Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4395
Reputation: 245.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:24 pm    Post subject: Unseen Class War Could Decide Presidential Election Reply with quote

In the American election, we clearly see the Democrats pitting the rich against the poor. In one rendition, it's the 99% against the 1%. The fear is that The Rich are being set up to pick up the bill for the welfare state ... and if not them, who?

Very scarey. And impossible. The burden is too heavy.

Quote:
The Unseen Class War That Could Decide The Presidential Election

Much is said about class warfare in contemporary America, and there’s justifiable anger at the impoverishment of much of the middle and working classes. The Pew Research Center recently dubbed the 2000s a “lost decade” for middle-income earners — some 85% of Americans in that category feel it’s now more difficult to maintain their standard of living than at the beginning of the millennium, according to a Pew survey.

Blaming a disliked minority — rich business folks — has morphed into a predictable strategy for President Obama’s Democrats, stripped of incumbent success. But all the talk of “one percent” versus “the ninety nine percent” misses new splits developing within both the upper and middle classes.

There is no true solidarity among the rich since no one is yet threatening their status. The “one percent” are splitting their bets. In 2008 President Obama received more Wall Street money than any candidate in history, and he still relies on Wall Street bundlers for his sustenance. For all his class rhetoric, miscreant Wall Streeters, particularly big ones, have evaded big sanctions and the ignominy of jail time.

Obama enjoys great support from the financial interests that benefit from government debt and expansive public largesse. Well-connected people like Obama’s financial tsar on the GM bailout, Steven Rattner, who is also known as a vigorous defender of “too big to fail.”

[....]

With the patriarchate divided, the real action in the emerging class war is taking place further down the economic food chain. This inconvenient reality is largely ignored by the left, which finds the idea of anyone this side of Bain Capital supporting Romney as little more than “false consciousness.”

Obama’s core middle-class support, and that of his party, comes from what might be best described as “the clerisy,” a 21st century version of France’s pre-revolution First Estate. This includes an ever-expanding class of minders — lawyers, teachers, university professors, the media and, most particularly, the relatively well paid legions of public sector workers — who inhabit Washington, academia, large non-profits and government centers across the country.

This largely well-heeled “middle class” still adores the president, and party theoreticians see it as the Democratic Party’s new base. Gallup surveys reveal Obama does best among “professionals” such as teachers, lawyers and educators. After retirees, educators and lawyers are the two biggest sources of campaign contributions for Obama by occupation. Obama’s largest source of funds among individual organizations is the University of California, Harvard is fifth and its wannabe cousin Stanford ranks ninth.

Like teachers, much of academia and the legal bar like expanding government since the tax spigot flows in the right direction: that is, into their mouths. Like the old clerical classes, who relied on tithes and the collection bowl, many in today’s clerisy lives somewhat high on the hog; nearly one in five federal workers earn over $100,000.

Essentially, the clerisy has become a new, mass privileged class who live a safer, more secure life compared to those trapped in the harsher, less cosseted private economy. As California Polytechnic economist Michael Marlow points out, public sector workers enjoy greater job stability, and salary and benefits as much as 21% higher than of private sector employees doing similar work.

On this year’s Labor Day, this is the new face of unionism. The percentage of private-sector workers in unions has dropped from 24% in 1973 to barely 7% today and in 2010, for the first time, the public sector accounted for an absolute majority of union members. “Labor” increasingly means not guys with overalls and lunch pails, but people whose paychecks are signed by taxpayers.

The GOP, for its part, now relies on another part of the middle class, what I would call the yeomanry. In many ways they represent the contemporary version of Jeffersonian farmers or the beneficiaries of President Lincoln’s Homestead Act. They are primarily small property owners who lack the girth and connections of the clerisy but resist joining the government-dependent poor. Particularly critical are small business owners, who Gallup identifies as “the least approving” of Obama among all the major occupation groups. Barely one in three likes the present administration.

The yeomanry diverge from the clerisy in other ways. They tend to live in the suburbs, a geography much detested by many leaders of the clerisy and, likely, the president himself. Yeomen families tend to be concentrated in those parts of the country that have more children and are more apt to seek solutions to social problems through private efforts. Philanthropy, church work and voluntarism — what you might call, appropriately enough, the Utah approach, after the state that leads in philanthropy.

The nature of their work also differentiates the clerisy from the yeomanry. The clerisy labors largely in offices and has no contact with actual production. Many yeomen, particularly in business services, depend on industry for their livelihoods either directly or indirectly. The clerisy’s stultifying, and often job-toxic regulations and “green” agenda may be one reason why people engaged in farming, fishing, forestry, transportation, manufacturing and construction overwhelmingly disapprove of the president’s policies, according to Gallup.

Obama supporters sometimes trace the loss of largely white working-class support — even to the somewhat less than simpatico patrician Romney — to “false consciousness.” A recent Daily Kos article, charmingly entitled “The Masses are Asses,” chose to wave the old bloody shirt of racism, arguing that whites “are the single largest, and most protected racial group in this country’s history.”

Ultimately this division — clerisy and their clients versus yeomanry — will decide the election. The patricians and the unions will finance this battle on both sides, spreading a predictable thread of half-truths and outright lies. The Democrats enjoy a tactical advantage. All President Obama needs is to gain a rough split among the vast group making around or above the national median income. He can count on overwhelming backing by the largely government dependent poor as well as most ethnic minorities, even the most entrepreneurial and successful.

Romney’s imperative will be to rouse the yeomanry by suggesting the clerisy, both by their sheer costliness and increasingly intrusive agenda, are crippling their family’s prospects for a better life. In these times of weak economic growth and growing income disparity, the Republicans delude themselves by claiming to ignore class warfare. They need to learn how instead to make it politically profitable for themselves.http://www.newgeography.com/co.....l-election


To me, the distinction comes down to 'public sector worker' vrs 'private sector worker', very broadly speaking ... widen it, all those dependent upon the state, not only the social worker, but also her clients ... vrs the others.

Those were civil servants rioting in Greece -- civil servants, losing their elevated incomes, and their fringe benefits ... along with those who wanna-be civil servants, the students.

That seems to be where mismanagement takes us ... let's hope we can avoid that.
centrifugal





Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 100
Reputation: 100.5

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 99% do have a rightful claim, at least in part. Some people are rich because they played by the rules, and others are rich from bending the rules.

1. People like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates are entrepreneurs, they made an honest living. No one has any claim to their wealth.

2. Banks manipulating interest rates, companies lobbying for regulation change with bribes, these are dirty tactics. The Federal Reserve itself was created because the founding bankers funded Franklin Roosevelt's election campaign. So he agreed to sign the Federal Reserve Act. If you control currency you control the flow of wealth. Any insiders who knowingly derived wealth from this counterfeit currency should be stripped of all their assets.

3. Companies that lobbied for bailouts and then gave massive bonuses to their executives should be liquidated. It is a direct misuse of taxpayer money. This is called re-allocation of wealth and it is theft.

If you start a business and you are successful then great, if you lie and cheat then I have no sympathy.

First step is to audit the Federal Reserve and find out what kind of transactions are taking place.

The major problem with the 99% at least in regards to occupy movements is there was no consistent message. A lot of it was just mob mentality, and just hated the rich without really thinking twice about it.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4395
Reputation: 245.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

centrifugal wrote:
.... Banks manipulating interest rates, companies lobbying for regulation change with bribes, these are dirty tactics. The Federal Reserve itself was created because the founding bankers funded Franklin Roosevelt's election campaign. So he agreed to sign the Federal Reserve Act. If you control currency you control the flow of wealth. Any insiders who knowingly derived wealth from this counterfeit currency should be stripped of all their assets.


You probably mean Woodrow Wilson. Otherwise, I couldn't agree more. These people should be horse-whipped.

There is, however, something else having to do with administrative and academic elites, particularly the economists. What strikes me is how the only people who believe that Obama et al are on the right track are senior professors in the economics departments of Princeton, Yale, and Harvard.

These academics have become divorced from reality, and have become infected with bad ideas. They are dragging the West down, into a world of penury, and putting the next generations in a kind of 'debt peonage', where the bankers get a big chunk of people's pay checks, one way or another.
centrifugal





Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 100
Reputation: 100.5

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

You probably mean Woodrow Wilson. Otherwise, I couldn't agree more. These people should be horse-whipped.

There is, however, something else having to do with administrative and academic elites, particularly the economists. What strikes me is how the only people who believe that Obama et al are on the right track are senior professors in the economics departments of Princeton, Yale, and Harvard.

These academics have become divorced from reality, and have become infected with bad ideas. They are dragging the West down, into a world of penury, and putting the next generations in a kind of 'debt peonage', where the bankers get a big chunk of people's pay checks, one way or another.


Hah... yes you are right I did mean Woodrow Wilson. I should have done a quick fact check before that post. I talk about US presidents so often, they are all starting to blend together...
johnm





Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 83
Reputation: 108.9
votes: 2
Location: North Vancouver

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Goldman Sach's CEO chimed in on this:

Quote:

The two goals of the economy should be to “expand the wealth of the world and to distribute [it] fairly,” the chief executive of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. told business leaders in Toronto.

“And I think in the United States over the last generation or two we’ve been much better at generating wealth and much less good at distributing it.”


In a question and answer session with Royal Bank of Canada chief executive Gord Nixon, Mr. Blankfein, who’s net worth is more than US$232-million, quipped that “I’m not saying … I’m a socialist,” and went on to link the recent social unrest in the U.S. to its poor performance in achieving the second goal.



In a Democracy, you've got to deal with human nature and part of that is envy. Dress it up in whatever Socialist justification you want, but it's still the reality of human nature.

Trickle-down economics has probably run its course in the USA and they can't keep cutting taxes to deal with their deficit.

The USA still needs to deal with the military-industrial welfare state that's causing so much of their problems, at the expense of schools, infrastructure, health care etc.

The Republicans seem to think all they have to do is cut taxes and cut programs for the 47% of the supposed freeloaders, and everything will be just fine. Out of touch and out of ideas it seems to me.
centrifugal





Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 100
Reputation: 100.5

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Republicans never cut anything, they are not fiscal conservatives. Even in a potential situation where they do implement cuts, they would only be minor and would only slow the inevitable collapse.

To name a few things... They need to cut military spending by 80%, abolish Obamacare, and audit the federal reserve. None of which will happen regardless of who wins.

They are admittedly broke, and nearly officially bankrupt. Yet they are starting to pound the war drums yet again... American's think war is good for the economy, if that were true they would all be exceedingly wealthy by now. Instead their currency is worthless, cities are buying other cities, and people are losing their homes.

They had a chance to elect Ron Paul at the GOP and they blew it. If they are willing to give up their freedom for safety then they deserve what they get. I have no sympathy for them.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4395
Reputation: 245.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This -- it seems to me -- is the biggest unanswered question out there ... What will the Americans do to address the crisis?

What can the ordinary American do except vote for the 'out' party?

They are already organizing to take over the 'out' party -- the group of people who are known as the Tea Party and who are unified by nothing more than to see the spending reined in -- are doing something that we Canadians can't do -- they are actually taking over the nominating process within the Republican Party. They were probably the biggest single factor in the 2010 sweep ...

The media hate them, but below the surface, they work away, with their petitions, their phone lists, their determination that the spending will stop.

People seem to think it all depends on the personal convictions of their president, and on that basis, aren't too comforted by Romney's record. The guy is a technocrat. He doesn't have a lot of 'core' to him, they feel. But if Romney is elected, he will have come through an election process that has familiarized him very thoroughly with what the grass roots of his party want.

He won't solve the problem, but not even Reagan could do that this time ... the problem is too big, and there are international powers to deal with. Big ones. The problem is how to start unwinding this mess without precipitating an obvious depression.

It may just be a job for a technocrat.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Unseen Class War Could Decide Presidential Election

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB