Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Mark Wilson ·
September 22, 2011 at 2:17pm
It's obviously an attempt to justify soaking the rich.
It's missing something huge and important, but in my exasperation I can't express clearly what that is. A little help?
- Comment (80)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (11)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Yeah, the ones who work or own businesses won't vote for her and everybody else will.
Imagine the free work she is getting from the WH speechwriting staff, and the combined faculties of the Western World.
Edited on September 22, 2011 at 10:18pmMay '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
When I read the Warren quote on this thread earlier today, I imagined her saying this in a calm, condescending, professorial tone. I then heard the clip played on Rush's show. I realized that she was in fact angry and defiant as she shared this. (Yes, it was still condescending of course -- I was right about that!) To me (and I know this is an emotional reaction), that made what she said all the more infuriating and offensive.
Sep '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Notice how she keeps saying "the rest of us paid for", as if the subject of her scolding never paid a dime in taxation for those same public services, roads etc, that poor Elizabeth Warren and her hard-working peasant friends have been paying for to supposedly help him get rich. As if he has no right as a citizen to any of that. As if they really have any direct relevance to his supposed unfair wealth. As if all of those services, including protection from "marauders" (I guess she doesn't include herself in that group!) are just a privilege given by whoever "the rest of us" are.
This is one of the stupidest things i have heard in a long time, and very revealing of the leftist/statist mentality.
Nov '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Let's think about this "pay forward" concept for a second. How is "paying forward" working out under Ms. Warren's guiding light, President Obama? He has spent trillions of dollars of money that we don't have. This is debt that must ultimately be paid for by our children and grandchildren. So "paying forward" turns out, in practice, to be the exact opposite. It's paying backward.
Sep '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
There is no upper limit on what we should pay.
Oct '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
At the risk of repeating something that may already have been written, there's a good smackdown by Taranto over on Best of the Web (http://on.wsj.com/p6Hh52). Fifth story down.
Sep '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
I guess this is the kind of statement we should expect from a woman who is remarried but still uses her ex-husband's last name (a man she divorced in 1978!).
Mar '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
What if you aren't understanding the goal of her speech? What if Classical Liberalism was the country's dominant political philosophy until roughly 1875? What if the presidency of Theorore Roosevelt signaled the take over of Progressivism in the Rupublican & Democrat parties by guys the stature of our modern day George Soros?. What if those men had maintained their control all these years by sponsoring friendly politicians with campaign money?
If EW were carrying out their program isn't it reasonable she would be attempting to discourage any new-comers from going into business? If you notice she attacked directly in her attempt to discourage. Secondly, she laid the ground-work for legislation to repress business once she was in office or for someone else to carry out her program if she failed to win. She isn't so mysterious is she?
May '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
The single thing that's missing is the notion that the factory owner is also a member of "the rest of us" since he/she enjoys the rights and obligations of citizenry. And therefore the factory owner has, like the rest of us, and undivided interest in all of the things paid for... by all of us. And since the interest is undivided, the factory owner is entitled to the shared use of the whole. The factory owner has already paid forward along with... the rest of us.
-GM
Feb '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
At least she's attractive...
May '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Indeed! I detect the distinctive stench of zero-sum thinking, as if the hypothetical factory owner does not provide any benefits to those with whom she does business, as if those who buy her goods do not gain from the exchange.
Terrifying words indeed. Chilling.
May '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Quite a remarkable set of responses here. I spent the entire day traveling and I just got my first opportunity to read all the excellent comments. I knew Ricochet was the right place to go for help.
What really makes my blood boil about this quotation is the passive-aggressive condescension. "Way to go, you created a profitable business. We're so proud of you, and so happy that you were able to benefit from all the help the rest of us gave you!"
Left unsaid is "You owe us bigtime."
Jul '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Got here late and didn't read all the comments, but check out Michael Graham's podcast on the subject. Hilarious
http://www.969bostontalks.com/podcast/Episodes.aspx?PID=1468
Oct '10
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Mark Wilson: Quite a remarkable set of responses here. I spent the entire day traveling and I just got my first opportunity to read all the excellent comments. I knew Ricochet was the right place to go for help.
What really makes my blood boil about this quotation is the passive-aggressive condescension. "Way to go, you created a profitable business. We're so proud of you, and so happy that you were able to benefit from all the help the rest of us gave you!"
Left unsaid is "You owe us bigtime." · Sep 22 at 9:42pm
On Point. As for myself, it was time for some blood pressure meds.
Mar '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Wilber Forge & Mark Wilson
But never let it be forgotten that she is speaking to serve her supporters. In her case the ones that sponsor her campaign. Those people began sponsoring Progressives around 1900. Since then they have "progressively" gotten their way.
When they took over at the turn of the 20th Century the US was the number one economic power in the world. Today after a hundred years of their guidance we are a basket case. They are a lot richer.
Ron
Apr '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
How about :
If I understand her... - then she is advocating entrepreneurs can get into the game tax free. So while they are risking their future and livelihoods, "the rest of us" support them and then - if it pans out - hey - they pay it back. If not - hey - they can try again.
Is that right?
Sep '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
First thing I thought of was Back to School: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM
Mar '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
"How about .:. . If I understand her... - then she is advocating entrepreneurs can get into the game tax free. So while they are risking their future and livelihoods, "the rest of us" support them and then - if it pans out - hey - they pay it back. If not - hey - they can try again." by ljt
No, ljt, she is saying, "My sponsors, the established fat cats, have made it, Now they want to elect me to make sure no competition develops. If you think about it for a minute; a person making $250,000/yr is not wealthy. He or she is only a person who is threatening to get wealthy. He or she has shown some ability to make economic progress. Elizabeth Warren and her sponsors want that guy or gal stopped in their tracks. Elizabeth Warren and her sponsors are playing us for suckers.
Mar '11
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
"part of the underlying social contract is that democratic politics are determined by consensus and if the rest of us"
Amen Palaeologus.
Apr '12
Re: Statism in Capitalist's Clothing
Warren is the female species of the "brain" in Frank Herbert's Dune who wants to control all the spice.