trump is serious!!!!!

[MajGenl.Meade]

All that's all the gnus there is

[oldr_n_wsr]

Thanks MGM and LJ for the rebuttal to the Warren lady. Of course "she meant" to say "everyone paid........" but she didn't. Just as Obama went on about "you didn't build that...."
They purposely try to demonize those that try and make a go at it by starting a business, which the odds are they will be unsuccessful at. So they not only get to take the risk and put their own money up (and any investors money), they also pay plenty of taxes be it payroll taxes, property taxes, school taxes, gas taxes, and I am sure I am missing some taxes. And lets not forget about any licenses and permits and other things a business may have to contend with (aka pay "fees" for these things).

But lets demonize them by pointing out that they are taking advantage of all these things provided for them by our benevolent government, all the while forgetting to mention that ALL of us use those same things they are being demonized for taking advantage of.


Years ago a buddy and I started a roofing and siding business. You would not believe the amount of fees/licenses/permits (taxes by any other name suck just as bad) and payroll taxes (paid by employer not just the employee) it made my head spin. Maybe GE and Apple can park their money off shore and pay no business taxes, but the average small-medium business owner pays and pays and pays.

And at the end of it all, who determines what anyones "fair share" is?

[Big RR]

oldr--I don't think anyone is demonizing the business owners, but I have heard many (owners and non owners alike) that the owner built the business on his/her own and should not be penalized or taxed on the profits (or at least the capital gains); Warren's statement appears to rebut this by pointing out that the "rest of us" paid for a lot of what he owner used to build the business on his/her own. Not the clearest message, but then it is a statement out of context, so I am pretty sure that's what she was addressing.

And as a small business owner I empathize with your complaint about licenses and fees charged, but then all of us have those things as well, from payroll taxes we pay on our salaries to license and registration fees for our autos, etc.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Clumsy wording at best and bad intent at worst.
I'll give the benefit of a doubt and say it's both.

ETA
With a lean toward "bad intent"

[Econoline]

oldr - I don't see how you can infer "bad intent" or "demonizing" from words like "You built a factory out there. Good for you." and "You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it."

Do you--or Meade--really disagree with the statement that "Part of the underlying social contract is that you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."? THAT--that right there--is the concluding sentence of the meme, after all.

When you take a short clip out of what was probably a much longer speech (yes, Sen. Warren is much more likely to be long-winded than to be terse and sound-bitey! ) and concentrate on the fact that she said "the rest of us paid for" rather than "the rest of us paid most of the cost of" and ignore the conclusion and clear intent of the statement...that's giving missing words more importance than words that are actually there. A person who claims that *HE* paid 100% of the cost of something when he only paid 1% of the cost is a LOT further off than someone who claims that *SOMEONE ELSE* paid 100% rather than 99%.

If you agree that there IS a social contract, then we can argue about the relative size of the hunk that gets paid forward compared to the hunk that the hypothetical factory owner keeps--but that's QUITE a different argument from saying that the social contract is a myth and that the guy should keep everything and give no one else anything.

[MajGenl.Meade]

oldr - I don't see how you can infer "bad intent" or "demonizing" from words like "You built a factory out there. Good for you." and "You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it."

Do you--or Meade--really disagree with the statement that "Part of the underlying social contract is that you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."? THAT--that right there--is the concluding sentence of the meme, after all.....

If you agree that there IS a social contract, then we can argue about the relative size of the hunk that gets paid forward compared to the hunk that the hypothetical factory owner keeps--but that's QUITE a different argument from saying that the social contract is a myth and that the guy should keep everything and give no one else anything.

In reverse order:
No one here has stated that a business owner should keep everything and give no one else anything (i.e. pays taxes)

I don't know about social contracts - but part of the law is that people and business pay taxes. Is that in dispute?

Oh, I cannot read "good for you" and "God bless!" and "Keep a hunk of it" as anything other than cheap sarcasm. So bad intent and demonizing is easily spotted - as it is in the categorical statement that "the rest of us" paid taxes (while you didn't you filthy businessperson)

If all she's saying is that business taxes are justifiable - what a waste of hot air that is.

