Skip to main content

I literally laughed out loud when I read this Google News Headline from Forbes ... allow me to recap its high low points ...

Obama Embraces Another Class-Warfare Proposal
Business in The Beltway - Forbes
Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell, -- Apr. 22 2011

[...] It appears that President Obama wants to radically change this [Social Security Cap] system so that it is based on a class-warfare model. During the 2008 campaign, for instance, then-Senator Obama suggested that the programs giant long-run deficit could be addressed by busting the wage-base cap and imposing the payroll tax on a larger amount of income.

And the President reiterated his support for a class-warfare approach earlier this week, leading the Wall Street Journal to opine.

Speaking Tuesday in Annandale, Virginia, Mr. Obama came out for lifting the cap on income on which the Social Security payroll tax is applied. Currently, the employer and employee each pay 6.2% up to $106,800, a level that rises with inflation each year. …Mr. Obama didn’t hint at specifics, though he did run in 2008 on a plan to raise the “tax max” by somewhere between two to eight percentage points for the top 3% of earners. …most of the increase could be paid by the middle class or modestly affluent  [...]

If the cap is removed entirely, it will also mean a huge increase in the marginal tax rates that affect decisions to work, invest and save. In a recent paper for the American Enterprise Institute, Andrew Biggs calculates that this and other tax increases Mr. Obama favors would bring the top marginal rate to somewhere between 57% and 68% when factoring in state taxes. Tax levels like these haven’t been seen since the 1970s. [...]

That's rich.  Increasing the Social Security Ceiling, will hurt the middle class, or so the WSJ asserted, and this Forbes Bobblehead, just repeated.  They got keep repeating this stuff, until it finally sticks ...

All numbers based on the research of Andrew Biggs, with the American Enterprise Institute -- hmmm, this should make for some fun reading ....

First off, who or what is behind the Front Group: American Enterprise Institute?

Where do their allegiances lie?


The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is an extremely influential, pro-business, conservative think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism[1], and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives.

Casting Doubt on Global Warming

In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration.


In 2006 AEI reported that its income was $28.4 million. Of this it states on its website that "individual contributions of more than $10 million provided the largest share of the revenue base, followed by $6 million in corporate support, and $4.7 million from foundations."[18]

Corporate donations

While the AEI acknowledges that it received over $6 million in corporate contributions in 2006, the donors are not identified in either its annual report or on its website. However, it is known that during 1997, Philip Morris contributed $100,000 to the Institute[19]. During 2007, ExxonMobil contributed $240,000 [...]

OK, that should tell you a lot about the AEI motives and their "pro business" agenda.

And what about this author in AEI's employ -- Andrew Biggs -- the guy attacking Obama, because Obama is "attacking the Middle Class" with all his new Tax Proposals?

Well check out Andrew Biggs' Blog -- to get an inkling of his of where he stands sits, as he keeps cranking out the "Defend the Rich" Talking Points, on a routine basis ... (I suspect the gig must pay pretty well) ...

Just Say It, Mr. President
By Andrew Biggs --
April 20, 2011

[...] Reuters reports that “Obama backs lifting income cap for Social Security,” referencing proposals to increase the $106,800 earnings cap on which Social Security taxes are applied and (although rarely mentioned) Social Security benefits are calculated. At an event on Tuesday in Annandale, Virginia, the president said:
For the vast majority of Americans, every dime you earn, you’re paying some in Social Security. But for (billionaire investor) Warren Buffett, he stops paying at a little bit over $100,000 and then the next $50 billion he’s not paying a dime in Social Security taxes.

[...] But at some point I can’t blame Congressional Republicans -- and Democrats, too, for that matter -- if they yell out, “Just say it!” Increasing the tax max would constitute a tax increase for the “middle class,” defined in the president’s terms as those with incomes less than $250,000. Everyone knows that if he wants to balance the budget without significant reductions in the programs the president cares about, he’s going to need to increase taxes on people with more modest incomes. If so, there’s no time like the present.

Mr. President, just say it.

Say What?  That the Middle Class is really the target of any plans to raise the Social Security Ceiling, to repair its long-term stability?    

Yeah right!   $250K a year, yep that's just the struggling-to-get-by average middle-of-the-road Americans!

After citing that 'Rhodes Scholar', Daniel Mitchell, "the Kettle doing the calling ..." ends his Obama 'Class Warfare' accusations, with his own sunny version of "how Job Creation" really happens in America ...

This video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, narrated by yours truly [Daniel Mitchell], elaborates on why this is the wrong approach.

[Diarist Warning: serious Conservative Talking Points given ahead, concerning how Taxing the Rich hurts "all of us who don't make make anywhere near $250,000" by creating a "sluggish economy", etc.   PS. this video appears to be making the rounds in the conservative blogosphere.]

Senator Obama's Social Security Tax Plan

Here's a sampling [Time Mark 1:40]:

Daniel Mitchell:

"Now a lot of people are already worried about the economic impact of Obama's proposal to kill the 2001 and 2003 income rate reduction. That would increase the top tax rate on 'productive behavior' by about 4.6%  points.  

Well Heck, that is small potatoes compared to a Social Security scheme which would boost the Top Tax rate by approximately 12% points. In one fell swoop America's Top Tax rate would be a French and German levels. This would be bad news -- even for all of us who don't make make anywhere near $250,000

-- high tax rates on 'investors and entrepreneurs', slow economic growth. And it's 'regular people' -- not the Donald Trumps and Warren Buffets of the world -- who lose out when the economy is 'sluggish' ..."

That was about as much "Defend the Rich" Talking Points as I could stomach from Dan J. Mitchell, with my morning coffee.  He drones on like this for another nine minutes, I presume.

Who is Dan J. Mitchell the person leading Reverse Robin Hood charge on Forbes site today, posted in my intro?

Well Heck, that would be the Dan J. Mitchell "of the Cato Institute" on loan to the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, to share his "insights" {cough} ...

Let me give you a quick refresher on WHO and what Cato represents ...


The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute states that it favors policies "that are consistent with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace." [1]
Cato was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and Charles Koch, [2] the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries known for its financing of the Tea Party and various extreme right front groups. David Koch is currently on Cato's Board of Directors. "According to the Center for Public Integrity, between 1986 and 1993 the Koch family gave eleven million dollars to the [Cato] institute.

Today, Cato has more than a hundred full-time employees, and its experts and policy papers are widely quoted and respected by the mainstream media. It describes itself as nonpartisan, and its scholars have at times been critical of both parties. It has consistently pushed for corporate tax cuts, reductions in social services, and laissez-faire environmental policies."[3]

So Cato is Koch.

And Koch is leading this "Defend the Wealthy" from Obama's Class Warfare rhetoric.

Big surprise, eh -- Koch Brothers defending their fortunes, under the guise of "protecting the Middle Class".

(you knew, I was leading to somewhere, right?  )

Knowledge is Power.  Stay informed, my friends.

You never know where this new "Class Warfare" meme might lead, as the Wealthy continue to "protect their assets".

Apparently THAT is the only Patriotic Duty they know, "Get theirs -- and Keeping it -- while the Gettin's good."  

And Pay your "Front Groups" Millions, to make it all look "legit".


Originally posted to Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 08:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement and Social Security Defenders.

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

    •  This is just another way to hit Obama... (7+ / 0-)

      He is getting it from all sides and it is time for the left to start pushing back, dirty. I am still waiting for the calvary to show up and hopefully it shows up soon because we can win this thing if enough democrats come out and hold the line. I do my part by placing signs on my lawn that says "Republicans have killed medicare and food stamps for our seniors. Ask about the Ryan Plan that just passed the House."

      I try to do my part.

      "You took a dump on the little guy..? Why? "Cause, I can." Karl Rovian bible.

      by tdslf1 on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 09:38:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Dems (and Progressives) can't unite here (11+ / 0-)

        and push back against this outrageous, and unproven
        "Protect the Rich" talking point

        -- well we might as well just cash it all in,
        and join the Tea Party.

        I'm doing what I can to draw some battle lines,
        in need of our common defense:

        Some Lines in the Sand ... that was some Speech.
        by jamess -- Apr 13, 2011

        Obama stands up for the Powerless, Citing GOP Short-sightedness and Lack of Vision   by jamess -- Apr 21, 2011

        thanks tdslf1 for the "common sense" comments

        Got Time?
        Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

        by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 09:51:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who is protecting the rich? (0+ / 0-)

          Considering among the people who are the top contributors to the Obama administration's campaign in 2008 include people associated with Goldman Sachs (#2), Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, UBS, Morgan Stanley and General Electric.

          The list of former Goldman Sachs employees holding top positions in the Obama administration includes:
          • Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, who is the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (himself the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).
          • Reuben Jeffery III, former managing partner at Goldman Sachs, who holds the post of undersecretary of state for economic, business, and agricultural affairs.
          • Neel Kashkari, former Goldman Sachs vice president, who is the assistant secretary of the treasury for financial stability, responsible for administering the TARP funds.
          • Dianna Farrell, former financial analyst at Goldman Sachs, who serves as deputy director of the National Economic Council.

