July 20, 2010 - By Mondoreb
BRAVE TALES of the politically-elite RULING CLASS
A few brave Tales of the Political Elite. After reading them, voters may decide it’s time for the Ruling Class to relearn who the boss is in America.
WASHINGTON, D.C.:
Where the “public servants” are the masters over everyone paying the bills.
The ruling elite are different than us: Mostly, they are more arrogantly incompetent.
Time’s almost up for many in the Ruling Class that is made up of the Political Elite and their porker hangers-on. November 2 will be here before they know it. It’s truly time for the “public servants” who populate the DC petty nobility to find out who the real bosses in American politics are. With all of the country’s challenges, it’s hard to figure just exactly how the elites stay in power when their performance has been absolutely horrible.
Examples abound almost daily.
Maybe the partying-while-the-USA-burns mentality of the President is merely a disguise for his angst at diminished power come November?
Even though Washington Elites are pampered and spoiled–with pay and perks almost double those in the private, money-making sector––they justify it to themselves in the time-honored way of Ruling Classes throughout history: they feel they deserve it, of course.
Just how do the few continue to rule the many?
One way is to fan the flames of class envy, usually a British affliction. It’s all detailed in Janet Dailey’s fine piece, American Politics has caught the British disease. See it later in this blog
There was a warning of what was to come during the election campaign with Joe the Plumber, to whom Mr Obama unwisely confided his intention to “spread the wealth around”. Americans who have risen from poverty to become qualified tradesmen or entrepreneurs generally believe that they have a right to put what wealth they produce back into their own businesses, rather than trusting governments to spread it around among those judged to be deserving.
But Joe’s warning was not heeded. Most of the constituency whose instincts were the same as his voted for Obama, and have now lived to regret it. This in itself is not especially surprising: it could simply be seen as the self-interested politics of personal survival. What is more startling is the growth in America of precisely the sort of political alignment which we have known for many years in Britain: an electoral alliance of the educated, self-consciously (or self-deceivingly, depending on your point of view) “enlightened” class with the poor, ignorant, and deprived.
America, in other words, has discovered bourgeois guilt. A country without a hereditary nobility [but with an unreasoning emotional attachment to celebrities of all kinds, even criminals.] has embraced noblesse oblige. Now, there is nothing inherently strange or perverse about people who lead successful, secure lives feeling a sense of responsibility toward those who are disadvantaged. What is peculiar in American terms is that this sentiment is taking on precisely the pseudo-aristocratic tone of disdain for the aspiring, struggling middle class that is such a familiar part of the British scene.
The American Spectator’s July/August print edition offers the following cover story, now featured at AmSpec’s website, America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution. The author, Angelo M. Codevilla, relates exactly when it was that the misadventures of the piggish political elites first became apparent to most common folk.
As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.
Make no mistake: they feel they are better than the people they supposedly serve–as do their advisers and staff, elite-educated that most are. One of the few times the One-Party Media* casts a favorable light on Republicans is when one graduates into the Ruling Class.
* – “One-Party Media” from University of San Diego School of Law Professor Maimon Schwarzschild writing at The Right Coast (via PowerLine, The One Party Media).
The folks in Arizona have been laboring to remind McCain that he represents them–not his chroniclers at the
There are Ruling Class wannabees. Former Senator Trent Lott comes to mind [Lott confirms he's a paid
Any possible shred of doubt remaining in anybody’s mind about former Senate GOP leader Trent Lott’s true allegiance have now been definitively removed: Lott is a paid
“We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them,” Lott told The
Sen. Jim DeMint, of course, is the South Carolina conservative Republican who last year formed the Senate Conservatives Fund to back precisely the kind of insurgent conservative Senate candidates most feared by the Lotts of the world.
One can almost hear Lott’s disdain for the “little people” coming through the pixelated page.
So it’s not like the Ruling Class excludes Republicans. It doesn’t. But as anyone who has had many associations with the snobby can attest, they prefer “their kind of people.”
And their kind of people are most often
Erick Erickson blogged this
This is but one reason why the clock is ticking on the GOP. The party has the 2010 and 2012 election cycle to “get it.”
What to do if they don’t?
After all, The Ancient Regime Isn’t Going Out Without a Fight. Already, there are elites trying to bypass the Electoral College. The Dems in Massachusetts are the latest to run this trick up the flag pole.
Some have speculated that the elite won’t wait until 2012–they’ll uncork an “October Surprise” in order to keep their hands on the levers of power.
Again, what to do?
For one, voters can demand of the GOP–and the Democrats, though the remaining Dems will be those mostly representing “safe” districts (a rough American equivalent to the English “rotten boroughs”)–that there is no more time to kick the can down the road for the next generation.
The next generation is now.
* No compromises while the country is burning in debt.
* Repeal the mad monster that is ObamaCare. Those who make their peace with the abomination in the interests of “governing” can and will be shown the door like the representatives they replaced.
* Campaign relentlessly against all those of the Politically-elite Ruling Class. Defeat them wherever they are found–though VDH says that the Postmodern Cultural Elite (not exactly the same thing; the Ruling Class is more of a subset) are to be pitied. Pity them better when they no longer hold power over the ones they profess to serve.
* If Republicans don’t stop the Federal Leviathan–while it still can be stopped–dead in its tracks over the next four years, their cries of “But the Democrats will win and they are worse than us” will have no meaning or truth.
Better to create a political party that truly represents the millions not represented now by the Ruling Class outside of both Republican and Democrat’s reach.
Because when you get down to it: the Ruling Class is neither Republican or Democrat. It’s about scratching the backs of their fellow Classmates–while the rest of the country continues to pay for them for doing it.
These have been a few of the TALES OF THE POLITICAL ELITES. We provide them for informational and agitprop purposes.
The Ruling Class has revealed itself for the country to see.
The only antidote is an active, engaged citizenry intent on stamping it out wherever it raises its greedy, arrogant hooves.
Come November 2, it will be well past time for voters to employ the same language that the Ruling Class has been using.
Voters don’t have much time to learn the lingo.
By Janet Daley in the UK Telegraph - Published: 9:00PM BST 17 Jul 2010
American politics has caught the British disease
Under
When David Cameron visits the United States this week, he will find a country whose national political argument has become more like our own in Britain than probably he – and certainly I – would ever have imagined. For America has learned, thanks to
They are talking a lot about this in the US now. Suddenly the phenomenon of class resentment is a live political issue. Some commentators describe it as the Democrats' "middle-class problem", which means that there has been a spectacular collapse of support for the administration among the core blue-collar voters who should constitute its base. (This terminology may be confusing: the "middle class" in the US means the skilled working, or lower middle, class. University-educated professionals are described as the "upper middle class" which, in this country, tends to mean a notch or two below titled aristocracy.)
Related Articles *
There was a warning of what was to come during the election campaign with Joe the Plumber, to whom Mr Obama unwisely confided his intention to "spread the wealth around". Americans who have risen from poverty to become qualified tradesmen or entrepreneurs generally believe that they have a right to put what wealth they produce back into their own businesses, rather than trusting governments to spread it around among those judged to be deserving.
But Joe's warning was not heeded. Most of the constituency whose instincts were the same as his voted for Obama, and have now lived to regret it. This in itself is not especially surprising: it could simply be seen as the self-interested politics of personal survival. What is more startling is the growth in America of precisely the sort of political alignment which we have known for many years in Britain: an electoral alliance of the educated, self-consciously (or self-deceivingly, depending on your point of view) "enlightened" class with the poor and deprived.
America, in other words, has discovered bourgeois guilt. A country without a hereditary nobility has embraced noblesse oblige. Now, there is nothing inherently strange or perverse about people who lead successful, secure lives feeling a sense of responsibility toward those who are disadvantaged. What is peculiar in American terms is that this sentiment is taking on precisely the pseudo-aristocratic tone of disdain for the aspiring, struggling middle class that is such a familiar part of the British scene.
Liberal politics is now – over there as much as here – a form of social snobbery. To express concern about mass immigration, or reservations about the Obama healthcare plan, is unacceptable in bien-pensant circles because this is simply not the way educated people are supposed to think. It follows that those who do think (and talk) this way are small-minded bigots, rednecks, oiks, or whatever your local code word is for "not the right sort".
The petit bourgeois virtues of thrift, ambition and self-reliance – which are essential for anyone attempting to escape from poverty under his own steam – have long been derided in Britain as tokens of a downmarket upbringing. But not long ago in America they were considered, even among the highly educated, to be the quintessential national virtues, because even well-off professionals had probably had parents or grandparents who were once penniless immigrants. Nobody dismissed "ambition" as a form of gaucherie: the opposite of having ambition was being a bum, a good-for-nothing who would waste the opportunities that the new country offered for self-improvement.
But now the British Lefties who – like so many
[NOTE: Liberals use "racist" and other demeaning labels wily-nily against all opposition in usually personal attacks. Their actions prove that they are the true racists and never hesitate to play the race card against any and all opposition. That is their only argument because they are devoid of rational, constructive ideas or proposals and must resort to tactics more commonly used in childish schoolyard verbal "Nyah! Nyah!" battles. It is a sad testimonial to the efficacy of American voters that this, class and ethnic hatred, and other destructive tactics used by the left actually motivates them.]
So the Democrats, who once represented the interests of ferociously self-respecting blue-collar America, are now seen – under their highly educated president, who wholeheartedly embraces the orthodoxy of the liberal salon – as having abandoned their traditional following. Which is precisely what Labour did here when it turned its back on what used to be called "the respectable working class" because of its embarrassing resentments and "prejudices" against welfare claimants, immigrants, and anti-social youths. Bizarrely, among people who see themselves as profoundly empathetic, there was an utter failure to understand why the spirit of benevolent understanding and tolerance did not flourish among those whose daily lives were directly affected by a mass influx of foreign workers, or local delinquency, or a welfare system that rewarded inertia.
So who will speak – both here and over there – for the aspiring, the enterprising, the law-abiding, and, perhaps most important of all in these economic times, the productive classes? Mr Cameron seems unsure whether he wishes to recapture the Thatcher constituency of C1s and C2s, or to cultivate the liberal drawing rooms with a green/overseas aid/gay marriage portfolio. He speaks warmly of the virtuous and hard-working, but his tax policies will make them pay off most of the national deficit out of their own pockets.
In the US, there is probably no going back for the Obama administration. It has definitively lost faith with the "little guy" voters who once thought of a Democratic presidency as a form of divine protection, and this president does not seem to have the ingenious flexibility of a
What is most depressing about this – apart from the injustice of it – is that the people who have been disenfranchised and disowned are the very ones on whom both countries' economic recovery depends.
The One-Party Media
July 19, 2010 Posted by Scott at 9:22 PM in Powerline
University of San Diego School of Law Professor Maimon Schwarzschild was my classmate in Mrs. Mullenbein's Temple Beth El pre-k class in
The usual disillusioned phrase is "mainstream media" or MSM. The problem, of course, is not mainstream-hood. Angrily talking about
What we have is One-Party Media: newspapers, broadcast networks, news magazines which represent the views and preoccupations of the Democratic Party and the political left, and consistently denigrate or ignore the views and preoccupations of the political right or centre-right; and which very often systematically ignore any news or information which might reflect badly on the one party, or reflect well on the policies, proposals, or values of the other. (Fox is the exception - and how it is reviled for it! - although in its actual news stories, Fox often, although not always, follows the "narrative" of the other media.) (The
This really cuts deep: It is extraordinary, and I think unprecedented, that a free press has voluntarily transformed itself into something not very different from the controlled press in an undemocratic country. But that is what has happened. There are, to be sure, alternative sources of information and commentary in the US for anyone who seeks them out. (There are often such sources in undemocratic countries as well: foreign broadcasts, "underground" or samizdat circulation, and so on.) But the mainline, and still collectively very powerful, media are overwhelmingly a One-Party media. It needs to be said plainly.
The story of the congressmen and the phantom n-word presents a case study in the phenomenon of the one-party media. But, as Maimon says: "There are innumerable examples, every day."
