Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the "Magical Accounting" of Trickle-Down Economics

[zeke]

ALL the money first comes from the private sector

Oh horse shit again. ALL of our money comes from the Bureau of Engraving who, acting on behalf of the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller, prints every single ******* dollar and coin used.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are you talking about?

President Barack Obama will be the first president in this great country who will not have passed a budget in his first term of office. He submitted a budget that was defeated by a vote of 97-0. Not a single Democrat or Republican voted for it.
In his first two years in office, instead of focusing on the economy, he passed the stimulus bill (which did not work because he pushed for clean energy), and the Affordable Healthcare Act (which had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court because it was so controversial). In fact, we had to wait until it was passed before we saw what was in it.
In 2010, the Republicans won a majority in the House, and they have submitted 33 budget bills that have been shelved by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The bills were not allowed for discussion or for a vote. The president refuses to negotiate with the Republicans.

Got it, MORE talking points


The Truth Behind The GOP's '1000 Days Without A Budget' Canard

First, Budget resolutions don't have the force of law, and they aren't the legislative tool that mandates what the government can and can not spend. That's what appropriations bills are for, and for the last 1000 days Democrats and Republicans have worked together, however acrimoniously, to devise spending plans for the government.


....But the much more important fact Republicans have left out is that the Senate passed a budget on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis last summer -- one that unlike an annual "budget resolution" has the force of law behind it. The Budget Control Act -- the law that resolved the debt limit fight -- set binding appropriations caps for this fiscal year and the next and instituted a mechanism to contain spending on domestic discretionary programs -- education, research, community health programs and the like -- through the next decade.

The Truth Behind The GOP s 1000 Days Without A Budget Canard

SO NO ******* BUDGET, AS I SAID!!! APPARENTLY YOU CAN'T READ EITHER!!![

Weird, HOW THE FUKK COULD THE US GOV'T FUNCTION WITHOUT A BUDGET DUMMY? lol

I know, Boner just writes checks and Mc(D)onal(d)s in the Senate yells him when to stop writing them??? lol

We havent had a budget since Obama became President and DemoMarxists took over Congress

Economy seems to be doing pretty well without one

$7.5 trillion in new debt will buy all the illusions of prosperity you can imagine

 

[bripat9643]

It is always comical to see a dumbass Libtard vehemently argue that it is better for some corrupt bureaucrat, elected by special interest groups, to spend the money that you earn rather than you spend it yourself.

Then they wonder why we call them Moon Bats.

Since the beginning of our existence, man has found out he operates more effectively and is stronger when he is part of a group. The group provides security, supports him when he is old or sick, provides services to the group that an individual can't match
That group is called our society. As a society we elect a government to make decisions for the good of the group

The last sentence is where you go wrong. We don't elect a government. Government imposes itself on us. The only thing we elect is a new gang of thugs to run it, and even that isn't much true any longer.

 

[initforme]

Perhaps we could fire all gov't employees, then pay them minimum wage, and then fork out a ton of gov't assistance to them as well. We have those that just hate it that someone working a full time job still gets gov't assistance. I for one say if a person is working 40 hours per week for wages low enough to qualify, then they should get that assistance. One can't barely eat on minimum wage much less survive. As some president said something like "republicans love minimum wage. The more minimum, the better.". WHo said that?

 

[Flash]

Wouldn't it be great if you got to keep 100% of your earnings. We


A modern society helps those who need helping

Only sick, cruel bastards and libertarians object to helping people who are struggling

I am quite capable of determining the level of which I am willing to help those in need, thank you very much. I don't need stupid Left Wing Libtards with a plurality of the electorate determining what I should give.

I don't need corrupt bureaucrats, elected by greedy special interest shitheads, using the force of government to take my money and give it to the shitheads that elected them.

The government should never be in the business of taking money from one person and giving it to another. That is not a legitimate function of government. That is thievery.

Of all people the legendary Davy Crockett explained this concept very well back when he was a Congressman: It was the frontiersman's explanation of the Broken Window Fallacy

Not Yours to Give Davy Crockett and Welfare

Not Yours to Give: Davy Crockett and Welfare

"No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in the country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give.

"The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

 

[Sarah G]

What are you talking about?

President Barack Obama will be the first president in this great country who will not have passed a budget in his first term of office. He submitted a budget that was defeated by a vote of 97-0. Not a single Democrat or Republican voted for it.
In his first two years in office, instead of focusing on the economy, he passed the stimulus bill (which did not work because he pushed for clean energy), and the Affordable Healthcare Act (which had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court because it was so controversial). In fact, we had to wait until it was passed before we saw what was in it.
In 2010, the Republicans won a majority in the House, and they have submitted 33 budget bills that have been shelved by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The bills were not allowed for discussion or for a vote. The president refuses to negotiate with the Republicans.

Got it, MORE talking points


The Truth Behind The GOP's '1000 Days Without A Budget' Canard

First, Budget resolutions don't have the force of law, and they aren't the legislative tool that mandates what the government can and can not spend. That's what appropriations bills are for, and for the last 1000 days Democrats and Republicans have worked together, however acrimoniously, to devise spending plans for the government.


....But the much more important fact Republicans have left out is that the Senate passed a budget on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis last summer -- one that unlike an annual "budget resolution" has the force of law behind it. The Budget Control Act -- the law that resolved the debt limit fight -- set binding appropriations caps for this fiscal year and the next and instituted a mechanism to contain spending on domestic discretionary programs -- education, research, community health programs and the like -- through the next decade.

The Truth Behind The GOP s 1000 Days Without A Budget Canard

SO NO ******* BUDGET, AS I SAID!!! APPARENTLY YOU CAN'T READ EITHER!!![

Weird, HOW THE FUKK COULD THE US GOV'T FUNCTION WITHOUT A BUDGET DUMMY? lol

I know, Boner just writes checks and Mc(D)onal(d)s in the Senate yells him when to stop writing them??? lol

We havent had a budget since Obama became President and DemoMarxists took over Congress

Economy seems to be doing pretty well without one

Especially without a Republican type budget.

 

[rightwinger]

It is always comical to see a dumbass Libtard vehemently argue that it is better for some corrupt bureaucrat, elected by special interest groups, to spend the money that you earn rather than you spend it yourself.

Then they wonder why we call them Moon Bats.

Since the beginning of our existence, man has found out he operates more effectively and is stronger when he is part of a group. The group provides security, supports him when he is old or sick, provides services to the group that an individual can't match
That group is called our society. As a society we elect a government to make decisions for the good of the group

The last sentence is where you go wrong. We don't elect a government. Government imposes itself on us. The only thing we elect is a new gang of thugs to run it, and even that isn't much true any longer.

Not even worthy of a response

 

[rightwinger]

Perhaps we could fire all gov't employees, then pay them minimum wage, and then fork out a ton of gov't assistance to them as well. We have those that just hate it that someone working a full time job still gets gov't assistance. I for one say if a person is working 40 hours per week for wages low enough to qualify, then they should get that assistance. One can't barely eat on minimum wage much less survive. As some president said something like "republicans love minimum wage. The more minimum, the better.". WHo said that?

We can always fire government employees and pay rock bottom wages

But you get what you pay for. If you want discount rate lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, police and teachers representing the people's interests, then you will get the workforce you deserve

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is not a trick question. Money paid to government employees is:

1. Taxed by local, state and federal governments
2. Used to buy goods and services in the community where the employee resides
3. Paid to private contractors to repair roads and services
4. Put in a bank on the Cayman Islands

You forgot to mention that in order for the government to get the money in first place then it came from somebody else that already earned it and would have used it for whatever they wanted (that would have created jobs and tax revenue) instead of what some corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat elected by special interest grousp thought they should have.

Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.

Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.

No matter how you spin it government employees drain more from the economy than they contribute.

It doesn't matter if they pay taxes on their income, it doesn't matter that they spend it.