          Do you truly want to characterize people who don't trust Obama and aren't ok with him being the face of any economic populist movement as being against to the cause of reining in the rich?

          Really?  You really want to go down that road?


          •  I'm just reporting on (0+ / 0-)

            what 2 guys said on Forbes and WSJ

            and the Front Groups, behind them.

            and indeed, I would like see Geithner replaced with Krugman,

            but that wasn't in the article,

            about the shallow right-wing talking points.

            Got Time?
            Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

            by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:54:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your reporting is fine. It's the inferences you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nada Lemming

              draw in your comment that I find problematic -- indeed, verging on the laughable.

              Obama's campaign is paid for by rich plutocrats.  He hires rich plutocrats for his administration.  

              So your post says people who won't "unite" are hopeless, and then follow up with a list of how Obama has "stood up to" the rich.

              And, in Lord of the Rings, Aragorn stood up to Sauron.

              Except a Nazgul donated one of the Nine Rings to him.

              And he had orcs in his employ.

              •  what do you suggest we do instead (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                throw the neighboring tribe leaders,

                into the volcano?

                I prefer voting.

                We got, what we got.

                Got Time?
                Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

                by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:12:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh but wait! You suggested that we unite behind (0+ / 0-)

                  people who have as their very best campaign contributors, people from Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs to fight a class war against PLUTOCRATS!

                  I mean, you're an intelligent guy, and this particular response of yours is pretty lame to me.  It is readily apparent, at least to me, that you don't know exactly how to react to the hypocrisy problem you failed to address when it is brought up for you.

                  No one, certainly not me, suggested throwing anyone into a volcano.

                  On the other hand, at least AFAIAC, you came within centimeters of classifying anyone who is not with the program of using a political party only slightly less filthy than the Republicans to wage a class battle in McCarthyite terms.

                  To suggest that the Democrats in general and Obama in particular are not suitable morally or ethically to lead or even follow or even be part of any economic revolt is not heresy.  And I will not be party to anybody saying it is.

                  That doesn't mean I said to burn them (Democrats or Obama) at the stake.  Or to throw them into a volcano.  At least, not until we get the actual perpetrators -- that is, the Goldman Sachs, et. al. of the world.  heh.

                  I think any successful movement would be a mass movement, and that people who are involved have some reasonable expectation of being unmarred ethically and morally by the thing we are fighting against -- that is, corruption and deep associations with corrupt organizations.

                  The world is indeed complicated.  But if you are going to engage in realpolitick with individuals who are nearly as tainted as the people you rail against, it doesn't suit simplistic side making well.  Best stick with Machiavellianism.

                  •  SO (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I'll count you out.

                    thanks for taking the time to express your concerns,
                    AndyS In Colorado.

                    when I get a chance to "throw the Goldman Sachs bums out"

                    I will.  

                    It's now on my To Do List,

                    right after Stopping Global Warming,

                    and protecting Social Security,

                    and fixing our crumbling Infrastructure.

                    Oh yeah, and stopping all the Hate and Hunger.

                    I'll get right on it, soon as I get a few moments.

                    Got Time?
                    Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

                    by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:30:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's the appearance of disingenuousness and (0+ / 0-)

                      dishonesty, "stupid".

                      I don't think anything about supporting Obama has anything whatsoever to do with class warfare or concerns about plutocracy.

                      They are different subjects entirely, and while you can try to prosecute those who don't see Obama as the head of any kind of populist movement, you will, in the long run, just be laughed at, because of the aforementioned facts.

                      You can have "fight the class war".

                      You can have "re-elect President Obama".

                      You can even have both at the same time.

                      You just can't have "Obama is the leader of the class war against plutocrats".  Because the proposition is laughable.

                      See ya.

                      •  such is the political world we live in (0+ / 0-)

                        when you find Nirvana

                        send me the address.

                        Life is full of Contradictions,
                        in my long experience.

                        Got Time?
                        Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

                        by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 03:41:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh BULLSHIT. (0+ / 0-)

                          If you want to have a leader against a thing, the leader cannot be a part of the thing being fought against.  It really isn't that hard, and this is something that people who fail blame on the people who fail to be led, again and again and again, and never learn the lesson.

                          This isn't somehow made more complicated by "our times".

                          Human nature just doesn't change because faux-pragmatists are made squicky by its exemplification.

