Elizabeth Warren: Parasite on society

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, September 24. 2011

Elizabeth Warren: Parasite on society

The big man begins:

Okay, now you people know, you are well aware one of the reasons you listen is I know liberals. I know them. I know them like every square inch of my glorious naked body. Dealing with liberals is like dealing with a one-armed lunatic.

He wonders who has been producing the money to pay her salary all these years in non-profits, government, and academia. Read the whole thing - with half his brain tied behind his back, just to keep it fair.

There is a parasitic mind-set out there, and lots of people want to get on board. As I like to say, "Ask first what your country can do for you..." No heavy lifting, no accountability. In Warren's world, who does the real work? Slaves?

I have been a de facto slave to government (taxes) and academia (tuitions) most of my adult life. I give more than I can afford to non-profits and my church too, but at least that is voluntary.

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 16:32 | Comments (31) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

"Voluntary."

That's just what the government, academia, non-profits, and the church want you to think.

#1 vanderleun on 2011-09-24 19:26 (Reply)

Maggie's is now linking to Rush? Egads. You must have forgotten the logo: inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans...etceteraetceteraetcetera, as yul brynner would say.

#2 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-24 19:47 (Reply)

Yes, any mention of Rush always produces that knee-jerk reaction that party of the first part just can't be thinking for themselves and agreeing.

#2.1 Assistant VIllage Idiot (Link) on 2011-09-24 21:58 (Reply)

I try to mitigate or counterbalance any knee jerk reaction by reading the said link before commenting since perhaps there is something of merit to be found. Or not.

#2.1.1 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-24 22:02 (Reply)

Truth is, I find "pundits" on either side of the political divide with no real background work in anything meaningful - other than punditry and polemics - tiresome at best and harmful in many circumstances. Politics is divided enough at the moment and they do nothing but add fuel to the fire.

#2.1.2 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-24 22:18 (Reply)

Its called 'commentary', much like you're opining....

#2.1.2.1 Fred Zeppelin on 2011-09-25 09:31 (Reply)

Yes, agreed, but he has a product to sell so perhaps his motives and objectives are different. Not that they are "bad", so to speak, but he is in the business of selling books, making waves and too much political agreement doesn't sell. I do not mean to imply that he does not mean what he says or have every right to say it....it just he is coming from a particular POV and gig. I would just like some effective governing.

#2.1.2.1.1 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-25 09:56 (Reply)

When all assume that voting (D) or (R) is the only choice, you'll get Brown (He is what he said he is) or Warren. Each is one and both the same.

I listen to Limbaugh little; but recently, even he awakened to the fact that the GOP is Progressive Lite.

As far as partisan politics go, "you ain't seen nothing yet." More TEA Party fiscal thinking (Libertarian) is needed. Look at the upset they caused. That is partisan only if you're a Proggy Donkey.

Lose this 'partisanship' and America becomes Greece West.

#2.1.2.2 Peccable (Link) on 2011-09-25 09:37 (Reply)

You know what's sad, she's probably going to beat Scott.

#3 Rosalie on 2011-09-24 20:08 (Reply)

Sorry, I meant to type Brown.

#4 Rosalie on 2011-09-24 20:10 (Reply)

another product of "the state" , except for the modeling career.

#4.1 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-24 20:20 (Reply)

Well, sorry to see that MF has become another troll haven...

FWIW, though, Ms. Warren stumbles into a correct viewpoint (and then stumbles out just as quickly)

Like all who survive on the takings of the private sector, she threatens the basic public services - schools, fire, police, roads, defense whilst padding the insane (there's no other word) levels of spending on the balance of the Federal payments.

If, indeed, the Federal role were somehow limited to such things as the common defense & general welfare, (there used to be a document listing such things. Ah well, it was too old for little Ezra...) we would find ourselves w/lower burdens levied by the various levels of government...

#5 Jess on 2011-09-25 08:11 (Reply)

I'll assume you are referring to me. I am feeling a bit troll-like these days but in reality I just appreciate a bit of skepticism on both sides. If one wants to rant about Warren being a product of a non productive liberal state or some such, so is Scott Brown at least by reckoning of his employment and family history.

I also think there is a fair amount of misunderstanding of the supposed virtuous "private sector" which seems to exclude nonprofits and academia from any hope of joining the virtuous elite of "real business". Employees of all of these sectors pay taxes (hey, even govt folk do). Non profits are businesses with real budgets and services - and revenue sources which are not taxation.

Fiscally I am conservative, and more generally I have a libertarian bent. I believe there is some reasonable role for government, and I support the concept of a safety net for the most vulnerable or those who fall off an economic cliff temporarily. I would get rid of "other stuff" - mortgage tax deductions, a complicated tax system, and the whole health care system is an unworkable mix of nonmarket forces. Although I have a soft spot for a gov't role in space exploration. Sorry, it happens.

#5.1 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-25 08:35 (Reply)

btw, I see nothing wrong with commenting on a blog, even if one does not necessarily share all the same opinions as the post or comments as long as one is looking for a discussion/dialogue about issues. happy to disappear if it bothers you.

#5.1.1 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-25 08:43 (Reply)

"Employees of all of these sectors pay taxes (hey, even govt folk do). "

No, they do not. Part of their advertised pay is not disbursed to them, but that part is not "tax", as it is already goverment (monies taken from the private sector) funds. It is revealing that one might think otherwise...

#6 Jess on 2011-09-25 09:18 (Reply)

enlighten me then. my impression and my experience is that few workers, even gov't ones such as congressfolk are exempt from income and various other types of tax, although perhaps your point is more that is "circular" as least as it concerns income. nonprofit employees certainly pay taxes.

#6.1 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-25 09:41 (Reply)

Public employees at best can be considered to recycle tax money when they fill out their 1040s, etc. The original dollar either came from someone in the for-profit, private sector, FPPS for short, or was borrowed. Borrowing can take two forms. It is either from China or from private sector investors. If from China, it will have to be paid back by our grandchildren. When the government borrows from the private sector or taxes the FPPS it is siphoning off capital that could be used to create more goods and services that people really want and not government paper shuffling.

JLW III

#6.1.1 JLW III on 2011-09-25 10:16 (Reply)

No, please stay. It can get a little one-sided around here at times.

#7 XRay on 2011-09-25 09:33 (Reply)

why thank you for the support, XRay. If nothing else, Maggie's folks should keep their wits sharpened for when a real moonbat shows up.

#7.1 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-25 10:00 (Reply)

It is a tough and smart crowd here, Bomber Girl. True moonbats are not only a rare occurrence, they don't last very long either when they show up. It's a big table, and despite a somewhat awkward start I have a feeling you may fit right in should you be interested in doing so. Besides, I like your nic. Reminds me of Roller Derby, which, in a long-gone day I had a hankering for.

#7.1.1 XRay on 2011-09-25 21:57 (Reply)

I am actually not so new, even if (apparently) still awkward. I have been reading Maggie's for a year or two and commenting sporadically during that time (discovered it via TigerHawk), perhaps Gringo can tell you how long since he seems to keep track of such things. "Bomber" pays homage to the Bronx Bombers which will probably not endear me to anyone, not that there was a risk of that. It does feel a bit like a Roller Derby here however. I'll oil my wheels and get ready for a jam.

#7.1.1.1 Bomber Girlc on 2011-09-26 07:55 (Reply)

Yeah, I know you have commented previously, as you say, very sporadically. Though this time you seem to have hit the jackpot, so to speak. As for Bronx Bombers, it is a mixed crowd here I think, no particular allegiance and not sure a majority even care. I don't.

Ha. "I'll oil my wheels and get ready for a jam." Perfect.
.

#7.1.1.1.1 XRay on 2011-09-26 22:20 (Reply)

"enlighten me then"

Oh my. Really? You need enlightenment in understanding that all of a government employee's pay is comprised of taxes collected from the private sector? Where, pray tell, would that pay come from otherwise?

The existance of an alternative viewpoint is not a measure of it's validity.

#8 Jess on 2011-09-25 10:18 (Reply)

Jess, if you read my comments I think you will see the point was that excluding nonprofits and academia from being part of the real economy was incorrect. I assume all the money Barrister has spent on tuition was done in exchange for some sort of service, for example. And I imagine the profs paid taxes on their salaries. The (in paren) comment about even govt' folk pay taxes is true (income as well as other types of consumer and other taxes) but the revenue source for them is taxation, as I indicated by saying that the others revenue sources were NOT taxation.

#8.1 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-25 10:28 (Reply)

In any event, the more interesting question for me is more about the best way to effectively deliver services, create products. There is an appropriate role for government in some spheres, there seems to be a fuzzy and often uncomfortable corridor in the middle for others - health care and education seem to fall in here - and the marketplace would seem to be the most effective for most since it is more adaptive, or at least has been when not warped by bad policy or corruption, which is true in any sector.

#8.1.1 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-25 10:50 (Reply)

“The best way to effectively deliver” implies a system of relative values and a transparent accounting of all costs. It’s the optimum allocation of scarce resources between competing goods.

To achieve your goal, you need a system of prices in which everything is up for open bid against everything else. That’s the best way to determine, across a billion economic agents (people), how much wealth and work should be devoted to producing “health care” relative to how much devoted to “education” relative to everything else a human may need or desire.

These prices are determined between free people through a system called “markets”. Because every agent’s preferences and abilities are part of the markets, the prices discovered are implicitly more reflective of any system that does not include everyone. The open-market auction is the ultimate form of democracy.

If the aggregate statistics of pricing and spending on something like “health care” are not where you would like them, all that tell us is that you are not everyone. To coerce other toward an allocation that suits your preferences is both a less-better, less effective way to deliver services and a violation of the inherent liberty bestowed upon each by G-d.

I am astounded when listening to lefty radio, how they do not grasp that they have so much in common with with people who self-label as “libertarian”.

#8.1.1.1 foxmarks (Link) on 2011-09-25 12:54 (Reply)

Bomber Girl:
Maggie's is now linking to Rush? Egads. You must have forgotten the logo: inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans...etceteraetceteraetcetera, as yul brynner would say.
Let's go through the checklist with regard to Rush.

Inquiring: check.
Skeptical: check. Rush may not be skeptical about the same things you are skeptical about, but he definitely shows a lot of skepticism.

politically centrist: depends on your definition of centrist. What was called “liberal” in the 19th century better fits a lot of conservatives today than self-described liberals of today.

capitalist: check
anglophile: check
traditionalist : Check
New England Yankee : No. From Missourah. And while you may be a Mainuh now, you are from away- Noo Yawk- at least from your postings. Most Mainuhs will always consider you as being from away. In any event, many Maggie's Farm readers and contributors are not from New England.

Humanist: Rush is probably a churchgoer, but so are many of the Maggie’s Farm article writers. Note the many Biblical postings etc. I am not a churchgoer, but have no problem with the postings related to religion. Is Rush against YOUR religion?

Sounds like Bomber Girl posts before she thinks, as regards the above checklist. Her argument appears to boil down to this: You know dear, he's just not one of our kind. ... You know, Rush has cooties. Cooties.Cooties.Cooties. Ugh!

Bomber Girl objected to Maggie's Farm linking to what Rush said. She lacked the intellectual curiosity, the intellectual openness, or the intellectual fortitude to actually READ what Rush had written/said, and do her own Fisking of Rush. Is Bomber Girl afraid that Rush will contaminate her thinking?

Bomber Girl raised no objection to what specifically Rush had written in that piece- just an objection to Maggie's Farm having linked to Rush. You know dear, he's just not one of our kind. Granted, he ain't no New Englanduh with an advanced degree and a "balanced" viewpoint. He's a fat boy from Missourah without a degree who makes his money from radidio- and who has an ax to grind.

Bomber Girl is trying to foist her close-mindedness on others: how dare Maggie's Farm link to that fat boy propagandist! Thanks for linking to Rush, and letting me make up my own mind.

#9 Gringo on 2011-09-25 12:42 (Reply)

I misread "humans" versus "humanist."

#9.1 Gringo on 2011-09-25 14:26 (Reply)

He's also a nouveau riche country bumpkin who sold/sells lowbrow stuff to the noisome unwashed masses, instead of coming from a good family and earning a respectable living in the Places that Count. Why, if he ever got a chance to visit the White House, he'd probably track mud on the floor. Snobbery is as snobbery does. The reason everybody who doesn't listen to him despises him is that he's kicking their *** all the way to the bank.

Poor Jon Stewart. By every metric, he thinks his show is far superior to Rush, yet Rush just laughs at him, if he ever notices him. Oh, the unfairness of it all!.

Bomber Girl is like an old-money good-family Republican, horrified at the ascendancy of the rough-and-tumble Jacksonian frontiersmen.

Part of what makes Rush so ascendant, is that he is a Prince among radio hosts. He treats his callers with unfailing respect and good cheer, even when he disagrees with them. Reminding us, once again, that you catch more flies with honey, than vinegar.

#9.2 John A. Fleming on 2011-09-25 16:00 (Reply)

Why Gringo, how sweet that you pay such attention to little ol' me! To your point, 'tis true, when I read the opening salvo including the words regarding Rush's "glorious naked body," the old money good family Republican in me shut my pretty little eyes and my mind to whatever came next. When I did manage to pry them both open (eyes and mind, that is), I did try to comment on some of the underlying themes of the post and those of the commenters, without calling anyone a parasite.

I would be delighted to read more Rush on MF with you all and pursue the conversation. One small request of MF though....Often when there are links to be read, there is an accompanying picture of some lovely damsel in wheat field, or some such. Perhaps all links to Rush could have something nice too. Maybe Hugh Jackman?

Sorry for delay in response, I was off having some oysters with Mainuhs who apparently find me ok company even if I am from away....

I may have to change my moniker here though from BG to "Not your kind".

#9.3 Bomber Girl on 2011-09-25 17:15 (Reply)

Remember, we are all Kulaks now.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak

#10 al from chgo on 2011-09-25 14:47 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, September 24. 2011

Elizabeth Warren: Parasite on society