Paul Krugman / New York Times: Panic of the Plutocrats — It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America's direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent. . . . .
Paul has more than one problem. First, there is that whatever that makes him look like he just got home from a night at the Gay Adventure. Secondly, there is the issue of his writing. It is incredible to me that this man has the reputation he has while writing the miserable nonsense that appears in his column, time after time. In this most recent article, he flexes his intellectual muscle by using the word "plutocrate," and goes downhill from there. Krugman is a big time Effectual Marxist, spewing class warfare on every "appropriate" occasion. He, himself, is a dynamic part of the aristocrat class he so willingly demonizes.
plu·toc·ra·cy (pl
-t
k
r
-s
)
-tkr-s)n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
He calls these people "economic royalists," an old FDR term and pretends they exist only in the Grand Old Party. The problem with our definition is this: it really indicts all of the well-to-do, and, because of this, makes class warfare a fairly worthless endeavor.
Bill and Hillary are each, filthy rich. Ditto for Michelle and Hussein Obama. Reid became a millionaire after becoming a Senator. Pelosi is rich off her hubby, and I mean a multi-millionaire. Michael Bloomberg is a billionaire and one of the richest people in the world. He is mayor of New York. George Soros is part of the aristocrat class, as well. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO is a millionaire as are all of the major labor union bosses. Ophra is another billionaire. Add to this list the likes of John Kerry, Jane Harman, Charles Schumer and on and on . . . all Democrat plutocrats. Let's not forget Warren Buffet and Mr and Mrs. Gates, the fat Al Gore and the mindless Michael Moore. The Left is swimming in money.
Of course, there are plenty of Republicans who are rich, but they do not run around pretending that they are the only ones who represent "the will of the people and the angst of the working poor."
While Krugman wants his illiterate class of readers to believe that the rich and famous are all Republicans. Those of us who bother to keep up with such things know just how idiotic this claim really is. Did you know that Wall Street supported the Dems, in 2008, by a margin of 70 to 30? Krugman knows this, even if you do not. Paul Krugman, himself, is a millionaire.
Point of post: class warfare just does not make any real sense. The poor want to be rich . . . . all of them. Being angry because that has not happened or will not happen is nothing more than an expressed victimology when used to wage class warfare.
I just read Krugman's editorial and the funniest part about your post is that your post is exactly what he is describing. He is describing how whenever someone makes some sense they are called marxists, socialists or leninists. What's even better is that you call Krugman a "fag" as well as calling him a marxist. The only "point" of your post is to demonize people by calling them names. Get off your high horse. Your post is full of BS. It lends nothing to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAh, the "fag" aspect. I do not recall using that word. Actually, I didn't say that the "Gay Adventure" was wrong, did I. I just said that it looked like he was up all night, having fun.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it is the elitest Krugman who is the BS artist, here. I am just pointing out his hypocrisy. Did you miss that part, what with all the folks I listed?
Finally, I am not trying to have a conversation about the silliness of Paul Krugman's since of rhetorical creativity. He goes after the "plutocrats" in the opposition. I am just pointing out that the Democrat Party is of equal status, in this regard.
Also, Krugman is a One Worlder, a "borderless" wingnut, and an EFFECTUAL Marxist. I have written on this before, but I went to college with these clowns. Back then, they were proud to sing the praises of Mao and Karl Marx . . . proud, I say. An effective class warfare strategy is a first step in the advancement of Marxism. You think I have that wrong?
Got any idea who Saul Alinsky is? I do. He wasn't a patriot and this Administration is absolutely full of Marxist. Want me to prove that point? I will gladly take the time.
Your whole post is about calling people names like fat, marxist and mindless. Saying that Krugman "just got home from a night at the Gay Adventure" was your clever way of calling him a "fag." Its not really all that subtle at all.
ReplyDeleteI am not going to defend a politician and I'm not defending Krugman but all your writing here is name calling. They are all plutocrats to me on both sides of the aisles. Sometimes I'm not sure if I like the Republicans a little bit more because they tell everyone straight up how they want to reduce your wages, pollute your air and make sure your kids don't have a chance at a decent education. HEY! At least they are honest! The Dems make it sound like they are fighting for me and you but then they go and stab us in the back by perpetuating the same old BS.
I'm not really sure what an EFFECTUAL Marxist is but I would love to read your definition.
I would also love to read how all the Dems are Marxist. I'm not being facetious. I would really like to read your point of view.
I'll have to thank you for introducing me to Saul Alinsky. He sounds like an interesting person that I wasn't familiar with.
I'm trying very hard to understand where you are coming from and what drives your political beliefs. We are all complicated and everyone has contradictions. You spent your life as a blue collar worker and you hate unions which to me seems like a contradiction. You seem to despise someone who believed in giving voice to the voiceless but you are a part of the Tea Party movement. You accuse people of Marxism but I feel like its just another way you call someone an asshole. I don't know what marxism is to you or what your agenda might be. Everyone who doesn't believe in your beliefs is not a marxist. You're just name calling.
This is precisely the problem with the political debate.
Well, I will take time to craft a statement of what I believe on capitalism versus Marxism. Apparently, you will use it to move further to the Left, but that is not my problem. I say this because my use of "Soul Alinsky" was a negative, in my mind, a big time negative, yet, you found it to be somewhat appealing. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I face in writing a brief on the subject is two fold: there will be a tendency for me to get a little too technical. Most folk go to sleep the moment a technical discussion is charged. Secondly, there will be the need to be brief. This second consideration may be more of a problem in this assignment than the first. "Comments" might not allow the full assignment. I may have no choice but to post the essay to the blog, itself, and even then, 800 to a 1000 words would be the absolute limit. The article to which we are posting comments, now, is around 500 words.
An "effectual Marxist" is one who talks and walks and acts like a Marxist, but denies or pretends to be something else. No disrespect, but I do not think you know what Marxism is all about.
Indeed, a Marxist is an asshole but "asshole" does not catch the political connotations that "Marxist" does. Having said that, however, I hasten to add that "Marxist" is not code for "asshole." I only use "Marxist" when I believe the target of my angst is a militant socialist; emphasis on “militant.” There are two kinds of Democrats, socialist, big government folk who really limit their view of “socialism” to those programs which have a benevolent scope. Evan Bayh is one of these people. I actually believe that Evan would make a great president, as long as he served his term with a fairly conservative congress. Obama, on the other hand, is an effective Marxist. Attendant policies include borderless boundaries, and the notion that the government be the central provider of all national considerations. He has destroyed the private sector lending institutions of this country. He works against charities, faith based or otherwise. He is perfectly willing to make policy decisions while avoiding the approval of congress, running the government out of his own sense of what is right and wrong. His takeover of GM is typical to Marxism, per se. If you are a liberal , big government type, you are just that. If you are an Obama type liberal, you are the enemy and I treat you appropriately -- you know, kind of like the Marxist opposition has treated me and my kind for 40 years.
You write this and it concerns me, somewhat:
"You seem to despise someone who believe(s) in giving voice to the voiceless but you are a part of the Tea Party movement."
Look, Paul, you believe that the “Left” has a single application and is only about the greater good of societal provision. At least you writings seem to say that. I believe that “Left” or “Leftist” is a pluralist term and includes a political big government view that is about the self aggrandizement of government leadership, whether that be a dictator, or the leadership of a particular party . . . . in this case, the modern day Democrats.
Understand this: I believe that “giving voice to the voiceless” should be a function of private enterprise. But more on that later. I am running out of room for this response. Suffice it to say, that I am way more idealistic that you think I am.