Althouse: "Elizabeth Warren Video: One of the Great Teaching Tools on Liberalism."

September 22, 2011

"Elizabeth Warren Video: One of the Great Teaching Tools on Liberalism."

Here's how Rush Limbaugh presents the video everyone seems to be watching right now.

124 comments:

Geoff Matthews said...: The problem that I have with this type of argument is that it is a bait-and-switch. Sure, I'm in favor of roads, law enforcement, schools, and so forth, but what about arts funding? What about welfare policies? What about entitlements?
I, and even most conservatives, agree that there are things that the government should provide. But there are things that (perhaps) the government shouldn't do, and there are disagreements over how much the government should pay. It's rather dishonest to ignore this.; 9/22/11, 6:05 PM
Geoff Matthews said...: Oh, and first.; 9/22/11, 6:06 PM
somefeller said...: I'm not the biggest Elizabeth Warren fan in the world, but Limbaugh lit up a lot of strawmen with that one. Warren's comments have some holes in them, but she's pointing out what's obvious to any thinking person - we live in a mixed economy, with benefits that come to people from the public and private sector. Warren isn't claiming that all benefits come from government. That is simply a lie, as shown by her comments about the benefits that come from businesses. Incidentally, it's amusing to see Limbaugh talk about Warren supposedly having "profound resentment" and being a parasite. Those would be good descriptions of him.; 9/22/11, 6:07 PM
somefeller said...: Geoff, your comments are true, and the article I link to makes that point quite well. I tend to agree more with its points than Warren's. But Limbaugh is also engaging in some intellectual dishonesty here with how he portrays and describes Warren's views. No surprise.; 9/22/11, 6:08 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Reddit has this up at their top, this morning. And, right away, I knew this woman was gonna reach America's youth!

Scott Brown will be in the fight of his life!

And, I'd even bet ... IF she reaches the Senate in this contest ... then she'd be the replacement for Biden!

I know this doesn't resonate here.

But "here" is an entrenched white minority ... who thinks the "unions" are their competitors!

Also, don't be so fast at dismissing Dubya for a hunk of responsibility! By the time he left office in 2008 ... his "popularity" had slipped to 31%.

Is Rush interested in knocking this woman out of competition? YOU BET!

Too bad, Mittens (who spent time as governor of Massachusetts) didn't hire the people to let him come out swinging like this!

This, however, is what messages sound like when the resonate.; 9/22/11, 6:10 PM
Carol_Herman said...: After the 2012 hootenanny ... when the results are in ... Even if the democraps hold onto the senate ... Harry Reid is gonna be voted out of his majority chair.

2012 is gonna bring changes.

Or as Sarah Palin calls them "unconventional results."

Elizabeth Warren knows how to stump. (It's a political term.); 9/22/11, 6:13 PM
PaulV said...: Harvard is paying Warren while she is running for office. Garage would scream felony, illegal campaign donation. She is under pressure to release information on what her TARP committee spent on salaries, including her own.; 9/22/11, 6:15 PM
Anton said...: Wow, she's got real issues, big time!; 9/22/11, 6:19 PM
Carol_Herman said...: One of the things that has surprised me the most, is that Mitt Romney doesn't fight with verbals.

He's afraid to say anything.

Which is why I think he is so unappealing.

And, then along comes this. And, I understand! Mitt Romney would be blown out of the water by the crazy white republican base!

Elizabeth Warren just stole his thunder.; 9/22/11, 6:21 PM
traditionalguy said...: When Warren has finished there will be no more money left here to build and maintain the proper Government roles she enumerated.

But whatever socialist crony sells the Green Energy System to replace the Carbon Energy System that we all get rich off of now, will be the only wealthy one while 99% of us starve to death in the cold.

And that IS the goal of Warren's sham proposals.; 9/22/11, 6:22 PM
coketown said...: I've been looking over my social contract, and I can't find the clause on cowboy poetry slams. I was happy to sign when it was police, roads, and education--the same things we had when federal spending was 4% of GDP--but I'm having second thoughts on signing with so much useless shit tacked on. What the hell is a Consumer Protection Agency? And how is that helping Mr. Bossman build a factory? If anything, it's making Mr. Bossman close his factory and move his workforce to China.; 9/22/11, 6:25 PM
LilyBart said...: The amount and level of government needed to create an enviroment where businesses can operate is SO MUCH LESS than what we have now.

We do not need income transfers and large welfare programs to make it possible for businesses to conduct business.

My guess is that that factory owner or owners have paid more than their fair share for roads, couts, military, police, firemen, etc. Ms. Warren and the citizens behind her want it all - they want to all to spend on themselves.; 9/22/11, 6:26 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Harvahd is so well endowed they can literally fund anything they want to!

Where my only surprise has been that they watch students go into terrible debt; when it would be nothing to them to underwrite the education.

But, that's where their money won't go.; 9/22/11, 6:26 PM
pm317 said...: GE (that bastard and Obama lapdog, Immelt) didn't pay any tax. How is that fair, a question Warren asks. Don't you want her to ask that question and maybe get an answer?; 9/22/11, 6:27 PM
Cody Jarrett said...: Maybe somefeller should explain just how Limbaugh is being dishonest about Warren.

It's easy to throw stones. It's harder to provide proof.; 9/22/11, 6:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Rush Limbaugh is the dog, the tick on his ass is the new GOP. The Tea Party are the fleas. Elizabeth Warren will be a force to be reckoned with.; 9/22/11, 6:28 PM
Kurt said...: Rush's response is reasonable, but I think Jonah Goldberg got to the heart of what's wrong with her argument more succinctly. As Geoff Matthews says above, this is "a bait-and-switch" she's arguing against a straw man who says we don't need government for any reason; but that's not the argument that most members of the Tea Party are making: they're arguing for limited, constitutional government that operates within its means.; 9/22/11, 6:28 PM
Trooper York said...: Warren is one of your tax and spend liberals who want to tax us into the stone age.

Which is where we would be if we followed her and Manbearpig and Ed Begley Jr and the rest of green brigade.

Putting the likes of Elizabeth Warren in charge of the budget would be like putting Carol Herman in charge of your mental health.; 9/22/11, 6:30 PM
somefeller said...: Maybe somefeller should explain just how Limbaugh is being dishonest about Warren.

I gave an example, when I pointed out Limbaugh claimed that Warren is saying all benefits come from the government. She didn't say that.; 9/22/11, 6:34 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Rush Limbaugh did his audience a service!

As I said, this morning, my first visit was to REDDIT. And, their Elizabeth Warren post was their top post!

Ann now says this video is VIRAL.

By definition ... viral cuts across the board! It reaches all sorts of people who don't listen to Rush.

