Liz Warren’s Progressive Theory – Applied

Posted September 29th, 2011 by Iron Mike

This is what she’s been teaching at Harvard?  Sort of.

10 Responses to “Liz Warren’s Progressive Theory – Applied”

  1. TeaTime

    This is a great analogy. I love it.

    Her speech was amazing. She tries to make an argument by focusing on the one piece that serves her philosophy. She fails to finish the argument to the logical end.
    “Ms. Warren…how did we pay for those roads and services?” Let me fill you in. It was from the taxes that were taken from the paychecks we earned from the jobs that were given to us by those evil wealthy people known as business owners!

    Capitalism made this country great. How can you cry victim when you have a flat scrren TV, Blackberries, 2 cars in the garage, weekly manicures, etc? What a bunch of spoiled brats these “new” Americans are.

    Thanks for letting me vent, guys.

  2. Ryan

    Umm… This is a rape joke. If you think rape is funny you’re horrible and your opinions are invalid. End of Story.

  3. Erin

    I agree with Ryan. It’s one thing to criticize her “theory”, but when you have to stoop to the level of making stupid sex/rape jokes, it’s pretty pathetic. Come up with something more original next time.

    Come on Erin, – did you at least watch her original U-Tube video? Do you understand parody? Do you understand that she is all for ripping off big business to pay for her socialist pipe derams? Do you even live in Massachusetts?

    Oh well, at least we finally got your attention . . .

  4. Jessica

    This is an absolutely ridiculous analogy. Elizabeth Warren is suggesting two things: 1) That tax money allowed some people to become rich, therefore 2) Rich people should pay back some of the taxes that allowed them to become rich in the first place.

    In your analogy, you say: 1) That tax money allowed some women to become hot, therefore 2) Women should have sex with people the government chooses… what? Part (2) is where the analogy falls apart. If you argued that hot women made more money because they were hot, and therefore they should pay more taxes, it would make more sense. Or if Elizabeth Warren were arguing that the government could literally take your factory (which is the “body” created by the roads to the gym etc.) it might even make a little more sense. As-is, it makes no sense.

    Look, I understand that you Republicans believe people should keep a higher portion of what they earn. I get it. We can have a civilized conversation about that if you’d like. However, by implying that money, which is used as a medium of exchange for goods and services, is the exact same thing as sex, you reduce all women to the status of things. You are implying that women’s bodies are, first and foremost, a medium of exchange for goods and services, just like money. This analogy is ESPECIALLY offensive when you make use it with reference to a female politician.


  5. Nice Ness

    What the fuck is wrong with you?
    – – – – – –

    READERS: We’re leaving this person [from Mt. Laurel, NJ] up so you can see how instantly liberals retreat to profanity. It’s too bad they don’t understand how cheap, tacky, and utterly transparent Mrs. Obama’s photo-op shopping trip was.

  6. Bliss

    Private stuff is yours. Public stuff is shared. Private property, like your income, should not be forcibly shared with others. Private parts should also not be forcibly shared by the government. This isn’t advocating rape, it is just illustrating to liberals how a rape of a taxpayer is equivalent to sexual rape. It would be the same message if the politician pictured was a man and not a woman, so saying it is against women betrays your own prejudices.

  7. Asehpe

    Here’s what I don’t understand.

    She does have a point. There’s a yin-yang relationship between “capitalism” and “government”, in that we have to have government (anarchism doesn’t really work). And we need everybody to pay their due share, or else the government either doesn’t work or is unfair to some group of people.

    The big problem is how much, right?

    Isn’t that the only problem there is in this whole story? How much the rich should pay, and how much the poor should pay? Doesn’t everybody else agree on everything — except on this, i.e. how much the rich and the poor should pay?

    Reps pretend that the government is trying to ‘destroy capitalism’ and ‘pluder the rich’. Dems pretend that rich people actually do nothing good for the rest of society. Both are wrong, of course.

    Or do you see any other problem here? Isn’t it simply how much do the rich, and the poor, etc. pay? Isn’t it an empirical question whether or not the rich have been paying their due share — shouldn’t we simply look at (all) taxes and check the numbers? Isn’t it all it takes?

    If so, please explain to me why this causes so much Rep-Dem discussion. To me it looks like a problem that can be solved with a little highschool math.

  8. Sdcsea

    You misspelled “borders”.

  9. Asehpe

    I try again: if all you disagree on is how much the rich (or anyone) should pay, in principle you agree with Ms Warren: without taxes, none of the things she mentioned (in her original saying, as opposed to your parody) would exist. The only problem is haggling about the price (plus of course accountability for bad use of public money — but hey, everybody is in favor of that, too).

    So much emotion about so little disagreement!…
    #$# #$# #$# #$# #$# #$#

    TOTAL Disagreement Asehpe! TOTAL!

    Elizabeth Warren and most of the so-called ‘Democrats’ are in fact 21st Century Socialists. They believe ‘government’ exists to regulate and control the lives of the people, including the economy. In their view the rulers are wiser than the mass of the people.

    In our view – government must be limited to just a few functions. It exists at the WILL and the PLEASURE of the People. It must never be allowed to become the bloated pig it is today, where 1 of every 10 working people work for some branch of government.

    Mrs. Warren wants to be IN CONTROL of your future. She is the epitome of all the wrong attitudes currently in our federal and state government. If she had her way about taxing people and industries ‘to pay for government services’ – industry will continue to flee to China.

    WE DON’T WANT all the ‘services’ Mrs. Warren wants to administer, and thus charge us for. Socialism has failed EVERYWHERE it’s been tried. Do you see anybody swimming to Cuba, Venezuela, China or North Korea?

  10. Asehpe

    But, Rabid Republican, Ms Warren doesn’t say any of these things — not in the video you parody, nor anywhere else I can see. What I see her saying in her video, as I said, is the simple truth that government needs taxes (or else you give up government and embrace anarchism), and that those who benefit from government — i.e. us — should pay them (if we want to have an army, we damn well have to pay for it; ditto for public schools, foreign policy, roads, and any whatever service you think the government is supposed to give).

    Even if government exists only for a few functions, it still needs your money. There’s no two ways about it: if you want the services, no matter how few they are, you have to pay. I mean, isn’t this a simple, valid principle of capitalism — you can’t get something for nothing?

    Which is my point. What she said, and you parodied, is not simply right: you yourself have to agree with it, or else you’re an anarchist.

    The real difference, as you said in your answer, is that you and Ms Warren disagree as to what services the government should provide. The basic thing — namely, that there has to be a government, and that we should pay for it — both of you agree 100%. The point is which services, and how much money, and who should pay what — i.e., the details, not the principle.

    Or do I misunderstand your opinion?

    It would be more interesting if you took up the actual services themselves and discussed them in detail. In fact, here’s a suggestion for a series of blog posts that I, for one, would read with interest: get every single service the current government provide — from defense / foreign policy / diplomatic relations to roads / public school / health care / civil register (marriges, births, deaths, etc.) / IDs — and tell us whether or not you think the government should be doing that, and why. That would be way more interesting than parodying Ms Warren for what you actually agree with her with (you haven’t touched in your parody any of the real differences between you and Ms Warren, namely which services the government should or shouldn’t provide.)

    Note — I’m not trying to attack you or your viewpoint. I’m neither a liberal nor a conservative (heck, I’m not even American). I’m really trying to understand your viewpoint, and how deeply it differs from the viewpoints of liberals and progressives. (The differences I’ve noticed thus far are rather superficial, I must say; politcal debate in America is so exaggerated and emotional that small differences get blown totally out of proportion. I admit, though, that it makes American politics more fun to watch. 🙂