Drawing The Battle Lines Of Class Warfare

Affluence Is Targeted By The Economically Distressed ... And The Politically Astute

(CBS)  Folks are mad as you-know-what over the state of the economy. And as we saw in the recent outrage over the AIG bonuses, millions of Americans are looking for somebody to blame. Our Cover Story is reported by chief political correspondent Jeff Greenfield:

---

We are a huge land, a continental nation, rich in resources … with a core belief that your talents and drive can take just about anyone anywhere.

"In America, at least, we don't resent the rich … we want to be rich," said President Barack Obama.

Indeed, in good times, we even celebrate excess, and pay homage to the Masters of the Universe and all they have accumulated.

But when times turn hard, the celebrations then turn to anger.

"Someone quite frankly has got to take these people to the woodshed," said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio. "I mean, let’s be honest - they just don’t get it."

"The letters AIG stand for Arrogant Irrresponsible Greed," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.

Indeed, there are times in our past when such anger has turned deadly. On September 16, 1920, a horse-drawn cart loaded with 100 pounds of dynamite exploded on Wall Street's busiest corner. Thirty-eight people were killed, more than 400 injured.

Today's attacks on Wall Street, of course, come in the form of arguments, not bombs.

But there is a powerful current of anger that runs from Main Street to the Halls of Congress. And it's raised once again an argument that's almost as old as the Republic: Is too much wealth and power concentrated at the top? Should the government try to redress that balance?

Or is that idea nothing but "class warfare"?

Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson denounced "bankers and speculators" as the biggest danger to the Republic.

President Andrew Jackson waged war against the Second Bank of the United States, and the "elite circle" of financiers.

And Franklin Delano Roosevelt began his Presidency by indicting the "money changers" who he said had caused the Great Depression:

"The rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence," FDR said in his first inaugural address in 1933.

"There was a great deal of cultural as well as political resentment at the rich, for having gotten away with murder in effect for too long," said Princeton historian Sean Wilentz. "One certainly saw that in the 1930s. You can't look at a popular movie from the early 1930s and feel that palpable sense that the rich, personified by a fat guy sitting on moneybags with a cigar clenched in his mouth … that they are the enemy."

In our time, the populist cause is made by voices like Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, who won his Senate seat in 2006 by focusing on corporate misbehavior and a skewed economic playing field:

"I think there's no question that the government sings with an upper class accent," he told workers in Ohio.

"The government has too often sided with the people with great advantage against the least privileged," Brown said. "In the last three decades, the five percent at the top have done much, much better than the rest of society."

Populists like Senator Brown argue that, according to recent data from the Economic Policy Institute, the top one percent of Americans have more than 22 percent of income, a number that hasn't been matched since 1929.

"Those who have done very well under this system, those who have made huge, huge, huge profits, and not shared those profits with their workers, why should they not pay a higher tax rate?"

Republican Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona is a mirror opposite of Senator Brown.

"When you have the top one percent roughly 35 percent of all income taxes," he said, "it's tough to make the case that those at the top aren't paying their share of income taxes."

America may have a more unequal distribution of wealth than other nations, Flake says, but that misses the point:

"Look eastward to Europe: You have a so-called fairer distribution of income there," he said. "But it's a lower income, and it's a lower quality of life than we have here. And I think it would be tough to argue otherwise."

But Flake is no apologist for the Wall Street players who put the global economy in danger:

"They knew full well at some point, it would not last. They knew full well at some hint of a bubble bursting in the real estate market that they were gonna be in trouble. But they went ahead knowing they could get theirs and then go away, I guess. And so I think people were justifiably outraged, and still are."

Kimberly Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, think class warfare is often motivated by politicians.

"It's not politically acceptable to tax the middle class as a whole," Kim said. "So, you wanna go out there and wring more money out of the top one percent or five percent. And to do that, you have to set up the argument that somehow it's unfair that they have the money that they have."

So, how does this argument play outside of Washington?

Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley was once a steel-making center of America. The mills shut down years go, but the Valley has made a comeback with high-tech enterprises like Air Products, which successfully reinvented itself as a supplier to cutting-edge businesses. The company is holding its own, and its employees still have their jobs. But …

Employee Scott Hansen, who believes in playing by the rules and having trust, says his 401(k) is now a 201(k). "Now I'm going to have to work longer and hard in order to achieve my goals for retirement."

There's plenty of anger out there, but most of it here is not directed at the rich.

Kim Chaney is angry at people who bought homes they couldn't afford. "I found a home and a payment I could live with. I took responsibility. I feel that these people are not paying for their poor decisions.

"I've played by the rules, I did it right," she said. "It is infuriating that I have to pay for someone else's mistake."

We aren't angry at the rich, says the Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel, because we believe that we, or our children, can someday join their ranks.

"What's interesting to me is that the average American aspires to be that millionaire," she said.

"Now, is that a rational belief, or is that a myth?" asked Greenfield?

"I think in this country, it's far more rational than anywhere else in the world, that you would have the opportunity to one day be that millionaire," Strassel said.

But MIT professor Simon Johnson argues in the Atlantic Monthly that there is too much money and power at the top, and that the rules have, for far too long, been tilted in favor of those in the powerful financial sector.

"I'm the last person to engage in class warfare; I'm a professor of entrepreneurship, right?" Johnson said. "I work with people who set up companies who want to make money. They want to build good things for society.

"The problem is not the wealthy people. It's the concentration of power around people who run these major banks."

Johnson, former chief economist with the International Monetary Fund, argues that - much as with other troubled economies - the financial elite in the U.S. drove us off the cliff.

"What I think now has happened is, we let certain interests become too powerful, like we did at the beginning of modern industrialization, I'd say, over 100 years ago in the United States. And it's something that is not good, but it can be addressed. It's gonna be economically painful and politically difficult. But it's not the end of the world. We can absolutely handle it."

However policies and programs may change in the days and years ahead, our history tells us that today's anger will NOT trigger drastic shifts in the balance between the opportunity for great wealth, and the impulse to contain and control its excesses.

"It's not that the rich are rich," said historian Sean Wilentz. "Everyone wants to be rich in America; nothing wrong with it. But if you've gotten there by ill-gotten gains, if you've gotten there by screwing over the American public and the American taxpayer … well, that's another matter."

[petruglyphs]

Defense of the Middle Class

Commentators call it class warfare, as if they were programmed to defend the very rich. In 1990 the top 1% of the population accounted for 14.3% of the wealth. Over the past twenty years this has risen to 22.9%, a peak not seen since the days of the great depression. The middle class in rising to defend itself, first has to overcome a misconception, rising from the upper class and propagated by the media, that the rich can take whatever they want, however they want, and if anyone protests that it must be class warfare. The warfare perpetrated by the rich is never criticized.

The subject arises in times of distress, because people look for causes. We live through periodic cycles of bust and boom. Much of it spawned by speculators, but much of it also driven by systematic looting by those in power. William K. Black in his book, "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One," reminds us that all that wealth is often illgotten.

The myth of class warfare assumes the middle class envies the rich for being richer and then tries to pull them down a peg. Jeff Greenfield in his piece on the subject goes out of his way to give us one sided interviews that express anger and unrest but without critical thinking. Never once does Greenfield ask the question, are you mad at those who got there honestly, or only at those who cheated, made fraudulent loans, created credit default swaps, securitized bad loans, etc.

Ask Greenfield if he will do the real story. No one asked the proper way would blame the rich who earned their way up the ladder. Bill Gates, for example, is envied, his product is useful, even if occasionally predatory. Ask Greenfield if he will talk to someone like Black. Ask Greenfield to document the class warfare that he and other media members allowed to be raged against the middle class over the last twenty years.

Your program is my favorite time of the week. Please hold true to its people oriented balanced approach and tell the story as the middle calss finally waking up to defend itself.

[sndkzyaa]

Free trade is class warfare.

Obama is just another lapdog of the ultrawealthy.

Obama supports free trade.

Obama hates the people who voted for him.

[Criminologist]

I am profoundly disappointed that a SOCIOLOGIST was not included in the report on "Class Warfare." Data and perspective would have been provided specifying the stratification system in the US and its impact on American lives. Second, the story on recent killings NEEDS the criminological research. It is available, but why doesn't CBS bring it to the viewer. Critical thinking and reporting is a must in our society.

[sndkzyaa]

Because as corrupt as Clinton may have been...
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 6:05 PM : Apr 5, 2009

Translation: You can't defend Clinton without bringing up Bush.

You say both sides are to blame, but then you defend Clinton and bash Bush. In fact, you attempt to defend Clinton BY bashing Bush.

Which really says there's no way to defend Clinton on his own merits. The same as Obama. He can't stand on his own merits.

If Clinton is corrupt, that's it. Corrupt is corrupt. His guilt is not related to any other person.

So what you're saying is, you admit Clinton is corrupt but you want us to ignore his guilt and just focus on bashing Bush.

Then you try to sugar coat it by pretending you believe "both sides are to blame."

Madoff is a staunch Democrat. He contributed heavily to Hillary Clinton's campaign. He probably contributed heavily to Bill Clinton as well.

When Bill Clinton gave Madoff a free pass when he was turned in to the SEC in 2000, it creates the suspicion that he let Madoff go free in exchange for his political contributions.

Nobody can accuse Bush of playing political favorites with Madoff.

But Slick Willy can be.

Liberals want to live in denial. They want to just ignore the rampant fraud that occurred on Clinton's watch. They want to pretent they don't see the culpability of Bill Clinton.

No, you can't play the game of "Bush first, then Clinton." Clinton served first. He should be busted first.

[Sterling925]

I accept the challenge of Republican Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona. If you compare most western European countries you'll find most have lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, lower poverty as a % of population by about half! The only number that the US consistently (but not always) ranks higher is in per capita income. I would argue that the number dollars you have is not the only, nor the best indicator of quality of life. I would also argue that if 1 in 8 of our people is in poverty then the overall QOL is reduced for all.

[valh1]

I blame the government and mindless media for this whole mess. BO called his buddies over at Acorn and told them to get all riled up and harass the rich and guess who shows up? the media, of course, but let people protest the government like at tea parties and no media show up. So again I blame the government and the willing obama-mania-media because they are pushing this class warfare.

[Aldymac]

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. Youcannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away peoples initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for the masses, what they could and should do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln had more to say about class warfare than anything that has been said on this thread thus far. We can blame the polititions for everything that has been done wrong so far, but don't forget, when you are busy pointing your finger at someone else there are three fingers pointing back at yourself.
If we the people want to get this country back on its feet we will find that if we do it the way the polititions want, it will never happen. All that stimulus money will be put through a filter, that filter is made up of "polititions and friends", whatever makes it through that filter will find its way to the people. But don't hold your breath.
If we the people are going to survive this time in our history, we will have to take back the power we have as a united people and make the polititions realise they work for us. As long as we rely on republicans or democrats we will remain in the quandry we are in.
Abraham Lincoln called us a government of, by, and for the people. The polititions believe that speech was meant for them as the government, they have made a mockery of the words, and the American people as well. The changes they want to make will strip us of our freedom and any rights we have left, and as long as they can keep us flailing back and forth at each other they can go behind our backs and do all they want to own us.
We have a choice, united we stand, divided, we fall.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Then why do you keep trying to blame things on the Bushes, but not Clinton?" Posted by sndkzyaa

Lets see, on one hand we have Clinton, engaged in the usual dirty politics that are the very core of American society, and have been since its inception.

On the other we have Bush, who went beyond our borders, and on the basis of lies ordered mass murder of hundreds of thousands, and the kidnappings and tortures of people for no other reason than personal profit.

Which one should be brought to justice first? I say the one who has committed crimes against humanity, war crimes and treason, abrogated our signed international treaties which we are obligated by our constitution to observe, and that would be Bush.

[brianbwb-2009]

" ...Then why do you keep trying to blame things on the Bushes, but not Clinton?" Posted by sndkzyaa

Because as corrupt as Clinton may have been, at least he did not cause us to engage in two different military misadventures, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the other serious harms of millions, and the US economy to bleed ten billion dollars a month in these misadventures, and all on the basis of lies.

You see I have a sense of perspective that you obviously lack. Like the prophet Issa bin Maryum is reputed to have said, "you strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel".

Worst crimes first, I happen to believe that the murder of hundreds of thousands of prople for profit is more serious than anything Clinton ever did. After we bring Bush to justice, then I'm all for calling Clinton up to the carpet.

[sndkzyaa]

It is not a defense, it is only the position that neither party is clean,
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 5:33 PM : Apr 5, 2009

Then why do you keep trying to blame things on the Bushes, but not Clinton?

You have your political persuasion, too. You say both sides are dirty, but you blame only Bush.

There's no shortage of Bush bashers. As long as people thing only one side is to blame, nothing will ever change.

I try to fill in the missing pieces about Clinton. I have posted over and over that I will never forgive Bush for his failures. But that always gets forgotten.

Until the public loses its love for Clinton and the pandering Democrats, we will be mired in this partisan quagmire until we are all enslaved by our Chinese masters.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...and your only defense it "He's just as bad as the Republicans." Posted by sndkzyaa

Poor deluded soul. You seem not to be able to understand that the amount of money involved in these corruptions is sufficient to have anyone standing in the way of the corruptors killed, no matter what political affiliation. Ask the surviving Kennedy family members, or the relatives of Medgar Evars, Dr. King, or Malcolm X, all of whom died for far less money than is now being corrupted.

If, in the unlikely event you were in the position to do some good for your country, and you had a choice between accomplishing important matters that you are able to accomplish, or being assassinated trying to accomplish the nigh impossible, would you lay down your life, and sacrifice what good you would have been able to do?

But then again judging by your posts, you would probably join the corruption, as you obviously have no good intent for your country in the first place.

[brianbwb-2009]

"... And your only defense it "He's just as bad as the Republicans." Posted by sndkzyaa

It is not a defense, it is only the position that neither party is clean, but it is you who seems to ignore this fact, choosing to point your misinformed finger only at the party opposite yours.

No wonder the GOP and neocon-derthalism is circling the drain, its constant habit of ignoring facts that run counter to its' ideas has grown stale, and has been rejected, hopefully forever.

[sndkzyaa]

Catch the two words "decades-long in there"?
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 4:46 PM : Apr 5, 2009

Can you provide proof that Enron's FRAUD went back that far?

If so, then once again Clinton had 8 years to catch them, and he did nothing.

Once again, a consistent pattern of non-compliance emerges from the Clinton years.

And your only defense it "He's just as bad as the Republicans."

[sndkzyaa]

So he started a scam that should have been obvious to the regulators twenty years ago, and you think that no one knew about it until he was "turned in"?
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 4:49 PM : Apr 5, 2009

Gosh, you're right. Clinton must have known about it for his whole 8 years, and he did nothing.

Face it, when the only defense is "He just as bad as the Bushes," that's pathetic.

[McHineguy]

California, 0.79
Connecticut, 0.66
New Jersey, 0.55
New York, 0.79
Rhode Island, 1.02
Massachusetts, 0.77

That''s how much each of these blue states gets in Federal Spending per tax dollar sent to the Feds.
from: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

People in New Jersey are taxed two dollars for every dollar in Federal spending they get back.

West Virginia, 1.83
Mississippi, 1.77
Oklahoma, 1.48
Montana, 1.58
Tennessee, 1.30
Kansas, 1.12

Translation: Red staters have found a way get blue-staters to pay them for living.
Strange place for conservatives to be! Maybe that's why red-states are more generous to their churches.
Posted by ubrew12 at 4:14 PM : Apr 5, 2009

There is a serious hole in your data. I have seen the report you got it from so I know. Heres the hole(s):
1. The states of California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts are huge industrial states where the taxes are paid by the industries of those states. Those taxes are actually paid by the customers of those industries. So, the customers may reside in Oklahoma but they buy products (and thus pay taxes) in New York.
2. These states you mentioned are all part of the American military/industrial complex and governmetn "think tank" operations. The money paid to those operations are not included in your statistics (read the article you got them from). For example, New York is a huge beneficiary of the UN but the US support of the UN is not part of your numbers.
3. The cost of living in those red states you mentioned is lower than the blue ones. As a result, its likely that the taxes drawn from them is actually a greater percent of of the states wealth.

But finally, to paraphrase your point: "It looks like the Blue States have grabbed all the money making businesses and are now trying to force the red states to pay their mortgages too.

[brianbwb-2009]

"... Not what I was saying...although I can see where that could be what you read. I'm saying if you're going to limit executive compensation -- take it further and limit the compensation of sport "businessmen" (or ladies). Sometimes its difficult to communicate in this gender neutral world..." Posted by reasoned1955

The difference is that any investment we made in the carreers of athletes and artists, in the form of college grants and student loans is usually repaid, (in fact student loans are required to be repaid), and not considered as purchasing ownership in the businesses they would create when they enter the public arena, whereas giving billions to private companies that already exist, to be shared among their officers and stockholders, should, by the definition of capitalism, entitle us to ownership of the appropriate value of stock at the time of purchase, and if our sibsidizing means we then own more than 50% of the companie's book value, we should then as stockholders have every right to vote to limit salaries.

These are the rules and laws regulating the concept of capitalism. I didn't make them, heck I don't even agree with them by and large, but since it is what we have, then we should not be so willing to practice moral and legal relativism, what's good for the goose....

[brianbwb-2009]

"...Now, when I can't pick-up a can of Campbell's tomato soup -- I may falter in my conviction. Stay strong Campbell's!!" Posted by reasoned1955

Guess what...

There are 153 Federal programs that benefit wealthy corporations. This costs the taxpayers $167.2 billion annually. That's more than three times the amount spent on Food Stamps, Housing Aid, and Child Nutrition.

-In 1996, the Campbell's Soup Company received $500,000 in direct government subsidies. That same year, Congress voted to cut food stamps."

You were saying?

[brianbwb-2009]

"Are you trying to forget that Madoff was turned in for his Ponzi scheme in 2000? Not on Bush Sr.'s watch. sorry. That was Clinton." Posted by sndkzyaa

So he started a scam that should have been obvious to the regulators twenty years ago, and you think that no one knew about it until he was "turned in"?

Get real.

[reasoned1955]

So athletes and artists don't count as self made business people who deserve the rewards for their work?
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 4:38 PM : Apr 5, 2009
=============
Not what I was saying...although I can see where that could be what you read. I'm saying if you're going to limit executive compensation -- take it further and limit the compensation of sport "businessmen" (or ladies). Sometimes its difficult to communicate in this gender neutral world...

[brianbwb-2009]

"And yes, Enron did start scamming in the Clinton years. Unless you can dig up proof that Enron was committing fraud before Clinton took office. That would be interesting."
Posted by sndkzyaa


"At the beginning of 2001, the Enron Corporation, the world's dominant energy trader, appeared unstoppable. The company's decade-long effort to persuade lawmakers to deregulate electricity markets had succeeded from California to New York. Its ties to the Bush administration assured that its views would be heard in Washington. Its sales, profits and stock were soaring. "
?A. Berenson and R. A. Oppel Jr.The New York Times, Oct 28, 2001.

Catch the two words "decades-long in there"?