-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
This video of Elizabeth Warren, who is challenging Scott Brown for his Senate seat in Massachusetts, has been making the rounds in progressive corners of the web:
Dave Weigel compares this video to the famous videos of Chris Christie taking on union members and town hall questioners, but it’s really not the same. Warren’s addressing a more-than-friendly audience, and giving them utter pablum. Weigel has a partial transcript:
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.
This is just stock, Kos-style progressive gesturing. Why would progressive seize onto this clip? What about Warren gets liberals of all kinds so excited? I genuinely want to know.
Update:
Jonah Goldberg calls Warren’s argument a “pious misdirection.” That seems like an apt discription. Warren’s little tirade doesn’t touch on any issues of the day. Although it’s meant to seem relevant, her words would be just as applicable to any other time or place as they are to 2011 Massachusetts.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/22/elizabeth-warren-on-fair-taxat
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
George S| 9.22.11 @ 11:23AM
The rest of us did pay for the roads, the police the schools blah blah blah. But how did we pay for them? By the factory providing the jobs than enable government to collect taxes that create the stuff we pay for.
The liberal fairy tale is that the infrastructure came first, arising out of the resources Gaia by virgin birth, only to be plundered by the invading hordes of capitalists while the "rightful owners" are pushed aside.
Speaking of marauding bands seizing everything, what do community organizers preach?
Erling| 9.22.11 @ 8:25PM
But is Scott Brown any better? He voted to shove the homosexual agenda down the throats of our over-deployed military. Generals Washington, Grant, Pershing, Patton, MacArthur, & Chesty Puller wouldn't stand for this bull excrement.
Stan| 9.22.11 @ 11:40AM
Those factories help 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 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
Hod Bacon| 9.22.11 @ 12:12PM
Progressives are basically losers who can't take care of themselves. This upsets them, so they lash out at others. Elizabeth Warren comforts them by telling them that winners must take care of them.
Pablo| 9.22.11 @ 12:13PM
Why the opposition to asking people to invest in America's future?
And please. "Commie hype"? Last I checked, we're all in the same boat. We're a society which works best when everyone's pulling an oar in the same direction.
She's not arguing that companies and the people who found them are evil. If you bother to listen to the video or read the script, she tells them "God bless." All she's arguing is that it's flat out WRONG for a company or an ultra-wealthy person to take advantage of community resources -- which we have ALL paid for, from CEOs down to schoolteachers -- without giving something back.
And no, hiring people who provide a net gain to the employer is not giving something back. Giving back implies a cost now for an investment in the future.
Pete Brown| 9.22.11 @ 12:24PM
1. Top 1% of income tax filers earn 22% of income and pay 38% of income tax. Top 1% pays more than bottom 95% combined.
2. As to what they keep: needless to say, the ratio of consumption spending/income declines precipitously as you go up the income scale. Where does the rest go? Investment and charity.
3. Paying taxes is not "giving back". How much of this money goes to either useless bureaucracy or human -initiative crippling dependency generating power fiefdoms for the well-connected? The vast majority of people are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for themselves and leading full, meaningful lives within their financial means. The dependency racket tells them not to, and then we all forget how to, and we cease being citizens and become simply serfs.
Pablo| 9.22.11 @ 2:58PM
(1) The top 1% of income tax filers paying more than the bottom 95% reflects the gross maldistribution of wealth in this country. It's also a-ok with me, as those are the people who most benefit from maintaining the current status quo of a (somewhat) progressive tax program. They're also the people who most benefit from the work of others.
(2) I love that the wealthy contribute to charity. I think it's a wonderful aspect of American character that we have amazing heroes in our American history who have arguably become even better known as shining beacons of charity work (e.g., Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates -- and yes, I know that Carnegie was born in Scotland). Still, so what? What does a private actor's private decision to donate money to specific causes have to do with their duty to continue to help our government invest in our country -- be it education, defense, or infrastructure?
(3) And how much of the money goes to wonderful (albeit imperfect) programs that almost all of us agree we need like public school education, national defense, or highway development? Is anyone here opposed to those? Or are you saying that just because a part of something is flawed, we should toss it all out? If so, then you're just tossing out the baby with the bathwater. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.