Viral, though, means it's reached our kids! They're hungry for leadership.

There's no leadership on display.

And, along comes Elizabeth Warren!

Until I saw Ann's posted video clip, I had only read the words.

THE RACE IS ON!

It's like watching jeans take off! Formerly, only worn by cowboys. And, American sailors. And, not even carried in department stores.

I saw that trend start!

Back in the days when women weren't even allowed to wear pants to work. And, you didn't get "casual Fridays."

Trends are an amazing thing to see. (The GOP is NOT trending!); 9/22/11, 6:35 PM
Ann Althouse said...: It seems to me that Warren's main observation is a very conventional point that should be well understood (the foundational benefit of the social order and shared resources without which you can't run a business).

What she adds to that is a lot of passion, which enthuses some people and seems weird to others (like me). Settle down, lady. You're just stating the obvious.

And then there's just the big question of how big a "hunk" of money should be peeled off by the govt to spend on preserving the social order and shared resources. She doesn't answer that, but her passion conveys the impression that she wants a really big hunk... which suggests, too, that she wants govt spending on a whole lot of things beyond the basic things that are needed in order for people to be able to start businesses.

There's also the problem (which Rush points out) that the business has been paying taxes all along and has created jobs giving income to employees who are also paying taxes. So the business owner is not apart from the "we" who have been paying for the roads and police and so on.; 9/22/11, 6:36 PM
PaulV said...: 9/22/11 6:30 PM

somefeller said...
Maybe somefeller should explain just how Limbaugh is being dishonest about Warren.

"I gave an example, when I pointed out Limbaugh claimed that Warren is saying all benefits come from the government. She didn't say that."

She said that they could not have done it without the aid of government. You gave a flawed example. Try again; 9/22/11, 6:43 PM
pm317 said...: @Althouse that the business has been paying taxes all along

-------------
No. GE didn't pay any tax last year..that is what she is talking about, big corrupt corporations that don't pay their fair share.

Your 3rd para that she wants a big hunk and big government is pure speculation. I object. {playing the lawyer, haha, what do I know?}; 9/22/11, 6:43 PM
somefeller said...: She said that they could not have done it without the aid of government. You gave a flawed example. Try again

Limbaugh claimed she was saying a lot more than that. My example is fine. You should try again. Or at least read a little more closely.; 9/22/11, 6:46 PM
ricpic said...: Not that a capitalist has to justify his or her existence to this angry gnat but what products has Elizabeth ever brought to market and what jobs have been generated by Elizabeth's insatiable appetite for expropriation?!; 9/22/11, 6:46 PM
somefeller said...: Settle down, lady. You're just stating the obvious.

It isn't obvious to a lot of people, judging by some of the response to Warren.; 9/22/11, 6:47 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Back in the days when women weren't even allowed to wear pants to work. And, you didn't get "casual Fridays.""

LOL. I love a Rush rant and I love a Carol Herman rant.

You know when I went to high school, we girls had to wear skirts. And then I got in trouble for insisting on wearing skirts -- if I had to wear skirts -- at the length that was fashionable.

That was a double unfairness. And they didn't encourage us girls to go for any sort of career.

Even though we were dressed for it.

All dressed up and nowhere to go!

Except to the vice principal's office for having taken up the hem 4" above the knee.

Which is a length I still wear. Even though I'm 60. But I have a career, despite those bastards in New Jersey who doubly burdened me for being a female.; 9/22/11, 6:48 PM
mesquito said...: Bait and switch.

If you don't like looters and ignorant kids, send us your money. When we hand over enormoous checks to green jobs grifters and government unions, don't you dare complain.

Funny how the functions of government she mentions are all handled reasonably well at the local and state levels. GM couldn't find literate workers before Jimmy Carter sleazed into existence the U.S. Department of Education?; 9/22/11, 6:48 PM
Trooper York said...: Enough is never enough for the tax and spend liberals. They want it all. Every penny. And until they get it they will cry racism and sexism and every other ism they can come up with to take away every last dollar.

They want to make this Cuba.

Except they would take away the cigars.; 9/22/11, 6:49 PM
pm317 said...: Here is her announcement video. How can you not agree with what she is saying? When Palin goes around bashing big corporations and Washington establishment, you accept it but when Warren says it, you don't?

@Althouse Settle down, lady. You're just stating the obvious.

You know Ann, I think you are anti-woman, more so if the woman is of your generation and a Democrat. The tone of that line is offensive.; 9/22/11, 6:53 PM
mesquito said...: If we ever managed to limit the government to what aWarren mentions, Ron Paul will dies with a smile on his face. Of course she doesn't mean that.; 9/22/11, 6:54 PM
Synova said...: I think that Rush makes the salient point. Sure he goes on and on, because that's what he does. But he agrees with her that no one does it on their own.

That's why HER argument is so powerful. She's saying something that is obviously true.

But she says a couple things that aren't true and Rush points them out... it's not government that provided the roads, it's actually the factory owner and the workers who have paid the taxes. It wasn't someone ELSE giving them a free-bee. And it wasn't government who provided the technology or know-how or even labor for those benefits, it was the private sector. Government was the middle-man, at best.

So who is it that businesses are supposed to pay back? They didn't pay in and get value out themselves or in contemporary cooperation with others, according to her, they just got value out and now they're supposed to pay forward.

I think that one thing Rush maybe misses is that it is more MORAL, in a redistributive world view, to have your money go to a stranger than to someone more immediate. (Ayn Rand addresses this and makes it so obvious that it seems ridiculous and you think, certainly people don't think that way, but they DO.)

I think that's the biggest reason for the pay-forward thing... if systems were benefited from and paid for, both more or less simultaneous and ongoing, then the dirty money becomes immoral and immediate.

The greatest possible distance between the source of the money and the receipt of the money equals the greatest possible morality. No nasty profit motive is involved, no emotional self-interest is involved. The money becomes completely altruistic.

And dirty money becomes pure.; 9/22/11, 6:57 PM
chickelit said...: I think Warren perceives the end of explosive growth in government services as retrenchment. It's like perceiving deceleration as a reversal in direction. Obama stepped on the gas pedal at the Federal level. The Tea Party wants to put on the brakes or at least ease off the gas. Warren thinks somebody is switching into reverse gear.; 9/22/11, 6:57 PM
chickelit said...: To be blunt and obvious, the left doesn't believe in the whole cart before the horse model of capitalism. They really do believe in their heart of hearts that government propels industry instead of the other way around. If I were in government, I'd wanna believe that too out of self esteem.; 9/22/11, 7:01 PM
pm317 said...: @Althouse Which is a length I still wear. Even though I'm 60. But I have a career, despite those bastards in New Jersey who doubly burdened me for being a female.

