I <3 Elizabeth Warren

[asterism]

Elizabeth Warren is right. Nobody got rich on their own. This is a completely obvious statement. We live in a society and there is social investment.

The right-wingers on here could convince me that low tax rates are good for society. They aren't going to convince me that Elizabeth's statement is wrong. I don't care how many times they mindlessly bark "Marxist" and "Socialist."

Excuse me but no one in "society" risked anything for me to start my business.

No one in "society" worked 120 hours a week for 5 years for next to nothing. My employees were making more than I was the first few years. No one in "society" was paying them.

I pay my share for roads and all that other shit you all seem to think is manna from heaven for business owners. Just because some people use what's available to everyone else in a smarter fashion does not mean they should pay more for it.

Really?

So you called the police department and told them, "Hey, I'm doing this on my own, don't protect the lives of me or my workers."

And then you called the fire department and told them, "Hey, I'm going it alone. Just me and my bootstraps. Don't come if we call."

And then you called the court system and told them, "Hey, look, don't honor any of the contracts I engage in as a business, I'm going to do it all on the honor system, because I hate regulations."

And then you called your public school system and said, "I'm not going to use any of that math or book learnin' you taught me to use in my business."

And then you called the US military and said, "Hey, you know the global peace that you have enforced at the barrel of a gun and much cost in lives. Not necessary. I'm going it alone."

Wow. You are a star job-creator.

You may wish to think that through a little bit. Those of us who have or have had private security already don't depend on the Police. They insert themselves into our situations as the "authorities." Those of us who hire public school failures spend lots of money teaching them basic skills. Those of us who pay to have advanced fire control systems in our offices already know the fire department doesn't have the capability to save our equipment. The courts? You may have a point except I've never settled any contract dispute in a courtroom. It has always been done using expensive arbitration.

Your point about the military is 100% valid. That said, I pay my share in money now and paid more than my share in blood years ago.

Think this through a bit, do you really think giving high earners a choice will cause people to agree with you?

 

[Kuros]

And I have hired more people in the past 10 years than you I'll bet.

This is pathetic. What does that have to do with anything? Yes, you've hired more people than me. Therefore you are right about everything?

But since you right-wingers are just whinging talking points again, now is a good time to remind everyone what the talking point "job-creator" is all about.

Its about elevating capital above labor. Its about implying that the employer is more valuable than the employee. And it strays from traditional Republican principles.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You sheep all think that someone who starts a business owes you something.

Tell you what, risk every dime you own and every dime you can borrow on a business and tell me how much all those nice people in society and the government will help you out if it doesn't work out.

Will the fucking government reimburse you when the power goes out and you lose thousands of dollars in perishables?

Will the fucking government reimburse a business when they close the roads for repairs and drive all traffic away?

If you want a social contact then it has to go both ways but it doesn't does it?

Yes, if you fall on hard times the social safety net is there for you too.

I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.

But whatcha gonna do?

I would sleep in my car and pick up dog shit for a penny a pile before I went on the fucking dole.

It's called pride.

 

[Kuros]

Excuse me but no one in "society" risked anything for me to start my business.

No one in "society" worked 120 hours a week for 5 years for next to nothing. My employees were making more than I was the first few years. No one in "society" was paying them.

I pay my share for roads and all that other shit you all seem to think is manna from heaven for business owners. Just because some people use what's available to everyone else in a smarter fashion does not mean they should pay more for it.

Really?

So you called the police department and told them, "Hey, I'm doing this on my own, don't protect the lives of me or my workers."

And then you called the fire department and told them, "Hey, I'm going it alone. Just me and my bootstraps. Don't come if we call."

And then you called the court system and told them, "Hey, look, don't honor any of the contracts I engage in as a business, I'm going to do it all on the honor system, because I hate regulations."

And then you called your public school system and said, "I'm not going to use any of that math or book learnin' you taught me to use in my business."

