« previous   misc   next »

Class War or not?


By American in Japan   Follow   Sat, 1 Oct 2011, 11:50pm PDT   6,264 views   39 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

For what it's worth...

6 ways the_rich_are_waging_a_class_war_against_the_american_people/

Class-war-america-inequality-645 (rt.com)

Class war in America republicans rich (Guardian.co.uk)

“There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

~ Warren Buffett (Thanks Iwog)

Comments 1-39 of 39     Last »

elliemae   Sun, 2 Oct 2011, 12:15am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 1

They say that they want to report on the protests, but they want you to donate to help support the protests...

Do they want to report, make money off advertising, incite riots, or all of the above?

Is there a huge difference between this philosophy, and how Faux news created the tea party?

thunderlips11   Sun, 2 Oct 2011, 1:36am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 2

But there's another way of looking at “class war”: habitually vilifying the unfortunate; claiming that their plight is a manifestation of some personal flaw or cultural deficiency. Conservatives wage this form of class warfare virtually every day, consigning millions of people who are down on their luck to some subhuman underclass.

Yep. And many so-called liberals fall prey to this 'logic'.

iwog   Sun, 2 Oct 2011, 2:16am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (18)   Dislike (4)     Comment 3

“There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.

~ Warren Buffett

American in Japan   Wed, 4 Apr 2012, 4:19pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 4

And this link...

Class war America Republicans rich (Guardian.co.uk)

Meccos   Fri, 6 Apr 2012, 11:05am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)     Comment 5

Flat taxes... everybody pays the SAME percentage. Ends the issue of class warfare.

If you propose that the rich pay a higher percentage or their earnings, then you are proposing class warfare.

FortWayne   Fri, 6 Apr 2012, 11:22am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

For what it's worth there was an article a few days ago from NYTimes on the front page of patrick.net that discussed some new legislation signed by Obama. That legislation would prohibit certain protests, and create "free speech zones" making everyone else a "non free speech zone".

Sometimes it feels like we live in an episode of a twilight zone, slowly turning into some radical socialist state where electing either party makes absolutely no difference while big government takes a bigger strangle hold on us all.

Meccos   Fri, 6 Apr 2012, 11:22am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 7

The other issue of taxing "the rich" is that some use examples such as Buffet or Romney as an argument that "the rich" do not pay their "fair share". THE problem is that the increases in taxes people are proposing do not affect these guys, but the higher wage earners, who do not pay 15% in taxes, but rather close to 50% in some states like California (10% state income rate).

If you want guys like Buffet or Romney to pay more taxes.. then propose increases in capital gains...

xenogear3   Fri, 6 Apr 2012, 2:17pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 8

The war is not "Rich vs Poor"
It is really "Rich vs Wannabe Rich"

Rich people make sure that all high pay jobs are outsourced.

If everyone makes $40k-, who will buy these high margin products from these rich people's companies?
They don't care. They just want no one richer than them.

iwog   Sat, 7 Apr 2012, 1:55am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 9

Meccos says

If you want guys like Buffet or Romney to pay more taxes.. then propose increases in capital gains...

Obama has tried to increase the capital gains rate to 20%. A simple 5% increase.

Republicans would rather have a war than allow it.

I can't understand those of you who think the parties are identical. On economic and tax issues, they are black and white.

gary275   Sat, 7 Apr 2012, 2:05am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 10

Before they go on about taxing individuals why dont they close the loppholes for big companies like GE who make most of their money in the US and pay 0 % taxes. A company like Transocean is registerested in Switzerland and pays 0% taxes yet they only have a mailbox in Switzerland, all company officers are US citizens and live and work in US. Fix that first. I am appalled that they throw a smoke screen about class warfare and people bite hook line and sinker. Fix the F%$#$# corporate greed first.

Dan8267   Sat, 7 Apr 2012, 2:30am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 11

"I am not angry at rich people I am angry at the people who manipulate the system,” Kevin Smith, 51, adds to CNN. Smith’s anger, many will attest, is directed accordingly. The system in question allowed the one percent to see a near 300 percent surge in income between 1979 and 2007.

Exactly. It is the parasitic rich, not the wealth-producing rich. However, wealth producing will, at most, make you a millionaire, not a billionaire. The kind of opulence that the 0.1% experience can only be gotten by stealing from others.

Dan8267   Sat, 7 Apr 2012, 2:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 12

FortWayne says

For what it's worth there was an article a few days ago from NYTimes on the front page of patrick.net that discussed some new legislation signed by Obama. That legislation would prohibit certain protests, and create "free speech zones" making everyone else a "non free speech zone".

Agreed, this is very evil. But it's not new. The bad idea of limiting free speech to certain, restricted "zones" has been around since the 1990s and some college campuses embraced it.

Political correctness is a form of tyranny.

http://patrick.net/?p=1210956#comment-814718

Dan8267   Sat, 7 Apr 2012, 2:35am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 13

Meccos says

The other issue of taxing "the rich" is that some use examples such as Buffet or Romney as an argument that "the rich" do not pay their "fair share".

Rather than taxing the rich, I'd like to change our economic model so that the people cannot become rich by rent-seeking, zero-sum games, and other forms of parasitic behavior.

oliverks1   Sun, 8 Apr 2012, 12:58pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 14

Meccos says

Flat taxes... everybody pays the SAME percentage. Ends the issue of class warfare.

If you propose that the rich pay a higher percentage or their earnings, then you are proposing class warfare.

This seems like a nice idea, but the logic is flawed. There are problems you need to address

1) There is no such thing as a Free market (well there is, but no one wants to really live in it). As such there are distortions and some people make more money because of these distortions. For example, doctors in America get paid significantly more than doctors in other countries. Evidence suggests they are no better than doctors in other countries, but they are a politically protected class and therefore can control supply better.

2) Rent seeking is a problem. If you allow a smaller and smaller group of people to control the capital of a country, progress stalls and real earnings are lost. Britain in the early 1900's was a classic example of this. It is to the benefit of society to have some "churn" in the wealth.

3) Capitalism doesn't always price things correctly. Over the very long haul it does a decent job, but it can miss price things for decades or longer. People's worth to society often has little to do with the money they make. This dramatically impacts real peoples lives, for their entire life.

Even the ardent Flax taxers like Steve Forbes believe the poorest people (financially) should be given a break via a large personal exemption. But of course, when you do this, you no longer have a flat tax.

Oliver

Dan8267   Sun, 8 Apr 2012, 5:31pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 15

oliverks1 says

It is to the benefit of society to have some "churn" in the wealth.

As well as a churn in the wealthy.

freak80   Mon, 9 Apr 2012, 12:56am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 16

iwog says

I can't understand those of you who think the parties are identical. On economic and tax issues, they are black and white.

On taxes yes. On "free trade", no. Wasn't it Clinton that gave us NAFTA? Both parties are sending our "real" economy overseas and replacing it with a jive-finance economy.

Democrats would do better if they'd drop some of the "social issues." A lot of people in middle America won't vote for a party that stands for gay marriage, unrestricted abortion, atheism, gun restrictions, etc.

The gay marriage thing cost Kerry the election in '04.

Democrats would regain their "permanent majority" status if they were more in-touch with the middle America so many of them clearly despise.

thunderlips11   Mon, 9 Apr 2012, 1:45am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 17

wthrfrk80 says

Democrats would do better if they'd drop some of the "social issues." A lot of people in middle America won't vote for a party that stands for gay marriage, unrestricted abortion, atheism, gun restrictions, etc.

I disagree about that - right now it hurts a little, but in the long term, the pre-civil rights era people - the kind who hold their prejudices close to their heart enough to inform their voting - dwindle in number.

