Friday, February 27, 2009

Sense and the City


Given that I live in New York City and understand completely what he's talking about, I giggled my ass off at this:

Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! Go!: Joe Scarborough's New York City Straw Man/2.27.09

Cesca's right on a couple of fronts. Both that the life and daily expenditures of a New Yorker may pretty much blow the bell curve when you're talking about what can be considered "wealthy" in this country, but they don't necessarily have to; and that the very notion of a Rick Santelli-led "revolution" by America's super-rich is, let's face it, laughable.

3 comments:

Che Grovera said...

Tried plowing through the raw Census data, but found myself willing to run with the figures from factcheck.org:

Households in which a joint return with AGI of $250,000+, or a single return with AGI of $125,000+ (since the same marginal tax rates will be applied to both groups), was filed comprised 3.1% of households in 2007. That means 97% of us are surviving on less, and in the vast majority of those cases it's far less. Whatever the pain of unequal taxation, I rather suspect it pales in comparison to the pain of unequal wealth distribution. If the rich -- and I use the term unreservedly and without qualification -- don't like the tax rates, they are always free to explore the wanton indulgence of low-income living; such is the beauty of our system.

As a gentle reminder, I'll also point out that -- while income does not correlate to assets -- the assets of the highest earners are much more often held in equity while the assets of the rest of us are most often tied up in our homes. And, uh, what did those high-rolling NYC bankers do to our home values with their mortgage-backed securities?

To Santelli, Scarborough, and any other feeble-minded defender of the prima donna entitlement class I say: bring it on! We got game, too, although you almost feel sorry for the side that shows up with Kenneth the Page and Yukon Barbie as their standard bearers...almost.

Anonymous said...

Without trying to make any political points, I would just remind you that the "rich" - whoever they may be - and the conservatives can be dangerously temperamental. Remember the collapse of the Third French Republic - the rich, right wing preferred to have their government in the hands of a foreign fascist dictator rather than fellow Frenchmen who were communists. And so it was.

It's sometimes a good idea to remind ourselves that Americans of all flavors have a lot more in common with one another than they do with say . . . oh, you know . . .

Che Grovera said...

For no reason other than to illustrate that it is possible to advocate against one's own apparent self-interest in the name of a greater good, I feel compelled to identify myself as a member of the "rich" under Obama's definition. Most of my financial and demographic peers disgust me with their empty, self-serving political rhetoric about "less government" and "lower taxes" and the ridiculous direction in which they'll allow themselves to be led by politicians pandering to their selfishness. The biggest danger in volunteering to make a larger social contribution is finding yourself isolated from every camp -- both from those who will gladly take while maintaining their distrust and from those who will gladly let you give while clutching their own purses that much tighter. That's where principled leadership breaks through the social logjam.

As an aside, I suppose Anonymous is no worse a handle behind which to hide than any more colorful nom de plume -- but somehow engaging it still rankles...