Posted on 01/09/2014 6:38:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If you brought back either of the Roosevelts—Teddy or Franklin—from the grave, the most astonishing thing they would find is that the “malefactors of great wealth” have become the benefactors of today’s liberalism, and Democrats have become the party of the rich. In the economic crisis of the 1930s, the rich hated FDR. Most of today’s rich love Barack Obama—so much so that Washington D.C. area airports ran out of space to handle all of the private jets flying in the well-heeled for both of his inaugurals. Forget the “limousine liberals” of the 1960s and 1970s, sending their own kids to private schools while advocating forced busing for everyone else; behold today’s burgeoning class of “Gulfstream liberals,” who jet about the globe while fretting about global warming.
What accounts for this astonishing state of affairs, and what does it mean for our politics in this age of supposed concern over economic inequality?
To be sure, labor unions (along with trial lawyers) still provide the majority of the Democratic Party’s campaign funds and organizational muscle on election day, but it is the super rich of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, combined with the super rich of Hollywood, who command the priority attention of Democratic Party leaders these days. Of the ten richest zip codes in the U.S. eight gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in the last two presidential cycles. President Obama doesn’t go to union halls to host fundraisers; he goes to posh Wall Street townhomes, the Hollywood hills, or to Tom Steyer’s house in Pacific Heights.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
making the big bucks IS an earner……geez dude….
That’s diff from just being wealthy passively….
you’re way out of your leage, you are a master conflator, not able to separate dots that need to be connected and dots that don’t…..you have little bits and pieces of info and no ability to sort thru them.
I’m bored. Bye.
So are you saying that those making big $$ in income are the job creators or not?
This world economy is very little like the economy of 1980 yet Romney/Ryan and all the followers in 2012 rehashed a bunch of simple sounding talking points from 1980, and went into fantasy land dreaming that they were working.
In 1980 China was not an industrial giant.
I’m saying you are an economic idiot, political novice, and cannot even tell the difference between “making big $$ in income” and “having wealth” - which are often two totally separate universes. And yes, many of those making a big income, but not all, are the job creators. And no, Romney did not stick with this or any other consistent message long enough or strongly enough to overcome the class warfare.
And I think you smack of some wealth envy yourself….
Idiot ! LOL
Neither one means that they are ‘job creators’ and especially not have to be US job creators just because they makes lots of $$$.
Romney Ryan cutting taxes on investments in companies in China may create a few UPS jobs delivering the products here but that certainly isn't the magic formula.
Now you could claim that when they said that tax cuts (vs tax increases) on US upper income creates jobs, but they really meant jobs in China, not necessarily jobs here, just didnt point that out, but we should of all figured that out, but then why would that appeal to us?
go back to your factory….
I just like poo-pooi-ng Kindergarten economic arguments when someone does me a favor and defends them, since TV is one way and can be frustrating when I hear them there.
Thanks for your help.
For that matter, you still have people out there who go on and on about "international bankers" and "the money power." Such rhetoric is traditionally classified as "right wing" because it is anti-Semitic, but if this isn't anti-capitalism, then what is?
Shoot, FR is full of people who think the Left is run by the "private bankers" who "own" the Federal Reserve.
As for why there is no Huey P. Long, that is simple. The rural/populist/Southern socialism of poor whites has always been regarded as "reactionary" rather than "revolutionary." The Left is even more antagonistic to rogue socialists who aren't part of the "family" (like Long, Bryan, Tilghman, Watson, and Father Coughlin) then they are "the rich." Which of course reinforces the notion that the Left is a carefully controlled front and that "real socialism" is the furthest thing from its mind. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact of history that the socialism of poor whites has often been anti-Semitic and bigoted. I wish this were just the invention of leftist historians, but unfortunately it is not. Long wasn't as bad as most white Southern politicians of the day but he was still (as they say) "a man of his time."
Come to think of it, Huey is a hero of Pat Buchanan. Maybe Pat is an advocate of "real socialism?"
NO-NO_NO, try ‘go back to your UPS job delivering products made in China by the ‘job creators’ that Romney/Ryan were going to help with tax cuts. BTW, did I tell you that medicare will be broke by the time you are 65? You can still drive that truck a few more years as China will still be creating jobs then'
LOLO
I know that wasnt their only message but picking on the dumbest ones are the most fun.
you’re a liberal populist economically….probably pro union, probably only conservative on social issues….in agreement with occupy and other envious folks…...which is your right, and my right to call you on it.
You are what you are. Your union called, your dues are late.
dude, I don’t drive a UPS truck….that’s your union calling.
And how / why / what are you so china obsessed…..I didn’t say a damned thing about china……you’re a kindergarten thinker.
Ok, but that has nothing to do with the Romney/Ryan platform. What position should conservatives have taken a year ago after the election...just go along with the class warfare crap coming out of the White House? What came out of that negotiation wasn’t all that bad all things considered. We met in the middle with less damage than what Obama’s position called for. We avoided a lot of the increases that would have affect those under $200,000 in terms of investment income.
The article overlooks a salient fact: the collapse of the Soviet Union. The death of Communism as a viable expression of the totalitarian impulse left only fascism. The “Communists” in China are now fascists — they allow vast accumulations of private wealth, provided the wealthy are politically compliant with the state — and a semblance of a free market — again provided aspects can be made unfree when it serves the interest of the state. The same applies to the Democrats here in the U.S. who have always suffered from the totalitarian impulse: they are now fascists, rather than socialists (whatever it is they call themselves — it seems listening to deBlasio in NYC that they newest word they want to corrupt as “populist”).
The trouble is, both parties have embraced crony capitalism. Remember the 2005 Energy Bill, or TARP in 2008?
It’s true that both parties have their crony capitalism issues….there is one difference: The Dems are ALL about croniysm…..as is the GOP e- but there is a strain of Tea Party, base, conservative Republicans who are totally opposed to it.
Also, the anger at TARP is over blown. It was mostly repaid back, and not near the cornyism of Solyndra or Stimulus…….direct your anger at those……..those are far far far worse than TARP, which was bad too.
White working class people, even "ethnics" and members of fading labor unions, are now perceived as reactionaries "clinging to guns and religion," and so beyond the pale of the Democrat party. This leaves the Democrats with two main constituents: socially radical rich people (or, more precisely, the children of rich people) who support multiculturalism, and poor racial minorities.
Meanwhile, white working and middle class people become Republicans by default, not because Republicans necessarily represent their interests (as I said earlier, both Democrats and Republicans are supporters of Crony Capitalism that rewards international corporations at the expense of small business), but because they have nowhere else to go.
The trouble is, it's the crony wing of the party that gets nominated for the Presidency.
Also, the anger at TARP is over blown. It was mostly repaid back, and not near the cornyism of Solyndra or Stimulus…….direct your anger at those……..those are far far far worse than TARP, which was bad too.
The Stimulus was just a logical continuation of TARP. "Too Big To Fail" was first applied to the banks and financial services sector, then naturally extended to various tanking industries.
Sad but true. The Republicans have decided that the best way to win against Democrats is to adopt their strategy: supporting crony capitalism, pandering to racial minorities, etc. The trouble is, the Democrats are much better at these games than the Republicans are because they've been at them for much longer. Why vote for a cheap imitation of something when you can get the genuine article?
LOL, others accuse me of being a libertarian the opposite.
You know why? Because I poo-poo silly ideas. That always gets you a arbitrary label
The economy has changed dramatically in the past 30 years or so yet the GOP is still getting their economic theories from Rush's first book :”They way things...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.