The trends are very good for social liberals moving forward, and very bad for the Republicans.

* College-educated but underemployed : Tend not to buy the Panglossian "Best of all possible worlds" bromides. Nobody is more skeptical about society than the Architect or Biology major who is driving a cab. There's a strong connection between pushing for reform and underemployed young people.
* The BB's are going, slowly now but much faster in the next 10-15 years.
* When the BB's go, the Culture War will probably end.
* When the BB's go, the dominant demographic will be Gen Y, who is far more tolerant than the BBs for Alt Lifestyles.
* Hispanic population gowing.

* Old Republican boogeymen like Fidel and Raoul Castro, Chavez, etc. almost certainly won't last out the decade. Public is exhausted about hearing about the Muslim threat, support for continuing intervention in the M/E is minimal, even among Republicans.

And finally, the #1 trend:
* Old people vote according to Soc Sec and Medicare above all. Given a choice between voting for war with Islamo-Fascists but having Soc Sec cut back, even most Southern Working Class Seniors, will vote to save Social Security. FDR knew his shit.

freak80   Mon, 9 Apr 2012, 2:17am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

But social conservatives have more children. Almost by definition.

thunderlips11   Mon, 9 Apr 2012, 2:30am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 19

wthrfrk80 says

But social conservatives have more children. Almost by definition.

That's true, but so do 1st gen immigrants.

freak80   Mon, 9 Apr 2012, 2:56am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 20

thunderlips11 says

That's true, but so do 1st gen immigrants.

True, and many of them are devout Catholic hispanics, right?

thunderlips11   Mon, 9 Apr 2012, 3:24am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 21

wthrfrk80 says

True, and many of them are devout Catholic hispanics, right?

True, but Catholics, esp. Latin Catholics, are generally more open to a welfare state than White Evangelicals. Both Central and South America have been trending leftwards over the past decade; one exception is Mexico, but the center-right only won by a small margin - the whole Obrador ruckus.

I can't speak for Mexican-Americans, but here in Miami, there are pages of "Aborto" ads in the local weekly ad rag, El Clarin. These are just the online ads:
http://www.elclarin.com/condomenu.htm

There's got to be scores of private (for profit, non-planned parenthood) abortion clinics in Miami, more than I've seen anywhere in the USA.

There are also tons of immigration lawyers here and anti-anti-immigration sentiment runs high. Everytime a Republican babbles about immigration control, many hispanic voters are turned off.

freak80   Mon, 9 Apr 2012, 4:27am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 22

thunderlips11 says

True, but Catholics, esp. Latin Catholics, are generally more open to a welfare state than White Evangelicals. Both Central and South America have been trending leftwards over the past decade

True. It's hard not to be for a welfare state when you're making $1/hour working in the fields.

I guess if trends continue the US will become part of Latin America. That's already happened in places like CA, TX, and FL. Economically we've been headed that way for awhile (very rich and very poor with no middle class). It started with Reagan. And the corruption is fast approaching Latin American levels.

I think we're headed for a major "shake up" in American politics and it will be interesting to see what happens. Right now, both parties are irrelevant.

thunderlips11   Mon, 9 Apr 2012, 2:19pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 23

wthrfrk80 says

I guess if trends continue the US will become part of Latin America. That's already happened in places like CA, TX, and FL. Economically we've been headed that way for awhile (very rich and very poor with no middle class). It started with Reagan. And the corruption is fast approaching Latin American levels.

I think it exceeds it. Corruption is open here, and largely legal, and thus not considered "real" corruption:

wthrfrk80 says

I think we're headed for a major "shake up" in American politics and it will be interesting to see what happens. Right now, both parties are irrelevant.

Couldn't agree more.

leo707   Tue, 10 Apr 2012, 5:49am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 24

wthrfrk80 says

I think we're headed for a major "shake up" in American politics and it will be interesting to see what happens. Right now, both parties are irrelevant.

May you live in interesting times.

