The New Republic

TN, to steal a line from Talking Heads, "Stop Making Sense".

- tmmats

September 20, 2011 at 4:10pm

Or, more realistically, class warfare is cutting benefits for the poor and the sick while letting the wealthy off the hook. I don't understand why liberals don't routinely turn around Republican phrases like this. Conservatives are determined to destroy the middle class and create an underclass of paupers, yet we don't call that "class warfare."

- polcereal

September 20, 2011 at 4:28pm

P.S. I'd also stress that Obama's policies (and progressive taxation in general) aren't just meant to defensively prevent class warfare, they're meant to actively promote a sense of national unity. The case is much stronger than you make here, TN!

- polcereal

September 20, 2011 at 4:33pm

I thought I saw Paul Ryan being chased through the streets of Old New York by some rabid Irish firemen in the first 1.5 minutes of that "Gangs of New York" clip. Or at least Paul Ryan with shaggier hair and longer sideburns.

- wildboy

September 20, 2011 at 4:48pm

Matewan...what a great movie. It's too bad more folks haven't seen that Sayles movie. If they did, perhaps they'd understand what class warfare really is.

- singlspeed

September 20, 2011 at 5:09pm

It's the Titanic lifeboat strategy and the people in first class sure as hell aren't going to end up in the water.

- IggyPop

September 20, 2011 at 6:40pm

I feel the Republicans have lost their touch on this one. The phrase, "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem" was much more effective than the current jumping up and down while whining about "class warfare." The more they say it the hollower it sounds. Perhaps reference to a "spending problem" means little now when the President is offering is to cut the debt by $3 trillion. What are the Republicans offering of equal value? Additional revenues gives the advantage on debt cutting to Obama.

- Nusholtz

September 20, 2011 at 7:24pm

I believe that the charge of "class warfare" never had any effect on the behavior or opinions of ordinary voters. Conservative voters agreed with it, liberal voters disagreed with it, and moderates didn't care about it. The only effect that the charge of "class warfare" had was to inhibit easily-fooled and easily-intimidated Democratic politicians from pointing out that laws and policies were increasingly being skewed in favor of rich individuals and corporations. Hopefully the Democrats have gotten a clue.

- NateG

September 20, 2011 at 8:37pm

I love how, to conservatives, class warfare is always initiated and prosecuted by the non-rich. Funny how that works.

- liberalref

September 20, 2011 at 9:22pm

Indeed, libref. And I wish someone would point out to the GOP "class warfare" pundits that, if they don't like warfare, a "class peace" option is always possible, in which everyone contributes, at the appropriate level, to securing a nation whose broad future prosperity they care about.

- ironyroad

September 20, 2011 at 10:07pm

Noah-nothing. We do have a progressive taxation scheme you twit. -households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes -households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes The class warfare is really between liberals parasites who feed at teat of Gov and private sector conservatives who are increasingly reticent to feed the parasites (as they provide no value).

- mr_rationale

September 21, 2011 at 9:36am

I agree with Rationale -- it's time to put those parasites out of business. Bring back Action T4!

- wildboy

September 21, 2011 at 9:55am

mr-rat: "We do have a progressive taxation scheme you twit." Ah, I don't believe that Noah was arguing otherwise. Perhaps reading the original post might be helpful. The issue is not whether the federal income tax is progressive as a whole; the issue concerns subsets of wealthy people who receive much of their income through means that are taxed at a low rate and so have an effective rate that is substantially lower than 29.1%. There are many other easily made points here, but I'm going to start going back to not feeding the trolls.

- dsimon

September 21, 2011 at 10:16am

Also, the working classes are revolting.

- ironyroad

September 21, 2011 at 10:49am

As ever, the clueless Heritage staffer says nothing about the financial parasites who ran wild for about two-thirds of this new century, proliferating Collateral Debt Obligations, which helped mightily to tank the banking system.

- liberalref

September 21, 2011 at 11:05am

Tim, not to complain too early, but can you step up the frequency? Only two posts yesterday, and none yet today, and it's almost noon Eastern.

- NR409654

September 21, 2011 at 11:36am

Tim, you certainly brought your A-game yesterday (9/20) and like the previous poster, I'm going Oliver Twist and wanting more. Anyway, great argument here. I love the modern take of the neo-plutocracy. When sh*t rolls downhill, it's all in the Spencerian vein of "survival of the fittest." When the people at the bottom of the hill pick up the sh*t and even think of throwing it back, it's "class warfare." Keep up the great work.

- Lundell

September 21, 2011 at 12:11pm

Obviously "class warfare" as used by Republicans has been around for a while, From The Nations "Dictionary of Repulicanisms", promulgated in 2005: class warfare n. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage Other relevant defintions: compassionate conservatism: n. Poignant concern for the very wealthy growth: n. 1. The justification for tax cuts for the rich laziness: n. When the poor are not working voter fraud: n. A significant minority turnout

- dubyadoubte

September 21, 2011 at 2:20pm

rayward says "Also, the working classes are revolting." They smell, don't use bidets and eat with their hands. I can barely contain my disdain for such unwashed masses roaming the streets of my fair city. Off to the mines they go!

