

    in the village, where the Truth and Facts,

    no longer matter.


    Only the illusion of those things,

    is what they must peddle --

    to remain within their shiny, bubble world.

    A world were only pro&con myth making,

    is the currency of their realm.

    The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

    by jamess on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:01:49 PM PDT

  •  Creation of another Mexico? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opinionated, JSW from WA, Matt Z

    Now there is an irony. Few at the top with more $$$ than they could spend in 10 lifetimes and the rest in poverty.

    What do we want? Universal health care! When do we want it? Now!

    by cagernant on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:02:15 PM PDT

  •  But turkana, you just don't understand. (8+ / 0-)

    The real important issues in our country aren't the economic issues.

    It's whether or not you believe that government should allow women to have abortions.

    It's whether or not you think gay people should have a right to get married.  Or be gay and in the military.

    It's about whether or not you'll allow pastors to endorse candidates from the pulpit or not.

    It's about whether or not you can carry your gun into a bar.

    It's about whether or not we should provide funding for ACORN.

    It's about whether or not Britney Spears wore underwear, and what that means about the breakdown in family values in our entertainment industry.

    Those are the real issues.

    25 days to Election Day. Sign up at OFA today.

    by Benintn on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:03:39 PM PDT

  •  It is not class warfare, plenty of poor vote GOP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JSW from WA

    Plenty of poor people are voting for Republicans.  They vote for them because they perceive the GOP as looking out for them.  They vote for them because they believe that "others" are getting all the benefits and they are left out.  They vote for them because they believe they are the hardworking ones and that the reason they aren't getting ahead is that the "others" are getting a free ride. They vote for them because they think they will someday be one of the rich.  They vote for them over abortion, because their minister tells them, over gun rights, over patriotism, over flag burning. They vote against their own economic interests, but think they are voting the opposite.  It is the failure of the Democrats and the left to demonstrate how their policies help all of the poor and middle class everyday that has lead to situation that we face in November.

    We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts. -- Senator Al Franken

    by Do Something on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:05:17 PM PDT

  •  Isn't the very definition of class warfare... (5+ / 0-)

    Tax breaks for the wealthy and doing everything possible to block help for the needy?

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:06:58 PM PDT

  •  I agree that its not class warfare (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    I know poor people with class
    and rich people with no class .

    "Vote And GOTV"&"So GOTV like mad." Kos

    by indycam on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:13:18 PM PDT

  •  You are focusing on the "class" part (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego

    Many of us have an objection to the "war" part.

    Objections to that term are not exclusively Republican - not by a long shot.

    Many of us believe that reducing us to warring labels is unproductive, leads to prejudice and needless hostility, and fails to make critical progress.

    We all support efforts of parties in conflict - such as the Israelis and the Palestinians - to get beyond the labels and the demonization, and sit down together at the table and reach a compromise that satisfies critical needs of all parties, while recognizing that competing interests make perfect solutions impossible, and that all parties need to make sacrifices for the cause of peace and cooperation.

    Why are we so much more willing to preach this when it comes to foreign nations - or, even between the US and its "enemies" - but never willing to even think about not demonizing our fellow Americans - or, even those among us who share Democratic, progressive principles and goals, but who differ on means.

    Many of us do not believe that the way forward is through war - literal or metaphorical, - but, rather through recognition of our common humanity, a search for common ground, a willingness to negotiate in good faith, a humility that we don't know all the answers and that there is more than one path to success, a recognition that in a pluralist democratic republic no one gets exactly what they want - and, above all, a commitment to find a way to live in peace, not in constant conflict with one another.

    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

    by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:22:19 PM PDT

    •  Ok, then: (0+ / 0-)

      Let's have "progressives with means" support the following:

      Support the EFCA.
      Support restoring the tax rate structure to what it was between 1932 and 1980 (the very top marginal rate under that notorious Stalinist monster, Republican president Eisenhower, was 91.5 percent. That seems about right.)
      Restore, and expand, Glass-Steagall.
      Destroy the "right-to-work" status quo in the states where that applies.

      Support all that and more, and I'll happily join hands and sing "kumbaya" until the end of time.

      The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -Bertrand Russell

      by mftalbot on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:55:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't object to the "war" part at all. (0+ / 0-)

      I'd like to see Dems actually acting like Progressives, and calling it like it is. It's a war, and we are losing.

      To discuss Republican policies that hurt the less affluent and favor those that need no favors is class warfare.

      by Diebold Hacker on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 07:20:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  'a willingness to negotiate in good faith' (0+ / 0-)

      You aren't going to get it.  I would have thought the last year and a half would have made that obvious.