                          If, for example, you want me to support your leader by saying that his enemies are evil, as Democrats like to do to get people to vote for President Obama, it doesn't help if that very person, who is supposedly dogged and oppressed by his dogged enemies, says those dogged enemies are wonderful Americans with marvelous ideas.

                          Similarly, populist leaders cannot be people who say what you just said.  People like you can neither lead, nor designate the leaders, nor prosecute, McCarthy style, those people you think are not sufficiently pragmatic or with you on morally and ethically devoid unity-for-the-sake-of-unity totally divorced from any kind of guiding principle whatsoever.

                          You, or at least people who advocate that position, just are out of that kind of action, entirely.  You cannot lead a movement.  You cannot even understand such a movement.  And you certainly are in no position to judge people on the standards of such a movement.

                          Because such a movement demands a certain minimal moral clarity, and those who are its adherents will at least draw a clear line at that minimum or acknowledge its existence.

                          Or people who subscribe to that philosophy.  I told you already -- if you want to wave your arms and say the world is super complicated, and any solutions to our deep seated problems are inextricable except with the utmost care, I could accept that.

                          But, uh, that person wouldn't be a POPULIST.  And that person would be a person who accepts that his or her leaders are just as morally compromised as the people being opposed.

                          Understand?  I mean, I said you were intelligent, but it seems I'm losing you at a relatively easy-to-understand point here.

                          You want populist opposition against plutocrats?

                          THEN BE A POPULIST.  And populists can't be morally tainted in the same manner to say nothing of the same degree as the people being opposed.

                          President Obama, and nearly all of the Democrats, are therefore DISQUALIFIED from leading any kind of anti-plutocratic movement.

                          It doesn't matter the reason.  It doesn't matter what you call "pragmatism".  Understand?  They have to be at least free of the specific moral problems they're fighting against or they themselves have made themselves IMPOTENT.  And then, their impotence is not the fault of the people they would have follow them.

                          To say nothing of observing people like me, who observe that essential truth.  You talk about the times we live in.  But there are timeless truths of human nature which make this evasion utterly irrelevant.  I'm not the enemy, by observing this truth.

                          Now, on the other hand, "the times we live in" is a good argument if you want to use a scalpel and a needle and not try to rouse masses of people to your cause in the first place.

                          One last thing:

                          "The times" don't change the need of people to have clear moral leaders or at least people who are clearly not on the side of the very people being fought.

                        •  And here is what I want you to do. (0+ / 0-)

                          I want you to separate the issues from the political leaders.


                          The issue itself will make the political leaders.

                          Don't be dishonest and don't try to have your cake and eat it too.  If you wish to be a Democratic Party operative, that's ok.  Because, you see, my issue is not with you.

                          My issue is with the branding.

                          The Democratic Party is in no position to brand itself as the populist savior of the people.

                          You cannot be the populist savior of the people as a party, and then have people like Ed Rendell talking about raising the SS retirement age.  You cannot have people like Barack Obama taking and not returning campaign contributions from people directly associated with Goldman Sachs.

                          They are trying to do that.

                          You are trying not only to defend it, but to make people who disagree somehow traitorous, per your original post.

                          If you cant understand why people are not with you, the lack of moral clarity of your party is why.  Pretty simple.  ANd the McCarthyism and the branding of people who are not actually Republicans will not work.

                          •  last word (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            hopeful human

                            my diary.

                            Got Time?
                            Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

                            by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 05:17:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We push the Democratic Party to Back This Kind of (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            populist position by backing both the policy and supporting politicians who speak in support of it.

                            Obama has come out strongly for this issue.  By backing him on this issue
                            we show him and others that the issue has the ability to draw voters and support that can stand against the money interests that are lining up to oppose it.

                            As far as our top political leaders they need not be perfect.

                            In fact given the current system, they almost cannot be perfect or even anywhere close to it.

                            So what can we do?

                            Support them when they support us.

                            Oppose them when they oppose us.

                            Vote for them when we think on balance they are better than the alternative.

                            In the meantime we have a number of issues that are defined by the "class warfare" theme.

                            That theme has been ruining our country for 30 years.  Obama will not be here for longer than 6 more years, but if we can turn the direction of our economy and our democracy around, battle by battle, we will have done much more than any one Presidency ever could, no matter who's in the WH.

                            We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

                            by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:14:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's always interesting on this kind of diary (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            that one of the first responses almost always seems to be someone who supposedly agrees with the concept, agrees with the principle of the policy, but feels the need to start a pie fight about the politician involved, so that the discussion devolves for the first portion of the comments away from the very concept they say they support.

                            The frequency of it is just amazing.  

                            But it gets much better once they drop off and the discussion gets back to the issue that the diarist is really focussed on.  

                            We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

                            by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 02:00:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Obama's campaign was NOT paid for (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Samer, Larsstephens, jamess, hopeful human

                primarily by "rich plutocrats." That's insulting to the millions of us struggling by in the lower five figures who gave money to  his campaign. Please peddle your unhelpful cynicism elsewhere.

                Jennifer Brunner for Governor of Ohio 2014

                by anastasia p on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 04:08:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But it was PARTIALLY paid for by rich plutocrats. (0+ / 0-)

                  And President Obama and his staff have had every opportunity to return the money from the rich plutocrats.

                  It seems axiomatic, to me, that if you wish to battle rich plutocrats, you don't take their money and you don't hire them.

                  But he did.  That is a basic fact.

                  If you're an Obama person, you are already part of Obama's social movement.

                  But let's not forget, you are trying to get other people involved, and the diarist is trying to paint those who don't want to go along, as disloyal and or traitorous.

                  He took their money.  To me, that's enough.  And, to you, that might mean I'm an asshole.

                  But it's not enough to jamess.  To him, I'm a Republican, or worse.  Because I'm frustrating "unity".

                  But let's not forget.  He took the money.

                  •  In the world we live in, anyone not taking their (0+ / 0-)

                    money does not become President.

                    Which would certainly ensure the purity of their quest.

                    It would however have led to John McCain and Sarah Palin.

                    Wonder what the budgets would look like then.

                    We'd already have ground troops in Libya.

                    But by golly, our principles would be pure.

                    We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

                    by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 02:02:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Running a class war on the part of poor people (0+ / 0-)

                  requires you don't take money from plutocrats (the "enemy", if you haven't been following).

                  If that's too hard, I don't know what could be simpler.

                  •  Interesting framing. "on behalf of poor people" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Which is what the Republicans want it to appear to be.

                    This is essentially a struggle between the "bottom" 95%, or "bottom" 98% or even "bottom" 99% against the very wealthy and very powerful who have become disproportionately more of both in the last 30 years.

                    That's not an uprising of only the poor.  It's a revolt of the "middle" 98% against the global thieving class who would rather speculate than invest (or work) and would rather rule than be governed.

                    This is not just a war about economic egalitarianism, equal opportunity and a balanced return from our economy for all segments of our society.

                    It is a war for the survival of our democracy.  

                    Pretty much like FDR described in back in 1936.  

                    I think he took money from the rich as well.  In fact I think FDR was rich himself, so you'd find him ineligible for your movement?  

                    You've gone from simple to simplistic and it serves those whose interests you say you oppose.  

                    We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

                    by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 02:12:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  The Best Horse in the Glue Factory is Still The (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Best Horse.

            Obama is far from perfect, but compared to those lined up on the other side, including those accusing him of "class warfare" he's as good as we need.

            We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

            by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:01:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You know who is going to show up next year? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Samer, jamess, Into The Woods

        All the people who got Obama elected in the first place – and they are plenty mad about the fact that there is class warfare – and the rich have nuclear weapons, while they've been given squirt guns. In a country where millions of children don't have enough to eat, anyone embracing the line that there is some sort of "warfare" against the rich — the only sector to profit and increase its wealth in this down economy — needs to be slapped into reality - maybe by helping serve some free lunches at an inner-city school.

        And people are obscenely wealthy because the virtuously "work, save and invest"? No, they're just more ruthless, dishonest and luckier than most people. Any school teacher probably works harder, and most schoolteachers barely make enough in this economy — despite being held responsible for all the ills of society — to live a moderately comfortable life, let alone to "save and invest" – sheer fantasy on the wages most of us make these days.

        And since a significant number of those who have gotten obscenely wealthy in the finance industry contribute less to society than a school teacher, they should be making LESS than that teacher.

        Jennifer Brunner for Governor of Ohio 2014

        by anastasia p on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 04:07:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  When Obama is accused (18+ / 0-)

      of class warfare by Forbes, I know Obama is doing some good things and Rs are panicking.

      Good diary, JamesS

      WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

      by TomP on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 10:05:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks TomP (9+ / 0-)

        I was thinking the same thing.

        Obama is starting to worry them.

        This may end up "costing them something".

        as well it should, after the last decade of breaks, they got.

        Got Time?
        Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

        by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 10:27:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  These people have (4+ / 0-)

          everything they could possibly want or need. Now they should spend some time in impoverished areas of the country (easy to find) serving breakfast to hungry kindergartners who didn't have dinner the night before. WITHOUT complaining about how these five-year-olds didn't have the foresight to "work, save and invest."

          Jennifer Brunner for Governor of Ohio 2014

          by anastasia p on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 04:11:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No They Don't Have Everything They Want (0+ / 0-)

            This will sound extreme, so I'll preface it with an explanation.

            In every time and in every country there are those who would rather rule than be governed.

            And in every time and in every country that desire expresses itself in new and different ways.

            This may not apply to all and it may not even be something they would recognize themselves, but this is not just a battle about income or taxes.

            It is a battle to preserve our democracy.

            These people no longer wish to be governed by any one country and certainly not by the unlearned and unsophisticated that they believe include everyone in the United States, including our Government officials (elected or appointed) except their own small class of people.

            They know this, which is why they try to trump our discussion by accusing us of being traitors ('class war' being the economic equivalent of aiding the enemy given our national identification with the American Dream".)

            They know they're in trouble.  They know they deserve to be in much more trouble than they already are and know the power to turn things around is right there at our feet if only we look down and see it.

            Which is why they are so desperate to keep us distracted and fighting amongst ourselves and frustrated into believing that things are futile.

            We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

            by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:25:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  No surprise. That's the standard break out (9+ / 0-)

    whenever anyone actually even considers fighting back.

  •  To the rich, someone who makes 250K (15+ / 0-)

    is middle class. The rest of us are low class.

    •  that is an excellent way (8+ / 0-)

      to re-frame their Class Warfare talking points.

      thx psilocynic

      Got Time?
      Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

      by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 09:33:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Power-Rich have used the upper middle class (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        including those earning $250,000 as their political cannon fodder for years.

        But I know folks who earn that and agree with me strongly when I say I can't understand why they pay the same top marginal rate as those earning $2.5 Million or $25 Million, or $250 Million per year.

        Frankly folks who can afford to spend hundreds of thousands on campaigns and for lobbying are not those earning $250,000 per year.

        The true risk comes from those who are using their concentration of wealth to concentrate more power and using that concentration of power to accumulate more wealth.

        We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

        by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:31:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well , of course it's middle class (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, fritzi56

      After all, Sean Duffy (R-lazy) can't make it on $174,000 a year, and he's so much better than us because he's conservative so stop criticizing him, peasants.

      What hope do the rest of us have?

      If bin Laden owned an oil company, [the GOP would] be wearing long beards and shooting at US troops in Afghanistan.-Geekesque

      by Dr Squid on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 02:32:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All of those think tanks (10+ / 0-)

    Are the poison that makes DC a close circuit of fecal waters. The media uses this puppets as the perfect talking points carriers in their new style of news that is to let the news present themselves.  The CATO institute represents an ideology sustained by less than 1% of the USA population but their presence on the media is constant.

  •  Projection (13+ / 0-)

    that's all the ruling class elite can do and they're using a page out of kKkarl Rove's catapult the propaganda playbook...accuse your "opponent" of what you yourself are doing, hit your opponent with their strength.

    At the Palin Wisconsin rally last week the Koch protege Breitbart was railing against this same thing..."Classwarfare is unamerican" were his words.. they know the masses are sick of their poor wealthy class victim routine. The ruling class elite also know that the masses are waking up to the fact that they've been taken to the cleaners by republicon economic policies that have led to the largest income/wealth inequality in years and that the wealthy are getting richer while the rest of us commoners suffer...and  so the wealthy ruling class is pushing back hard against it. They're afraid that the propaganda is no longer effective against their bullshit theories of trickle down's finally run headlong into the deteriorating economic reality that faces 90% of the population in this country.

    Keep using the term as the masses aren't buying  their poor overburdened wealthy ruling class bullshit they're peddling. (take a look at those republicon townhall meetings where the masses are booing individuals when they peddle their bullshit about tax cuts creating jobs)

    I love seeing these greedy entitled self absorbed people sweat...class warfare...the wealthy have been waging it for years and we the working class commoners are  suffering considerably from the results of it today...and they know we know it.

    They may have the money but we the serfs have the truth, economic reality, facts, and the numbers to prevail against them...and that's why the are so afraid of us. Good, they should fear us.

    The fact that they are working overtime and spending enormous amounts of money trying to combat this classwarfare mantra and trying desperately to coopt the term is a tell. So their reaction to class warfare is certainly enough of a reason to keep using it against them. Their propaganda is no longer working on most of the masses....and they're panicked.

    Fact...The wealthy have been and still are waging class warfare for't of, for and by the top1%...and no amount of ruling class elite bought and sponsored think tanks, op eds by rightwing hacks and news sources, will convince otherwise large majorities of the masses who are suffering considerably from the economic reality of the class warfare that the  wealthy ruling class elite have been waging on the rest of us for years.

    "When will the American teachers follow the lead of Wall Street and start making some sacrifices for the children"..Jon Stewart

    by emal on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 09:50:25 AM PDT

    •  very nice assessment and recap (7+ / 0-)

      of the deterioration of their Talking Point BS.

      Hopefully enough Americans will wake up in time,
      to put an end to their Trickle-Down Charade.

      many thx emal

      Got Time?
      Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

      by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 09:56:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  amen, brother, eom (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, jamess
    •  American Dream and Democracy = America (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess, emal

      We cherish those ideas as part of our essential identity as the British cherish the Royalty as part of their historic identity.

      By charging us with "class warfare" they are essentially saying we are attacking what makes us America.

      Instead it is us charging them with undermining those things that make us America while they attempt to continue those corrosive practices by throwing up a screen of rhetoric.  

      That's a lot like going to the Doctor's office and having him or her start giving you test results that identify a serious but treatable condition but before they can get more than a few words out, you start yelling "HEALTH WARFARE" at them.

      See how that works out.

      We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

      by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:39:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That is not Andrew's blog (8+ / 0-)

    You want the real deal you need to check out:
    Notes on Social Security Reform
    "Occasional comments on the economics and politics of Social Security policy by Andrew Biggs" with the kind of openly revealing URL:

    Prior to Bigg's gig at AEI he was a lead analyst at what was then called the Cato Project on Social Security Privatization (since renamed Project on Social Security Choice) from which he was named as a top staffer to Bush's 2001-2002 CSSS: Commission to Strengthen (i.e. privatize) Social Security. Subsequent to THAT he was appointed to a series of top posts at SSA itself culminating with a stint as Principal Deputy Commissioner (i.e. no 2) of Social Security.

    That is the story of Andrew Biggs does not start or stop with AEI, he is far more central a figure in the anti-Social Security crusade than that.

    His Notes blog allows comments but make sure you know what you are talking about, because Andrew is wicked smart and deceptively open-minded seeming, but his entire career has literally been devoted to promoting Social Security privatization. That is Biggs is not some hack, instead he is like the SS Privatization Rock Star.

    Please visit, follow or join our Group: Social Security Defenders

    by Bruce Webb on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 10:01:21 AM PDT

  •  It's only warfare when both sides shoot (5+ / 0-)

    That means that we're starting class warfare any time we shoot back.

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

    by Frank Palmer on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 10:11:49 AM PDT

    •  sounds like (0+ / 0-)

      a pretty "one-sided" fight

      -- or so they are expecting.

      Got Time?
      Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

      by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 10:25:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's premature to call it warfare. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      But it's a party that's been going on for 30 years.

      While the invite is a bit late, it would be the height of rudeness now, having finally been formally invited, to not show up.

      It won't be warfare until Ms Defarge breaks out her knitting needles.

      We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

      by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:43:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If you shout "Stop! Thief!" and point (11+ / 0-)

    at somebody else, they're less likely to ask what's in your pockets.

    Republicans do this literally every day.

    Don't let millionaires steal Social Security.

    by Leo in NJ on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 10:20:54 AM PDT

  •  They've been pulling this garbage forever (8+ / 0-)

    and the Dems have got to stop taking the bait.

    Any time we point out there is still racism in the US, we are accused of being the racists, and any time we point out the class warfare that is being waged on the middle class, we are the ones instigating the class warfare.

    And unfortunately the Dems fall for it EVERY time.  

  •  I love this: (9+ / 0-)
    In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    If the facts don't fit your needs, just buy some new facts.

    Just spitting out emails from my sanctimonious purity-castle.

    by porchdog1961 on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 11:12:16 AM PDT

  •  The rich and the elite like to think (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, emal, fritzi56, Into The Woods

    they have class.  So, since they perceive themselves to be in conflict with the people presuming to govern, they see a class war.  Moreover, if only because Obama doesn't look right, he can't be on their side and has to be on the side of the opponents.  Perceptions may be totally unrealistic, but they do count in the minds of people who are directed by superficial optics.
    Since government by the people--i.e. popular government--has long been promised, if not realized, the people who presume to govern do not perceive themselves in conflict with the persons they select and elect for specific tasks.  However, the denizens of these public offices have a somewhat different perception of what being a public official involves.  That is, the denizens of Capitol Hill and legislatures all across the land, think of themselves as being in charge, not unlike their counterparts in the private sector -- boards of directors.
    It has gone largely unnoticed that public corporations and private corporations are similar in being artificial, man-made bodies which are tasked with serving the interests of natural persons, but frequently become enmeshed in furthering the interests of their managers.  It's to prevent this perversion that we have checks and balances in the public sector.  It's to evade these checks that the public sector has turned to the cronies in the private sector to do the dirty work.

