Elizabeth Warren Running Against Scott Brown in MA Senate

Heaven help us. Heaven help Scott Brown. A real live Statist is running for Senate against Scott Brown. Listen to this rant by Elizabeth Warren to a group of her adoring fans. She’s a darling of the left, and I can see why. She claims that all good things are paid for by high taxes on the poor and middle class. Everything bad is ordered by the rich who get a free ride on “us”. I am beside myself watching this video. Thanks to lefty Eschaton for the pointer. He likes it. I can see why.

Everything bad we have ever done was because of Bush. There is nothing done wrong since Obama came to power. Then she says that the rich have to pay more taxes. No news there, but is she implying they don’t today? Or that the Tea Party wants the elimination of all government, including police, firemen, and all roads?

If anyone asks about the rich paying their fare share, tell them Greg Mankiws recommendation:

With all the rhetoric floating around regarding the “Buffett rule,” it might be worth trying extra hard to keep an eye on the facts. Here is the progressivity of the current tax system, according to the Tax Policy Center. If you can remember only one fact, make it this one: The middle class (middle quintile) pays 14.1 percent of its income in federal taxes, while the rich (top tenth of one percent of the population) pay 30.4 percent

In other words the rich pay on average about twice the rate that the middle group pays. And they pay it on a higher amount.

Or go to Veronique De Rugy’s charts on the Corner on National Review.

She says:

As you can see, the top 1 percent of earners (a household income above $380,000) shoulder 38 percent of personal federal income taxes and make only 20 percent of income. The top 5 percent of income earners pay almost 60 percent of income taxes and make under 35 percent of all personal income.

One important reason why the bottom 50 percent doesn’t pay much income tax is because lawmakers have decided to pay for social programs though the tax code and most of these people are either relatively poor or really poor.

This one sums it up nicely:

But of course it’s always more fair for someone else to pay more taxes, and for me to pay less. Go make the other guy pay more, so I get more free stuff from the government, who does no wrong.

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 21, 2011.
Filed under Categories.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Sheik Yur Bouty

    Uh, oh…

    Spongebob is sure to infest this post…

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      write not the sobriquet of the dirty hippy troll…

      Ah, too late, spongebob racepants has already appeared in his usual cloud of patchouli and body odor.

  • Anonymous

    Warren plays to her base.  Too bad she’s too stupid to realize her shtick ain’t playing well anymore to the rest of the folks.

    • Bob Armstrong

      That’s just another factless bit of BS. In fact, Warren is already ahead of Brown in the polls.

      Only one statewide poll is out since her announcement, and it shows her popularity spiking dramatically.

      Previous to her announcement, three polls put her 9-to-19 points behind Brown. The PPP poll just released shows her beating Brown 46-44 percent.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, yeah, yeah.

        • Bob Armstrong

          Let’s see, I believe the quote was ” Too bad she’s too stupid to realize her shtick ain’t playing well anymore to the rest of the folks.”

          Guess the fact that she’s ahead in the polls means GarandFan is ” Too stupid to realize her shtick IS playing QUITE WELL with the rest of the folks.”

          Yeah, yeah, yeah…

          • Anonymous

            I believe the proof will be in the actual vote.

            Get over yourself.  You thought the Democrats would make a clean sweep in 2010.

            How’s that working out for you?

          • Bob Armstrong

            You’re full of monkey poop again. I predicted the rise in the mid-terms of the Tea Party. And the coming fall in the 2010.

            Besides, we’ve now proven you’re stupid – that’s you swinging by your own petard.. Anything you say is horseshit anyway.

          • Anonymous

            Bob, does your mother know you are on the computer. You act so juvenile it is obvious to me and others that you have no substance to any debate. You bring your Barney Frank lunch pail full of immature name calling and foot stomping. Isn’t there anywhere else you need to be? ww

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            Hey, you going to link to that poll, so we can see its methodology?

          • Bob Armstrong

            Do you clowns really not know how to use a search engine yet?