And then you called the US military and said, "Hey, you know the global peace that you have enforced at the barrel of a gun and much cost in lives. Not necessary. I'm going it alone."

Wow. You are a star job-creator.

You may wish to think that through a little bit. Those of us who have or have had private security already don't depend on the Police. They insert themselves into our situations as the "authorities." Those of us who hire public school failures spend lots of money teaching them basic skills. Those of us who pay to have advanced fire control systems in our offices already know the fire department doesn't have the capability to save our equipment. The courts? You may have a point except I've never settled any contract dispute in a courtroom. It has always been done using expensive arbitration.

Your point about the military is 100% valid. That said, I pay my share in money now and paid more than my share in blood years ago.

Think this through a bit, do you really think giving high earners a choice will cause people to agree with you?

That's right. Even the most radical libertarian will agree that a court system is necessary to enforce contracts. Even the most staunch conservative admits that a national defense and border control are necessary to protect national sovereignty. Thus, Elizabeth Warren's principle is correct.

My God. You would think you'd have to be a Democrat to recognize that. You don't. I'm ALL FOR a limited Federal gov't. I really am. But I recognize the contributions the gov't makes to society.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And I have hired more people in the past 10 years than you I'll bet.

This is pathetic. What does that have to do with anything? Yes, you've hired more people than me. Therefore you are right about everything?

I am certainly right that I have always paid my share for public services. None of that shit was free for me just because I started a business.

But since you right-wingers are just whinging talking points again, now is a good time to remind everyone what the talking point "job-creator" is all about.

Define right winger. I am not a member of any political party and in fact I have voted third party for the past decade.

Its about elevating capital above labor. Its about implying that the employer is more valuable than the employee. And it strays from traditional Republican principles.

I never placed a value on anyone. The point is that simply because one owns a business is no reason to expect them to pay more for public services because in fact they don't use them more than anyone else.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.

[/QUOTE]

I pay my people above the average for my industry. So don't assume every business owner undervalues their employees.

But that goes against the core beliefs of the lefty libbies.

 

[Dragon]

I would sleep in my car and pick up dog shit for a penny a pile before I went on the fucking dole.

It's called pride.

It's called stupidity, which come to think of it is often another word for "pride." You actually benefit, directly or indirectly, from the "dole" paid to others, especially when it's in the form of Social Security benefits, unemployment insurance, etc. as this helps keep the consumer market afloat in hard times and therefore supports either your business or your customers' businesses, depending on what exactly you are in business to do.

Well, unless you run one of those businesses that has the government as the sole customer, and in that case your dependence on tax revenues is obvious and needs no elaboration.

Be that as it may, Elizabeth Warren is obviously right that it would be impossible to build any sort of modern business in a society without the underpinnings of civilization that taxes pay for. That however doesn't answer the question of whether the tax burden put on upper-income people is where it should be or if not how far it is off and in what direction. Still, it may help to point out obvious factors that can break us loose from the attitude that we should all kow-tow to our betters and fear getting them pissed off.

 

[manifold]

You sheep all think that someone who starts a business owes you something.

Tell you what, risk every dime you own and every dime you can borrow on a business and tell me how much all those nice people in society and the government will help you out if it doesn't work out.

Will the fucking government reimburse you when the power goes out and you lose thousands of dollars in perishables?

Will the fucking government reimburse a business when they close the roads for repairs and drive all traffic away?

If you want a social contact then it has to go both ways but it doesn't does it?

Yes, if you fall on hard times the social safety net is there for you too.

I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.

But whatcha gonna do?

I would sleep in my car and pick up dog shit for a penny a pile before I went on the fucking dole.

It's called pride.

Yeah, sure you would.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Really?

So you called the police department and told them, "Hey, I'm doing this on my own, don't protect the lives of me or my workers."

And then you called the fire department and told them, "Hey, I'm going it alone. Just me and my bootstraps. Don't come if we call."