The left just does not tolerate any view or person who does not ape their mantra as spelled out dutifully by
To read their side of the controversy, goto http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130713285 for an article supporting their position. It’s a pretty weak argument when you look at those, like Nina Tottenberg, who made far more egregious personal comments, but are still welcome at NPR. Apparently, even more flagrantly negative comments made by Tottenberg and others about Republicans, conservatives, capitalists, and Christians are perfectly acceptable to NPR. That is because Tottenberg and those others support the liberal party mantras. Juan makes the mistake of being honest and expressing his feelings. Free speech has long been a casualty of the ruling class at NPR. Stray from saying purely positive things about liberalism, socialism, communism and now Islam and you’re apt to be fired. Say all the negative or nasty things you want against capitalism, business, Republicans, conservatives, Christianity, or even America, and you’ll get no negative comments and maybe even a pat on the back.
To read an unbiased view of the firing read, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102101474.html
A quote from that piece, “NPR officials say they have repeatedly told
Liberalism is an almost religious belief system with little basis in reason or reality. Those blind sheep who follow the “holy” rules, mantras, and ideology of the left will do so religiously even to their own obvious detriment. I recently sent an email message and request for comments to a broad spectrum of family and friends, a number of whom are far left politically from yours truly. I received a few very interesting responses, mostly predictable.
Here is that email about taxes:
Here’s something that puzzles me and I would like to hear from anyone, especially liberals, who would explain it to me.
U. S. Government figures show conclusively that an increase in marginal income tax rates always results in a decrease in income tax revenue, and conversely a decrease in income tax rates always results in an increase in income tax revenue. Since this is true, at least for the last sixty years, what are the real motives of those currently in power who constantly promote an increase in income tax rates? Do they actually want a decrease in federal tax revenue? Why are they so avidly pursuing a policy that will result in lowered tax revenue for the federal government?
HoJoII
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hi Daddy-doo,
I suppose most people, like me, think that naturally more money in taxes = more money in the coffers. Most folks would not consider that building in other factors that occur when taxes increase offsets or reduces the increase. It is a matter of people, myself included, not doing their homework because I don’t know where to look for that information. Where is it that one could locate the statistics? It is probably not simple math or even simple economics but a complex interplay of factors that provides the end results.
Love, Deb
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
October 18, 2010
Deb:
There are many sources for information on the subject available on the Internet. Just search tax rates and tax revenue, and you will find more information than you really want to know. I just researched some new information on the Cato Institute web site and found the axiom I described actually applies clear back to when the income tax was first levied in 1913. Here's a quote based on what happened in the early 1920s.
"Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants in order to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared"
That held true in more recent years with the Kennedy tax cuts, the Carter tax increases, the Reagan tax cuts, the first Bush "no new taxes" increase, the G.W. Bush tax cuts, and the Obama tax increases and threat of tax increases. In fact, business and individuals react to the threat or promise of tax rate changes even before they happen. The record of this consistent human behavior is about as consistent as anything political has ever been.
Love, Dad
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hi All:
Just a little commentary on continuing Democrat false accusations and lies. This one is about Social Security, you know, that program Democrats are constantly accusing Republicans of planning to reduce or change to the detriment of seniors. Seniors please note this fact. The only major reduction of SS benefits for seniors was put in place by Democrats under
What did they do? They removed food and fuel from the mix used to determine the COLA. I guess Democrats figured senior didn't need food or fuel. This was a direct blow to seniors dependent on SS, as food and fuel are a larger portion of senior's expenses than any other age group. This change made for an extremely false indication of the real cost of living. It resulted in most SS checks today being from $200 to $250 less than they would have been. So to use a typical Democrat strategy on them, Democrats took between $200 and $250 per month away from most seniors. And they have the gall to say Republicans will reduce SS? Get real!
Ho
Response 2 - what else would you expect from a liberal?
FACT! 85% of all debt our country has incurred in 230+ years of our existence has come not from "tax and spend liberals," but from the three presidencies of
regards ????
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Reply to Response 2 comment.
Question: What constitution are you living under? Our President is the executive branch of government and does not control our nation’s purse strings.
FACT #1: The US Constitution places all responsibility for legislating federal expenditures in the house of representatives. All any President can do is propose, Congress legislates what we spend.
