Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren: Everything you have belongs to us

Elizabeth Warren: Everything you have belongs to us

This is almost enough to cause me to rescind my Bye Bye Brown pronouncement, because Elizabeth Warren ascending to the Senate to replace Scott Brown would make Ted Kennedy seem like the good ol’ days.

The progressives are in a lather about this video by Warren in which she proclaims an almost perfect theory of why redistribution of wealth must be government policy:

 “I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“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; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

In a sense, no one on the current American political scene has said it better — everything you have belongs to the state and the people.  You will be allowed to keep some of it, but it doesn’t belong to you.

Remember, this is the woman Obama originally wanted to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Warren still has to beat a crowded Democratic field, but my gut tells me she’ll do it because she is a new hero to the left.

Update:  Listen to my interview on WRKO Boston about Warren’s ideology and hypocrisy.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I’m seeing a graphic with a quote from this all over Facebook:

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrvz7wF5jI1qbtxv8o1_500.jpg

Scott Brown could just paste it to every lamppost in MA.

I guess the new euphemism for income redistribution is “pay it forward.”

    DINORightMarie in reply to billdyszel. | September 22, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Yep, I saw this on my wall from a liberal friend early this morning. I thought about refuting it, then said “she won’t listen……..she’s too far gone” (trust me, I know).

    Then I heard Rush on the radio today tear her sound bites to shreds. The same one as the graphic. It was wonderful. 🙂

    Thank you, Professor, for highlighting that she is running in a crowded field; I do believe she is emerging as a Marxist-Socialist right up front – a shoe-in, if Brown is no longer “the most popular politician in MA”……

Nice house. Big enough to host a couple dozen white liberals. Pictures on top of the piano.

Does anyone there stop to think just how much of the “public’s wealth” is wrapped up in that single family residence Ms. Warren in speaking in? Nah.

The government’s appetite for money is insatiable. Today it is the factory worker. Tomorrow it WILL be the savings and pension funds of everyone in that room.

Idiots.

[…] Worry. Elizabeth Warren would allow you to keep most of your money. Sep.22, 2011 in General Prof. Jacobsen rightly points out the central theme behind Ms. Warren’s video that is currently making […]

A great example of how RINO’s can be tolerated when this is the alternative.

Okay then Elizabeth … the flips side of this sharing is … when any new ventures go belly up, as the great majority do … then the owners need to be bailed out … sharing goes both ways … and it’s gonna be really expensive and messy.

LukeHandCool (who answers Liz with, “There is no entrepreneur in this country who made bad decisions and went broke on his own. Nobody.” … so cough up the bail out money so we can try again and again and again …)

    … and all those illegal undocumented aliens paid for what part of all of this ?

    I repeated this great line to a liberal lawyer friend whose response was: federal bankruptcy laws and using my own soldier kids against me, and then I’m arguing about the debt they’re being saddled with and carrying the dead weight of a good part of the population who haven’t contributed, and so forth. It got unpleasant.

Who still doubts that the battle lines are forming for an epic 2012, which will feature violence in American streets?

    Voyager in reply to Rick. | September 22, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Not this cycle. I expect this cycle to be a major political conflict, but I expect it to be primarily political, not physical. When a member of congress physically assaults another member, and is not censured by a super majority, the situation will have reached the threshold of violence.

    We aren’t near there yet.

GrannyJanJihadKitty | September 22, 2011 at 4:44 pm

I read that she’s a few points ahead in the polls but I doubt that she can win for a few reasons:

She looks like a lesbian or your high school english teacher.

We usually elect Catholics. Scott Brown is an exception and William Weld going back a little but he was a patrician.

We are sexist and don’t vote for women.

She’s an inteloper in MA, but doesn’t have the black thing going on like Deval another interloper.

We don’t elect Harvard professors, but it’s ok to be a Harvard graduate.