And then you called the court system and told them, "Hey, look, don't honor any of the contracts I engage in as a business, I'm going to do it all on the honor system, because I hate regulations."

And then you called your public school system and said, "I'm not going to use any of that math or book learnin' you taught me to use in my business."

And then you called the US military and said, "Hey, you know the global peace that you have enforced at the barrel of a gun and much cost in lives. Not necessary. I'm going it alone."

Wow. You are a star job-creator.

You may wish to think that through a little bit. Those of us who have or have had private security already don't depend on the Police. They insert themselves into our situations as the "authorities." Those of us who hire public school failures spend lots of money teaching them basic skills. Those of us who pay to have advanced fire control systems in our offices already know the fire department doesn't have the capability to save our equipment. The courts? You may have a point except I've never settled any contract dispute in a courtroom. It has always been done using expensive arbitration.

Your point about the military is 100% valid. That said, I pay my share in money now and paid more than my share in blood years ago.

Think this through a bit, do you really think giving high earners a choice will cause people to agree with you?

That's right. Even the most radical libertarian will agree that a court system is necessary to enforce contracts. Even the most staunch conservative admits that a national defense and border control are necessary to protect national sovereignty. Thus, Elizabeth Warren's principle is correct.

My God. You would think you'd have to be a Democrat to recognize that. You don't. I'm ALL FOR a limited Federal gov't. I really am. But I recognize the contributions the gov't makes to society.

And are those public services not available to everyone?

Business owners already pay for that shit. Why should they pay more simply because they own a business?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, if you fall on hard times the social safety net is there for you too.

I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.

But whatcha gonna do?

I would sleep in my car and pick up dog shit for a penny a pile before I went on the fucking dole.

It's called pride.

Yeah, sure you would.

I have slept in my car because I could not afford a place to live. Have you?

Don't presume you know anything about me.

 

[Stephanie]

People like Warren believe EVERYTHING is owned by the Guberment and us little peons are lucky to have and use it.. and the little sheep applaud her.

 

[manifold]

I would sleep in my car and pick up dog shit for a penny a pile before I went on the fucking dole.

It's called pride.

Yeah, sure you would.

I have slept in my car because I could not afford a place to live. Have you?

Don't presume you know anything about me.

I'm pretty sure I know enough about people to know that when hunger and pride conflict, hunger wins 100% of the time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah, sure you would.

I have slept in my car because I could not afford a place to live. Have you?

Don't presume you know anything about me.

I'm pretty sure I know enough about people to know that when hunger and pride conflict, hunger wins 100% of the time.

I've never gone hungry because i was always willing to work and i always found someone willing to give me work.

Anyone who says they can't do that is lying.

 

[Dragon]

I've never gone hungry because i was always willing to work and i always found someone willing to give me work.

Anyone who says they can't do that is lying.

(Emphasis added.)

You are wrong. It is not always possible to find someone that will give you work.

 

[Kuros]

You may wish to think that through a little bit. Those of us who have or have had private security already don't depend on the Police. They insert themselves into our situations as the "authorities." Those of us who hire public school failures spend lots of money teaching them basic skills. Those of us who pay to have advanced fire control systems in our offices already know the fire department doesn't have the capability to save our equipment. The courts? You may have a point except I've never settled any contract dispute in a courtroom. It has always been done using expensive arbitration.

Your point about the military is 100% valid. That said, I pay my share in money now and paid more than my share in blood years ago.

Think this through a bit, do you really think giving high earners a choice will cause people to agree with you?

That's right. Even the most radical libertarian will agree that a court system is necessary to enforce contracts. Even the most staunch conservative admits that a national defense and border control are necessary to protect national sovereignty. Thus, Elizabeth Warren's principle is correct.

My God. You would think you'd have to be a Democrat to recognize that. You don't. I'm ALL FOR a limited Federal gov't. I really am. But I recognize the contributions the gov't makes to society.