ALL the money first comes from the private sector

Anyone who hates government would believe that. We don't need no stinking government. They are a drain on our economy. We are better off without any government at all
Those who understand the function of government in society appreciate what it does and the role government employees play. Teachers, policemen, doctors, accountants, lawyers, scientists, engineers........all play a role in running our government

For one I never said any of that. So you can cut that shit out right now.

You can't accept the fact that government employees do not ADD to the bottom line they take from it. Government is a necessary evil and therefore should be kept as small as possible so as to relieve the burden of the people. It should not be expanded at every turn as you think.

There is no multiplier for government spending.

That thinking is voodoo economics if I ever saw it. If it were true then why not take 100% of everyone's money and have the magic government spending multiplier make it worth 3 times as much?

 

[rightwinger]

Wouldn't it be great if you got to keep 100% of your earnings. We


A modern society helps those who need helping

Only sick, cruel bastards and libertarians object to helping people who are struggling

I am quite capable of determining the level of which I am willing to help those in need, thank you very much. I don't need stupid Left Wing Libtards with a plurality of the electorate determining what I should give.

I don't need corrupt bureaucrats, elected by greedy special interest shitheads, using the force of government to take my money and give it to the shitheads that elected them.

The government should never be in the business of taking money from one person and giving it to another. That is not a legitimate function of government. That is thievery.

Of all people the legendary Davy Crockett explained this concept very well back when he was a Congressman: It was the frontiersman's explanation of the Broken Window Fallacy

Not Yours to Give Davy Crockett and Welfare

Not Yours to Give: Davy Crockett and Welfare

"No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in the country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give.

"The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

We rely on the judgement of a poorly educated, 1830s backwoodsman to dictate the social needs of a modern society?

Why not get Dickens Oliver Twist to tell us how we should care for our poor?

 

[Flash]

[

We can always fire government employees and pay rock bottom wages

But you get what you pay for. If you want discount rate lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, police and teachers representing the people's interests, then you will get the workforce you deserve

How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?

How does that sound?

 

[rightwinger]

This is not a trick question. Money paid to government employees is:

1. Taxed by local, state and federal governments
2. Used to buy goods and services in the community where the employee resides
3. Paid to private contractors to repair roads and services
4. Put in a bank on the Cayman Islands

You forgot to mention that in order for the government to get the money in first place then it came from somebody else that already earned it and would have used it for whatever they wanted (that would have created jobs and tax revenue) instead of what some corrupt and incompetent bureaucrat elected by special interest grousp thought they should have.

Man you're very dumb. Government employees pay taxes on money they earn. So do private sector employees. Some private sector employees are paid by the government, and they too are taxed on their income.

Then we have the Romney's, they put the money they earn by laying off workers, selling of a business assets and putting their profit in off shore accounts.

No matter how you spin it government employees drain more from the economy than they contribute.

It doesn't matter if they pay taxes on their income, it doesn't matter that they spend it.

ALL the money first comes from the private sector

Anyone who hates government would believe that. We don't need no stinking government. They are a drain on our economy. We are better off without any government at all
Those who understand the function of government in society appreciate what it does and the role government employees play. Teachers, policemen, doctors, accountants, lawyers, scientists, engineers........all play a role in running our government

For one I never said any of that. So you can cut that shit out right now.

You can't accept the fact that government employees do not ADD to the bottom line they take from it. Government is a necessary evil and therefore should be kept as small as possible so as to relieve the burden of the people. It should not be expanded at every turn as you think.

There is no multiplier for government spending.

That thinking is voodoo economics if I ever saw it. If it were true then why not take 100% of everyone's money and have the magic government spending multiplier make it worth 3 times as much?

Again that is where you are wrong .......government is a necessary function and is essential to the operation of our society. Those employees who allow our government to function are not a drain on our society but an essential part of it.

 

[PredFan]

Meh, who cares? Fauxcahontas doesn't know shit about anything.

 

[rightwinger]

[

We can always fire government employees and pay rock bottom wages

But you get what you pay for. If you want discount rate lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, police and teachers representing the people's interests, then you will get the workforce you deserve

How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?

How does that sound?

We have fewer government employees today than we had 50 years ago. Wages offered by the government to recent graduates tend to be significantly lower than in the private sector
Government doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants all make less than the private sector

 

[bripat9643]

It is always comical to see a dumbass Libtard vehemently argue that it is better for some corrupt bureaucrat, elected by special interest groups, to spend the money that you earn rather than you spend it yourself.

Then they wonder why we call them Moon Bats.

Since the beginning of our existence, man has found out he operates more effectively and is stronger when he is part of a group. The group provides security, supports him when he is old or sick, provides services to the group that an individual can't match
That group is called our society. As a society we elect a government to make decisions for the good of the group

The last sentence is where you go wrong. We don't elect a government. Government imposes itself on us. The only thing we elect is a new gang of thugs to run it, and even that isn't much true any longer.

Not even worthy of a response

I realize you become speechless with confronted with the simple truth.

 

[bripat9643]

[

We can always fire government employees and pay rock bottom wages

But you get what you pay for. If you want discount rate lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, police and teachers representing the people's interests, then you will get the workforce you deserve

How about paying government employees labor market rates for the job they do but reduce the size of the government to a minimal effective level instead of this bloated out of control bureaucracy we have now?

How does that sound?

We have fewer government employees today than we had 50 years ago. Wages offered by the government to recent graduates tend to be significantly lower than in the private sector
Government doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants all make less than the private sector

That's all horseshit of course. I have plenty of friends who are consultants and they make considerably more than comparable positions in the private sector.

The only government employees there are less of is service people. The military is the only area of government that's actually been cut in the last 50 years.

Many studies have recently been published showing that government employees make considerably more than people with comparable positions in the private sector.

 

[Stephanie]

Meh, who cares? Fauxcahontas doesn't know shit about anything.

oh she knows how to pander to the low information voters out there, as we can see. All the while all these phonies goes back to their IVORY MANSIONS and count their MILLIONS

 

[Papageorgio]

It is always comical to see a dumbass Libtard vehemently argue that it is better for some corrupt bureaucrat, elected by special interest groups, to spend the money that you earn rather than you spend it yourself.

Then they wonder why we call them Moon Bats.

Since the beginning of our existence, man has found out he operates more effectively and is stronger when he is part of a group. The group provides security, supports him when he is old or sick, provides services to the group that an individual can't match
That group is called our society. As a society we elect a government to make decisions for the good of the group

I have no issue paying taxes, however when we know that the people elected to office make no effort to keep corporate business out of Washington, then we have issues. Such as GE paying NO taxes. Such as tax loopholes designed to allow the rich to take huge deductions. yet, Warren and other lawmakers change nothing, however I bet you will find them voting for more subsidies.

I find it difficult to believe anymore that government makes decisions for the good of the group. I think politicians use government for the good of themselves.

 

[Papageorgio]

Meh, who cares? Fauxcahontas doesn't know shit about anything.

oh she knows how to pander to the low information voters out there, as we can see. All the while all these phonies goes back to their IVORY MANSIONS and count their MILLIONS

Warren, like most politicians pander to their voters, Clinton, Obama and Warren seem to do a better job of victimizing America, thus getting low information voters.

 

[Stephanie]

Meh, who cares? Fauxcahontas doesn't know shit about anything.

oh she knows how to pander to the low information voters out there, as we can see. All the while all these phonies goes back to their IVORY MANSIONS and count their MILLIONS

Warren, like most politicians pander to their voters, Clinton, Obama and Warren seem to do a better job of victimizing America, thus getting low information voters.

Yes. that does seem to be something Democrat/progressives has down to a tee. How else can you explain some unknown, inexperienced, Junior frikken Senator in Congress getting elected. thankfully the people saw their mistake fairly early and kicked them out of Congress of both houses after only six years...So lets hope they've learned something out of it.