Right!

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm so excited she's running against Scott Brown. Best case scenario.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Tell me what's wrong about what she's saying there.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In some semblance of order:

* 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.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

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?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Who's demanding that they shouldn't? It's a classic Obama-style strawman.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind these same services require taxes...

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Okay. No one she's speaking to (or, really, about) is saying "no taxes," either.

[roseofjuly.livejournal.com]

*That doesn't mean that they got there alone
*That doesn't mean that they got there alone
*That doesn't mean that they got there alone
*LOL

[byrontengu.livejournal.com]

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?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

But someone of her alleged intelligence should know that businesses already pay taxes. Also, someone of her intelligence should know about the negative impact of business/corporate taxes, but since that's not really a mainstream viewpoint, she's either addressing someone who's not existing in her worlkd or, as I noted, just tossing out a good strawman.

Lets get into that social contract. Do businesses, and for that matter citizens themselves owe nothing to the rest of society? Really?

No, they don't "owe" anything. There is no "social contract."

[byrontengu.livejournal.com]

Clearly she, and everyone else knows that businesses pay taxes. It's about how much not whether or not. I'd rather see loopholes close than increases on the actual tax rates, but I do think that the supremely successful businesses should pay more if we need taxes to keep the country going.... and we do.

As for the social contract. Unless you and I are talking about different things, I disagree. I tend to follow the Spiderman Principal with things like this. With great power comes great responsibility. And I don't mean the responsibility to find the best lobbyists.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

With great power comes great responsibility. And I don't mean the responsibility to find the best lobbyists.

I want that cross stitched on a pillow.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Clearly she, and everyone else knows that businesses pay taxes.

I'd hope so. But it makes me question who she's talking to here, and why she'd imply, with her comments, that they're not giving back.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

No, they don't "owe" anything. There is no "social contract."

Ah, good. Then that means that in the mostly-rules-regulations-and-laws-free world you envision, there will be very little to protect you and your wife from my depredations. Good to know.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Dude.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

So no one else helped pay for those roads?

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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In a way, no - while much of what she speaks of is mostly paid locally, shes talking federally, where a large chunk of the population have no income tax liability.

No one "owns" the roads, but she'll never lecture those with zero stake.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Her poll numbers were slightly ahead of his, so IAWTC.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In one outlying PPP poll. PPP is quite good, so I don't dismiss it outright, but Brown's more popular than that and Warren's not that well known.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

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).

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

Oh gee, Jeff jumps into a discussion without knowing anything about what's being discussed. It must be a day ending in y.

I strongly disagree. Someone this sloppy,

Sloppy? She's the smartest, and most vocal, progressive voice out there at this moment.

this linked to the President?

You forget that the President isn't unpopular everywhere in this country. She doesn't have to satisfy the idiots in flyover country, she's running in Massachusetts. You also "forget" that the Republicans are even less popular than Obama.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Sloppy? She's the smartest, and most vocal, progressive voice out there at this moment.

That doesn't say a lot of good things about the progressive voices, then. Surely, you're familar with the deep, significant flaws in her medical bankruptcy study, as an example. Start here (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/) for some good details.

You forget that the President isn't unpopular everywhere in this country. She doesn't have to satisfy the idiots in flyover country, she's running in Massachusetts.

Obama's under 50% approval in Massachusetts, only 4% better than disapproval (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/obama-slips-in-ma-still-leads-republicans-by-double-digits.html). Obama will almost certainly win Massachusetts, so it's all a little moot, but let's not pretend Obama's popularity is significant - it's just better than it is nationally.

You also "forget" that the Republicans are even less popular than Obama.

Irrelevant to this. "The Republicans" aren't running against Obama, real people are. Even when "the Republicans" are, however, Generic Republican (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot) is beating Obama (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Republican-Candidate-Extends-Lead-Obama.aspx).

And I don't know what I'm talking about? Riiiiight.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

That doesn't say a lot of good things about the progressive voices,

Just because her words bust your worldview bubble doesn't mean she's not a strong, positive progressive voice. It just means you're extremely perturbed by anything that goes against your worldview.

then. Surely, you're familar with the deep, significant flaws in her medical bankruptcy study, as an example. Start here for some good details.

I don't have time to read every attack piece. If you judged every politician simply by those who don't like them, you wouldn't be able to vote for anyone.

Obama's under 50% approval in Massachusetts, only 4% better than disapproval. Obama will almost certainly win Massachusetts, so it's all a little moot, but let's not pretend Obama's popularity is significant - it's just better than it is nationally.

And what exactly is the popularity of the Republican Party in Massachusetts? If the President's approval is 49% but the Republicans' approval is 39% that doesn't exactly bode well for the Republicans. Besides, much of Obama's unpopularity stems from his seeming unwillingness to stand up for anything he believes in (quite contrary to the Republican narrative that everyone wishes he'd give in to the tea party's wishes and ruin this country). Warren is a vocal progressive, and doesn't seem ashamed to admit it, so she shouldn't have to worry about that.

Irrelevant to this. "The Republicans" aren't running against Obama, real people are. Even when "the Republicans" are, however, Generic Republican is beating Obama.

"Generic Republican" isn't running for office. A lot of people would probably like a viable alternative (even some liberals who are sick of wishy washy Obama) but a viable alternative isn't being offered. The most reasonable Republican running is Huntsman and even he's having to bend over backwards to sound crazy enough to win the tea party primary (and he will not win that primary so he's irrelevant). The Republicans are trying to out crazy each other, I don't think that bodes well for them when they'll have to run to the center for the general election (it's hard to appear moderate when you spent the past year talking about how you wanted senior citizens eating cat food and unemployed people fighting amongst themselves for the contents of the Burger King dumpster).

And I don't know what I'm talking about? Riiiiight.

You don't. I've seen no evidence that you possess even the most basic knowledge of economics. I only have 1 1/2 economics classes under my belt and I may even have more knowledge of economics as a discipline than you do. You read a bunch of articles by Ben Stein, and maybe a couple books by Adam Smith, and now you think you're some sort of economic genius.