I don’t don’t have strong feelings towards Brown but I’ll work to defeat Warren.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 22, 2011 at 4:46 pm

The “social contract” started out being that we couldn’t let old people live without a stipend. Then the “social contract” was expanded so that if you lose your job, you get a stipend. The “social contract” was expanded so if you’re poor enough, we buy your food. Then the “SC” was expanded to include subsidized government housing. Then the politicians decided the “social contract” should be expanded so that those old people getting their stipends also need to have their healthcare subsized. And if you’re not old, just poor, then you get your healthcare subsized, too.

————————————————————

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.” — Norman Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party.

Elizabeth needs to tell us what planet these people who built factories came from that allowed them to never contribute their fair share of taxes to pay for the roads, education, etc. before said factories were built.

    IrateNate in reply to Joy. | September 22, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    I’m sorry, Joy, but as excellent as your point is, using logic against liberals is akin to firing blanks at a charging RINO…

    IrateNate in reply to Joy. | September 22, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    I’m sorry, Joy, but as excellent as your point is, using logic against liberals is akin to firing blanks at a charging RINO…

@ Rick. And my guess is that violence will be SEIU organized with public employees leading the way.

Oh, Lizzy…. can you imagine what else will come out of her mouth by the election?

By the heavens above, I was NEVER gonna vote for Scott Brown again, but here we have Lizzy, the answer to Scott’s prayers.

Who paid to educate the workers, Elizabeth? Who paid to build the roads? Who paid to hire the police? THE SAME PEOPLE WHO BUILT THE FACTORIES AND MOVED THE GOODS . . . . This is the left’s perfect scam: we take from you, and then declare that what we have taken from you was ours all along, and that justifies taking even more from you . . . and it never ends. ALL YOUR “YOURS” BELONG TO US, indeed.

Instead of Ted Kennedy’s old seat, I say give her Tim Geithner’s job, as she wrote a book w/ her daughter, (All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan), the subject of which is, essentially, living within one’s means, something the govt needs to learn!

I don’t want to live on a planet where she’s taken seriously. Thankfully, I live on earth.

This is a very good example of liberal’s magical thinking, and it serves the purpose of reinforcing the general public’s ignorance on simple economics. Many people believe that they own jobs, that without their labors their employers cannot survive. Many people overestimate their position in the work force, most are just a cog in the wheel. The idea that they are the captain of their destiny, is laughable when they demand guarantees and job security. The overwhelming prevailing mantra of a college student is to get through so they can “get a good job.” Not many even entertain the idea of creating one. When the current cultural trend is to abdicate being responsible and self reliant, the idea that the employee of any company, or a government official is not more at the mercy of the business owner than the opposite is a joke. A lot of business owners do install alarm systems and hire security guards as well as lawyers (to protect themselves against people like Warren).

Government loses money when businesses close, less tax base.

As far as educating the workforce, that’s really not something a government official should be bragging about, for a lot of businesses currently cannot find qualified employees, or still invest in training programs.

“.. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for;…”

Note to all mothers: Your children don’t really belong to you… they belong to Elizabeth Warren and the Institutional Deity known as “US”… because without the roads built by “US” you wouldn’t have made it to the hospital to deliver your baby.

It takes a socialist idiot to raze a village.

By her logic, we should be able to tax foreign corporations forever (even after they close), because once upon a time they sold $5 worth of goods here.
Come to think of it, isn’t that what New York City does ?

    It’s what the State of Michigan tries to do. If you spend something like more than 3 days a year doing business in the state, they try to hit you up for a percentage of your income as a business.

    That was why a whole bunch of businesses moved out of Michigan; because they could no longer get their suppliers to do business with them without paying the income tax as a surcharge billed by the supplier (effectively forcing the company to pay the tax TWICE).

    Although they may have repealed it since I moved.

Academia Intellectual-Inbreds: All Your Everything are Belonging to Us.

This is the most backward thinking possible, and so frighteningly typical of the left. The social contract is the denial of some freedoms (to not be bound by law and order) to establish mutual law and order for everyone via government. One of those freedoms we do this to protect is the right to enjoy the fruits of our labor. We do this so we can live without having to wonder when the thugs, having convinced themselves THEY deserve the fruits of OUR labor, will show up to take them. If the thugs have the power of that government, they have broken the social contract not us. And we shuffle closer to the definition of tyranny.

    From her speech…: You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory…

    Warren’s government will soon be the biggest marauding band of all.

I’ve been following Dr. Warren’s work for a while, and much of her work I tended to agree with.

When I heard this, it literally sent chills up my spine because it sounded like something I would hear in some third world country.

I plan on donating to Scott Brown next year precisely because of a nutjob like this woman. What a dissappointment she turned out to be.

Elizabeth Warren may prove to be even more entertaining than Martha Coakley.

“it sounded like something I would hear in some third world country”

The left so loves the third world, they’re intent on seeing it EVERYWHERE.

what’s with this “the rest of us paid for”? pretty sure the factory owner pays more than “the rest of us”.

again with the class warfare.

Bother and drat. I supported Scott Brown when he ran. I was prepared to write him off and forget about him. Now, if this is what he is running against, I suppose I’ll need to help him out, again.

Although the state I’m in requires some attention. I can’t donate to every contest. But she really is over the top. I asked a liberal friend of mine why he hated TEA Partiers so, and he went on and on. I can see him agreeing with her. He is a Wisconsin teacher, originally from West Virginia. When the troubles broke out, and the public sector unions looked like they were going to lose their collective bargaining rights, his comment was “Blood was shed for those rights.” Maybe by coal miners in West Virginia, not by Wisconsin school teachers. But he was willing to take their struggle as his own. Typical leftist: taking what isn’t theirs.

    Milhouse in reply to Milwaukee. | September 28, 2011 at 10:48 am

    “Blood was shed for those rights.” You mean they were obtained in the first place by murder and extortion; all the more reason to take them away. He sounds like a bank robber claiming to be entitled to his loot because he’d killed to get it.

      Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | September 28, 2011 at 10:45 pm

      Good observation, Milhouse. This fellow makes over $60,000 a year in salary, with over $40,000 additionally, a year, in benefits. The school district that he teaches in, that I used to teach in, receives an insane amount of state aid every year, something like over 80% of their budget. One year the School Board had to return over $800,000. Seems that while collecting millions from other taxpayers, the school board keeps property taxes in that community low. So low the state penalized them. How fair is that? This community keeps their property taxes as low as they can, by law, while collecting the vast majority of their school budget from state aid. I felt they should have property tax as high as possible, considering the amount of subsidy collected from others.

Of course none of the things she talks about could have been paid for had not the factory existed to pay the wages, from whence came the taxes that paid for the roads, schools, etc. Close down the factory and what do you have to offer the people? Which can survive without the other? The government needs the factory. The factory doesn’t need the government. If the government didn’t exist, the factories would fill the void to make things work. They would build the roads and the schools to ensure their business prospered. The government’s not very good at running businesses.

    In order of economic significance, the classes are: pioneer (e.g., entrepreneur), then manager and worker. The pioneer, by definition, is largely self-sufficient. The other two classes are not, and are dependent on the pioneer to initiate the conversion of natural and human resources for productive use. Most people will never become pioneers, because they either lack the skill or reject the risk inherent to new enterprises.

    Warren would like us to accept a more holistic perception of society, which is reasonable, and there is also a reasonable compromise to be made. Redistributive change through coercion or artificial equality is the worst possible compromise, which intentionally and progressively denigrates individual dignity.

    If it was not already clear, left-wing ideologues are progressively the ultimate capitalists, as they seek to consolidate capital and power through authority. Unfortunately, for them, and anyone who has had the misfortune to live under their rule, they have demonstrated no skill to contain corruption and to positively exceed the outcome of the market (i.e., every consumer and producer — virtually every human).

    One reason that America developed such a diverse economy, but especially consumer-oriented, was that every American (in the past several decades) had the potential to become a capitalist and pioneer.

In a world with limited resources, who will be lucky enough to get the Ferrari?

In a world with paradise few and far between, who will be fortunate enough to live in Hawaii and on the beach?

In a world with…

Well, you can follow my questions to their logical conclusion.

No, one more.

In a world with individuals who choose to fail, who choose to engage in involuntary exploitation, who choose to devalue human life, who choose to denigrate individual dignity; who will be elevated to a status with superior or exceptional dignity (the antithesis of enlightenment)?

Has anyone actually lived in a left-wing utopia, real or imagined? It’s a land of virtual slavery. Fortunately, they continue to exist in progressive numbers throughout the world, if anyone actually wants to experience regression first-hand.

There are reasonable compromises to be made in the establishment and development of society. However, if the principal issue is to optimize preservation of individual dignity, then we would be well advised to reject advice offered by extremists and fanatics from either end of the ideological spectrum.

Oh, and that ethereal reference to “debt”, does not actually reflect the compensation due to someone who provided products and services for your voluntary consumption, right?

I wonder if Warren knows why combining authority and involuntary exploitation is a causal factor for progressive corruption of individuals and society. I also wonder if she understand why the form of welfare practiced in America is especially corrosive. Probably not, that’s why her kind continue the experiment, despite historical and present evidence that would inform a reasonable person that they have and will continue to fail.

This is absolutely hilarious. The policies of left-wing ideologues has failed on small and large scales. Apparently, they thought with control of America’s wealth, supplemented with sovereign debt accumulation, they would prove the failure was due to insufficient capital. Once again, they seem blissfully unaware of the reality we each share in common.

Am I wrong to suggest that the roads that were built and the people who were educated were built and educated with the tax dollars of the guy who hired the driver to drive on those roads. Where did those tax dollars come from? Anybody want to guess? Anybody?

I remember being surprised and impressed with Warren’s book, “The Two Income Trap” (http://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Going/dp/0465090907/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316747382&sr=1-3). In it, she points out yet another negative effect of our system of government “public” schools. It goes like this:

Good parents know that the welfare of their children depends on their getting a good education. When parents look for a house, they research the quality of the government schools and choose where to live based on that. Since a “good” school district will attract the most parents, it will create a bidding war for housing in that district. In order to purchase one of these artificially expensive houses, a couple may decide they both need to work. They obtain a mortgage with payments based on their dual income. If one of them becomes unable to work, they go bankrupt.

I found this analysis compelling, and surprising coming from a liberal academic.

My comment on it is this: We have become so used to our government school system that we take things for granted which should not be. The first is that government “public” schools are actually “public”. Try sending you child to a “public” school in a district other than the one in which you live. You will be charged tuition for doing so, even though you are already paying taxes in your own district. Is there any reason why this should be so? Should our taxes pay for education for our children, or should they pay for particular buildings and personnel?

Another assumption is that the state is competent to provide education.

Another is that education can be religiously neutral.

Sadly, another is that parents won’t be perfectly willing to abdicate to the state their responsibility to educate their children.

while watching that video play this song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLi_m656tQQ

this is the new theme song of the Democrat party

Where has it been lost that today WE ALREADY HAVE a progressive tax system where people who make more do indeed pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes?

Has anyone ever noticed that when these liberals say that people should pay more they never say how much more people should pay. It’s as though their concept alone will solve the problem and they never have to work out or present any of the details.

Wouldn’t it be nice if every time they said that people should pay more taxes, they actually took out the government 1040 tax schedule and proposed specific modifications to specific categories and then presented a report that delineated exactly how much benefit we would derive from their specific proposals.

Who the hell on earth gets away with spouting vague, feel-good concepts without ever doing the math or working out the details? Who the heck takes a risk like building a factory and they shares what they made with everyone else because we have roads? How does this woman think the employees were able to get to work to earn their wages without those very roads?

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“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; roads that in most Blue States are wholly inadequate to the task of moving your goods to the market and getting your employees to work; roads that people like me are working tirelessly to undermine with our pet projects like light rail and our exorbitant gas taxes and tolls; roads that in some cases (like our infamous Big Dig tunnels) actually KILL your customers and employees.

you hired workers the rest of us paid to “educate”; in schools that are the laughing stock of the rest of the world with their low standards, their lack of discipline and their appalling lack of academic rigor; schools that have been infected with the disease of political correctness; schools where we teach your children that you are a parasite; schools where we denigrate the ideas that this country was founded on as well as the people who propagated those ideas; schools controlled by legalized criminals who use any means necessary (including violence) to protect incompetent teachers and prevent you from establishing schools that would take students away from them.

you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did; unless those marauding bans are the union thugs who put us in power, in which case we protect THEM from YOU rather than protect YOU from THEM.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. Of course, unlike OTHER social contracts (such as the US Constitution) we do not consider said social contract to be ‘a living document’. The terms of this ‘contract’ may never be changed, no matter how much it bankrupts our state and our country. Thank you for your cooperation.”

No one is an island.

William A. Jacobson: In a sense, no one on the current American political scene has said it better — everything you have belongs to the state and the people.

No. That’s not what she said. She said that everyone benefits from the social contract, especially those who prosper, hence everyone has an obligation to contribute back to society.

    Especially those who prosper? The people who run businesses (those things that employ people) tend to be net tax payers,the “poor” are net tax receivers. I don’t think that a millionaire business owner gets to drive on better roads than a welfare recipient, and many “well-to-do” people send their children to private schools to get a decent education, even while paying more in property taxes to support the public schools which they aren’t sending their children to. People with money tend to pay more in health insurance to help cover those who don’t bother to get their own insurance. People with money pay more in taxes for essentially the same services that people with less money enjoy (and people with less money tend to use more government services.) People with more money already “contribute back to society” more than people with less money, without getting a commensurate return.

Who is this woman? Danae of Non Sequitur all grown up?

DougV: The people who run businesses (those things that employ people) tend to be net tax payers,the “poor” are net tax receivers.

Most everyone contributes to the federal tax burden. While nearly everyone is eligible for Social Security, the wealthiest tend to live much longer in retirement.

DougV: I don’t think that a millionaire business owner gets to drive on better roads than a welfare recipient,

But roads allow the business owner to get his goods to market. Everyone benefits from public roads.

DougV: People with more money already “contribute back to society” more than people with less money, without getting a commensurate return.

Yes, and most believe they should. However, there is a vocal minority who believe they have no obligation to society.

    Enlighten me as to who this vocal minority is. By many statistics, the number of people who pay no Federal income tax is approaching 50% of the population. What is their obligation to society? Sure, they pay SS and Medicare taxes, but that (ostensibly) goes towards, well, our SS and Medicare. Not towards police, schools, national defense. Most people I know believe we should pay taxes. We just think that government has grown too large, and has its fingers in too many things. No one I know is against the government (state and local, generally) paying for police and fire departments, and road construction and maintenance. Many are opposed to the government telling restaurants how much salt they can put into dishes (to use an extreme example.)

    “the wealthiest tend to live much longer in retirement” – I would enjoy reading the background on that, too. Statistics or whatever you may have. Life expectancy isn’t the right gauge (as many poorer people die younger due to violence, etc., I have read) but statistics showing that once reaching retirement age, wealthier people have a longer life expectancy than poorer people, would be interesting.

    Also, Social Security caps “contributions” and benefits at some figure – around $106,000/year of earnings. So someone who made $1,000,000/year in earnings will get no more SS benefit than someone who made $106,000/year. Last I heard the Democrats weren’t yet calling $106,000/year “rich.”

Zachriel: the wealthiest tend to live much longer in retirement

DougV: I would enjoy reading the background on that, too.

Cohort life expectancy at age 65 (and 95 percent confidence intervals) for male Social Security–covered workers, by selected birth years and earnings group
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108_chart03.gif
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html

It’s even worse for minorities. So on the one hand you have people often working menial jobs into late years paying a higher proportion of their income in payroll taxes receiving less benefit than those who work in white collar jobs who live longer and healthier lives.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend