In an interview Sunday on Up w/ Chris, Romney economic adviser and fundraiser Emil Henry accused President Obama of favoring redistribution of wealth but refused to say whether the Romney campaign would change the tax code to make it less redistributive.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Over the past decade, Americans watched in bafflement and rage as one institution after another – from Wall Street to Congress, the Catholic Church to corporate America, even Major League Baseball – imploded under the weight of corruption and incompetence. In the wake of the Fail Decade, Americans have historically low levels of trust in their institutions; the social contract between ordinary citizens and elites lies in tatters.
How did we get here? With "Twilight of the Elites," Christopher Hayes offers a radically novel answer. Since the 1960s, as the meritocracy elevated a more diverse group of men and women into power, they learned to embrace the accelerating inequality that had placed them near the very top. Their ascension heightened social distance and spawned a new American elite--one more prone to failure and corruption than any that came before it.
Leave a Comment:
I don't even have to be an economist, just somebody with common sense, to realize that something, anything cannot grow indefinitely. Most "growths" kill a system at some point.
People like this man Henry promote social Darwinism for the poor and "some are more equal than others" for themselves and their masters. They're so removed from "the people" that they don't realize that they actually feed on "the people" more than "the people" feed on them.
I'm sick of hearing these empty suits spout empty propaganda that only works on people with Pavlovian preconditions. It's enough already. I'm hoping for some crazy turn of events that will humble these people.
They don't have a moral compass, BUT, I give them that, they're constantly trying to find it in women's bodies.
It is interesting what premises are activated and blindly accepted when the word "economist" or "economic policy" is used. There are quite a few assumptions
So what is an economy for? Is it's top priority to:
This discussion of first principles is not being conducted in the public square, but the conflicting assumptions of what an economy is for is really at the heart of some of these conflicts we see being played out in the presidential race.
Regrettably, the economy is only being discussed on the most superficial terms and in 6 weeks, we won't even get that much.
.
This is democracy? This is open discussion of the issues that have the biggest impact on our lives? *ahem*
I think people should pay attention to his body language. It says a lot.
Whose body language? Wolf or Henry? Both are interesting.
Henry's body language showed his arrogance and what he thinks is his superiority. Who could listen to a person like that! But are the American people smart enough to figure that out?
I listened to Mr. Henry talk about how our nation is composed of 47% of the population who are dependent upon the government, and how he agrees with Gov. Romney's views. They leave out the fact that the number of persons who became dependent upon the government exploded when the Bush/Republican team literally destroyed the American economy in the 8 years that they had control of our government.
The fact that the nation is in a state of recovery from one of the worst and most devastating periods in our history, and that the Bush/Republican team is 100% responsible for the collapse, should be brought up every time that conversations about the economy and jobs is broached.
The Obama/Democrat team has repeatedly offered solutions to the country's woes, a four-year exercise in futility due to the superhuman lack of effort by the "Party of NO". To be totally devoid of any attempt at compromise, and to totally obstruct all attempts to legislate possible solutions has been the lock-step agenda of the Republican Party.
Okay, we get that, but to hold literally millions of Americans hostage and jobless so that your party can stall for four years and then attempt to blame the President Obama/Democrat team is, in my opinion, the most horrible crime committed since President Bush lied us into the Iraq war, killing some 5,000 of our troops, and wounding over 30,000 more.
The American people should be outraged at the Republican Party and the tactics that they employ, and reminding them of the recent history of the Bush/Republican dabacle is the best way to see that their agenda is quashed.
He's looking up the word, right now. As for body language, which I think is a good point, I would say he is looking down his nose at us but has his head in some other part of his anatomy, to be kind.
Excellent job at calling out the lie that Mr. Henry and his ilk continually invoke about Big Labor making massive campaign contributions. I can't imagine how hard it must be to handle guests such as Mr. Henry when they try to confuse the issue with numbers and claims that more often than not are unsupported and merely empty talking points. If Chris got the heads up through his patch with research (unlikely), kudos to the production team. If not, it is just another example of his adept and brilliant ability to analyze and elocute. I suppose the follow-up is, what, if anything is wrong with that, especially when considering that the contributions are made with the tacit approval of those (workers) represented.
The label, "transactional" is brilliant and unfortunately speaks to politicians on both sides of the aisle. If voters could reverse this quality in the current political environment, it would be transformational.
