In Defense of Obama

[Maggie]

Class Warfare

What is wrong with this argument?

[WuDrWu]

Maggie I've been thinking about this "debate" for several weeks now. I spent a good amount of the last 8 weeks all but incapacitated where my brain was about the only thing working and watching political commentary all day was how I passed the time.

One of the conclusions I drew (right or wrong) was that I believe the next successful group of politicians will win the argument on the basis of degrees.

What I mean is that the vast majority of Republicans don't want to eliminate government, they just want it sized down. Democrats don't want a socialist state, they just want some more of the pie. The person, or persons that can get past the "all or nothing" demagoguery that currently rules the day will win the populace.

Now to answer your question, I see many things wrong with this.....not the least of which is she's dead wrong when she says everyone pays for the roads to travel, police to protect etc etc. No, they don't. As a country we are reaching a dangerous tipping point where a majority of the people pay no income tax (it's in the high 40% for now, and I've heard 1 report that said it's risen to 51%) so no Elizabeth, everyone else doesn't pay.

Also, she implies that the "factory owner" pays nothing when in fact he'll pay so much more than the workers it's laughable.

Another flaw is that you don't go into debt to fund tax cuts. That's total insanity. It's always been about a spending problem. However, even if you give her that point (which you cannot), the tax cuts were for ALL TAXPAYERS, not just the rich.

There isn't a revenue problem, there is a spending problem and the right needs to make sure they get that message not only out, but across.

Also, what's a progrum (not sure I am spelling that correctly)?

[RoyalShock]

I watched the video but didn't read the story that encapsulated it.

She is trying to separate the "rich business owner" from other taxpayers. She is insinuating that the business owner did not help pay for all those things she says other people did (highways, education).

Furthermore, the business owner is the one who assumed the majority of the risk. If he/she had not done so, where would all those employees have found jobs and gotten salaries that had more taxes taken out of them?

There may be error in my analysis, but it seems to go back to the belief of who the job/wealth creators are. Is it, or is it not entrepreneurs?

All that said, I somewhat agree, fundamentally, at least, with her debt discussion. Although she left entitlements out of the discussion.

[WuDrWu]

I know this is just a "right" thing, but the left acts like going to war is akin to signing up for a book club.

I don't think we started any of the wars....and hasn't the current President either continued or started his own wars?

[Kung Wu]

She is making the point FOR the GOP only she doesn't know it.

The risk taking entrepreneur was able to provide jobs BECAUSE the government didn't tax them out of the ability to do so. So she want's to increase taxes on the risk taker, which has the consequence of reducing the ability for the corporation to grow and continue providing jobs and benefits. Brilliant.

I just realized: How fitting they call the part of an engine that retards the speed of a machine a "governor".

[RoyalShock]

Maggie I've been thinking about this "debate" for several weeks now. I spent a good amount of the last 8 weeks all but incapacitated where my brain was about the only thing working and watching political commentary all day was how I passed the time.

One of the conclusions I drew (right or wrong) was that I believe the next successful group of politicians will win the argument on the basis of degrees.

What I mean is that the vast majority of Republicans don't want to eliminate government, they just want it sized down. Democrats don't want a socialist state, they just want some more of the pie. The person, or persons that can get past the "all or nothing" demagoguery that currently rules the day will win the populace.

Now to answer your question, I see many things wrong with this.....not the least of which is she's dead wrong when she says everyone pays for the roads to travel, police to protect etc etc. No, they don't. As a country we are reaching a dangerous tipping point where a majority of the people pay no income tax (it's in the high 40% for now, and I've heard 1 report that said it's risen to 51%) so no Elizabeth, everyone else doesn't pay.

Also, she implies that the "factory owner" pays nothing when in fact he'll pay so much more than the workers it's laughable.

Another flaw is that you don't go into debt to fund tax cuts. That's total insanity. It's always been about a spending problem. However, even if you give her that point (which you cannot), the tax cuts were for ALL TAXPAYERS, not just the rich.

There isn't a revenue problem, there is a spending problem and the right needs to make sure they get that message not only out, but across.

Also, what's a progrum (not sure I am spelling that correctly)?

Pretty much everyone does pay for education and police protection since the funding comes from property and sales taxes that you either pay directly or in the form of higher goods/service prices.

You are partially correct about highways, particularly in states with no income tax. Keep in mind that "xx%" don't pay any income tax applies to federal. It's different from state-to-state depending on their tax laws.

I should clarify that my agreement with her on debt is that spending in one area should be offset but cuts in others. Her claims of unpaid-for tax cuts can't be made unless she can prove they did not result in increased revenue.

[Maggie]

I agree with all most everything in the prior posts. I give her credit for speaking her mind – she obviously believes she is right. And I think based on the positive reaction her little rant engendered in liberal corners of the internet – that her view is representative of the Left’s thinking. She loses points for message delivery - Warren's tone was bristling with hostility and very unbecoming of a Harvard professor. A couple issues I have with Warren’s argument, such as it is:

1. This was supposed to be an argument against accusations that the Democratic party engages in class warfare rhetoric. However, Warren almost immediately turns to class warfare rhetoric – proving that her critics are correct. I would like to know who "the rest of us" are? Doesn't the factory owner, at some point, belong to that group as well?;

2. A basic fault in her presentation is that she makes it sound as if the factory owner just fell out of the sky. And as others have pointed out Warren just flat out lies when she asserts that her factor owner pays no taxes;

3. Her references to a social contract smacks of Rousseau, which I reflexively dislike. The very concept of “social contract”, as envisioned by Rousseau has throughout history become the tool of tyrants. Freedom and Liberty must be subsumed to the "general will". And of course, in this system, people like Elizabeth Warren get to decide just what the general will is. I would also ask her, speaking of her definition of a social contract: Harvard University does not pay federal income or capital gains tax on its 37 billion dollar or so endowment, is it failing to fulfill its part of your social contract? If so, why doesn't Harvard pay its fair share? One could also argue that the "social contract" is nothing more than an abstraction into which people project their own biases of what government should be. And that it is utterly dishonest to say that the social contract says or implies this or that. Logically, it's an appeal to authority that doesn't have any authority, never mind any concrete reality. It's a rhetorical distraction, intended to pretend that one isn't merely providing one's own biased opinion, by pretending that this illusory objective authority proves that one's point is a matter of fact;

4. She sets up strawmen – such as insinuating that her critics don’t want the government involved in infrastructure. I don’t know anyone who believes that – not even Ron Paul would go that far;

5. When she says: …..keep a big hunk of it (profits?). But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. But that's not what she really means. What she means is she has the right to take a hunk of that and dispose of it as she wishes. Well, that ain't necessarily so.

6. To piggy back on what Royal wrote: Interstate roads are funded in large part through the federal govt. But the proceeds are collected from a federal gas tax. The total amount collected is usually less than goes to pay for new roads or maintenance of roads. Money is diverted to bike lanes, mass transit, rail subsidies. Police, fire protection, and schools are paid for at the local level - either state, county or municipal and usually a combination - and not at the federal level where Warren wants to work. She also didn’t mention national defense as one of her legitimate functions of government – wonder why?;

7. Speaking of legitimate functions of government. Warren cited infrastructure, education and law enforcement as those functions of government from which the factory builder benefits. That just about covers most, not all, of the legit functions of the government. Maybe if we just stuck to government performing those functions – Warren would not need to “ask” the rich to pay more. It is not the legitimate functions of government that are the problem – it is every thing else.

[WuDrWu]

Maggie I love your point on the social contract. When I heard it I bristled but I am not sharp enough to pick apart the details as you did, thank you.

I can only hope you are personally seeing to Scott Brown's debate preparation.

Again, I read your thoughts and I walk away a smarter and more thoroughly informed person. :good:

[pinstripers]

It's always about spending. A friend of mine is putting up a wind turbine to create electricity for his business. This is a refurbished unit out of Socal. The cost, turnkey, is $139,000. With all of the government grants, subsidies, etc, his TOTAL out-of-pocket expense will be only 8 grand. Taxpayers pick up the rest. This is insanity.

[RoyalShock]

http://blog.mises.org/18522/why-should-the-government-be-limited/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MisesBlog+%28Mises+Economics+Blog%29