Elizabeth Warren RAWKs.

Easy to see why the GOP and their big money donors are so afraid of an old school Dem who is such a popular outspoken advocate for financial reform.

Scott Brown should be getting a more than a little nervous by now.

Be Well.

she's in, he's out. no sweat.

"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory - and hire someone to protect against this - because of the work the rest of us did.

Interesting. This individual making this statement seems to be forgetting that the person who started the business ALSO paid for the roads, workers education, fire/police safety etc.

They also forget that the person who started the business creates the ability for other people to pay into the roads, education of workers, fire/police safety, etc.

They also seem to forget that the person who started the business helps to pay for the benefits, health care, and retirement of the workers and their family which takes a burden off the backs of "the rest of us".

They also seem to forget that the person who started the business brings a good that "the rest of us" desire, need, or want which they could not bring about themselves.

They also seem to forget that by bringing something that "the rest of us" desire, need, or want which we could not bring about ourselves... they save us time... and by saving us time... saving us money and resources and roads, and education costs and safety costs.

They also seem to forget that many of the roads, education of workers, fire/police protection abilities were brought about so that businesses would come to that location, so that people could safely get to those businesses to get the products that they desire, need, or want that they could not provide for themselves.

They also seem to forget that the business does put a hunk of what they make, on top of all the service they provide and burden taken off of "the rest of us" and put it back toward society.

They also forget that businesses help lessen the cost of other businesses getting started as they invest and create needs of other businesses which also give back and continue to lessen the burden on "the rest of us" while providing services or goods that the desire, need, or want that we could not provide for ourselves.

It seems like the person who wrote the words that I quoted is forgetting a lot of information when making their assessment.

Something tells me Scott Brown will not be towing the GOP line of class war against the middle class quite as predictably as he would have without Warren running against him.

#3, No, it only seems that way to you.

In today's world the right wants you to believe that the very fact that a "job creater" built a factory gives them the right to pay no taxes. That is simply not true. If anything, they have as much if not more to lose than the workers in the factory and thus should be paying for the services they rely upon to allow their factory to exist.

Roads, bridges, airports, interstates, police, fire, courts, markets, etc all exist to protect and serve the public, including the "job creaturs" and those costs need to paid by them.

#3 has it spot on. In fact, the company probably paid a hell of a lot more taxes for that stuff than some average schmuck. Unless they donated to Obama, in which case they GET tax money.

#5 | Posted by 726 at 2011-09-22 08:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

The only job creator that paid no taxes last time around was Immelt and GE I believe.

I highly doubt there are a lot of businesses out there paying "no taxes".

There is no reasoning with trickle down idiots who believe in "job creators" and that kissing the asses of the wealthy is good for the economy. Trickle down has been debunked. Beyond any doubt. People who talk in such terms should be treated like those who claim to be abducted by aliens. The rest of us need to move on. Stop trying to explain reality to them. Just laugh at them and move on....

#8 | Posted by Sully at 2011-09-22 09:50 AM

EXPRESSDTARDATION needs to believe in trickle-down.

#9 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2011-09-22 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag: derp-a-derp

I am not talking about trickle down buddy boy. I am talking about the fact that whether you like it or not... businesses do contribute to the things that this woman is crying about.

What she also seems to forget is that the business owner is paying for these roads, workers education, fire/police protection etc. doubly... as his personal taxes and the companies taxes are both putting into that.

#10 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2011-09-22 10:13 AM

EXPRESSDTARDATION always changes the framing of the debate when cornered.

I want to be clear. You have a government job? You fly in a military jet? You work educating the young adults of tomorrow? Every single dime you get, every drop of fuel you put into your car, every morsel of food that hits your dinner table, every penny you'll get the rest of your life while being in so-called "public service", has to be first generated by the productive labor of thousands of people you don't know. People who are daily toiling away for the privilege of having their earnings and wealth appropriated by the likes of you.

So quit pretending that you're the noble ones. You're not. You have spent your entire adult life in "government service", pretending you know what's best for the world. You pretend to know more about my business than I do. You take longer vacations than I do. You'll be able to retire sooner, and on higher pay, with benefits for life. And a big part of that social contract is to drop the pretense that the world needs more people like you, and less people like us.

#8 | Posted by Sully at 2011-09-22 09:50 AM

"EXPRESSDTARDATION needs to believe in trickle-down."

Meaning he should sit around and wait for some crumbs to come his way? Be part of a group of people who somehow believe the rich are evil and need to be fat, lazy and stupid like the rest of them. He should feel the rich restricts him from being successful? That they are to blame for the cards life dealt him?

Exactly how do the rich directly impact your individual education, work skills, capacity to succeed, achieve the so called american dream...?

exprissredundant.

Every single dime you get, every drop of fuel you put into your car, every morsel of food that hits your dinner table, every penny you'll get the rest of your life while being in so-called "public service", has to be first generated by the productive labor of thousands of people you don't know.

This is true. You cannot expand government payroll without increasing government debt.

If there's nothing to "trickle-down", that would come as a big surprise to people living in Martha's Vineyard, to pick a headline at random from the past month. They're in a big recession there, because of the rich's reluctance to splurge on the big expensive vacations. As soon as Obama and his posse headed out of town, the house he was staying in was put up for sale. Nobody else coming. Nobody else will be. So every time our TOTUS climbs on to national TV and says that we're not sending enough money to Washington, the busboys and wait staff at restaurants get laid off. Bartenders. The nice lady that comes in to fluff Michelle's pillow. Bye.

But I don't care, really. Most of those kids voted for Obama. Now they're realizing that doing so was good for Obama. Not much for them.

It seems like the person who wrote the words that I quoted is forgetting a lot of information when making their assessment

You make the same point several times there and it's not a particularly good one.

Of course, businesses also contribute to the total tax burden and belong in "the rest of us" category but that still does nothing to take away from the fact that those businesses and the wealthy people who own them derive a much greater value from the countries infrastructure than any 9 to 5 worker. Nobody is seriously talking about French Revolution Solutions to the growing wealth inequality problem in the US but it doesn't serve to ignore the phenomenon altogether and pretend it isn't a problem.

Fact is, the rich were taxed a a much higher rate in years gone by and those were the years America was the most prosperous.

Fact is, the rich have used their over-influence on government over the years to tilt the playing field in their favor.

Fact is, anyone pointing out any of the above here is automatically labeled a "Class Warrior" by the RW pundits and chattering classes.

Fact is, out of the two parties America has to choose from one is only moderately corrupted by corporate donations and the other are out and out whores for them.

Fact is, America needs more politicians like Elizabeth Warren to help reverse those trends before America become broke beyond fixing.

Fact is, Liz Warren has the GOP scared.

Go Liz!

Be Well.

Yes, most of American cities economies are just like Martha's Vineyard.... uh-huh.

-The second thing was the perversion of supply side. Yes, there was a good idea that in certain circumstances, lower tax rates will encourage economic activity and savings. But when you make it a religion, when you make it a catechism and you say you cut taxes no matter what the circumstance, what the season, what the condition, then I think the whole idea has been perverted.

-Reagan Budget Dir David Stockman

"If there's nothing to "trickle-down", that would come as a big surprise to people living in Martha's Vineyard, to pick a headline at random from the past month. They're in a big recession there, because of the rich's reluctance to splurge on the big expensive vacations."

You're using one example of a niche market. Most businesses don't make their money off the rich. Most businesses become successful by selling to the middle/lower classes. Wealth trickles up. We've seen it over the past decade. And the core belief of trickle down - when the rich have more money to spend because they are taxed less, it stimmulates the economy - is statistically disproven. There is no such correlation. If anything, the opposite is true. Being top heavy with regards to who has money to spend and who does not is horrible for our economy and always has been.

There's a lot of movement in both directions. When that douchenozzle John Kerry parked his boat in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, he saved himself $500,000. Well, where would the $500k have gone? Into the pockets of a Massachusetts boatyard, and all the boys who tie up his boat, provide security, etc. It would have gone into the coffers of the state and local governments in MA, and not RI. Fuel purchased in MA, and not RI. Or are you saying none of that would have happened? What if he hadn't bought the boat in the first place? What happened to the money Tim Geithner cheated out of the US Treasury before being named the most brilliant SecTreas in history? If he didn't spend it, he put it into the bank, which can then loan the money out, leveraged 8 times, into the private economy.

Why do you think you stimulate the economy when you get paid, but some rich prick doesn't? It was funny watching Obama in the past six months. In one speech, the rich aren't spending any money. In the next, they're buying so many private jets that they're bankrupting the country because of the accelerated depreciation rules Obama wrote into his own stimulus, to get them to buy more jets.

No thanks. I'll keep more of my money, and give less to that retard. That would be more stimulative than anything BHO could possibly do.

As an independent, this is why I mostly side with liberals/progressives & democrats. It's because they, like Warren, make the most sense.

And what are the counter arguments to Warren? Reaganomics? Trickledown? Bush Tax cuts? Lame statements about "class warfare".

Most businesses don't make their money off the rich.

* * * *

Practically every business in America makes their money from those with disposable income. Unless you're Kraft foods or Exxon or a utility, you're selling products and services that compete for discretionary dollars. Ben & Jerry's may make most of their money from the middle class, but it's middle class families who would rather pay $3.25 for a pint of premium ice cream versus $5.50 for a whole gallon of the average stuff. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor or middle class, you're not going bowling or to Disney World or traveling to see Grandma up North or buying i-Tunes if more and more of your paycheck is headed to Washington, instead of back home with you.

I've yet to meet a single liberal who actually believes what he says about taxes, and is willing to write a check, himself. It's always, "imagine how much better things would be if we could raise taxes on those guys over there." Thanks for being part of the problem.

"There's a lot of movement in both directions."

Not true. Wealth is consolodating at the very top. Undoubtedly. The numbers can't be changed by ideology. There is movement in one direction.

"you're not going bowling or to Disney World or traveling to see Grandma up North or buying i-Tunes if more and more of your paycheck is headed to Washington, instead of back home with you."

Taxes are not the reason why the middle class has less money than it did 10 years ago. Class warfare is. The powers that be sent many of our jobs overseas which has doubly screwed the middle class because not only are their less jobs, but there is more competition for the jobs that are here, which depresses salaries. .

The people who did this got to pay themselves bigger salaries and bonuses and guess what? They still have most of that money. Nothing has trickled down. Because trickle down is nonsense.

Our economic troubles come from our business leaders deliberately favoring foreign economies over our own. Because it makes them slightly more rich. Nothing to do with taxes.

Ris likes a plutocracy where maybe, just maybe, the rich will piss on him if he ever catches fire.

They won't, but it gives him something to dream about.

-Nothing to do with taxes.

Individual taxes are their lowest in 50 years and Corporate profits are their highest ever, since records were started in 1947.

But hey, don't try to raise taxes by 3 percent to Clinton levels or close corporate loopholes.... US Corps pay the world average or less, not the stated rates.

Globalization didn't just tear apart 3rd world cultures, but the leveling of the wage playing field to 3rd world status continues in the US.

Oh and I forgot to mention, the foreign economies that our business leaders have decided to favor over their own country will take our jobs, but they don't want to buy our stuff. So while their short sighted greed has paid off big time over the last decade, over the long term it will fuck them too.

A lot of reasons to favor foreign economies over our own. India and China have more people moving into the middle class than there are Americans. That's where growth opportunities are, and we would be investing there irrespective of tax rate differentials. But it's undeniably true that the US has some of the most onerous regulations in the world. This ridiculous Frank-Dodd bill is a perfect example. It's now almost impossible to raise money for a low-level startup in America now. Easier to do it anywhere else. So they do. There's nothing about a computer chip or a potato chip that is so special that it requires an American factory to put it together. So why do we write laws that make it so difficult to do it here, as opposed to there? Who is Elizabeth Warren, and why does she think her law degree gives her special cache to tell business people how to build their factories? To run their production lines? How much taxes are fair, when they can look to their competitors across an ocean who are making money with no problems?

Gotta be crazy. Out of your mind crazy, to want to open a factory in one of the loony domiciles run by the likes of Elizabeth Warren. Move south. Or move across the Pacific. At least you won't have her looking over your shoulder every moment.

-most onerous regulations in the world

Yes, regulating hedge fund managers is such a stupid idea.

What we need is more bad loans packaged and sold as insured AAA products. Then we can have another economic meltdown sooner.

And those regs keeping lead out of children's toys? Or that keeps drinking water and food safe? Who needs that shit?

The Magic Market will take care of all that.

"India and China have more people moving into the middle class than there are Americans. That's where growth opportunities are, and we would be investing there irrespective of tax rate differentials."

Anyone who thinks China is going to let American corporations make big money over there is so naive as to be borderline retarded.

"Move south. Or move across the Pacific. At least you won't have her looking over your shoulder every moment."

We should make it financial suicide for companies to move jobs across the Pacific. If our politicians weren't owned by the people who are deliberately destroying the middle class, this would be policy already.

"That's where growth opportunities are, and we would be investing there irrespective of tax rate differentials."

One day you will probably regret losing one thing that America offers better than any other country, political stability. China may well enlarge their middle class or they could just as easily erupt into revolution. They are a Communist dictatorship, I honestly don't think it is smart to invest into an economy run by those who are still members of the Communist Party. I do hope though that when and if those Communists decide to nationalize every business in China we don't have to listen to whines from Americans who stupidly invested there and I better not ever hear of them asking for our military or even our STate Dept. to defend their property rights in a Communist country.

We should make it financial suicide for companies to move jobs across the Pacific. If our politicians weren't owned by the people who are deliberately destroying the middle class, this would be policy already.

#30 | Posted by Sully

It's financial suicide to stay here and be regulated and taxed to death by the People's Republic of Massachusetts. But if you're in the business of building cars, and you've got 400 million new car buyers in Southeast Asia in the coming 10 years, and 24 million here, where do you think your next factory should go?

Duh.

"It's financial suicide to stay here and be regulated and taxed to death by the People's Republic of Massachusetts. But if you're in the business of building cars, and you've got 400 million new car buyers in Southeast Asia in the coming 10 years, and 24 million here, where do you think your next factory should go?"

If you are planning on selling the cars over there too, then fine. Assuming these countries want Americans running their domestic auto industry, its a great idea.

What I'm saying is that access to our markets should not be unconditional. If you don't want to sell here that is another story.

"What I'm saying is that access to our markets should not be unconditional. If you don't want to sell here that is another story."

I would let anyone that wants to sell here have access but only after they paid the tariff that would be designed to make the financial benefit of using slave labor disappear.

"I would let anyone that wants to sell here have access but only after they paid the tariff that would be designed to make the financial benefit of using slave labor disappear."

That's what I meant. We shouldn't be incenting companies who want to sell her to send jobs overseas.

Danni is too much, I have to find her post praising the chinese and the way they protect their industries. You should love the Communist Danni, your beliefs are lock step with theirs.

Anyone who thinks China is going to let American corporations make big money over there is so naive as to be borderline retarded.

#30 | Posted by Sully

Sully where are Apple products made?

#37 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2011-09-22 06:05 PM

DAVETHEWAVE where are Apple products sold?

I can tell you, but we all know you dont listen. And I can tell you what percent of their sales ate in China.

oh, citing the social contract theory.

"But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

the problem is that we can't agree on the size of the hunk, but there should always be a hunk taken.

no 0% taxes rate should be allowed.

What we really need is a coffee party...

An no tea party....Because the tea party was about a few people who dresses up like indians and destoryed someone elses property..

So a coffee party it is...

for some reason i think i might have read that before...

I loathe lying sacks of shit Democrats like this woman. And Barry of course. Misrepresenting facts to stir up hatred.

"I highly doubt there are a lot of businesses out there paying "no taxes".
#7 | Posted by ExpsRedemption"

It depends on how you define taxes, but I can't remember the last contractor, plumber, carpenter, etc. etc. I represented who actually paid more than a pittance in income taxes. Every one of them drives around in a big pickup truck, has a boat and season tickets to the football games, but somehow their business income all seems to go to business expenses, leaving nothing or almost nothing taxable.

I try to act sad for them when they are telling me how unfair it is that their loss of income claim is so small, but inside I'm laughing.

"...pay it Forward"????

How about stopping "Borrowing It Forward".

Elizabeth Warren = Another Harvard egghead NOT needed in Washington.

I just hope Ms. Warren doesn't do something stupid like Elliot Spitzer. If not, she will go far.

Interesting. This individual making this statement seems to be forgetting that the person who started the business ALSO paid for the roads, workers education, fire/police safety etc. What she also seems to forget is that the business owner is paying for these roads, workers education, fire/police protection etc. doubly... as his personal taxes and the companies taxes are both putting into that.
#10 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

No. The roads that were used to build the business owner's new business and the education his employees received were paid for by the PREVIOUS business owners and citizens.

Now that the new business owner has profited from the resources provided to him that were already in place, it is his turn to provide the same for the next generation of business owner.

only the business owners these days seem to call any form of repayment 'radical socialism!'

To continue on Exspcrements #3 post:

They also seem to forget the HUGE tax incentives states and local governments give to businesses to start and operate.

They also seem to forget the political influence of these corporations that get environmental laws that are beneficial to them and allow the corporations to dump their cost of doing business on the public.

They also seem to forget the expense of the wars that our military fights to provide them with oil and other natural resources to run their businesses.

They also seem to forget the influence the corporations have in defanging the power of unions and other worker's groups in protecting the working class.

Just saying....

She's not really very attractive, is she? Maybe if she let her grow out. I like women with longer hair. Perhaps applied a little make-up too. Just MHO.

You are just saying...and ignoring the taxes they pay, the goods they produce, and the communities that can only exist because of a productive society. Her horse shit rant might as well be spewled by a socialist.

Or some Ivy league genius with no common sense.

I see you ignore my retort doc, truth always makes the dr left run/ignore/pretend they didn't hear the question....

"Or some Ivy league genius with no common sense."

How many of Obama's economic geniuses are back at Harvard?

#48 SpeakSoftly: All that infrastructure, etc, was built with govt funds WHICH CAME FROM taxpayers who work for private businesses as well as the taxes paid by those businesses. WITHOUT private sector businesses and those they employ the govt would not have any money to accomplish anything.

WITHOUT private sector businesses and those they employ the govt would not have any money to accomplish anything.

#54 | POSTED BY MSGT

No one is suggesting otherwise. But those who have succeeded in america did it with help from the american government, and therefore, society. For the successful to then think they did it by themselves and taxes are some form of robbery, which is the current attitude of MANY of them, is a delusion encouraged by the right wing brainwash machine.

Winner of the most erudite comment of the thread: Live or Die, for this post

I like women with longer hair.

#50 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2011-09-22 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

"Winner of the most erudite comment of the thread: Live or Die, for this post"

Erudite? How about kind of sick? The lady is 62 years old.

Elizabeth Warren rocks

Crispee-
Google "irony" just as you googled "erudite"....

Americanunity-
She certainly does. And she's gonna win.

#54 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2011-09-22 09:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG: AND THAT'S WHY THEY ALREADY ARE CARRYING THE LIONS SHARE OF THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN.

This woman is an example of the "academics" teaching our children what it means to be an American. She is a parasite and she thinks the parasites on the economic system are the source of the food that feeds that system.

She is an illiterate, unwilling and unable to learn from empirical knowledge, caught up in her own dogma. Liberal economic thought, whether it be socialist, or marxist or communist or stalinist or facsist is destined to fail. It is not the messenger, but the failed policy itself that is the failure.

Therefore, Obama is not the problem. Progressivism, Liberalism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism IS The Problem.

The only antidote to that failure is Capitalism and American know how.

Elizabeth, as great as she is, forgot to mention that the factory itself cannot run without labor. Labor is fundamental to all wealth creation, more fundamental than Capital. The power Capital wields over everyone's lives is a consequence of how the system has been deliberately designed. It is not the way things started. Look at the Tongans, Somoans or other pacific islanders, all they did was build boats, fish and pick fruit, not a worry in the world. Then along came the Banks and enslaved those entire populations. That is a microcosm of what has happened to the rest of civilization.

#47 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2011-09-22 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Derp-a-Derp
#48 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-09-22 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Derp-a-Derp-a-Derp

Interesting... so you are not arguing against businesses as you stated that it was business that paid for the roads in the first place... not necessarily "the rest of us".

You might also want to note that the business owner in question here pays taxes for the roads and other things like gas. His business then pays extra taxes as it's own entity for these things. His employees... who have a job because his business is open... are able to pay their taxes for the roads, and the gas, and other things. Hmm... seems like there is plenty of payment for taxes coming from this business.

Truthhurts forgets that the government does not build everything they need to get the roads in place, get the military to other countries, refine the gasoline etc. For the government to have the roads to tax the people to use the roads.... they need to rely on PRIVATE BUSINESSES for things like gasoline, trucks and equipment, asphalt production and application.

They rely on private business for airplane production, raw materials for created munitions, equipment for manufacturing guns, tanks, body armor.

They rely on private business to make the MRE's, the field equipment, the medical devices and supplies. Government relies on private companies to make computers so that they can do work, paper companies so that they have the paper to send out the bill for the taxes on the roads that they needed to depend on private businesses to be able to create.

