* They helped pay for roads, too. * They pay taxes that pay for education. Much of the education they helped pay for may not be remotely relevant to the work they do now anyway. * They also pay for those things, police and fire. Often, they pay for their own security and their own fire prevention as well. * There is no social contract to speak of.
The reality is that Warren is positioning herself with an extremist viewpoint of the type of redistributionism that many poorly accuse Obama of. It's kind of ridiculous from start to finish, and, more importantly, the statement as presented ignores what these companies provide. Instead of seeing that companies (for a profit) provide goods, services, jobs, wages, investment opportunities, and skills to the populace, the position assumes the company does nothing but make money for those who run them. It's an academic position that bears minimal relevance to the real world situation it tries to describe.
I think the point was that even they, themselves, paid for them they used social services to become wealthy. So who are they to demand that the new generation must become wealthy without those same services?
OK, so because business owners themselves pay taxes already, it is wrong to ask that the businesses that make them millionaires also pay taxes? Can't be that simple.
Lets get into that social contract. Do businesses, and for that matter citizens themselves owe nothing to the rest of society? Really?
Warren is an opportunitarian, to coin a word, but even a propertarian can admit that the whole body of taxpayers own those roads, and you pay taxes to that body--even if you are part of that body.
Remarkable considering she only threw her hat in the ring a week ago, and well, she's fighting against the incumbent. Even Congressional Republicans weren't challenging the poll results (suggesting their own tracking shows the same results).
I agree. It's great that the Democrats seem poised to run a real strong progressive, as opposed to a milquetoast Libermanesque idiot, in the state that elected Ted Kennedy to the Senate. It really is the best case scenario...for the Democrats.
Brown won on a wave of teaparty euphoria against a candidate who didn't even seem to want to win herself. He's not likely to draw the Democratic vote with such a strong Democratic candidate (nor are the Democratic residents of the liberal bastion of Massachusetts likely to stay home), and he can't count on the teapartiers after he refused to follow lockstep in their agenda. I'd say he should be pretty worried.
I strongly disagree. Someone this sloppy, this linked to the President? Easiest possible mark. I was worried Capuano would ump into the race. Someone like Alan Khazei would give Brown a good run. She's going to get absolutely hammered, and she's going to make sure that grassroots support for Brown jumps out into the race early and often.
Admittedly, I don't have much hope left, but above all other politicians, I do have the most hope for Elizabeth Warren. If anyone in this country is incorruptible, it's her.
You're making a propertarian argument about money owed, value for value.
Warren is making an opportunitarian argument about the moral obligation to pass opportunity on to future citizens. Therefore, it's not really about owing X amount due to previous receipts, it's about paying in enough for future generations to "make it."
Since we are mortal beings whose lives begin and end, her argument is more compatible with experienced reality.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:43 am (UTC)* They helped pay for roads, too.
* They pay taxes that pay for education. Much of the education they helped pay for may not be remotely relevant to the work they do now anyway.
* They also pay for those things, police and fire. Often, they pay for their own security and their own fire prevention as well.
* There is no social contract to speak of.
The reality is that Warren is positioning herself with an extremist viewpoint of the type of redistributionism that many poorly accuse Obama of. It's kind of ridiculous from start to finish, and, more importantly, the statement as presented ignores what these companies provide. Instead of seeing that companies (for a profit) provide goods, services, jobs, wages, investment opportunities, and skills to the populace, the position assumes the company does nothing but make money for those who run them. It's an academic position that bears minimal relevance to the real world situation it tries to describe.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 01:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:ME AM PLAY GODS
From:Re: ME AM PLAY GODS
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 02:14 am (UTC)*That doesn't mean that they got there alone
*That doesn't mean that they got there alone
*LOL
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 03:20 am (UTC)Lets get into that social contract. Do businesses, and for that matter citizens themselves owe nothing to the rest of society? Really?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 06:32 am (UTC)Warren is an opportunitarian, to coin a word, but even a propertarian can admit that the whole body of taxpayers own those roads, and you pay taxes to that body--even if you are part of that body.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 01:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 01:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 03:56 am (UTC)Brown won on a wave of teaparty euphoria against a candidate who didn't even seem to want to win herself. He's not likely to draw the Democratic vote with such a strong Democratic candidate (nor are the Democratic residents of the liberal bastion of Massachusetts likely to stay home), and he can't count on the teapartiers after he refused to follow lockstep in their agenda. I'd say he should be pretty worried.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 11:23 am (UTC)I strongly disagree. Someone this sloppy, this linked to the President? Easiest possible mark. I was worried Capuano would ump into the race. Someone like Alan Khazei would give Brown a good run. She's going to get absolutely hammered, and she's going to make sure that grassroots support for Brown jumps out into the race early and often.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 01:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 01:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 02:16 am (UTC)Also, the latter is laughable.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 06:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 07:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 09:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 06:50 am (UTC)Warren is making an opportunitarian argument about the moral obligation to pass opportunity on to future citizens. Therefore, it's not really about owing X amount due to previous receipts, it's about paying in enough for future generations to "make it."
Since we are mortal beings whose lives begin and end, her argument is more compatible with experienced reality.