I’m not sure where this was filmed, but it was apparently taken by someone not affiliated with the campaign at one of the “listening tour” stops. So far it has been viewed nearly 120,000 times. It’s probably a pretty good preview of what her stump speech will look like.
Please share widely!
Trickle up says
I have yet to meet her., but this clip exposes the utter dumbass bankruptcy of the whole QueenElizabethWarren thing, the whole Haavaahd thing, that passes for debate from the Scott Brown campaign.
She is a naturally hot campaigner with an obvious appetite for advocacy. Brown should be worried.
lynne says
That was the house party I actually was at. I was sitting on the floor right in front there. Having seen her on TV (Bill Maher, TDS, etc) I knew she had it in her, but it was good to see it in person.
The more people who meet her or hear her, the more you’ll see that Harvard/elite thing backfire.
But inept Republican campaigning in the face of a real genuine campaign is par for the course in MA. We just gotta keep finding good candidates!
angst says
Why did it take so long for you to post this?
scout says
…an impassioned argument about roads and safety for your family, which are easy for people to take for granted- and impassioned is the only kind of argument to counter the outrage-of-the-day culture driven by whatever imaginary “welfare queens” are always shouting about. Love the part about marauding bands. That’s primal stuff!
laurenceglavin says
Many right-wingers have ridiculed this speech, but there’s an interesting element of truth in it, that brings us back to the most recent ex-President George W. Bush. Most of the state of Texas lacks zoning codes, so it’s possible to build a rendering plant right next to a mansion. The very front-page of the Wall Street Journal once ran a story about this in the pre-Murdoch days. So the rich in Texas immure themselves in gated communities. Sometimes, if a rich Texan finds himself or herself in public life, say a political figure like ‘W’, he or she PRETENDS to live in let’s say a “ranch”. But after retirement, they high-tail it so fast to an aforementioned gated community they cause little dust storms. So it’s easy for such folk to ignore the “community” in which they live, and to forget how dependent they could be for public services. Remember when Rush Limbaugh had heart palpitations? (He has a heart?) He may have been golfing at a private country club, but he then needed the services of an ambulance and a hospital on that occasion.
liveandletlive says
She is approachable. She speaks in a language that most people can understand. She has passion. She gets it and she’s not afraid to shout out about it. Thank You Elizabeth Warren.
mandeville says
Elizabeth Warren was speaking in Andover, Massachusetts. The following is a link to the Washington Post story that got this rolling;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/class-warfare-elizabeth-warren-style/2011/03/03/gIQAeB2WlK_blog.html?hpid=z3
portia says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#44607826
liveandletlive says
she did a great job!
greginlowell says
She did do a great job. Did you notice that the questioners alternating between calling her “Elizabeth” and “Professor?” It struck me that they were either not giving her any respect or they were attempting to further the meme of the elitist Harvard type. It did not seem to faze her, though.
Christopher says
…it was cited as having been filled in Andover, in which case it was at the house party I attended.
Christopher says
“filled” should read “filmed”.
jpmassar says
It occurred in Andover, according to someone who was at the house party.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1018700/43374185#c245
thinkliberally says
I loved Deval Patrick’s frame about taxes:
Elizabeth Warren’s version is even better.
Not nearly enough Democrats are willing to make the case for taxes.
Jack Mitchell says
“The underlying social contract..” – E.Warren
“The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” – Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Oh, and shout out to connecting taxation to the “pay forward” meme.
sue-kennedy says
6 thumbs up for you!
bostonshepherd says
…because you use it as an excuse to raise income taxes. Any excuse to raise taxes.
Warren keeps say “… WE paid for this and WE paid for that” …”for the social contract” on which the factory relies.
That’s a moronic and faulty argument. PROPERTY TAXES pay for all that (or should.) Does she claim factory owners pay no PROPERTY TAXES?
PROPERTY TAXES pay for roads, sewers, local schools, cops, and fire protection. The factory owner pays these property taxes. Nothing was given to him “free.” Sewer and water assessments are levied. State and federal fuel taxes build and maintain our roads and bridges. His trucks pay tolls. He pays unemployment taxes, and 6.2% FICA taxes. On and on and on.
Increasing the income taxes on his bottom line has little to do with it. It’s just silly class warfare on top of being ignorant and factually wrong.
