Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments

[General Mung Beans]

Redistribution of wealth is a socialist idea. Certainly you're not going to deny this.

Strictly speaking yes, but it is not a uniquely socialist idea. This is like saying revolutionary leftists are really libertarians since both oppose gun control.

Swiss citizens are subject to laws on three different levels, the commune, the canton and the federal laws.

The point being?

Warren is a far left extreme socialist. Nothing more, nothing less.

She isn't anymore left-wing or "socialist" than Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman or Hubert Humphrey. Of course in the world of the American far-right, even Burkean conservatives are quasi-Marxists due to their refusal to uncritically accept capitalism.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Strictly speaking yes, but it is not a uniquely socialist idea. This is like saying revolutionary leftists are really libertarians since both oppose gun control.

Massive wealth-grabs with the intent of propping up failed ventures run by the state have only historically been done by socialist governments.

The point being?

Meaning Switzerland is the most expensive place to live, due to their crushing social welfare system.

She isn't anymore left-wing or "socialist" than Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman or Hubert Humphrey. Of course in the world of the American far-right, even Burkean conservatives are quasi-Marxists due to their refusal to uncritically accept capitalism.

Sigh. She supports confiscatory, arbitrary taxes designed to make good on failed government programs, and well-connected union pensions. If you can show me any of the ones you mentioned supporting such, I'll gladly call them marxist, just for you.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Those states are social democratic at best, not socialist.

Top Ten Socialist Countries of the World:

• China
• Denmark
• Finland
• Netherlands
• Canada
• Sweden
• Norway
• Ireland
• New Zealand
• Belgium

Unfortunately, though, Warren isn't a social democrat, just a modestly reformist liberal.

She wants to eliminate student loan interest and increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, but she's not a socialist? She defended Obama's "You didn't build that ... " rant. She is all for wealth redistribution. She thinks government ought to control almost everything. She said in her book, A Fighting Chancehttp://www.amazon.com/A-Fighting-Chance-Elizabeth-Warren/dp/1627790527:

“Washington works for anyone who can hire an army of lobbyists and lawyers. It just doesn’t work for regular families,” she said. “They’ve got the concentration of money and power that makes sure that every rule works for those who are rich. What we have on the other side, is we’ve only got two things. We’ve got our voices and we’ve got our votes. And we’ve got to make sure we get heard. That’s the only way we ever get a level playing field.”

Makes y'all warm and fuzzy inside, don't it? Her, getting down in the trenches with her homies, the poor, unemployed and disenfranchised?

But wait a minute ... Who exactly is this “We” and “Our”?

She's actually a slimy lawyer running as a class warrior, but her real clients are the "1%" and people think she's a Socialist?

She's political parasite who lies twelve times before breakfast, who would rather jump off a bridge than work for a living, all the while living off the money forcibly redistributed from those who do work … and crazy people decide She's a Socialist?

Elizabeth Warren is establishment Washington. She embodies Washington. She’s an academic and a lawyer and a politician and a regulator.

And then she starts talking about all the “little people” like her who have to make do with a $740,000 condo and her pitiful $15 million net worth.

Who’s going to stand up for the little lawyer/regulator/politicians with only 1.5 billion pennies to scratch together?

By golly, Elizabeth Warren will!

[/sarcasm]

 

[Revmitchell]

She isn't anymore left-wing or "socialist" than Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman or Hubert Humphrey. Of course in the world of the American far-right, even Burkean conservatives are quasi-Marxists due to their refusal to uncritically accept capitalism.

Anyone who wants to confiscate wealth fro redistribution is an extremist. Anyone who thinks government is to be everyone's savior is an extremist. Anyone who is not for smaller government is an extremist. Anyone who thinks no one built their business on their own just because they use the American highway system is not only an extremist but a communist/socialist/progressive all being the same thing.


By the way is this you?

http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/offtopic/general_mung_beans

 

[General Mung Beans]

Massive wealth-grabs with the intent of propping up failed ventures run by the state have only historically been done by socialist governments.

What do you mean by "failed ventures run by the state"? Are you specifying state-owned enterprises only?

Meaning Switzerland is the most expensive place to live, due to their crushing social welfare system.

I'm willing to trade-off a slightly higher cost of living for workers being compensated better. That said, Switzerland's high costs comes from other factors such as the lack of immigration resulting in a fairly constrained labour force.

Sigh. She supports confiscatory, arbitrary taxes designed to make good on failed government programs, and well-connected union pensions. If you can show me any of the ones you mentioned supporting such, I'll gladly call them marxist, just for you.

For starters all three of these politicians supported universal health care of some sort, with Truman in particular calling for single-payer. And this highlights the absurdity of the claim, since obvious all three of them were strident anti-communists (well TR died soon after the Bolshevist Revolution but its unlikely he had any fondness for Lenin).

Top Ten Socialist Countries of the World:

• China
• Denmark
• Finland
• Netherlands
• Canada
• Sweden
• Norway
• Ireland
• New Zealand
• Belgium

I'm not taking that list seriously considering it doesn't even list the two countries with economies that are actually state-run: North Korea and Cuba.

By contrast, the conservative Heritage Foundation has listed several of the countries mentioned above as paragons of economic freedom with New Zealand at fifth place, Canada at sixth, Ireland at 9th, and Denmark at 10th-all of them higher ranked than the United States: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

She wants to eliminate student loan interest and increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, but she's not a socialist? She defended Obama's "You didn't build that ... " rant. She is all for wealth redistribution. She thinks government ought to control almost everything.

Neither eliminating the student loan interest nor raising the minimum wage is a uniquely socialist policy. If she was calling for nationalizing most of the nation's big businesses or advocating an actual 95% income tax rate for top earners you might have a point.

She said in her book, A Fighting Chancehttp://www.amazon.com/A-Fighting-Chance-Elizabeth-Warren/dp/1627790527:Makes y'all warm and fuzzy inside, don't it? Her, getting down in the trenches with her homies, the poor, unemployed and disenfranchised?

But wait a minute ... Who exactly is this “We” and “Our”?

She's actually a slimy lawyer running as a class warrior, but her real clients are the "1%" and people think she's a Socialist?

She's political parasite who lies twelve times before breakfast, who would rather jump off a bridge than work for a living, all the while living off the money forcibly redistributed from those who do work … and crazy people decide She's a Socialist?

Elizabeth Warren is establishment Washington. She embodies Washington. She’s an academic and a lawyer and a politician and a regulator.

And then she starts talking about all the “little people” like her who have to make do with a $740,000 condo and her pitiful $15 million net worth.

Who’s going to stand up for the little lawyer/regulator/politicians with only 1.5 billion pennies to scratch together?

By golly, Elizabeth Warren will!

[/sarcasm]

Right because Elizabeth Warren is the only American politician who tried to appeal to people as "one of them". I'm sure Ronald Reagan never did that or George W. Bush *sarcasm*. At least Warren advocates policies that will ameliorate the relentless upward redistribution of income that has been occurring in the United States for the last generation.

Anyone who wants to confiscate wealth fro redistribution is an extremist.

I don't support redistribution to soak the rich-I support it to expand the social safety net and because extreme and high income inequality tends to have bad effects for society.

Anyone who thinks government is to be everyone's savior is an extremist.

Good since I know of nobody who thinks that way.

Anyone who is not for smaller government is an extremist.

So are pro-lifers extremist? Are people who call for the National Guard at the border extremist?

Anyone who thinks no one built their business on their own just because they use the American highway system is not only an extremist but a communist/socialist/progressive all being the same thing.

Yes and I'm sure Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons are all the same too.

By the way is this you?

http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/offtopic/general_mung_beans

Yes I admit that one of my shames is that I used to troll forums a few years back, although since then I have put away at least some of my childish things. I should note that I was a right-winger back in those days as the article should note.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't support redistribution to soak the rich-I support it

Enough said, there is no good reason to support it.

So are pro-lifers extremist? Are people who call for the National Guard at the border extremist?

Neither one of those expand the government.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Enough said, there is no good reason to support it.

Evidence from foreign countries suggest otherwise.

Neither one of those expand the government.

How so? The enactment of pro-life legislation (which I support BTW), would ban a previously tolerated procedure, similarly the latter will result in a stronger security apparatus at the border.

 

[Revmitchell]

Evidence from foreign countries suggest otherwise.

The only thing that supports is why not to do it.

How so? The enactment of pro-life legislation (which I support BTW), would ban a previously tolerated procedure,

Aaannddd...how does that expand government?

similarly the latter will result in a stronger security apparatus at the border.

And?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

What do you mean by "failed ventures run by the state"? Are you specifying state-owned enterprises only?

Social security, among several others.

I'm willing to trade-off a slightly higher cost of living for workers being compensated better. That said, Switzerland's high costs comes from other factors such as the lack of immigration resulting in a fairly constrained labour force.

And a crushing problem with unfunded liabilities.

For starters all three of these politicians supported universal health care of some sort, with Truman in particular calling for single-payer. And this highlights the absurdity of the claim, since obvious all three of them were strident anti-communists (well TR died soon after the Bolshevist Revolution but its unlikely he had any fondness for Lenin).

Think any of them would force birth control mandates on us ? Really ? Teddy Roosevelt ? Really ?

 

[Revmitchell]

Speaking at a liberal bloggers' convention, Elizabeth Warren outlined her list of "11 commandments of progressivism".
Sadly, "make a lick of sense" - not on the list.~ Fred Thompson

 

[General Mung Beans]

Social security, among several others.

Social Security's financial problems would be solved if we just removed the payroll tax cap.

And a crushing problem with unfunded liabilities.

See above.

Think any of them would force birth control mandates on us ? Really ? Teddy Roosevelt ? Really ?

If we did not have employer-dependent health care for most Americans (which we wouldn't have had if we'd had actual universal health care as proposed by any of those gentlemen), this wouldn't be an issue. Anyways, that's a red herring-you are ignoring their stances on the vast majority of issues.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

For starters all three of these politicians supported universal health care of some sort, with Truman in particular calling for single-payer.

Truman never called for a universal single-payer system. That is a gross distortion of history. Truman never even considered offering an insurance program the size and scope of the Obamacare disaster. And his plan was for a true insurance program, one that participants had to pay for in order to participate in. (Harry S. Truman Library and Museum).

I'm not taking that list seriously considering it doesn't even list the two countries with economies that are actually state-run: North Korea and Cuba.

This proves you don't even understand the difference between Socialism and Communism. Socialism is not a state-controlled political system as are North Korea and Cuba. Those are Communist states. The rest, yes, General, are socialist states.

By contrast, the conservative Heritage Foundation has listed several of the countries mentioned above as paragons of economic freedom with New Zealand at fifth place, Canada at sixth, Ireland at 9th, and Denmark at 10th-all of them higher ranked than the United States:

That doesn't prevent them from operating on socialistic principles. Socialist nations can still be free-enterprise nations. It is just that the a large portion, to varying degrees, of business and industry is owned by the state. The danger of that is state-owned and controlled enterprises can artificially control costs, pricing and availability. You obviously don't even understand the terms being discussed, so your contributions will tend to be off-topic and misinformed.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Social Security's financial problems would be solved if we just removed the payroll tax cap.

More money.

See above.

Insolvency.

If we did not have employer-dependent health care for most Americans (which we wouldn't have had if we'd had actual universal health care as proposed by any of those gentlemen), this wouldn't be an issue. Anyways, that's a red herring-you are ignoring their stances on the vast majority of issues.

Universal health care for free. Administered to us by the same folks running the V.A., and the social security programs, along with countless government boondoggle, forced onto us under the guise of caring for the poor. You seem to have the stance that if the government did more for us, we wouldn't have so many responsibilities.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yep that is the extreme liberals answer to everything. Take more money from the tax payer and give it to someone else.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Truman never called for a universal single-payer system. That is a gross distortion of history. Truman never even considered offering an insurance program the size and scope of the Obamacare disaster. And his plan was for a true insurance program, one that participants had to pay for in order to participate in. (Harry S. Truman Library and Museum).

I stand corrected with Truman proposing a single-payer system, however Truman still clearly wanted health care access for all Americans and since the 1940s medical care has become steadily more expensive. People would also pay for the insurance plans they would receive under the Affordable Care Act. Its true President Truman's health care plan was far more simpler but that's because it would have had a simple "public option" anybody could opt into. Such a public option was proposed during the initial stages of the ACA but was not included thanks to right-wing Democrats such as Joe Liberman.

This proves you don't even understand the difference between Socialism and Communism. Socialism is not a state-controlled political system as are North Korea and Cuba. Those are Communist states.

So then are you saying communism is a purely political system? Are you denying that the economies of these states are socialistic? Most people I've talked would agree that communism is a subset of socialism-that it still involves the implmentation of socialistic economics.

The rest, yes, General, are socialist states.That doesn't prevent them from operating on socialistic principles. Socialist nations can still be free-enterprise nations.

Socialistic nations may have capitalistic elements, but its absurd to think they'd be considered the nations that are most economically free. A nation cannot simulteneously be on the list of being one of the most socialistic and being most economically free.

and It is just that the a large portion, to varying degrees, of business and industry is owned by the state. The danger of that is state-owned and controlled enterprises can artificially control costs, pricing and availability.

With the exception of China, the countries you listed do not have extensive ownership of state-owned enterprises.

You obviously don't even understand the terms being discussed, so your contributions will tend to be off-topic and misinformed.

What terms do I not understand?

More money.

Yes, since it will work.

Insolvency.

And the problem has a solution.

Universal health care for free. Administered to us by the same folks running the V.A., and the social security programs, along with countless government boondoggle, forced onto us under the guise of caring for the poor. You seem to have the stance that if the government did more for us, we wouldn't have so many responsibilities.

Social Security has been highly successful as a program as is Medicare. Similarly universal health care systems are popular in the countries where they have been implemented.

 

[OldRegular]

That's an excellent summary of progressive views. One does hope that there will be significant actual progressive opposition to Hillary Clinton's brand of pro-corporate liberalism if nothing else to shift her to the left-I'd personally prefer a Sanders/Schweitzer ticket.

Why not just resurrect Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, sneak them across the border, and run them as a democrat ticket for president. Better yet run Schumer and Pelosi or dingy Harry and Turbin Durbin!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I stand corrected with Truman proposing a single-payer system, however Truman still clearly wanted health care access for all Americans ...

No offense, General, but the Librarya's article clearly indicates his proposal was only for low-income Americans. Those who "liked their insurance could actually keep their insurance." :laugh:

... and since the 1940s medical care has become steadily more expensive. People would also pay for the insurance plans they would receive under the Affordable Care Act.

... except those qualifying for subsidies, which is apparently almost everybody who applied.

Its true President Truman's health care plan was far more simpler but that's because it would have had a simple "public option" anybody could opt into.

But again, he expected those who could afford healthcare or insurance would remain status quo. After all, you're talking about a much simpler time with much simpler medical costs. I've got my hospital and physician bills from when I was born in 1952. $28. Total.

Such a public option was proposed during the initial stages of the ACA but was not included thanks to right-wing Democrats such as Joe Liberman.

The Democrats had a supermajority at the time. They got exactly what they wanted, nothing less.

So then are you saying communism is a purely political system?

No. Communism is socialism with police-state enforcement and loss of personal liberties.

Socialistic nations may have capitalistic elements, but its absurd to think they'd be considered the nations that are most economically free.

You're right. But many of them are because they don't micromanage the economy the way Obama wants to do.

A nation cannot simulteneously be on the list of being one of the most socialistic and being most economically free.

Since socialism is nothing more than state-owned enterprises, the economy can still be as freely operational as the state controllers allow it to be. New Zealand is an excellent example. It is decidedly socialist, but it has a relatively strong nucleus of entrepreneurial enterprises that compete fairly with the state-owned businesses. Not all operate that way, and most socialist governments tack on healthcare, pension funds and other exacerbating expenses that make the economy difficult to thrive.

With the exception of China, the countries you listed do not have extensive ownership of state-owned enterprises.

But key industries are state-owned.

What terms do I not understand?

I was referring to "socialism" and "communism." I've tried to explain them in these two posts.

 

[General Mung Beans]

No offense, General, but the Librarya's article clearly indicates his proposal was only for low-income Americans. Those who "liked their insurance could actually keep their insurance." :laugh:

That doesn't contradict my statement that he intended all Americans to have some form of health insurance. Most people would get it from their employers while others would take advantage of their national health insurance system.

... except those qualifying for subsidies, which is apparently almost everybody who applied.

Considering the subsidies are in the form of tax credits one would think conservatives and Republicans should like the proposal considering their eager support for tax credits for the wealthy and businesses.

But again, he expected those who could afford healthcare or insurance would remain status quo. After all, you're talking about a much simpler time with much simpler medical costs. I've got my hospital and physician bills from when I was born in 1952. $28. Total.

You are absolutely correct, and this is the reason (for example) that why subsidies are required in many cases for health insurance to be affordable and why health insurance in general is so expensive due to the existence of new treatments.

The Democrats had a supermajority at the time. They got exactly what they wanted, nothing less.

That's nonsense considering the Democrats themselves differed on what they wanted ranging from those who wanted single-payer to the conservatives like Joe Lieberman. In the end, the path of least resistance turned out to be appeasing the latter since the progressives were of the opinion that any sort of reform was preferable to none at all.

No. Communism is socialism with police-state enforcement and loss of personal liberties.

Then my point stands-Cuba and North Korea have implemented socialistic economics far more extensively than any of the countries on the list given so they are both communistic and socialistic.

You're right. But many of them are because they don't micromanage the economy the way Obama wants to do.

So are you saying those "socialistic" countries despite their more generous welfare states are preferable to the United States? In what ways has the Obama administration "micromanaged" the economy?

Since socialism is nothing more than state-owned enterprises, the economy can still be as freely operational as the state controllers allow it to be. New Zealand is an excellent example. It is decidedly socialist, but it has a relatively strong nucleus of entrepreneurial enterprises that compete fairly with the state-owned businesses. Not all operate that way, and most socialist governments tack on healthcare, pension funds and other exacerbating expenses that make the economy difficult to thrive.

So you are saying that despite all this, New Zealand's economy is still freer than that of the United States? Also I'm pretty sure New Zealand's government guarantees healthcare, pensions funds, and so forth.

But key industries are state-owned.

Such as which industries?

I was referring to "socialism" and "communism." I've tried to explain them in these two posts.

[/QUOTE]