      So when the other side isn't willing to negotiate in good faith, then what?

      If you feel insulted by anything I've said, find out if it was intentional. I'll let you know if you ask.

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 07:31:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That isn't required for successful peace (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        you should read some Roger Fischer and William L. Ury.

        On the contrary - successful negotiation does not assume or require goodwill on the part of the other party.

        I know Israel has used that excuse for generations to avoid negotiations with the Palestinians, but it's bullshit. And all it produces is stalemate.

        If the real purpose is genuine, measurable progress - and not just professional protest, or being "right", or finding an excuse for inaction - then one must be willing to seek the most effective - not necessarily the most satisfying - way to achieve progress.

        It's a big IF.

        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

        by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 10:09:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well done, Lawrence Lewis (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Salo, mightymouse, Matt Z, Fireshadow

    An excellent link-rich essay on an important component of the Tea Party GOP's War on America.

    And this is great snark.

    Everyone is capable of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, and don't even consider questioning the physics when there is neither a fulcrum nor a point of leverage.

    Much of life is knowing what to Google
    (and blogging at BPI Campus)

    by JanF on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:25:53 PM PDT

  •  Fuck yeaaaaaaaaa! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    Let's make sure people know the rich are picking pockets.

    and the whore of Babylon shall ride forth on a three-headed serpent, and throughout the lands, therell be a great rubbing of parts."

    by Salo on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:27:12 PM PDT

  •  Americanism (0+ / 0-)

    The GOP only give Tarleton's  quarter!

    Give then it back.  

    and the whore of Babylon shall ride forth on a three-headed serpent, and throughout the lands, therell be a great rubbing of parts."

    by Salo on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:32:46 PM PDT

  •  Who Asks The MSM To Answer This Charge? (0+ / 0-)

    It's obvious that the news media is complicit in all of this or at least incompetent in recognizing what is going on. What do they say about this? If they don't believe there is a class war going on right under their noses then how do they interpret policies that favor the affluent over the rest of Americans?

  •  Socialism for the Rich (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JSW from WA

    We need to start talking about "Socialism for the Rich".  That's the system we have right now.  Need some examples?

    - A small-business owner who makes $100,000 pays 15.3% in payroll tax and 21% in federal income tax.  That's a combined federal tax of over 36%.  

    Meanwhile, a wealthy investor who makes that same $100,000 in capital gains pays no tax at all, as long as he doesn't sell his stocks.  Even if he has a turnover of 20% in his stock portfolio, he pays 3% in federal tax.

    Middle-class federal tax = 36%
    Federal tax on wealthy investor = 3%

    Now That's Socialism for the Rich!

    - A regular employee (i.e. not self-employed) who makes $100,000 pays 7.65% in payroll tax.

    Meanwhile, a regular employee who earns $2,000,000?  Well, he pays a payroll tax of 0.4%.

    Middle-class payroll tax = 7.65%
    Payroll tax on a multi-millionaire = 0.4%

    Now That's . . . Socialism for the Rich!

  •  Change the terms (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JSW from WA

    Just two comments on this excellent piece;

    1.  In a war, both sides have some ability to fight. But honest working Americans are under economic, political and psychological siege with few media organs willing or able to tell their side.   This isn't class warfare; it's class domination.
    1.  Because "class warfare" is a phrase that gets us more enemies than allies, we do need different terminology. But not terminology that blames the victims, as Mr. Lewis points out above.

    For example, using the frame of "crime" rather than "war" might work.  A few examples:

    "This is a fight between the criminal greedy and the hard-working needy."

    "Poor crooks buy drugs. Rich crooks buy elections."

    "This legislation is another crony hit job on working Americans."

    If we cannot be free, let's at least be cheap.
    -Frank Zappa

  •  "You don't just give things to people." (0+ / 0-)

    It's not just US Senate candidates. Dan Dirkx, candidate for Iowa House Dist. 51, talking about flood relief, said:

    “The people that are the bottom of the food chain, and they’re affected in a negative way by a deluge of water, in my world, if I was at that part of the food chain that would be a good thing because there are people that have money, and people that have money would have a mess, and the people that don’t have money can clean up their mess and then the people who have money can pay the people who don’t have money and they can go buy food,” Dirkx said. “That’s the way the economy works. You don’t just give things to people.”

    Dirkx feels that less government is better, and that fits with his fundamentalist beliefs.

    “I’m a libertarian by heart,” Dirkx said. “God’s a libertarian."

    snip

    Republican Statehouse candidate Dan Dirkx Tuesday said he would “absolutely” apply his literal interpretation of the Bible to his role as a legislator.

    Dirkx' Democratic opponent is Dan Muhlbauer. ActBlue link.

  •  I got me one of them rich tax cut jobs. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    Smoke, it's what's for dinner.

    We want our pre-existing conditions back - Tea-GOP

    by 88kathy on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 05:59:43 PM PDT

  •  the Republicans are creeping me out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    with their class warfare stuff. The rhetoric has turned into pure crapola, wherein they seem to be touting a caste system for the U.S... It's not even praise of capitalism, its well, racist and something else I can't put my finger on. It's just creepy.

    Rush Limbaugh, some people were born slaves

  •  Amen! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OnlyZuul, Matt Z

    I can't believe that Dems. cower in fear when the other side acuses them of engaging in "class warfare".  They immediately back off whatever socio-economic argument they are making and completely deny that they are engaging in class warfare.

    Just for once, I would like a Dem. with real guts (like Alan Grayson) stand up to such accusations and respond with the TRUTH, something like this:

    "Class Warfare, CLASS WARFARE!  You're damn right its class warfare.  It Republicans like you and your corporate friends who declared war on the middle and lower classes over a decade ago.  You with your tricle down economic plan that never tricled down but resulted in a flood of wealth going in the other direction.  With your theories that a rising tide raises all boats, when it only raised the yauhts, while the rest of us with holes in our modest boats are bailing like hell just to try and stay afloat.

    So I accept your accusation of class warfare as the truth, and with great pride let me be the first to fire back against Republicans like you on behalf of the middle and lower classes who you've been firing on for years."

    Maybe someday, some Dem. will step and lead the charge.

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:13:53 PM PDT

  •  Of course it's class warfare! (0+ / 0-)

    There is a pie. A small percentage of wealthy people in this country own more than half of that pie, and they want to own more. Rather than take it from each other, they're trying to get more from the poor and middle class.

    The poor and middle class could try to take more of the pie from each other, but we don't have much to begin with. The wealthy, on the other hand, have plenty.

    There are different groups fighting over the pie. "Class war" is one valid way of describing it.

  •  Much crapola (0+ / 0-)

    I start from, "the widest income gap ever recorded." Since the Roman Empire? No. Since 1776? No. Since 1861? Nope. Since 1929? Afraid not. Link says, since 1967. That's some damning statistic. Not quite as brain dead as David "have you stopped beating your wife" Axelrod on today's talk shows, but getting there. When will someone among the Democrats get a clue that this kind of half-Marxist pissing irritates even the party faithful? Probably even irritates the people Lewis lumps as disadvantaged.

    Now I'm going off to reread Tocqueville and rediscover the real stratifications of US society.

    •  Widest gap in 43 years is meaningless,huh? (0+ / 0-)

      They weren't taking this data back in Roman times - or maybe you happen to remember a parchment somewhere, or an engraving on the Appian Way? (Hint, also not in 1929.)  And it's de Tocqueville to you, buddy.

      "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      by orrg1 on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:51:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the historical info (0+ / 0-)

        but I still think that 35 years isn't much of a "widest income gap ever recorded." Compared to what?

        And BTW, it is, in fact, Tocqueville, just like it's Sade, not de Sade and Lafayette, not de Lafayette, etc.

    •  Thanks for labeling your comment. (0+ / 0-)

      So that we would know it wasn't worth reading.

      If you feel insulted by anything I've said, find out if it was intentional. I'll let you know if you ask.

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 07:34:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Amen, brother (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Matt Z

    tell it like it is

    Which is good news for John McCain.

    by AppleP on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:43:30 PM PDT

  •  Terrific Stuff (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Matt Z

    This is a great essay--one of the best things I have read at Dkos in a long time. So well written. So cogent. If everyone in the media read this, the world might, just maybe, be a better place.

    Thanks.

    "Microscopes are prudent in an emergency." -- Emily Dickinson

    by godotnut on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:54:27 PM PDT

  •  Definition of class warfare, only goes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Wildthumb, Matt Z, jnhobbs

    one way--when the middle classes and poor demand fairness from the super-wealthy.

    When the super-wealthy crush the middle and lower classes, it's called moderate economic policy.

    Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

    by coral on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 06:56:13 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for a brilliant, eloquent post. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Matt Z

    I hope it gets wide circulation.

  •  This is brilliant! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Matt Z

    And I am stealing this part, thanks:

    Republican policies that hurt the less affluent and favor those that need no favors is not class warfare, but to discuss Republican policies that hurt the less affluent and favor those that need no favors is class warfare. The pundits will say so.

    To discuss Republican policies that hurt the less affluent and favor those that need no favors is class warfare.

    by Diebold Hacker on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 07:13:48 PM PDT

  •  It's REPUBLICAN WARFARE (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, hmi

    I think there are obviously rich people who are wingnuts, rich people with sincere and reasonable concerns about the government squandering their money (example, New Jersey: Christie's a user jerk, but exists because so many Democrats here have been so wasteful and so outrageously, visibly to the naked eye corrupt), and some are outright creeps.

    But I don't see any evidence that the affluent country club folks or the ultra rich are generally fans of the Tea Party, against safety net programs, etc. I think a lot of the borderline, Eisenhower Republican affluent folks are being slammed by Walmart, weak demand and difficulty with credit, and that they are just generally scared and cranky.

    To the extent that those folks are under the spell of the Republican puppetmasters, I think that's because they tend to be news radio, talk radio and TV
    news fans, and to a huge extent, the Republicans control those channels of communication. But I think, in many cases, these folks unconsciously absorb a lot of wingnut ideas while understanding consciously that the wingnuts are blowhards. They get put under an evil spell even though they understand they're watching evil sorcerors. The sorcery turns out to be more powerful than they'd imagined.  

    I think that, if Democrats were better at speaking the truth without sounding like we're spouting off talking points based on what we wish were true, or, worse, what people said in a focus group, we'd be better at prying rich people away from the fake intellectuals on the right.  We have to smart up our message, not dumb it down.    

               

  •  Hagbard Celine, on "privilege" (0+ / 0-)

    Fantastic stuff!

    http://books.google.com/...

    To discuss Republican policies that hurt the less affluent and favor those that need no favors is class warfare.

    by Diebold Hacker on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 08:00:37 PM PDT

  •  The comeback when one accuses the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    right wing of class warfare is that it is really about values and principles. Why is it if you are a working person when they bring up values and principles you do not have time to check your wallet before you run but if you are wealthy you have to buy a bigger wallet?

    Voting for a Republican is like letting the fox in the hen house and expecting to have fried chicken for Sunday dinner- John Lucas

    by Jlukes on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 08:38:54 PM PDT

  •  Capitalism and its biggest adherents INVENTED (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Matt Z

    class warfare and then blamed it on the most disadvantaged.

    That's why it pays the powers that be to keep us separated classwise, genderwise, and racially. I've waited all my life for the American people to wake up.

    Oh, make me wanna holler /And throw up both my hands--Marvin Gaye

    by Wildthumb on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 09:16:38 PM PDT

  •  "...an anticompetitive new norm..." (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Matt Z

    (From the TPM article referring to letting the tax cuts for the obscenely rich expire.)

    Uh, no, Mr Cantor.  That's actually returning to an old norm, you know, from those good old days of Reagan.  We could even do better and take it back to the 'ideal' 50s when the rate was 90-something percent.  Trust us, we'll let you know when we're thinking about a new norm.  Right now, we're just trying to get back that old America for which you and your friends say you long.  What?  Oh, you only want Ozzie and Harriet, not Eisenhower?!?  Here's a clue: Ike was real.  Ozzie and Harriet?  Not so much....

    -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

    by luckylizard on Mon Oct 11, 2010 at 01:25:44 AM PDT

  •  WOW! That was GREAT! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Matt Z
    Thank you so much for this hard-hitting, spot on essay.

    "May the Great Bird of the Galaxy bless your planet." - Lt. Hikaru Sulu; STAR TREK - "The Man Trap;" How's THAT for gays in the military?

    by waiting for lefty on Mon Oct 11, 2010 at 03:29:15 AM PDT

  •  I Gotta tell you all.... (0+ / 0-)

    I cannot WAIT until the Republicans in their insane majority this January, try and shut down the Government.  The same Baby Boomers who were out in the Streets over the Draft, are going to demonstrate when their Social Security is being held up by the single most obstructionist government I have ever seen.

  •  Well, (0+ / 0-)
    It ain't warfare until both sides are shooting.

    So it becomes class warfare when the non-millionaires shoot back.

    Corporations are people; money is speech.
    1984 - George Orwell

    by Frank Palmer on Mon Oct 11, 2010 at 09:36:17 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site