kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 6, 2011 8:49:50 GMT -5
Anyone dressing up as this lady for Halloween? This is scary:
“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 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.”
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 6, 2011 11:08:31 GMT -5
I don't get what is scary about that. The infrastructure of this country benefits corporations and the wealthy to a greater degree than the average person (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way). Having roads to transport goods across the country safely, a strong legal system that gives consistency and predictability, strong internal and external security; these are things that we take for granted.
I think it's just a basic argument for a progressive tax system, which seems like a practically universally agreed upon concept.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 6, 2011 11:19:36 GMT -5
I can't think of a more un-American message than "you can't get there on your own."
This is "It Takes a Village..." nonsense writ large.
Here are my problems:
1. She uses a phrase like "the rest of us paid for." Hey, the person who built the factory paid for those services too. She is acting like someone who got rich made no contribution whatsoever and, moreover, wants to make no contribution. I know of no one, not even the most ardent Tea Partier, who is arguing that government has NO role or that everyone shouldn't pay SOME taxes. You know who is making an argument that is close to that? Not the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street.
2. Not only that, the person who built the factory probably paid MORE taxes than her so-called "the rest of us."
3. She wants far too much or a hunk, and wants to use it for things completely unrelated to these basic services (road construction, police, fire, etc.) that she describes.
It's a crappy straw man. Which is becoming the stock in trade of the left lately.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 6, 2011 11:35:06 GMT -5
It's a crappy straw man. Which is becoming the stock in trade of the left lately. I liked this passage from George Will's column on this issue: "Warren is (as William F. Buckley described Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith) a pyromaniac in a field of straw men: She refutes propositions no one asserts." Interestingly, and on a completed unrelated note, when I searched this morning for the column, the top Google link was for the WaPo Writers Group version in an Oklahoma paper, which takes out the reference to Buckley and Galbraith: newsok.com/george-f.-will-liberalisms-collectivist-agenda/article/3610575 |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 6, 2011 11:39:26 GMT -5
Stating the social contract is not scary. Whether you see the company owner or the taxpayer as the protagonist, what she is saying there - that the government provides goods and services for industry which in turn has a responsibility for funding government - is not radical.
This will be an interesting race - Scott Brown basically called her ugly on radio this morning, which is the sort of unforced error that he didn't make in 2009.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 6, 2011 12:15:51 GMT -5
Stating the social contract is not scary. Whether you see the company owner or the taxpayer as the protagonist, what she is saying there - that the government provides goods and services for industry which in turn has a responsibility for funding government - is not radical. This will be an interesting race - Scott Brown basically called her ugly on radio this morning, which is the sort of unforced error that he didn't make in 2009. If that's all she was saying, that would be one thing. |
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 6, 2011 12:19:36 GMT -5
Stating the social contract is not scary. Whether you see the company owner or the taxpayer as the protagonist, what she is saying there - that the government provides goods and services for industry which in turn has a responsibility for funding government - is not radical. This will be an interesting race - Scott Brown basically called her ugly on radio this morning, which is the sort of unforced error that he didn't make in 2009. If that's all she was saying, that would be one thing. What else is she saying? Honest question. Boz's points seem to be creating a straw man to argue against as a straw man. What is she advocating that is so threatening? _______________________ I want to clarify 1. She uses a phrase like "the rest of us paid for." Hey, the person who built the factory paid for those services too. She is acting like someone who got rich made no contribution whatsoever and, moreover, wants to make no contribution. I know of no one, not even the most ardent Tea Partier, who is arguing that government has NO role or that everyone shouldn't pay SOME taxes. You know who is making an argument that is close to that? Not the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street. She doesn't say anything about them not paying for services. She did not try to counter the argument that they should pay NO taxes.2. Not only that, the person who built the factory probably paid MORE taxes than her so-called "the rest of us." Yep, and her point is it SHOULD be that way because that person benefits from the infrastructure more than "the rest of us."3. She wants far too much or a hunk, and wants to use it for things completely unrelated to these basic services (road construction, police, fire, etc.) that she describes. How much does she want and how have you determined it's "too much." Why is the fact that many of it is unrelated to those things relevant. My taxes are paid mostly towards things that don't benefit me. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 6, 2011 12:36:19 GMT -5
YER a straw man! How 'bout that, huh? ;D I will admit that my point #3 is not contained anywhere in her statement. That is something I put out there based on her entire body of work, not this particular paragraph. Other than that, I'm not sure where my straw man would be. Her postulation is ridiculous. I stated that she did not acknowledge the contributions of the business owner to his or her own success. Can you find anywhere where she does make that acknowledgement? You have to be pretty obtuse to not read the obvious intention of this statement that the rich get rich off the backs of the poor. And my statement that the business owner probably contributed more is pretty factually based, despite repeated and false claims that school teachers in America apparently pay higher taxes than anyone!  [yes, exaggeration for effect] You (and she) say it should be that way. Guess what? It IS that way.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 6, 2011 12:52:58 GMT -5
I would argue that her point assumes the contributions that the person made to their business and success. With that implicit assumption (you built a factory and turned it into something terrific) she's arguing about the part that was made possible through infrastructure.
Ultimately the points she's making/implying are going to have to be fleshed out, and we'll see one way or the other what her views are when she's required to be more specific. Should definitely be an interesting race/campaign to say the least.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 6, 2011 13:34:44 GMT -5
Can you find anywhere where she does make that acknowledgement? You have to be pretty obtuse to not read the obvious intention of this statement that the rich get rich off the backs of the poor. You mean if you ignore the fact that the poor are never mentioned here, you ignore who pays taxes, and completely ignore that the context of this quote is her talking to donors in the living room of a fancy house in Andover, MA? |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 6, 2011 14:25:12 GMT -5
Anyone dressing up as this lady for Halloween? This is scary: �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 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.� EDIT: I have no idea as to Warren's motivations. I know why a lot of folks are passing it around, though not necessarily the majority or anywhere close to all. Anyone taking this and putting it into policy in terms of percent taxes is missing the point, I think. It's a philosophy, one I agree with, that living in the United States comes with inborn advantages that have been paid for by generations of people in resources, time, money and blood. Everything we do is somewhat inter-related and pretending that every person who succeeds did it on their own is ridiculous. It makes no policy statements. It posits a philosophy. Steve Jobs was adopted - I assume through a federally funded adopted agency who placed him in a safe home that was vetted and not sold to the highest bidder. He grew up protected by the armed forces, educated by the schools system, protected from faulty foods and drugs by the FDA, protected by the police and fire departments and a court system. His phone and communication devices and the transportation across the country which all businesses relied on as he was growing up was funded and jumpstarted by the government because of huge capital costs. The formational classes he had with HP at age 12 ran on those roads, and HP existed in part because of those things. Patent laws protected Steve's ideas and inventions, and even more so, created an economy and where the computer was being invented HERE, around him, in the US. Etc, Jobs was an amazing individual, and someone else had all those same advantages and didn't do what he did. But he also wouldn't have achieved what he did had he been born in the Congo. Now, what does that translate to policy? There's a lot of thought between A and B. But philosophically, there's a big gap, too, between people who believe their success is 100% or close to attributed to their actions and people who believe that you are building off of others and that we function together. It affects how you feel about government and taxes and a whole punch of things. And I don't know how she meant it. But I know why it resonates with a lot of the people who are posting it. |
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Oct 6, 2011 14:53:45 GMT -5
I actually think this falls under a "non-argument." It really just lists out public goods and then staples on an opinion on taxation.
I can also use that road to go get a fifth of bourbon to drink all day and collect a welfare check. This doesn't mean roads and government aid are universally bad. They just look bad in my casually-presented scenario so when I give my opinion on something related--like taxes--it looks like I made an argument.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 6, 2011 15:11:18 GMT -5
A) Show me where she says that the wealthy are leeching off infrastructure. Besides your BS ‘we know what she means’ point. Seriously. Her point is that they benefit more from it, so it is not unreasonable that they pay more into it. And this does not just mean net amounts, but also proportion. Your claim about gross tax revenue being substantially derived from the top 10% shows the vast income inequality in this country. The fact that so much of this country is so impoverished does not help prove your point that the ‘burden’ on the wealthy is already too much.
B) Would you rather pay a 5% tax rate on making $30,000 a year or 35% on $500,000 a year? The question is somewhat facetious, but it’s based around a very legitimate point about the effect of the taxes on the person paying. We have historically low tax rates right now. Taxes on lower-income people affect their spending power and quality of life MUCH more than taxes on high-income individuals. I’m not advocating for a 99% marginal rate, but this ‘we should be happy that the rich fund our infrastructure’ is a deliberately obtuse way of looking at it. While I’ll likely never pay as much taxes in my life as one of these guys do in a year, my taxes are much more of a sacrifice to me than their taxes are to them.
There will always be income inequality. But people are mad about the system continuously bending in only one direction, while at the same time only the middle and lower classes being called upon to sacrifice. Which brings me to my last point:
C) Class warfare? Seriously? Resentments of financially struggling Americans are based in legitimate issues that our current political class (Democrats and Republicans) choose to ignore. Cut “entitlements” (even if you’ve been paying into them for 25 years) and that’s fair game. Eliminate the earned income tax credit, that’s fair game. Cut education budgets, transportation budgets, fair game.
We have a deficit crisis, it needs to be addressed so all of these are fair game. But propose raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals in this country, all of a sudden it’s class warfare. Give me a break. If people are going to be asked to sacrifice, we need to be intellectually honest about what sacrifice is.
But then again, you’re yelling at boogeymen that you see in the quote. Tell me, what exactly does she propose that frightens you so much?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 6, 2011 15:18:32 GMT -5
Anyone dressing up as this lady for Halloween? This is scary: �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 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.� EDIT: I have no idea as to Warren's motivations. I know why a lot of folks are passing it around, though not necessarily the majority or anywhere close to all. Anyone taking this and putting it into policy in terms of percent taxes is missing the point, I think. It's a philosophy, one I agree with, that living in the United States comes with inborn advantages that have been paid for by generations of people in resources, time, money and blood. Everything we do is somewhat inter-related and pretending that every person who succeeds did it on their own is ridiculous. It makes no policy statements. It posits a philosophy. Steve Jobs was adopted - I assume through a federally funded adopted agency who placed him in a safe home that was vetted and not sold to the highest bidder. He grew up protected by the armed forces, educated by the schools system, protected from faulty foods and drugs by the FDA, protected by the police and fire departments and a court system. His phone and communication devices and the transportation across the country which all businesses relied on as he was growing up was funded and jumpstarted by the government because of huge capital costs. The formational classes he had with HP at age 12 ran on those roads, and HP existed in part because of those things. Patent laws protected Steve's ideas and inventions, and even more so, created an economy and where the computer was being invented HERE, around him, in the US. Etc, Jobs was an amazing individual, and someone else had all those same advantages and didn't do what he did. But he also wouldn't have achieved what he did had he been born in the Congo. Now, what does that translate to policy? There's a lot of thought between A and B. But philosophically, there's a big gap, too, between people who believe their success is 100% or close to attributed to their actions and people who believe that you are building off of others and that we function together. It affects how you feel about government and taxes and a whole punch of things. And I don't know how she meant it. But I know why it resonates with a lot of the people who are posting it. Everything else aside, I'm voting for SF. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 6, 2011 15:44:14 GMT -5
I imagine she's just trying to drum up some votes by piquing the resentments of financially struggling Americans. This is what people mean by "class warfare". Just so I have this straight.... Class Warfare = Elizabeth Warren = bad Anti-Elitism = Scott Brown = good It's basically the same thing. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 6, 2011 15:55:16 GMT -5
Everything else aside, I'm voting for SF. Maybe if he wins he can get a second Nobel. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 6, 2011 16:03:33 GMT -5
The phrase that really sticks in my craw in this statement is that one.
"The rest of us."
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 6, 2011 17:09:49 GMT -5
It's a philosophy, one I agree with, that living in the United States comes with inborn advantages that have been paid for by generations of people in resources, time, money and blood. Everything we do is somewhat inter-related and pretending that every person who succeeds did it on their own is ridiculous. It makes no policy statements. It posits a philosophy. ... Now, what does that translate to policy? There's a lot of thought between A and B. But philosophically, there's a big gap, too, between people who believe their success is 100% or close to attributed to their actions and people who believe that you are building off of others and that we function together. Really? That's what you take from a politician painting a picture of the rich getting rich on the back of infrastructure and services that "the rest of us paid for"? A philosophy of inter-reliance devoid of policy implications? No, what I am drawing from is the quote itself, and and what I get is a description of philosophy or view of the world that has very real policy implications, but those implications are varied and can result in a whole range of specific policies. Like I said, I'm not going to comment on Warren's exact internal motivations or her entire worldview. But the quote has taken a life of it's own, and for many people, it has nothing to do with any particular policy implication you're throwing out there. The sentiment isn't scary to me at all, and people who are raging against it should understand why so many people seem to agree with it. The picture you are painting -- "That's what you take from a politician painting a picture of the rich getting rich on the back of infrastructure and services that "the rest of us paid for"?" that's not really in there. You're bringing a lot in to that interpretation. -------------- I do agree with Boz that the rest of us is bad phrasing and I would never want to say it that way. |
|
hoya4ever
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 805
|
Post by hoya4ever on Oct 6, 2011 18:09:32 GMT -5
The phrase that really sticks in my craw in this statement is that one. "The rest of us." So, if she had said "we all paid for," what would your assertion be then? I am trying to understand both sides of this and am having trouble with both. You, of course, understand that the government paid for the roads and, to do that, it taxed everyone. So you pay fro the privilege to create the roads, then you pay for the continuing income that you get from using them. |
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 6, 2011 21:53:03 GMT -5
I love how sensitive the whole non-pc conservative movement becomes when it is convenient.
Also, there is absolutely no "from each according to his ability" subtext there. You pulled it out of thin air.
|
|
[yes, exaggeration for effect]