          • jim_m

            You’re one to talk.  How many times have you called people liars only to have them take 30 seconds to google the issue and post a link supporting their position?

            The question was to the specific poll you refer to.  You are too lame to actually post a link to that.  I could google and find a number of polls potentially.  Without knowing which one you are looking at I am unable to look at the methodology and the demographics to learn whether or not the poll waws conducted in a reasonable fashion. 

            Many, many polls are conducted in a slipshod  manner.  When they were taken, how they asked the questions, how the answers were presented, how they weighted answers based on political identification all are mportant. 

            Someone asks for the source of your information and in this case it is for a specific link not just any story someone can google up.  Pony up the link or accept that you cannot support your claims.

          • Bob Armstrong

            Blah blah blah

            google it, moron.

          • Anonymous

            Care to point out a link to that prediction.  Not that I don’t trust or believe you, but given your track record of being full of shit, give us the link.

          • Bob Armstrong

            like I said, learn how to google the words “warren, brown, poll” 

          • jim_m

            If you are referring to the PPP poll it was conducted just 2 days after Warren’s announcement.  Since candidates often get a bounce from the announcement come back in a month and let us know what reality is.

          • Bob Armstrong

            Awww, look – Jim can google after all! Good boy, Jim. We’re very proud of you.

            The bounce shows just how desperate people are to replace the Tea Party clown who were elected. Lots more where that came from.

          • jim_m

            No.  The bounce is what would be expected after an announcement. Did you not read my comment or are we having reading comprehension problems again?

            And I have come back with many examples and posted links for you Bob.  You are the one who is seemingly incapable of ever posting a link to suport your arguments.

          • Bob Armstrong

            Apparently you’re too stupid to understand the word no, why should I help you with links?

          • Anonymous

            That’s what I thought asshole.  No link.  Full of shit as usual.

          • jim_m

            Bob demands that we google it because he is incapable of doing so himself.

          • Bob Armstrong

            lol – You really are a 12 year old, aren’t you.

            Here’s the quote again. I didn’t need to google it because I read the news. If you didn’t read the news, you need to google it.

            It’s really simple to google folks. If you don’t know how ask the nearest 12 year old… cept Jimm. He hasn’t figured it out yet..

          • jim_m

            No bob.  You need to post a link.  It is called courtesy and supporting your argument with facts that others can examine so you might be believed.  You responded childishly with repeated comments of other people to google what you had declared. 

            I don’t even know if the poll I found is the one you referred to.  You haven’t bothered to verify that one way or another.  Do you even know what poll the news story you refer to was citing?

          • Bob Armstrong

             No, I don’t need to post a link. The authors of posts on Wizbang dont’ post links. They’ve set the standard I’m following.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

        WHich poll, Bob?  What is the sample, what are the internals?

        • Bob Armstrong

          google it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            Thats what I thought.  You aren’t all that confident in your poll if you aren’t even willing to link to it.  The fact that you aren’t willing to link to it tells me all I need to know about its validity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            Because.. you know very well that your strategy would be, if a weakness is found, to say “Oh, I didn’t mean THAT poll, GOOGLE IT!”

      • Anonymous

        Consider your source when hearing rumors.
        Where was that posted, in the Boston Globb? (Echo chamber of the NY Slimes.)They had AlGore and Kerry ahead of Bush in 2000 & 2004.

    • herddog505

      Hold on: this IS Taxachusetts we’re talking about.  Class warfare seems to play very well up there.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, tell that to Walter Mondale.

        • herddog505

          Good point.  Let’s hope the people up there haven’t gotten any dumber since ’84.

  • Bob Armstrong

    Yeah, you knew I’d show up – anytime Wiznutters launch another factless tirade.

    The Buffet rule would effect .0.3% of the taxpayers and all it would do is insure that the rich don’t pay lower taxes than the middle class. Currently some do

  • Bob Armstrong

    What Warren says about “class warfare” is spot on…

    I hear all this, you know: “Well, this is class warfare, this is
    whatever.” No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.
    Nobody.

    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.

