Another day another millionaire whiner

Another day another millionaire whiner

by digby

The other day I posted the latest sniffle from a billionaire with hurt feelings. According to today's New York Times, he's been deluged with support from his fellow 1% whiners who are all just beside themselves because "success is supposed to be admired" and yet it's being "villainised" by the President of the United States. The petulant, privileged tone of his latest complaint --- and the complete tone deafness in his insistence that his charitable work for the less fortunate entitles him to be not just respected, but beloved by the little people -- is enough to make me lose my lunch.

Honestly, I think he's probably a nice person. But then so was Marie Antoinette by all accounts. He's obviously spent a little too much time among his wealthy cohort and has no idea how out of touch he sounds when he says things like this:

“What pushed me over the fence was the president’s dialogue over the debt ceiling,” Mr. Cooperman said, explaining that just when it seemed like a compromise was near, President Obama went on national television and pressed harder on “millionaires and billionaires,” a phrase that has stuck in the craw of many of the elite. For example, Mr. Cooperman zeroed in on what he described as the president’s belittling remarks about taxing the wealthy: “If you are a wealthy C.E.O. or hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They are lower than they have been since the 1950s. And they can afford it,” the president said back in June. “You can still ride on your corporate jet. You’re just going to have to pay a little more.”

That was all it took. One wonders what he would have done if the president had said something like this:

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

I'm afraid this would make him break down and have a good old fashioned cry:

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

Andrew Sorkin, who reported on this millionaires lament in today's piece dryly notes: "The president’s tone can be debated. Some people would argue it is simply factual, others contend that it is dripping with derision."

If that tepid little plea to give up their depreciation on their corporate jets is "dripping with derision" those comments by previous presidents are calls for pitchforks. When did our plutocrats become so soft?

But this is what burns. Our betters believe they have a right to dictate the agenda and they have no patience for the polloi insisting that their uninformed voices have equal weight. You want derision? I've got some derision:

But he says the president could do a better job of pressing for higher taxes on the rich without “the sense that we’re bad people.” He added, “I pay federal income tax. I don’t have any tax dodges.” He paused, before saying, “Most people I know are prepared to pay more in taxes as long as it’s spent intelligently.”

He added that he understood the politics of what he called “class warfare.” “Now, I am not naïve. I understand that in today’s America, this is how the business of governing typically gets done — a situation that, given the gravity of our problems, is as deplorable as it is seemingly ineluctable.”

Oh boo hoo. Class warfare is saying that rich people can afford to pay a little bit more for their corporate jets?

Here's what should be done if the right people were in charge and there's no need for any more discussion:

Mr. Cooperman said he personally had been advocating adding a 10 percent tax surcharge on all incomes over $500,000 for the next three years. He also advocates that the military “get out of Iraq and Afghanistan” and that every soldier should be “given a free four-year education.” His personal “platform” — he insists he is not running for any office — also includes setting up a peacetime Works Progress Administration to rebuild United States infrastructure; freezing entitlements; raising the Social Security retirement age for full benefits to 70 “with an exception for those that work at hard labor”; adding a 5 percent value-added sales tax; and “tackling health care in a serious way,” among other things.

How marvelously eclectic. He should move to DC and adopt Luke Russert.

Honestly, why should anyone be required to care what this man thinks? He has one vote just like the rest of us. His opinions are no more valid than yours or mine. Certainly, I see no reason why the President is required to be nice to people like him for any other reason than he needs their money --- which is the real problem. His delicate feelings aren't really our concern. His not so subtle blackmail is.

.