Business owners put a lot back into the pot. Some people, much like the woman who is the topic of this thread, forget a lot of it.

just wondering exactly what good or products Warren has ever produced to contribute to the betterment of Society?

tho debating controversial topics is kinda interesting, Darwinism via natural selection likely woulda eliminated Warren or her ancestors , thus putting her ideology in true perspective

Typical liberal thinking. We have to have government, but it does not produce wealth. It can print money, but it can't back it without the private sector paying the taxes. Let's see-what did the Communists aay about it-labor did it all. But in the end the commissars got the benefits and not the working classes.

Crispee-
Google "irony" just as you googled "erudite"....
#58 | Posted by stepp at 2011-09-22 10:17 PM

Moron, you could have put any adjective there. Funny, sarcastic or serious. My point was someone mentioning features they prefer on some 62 yo woman.

"Look at the Tongans, Somoans or other pacific islanders, all they did was build boats, fish and pick fruit, not a worry in the world."

They are called republicans here. The dems sit around with the women and children waiting to be fed. Not a worry in the world.

Didn't use to be that way, if one didn't help build, fish and pick fruit they simply left on their own or starved. Today, more and more seem to believe they shouldn't have to work if they don't want to, and gradually the ones who do are unable to keep up. Plus they want to tell the rest how it should be done, how long they should work, how much they should get, how much others should get...

"We have to have government, but it does not produce wealth."

The national highway system doesn't help produce wealth? Just one example. But to think that people become rich in this country without an infrastructure is just fucking idiotic. Just because you hillbillies like to thoughtlessly chant "Gubment baaaad" doesn't mean the government doesn't play a role in helping American succeed. Reality is that there is no one group of people who are "job creators".

The national highway system doesn't help produce wealth? Just one example. But to think that people become rich in this country without an infrastructure is just fucking idiotic. Just because you hillbillies like to thoughtlessly chant "Gubment baaaad" doesn't mean the government doesn't play a role in helping American succeed. Reality is that there is no one group of people who are "job creators".

#68 | Posted by Sully

Have you considered that without the rich, the government can't pay for that highway system (or $16 muffins)?
Americans play a much more vital role in helping the governement succeed. Without taxpayers, government ceases to exist. I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We shouldn't be thanking them, they should be thanking us. I'm shocked you of all people aren't touting that.

My point was someone mentioning features they prefer on some 62 yo woman.

#66 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2011-09-23 09:22 AM

This is, if they stay in shape, utilize their options in plastic surgery, and unlike the homely women in the article (what does she do again?) apply some makeup.

"Like a fine wine, women only get better with age."

Got no problem with that, and some day I may grow up and accept what I can get. Right now I still prefer Boones Farm which doesn't need to get better with age.

"Like a fine wine, women only get better with age."

Or turn into vinegar

#71
#72

lmao

...every time our TOTUS climbs on to national TV and says that we're not sending enough money to Washington, the busboys and wait staff at restaurants get laid off. ... -- #16 | Posted by rightisright

Have you ever actually spoken to a busboy, waiter, bartender, etc., except to give your order?

I know very few who want those jobs forever. Instead, they want college to be more affordable so that they can move on more quickly, and they're ecstatic about getting health care in the meantime. (Very scary to have a job where you don't get paid if you get sick, but can't afford to go to a doctor either.)

The main flaw - there are many! - in the Tearrorist mystique is that government is the enemy. It's not! The government is YOU! That said, there are many other erroneous assumptions, like anyone who wants it can find work, that hard work for Da Man will get you anything but a sore back, that folks whose paychecks come from the public sector somehow suck at the gummint teat. Right Is is having a field day parroting tired corporate talking points; if we had 512 Elizabeth Warrens in Washington we might be proud of America once more. herm

...the Tearrorist mystique is that government is the enemy.

It's really just a refinement of the standard GOP pitch to voters.

"Government doesn't work. Send me to Washington and I'll prove it!"

Retarded? Yes, but it seems to werk fer them.

...if we had 512 Elizabeth Warrens in Washington we might be proud of America once more

THIS.

WHere she is right and where ahe is wrong.

She is right that no one got rich without infrastructure but who pays for infrastructure?

But, the rich pay most of it. Most federal revenue comes from individual taxes. The top 10% of wage earners pay about 70% of the individual income tax. So they are already paying their fair share. There are lots of people who also use infrastructure but pay nothing (most of the bottlm 45% pay nothing at all in individual income tax).

SO somebody (probably somebody on the dole) what is the fair share of the rich in your opinion? 75%, 80%, 90%.

Isn't 70% enough for the top 10% to pay?

I agree with Ms. Warren. No one got rich on their own. The entrepreneur is going to require support. He will require tens, if not hundreds of people to see his invention reach frution. INvestors, financiers, enginerrs, accountants, advertisers, etc. The thing is, these people are generally well compensated for the role they play in the development of a given good or service. But there is no reason to suggest that those who did not play a role should be entitiled to anything, which is the other part of Mrs. Warren's argument. One which is little more than a steaming pile of dogshit.

To be honest, I'm not even sure who her agrument is directed to-the businesses that create the products, or the workers they employ? Unless they are in the bottom 48%, they are already paying their fair share. In reality, they are paying more, because they are also contributing for the aforementioned 48%.

Furthermore, at some point in the next 24 hours, I guaruntee you that some welfare recipient is going to drive down to the loca best buy and purchase a new iPod touch. This person will pay little to nothing in taxes, yet transit down taxpayer funded streets that lie in a city serviced by taxpayer a taxpayer funded police force in acountry protected by a taxpayer funded military. Yet they are not obligated to carry any of the burden that goes along with providing these services? Why is Ms. Warren not demanding that they pay their fair share?

Wealth inequality is the product of a free and healthy society-one that is able to allocate it's resources in the manner than befits it best. People don't get rich in a vacuum-they get rich because society makes them so. And while we have seen many here who dislike the freedom to accumulate wealth, there are very few who would be willing to go without the goods and services that the wealthy provide.

Ms. Warren is a dunce-as is anyone who takes her seriously.

"Have you considered that without the rich, the government can't pay for that highway system (or $16 muffins)? Americans play a much more vital role in helping the governement succeed. Without taxpayers, government ceases to exist. I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We shouldn't be thanking them, they should be thanking us. I'm shocked you of all people aren't touting that."

I'm not saying that the government is solely responsible for making people rich. I'm saying that you need certain things to create wealth in a society - Natural resources, an infrastructure, regulatory environment that encourages consumer confidence, consumers with money, a quality workforce, people with innovative ideas and investors/entreprenuers. I'm probably missing a few hundred other things....

In a society like ours, there are going to be rich people. It is inevitable and they all don't get there the same way. Some inherited it. Some worked hard. Some got lucky or had good connection. Some came up with truely world changing innovations. Some are pretty much impossible to figure out....

So the idea that rich people as a group are "job creators" and nothing else plays a role in our having wealth in this country is retarded. There are a few people who really make a difference. The rest of the so-called job creators are interchangeable cogs in a much bigger machine that can easily be replaced when necessary. As people who benefit more than most, they have a bigger self interest than most in making sure that machine keeps running. And the government is also part of that machine.

So to cry about the government as if its the devil because you've been trained like a dog to do so is retarded to me. There are vital services that only the government can provide.

#54 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2011-09-22 09:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG: AND THAT'S WHY THEY ALREADY ARE CARRYING THE LIONS SHARE OF THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN.

#60 | Posted by MSgt at 2011-09-22 11:40 PM | Reply | Flag:
BUT NOT THE LIONS SHARE OF THE LOCAL AND STATE TAX BURDEN

See I can shout too.

"BUT NOT THE LIONS SHARE OF THE LOCAL AND STATE TAX BURDEN
See I can shout too."

#80 | Posted by truthhurts

I believe you are wrong. The so called rich (upper 10% of wage earners) pay the vast majority of state income taxes and certainly their share of sales taxes since that's unavoidable.

In many states you calculate state income tax based strictly on your federal income tax so you are off the mark with that statement.

"So the idea that rich people as a group are "job creators" and nothing else plays a role in our having wealth in this country is retarded. There are a few people who really make a difference. The rest of the so-called job creators are interchangeable cogs in a much bigger machine that can easily be replaced when necessary."

The rich don't create jobs as a function of their accrued wealth (well, they do, but only in relatively small numbers). It is the creative that create jobs; entrepreneurs. If I invent the next generation of music player, it wouldn't be worth much unless there is a demand for it, and I have the ability to meet that demand. So I will need a financier. I will need a team of engineer-probably teams of engineers, in order to figure out how to build and produce this thing. I will need accountants to handle the books, and I will need a marketing firm to sell it to the public. All of these people will be very well compensated for the role they played. And well they should be. And I will get rich as well. In fact, most of the people who get rich will do so because I had an idea, that idea led to job creation, and those jobs contributed to the creation of wealth. But just because wealth was produced doesn't mean that the whole of society contributed to it-those who did will necessarily be rewarded.

"As people who benefit more than most, they have a bigger self interest than most in making sure that machine keeps running. And the government is also part of that machine."

Untrue. Wealth has nothing to do with the amount of services the government provides. A poor person who drives 20 miles to work will use more road hours than a rich person who lives from home. and so on.

Wealth inequality is the product of a free and healthy society...

There will always be wealth inequality.

Always.

Think Jesus made this point at one time.

Point being that there is a certain degree beyond which wealth inequality equates to wage slavery and a very unhealthy, unhappy society.

See: France Revolution and Russian Revolution.

And while we have seen many here who dislike the freedom to accumulate wealth, there are very few who would be willing to go without the goods and services that the wealthy provide.

Ah, yes the old "Libs hate the Rich" argument.

Here's a clue, numbnuts.

"Wanting the rich to pay their fair share" != "hating the rich"

Here's another.

Noticing class warfare is not the same thing as committing class warfare.

See Also: Racism.

While Spud is sure the rich folks around the planet are really pleased with yer Internet White Knighting of them here's a final clue.

They really don't need your help.

You dunce.

K?

Be Well.

"BUT NOT THE LIONS SHARE OF THE LOCAL AND STATE TAX BURDEN
See I can shout too."

#80 | Posted by truthhurts

Also, the "rich" pay the lions share of property taxes since they usually have bigger pieces of property. Again, your statement is not correct.

There will always be wealth inequality.

Always.

Think Jesus made this point at one time.

I know Jesus Christ Superstar said it.

Jesus: Why do you think we have the resources to save the poor from their lot?/ There will be poor always, pathetically struggling/ Look at the good things you've got./ Think while you still see me/ Move while you still hear me

"I believe you are wrong. The so called rich (upper 10% of wage earners) pay the vast majority of state income taxes and certainly their share of sales taxes since that's unavoidable."

"The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes."

"Point being that there is a certain degree beyond which wealth inequality equates to wage slavery and a very unhealthy, unhappy society.

See: France Revolution and Russian Revolution."

The French revolution was a rebellion against a caste system where one class had a literal legal right to subjugate another. That's just a little different, as I'm sure you can agree. Class in France was not permeable. In the US it is, if it exists at all.

The Russian Revolution was a case of intellectual elites overthrowning aristicratic elites. From the prospective of the Kulaks, it was little more than replacing the old boss with the new boss-at least until the Bolsheviks came through and began murdering people and confiscating land. In one single week, Lenin ordered more deaths than the Czarist regime had in the previous century.

One has to wonder if, given the choice, Russians would have preffered to stay with the Czars. Certainly a lot less people would have died.

"Wanting the rich to pay their fair share" != "hating the rich"

It's not that you want them to pay their fair share-you want them to pay someone else's as well. And I know you don't hate them. They are the hand that feeds. Without them, you would have to pay your own way, which would mean less disposable income for you. which is pretty much why you are clamoring for them to pay more now, in order to ensure that you don't have to make the sacrifice yourself. It's not hate. Shit, you can bet your ass that the slaveowner didn't hate the slave. he relied on the slave-he needed the slave-far more than the slave needed him. What you, and the slaveowner needed, is control of the slave-control of that resource. A way to ensure that the wealth the slave (or the wealth creator) produced could be captured by you.

"They really don't need your help."

It wasn't them I was trying to help. It was you. I'd like to see you less stupid when you go to sleep tonight than when you woke up this morning. You're welcome.

"Moron, you could have put any adjective there. Funny, sarcastic or serious. My point was someone mentioning features they prefer on some 62 yo woman.
#66 | Posted by crispee_oc"

What's your problem? Is it that she is 30 years your junior, or that she's not a tranny?

"The rich don't create jobs as a function of their accrued wealth (well, they do, but only in relatively small numbers)."

I didn't say they do. Most of them create zero jobs. And there are rich people in this country who are essentially job destroyers.

"Untrue. Wealth has nothing to do with the amount of services the government provides. A poor person who drives 20 miles to work will use more road hours than a rich person who lives from home. and so on."

There is something to your point and you may be able to come up with a clear example but there won't be many. Because whether or not you are personally driving hardly matters. If you rely on your customers driving to your location then you are still relying on our infrastructure in order for you business to be viable. If you rely on employees who have to drive, you are relying on our infrastructure. If you work from home and use the internet to do so, you are relying on our infrastructure. My point is that they rely on our infrastructure and benefit from it more than most so they have an interest in seeing it maintained and grown no matter how much they pretend it isn't so.

Give me an example of someone who is rich here who could have done the same exact thing in Somalia and gotten rich.... Unless they are some sort of crime lord it would be very difficult. There is a reason for that. These people are not magical no matter how badly their ass kissers wish they are......

"What's your problem? Is it that she is 30 years your junior, or that she's not a tranny?"

Problem? I said I think it is kind of sick for someone to wonder how a 62 yo woman would look with longer hair. You on the other hand should be telling us why that isn't sick. I would assume you wear a wig when you get dressed up for the boys. Do they like it more or less in that sick world you frequent?

"Without them, you would have to pay your own way, which would mean less disposable income for you."

This is total bullshit. Wealthy people are mostly a product of our system. The idea that we need the people who are currently rich is nonsense. With the exception of a very tiny group, most of the wealthy in this country could be easily replaced just like anyone else. "Atlas Shrugged" is not even close to reality. Its more a delusional pipe dream.

Give me an example of someone who is rich here who could have done the same exact thing in Somalia and gotten rich....

I am doing okay, but not "rich".

I could NOT have done the exact same thing in Somalia. I have to be surrounded with businesses who have a need/desire to protect their assets in order for me to thrive. IOW, I have to be surrounded with other successful people for me to be successful. Same goes with the rest of my industry.

"Do they like it more or less in that sick world you frequent?
#90 | Posted by crispee_oc"

You are of course in a much better position to answer that than I am, sweetie.

I believe you are wrong. The so called rich (upper 10% of wage earners) pay the vast majority of state income taxes and certainly their share of sales taxes since that's unavoidable.

In many states you calculate state income tax based strictly on your federal income tax so you are off the mark with that statement.

#81 | Posted by FreddyK

Well the facts say you are wrong.

Also, the "rich" pay the lions share of property taxes since they usually have bigger pieces of property. Again, your statement is not correct.

#84 | Posted by FreddyK

hahahahahahahaha

called regressive taxes.

Houses worth 3 times as much do not pay 3x the taxes.

Check the facts

As people who benefit more than most, they have a bigger self interest than most in making sure that machine keeps running. And the government is also part of that machine.

So to cry about the government as if its the devil because you've been trained like a dog to do so is retarded to me. There are vital services that only the government can provide.

#79 | Posted by Sully

People whining about the rich (and pretending they got that way through inheritances) are the ones who've been trained. Jealousy (not saying you are) plays a huge part in it, and that type of attitude is fostered by Democrats and Unions. Are their trust fund babies? yes. Do I hate them? no, but I can understand why some would... The problem is that they're the minority. $250,000-$1,000,0000 incomes are imo, made via hard work, and refering to them as "the rich" is ridiculous (I know 1,000,000 is "rich"). It's the uber wealthy that fit your scenarios more so than people that took chances, found a void, and filled it.
The fact is the "rich" pay way more than the poor, so that takes care of the self interest portion. To call it a bigger self interest is misleading...they're go getters with savings, because they're responsible and plan for the future. The poor on the other hand MUST have the machine running in order to survive...unfrtunately they don't do much in the way of contributing.

Net takers, whether rich or poor, are the problem. Able bodied net takers do way more to earn my disdain than some trust fund baby. I'd much rather be taken advantage of by a go getter than some lazy slob that never contributed anything.

OBTW

on roads

Heavy commercial trucks cause FAR MORE wear and tear on a road than a passenger vehicle.

So what does this mean?

Unless the corporation is paying FAR MORE for the use of the road (which occurs on toll roads), than the corporation (the owners and operators of the large vehicles for the most part) are getting a bargain on road building.

just saying, I know facts suck but you know what they say

truth hurts donut.

Houses worth 3 times as much do not pay 3x the taxes.

Check the facts

#95 | Posted by truthhurts

I hate to break it to you, but they don't need to pay 3x's more because they're not using 3x's more services.
Look at a new developement in your town. Look at the taxes they pay compared to the folks just outside of that development...the taxes aren't even close to comparable.

I pay circa $6k in property and school taxes. The houses less than a 1/2 mile from me pay in the 10-12k range, if not more, and they have the same number of sq ft, bathrooms, etc and my yard is about 10x their size. Their houses cost maybe 100k more than mine, some 150k more.

to expand slightly, yes there are far more passenger cars on the road, but they cause about 0.01% of the wear and tear on a road compared to the damage the trucks do.

Unless the corporation is paying FAR MORE for the use of the road (which occurs on toll roads), than the corporation (the owners and operators of the large vehicles for the most part) are getting a bargain on road building.

just saying, I know facts suck but you know what they say

truth hurts donut.

#97 | Posted by truthhurts

Gas taxes, copernicus.

truth hurts.

America has the 3rd lowest social mobility rate in the developed world after Greece and the UK.

Over 50% of every dollar made in the US goes to the top 1%

The situation for the average American has only worsened since the GOP experiment in cutting taxes began.

And some morons on this thread are talking about doubling down on the dumb?

Can Spud get a "But but, but, American Exceptionalism!1!" up in this mutha?

It's only the fact that so much of this ignorance is deliberately inculcated into so many of you through a manipulative corporate media that keeps Spud from really being mean about this stuff, btw.

Be Well.

yes there are far more passenger cars on the road, but they cause about 0.01% of the wear and tear on a road compared to the damage the trucks do.

Old stat. Technically, SUV's weigh enough to qualify as a truck and, even more technically, those "no truck" streets are also no SUV streets. Every SUV you see in a drive way on those streets are violating the law =P

What a fu&king idiot. The top 10% of income earners in this country pay 70% OF ALL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!!! "The rest of us"??? "THE REST OF US!!??" Speaking of "the rest of us": 50% of "Americans" pay LITERALLY ZERO taxes! LITERALLY ZERO! Hell some people MAKE MONEY off of "the rest of us" (and by that I obviously mean that 71% of THAT money comes from "the wealthy"). How about this? How about "the rest" get to only use what they pay for? You don't pay taxes? You don't get to use the roads, don't get the police, don't get the fire department! What a stupid b!tch. The rich not only DID get rich "on their own", but they paid the overwhelming majority of the taxes that were needed to build the roads to GET their goods to market. People are actually APPLAUDING this ignorant cu_nt??? Amazing.

This is total bullshit. Wealthy people are mostly a product of our system. The idea that we need the people who are currently rich is nonsense. With the exception of a very tiny group, most of the wealthy in this country could be easily replaced just like anyone else. "Atlas Shrugged" is not even close to reality. Its more a delusional pipe dream.

#91 | Posted by Sully at 2011-09-23 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Mostly a product of our system? Really? So why isn't there a much larger portion of the population being rich. It's a part of the system, apparently. It's easy, you say.

It's not easy, but it can be done.

You're right, all those rich should just leave this nation. All of the lazy assed bottom feeders will rise to the occasion and all of sudden grow a backbone and work ethic. They're on standby for their riches. They just don't need to right now.

So moronic. Do you have velcro shoes on right now?

but that makes the tax regressive. it is based on value and the more valuable your house, your tax doesnt rise accordingly. The less the valuable your house the more tax you pay relatively.

In my county, the houses in each town or unincorporated area pay the same rate as others in that area, therefore, if a house is valued 3x as much they do pay 3x the taxes.

Gas taxes, copernicus.

truth hurts.

#100 | Posted by 101Chairborne at

spoken as if means something einstein?

which are generally about the same as diesel taxes, (some states the gas tax is higher, some lower), which means passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles pay about the same per road mile per MPG.

yes commercial vehicles will use more fuel (than most passenger vehicles), but not noticably more MPG certainly not 100 or 1000 times as much

...all those rich should just leave this nation...

Yeah, they are gonna up and leave the biggest market in the world.

* rolls eyes *

You don't really understand how business works, do you?

This meme is frequently found on RW blogs and among all the derp they spew it still stands out as being especially pants-on-head retarded.

The so-called bottom feeders (ie the vast majority of folks) are the ones who produce and consume the most. The ones who really determine the demand side of the supply and demand equation.

These so-called "Job Creators" you morons worship are, in the main, leeches and middle men who produce little and profit obscenely.

The one thing they do produce regularly is the corporate propaganda that gets low-info voters to vote against their own economic interests again and again.

So there's that.

Be Well.

which are generally about the same as diesel taxes, (some states the gas tax is higher, some lower), which means passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles pay about the same per road mile per MPG.

yes commercial vehicles will use more fuel (than most passenger vehicles), but not noticably more MPG certainly not 100 or 1000 times as much

you do understand that commercial trucks have to pay additional taxes, registration, regulatory authority fees on top of all of the fuel taxes right?

I'm arguing the amounts are enough (they are pretty high for my clients) but it's not like the fuel tax is all they pay.

"Over 50% of every dollar made in the US goes to the top 1%"

#101 | Posted by dethspud

Source? Can you actually document this nutty statement or is it just as crazy as most of your tripe?

I didn't say we didn't need them, Sully did. He said they wouldn't be missed in the least. I contend that we do need 'em.

I'm pretty certain that I have an understanding about business. I get paid to know more about it than you.

They may physically produce more, and I'm sure they eat and shit out the largest quantity of consumables, but someone has to put all of the pieces together. Someone also has to have the capital to buy the machinery that allows people to be contributing memebers of society.

Odd, I wonder why those "job creators" get paid so well, since all they do is leech and act as middle men? Hint, they add more value than some moron turning a couple of screws or hammering a nail. They work smarter, not harder. You should try that one day.

Maybe ceasing to speak in the third person would help your cause. Just a tip.

The French revolution was a rebellion against a caste system where one class had a literal legal right to subjugate another. That's just a little different, as I'm sure you can agree.

Actual slavery, indentured servitude and wage slaves are indeed different but as you say only a little.

Class in France was not permeable. In the US it is, if it exists at all.

Class mobility, the essential core of the American Dream, barely exists at all in the US these days compared to previous generations.

The Russian Revolution was a case of intellectual elites overthrowning aristicratic elites. From the prospective of the Kulaks, it was little more than replacing the old boss with the new boss-at least until the Bolsheviks came through and began murdering people and confiscating land. In one single week, Lenin ordered more deaths than the Czarist regime had in the previous century.
One has to wonder if, given the choice, Russians would have preffered to stay with the Czars. Certainly a lot less people would have died.

One can argue similarly in terms of France under Napolean after "the Terrors".

Pretty sure the French are happeh to have thrown off their anarchic monarchy.

While the Russians got a raw deal under the totalitarian Soviet system Spud is likewise pretty sure they don't want to go back to being serfs anytime soon.

It's not that you want them to pay their fair share-you want them to pay someone else's as well.

Progressive taxation doesn't ever lead to income equality all around the board, at best it slows or stalls the process.

Without them, you would have to pay your own way, which would mean less disposable income for you.

Is that whargaarbl supposed to mean something? Anything?

...which is pretty much why you are clamoring for them to pay more now, in order to ensure that you don't have to make the sacrifice yourself.

Wanting tax rates return to more sensible levels in light of the realities of the new global economy and the fact that things were better then is purely logical.

As opposed to your ridiculous attempts to White Knight those who already are overly represented.

That's just dumb.

You are either a paid troll or massively ignorant.

Possibly both.

Be Well.

"Over 50% of every dollar made in the US goes to the top 1%"
#101 | Posted by dethspud
Source? Can you actually document this nutty statement or is it just as crazy as most of your tripe?

Sorry, shoulda been 5%.

Over 50% of America wealth is held by the upper 5%

35% are held by the upper 1%

But that's not really the problem.

This is...

More news on the Liz Warren front.

The GOP's War on Warren has officially begun.

They are trying to pressure Harvard into not paying her her teachers salary.

The Massachusetts Republican Party has asked Harvard University to reconsider paying Elizabeth Warren a salary while the law school professor runs for US Senate.

By restoring her to the faculty, even though she has now formed a federal election committee and is actively campaigning, the university is establishing a bad precedent for academic appointments, Nate Little, executive director of the state GOP, wrote in a letter to Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust.

"Because whether or not you are personally driving hardly matters. If you rely on your customers driving to your location then you are still relying on our infrastructure in order for you business to be viable."

Agreed, but at that point the benefit of that road falls on the consumers, who by their actions (in agreeing to a voluntary exchange) have demonstrated that the costs incurred are less than the value of the good or service they have purchased. In other words, it;s the roads that have been of benefit to them. You can make the argument that it is beneficial to both parties, and I would agree, but you can't make the argument that it is beneficial only to the producer.

"Give me an example of someone who is rich here who could have done the same exact thing in Somalia and gotten rich.... Unless they are some sort of crime lord it would be very difficult."

That's a tricky question. I would contend that the same qualities that make a person rich here would apply in Somalia as well, but in the absence of an existing legal infrastructure, a producer would need to protect his enterprise, probably by employing some sort of gang. At which point, under your guidelines, they would be a crime lord. Or maybe not. It would be a complex argument one way or the other, but certainly not one that would be black and white.

"There is a reason for that. These people are not magical no matter how badly their ass kissers wish they are......"

Magical? No. Rare? yes-relatively speaking.

"The problem is that they're the minority. $250,000-$1,000,0000 incomes are imo, made via hard work, and refering to them as "the rich" is ridiculous (I know 1,000,000 is "rich"). It's the uber wealthy that fit your scenarios more so than people that took chances, found a void, and filled it."

There is a book called "The Millionaire Next Door." Google it. What the authors found is that 80% of wealthy Americans are first generation wealthy, and got that way through hard work and frivolity.

"Unless the corporation is paying FAR MORE for the use of the road (which occurs on toll roads), than the corporation (the owners and operators of the large vehicles for the most part) are getting a bargain on road building."

You seem to be forgetting why the corporations are using these trucks. To haul goods to market in order to distribute them to consumers. Through their consumption habit, they have demonstrated that the products they are purchasing are more valuable than the money they gave to the corporations. For that reason, you can state that heavy trucking is of greater benefit to the consumer than the producer. Sorry for going all "ECON 101" and all...

"It's only the fact that so much of this ignorance is deliberately inculcated into so many of you through a manipulative corporate media that keeps Spud from really being mean about this stuff, btw."

I developed this "ignorance" by taking numerous economics courses in both grad and undergrad. Goddamn that Ivory Tower!

"The one thing they do produce regularly is the corporate propaganda that gets low-info voters to vote against their own economic interests again and again.

So there's that."

To prove this silliness incorrect you have no look no further than the black market that thrived in the former communist countries. There as here, it was the risk takers that did the best. The fact that a free market emerged in a forced egalitarian society speaks more for my position than I could ever hope to on my own.

"You are either a paid troll or massively ignorant."

Hmm. Perhaps you'd like to compare academic pedigrees as a means of demonstrating who the ignorant one is. I fly military jets for a living, Spud. What exactly do you do?

I fly military jets for a living...

Posted by madbomber at 2011-09-23 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, you are paid by tax dollars stolen from the producers. I guess that's okay as long as you're not gay.

Some people believe the things this lady is saying.

And some people don't.

So it comes down to three questions.

#1. Why do you believe this lady is right ?

#2. Why do you believe this lady is wrong ?

#3. Which of the above answers is the biggest bunch of B.S. you ever heard ?

....NOPE in 2012.......

Mensakook-
Are you actually a member of MENSA?

Why does the left come unglued when simple questions are asked that rely on the person answering to use thier OWN common sense and intelligence.

No lead up no sides just answer the question as it was asked and what you think.

Why is this so frightful to the left.

The standard left reply of attacking the person asking a question that they don't like is plain to see here.

The next standard applied will be the person answering will be a racist or some kind of hater if the answer does not conform with the left view.

You see with the left, THEIR view is the only view.
Your's mean nothing, even though they want YOU to pay for their view.

....NOPE in 2012.....

"Why does the left come unglued when simple questions are asked that rely on the person answering to use thier OWN common sense and intelligence."

Probably the same reason Obama needs a tele-prompter everywhere for the speeches someone else writes, they have no fucking clue what is going on or what to say. Inevitably when pressed, the "woe is me" approach deflects the need for an answer or having to use their own common sense.

tele-prompter

*drinks*

Hic.

[reaganteleprompter.jpg]

[GHBushteleprompter.jpg]

[GWBushteleprompter.jpg]

U funneh!

Be Well.

She could be the VP candidate in 2016.

I fly military jets for a living

So yer a teat sucking member of the largest example of socialism in the US?

Noted.

What do you do?

Nobody knows.

International Spud of Mystery, beeyatch, deal with it.

Also the fact that a black market economy surfaced under the corrupt and inefficient command economy of the old Soviet Union is absolutely irrelevant to Spud argument that the so-called "Job Creators" do not create jobs so much as ship jobs overseas and use the legal bribery of lobbying to ensure that their risks are covered publicly (too big to fail anyone?) and their profits kept private.

Coupla simple questions fer Mensakook since he seems to like that sort of thing.

Historically what does increased wealth inequality lead to?

Do you view increased wealth inequality and a decreased social mobility as a good thing in any way shape or form?

Does the social contract have any value to you at all?

Be Well.

AU: She could be the VP candidate in 2016.

Fingers crossed.

Yer not the first person Spud has seen making this observation.

Spud imagines you will not be the last.

It is well.

Be Well.

"Historically what does increased wealth inequality lead to?" - DethSpud

Oh do tell, but make sure you tell use the correlation value. Because if I am correct in your implication it is "revolution" in which there is a 0.018 pearson correlation, which means there is none.

The highest correlation is unemployed youth, and longevity of the leader.

"Do you view increased wealth inequality and a decreased social mobility as a good thing in any way shape or form?" - Dethspud

In a third world country I have a problem with it. But in a modern western country the inequality is only a view of unequal success.

"Does the social contract have any value to you at all?" - Dethspud

No, it is broken for me. contrary to Warrens speech, I have had my shop broken into by marauders, and I have $20K in equipment stolen. The police did little, as I watched my equipment get sold on Craigslist. Since then I have just recently had my SUV picked clean on my own driveway. So sorry spud, while I pay plenty in taxes, I am not seeing even the slightest of the social contract Ms Warren speaks of.

I wonder if Elizabeth Warren takes any deductions or credits on her taxes?

Similar to what I said in my original post in this thread:

"Progressives just love Ms. Warren because she feeds them red meat.

Her position that successful entrepreneurs need to fork over a bigger hunk of their earnings because the government helped them earn it underscores the essential difference between free-market conservatives and big-government liberals.

But let’s get to the specific point Ms. Warren was trying to make.

She said that the factory owner should pay more in taxes because the firemen and policemen keep him safe. But what came first, the factory or the firemen?

I could make a very convincing argument that these policemen and firemen owe their jobs to the factory owner. After all, it was the success of his business that expanded the local economy, increased the local population and created the need for new policemen and firemen.

In fact, I might even argue that the entire city owes the factory owner. His choice to build the factory and locate his business in the community created an infrastructure that benefited everyone in the community. In other words, the infrastructure didn’t create the factory, as Elizabeth Warren would have you believe, but rather, the factory created the infrastructure.

Ms. Warren’s selfish factory owner example contains just two facts: 1) The factory was built; and 2) the builder made a killing. Her story conveniently ends there. But it’s really just the beginning of the story. Here’s how the rest of it goes:

The building of the factory created jobs; these jobs increased the money supply of the local community; this increase in the money supply allowed other local businesses to increase their sales; this increase in sales allowed local businesses to hire more people; this increase in hiring further increased the money supply; and… I could keep going, but I think you get the picture?¹

So the truth is, if anyone is indebted to anyone else, the local government and the residents of the city are indebted to the factory owner.²

In fact, the factory owner should be given a key to the city because,

He chose to locate his factory in their city;
He created and sustained local jobs;
He stimulated the local economy; and, perhaps most importantly,
He risked his own capital and the future well-being of his own family to do so.

Footnotes:

¹ The factory owners creation of jobs and the consequent increase in the money supply will have attracted more people into the community, which, in turn, will have increased local tax revenues via sales tax, property tax and city income taxes. Sorry Ms. Warren, the government owes the factory owner, not the other way around.

² Many states and cities give tax breaks to businesses that relocate within their borders. Now, Ms. Warren, why would local governments do this if a net benefit did not redound to their residents by virture of the businesses’ presence there?"

"But let's get to the specific point Ms. Warren was trying to make."

Warren backs the Dodd/Frank legislation. The new mortgage regulations like NMLS. Consumer protection requiring more disclosures nobody reads... Notice how well all are doing since being encated by the dems.

"So, you are paid by tax dollars stolen from the producers. I guess that's okay as long as you're not gay."

As of the 19th, you can be both gay and in the military. But yes, I am an admitted parasite.

"Historically what does increased wealth inequality lead to?

Do you view increased wealth inequality and a decreased social mobility as a good thing in any way shape or form?"

May I answer. To some degree you are preaching a false paradigm. Your premise seems to be strictly that wealth inequality, regardless of the circumstances is a bad thing. So would society be better off if everyone were poor? Would that be a more idyllic condition. It would be a more equitable one, certainly. Of course those who are poor, especially in this country, might disagree. Those living at the poverty level in the US enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of a middle class European.

For that reason your argument that we a re heading towards something akin to the French revolution is simply silly. No one in the US is facing death because they lack water or food or clothing-it was those things, along with freedom, that the French fought for. You would do well to remember that considering that your system would necessarily be a repressive one that intentionally stripped individual freedom in the name of the state. Most people would call that fascism. Or at least that's what they called it when Mussolini did it.

Those living at the poverty level in the US enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of a middle class European.

false. "poverty level in the US" indicates a $$$ number; "standard of living" includes much more. you even applied "enjoy."

show we the US poverty level $$$, then show me, say, a middle class French couple of family, then list what what each "enjoys." and moreover what they expect vs what they hope for.

And those regs keeping lead out of children's toys? Or that keeps drinking water and food safe? Who needs that shit?
The Magic Market will take care of all that.
#29 | POSTED BY CORKY

He is stuck in his paradigm and proud of it. In fact he is so rooted in his ideology he has classified as anything other than his opinion as lunacy. I find many in the Republican/libertarian camp to be sociopaths. Given that 1-2% of the US is clinically psychopathic and 5-6% sociopaths, I think that many found a home in the those two ideologies. There are 24,000,000 sociopaths and psychopaths in the US NOW.