Finally, this program should be recommended fare for high-school speech and civics students. No where else is a progressive perspective and an opportunity for fair rejoinder offered in such a widely-available media format.
I'd like to address Chris Hayes directly. I've enjoyed your show and your intelligence--
I mean who majors (though Brown does not really have majors) in Philosophy of Mathematics? At first, your nimble mind and intellectual curiosity really interested me. Then you had James Carville as a guest and never brought up for discussion how Bill Clinton, along with Robert Rubin, engineered the demise of Glass-Steagall and ushered in the Trading Commodity Futures Act and thus deregulated derivatives. Since we've just lived through an catastrophic financial crisis, I'd think that selling out to the bankers by both Democrats and Republicans would be a major point of interest. And lately, Robert Wolf, formerly with a bank that has been fined for its outrageously blatant manipulations to create save tax havens for the rich, has been a regular guest. Fine. Yet, Mr. Wolf--the new BFF of and hack for our President--is treated like he carries no baggage, and you--Mr. Hayes-- who seems to get most everything somehow don't appear to get, or perhaps consider important, the fact of President Obama's incredible Wall Street support in the march to the presidency; his appointment of Summers, Geithner, et.al.--the very men who the center of the crisis as his financial team, and the resulting bank-cnetric policies (at the expense of our nation); the fact that not a single indictment of true note has been brought by the Obama Justice Department against those who tore our economy apart. While I surely see Obama as the lesser of two evils in this election, we are no longer a nation that can settle for the lesser of two evils--And that is a fact that Dylan Ratigan understood.
It is one that Bill Moyers understands.
So, I wonder Mr. Hayes if somehow your very impressive intelligence, by its very nimbleness, skirts you past the big issues, ones on which democracy hangs in balance--
Are you going to become just another television hack?
There are questions you could ask, answers that you might not accept on face value alone.
I really begin to wonder who you are going to be.
I would like to address Mr. Hayes directly.
Initially, your nimble mind and intellectual curiosity made me a regular viewer of your show. Then you had James Carville on as a guest and failed to engage him on the reality that Bill Clinton, along with Robert Rubin, helped engineer the end of Glass-Steagall and also pushed forward the Commodity Futures Trading act and thus deregulated derivatives trading. Seeing that we are living through a financial crisis that badly damaged our nation, I'd think that questioning both Democrats and Republicans who sell themselves to the banking industry that brought about the crisis would be a major point of discussion--
Recently, Robert Wolf--formerly of a bank that was heavily fined for his blatant manipulations to help shelter the rich from taxes--has become a somewhat regular guest on the show. Fine. Yet Wolf is treated like a man without baggage. As the new BFF of, and hack for, our President, it would seem that Mr. Wolf might be a good person to ask some real questions. President Obama rode into the White House with very strong support from the very same financial community that caused our crisis, and then loaded his financial team with a number of leading figures from that crisis--and the President's Justice Department has yet to bring a single meaningful indictment against anyone on Wall Street. Yet, you, Mr. Hayes, who seems to get just about everything, do not seem to get the reality that you may be ignoring the largest problems that face this nation while engaging any number of those problem's symptoms—an empty exercise.
I do feel that the President is the lesser of two evils in this election--
But our nation is beyond a point that it can accept the lesser of two evils.
Dylan Ratigan understood that fact. Bill Moyers understands it as well.
So, my question is: Who are you—
Are you just going to become one more television hack, Mr. Hayes?
Sorry,
Didn't mean to enter what is essentially the same comment twice.
One was a draft and I was given to understand that it wasn't being posted--
Obviously, I'm new to posting but was moved to do so after today's show.
Redistribution has now become a dirty word, like compromise. Another spinning of the facts to make a case for a very simplistic look at a complex issue. The Economist took a look at the tax policy back in July, and it makes for an interesting read.
(BTW, comparing percentages of taxes paid with percentage of actual dollar amounts collected as a part of total federal income tax revenue is really not an apt comparison. After all, 1% of $1million is a greater dollar amount that 12% of $50,000, but who can say that's a fair breakdown of income percentage tax? But it is The Economist, so it's not likely to bring that into the conversation.)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/taxes-and-rich-0
Would someone please inform Emil Henry that most UP viewers and many others are well aware that first of all, we already have a re-distribution system in this country, called "Taxes." And furthermore, Republicans cite the 1998 video of Mr. Obama talking about redistribution of taxes concerning Chicago districts as an example of his presumed method for 're-distribution' of national wealth, when everyone knows they are citing an abbreviated statement. Again.