Wow, I sense a lot of bitterness in that and previous para. Could it be that 'if I could not have it, other women can't either' or is it 'I have made it that no one else should, as in it diminishes my success if other women flourish'? Which is it? May be there is a third option -- 'I struggled and let those bitches struggle also.'; 9/22/11, 7:02 PM
Anonymous said...: The leftist vision for America:

Cuba without cigars.

A good one, York, a good one.; 9/22/11, 7:02 PM
Herb said...: the other problem with her argument is that the services she is talking about police, schools are paid for by the states. We don't need the federal govt butting in. I would also argue, like Texas for instance is doing a much better job as a state in making business feel welcome by reducing a lot of these burdens.; 9/22/11, 7:02 PM
Synova said...: "I gave an example, when I pointed out Limbaugh claimed that Warren is saying all benefits come from the government. She didn't say that."

Perhaps my short-term memory is playing a trick on me, but she didn't talk about the government at all, did she?

A mysterious force caused Other People's Money to bring roads into being and kept the barbarian hoards at bay.

Short form: Other people paid for your sh*t.

So other people have a right to take a portion of your sh*t whether you want them to or not.

Rush says she's saying "government". Is he actually wrong to do so? She seems to be implying fairly clearly that there were no other funding options for infrastructure or security apparatus. Money came and money went, and without that money the business/factory owner would have nothing.; 9/22/11, 7:06 PM
Jenner said...: If Rush lit up some strawmen it was only because there were so many to light up!; 9/22/11, 7:08 PM
Synova said...: "You know when I went to high school, we girls had to wear skirts. And then I got in trouble for insisting on wearing skirts -- if I had to wear skirts -- at the length that was fashionable."

I met a lady who solved the problem of "officer's wives must wear skirts" by showing up to functions in "skirts of a fashionable length."

I think this also is about the time that pants on women and girls became acceptable at church.

;-); 9/22/11, 7:09 PM
m stone said...: Regardless of the emptiness of the argument---the social contract---it is so refreshing that a liberal actually voices the philosophy, articulate and clear, if not easily refuted and damning.

If only the elected would have that courage.; 9/22/11, 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Warren says, "so you have to pay it forward to other people"

What a complete load of crap.

Her generation has done the exact opposite - they've sucked so much money from the future for themselves that they've completely impoverished the generations to come.

This is liberalism.; 9/22/11, 7:12 PM
SunnyJ said...: @PM317...I get worried when "offensive" becomes the criteria.

Being the same age as Prof Althouse, I don't hear what you hear...I hear her saying, been there delt with that like she's expecting Warren to whip off her bra and light it on fire...oh for the good old days. It's a great deal of fanning of flames on something that is let's say...settled science!

So, lighten up as Hermain Cane likes to say in the debates.

The fault line in Warren's story, is that she isolates the "rich" as though he/she only ever took on the way to getting rich, and never contributed to those roads,police, safety, etc. That's intellectually dishonest, and Warren is clever enough to know it and use it anyway.

The real question is all things being equal, all people contributing on their way to success and failure, paying taxes and covering the social contract...if the successful business person creates jobs to keep the whole thing going...what then is expected of the workers who take those jobs? They've used the resources, and paid taxes like the wealthy business person, but the business person gave back employment to others? What is expected as a fair contribution of those that don't ever create a job for someone else? We want fair, now right?; 9/22/11, 7:15 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Warren is a hateful person who has never worked in the private sector. She is a law professor and has no real training nor expertise to comment intelligently on economics, or banking or tax policies. But that deficit never stops her from running her hateful mouth. Most people, except for far left librul loons, will be agog at her speech.; 9/22/11, 7:15 PM
Carol_Herman said...: There's a lot of stuff breaking in England, now.

Here's the skinny.

Margaret Thatcher did not want England to join the Euro. So, even her own team members got together and knocked her out of the box. (This was back in 1990.)

Queen Lizzie (#2) laughed her head off. She hated the "grocer's daughter!"

And, the left, alas, moved forward.

The EURO is now collapsing. The roiling you see now in global markets ... is because this one is even bigger than nature hitting Japan. And, their nuclear reactors breaking down.

This is huge!

Engineering? On par with the crap the Japanese didn't know they had bult. And, that's their tragedy.

In Europe? It's the tragedy that a "few" were able to rip sovereignty away from EVERY COUNTRY! Instead, the gnomes of Belgium became the "new kingdom." And, the money really went and got funny.

Now. Today. Over in England. There's an article I saw posted up at Lucianne. And, as Sherlock Holmes would say "THE GAME'S UP." OVER. FINI. KAPUT.

And, all the dead are the loonies on the left.

It's an amazing thing to read about how, for 20 years, the BBC swerved the argument to make the financial conservatives look like idiots.

The only ones who predicted this were the financial conservatives.

There's a book coming out. GUILTY MEN. By Peter Osborne. And, ya know what? Amazon won't list it as coming. It can't be pre-ordered.

As if "word-of-mouth" isn't enough ... to explain to people ... how there was a corrupt alliance between politicians and bankers ... to rob ALL THE MONEY.

Now? The EURO will end up as "funny money."

In England? Step aside for a moment. And, you'd see the curtain not only pulled back. But ripped off. And, ripped down.

And, Margaret Thatcher's reputation will come back alive. And, intact!

I can't wait to see Meryl Street in the IRON LADY.

I can't wait to watch as people begin to comprehend the rip-off.

As you know. The Greeks refuse to pay off the European bankers. And, the gnomes in Belgium ... may soon discover their whole kingdom goes back to what it was. Land reclaimed from the ocean.

Alas, the GOP is without Margaret Thatcher! (Thieving bankers, however? Out the ying yang.)

Soon it will be time to wear your galoshes, when you step outside.

Be on the lookout for the next version of GUILTY MEN.

(There's a title out there ... that pointed fingers, back in 1940 ... and the British appeasers.); 9/22/11, 7:17 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: Another liberal, Mark Cuban had this to say:
“So be Patriotic. Go out there and get rich,” he writes. “Get so obnoxiously rich that when that tax bill comes, your first thought will be to choke on how big a check you have to write. Your 2nd thought will be ‘what a great problem to have,’ and your 3rd should be a recognition that in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you.”; 9/22/11, 7:18 PM
A. Shmendrik said...: My problem with Warren goes back to some of her supposed scholarship on consumer bankruptcy and the testimony she gave in support of Obama-care. She suggested that an enormous proportion of consumer bankruptcy was caused by catastrophic medical debts. Anyone who sees enough cases in the bankruptcy courts knows this is not true. A given case in bankruptcy may feature medical debts among an array of consumer debts discharged. That does not mean the cause of the bankruptcy was medical debts. It is probably valid to say that a random sampling of Chapter 7 cases nationwide would show some medical debt present in a majority of cases, to claim that medical debt was the cause in the majority of cases is just not supported by evidence. You look back to her book "As We Forgive our Debtors" and you see the same kind of thing, a lot of anecdotal information and vignettes, but no comprehensive survey and true analysis.

Upshot - she was very willing to be intellectually dishonest in her testimony on behalf of Obama-care. It was the quid pro quo for what she thought was going to be the top spot at the CFPB. Didn't happen and now this is plan B. I sure hope the voters in Massachusetts are not as stupid as I think they are.; 9/22/11, 7:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Warren again, "You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for."

I guess she lives in a hole and doesn't own anything.

Because the goods she bought from the market that she has in her home and office, also traveled on the roads the rest of us paid for.

By her logic, any of us should be able to show up at her home at will and watch the RedSox lose on her flat panel TV because we paid for the road that she traveled on when she went to purchase it or when it was delivered.

And we helped pay for her education, so I want her legal services for free.; 9/22/11, 7:20 PM
ricpic said...: I think that one thing Rush maybe misses is that it is more MORAL, in a redistributive world view, to have your money go to a stranger than to someone more immediate.

I doubt Rush misses the IMMORALITY of the redistributive world view for he has often spoken of the perversion inherent in having your money taken by the state to be given to strangers, your money taken from your control over it to help those you love.

Redistribution assaults liberty.; 9/22/11, 7:20 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: pm317 said...

No. GE didn't pay any tax last year...

Really? They didn't pay any property tax? No sales tax? No payroll tax? No unemployment tax? No Federal Phone Excise Tax? No Fuel tax?

I know what you meant. But this is what we have to listen to every time it's pointed out that nearly half of Americans pay no income tax.; 9/22/11, 7:23 PM
pm317 said...: SunnyJ said...
--------

She is not talking about the 'rich' as in its abstract form. Watch her announcement video. It is about corporations and their lobbyists and conniving politicians who are screwing you and me -- that is where she is coming from. How can you argue with that in this day and age when there is no distinction between either of the party politicians and the way they swindling us?; 9/22/11, 7:26 PM
ricpic said...: Followed to its logical conclusion Warren's way ends with you, a puny individual, owned by the omnipotent state. And make no mistake, she knows that and wants that.; 9/22/11, 7:26 PM
Trooper York said...: Mark Cuban is not the Cuban that Warren wants to turn us into Roachy. Nice try.

She wants to turn us into a Fidel Castro government health care with no cars or guns dependant on the party and the government for everything Cuban.

And still no cigars.; 9/22/11, 7:28 PM
Trooper York said...: "She is not talking about the 'rich' as in its abstract form. Watch her announcement video. It is about corporations and their lobbyists and conniving politicians who are screwing you and me -- that is where she is coming from. How can you argue with that in this day and age when there is no distinction between either of the party politicians and the way they swindling us?"

That's pure bullshit. She is selling you a pig in a poke. The taxes will hit all of the middle class. That is what the reduction in the itemized deductions that they are talking about will do. They want it all. Not just from the corporations and the rich. From you and from me.

Tax and spend. Tax and spend. Tax and spend.; 9/22/11, 7:30 PM
garage mahal said...: Limbaugh squealing like a pig already? Nice shot Liz! You can't drink out of the same creek that the hogs are lying in, and Warren is righteously pointing that out.

But, there may be some serious Democratic strategists in Texas that say Limbaugh is a politically relevant Republican, and in that case, I should just concede the argument.; 9/22/11, 7:31 PM
edutcher said...: The fact GodZero wanted her to be his Dodd-Frank enforcer speaks volumes.

And the tagline, "There is Nobody in This Country Who Got Rich On His Own. Nobody", is refuted with ridiculous ease.

A lot of tinkerers, thinkers, and inventors hustled together their fortunes in the last 40 years without a cent of government aid or "help".

If her point is they still lived in the society, that's an irrelevancy. It flies only if "the society" did something actively to move the process along and, in may cases, that can be shown to not be the case.

Ann Althouse said...

And then there's just the big question of how big a "hunk" of money should be peeled off by the govt to spend on preserving the social order and shared resources.

You can find people in the inner cities making a living, albeit in a Fort Apache situation, in spite of the "social order", not being helped by it.; 9/22/11, 7:32 PM
roesch-voltaire said...: Trooper that claim about Warren isn't even shooting from the hip, both Warren and Cuban are saying we each have some responsibility for each other, but that doesn't mean I have to give up my car, or most of the million dollars I made on the market today from selling short.; 9/22/11, 7:33 PM
TWM said...: "Rush Limbaugh is the dog, the tick on his ass is the new GOP. The Tea Party are the fleas. Elizabeth Warren will be a force to be reckoned with."

I reckon we she's about a scary to deal with as Obama. Which is not much.; 9/22/11, 7:34 PM
Synova said...: For a moment I thought you missed my meaning, Ricpic, but on second reading I see you have it.

I think that money spent nearest to home is more "moral," even if I don't think of it in terms of morality so much as the reasons why it's more moral. Human connection is important and taking care of your family first is your first responsibility. The mutual support system of families is a social good because you're not taking from other people who also have people to care for, and you're far more likely to do something to help that is the right sort of help in the situation.

So yes, it's immoral to take money away from people because it makes them less able to take care of their own responsibilities or to use the surplus to create more wealth. Maybe they want to buy a scale so they can sell more fruit in Tunisia, you know.

Warren and people like her, I'm convinced, see it the opposite. It's immoral to spend the money you make on your own people and your own efforts to make more money. At some point you've made enough and the surplus ought to go to others, preferably others with whom you have no emotional or economic attachment.; 9/22/11, 7:34 PM
Chuck66 said...: I was expecting her to finish by saying "weeee breeeaathhhheeee unioooonnnnnnnnn!!!!!"; 9/22/11, 7:36 PM
Chuck66 said...: The problem is that if we spend $535,000,000 on Solandrya, there is no money left for roads.; 9/22/11, 7:37 PM
Chuck66 said...: How about $16 muffins at the justice dept? Is that what Warren wants to spend money on?; 9/22/11, 7:38 PM
J Allen said...: Shining economic stars of centralized government: North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Greece. They've all paid it forward, haven't they? So why is it not working for them. Even China is a house built on the sand. During my five days there I didn't see sun because of all the smog. They had to shut down factories for a few months to let the air clear enough to host the Olympics.

Here's an idea; don't like this terrible capitalistic democratic nation...wait for it...THEN LEAVE AND LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!; 9/22/11, 7:41 PM
James said...: No. GE didn't pay any tax last year..that is what she is talking about, big corrupt corporations that don't pay their fair share.

Are you and Warren really claiming that GE didn't pay any taxes at the local and state levels? That they didn't pay, for example, property taxes?; 9/22/11, 7:43 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: How much tax does the factory pay. Well, the factory pays a 35% tax on its profits to the federal goverment and an 8.25% tax to Mass. On $100 of profits this is about $41 (after deducting the state tax). Then the Factory distributes the remaining $59 to the owners who pay another 15% tax to the feds and 8% to the state on that ot another $13 for a total of $54 tax. Of course the factory also pays property taxes and other local taxes... the ones that pay for the roads schools and sidewalks. In all, the factory's owners are probably paying near 60% in taxes out of the $100 it makes. The owners keep 40% (which gets taxed again when they die).

I guess Warren thinks 60% is not enough. How much does she think is enough?

Also Warren ignores the benefit of the factory to society. After all the factory is what provides a living to the workers. I guess Warren thinks the government could better spend the money.; 9/22/11, 7:46 PM
Jane said...: Carol,

I'm a 40-year-old female, and all I have to say to Elizabeth Warren is:

Come and Take It.

If you don't get the reference, it wouldn't surprise me.; 9/22/11, 7:49 PM
somefeller said...: AJ Lynch says:Warren is a hateful person who has never worked in the private sector. She is a law professor and has no real training nor expertise to comment intelligently on economics, or banking or tax policies. But that deficit never stops her from running her hateful mouth. Most people, except for far left librul loons, will be agog at her speech.

Since you used the word "hateful" twice in your descriptions of her comments, you should be able to point out examples of statements she made that are hateful, rather than just examples of things you disagree with. You won't be able to do so. And for the record, Warren is a nationally-known expert on secured transactions, bankruptcy and other matters of financial law (she didn't spend her academic career on CLS theoretical nonsense), so she does have quite a bit of training and expertise on those matters.

You, on the other hand, are a stupid loser who looks at everyone smarter, richer and more well educated than you are (that's a lot of people) with a gutful of resentment. I suspect the main gripe you have against Warren is that she reminds you of that fact, AJ.; 9/22/11, 7:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Warren is giving the variation on the theme I've heard Barney Frank repeat, that government is merely us doing things together.

The counter to that argument is that so are banks - banks are what we do together.

So are corporations. So are baseball teams. So are lemon-aid stands. So are cage fights. So are drag races. So are symphonies.

The missing link in Warren's argument is the necessity of the government in all of this.

Were there no private roads. Are there no private roads? Can there be no private roads?

Does the government have to be the only vehicle for us going something together?

Can Apple make and iPad and I buy one without the government having to be around?

She says no. But why?; 9/22/11, 7:51 PM
Chuck66 said...: As a former finance person for a large national retailer, I can tell you that any corporation pays a boatload of taxes. Granted, GE used deductions and whatever to get out of the federal income tax, but they paid payroll taxes, huge property taxes (I am sure the public schools appreciate that), fuel taxes, sales and use taxes, prviledge taxes if they did business in NYC or Chicago, and their for-profit shareholders paid taxes on income. And their employees paid income tax.

I do agree that it is wrong that they used legal methods to avoid federal income tax (and are in bed with Obama), but for those of you on the left who say Big Corporations pay no taxes, you are very wrong.; 9/22/11, 7:52 PM
Michael said...: Pm317. Ah, the "corporations!". So you are good with owning a 401 k that stays in cash and is not invested in the stock of "corporations?". Or a pension plan that earns one percent a year? Or perhaps you inherited your money and some stranger "invests" it for you in way you are incurious about? "corporations" my ass.; 9/22/11, 7:52 PM
Henry said...: I saw the inspirational poster version of this light up my Facebook list and at first I was inclined to point out the obvious flaw in the argument -- the idiotic manichean game of "you" vs. "us" that Warren is playing -- but then I just didn't bother.

Anyone who repeats that Warren quote with approval has already assigned some villain to the "you" category. It's a villain they've long past assembled in their mind and nothing I write will displace the face of that adorable terror.; 9/22/11, 7:53 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Warren's leftism is not mainstream and should be easily debunked by Scott Brown.

Our businesses make profits and invest them into new businesses, that is how the economy grows, that is how new jobs are created, that is where products like washing machines, air conditioners, cars, ipods, computers come from. Everyone know this.

yet, Warren is against this. She wants the government to take the money from the business owner and have the government invest the money they way Warren wants it. We all know the government is a failure at investing money.; 9/22/11, 7:54 PM
Chuck66 said...: sloan, you are correct. The most common mistake economic illeterates make is thinking the size of the pie is fixed.

But instead, the free market will cause the pie to grow, therefore everyone, including the government, come out ahead.

Republican dream world...10% of the people make $150,000, 90% make $50,000.

Democrat dream world,...100% of the people make $25,000 a year. Equality!; 9/22/11, 7:57 PM
somefeller said...: Edutcher says:And the tagline, "There is Nobody in This Country Who Got Rich On His Own. Nobody", is refuted with ridiculous ease.

Actually, it's not refuted easily, because it's an obviously true statement, as the owner of this blog pointed out. We all receive benefits from living in this society that help support our efforts. Some benefits come from government, others from family, church, luck, etc. In many ways, just living in the US is a winning lottery ticket. Only a churlish toad thinks that their success only comes from their own actions, without regard for such benefits. That doesn't mean the government has a claim on everything we have or that all taxation is a good idea, but Warren didn't say that.

A lot of tinkerers, thinkers, and inventors hustled together their fortunes in the last 40 years without a cent of government aid or "help".

If they lived in this country (which has had a mixed economy over the past 40 years, I know - Alinsky National Socialism!), they got benefits and help. No one lives in the libertarian utopia where they don't derive the benefits of the Hamiltonian state we live in.

And by the way, didn't you mention you got some serious government aid and help - namely unemployment benefits that you took until they ran out? Such self-reliance! Darn socialists and their big government.; 9/22/11, 7:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Is it me, or is there an ever subtle underlying meme in the liberal messaging?

only liberals pay taxes, only liberals deserve the fruits of government

Who's House? OUR House; 9/22/11, 7:59 PM
somefeller said...: garage mahal says:But, there may be some serious Democratic strategists in Texas that say Limbaugh is a politically relevant Republican, and in that case, I should just concede the argument.

Jesus, are you still mad that Jim Hightower isn't beloved by everyone? Move on!; 9/22/11, 7:59 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: you should be able to point out examples of statements she made that are hateful, rather than just examples of things you disagree with.

Get real... the whole video was dripping with hate - her hatred for the conservative world view and the people in it.

It's hateful because Warren isn't just arguing that conservativism is misguided, she is arguing that it is immoral.; 9/22/11, 8:01 PM
somefeller said...: Get real... the whole video was dripping with hate - her hatred for the conservative world view and the people in it.

Such fragile flowers. Warren's video is just shocking in its language and intensity! Shocking! I had to clutch my pearls.; 9/22/11, 8:03 PM
somefeller said...: Anyway, off to watch the GOP debate. Hope they don't faint from the amazing heat coming from Elizabeth Warren.; 9/22/11, 8:04 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Actually, it's not refuted easily, because it's an obviously true statement, as the owner of this blog pointed out. We all receive benefits from living in this society that help support our efforts. Some benefits come from government, others from family, church, luck, etc.

Yes, but she argues that a particular group of people - the factory owner is the real thief in society. That is hateful language and is simply false The facts show that the factory owner puts way more into society than he takes out.

Bill gates is rich, but his wealth is a fraction of the amount of wealth that has been created by his products for the billions of people around the world. Under Warren's world view, we should all be paying Bill Gates a lot more money.; 9/22/11, 8:09 PM
Synova said...: A lot of tinkerers, thinkers, and inventors hustled together their fortunes in the last 40 years without a cent of government aid or "help".

"If they lived in this country (which has had a mixed economy over the past 40 years, I know - Alinsky National Socialism!), they got benefits and help. No one lives in the libertarian utopia where they don't derive the benefits of the Hamiltonian state we live in."

Where else are they supposed to live? It's not like they had a choice of staying here and getting "help" or going elsewhere and doing without help. (Or staying here and trying to get ahead *despite* the so-called help that sets up roadblocks every step of the way.)

I don't really think that's the issue, though. I think that there is a whole lot of counting as "help" the simple facts of living within a community. And I don't think that's supportable.

What is the alternative? "No man is an island," right? People are not self-sufficient. Henry Ford needed someone to sell cars to or he couldn't have been making them. Who benefited from roads that were built? Henry Ford? Maybe instead of Henry it was his customers who benefited from the roads they got to drive on. In fact, they benefited from the roads AND Henry Ford's cars. Double dippers, they were!

Taking the interconnectedness of all human endeavor and pointing to that as a particular benefit of taking money away from people so that spending decisions are made by a king or a committee is weak because the interconnectedness exists no matter what. It is not created by the king nor by the committee.

If no organization existed at all, and no taxes were collected at all, people would still be interconnected and dependent on each other for their well-being.

The "help" that a person received from others might be "Spoke with a human being today so I didn't lose my mind and because I didn't lose my mind I was able to invent the light bulb - also, it helped a bit that my wife brought me lunch."

A mixed economy is irrelevant to the question of our interdependence.

In fact, a purely market (unmixed) economy would be flagrantly interdependent. You wouldn't be able to walk across a room without tripping on a dependency. The whole place would be like a tire-obstacle row, except it wouldn't be a row it would be a solid grid.

The interdependence if individuals is independent of any interfering intermediaries.

;); 9/22/11, 8:24 PM
Synova said...: "Under Warren's world view, we should all be paying Bill Gates a lot more money."

Only if she were honest about his contribution.; 9/22/11, 8:26 PM
Metamorf said...: It's worth pointing out that the "us" vs. "you" rhetoric Warren uses against the schmuck who had the audacity to build a factory that employs people to make things that people want works just as well against the schmucks who work in the factory too. They too drive on roads the rest of "us" paid for, got education at schools the rest of "us" paid for, etc. In fact, it works against anybody and everybody. And, contrary to Ann's assertion, she isn't merely pointing out the obvious fact that we all rely on one another -- that would only point to the equally obvious fact that we trade with one another (and/or pay taxes).

No, the case she wants to make is that the factory owner -- and hence, by extension, all the rest of us -- has no legitimate claim to his income at all, since he hasn't really earned it. She's saying that, since he depends to some extent on tax-funded benefits, he forfeits his claim to any portion of whatever wealth he manages to realize, and should simply be grateful that the state still allows him (or any of us) to keep "a big hunk". That's an idea that's not uncommon among academic lefties generally.; 9/22/11, 8:27 PM
Synova said...: I failed to indicate that the first paragraph of my 8:24 comment is a quote of someone else.; 9/22/11, 8:27 PM
garage mahal said...: Jesus, are you still mad that Jim Hightower isn't beloved by everyone? Move on!

I'm weirdly loyal to certain things. And I fucking love fishing. And you rose up and bit nicely!; 9/22/11, 8:40 PM
mishu said...: Her arguments about roads are stupid. Roads are supposed to be paid for with gas taxes but then again all incoming money is the same. FICA, Income tax, gas tax. Never mind appropriations, just throw it all in one big pile and waste it.; 9/22/11, 8:48 PM
Milwaukee said...: Coketown said...

I've been looking over my social contract, and I can't find the clause on cowboy poetry slams. I was happy to sign when it was police, roads, and education--the same things we had when federal spending was 4% of GDP--but I'm having second thoughts on signing with so much useless shit tacked on.

I would encourage you to reconsider the part about education. While it is in society's best interest to have educated citizens, it is in a citizen's best interest to be educated. It behooves parents to get their children educated. However, the public school system we have now just seems to be making each generation a little dumber than the one before. The education imparted does seem to be slanted in a progressive-socialist manner. Parents should be given greater tools for independently educating their children, and not be so limited in their choices. As a former public school teacher, I must say that a whole lot of stupid is going on.; 9/22/11, 8:51 PM
Seeing Red said...: Here is her announcement video. How can you not agree with what she is saying?

How much is Haaavaaard's endowment again?; 9/22/11, 9:09 PM
Seeing Red said...: I seem to recall 3 generations paying for Europe's rebuilding & protection?

Maybe she should try that argument on them.

Oh, wait, they have NO MONEY.; 9/22/11, 9:11 PM
J Allen said...: So if Illinois taxed the rich at a higher rate would they have needed to have raised toll charges? Or, since Illinois taxes the crap out of it's citizens did they raise the tolls just so they could generate a bit more money to spend.; 9/22/11, 9:12 PM
Big Mike said...: Like every good lie, there is a kernel of truth hidden away in what Elizabeth Warren says. The entrepreneur really couldn't be successful without law enforcement to protect his or her business from extortion rackets, roads, an educated population to hire from, etc.

I'm going to leave aside the simple reality that the business owner, through business taxes and the individual's own personal tax burden, already pays for those services. That argument has been made very well by many others.

