This is an exact copy of the response my nephew made to Ms. Warren's speech. It was my intention to copy exactly his words, his spelling, his punctuation, his capitalization, and his grammar. If I have changed any part of it, it was an accident. I have not placed his response in quotation marks, because he uses quotation marks thoughout in a way that would have made it confusing if I had tried to convert them all to internal and external quotation marks.
I agree 100% that any tax cuts or spending of any kind, wars, tax cuts for anyone (since only the top ~50% pay income taxes, that kind of cuts out tax cuts for the poor, doesn't it?), expansions in government programs, etc MUST be paid for by cuts in spending elsewhere or an increase in taxes. She makes the implication that it is conservatives or republicans that are universally responsible for this; this is blantantly untrue and is common knowledge to anyone who has followed politics for the past 20 years.
"Her declaration that the 'medicare drug benefit is 40% more expensive than it needs to be and was a giveaway to the drug companies' is questionable at best. I know of nothing to prove her assertions. I have yet to see a government program that was not a 'giveaway' in some respect. However, to use Rep. Pelosi's logic: For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/pelosi-fires-back-at-gingrich-over-food-stamps/); surely food stamps correlates to medicare.
Of course, by this logic, all spending should be controlled 100% by the government; then we would have an economy of perpetual motion!
On to the second segment...
Her declaration that the 'rich' owe those who are not rich because they use public services such as transportation or education is disingenuous at best. I will try to address each of her examples in turn.
"Nobody got rich on his own"
A rather empty statement. This means nothing.
"You built a factory out there, good for you..."
Simplifying a terribly complex and risky process. For a company to build a factory, unless the company is afloat with surplus liquid capital, that company will need to get a loan and pay the interest. The company hires another company to build the factory, then finds new workers to staff the built factory, buys the equipment and raw materials (usually another loan) and must spend more money to market the product.
"...you moved your goods to market on the roads that we paid for..."
A misleading statement at best. To understand why this statement (and the statements following) are misguided, you must understand that in the modern market of competitive commerce, the company as an entity is almost always different than the owner or CEO as an entity. Unless this woman is describing the shareholders of that company as 'you' in this phrase, I am not sure who exactly she means.
If she means the company as an entity, then yes, she is correct. The company (that amalgamation of workers, managers, and stockholders) is using the public roads to move goods. Every one of those people that depend upon that company as a means of income depend upon that road. That company (through the progressive income tax system) is already paying for those roads through the personal income taxes of its people (those that fall into the top 50%. The bottom 50% pay nothing but sales tax, which will not necessarily go to the infrastructure). Furthermore, the customers that the company serves (I assume this is who she means by 'we', but 'we' could really mean anyone, as she does not define the term) rely on those goods and buy them. They pay the same taxes to fund the roads as those who make the goods.
"...you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate..."
I missed 'the rest of us' in the last phrase, so I will address it here.
The congresswoman seems to be under either one or both of the following incorrect impressions:
The company entity is not paying taxes to support public education
The company is not an entity unto itself, and is instead the combined servitude of many people for one person, the owner. This owner pays no taxes.
Since the company in her fictional scenario is the proud owner of a factory, it must pay property tax. When it pays for shipping, it pays the gas tax. When it pays the personnel that work inside of it, those personnel pay income tax or payroll tax or both. Those who make more money within the company pay more income tax, unless they donate money, or qualify for another tax deduction.
She also implies that the workers themselves received no personal benefit from the education; as if the education was purely for the benefit of the company. Poppycock.
If she means the primary stockholder of the company, or 'owner' ('owners' if it is a publicly traded company) as I have been using, then she fundamentally does not grasp the concept of an LLC or any corporation in general. Sadly, this lack of comprehension seems to be an epidemic. Perhaps she needs to have 'them' pay for a better education system.
"...you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for..."
Again, whether she means the company as an entity of people (read: taxpayers) or is addressing the primary stockholders, she is ignoring key facts. I will ignore the assertion that she appears to make that the primary stockholders live in their factory. What is this, kindergarten? Someone forgot to tell this congresswoman that teachers and stockholders don't live at school. ;)
The police and fire forces which keep said factory safe are often as not paid for by the same municipal property taxes that are pulled from the company for having its factory in the city. If the factory is outside the city limits, it is most likely outside of the city's fire coverage. I would tell miss Warren that she should start a campaign to get her fictional factory annexed by the city and start collecting municipal property taxes. ;)
In any case, the assumption that miss Warren is making in each statement seems to be the same: there is no company, only a person at the top. There is no unity of purpose in the company, there is only the person(s) at the top, and 'the rest of us'. And according to her, 'the rest of us' are paying for everything, and this secret cabal of people at the top are using it and not paying for it, and when they use it, it benefits 'the rest of us' not at all.
Tell me how this is not class warfare.
And I don't remember signing a 'social contract' either.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Elizabeth Warren's Speech, Part 2
This, to the best of my ability, is a literal transcription of the edited video of Ms. Warren's speech:
"My favorite part of looking at this hole: We got into this hole ... uh ... uh ... one billion doll ... one trillion dollars on tax cuts for the rich under George Bush. We got into this hole two trillion dollars on two wars that we put on a credit card for our children and grandchildren to pay off. And we got into this hole one trillion dollars on a Medicare drug program that a) was not paid for and b) is forty percent more expensive than it needs to be because it was a giveaway to the drug companies.
"So, we just have ... that's just four trillion right there.
"So, part of the way you fix this problem is, like, don't do those things. [Laughter.] No, uh, I'm serious.
"Uh ... 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.
"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 ... uh ... 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.
"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."
"My favorite part of looking at this hole: We got into this hole ... uh ... uh ... one billion doll ... one trillion dollars on tax cuts for the rich under George Bush. We got into this hole two trillion dollars on two wars that we put on a credit card for our children and grandchildren to pay off. And we got into this hole one trillion dollars on a Medicare drug program that a) was not paid for and b) is forty percent more expensive than it needs to be because it was a giveaway to the drug companies.
"So, we just have ... that's just four trillion right there.
"So, part of the way you fix this problem is, like, don't do those things. [Laughter.] No, uh, I'm serious.
"Uh ... 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.
"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 ... uh ... 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.
"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."
Elizabeth Warren's Speech, Part 1
Democrat Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, is challenging Republican Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts in his Senate election next year.
Some time ago, she gave a speech at what appears to be a house party, which someone videotaped. The videotaper edited the speech and posted the edited video to You Tube. USA Today published an on-line article about how many people had viewed the You Tube video of Ms. Warren's speech.
My son posted a link to the USA Today article on Facebook.
My nephew, a lieutenant in the United States Army, posted a response to Ms. Warren's speech in response to my son's Facebook posting.
Such is how the internet works these days, I suppose.
I want to respond to my nephew's comments about Ms. Warren's speech, but they are so lengthy and Facebook is so cumbersome when used for lengthy discussion, that I decided to move it all here to A Moment's Pause.
This will occur in four parts. This is the first part, where I try to explain what I'm doing.
The second part will be the edited portion of Ms. Warren's speech, to which the USA Today article referred and, thus, the version of the speech to which my nephew was referring when he made his extensive comments. I have transcribed Ms. Warren's words from the video. I have tried to transcribe them literally.
The third part will be my nephew's comments about Ms. Warren's speech. Those are taken directly and unedited from his Facebook response to my son's posting.
The fourth part will be my response to my nephew's comments.
Some time ago, she gave a speech at what appears to be a house party, which someone videotaped. The videotaper edited the speech and posted the edited video to You Tube. USA Today published an on-line article about how many people had viewed the You Tube video of Ms. Warren's speech.
My son posted a link to the USA Today article on Facebook.
My nephew, a lieutenant in the United States Army, posted a response to Ms. Warren's speech in response to my son's Facebook posting.
Such is how the internet works these days, I suppose.
I want to respond to my nephew's comments about Ms. Warren's speech, but they are so lengthy and Facebook is so cumbersome when used for lengthy discussion, that I decided to move it all here to A Moment's Pause.
This will occur in four parts. This is the first part, where I try to explain what I'm doing.
The second part will be the edited portion of Ms. Warren's speech, to which the USA Today article referred and, thus, the version of the speech to which my nephew was referring when he made his extensive comments. I have transcribed Ms. Warren's words from the video. I have tried to transcribe them literally.
The third part will be my nephew's comments about Ms. Warren's speech. Those are taken directly and unedited from his Facebook response to my son's posting.
The fourth part will be my response to my nephew's comments.
Friday, September 9, 2011
The Most Important Thing
In a recent campaign speech, Governor Rick Perry, a Texas Republican, told his audience that the most important thing they had to do was defeat Barrack Obama in the next election.
Really? The most important thing?
More important than winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
More important than bringing the troops home from those countries?
More important than balancing the federal budget?
More important than reducing the federal deficit?
More important than protecting the financial good faith of the United States?
More important than reducing the unemployment rate?
More important than repairing our failing infrastructure?
More important than closing Guantanamo?
More important than protecting the United States from another terrorist attack?
If that's true, if he really believes what he said, then he would, naturally, not want to do any of those things while Obama is President, because, if any of those things happened, then it would be more likely, even if just a little, that President Obama would be re-elected, and Rick Perry thinks the most important thing is to keep President Obama from being re-elected.
In other words, the most important thing is to defeat President Obama, not to improve the welfare of the United States. So, it's good when bad things happen to the United States during President Obama's administration, because that makes it easier to do the most important thing.
If that's true, that would explain an awful lot of the things the Republicans in Congress have been doing lately.
So, once again, we are left with some options to explain Governor Perry's words.
1. He didn't really mean it, but he just didn't think about the implications of what he was saying before he said it.
2. He didn't really mean it, and he knew he didn't really mean it when he said it, which makes him a liar.
3. He did really mean it, and he thinks defeating President Obama really is more important than anything else that would be good for the United States.
I know what I think. Frankly, I think it's more than a little interesting that every time Rick Perry says something outrageous, one of the options to explain it - the common option in every case - is that Rick Perry is a liar.
But, whichever option one believes - he speaks without considering the implications of his words, he lies, or he really doesn't want the United States and, by extension, average Americans, to do well during President Obama's term - anyone deciding whether to vote for Rick Perry for President will have to decide if he or she is comfortable having a President like that.
On the other hand, if we don't do something about global climate change, and do it fast, it won't really matter who is President.
Really? The most important thing?
More important than winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
More important than bringing the troops home from those countries?
More important than balancing the federal budget?
More important than reducing the federal deficit?
More important than protecting the financial good faith of the United States?
More important than reducing the unemployment rate?
More important than repairing our failing infrastructure?
More important than closing Guantanamo?
More important than protecting the United States from another terrorist attack?
If that's true, if he really believes what he said, then he would, naturally, not want to do any of those things while Obama is President, because, if any of those things happened, then it would be more likely, even if just a little, that President Obama would be re-elected, and Rick Perry thinks the most important thing is to keep President Obama from being re-elected.
In other words, the most important thing is to defeat President Obama, not to improve the welfare of the United States. So, it's good when bad things happen to the United States during President Obama's administration, because that makes it easier to do the most important thing.
If that's true, that would explain an awful lot of the things the Republicans in Congress have been doing lately.
So, once again, we are left with some options to explain Governor Perry's words.
1. He didn't really mean it, but he just didn't think about the implications of what he was saying before he said it.
2. He didn't really mean it, and he knew he didn't really mean it when he said it, which makes him a liar.
3. He did really mean it, and he thinks defeating President Obama really is more important than anything else that would be good for the United States.
I know what I think. Frankly, I think it's more than a little interesting that every time Rick Perry says something outrageous, one of the options to explain it - the common option in every case - is that Rick Perry is a liar.
But, whichever option one believes - he speaks without considering the implications of his words, he lies, or he really doesn't want the United States and, by extension, average Americans, to do well during President Obama's term - anyone deciding whether to vote for Rick Perry for President will have to decide if he or she is comfortable having a President like that.
On the other hand, if we don't do something about global climate change, and do it fast, it won't really matter who is President.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Insignificant Washington
On August 13, in his speach announcing that he was running for President of the United States, Republican Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, said that if he were elected President, he would work "to make Washington, D.C., as insignificant in our lives as possible."
Now, he wants the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help deal with the wildfires currently burning in Texas, especially the one burning in Bastrop County, and wants United States Army resources from Fort Hood to help out as well.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Washington would be less significant in the lives of the fire victims if the federal disaster agency and the federal military were not involved.
Almost all of the folks who have lost their homes to these wildfires are going to need loans to rebuild. Federal loans are some of the most beneficial for people involved in natural disasters. I wonder, if Rick Perry were President, would he want the federal government to make those loans, or would he tell the wildfire victims in Texas that it was a good thing for them to have "Washington, D.C., as insignificant in [their] lives as possible."
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
Now, he wants the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help deal with the wildfires currently burning in Texas, especially the one burning in Bastrop County, and wants United States Army resources from Fort Hood to help out as well.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Washington would be less significant in the lives of the fire victims if the federal disaster agency and the federal military were not involved.
Almost all of the folks who have lost their homes to these wildfires are going to need loans to rebuild. Federal loans are some of the most beneficial for people involved in natural disasters. I wonder, if Rick Perry were President, would he want the federal government to make those loans, or would he tell the wildfire victims in Texas that it was a good thing for them to have "Washington, D.C., as insignificant in [their] lives as possible."
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)