I <3 Elizabeth Warren

[Dragon]

My responsibility ends when I pay the requisite taxes, fees, licenses and other glorified protection loot it takes to run my business and live my life.

Legally, that's true. Morally, you get to make the decision even if making it that way means you're a scumbag.

But surely you're not under the impression that in any way conflicts with what Warren said, are you?

 

[Flopper]

Anyone who can get "everything you have belongs to the state" out of what Warren said has a serious problem comprehending English.

Well I have 3 degrees and I didn't get that. What I got was that no one in this country has made it 100% alone, and that everyone, even the wealthy factory owner, needs to remember the social contract and his responsibility.

Right now, after a week in the hosptial in August, I feel like more of my 'hunk' belongs to Vanderbilt than me OR the government.

Anyone who thinks they can become a financial success in this country without government is just not thinking.

 

[edthecynic]

It's presupposed in the structure of her diatribe about me getting to keep "a hunk" of what I've created and earned.

Of course, retaining my nondescript "hunk" presumes that she is the one who gets to decide what is suitable for me to keep...This presumes ownership of it all, no matter how much I may end up with.

Even you know that is nonsense

Try harder

No, it's not nonsense.

If you're going to tell me what "hunk" is suitable for me to keep, it is you who are claiming control over 100%.

But I don't expect someone who looks upon the looter as their friend to understand the nature of the presumptions inherent in the English language.

Oh BULLSHIT!!!!!

Like a good little DittoTard, you are obeying your MessiahRushie's command to "control the language."

September 21, 2011
RUSH: Don't doubt me on this. It sounds like a small thing, but in a daily ebb and flow you'll not even see any news about this, but it's in important because it's crucial who controls the language, who controls the way words are defined.

 

[Oddball]

My responsibility ends when I pay the requisite taxes, fees, licenses and other glorified protection loot it takes to run my business and live my life.

Legally, that's true. Morally, you get to make the decision even if making it that way means you're a scumbag.

But surely you're not under the impression that in any way conflicts with what Warren said, are you?

Keep your high-horse moralizing to yourself.

I don't take it from secular do-gooders any more than I do from holy rollers.

 

[Dragon]

Keep your high-horse moralizing to yourself.

It's a free country, twit, and there are no rules against it on the forum. If you don't want to take it, leave.

 

[Oddball]

Keep your high-horse moralizing to yourself.

It's a free country, twit, and there are no rules against it on the forum. If you don't want to take it, leave.

Blow me... I don't accept "Amurrica love it or leave it" crap from jingoistic "super-patriots" any more than socialist busybodies, either.

Go grab yourself a nice steaming hot cup of MYOFB.

 

[edthecynic]

Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation - YouTube

Tell me when this hack says that I used roads "the rest of us" paid for is she not implying that I did not also pay for those roads?

If I take a risk to start a business "the rest of you" do not share in that risk do you but you all sure as ******* hell want to take my rewards.

Good gawd man.

You are taxed same as everyone else in the effin country.

You've chosen to employ yourself. So have I. Good for us. We've taken far more control over our destinies and earning potential. Hopefully we're smart, lucky, and driven enough to have it all pay off.

But you're hoping to be a high-income American. Good luck. But if you are you reap the responsibility as well as the rewards.

Spare us the martyrdom.

You assume I don't pay enough taxes? I paid in last year more than most of you sheep make,

All you welfare queens say that!
Get a job you lazy ****!!!!!

 

[Dragon]

Blow me...

Sorry, you're not my type.

I don't accept "Amurrica love it or leave it" crap from jingoistic "super-patriots" any more than socialist busybodies, either.

In this case, you don't have any choice. I'll express whatever opinions I want, including that anyone who is purely out for no. 1 is a selfish, sociopathic jerk.

And if you don't like that, YOU can blow ME.

 

[asterism]

I've never said that anyone should fear getting business owners pissed off.

That's true, now that I think of it. You, personally have not, that I know of.

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.

Considering that the main damage to the economy occurred before Obama ever took office, that's kind of a hard position to maintain.

Check the unemployment rate if you need some clarification. The meltdown was brutal. There hasn't been a recovery because it is a very difficult time to take risks in the small business sector, and that is the group that starts recoveries.

 

[cutter]

So, that's the new mantra of the left. Every penny everyone earns is their's because they 'helped'. It is laughable.

Where did she say every penny?

You're not exaggerating again are you?

welll then...what exactly is she saying?

That business owners should pay taxes too?

WE DO!

What she is saying is as a collective society we are part of your success so we are ENTITLED to your profits. You don't think you should keep them do you? We're the reason your successful so they are our profits.

 

[edthecynic]

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

You sleep is someone else's car because you are too lazy to work for a living.
Get a job you lazy ****!!!!!

 

[asterism]

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.

Yup. Lots of crony capitalism. I agree. But there's still all that debt that we have to pay off so the next generation doesn't get stuck with it. And there are still legitimate gov't expenses.

I agree. I've yet to see a plan by the left side of the aisle to do that. From the right side I see the FairTax and Herman Cain's 999 plan as workable. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Tax rates are too high and too selective. They need to be lower and broader based. That way we can grow out of our deficits (assuming the overspending stops) and pay down the debt.

One of the prime culprits is the ever expanding government "services" mandates. Governments are inefficient and extremely rigid. Don't believe me? Compare a federal DOT road project with a private turnpike operation. You'll see more work with half the employees.

Locally, we have an amusement park that was closed for a few years and there was a local effort to open the botanical gardens section as a county park. The plan called for over 100 new employees to maintain and staff it. When the park got bought, the company spruced it up and plans to use 20 employees to maintain and staff it.

You must understand that we younger ones are for tax increases; not because we want to pay for more bureaucracy, but because we need to pay off the costs of the last 30 years of bureaucracy that neither Republicans or Democrats paid for!

Higher taxes aren't going to fix that (and didn't in the past) without spending cuts.

And when I hear small biz owners bowing at the altar of GOP "job creator" worship to service GOP starve-the-beast deficit spending recklessness, it gets me riled up.

The only altar I bow at is in my Church. I don't worship job creators, I am one and I recognize the role.

As for Warren? I understand where she's coming from. Again, this woman has an impressive record. The right can spit vitriol like Marxist and Socialist and job-killer at her; but it won't land. She's a consumer-advocate first and foremost.

She's clueless about where the money for those roads came from then.

 

[Dragon]

Check the unemployment rate if you need some clarification. The meltdown was brutal. There hasn't been a recovery because it is a very difficult time to take risks in the small business sector, and that is the group that starts recoveries.

We agree on this. Where we disagree is on why it is a difficult time to take risks in the small business sector (or any other sector). It seems obvious to me that the reason is that consumers aren't spending, because a) too many of them are unemployed or fear they will become so, and b) consumer credit has tightened.

In any case, as I said the meltdown occurred under Bush, so how can Obama's policies be at fault? (I don't even believe Bush's can be blamed in full, as I think the problems were established decades ago, but certainly it's absurd to blame them on a president who hadn't even taken office yet.)

 

[Oddball]

Even you know that is nonsense

Try harder

No, it's not nonsense.

If you're going to tell me what "hunk" is suitable for me to keep, it is you who are claiming control over 100%.

But I don't expect someone who looks upon the looter as their friend to understand the nature of the presumptions inherent in the English language.

Oh BULLSHIT!!!!!

Like a good little DittoTard, you are obeying your MessiahRushie's command to "control the language."

September 21, 2011
RUSH: Don't doubt me on this. It sounds like a small thing, but in a daily ebb and flow you'll not even see any news about this, but it's in important because it's crucial who controls the language, who controls the way words are defined.

Dude...You really should seek some help to work out this obsession you have for each and every utterance from Rush, and the infatuation you have with projecting his musings onto anyone and everyone with whom you disagree.

Maybe a nice bottle of Prozac will help.

 

[manifold]

If you're[government] going to tell me what "hunk" is suitable for me to keep, it is you[government] who are claiming control over 100%.

And since the government already decides the suitable "hunk", the government already controls 100%.

So what did Warren say that isn't true?

 

[Oddball]

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.

You sleep is someone else's car because you are too lazy to work for a living.
Get a job you lazy ****!!!!!

 

[Zander]

Yet another tax and spend liberal from the Northeast. Whodathunkit?

 

[Oddball]

If you're[government] going to tell me what "hunk" is suitable for me to keep, it is you[government] who are claiming control over 100%.

And since the government already decides the suitable "hunk", the government already controls 100%.

So what did Warren say that isn't true?

It's implied in the structure of her harangue.

If you're going to be "magnanimous" enough to clam that your "hunk" is 10% today and I'm so privileged as to get to retain the other 90% for myself, the presumption is that all is yours in the first place.

It's the same disingenuous semantics that calls a tax cut a "give away".

 

[asterism]

Check the unemployment rate if you need some clarification. The meltdown was brutal. There hasn't been a recovery because it is a very difficult time to take risks in the small business sector, and that is the group that starts recoveries.

We agree on this. Where we disagree is on why it is a difficult time to take risks in the small business sector (or any other sector). It seems obvious to me that the reason is that consumers aren't spending, because a) too many of them are unemployed or fear they will become so, and b) consumer credit has tightened.

In any case, as I said the meltdown occurred under Bush, so how can Obama's policies be at fault? (I don't even believe Bush's can be blamed in full, as I think the problems were established decades ago, but certainly it's absurd to blame them on a president who hadn't even taken office yet.)

Consumers are spending, just at a lower rate. There's still 350 million people eating. They still drive. 91% of the workforce is employed. The difference is that the new innovative products and services that either provide greater value for their money or create entire ecosystems and economies are not being produced.

That's due to the adverse risk environment and lack of available capital for the small business sector. This is not a problem the government can solve, but it's one it can help fix by getting out of the way. That is not what this administration thinks. It's overly Keynesian, very controlling, and has a central planning predilection.

I never (except in jest) faulted Obama for the meltdown. I do fault him for his performance since. Regardless of whether it was worse than he thought, it would have been worse (doubtful in my opinion), or that no solution would have worked, he failed to deliver results. Even in an accident a Captain is relieved if his ship runs aground. Even if I did all the right things I'm out of a job if my company fails. Results matter.

 

[manifold]

If you're[government] going to tell me what "hunk" is suitable for me to keep, it is you[government] who are claiming control over 100%.

And since the government already decides the suitable "hunk", the government already controls 100%.

So what did Warren say that isn't true?

It's implied in the structure of her harangue.

If you're going to be "magnanimous" enough to clam that your "hunk" is 10% today and I'm so privileged as to get to retain the other 90% for myself, the presumption is that all is yours in the first place.

It's the same disingenuous semantics that calls a tax cut a "give away".

If you're only ponying up 10% you have it easy and should stfu.