Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tax the Rich? Answering Elizabeth Warren
The New American ^ | Sunday, 25 September 2011 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on 09/25/2011 7:23:09 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer

Former TARP chairman and Senate hopeful from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren gave a shot in the arm to “progressives” everywhere this past Wednesday, with a rousing (or is it rabble-rousing?) extemporaneous speech on the virtues of taxing the rich. Her commentary quickly made the rounds on the Web and radio talk shows — and for good reason. Whatever this law professor said, she said it pretty darn well. Hey, If President Downgrade could articulate himself like that, he wouldn’t be in a bigamous relationship with a Teleprompter.

Unfortunately, though, style doesn’t connote substance. And Warren’s words, while rousing, were also reality-bending. Here is what she said:

"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, uh, 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."

I guess Warren defines “class warfare” differently than everyone else does, but she is a master of it. Let’s analyze her comments.

(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: elizabeth; elizabethwarren; rich; tax; warren
This is the best refutation of Warren I've read yet.
1 posted on 09/25/2011 7:23:12 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
At least we'll all be equal!


2 posted on 09/25/2011 7:25:33 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer


3 posted on 09/25/2011 7:25:41 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Muslims who advocate, support, or carry out Jihad give the other 1% a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Massachusetts seems to be quite adept at producing glittering jewels of colossal ignorance.

They also create some pretty good felon senators and representatives.

Their institutions of “higher” education have obviously deleted any standards (save, perhaps, for MIT’s science departments). Harvard has become an open joke.

So, what exactly is the reason that we do not use that forsaken state for a bombing range?


4 posted on 09/25/2011 7:28:07 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

What state do you live in?


5 posted on 09/25/2011 7:31:14 AM PDT by rlmorel (9/11: Aggression is attracted to weakness like sharks are to blood, and we were weak. We still are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

“Trucking firms contribute $12.1 billion of the total dollars going into the federal Highway Trust Fund, or about 30.6 percent of the total $39.5 billion.”

In a conversation with a relative, I was told about a certain client who is a long-haul trucker. He paid $3,500 for fuel in April of this year for that month alone.


6 posted on 09/25/2011 7:35:34 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Great article, thanks for posting it.


7 posted on 09/25/2011 7:35:51 AM PDT by rlmorel (9/11: Aggression is attracted to weakness like sharks are to blood, and we were weak. We still are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
Mrs. Warren,

It is true that no one has ever gotten rich without help from others.

It is a more operative truth, in our system, that no one in the private sector has ever gotten rich without enriching others.

Only in government can one become rich without enriching others.

8 posted on 09/25/2011 7:36:06 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

I agree. I believe Warren said something like “all of us have skin in the game”.

Not true!! Almost 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax - as the article pointed out.

So her rant falls as a house of cards based upon this fact alone - although there are other points to be made to refute this absurd Marxist position as well.


9 posted on 09/25/2011 7:36:51 AM PDT by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

The privatization of water in Bolivia—

from a San Francisco corporation, Bechtel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5Fon_EjGw


10 posted on 09/25/2011 7:39:17 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
Ah yes.

Using the Tragedy of the commons to justify higher taxes on the wealthy has always been standard liberal fare. I am surprised we haven't heard Obama use this justification.

11 posted on 09/25/2011 7:40:55 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

equally poor!


12 posted on 09/25/2011 7:43:12 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
Their institutions of “higher” education have obviously deleted any standards (save, perhaps, for MIT’s science departments). Harvard has become an open joke.

The so-called "humanities" and "liberal arts" educations offered at most universities these days are cesspools of leftist thought and indoctrination. Don't forget that even at MIT and Princeton, which have some of the highest scientific standards, you still have professors like Noam Chomsky and Peter Singer, who as a "professor of bioethics" has nothing remotely related to what most people would consider "ethics" in his personal philosophy.

Unfortunately, most undergraduates in the science programs are still required to take a dip in those cesspools.

Mark

13 posted on 09/25/2011 7:46:17 AM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
I detest the liberal shibboleth about a "social contract." There is no such thing. We have a federal Constitution, state Constitutions and a body of law deriving from the constitutions. The "social contract" nonsense is a communist construct with no meaning in American life.

As far as "not paying their fair share," here are simple facts:


14 posted on 09/25/2011 7:49:27 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Granted the Internet breeds tough-talking boobs who say things they`d never say to their targets face to face, but as a Massachusetts resident with numerous military in my family past and present—Including one serving Iraq right now—and who could name countless conservative neighbors and even nonn-conservatives who demonstrate more intelligence in their worst moments than you`ve demonstrated bashing world-famous schools you don`t have the brains to attend, I cast my nomination for Idiot Post of the Decade just beginning for yours.


