Warren Attacks

The Left is in a positive lather over this clip from Elizabeth Warren, now running for Senate against Scott Brown:

First, Warren is factually incorrect. We didn’t get into debt because of $1 trillion in tax cuts for the rich, we got into it because of $3 trillion in tax cuts for everyone. Tax cuts are tax cuts; revenues are revenues. Tax revenues do not magically multiply and close debts because they happen to come from rich people. As Alex noted, taxing the rich only gets you so far — and not nearly far enough.

When Democrats blame our debt not on the tax cuts, but only on those that benefitted the rich, what does that tell you?

She has a point on the drug benefit, but it should be noted that what she and her fellow leftists wanted was more expensive. She also has a point on the wars. But, ignoring the question of necessity, the Democrats weren’t exactly screaming for more tax revenue when the wars started. They voted for the wars and have continued to vote for the wars.

And that doesn’t include the decade-long boom in all other spending, which the Democrats have embraced with both arms. Just today, the supposedly fiscally responsible Democrats rejected the House continuing resolution. The reason? Republicans wanted to pay for disaster relief by rolling back corporate welfare — i.e., subsidies for green cars. Isn’t spending — now up to 25% of GDP — at least part of the reason we’re here? Not according to Elizabeth Warren.

Second, no one is saying the rich should not pay anything. They’re paying plenty. When you count all income, including capital gains, which are Warren Buffet is on about, you find that the richest quintile are paying about 25.5% of their income in taxes and the richest 0.1% about 30%. That includes the corporate tax that applies before capital gains and stock income. That can be contrasted against the lower three quintiles who, including the payroll tax that funds their Social Security and Medicare, pay effective tax rates of 1.6-14.1%. That’s not including state and local taxes, which tend to be progressive.

So no, the goods were moved on roads that the rich paid for. The factories used workers whose educations the rich paid for. The rich didn’t have to worry about marauding bands because of the police and military that the rich paid for. And the real problem is that all this happened with no one paying for it, so we had to borrow and borrow and borrow.

Finally, notice the angry and bitter tone. This is precisely why I can’t stand Elizabeth Warren. She is an abrasive and factually-challenged demagogue who passes herself off as the voice of reason. There is nothing positive in her diatribe, only vindictiveness.

The Left is very excited about this, as Hot Air noted, because it plays into their delusion that Leftist ideas are failing because they haven’t been communicated well enough. If only Obama would rant like this, they think, Americans would see the light and we’d have a socialist paradise.

But they are ignoring something. The Left already has the microphone. Hollywood pumps out movies with liberal themes. NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSN all parrot the liberal line (media are 90% Democrat). I used to hold a contest to ask people if they could tell the difference between Democrat Party position papers and the editorials of the New York Times. From preschool through college, children are awash in Lefty ideas. I knew teachers who gave out extra credit if kids protested for higher teacher salaries. And academia tends to be not just liberal, but radical. Count the number of courses that teach Das Kapital as opposed to The Wealth of Nations.

People are exposed to Lefty arguments from cradle to grave. And about 70% of Americans reject them anyway. The problem is not the medium; the problem is the message.

Update: A note on my data on taxes. The Left likes to talk about the prosperity of the 50’s when marginal tax rates where in the 90s. They ignore that those rates only kicked in at *very* high incomes, much much higher than the $250k level they’re talking about now.

Comments are closed.

  1. Section8

    What I keep hearing from the left is he got us in to two wars? Really? Because if you still have a pulse I’m pretty sure you’d remember that on 9/11 we were attacked by a bunch of thugs holed up in Afghanistan. If one wants to argue the justification of Iraq since they did not attack us, or the over extending of “nation building” in Afghanistan that’s one thing, but for fuck’s sake if the 9/11 attack didn’t justify a response then it’s not too farfetched to think that the likes of Warren would think any attack does not justify a response. OBL got us into the first war, and this idiot should never forget that. Hopefully the people of Massachusetts won’t.

    Thumb up 2

  2. Mississippi Yankee

    Hopefully the people of Massachusetts won’t.

    Having grown-up there I won’t be holding my breath.
    Not that Brown has been all that conservative either. Sorta like Olympia Dukakis/ Susan Collins lite so far.

    And as to her “pay forward for the next kid”, everyone has the opportunity to open a factory. That opportunity is why we pay taxes honey.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    First, Warren is factually incorrect. We didn’t get into debt because of $1 trillion in tax cuts for the rich, we got into it because of $3 trillion in tax cuts for everyone.