    Now look, you
    built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea?
    God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social
    contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who
    comes along.

    Well said!

    • Oysteria

      blah, blah, blah

      “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.”

      And that business man does’t pay “his fair share” toward educating people, building roads, etc?

      What a load of horseshit.  When he moves his goods to market he bought more gas which includes taxes to the state.  He paid more for licensing the vehicles, which also goes to the state and he also pays property taxes (and personal property taxes you don’t pay) which goes to the state.  He also paid the state, city and county for business licenses.  The list gets pretty long.

      But Bob bets all tingly when he hears his favorite lords and masters speak and runs out to repeat it.

      • herddog505

        I have to wonder what this woman thinks roads, police, etc. are for.  We don’t spend billions on them just for the hell of it, or just so people can drive to concerts in the next city or so their houses can be safe(r) from burglary and fire.  We spend billions so that commerce can be conducted, which puts people into work, provides them with food, fuel, and other goods, and in general increases our collective standard of living.  For her to act as though its some sort of benevolent charity is not only absurd, but demonstrates that she really doesn’t grasp reality very well.

        • Anonymous

          Actually, the Interstate highway system was conceived & built primarily to ensure the military could be quickly mobilized anywhere in the nation they were needed in a moments notice. The folks in Vermont will testify to that, the Army Corp of Engineers was there, in force, in less than 24 hrs. In times of National or Regional crisis, the first thing that happens is the highway system (not local roads) is shut down for military use only. It last happened here in Mass was during the blizzard of 1978. Commerce was, and remains, secondary to the military mission.

    • Anonymous

      No, Bob – not well said. It’s absolutely wrong. It’s not  a case of “the rest of us paid for” those services. Everyone who pays taxes paid of those services. And that includes the person working 16 hours a day to build their business.

      So, you have two public roadway users: some candy-ass kid driving mommy’s car around to entertain himself and a small businessman using the roadways to deliver the company’s products. Which one is actively engaged in capitol formation, and which one is the candy-ass kid?

      • Bob Armstrong

        Candy-assed kid’s mom paid for that road too.

        That’s the thing. You guys worship people with money. As if they deserve special treatment.

        They don’t.

        You don’t see the basic truths espoused in Warren’s rant – you are aren’t a part of our society – you just worship money and the people who have it.

        • Anonymous

          Bob – I retired ten years ago, two months after I turned 56. I don’t worship money, but I do have enough of it that I should never have any financial incentive to die. I’m required to make quarterly tax payments to the Feds. Just so you know, I served on active duty in the US Navy from 11/69-10/73 (which means I’m not living off a government pension). My work was in industry, more specifically management in a manufacturing company. I also served for 12 years in local government.

          And now you say I’m not a part of our society. Well, fuck you very much.

          Sincerely,
          UOG

          P.S. at some point in your life you really should devote some serious effort into growing up.

  • Oysteria

    You know, I hear the kind of crap Bob spews at work every day from a woman whose favorite refrain is, “They get rich off our backs!”

    This is a woman who makes pretty damn good money for what she does.  She gets 40+ days a year where she can not come to work just because she doesn’t feel like it and get full pay.  She gets health insurance for which she pays a small fraction.  She gets 7 extra days a year if she wants to go and volunteer somewhere and gets her full pay.  She gets free software for her home computer the company pays for.  She gets free continuing education the company pays for.  If she gets sick and has to take off for a long period, she gets disability pay from the company.  It just makes me sick to hear her piss and moan almost daily about how she’s so abused by the “rich man” who just doesn’t pay his “fair share”.

    • Bob Armstrong

      Yeah, and a woman came up to me after the debate and said defending the rich causes mental retardation…

      • https://plus.google.com/114041580398058374552/posts McGehee

        You’ll vote for her.

  • retired.military

    Yawn.
    Bob  the main reason that socialism wont work is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.   Obama has framed this issue about people paying their fair share presumeably to help balance the budget or help with the deficit.  The truth is that you could take all the money from everyone who make $1 million or more this year and it wont cover the deficit which Obama has run up this year.  

