How Elizabeth Warren's Ideological Views Destroy Wealth and Jobs

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 5:15 PM GMT
    Call her views socialist, fascist, or whatever, the problem is that her faith in government interventions, her dismissive attitude of those who actually create jobs and value and her sense of entitlement, will kill jobs. That a wide number of liberal bloggers and media promoted her message show just how out of touch some of these people are. That anyone would put a woman like this in any position of power is astounding in today's day and age.

    Warren-MAIN.jpg

    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 maurauding 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.


    Probably the best rebuttal I've seen is here -
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 5:20 PM GMT
    OWS, Elizabeth Warren, and the 99% movement are all indications that the vast American middle and working classes are waking up to fight back against a system that is rigged against them.

    The fact that all you have to attack these developments are a series of worn out "free market" platitudes, all of which have been proven demonstrably false by history and current events, proves how intellectually shallow your Randian ideology is.

    Oh, and the fact that you rail against socialism while enjoying the fruits of its ideology in Canada.

    And this particular douche bag in the video you posted has to be the dumbest "spokesperson" for your agenda ever. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 5:25 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidOWS, Elizabeth Warren, and the 99% movement are all indications that the vast American middle and working classes are waking up to fight back against a system that is rigged against them.

    The fact that all you have to attack these developments are a series of worn out "free market" platitudes, all of which have been proven demonstrably false by history and current events, proves how intellectually shallow your Randian ideology is.

    Oh, and the fact that you rail against socialism while enjoying the fruits of its ideology in Canada.


    Waking up? Yeah if anyone has been doing that, it has been the Tea Partiers - if anything Occupy has been consistently losing support - not to mention the fact that Occupy itself was started largely by Canadians. But I don't really mind - I think it will be particularly embarrassing for you in the years to come. Countries and counties are going bankrupt under the weight of overspending and unions and public pensions and all you can do is point your finger to the rich despite the ever decreasing value of public spending.

    The only thing worn out here Christian is the tired ideas you flog and your persistent faith in government despite the reality and demonstrably false statements you make about the causes of the financial crisis. That you continue to claim that government regulations and interventions had little to do with the crisis do your arguments not only a tremendous disservice but reveal how intellectually corrupt your ideas are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 5:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidOWS, Elizabeth Warren, and the 99% movement are all indications that the vast American middle and working classes are waking up to fight back against a system that is rigged against them.

    The fact that all you have to attack these developments are a series of worn out "free market" platitudes, all of which have been proven demonstrably false by history and current events, proves how intellectually shallow your Randian ideology is.

    Oh, and the fact that you rail against socialism while enjoying the fruits of its ideology in Canada.


    Waking up? Yeah if anyone has been doing that, it has been the Tea Partiers - if anything Occupy has been consistently losing support - not to mention the fact that Occupy itself was started largely by Canadians. But I don't really mind - I think it will be particularly embarrassing for you in the years to come. Countries and counties are going bankrupt under the weight of overspending and unions and public pensions and all you can do is point your finger to the rich despite the ever decreasing value of public spending.

    The only thing worn out here Christian is the tired ideas you flog and your persistent faith in government despite the reality and demonstrably false statements you make about the causes of the financial crisis. That you continue to claim that government regulations and interventions had little to do with the crisis do your arguments not only a tremendous disservice but reveal how intellectually corrupt your ideas are.


    The countries that are going bankrupt, with very little exception, are those that bought into the austerity model argued for by their conservatives in the three years since the financial crisis. Those that pursued a progressive agenda or quasi progressive agenda, are the ones that are riding out the crisis and beginning to see growth return.

    And it was a lack of government regulation, particularly of derivatives and other exotic financial products that brought the economy down. In the last three years, tomes have been written illustrating this exact point and how the capture of government by financial interests in the US has prevented a real reckoning for those who caused the collapse by placing $4 trillion worth of bets on a housing market that - even at the height of the bubble - was valued at $1 trillion.
  • dancedancekj

    Posts: 1761

    Nov 20, 2011 5:36 PM GMT
    Fact: Both of you are right in different aspects.
    Government does need to cut back in expenditures, yes. And there are some aspects in which its business would be better run by private institutions, yes.
    But as it has been shown, the private sector seems to have no conscience, and the government needs to be one to prevent them from raping the rest of the world.

    Warren is simply stating two things.
    1. One man is no man. We all must come together and work together to achieve great things and to have success. To state that you became successful entirely on your own is absolutely false. If you were on your own, you'd be fucked, most likely half eaten by wolves in the wilderness. That's why we band together and get shit done like building roads, having clean water, identifying and combating disease, investing in technology and systems for businesses and institutions and so on.

    2. There are good things that come from having a centralized government that prevents the bigger bias that would occur should all the development be left to individuals or corporations. Sure, there is still plenty of corruption in government and its policies, but to declare it the root of all evil is rather anarchistic in my view, since I'd rather work to improve the system than burn it to the ground.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 5:38 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidOWS, Elizabeth Warren, and the 99% movement are all indications that the vast American middle and working classes are waking up to fight back against a system that is rigged against them.

    The fact that all you have to attack these developments are a series of worn out "free market" platitudes, all of which have been proven demonstrably false by history and current events, proves how intellectually shallow your Randian ideology is.

    Oh, and the fact that you rail against socialism while enjoying the fruits of its ideology in Canada.


    Waking up? Yeah if anyone has been doing that, it has been the Tea Partiers - if anything Occupy has been consistently losing support - not to mention the fact that Occupy itself was started largely by Canadians. But I don't really mind - I think it will be particularly embarrassing for you in the years to come. Countries and counties are going bankrupt under the weight of overspending and unions and public pensions and all you can do is point your finger to the rich despite the ever decreasing value of public spending.

    The only thing worn out here Christian is the tired ideas you flog and your persistent faith in government despite the reality and demonstrably false statements you make about the causes of the financial crisis. That you continue to claim that government regulations and interventions had little to do with the crisis do your arguments not only a tremendous disservice but reveal how intellectually corrupt your ideas are.


    The countries that are going bankrupt, with very little exception, are those that bought into the austerity model argued for by their conservatives in the three years since the financial crisis. Those that pursued a progressive agenda or quasi progressive agenda, are the ones that are riding out the crisis and beginning to see growth return.

    And it was a lack of government regulation, particularly of derivatives and other exotic financial products that brought the economy down. In the last three years, tomes have been written illustrating this exact point and how the capture of government by financial interests in the US has prevented a real reckoning for those who caused the collapse by placing $4 trillion worth of bets on a housing market that - even at the height of the bubble - was valued at $1 trillion.


    Yeah sure - austerity is the problem not spending. Sorry that's just plainly demagoguery if not an outright lie. That might be believable if it weren't for the mountains of spending being made - or that countries like Ireland or Iceland who have gone to considerable lengths to try to live within their means are doing better - and to believe that Spain or Italy or Greece have gotten to this point because of austerity is beyond ridiculous. And California... not sure that austerity is even in their lexicon. How embarrassing for you that the ideas that you pushed are being shown to be such failures almost without exception.

    As for lack of government regulation with derivatives and other exotic financial products? Those were compounding issues but you and I both know that the problem started with a lack of trust in subprime mortgages and related instruments. You had derivative contracts that did fold in on each other but they netted out. The problem however started in subprime and the housing bubble itself which was fueled by such things as unsustainably low interest rates by the Fed, government institutions in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and mortgage interest deductions encouraging real estate purchases.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 5:40 PM GMT
    dancedancekj saidBut as it has been shown, the private sector seems to have no conscience, and the government needs to be one to prevent them from raping the rest of the world.


    Where has it been shown that businesses have no conscience? Where has it been shown that governments have a better track record of such? Competition forces conscience through accountability. That's where I think you err.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 5:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Yeah sure - austerity is the problem not spending. Sorry that's just plainly demagoguery if not an outright lie. That might be believable if it weren't for the mountains of spending being made - or that countries like Ireland or Iceland who have gone to considerable lengths to try to live within their means are doing better - and to believe that Spain or Italy or Greece have gotten to this point because of austerity is beyond ridiculous. And California... not sure that austerity is even in their lexicon. How embarrassing for you that the ideas that you pushed are being shown to be such failures almost without exception.

    As for lack of government regulation with derivatives and other exotic financial products? Those were compounding issues but you and I both know that the problem started with a lack of trust in subprime mortgages and related instruments. You had derivative contracts that did fold in on each other but they netted out. The problem however started in subprime and the housing bubble itself which was fueled by such things as unsustainably low interest rates by the Fed, government institutions in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and mortgage interest deductions encouraging real estate purchases.


    You are either not the econ whiz you claim to be or you're just a complete abject liar.

    Iceland did not take an austerity approach to the financial crisis. In fact, it took one of the most left-wing approaches, which has been pivotal to its success in mitigating the impact of the crisis despite how great it's exposure was.

    First, the 2001 deregulation of Iceland's banks is what made its exposure to the crisis possible in the first place. In fact, economists compared the state of Iceland's banks post-deregulation to Enron.

    Second, one of Iceland's first acts in response to the crisis was the nationalize the banks! They also launched a criminal investigation that actually led to arrests and put a slew of knew regulations on the banks, including the kind of capital requirements that US banks are now fighting.

    To argue that Iceland pursued the same path as the US or any of the countries that are teetering on bankruptcy is just a complete lie. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 6:12 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Yeah sure - austerity is the problem not spending. Sorry that's just plainly demagoguery if not an outright lie. That might be believable if it weren't for the mountains of spending being made - or that countries like Ireland or Iceland who have gone to considerable lengths to try to live within their means are doing better - and to believe that Spain or Italy or Greece have gotten to this point because of austerity is beyond ridiculous. And California... not sure that austerity is even in their lexicon. How embarrassing for you that the ideas that you pushed are being shown to be such failures almost without exception.

    As for lack of government regulation with derivatives and other exotic financial products? Those were compounding issues but you and I both know that the problem started with a lack of trust in subprime mortgages and related instruments. You had derivative contracts that did fold in on each other but they netted out. The problem however started in subprime and the housing bubble itself which was fueled by such things as unsustainably low interest rates by the Fed, government institutions in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and mortgage interest deductions encouraging real estate purchases.


    You are either not the econ whiz you claim to be or you're just a complete abject liar.

    Iceland did not take an austerity approach to the financial crisis. In fact, it took one of the most left-wing approaches, which has been pivotal to its success in mitigating the impact of the crisis despite how great it's exposure was.

    First, the 2001 deregulation of Iceland's banks is what made its exposure to the crisis possible in the first place. In fact, economists compared the state of Iceland's banks post-deregulation to Enron.

    Second, one of Iceland's first acts in response to the crisis was the nationalize the banks! They also launched a criminal investigation that actually led to arrests and put a slew of knew regulations on the banks, including the kind of capital requirements that US banks are now fighting.

    To argue that Iceland pursued the same path as the US or any of the countries that are teetering on bankruptcy is just a complete lie. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Figures you'd take the lead from your ideologically bankrupt sources. Yes Iceland nationalized the banks and bankrupted them - not bailing them out. They didn't have the money to bail them out and therefore effectively let them go bankrupt leaving many of their creditors with nothing.

    The US did something similar with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae except they have continued to bail them out and continued to hold them - and sadly those like yourself are so willing to overlook the fact that upwards of 80% of mortgages passed through the hands of Fannie Mae. Iceland's recovery is precisely because they let their banks go out of business.

    I am not arguing that Iceland pursued the same path as the US or any of the countries teetering towards bankruptcy - yes that would be a lie to claim I said so - because I didn't. I said that they dealt with their issues that "considerable lengths to try to live within their means are doing better". They didn't believe in false gods like stimulus and additional spending as you would advocate. What you also seem to so conveniently ignore is that the regulatory authorities in Iceland already had the tools to reign in their banks before the crisis but chose not to do so - as did the Fed. What you argue for is even greater regulation when what was needed was greater transparency.

    As for Iceland being an alternative to austerity? I can't tell if you were mislead/inept or simply lied - from a source presumably you trust:

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/icel-j14.shtml
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 7:20 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said

    Elizabeth Warren: 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.



    50% of the households did NOT pay for any of it - they pay ZERO in Federal income taxes. Elizabeth Warren is either monumentally ignorant or lying. Take your pick.




    You should watch the video - it makes quick work of her statements - and he also points this out quite eloquently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 10:10 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said
    southbeach1500 said
    riddler78 said

    Elizabeth Warren: 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.



    50% of the households did NOT pay for any of it - they pay ZERO in Federal income taxes. Elizabeth Warren is either monumentally ignorant or lying. Take your pick.




    You should watch the video - it makes quick work of her statements - and he also points this out quite eloquently.


    I did - and he was making the same points that I've made here every time the scatterbrained Ms. Warren pops up in a topic.


    It's complete bullshit. It assumes in the case of infrastructure, that all the roads were built last week. The 47% who are not paying federal income taxes aren't doing so as a direct results of REPUBLICAN policies. Those are relatively recent developments and does not reference the 38% of federal revenues that comes from payroll taxes, which fall disproportionately on the working poor. In any event, the roads of which Warren speaks were built during the 50s for the most part and they are falling largely into disrepair because of the skewed taxation that favors the rich and idle wealthy.

    Of the 47% that do not pay federal income taxes, the breakdown is as follows:

    CBPP47percent.jpg

    30% are senior and students. Do you believe that senior should pay taxes on SS? Or Medicare?

    Further, those who are paying payroll taxes - that fund SS and Medicare - 79% earn less than $30,000 per year.

    trythis3.png

    Do you want to try and live in today's America on $30,000 per year?

    Finally, despite all your teeth gnashing over the tax rates on American corporations, have a looky loo at the following chart and see what has actually happened over the past forty years:

    1950chart2-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg


    In short, payroll taxes have been increased steadily to offset the of corporate taxes being cut by 2/3.

    On top of which, these corporations have also pushed more and more of the benefits that used to be part of their workers' compensation on to the workers themselves.

    So, middle class and working poor are paying a great share of not just the overall taxes paying for the federal government, but corporations are paying 10% down from 27% and despite paying 17% less in taxes than they did forty years ago have also pushed healthcare, retirement and other compensation onto the backs of workers themselves. Ergo, record profits and no job creation because of greed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 10:30 PM GMT
    It's almost a tautology to say that the people who pay no income taxes are in fact those who earn below a given threshold. I fail to see your point - it's still hardly healthy to depend on so few to make up the entire US budget.

    If you're going to make up the argument of inequality, those at every scale in the US make considerably more than most people in the developing world - so why shouldn't everyone in the US be forced to give up their incomes to the poor elsewhere in the world?

    Again you miss the point entirely and conveniently. In attacking those who create resources you would actually condemn those at the bottom of the pyramid to greater poverty. The fact is that even after the Bush tax CUTS, the level of revenues to the US Federal coffers was even proportionately higher than before even relative to the income they made - so much for your rather inconvenient facts:

    RIch%20Pay%20More%20Under%20Bush%20Tax%2
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 10:33 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidIt's almost a tautology to say that the people who pay no income taxes are in fact those who earn below a given threshold. I fail to see your point - it's still hardly healthy to depend on so few to make up the entire US budget.

    If you're going to make up the argument of inequality, those at every scale in the US make considerably more than most people in the developing world - so why shouldn't everyone in the US be forced to give up their incomes to the poor elsewhere in the world?

    Again you miss the point entirely and conveniently. In attacking those who create resources you would actually condemn those at the bottom of the pyramid to greater poverty. The fact is that even after the Bush tax CUTS, the level of revenues to the US Federal coffers was even proportionately higher than before even relative to the income they made - so much for your rather inconvenient facts:

    RIch%20Pay%20More%20Under%20Bush%20Tax%2


    How'd that look after 2008? Dumbass.

    BTW, no one "creates" resources. And spare me and anyone else your pathetic attempts to pretend you care about anyone who is poor. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 10:40 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidIt's almost a tautology to say that the people who pay no income taxes are in fact those who earn below a given threshold. I fail to see your point - it's still hardly healthy to depend on so few to make up the entire US budget.

