Holy Hell, Elizabeth Warren

How cool is she? And how much more effective at putting out our message than President Obama?

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.

My God. Send her to the Senate, now. Democracy gives us the government we deserve, but let’s shoot for better than we deserve. And that’s her. Video follows:

Advertisements

18 comments

  1. I like Warren and I LOVE this statement:

    “…much more effective at putting out our message than President Obama.”

    …BUT I think her message is a bit skewed. Her tone makes it sound like the people who ‘got rich’ aren’t paying anything. They are. They are paying trillions. What she is really saying is that those people need to pay a higher % than the rest of us as a sort of success penalty.

  2. The notion of a success penalty is idiotic; it’s not like it’s enacted to discourage success, or that it’ll have that effect (insane anecdotes & half-baked objectivism aside). Things have to be paid for, so we ask who’s best able to from the tax base. That’s all that happens here.

  3. Let’s be honest – we ask those who are ‘best able to’ because the rest of us don’t want to.

    1. Leave me out of that cynical thinking thank you very much.

      Really Mike?

      1. Yes, really. I see no other explanation.

        A large portion of the middle class can certainly endure a 3% tax hike. For many families I know that would simply erase their flat-screen TV budget.

        1. Then I must be the only liberal you know well enough to argue with over beer . . . .
          And as to having others pay for something, who, exactly, do you think is paying to sustain the tax cuts enacted in the Bush Administration and carried froward by Mr. Obama? Certainly not your top tax bracket folks.

          1. My understanding is that China is paying for those.

            1. I don’t think “paying” is the right term. Try “enabling”.

        2. Right. And as long as we’re being derisive about others’ lifestyles, what would a 3% hike on the rich do? Force them to save up for that first Learjet?

          The first is always the hardest, you know.

          And srsly, about everyone says that the middle class is the engine of new business. So why would ANYONE hike taxes on the middle class? Regardless of whether that’s true or false, it’s what we’ve been sold.

          1. Ames – the difference between you and I is that I will gladly accept a 3% hike on both the middle AND the rich. I’ll even take it one step further and suggest we go up 5-6% on the upper class. Your policy is to leave the middle class alone completely. So again, what happened to shared burden? Why do we need a gap in tax rates of 21%?

          2. Oh I’d be fine with that, depending on how you define the middle class. An extra 3% on the middle, defined as $50-80k, would be unwelcome, counterproductive, and unfair to the point of being needlessly hurtful. If you define the middle class as $100-$170k, that’s probably okay, especially at the upper end. I’m at $170-180 depending on bonuses, for example, and simply wouldn’t feel the added 3% at all.

            But let’s be realistic — a tax hike targeting something definable as the “middle” is politically unfeasible. If we’re going to focus on the possible…

  4. Oh obviously. So, since we didn’t want to pay, we settled on the comparatively soft alternative target of the super-rich. Because if the last decade in America has taught us one thing, it’s that those guys are chumps, lacking both the ability and the will to fight back.

    Seriously, did you think this one through?

  5. Ames, the delta between the middle class and the upper class tax rates under Clinton was 8%. The delta right now is 18%. What you are saying is that the margin needs to be bigger. It needs to be 21% to be fair. The last time it was at 21% was in 1934 during the Great Depression. Just to give you some perspective, the unemployment rate in 1934 was around 24%. Right now it is 9.1%. So you explain the logic of that one to me.

    1. Mike, given the cut of 4% in the top marginal federal income tax rate by Mr. Bush from the Clinton High of 39% to the present 35%, I don’t wee where you get that math (unless you are finally acknowledging that high earners actually get compensated as capitol gains, not wages).

      1. These are the numbers I am using:

        Year $60,001 $250,001 Variance
        1996 28% 36% 8%
        1998 28% 36% 8%
        2010 15% 33% 18%

      2. That didn’t post very well. Let me know if it doesn’t make sense.

        1. It doesn’t. But I may need more coffee.

          1. You have four columns of data. The first line (Year, $60,001,$250,001,Variance) are column headings.

%d bloggers like this: