As she made a stab at discrediting charges of engaging in class warfare, she denied it by attempting to fan the flames of class warfare, and inadvertently exposed her naked idiocy in public,
"No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody."Uhm. How can I put this best. Oh, here we go,
DUH!
Do you know how their fortunes were MADE lizzie?! By EMPLOYING people, hiring people - and for the governmentally impaired, that means rewarding them for their Work with the MONEY they earned, which they did not have, and would not have had, without first being hired to work in the factory which they could not have created themselves - in order to help Produce the product that factory made! | Ho-ho! Adam Sharp of SharpElbows provides the video... and an extra little tie in at the end: |
You ignorant leftist D.O.B! (Hey, if her buddies in the unions can call me and my buddies an S.O.B., I'm ok returning the favor. Just be glad I started it with a 'D', and not a 'B').
But lizzie Warren wasn't done yet (no word yet on whether she'll be arrested for such indecent exposure of her dark and private soul),
"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."Hey! Lizzie! Where do you suppose 'the rest of us' got the money to help pay for those roads? Hmmm? It was earned, made, produced, and otherwise became the property of 'the rest of us' because of either our labor in 'their' factories, or 'our' farms, businesses, etc.
Because of the Free Market, people were able to offer their services in trade with others, creating wealth in the process, and from the profit each of 'the rest of us' earned from those transactions, 'we' were able to, in some way, turn around and pay a (once) small percentage of our excess profits towards taxes so that 'the roads' could be built. And you know what else? Those 'rich people' also paid taxes, one hell of a lot more $$$ than 'the rest' of us did, and do you know why they were able to build factories and hire people for a wage and become rich?
Because we had a legal system that protected Private Property, and so wise risks of time, effort and wealth could be directed towards producing a product that might possibly be of interest to enough of 'the rest' of us to voluntarily purchase, and if so, the initiator of that cycle could then become 'Rich', and the people working for them, could then earn livings which they otherwise would not have. And if it turned out not to be such a wise risk? The 'rich' had a damned good chance of becoming 'the poor'.
Anyone ever explain this to you lizzie?
And guess what else Lizzie... those 'roads' didn't magically appear by socialist-govt decree, they were contracted for and built by contractors in the Free Market, who hired skilled, and not so skilled, labor to produce the roads which you, and 'the rest' of us drive on, and so the virtuous cycle continues on, and on and on.
Or at least it does until some damn bureaucratic _.O.B. gets the slobbering idiot idea in their brain pans that they can just print money and 'roads' will appear (BTW, do you know what comes of the idiot notion that money can just be 'printed' and distributed? Experts become surprised at the crash the 'rest of us' saw coming from decades away).
Lizzie continued,
"You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."I won't go into the obvious repetition of the above for how those schools are built and paid for, but I will say that the world today, and your own blatant ignorance, is a direct reflection of the pitiful job which you and your like minded ninnies, have wrought upon the field of 'education'.
“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.”Ladies and Gents, do you see the arrogant attitude with which she dismisses the time, effort, blood, sweat and tears that goes into building either a factory or a paycheck? Do you see the predatory ease with which she assumes she can use power to take whatever she wants, from whoever she wants to?
Look at that face folks, that is the face of a truly, ravenously, greedy, D.O.B.
I'm going to put another post up soon, an economics lesson which is simple enough that even a leftist economist, and possibly even a leftist politician (no promises on the last part there, but I'll try) can understand.
Good lord, the horrible price we pay for ignorance.
*************
Post-chill pill Update:
As the froth fades from my lips, I should probably say something more than the above... and a bit more calmly.
The statement from her “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody."... is such a thoughtless, condescending and – no other word worthy for it (other that ‘duh’) idiotic one, it is as appalling, and it was infuriating.
Where did that Chill Pill go... it was here a moment ago....
I got some feedback (and flames fanned) from a friends facebook page as well, who actually captioned her words as "Well, said, well said.", and a friend of his said of this post, after chiding me on my rantguage, that,
"Regardless, you don't address the thesis, that there is a social contract that exists prior to and in conjunction with our system of Market Economy. That the conditions that allow you to do exercise your rights are built upon that foundation."
Well. To say that her comment had a 'thesis' is I think stretching it a bit, but while I'll agree that her subject was the social contract, the only meaning of one that can be taken from her description, is that of master to a slave - and in her scenario, the person who actually makes the workers job possible, is the one that is being put into the position of a slave to 'the rest of us', by her version of, what amounts to, a 'socialist contract'.
Saying the words ‘social contract’ doesn’t give you a free pass to ignore everything that a contract entails, such as coming to an agreement with the parties involved - in her view it is just assumed that the factory owner OWES those employed by him, more than their jobs. According to her statement, the factory owner does nothing but take from the 'working people' of America... how he does that by first offering them a job, for a wage which the worker agrees to before ever coming to work, she doesn’t get around to saying in her 'thesis'. How the worker and 'the rest of us' ever get our own money, from which we somehow (as she would have it) entirely pay for ‘the roads’ and so forth out of our pockets alone, she doesn’t say, ignores, and tries to bluff her way on past as if the thought is unthinkable.
That she says, and even worse, doesn’t say, all of this, while running for the office of a United States Senator... is sickening to me.
She, and other such non-thinking leftists, while mouthing the words of Liberty, proceed to make demands, which if ever fully implemented, would mean the complete loss of liberty and individual rights throughout the land.
In short, they petulantly whine for effects, while trying to ignore, and even denigrate, the causes of them. I will try and keep my cool better, but I will not stand aside and allow such vitriol (and that is what such language truly is) go by unchecked.
If anyone has an interest in pursuing the matter beyond this point, I'll direct you to a couple of my previous posts, Liberty - It all hangs together, or we all hang separately for the highlights, or
Liberal Fascism: The Spiral of Knowledge for a broader overview. If you're up to really digging in to matters, here are a few from my Justice (Posts series in progress...) posts:
* There oughta be a Law
* Teaching Justice at Harvard - NOT!
* Point of order
* What IS Justice? eh.. what is the question again?
* What is Justice: Two mis-States of Nature
* Forgotten Beauty and lost Justice
* Cruising for Justice
* The Contextually Tortured Thoughts of Man Caused Disasters
* Unknown Conspiracies – You don’t think, therefore, they are
* Louis L'Amour: Laconic Law - From Cicero to Blackstone to You
* Back To The Basics: Where Is Justice To Be Found?
* The Liberal Mind of a Conservative - what may not be known - Must be known
* What does Athens have to do with Justice?
* Athens and America: The Bog Of The Gaps
* What Would the Founders Do? Common Sense says WHO CARES!
* Common Sense Anti-Americanism
* Arbitrary Disasters - The Health of Justice in the Age of Obamao
* Common Sense Conspiracies - a Race To The ... Where?
* ♫ ♪ ♬ You say you want a Constitution ... wellll ya know, we all want to change the world ♬ ♪ ♫
If anyone who disagrees with me, and is capable of rubbing a couple thoughts together briskly enough to produce a spark - I always enjoy a good argument.
Pick a spot and dive in, comments are always open and welcome.
**********
Heh... one final comment. A fellow at my friend's site says
"Again, her point was simple- that individual accomplishment does not occur in a vacuum."
No, it wasn't a simple point, it was a fairly complex one, and it insinuated that businesses contribute nothing and intentionally leach off the benefits 'the rest of us' provide for it."She did not say that individual accomplishment is not of value, nor did she say..."
It isn't necessary to say that individual accomplishment is not a value, if you do say that 'too much' individual accomplishment should not be allowed... you've said the same, and created the power to determine how much is too much.
How much has anyone read of what she has said, when she wasn't saying it to an audience she wants to woo? Words don't simply have meanings, they come from the ideas a person holds. and those ideas will guide her actions - and the results of those actions - more accurately than the words we choose for others to hear. If you read the report of the panel which she chaired, the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), the measures she calls for would have the effect of essentially nationalizing - though under different terms (as with G.M.) - of banks and other financial institutions.
I'll try and find a line to the actual the report itself, but a quick scan looks like this one hits the highlights, such as,
"The report essentially argues for nationalization on the grounds that, under government reorganization, bad assets can be removed, failed managers can be ousted or replaced and business segments can be spun off from the institutions. "Depositors and some bondholders are protected, and institutions can emerge from government control with the same corporate identity but healthier balance sheets," the report argues, parroting a position that has been staked out by many prominent economic pundits.My friend's friend continues,
Clearly, this is Elizabeth Warren's particular crusade against the banks, since a majority of panel members dissented from the direction the report took and two refused to sign off on it at all. Her letters to Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke stop just short of attacking them for trying to restart the market for asset-backed securities. These markets have been an important part of the financial intermediation system for decades, funding student loans, consumer credit and small businesses. But Professor Warren has had a long-standing antipathy to consumer credit markets."
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigarYes, well, and sometimes a smokescreen is just a smokescreen for something else. Before striking the 'reasonable' pose, it's a good idea to look into matters a bit more to see whether or not being 'reasonable' is actually a reasonable thing to do.
Sometimes the things we think we see lurking in the shadows tell us more about ourselves than the world we live in.”And of course the obvious reply is that sometimes what we want to pretend to not see lurking in the shadows, can tell us even more about ourselves and the reality we’ll soon find ourselves in.
You may want to believe what I’ve said is a stretch, that Warren doesn’t intend to practice what her fundamental ideas clearly mean. I have too many friends & family on the left to think that they have bad intentions, but frankly, their intentions don’t concern me too much, and I’m not interested in interpreting peoples actions to match my conclusions – I’m more interested in the ideas they’ve demonstrated that they accept – those ideas are what precede their actions and my conclusions about them; I’m more interested in philosophy than psychology.
I’m quite sure those who pushed for prohibition didn’t intend to establish organized crime or cause the death of thousands through gang warfare. Same with those wanting a war on drugs. I’m sure that those who want to impose a minimum wage, don’t intend to put people out of work. I’m sure Ben Bernanke feels he learned the lessons of the Great Depression and really intends to help the economy, not wreck it.
Doesn’t really matter. Despite their best of intentions, the place they lead to is still the same old hot, dry place.
Intentions don’t count for much, when their ideas are put into practice and given the force of law, certain things are bound to follow from them. President Obama says he never wanted to run G.M., nevertheless....
If nothing else, the last twenty years has given me a lot of empathy for Cassandra.
But as Lance says, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. While we can.
9 comments:
those 'roads' didn't magically appear by socialist-govt decree, they were contracted for and built by contractors in the Free Market
Um, who do you think was on the other side of those contracts, genius?
aninnymouse said "Um, who do you think was on the other side of those contracts, genius?"
Do you understand what a contract is? If you speak of people being 'on the other side' of them, probably not; the people on 'the other side' of a contract, aren't involved in it - the people who are parties to a contract are within the contract, they are involved in it.
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties, voluntarily entered into, and obligating each to do, or not do, something for the purpose of the contract.
The purpose of the contract is to accomplish something that could not be accomplished without all of the parties involved. You get that? Those roads could not have been built without both the employer and the employee. To talk of the free market, workers and employers, as if either could do something without the other, or that one owes something more to the other after accomplishing their purpose, which was voluntarily agreed to, is pure ignorance. Genius.
A 'social contract', btw, requires something from all parties as well, and in America it relies upon all parties expecting and seeing that the individual rights of all parties are respected and defended - Equally under the law - and that cannot be done unless each persons right to their property is respected and defended - equally.
That means that there can be no right to not pay for the institution charged with defending those rights, govt, which means that everyone must pay their taxes - but the notion that one person owes more than anyone else, is reprehensible; the attempt to force another party to pay more than others is criminal, IMHO, and those of you calling for one party or the other to 'pay their fair share' by which you mean they should be penalized into paying exorbitantly more than another party, is at the very least a violation of the so-called social contract; you and your fellows are attempting to use that contract compel favorable actions from another, against their will, which violates the terms of any contract.
A tax info page picked at random shows that those earning between,
$16,750 - $68,000 pay $1,675 plus 15% of the amount over $16,750
, while those earning between,
$209,250 - $373,650 pay $46,833.50 plus 33% of the amount over $209,250
You and your class warfare thugs are the ones in violation of the 'social contract', fairness, and simple human decency.
Genius, I was referring to the fact that the contractors you are idolizing are contracting with the government.
aninnymouse said "Genius, I was referring to the fact that the contractors you are idolizing are contracting with the government."
LOL. I'll drop the 'genius' part, it obviously doesn't apply. In terms of the contract, it doesn't matter one whit's worth of difference who the party of the first part, or the party of second or third part are.
Or... considering your inability to make your point clear, is it that you're trying to make a point that govt providing services makes the process somehow 'socialistic'? Or maybe your 'point' is about whether govt either does, or doesn't have the right to build those roads?
If you're trying to make the uber-feeble claim that 'Military, fire depts and roads are examples of socialism!', then I can't do much for you, that sort of idiocy can't be corrected in a blog comment. I'll just point out what should be obvious, that government created and organized around a constitution and laws, is in no way made socialistic by exercising its proper functions under those laws - upholding and defending the rights and lives and property of its citizens - there is nothing that is in any way socialistic in nature about that. Obviously any govt will have to make purchases, contract for services, etc, assuming that the contracts are for proper and authorized purchases, there is nothing that is in any way socialistic about their doing so.
If your point was about whether or not govt should be involved in 'roads', etc, then it depends upon whether you're talking about local govt (state and on down to township), or Federal. The local govt's should (as I think is defined in all of their constitution's or charter's), the Federal Govt should not.
To answer the probable first knee jerk response to that, see Madison's Veto of just such a 'roads bill' (which I happen to have handy right here), and what he suggested congress do to remedy the problem - which he hoped they would, since he thought such a roads bill would be a good idea - and why he so clearly saw that it was (and is) a problem.
Eisenhower might have had a valid reason for Federal involvement in building the Interstates - as a defense issue - but it had far too much the air of a pretext about it, and that has become the free pass for all that has piggy-backed upon it ever since, cementing Wilson's first unconstitutional roads bill, and it has been nearly all bad.
Strange, that a guy so worried about a 'military/industrial complex', didn't see the far worse implications of a 'corporate/govt complex' which has grown into such an albatross around our neck today.
I have no idea what your point is, you rave on and on like a crazy person.
My point was that the very thing you are pointing to (road building and the contractual agreements that make it happen) is a perfect example of government/industry partnership, reflecting the mixed economy that we actually have.
And yes, of course government services military, roads, and schools are example of socialized provision. Whether that makes us "socialist" or means Bob's Laundry will be nationalized and Bob sent to the gulag is another proposition.
And what this has to do with Elizabeth Warren is beyond me. Her point is perfectly valid and untouched by your reams of gibberish.
aninnymouse squeaked “I have no idea what your point is”
That’s because, as you’ve demonstrated, you have no idea what your own words mean, let alone the ones I'm using.
“...rave on and on like a crazy person.”
Calling me crazy won’t help you understand what you are talking about. You seem like another typical example of a smart person who’s been told what to believe, while never being educated as to the meaning of those beliefs, or even the buzzwords they rely upon. Certainly you have no ability to integrate them into coherent ideas which don’t contradict themselves.
Very sad.
“And yes, of course government services military, roads, and schools are example of socialized provision. “
Do you realize that there is a difference between social, society and socialism? Do you seriously think that any instance of govt making a purchase or providing a service is an example of some form of socialism?
So... Policemen hired to apprehend bank robbers, are examples of socialism? Jefferson’s plan to provide public schools funded through property taxes, was socialism? So... when the first U.S. Congress rented out a hall to meet in, that was an example of socialism? The first U.S. Army, the Army of the Republic of France under Napoleon, the British Navy under Nelson, these were all examples of socialism or ‘socialized provision’?
Using words in such a way as the can mean anything, means that they mean nothing... which, not surprisingly, is the sum total of what you’ve had to say so far.
“My point was that the very thing you are pointing to (road building and the contractual agreements that make it happen) is a perfect example of government/industry partnership”
Neither a transaction, nor a contract to perform a service, establishes a partnership, but that’s the very least of your problems here. You seemingly have no hint of understanding the words you are stringing together, what you say is as contradictory and meaningless as if you were to say you’d like to heat your pool with ice cubes and then walk to the moon – your words and their meaning simply do not go together.
For instance:
Contract: (see above)
Partnership: “An association of two or more persons engaged in a business enterprise in which the profits and losses are shared proportionally.”
Socialism: A centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production, and distribution of capital, land, etc.
Marx grasped the idea much better than existing socialist ideas, taking them to their logical fundamental in communism, which he himself summed up in one sentence as: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "
Now with that in mind read what you’ve written here again.
In no way is it possible to have a contract, or a partnership or even a ‘mixed economy’ (which is simply a transition to socialism, and then to communism), under a socialist or communist system – since there is nothing that is yours to contribute to the process – the govt owns it all - and as the Gulag’s demonstrated, that includes your life. Under the system you apparently are mooning over, not only your property, but your life itself is under the full and complete control of those in power in the govt.
(break)
Actually, the one system which – with some stretching – you describe, is Fascism, the system where some people are allowed to retain title to some property, with the understanding that the govt has first claim to controlling the use of that property, and it’s assets, as needed.
Or, if you prefer the experts definition, here is how “Mussolini distinguished fascism from liberal capitalism in his 1928 autobiography:
“The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill. (p. 280)”
Or maybe Hitler is closer to your liking (he’s got a few ideas to offer you on how to get rid of pesky people like Tea Partiers & Conservatives), he adapted “fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said:
The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)"
Learn the meaning of the words you are throwing around, and while you're at it, apply what you learn to the words your 'leaders' like Elizabeth Warren are busy mouthing as well.
It matters.
You can't have it both ways. Presumably you would object to any form of government run or funded health care as "socialized medicine". Well, then we are currently suffering from "socialized schools" and "socialized police forces" and "socialized roads".
You can of course argue on each of these that the gov should or should not be involved, but they remain the same sort of arrangement.
Neither a transaction, nor a contract to perform a service, establishes a partnership...
I find it hard to believe that you are too stupid to figure out what that I meant by "partnership", so I guess you are just trolling now.
aninnymouse said “You can't have it both ways."
Correct. You can’t pretend you mean one thing by a term and mean something else at the same time (see Aristotle for reference).
“Presumably you would object to any form of government run or funded health care as "socialized medicine"."
And yet you want to just run along waving words about as if they mean anything you want them to. Good thing they’re words, not scissors, or you’d put an eye out... as it is you are still in danger of putting an I out, but I intend to see that that remains your problem, and not mine.
In this last little tiff, you want to use government, as if it’s just the concept in general, rather than the specific government we have here. Well, sorry aninny, but the government we have in the United States of America is a very specific one, deliberately formed upon a written constitution which has very particular rules of operation, specific enumerated powers, and is designed to uphold and protect the individual rights, contracts and property of its citizens.
A government of that nature and for those purposes, cannot engage in socialized anything. It cannot spread the wealth around, it cannot dictate or break the legitimate contracts made between its citizens, it cannot determine the education of its citizens, it cannot dictate that its citizens must abandon their property for the sake of an obscure fish, insect or rodent.
That we have allowed it to do these things for numerous decades now doesn’t change the fact that this (federal) government is one of limited and enumerated powers, it only illustrates that there have been far too many people such as yourself who want to use words for the feelings they connote, rather than the meaning they have.
There are a number of us who have had enough of such idiocy and intend to put an end to it. Time will tell which side will succeed.
"socialized police forces"
I find it hard to believe that you are too stupid to figure out that you’re using the terms improperly, it’s far more likely that you just do not care. You’re a leftist. The two go hand in hand. I get it.
By that same document, the U.S. Constitution, the states are required to have a Republican Form of Government, so on that score, socialism – the real meaning of the term, not the dull wistfulness which you want to attach to it - is out of the question. But the states do have great latitude in how they form them and what powers they will exert, and can do so as their people decide – within the bounds of the 14th Amendment which guarantees the Privileges and Immunities of U.S. Citizens to all citizens of the several states – they can do what they want; IOW, Bachman was wrong, as long as it didn’t violate the Massachusetts constitution, abolish contracts or force service from doctors, nurses, etc – then Massachusetts can have govt funded healthcare if they want it. I think it’s stupid to, I think the resulting economy and mess in Massachusetts proves it is a stupid thing to do... but, thankfully, I do not and would not live in Massachusetts under any condition – my relatives can have their utopia all to themselves. That’s Federalism. Also a word that has meaning.
“...I guess you are just trolling now."
Dude, don’t look now, but you’re the one commenting as an anonymous aninnymouse twisting the meaning of words and casting insults about – words mean something... you really ought to pay attention to the ones which you’ve been chosen to be identified by.
Post a Comment