Shocking

It's amazing that "class warfare" is only mentioned when it involves taxing the rich and its primarily mentioned by rich commentators who have a stake in the game.

Great post Joe. Yes, that the Serious People in the Beltway are shocked to see that he meant what he said is a fascinating phenomenon. Tapper's tweets have been especially amusing in this way.

Here is the problem with using the tired old "class warfare" argument. The gulf between the have and have nots in this country has become so marked that the have nots probably WANT a little class warfare. Like I believe it was Jon Stewart said, the Republicans are now pinning their hopes on people hating that villain of all villains we all read about growing up, Robin Hood. To that I say, have at it hoss!

"Class warfare", Joe? Anyone for a "Tea Party"? Welcome to Obama-land ladies and gentlemen, where TAX and SPEND rules the day. Oh, how about another 30 billion to AIG. No Joe, the real truth is no matter how much the mega-rich have, there will never be enough money in their bank accounts to pay off the immense debt Obama is creating. Once Obama proliferates all that he can from the "top 5%", 85% of the current spending spree will fall on the backs of the middle class disguised as a "cap and trade" "tax". $500 a month for electricity in a depression anyone? Oh I am sure my esteemed liberals will say, "we will never allow the electric company to charge more to the consumer so the electric company can recapture their losses".

.
Sorry Joe, the only warfare you shall witness will be the revolt of sane Americans who knew full well what an Obama Administration would bring to our Country. You will witness these great Americans taking back our Country out of the hands of a complete imbecile.

so far, Obama has merely proposed doing what he said he'd do while campaigning. But as we saw with both the "recovery" bill, and now health care reform, he talks a good game, then punts to Congress where special interests (and "partisan" politics) define what "fulfilling his campaign promises" means.
_
In other words, Obama appears to be more concerned with filling out a checklist for his promises than actually implementing solutions. It doesn't matter if the "stimulus" bill works or not -- he got it passed and gets his check mark. It won't make any difference if what gets passed under the heading "health care reform" actually works -- Obama gets his check mark if it passes.
_
and it would appear that "cap and trade" will fall into the same category; he'll punt it to Congress, which will load it full of pointless and counter-productive provisions, and Obama will take credit for getting it "done".

Can't remember where I saw it, but after the lass press conference, some reporter noted that most of the members of the press who were asking pointed and antagonistic questions about the plan to raise taxes on those making incomes over $250,000 were themselves making far more than $250,000.
.
I think it's high time we know the salaries of the reporters and pundits who are bringing us the news. If they're reporting through a lens of what's best for their wallets -- and not the rest of us -- we need to know, or we need to find new people to ask questions for us.

Not only is Obama doing what he said he would but he is doing what people actually VOTED FOR by a large margin.

Journos/Pundit pack is shocked!

People didn't really mean it when they voted for it.

Obama didn't really mean it when he said it.

What??? They did? He did?

Hopefully, you guys will call out the big $$$ journalists who seem to be completely focused on the top 2% of earners in the country. Hey, how does the other 98% manage to live? Please, spare us the pity party for the $250,000+ earners. Most of us would love to have that problem.

Thank you, Joe!

Anyone for a "Tea Party"?
.
Are you suffering under the delusion that the government is taxing us without the consent of our duly-elected representatives? Or do you think that the Boston Tea Party was a protest against a plan that gave 95% of the colonists a tax cut?

It's really funny seeing the wingnuts talk about a tea party. Because, of course, the Burkean Tories were against the tea party. it was the progressives of the time who were seeking independence.

The most hilarious thing I heard today was the Morning Joe crew trying to assert that Americans didn't vote for President Obama's agenda, they just voted to get Bush out of office. Uhmmm Bush wasn't going to be in office anyway and John McCain claimed he wouldn't follow in Bush's footsteps. Have they forgotten that it was John McCain who proposed an across the board spending freeze? Of course they haven't, but they want to tell people what to believe and how to believe it. They just continue to kill their own credibility and its absolutely laughable. Pat Buchannan said in two weeks President Obama's approval ratings would be down in the 50s. I hope he doesn't gamble very often lol.

Joe: You just have to look back to the 2008 election to gauge the mood of the middle class: over the course of 2 years, millions of folks placed modest bets of $10, $20 or $100 on "Hope", and, *together*, were able to outspend the usual suspects who appear to control government. The American people have voted for change, and a couple of weeks of doomy, gloomy talk by the CPAC crowd is hardly going to derail a grassroots effort to improve the US Government and the economic situation of the majority of citizens.

