Would it be ok if...

Avatar for jbgattuso
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Would it be ok if...
125
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 8:51pm

A Republican President said this except some of the words were changed?



"U.S. economy can't afford to spend $700 billion to keep lower tax rates in place for the nation's highest earners." (President Obama)



...to something like

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 9:06pm

I would of course agree with that. I don't believe the class warfare thing is honest, fair or true or healthy. There are many many wonderful and amazing and generous wealthy people. How unfair to categorize them as being greedy and uncaring--and how untrue to claim they don't pay their fair share. Most of them pay more in a year than most will pay their entire lives. They are an extremely unappreciated class. Blame the politicians--perhaps the media as well.

The only saving grace is that I don't think everyone falls for it hook-line-and-sinker. Some surely but not all. Most people recognize the difference between fair and unfair and when they know the actual facts they don't fall for the false rhetoric.


>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2010
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 9:07pm
The ol' class warfare thang
Avatar for jbgattuso
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 9:27pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2010
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 9:42pm

Reagan was a major class warrior. He did to the poor what I think that some conservatives think that Obama does to the ultra-wealthy. In order to justify his positions on the poor, Reagan used a story about welfare queens. My husband thought it was actually about blacks, but I took it as being about the poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen

Anyway, when Reagan created his "welfare queen," it allowed him to peel off votes from the white lower and middle working classes. Whether it was right or wrong, Reagan really got the class warfare going.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26543-2004Jun8.html

Class Warrior

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A21

Ronald Reagan changed America, and -- with all due deference to his dedication to principle, his indomitable spirit, his affability -- not for the better.

Historians will argue how much credit Reagan deserves for the ratcheting down of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. By any measure he surely merits some, even if he spent the better part of his presidency ratcheting the Cold War up.

But however much Reagan helped wind down the Cold War abroad, he absolutely revived class war here at home. Slashing taxes on the rich, refusing to raise the minimum wage and declaring war on unions by firing air traffic controllers during their 1981 strike, Reagan took aim at the New Deal's proudest creation: a secure and decently paid working class. Broadly shared prosperity was out; plutocracy was dug up from the boneyard of bad ideas. The share of the nation's wealth held by the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans rose by 5 percent during Reagan's presidency, while virtually everyone else's declined.

You need look no further than the current recovery to see Reagan's lasting effect on our economy. Corporate profits have been rising handsomely for the past couple of years, at roughly a 30 percent annual rate. But over two years into the recovery, wages are limping along at roughly the rate of inflation, gaining 1 to 2 percent annually. With the percentage of American workers who belong to unions -- 12 percent overall and just 8 percent in the private sector -- having sunk to its lowest level since before FDR, is it any wonder that wages are stuck?

Roughly a quarter of American workers belonged to unions when Reagan took office. When he broke the PATCO strike, it was an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad. Reagan may have preached traditional values, but loyalty was not one of them.

In his efforts to return capitalism to its previously unlamented Hobbesian past, Reagan had plenty of company. His helpmeet Maggie Thatcher made similar changes on her side of the pond. Throughout the advanced capitalist nations, the power of workers weakened as the old industrial economies ceased to expand and global investment began to outrun the constraints of the state. But nowhere was the force of investment stronger and the force of labor weaker than in the United States. The explosion of the trade deficit, no less than the budget deficit, dates to Reagan's morning in America.

Reaganomics reflected the rise of Sunbelt capitalism -- of right-to-work-state businessmen who, unlike their Northern counterparts, had never cottoned at all to unions or regulations. From Reagan's dictum that government is the problem to Tom DeLay's equation of the Environmental Protection Agency with the Gestapo, the idea that there are higher purposes than private profit, or gainful pest extermination, has been banished from modern Republicanism. And though Reaganomics may have begun in the backwaters of American capitalism, it soon spread to Wall Street, which has rewarded our current Reaganaut, George W. Bush, with more money for his campaign than any other sector. Scrap the taxes on dividends, and that musty financial oversight, and watch finance become the political clone of the oil bidness.

By letting business be business in its pre-New Deal mold -- free to speculate and shed longtime employees -- Reagan and his acolytes not only transformed the classic Northeastern capitalists. They also drove from their ranks the Willkie-Eisenhower-Rockefeller-Nixon Republicans who were the traditional GOP's political tribunes. In this the Reaganites succeeded all too well.

Reagan didn't mean to destroy the moderate wing of Republicanism per se, or to root the party in Southern states exclusively. To be sure, his primary opponents in 1968, 1976 and 1980 -- Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, the senior Bush -- were moderates against whom he ran up big vote totals in the South. But each time Reagan selected a vice president -- in 1976 he announced he'd pick liberal Pennsylvania senator Richard Schweiker if he won the nomination; in 1980, he picked George H.W. Bush -- he went with pillars of the Northeastern GOP establishment.

By the time George W. Bush chose his fellow Houstonian Dick Cheney as his running mate, though, the Republicans had no Northeastern establishment remaining. Progressives had been banished; the socially tolerant had fled. Bush heads a party in which recent national leaders -- most certainly the trifecta of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott and Tom DeLay -- are Southern right-wingers contemptuous of the traditions of both Roosevelts and not too crazy about the civil rights revolution of the '60s, either. Today's party narrowly clings to power in every branch of government, but it refuses to govern with, or listen to, anyone outside its ever-smaller tent. The post-Reagan Republicans have now shrunk to the party of culture war as well as class war -- to the nation's general woe. >>>

No president didn't like people like me more than Reagan didn't. I didn't realize it and voted for him against Carter. By the time Reagan was done with his first term, I had serious doubts about my vote. His busting of PATCO for which two of my friends worked was my first strong hint that Reagan's motivations were strongly in favor of the ultra-wealthy and against the rest of us.

So, in your question about presidents saying about wealthy people vs. the rest of us, we've already heard a class warrior for the ultra-wealthy do the opposite.

~Opal~
~Opal~    
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2002
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 9:48pm

"...to something like

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 9:57pm

Perhaps we're in some need of revisiting the following:

The Rev. William John Henry Boetcker was a Presbyterian minister and notable public speaker who served as director of the pro-employer Citizens' Industrial Alliance, a position he held when, in 1916, he produced a booklet of nuggets from his lectures. Boetcker's collection of maxims eventually crystallized as the list of ten now-familiar entries (variously known as the Industrial Decalogue, the Ten Don'ts, the Ten Cannots, Ten Things You Cannot Do, or the "American Charter"). His axioms are:
• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
• You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
• You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
• You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
• You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
• You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
• You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2010
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 9:58pm

.....and there was a context to the snippet:



~Opal~    
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2002
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 10:05pm

Yeah, we probably just completely disagree.

Avatar for jbgattuso
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 10:07pm

"shrink the deficit -- they would have us borrow $700 billion over the next 10 years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 each to folks who are already millionaires.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Wed, 09-08-2010 - 10:10pm
Yes, I remember Reagan and the welfare queen (I paid attention, even back then).

Pages