Elizabeth Warren: proving progressive ideals are for the weak minded.

[TeleKat]

Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments of Progressivism - NationalJournal.com

How does anyone fall for her absolute clap trap bull****? "I got min, the rest of you are on your own." REALLY? Let's turn it around: "What you worked for, belongs to who I say it belongs too" - Progressive Philosophy.

Seriously, the more I hear of this idiot, the more I shudder in horror at the fools that cheer her on. The world really IS upside down.

Meh. Warren is the more sane of the Democrat bunch. At least she seems to genuinely believe what she is saying which is more than I can say for that warmongering, corporatist hag Clinton. The thing about Warren is that she diagnoses the problem perfectly but then she goes and tries to kill off her patient. All of her supposed "solutions" will only serve to further empower the corporate elite.

 

[LowDown]

If that's your takeaway from this, then you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.



What, in an actually just system, are your efforts worth? A lot more than when an exploitative ruling class is willing to placate you with. That's the real coercion and theft, that people toil for a pittance because the system is rigged against them and they'll starve if they don't submit to the wishes of the ruling class. Just so we're clear, you and I are definitely not part of the ruling class.

What is justice? Is it justice to take what person has without his consent? It's the justice of thieves. All this class war rhetoric is so much meaningless tripe -- the rationalizations of sociopaths. All who stand between you and what you want to have without earning it are slandered and dehumanized. More is the pathology on your part.

What is your justification for getting more than what you can lawfully earn? Because you think it's unfair, because you envy the people you denegrate. That's all.

 

[opendebate]

Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments of Progressivism - NationalJournal.com

How does anyone fall for her absolute clap trap bull****? "I got min, the rest of you are on your own." REALLY? Let's turn it around: "What you worked for, belongs to who I say it belongs too" - Progressive Philosophy.

Seriously, the more I hear of this idiot, the more I shudder in horror at the fools that cheer her on. The world really IS upside down.

I like her more every day

 

[opendebate]

Not quite. The government shouldn't be helping the rich elite class pay people so poorly and should represent the interests of the majority of people who aren't obscenely wealthy, rather than those who are. You only use the word "force" to discredit the position, but the reality is that it's much more complicated than that. The small owner class in this country forces the government to help them continue their stranglehold on our economy. Regulation as "forcing" is paltry by comparison.

The issue is not about who will raise or lower taxes. It is about who will double or triple your paycheck. It is about who will make education and healthcare affordable to you and everyone else. It is about who will make sure that wages keep up with inflation. Your taxes will go up a little bit. But the benefits you will reap in exchange will be substantial.

But you're spot on that people need to be paid more, a lot more, and reap many more of the rewards that their labor creates, and that government should work towards that end, which is a much truer expression of what people earn and deserve than the top-down capitalist market nonsense that we use now, rather than continue to help the rich get richer all the time. The notion that government should be a non-entity in the equation is impossible. Some form of centralized power is always part of it. The notion that without that centralized power we would find some kind of just equilibrium is also nonsense. Without a centralized power to represent the interests of the people over those of the elite class is how we got feudalism and the dark ages. Government as a non-entity would make things worse. Government working for the interests of the majority of the people instead of just the interests of those wealthy enough to buy our government's allegiance is a lot better. That's what will help us, not an ineffectual government who can't stop the abuses that working people suffer in this country. Government is a tool, not an enemy. It is in the hands of your enemies, and mine. But if we brought it back into our hands, the hands of working class Americans, it would be a tool for us, not for them.

Love this part

 

[justabubba]

What is justice? Is it justice to take what person has without his consent? It's the justice of thieves. All this class war rhetoric is so much meaningless tripe -- the rationalizations of sociopaths. All who stand between you and what you want to have without earning it are slandered and dehumanized. More is the pathology on your part.

What is your justification for getting more than what you can lawfully earn? Because you think it's unfair, because you envy the people you denegrate. That's all.

[emphasis added by bubba]

there is no theft
resent paying your part of the costs to keep this nation great, then leave ... preferably by renouncing your American citizenship so that you are unable to return
and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
but please do let us know how great it is living in some exploited third world nation with all those tax savings you have accumulated

 

[Henrin]

[emphasis added by bubba]

there is no theft
resent paying your part of the costs to keep this nation great, then leave ... preferably by renouncing your American citizenship so that you are unable to return
and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
but please do let us know how great it is living in some exploited third world nation with all those tax savings you have accumulated

Lol! I noticed that didn't make an argument as to how it's not theft.