    There is a war, but it's not a matter of class.  It's a matter of a self-appointed elite resisting the will of the people who put them in positions of authority.  Corruption is rife on Capitol Hill, not because Congressmen cater to private corporations, but because they've recruited private corporations to assist in the subordination of the people.  It's the revolt of the bad stewards with which we have to contend.

    by hannah on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 11:30:06 AM PDT

    •  interesting, and well said. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hannah, fritzi56, Into The Woods
      There is a war, but it's not a matter of class.  It's a matter of a self-appointed elite resisting the will of the people who put them in positions of authority.  

      ... It's the revolt of the bad stewards with which we have to contend.

      Got Time?
      Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

      by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 11:35:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is our deeply held committment to those ideals (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hannah, jamess

      that they seek to use against us when they charge us with "class warfare".

      For real Americans, like us, who actually do care about preserving the American Dream as a reality not just rhetoric, the charge that we are playing the "class" card is intended to use that belief against by accusing us of the very thing of which they are guilty.

      The difference is we have 30 years of undeniable data that show the effects of their 'class warfare'.

      They have our so-far-ineffective attempt to roll back just a tiny bit of that impact.

      We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

      by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:54:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The attraction to class is a sprout of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Into The Woods, jamess

        envy and envy is the sprout of frustrated admiration, a failure of imitation.

        That is, a person looks at another, likes what he sees (admires) and is moved to imitate it.  Then, very likely because of an absence of talent or even misperception, imitation comes a cropper and frustration spawns resentment and wrath.  Which is why the line between adulation and antagonism is thin.

        by hannah on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 03:28:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which is why the wealthy and powerful envy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hannah, jamess

          and hate the rest of us, because we still believe in what they no longer  - tings like the American Dream, that all people are born equal,  and that certain fundamental rights can not be bought or sold.

          Admiration is based on how you measure value.

          Wealth is not the only and in fact not the best measure of value.  (Few successful cultures place it as the highest value or consider excessive attention to it a positive character trait.)

          Most people in this country know that.  We want money, we like money, it makes life better and makes life easier.

          It does not define us nor does it provide us with value as human beings.  

          The lack of fundamental American and moral values is obviously a deficiency in many of the very wealthy and very powerful in this society.

          It may well be that this is what drives them to try to take away the democratic power of the people and take away from the people what the wealthy admire most, money.

          If only they could recognize the weakness of their own value system and the strength of ours.

          They would be much more happy and our country would not have the level of conflict it does.

          We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

          by Into The Woods on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 04:36:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Everything the Republicans accuse the Democrats (5+ / 0-)

    especially Pres. Obama of doing they are either doing, have done, or are planning to do as their next move.
    Understanding the threat from the righty then can be  simple.

    Republicans = Big Dictatorial Governmet ruled by the richest few (see Michigan -  Benton Harbor; or Katherine Ferguson Park)  
    Take the opposite of what is advertized to be the motive, what is meant by their accusations and never allow their carefully crafted lies to become the frame-work for any discussions and/or counter strategies by the Democrats.

    Progressives Democrats WILL defend, just not using the tools and methods expected by the GOP against the attacks/lies set up by the Gop think tanks.
    We don't need to do it. Let's make the Gop defend their positions using OUR language - the truth

    Class warfare indeed. The real culprits should be easy to expose. MSM and/or beltway media won't do it. We have to.
    Thx jamess t'd & r'd

    •  we just can't sit back and let them get away with (3+ / 0-)


      They've gotten away with far too much already.

      Interesting Principle:

      Everything the Republicans accuse the Democrats of ...

      they are either doing, have done, or are planning to do as their next move.

      thanks Eric Nelson for the observations and comments.

      Got Time?
      Take ten, to find something else informative and fun to read. Thx.

      by jamess on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 11:52:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is pure projection... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, hopeful human

    the rich have been waging class war on everyone else for centuries.  President Obama just needs to hold firm, and this is a big winner for him and the Dems.

    "The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference." 3/28/11

    by BarackStarObama on Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 01:44:09 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site