The question arose in the last block of the Sep 23, ’12 show, why hasn’t Occupy Wall Street adopted a program of specific demands on the model of ACT UP or the Civil Rights Movement. Good question with, I think, a good answer, but the question can first be elaborated. Why did the Zuccotti Park protest seem to value internal consensus as much as or more than particular redress? Why did process and “self-actualization” seem to come before specific reform? Why was unanimity, leaderlessness and dorm-room philosophizing so important?
In particular, when confronting Wall Street, whose sole métier is the transaction, why would OWS wish to be, in Alexis Goldstein’s words transformational, rather than transactional? Surely Wall Street perceives itself to be far more threatened by transactional opponents — organized labor, government regulators and revenuers — whereas “hope and change” is not apparently worrisome.
The answer to these questions is, I think, that OWS did make one gigantic inferential demand and made it successfully. OWS demanded of the public forum — media, politics, the academy, the water cooler — that it must acknowledge the 99%, even identify with it, discuss it seriously, take it into account when framing an understanding of the world. (Without OWS, Chris, what would your book cover look like or a discussion of Mitt’s 47% doctrine sound like?)
OWS demands that particular grievances (e.g., student loans, foreclosures, layoffs, bailouts, environmental degradation, commercial regulations, war, taxes), must be set within a narrative that makes them everyone’s grievances and further asserts the lopsidedness of the interests involved. OWS demands that we see common cause among the poor and middle class, union and non-union labor, white collar and blue collar, young and old.
The Civil Rights Movement and AIDS advocacy did not have comparable work to do in bringing their constituencies to self-recognition. Those movements had no difficulty identifying specific wrongs committed against their members. Contrastingly, OWS has had to find a way to say that everything is going wrong, that everyone is aggrieved, that the commons "are people, my friends".
I suppose that this is why transformation supersedes transaction; why process and consensus (and even a certain amount of wool-gathering) are important in OWS while unseemly in ACT UP; why a leaderless model would have been dissonant with the Exodus story told by SCLC while entirely consonant with OWS's protest against the captains of industry.
Amin Husain points out that OWS provides a context and analytical framework for a wide variety of direct actions, including the debt-forgiveness plan he mentioned. Goldstein refers to self-education prompted by OWS. So, it turns out that OWS isn't a protest movement so much as a point of view, but that’s as it should be. Give it time. There is nothing that makes greater demands than a point of view.
Chris, after your great commentary on how plutocracy CLEARLY buys politicians daily, always follow the money - that is why they spend over 75% of their time doing it. Public financing of elections IS THE ONLY SOLUTION – EVER - ALWAYS!
How could you let that Romney econ adviser sandbag your show with such total flim flam nonsense. Never give Romney idiots "several minutes" for toxic rants. Next time please control Republican guest toxic rants to 10 seconds and go from there.
And why do most of the 98% of Republicans who make less than $100K believe they should ALWAYS pay for more tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires????? How can these Republicans believe the Norquist No Tax pledge means anything more than the 98% paying for more tax cuts for the rich????
Must reads Chris
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/top-ten-mitt-romney-solutions-to-our-problems.html
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/muslims-are-no-different-or-why-bill-mahers-blood-libel-is-bigotry.html
http://www.raceforiran.com/flynt-leverett-on-the-real-drivers-of-anti-american-protests-in-the-arab-and-muslim-worlds
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/09/25/drones-nation-unbuilding-in-pakistan-and-the-us/
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/09/24/how-mitt-manufactured-a-charitable-view-of-his-taxes/
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/subway-ad-gets-a-make-over-revealing-its-true-character.html
Walt, Munayyer, and Mearsheimer offer one state scenarios, and my response
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/slater-takes-on-one-state-scenarios-from-mearsheimer-munayyer-and-walt.html
Oh and this one
Poking Our Eyes Out in Libya
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/09/24/poking-our-eyes-out-in-libya/
If the GOP gets its way, it will be more of the same unfairness