Welcome to Obama-land ladies and gentlemen, where TAX and SPEND rules the day.
_
unfortunately, except for some minor increases in taxes on the wealthy, Obama appears to be more in the mode of GWB -- Borrow and Spend. (Obama's middle class tax cuts adds far more to the deficit than his tax increases on the wealthy.)
_
The point here is that there is nothing wrong with "tax and spend" -- that's what the government is supposed to do -- and when that happens, voters get to decide whether they are happy with how their money is being spent. But when its "borrow and spend", voters aren't paying for the programs -- they're just making the "minimum credit card payment" and getting constant increases in their credit limit.

The "class war" has already been fought. We lost. It's taken an economic meltdown to start up the battle again. The republican party has fallen on hard times now, but you have to give them credit for running a spin machine that redefined the terms of the struggle. They managed to relabel the estate tax as the "Death Tax". That sounds so unfair and scarey. By making it sound as if the government was going to step in and take away the $60,000 house, 7 year old car and $2,500 in savings that mom and dad left you when they died they were able to pass legislation that protected the real fortunes that the truly wealthy inherited. Now they see the gravy train griding to halt but they don't have the brains or leadership in Washington to mount another disinformation campaign. They have Limbaugh and Palin as their frontline now. Take no prisoners.

Take no prisoners.
_
I'm all for "class warfare", the problem is that Obama seems to be on the side of the wealthy. His ridiculously expensive Wall Street bailout benefits the wealthy far more than his minor tax increases do (about 85% of stocks is owned by the wealthiest 10%).

Not to put too fine a line on it, but President Bush bailed out AIG, Wall Street, and the Big 2.5 before President Obama ever got into office. Nice try though.

plukasiask: I agree that the bailout of Wall Street benefits the weatlhy now, but I think letting the banks fail would be far more devastating to the average American than it would be for the wealthy. We're getting hammered right now but the wealthy are going to get their turn down the road. They're losing some of their wealth and it just makes them less wealthy. For us, we're losing our homes and retirements. The tax cuts on the upper 5% expire in two years. That's a start. I also agree that the bailout is ridiculously expensive but I think the alternative would result in a prolonged depression that would be even worse for the average American. It may not work, but I believe we have to try. It's going to take time before we see any tangible results.

I think Bush and Obama have done OK in the financial sector. I'm not an expert like John McCain but when even Warren Buffet claims he doesn't understand derivatives you know how bad the problem is. The money market has essentially disappeared. No one knows how big the problem is. It is sort of like trying to pinpoint the edge of space. The paper has to be unraveled and there is hardly any paper trail. No one trusts anyone because they don't know who has the worst crap. The crap is mixed in with the good stuff, but the whole thing has been discounted to nothing. As a result, it isn't really for sale. The banks would rather leave it on their books than sell it. Because of the mark to market rules, they also have to lower their lending.
.
Who else is big enough to solve this problem but the government. The banks are getting special attention because of the role they play not because of the high moral character of the people who lead the industry. Let's hope they figure it out. There may already be a few rays of light.

So, let me get this straight. An old, angry WASP Reagan-worshiping Republican is pi$$ed off about Obama. Didn't that guy lose the election?

The GOP is caught off guard? Is that why their sham of an "alternative" to Obama's policies is essentially "NO"?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

[...] Quote for the day: [...]

sgw: at home because of weather. Saw Morning Joe for a while and what a rubbush heap it is. Mika and Rush: why is she scared? Pat and the rest: have these people had an original thought since 2000?

ottoman 88: excellent point. We should know how much the journalists op-ed types tv talking heads who criticise taxing the rich earn. Then we will see the context.

The latest from John Boehner: Taxpayer Tea Parties: Americans Speak Out Against Washington Democrats' Tax-and-Spend Agenda
.
I am appalled that GOP is co-opting Boston Tea Party after decades of supporting taxation without representation in DC.

sevenoaks07
.
Mika said CPAC was great and that's all you need to know about her. What a frikkin airhead. Definitely adopted.

donovong: That's pretty much the case in a nutshell. The republicans look at Reagan as their bright shining light. They held debates at his library and fell all over each other trying to compare themselves to him. Dubya is relying on future historians to rehabilitate his disasterous presidency. Wouldn't it be ironic if those same future historians see the Reagan years as the root of the economic collapse? Kachigian might be wondering the same thing and of course it upsets him. Nothing upsets the devout more than finding out that their god had racing stripes in his underwear too.

The new word is: Gamble...... let us if we can all use it without awaking insinuating that we belong to an inbred called national media...... Broder uses the adjective Gamble to describe Obama's budget and now every one and his illiterate mother is using it.

some say Obama is gambling

some say the budget is a gamble

but why use the term "gamble" which denotes a lack of "deliberative haste"