    If you're going to make up the argument of inequality, those at every scale in the US make considerably more than most people in the developing world - so why shouldn't everyone in the US be forced to give up their incomes to the poor elsewhere in the world?

    Again you miss the point entirely and conveniently. In attacking those who create resources you would actually condemn those at the bottom of the pyramid to greater poverty. The fact is that even after the Bush tax CUTS, the level of revenues to the US Federal coffers was even proportionately higher than before even relative to the income they made - so much for your rather inconvenient facts:

    RIch%20Pay%20More%20Under%20Bush%20Tax%2


    How'd that look after 2008? Dumbass.

    BTW, no one "creates" resources. And spare me and anyone else your pathetic attempts to pretend you care about anyone who is poor. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Speaking of dumbasses - you're the moron if you believe that the numbers have changed so substantially. And yes, people do create resources - without ideas are just basic rocks that lack utility. Just because you pretend to care about the poor and even if you actually genuinely do, the pathetic and repeated failure of the policies you advocate to actually help the poor that do quite the opposite makes me pity you.

    How I feel sad for the day you realize your life's work has been such a waste.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 10:52 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidIt's almost a tautology to say that the people who pay no income taxes are in fact those who earn below a given threshold. I fail to see your point - it's still hardly healthy to depend on so few to make up the entire US budget.

    If you're going to make up the argument of inequality, those at every scale in the US make considerably more than most people in the developing world - so why shouldn't everyone in the US be forced to give up their incomes to the poor elsewhere in the world?

    Again you miss the point entirely and conveniently. In attacking those who create resources you would actually condemn those at the bottom of the pyramid to greater poverty. The fact is that even after the Bush tax CUTS, the level of revenues to the US Federal coffers was even proportionately higher than before even relative to the income they made - so much for your rather inconvenient facts:

    RIch%20Pay%20More%20Under%20Bush%20Tax%2


    How'd that look after 2008? Dumbass.

    BTW, no one "creates" resources. And spare me and anyone else your pathetic attempts to pretend you care about anyone who is poor. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Speaking of dumbasses - you're the moron if you believe that the numbers have changed so substantially. And yes, people do create resources - without ideas are just basic rocks that lack utility. Just because you pretend to care about the poor and even if you actually genuinely do, the pathetic and repeated failure of the policies you advocate to actually help the poor that do quite the opposite makes me pity you.

    How I feel sad for the day you realize your life's work has been such a waste.


    The economic crisis (which really should be categorized as the raping of financial resources from the country) disproportionately impacted the poor and, in particular, poor people of color. In the last three years, countless working class and middle class families have had their live saving erased by foreclosure, seen their 401ks obliterated, and then had assholes like you tell them to buck up and stop being lazy.

    At the same time, no one responsible for creating this "crisis" has ever been held accountable in the US. In fact, they've gone on to make even more "profits". Since to a one they bet against, the American economy, they should all be in jail for treason.

    Instead the police are pepper-spraying unemployed college students.

    And my "life's work" has helped far more people than you'll even hope to. In fact, part of my life's work has resulted in gay marriage rights, the repeal of DADT, the end of sodomy laws, and countless pro-gay laws and policies at the state and municipal level. And that's just one sector I've worked in.

    What is it you do again? icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 10:57 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidIt's almost a tautology to say that the people who pay no income taxes are in fact those who earn below a given threshold. I fail to see your point - it's still hardly healthy to depend on so few to make up the entire US budget.

    If you're going to make up the argument of inequality, those at every scale in the US make considerably more than most people in the developing world - so why shouldn't everyone in the US be forced to give up their incomes to the poor elsewhere in the world?

    Again you miss the point entirely and conveniently. In attacking those who create resources you would actually condemn those at the bottom of the pyramid to greater poverty. The fact is that even after the Bush tax CUTS, the level of revenues to the US Federal coffers was even proportionately higher than before even relative to the income they made - so much for your rather inconvenient facts:

    RIch%20Pay%20More%20Under%20Bush%20Tax%2


    How'd that look after 2008? Dumbass.