15 posted on 09/25/2011 7:49:37 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (undecided)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Granted the Internet breeds tough-talking boobs who say things they`d never say to their targets face to face, but as a Massachusetts resident with numerous military in my family past and present—Including one serving Iraq right now—and who could name countless conservative neighbors and even nonn-conservatives who demonstrate more intelligence in their worst moments than you`ve demonstrated bashing world-famous schools you don`t have the brains to attend, I cast my nomination for Idiot Post of the Decade just beginning for yours.


16 posted on 09/25/2011 7:49:58 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (undecided)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.”

It’s a strawman argument. Capitalists don’t believe that there is anyone who got rich on their own. The entire capitalist system is based on the notion of competition, which in itself acknowledges the existence of more than one person and the interaction between them.

She’s trying to come up with a fairness argument that says something like, “You did not make this wealth without the assistance of others, and therefore I can take it away from you.”

It doesn’t follow. If I use public roads to take my product to market, that does not entitle as a matter of fairness the government to simply seize my product, as she argues. Of course, if they announced that rule before hand, it might be different, but then I would not use their roads.

Our government is run by the people, and the people don’t want that rule. There is no such rule. If Elizabeth Warren comes in as an afterthought and says “You use our roads, we get to take your product,” there is no fairness in that. Also no efficiency. In fact, if she does that, then she is violating the social contract because part of the concept of public roads is that the public gets to use them.


17 posted on 09/25/2011 7:52:40 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5179806_social-contract-theory.html


18 posted on 09/25/2011 7:54:45 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Dark, relax, you’re taking the guy’s comment too seriously. It was just a joke, the kind you might make about New York, Ca., San Francisco or any other liberal place. I’m sure he knows that their are plenty of good people in your state. Unfortunately, you’re outnumbered by the libs. That was his point.


19 posted on 09/25/2011 8:00:00 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Thanks for the link to the definition of social contract theory. So, essentially, it is the underpinnings of our constitutions. Why can’t the liberals then say we are a land of laws deriving from our constitutions? We don’t live under “social contracts” - they were replaced by written laws. It strikes me that “social contract” today is used by the liberal weasels to avoid saying we are governed by federal and state constitutions. It is their attempt to ignore reality and play on the emotions of the uneducated and ignorant.


20 posted on 09/25/2011 8:03:11 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
She would not have her teaching post at Harvard were it not for the contributions our society has made to Harvard, therefore we should be able to dictate the amount of her salary, the terms of her tenure, the substance and method of what she teaches, her pension and the faculty's admissions policy.

I think she would object to most of this and she might become very indignant at other parts. She wants to protect her rice bowl while breaking someone else's; she will want to protect her turf while trespassing on someone else's grass.

If she wants to tax the creator of goods and services because that is a element of fairness because society created the environment under which he could render those goods and services, she must also acknowledge that the tax will be passed along to the consumer and much of the "fairness" is vitiated. She might also acknowledge that her policies will become so "fair" that the creator of those goods and services will move his operation to China.


21 posted on 09/25/2011 8:10:56 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
Why can’t the liberals then say we are a land of laws deriving from our constitutions? We don’t live under “social contracts” - they were replaced by written laws.

Because they simply don't believe this. Their concept of "a living Constitution" is flowery words for "the Constitution means what I want it to mean." Simply put, they're against the concept of the "rule of law," but instead want the "rule of man," also known as "mob rule." They have no respect for law, and simply want their feelings to rule the rest of us.

Mark

22 posted on 09/25/2011 8:12:17 AM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

That sounds fair tome. They and their media elected him. As long as they support him they should pay.


23 posted on 09/25/2011 8:13:04 AM PDT by bilhosty (Don' t tax people tax newsprint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

They start upping the taxes on the people and groups noted in the attached link.

I got to this link by tracing a “GREEN COMPANY”.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638


24 posted on 09/25/2011 8:16:31 AM PDT by BilLies (The "Liberal" news media hates your traditional American guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

I think the Democrats should take a pledge to never take contributions from anyone with over 200,000 dollars worth of income.


25 posted on 09/25/2011 8:21:57 AM PDT by ully2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
Roads, Schools, Police and Fire Fighters - these are all local or state supported.

None of them are federal. Even highways are state projects with perhaps some federal funding that comes (or should come) from the gas and other road taxes.

So I ask Ms. Warren - "Liz, name one such service or product that requires the Federal Government."

There is only one: National Defense. And I bet Liz Warren would love to see enormous cuts in that expenditure...

26 posted on 09/25/2011 8:37:00 AM PDT by eCSMaster (Democrats: the Party of NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
Massachusetts seems to be quite adept at producing glittering jewels of colossal ignorance.

Excuse me, she's a carpetbagger from, of all places, Oklahoma. I can understand why she might find Massachusetts more amenable to her kind of thinking than her home. The Globe is a basket case. Massachusetts legendary liberalism is a by-product of a Camelot hangover and market domination by the Boston Globe, the effects of both of which are attenuating rapidly.

The huge local "education" industry, there are something like 120 colleges inside route 128, only compounds the problem. There is no bigger bunch of rent seekers than the professoriate.

27 posted on 09/25/2011 8:38:52 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Ceterum autem censeo, Obama delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright
As much as I have read about Scott Brown being a RINO, having him as Senator from Massachusetts certainly beats the hell out of the alternative.
28 posted on 09/25/2011 8:46:56 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

I love that chart!


29 posted on 09/25/2011 9:01:03 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
we should be able to dictate the amount of her salary, the terms of her tenure, the substance and method of what she teaches, her pension and the faculty's admissions policy.

Exactly! It's what they (through their EPA) do to businesses every day. We need the equivalent of such, to scour our universities and rid them of the parasitic, commie ticks whose goal it is to suck the life-blood from a free society and leave a rotting corpse.

Businesses are moving elsewhere (some to Texas) to reduce the burdens these socialists put in place. With Obama's CommieCare soon to affect every aspect of the economy, lots of money is sitting on the sidelines until the program is scrapped completely or, it will go somewhere else (Galt?).

30 posted on 09/25/2011 9:02:56 AM PDT by budwiesest (It's that girl from Alaska, again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

- Robert Heinlein


31 posted on 09/25/2011 9:11:13 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Ceterum autem censeo, Obama delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
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, uh, 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.

"The rest of us?" Successful people with successful businesses pay the highest rate of taxes. 50% of "the rest of us" pay no taxes at all.

32 posted on 09/25/2011 9:17:20 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree ("Nanny Care State" is not a Division 3 football powerhouse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
Warren's misinterpretation of the basic principles which enabled America to become a place of opportunity, prosperity, plenty and liberty may be the so-called "progressive" idea, but it is in direct opposition to that of James Madison, as expressed in the following essay. Warren's idea enslaves individuals and gives coercive power to rulers. America's founding premise frees individuals and binds political leaders by the "chains of the constitution." (Jefferson)

Freedom Of Individual Enterprise

The Economic Dimension Of Liberty Protected By The Constitution

"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." - Thomas Jefferson

"The enviable condition of the people of the United States is often too much ascribed to the physical advantages of their soil & climate .... But a just estimate of the happiness of our country will never overlook what belongs to the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government." - James Madison

America's Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words "free enterprise' are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above. Already, in 1787, Americans were enjoying the rewards of individual enterprise and free markets. Their dedication was to securing that freedom for posterity.

The learned men drafting America's Constitution understood history - mankind's struggle against poverty and government oppression. And they had studied the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers. They were familiar with the near starvation of the early Jamestown settlers under a communal production and distribution system and Governor Bradford's diary account of how all benefited after agreement that each family could do as it wished with the fruits of its own labors. Later, in 1776, Adam Smith's INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and Say's POLITICAL ECONOMY had come at just the right time and were perfectly compatible with the Founders' own passion for individual liberty. Jefferson said these were the best books to be had for forming governments based on principles of freedom. They saw a free market economy as the natural result of their ideal of liberty. They feared concentrations of power and the coercion that planners can use in planning other peoples lives; and they valued freedom of choice and acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of such choice as being the very essence of liberty. They envisioned a large and prosperous republic of free people, unhampered by government interference.

The Founders believed the American people, possessors of deeply rooted character and values, could prosper if left free to:

  • acquire and own property
  • have access to free markets
  • produce what they wanted
  • work for whom and at what they wanted
  • travel and live where they would choose
  • acquire goods and services which they desired

Such a free market economy was, to them, the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic dimension of life. Their philosophy tend­ed to enlarge individual freedom - not to restrict or diminish the individual's right to make choices and to succeed or fail based on those choices. The economic role of their Constitutional government was simply to secure rights and encourage commerce. Through the Constitution, they granted their government some very limited powers to:

Adam Smith called it "the system of natural liberty." James Madison referred to it as "the benign influence of a responsible government." Others have called it the free enterprise system. By whatever name it is called, the economic system envisioned by the Founders and encouraged by the Constitution allowed individual enterprise to flourish and triggered the greatest explosion of economic progress in all of history. Americans became the first people truly to realize the economic dimension of liberty.


Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III:  ISBN 0-937047-01-5

33 posted on 09/25/2011 9:18:49 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

We’ll all be equal except for those who are our superiors and those they deem as most deserving of what wealth created by others.


34 posted on 09/25/2011 9:35:36 AM PDT by This I Wonder32460
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

Shakespeare wrote the books, the rest of us read them; Beethoven wrote the music, the rest of us listen; the Wright brothers built the plane, the rest of us ride on them. The value to society from the creator/ innovator/ entrepreneur is in the product, not the percentage that the rest of us can skim off the profits. Leftists don’t seem to understand this or don’t want to admit it.


35 posted on 09/25/2011 9:42:50 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
The prime illustration is the commie/enemy fool named Van Jones (and oh how he is worshiped by the barry bassturd administration, still) and his fascist belief that forcing the green revolution will make America better, make America the world leader in ‘green living’. [ When mammals are buried in sheets rather than coffins, they are fertilizer, but if that's ‘green living’ then Van Jones is a prophet of our doom worhsiped by the leftist enemies of America.] Valerie Jarrett, major adviser and director of the current oval office crap machine holds Van Jones in the highest esteem. THAT alone should inform US of the enemy that this administration is to the Republic they are seeking to assassinate. This purposed exploitation of the divisions in America is being orchestrated by devils like George Soros and a banking cabal which remains hidden because they control the media whoredom.
36 posted on 09/25/2011 9:52:04 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

The accumulation of great wealth is dependent on individualism and individual personal traits. The relative amount of income one earns typically reflects the relative rate of profit one earns on one's capital. Basically those individuals have the greatest accumulated wealth who earn the highest rates of profit and save and invest the greatest percentage of their profits.

37 posted on 09/25/2011 9:54:54 AM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer

“The average Harvard professor now has a salary of about $185,000 per year. Professors in the right disciplines, such as business, can reportedly double their salaries through outside consulting and other income sources. In 1980, the salary of a Harvard professor was about 5.5 times the average US per capita income; today, $185,000 is about 7 times the average national per capita income, and can often be leveraged into much higher actual annual compensation. “

http://theamericanscene.com/2008/05/12/is-harvard-just-a-tax-free-hedge-fund

2008 figures

I wonder if Warren gets to keep her Harvard salary in addition to her federal salary.


38 posted on 09/25/2011 10:15:51 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“GOP presses Harvard to end pay for Warren
Democrat in Senate run”

September 21, 2011|By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff

“’Of equal concern is that Harvard runs the risk of jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. As a nonprofit charitable institution, Harvard is prohibited from taking a position on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate. Your payment of a salary to Professor Warren causes reasonable-minded people to conclude that Harvard is supportive of her candidacy,’ Little wrote.”

http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-21/yourtown/30185245_1_harvard-officials-harvard-university-elizabeth-warren


39 posted on 09/25/2011 10:18:43 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

From the article quoted in my prior post: "Warren is teaching only one class, contract law, twice a week this fall. Records show she was paid $350,000, plus $182,000 in royalties and consulting fees, before she took leave a year ago to establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on behalf of the Obama administration."
40 posted on 09/25/2011 10:20:17 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Hit hard, hit fast and hit often’’ Admiral William F. “Bull’ Halsey,( birthplace Elizabeth, New Jersey.) I gotta respect a Southerner who respects a Yankee admiral.


41 posted on 09/25/2011 11:08:56 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

I like what Mark Levin said about this recently. If the government has a ‘right’ to the factory owners property because the government builds roads and provides fire and police protection, then why shouldn’t this communist be eternally indebted to the farmer that provides food for her very substinence or the obstetrician that ensured her safe entry into the world. They too should have a lien on her property and demand whatever they need from her. Furthermore, as taxpayers, we all pay her salary and benefits (in an indirect way through subsidies and tax advantages to Harvard), so we too, by her own reasoning,should have a lien on her property.
No, it is evident that she wants the government to make all those decisions provided that she agrees with that government’s policies. But what if the government act against HER personal interests without regard to her legal and Constitutional protection? Would she change her tune? Probably not. I think I would take her own political imprisonment for a moron like this to realize that her liberty had been stolen.


42 posted on 09/25/2011 11:25:55 AM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: grumpygresh

Sustenance not substanence.


43 posted on 09/25/2011 11:27:40 AM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

44 posted on 09/25/2011 1:28:10 PM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mjp

Exceptions render that “rule of thumb” to little more than a fallacy.


45 posted on 09/25/2011 1:58:43 PM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

I want to know how much insurance the road worker pays, and to whom. when an aggrieved driver decides to sue his road team. What risk, exactly, do the rest of us share when the job-creator (the rich guy) takes on a project?


46 posted on 09/25/2011 4:27:24 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mach9

I highly doubt the road worker pays his own insurance for a given project. I would think the job-creator alone pays for the insurance risk. The rest of us would not share in the risk.

The Marxists aren’t about to point out that if there is a collective gain, there would also be a collective risk, and the way things operate now, there is not a collective risk. If I am interpreting this right, it is a great point.

Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it is much closer to the way things actually work out in real life vs. utopian socialism that does not work at all.


47 posted on 09/25/2011 5:23:29 PM PDT by stonehouse01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Paladins Prayer
Elizabeth Warren's Philosopy in a nut shell
48 posted on 09/27/2011 9:26:46 AM PDT by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson