From TigerHawk and comments from his note: The "rich" are idiots
Sunday, May 10, 2009
By TigerHawk at 5/10/2009 11:04:00 AM
tigerhawk.blogspot.com
When it comes to politics, the "rich" will sell you the votes to hang them by. Exhibit A: "Barack Obama's rich supporters fear his tax plans show he's a class warrior." What was their first clue? It is not as though he is doing anything differently than he had promised (other than using the economic crisis as a reason to accelerate federal spending to escape velocity).
I have no problem with rich people who supported Barack Obama, but those who express surprise at his class warfare political chatter and passion for the regulation of business simply were not paying attention. That is why I held my nose and voted for John McCain, whose own bashing of wealth, achievement and enterprise was obviously credit-crisis electioneering. Lesser evil and such.
If you are going to be "rich," be proud of it and only vote against your own pecuniary interests to achieve some collateral objective. You know, because you want to treat our traditional allies more respectfully or some such reason (bwahahaha!). Do not, please, be a moron and claim to be surprised when the dude's actions in office closely mirror everything he stood for his entire life up until the last five months before the general election.
Permalink/Main
6 Comments:
By SR, at Sun May 10, 12:11:00 PM:
TH: You are giving O too much credit saying he didn't stand for class warfare during the five months running up to the election. Instead he just stopped talking loudly about it, letting folks like John Edwards carry the water, hoping as you said that almost nobody would be really paying attention to anything other than razzle dazzle and styrofoam columns.
By tyree, at Sun May 10, 12:15:00 PM:
The leftist class warfare against the rich in this country has taken some strange turns. They used to organized their communities against the rich. Then they organized in discriminatory fashion against "rich Republicans". Now they seem to be organizing against rich Americans, which includes a significant number of rich Democrats. This leads to all kinds of interesting press releases. They talk about prosecuting the "employers" for illegal immigration, but they have to discriminate in the prosecution because a significant number of those employers are Hispanic.
By cubanbob, at Sun May 10, 12:24:00 PM:
They just assumed they were exempt, just like Geithner. Surprise!
By Dee, at Sun May 10, 12:43:00 PM:
What else is there left to do but point at them and laugh?
By JPMcT, at Sun May 10, 01:17:00 PM:
I like to think (perhaps erroneously) that a hefty number of the Democratic "rich" are those whose wealth was attained independent of effort.
Actors, musicians, trust fund recipients, etc. People whose acquisition of great wealth leaves them vaguely embarassed and strangely guilty. Bastions of familial wealth...the super rich...are different. They look upon the world as their own little "Pocket God" game.
So they become liberals. Suddenly, their intentions become more important than their actions (past or present). A big poultice is laid upon what is left of their conscience.
I doubt that these people will necessarily change their mind set. Obama delivering a torpedo below their waterline is EXACTLY what they were really bargaining for...like a mentally distressed woman who keeps going back to the boyfriend who beats her up.
Me....Hell, I earned every dime and will do everything I can to keep it. I hope I have some kindred spirits.
By Anonymous, at Sun May 10, 01:51:00 PM:
The "rich" are an insignificant voting block without the influence of their contributions. The "rich" don't matter to Obama anymore -- he doesn't need their money. The "rich" can't solve this by turning to the Republicans -- the Republicans have problems money won't solve. Obama wants the "rich" to complain, so he has openings to demagogue them further. The more we debate 95% vs 5%, or 36% vs. 39.4%, the better for Obama.
Obama does need the press, and they're still in his pocket -- witness last night's Washington House Correspondents Dinner. It was revealing in many ways -- a little truth in every jest, indeed. In the end, Obama found a way to give the press a sloppy French kiss, praising their efforts in difficult financial times, blah blah, blah ....
The press were a big part of Obama's getting in -- despite what should have been clear from his record. He was never pressed to apply the rigors of reason to his bullshit platitude ideas. He still hasn't been called on this, even after his proposals have finally been tied to a budget. We will now suffer the consequences, at least for a few years. Don't expect MSM to turn on Obama anytime soon, however -- they're co-opted ... think of them as members of the early Leninist party -- a hint of dissent and they'll be torn apart by the pack. Fox News is mostly irrelevant to this because -- like Rush and the Republican party -- they have no credibility outside a third of the population. Jon Stewart / Stephen Colbert are a better tell on if and when the media tide is turning.
The Republicans define themselves along lines that are no longer effective nationally. I don't expect that to change by 2010, and they may never change sufficiently. Mike Huckabee -- who I like personally -- recently asked the right question ... but gave the wrong answer: "Social conservatism" doesn't work as a national platform, I'm sorry to say. Not in a world where the white illegitimacy rate is now nearly 30%, the black rate near 70%. I used to like Sarah Palin -- but putting Bristol on the road to promote abstinence is too much of a set-up for late-night TV. Don't think I'm against social conservative values just because I say it's a losing national political platform -- much of these values are a private matter, and shouldn't be politicized in what's supposed to be a free country. Don't the religious right believe God gave us free will for a reason?
From now until 2010, blue dog Democrats matter more than the entire Republican party. It'll be interesting to see how this develops. Expect the carrot of bribes, certainly ... but it wouldn't surprise me to see Obama attack some of them personally ... it'll always be someone else who does the dirty work, of course. That's the Obama MO ...
The cleavage points in our politics need to change, but it may not happen until 2012 or even later. They'll likely develop in response to Obama's economic failures ... which may not be clear until after 2012. When it does, it'll likely be along the lines of "those who get government checks" versus "those who pay for them" ... this isn't 95% vs 5%, which is why it matters politically. Obama will make the former group larger -- it's part of his strategy -- but even Bush-Cheney made the former group larger. The "those who pay" group will achieve class consciousness when they realize that Obama's budget deficits will require redefining "rich" as $100,000, or even $70,000 ... and when the top rate is a lot more than 39.4%, once the ceiling on payroll taxes is eliminated. Eventually the young will wake up to the fact that they're being taken advantage of -- that most of them will be doomed to a lifetime as "those who pay." A few years of a no-growth economy will help this class consciousness build.
Link, over |
