Democrats and the Wealthy Rich
Don Surber imagines this edition of "Hardball."
Don Surber imagines this edition of “Hardball.”
BOXER: Well it is great to see you, again Chris. Congratulations on beating CNN in the ratings.
MATTHEWS: It is like Cleveland beating the Carolina Panthers. But thanks. The president just cut a deal with the Republicans on the tax package. Why so glum, chum?
BOXER: Because this compromise extends the tax cuts for millionaires. This is unfair. Millionaires should pay more.
MATTHEWS: You say millionaires. You mean like you? You are worth at least one million dollars, more likely five million.
BOXER: What? But, but, but, Republicans are for the wealthy rich. I am a liberal and we are for the poor.
MATTHEWS: Wealthy rich? You mean like John Kerry? Mark Warner? Jared Polis? Herb Kohl? Jay Rockefeller? Dianne Feinstein?
BOXER: No, no, no. I mean the really rich people.
MATTHEWS: Every one I listed is worth at least 46 million dollars, and maybe as high as 293 million dollars.
BOXER: But the Republicans are even richer.
MATTHEWS: Eight of the ten richest people in Congress are Democrats, and not Republicans.
BOXER: Well, I meant people who make a million dollars a year.
MATTHEWS: You mean like me? I make five million dollars a year.
BOXER: Really? Given your ratings, you should be lucky to make minimum wage.
MATTHEWS: Really. I get five million a year. Do you wish to know my secret?
MATTHEWS: By never ever pressing rich white limousine liberals like you on the hypocrisy of your rhetoric.
Now, I don’t know about Boxer — and I’ve never even heard of Jared Polis (who’s apparently a junior Congressman from Colorado with horrible fashion sense, not the guy who lost weight by eating sandwiches) — but certainly Kerry, Kohl, and Rockefeller don’t pretend that they’re working class stiffs. Indeed, many Democrats — including President Obama — make a point to note that people like themselves can afford to pay more in taxes.
But the exchange is still mildly amusing, in that the Democrats have successfully portrayed themselves as the party of the Little Guy and the Republicans as the party of The Rich, even though the latter are so small in number as to be an insignificant voting bloc.
Presumably Boxer would pay higher taxes along with others in her bracket were the cuts to expire. It’s certainly possible to simultaneously be rich and think that people like you, as a group, should have a greater share of the responsibility for funding the government. I fail to see the hypocrisy, even a little bit.
Oh come now, it’s not about pointing about hypocrisy or making a logical argument…it’s just an attempt to take a swipe at Matthews, Boxer, and Democrats…this is Don Surber we are talking about, after all…
“But the exchange is still mildly amusing, in that the Democrats have successfully portrayed themselves as the party of the Little Guy and the Republicans as the party of The Rich, even though the latter are so small in number as to be an insignificant voting bloc.”
Well, the irony is delicious, according to this:
“the Democrats have successfully portrayed themselves as the party of the Little Guy and the Republicans as the party of The Rich”
Huh. I’m not so sure the Dems have been successful as presenting themselves as a party of the Little Guy. I just think the Republicans have been successful as presenting themselves as both the party of the Little Guy and The Rich. How else are you going to get a Rick Santelli to inspire a Tea Party movement?
Also….Jared Polis. Colorado Democrat/ Entrepreneur. (Dude is RICH! He makes Boxer and Matthews look like paupers)
He is also openly gay, and unlike Barney Frank, he was actually out when he was elected.