17 thoughts on “Elizabeth Warren’s Pregnancy Story”

  1. It is also credible that Warren believed then and still believes now that she was “railroaded” because of pregnancy. Human psyche trumps objective reality, as it were.

    My Grandmother once told me in all seriousness that she had a car “stolen”, later I was informed that it had been repossessed by the bank. The mind does funny things. I was a kid at the time so I believe that it was not a malicious action on her part — why bother to lie, eh?

    2. “It is also credible that Warren believed then and still believes now that she was “railroaded” because of pregnancy.”

      No, it’s not, because she used to tell the story in a way that’s not compatible with her current version.

      And now for an anecdote. My wife was working in a convenience store when she got pregnant with our daughter (late 90s). At no time was she given any trouble about it, and when she finally quit she was assured she could come back if she wanted to.

      As Rand says, just because some women were actually discriminated against in that way doesn’t mean Lieawatha’s telling the truth, but that’s exactly what the booger-eating moron at Vogue is saying.

  3. To any who wish to comment on a different subject about Elizabeth Warren. About Warren’s (and especially Bernie Saunders’) plan(s) to tax the crap out of billionaires; could there be a different goal other than increasing tax revenue (or even wealth redistribution)? If you taxed the crap out of Bezos for instance he would be forced to sell his Amazon shares in large amounts to pay the tax. This in turn would rapidly implode the share price; meaning the actual tax revenue the guv would get would be greatly reduced. Elizabeth Warren likely knows this; she isn’t stupid. Maybe her goal is different; there is one way around that problem. Instead of selling shares Bezos, Gates, Buffett do something else. They sign the shares over to the government to pay their tax; the government doesn’t even necessarily sell the shares after they receive them. Maybe revenue isn’t Warren goal, maybe the actual goal is power. In no time at all the federal government would find itself with majority share holdings in all the large corporations in the US; effectively in control of most of the private economy. Basically communism (the state owns the means of production) by legal means. Maybe that’s what Warren/Saunders actually intend not merely increasing tax revenue for national healthcare or whatever. Thoughts?

      1. “You are reading way too much into the Demonrats’ envy of the rich.”

        “Way to much” you say; okay because we all know that communism wasn’t/isn’t fueled by envy of the rich.

    2. Even if that were true, rich people are pretty good at figuring out how to get out from under such a threat – past evidence indicates they never fully paid those high taxes. I don’t buy that Democrats are that creative or plot that well.

      And within a few years some really high profile supporter (for past examples, the Beatles and Astrid Lindgren) will run afoul of the tax laws, having come into wealth for the first time, and then the whole thing will fall apart.

      1. “Even if that were true, rich people are pretty good at figuring out how to get out from under such a threat – past evidence indicates they never fully paid those high taxes. I don’t buy that Democrats are that creative or plot that well.”

        Even if the Dems didn’t “intend” it a wealth tax on capital assets would tend to default to what I suggested. You can’t simply right a check to pay for guv’s estimate of what they decide your worth is; very little of said wealth is liquid. Yes there would be lots of tax cheating going on but eventually guv would find itself (accidently or on purpose) with majority control of pretty much everything now privately owned by the super wealthy.

    3. ” Elizabeth Warren likely knows this; she isn’t stupid. ”.

      I think the legal term for that statement is “an assertion without evidence.”

      1. ” Elizabeth Warren likely knows this; she isn’t stupid. ”.

        I think the legal term for that statement is “an assertion without evidence.”

        Okay say she is a moron; how does that change my core supposition that the likely end result of a “wealth tax” would leave the guv eventually having a majority (or near majority) stake in the holding of most of the super-wealthy; basically communism by legal means.

        1. But as under communism, that wealth would be almost worthless. Most of the money is in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Many such instruments have a small ROI that would become negative if Warren’s tax on capital were applied. As investments, they would be worse than stuffing money in a mattress, and thus wouldn’t be worth anything except the remaining capital. So they would be sold en mass to try to shift that capital into something that wouldn’t lose value, such as Swiss bank accounts or baseball cards, ways that can be hidden.

          This would create a collapse in the stock market and the real-estate market, vastly reducing everyone else’s net worth and interest income. Tax revenue would plummet. The economy would slow way down. Unemployment would skyrocket.

          In short, Elizabeth Warren is a moron who’s plan would turn the US into Venezuela quicker than many can imagine.

          1. “But as under communism, that wealth would be almost worthless. Most of the money is in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Many such instruments have a small ROI that would become negative if Warren’s tax on capital were applied. As investments, they would be worse than stuffing money in a mattress, and thus wouldn’t be worth anything except the remaining capital.”

            Yes. But I am suggesting the possibility that they (Warren/Saunders) know this; that their purpose isn’t to raise tax revenue by selling said assets but merely to gain control of them. Using the “wealth tax” to force private owners to sign over their assets to pay the tax; the guv then gets what it always wanted control by ownership over most everything worth owning.

          2. This would create a collapse in the stock market and the real-estate market, vastly reducing everyone else’s net worth and interest income. Tax revenue would plummet. The economy would slow way down. Unemployment would skyrocket.

            A lot of Democrats would be happy with this.

  4. “A lot of Democrats would be happy with this.”

    Happier still with a democrat dominated government owing just about everything. As I have suggested that might be the point, not increasing tax revenue. Use the tax to force the wealthy to sign it over; not necessarily for the purpose of trying to sell it afterward.

  5. Why…they could end outsourcing; guv controlling stock interest not allowing it. End excessive CEO stock options; make employers provide health care to all employees; force them to bring corporate monies back home to be taxed (if they effectively own the company the sky’s the limit).

  6. Basically the socialist (communist) wet dream courtesy of the “wealth tax”, and all by legal means. Eventually we all end up defacto government employees whether we realize it or not. They could limit executive compensation stop outsourcing “pass” the green new deal without passing anything; the changes they want handled by regulations written by unelected bureaucrats.

Comments are closed.