- singlspeed

September 21, 2011 at 3:52pm

Mr. Noah could look up the tax rates from 1980 through 2009 and learn another lesson. Top Tax rates when Ronald Reagan took office in 1980 were 70%. By 1988 when he left office they were 28%. During the Reagan Administration all rates were lowered, but none as much as the top rate. And economic growth took off. And people who remember this believe that these tax rate reductions spurred this economic growth by making capital available for investment and after tax returns more profitable than holding investments like gold or treasury bonds. The President can argue that America needs progressive taxation, and higher taxes. But it is a legitimate argument to claim that this will slow or stall economic growth. Claiming that anyone who opposes tax increases is protecting the rich, will be met with accusations of class warfare.

- CRS9TNR

September 21, 2011 at 10:30pm

CRS9TNR: "Top Tax rates when Ronald Reagan took office in 1980 were 70%." But there were lots of ways of avoiding that 70% rate. What were the effective rates? (This is the same issue as when people claim that our corporate tax rate is the highest at 35%. Very few corporations pay that rate. Our effective rate puts us at the middle-lower range compared to our peers, from what I've read.) "During the Reagan Administration all rates were lowered, but none as much as the top rate. "And economic growth took off." And then he raised taxes, which apparently didn't kill off the growth. And when Clinton raised rates, especially at the top, conservatives said it would kill off the delicate recovery. And they were spectacularly wrong. We had the best economy and job growth in decades. And when W cut rates, especially at the top, conservatives said it would lead to an economic jobsfest. Yet growth was anemic, especially for coming out of a cyclical recession. You can't just pick the data that fits your theory without looking at the other data which may conflict with it. Maybe the best conclusion is that the economy is relatively insensitive to a couple of percent changes in marginal income tax rates given the levels we have today? "Claiming that anyone who opposes tax increases is protecting the rich, will be met with accusations of class warfare" If those who think we're in a fiscal crisis oppose modest tax increases on the rich, then what exactly are they asking the affluent to do to help resolve our financial problems? I think the answer is: nothing. And when you ask nothing of those who have the most and make the most, I don't see how that isn't class warfare--by those protecting the wealthy from having to do anything.

- dsimon

September 21, 2011 at 10:57pm

dsimon -- are you really this stupid. 1. The article is all about progressive taxation "Progressive taxation, social welfare programs, antitrust law, health and safety regulation--these were all advanced by middle-class reformers a century ago with the idea that they would prevent class warfare. You could look it up." ---> the implication being that if we had progressive taxation it would prevent class warfare Do you know how to read. And for your argument that pockets of successful people pay low taxes due to huge charity contribution and 15% capital gains tax --- we are talking about a few thousand -- yes, lets create policy for the rare exception

- mr_rationale

September 22, 2011 at 9:14am

liberalref: You are clueless aren't you. The financial parasites that drove the mortgage mess were employed by Fannie and Freddie -- and were quasi Gov employeees. Without the GSE buying vast majority of all the subprime mortgages and offering implicit Gov guarantee, this would not have happened Catch a clue

- mr_rationale

September 22, 2011 at 9:17am

Earth to liberals -- take a basic econ course and buy a basic econ book. Look up the chapter that deals with impact of Gov Taxes on a market. It is called Dead-weight loss. It is bad for the market. Every economics book and economist in the world knows this to be true. Only the parasites at TNR have no idea.

- mr_rationale

September 22, 2011 at 9:23am

mr_rat, please read the original post: "Progressive taxation, as in, say, expecting billionaires to pay at least as much in taxes as their secretaries. Ideally, in fact, they should pay more." "At least as much" means we're not only talking about progressive taxation, but also about the subset for whom the system is not progressive. "we are talking about a few thousand -- yes, lets create policy for the rare exception" It's far more than "a few thousand," and it is more prevalent among the extremely wealthy. Perhaps it would be wise to do some research before making factual assertions (at least that's what I try to do: facts first, then opinions). There was an article on this in Tuesday's NY Times on the subset of the wealthy who have low effective federal income tax rates, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/business/obamas-tax-on-millionaires-faces-obstacles.html : "In 2009, 238,000 households filed returns with adjusted gross incomes of at least $1 million. One-quarter of them paid an effective federal income tax rate of less than 15 percent, the data shows, and 1,470 paid no federal income tax at all....For the top 400 taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate has dropped from 29 percent in 1993 to 18 percent in 2008. The average adjusted gross income of those 400 households was $271 million. By comparison, households with $50,000 to $75,000 in income paid an effective rate of 15 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office." Chart showing that the percentage of those who pay a 15% rate or less drops for those at the very upper end of the income scale: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/21/business/20110921_graphic_tax.html?ref=business

- dsimon

September 22, 2011 at 9:31am

mr_rat: "The financial parasites that drove the mortgage mess were employed by Fannie and Freddie -- and were quasi Gov employeees. Without the GSE buying vast majority of all the subprime mortgages and offering implicit Gov guarantee, this would not have happened" I suggest expanding your reading horizons. Fannie and Freddie were involved in the financial crisis, but were hardly the cause. Much of the financial disaster had nothing to do with subprime lending. Nothing about Fannie and Freddie told AIG to go heavily into credit default swaps, or financial firms to leverage themselves 33 to 1, or the ratings agencies to abandon their standards. And many loans that were made fell outside of the federal regulatory arena. Even Lehman Brothers's former CEO Richard Fuld said that Fannie and Freddie's role was "de minimus." http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/ Even if Fannie and Freddie constitute a "but for" cause, looking at "but for" causes is a lazy argument unless one covers all the "but for"s. Using that approach, the private sector is just as responsible if not far more so for the economic collapse as the public one.

- dsimon

September 22, 2011 at 10:53am