    You smartass remarks are boring, old and tiring. 

    Olaf
    Olaf
    Olaf

    • Bob Armstrong

      A guy named Olaf came up to me after the debate and handed me this graphic. It proves you’re wrong. We’re not headed for socialism – we’re trying to recover from a decade of coddling the rich – which has only served to contribute the high debt and recession.

      Bernie
      Bernie
      Bernie

      • Sheik Yur Bouty

        mmm…

        I don’t think that graph says what you think it says.

        …which seems to be just about normal for spongebob.

        • Bob Armstrong

          Too bad you’re too stupid to explain how it’s wrong – but don’t worry, DocEpador is usually wrong too, and he likes your comment.

      • Prent Rodgers

        Bob’s chart is only interesting if you overlay actual tax receipts the government received during the same period. They remained at 18% of GDP throughout the entire period, even when rates on the rich reached 90%. Why can that be? When the rates are raised, the rich seek uneconomic investments that lower their tax rates. When rates are lowered, they stop doing that, and the revenue increases. 

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    If it’s class warfare, declared by the left, I suppose we have no choice.  Load and lock, sharpen the edged weapons, and let’s do this.

    Should take about a week for the major confrontations, plus perhaps a month of mop-up of hunting down the stragglers.

    • Anonymous

      It’s “lock and load,” not “load and lock.” 

    • Bob Armstrong

      Waiting for jimm – who is OUTRAGED over the union agitator’s harsh words, to come by and dress down Adjoran for advocating murder.

      Ain’t gonna happen. Most of these clowns are just loud-mouthed hypocrite slobs…. and it’s safe to ignore them, but let a loud-mouthed asshole from the left say something much less innocuous than Adjoran advocating murder and girls like jimm are OUTRAGED – as they stand by and do nothing about comments like Adjoran’s.

      • jim_m

        Actually, Adjoran is advocating self defense against a group which has already advocated violence against those who disagree with them poiltically.  Our legal system recognizes a difference.  I thought you libs were all about the nuance.  What’s wrong?

        If someone is threatening violence and committing acts of intimidation I think self defense is perfectly reasonable.  It also happens to be legal in all 50 states (I can’t vouch for Barry’s 57 states).

        • Bob Armstrong

          Show us where the guy in the video above advocates murder.

          You can’t.

          • jim_m

            I don’t have to.  I never claimed that anyone did. 

            Lerner advocates violence and breaking the law.  Other leftists have advocated violence and intimidation.  Rep Capuano in MA has praised the idea that people “get a little bloody”. Amidst this violent leftist rhetoric it is reasonable to say that one will defend one’s self agianst violence.  If someone is threatening you with physical violence you are allowed to defend yourself.  You may feel that conservatives do not have that right but we do.

  • Pingback: Elizabeth Warren’s Campaign Takes Off – Business Insider | Divirama | Best Dictionary Shop

  • Pingback: LIVE AT FIVE – 09.22.11 : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: Elizabeth Warren’s Campaign Takes Off – Business Insider » Warren, Senate, Scott, Brown, Warren’s, SenateWizbang » Web Echoes

  • Anonymous

    It can’t possibly be because the bottom 50% are barely getting by in our paradise, can it?

    Even those “exhorbitant” salaries they pay letter carriers – $50,000 – are way in the top 50% of income.

    Of course, about 30% of the country is retarded, crippled, crazy etc, but let’s make them work in the salt mines or something and pay taxes.

    • herddog505

      “Barely getting by”?  Come now!  ”Poor” and “barely getting by” conjure images of Oliver Twist or Tom Joad, but the poor in America generally have a lifestyle that would mark them as quite well-off if not filthy rich in comparison to the rest of the world.  Quite aside from the huge numbers of “poor” Americans who own televisions, cell phones, cars, etc., there is the issue of obesity.  As that mooch Barry is wedded to never tires of telling us, Americans in general and “the poor” in particular suffer from the scourge of… being fat.  From eating too much.  When and where in the history of the world has this ever been an affliction of the “poor”? 

      Are there actually desperately poor people in America?  Sure.  Should we help them?  Yes.  Are there many of them?  No.

      The problem is that we’ve gone about fighting poverty in a way that is wasteful and, I believe, outright ENCOURAGES “poverty”.  We’ve built a huge, wasteful, inefficient government bureaucracy to “help” the poor.  Now we’ve got a new group of people – government workers and politicians – who’s livelihood DEPENDS on “poor” people.  It becomes in their best interest to have as many “poor” people as they can, and so they define “poor” in an arbitrary fashion such that we’ve always got a significant fraction of our people who are “poor”… and hence MUST have these politicians and bureaucrats “helping” them* (from the comfort of their plush offices).  The poor themselves learn to depend on government checks, and so have no impetus to do anything to improve their lot other than b*tch to get a BIGGER check.  And the rest of us disengage from the problem because there’s no need to give to charity or work in our communities because Uncle Sugar is “taking care of the problem” for us.

      To borrow from Jesus, we’ve made damned sure that we will have the poor always with us.

      —-

      (*) There are two basic versions of the federal poverty measure: the poverty thresholds (which are the primary version) and the poverty guidelines. The Census Bureau issues the poverty thresholds, which are generally used for statistical purposes—for example, to estimate the number of people in poverty nationwide each year and classify them by type of residence, race, and other social, economic, and demographic characteristics. The Department of Health and Human Services issues the poverty guidelines for administrative purposes—for instance, to determine whether a person or family is eligible for assistance through various federal programs.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

      Nice work if you can get it….

      • Anonymous

        As I said, about 30% of the country is retarded, or crazy.   I forgot to add: addicted to drugs or booze,

        or fat.  or with tattoos on their neck.   It all goes together.  

        Starving these people and making them work is more trouble that it’s worth.  They will fuck up almost everything they touch.  As a resident of the top tax bracket, I’m happy to keep these people fat and happy.  The dumb I can’t do anything about, that’s God’s work.  The alternative is them rampaging down the streets making more trouble than they do already.

        I’m more concerned about the working striving poor that deserve a leg up and not to be taxed into a hole – they’re already in trouble because of medical insurance issues, schools, rent, bank fees and assorted other ripoffs.

        • herddog505

          Commander_ChicoStarving these people and making them work is more trouble that it’s worth.  They will fuck up almost everything they touch.  As a resident of the top tax bracket, I’m happy to keep these people fat and happy.  The dumb I can’t do anything about, that’s God’s work.  The alternative is them rampaging down the streets making more trouble than they do already.

          Please understand that I’m not jeering when I write: what a delightfully cynical view!  In my experience, most people who advocate for the poor do so from a (usually ostentatious) sense of virtue: “See how much I care about other people!” Your view is more pragmatic: it’s cheaper to pay dumba**es to stay home and watch cable TV than it is to pay for more cops and prison guards.

          I don’t agree, however, for reasons that you touch upon in your next paragraph:

          I’m more concerned about the working striving poor that deserve a leg up and not to be taxed into a hole – they’re already in trouble because of medical insurance issues, schools, rent, bank fees and assorted other ripoffs.

          How do we help / encourage “the working striving poor” without encouraging them to become permanent wards of the state?  How do we avoid writing off “poor” (and usually ignorant) people who could and would contribute to society if given motive and opportunity?  I suggest that our current system doesn’t give people a leg up so much as a permanent crutch; our entitlement programs lead to an entitlement mentality.

          And, really, do we have an enlightened, progressive society when all we’re doing is a modern version of bread and circuses or when we write off a significant fraction of our people as basically worthless human beings who must be kept up because they’re too stupid to take care of themselves or else paid off because they have innate criminal tendencies?*

          N.B., I don’t regard such things as “medical insurance issues, schools, rent, bank fees” as “rip-offs”.  Everything has a cost.  To the extent that they are “rip-offs” (i.e. not worth the cost), this is usually because of government intervention.  I consider, for example, that I’m ripped off by the public schools.  Quite aside from the fact that I have no children, I don’t think that they do a very good job of actually educating the kids; indeed, they seem more like public day care services and increasingly like employment agencies for unionized teachers.  Health insurance exists because of government meddling in the private sector.  Etc.