    You got it just as wrong as she did Hal. How often do we have to correct you on this nonsense?

    We got in to trouble because government SPEND more than it should based on what it was taking in. It was not the taxes.

    The problem IS and always remains spending. We could let our political big government Keynesian aristocracy tax us at 100%, and within a year or so, they will yet again be spending more than they take in.

    Warren got it wrong because Warren is a fucking douche that is still pretending, if you ignore the fact that spending gets done by congress and not really the president just to follow her idiotic line of thinking, the problem was Bush spending $1.15 for every dollar of revenue, while giving Obama that is now spending something like $1.75 for every dollar of revenue, no grief.

    Anyone making the fucking argument that we should take any politician that says we need to raise taxes before we get real drastic and deep cuts seriously, needs to be made fun of.

    Thumb up 2

  4. Hal_10000 *

    Alex, if you look later, I talk about the spending. But you can’t deny that tax cuts at least contributed to the deficit. Federal revenues are stil below the level they were in 2001. Unless you think we should have not had the wars and frozen spending, tax cuts are a part of the equation.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Hal_10000 *

    The other thing I failed to note is that she talks about education, roads, police. Very few people have problems paying for that. But that only accounts for a fraction of government spending.

    Here’s what she should have gone on to say:

    “All that money that was flushed down the toilet with Solyndra and other green boondoggles? You paid for that! Our huge welfare state? You paid for that! Our bloated education system that spends the most in the world while educating the least? You paid for that! $150 million a year paid to dead federal employees? You paid for that! Corn ethanol that fouls the Earth while not providing energy? You paid for that! Farm subsidies, fuel subsidies, unnecessary second engines for fighters? You paid for all of it!”

    Thumb up 0

  6. ID_Fox

    But you can’t deny that tax cuts at least contributed to the deficit. Federal revenues are stil below the level they were in 2001

    Easily. At any point during the process of paying for this garbage congress could have presented or passed a budget or at the very least gone ‘hey, we cant really afford to do this so we should put it on hold. ” There is no getting around with the fact that Congress is not living within its means.

    It’s not our duty as citizens to work and provide the government with income to meet their desires. It’s their job to not be spendthrift idiots, which they constantly fail at.

    Thumb up 2

  7. Hal_10000 *

    Yes, but spending cuts don’t just happen. When Bush was running up the tab, there was a thunderous silence from the right. Rush even admitted he was holding his fire. When Obamacare put in cuts to Medicare, there was an explosion of protest. When we started the wars, there were no offsetting cuts.

    And the fact is that we cut taxes first with no intention of ever cutting spending. If people want tax cuts fine; pay for them with spending cuts. This was what Harry Brown tried to warn us about in Election 2000. That unless Bush cut spending first, any tax cuts were a shell game.

    When you cut taxes without cutting spending, that’s running up the debt. But no one wants to admit that because of the dogma that cutting taxes is an unalloyed good, no matter what happens with spending. Look at the GOP field and tell me how many are proposing serious cuts in spending, not “waste”. Gary Johnson is about it.

    Thumb up 1

  8. Section8

    Now that was brilliant. Even though I disagree with you sometimes, I think you’re by far the best writer that’s been here outside of Lee.

    Thumb up 2

  9. Xetrov

    I largely agree with what you’ve said Hal, though I don’t think tax cuts were a ‘problem’ or part of the ‘problem’. Congress should have cut spending.

    But you can’t deny that tax cuts at least contributed to the deficit. Federal revenues are stil below the level they were in 2001.

    Highest Federal Revenue ever taken in was in 2007, four years after the tax cuts.

    Thumb up 4

  10. AlexInCT

    Yes, but spending cuts don’t just happen. When Bush was running up the tab, there was a thunderous silence from the right.

    Erm, no, there were many of us that where not silent at all. I for one was furious at him for this shit long ebfore the democrats took over in 2007 and took defecit spending to new levels. There where many like me that pointed out government was spending too much and that compasionate conservatism was just fucking socialism and doomed to fail. In fact, I contributed money to Bush after 9-11 because I believed he was the best man for the job, but stopped giving money in 2005 because I could not stand the fucking collectivsm big government bullshit that was compasionate conservatism. I till today consider Bush a demcorat light on the economy.

    Rush even admitted he was holding his fire.

    Fuck Rush on that. It’s why I stopped listening to him too.