---
Again, I'm not saying we should confiscate everything they make beyond a certain point as they're often the movers-and-shakers who come up with a wonderful business idea that improves our world. I'm just saying that it's completely fair to expect those who benefit most for our joint investment in our country should be the ones who invest the most.
DRed| 9.22.11 @ 4:34PM
What's the percentage that the top 1% pays when you look at total tax burden?
George S| 9.22.11 @ 1:09PM
You are not asked, you are forced. What is the direction we are pulling for? Everyone being free from want? Then who will paint the bridges, fix the roads, empty the bedpans, unclog the sewers, repair the power lines if everyone is living in a care-free happy commune? Who will sacrifice their youth to study medicine or to create a business that employs thousands? Who will develop the technology to dig a mile into the earth to retrieve gasoline for your car? Who will take the risk of building the factory that builds your car?
That is what creates wealth -- people taking chances in bringing to market things you need or want. Remove the capitalist from the equation and you get Cuba, North Korea or Angola. There, everyone shares the misery and everyone pulls their oars in the same direction: towards survival.
Communities are created by the capitalists; they cannot take advantage of a byproduct of their creation. Factories bring jobs, which bring families, which bring houses, which bring schools, which brings teachers; then come roads, police, fire. Soon after comes government to administer and collect taxes. And with these communities comes easy living. Where else on this planet can you find people making a lot of money teaching Women's Studies, being a Diversity Coordinator or an Outreach Counselor? Where else can all this come about with only half the people actually paying taxes? Only in the USA.
Pablo| 9.22.11 @ 3:26PM
When did anyone say we should "remove the capitalist"? That's the sort of mischaracterization that turns a collaborative process into the dysfunctional, combative, us-vs.-them process we suffer through today.
Neither we nor any other country has ever had a pure capitalist system. We always have some measure of regulation or some form of progressive taxation. And that's great! It's why we don't allow toys to use lead-based paint. It's why we have child-proof lids on medicine. Does anyone think those are bad ideas?
Did you know that the last three rounds of public education reform were pushed by private companies? That's wonderful! From the beginning, our PUBLIC education system has been designed to benefit our PRIVATE workforce. So why is it shocking to expect that those who benefit the most should pay the most?
Bill Barnes| 9.22.11 @ 2:42PM
The word investment used by progressives has always bothered me. When you "invest" in something, you expect a return or a loss of your investment over a period of time. Where is the return coming from when we have only 60% of the population generating revenue for 100% of the population. We are fortunate to have been founded by people who understood that the Federal Government's role should be limited and that the rest of us are granting them the authority to do what they do. The progressives have decided they know better how to spend our tax dollars than we do. History has proved otherwise but that doesn't seem to deter them. And while I am at it, there is no such thing as a corporate tax. Corporations just raise their prices to pay any taxes levied on them and that means the people who buy the corporation products are paying the tax. Consider how much of the price of a product is because of the taxes the maker of that product pays then next time you buy something and pay the state sales tax on it which is actually a double tax, only it is paid directly by the consumer.
Pablo| 9.22.11 @ 3:34PM
The return comes from having better roads to use for shipping or better internet to improve our access to the commerce of tomorrow. It comes whenever a poor child has used education to pull him or herself up by her bootstraps and come up with another idea that adds value.
There are a lot of ways to see the return of this investment -- unfortunately a lot of them can't be found on a balance sheet.
I love this mischaracterization of the Founding Fathers. If they wanted a small federal footprint, it wasn't because they were looking for NO government involvement. They simply preferred it done through state governments.
The Civil War redefined our country in a lot of ways. One of them was to shift a lot of responsibilities from the states and on to the federal government.
As to your point re: taxes -- yes, costs can get passed to the consumer. Should we remove the cost of complying with safety measure, too, because consumers ultimately bear the burden? Or give companies free raw materials so they don't pass those costs on either? I don't understand the relevance of your point.
Mrs Vito| 9.22.11 @ 7:51PM
..."she tells them, 'God Bless'".
This is liberal-speak for 'screw you'.