And are those public services not available to everyone?

Business owners already pay for that shit. Why should they pay more simply because they own a business?

Wait, are we debating tax policy now? Or are we attacking the principle that government provides investments which accrue to an entire society, indivisibly?

 

[Jarhead]

Really?

So you called the police department and told them, "Hey, I'm doing this on my own, don't protect the lives of me or my workers."

And then you called the fire department and told them, "Hey, I'm going it alone. Just me and my bootstraps. Don't come if we call."

And then you called the court system and told them, "Hey, look, don't honor any of the contracts I engage in as a business, I'm going to do it all on the honor system, because I hate regulations."

And then you called your public school system and said, "I'm not going to use any of that math or book learnin' you taught me to use in my business."

And then you called the US military and said, "Hey, you know the global peace that you have enforced at the barrel of a gun and much cost in lives. Not necessary. I'm going it alone."

Wow. You are a star job-creator.

You may wish to think that through a little bit. Those of us who have or have had private security already don't depend on the Police. They insert themselves into our situations as the "authorities." Those of us who hire public school failures spend lots of money teaching them basic skills. Those of us who pay to have advanced fire control systems in our offices already know the fire department doesn't have the capability to save our equipment. The courts? You may have a point except I've never settled any contract dispute in a courtroom. It has always been done using expensive arbitration.

Your point about the military is 100% valid. That said, I pay my share in money now and paid more than my share in blood years ago.

Think this through a bit, do you really think giving high earners a choice will cause people to agree with you?

That's right. Even the most radical libertarian will agree that a court system is necessary to enforce contracts. Even the most staunch conservative admits that a national defense and border control are necessary to protect national sovereignty. Thus, Elizabeth Warren's principle is correct.

My God. You would think you'd have to be a Democrat to recognize that. You don't. I'm ALL FOR a limited Federal gov't. I really am. But I recognize the contributions the gov't makes to society.

Her principle is correct but irrelevant. If the current deabte in Washington had to do with whether or not business owners should pay any taxes at all...THEN her little tirade would have meaning.

But you see....the debate in Washington has to do with whether or not business owners should pay even MORE than the 35% of adjusted gross income. And when you take what she said....police are state/city taxes as are fire departments...and many roads are state and city..

But again...we DO pay taxes and we pay them for the services we get as she described.

So again...what was the relevancy of what she said?

 

[Jarhead]

I've never gone hungry because i was always willing to work and i always found someone willing to give me work.

Anyone who says they can't do that is lying.

(Emphasis added.)

You are wrong. It is not always possible to find someone that will give you work.

I disagree...

It may not be conveniently located...or at a wage comprable to what you once earned....or a position with the dignity you believe you deserve....

But you can always find a means to make money....ALWAYS.

 

[Dragon]

I disagree...

It may not be conveniently located...or at a wage comprable to what you once earned....or a position with the dignity you believe you deserve....

But you can always find a means to make money....ALWAYS.

Can you provide any evidence for this beyond personal anecdote?

Let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose you live in a country that has recently been devastated by war or natural disaster, let's say Germany in 1945. Industry is in a shambles, the people are being fed by the foreign occupiers or they would starve in masses. You cannot move to France or Italy or to the Soviet-occupied zone, even if there were jobs available in those places, because (this being long prior to the EU) the governments of those countries are not issuing visas to Germans.

In that situation, do you really think that jobs are available to anyone who wants one and is willing to work?

If not (and I assume your grasp on reality is at least that good), can you not recognize that less disastrous circumstances, such as the current economic problem in the U.S. (in which there are far fewer jobs open than there are unemployed people seeking work) might just possibly not entirely be the fault of the unemployed themselves?

 

[asterism]

Really?

So you called the police department and told them, "Hey, I'm doing this on my own, don't protect the lives of me or my workers."

And then you called the fire department and told them, "Hey, I'm going it alone. Just me and my bootstraps. Don't come if we call."

And then you called the court system and told them, "Hey, look, don't honor any of the contracts I engage in as a business, I'm going to do it all on the honor system, because I hate regulations."

And then you called your public school system and said, "I'm not going to use any of that math or book learnin' you taught me to use in my business."

And then you called the US military and said, "Hey, you know the global peace that you have enforced at the barrel of a gun and much cost in lives. Not necessary. I'm going it alone."

Wow. You are a star job-creator.

You may wish to think that through a little bit. Those of us who have or have had private security already don't depend on the Police. They insert themselves into our situations as the "authorities." Those of us who hire public school failures spend lots of money teaching them basic skills. Those of us who pay to have advanced fire control systems in our offices already know the fire department doesn't have the capability to save our equipment. The courts? You may have a point except I've never settled any contract dispute in a courtroom. It has always been done using expensive arbitration.

Your point about the military is 100% valid. That said, I pay my share in money now and paid more than my share in blood years ago.

Think this through a bit, do you really think giving high earners a choice will cause people to agree with you?

That's right. Even the most radical libertarian will agree that a court system is necessary to enforce contracts. Even the most staunch conservative admits that a national defense and border control are necessary to protect national sovereignty.

Correct.

Thus, Elizabeth Warren's principle is correct.

False. She said that we hire people educated in schools the rest of "them" paid for. I paid also, and then paid again to fix the schools' problems. I paid for the roads used just like she did.

My God. You would think you'd have to be a Democrat to recognize that. You don't. I'm ALL FOR a limited Federal gov't. I really am. But I recognize the contributions the gov't makes to society.

Do you recognize the cost of overreach though? No business owner (well, VERY few) ever advocates we not have government taxation to pay for defense, education, and roads. It's the permanent welfare, the ineffective bureaucracy, the crony capitalism, and the abject waste that I object to. Then when the overspending gets really bad the solution is to just demand I pay more?

That's crap.

 

[asterism]

I would sleep in my car and pick up dog shit for a penny a pile before I went on the fucking dole.

It's called pride.

It's called stupidity, which come to think of it is often another word for "pride." You actually benefit, directly or indirectly, from the "dole" paid to others, especially when it's in the form of Social Security benefits, unemployment insurance, etc. as this helps keep the consumer market afloat in hard times and therefore supports either your business or your customers' businesses, depending on what exactly you are in business to do.

Well, unless you run one of those businesses that has the government as the sole customer, and in that case your dependence on tax revenues is obvious and needs no elaboration.

Be that as it may, Elizabeth Warren is obviously right that it would be impossible to build any sort of modern business in a society without the underpinnings of civilization that taxes pay for. That however doesn't answer the question of whether the tax burden put on upper-income people is where it should be or if not how far it is off and in what direction. Still, it may help to point out obvious factors that can break us loose from the attitude that we should all kow-tow to our betters and fear getting them pissed off.

I've never said that anyone should fear getting business owners pissed off. I've said that if a group (like this administration) keeps removing incentives to engage in commerce, we'll do less of it and have fewer employees.

And that's exactly what has happened.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's right. Even the most radical libertarian will agree that a court system is necessary to enforce contracts. Even the most staunch conservative admits that a national defense and border control are necessary to protect national sovereignty. Thus, Elizabeth Warren's principle is correct.

My God. You would think you'd have to be a Democrat to recognize that. You don't. I'm ALL FOR a limited Federal gov't. I really am. But I recognize the contributions the gov't makes to society.

And are those public services not available to everyone?

Business owners already pay for that shit. Why should they pay more simply because they own a business?

Wait, are we debating tax policy now? Or are we attacking the principle that government provides investments which accrue to an entire society, indivisibly?

This whole thread is about Warrens assertions that the rest of you pay for services that businesses use and the implication that somehow businesses don't pay for them.

This is about the current fixation on making business owners or the so called "rich" pay more for the same shit everyone else uses.