Meccos   Tue, 10 Apr 2012, 8:50am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 25

oliverks1 says

1) There is no such thing as a Free market (well there is, but no one wants to really live in it). As such there are distortions and some people make more money because of these distortions. For example, doctors in America get paid significantly more than doctors in other countries. Evidence suggests they are no better than doctors in other countries, but they are a politically protected class and therefore can control supply better.

its not that simple. Doctors here make more money because they have a ton invested into their careers. FOr example, it takes 4 years undergraduate, 4 years of medical school, and 4-10 years of internship, residency and fellowship training to finally make money. This is over a decade of training, 200k dollars of school loans and over a decade of lost earning potential. If you calculate all this, they really dont make so much for people who make life and death decisions. In addition, most other country have free medical schools and sometimes the medical school is only 6 years combined with undergraduate. IN addition, you will find that doctors in these other country dont work the long hours. I see the point you are trying to make, but before you use this as an argument you have to get the facts straight.

leo707   Tue, 10 Apr 2012, 9:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 26

Meccos says

Doctors here make more money because they have a ton invested into their careers.

So, you are saying that anyone who spends a lot on school gets payed more as a result?

I know plenty of people that spent time in school getting a master/PHD racked up loans, and they don't make much money.

Time/money spent on career training has no relation to earnings in a job.

However, many people do become doctors because the time/money is worth it because doctors make more.

Honest Abe   Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 7:39am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 27

Why would any normal person feel "entitled" to someone else's property?

Envy? Entitlement? Greed? Power? Manipulation?

Sure there need's to be taxes. But with a limited, constitutional government the tax burden would be much less. With less of a tax burden, there would be little need for the libs to engage in class warfare.

Dan8267   Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 10:27am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 28

leoj707 says

Time/money spent on career training has no relation to earnings in a job.

Not entirely true. A high cost of entry in terms of time and money is a barrier to entry, which in turns drives up wages or profits. If anyone could become a doctor, they would get paid less.

Still, doctors do earn their money. Unlike health insurance providers, hospital administration, and other wasteful parts of health care.

Bellingham Bill   Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 3:09pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 29

Honest Abe says

. With less of a tax burden, there would be little need for the libs to engage in class warfare.

With the low taxes of the minarchist state, everyone would eventually have to pay immense rents to the powers that owned everything.

Conditions of the your libertopia would quickly devolve into how the 19th century was going until the Populist/Progressive movements reversed things.

'Class warfare' is excessively vague. What we have now is a dysfunctional system rife with rent-seeking in land, health care, energy, telecommunication, and any other natural monopoly that can be established.

The working people of this country are getting trillions parasitically tapped from their paychecks by the world's idle wealthy who own everything.

That's the class warfare -- people getting something for nothing -- wealth without work.

The current welfare state arrangement does distribute several hundred billion a year in aid to the hopeless lower classes, but capital siphons an order of magnitude more wealth back from the masses in return.

Much of the welfare state -- Medicare-Medicaid, Section 8, Food stamps, Big Defense, "Free" Education -- is actually just price supports for the parasitical rentiers among us.

Republicans like Honest Abe here have absolutely no solutions to the problems our economy faces. They're the ones who've driven us into the major policy mistakes of the past 30+ years. It's really quite stunning they even have the balls to comment in public, spouting off their bullshit still.

Bellingham Bill   Thu, 12 Apr 2012, 3:19pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 30

wthrfrk80 says

Democrats would regain their "permanent majority" status if they were more in-touch with the middle America so many of them clearly despise.

You can blow that bullshit right out your ass. Being on the wrong side of history is no way to run a country.

Freedom from religion, Gay rights, freedom from bigotry, womens rights, workers rights, careful, considered employment of our trillion-dollar military -- these are not things that can be sacrificed to the overly conservative 'tards of flyover country.

