Now, that alone does not require there be high taxes, only that taxes themselves are not immoral. Nevertheless, Freepers do not react well to this somewhat elementary point:
Huskrrrr and many, many others just go straight to playground insults:
Hey Egghead, where would Harvard be w/o contributions from the private sector. Get a real job!y6162 too:
Communist witchwhitedog57 thinks Harvard doesn't pay taxes or give back to the community or something:
Freepers really do hate them some Harvard these days!By her Harvard logic, WE paid for the roads leading to Harvard and the infrastructure, grow the food they eat, etc.
Why can’t WE have free and unlimited admission to Harvard?
You stupid idiot!
bunkerhill7 kinda makes Warren's point, but doesn't realize it:
My grandparents came from Italy LEGALLY with nothing-And he was his own police force and fireman, used no mail nor roads nor educated workers!
25 years later they built a village block, 2 restaurants, a 100 room hotel and an olive grove estate [in Italy] with cash.
Suck on that onion, you Commie!
xrmusn takes refuge in madness:
ridesthemiles is pretty sure that having an educated workforce didn't help him at all:She may have a point here.
However, if the ‘previous’ rich would have blown their fortunes (no matter how they got it) the sons/daughters of the moguls would have been on their own.For example, the modern day Kennedys, Kerrys, etal would have had to start on their own and I seriously doubt that other than drinking and whoring around their life would have been futile.
The LIBS example of a self-made millionaire is someone who was willed 2 million bucks, lost a good portion of it and then continues to call himself a millionaire, and yes, he is a self made millionaire, just started out above the fold.
" I never met anyone who had the initiative to put in the hours required to meet deadlines & accuracy standards." Why do I feel this guy is just a dick with an inferiority complex? More than most Freepers, even.Note to Ms Warren:
I have owned more than one house at a time, due to an inheritance. I have actually paid more years of property taxes than I have total years myself: I am 71 & have paid out 78 years of taxes. Currently sending year 79 to local county.
I have produced NO children.
Therefore, I have produced NO grandchildren.
I have paid an enormous amount of money to ‘educate’ children with my property taxes monies.
I have never hired anyone for my bookkeeping business—mostly because I never met anyone who had the initiative to put in the hours required to meet deadlines & accuracy standards.
Therefore, Ms Warren, I would like a refund for all the money I paid into the system, which I never got back since I didn’t hire anyone.
eCSMaster flips a reversal:
Sorry Liz, I May call you Liz, right? But you got is bass-ackwards.That would be devastating, if your two choices were capitalism and abolishing companies. Course Freepers can't tell the difference between raising taxes to 1990s levels and Communism.If you didn't have companies mining materials, making steel, making cars, making medicines, ..., generating wealth and hiring employees, you wouldn't have those government services.
In fact, you wouldn't have
your own job
so sit down, Liz, shut up and thank capitalism for your own comfortable existence.
Argus loves him some strawmen:
This is a clarifying argument. The liberal Democrats maintain that the wealth of the country rightly belongs to the government, that is to say the permanent ruling class, in other words themselves. They then have the right and responsibility to re-distribute it as they see fit. Those of us who believe that the fruits of our labor should be our own, are their enemies.Clock King is afeard of such logic:
I know that rage equates to fear, but these people are dangerous. They are types who lead to millions dead in the communist societies, by starvation, death camps, and execution squads.
You'd think it would literally kill Freepers to admit that something a liberal Democrat said was right.
ReplyDelete@euphgeek,
ReplyDeleteUmmm...no, lots of people, especially in computer industry got rich on their own
1) The founders of Google, studied in a private university (Stanford)
2) The founders of Google, used the electricity and resources from a private company to build Google in their garage
3) Google uses a private office in a private property.
Liz Warren argument is BS, as the industries who use infrastructure pay the full price (user fees, taxes etc). Besides, how often are things like police, fire services needed by the average entrepreneur?
What is unfair is a union lifeguard making $211 k in CA, while one-fifth of Californians live in poverty. What is unfair is that govt. employees demanding more and more in salaries and benefits while private sector workers have suffered stagnating wages.
Google started in the Stanford Digital Library Project, funded by the NSF.
ReplyDeleteOne of the founders, Sergey Brin, was in Stanford on an NSF fellowship.
Google doesn't need to worry about crime due to governmental police. Ordinary entrepreneurs take advantage of the fact that we live in a lawful society every day.
Google pays for utilities, but these services are provided at a lower cost because they are public goods, and take advantage of scaling discounts.
Yeah, the lifeguard thing sucks, but waste fraud and abuse don't provide enough inefficiency to abolish public goods.
As for government wages going up, do you have a source? Because my understanding is public employees are getting laid off left and right these days.
@anon:
ReplyDeleteWe should probably tax public employees more heavily, since they make too much money. Then we could afford to lower taxes on Small Business Owners® who would then OBVIOUSLY pass on those savings to their employees. Obviously.
Politics of Envy is a totally valid perspective when you're envious of something other than the sainted Productive Classes, apparently.
@Ozy,
ReplyDeleteGoogle started in the Stanford Digital Library Project, funded by the NSF.
Google started due to $ 100,000 VC funding from
Andy_Bechtolsheim
One of the founders, Sergey Brin, was in Stanford on an NSF fellowship.
Unless you can prove that the NSF fellowship had a bearing on his founding of Google, I can qrgue that he would have founded Google regardless
Google pays for utilities, but these services are provided at a lower cost because they are public goods,
Wait a minute, I thought utilities companies were private companies
take advantage of scaling discounts.
That is economics, nothing to do with government
Yeah, the lifeguard thing sucks, but waste fraud and abuse don't provide enough inefficiency to abolish public goods.
No sane Republican/conservative is arguing for eliminating public services. What we want is to eliminate waste, and stop with the job-killing regulations
As for government wages going up, do you have a source?
There was an article on WaPo on pay in the public vs.private sector. It showed that public employees get paid much higher, not to mention much better benefits
Check the wiki. Google started as a project at Stanford. That is where the idea and algorithm originated. If you date the inception of google to when it incorporated, you are largely assuming your conclusion.
ReplyDeleteYou move the goalposts when you argue that an NSF fellowship wasn't vital to the creation of Google. The point is that the founders benefited from government funding, arguing counterfactuals is impossible to know.
Rent seeking is a problem, and you won't get much argument from me that some regulations need to be eliminated, but Republican-style deregulation these days is to eliminate the EPA and crap like that. That goes too far.
And besides, rent-seeking has nothing to do with Warren's argument's merits or lack thereof.
The infrastructure public utilities use is made possible by government's granting them a monopoly. After all, competing electrical grids would be awful.
Public employees get paid more? Maybe in California, but that sounds like a talking point or manipulated statistics.
Government work gives you benefits and stability, but if it's bucks you want, going private has always been the rout to take in just about any industry. The hours are longer, but the pay and advancement is better. That's why you "sell out" when you go private.
I'm sure the GOP disagrees with this conventional wisdom, but absent extraordinary evidence I remain skeptical.
@Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteNobody "got rich on their own." Elizabeth Warren is right. Google depended on the laws that are in place to be able to build their company. We live in a society and no person is an island. Like Ozy said, they depended on publicly built roads, the police force and fire department kept them safe and I'll bet most (if not all) of them were educated in public schools.
This glibertarian view that anyone can make it on their own with no help from anyone else or that everyone will act sensibly and get along if only government would get out of the way is hopelessly naive. And those "job-killing regulations" didn't seem to stop jobs from being created in the 1990s, now did it?
Ozy and euphgeek are in their private circle jerk where they wish Warren had a strap-on and was the pivot man.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at what the lair and tax cheat had to say (Obama's people are all tax cheats...of course she has had to revise her finances now that people are looking closer at her for the senate race but remember the revision didn't come until AFTER she got caught red handed)
references for ozi and euphgeek:
(1)http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64099.html
(2) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64306.html
We have such stellar intellectuals as Elizabeth Warren, a candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, and a former Obama White House flunky, who tells us a few things that ought to disqualify her from any office anywhere on the planet: let's break it down:
“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.”
Do you understand her claim? She is saying that society enables people to become rich. This is a lie. If society enables people to become rich, why aren’t we all rich? Why? What’s the difference between one person’s wealth and another person’s poverty? She doesn’t explain that, but she does continue to make absurd statements that reveal her poverty of understanding of both economics and human nature:
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.”
She forgot to mention that 47% of the people do not pay taxes. Then this bizarre and reckless politician is telling you that the roads came first. She is plainly asserting that roadways came before commerce. They did not. Commerce was the reason the roads were built, and the people who were engaged in that commerce are the ones who built the roads. If there was nothing to protect, we would not need police. This asinine would-be Senator actually believes that “the rest of us paid for” all of these things. She is lying. Find for me the total number of dollars paid for any roadway by those who do nothing but take from this system?
“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.”
This is pure sophistry. There is no instance in which her narrative is true. We cannot afford any more of this notion. The people who have paid for those products are most frequently the people who had a hand in producing them. This is a serious problem. She is an advocate for free-riders who actually insists on bolstering the notion that free-riders are the great virtue in our system who somehow provide the ability of the rich to become richer, while nevertheless providing exactly and precisely nothing.
If stupid hurt this bitch would be on a morphine drip.....
@Barry,
ReplyDeleteNeither of your links disprove anything Elizabeth Warren said. And you haven't done any better with your little rant. You ask the utterly vacuous question, "If society enables people to become rich, why aren't we all rich?" Well obviously because it takes more than just society to make someone rich. That doesn't mean that rich people don't need to take advantage of what society offers to become rich.
You then blather about how businesses created the necessity for roads and police, as if without them we would have no need for either. Did it ever occur to you that businesses aren't the only ones that had use for them when they were first created? But people still need to take advantage of them to become rich. Elizabeth Warren is still right.
The only "sophistry" is in your post. It's ironic that you talk about stupidity hurting.
poor euphgeek, if stupid hurt you'd be in a coma....
ReplyDeleteThe links prove what a liar and cheater she is just to help set the stage on her overall character... The second link especailly shows that she had to "revise" what she was paid but only after she had been caught red handed by the campaign review people. Typical lib who always wants to use people's money to be but not her own....
The break down just proves that she rambles on and on and hopes stupid people like you will deep throat it and then swallow it.
The sophistry is the "pay it forward" which is just re-stating what Obama campaigned on which was better known as "spread the wealth around" and has now been completely disproven by his inability to change the economy even when he had a completely democrat congress to ram it through....
Then you very stupidly state: "...as if without them we would have no need for either." You have been in poor towns right? Look at huge parts of Detroit...without business creating jobs and money their infra-structure has completely broke down, no more road maintainence and no more police servicing that population, ....so no money no services surely you get that?? Your example clearly proves my point, richer parts of the city have to actually support the poorer parts because the poorer parts would have nothing because businesses have left those areas...now just what were you trying to say moron??....
@euphgeek, you also "forgot" to address the part about 47% of the people do not pay taxes so the non-producers are completely reliant on the people who do produce, so the business and people with an actual tangible work product (unlike yourself) are the ones responsible for the roads and police and ect anyway....
ReplyDelete@Barry,
ReplyDeleteHer character makes no difference as to whether she's right or wrong. If Hitler had said that abortion is bad, would you automatically change your views and say that it's good?
You still haven't proven that she's wrong, either. You do know that a rising tide lifts all boats, don't you? If you give tax breaks to businesses, that gives them no incentive to hire more people. The only thing that does is if demand goes up. You know, the whole "supply and demand" thing that capitalism is built on? And if consumers don't increase their demand, the government has to step in. Unless, of course, you want the middle class to disappear.
You can bring up Detroit if you wish as an example of how kind and benevolent businesses are. But if you're going to do that, I'll bring up the example of WalMart who has destroyed the economy of some small towns by moving in, offering low prices and driving everyone else out of business and then leaving town. Not very benevolent now, are they?
You then claim that 47% of people pay no taxes. I think you meant to say "income taxes" because if you buy something, you are paying taxes which almost everyone does. You seem to think that implies that these people are on the dole from those of us who do pay taxes. If you're going to argue that, then what about companies like Exxon who make $35 billion a year, pay no taxes and still receive government subsidies for oil drilling? Oh, but they're not on the dole because they're the all-good, omni-benevolent corporations who always have our best interests in mind, right?
And you think I'm the one who's a moron?
The Hilter comment was again stupid, people prove their charatcer by their actions.... if she is a tax cheat her character comes into immediate question....
ReplyDeleteWalmart still payes taxes, business may fold but how many towns actually dried up and died because other business couldn't compete?? Very few is the amnswer.....
It still does change that 47% of the people do not pay taxes. The millions on food stamps that "buy" stuff on the dole are not paying taxes. The people on section 8 housing are not paying taxes and etc...
Here is a reference on your Exxon myth, please try and research your shit before you wildly post retarded statements thinking they are facts.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/
Forrest Gump was right about you..."Stupid is as stupid does..."
By the way GE, Obama's pet company and leader in the green jobs and new light bulb fraud looks worse than Exxon........."in 2009, President Obama issued $80 billion of TARP money to General Electric with the promise to the taxpayers that GE would repay the money. But instead GE not only refused to pay any tax the following year, but it also demanded and received a $3.2 billion rebate."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370001/General-Electric-avoids-paying-tax-entirely-dodges-incentives.html
Suck it euphgeek....
@euphgeek... you may ask yourself why you didn't really hear about GE's TARP bailout and then 3.2 billion dollar rebate... well that's because GE owns NBC and MSNBC...it's all part of the liberal media bias that Ozi doesn't seem to know anything about......
ReplyDelete@Barry,
ReplyDeleteYou still haven't proven Elizabeth Warren wrong. If all you have is ad hominem, then you're pretty much admitting you have no argument against her. And I don't care if the company is Exxon or GE, when a corporation is getting taxpayer money or avoiding paying taxes when they make billions in profit, something is wrong.
And at least you admit that WalMart has destroyed some towns' economies. How many would be too many for you? How many is too many for the people who live in those towns?
So you're saying that 100% of the 47% who don't pay income taxes are getting food stamps? And you call me stupid?
Lastly, nobody seems to be able to show me this "liberal media bias" the RWNJs have been squawking about for years. They either point to a couple of op-ed pieces or an article where the facts contradicted the Republican talking points. Which one will you be showing us?
Yawn......how very predictable……you babble on about nothing, with PROOF of nothing and then try to both distort and lie about what I say when you are backed into a corner. You realize that most people are not lazy libtards and are actually reading these threads right??
ReplyDelete(1)You said: “You still haven't proven Elizabeth Warren wrong.”
Answer: Of course I have, I have shown that she is just making statements that aren’t based in fact or in the real world. You need the businesses before you can have the roads…not the other way around. Look at the quality of roads before big business and such move in. Plus I pointed out that she wisely LEFT OUT that 47% of the people aren’t paying taxes. The fact that I PROVED she is a liar and tax cheat is just icing on the cake and throws her credibility in the trash.
(2) You said: “And I don't care if the company is Exxon or GE, when a corporation is getting taxpayer money or avoiding paying taxes when they make billions in profit, something is wrong.”
Answer: Wrong, you stopped “caring” when it no longer fit your liberal narrative. It was a good enough example at the time when it was Exxon but you dropped it like a hot rock when it turns out that Barry’s pet companies cheat even more.
(3) You said: “And at least you admit that Wal-Mart has destroyed some towns' economies.”
Answer: Wrong, I stated no such thing. I said: “business may fold but how many towns actually dried up and died because other business couldn't compete?? Very few is the answer” But AGAIN, you FAILED to mention one town that dried up and went away because a Wal-Mart moved in, you just rambled on with more of your unsubstantiated rhetoric and half truths….
(4) You said: “So you're saying that 100% of the 47% who don't pay income taxes are getting food stamps?”
Answer: I said: “It still does change that 47% of the people do not pay taxes. The millions on food stamps that "buy" stuff on the dole are not paying taxes. The people on section 8 housing are not paying taxes and etc...” I didn’t say that 100% of people that don’t pay taxes are on food stamps, I said people on food stamps and section 8 housing don’t pay taxes as another example. I was ALSO going to mention the EITC but that would be way above you…
(5) You said: “Lastly, nobody seems to be able to show me this "liberal media bias" the RWNJs have been squawking about for years.”
Answer: That’s because you are stupid. I gave a blatant example of NBC and MSNBC ignoring their bosses not paying back a huge TARP bailout. But here is a well reviewed research paper from UCLA stating: Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
I am just going to post here from now on and completely ignore you because you are a liberal sycophant, distorter of truth and you hypocritically demand endless evidence when in the last few posts have failed to supply any yourself… again, suck it euphgeek….
1) You need businesses before roads? Oh yeah, let's just build a giant business out in the forest and hope someone finds it. That still doesn't prove that businesses or rich people do not take advantage of publicly funded programs to get rich. You have failed to prove Elizabeth Warren wrong on anything.
ReplyDelete2) Now you're getting desperate. Why don't you prove that I cared before, hmmm?
3) So you called my statements "unsubstantiated rhetoric and half truths" and yet you posted pretty much the same thing I did while trying to make it sound like you disagreed with me. Those are some pretty fancy verbal gymnastics there.
4) So you admit that people who don't pay income tax don't necessarily get food stamps. And even if they do, most food is non-taxable anyway, so they would still pay taxes on the other things they buy.
5) One study out of many others that have said otherwise does not prove anything. But thanks for the cherry-picked report.
Go ahead and ignore me. I will still call you out for your false statements, ignorance, logical fallacies and Republican/teabagger talking points. Which are all you seem to post.
HAHAHAHAHA...Ozi quotes wiki like it's the Bible or the Koran in his case, Wiki is a pile of crap. It was especially funny when it was found out that William Connelley
ReplyDeletehad selectively edited thousands of global warming dissent papers out of Wiki. He was fired but still remains on staff.
Yes to that long list of information distorters and informational circus performers, one must add that relative latecomer among the plethora of modern trashcans, the populist purveyor of gross ineptitude - Wikipedia, ruled by a neo-maoist cabal of 'global warming' zealots.
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-william-connelley-purged-from-wikipedia-pages
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/
@Barry,
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is a good starting point for research. If you doubt anything in it, just look at the references for the statement.
And big surprise that a "conservative" teabagger doubts scientific consensus and ascribes it to some sort of conspiracy. Be sure to wear your tinfoil hat.
@Ozi did you just fart because something called euphgeek leaked out.... Here is more on the liberal media bias, I guess you all forgot about the JournoList scandal???
ReplyDeleteHere they are before being forced to disband:
http://theweek.com/article/index/205206/journolist-proof-of-liberal-media-bias
And then:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/26/journolist-scandal-proves-media-bias/
Then finally disbanded for their unprofessional BIAS....
@Barry,
ReplyDeleteMentioning me to someone who isn't even responding to you anymore is hardly "ignoring" me. I do love it when you bring out past nontroversies to "prove" liberal media bias, though.