Envy against rich, class warfare the ticket to Obama’s re-election

President Barack Obama’s class warfare speech in Kansas (here) makes clear the theme of the 2012 election for the Democratic Party, and the president: anger at those who have earned more than others. It’s an insidious strategy that both deflects the real problems of the economy — which is the deregulation of major financial institutions and their inordinate power in politics and government — and dumbs down the issue to envy against anyone the Democratic Party deems rich, which is those earning $250,000-plus a year.

The envy demagoguery was sufficient enough to make Hugo Chavez beam with pleasure. Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal has an excellent dissection of the speech (Read) The quotes from Obama’s speech include, “The free market has never been a license to take whatever you can from whomever you can,” and “Their philosophy is simple. We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”

Remember, these are quotes from a president who gobbles up campaign cash from Wall Street faster than any speeding pol out there, and who gladly signed a financial services “reform” law that guarantees business as usual with derivatives and predatory mega-interest loans to the economically vulnerable.

What President Obama, and the Democratic Party, hope to accomplish over the next year is to personalize the widespread financial insecurity by creating a “dummy” that Americans can pummel — the rich person who angry voters can place whatever face they wish.

If successful, the president and his supporters will attempt to push us even further into a society that increases middle class dependency on a government that is already facing short- and long-disaster.

This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Envy against rich, class warfare the ticket to Obama’s re-election

  1. rls says:

    … what we need is an engine that forces people to actually be productive to make money, rather than being able to make money by simply buying and selling …. i’d like to see a sales tax on all stock transactions / that would reduce speculation and increase actual long-term investment

    • Owain says:

      It’s supposed to be a free country. If this isn’t your cup of tea, stuff your money in a mattress.

      Taxes are already imposed on stock transactions (capital gains).

  2. hawg says:

    I believe before he was president, obama and his wife made a hell of a lot more money (dare I say rich) than me and mine. funny, he didn’t all that upset about it

  3. Bob Becker says:

    Sorry, Doug, but I’m with Warren Buffet on this one. He said that off course it’s class warfare. The rich started it and they’re winning.

    • Owain says:

      In what way did the rich start it? For that matter, what do you mean by ‘it’?

      • midwinter says:

        I would imagine that “the deregulation of major financial institutions and their inordinate power in politics and government” is a good place to start.

        • efialtis says:

          “the deregulation of major financial institutions”

          Only, that was accomplished by Democrats more than Republicans… so is all this “class warfare” talk more a means to an end, or is it “real”?

          Even further, by Obama’s own standard, he falls into the category of “rich”, which, according to class warfare, pits him against the “poor”…
          Regardless of what OWS has tried to ignore, Obama is part of the 1%…

          Seems disingenuous that he is all about “class warfare” when he is on, as Warren Buffet said, the “winning” side…

          Sure don’t see Obama and Buffet handing out cash in the streets…

  4. Owain says:

    The ‘rich’ deregulated nothing. Congress did that, so if you want to blame deregulation on someone, blame congress.

    I think Unions have a greater degree of inordinate power in politics and government than do ‘the rich’, and in both cases, I can think of no better argument for smaller government and vastly reduced spending. If we reduce the reward for government influence and corruption, fewer people will be tempted, and the damage will be mitegated.

    Either way, the fault lies with those in government, not the ‘rich’.

    • midwinter says:

      “The ‘rich’ deregulated nothing. Congress did that, so if you want to blame deregulation on someone, blame congress.”

      So Congress, all by its lonesome and apparently just on some kind of crazy whim decided to deregulate the banking industry over the course of the past 30 years? No one advocated for it? No one donated to their coffers in hopes that such things would happen? Members of Congress are incapable of being influenced by people with lots of money to spend on them?

      “I think Unions have a greater degree of inordinate power in politics and government than do ‘the rich’”

      The Unions in America have been in precipitous decline for half a century, partly due to a relentless attack by the right wing in America and partly because they often do bone-headed, face-palmingly stupid things. Regardless, they are a poor, emaciated shadow of themselves; to claim that they have political juice anywhere near the scale of Wall Street is simply preposterous.

      Face it: there has been a ceaseless campaign since the 1980s in America toward the deregulation all kinds of industry (and especially the banking sector) in the name of supply-side economics: let the rich get as rich as they wanna be and they’ll create jobs. I find it simply impossible to believe that hoardes of rich people complained about this while it was going on.

      Now that we have the stats—the jobs never materialized and the wealth in America went ridiculously, outrageously, disproportionately to the top earners—and now that we have watched the bankster masters of the universe drive the car off of a frakkin’ cliff, it’s time for a much needed corrective to a generation of failed economic policy.

  5. K.D. says:

    More people would comment in agreement with this post but unfortunately their houses got foreclosed and they haven’t got regular access to the web. They envy people living in houses instead of an apartment or in their RVs. If Obama is a socialist, most stock investors must be too because the markets are up 20% since he got in. If he’s everything you think he is, you’d expect Wall Street to be in a panic right now.

  6. Pingback: Lois Marie Rich, at 77, North Attleboro resident | The Dating Arts

  7. Pingback: US Must Become Rich Again to Be Respected: Trump | The Dating World News

  8. Mikeasell says:

    I fond it disingenuous to characterize Obama’s position as trying to promote envy of the rich. Clearly people are fed up with privatizing the profits of public companies down to a few individuals who avoid most taxes while socializing loses by these same companies down to the middle class (bailouts anyone?). I think that Obama is trying to capitalize on the feeling that our economic system is set up to favor some folks at the expense of others. However I see that many people, including yourself see that Obama is part of the HAVES just like Mitt, Newt, Palin, Paul etc. None of the m represent the American interests, they just exploit them to get votes. By saying that he promoting envy you sound like a republican pundit.

  9. Pingback: Exactly who is in the driver’s seat in Washington? | Dark Politricks

  10. Pingback: Gingrich as wrong as Obama on tax rate ‘most Americans’ pay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>