FACT #2: Except for 1947-1948, Democrats controlled the house and the federal purse strings from 1945 to 1994 when the Republicans took control. Reagan‘s proposed tax cuts were approved by the House, but none of his proposed reductions in expenditures were. Federal revenue soared, but the Democrat “tax and spend” Congress spent even more of it. That’s why the national; debt soared. Reagan couldn’t do a thing about it but complains and everyone knows how the one-party press spun his reactions to that.
FACT #3: Through six of the 8 years our infamous philanderer-in-chief was in power, Republicans controlled the House and the purse strings. If indeed it was the most prosperous era for Americans, they can thank the Republican House and Senate for that.
FACT #4: Democrats took control of the house in 2007 and look at what has happened since then. Have you been smokin’ some of that Democrat weed. The records would tend to indicate that when Republicans control the House, the economy booms, and when Democrats do, well, look at us now. Obama and liberal Democrats own this financial debacle and the high unemployment. They could cause a boost to the economy, lower unemployment and probably increase federal revenue by lowering taxes, but they are far too intent on punishing those who create wealth for everyone to do anything as positive and helpful for America as that.
Oh, and about that typically liberal hate comment, “Bush the idiot.” It merely demonstrates the total inability of liberals to mount a rational argument about anything. Instead, they call names, curse, and personally denigrate others like school children on a playground. You’d think that occasionally they would be able to mount a reasonable defense of their positions, but apparently not.
Regards, Ho
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sent: Oct 18, 2010 9:31 PM
Subject: More on taxes and revenue
Hi All:
I have received a number of responses to my email about taxes and revenue. Most asked where I found the information. No one answered my why question. So here’s a little additional information.
There are many sources for information on the subject available on the Internet. Just search tax rates and tax revenue, and you will find more information than you really want to know. I just researched some new information on the Cato Institute web site and found the axiom I described actually applies clear back to when the income tax was first levied in 1913. Here's a quote based on what happened in the early 1920s.
"Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants in order to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared"
That held true in more recent years with the Kennedy tax cuts, the Carter tax increases, the Reagan tax cuts, the first Bush "no new taxes" increase, the G.W. Bush tax cuts, and the Obama tax increases and threat of tax increases. In fact, business and individuals react to the threat or promise of tax rate changes even before they happen. The record of this human behavior is about as consistent as anything political has ever been.
I still wonder what the real motives of those who increase taxes are. Those politicians certainly cannot be so stupid as to not know this reality, so what is their real goal? Use of class envy and resentment of those who have more than less successful individuals is an emotional reward that the stupid and ignorant see as gain even if, as is actually true, they suffer more than those they seek to punish. Once more it is the old, "cut off nose to spite face" attitude of so many people.
In an example of this close to home, I was involved in two law suits over computers I sold that one of my bitter associates, Dennis Schaaf, convinced customers to file against me and Hoosier 500 computers. Both were absolutely false accusations pretty much proven by my attorney with the information I gave him. Both suits were settled by arbitration where no one admitted or proved any guilt on my part. Because I had product liability insurance with a $500.00 deductible, all of my legal fees and settlement amounts were paid by my insurance. In the end, the sum total it cost me for each suit was that $500.00.
One guy, a trucker, paid his attorneys $4,400.00 to "get" me. The other, A local business owner, paid the same attorneys at least $3,000.00. Incidently, these particular attorneys from Syracuse make a pretty good living filing cases like these against all kinds of merchants. That's about all they do, file lots of small cases, use the same boilerplate for each one and rake in the cash whether their clients win. lose or draw. In both cases against me, all of the computer equipment I sold them was returned to me as part of the settlement. I cleaned both systems up and sold them as used for a total of almost $1600.00. So I ended up about $600.00 ahead.
Of course, I had to go through all the hassle of depositions and the other legal crap, but it sure cost me a whole lot less than it did those two jerks who were talked into suing me. About a year after this happened I had the great joy of telling this to the local business owner and suggesting that he thank Dennis for getting him to waste all that money. Sometimes, what goes around, comes around.
HoJoII
No comments:
Post a Comment