So, for reasons that are above my pay grade to know, I’ve got to talk about this video today on Fox. Apparently it’s going viral among progressive types. It starts with the familiar talking points about blaming Bush for the deficit, but what’s got people excited is how it shows Elizabeth Warren pushing back against the “class warfare” rhetoric on the right. You can read more about it here. I’ve posted the relevant transcript below the video.
“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.
“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.”
It’s a nice little riff, but I’m not sure it’s nearly as powerful an argument as the progressives who are hearing what they want to hear think it is. First of all, the factory owner already pays a hunk — a big hunk — for the next kid who comes along. The “rich” already pay a very disproportionate share of that freight. Warren makes it sound like that’s not happening now, which is of course bunk.
Meanwhile, if you listen to Warren closely, she could just as easily be making the case for if not a minarchist government, then something pretty close. Defending factories from marauding bands is an important function of government, but it doesn’t really take up much of the budget. Ditto fire departments. Education, likewise, is not a huge part of the federal budget (though that’s changing). Moreover, those functions are mostly a local responsibility. I very much doubt this mythical factory owner has much objection to paying for any of that stuff. So far all of her verbiage about the social contract is pious misdirection.
Building roads is more of a mixed federal-state responsibility. But, I don’t know many conservatives who think the government shouldn’t build and maintain roads. What they object to is the grotesque waste and inefficiency inherent to public-works projects imposed by unions and regulations. As I wrote the other day, the reason Obama had to discover there’s no such thing as shovel-ready jobs isn’t because they don’t exist. It’s because there’s no such thing as shovel-ready government, thanks to liberals like Ms. Warren (see Steve Hayward on the point here).
Of course conservatives believe in a social contract, albeit a more bare bones version than the one liberals believe in. Insinuations otherwise are a red herring. But you can believe in a social contract and also believe the Left is pursuing class warfare. The suggestion that one contradicts the other is entirely bogus.
Going from this video, Ms. Warren thinks the deficit Bush created is terrible because it put our kids in greater debt but the deficit Obama has created is fine, even though it does the same thing. And something called “the social contract” requires us to look the other way as we pile up ever more debt on policies that haven’t worked until now. Again, I’m sure that sounds great to people who want to hear liberals “fight back.” But I think she’ll have to try harder if she wants to persuade people who don’t already agree with her.
Just sounds like an argument against allowing any socialism in the door because, as that broad makes clear, any socialism is just an excuse - sorry...a demand - for more socialism!
I'm so glad we're broke and people like Elizabeth Warren are going to increasingly lose their minds. As for the victims of their nanny state policies, sink or swim time is quickly arriving.
That's exactly her point: If some level of taxation is appropriate, then any level of taxation is appropriate. And she gets to decide what that level is. How nice for her.
Yeah, she really makes me think she's a petty bandit chieftain. "That WE paid for"? Please. Half this country pays no income taxes at all. Guess which party most of them vote for?
I'm sure you'll be able to superficially refute what Ms Warren articulates about how wealth is generated in our system. What makes conservatives so successful in driving home their "small government" message is that it is so easy and obvious. What Ms Warren shows is that, as a great man once said, there are easy and obvious solutions to all problems - and they're wrong. Conservatives proffer simple answers that don't work.
RE: "Conservatives proffer simple answers that don't work."
Those solutions work every time they have been tried. Well, except for the parasites and losers who have the right, as Americans, to fail if they so choose.
Wealth is generated when individuals risk private capital in ventures that create valuable goods and services. If the venture fails, they lose their money (unless it's Solyndra, then innocent people lose money).
To understand the PROPER role of government in all that, look not to the Harvard faculty but to the founding documents. That's as close as we come to a written social contract.
Oh, BTW: the wealth created by what I just described? Yeah, that's what enables government to function. Not the other way around.
Ever hear of William of Occam? He had you pegged over 500 years ago.
One of the many problems of liberalism is that they prefer complicated and expensive solutions that do not work (but keep a lot of bureaucrats on the payroll without adding value to goods or services), over simple solutions that have proven effective time after time.
Yes, in fact, she *does* articulate very well how government can play a useful role in assisting the private sector to generate wealth.
Specifically, government can provide security and infrastructure, increasing the productivity of industry (and its capacity to pay more taxes).
You'll note that what Ms. Warren did *not* give, as examples of public services that increase business productivity, things like transfer payments, overlapping unaccountable regulatory hordes, and so forth.
What Ms. Warren's Facebook audience is too blindered to understand, is that she is making precisely the case for the kind of government *conservatives* want.
Nice try Jonah but I am pretty confident that Elizabeth Warren's argument is going to resonate pretty strongly with most Americans. Poll after poll demonstrates that increasing the taxes on the richest Americans to be popular. Even among Republicans!
I certainly hope that you and the rest on the right keep on fighting for those poor oppressed millionaires and billionaires that you seem so very concerned about. It will be.... clarifying.
It is nice to see a liberal actually articulate their position for once. It makes it easier to refute.
Slide, do you sincerely believe that the evil millionaire in her example built a factory without paying any taxes?
He was taxed on the land, the materials, and the labor to build his factory.
He was taxed on the income he paid every employee.
He was taxed on the utilities used to run his factory.
He was taxed on the raw materials he brought into his factory.
He was taxed on the fuel to move his trucks to bring materials in and out of his factory.
He was taxed on every product he sold from his factory.
All of his employees were ADDITIONALLY taxed on their income from his factory.
Everyone who bought a product from his factory paid sales tax.
I have barely scratched the surface of the taxes the factory paid to the community. Not all of all federal, by the way... although most of the services she cites are local, paid with local taxes.
So, after ALL those taxes, can you seriously make the claim that he is getting something for nothing?
We fight for millionaires, the same way you fight for criminals and terrorists.
That is, each of us believes that good government requires a certain level of due process and fair treatment, even to unpopular people. You prefer to set criminals free rather than see Constitutional rights infringed. Similarly, we insist that taxes be levied only with the consent of the taxed, even if those proposed to be taxed without their consent happen to be rich.
So much easier caricaturing your opponents than truly rebutting their arguments.
I have always appreciated the fact that public education does make things better for all of us. The fact that most people are functionally literate does help employers, as just one example. So I do not begrudge my taxes to pay for it.
But I sent my kids to private school, from first grade (they skipped kindergarten, a basically useless year stolen from childhood) all the way through their bachelor's degrees (without a dime of government money; no grants or loans from the feds or any state). I paid for all this because public schools, for all the good they do in general, are lousy places socially, economically, and morally.
But, like the people Ms. Warren scolds, I pay a big chunk of my income for other people's kids to go to school. I also pay for the roads, the fire department, and the police, not just for me and my business, but for everyone else's school, business, and vacations, as well. I don't begrudge this, and I don't expect to be thanked for it. But I will not stand for it being said that I don't pay for it already.
And of course, there’s the mythical factory that doesn’t get built by an owner that would happily have paid reasonable taxes for the basics services described by Ms. Warren, but instead determined the project was not cost effective due to the excessive regulations and taxes that conservatives oppose.
There may have been a time in our past when the government was so threadbare that today’s conservatives would concede that a greater tax burden was called for, but that time was long, long ago. Conversely, one can’t imagine any future in which the weight of government taxes and regulation is so great that people like Ms. Warren would concede that reducing its size is called for.
Elizabeth Warren was part of Team Obama and responsible for $4 trillion in debt since Jan 2009. Obviously not able to stop her Team-O from spending, why would anyone want her to represent MA in the US Senate?
Perhaps, Warren will use both hands to describe the mounting Federal deficit in her next video?
I "unfriended" someone on Facebook over this - he had a posting/update/whatever Facebook calls them with the quote you have. He thinks this woman is right on, but then he's a good little gun-grabbing tax-raising progressive with full-on Palin/Perry/Bush Derangement Syndrome. Dropping him was no loss. Will progressives/liberals realize the same would be true with Ms Warren?
Just sounds like an argument against allowing any socialism in the door because, as that broad makes clear, any socialism is just an excuse - sorry...a demand - for more socialism!
I'm so glad we're broke and people like Elizabeth Warren are going to increasingly lose their minds. As for the victims of their nanny state policies, sink or swim time is quickly arriving.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's exactly her point: If some level of taxation is appropriate, then any level of taxation is appropriate. And she gets to decide what that level is. How nice for her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is quickly making the rounds on facebook. She really makes you think, you know?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, she really makes me think she's a petty bandit chieftain. "That WE paid for"? Please. Half this country pays no income taxes at all. Guess which party most of them vote for?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait -- these are the smart people?!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure you'll be able to superficially refute what Ms Warren articulates about how wealth is generated in our system. What makes conservatives so successful in driving home their "small government" message is that it is so easy and obvious. What Ms Warren shows is that, as a great man once said, there are easy and obvious solutions to all problems - and they're wrong. Conservatives proffer simple answers that don't work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "Conservatives proffer simple answers that don't work."
Those solutions work every time they have been tried. Well, except for the parasites and losers who have the right, as Americans, to fail if they so choose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWealth is generated when individuals risk private capital in ventures that create valuable goods and services. If the venture fails, they lose their money (unless it's Solyndra, then innocent people lose money).