[Long Run]

If all she's saying is that business taxes are justifiable - what a waste of hot air that is.

Exactly, everything else is just a strawman. The question is what is the appropriate level of taxation where a person goes way beyond what the normal person does, takes chances, deals with the enormous and growing regulatory burdens, risks capital and builds a business that defies odds and becomes successful. Maybe this is a lightening rod issue when raised by pinheads like Warren and Obama who never had to make a payroll and wouldn't have a clue how to run a business. They are viewed as sitting in their ivory tower looking down on the very people who are the key to creating wealth in society, which, of course, makes everything else possible. They're just engaging in their typical patronizing tone that those keys to wealth creation really don't have a right to believe their success is due primarily to their efforts, which, of course, justifies taking larger sums from such businesses. Any number of people on this board are more viable spokespeople for making the argument.

[Sue U]

What Warren was doing in her comments was addressing the perennial GOP boogeyman that the Democrats and liberals generally are engaging in some kind of "class warfare" by asking that the wealthy (not only business owners, but that was the example she used) pay more taxes. Here it is in context:



Frankly, I don't see why anyone is all worked up about what she said.

As for "class warfare," I see that most plainly in the "47%" comments of Mitt Romney and other corporate shills who like to claim that nearly half the country are "moochers" and "takers" "sucking on the government teat" and otherwise morally degenerate because poor.

There is a legitimate political debate to be had about what is the "fair share" of taxes that should be paid by the wealthy and for whose benefit the nation's economy should be working, but whining about who's being mean or not pin-point accurate in off-the-cuff political remarks doesn't move that discussion forward.

[Lord Jim]

If all she's saying is that business taxes are justifiable - what a waste of hot air that is.

Exactly, everything else is just a strawman. The question is what is the appropriate level of taxation where a person goes way beyond what the normal person does, takes chances, deals with the enormous and growing regulatory burdens, risks capital and builds a business that defies odds and becomes successful.

Huzzah...

Can't see much to disagree with there...

What Warren was doing in her comments was addressing the perennial GOP boogeyman that the Democrats and liberals generally are engaging in some kind of "class warfare"

Now you see, this is an excellent example of how reasonably intelligent and reasonably well educated people, (and I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Meade, Long Run, Sue and your humble corespondent all fall into those categories) can, looking at the same set of facts, reach very different conclusions...

When I look at what Warren said, I don't see someone addressing "class warfare" as a "perennial GOP boogeyman"...

I see the left-wing populist, ignorant of economics, verbiage of Warren and other demagogues of her ilk, (like Sanders) as proof positive confirming a desire to wage "class warfare"...

It's not some mythical "boogeyman"...

It's their whole raison d'etre.....

In fact they're really quite open about it...(though of course they would never be intellectually honest enough to put it in those terms...)

[Lord Jim]

Trump Declares GOP Pledge Null And Void

The Republican pledge is dead, and Donald Trump is the one who killed it.

On Tuesday night, the GOP front-runner said the pledge he once signed to back the eventual nominee had been made null and void, thanks to unfair treatment from the Republican National Committee.

"Do you continue to pledge [to support] whoever the Republican nominee is?" Cooper asked.

"No, I don't anymore," Trump replied.

Trump indicated his decision came after months of open efforts by "the RNC, the Republican Party, the establishment" to undermine his candidacy and prevent him from securing the nomination.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... l-and-void

Good, get out...

Let the door knob hit you where the good Lord split you...

If you want to run third party, then bring it on, bitch....

If you cost us the 2016 election,(which we should win) so be it...

We'll recover from that...

We'll recover a helluvalot more quickly (even if Ted Cruz is the nominee) then we will if you are the nominee...

Every single rule that can be used to prevent you from getting the nomination must be brought to bear...(In 44 of 56 delegate contests, the candidates have no say in who the delegates are... how many of those party regular types do you figure are true Trump devotees? Get this to a second ballot, (or a rules vote releasing delegates for the first ballot) and Trump is finished...