"Middle America" is just a convenient bullshit term for 'what I believe'. This country does tilt conservative, but that's why the Dems have to thread the conservative needle, and I think Obama does (and Clinton before him too) the right amount of pandering to the Bubbas. The rural folk are free to slit their throats by staying with the Republican caucus. No skin off my nose. But don't tell me to kowtow to their collective idiocies. I'm not throwing any fellow American under the bus for that noise.

freak80   Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 3:40am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 31

Delurking,

Thank you for making my point.

If the Democrats are going to win nationally, they'll need more than just Coastal California to do so. Insulting half of your fellow Americans is no way to gain their support. Your post show's you haven't had much social interaction beyond Santa Cruz, CA and similar social bubbles.

It's people like you that destroyed the New Deal Coalition with your social radicalism and gave us 30+ years of Republican economic policy.

marcus   Sat, 14 Apr 2012, 3:42am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 32

Delurking says

Republicans like Honest Abe here have absolutely no solutions to the problems our economy faces. They're the ones who've driven us into the major policy mistakes of the past 30+ years. It's really quite stunning they even have the balls to comment in public, spouting off their bullshit still.

Republicans of Abe's ilk neither listen to nor comprehend anything you say. (but very accurate I believe)

Either that, or he's a liberal in disguise trying to make his type of republican appear even more retarded than they are.

marcus   Sat, 14 Apr 2012, 3:48am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 33

wthrfrk80 says

It's people like you that destroyed the New Deal Coalition with your social radicalism

Troy's argument is economic, which is different but yes radical in the degree to which it questions our current economic model.

Last time our economy was as fucked up as it is now, people accepted major structural changes. It's almost as if the aristocracy has been working really hard preparing for the right thing NOT to happen this time as it did last time.

(yes, I know there was a major war in there somewhere too)

freak80   Sat, 14 Apr 2012, 12:08pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 34

marcus says

Last time our economy was as fucked up as it is now, people accepted major structural changes.

I agree that we need major structural changes. I'm not against that.

What turns off "mid America" is the social issues stuff.

I firmly believe that if the whole "gay marriage" fiasco never would have started, the Democrats would have won in 2004. Moreover, the Dems would have regained their permanent majority by now. On economic issues, it really is the 99.9% vs. the top 0.1%.

freak80   Sat, 14 Apr 2012, 12:13pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 35

thunderlips11 says

I think it exceeds it. Corruption is open here, and largely legal, and thus not considered "real" corruption:

Love that video. Thanks for sharing it!

American in Japan   Tue, 3 Jul 2012, 9:56pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

I second that!

futuresmc   Wed, 4 Jul 2012, 1:34am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 37

thunderlips11 says

And finally, the #1 trend:
* Old people vote according to Soc Sec and Medicare above all. Given a choice between voting for war with Islamo-Fascists but having Soc Sec cut back, even most Southern Working Class Seniors, will vote to save Social Security. FDR knew his shit.

The problem here is that the BB's are dying off. The Gen Y's are larger already and with their youth and health, they're all too happy to cut Soc Sec and Medicare as few of them utilize these and they believe that these programs can't be saved and will be gone by the time they get old enough to collect. My generation, Gen X is the only hope the BB's have, as if we stand with them, we can counter Gen Y for a while. On the other hand, we might hand victory to Gen Y too. We're very mercurial in that respect. It all depends on what Gen X sees as their own best interests. We hate the BB's for their treating us like dirt in our younger years, but we fear Gen Y and thier willingness to slit our throats when it suits them.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Wed, 4 Jul 2012, 2:56am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

In the end, there will be no names for demographics, except for those that denote which end the fork you're on.

Dan8267   Sun, 22 Jul 2012, 4:58am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 39

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

In the end, there will be no names for demographics, except for those that denote which end the fork you're on.

That's what I love about Apocalysefuck. He's the eternal optimist. Personally, I think the dinning set of the future is going to have two-sided forks so that both parties can fight it out.

American in Japan is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net