Friday, February 27, 2009

Cries of Class Warfare

Having just read the AP analysis piece: Obama Plan Brings Cries of Class Warfare, it seems to me that author Tom Raum and Congressional Republicans don't actually know what the phrase "class warfare" means.

No, just becuase Obama is going to make rich people pay more does not mean it's "warfare." Nor is Obama "pitting the haves against the have nots." He's doing nothing of the kind. He's not saying "Rich people are screwing you over, so we need to take their money." He's just making people who can afford to pay more, pay more. That's not warfare. That's a sensible proposition. It's not about soaking the rich. It's about paying for what we have, without hurting people who can't afford the bite.

And ironically, it's generally Republicans who play class warfare, as they want us all hating the "lazy" poor people who we have to bail-out all the time. It's about hating people for being on welfare. It's about blaming others for being in financial trouble. That's the Republican game. And while there are Democrats who don't like rich people and think rich people are ripping us off; that's not part of Obama's argument. He's just trying to find the money required to pay for what we need.

And as usual, there's a little problem with message discipline here. It's an article about class warfare, yet it also says that Obama's tax hikes will "reach deep into the middle class." So much for class warfare, eh? It seems obvious to me that these fools are desparately reaching for any argument they can get. And for as much as they were willing to quote Obama people defending his plan, they seemed to fail to get anyone to attack the Republicans' basic premise.

3 comments:

Donald Douglas said...

Dr. Donald Associate Professor of Community College Douglas, who is a real doctor of philosophy, not a morally bankrupt nihilist anonymous airhead Texas-dragged denialist, has tracked-back to this post in a new essay at American Power.

repsac3 said...

Never confuse a college degree with wisdom, there, Professor... It's so not "regular guy." When the most popular person in your party is an out of work plumber with tax evasion issues, it's best not to pour on your "elitist cred" quite so thickly...

emismsh

Doctor Biobrain said...

Ok Donald, I actually laughed at the title you gave here. Well done.

But as a reminder, I'm not anonymous. It's a pseudonym and I've been using the same one for over six years, possibly seven (I can't remember when it started). I have a history of writing for this blog for several years, and had Yahoo not deleted their messageboards, I'd have a record going back much further. I'm far from anonymous.

I'll never understand the fascination you guys have with giving your "real" name. What difference does it make who you are in real life? The point is the substance of our writing, not the man behind the myth. Will you ever understand that? Your credentials are meaningless to me.