The straw man argument in action

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of the argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia

I saw this showing up on Facebook over the weekend (yeah, I know; it's Facebook, why would you be there?  It's a rarity, trust me):

A viral meme maybe, but still a straw man argument that socialists use to self-satisfy by believing they are among those too smart to fall for it.

But there are so many things wrong with this picture that it should not be worth the effort.  Yet since so many people are sharing this abomination that it sadly, requires a brief rebuttal.

(1) The rich guy is not a villain by being rich.

(2) The rich guy if he is a villain, likely wants the undocumented illegal immigrants in the United States so he can take advantage of them as cheap labor.

(3) The only reason the rich villain does not like the redneck looking guy is because he demands higher wages for various tasks.

(4) The reason the rich villain can take advantage of the immigrant population is because government allows them to come here despite not doing so legally.

(5) The socialist solution to this is to allow them to come, give them the low paying jobs, subsidizing that with welfare programs because on the books they have no income, thus squeezing out the guy in the middle, crushing the middle class, driving them to the lower class so they are forced to compete for lower wages or remain dependent on the government who - continue to expand the dependent class while dumbing them down and ensuring their continued voting allegiance by...

(6) Vilifying the rich guy they claim to be disgusted by.

And by sharing that meme you are buying into your own destruction and debasement.  This meme suggest something that is not true.  It hastens the problem it purports to detest by encouraging the expanded immigration, hastening the destruction of the middle class that cannot hope to compete with the billionaire class nor the unskilled labor working class.  All the while they hasten (in conjunction with the billionaire class) the outsourcing of potential middle income class jobs to China, India and elsewhere.

It's classic class warfare combined with misdirection and it's all being swallowed up by progressive socialist who believe they have the answers but everything they have ever tried has been an abysmal  failure.

Classless Warfare on AIG

Democrats have always used class warfare as a vote getting method. Class warfare in this sense meaning play off the poor and the middle class against the rich. Blame the rich, promise to punish the rich and watch the votes from the poor and middle class flood in. But while the mentality of "hang the rich" may have made sense in Marie Antoinette's France, in modern day America it is a baseless notion and a base instinct.

After all, the United States has a welfare system, as imperfect as it is. No one should be going hungry. No one should be homeless. True there are people who do, either by choice or by neglect. That is why it is an imperfect system. That and the fact that the welfare structure creates and reinforces a cycle of dependence.

More importantly though, those who create wealth for themselves, through the truism of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, also create wealth for others by creating jobs. To punish them is to punish millions who depend on them for jobs or for products as cheaply and freely available as possible (with quality as another important factor). They are not saints nor are they martyrs. But they do help the economy.

It is against this backdrop that the AIG bonus scandal unfolds and the Doomocrats reveal their unrepentant classless warfare in order to maintain their supposed claim as champion of the little guy, as well as their hypocrisy with respect to the details of the controversy.

Consider the following;

-$20 billion of the AIG bailout went to European banks - talk about a lack of oversight.

-Chris Dodd hypocritically wants to get the bonus money back from these executives;

While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

-These bonuses were paid to employees (often executives) - people who worked in good faith towards a contractual obligation. Was it a poorly written contract that was set up to reward failure? Yes. Was it a legal and binding contract? Yes.

-Geithner knew about this issue as far back as last week or he was clued out about it when he should have been paying attention. Either way, it doesn't look good on him. Hiding from the fact to 'champion' the little guy, is more evidence of hypocrisy and deceit. What's worse - the Feds knew for months about it. There's a disconnect. So why the sudden fury over the bonuses weeks after the administration parceled out another $30 Billion for AIG?

-Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi (among others) want to claw it back using the intimidation of the state. That is taxation without representation and truly institutionalized theft. It also smacks of Democrats refusing to admit to an error in oversight or in judgement.

-Finally President Obama is going on the tonight show because he is still either in campaign mode or in calm-and-trick-the-proletariat mode.

Given all that, what can we call the Dems except cynical vote hungry politicians without a conscience? Unfortunately the MSM won't get that point across to the public, it doesn't fit with their objectives. But if the shoe fits, wear it.