David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist who speaks for the little guy who eats at the Applebee’s salad bar, has figured out (1/29/10) what Barack Obama ought to do:
Force the country to accept common sacrifice. This is the issue that unlocks everything else…. Establish your credibility and offer to raise taxes on the lower 98 percent.
At a time of 10 percent unemployment, when the median wage for male workers is lower than it was in 1974, Brooks has a solution: Let them not eat so much cake.
You can’t make this stuff up.
But Brooks can, and gets paid handsomely to do so, doesn’t he?
Is this a great country or what?
What.
I’d like a little more context. If say he was talking about getting people to car about the wars, it makes sense to give everyone a stake in it, make them feel the pain of war. It is our lack of sacrifice, the financing of wars with borrowed money which helps perpetuate them. As our military is further robotized, expect civilians to care even less about the wars our federal government fights, as we won’t have to pay for them in treasure or blood, except when we suffer blowback.
Why the Applebees dig? Seems like an attack on the messenger, not the message…
Never brook sell-outs.
Brooks’s sizable bald spot is a window into a sinister carnival not unlike the one described in Ray Bradbury’s “Something Wicked This Way Comes.” The games are all rigged, the infrastructure’s uncertain, and the owner smirks over a smoldering cigar as he bilks visitors for the privilege of watching underpaid performers sleepwalk through their routines.
David Brooks thinks that the 98% (which includes me) who earn the least should pay for these illegal wars of aggression and choice. Forget it, Mr. Brooks! End the wars and prosecute the criminals who started and continue them.
David Brooks isn’t sacrificing enough to make America strong. My suggestion: Have him give up 98 percent of his column inches, so that real, Applebee’s-frequenting people who don’t have 98 percent of their heads up their asses can have a voice just this once.
The Applebees reference is meant to recall Brooks’ pseudo-sociology, upon which he bases an entirely fake brand-name-based populism.
So if I understand him correctly, Brooks actually believes that thus far the only Americans who have had to suffer and “sacrifice” during the current deep recession are the upper 2 percent? Yes, I suppose having to vacation on the French Riviera instead of Tahiti could be construed as a sacrifice of sorts. I wonder on which side of this economic devide he resides.
I read the link, but — predictably (and unlike ‘Jim’ above hoped-for) — does NOT make reference to any cutting US military/’defense’ spending (topping $700+ billion this year). Pity, that. This is a Republican propaganda piece in the more classic mode – – cleverer by far than the crude playground fare we encounter from Fox ‘News’ and it’s ilk, with their name-calling and wild accusations. But there’s the typical false ‘facts’* and false equating (Democrats and Republicans are BOTH unreasonable), and then the old Republican canard that the deficit** is — all-of-a-sudden — of tantamount importance, unlike when military spending is being discussed, or when Republican administrations are pushing through deficit-expanding, unneeded tax cuts. Funny how when, for instance, Carter left office there was a ‘horrible’ $700 billion deficit, but when Reagan left office there was an ‘acceptable’ $3 Trillion deficit, or as similarly happened with Clinton / GW Bush.
(* “Republicans refuse to accept tax increases. Democrats reject spending cuts.” Though this may be true of CURRENT Republicans, back in 1982 the Republicans went along with the Democrats and passed ‘The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982’, a three-year, $100 billion tax hikeâ┚¬”Âthe largest tax increase since World War II. Or when GH Bush raised taxes during his term. And during the Clinton years, the Democrats reduced spending to the point where the yearly budget was actually a surplus.)
(** “The deficits are the issue around which everything else revolves. The mounting deficits both symbolize Washington’s institutional dysfunction and genuinely threaten the nation.”)
Maybe we shouldn’t take his tude so literally. I read it to be a call to our Society to turn towards a sense of public duty. Any change in attitudes and practical morality MUST come from the lower 98, from the Applebees and MickeyDs. When the PEOPLE have changed, our demands will change and the upper 2 will come around. But we have no moral force to muster if our own sensibilities shun a sense of public service and sacrifice to the greater society. Instead we ask, why should I give up part of my narrow slice of the pie? And of course, if your slice is slightly larger than mine, you’re not comparing to some socially accepted standard of slice size, you’re only considering your own relative position, on up the percentile points.
We get the world we deserve, and if we’re not willing to change our own minds first, how can we expect ‘them’ to change. This isn’t a school yard, and we’re not a bunch of babies; but we act like it is and we act like we are.
imfho
Common sacrifice on one side balanced with common benefits on the other. Shared risk and shared profit. Common wealth?
We need clean air, clean water, adequate clothing and shelter, safe transportation, access to affordable medical care, fair pay for our work, and good food — cake doesn’t qualify.
I can believe what I read. We are in a one party state, where the only difference is the way the package is wrapped, but inside is the same manure.
Only two questions: what is the difference between giving one person a $2,ooo dollar tax break, or you give 2,000 people a $1 dollar break? Answer: the 2,000 people are going to spend the one dollar they hav, on things that are necessary, and will keep the economy going!!!
If we shrunk the pie evenly, (that is everything gets shrunk equally), there would be no bickering as to how to get to a balanced (and sustainable) budget!!! However, I happen to aggree with John as to the things that are needed