          —-

          (*)  This is the basic “moral” argument that was used to justify slavery:

          [A]lmost all negroes require masters, whilst only the children, the women, the very weak, poor, and ignorant, &c., among the whites, need some protective and governing relation of this kind; yet as a subject of temporary, but worldwide importance, negro slavery has become the most necessary of all human institutions.

          George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All! Or Slaves WIthout Masters.  (Richmond: A. Morris, 1857), 297.

          http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughcan/fitzcan.html#fitz294

        • Anonymous

          I think we agree on some things, disagree on others. 

          Remember, the issue is whether the bottom 50% are inadequately taxed – that is the position being advocated. 

          My thoughts are that the working poor are taxed and ripped off in many ways for being poor already.  For example, public schools are often abysmal, but much more so in poor neighborhoods than rich ones, where recruiting and performance of teachers is closely watched by politically powerful parents.  These schools also have the resources that poorer schools do not have.   So in the rich suburb, taxes are high, but value for money is received.  In the inner city, not so much value.

          So public schools are more of a “rip-off” of the poor than the rich.  But proposals for “school choice” vouchers rarely extend to the full cost of a quality private school.  Again, another “rip off” of the poor.    What good is a $5000 voucher if you can’t afford the other $5000 it would take to send your kid to the private school?  It’s a great break for the rich family, to be sure.   It always seems to be a bias in these proposals that rich folks make out like bandits while poor folks get left out.

          The poorer working person is more likely to be employed in a number of part-time jobs without health insurance benefits.  Why?  Because that’s the way the service industry is structured to contain costs.  It works for them, not so well for the worker.  Without health insurance, the poor family is stuck with the Emergency Room and out-of-pocket purchase of prescriptions at worst, or Medicaid at best.  

          The cost of not being able to maintain minimum checking account balances is well known, and the rip off of check cashing shops.    If you can’t get a mortgage loan, you’re paying rent and not building equity.

          Who told you we have “an enlightened, progressive society?”  The USA has gone to a two-tier society:  a top level of “knowledge workers” who get rich and those who serve the “knowledge workers” and themselves in the “service industry” and struggle along.   The high-value added manufacturing jobs have declined, federal government employment is less than it was 40 years ago,many state government jobs have been privatized (example: full time janitors with health and pension benefits into part-time cleaning jobs).  Most jobs for all but the smartest and most skilled (or most connected and privileged) Americans are under constant wage and benefit pressure.  What would you propose for those unable to compete in this wonderful world?  For the truly dumb and dysfunctional – you put it well: it’s cheaper to pay them to stay at home watching cable TV (and eating Doritos) than to pay cops and prison guards. I add: because there are no jobs for them even if you starved them.

          • herddog505

            Commander_ChicoRemember, the issue is whether the bottom 50% are inadequately taxed – that is the position being advocated. 

            Not to nit-pick, but the issue is whether the TOP people are being inadequately taxed.  Warren clearly seems to think so.  To the extent that tax rates of the the bottom half is discussed, it’s generally to point out that (A) they have little or no income tax burden which means that (B) they have no “skin in the game” and are effectively leaching off the society.  In effect, their votes are being bought: “We’ll give you lots of government services and you won’t have to pay a dime for them: those rich b*stards will have to pay for it!”

            Commander_ChicoWho told you we have “an enlightened, progressive society?” 

            Liberals do all the time.  It’s their excuse for why we have to have our huge, wasteful, crippling social programs.  Personally, I think we are moving toward a LESS enlightened society: LESS liberty, LESS personal responsibility, LESS upward mobility.

            You note that the schools, especially in poorer areas, are abysmal.  I agree.  The question is, why?  Answer: government.  Poor people in service industry jobs have trouble affording medical care (something of an untruth, as they can go to emergency rooms and CANNOT be turned away).  Again, a large cause of this is government meddling in the medical industry that causes price distortions (how DID our ancestors ever see a doctor without low co-pays?).

            The liberal answer to poverty has, since at least the time of FDR and certainly since LBJ, been more government.  Uncle Sugar will take money from “rich” Peter and give to “poor” Paul in the form of Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, FHA loans*, etc.  We’ve spent trillions on the War on Poverty… and we still have it at about the same rates as we did when we started.  Worse, we’ve created a permanent underclass of people who know no lifestyle other than sitting on their lazy a**es, waiting for the mailman to bring their next check.

            What we see in the video clip above is a lib trying to justify taking even more money from “rich” people to throw down this rathole.  She is trying to assert the liberal talking point that rich people fundamentally do not deserve the money they have, and so it’s perfectly just – indeed, an outright moral obligation – to take it from them to give to people who – somehow – DO deserve it.

            Commander_ChicoThe high-value added manufacturing jobs have declined, federal government employment is less than it was 40 years ago,many state government jobs have been privatized (example: full time janitors with health and pension benefits into part-time cleaning jobs).  Most jobs for all but the smartest and most skilled (or most connected and privileged) Americans are under constant wage and benefit pressure.

            (A)  I am a “knowledge worker”, and my pay and benefits are under pressure.  My wife, also a “knowledge worker” (lawyer) got the ultimate pressure when she was downsized.  Almost everybody’s job is under pressure in this crappy economy (a notable exception being federal employees).  There are and never have been guarantees that one will have 100% job security and get yearly pay raises.  I think people have the idea that there are and should be because of the echoes of the post-war economy, the “good ol’ days” of the 1950s and 1960s;

            (B) With regard to the decline in manufacturing jobs, we again see the destructive hand of government: by distorting and ultimately inflating the price of labor by such things as minimum wage laws, collective bargaining laws, health insurance laws, etc., these jobs have been driven overseas.  There seems to be a goofy idea among libs that a factory job is the ne plus ultra of employment.  Perhaps it was for a brief period after World War II: eight hour day, union wages, no real responsibility.  For the rest of history, a factory job was considered better than working on a farm, but not by much: it was dirty, dangerous, and uncertain, which is why factory workers used to want to send their kids to school: so they wouldn’t have to work in the plant like Dad;

            (C) Why in the hell should a company pay a person health benefits and a pension for sweeping up???  And is this what we want people to aspire to?  Getting a job sweeping up or screwing on lug nuts?

            (D) Finally, the decline in the size of government is a good thing (unless we’re talking about the armed services).  Why should we pay a large army of bureaucrats to shuffle paper and meddle in people’s lives?  What a drag on our economy that is!

            —–

            (*) The liberal impulse to give people houses contributed in large part to the housing bubble and subsequent housing market collapse.  What did people expect when banks were coerced into giving mortgages to people who pretty clearly couldn’t afford them?

          • Anonymous

            On the one hand you imply that everyone, including the talentless and incompetent, should work.

            On the other you say  “Why in the hell should a company pay a person health benefits and a pension for sweeping up??? ”

            Why?  First, “sweeping up” and its equivalents are the best a lot of our population can do.  Whether they aspire to something better or not, they aren’t going to get it.   Second, if you believe in the social and moral value of work, it should be encouraged accordingly.  Will you justify $20 million annual compensation packages for CEOs and say $40,000 for a janitor or $50,000 for a letter carrier is too much?

