Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: DougMacG on December 17, 2014, 09:19:16 AM
-
It's the moderator's call, but it seems to me it is time to put the cognitively dissonant left's leading voice into her own category for future search and find convenience. For the record, I fear her the most right now. And leftists love her the most.
Author of, [you employ a million people,] good for you. But you didn't build that.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-P-CoSNYaI[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-P-CoSNYaI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/great-352668-warren-elizabeth.html
http://twitchy.com/2012/05/15/fauxcahontas-warren-heralded-as-harvards-first-woman-of-color-hilarity-ensues/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For today:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121514-730656-why-liberal-icon-elizabeth-warren-should-champion-limited-government.htm#ixzz0c8RcNoaU
What Elizabeth Warren Missed in Her Big Bank Tirade (Crony Governmentism)
Crony Capitalism: Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivered a stemwinder speech last Friday on the need for government to rein in Wall Street influence. But it's big government that created the monster in the first place.
Warren, D-Mass., was attacking a "dangerous provision" in the so-called cromnibus spending bill that, she said, stripped a part of Dodd-Frank that big banks, particularly Citigroup, don't like.
Her speech had the left slobbering over itself. Michael Tomasky, writing for the Daily Beast, said Warren's "weekend heroics" made her the "most powerful Democrat in America." The Huffington Post ran a column calling it "the speech that could make Elizabeth Warren the next president."
That's only possible if voters overlook the glaring problem with her argument.
Warren isn't wrong to complain that big business has too much influence over public policy. But that influence isn't the result of insufficient government intervention. It's the result of a government that is too massive and too willing to intrude in free markets.
To take just one example: Up until the mid-1990s, Microsoft had virtually no lobbyist presence in Washington, D.C., and gave almost no money to political campaigns. Then the Clinton Justice Department decided to sue Microsoft for antitrust violations.
By 1998, the company was pouring $3.7 million into lobbying and giving more than $1.4 million to political campaigns. Influencing Washington became part of Microsoft's business strategy only after Washington decided to butt into Microsoft's business.
Warren and her compatriots also fail to understand that big businesses like costly, intrusive regulations when they handicap new competitors.
It's no surprise that Dodd-Frank — which was supposed to rein in the excesses of big banks — not only didn't get rid of the "too big to fail" problem, it hampered community banks that used to compete with the big ones.
"It was not the intent of Congress when it passed Dodd-Frank to harm community banks, but that is the awful reality," Dale Wilson of the First State Bank of San Diego told Congress this summer.
If Warren and her ilk really want to reduce the influence of Wall Street in Washington, they should start by calling for a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government.
-
Doug, I hope I do not intrude on your naming of this thread too much with my addition to EW's name , , ,
-
Absolutely. You may need further tweeking to fit in the full spelling of forked tongue. The Cherokee scandal has faded back to just an earlier indicator of zero personal or public integrity. Now she is just a bitter, big mouthed, dishonest liberal elite of the worst kind. I would prefer to just take on the principles of liberalism. But no one ever presents it honestly. So we have to answer liberalism's deceiving practitioners.
speak with forked tongue - to make false promises or to speak in a way which is not honest
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/speak+with+forked+tongue
intent to mislead or deceive http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forked%20tongue
The factory owner, good for him, does not pay his fair share of taxes to build the public roads and schools that benefit his business??! What a bunch of BS. The factory owner who stops paying MORE than his/her share of the public goods is the own that has to close or move because of dishonest liberalism's punitive policies.
-
Spelling corrected.
BTW, would someone please find and post the info on some consumer agency that was created with its own source of funding (i.e. uncontrolled by Congress) and Obama had her as acting head to set it up but with some fictitious title because Congress would not approve her nomination?
-
Elizabeth Warren Takes Aim at Democrats, Republicans
By
Peter Nicholas
Jan. 7, 2015 10:00 a.m. ET
8 COMMENTS
Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivers a stinging critique of Republicans and Democrats alike in a speech this morning that says policies pushed by both parties have created financial hardships for everyday families while further enriching a narrow sliver of Americans.