    BTW, no one "creates" resources. And spare me and anyone else your pathetic attempts to pretend you care about anyone who is poor. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Speaking of dumbasses - you're the moron if you believe that the numbers have changed so substantially. And yes, people do create resources - without ideas are just basic rocks that lack utility. Just because you pretend to care about the poor and even if you actually genuinely do, the pathetic and repeated failure of the policies you advocate to actually help the poor that do quite the opposite makes me pity you.

    How I feel sad for the day you realize your life's work has been such a waste.


    The economic crisis (which really should be categorized as the raping of financial resources from the country) disproportionately impacted the poor and, in particular, poor people of color. In the last three years, countless working class and middle class families have had their live saving erased by foreclosure, seen their 401ks obliterated, and then had assholes like you tell them to buck up and stop being lazy.

    At the same time, no one responsible for creating this "crisis" has ever been held accountable in the US. In fact, they've gone on to make even more "profits". Since to a one they bet against, the American economy, they should all be in jail for treason.

    Instead the police are pepper-spraying unemployed college students.

    And my "life's work" has helped far more people than you'll even hope to. In fact, part of my life's work has resulted in gay marriage rights, the repeal of DADT, the end of sodomy laws, and countless pro-gay laws and policies at the state and municipal level. And that's just one sector I've worked in.

    What is it you do again? icon_lol.gif


    You're right the people - politicians who were responsible for this crisis haven't been sent to prison - and they haven't been held accountable. The economic crisis which was the direct result of failed social policy, by assholes like yourself who created policies that encouraged them to borrow more, save less and rely on future pensions.

    You need to believe your life's work has helped more people than I will - but I doubt it in fact I would go to suggest it's quite the opposite that I'm guessing your life's work has done more to imprison the poor and destroy value than I ever could or would want to. Gay rights? Sure - they were coming anyway - just as they have in any developed country over time. It's always been a question of time as wealthier societies become more socially liberal with time. If you want to believe that your work was instrumental to these rights, that's certainly your right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2011 11:09 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidIt's almost a tautology to say that the people who pay no income taxes are in fact those who earn below a given threshold. I fail to see your point - it's still hardly healthy to depend on so few to make up the entire US budget.

    If you're going to make up the argument of inequality, those at every scale in the US make considerably more than most people in the developing world - so why shouldn't everyone in the US be forced to give up their incomes to the poor elsewhere in the world?

    Again you miss the point entirely and conveniently. In attacking those who create resources you would actually condemn those at the bottom of the pyramid to greater poverty. The fact is that even after the Bush tax CUTS, the level of revenues to the US Federal coffers was even proportionately higher than before even relative to the income they made - so much for your rather inconvenient facts:

    RIch%20Pay%20More%20Under%20Bush%20Tax%2


    How'd that look after 2008? Dumbass.

    BTW, no one "creates" resources. And spare me and anyone else your pathetic attempts to pretend you care about anyone who is poor. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Speaking of dumbasses - you're the moron if you believe that the numbers have changed so substantially. And yes, people do create resources - without ideas are just basic rocks that lack utility. Just because you pretend to care about the poor and even if you actually genuinely do, the pathetic and repeated failure of the policies you advocate to actually help the poor that do quite the opposite makes me pity you.

    How I feel sad for the day you realize your life's work has been such a waste.


    The economic crisis (which really should be categorized as the raping of financial resources from the country) disproportionately impacted the poor and, in particular, poor people of color. In the last three years, countless working class and middle class families have had their live saving erased by foreclosure, seen their 401ks obliterated, and then had assholes like you tell them to buck up and stop being lazy.

    At the same time, no one responsible for creating this "crisis" has ever been held accountable in the US. In fact, they've gone on to make even more "profits". Since to a one they bet against, the American economy, they should all be in jail for treason.

    Instead the police are pepper-spraying unemployed college students.

    And my "life's work" has helped far more people than you'll even hope to. In fact, part of my life's work has resulted in gay marriage rights, the repeal of DADT, the end of sodomy laws, and countless pro-gay laws and policies at the state and municipal level. And that's just one sector I've worked in.

    What is it you do again? icon_lol.gif


    You're right the people - politicians who were responsible for this crisis haven't been sent to prison - and they haven't been held accountable. The economic crisis which was the direct result of failed social policy, by assholes like yourself who created policies that encouraged them to borrow more, save less and rely on future pensions.

    You need to believe your life's work has helped more people than I will - but I doubt it in fact I would go to suggest it's quite the opposite that I'm guessing your life's work has done more to imprison the poor and destroy value than I ever could or would want to. Gay rights? Sure - they were coming anyway - just as they have in any developed country over time. It's always been a question of time as wealthier societies become more socially liberal with time. If you want to believe that your work was instrumental to these rights, that's certainly your right.


    Sure. There are a few politicians who need to be jailed. George Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Hank Paulson, Dick Cheney for more reasons than I can count. Phil Gramm most of all since his work led most directly to the economic crisis.

    I know you'd like to believe that African American families who were scammed and manipulated into purchasing mortgages from private for-profit companies, which was being pushed by neoconservatives, so they could pillage the economy through exotic financial instruments.

    Then the hedge funds told the banks to sell even more risky mortgages so they could continue their mortgage backed securities gluttony until the value of the bets against the mortgages was four times the already overblown "market" value.

    The primary driver of record rates of incarceration in our country has nothing to do with me (weird, desperate point there...), but rather the privatization of the prison industry where inmates equal profits. Those same prison companies are lobbying against drug reform and for three strikes laws because they make so much money off of imprisoning young black men for selling a bag of weed.

    In terms of gay rights, it was not providence but the hard work of millions of Americans who fought and "got a bit bloody" along the way to change laws and policy. To suggest otherwise, demeans an entire community of people who fought through the worst plague in modern history to win their civil rights in record time.

    I'm sure you think slavery would have just gone the way of the Dodo without Lincoln, and womens' suffrage was inevitable too....

    Again, stick to the economics were you can pretend to be intelligent. icon_lol.gif
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Nov 21, 2011 3:17 AM GMT
    Imagine the gall of Warren promoting the idea that successful people should give back to their communities.
    Absolutely shocking. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 4:39 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    (A bunch of graphs that have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the 50% of households that pay ZERO in Federal income taxes pay ZERO in Federal income taxes)




    So the fact remains, the 50% who pay ZERO in Federal income taxes are freeloading on the backs of the 50% who pay for those roads, police and education systems that Ms. Warren cites.


    That's a complete fucking lie. Are you really this dishonest?

    In 2010, Medicare and Social Security made up 43% of federal outlays and payroll taxes of just current workers - let alone what is owed to those programs and was stolen to pay for wars - is 38% of federal income. So no one is "freeloading" except for the corporations and wealthy who want the protection of our military and the luxury of our infrastructure without paying for it. Like you, you greedy bastard. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 5:20 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Southbeach1500 said

    So the fact remains, the 50% who pay ZERO in Federal income taxes are freeloading on the backs of the 50% who pay for those roads, police and education systems that Ms. Warren cites.


    That's a complete fucking lie. Are you really this dishonest?

    In 2010, Medicare and Social Security made up 43% of federal outlays and payroll taxes of just current workers - let alone what is owed to those programs and was stolen to pay for wars - is 38% of federal income.


    Social Security and Medicare don't (technically) pay for those roads, police and education systems that Ms. Warren cites.

    So... nice try (again) at trying to confuse the issue. It might work on those liberals with their limited brain capacity due to certain genetic errors, but it doesn't work on those of us with normal brains.

    Once again: The fact remains, the 50% who pay ZERO in Federal income taxes are freeloading on the backs of the 50% who pay for those roads, police and education systems that Ms. Warren cites.


    You're so sad and pathetic. Are you that envious of the poor? Do you want to trade places with them?

    Firstly, the interstate highways are paid for via federal dollars not local roads which are paid for by local taxes, which the 50% pay. The majority of poor people - who do not pay federal income tax - are not using the federal highway system to move their companies' goods because they do not have any companies because they are poor. They similarly do not enjoy the benefits of the majority of federal discretionary programs because they do not engage in air travel, are not able to pay for doctor visits or medical breakthroughs and on and on, because people making $30,000 per year cannot afford to do any of those things.

    Second, public education is paid for primarily through property taxes, which the poor pay if they own a home or pay via rental payments to landlord. The secondary way public education is paid for is via state lotteries which are largely a sin tax on the poor and marketed to the poor via the state. So now they've paid twice.

    Third, the police (guess what?) are also paid for primarily through local taxes, which again the poor pay, including sales taxes and other regressive forms of taxation.

    So your argument about federal income taxes is specious at best. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2011 6:20 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidYou're so sad and pathetic. Are you that envious of the poor? Do you want to trade places with them?


    We'll just overlook the obligatory liberal emotional outburst.



    Christian73 saidFirstly, the interstate highways are paid for via federal dollars not local roads which are paid for by local taxes, which the 50% pay.


    Correct. So why is Elizabeth Warren - running for Federal office - making this nonsense claim about the roads that "we all paid for" when clearly 50% of the people didn't pay a cent for the construction and/or maintenance of those Federal roads?



    Christian73 saidThe majority of poor people - who do not pay federal income tax - are not using the federal highway system to move their companies' goods because they do not have any companies because they are poor.


    However they do benefit from the federal highway system and because they pay ZERO in Federal income taxes, they are getting the proverbial "free ride."



    Christian73 said They similarly do not enjoy the benefits of the majority of federal discretionary programs because they do not engage in air travel, are not able to pay for doctor visits or medical breakthroughs and on and on, because people making $30,000 per year cannot afford to do any of those things.


    Oh come on. You can fly from NYC to Miami for as little as $49 each way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but "the poor" do fly. As for your forage into the medical area... since that wasn't addressed by Ms. Warren, I'll just let that go.



    Christian73 said
    Second, public education is paid for primarily through property taxes, which the poor pay if they own a home or pay via rental payments to landlord. The secondary way public education is paid for is via state lotteries which are largely a sin tax on the poor and marketed to the poor via the state. So now they've paid twice.


    Exactly. So why is Mr. Obama constantly yammering "Pass this bill! Pass this bill! This Federal bill will save thousands of teacher's jobs!"

    Either: He is lying or he is going to take that Federal money and give it to the state and local governments to fund public education, in which case your statement above is not truly correct.



    Christian73 said

    Third, the police (guess what?) are also paid for primarily through local taxes, which again the poor pay, including sales taxes and other regressive forms of taxation.


    Exactly. So why is Mr. Obama constantly yammering "Pass this bill! Pass this bill! This Federal bill will save thousands of police jobs!"

    Either: He is lying or he is going to take that Federal money and give it to the state and local governments to fund local police jobs, in which case your statement above is not truly correct.


    Christian73 saidSo your argument about federal income taxes is specious at best. icon_rolleyes.gif


    So, my argument about Federal income taxes is right on target.





    There's no point in talking to you. Instead I leave you peruse the thoughts of one of the only sane conservatives left:

    http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/index1.html

    Unlike you, the author has taken the current Republican Party's measure and found it batshit crazy. But you'd need some self-awareness to do that yourself... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2012 8:02 PM GMT


    This probably helps to explain this:

    http://news.yahoo.com/sen-scott-brown-leads-elizabeth-warren-poll-175000912.html

    The most recent poll, conducted by Western New England University Polling Institute, in conjunction with the Springfield Republican newspaper and Masslive.com, found Brown with an 8-point lead over Warren, 49 percent to 41 percent. Ten percent were undecided. The survey of 527 registered voters had a margin of error of 4.3 percent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2012 8:12 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidWhere is Batman?

    We need him to deal with that arch-pest The Ridiot.


    So says the blithering idiot. Do you ever have anything particularly useful to say?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2012 8:14 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidWhere is Batman?

    We need him to deal with that arch-pest The Ridiot.


    Fortunately for blithering fools like you, it doesn't take Batman. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 10, 2012 8:17 PM GMT
    Meanwhile, I wonder what the editorial pages of the New York Times think of this:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/09/us-newyorktimes-ceo-idUSBRE8281A920120309

    Former New York Times Co (NYT.N) Chief Executive Janet Robinson received a total payout of nearly $24 million after she left the newspaper publisher at the end of last year, according to a regulatory filing on Friday.


    Sort of like how Elizabeth Warren claimed she wasn't wealthy.