Right!

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, that brings us back to the idea of whether the rich profit more from society than the rest of us (thus deserve higher taxes).

Sure, but that's also not what Warren was arguing. If she was making that argument, she'd look better.

I also still think you're underestimating the degree to which there is disagreement amongst people on the right-wing that the rich should pay more in taxes than the poor (whether regressive or progressive taxes should be favoured does seem to still be a matter of debate)

Not at all - the debate is significant, and key to current discussions overall. What it isn't about is what is suggested by Warren's commentary, that, somehow, there's this "no tax" faction in the national debate that has any pull.

I don't have a degree in economics but are you suggesting that the vast majority of academics in economics would disagree with Obama?

More would than you'd know given the coverage. That doesn't excuse the rest of academia either, for what it works.

If not then it seems to me that you're suggesting that your claim that they are 'not in touch with reality' is very much based on your own political views rather than anything that I should feel inclined to accept for myself.

Economics is concerned more with theory and less with history. No one doubts that, theoretically, Obama's viewpoint checks out. The issue is, historically, it does not.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Well, that brings us back to the idea of whether the rich profit more from society than the rest of us (thus deserve higher taxes).

Sure, but that's also not what Warren was arguing. If she was making that argument, she'd look better.

That's exactly what's she's arguing in the OP.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not at all. The rich already "take a hunk of that and pay it forward." No one says they shouldn't, nor do they not do so already. The debate is not between all and none as Warren frames it, but how much.