To understand the PROPER role of government in all that, look not to the Harvard faculty but to the founding documents. That's as close as we come to a written social contract.
Oh, BTW: the wealth created by what I just described? Yeah, that's what enables government to function. Not the other way around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEver hear of William of Occam? He had you pegged over 500 years ago.
One of the many problems of liberalism is that they prefer complicated and expensive solutions that do not work (but keep a lot of bureaucrats on the payroll without adding value to goods or services), over simple solutions that have proven effective time after time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, in fact, she *does* articulate very well how government can play a useful role in assisting the private sector to generate wealth.
Specifically, government can provide security and infrastructure, increasing the productivity of industry (and its capacity to pay more taxes).
You'll note that what Ms. Warren did *not* give, as examples of public services that increase business productivity, things like transfer payments, overlapping unaccountable regulatory hordes, and so forth.
What Ms. Warren's Facebook audience is too blindered to understand, is that she is making precisely the case for the kind of government *conservatives* want.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, the "marauding bands" we most have to worry about are the hordes of bureaucrats and regulators like Warren coming to pillage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice try Jonah but I am pretty confident that Elizabeth Warren's argument is going to resonate pretty strongly with most Americans. Poll after poll demonstrates that increasing the taxes on the richest Americans to be popular. Even among Republicans!
I certainly hope that you and the rest on the right keep on fighting for those poor oppressed millionaires and billionaires that you seem so very concerned about. It will be.... clarifying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is nice to see a liberal actually articulate their position for once. It makes it easier to refute.
Slide, do you sincerely believe that the evil millionaire in her example built a factory without paying any taxes?
He was taxed on the land, the materials, and the labor to build his factory.
He was taxed on the income he paid every employee.
He was taxed on the utilities used to run his factory.
He was taxed on the raw materials he brought into his factory.
He was taxed on the fuel to move his trucks to bring materials in and out of his factory.
He was taxed on every product he sold from his factory.
All of his employees were ADDITIONALLY taxed on their income from his factory.
Everyone who bought a product from his factory paid sales tax.
I have barely scratched the surface of the taxes the factory paid to the community. Not all of all federal, by the way... although most of the services she cites are local, paid with local taxes.
So, after ALL those taxes, can you seriously make the claim that he is getting something for nothing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe fight for millionaires, the same way you fight for criminals and terrorists.
That is, each of us believes that good government requires a certain level of due process and fair treatment, even to unpopular people. You prefer to set criminals free rather than see Constitutional rights infringed. Similarly, we insist that taxes be levied only with the consent of the taxed, even if those proposed to be taxed without their consent happen to be rich.
So much easier caricaturing your opponents than truly rebutting their arguments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have always appreciated the fact that public education does make things better for all of us. The fact that most people are functionally literate does help employers, as just one example. So I do not begrudge my taxes to pay for it.
But I sent my kids to private school, from first grade (they skipped kindergarten, a basically useless year stolen from childhood) all the way through their bachelor's degrees (without a dime of government money; no grants or loans from the feds or any state). I paid for all this because public schools, for all the good they do in general, are lousy places socially, economically, and morally.
But, like the people Ms. Warren scolds, I pay a big chunk of my income for other people's kids to go to school. I also pay for the roads, the fire department, and the police, not just for me and my business, but for everyone else's school, business, and vacations, as well. I don't begrudge this, and I don't expect to be thanked for it. But I will not stand for it being said that I don't pay for it already.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd of course, there’s the mythical factory that doesn’t get built by an owner that would happily have paid reasonable taxes for the basics services described by Ms. Warren, but instead determined the project was not cost effective due to the excessive regulations and taxes that conservatives oppose.
There may have been a time in our past when the government was so threadbare that today’s conservatives would concede that a greater tax burden was called for, but that time was long, long ago. Conversely, one can’t imagine any future in which the weight of government taxes and regulation is so great that people like Ms. Warren would concede that reducing its size is called for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseElizabeth Warren was part of Team Obama and responsible for $4 trillion in debt since Jan 2009. Obviously not able to stop her Team-O from spending, why would anyone want her to represent MA in the US Senate?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps, Warren will use both hands to describe the mounting Federal deficit in her next video?
"You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory...because of the work the rest of us did."
Hey Elizabeth, does the name Gibson Guitars ring any bells?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood shot. Very, very good shot. Sir, I salute you, and promise to plagiarize this response.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI "unfriended" someone on Facebook over this - he had a posting/update/whatever Facebook calls them with the quote you have. He thinks this woman is right on, but then he's a good little gun-grabbing tax-raising progressive with full-on Palin/Perry/Bush Derangement Syndrome. Dropping him was no loss. Will progressives/liberals realize the same would be true with Ms Warren?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse