Reply #2: it continures today Somerby vs. Robinson [View All]

[hfojvt]

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121410.shtml

"He (Robinson) loved the cuts one month ago. By last Friday, he seemed to hate them. Is anyone phonier in D.C. than reigning cable gods?"

I am not a huge fan of Robinson, partly from reading previous Howlers.

For example

"By now, we were more than half-way through the hour, and Mr. Robinson—the fierce Post “liberal”—still hadn’t said a single word that was critical of Republicans or conservatives. Indeed, the fierce Post “liberal” seemed to be troubled by nothing the Bush Admin had ever done. At the 27-minute mark, for example, Lamb gave Robinson a direct chance to criticize reigning Bush honcho Karl Rove. Nothing doing! Robinson avoided Lamb’s question about Rove’s honesty, and ended up making complimentary statements about policy e-mails the GOP writes. (Such work is “well researched” and “well argued,” the fierce liberal said.) Good Lord! What kind of “liberal” could go on TV without a single complaint about Bush? Easy—the kind of “liberal” the mainstream press loves. The kind of “liberal” who blames Dems for everything, who thinks that Karl Rove is a model."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh022105.shtml


However, the examples used today just do not make sense. For myself, I agree with Robinson's column of Nov. 12, where he urges Obama and the Democrats to fight against extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Apparently there were some reports in November that Obama was gonna cave on this (hmmmm... something loudly denied by his supporters here IIRC).

However, that does not mean I am all that excited about the supposed "middle class tax cuts" either. For one thing, they do certainly add to the deficit, and for another they also benefit the wealthy. I don't think the middle class goes up to $200,000. Even $70 - 90,000 is UPPER middle class. By $200,000 a person is in the top 5%.

Secondly, this is wrong

"The plan is “unconscionable and irresponsible,” Robinson says. Rather plainly, he seems to include the cost of those middle-class tax cuts (which won’t provide any stimulus) when he renders this judgment."

Actually Robinson only said that as a summary of Republican and Democratic arguments, as the snippet that Somerby quotes clearly shows (and I think it is well written on Robinson's part).

"Before the deal was sealed, Democrats argued that it was unconscionable to continue a huge tax break for the rich when the nation is so deeply in debt. Republicans argued that it was irresponsible to keep extending unemployment benefits without paying for them by cutting something else. The solution? Do both."

By voting for this deal, both Republicans and democrats in CONGRESS have shown themselves to be big phonies and Robinson is spot on to point that out.

Yet, Somerby goes to great lengths to argue that Robinson is the one who is a phony.

Talk about misplaced priorities.

In the past, Somerby has written things like this

"Those data describe a social revolution. In the 1970s, the top one percent received eight percent of national income. By 2007, their share had tripled, to 23 percent. Herbert went on to state a concomitant point: “A male worker earning the median wage in 2007 earned less than the median wage, adjusted for inflation, of a male worker 30 years earlier.”

The rich have gotten a great deal richer. Everyone else has stood still.

At Slate, Timothy Noah has completed his series about this massive rise in inequality. We’ll likely discuss his work in the coming weeks. For now, we’ll only suggest that you ask yourself this:

In the face of that staggering social revolution, are you aware of any politics or political messaging on the left which has tried to encompass this revolution? Have liberal entities even tried to make the public aware of this change? Have liberal entities tried to build political frameworks in which average people of the left, the center and the right can see their obvious common interest in confronting this revolution?"

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091710.shtml

And now that we have even Democrats pushing for policies which exacerbate that trend, Somerby wants to look for faults in the people who are trying to fight those policies? Is there some phoniness involved here?