    When Obamacare put in cuts to Medicare, there was an explosion of protest. When we started the wars, there were no offsetting cuts.

    The protests where because of Obamacare. It is not just a bad thing, it is a death sentence economically and to healthcare. Anything that can be used to kill it should be. This thing is the proverbial angel slaying sword that will kill off even the US economy.

    I grant you that they needed to pay for the wars and should have cut elsewhere. of course, I beleieve they should cut the big government socialist nanny state regardless of that anyway. I have a feeling that a lot of people would suddenly find the will to be productive citizens if they wheren’t kept bitches at other people’s expense.

    Thumb up 0

  11. richtaylor365

    This is why the entire topic is nothing but mental masturbation. The Dems ran on the concept of PAYGO, that additional spending can only be continenced with the requisite cuts for a zero sum gain, they lied. The GOP is hardly any better, they can’t be trusted with money either, as history as proven. No, any silly ideas about increasing taxation is out, they can’t be trusted to use that money wisely. Without triggers or rules to force compliance, they will only take that additional monies and spend them as well along with all the regular tax revenues. Only a fool would give money to an addict and expect him to buy groceries for his kids with it, same with Congress, they have never shown a willingness to be responsible, why on earth would anyone think that raising taxes and giving them even more money would magically solve their spending addiction?

    Thumb up 3

  12. Section8

    Yes, but spending cuts don’t just happen. When Bush was running up the tab, there was a thunderous silence from the right. Rush even admitted he was holding his fire. When Obamacare put in cuts to Medicare, there was an explosion of protest. When we started the wars, there were no offsetting cuts.

    Wasn’t that the main issue with Bush and the GOP back then? I think it reflected on this blog as well that we were in dire need of separating the fiscal conservatives from the social ones, and if social ones were going to stay that they should be following the rules of the fiscal conservative. I mean the GOP was referred to as the Christian Democrats around here if I remember correctly, and I don’t think too many questioned it because it was pretty much an accurate description. That’s just this blog of course, but the feeling wasn’t much more different around the rest of the country. This is why I was thrown back when you started complaining about the Tea Party making a stand during the debt ceiling increase. At some point it has to happen, and it will be a critical crossroads moment at any time they do it, so when some are willing to put up a fight why turn your back? Support has to go beyond the “it’s good in theory” if we ever want the irresponsible spending to stop.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CzarChasm

    I have a friend who runs a blog who has done a fabulous job of dismantling this crazy woman’s rant. I’d like to share it with you folks. It’s kind of long, but I found it well worth the time. Anyway….
    _________________________________________________

    Posted Sept. 22, 2011
    By INVAR

    Marxist Says Class Warfare Does Not Exist Because Nobody Gets Rich On Their Own

    Economic Policy Advisor Provides Proof That Socialist Dogma Rules The Minds of Obama’s Administration

    Nothing you own, especially the wealth in your bank account, belongs to you.

    According to Obama’s former economic policy advisor Elizabeth Warren, Class Warfare does not exist because all your wealth and property was obtained because of everyone else – so everyone else deserves a share of your wealth and property, and it is YOUR responsibility to “pay it forward” to those who may not have had any direct involvement in what you have and own.

    I’m going to tear her tripe down line by line, because while it may sound good to those who are ignorant of how America is supposed to work, this is pure Maoist groupthink:

    (Same video as in OP inserted here.)

    Okay – it’s my turn to cut this broad’s assertions down to size:

    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.

    In the mind of a Marxist like Warren here, what you own and have belongs to the State – because they assert it is the State, the Collective, that enables you to have anything. Therefore you OWE the State whatever the State deems you must surrender. Be it your wealth, your property, your children, your life. From Each according to their ability – TO each according to his need as determined by the State.

    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.

    Listen lady – how many government permits, fees and government studies did he have to pay for to get “permission” to even build his factory in the first place? How much government regulation make up his operating costs before there is one cent of profit? As to moving goods on the roads – I’m sure the factory owner paid, like the rest of us – the taxes collected to pay for those roads. Does he not get to share in the benefits of that ‘investment’ (as Marxists call taxes) like the rest of us? In fact lady, I bet the factory owner PAYS MORE in taxes for the roads than the rest of us pay for. What kind of extra fees and taxes does his truck fleet have to pay that us regular SUV drivers do not? Like all Marxists, you create the lie in people’s minds that the rich ‘business owners’ make their money off the backs of the proletariat while paying nothing. That IS Class Warfare lady.