It’s particularly shocking to hear her condescension, letting the factory owner keep a “chunk” of the fruits of his labor and capital risk-taking, as if government is doing him a favor.
And “pay it forward” is an excellent description of the absolute mess Washington has made of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid since the Johnson administration. What ever happened to Al Gore’s Lockbox?
stomv says
people pay for roads. Factory owners, neighbors, us. Oh — and anyone who’s ever paid state taxes, gas taxes, or income taxes, since the states and the Feds help the towns pay for the town roads and bridges.
Why is it class warfare when folks want a progressive income tax, but not class warfare when we cut protection for unions, cut wages of civil servants, argue against a minimum wage, and cut social programs?
bostonshepherd says
Even if the factory has no trucks, it pays truckers to move their goods, and the gas tax is implicit in what the factory pays the trucker.
cambridgian says
Al Gore wanted our payroll taxes put in a lockbox to pay for Social Security and Medicare in the future. George Bush in the republicans wanted our payroll taxes diverted to the general fund in order to pay for massive tax cuts for the rich. The republicans got their way, the rich got big tax breaks, Social Security and Medicare got underfunded, and the economy tanked.
bostonshepherd says
For years and years. Both parties. Clinton and Bush. I’m not sure a single dollar EVER went into anything but the general funds.
Mark L. Bail says
to own a buainess in America! How can a poor corporation survive? How can the rich ever survive?! Never mind the unemployed, never mind the underemployed, never mind the uninsurece, this silly class warfare is hurting people.
sue-kennedy says
The problem is that property taxes, (a regressive tax on the poor and middle class), haven’t been able to keep up with all the income tax cuts to the wealthy and we are laying off teachers, road maintenance crews, police and fire.
Be real. No ones talking about the struggling small business owner. If someone is able to make $1 mil in this economy who should be making up the difference in revenue:
The guy that just got laid off, (we can increase the property tax on his house, and cut his unemployment, health care and social security and pass the rest on to his children), or
Take back the recent tax cut to the millionaire, that we obviously can’t afford.
Not just progressives – the majority of Americans choose taxing the people with the money.
stomv says
If you plot income vs. property tax expenditure, you get a really strange set of dots.
First, remove those who are retired and put them in a different curve. The Under-65 curve shows that the poorest don’t pay property taxes, and that as you earn more money your property taxes go up. Do they go up as “fast” as your earnings? They do for a portion, but then clearly don’t. Someone who earned $10M last year rarely pays 100 times more property taxes than someone who earned $100k.
Interestingly, the same tends to be true for seniors, though it makes sense to do an income+wealth amalgamation. The curve is shaped the same — seniors with no post-retirement income tend to pay no property tax. The more income/wealth, the more property tax, until it also falls off as the super wealthy seniors don’t have enough property to keep up with their wealth.
In Massachusetts (and in some other states), cities and towns are allowed to offer a homeowners exemption of a fixed dollar amount, which makes the tax more progressive than it would otherwise, because “reducing” the taxed value of the home by $170,000 is significant if your home is worth $340k, but not nearly as much so if your home is worth $1.7M.
John Tehan says
Poor people do pay property taxes – if they rent, their landlord has you can bet figured his property taxes and calculated his rental costs so that that he still makes a profit.
sue-kennedy says
writes a check to the landlord, who writes a check to the mortgage lender, and the bank pays the property tax – the bank is the tax payer?
Peter Porcupine says
Next Jan., the 3% tax on house sales to support health care goes into effect, so when a senior tries to sell his already devalued house to downsize and move INTO the property tax free rental condos, you can snag 3% of the sale price to make up for their future property tax evasion!
Mark L. Bail says
Fact check.
You’re passing along right-wing propaganda. Wish I was a poor as those elderly you’re talking about.
The first $250,000 in profit from the sale of a personal residence won’t be taxed, or the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple. The tax falls on relatively few — those with high incomes from other sources.
bostonshepherd says
Why, local property taxes paid for everything local. State taxes paid for state-wide things.
It’s the overspending at all levels of government that has created dependence upon income state and federal income taxes supplementing local expenditures.
I wasn’t this way, and doesn’t have to be this way now.
bostonshepherd says
Do you define a flat tax as “regressive,” because it isn’t progressive? And why do we now think we should be paying teachers, road maintenance crews, police, and fire with state and federal money? Last I looked, these were CITY and TOWN employees, not state or federal employees.
Profligate government spending, starting at the local town level, has gotten us to the point where a town cannot afford its teachers, policemen, firemen, garbagemen, road crews, etc.
State and federal income taxes now have to subsidize local government? Where’s it all end?
What will happen when California cannot collect enough tax receipts to run the state and fund local governments? Everyone goes bust.
SomervilleTom says
A property tax is most certainly not a “flat tax”.
A property tax is regressive because the fixed amount (determined by the value of the property) is unaffected by the income of the owner. So the elderly owner of her inherited family farm pays an ENORMOUS share (often a multiple!) of her income in property taxes, while the corporation who owns the same-sized and same-valued adjoining parcel pays a tiny share of its income in property taxes.
The definition of “regressive” and “progressive”, when discussing taxes, describes the tax rate as a percentage of income. A tax rate that is higher for low-income taxpayers than it is for high-income taxpayers — like the property tax — is “regressive”.
The rest of your rant makes approximately as much sense as this. I’ll resist the temptation (at least for now) to bother responding to it.
bostonshepherd says
Yes, yes, I know all about “regressive” and “progressive”, but we’re discussing property taxes. Or at least I was. And property taxes are FLAT (or slightly progressive because of the homeowner’s exclusion.)
Your measure of property taxes as a percentage of income is a meaningless progressive construction. What does it measure? Fairness? Goodness and evil? So what that the factory pays a small percentage of their income in property taxes? Why is that so important to progressives?
By your measure, Warren Buffet should be in prison because he lives in the same modest Omaha home he purchased in 1972. Or should we feel sorry for the $100,000 suburban couple living beyond their means in a $2 million estate?
And if you’re so concerned about your hypothetical granny with the barn full of cows, she’ll be in deeper financial trouble because of the 55% estate tax on the farm’s assessed value than she will be because of her property tax bill.
SomervilleTom says
Look, I didn’t coin the terms “progressive” and “regressive”, nor did I invent what “flat tax” means. Property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes — all are described as “regressive” because they tend to consume a larger portion of low-income household than a high-income household.
What is the point of having a conversation if you refuse to accept the definitions all of us use? When high-income taxpayer Judy pays a significantly lower percentage of her income in property taxes than low-income taxpayer Martha, then the property taxes (1) are regressive and (2) are not “flat”.
Oh, and by the way, granny won’t be affected by the estate tax because she’ll be dead. Her progeny, if she has any, may squawk. about receiving “only” $2.25 M of her $5 M estate.
Christopher says
…though I’m admittedly not completely convinced of the logic. However, if you are suggesting that the kids will get only 2.25M of a 5M estate then you appear to be advocating lopping off more than half for the government and that seems to be unfair overkill.
sue-kennedy says
estate tax on the grounds that it is unfair to kids anticipating a multi-million dollar windfall. These are kids, (adult or middle-aged children), who have already received the advantage of a superior education, healthcare, and resources necessary to go out and make their own way.
If we live in a true free market, democratic meritocracy, shouldn’t every child have an equal opportunity to a good start and be rewarded based on their accomplishment?
SomervilleTom says
We live in a society where the overwhelming majority of Americans, and especially young Americans, struggle to afford the most basic necessities of life — food, shelter, and health care. This is the same society where the wealth distribution is dramatically skewed toward the tiny number of incredibly wealthy individuals and families.
I see nothing “unfair” or “overkill” in the government recapture of 55% of the inherited wealth of the children and grandchildren of that handful of our very wealthiest individuals and families in order to redress the pervasive poverty that this concentration of wealth imposes on literally everyone else. I’m not sure what standard you apply to discern what is “fair” and “unfair”, never mind overkill.
I find the impact of this skewed distribution on millions or tens of millions of America’s children to be far more unfair than the whining of a few of our most fortunate children that they inherit (not earn) “only” $2.25 M. No child who inherits millions of dollars is going to die or suffer life-long impairment from readily prevented disorders like tooth and ear infections — yet this is happening RIGHT NOW to all too many of our less fortunate children.
We have debated various religious and spiritual beliefs at length, particularly as those beliefs are reflected in public policy. It seems to me that founders of the Christian faith (never mind the Hebrews who nurtured their religious traditions) had something to say about this. I’m therefore surprised that you, the professed Christian, take this posture regarding inherited wealth in debate with me, the professed atheist.
Perhaps we simply have different value systems.
bostonshepherd says
(1) You claim “the overwhelming majority of Americans…struggle to afford the most basic necessities of life.” I find that totally bogus. You need to get out of Boston more often.
(2) The arguments against estate taxes are many, but the one often cited is that it is a double or triple taxation on previous income and capital gains — unfair. Secondarily, it taxes inflation on assets, not real asset growth — unfair. Furthermore, it causes asset dislocation…granny’s heirs (granny’s estate, really) own the estate taxes when they inherit the farm, but often they have to sell the farm to raise the funds to pay the IRS. This causes many small business to fold, and — it’s unfair.
LIFE’S UNFAIR! Let’s redistribute all the nation’s wealth. I’ll agree to that if I can do the distributing. If you own a house, Tom, just deed it over to me and I redistribute all your built up equity.
Christopher says
I’m not sure I can be more articulate than that this time.
bostonshepherd says
I understand the math, Tom, and the definitions of “regressive” and “progressive”, but my question (argument) is this: it’s nonsense to pair property taxes with income because what does this measure prove? That property taxes are regressive? Why is that important?
By your analysis, the price of movie tickets, meals, socks, electricity, autos….the price of everything….can be considered regressive. So what? Fact of life.
The % of property tax to income is a progressive device that makes everything in life UNFAIR. It not an argument the majority of Americans buy.
SomervilleTom says
The government forces every property owner to pay property tax. The government does not force anyone to buy “movie tickets, meals, socks, electricity, autos” and so on.
We are discussing taxation. I get that find the distinction between “progressive” and “regressive” tax rates to be “nonsense” or unimportant.
Some of us feel differently.
SomervilleTom says
I dropped an important word above.
Peter Porcupine says
Sales and property tax are regressive becasue they are pegged to the value of the item rather than the income of the purchaser. A tax cannot be flat, because you don’t know the life history of the person paying it.
It must be fun to sit on a FinCom with Tom and try to plan a town budget. A $200,000 home will be taxed at one rate if a poor person owns it and a different rate if another does – the fact that the town doesn’t do a door-to-door census of the income of residents is irrelevant.
The fact is that there are a variety of circuit-breaker and other exemptions built into property tax is also irrelevant. After all, a millionaire might own a house, and qualify for an exemption as he has zero income!
Tom cannot rest until every bit of ‘excess’ wealth has been property redistributed, no matter what collateral damage to the middle class ensues.
bostonshepherd says
Seriously, are we to become the Means-Tested Nation? When I fill up the car will I need to enter my gross adjusted income before the price-per-gallon dial is set and I can begin pumping?
Where’s it all end, Peter, where’s it all end?
sue-kennedy says
is taxing the wealthy ay a lower rate than the middle-class and the poor.
In one neighborhood, the teacher, the real estate developer, and the retired couple, and the guy across the street who just got laid off, all pay a similar flat property tax.
Two are spending all their income, just barely hanging on and paying sales tax on all their income, another is digging into his savings to pay sales tax, gas tax and tolls during his job search, and another bought his boat out of state and is spending the summer in Europe, paying no sales tax what so ever.
And how many small businesses are struggling to compete and get by, while some large corporation was able to secure some sweetheart deal on their taxes in the mythical belief that they will create jobs?
So called flat taxes usually ensure that the wealthy will pay a lower rate of tax.
Besides being grossly unfair, it is economically unsustainable. If we want to have an economy that is the envy of the world, that requires a cutting edge transportation, infrastructure, education, health care system, etc..
The mentality that its my money while ignoring that its also my roads, schools and community has been allowing for a slow decline in the energy of our economy.
Instead of going to the people with the money to contribute their fair share, the middle-class was encouraged to use credit to keep spending in an unsustainable path.
It is important to re-invest in our nation and our future the way we used to. That requires the participation of the folks that have the money. This money can be invested in the infrastructure, education and healthcare that provide and real, long term benefit to everyone, providing jobs and services to individuals and business, makes us more competitive in the global economy, and stimulates the economy all at the same time.
The most amazing thing, the money earned and spent by the middle-class ends right back in the pockets of the wealthy!
bostonshepherd says
Are you say a flat tax — a real flat tax, loopholes closed — is unfair?
sue-kennedy says
everyone was paid the same. interesting argument that it is fair to pay citizens according to their ability, but not tax them according to their ability.
Okay, besides the fact that the poor and middle-class pay an dis-proportional share of regressive taxes as a percentage of their income: Sales, property, tolls…gasoline, cigarette taxes. Are you talking about adding a flat income tax on top of that?
Finally it doesn’t pass the common sense test. Taking more money from some maid and forcing her and her children out on the street, and then jail them for failure to pay what they can’t afford, causes a bigger problem than the money it takes in. Each additional dollar those struggling to hang on pay in taxes, is one less spent in the economy. Taking more money out of the economy would would cause an increase in unemployment, and fewer taxes.
The money needs to come from those who have it.
When the wealthy invest in the country that provided them with so much, it stimulates the economy, provides long term improvements which make the economy more competitive in the global marketplace and when the money is spent – it ends back in their pockets. Trickle up!
Even if it were totally unfair – it is the only way to pay our debts and repair and modernize, stimulate the economy.
johnd says
so when you buy an ice cream, higher income people can pay 10% sales tax while average earners pay 5%… or parking fines rates can be “income based”… matter of fact, why not change the price individuals have to pay just to buy something such as flat panel TVs are priced on a sliding scale based on W2s (bring a pay stub to Best Buy), or maybe as some would require, based on your wealth.
Absurd. Property tax is based on the property value and living in a $2M estate will cost over 10x more than a $200K property (due to the $100K exemption rule). I believe MA residents are ok with this system and will not accept anything regressive. But this who disagree should start a petition to change the law. Good luck!
sue-kennedy says
Bless all those folks who want to teach civics in school, but the other important course that needs to be taught is economics. How can voters negotiate competing theories and candidates, when they don’t understand the basics of economics.
A diverse revenue stream is necessary for stability.
If all government revenue was based on gasoline taxes and toll roads and cars were suddenly replaced with personal jet packs the governments ability to finance projects would be in jeopardy.
And while it may be fun to kick people over the edge, for a majority of Americans, each $1 in sales tax represents an almost equivalent $1 loss to a small business owner. This can have the unintentional effect of causing further unemployment and shutting down some small business – thereby actually decreasing the amount of government revenue collected.
So while diverse revenue streams are important, the only way of getting out of this mess is to admit, we could not afford those income tax cuts we gave to the wealthy a few years back and let them expire yesterday!
bostonshepherd says
To do that you need to start sending tax bills to the 51% of Americans who pay no income tax.
Christopher says
10% of a 30K income is worth a lot more in terms of livelihood than 10% of a 300K income or $3M income.
bostonshepherd says
$3,000 versus $30,000 versus $300,000 = unfair is a progressive conceit. Property taxes are a good example where everyone pays their fair share.
David says
but poll after poll shows that it’s incorrect. A majority of Americans, including Republicans, believe that it’s fair for the wealthiest Americans to pay higher marginal tax rates than the rest of us. Full stop.
johnd says
I don’t think so!
bostonshepherd says
I curious.
bostonshepherd says
I’m curious.
Christopher says
If it were entirely the local governments funding these things there would be a great gap in what poor and rich communities could afford, and thus a great gap in opportunity based on where you live, which is fundamentally unfair.
bostonshepherd says
I understand now: as long as there is unfairness, progressives believe tax policy should be used to redistribute income so there no longer is any unfairness.
I’ll go along with that, but only if I can decide what is fair or not. OK?
Christopher says
If we truly want to be a society which offers an equality of opportunity and social justice as I do, we need to make sure that tax dollars are collected and used in such a way that all of society, not just those individuals and communities that already have money, benefit. You are certainly welcome to help us decide what is fair through the political process like everyone else.
bostonshepherd says
“Spredin’ the wealth around” as fiscal policy is a political looser. Maybe not in Newton or Massachusetts, but certainly in the US.
I object to being one of the 49% of taxpayers who subsidizes the other 51% (federal income taxes.) That is not everyone paying their fair share.
sue-kennedy says
Smoker and drinkers object to subsidizing non-smokers and teetotalers.
Drivers object to bikers not paying gasoline taxes.
? ? ? ? ? ?
The total tax burden has increased on the poor and middle-class, has increased as a % of their income even as their income has not kept pace with inflation.
Funny, because with the increased productivity of these workers their wages should be increasing. Where is the extra money going? The wealthy are hoarding the additional income produced and demanding huge tax cuts.
The wealthiest Americans often pay a lower overall % tax than those who build their homes and put food on their tables, clean their homes and maintain their property, educate their children, wait on them and risk their lives to protect them.
Shared sacrifice includes the wealthy.
If our great country is going to rise out of recession, it will require investing in the country we all love. Every additional dollar that is taken from the poor and middle-class is a dollar that is not spent, causing a loss to business, layoffs and generally causing a loss in tax revenue.
Money spent to invest in our infrastructure and communities is paid in middle-class salaries, which is immediately spent, thereby stimulating the economy and the money trickles up, back to the pockets of the wealthy. New jobs means new taxpayers and increased revenue. Ahh, economic growth.
Christopher says
…then more would be paying federal income taxes. Of course that only tells part of the story anyway. Everyone pays other taxes such as property and sales. It’s not like anyone gets off completely scotfree.
johnd says
If you town can afford something then you can get it, if it can’t then you don’t. We have it here in Ma too, but then local aid steps in and tries to equate things. I don’t think this is unfair.
Christopher says
…forced a statewide property tax a few years ago because its constitution requires equitable funding for education throughout the state. I like local aid as it is unfair to a child growing up in a given town if his town can’t afford a superior public school system.
SomervilleTom says
I’m happy to see that she’s already attracted a typical tirade from Rush Limbaugh. Finally, a promising Democrat has targeted the Achilles heel of the right-wing GOP smear machine.
Thank you, Elizabeth Warren — PLEASE keep on keeping on, we have your back.
bostonshepherd says
What is the Achilles heel of the right-wing GOP smear machine?
Mark L. Bail says
right-wing GOP smeaR machine. There’s a certain advantage to their smears, but these folks aren’t beloved, particularly with Democrats.
SomervilleTom says
The right-wing GOP smear machine, at its core, is built upon an enormous lie that in turn spawns a plethora of related lies: The premise that all government is bad. The premise that lowering taxes improves the economy and raising taxes hurts the economy.
At the core: The premise that they represent “the middle class”.
This is their Achilles heel. They DO NOT represent the middle class. In fact, they exist in order to suck as much wealth as possible out of the middle class and direct it to the wealthy overlords that own them. They have been markedly successful.
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have so far been reluctant to openly challenge this because, sadly, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are dependent on those same wealthy interests that own the GOP and the mass media.
Elizabeth Warren is, so far, aiming right at the center of this Achilles Heel. I believe that this is why she is seeing such a dramatically positive response. I also believe that this why she got less than enthusiastic support from the present administration during her attempt to become Secretary — the Obama administration does not support her in her accurate and effective attack on the parasites that are destroying the middle class.
She is effective because she (a) tells the truth about what’s going on, (b) is effective at describing what to do about it, and (c) she does so in terms every voter understands and can respond to.
This is also the reason that she will be attacked from both sides of the aisle. This is the reason that we must be ready to defend her.
SomervilleTom says
I hope we can do something about the comment nesting problem soon.
I have noticed that I’m not the only one whose comments land in the wrong place.
The design error is in the handling of responses to the last comment on a thread (props to Christopher, who I think first identified this). This is a user interface design error. The code may be doing exactly what its author intended: but like an autopilot that encourages pilots to steer the aircraft into the ground, the design of this code is wrong and can hopefully be corrected soon.
bostonshepherd says
But i find if I click on another post outside of my intended nest, perhaps to remember what someone previously wrote, my reply jumps to where I’ve clicked.
I thought that was a feature at first, having my reply follow me around while I composed my thoughts until I noticed my posts in an unintended nest.
Guess the code’s not that slick.