The Week in Blog: Leaning Forward (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by carkrueger

"Ms. Warren, the government doesn't have any money until it takes it from people first. But this notion that we're all just one giant commune is the justification for the redistribution of wealth."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has given a sufficient reason for why Elizabeth Warren's rationale is either correct or completely devoid of reason.

Here's an example of the usual liberal tautology:

Originally Posted by Ocean

I think Warren's points are pretty self explanatory. You don't need to go to any deep analysis or theory of economics or philosophy of wealth to understand it.

No need to know economics or anything. Pretty clear! It's like people saying that one cold winter is evidence that global warming isn't happening. And liberals make fun of fundamentalist Christians for their logic. Baffling.

However, citing Marx isn't a reasonable explanation for Warren's views, either. It may very well be that she's a Marxist; I don't know, I don't care and it doesn't matter. Let's take a look at Warren's arguments just on the facts. I'll paraphrase what she said:

"You got rich off of the backs of our tax payments."

1. Okay. Except that the top 40% pay some 83% of all federal taxes in America. So, Warren should have said: You bastards got rich due to all of the government revenues that created public goods. We put in 17% of that.

Tax Policy Center


2. Deficits have everything to do with government spending. Revenues (tax receipts) have everything to do with the velocity of money and economic activity. If there were a lot more economic activity, the tax rates could be low and we could still meet spending obligations. Low corporate taxes don't work? Hmm. I wonder what Ireland has to say about that. Austerity clearly doesn't work. Uhh, what?

3. I'm glad all that tax money was spent to prevent marauding bandits from infiltrating the rich guys factories. Except for one thing. Most government spending is in defense, medicare/medicaid and social security. Marauding bandits? That would likely be a state issue.

---
Warren's arguments are poor. But the fact that she represents so many middle class voices means that this is a real problem; we do have a middle class crisis. Capitalism cannot survive if the middle class is unhappy. Just because you articulate shitty reasons doesn't mean your cause is wrong. It just means you have shitty logic, your prescriptions are wrong and the people that eat up your words are misinformed.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Where have you been? Listen to Michael Moore sometime.

Sorry, when you said "leaders in your party," I thought you meant leaders in the party.

As to the cuts that affect the middle class- really? They want to put literally millions of federal employees out of work (middle class). They want to cut medicaid (poor AND middle class).

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Sorry, when you said "leaders in your party," I thought you meant leaders in the party.

As to the cuts that affect the middle class- really? They want to put literally millions of federal employees out of work (middle class). They want to cut medicaid (poor AND middle class).

Maybe you can tell me who you consider a leader of your party so I'll have a better idea.

Which federal workers are the republicans planning to put out of work. Are these employees needed? In what plan do they want to cut Medicaid?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has given a sufficient reason for why Elizabeth Warren's rationale is either correct or completely devoid of reason.

I don't know if you know this but carkruger was quoting Limbaugh. The question seems to be whether or not Warren has Marxist leanings. Some would say that she does because she is inferring that the rich do not pay for what has gone before them and that they have benefited from, much as Marx pointed out that profits captured by capitalists take what is rightfully earned by the workers and puts it in their (the capitalist's) pockets.

The whole thing is very simplified, as were Warren's comments. Everyone knows the rich didn't become rich entirely on their own. They often had rich parents who could afford to send them to great schools where they shmoozed with other rich kids. They also have inherited their money.

But what does all that mean? I think people like Warren thinks it means that these people should give more in taxes. She thinks the federal government's scope is just fine as it is and even wishes to expand its reach with things like her new consumer protection agency. The only trick in her mind is to figure out a way for rich people to pay for all of this.

It is classic class warfare and it seems to be working. But it is no solution for what ails us.

And here is our president talking about the promised land. The world has gone mad.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Maybe you can tell me who you consider a leader of your party so I'll have a better idea.

Obama is the titular head ofthe party so he's a good example. I would take any nationally prominent politician, however, as A leader of the party.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I don't know if you know this but carkruger was quoting Limbaugh.

I do. I'm just saying that Warren's arguments fall apart all on their own. There's no need to bring Marx into this or at least I'm not interested in speculating on whether or not she's a Marxist

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I do. I'm just saying that Warren's arguments fall apart all on their own. There's no need to bring Marx into this or at least I'm not interested in speculating on whether or not she's a Marxist

And the whole point of my reply was that there's no need to invoke Marx to understand (whether you agree or disagree is a different issue) what Warren said.

The reference to Marx was, IMO, Limbaugh's typical cheap shot.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

???????

I can't tell if you're being intentionally provocative, or if you actually believe that. I understand you're probably disappointed with Obama on Israel, but that doesn't call for wild exaggerations. To get to the right of Barack Obama on Israel...isn't very difficult. Let is count the ways. You could stop giving speeches where you essentially imply moral equivalence between the enemies of Israel and Israel itself. You could stop hectoring them about settlements. You could have a much warmer personal relationship with the Israeli PM. You could not suggest 1967 borders (with the swap caveats, I suppose) as a baseline for negotiations. These might be positions don't like, but they certainly exist, and you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Here are a couple of interesting posts from Daniel Larison which address this argument, including Wonderment's post to which you are responding. The second one is the truly relevant one, the first just provides context.

Romney & the apology tour

Romney's crazy plan to prove we're not crazy:

Obama has made it clear that the U.S. will veto the Palestinian application for statehood, and the U.S. has been actively lobbying current members of the Security Council in the hope that the veto will not become necessary. In all likelihood, recognition will receive the necessary nine votes to pass, so the U.S. will have to exercise its veto, but there is absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind that the U.S. will do this. Since Obama has already taken the official “pro-Israel” position, there would seem to be no way for Romney to attack the administration for being insufficiently supportive, and there is nothing right now that Obama is doing on Israel and Palestine to which Romney objects. How does Romney demonstrate that his “pro-Israel” position is even more hard-line and unreasonable than this? He threatens to wreck numerous other international relationships for the sake of “punishing” states that vote the other way. How this proves to the rest of the world that “we’re not crazy” is unclear.

Would Romney really be willing to undermine or sabotage good relations with as many as a dozen other countries over this one issue? He seems to be saying that he would also “reconsider” relations with states that voted for recognition in the General Assembly, which as Armbruster notes would require Washington to “reconsider” its relations with most other states on the planet. I have my doubts that Romney would do this if it were up to him, but the worrying thing is that he is willing to take a position this far out because he thinks this is what some people in the party expect him to say.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I actually wonder if republicans WOULD agree with it, actually. Or at least many liberals see Republicans as in fact in disagreement with it, and they may be simply cheering someone who is saying this basic and obvious thing that doesn't seem to be informing the discussion. If this is so obvious and clear to all republicans, it's hard for me to see how a 4% increase in marginal tax rates for one group or another is being characterized as eat the rich or a return to socialism or whatever.

(Sigh) Because it doesn't stop at 4% increases; especially when no structural changes to spending are made. Spending shouldn't outpace revenue. Balance your books before you demand more money.

BTW, is anyone else tired of this boring conflation of "government" and roads? As if we're trillions of dollars in debt because of roads or public school buildings or bridges.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

(Sigh) Because it doesn't stop at 4% increases; especially when no structural changes to spending are made.

Well, I just don't remember this concern about tax cutting stopping at whatever it might have should have stopped at when it was ballooning our deficit. In any case, if you have a religious belief that it's impossible to increase taxes by 4% without increasing them by infinity, it is probably as plausible a reason as any as to why republicans are absolutely refusing to do their part to balance the budget.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Well, I just don't remember this concern about tax cutting stopping at whatever it might have should have stopped at when it was ballooning our deficit.

You'll never fail to hear me speak about the political cowardice of the Bush administration, who should have offset those tax cuts with severe spending reductions.

In any case, if you have a religious belief that it's impossible to increase taxes by 4% without increasing them by infinity,

I have no such religious belief. I have a certainty that the modern Democratic party is unbelievably incorrigible. This is a party that portrays TINY cuts in spending as some Dickensian nightmare that will have people eating their children in shanty towns.

it is probably as plausible a reason as any as to why republicans are absolutely refusing to do their part to balance the budget.

Uh huh. The Democrats are serious budget hawks, right?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Uh huh. The Democrats are serious budget hawks, right?

The democrats made some cuts and were willing to make others. The republicans were unwilling under any circumstances to raise any taxes whatsoever.

One of these things is not like the other.

One of these things isn't the same.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

The democrats made some cuts and were willing to make others. The republicans were unwilling under any circumstances to raise any taxes whatsoever.

No, the Democrats made cuts because the nation was about to pass the threshold on borrowing; they didn't have any more choices.

Big heroes.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

No, the Democrats made cuts because the nation was about to pass the threshold on borrowing; they didn't have any more choices.

Big heroes.

I made no claims about heroism. I merely was making a claim about willingness to do the responsible thing, and meet the other side toward the middle.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I made no claims about heroism. I merely was making a claim about willingness to do the responsible thing, and meet the other side toward the middle.

The middle isn't the responsible political space. Half of an error doesn't fix a problem.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The middle isn't the responsible political space. Half of an error doesn't fix a problem.

Oh, trust me, I agree that the Dems should have focused on restoring the tax rate to Clinton era levels and let the deficit work itself down that way.

[piscivorous]

What cuts? The supposed cuts are from baseline spending projections. Meaning they are not really cuts in spending but cuts in the rate of the projected increased spending in the out years. Whoopee dooooo were going further in hock at a slower rate!

P.S. When was the last year Washington spent less money than it did in the previous year?

[piscivorous]

No from the level of her wisdom she must have gotten her wealth through affirmative action.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Oh, trust me, I agree that the Dems should have focused on restoring the tax rate to Clinton era levels and let the deficit work itself down that way.

How would that have achieved a substantial reduction in the deficit?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I'm just saying that Warren's arguments fall apart all on their own.

I don't know. I'm giving this woman a second look.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I don't know. I'm giving this woman a second look.

One of the better trolls I've seen.