Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Robert Reich Sides With Government Bullies

Left-wing college professor Robert Reich claims he was bullied as a child. They took his cupcake. They took half his sandwich. He learned that he had to stand up to the bullies. He's right.

The problem is he sees Americans who want to keep their own hard-earned money as bullies and President Obama as their victim, when it is government that is the biggest bully in the world.

When a government wants half your sandwich it passes a law and takes it. If it wants your cupcake it will take that too. When it wants to take over one-sixth of the American economy, it will twist arms, facts and hand out bribes. It will tell you that you better do what you're told or you will be fined and/or imprisoned.

Even worse, when these government bullies started to fear their victims wouldn't stand for it any longer, they started picking on their children and grandchildren, saddling them with a massive debt even before they were old enough to vote and fight for themselves. These "people" might as well have all been wearing T-shirts that bragged, "I Drank Your Milkshake!"

From the sidelines, little Robert Reich sides with the those who would bully their fellow citizens into giving up what is rightfully theirs in the name of what he calls the common good.

Last November, America stood up to the bullies and booted a bunch of them out of office and replaced with people who promised to fight the ones that are left.

Because Robert Reich is right. Bullies have to be stood up to, even when they are pretending to be something other than what they are.

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/119674359.html

Gil, here is another topic concerning government -- radiation levels in Philly water -- based on the crisis in Japan. You and your colleagues at the Times had better hold Corbett, Pileggi, and Delco state reps accountable and hound them for the truth.

April 12, 2011 at 8:26 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Oh, please!

April 12, 2011 at 9:04 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

The hysteria begins.

April 12, 2011 at 9:06 AM 
Blogger jake said...

Why does Anon blame Republicans only? How about Obama, Casey and Nutter? How about Hillary, Sec of State, or Chu, head of EPA?

Time to stop giving these Democrats a free pass. Where's the leadership?

April 12, 2011 at 9:09 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Gil - Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the richest 1% own 70% of our country's assets? And they need tax breaks? And you refer to this as "their hard earned money".
I would venture a guess that most of this is "old money" and that the majority of these rich folk never knew a hard days work.

April 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Bob, you're wrong. The top one percent controls about 35 percent of the wealth. And your guess about "old money" is wrong too. Unless you consider Bill Gates' money old.

April 12, 2011 at 10:43 AM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Gil - OK. Other figures I've looked at come in at about 35%, but corporate wealth comes in second. Check out http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

As for the "old money", I checked out the Forbes list. Out of the top 10, 6 are old money. That includes the Koch brothers. Interestingly enough, the top 2, Gates and Buffet were in favor of letting the tax breaks for the rich expire.

April 12, 2011 at 12:32 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Cut and pasted - In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

April 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Raising taxes aren't going to do us any good unless there's a sect that's jealous of the rich and who yearns to be appeased. Since 1950, tax revenues average out to 18% of the GDP while spending averages out to 20% of the GDP. We have a spending problem that needs to be brought under control. Raising taxes is like placing a band aid on the situation: long term we learn nothing and continue with the same problem at hand.

April 12, 2011 at 1:01 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - Whats wrong with doing both? I agree that spending is out of control, but why settle for a one sided solution?

April 12, 2011 at 1:42 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Steve - Lets not forget that these tax breaks for the rich were meant to be temporary.

April 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM 
Blogger jake said...

Bob,
It is well-known that 86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.

That money paid to the government is immediately worth 30% less due to the inefficient bureaucracy and rampant public sector corruption.

It makes no sense to keep throwing our money down the rathole of earmarks, cowboy poets, ACORN, and Obama vacations.

I would much rather accept less from Social Security, Medicare, etc. in the future for the freedom to control more of my own funds now.

Wasn't the federal income tax supposed to be temporary, too?

April 12, 2011 at 4:26 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Jake - Obama vacations? Are we having a serious discussion here, or is this just another pissing match? Reagan, Bush Sr. & W all took more time off than Obama in their first year. If I remember right, W holds the record for the most vacation time used by a president.

April 12, 2011 at 5:24 PM 
Blogger jake said...

Bob,
Of all the things I said, I find it curious you chose to focus on a throwaway line about the Transformational One's costly and frequent vacation habits. Hit a nerve did I?
Oh well, hope and change was never all it was cracked up to be anyway.

April 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Jake - OK. You answered my question. You don't want to have a serious conversation. You mention Acorn, but Acorn no longer exists, and you worry about the cost of cowboy poets but fail to mention one of the most costly scams in history. The ongoing cost of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. Very one sided Jake. You don't want to converse, you want to bash.

April 12, 2011 at 9:40 PM 
Blogger jake said...

Let me give Bob his serious conversation. His anti-Bush rants are getting tiresome.

Democrats held the majority in both the House and Senate from 2006 to 2008. Clearly they have culpability in the Bush debt.

Republicans are unhappy with the Bush spending, which totaled $8 trillion over 8 years. We note that the war on terror was fundamental to that increase and after 9/11, no further attacks occurred on American soil, so the spending appears warranted.

Obama, on the other hand, has spent $6 trillion in just 2 years, most of it to bail out his buddies in the unions and financial sectors. Democrats don't seem particularly upset about his unprecedented spending binge, despite a November 2010 election mandate that clearly "refudiated" Obama's liberal priorities.

Obama has ratcheted up the class warfare, while blithely picking winners and losers to reward or punish with our tax dollars. The simple fact is that if you took 100% of the money from everyone making over $250,000, it still would not be enough to cover Obama's debt.

Is that serious enough for you, Bob?

April 13, 2011 at 12:18 PM 
Blogger Bob Bohne said...

Jake - Clearly you've missed the headlines. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, despite Bush's attempts to link his actions to 9/11. Are you still buying into that lie Jake? One has to wonder how the economy would look if we hadn't gone there.
Yes Obama's doing a lot of bailing out, but if my memory serves me well, the bailing out started during the Bush years. And the smart money had us headed for a depression when Bush left office. Seems as though we're still on our feet. I believe the Republican wins were the result of voters impatient with the slow economic turn around. Better get used to it Jake. He's going to get another 4 years.

April 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home