 

[justabubba]

Lol! I noticed that didn't make an argument as to how it's not theft.

it's not
you, like he, and me all agreed to remain here
taxes are the cost of that privilege
but the option is yours if you believe you are the victim of government theft
don't like it, don't let the door hit you in the ass while leaving
your choice to stick around and pay taxes for that privilege. NO theft involved because no one is keeping you here under duress while picking your pocket

 

[Henrin]

it's not
you, like he, and me all agreed to remain here
taxes are the cost of that privilege
but the option is yours if you believe you are the victim of government theft
don't like it, don't let the door hit you in the ass while leaving
your choice to stick around and pay taxes for that privilege. NO theft involved because no one is keeping you here under duress while picking your pocket

For godsakes. :doh Where do you people get this nonsense? Let me guess, social contract theory. Just because I live in the US doesn't mean I agreed to any sort of transaction with the government.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Nobody will buy into all her comments 100% ...but to think you people completely disagree with her ...is frightening! Let's look a few of her beliefs:

"We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."-

So you guys are down with the bail-outs ...it's something you don't mind seeing? How about wall street getting interest free loans (your tax dollars) to gamble with...you down with that?

"We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."

What's wrong with science ...you like living in the dark? And if you believe man doesn't have the capability to destroy the environment you need to visit some sites where the Oil industries are located. Maybe her fix may not be in favor ...but I am sure this can be a problem if no one intervenes.

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."

Long ago when we had only dial-up, some company decided charging people by the minute was a good idea ...remember that? It appears we're regressing as a nation because ATT and Verizon is hell bent on taking us right back to that situation. Georgia is a red state for example I hope you people were cheering when they worked overtime to ensure people paid taxes for their purchase on Amazon. But there's another issue here, that is, the often short-sighted-ness displayed by the right wing. Do you people understand how great it is for businesses if the web is fast and relatively cheap for every-one?

- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."
- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them."

I don't fully agree here, there's a several dynamic at play around this. You can't flip burgers and expect to raise 3 kids, buy a house and take regular vacations. At the same time corporations have a vested interest in keeping wages low by flooding the market with cheap labor. There is the mexicans crossing the border depressing wages at the low end ...and there is the increasing HB-1 visas on the high end. Here's a dirty little secret for ya ...corporations love being in a high unemployment situation.

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."

Why is this necessary for students? Why is a debt ridden young population a good thing? There are some issues here I don't want to get into, but my main issue is who hold those debts....the proverbial middle-man! In addition where is the money coming from to lend to these students ...oh no ...it's...it's actually my money (tax payer)!! And ...and ...if some fate befall these middle man who's the ultimate guarantor of those debts ...oh no ...it's ...it's me again!
Yeah, thats something we don't ever want to change (roll-eyes).

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."

I don't know about the dignity part ...you get out of it what you put in it. But what's wrong with some social security in your old age?

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."

Is this a problem, why is this a debate?
OK...let's start paying white males ...2/3 the salary of all other groups .....America would immediately shut down ..right?

 

[opendebate]

I've run a small business, so I call bull****.

I was able to pay a very good wage to my workers without going under. If someone is too ****ing incompetent to do that, that's on them.

You know what harmed my business? The greedy assholes who could undercut my bids by paying their people **** wages while still getting more in profits than I did.

There are valid arguments against raising the minimum wage, but protecting small businesses is not really one of them. Generally speaking, smaller businesses already pay BETTER than mega corporations do because the boss actually knows his/her employees. It's a lot harder to **** people over when you know their kids.

I always like your posts.

While there will always be people that take advantage of an employers generosity, the employer has the ability to fire that employee and rid themselves of the problem. An employee has to live with the wages offered them for the skills they bring to the table and if those wages are consistently low within his/her specialty they're just screwed and so is their family. There's some trickle down economics for ya.

The reality is that most people appreciate and evolve a loyalty and dedication to an employer that pays them fairly and treats them fairly. Fewer sick days, better attitudes etc. The employer benefits by gaining an employee who feels more invested in the success of that business and that business will tend to attract the best people.

This is an interesting take on the issue by MIT Professor Zeynep Ton: (TED talk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD67LKqXGrg

 

[Henrin]

I always like your posts.

While there will always be people that take advantage of an employers generosity, the employer has the ability to fire that employee and rid themselves of the problem. An employee has to live with the wages offered them for the skills they bring to the table and if those wages are consistently low within his/her specialty they're just screwed and so is their family. There's some trickle down economics for ya.

The reality is that most people appreciate and evolve a loyalty and dedication to an employer that pays them fairly and treats them fairly. Fewer sick days, better attitudes etc. The employer benefits by gaining an employee who feels more invested in the success of that business and that business will tend to attract the best people.

This is an interesting take on the issue by MIT Professor Zeynep Ton: (TED talk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD67LKqXGrg

So then if the market place favors businesses that treat their employees well exactly why is the government needed to intervene to ensure some sort of result?

 

[VanceMack]

oh hell YES
please!!!!!!

I have no doubt Bubba. Hell...IMAGINE the debt she can run up.

Dare to dream, baby. Soon...all groups in this country can know the kind of lifestyle the black community knows.

 

[ocean515]

oh hell YES
please!!!!!!

The Nation can't afford more California's.

 

[Cephus]

That isn't our philosophy at all. It is not to take what people have earned from them. It is, in fact, to prevent that from happening. Almost all of us earn a lot more than we actually get. Our efforts are not the paltry toiling that our capitalist market ideas cause them to be. The act of building and maintaining this great society means that a person deserves full participation in it. It is not built by a few extraordinary people. It is built by the labor of everyone. And giving the vast majority of the rewards that everyone earns to a small group of powerful people, which is what we're doing, is insane and stupid. We need to stop letting them take it from us. It is progressivism that is, in contrast to the majority of the last ten thousand years of human history, trying to get everyone the rewards that they actually earn.

What the hell are you smoking? It's the liberal way to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, thus doing exactly what you argue against.

 

[Cardinal]

For godsakes. :doh Where do you people get this nonsense? Let me guess, social contract theory.

Certainly a strong aspect of it. You want the convenience that civilization offers? Ya gotta pay for it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Just because I live in the US doesn't mean I agreed to any sort of transaction with the government.

Why? Are you in prison? Are you being held captive in somebody's basement?

But let's not rehash this old argument for the eleventieth time. Do you remember those libertarian paradises converted from oil rigs I showed you a bunch of months ago? Do you look into those?

 

[Paschendale]

What the hell are you smoking? It's the liberal way to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, thus doing exactly what you argue against.

The glaring flaw is your assumption that wealth isn't already grossly redistributed in incredibly unjust ways. The distribution that you oppose would work to correct the gross redistribution away from working Americans that is already happening.

 

[Frodly]

Please, explain how forcing people to do certain things to meet the requirements of a regulation is not controlling them. I'll wait.

We are controlled in all our actions. The problem with the libertarian right, is that there conception of control and the means through which they imagine government to use its power, is incredibly unsophisticated. There conception of the purpose of regulation is also false. Government does not just control through regulation and regulation is not always meant to control business. Actually most regulation is meant to privilege one set of businesses over another. That is exactly how capitalism functions. Capitalists have always and will always use government power to its benefit. So it creates limits and regulations which are crippling to the competition to large corporation, but which large corporations easily comply with. There is no opposition between regulation and business. There is an opposition between a union of government and established capitalists and all other business. So in other words, regulation is usually great for capitalists, just not for everyone else. Why else do you think they spend so much money lobbying and giving campaign contributions to both parties, only to see them enact regulation?

 

[Cardinal]

Here we go, just for Henrin.

Why build a new island nation?
"There is no such thing as unclaimed land," says the Seasteading Institute, so starting from scratch in international waters "is the only option to create new societies on Earth." Essentially, explains Detail's Jonathan Miles, the autonomous island would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: No welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

Don't say I never did anything for you.

 

[Respecthelect]

the employer has the ability to fire that employee

And employees have the ability to fire the employer. Employment is by mutual agreement and for mutual benefit.

The reason employees often get the short-end of the stick is because there are too few employers vs too many employees. Employees may take advantage by developing rarer skill sets, moving to market regions with more employers or most importantly for our purposes at DP - voting for more employers and less employees.

What does voting for more employers and less employees mean? Instead of opposing mechanization, support it (fewer employees means higher wages and productivity gains will bring in more employers to compensate for the apparent loss in jobs). Mechanized workplaces lead to more employers and relatively fewer employees competing. Counter-intuitive, but employees win big. Instead of voting to shove more employees into your wage bracket, vote against minimum-wage (even if you make $100k per year, minimum wage domino effects your wage). Instead of allowing consolidation of industries, vote against it and tell your congresspeople to vote against it (this very moment, Comcast and Time-Warner are trying to merge in an already monopolistic market). Oppose it. Fewer employers is almost always bad for the employee (and the customer, but that's another topic).

Liberals work against their own interest in almost every case. They oppose what they should support and support what they should oppose. They screw themselves (along with the rest of us) into low-wages, fewer employers and more employees within the same bracket. They support immigration, which brings more workers competing for the same jobs. They support unions which do nothing to fix the number of employers vs employees issue at the heart of wages and prosperity.

The Cambridge professor likes Costco - good for her, but that doesn't fix the fundamental supply-demand, number of employers vs employees issue at the heart of you getting ahead.

 

[ocean515]

The glaring flaw is your assumption that wealth isn't already grossly redistributed in incredibly unjust ways. The distribution that you oppose would work to correct the gross redistribution away from working Americans that is already happening.

The redistribution you support only works as long at people are compliant enough to accept what others bought them for.

 

[Paschendale]

The redistribution you support only works as long at people are compliant enough to accept what others bought them for.

I think you have it backwards. The only way that people have come to accept the perpetual shortchanging that our system inflicts upon them is that they accept that they aren't worth very much and that they don't have the power to change it.

 

[Henrin]

Here we go, just for Henrin.


Libertarian Island: A billionaire's utopia - The Week

Don't say I never did anything for you.

This could be "the start of a magical utopia where government is small, freedom is plentiful, and the only limit to the pursuit of happiness is your ability to swim. Or, it could be Lord of the Flies." Oh please, put "cameras everywhere!" says Ann Althouse in her blog. "We want to watch your reality show."

:roll:

Lord of the Flies, really? We are talking about adults forming their own society, not children stuck on an island. They speak of history and they are honestly going to say that libertarian society would turn into a lord of the flies situation? THere is societies that existed for a thousand years or more with either no government to speak of or very little government and their wars were more like brawls than anything we consider a war. Exactly how were those societies like Lord of the Flies? Sorry, but I'm getting a bit tried of brainwashed morons that have no understanding of history.

Floating cities, constructed under super-loose building standards, in the middle of the ocean?

I'm sorry, but exactly when was government required to put in place building standards? Did I miss the part in history where building were falling over because there wasn't an outlet in every wall? Is there something about human nature that makes us completely inept when it comes to making building that don't fall over without the governments assistance? I'm pretty sure the government didn't actually get involved until THEY got the idea to put a city on top of sand.

 

[Cardinal]

:roll:

Lord of the Flies, really? We are talking about adults forming their own society, not children stuck on an island. They speak of history and they are honestly going to say that libertarian society would turn into a lord of the flies situation? THere is societies that existed for a thousand years or more either no government to speak of or very little government and their wars were more like brawls than anything we consider a war. Exactly were those societies like Lord of Flies?

Excuse me, did I criticize it? I have nothing against people going off and forming their own experimental communities. All I was doing was offering you a solution for your problems. The least you could offer in response is a thank you.

 

[justabubba]

For godsakes. :doh Where do you people get this nonsense? Let me guess, social contract theory. Just because I live in the US doesn't mean I agreed to any sort of transaction with the government.

by staying you agree to be taxed
so to avoid what you insist is theft, leave the 'thief's' premises and go somewhere else which will not tax you and likely will offer you nothing in return

 

[Henrin]

Excuse me, did I criticize it? I have nothing against people going off and forming their own experimental communities. All I was doing was offering you a solution for your problems. The least you could offer in response is a thank you.

No, but I consider the article you linked to insulting and ignorant nonsense. What makes the people any less qualified than the government? What benefit would it be to builders to endanger their livelihood by having their buildings collapse? It just doesn't make any sense to make a big deal about not having building codes when history doesn't show they are needed nor does it even make sense to argue they are.