The real question is what services are enough? We, the people of the United States, have collectively reached a decision, through our representative system of government, that in the 21st century providing for the common defense means paying for and equipping a standing army, navy, and air force. We have collectively decided to pay for police at the state, local, and federal levels. We have collectively decided that promoting the general welfare includes providing a modest stipend for people too old or too disabled to work. I could go on and on.

But there are many "services" that we have most emphatically not agreed to. When did we agree that the Department of Education needs its own SWAT team? If the suspects are dangerous enough to rate special weapons and tactics, shouldn't the case be turned over the the FBI?

There are numerous "services" like that, and a competent administration would go over them one by one and decide which services, and which regulations, should stay and which should go -- and be ready to defend that decision. As candidate Barack Obama promised that that would be his administration.

But it isn't, is it?; 9/22/11, 9:35 PM
Wince said...: Scott Brown's best argument:

Massachusetts, if there's a Republican sweep in 2012, do you really want a congressional delegation made up of all Democrats, especially this abrassive, carpetbagging leftist?; 9/22/11, 9:51 PM
Peter said...: I don't like the Justice Dept. serving $16.00 each muffins (WTF!!!?) at their conferences so I do not like roads and bridges. I do not like my grandchildren being taught fisting in school so I am against police and fire protection. I am unhappy that so many of our schools are simply overpriced, unsafe day care centers producing "students" who can neither read nor cipher so I do not believe in an army.; 9/22/11, 9:59 PM
Monkeyboy said...: I like one of the comments from the Jonah Goldberg peice.

It's not government who gave us the ability to build factories, its the businesses and ability to have jobs that has given us roads and policemen.

Its a fundemental difference in the worldview of who is in charge, the government or the citizen.

The "new" version of the grasshopper and the ant used to be considered a mean strawman by democrats, now it's policy.; 9/22/11, 10:17 PM
jamboree said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/22/11, 10:31 PM
Carol_Herman said...: Perhaps Michael Lewis used the quote to open one of his books ... But I do remember reading:

NO WEALTHY FAMILY GOT THEIR WEALTH IN AN HONEST WAY. (In other words, it's first made by crooks.)

I guess one example would be Joe Kennedy's wealth. (Which came from Bootlegging. And, then wise investments in commercial real estate.) The stuff with Hollywood was just so he could screw Gloria Swanson. And, other dames.

But the real money came from his being a crook.

That's one road we taxpayers don't build.; 9/22/11, 11:02 PM
Milwaukee said...: Carol, I'm not so sure about "NO WEALTHY FAMILY GOT THEIR WEALTH IN AN HONEST WAY. (In other words, it's first made by crooks.)"

I'm not sure I agree with this position.
I realize you are quoting somebody. So rich families can't get rich either by dint of cleverness but must indulge in thievery? or theft? I'm sure there are rich families who are rich because of good luck, good ideas and hard work. (Again, what constitutes "rich"?)

I teach high school and often ask students what they want to do after high school. If they tell me they want a business degree to go into business, I ask them what business and why? It seems that an important part of being successful in business is to have a passion to do something well. Whether it is landscaping, selling bagels or life insurance, that passion and desire to do it well seems the most important part. We have a nation built of risk takers who made money providing goods and services others were willing to pay for.

While those railroad barons had government help and ended up fleecing a ton of people, they did get the railroads built and invested their personal fortunes. Had they failed, they would have lost everything.; 9/22/11, 11:41 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Warren is known {as Schmendrick commented] for using misleading data in her research. For instance, she categorized a bankruptcy as caused by medical bills when the bills were only $1,500! She did that to try to convince the public that we needed universal health insurance. IMO it was more than misleading; it was dishonest. But that is whatlibruls do- anything to advance more and more wealth redistribution.

Somefeller- I will be happy to bet bet you $100 this hateful lady will lose to Brown. Althouse can hold the money. And I said she knows little or nothing about economics and is ignorant of the true tax burden in this country and who bears its brunt. I stand by that.; 9/22/11, 11:51 PM
Paul said...: Why do so many liberal-Marxist women look like this? I play in Berkeley every Friday lately and they are such a TYPE! Jeez I guess being unattractive naturally propels one into the angry and envious world of the left.

And yes I know there are good looking lefties and ugly righties but we're talking definite bell curves here.

Haha, garbage probably thinks she's hot. I know he likes that freak-hag Kloppy.; 9/22/11, 11:57 PM
Trooper York said...: A million dollars? Really Roachy?

Say would you like to invest in a nationally known plus size clothing store that would like to expand to other cities across the USA. Who only manufactures clothing in the USA with workers who make above the minimum wage. Just sayn'; 9/23/11, 12:06 AM
SPImmortal said...: In this day and age there is a very simple rejoinder to Elisabeth Warren's idiot talk.

"Whither Europe?"; 9/23/11, 2:33 AM
damikesc said...: You know what's funny? Progressives actually say it's misogynist to call Warren a crazy bitch (I know because they've said it to me for calling her that).

I wonder where such concern has been since 2008. Apparently, it's only misogynist to insult progressive psycho bitches.; 9/23/11, 7:07 AM
damikesc said...: Warren is a nationally-known expert

...and the term "expert" is abused further...; 9/23/11, 7:09 AM
Curious George said...: "Ann Althouse said...
It seems to me that Warren's main observation is a very conventional point that should be well understood (the foundational benefit of the social order and shared resources without which you can't run a business)."

I don't think that's true at all. Look, no one disputes that we all benefit from things like roads, police, and military. WE ALL BENEFIT. We should all pay. Yes, the business benefits from having roads to bring their products to market, as does the consumer who uses the products, otherwise they would go without.

She is clearly making the point that the person who gets rich benefits more from the roads than the consumer who hasn't. That is bullshit.

We all have the roads and the government education. People do get rich on their own.; 9/23/11, 7:12 AM
damikesc said...: I wonder if Warren feels that people who spend MORE on the roads deserve to use them more? It would be the only logical conclusion from her mind-numbing tripe.; 9/23/11, 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: It may be a better teaching tool for conservatives. A government that charged only for services rendered would be a damn sight cheaper than the government we've got now.; 9/23/11, 7:19 AM
X said...: RV you probably don't know since you don't live in Dallas but Mark Cuban is a tax leach. He paid no property taxes for his broadcast.com business, got the politicians to build him an arena, and collects taxes into his pocket anytime anyone rents a car in Dallas. Let's be clear, he likes taxes for others.; 9/23/11, 7:56 AM
Roger J. said...: Hmmm--I thought all of this shit was covered in Econ 101--public goods versus private goods--the fundamental question if political--what is the mix.

Ms Warren is running for a senate seat in MA--the people in MA can make the call--what is most needed in the country is repeal of the 17th amendment, and let senators attend to the interests of their state (I also support repeal of the 18th amendment, but thats another argument--but certainly relevant to Ms Warren's argument: the ability to extract money is what funds bloated government); 9/23/11, 7:58 AM
rhhardin said...: Belmont Club

Policy is no longer the art of doing the right thing. It is the craft of carrying forward a narrative.

more

"The market is writing down the value of the world economy. Right across the board. It is making a judgement on what they think the future is worth. By recent numbers, not much. Not just because policymakers have gotten it wrong about the “root cause” of terrorism, or the Euro; but also about “Too Big To Fail”, population policy, multiculturalism, a crippling environmentalism and Global Warming, to name a few. The financial, national security and educational systems of the world are in utter collapse because they are stuffed with lies, which even when they are shown to be obviously false suck up trillions of dollars in their pursuit . And nothing will turn the global elites from continuing their ruinous path until they have spent the last nickel and dime they can lay their hands on. Certainly not the media."; 9/23/11, 8:03 AM
Curious George said...: Warren: Because rich people benefited from roads, and cops, and fire fighters, they should pay for roads, and cops, and firefighters, and school lunch programs, and tax breaks for green energy, and people who got mortgages they can't afford, and healthcare for illegals, and.....; 9/23/11, 8:04 AM
Roger J. said...: Curious George nails the argument--ALL people, rich and poor benefit from public goods; eg, we cannot apportion what part of national defense, for example, benefits what segment of society--

Ms Warren suffers, I fear from the lawyer syndrome--(anecdote alert follows): I have never met a lawyer who thinks that some how is JD makes him or her smarter than anyone else in the room--Lawyers simply arent as smart as they think they are; 9/23/11, 8:10 AM
X said...: EWarren is right. Harvard needs to pay taxes on that fat endowment. Because of roads.; 9/23/11, 8:37 AM
SGT Ted said...: Elisabeth Warrens view of government is that of a gangster protection racket and she wants to be one of the Capos in the Government Mob.

She is unfit for office.; 9/23/11, 8:42 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: X:

That is a good point about colleges. A lot of colleges are awfully rich and they don't pay income [nor sales?]taxes. But I doubt Warren would change that- it would kill her own golden goose.; 9/23/11, 8:49 AM
bagoh20 said...: How does paying people to not work in my factory help my company or them?

I've been told more than once that although they would love to come back to work someday, they want to wait until their unemployment checks stop. Others never even apply as they drive by on their way to cash the welfare checks.

Hell of a social contract there.; 9/23/11, 9:38 AM
bagoh20 said...: Warren's arguments are where you land when you are halfway through thinking these issues out. You think you solved one problem without considering the big ones that your solution just created.

You think you are being fair to the needy by draining blood from their potential, and that of their less needy neighbor.

Even a collectivist should think about where the collective gets it's energy and drive, but they never get that far. They just assume the it's always there to be tapped endlessly, while resenting it's very nature.; 9/23/11, 9:45 AM
Scott M said...: Hell of a social contract there.

Yes, she neglected to mention those that aren't living up to their end of her structured argument. In other words, "we all pay" for those students to be educated, but if they drop out and become a drag on society, she's going to be one of the first to blame that society for failing the drop outs. By her own logic, the drop outs should somehow be held accountable by those that paid for their schooling.

I doubt seriously she would ever admit to such a thing.; 9/23/11, 9:45 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Roger J. said...

I also support repeal of the 18th amendment, but thats another argument...

Aren't you a little late to that party?; 9/23/11, 10:05 AM
mtrobertsattorney said...: No one ever, ever gets an education on their own.

Warren has unwittingly justified taxing her educational assets.

If she attended an elite undergraduate college, that is worth x% of her income. Her graduate law school education is worth y% of her income. If she graduated from an elite law school, the y% tax should be increased accordingly. And since she is teaching at an elite law school solely because of her educational assets, she should pay an additional surtax on her teaching income.; 9/23/11, 10:05 AM
Roger J. said...: Hey ignorance--you are correct of course--I need to look these up before I rely on failing memory--direct election of senators and income tax amendments were what I was referring to--thanks for the pointer.; 9/23/11, 10:22 AM
SGT Ted said...: Her arguement is also the arguement of the tax leech, trying to justify the taking of the money that is needed to pay her high salary.; 9/23/11, 10:22 AM
Bryan C said...: Warren is a simpleminded demagogue. She takes a truism - that a civil society and a functional government is a useful thing - and turns it into a justification for demanding that "we" get what's coming to us from "them".

And the problem, obviously, is that in her world the government, and the people it deems worthy, are defined as "society". The factory owners and those other rich people are not "society". They somehow exist outside of society, ruining our "our" roads and using "our" schools. They're viewed as parasites, draining away society's precious bodily fluids, refusing to give "us" our fair share of their stolen resources unless "we" take it from them by force. And, if they cooperate and if it suits us, we allow them to stay in business.

There's no new wealth in her world because she can't abide the unfairness that would inevitably result. Just a diminishing pool of resources to be carefully managed, funneled from here to there by smart people just like her.; 9/23/11, 12:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Is it true, as some up-thread have said, that GE paid no income taxes last year? GE's consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC (Form 10-K) show 2010 income taxes paid (not expense which is not a cash flow) of $2.671 billion.; 9/23/11, 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: The American social contract is: Leave me be. I'll work hard, live a moral life, raise my family well, pay my debts, support my community as I see fit, and pay taxes to a government that performs its constitutionally-mandated duties that benefit all of us. You should do likewise, minding your own business will be hard enough. If we all do so, this country will be a hell of nice place to live. It won't be a bed of roses, as tragedy will strike all of us, and there will be plenty of sorrow to go around. But it'll be the best country there ever was.

The Warren social contract is: Look at those people over there. They need your help. If you won't, they'll riot. What, you won't help? Well, by God, I'm gonna get the government's guns and make you pay up, sucka. We'll let you earn the money, but only we are morally qualified to spend it. (sotto voce And pay no attention that we'll be giving your money to our friends, and taking our social contract maintenance vigorish. You just concentrate on earning that money.)

I just don't get it. I think most American progressives would consider it morally wrong, if you fetched up poor, and so walked down your street, breaking into your neighbors' house and taking their money to feed your family. But if at least 51% of the neighborhood fetches up poor, it's perfectly OK to invade the rich neighbor's house and make him as poor as all of you. Theft is theft, and apparently 35% of Americans think it is morally justified to steal from their neighbors when life deals them snake-eyes.; 9/23/11, 5:17 PM