Donald, you don't think you've been treated fairly, and you want to run Third Party...

Go for it dude...

Just get the fuck out of my Party...

You can't do any more damage then you already have...

ETA:

And take your Trumpanzees, and your Trump-tards and your Cable News talking head Trumpford Wives with you...

There's the door...let me get your hat and your coat...

I'm full up with your bullying threats...

[BoSoxGal]

And take your Trumpanzees, and your Drumpf-tards and your Cable News talking head Trumpford Wives with you...

Here we see the flaw in the app that removes Trump and replaces it with Drumpf in everything I read online - it only works when Trump is a separate word.

[Burning Petard]

Somebody else said it, and now it is floating around on the NY Times but

Trump is a parody of everything the Liberals claim to be horrible about the GOP

[oldr_n_wsr]

oldr - I don't see how you can infer "bad intent" or "demonizing" from words like "You built a factory out there. Good for you." and "You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it."

The whole tone of the message is demonizing. It riles up those who don't by demonizing of those who do. That those who do somehow are not keeping with the "social contract" which if they didn't there would be inditements and possible prison. Try being not one of the "elite" ** and not pay taxes on every cent that crosses your hand or business and see how long you are in business.

(and I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Meade, Long Run, Sue and your humble corespondent all fall into those categories)

I don't qualify!?!?!?!?


** and there are Dem elites too, probably just as many as there are Repubs and engage in the exact same conduct.

[Burning Petard]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/are-we-g ... 58390.html

I know almost nothing about Matt Bai, but this comment about media, coming from Yahoo pundit who was once on staff at Time magazine is informative.
The interjected items about 'How to talk like Trump' are nice too.

Sometimes history can be informative. Mr. Hart seems to have gotten it right.

snailgate

[Sue U]

When I look at what Warren said, I don't see someone addressing "class warfare" as a "perennial GOP boogeyman"...

Did you actually watch the video, Jim? The preface to her quote above was "I hear all this, you know, 'this is is class warfare.'" The GOP loves to claim that any attempt to reorder any aspect of society is class warfare, and therefore implicitly evil for some reason.

Personally, I think there is nothing at all wrong with class warfare (or "class struggle" in the classical formulation). If we are honest, all politics is class struggle: The ruling classes seek to maintain control and increase their advantages in socio-economic activity, while the disempowered seek to gain a greater measure of control and a greater share of the benefits of socio-economic activity.

The Trumpists and the GOP are engaged in a class war right now: Trump and his sansculottes are seeking to wrest power and control from the ruling "establishment" country-club Republican elite. The problem with the Trump revolt is that it has no other coherent policy agenda; its leader refuses to articulate one, and that's just fine with his angry mob.

[Sue U]

The whole tone of the message is demonizing. It riles up those who don't by demonizing of those who do. That those who do somehow are not keeping with the "social contract" which if they didn't there would be inditements and possible prison. Try being not one of the "elite" ** and not pay taxes on every cent that crosses your hand or business and see how long you are in business.

oldr, if you think violation of the social contract means there would be indictments and possible prison, then you have not been paying attention. The "financial services" weasels who frankly defrauded the market and crashed the economy with bullshit CDO/CDS securities have not been brought to justice, but are back to their old tricks and making as much money as ever -- much of it at your expense, since the government has essentially been giving money away to institutional borrowers. Have you noticed that both the stock AND bond markets have been generally up (and to historic levels for equities)? Yet I'll bet dollars to donuts that your retirement savings don't match the market climb since 2009. Where has the money gone? The top one-tenth of the top 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans have seen the greatest increase in the share of wealth since 2009. (Since 1960, the top 0.01% has seen a staggering rise in its share of wealth distribution from about 3% to more than 11% today).

For the last four years, I have been a small business owner myself. I don't feel "demonized" by Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (in fact, I have contributed to both their campaigns). I pay lots of taxes and fees. But despite the costs and the risks, I am doing pretty well (I'll know more exactly in about two weeks). I'm not "envious" of anyone else's lifestyle and I'm not whining about how much I have to pay; I wouldn't mind too much if I had to pay more to provide better social welfare benefits for our country, although I think there is probably enough money in the system already if we really took stock of our priorities and altered the way that money is spent.

[rubato]

"... The GOP loves to claim that any attempt to reorder any aspect of society is class warfare, and therefore implicitly evil for some reason.

... " .

According to the GOP it is only class warfare if you are protecting the poor and weak. If you are enriching the wealthy and making the poor more miserable it is not.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Personally, I think there is nothing at all wrong with class warfare (or "class struggle" in the classical formulation).

Well Sue, I respect you for being honest about that...

I just watched the video, and I don't find anything in there that contradicts my earlier expressed conclusions...(with one exception; I agree with her that it is absolutely idiotic that we are not using the enormous purchasing power of the federal health system to negociate lower prices for prescription drugs)

That having been said, Warren's expressed "understanding" of economics is borderline infantile...

She's clearly trying to create an "us versus them" paradigm...She's arguing that there are these "business owners" on the one hand, who have no cost and receive nothing but benefit, and "the rest of us " on the other, who are somehow gifting these robber barons with some sort of collective largess...

it's a fanciful and non-existent economic model...Every bit as silly and divorced from reality as many of the things Trump has said...

No one is arguing that business owners shouldn't pay taxes...as Long Run pointed out, that's a complete strawman...

Let's drill down on this just a little bit...

Before Mr. Capitalist (for the purpose of this example, let's call him Mr. Cosmo Spacely) can even build his factory, he has to go through a lengthy and expensive process (involving payments to many lawyers... ) and meeting all sorts of zoning requirements, just to acquire the land it's going to be built on...

Then he has to pay the architects to design it, and the workers to build it...(all of whom are also presumably paying taxes...including the lawyers ) ...so he's already generating revenue for "the rest of us" long before the first Spacely Sprocket comes off the assembly line...

Then at long last the factory is built, and he's employing people, (everyone from Vice President Jetson down to the line factory workers... all of whom are now, rather then being on the dole, gainfully employed thanks to the investment of Cosmo Spacely...and they're all paying taxes too...rather than having to be subsidized by government payouts, that "the rest of us" pay for...)

So after this enormous capital layout (much of which goes into the coffers of local, state and federal government agencies) he finally has his factory up and running...

Paying his business taxes, and his now gainfully employed employees also paying their taxes...(as well as putting money into the local economy that allows other businesses to stay in business, which puts them in the position of providing even more tax revenue... all thanks to the existence of Spacely Sprockets...

But it's not all good for Cosmo...

Because despite all the investment he has made, and all the good he has done to generate revenue for "the rest of us" in so many ways and on so many levels, he could still be out competed by Cogswell Cogs and the whole thing could come a cropper...

So in addition to the investment, he's also taking an enormous risk...

That may be a simplistic model, but it's infinitely more sophisticated and realistic then the "You built a factory, congratulations, now you owe us" theory on offer from Warren, Sanders and Co.....

[Bicycle Bill]

And take your Trumpanzees, and your Drumpf-tards and your Cable News talking head Trumpford Wives with you...

Here we see the flaw in the app that removes Trump and replaces it with Drumpf in everything I read online - it only works when Trump is a separate word.

Just how would "Trumpford Wives" look if the app turning every instance of "T-r-u-m-p" into Drumpf worked?  Would there be two "f"s ("Drumpfford Wives"), or would it try to eliminate the redundancy and make it only one "f" ("Drumpford Wives"), or would it hyphenate it ("Drumpf-ford Wives")?
And then there would be the problem when you are *NOT* talking about Trumpty-Dumpty; let's say you were looking at an article about Maynard Ferguson, Chuck Mangione, or Herb Alpert, all of whom are well-known trumpet players, not drumpfet players.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

According to the GOP it is only class warfare if you are protecting the poor and weak. If you are enriching the wealthy and making the poor more miserable it is not.

That's an "understanding" of economics that doesn't even rise to the level of infantile...maybe "fetus" level