I HAVE seen this clip all day. The gaul of this woman to dictate to private enterprise is only eclipsed my incredulity in observing her do so.
I'm a business owner, and I'll 'give back' when I get g*ddamn ready to do so, not when some Marxist hack tells me I should.
glornec| 9.22.11 @ 12:59PM
Mrs Warren is saying that all men are not created equal, that they are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights but instead all men are born under a social contract where rights are dispersed and managed by Mrs. Warren and the people are bound by the desires of Mrs Warren. Is this social contract idea created by a free society or a slave owner?
Paul McGrath| 9.22.11 @ 1:01PM
The fundamental problem with the left is that they think a tax cut is government spending. The presumption, obviously, is that all wealth is owned by the government, to be doled out as they see fit.
Our very nation was founded on the principle that this premise is WRONG. It all started because our founding fathers were in opposition to the idea that one person or some group of people knew better than anyone else.
We've really gone off the tracks if any one of us supports this woman. God, what an idiot.
Pablo| 9.22.11 @ 3:38PM
It all started because our country was upset about taxation *without representation.* We would have been ok with the taxes from the British Empire if we'd simply had representation in their system of government (see e.g., the Olive Branch Petition).
It in-no-way-shape-or-form began because we thought taxation was wrong in-and-of-itself. Our country has taxed its people since its beginning. We simply chose to do it by adding costs, or tariffs, to imports and exports.
Paul McGrath| 9.22.11 @ 1:04PM
And I really have to laugh when she talks about Bush's prescription drug benefit. (I've lately seen a few Democrats gripe about this.) As if she would have been against it had been proposed by Obama, or Gore, or some other tax and spend liberal.
Unbelievable. This woman is basically a less stupid Pelosi.
Pablo| 9.22.11 @ 3:43PM
The gripe isn't with the idea itself. It's with the fact that prescription benefits were passed as an unfunded measure. That means we forced the government to take on an additional cost without the people who pushed it through (cough, Bush, cough) putting thought into where the money was coming from.
PattyMor| 9.22.11 @ 1:37PM
Is there any doubt that Ms. Warren favorite color is red?
I'd like her to go up to Steve Jobs and tell him his life work didn't add value to world and that he stole all his money. These people like Ms. Warren are government/non-profit paracites skimming money off the productive to fund the non-productive.
Pablo| 9.22.11 @ 3:40PM
She would probably say to him what she says in the speech: "God bless" and "keep a big hunk of it."
Did you listen to the video?
Strudwick Wickerwire| 9.22.11 @ 1:47PM
Shoot'em Eliz-a-beth, shoot'em!!!
Elizabeth Warren is nothing but an unnecessarily, overly educated, parasitic poverty pymp, who's not considered how her paycheck is generated, or who ultimately pays her salary -- a captive/hostage taxpayer who works at a business does!!!
nc defector| 9.22.11 @ 1:50PM
We will probably need a Wiemar Republic inflation event in order to rid ourselves of the scourge of Marxism, in all its incarnations, in this country-the electorate being as ignorant as it is.
Paul McGrath| 9.22.11 @ 2:34PM
You make a good point, nc. The SF Chronicle letter section is lately filled with screeds from people excoriating the "rich" for not paying their "fair share," without any seeming understanding or comment on the massive, unprecedented spending which has occurred in this country over the last two years. They basically listen to Obama and take him at his word.
It's almost a cause for despair.
solidground| 9.22.11 @ 3:12PM
No, it IS cause for despair. But useful idiots come in all sizes, shapes, ages and demographic colors.
Pablo| 9.22.11 @ 3:42PM
The massive, unprecedented spending has come over the last 10 years. Lest anyone forget, we're in this hole because of two costly wars, unfunded prescription drug benefits, taking on private bank debt under Bush, and the stimulus programs under BOTH Bush and Obama.
What part of it came from the last two years?
DRed| 9.22.11 @ 4:44PM
71% of our current debt was accumulated under Republican administrations.
Koozebane| 9.22.11 @ 7:00PM
Actually, if one takes half a second to look at the numbers, your assertion is merely a parroted factoid that ignores congress entirely.