          • herddog505

            I think we have to agree to disagree.  Yes, I think people who can work, should.  However, I don’t regard work as some sort of social program, a type of “work-fare” where people are paid above market value because that’s “fair”.  It’s very nice if a company can and will pay somebody $50k to sweep up, but they should not be expected to do so.  Indeed, I suggest that it’s outright destructive to do so.  First of all, that’s money that might be better used to grow the business, leading to hiring more people.  Second, if the business starts to do badly, those overpaid “charity” workers are the first to get the chop.  I’ve actually been in the miserable position of having to “lay off” an overpaid, underskilled worker, realizing that she had accustomed herself to a lifestyle (with the resulting debts and monthly bills) that she would very likely no longer be able to afford.  You mention letter carriers: I suggest that this is a good example of my point as we’re seeing the Postal Service in dire financial straights in no small part because they’ve overpaid and overcompensated a large, low-skill workforce that is rapidly becoming obsolete; taxpayers are being asked (more of a demand, really) to bail out the USPS just to keep these people in work.  It’s a waste of money.  It might be that the Postal Service would be in better shape and not need a bailout if they had paid wages and benefits more in line with market value.  And what will legions of unemployed letter carriers do?  Their job skills are pretty much limited to shoving letters and packages into the right box.

            As for the $20M paid to some CEO, I have to confess that I, too, feel resentful of the disgracefully high pay that some people get.  Does the CEO of even a huge multinational REALLY deserve that sort of pay?  For that matter, do professional athletes, actors, or other people who make huge sums for what appears to be little or inconsequential work?  Who’s to say what a person’s work is worth?  Answer: this is a decision arrived at jointly between employer and employee*.  They are the only people who have to “justify” anything.  This is as it should be.  So, though I may think that this person is paid too much, or that person is paid too little, I recognize that it’s really not up to me, nor should it be.

            —-

            (*) For example, I would certainly like to make more money.  I’m sure that my employer would like to pay me much less.  We tacitly agree that I will work for the wages and benefits I get.  If they get the idea that I’m not worth it, they’ll cut my wages or lay me off.  If I get the idea that I’m underpaid, I’ll try to find a better job.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

          How can they be taxed into a hole when they aren’t paying ANY, not a single cent, not one, of income tax, and are in fact RECIEVING money?

  • Pingback: Elizabeth Warren Slams “Class Warfare” BS – PlanetSave.com | Divirama | Best Dictionary Shop

  • Pingback: Elizabeth Warren Slams “Class Warfare” BS – PlanetSave.com » Warren’s, Elizabeth, Warren, Kick, Going, Senate » Web Echoes

  • Anonymous

    Is it any wonder why Obama like this woman? Same socialist views. Same partisan hatred.
    Same smug smarter-that-you attitude.

    And for someone supposedly so bright, she sounds typical looney left.

    Tax cuts for the rich? Wrong. They were tax cuts for everyone.

    War expenses put on credit cards? Wrong again.

    The Medicare drug program being 40% more expensive? Really wrong. Also called Medicare Part D, implemented under W, Part D has incredibly enough come in more than 30% below the original cost expectations of the
    Congressional Budget Office and the premiums are lower than expected.

    Warren is your typical dis-honest liberal. I imagine she’ll do well here in Ma.

    • Bob Armstrong

      Who said Obama likes this person?

      Where’s your link?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Stan25 Stan Brewer

    Those factories helped pay for those roads and in some cases built them at their own expense, when there was no access to the location that the factory was to be. Those same factories also provided funding for the fire and police departments, when no one else would. So this is just more commie hype that Kos and his minions spout all the time

  • Anonymous

    Anybody who listens to this idiot ought to be motivated to open their wallet for Scott Brown.  He’s not perfect but he’s the best we’ve seen out of Mass. in a very long time.  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AXDLBHGWBWIDXWT2LH62AO7I4M Real American

    Socialism my ass, tax rates on the rich have been lowered for the last 40 years, they are now lower than they were under Clinton which is lower than they were under Reagan, Facts have a liberal bias. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/Stan25 Stan Brewer

    This woman makes Martha Coakely look like a Mensa scholar

  • Pingback: The Social Contract | Wizbang

  • Pingback: ~ JP Poses a Liberal Conundrum: Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren | Just Piper

  • Dorita Lollar

    I pray to God no one votes for this female…(she can’t be called a lady)…besides being a liar she’s an idiot…