    You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

    You mean the Teachers Unions? Your Communist Comrades? Again – I’m sure the business owner pays the property taxes that fund the schools – MORESO than your average apartment dweller Democrat supporter does. And what about the college educated? Did the State educate them also or did they pay for their own tuition? Again – you are trying to create the lie that the proletariat paid for the education of these workers and the business owner is just reaping benefits off Joe and Jane Sixpack’s backs.

    You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for.

    Property Taxes again lady. The factory owner pays more than most of us combined for the police and fire protection they benefit from. Most home owners in municipalities with a large industrial base have a smaller property tax bill that pays for police and fire, because the businesses pay the larger share.

    You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory

    No. The factory owner has to worry about marauding government bureaucrats that will tax him out of business or IRS thugs that will come and seize everything at his factory upon an audit. He also has to worry about appeasing the race and poverty pimps so he isn’t sued into bankruptcy, and pay off the Union Mob bosses who can and will shut his factory down – via violence if necessary, and/or run it out of business to mandate the owner pay for benefits that price the factory’s product out of range of the free market. That is to say nothing of ‘flash mobs’ that are being stoked by Marxist politicians like yourself to believe that they have the right to raid and steal from any business if they feel like it.

    — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

    The “work” the rest of us did? Listen toots, I didn’t do a damn thing to enable a business owner to hire security or pay more in taxes for the local police department. But because your religion is of the “Collective” like the Borg from Star Trek – you assert no one has a right to anything they have, were it not for the “work” of everyone else. Therefore – in Marxist Groupthink – they are owed a share that the state determines needs to be redistributed.

    Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it.

    Or not – if the factory is not Union and does not contribute to Obama and the Democrats – then they do not get to keep any of it. The government will raid it, and run it out of business like all good Fascists do. Just ask Gibson Guitar about how big a hunk they are allowed to keep for themselves.

    But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

    I do not find any “underlying” Marxist contract or structure in the Constitution of the United States or the Declaration of Independence. Just because you Marxists assert legal sounding terms such as ‘social contract’ and social justice’ means diddly squat, because you are perpetrating a fraud, a scam, and ultimately Class Warfare for political takeover of private property – which is treason in my estimation.

    Morons like this Warren broad are epidemic in the Obama regime which seeks to empower the state over all wealth and property in the United States. And they will assert your property and wealth does not belong to you alone – but to the Collective that allows you to have what you have.

    And – when it is decided, the Collective will empower the state to take what you have for the good of the collective.

    After all, what you now own is not yours in the first place – but theirs. Their benevolence has allowed you to benefit from everyone else’s work and they can demand your “Shared sacrifice” anytime they deem it necessary.

    ________________________________________________

    INVAR’s name is Michael. I could’ve written my own sussing out of that idiot woman’s call for less freedom and more government, but Michael said everything I would’ve said anyway. I will tell you all that Michael is a devout Christian, and that most of his blog is religious in nature, so perhaps you won’t want to visit there. But this piece had no religious references that I saw, so I thought it would fit in as salient commentary here just fine.

    CC

    Thumb up 2

  14. AlexInCT

    According to Obama’s former economic policy advisor Elizabeth Warren, Class Warfare does not exist because all your wealth and property was obtained because of everyone else – so everyone else deserves a share of your wealth and property, and it is YOUR responsibility to “pay it forward” to those who may not have had any direct involvement in what you have and own.

    The problem is that the “everyone else” that they claim you need to share your wealth with practically always seem to be primarily comprised of people that do absolutely nothing at all, other than vote for those that will “share” the wealth created by other people’s work efforts, into power. The few that are not members of this group big group that also make out from this “enforced sharing” seem to then also predominantly be comprised of people/groups that do dumb things and waste wealth – like Solyndra, and such other private sector “friends of the sharing enforcers” (or is it shearing?), or big government entities that wastes whatever else isn’t funneled to those that vote for a living – rather than create anything of value.

    Besides “sharing” already happens. Corporations share their windfalls with their stock holders and the well performing employees. Even better is how they are held accountable for doing a poor job, although I feel this is not happening as often as it should, with the idiots that are ruining it all being thrown out on their ass. Immelt still running GE, for example.

    This all smacks of assholes wrapping their criminal activities in pretty & flowery language and good motives, to confound the issue and of course provide cover for the beneficiaries of the enforced theft & wealth transfer that might otherwise be shamed, which it precisely is.

    Thumb up 0