Deficit Spending under Democratically Controlled Congress 1980-1994 $3,785,048,000,000
Deficit Spending under Republican-Controlled Congress 1994-2006 $3,814,224,000,000
Deficit Spending under Democratically-Controlled Congress 2006-2010 $5,054,650,000,000
Deficit Spending under Republican-Controlled Congress 2010-2011 $1,122,618,000,000
Total Deficit Spending Under Democratically-Controlled Congresses $8,839,698,000,000
Total Deficit Spending Under Republican-Controlled Congresses $4,404,781,000,000
Democrats easily double down on deficit spending.
You may want to fact check your sources from now on.
Pablo| 9.22.11 @ 7:43PM
Ok, I'll bite. Lets take a look at an annualized basis using your (unsourced) numbers:
In the first fourteen years, Dem-controlled Congress spent ~$3.8T. In their next four years in control, they spent ~$5.1T (though I'm intrigued by your cut-off date as it probably cherry-picks to massage numbers). Over eighteen years, then, the deficit spending was ~$8.9T, or ~$0.49T per year.
In their twelve years, Repub-controlled Congress spent ~$3.8T. Then, in the next year of control, they spent ~$1.1T. Over thirteen years, then, the deficit spending was $4.9T, or $0.38T per year.
The difference isn't looking so stark any more.
And that's even if we assume that the 2010-2011 Republican Congress savings don't come from punting critical expenses down the road (collapsing bridges and terrible highways, anyone?). Or the fact that the mid to late nineties were a period of tremendous economic growth and therefore tremendous tax receipts (and we're starting to learn how much of that was financed through cheap credit). Or the other relevant fact that the U.S. economy struggled through Savings & Loans crisis (bankers for the win, again!) and the Bush I crisis during the Dems' years which would reduce the tax receipts.
You may want to take a closer look at your own numbers from now on.
George S| 9.22.11 @ 8:47PM
Who does the spending is irrelevant as most of that spending is on autopilot (written into law) as people hit the Medicare and social security threshold. All you have to do is go back to the early 1970's when we came off the gold standard to fund the Great Society programs without raising taxes. From then on, spending has risen dramatically as a percentage of GDP (with only WWII as a blip).
Now, a Republican congress has never reached the overall spending of the past 2 years by Obama's Democrats. Medicare Advantage, Iraq and Afghanistan are a drop in the bucket compared to ObamaCare and the Stimulus. We went from a deficit couple of hundred billion to over 1.1 trillion since Obama. At least the Republicans were spending the money where it was politically visible. What have we gotten in return for Obama's trillion that is so valuable it is worth passing off to your kids?
Koozebane| 9.22.11 @ 9:19PM
Do you know what DEFICIT spending is?
Just curious.
Koozebane| 9.22.11 @ 9:30PM
And since we're nitpicking about everyone's sources but your own, here you go.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....stdebt.htm
DRed| 9.23.11 @ 1:27AM
Those numbers show the deficit almost doubled under Bush, during a time of general economic prosperity, while you people controlled both houses of congress and the presidency. I'm not sure how you think that's a rebuttal. Deficit spending is understandable during a recession, but it makes a lot less sense when times are good. You did a heck of a job, Republicans.
One Nation| 9.22.11 @ 2:28PM
The sad part, is people were applauding. They are clueless.
MarkJ| 9.22.11 @ 2:54PM
Elizabeth Warren's greatest regret in life is that she'll never be an Old Bolshevik.
Alvar Hanso| 9.22.11 @ 2:59PM
Elizabeth Warren: Promoting the citizen indentured servant.
solidground| 9.22.11 @ 3:11PM
My response to Warren's statement is, "And your point is?"
Tomp| 9.22.11 @ 3:38PM
Lizzy what have you ever produced?
Besides idiocy?
What good are you to this capitalist (yes capitalist) country?
martin j smith| 9.22.11 @ 4:15PM
I heard Ms Warren's comments. She is a Marxist-Leninist agit prop and this is who Obama is as well.
Republican leaders either show that they know how to handle these spoiled brats or let some one else do it.
alice kittredge| 9.22.11 @ 4:21PM
Warren misses the entire point of equal opportunity for all. As a society we have an infrastructure, which more or less guarantees basic education, safety, passable highways, a trustworthy banking system, etc. in which all of us are free to operate. Within this infrastructure some are successful, and some are not. Those who are already pay for society's services as well as paying for those who are not. (The upper 50% pay 97% of the tax revenues and the lower 50% pay 3%). Warren simply doesn't understand the basis of the American dream.
martin j smith| 9.22.11 @ 4:43PM
The issue of Marxist ideology in the former Democratic now Socialist or Communist Party has not been met head on by any candidate yet--that I know of. And, the current house and senate Leadershit are out to lunch on dealing with this.
I really have no faith in them. I am sure i am not alone and this is not good for the nation.
Kingofthenet| 9.22.11 @ 5:01PM
I ALWAYS ask my Conservative friends when they say they are taxed 'Too much', a simple question; BASED ON WHAT? What you paid during RAYGUN, what the tax rate was under good 'Ol Ike? What Modern European Countries rates are? I mean without a standard to measure against it just sounds like a good bitchfest not based in reality.Than I ask if the USA is unfair, what Country do you think 'Does it Right' Who do you want to emulate?
Amy Shulkusky| 9.22.11 @ 6:14PM
ALL arguments are based on class warfare. Rich against poor, Haves against have-nots, educated against uneducated, Union against non-union, and on and on.
The real question is why they {R's & D's} screwed this up so bad. Pres. Bush had the perfect opportunity to appeal to our better angels after 9-11, but instead they all play games, shift who wins and loses, and squeeze the middle class more and more each time.
IF we had a itemized billing procedure, that defined where our tax dollars really went, then perhaps we'd get serious about truly reforming the system.
Until then, expect more class warfare, shifting on who wins and loses, and squeezing the middle class until they disappear.
George S| 9.22.11 @ 9:16PM
Based on disposable income. We see what we earn and then what we have left to spend. Assuming a salary of 50k a year... First we get hit with federal, state and local income taxes which take roughly a third of that income. From that is left the net income. Chipping away are property taxes which are roughly $6,000 a year. Then comes gasoline taxes which is about $1500 if you drive 20,000 miles in a year. Then there are taxes attached to you phone bills and your electric bills. There is a sales tax on the stuff you buy. And the biggie: the cost of the goods and services you purchase have the corporate tax built in. There are excise costs buried in new and used car sales, plane, train and bus tickets. Then there are user fees -- tolls, surcharges to parking tickets, licensing fees such as auto registration and inspections, parking fees, water bills, sewer usage fees. Then there are dog licenses and home alarm surcharges by police departments. And there are... this can go on forever.
Any wonder why at the end of the month there is barely any money left over for people earning the median income? All said and done, I would estimate government takes 75 cents of every dollar you earn in the form of direct and indirect taxation and fees.
Amy Shulkusky| 9.28.11 @ 6:56PM
Right, we see the cause and effect, but we don't see the results.
Like ciggie taxes - sold as "Health care for eeeeeeeeevil smokers" but here in Nv. the $$$ settlement {also sold as reparations} went to Scholarships!!!
Gov't and business hide all the disparate fees/taxes in the whole.
Aalthough business *is* starting to break it up a bit by charging for bare bones, then you pay more if you want WIFI in your hotel room, or have extra bags on a flight, etc.
If gov't had to tell us what each tax/fee really* went to...
Amy Shulkusky| 9.22.11 @ 5:33PM
Elizabeth Warren was on Morning Joe a few times in the past, and the first time I heard her, I was with her. The second + times? Not so much. She is incredibly sincere, sounds totally confident, and soft sells class warfare against the eeeeeeevil rich.
Bob Grant| 9.22.11 @ 8:31PM
"She is incredibly sincere, sounds totally confident, and soft sells class warfare against the eeeeeeevil rich."
Sounds like or dictator-in-chief. She's the type how would shiv you in the back with a concerned smile on her face.
Indrid Cold | 9.23.11 @ 12:42AM
Rhetorical validity aside, you have to admit the fairy dust at the end is very professional.