There are some obvious deceptions in that clip, like comparing the U.S. rate on individuals and actual small businesses (like your plumber) to the German rate on giants like Siemens or DeutscheBank. Then there's the ubiquitous "job creators," and on and on.
But Ryan rings the class warfare bell loud and clear. So Paul Krugman weighs in on whether this really is class warfare or not (my emphasis throughout):
It [is], of course, nothing of the sort. On the contrary, it’s people like Mr. Ryan, who want to exempt the very rich from bearing any of the burden of making our finances sustainable, who are waging class war.Then the Professor looks at what happened to income. He nicely compares income growth in the post-war years through 1979 (hmm, pre-Reagan) with income growth in the years 1979–2005. And he notices a difference:
Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn’t changed — show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That’s growth, but it’s slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II.But wait, what about the rich. Shared scrifice, right?
Meanwhile, over the same period [1979–2005], the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent [0.01%] of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million. ... [T]here has been a major shift of taxation away from wealth and toward work: tax rates on corporate profits, capital gains and dividends have all fallen, while the payroll tax — the main tax paid by most workers — has gone up.Wealth: That's the folks who go golfing between days at the office (if any). Work: That's the folks who foolishly vote Wealth into office.
Some of you knew this stuff. (Actually, all of you who don't vote for Wealth know most of it.) But it's nice that it's getting specific mention in those golden NY Times column inches (that wasn't a blog post but an actual column, as those of you who clicked through found out).
Some fast take-aways:
■ Props to Obama for even raising the subject. (Now go get 'em. You're impressing the voters, remember? Voters like touchdowns, not missed field goals.)
■ Ryan's a perfect example of the 180 Tell: What I'm doing, I accuse you of doing. That's how you know what I'm up to.
■ Note that the 180 Tell always incorporates the Mirror-Mirror Counterattack (a chess move developed by Capablanca). Mirror-Mirror: I can always dilute your charge by over-using it against you. (Hippies smartly called that "co-opting.")
■ And Ryan's the perfect guy to make the charge. He's one of Wall Street's favorite congressmen — which is why you're going to see his mug for the rest of your adult life.
Did I mention, props to Obama? Yes, it's still me; the point is valid. And if he's only managed to paint himself into a corner, it's a corner I want to see him in.
GP