At a Washington, D.C., forum hosted by union group AFL-CIO, the freshman Democratic senator from Massachusetts said headlines suggesting the economy is rebounding don’t square with the realities endured by households struggling with student loans, burdensome mortgage payments and sluggish wages.
Elizabeth Warren in December ENLARGE
Elizabeth Warren in December Associated Press
Ms. Warren is a popular figure among liberal Democrats who want her to run for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016. If Ms. Warren were to jump in the race she would be a heavy underdog against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to announce her candidacy in the coming months. Ms. Warren has said she isn't running for president and plans to finish out her term.
The Draft Warren effort reflects a yearning in Democratic circles for a populist Democrat who will, if nothing else, force Mrs. Clinton to move left and make addressing income inequality a policy priority.
In prepared remarks released by her office, Ms. Warren says the falling jobless rate and low inflation are small comfort to millions of Americans who still haven’t recovered from the financial collapse in 2008.
“If you are young and starting out life with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt locked into high interest rates by Congress, unable to find a good job or save to buy a house, how are you benefiting from low inflation?” she asks.
Ms. Warren acknowledges that the national economy is recovering, but says, “There have been deep structural changes in this economy, changes that have gone on for more than 30 years, changes that have cut out hardworking, middle class families from sharing in this overall growth.”
In the speech, Ms. Warren doesn’t mention Bill or Hillary Clinton by name. Yet she took some veiled swipes at the family that has been a fixture of national politics for the past quarter century.
Former President Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the center in his two terms in office, ushering in free-trade policies, overhauling the nation’s welfare system, and signing a deregulatory bill that lifted constraints on commercial banks and other financial institutions. In his State of the Union address in 1996, Mr. Clinton proclaimed that the “era of big government is over.”
Related
ADP: Private Businesses Added 241,000 Jobs in December
U.S. Service-Sector PMI Slows in December
New GOP Contract: Restore Americans’ Trust
Ms. Warren, in her speech, said, “Pretty much the whole Republican Party—and, if we’re going to be honest, too many Democrats—talked about the evils of ’big government’ and called for deregulation. It sounded good, but it was really about tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do whatever they wanted to do—turning them loose to rig the markets and reduce competition, to outsource more jobs, to load up on more risks and hide behind taxpayer guarantees, to sell more mortgages and credit cards that cheated people. In short, to do whatever juiced short-term profits even if it came at the expense of working families.”
Ms. Warren also singled out Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a company that figures in Mrs. Clinton’s past. As first lady of Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton served on the company’s board of directors for six years.
Ms. Warren said that while corporate profits and gross domestic product are rising, “if you work at Wal-Mart and you are paid so little that you still need food stamps to put groceries on the table, what does more money in stockholders’ pockets and an uptick in GDP do for you?”
Ms. Warren put forward a few ideas for brightening the prospects of middle class families.
She called for new spending on roads, bridges, and education. Such projects would be financed through “real, honest-to-goodness changes that make sure that we pay—and corporations pay—a fair share to build a future for all of us,” she says.
At least one other potential Democratic candidate is unwilling to cede to Ms. Warren the status as the party’s foremost populist firebrand.
Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, in his single public appearance since launching his presidential exploratory committee, has suggested that he would make income inequality a central focus.
“We have a strata of people at the very top who for a complicated set of reasons have grown further and further away from the rest of our society,” Mr. Webb told reporters in Richmond, Va., last month. “We need to find proper avenues in terms of government policy to make sure that equal opportunity and economic fairness can exist.”
He continued: “There has to be a way, without slowing down the ability of those in our society that are the risk takers and the profit makers, there has to be a way to make sure that people are equally paid their fair share of the obligations that we have to keep this country going.”
Still, it is Ms. Warren—not Mr. Webb—who has energized a Democratic liberal wing that believes Mrs. Clinton is too closely tied to Wall Street banking interests.
Mr. Webb will seek to change that if he decides to mount a serious presidential campaign, an aide said.
“The issue of economic inequality and the dangers of foreign intervention are things he’s talked about for a long time, long before Sen. Warren came along,” said Mr. Webb’s communications director, Craig Crawford. “That just goes to a big reason to why he’s seriously considering this. He thinks it’s time for working people to have a president.”
—Reid Epstein contributed to this article.
-
An Opening for Elizabeth Warren If She Wants It
Hillary Clinton’s daunting lead in national polls masks much closer results in Iowa and New Hampshire.
By
Douglas E. Schoen
Jan. 25, 2015 7:31 p.m. ET
48 COMMENTS
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren told Fortune magazine this month that she won’t run for president in 2016, deepening the sense that the Democratic nomination is Hillary Clinton’s for the asking. Yet in contemporary politics the landscape can change dramatically, seemingly overnight. Before 2008 Barack Obama said repeatedly that he wasn’t running for president.
If Elizabeth Warren doesn’t change her mind, it could be because of intimidating national polls showing Mrs. Clinton with an overwhelming lead. Most recently, a CNN/ORC poll had the former secretary of state with a 66%-9% advantage over Ms. Warren.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2013. ENLARGE
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2013. Photo: Bloomberg News
But these numbers don’t tell the whole story, and if Ms. Warren eventually does get into the race, it could be because the numbers in the crucial primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire are not nearly so scary.
In my own recent polling there, I found a much more competitive landscape. Telephone interviews with 400 likely caucusgoers in Iowa and 400 likely primary voters in New Hampshire, conducted Jan. 13-15, suggest that Ms. Warren is already considerably more competitive than national polls suggest. In a head-to-head Clinton-Warren matchup in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton ran 15 points ahead of Ms. Warren, at 51%-36%. Surprisingly, caucus-voting Iowa Democrats already appear to be thoroughly familiar with the Massachusetts senator, and well-disposed toward her, with a 75%-7% favorability rating. Mrs. Clinton has great favorables, too: 93%-6%.
But Mrs. Clinton’s favorables don’t appear to make her invulnerable to a populist challenge from the left, as a Warren campaign would almost certainly be. My polling shows that there is a significant opening with Democratic primary voters who are extremely liberal in ideology and populist in orientation.
I also tested Mrs. Clinton’s message, based on her public statements, of charting a new direction and standing up for working people against Ms. Warren’s more explicitly populist direction in which government addresses fundamental unfairness in American society through more oversight of Wall Street and policies to reduce income inequality. In that message comparison, Ms. Warren polled a mere four points behind Mrs. Clinton, at 31% to 35%.
Ms. Warren could find similar encouragement in New Hampshire, the nation’s first primary state and neighbor of the senator’s state of Massachusetts. Among likely Democratic primary voters, Mrs. Clinton led Ms. Warren by only nine points, 51%-42%. The two had virtually identical favorable ratings at 89%-5% for Ms. Warren, 90%-5% for Mrs. Clinton.
Ms. Warren’s populist message resonates more strongly in New Hampshire than in Iowa. New Hampshire residents, when polled on the specific Clinton and Warren messages, had Ms. Warren within hailing distance of Mrs. Clinton, at 38%-31%. When respondents were asked the sort of question that a campaign might pose—whether they’d vote for Mrs. Clinton, described as close to Wall Street and a supporter of the Iraq war, versus Ms. Warren as a true progressive who stands up to Wall Street—Ms. Warren polled ahead of Mrs. Clinton, at 47% to 42%.
Given that front-runners in primaries typically draw their highest poll numbers at the start of a race, when their name-recognition advantage is most pronounced, Mrs. Clinton’s best hope would be to solidify her current support. Worst case: She suffers the same slippage she did in Iowa in 2008 when she finished a poor third after showing a resounding lead of 58%-12% over then-Sen. Obama.
The implications are clear. Hillary Clinton is vulnerable in the Democratic primaries, something her new adviser Joel Benenson (currently an Obama pollster who previously worked for me) is presumably in the process of finding out. The results from my polling also suggest that potential candidates who would offer populist messages—former Sen. Jim Webb from Virginia and Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont—also have the potential to narrow significantly Mrs. Clinton’s current lead.
If either Mr. Webb or Mr. Sanders gets into the race, Ms. Warren might have second thoughts—a split of the populist vote could pave the way for Mrs. Clinton. The former secretary of state could further complicate matters for potential challengers from the left by developing her own theme to appeal to an electorate that sees American society as fundamentally unfair.
Tom Donahue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, last week attacked Ms. Warren’s “economic populism” and charged that she stands for more regulation and government control of business. That’s music to the ears of many Democratic primary voters, who seem ready to embrace candidates who take on big business, the banks and Wall Street—some of Ms. Warren’s favorite targets. In other words, the Democratic presidential contest could go very quickly from a foregone conclusion to a fierce contest.
Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000.
-
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/02/10/sen-warren-opposes-audit-the-fed-bill/
-
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/02/10/sen-warren-opposes-audit-the-fed-bill/
This is a great example of exposing these hypocrites with actual bills and votes. The phony populist wants to rein in mostly with words and excessive regulations the big, so-called, private banks, but won't even support an audit of the very largest one for which she has the sworn, CONSTITUTIONAL duty to oversee.
Also, pretty good chance she is a 'friend' of Janet Yellen, whose hands this would tie. Without QE, zero interest rates and the screwed up dual mission of the Fed, what is the Obama recovery?
-
There IS merit to the concern of getting Congress involved with setting monetary policy. Look at the decades of mischief created by the Humphrey Hawkins Act making full employment and not just price stability as part of the Fed's mission.
-
There IS merit to the concern of getting Congress involved with setting monetary policy. Look at the decades of mischief created by the Humphrey Hawkins Act making full employment and not just price stability as part of the Fed's mission.
Yes, there is a fine line between getting involved with policy and conducting constitutional oversight.
Ron Paul wrote a 2009 book called "End the Fed.". I have strongly criticized that approach. Rand Paul's proposal, 6 years later, is called, "Audit the Fed". Maybe his intention is to meddle, influence, and effect change on their policies. Audit, yes, have 535 members of Congress set monetary policy, no. But end the dual mandate, which is the Humphrey Hawkins of which you refer.
How does the self proclaimed champion of the ordinary people oppose auditing an independent bureaucracy that is playing with not trillions, but ALL of our money?
-
Let's keep this information handy in case Hillary never uses it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398510/how-hillary-scares-elizabeth-warren-john-fund
Elizabeth Warren, if she ran, would not receive such a pass [as Obama got] from Team Hillary, which is famous for playing both mean and creatively.
A ready-made army of liberal bloggers and surrogates would stand ready to belittle Warren’s lack of political experience and foreign-policy credentials.
And then there would be the character shots. Anti-big-business liberals would be reminded frequently that for all her populist rhetoric, Warren opposes a bill to audit the Federal Reserve and supports funding for the Export-Import Bank, a favorite of crony capitalists.
Then there is the “Fauxcahontas” scandal. In April 2012, the Boston Globe broke the news that while Warren never claimed American Indian heritage as an undergraduate or law-school student, she began doing so in her 30s as she sought jobs at highly competitive law schools such as Harvard.
The Association of American Law Schools requires law professors to answer ethnicity questions on its questionnaire. Only Warren can release a copy of her original questionnaire, and she has refused to do so. Back-channel Hillary surrogates would make hay out of that.
Then there is the scandal-in-waiting concerning her sleazy scholarship while a law professor. She co-authored a highly-publicized study in 2005 that claimed that 54.5 percent of all bankruptcies have “a medical cause” and that 46.2 percent have a “major medical cause,” telling interviewers that those findings demonstrated the need for national health care. In fact, the proportion of bankruptcies caused by catastrophic medical losses is more like 2 percent. Her numbers were inflated by including “uncontrolled gambling,” “alcohol or drug addiction,” “death in family,” and “birth/addition of new family member” as “a medical cause.” In addition, spending as little as $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses over the course of two years — hardly unusual for a family — was enough to get a bankruptcy classified as “a major medical cause” even when the debtor himself or herself did not list illness or injury as a cause of the bankruptcy. A number of scholars have criticized the study as intentionally misleading.
Nor was this the only blot on Warren’s scholarship. George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki told Breitbart News in 2012:
Questions about the validity of Warren’s scholarly findings have haunted her since early in her career. Reviewing her first major scholarly work [her 1990 study on bankruptcy], a co-authored book, noted bankruptcy professor Philip Schuchman (now deceased) stated bluntly, “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.” Similar questions have continued to nag her scholarship throughout her career, especially her usage and handling of empirical data and the conclusions she draws from it.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153832/Elizabeth-Warren-accused-making-fortune-flipping-foreclosed-homes.html
-
A interesting chance to size up Warren:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=423362941159538
You best believe that this is going to really appeal to lots of decent people.
-
Besides that she has her facts and causes all mangled, it is quite striking that she is one angry person. Maybe the Marc Levin of the left? I notice that she chooses to read every word, looking down, where the top Republican candidates just showed they able to think and talk on their own.
Yes, this is the line they will sell and a good number of people will buy into it. Everything is great now because of Obama and the Democrats but at the same time everything is bad and wrong because of Republicans. ?? Now its the Dems who want to go back to the 50s, lol. Good luck getting her Ozzie and Harriet middle class growth back where 9 out of 10 minority children live in a house that does not have with a mom and a dad married under one roof, mostly as a result of Democrat programs.
2 million views for her; I regret being one of them. Nearly all would buy into this line of bs if not exposed to an equally persuasive rebuttal. I would love to see the most persuasive of the Republicans debate either Warren or Hillary on this. Fact check their work and lay out a better alternative to doubling down on the failed Obama agenda of even more regulations, higher tax rates and stepped up redistribution.
-
I humbly suggest that you are missing a piece of the pie here.
IMHO her critique overlaps more than a little with our Liberal Fascism critique-- which also addresses rent seekers, corruption of the political process by favored business interests and the like.
"Nearly all would buy into this"
EXACTLY!
WE should be making some of these points AND offering actual solutions.
-
I humbly suggest that you are missing a piece of the pie here.
IMHO her critique overlaps more than a little with our Liberal Fascism critique-- which also addresses rent seekers, corruption of the political process by favored business interests and the like.
"Nearly all would buy into this"
EXACTLY!
WE should be making some of these points AND offering actual solutions.
Agree in part. Yes, most certainly, rent seekers and corruption of the political process by favored business interests should be OUR attack on THEIR system.
Her attacks on capitalism and free enterprise however do not hold up to scrutiny. Free enterprise and constitutional capitalism does not favor special interests over the interests of those not connected and powerful; it is the exact opposite. In a free society, the government does not get in bed with one business over another. They can cooperate only in the open, public bidding system of providing a product or service to the government. The government is the referee, not the participant, yet her side partners up with interest after interest, with auto makers, health insurers, the mortgage industry, the solar cronies, the colleges and everything up to the marriage industry. Her claims are laden with factual errors and her proposals or solutions make each of these problems worse.
Candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are running campaigns expressly on the concept of upward mobility which IMO does address specifically the problem of stagnation of the middle class. I know what is holding me back, regulation and taxes, and I know that what is holding back the formation of new small businesses that will create and grow the better jobs is over-taxation and over-regulation, as unexciting and cliche as that may sound. As Rubio has said, the giant, entrenched corporations with compliance departments can deal with all of that, but a startup business run out of spare bedroom cannot.
The great growth of the Obama administration she brags of is 2% growth and more than 100% of that came out of fracking which she and Obama vehemently oppose. What is left if they prevailed in those states is decline. They passed their big bank regulations, their health monstrosity - the largest wealth transfer in history, their tax rate increases in two dozen different ways and a hundred thousand new regulations and the result was that middle class income is stuck and income inequality widened. Her answer now is the same as Hillary's, do more of the same, double down on failure. Every economic statistic and every symptom of a private economy weighed down by a bloated public sector is another reason for her to make further increases to the size and scope of central government. That carries the day when our messengers are Boehner and McConnell in the context of committee and floor votes on liberal policies through the filter of reading it in the mainstream media. We haven't had a leader in a very long time who could reach the people articulate the other side of it and now we have several of them. That is why I have tried to get out early in support of whoever can best express the link between freedom and prosperity and define the differences between that and the Elizabeth Warren mindset.
I would like to come back to her rant, point by point, and expose the deceptions and contradictions within it. Median income stays stagnant even during growth, for one reason, because we have added tens of millions of new people to the country at the low end. People stay off the lower steps of the economic ladder because we offer them more not to work. Disability is the fastest growing profession of the Obama economy. The greatest building block to economic success is marriage and the liberal culture wars have decimated that. She opposes the entire concept of an economic ladder, saying that all who work should be fully compensated regardless of value. Some people stuck on the line between programs and work face effective tax rates on their next dollar of income earned greater than 100%. Worst of all is the dearth of real, new business startups which is hidden by the fact that most LLC new filings are just people trying to protect existing assets from liability.
She is missing a link in her liberal economic logic. She says the top 10% or top 1% experienced all of this success, but she doesn't follow it with what is stopping the rest from doing that too! It isn't the wealth and success of some that is limited the economic opportunities for the middle class; it is the programs and policies she espouses that are doing that.
I am all ears to learning of solutions beyond giving people back some of the freedom and responsibility to take care of themselves and their own families.
-
"rent seekers and corruption of the political process by favored business interests should be OUR attack on THEIR system."
EXACTLY SO!
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/now-warren-may-run-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Note: This story is old - from August 2014. Jarrett and Warren have plenty of reasons to talk and no one knows the content of these talks. But since these people aren't transparent, we only have conjecture to figure it out. ) Jarrett is telling Warren to stay ready for when the President gives her the green light to run. (I fear Warren more than Hillary, FWIW.)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/8/valerie-jarrett-secret-meetings-elizabeth-warren/
New York Times best-selling author and long-time journalist Ed Klein said that Valerie Jarrett has been engaging in secret meetings with Sen. Elizabeth Warren in recent months, giving rise to speculations that the Massachusetts political newcomer is actually the administration’s choice to head the White House in 2016.
“President Obama has authorized Valerie Jarrett, his most important political adviser, to hold secret meetings with Elizabeth Warren to encourage her to challenge Hillary Clinton because the Obamas do not want to see the Clintons succeed them in the White House,” Mr. Klein said. He believes the stories he’s heard from sources about the meetings are “absolutely true,” Newsmax reported. Mr. Klein said the feud between the Obamas and Clintons — which he details in depth in his recently released “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas” — has been largely ignored, despite its “deep and gut-wrenching” aspects.
“[Clinton] is looking quite vulnerable” for 2016, he said... Ms. Warren is being pushed by a handful of high-ranking politicians to run for president in 2016, including the “Kennedys and a lot of people on the left wing of the Democratic Party,” Mr. Klein said. “And Elizabeth Warren really gets that left wing base of the party excited, where Hillary does not.”
-
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/21/warren-obama-keeping-trade-deal-secret-because-the-public-would-oppose-it/
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418907/elizabeth-warren-bought-foreclosed-homes-make-quick-profit-jillian-kay-melchior
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418907/elizabeth-warren-bought-foreclosed-homes-make-quick-profit-jillian-kay-melchior
Making money is evil, except when leftists do it.
-
By James Freeman
Updated Oct. 2, 2015 7:32 a.m. ET
12 COMMENTS
At least some Democrats are resisting Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s purge of the liberal intelligentsia. This week Ms. Warren succeeded in forcing the resignation of respected scholar Robert Litan from the Brookings Institution after he revealed that a new Labor Department regulation could cost investors billions. Now five Democratic economists have authored a letter to protest Warren’s bullying. Robert Lawrence of Harvard’s Kennedy School and Bowman Cutter of the Roosevelt Institute are among those writing “to express our concern over our colleague Bob Litan’s treatment at the hands of the Brookings Institution and Senator Elizabeth Warren.” Also signing the letter are Everett Ehrlich, Joseph Minarik and Hal Singer.
Morning Editorial Report
Click here to receive Opinion headlines and James Freeman’s commentary via email.
Ms. Warren had falsely claimed that Mr. Litan had been “vague” about the funding for research showing the new regulation would limit choices and raise costs for investors. In fact, he had clearly disclosed that it was sponsored by a financial-services company. According to the new letter from Democratic economists, “Businesses sometimes finance policy research much as advocacy groups or other interests do. A reader can question the source of the financing on all sides, but ultimately the quality of the work and the integrity of the author are paramount. In Bob’s Litan’s case, both have been impeccable over a career of four decades. And, in keeping with those standards, he has been completely transparent about the support for, and conduct of, the study in question, as both Brookings and Senator Warren were well aware from the day he first testified before the Congress on the matter.”
The letter adds that “Senator Warren’s approach (and Brookings’ complicity with it) threatens ad hominem attack on any author who may be associated with an industry or interest whose views are contrary to hers. Those who differ with Litan instead should offer a substantive rebuttal to the paper in question, which would do much more to clarify the issue than implicitly depicting him as being inherently corrupted by the sponsorship of his work.”
-
By James Freeman
Updated Oct. 2, 2015 7:32 a.m. ET
12 COMMENTS
At least some Democrats are resisting Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s purge of the liberal intelligentsia. This week Ms. Warren succeeded in forcing the resignation of respected scholar Robert Litan from the Brookings Institution after he revealed that a new Labor Department regulation could cost investors billions. Now five Democratic economists have authored a letter to protest Warren’s bullying. Robert Lawrence of Harvard’s Kennedy School and Bowman Cutter of the Roosevelt Institute are among those writing “to express our concern over our colleague Bob Litan’s treatment at the hands of the Brookings Institution and Senator Elizabeth Warren.” Also signing the letter are Everett Ehrlich, Joseph Minarik and Hal Singer.
Morning Editorial Report
Click here to receive Opinion headlines and James Freeman’s commentary via email.
Ms. Warren had falsely claimed that Mr. Litan had been “vague” about the funding for research showing the new regulation would limit choices and raise costs for investors. In fact, he had clearly disclosed that it was sponsored by a financial-services company. According to the new letter from Democratic economists, “Businesses sometimes finance policy research much as advocacy groups or other interests do. A reader can question the source of the financing on all sides, but ultimately the quality of the work and the integrity of the author are paramount. In Bob’s Litan’s case, both have been impeccable over a career of four decades. And, in keeping with those standards, he has been completely transparent about the support for, and conduct of, the study in question, as both Brookings and Senator Warren were well aware from the day he first testified before the Congress on the matter.”
The letter adds that “Senator Warren’s approach (and Brookings’ complicity with it) threatens ad hominem attack on any author who may be associated with an industry or interest whose views are contrary to hers. Those who differ with Litan instead should offer a substantive rebuttal to the paper in question, which would do much more to clarify the issue than implicitly depicting him as being inherently corrupted by the sponsorship of his work.”
Fauxcohauntus gets a scalp.
-
http://dcwhispers.com/phony-elizabeth-warren-listed-harvards-first-woman-color-1997-article/
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/05/carr_liz_warren_knows_biz_of_sweetheart_real_estate_deal?utm_campaign=bostonherald_trending_stories&utm_source=bostonherald&utm_medium=trending_stories=
-
"Warren lives in a mansion she owns in Cambridge that she bought with what the Harvard Crimson described as “a faculty mortgage subsidy,” also known as a no-interest loan"
I assume endowment money goes for this gigantic perk. But does Havard also get Federal money for college tuition?
-
Some great snark in the article too. I particularly liked "Lieawatha" and "Chief Spreading Bull".
-
Clearly she is running for the job.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/06/liz_warren_steps_up_trump_attacks_calls_him_an_insecure_money_grubber
-
I wonder if she will hold out from signing on to Clinton as VP to see what happens with her FBI problem. If in the very unlikely event Hillary does not run Warren will announce with someone else?
-
https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN/videos/10154783268610579/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/318422-senate-votes-to-silence-warren-after-sessions-speech
vs. this:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/jeff_merkley_reads_coretta_scott_king_letter_about_jeff_sessions.html
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/318422-senate-votes-to-silence-warren-after-sessions-speech
vs. this:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/02/jeff_merkley_reads_coretta_scott_king_letter_about_jeff_sessions.html
I have a feeling that silencing her and (selectively) enforcing "Rule 19" was not the best political strategy.
On the good side, we are starting to see evidence of a backbone.
----------------------------------------
From the education thread:
An all-voucher or all-school choice system would be a shock to the educational system, but the shake out might be just what the system needs. - Elizabeth Warren, 2004 (Source, her 2004 book)
-
Blocking her from quoting MLK's widow is a real tough sell.
-
Blocking her from quoting MLK's widow is a real tough sell.
Did she start off with "as a black woman, myself..."
-
Notable & Quotable: Elizabeth Warren on School Vouchers
‘Vouchers would relieve parents from the terrible choice of leaving their kids in lousy schools or bankrupting themselves.’
Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Capitol Hill, Feb. 8. PHOTO: BILL CLARK/ZUMA PRESS
Feb. 8, 2017 6:38 p.m. ET
From “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are (Still) Going Broke” (2003) byElizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi. Ms. Warren is now a U.S. senator from Massachusetts:
Any policy that loosens the ironclad relationship between location-location-location and school-school-school would eliminate the need for parents to pay an inflated price for a home just because it happens to lie within the boundaries of a desirable school district.
A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly. A taxpayer-funded voucher that paid the entire cost of educating a child (not just a partial subsidy) would open a range of opportunities to all children. . . . Fully funded vouchers would relieve parents from the terrible choice of leaving their kids in lousy schools or bankrupting themselves to escape those schools.
We recognize that the term “voucher” has become a dirty word in many educational circles. The reason is straightforward: The current debate over vouchers is framed as a public-versus-private rift, with vouchers denounced for draining off much-needed funds from public schools. The fear is that partial-subsidy vouchers provide a boost so that better-off parents can opt out of a failing public school system, while the other children are left behind.
But the public-versus-private competition misses the central point. The problem is not vouchers; the problem is parental choice. Under current voucher schemes, children who do not use the vouchers are still assigned to public schools based on their zip codes. This means that in the overwhelming majority of cases, a bureaucrat picks the child’s school, not a parent. The only way for parents to exercise any choice is to buy a different home—which is exactly how the bidding wars started.
Short of buying a new home, parents currently have only one way to escape a failing public school: Send the kids to private school. But there is another alternative, one that would keep much-needed tax dollars inside the public school system while still reaping the advantages offered by a voucher program. Local governments could enact meaningful reform by enabling parents to choose from among all the public schools in a locale, with no presumptive assignment based on neighborhood. Under a public school voucher program, parents, not bureaucrats, would have the power to pick schools for their children—and to choose which schools would get their children’s vouchers.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/08/news/economy/elizabeth-warren-wealth/
https://conservativedailypost.com/senator-warren-net-worth-revealed-make-15-million-congresswoman/
-
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/14/elizabeth-warren-dems-criticize-trump-moab-strike-isis-afghanistan
-
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/14/elizabeth-warren-dems-criticize-trump-moab-strike-isis-afghanistan
It's called rebuilding credibility. Something Fauxcohauntus knows nothing about.
-
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/14/elizabeth-warren-dems-criticize-trump-moab-strike-isis-afghanistan
It's called rebuilding credibility. Something Fauxcohauntus knows nothing about.
Also, the exact strategy of our military is generally not something we want to print and send to the enemy.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/08/news/economy/elizabeth-warren-wealth/
https://conservativedailypost.com/senator-warren-net-worth-revealed-make-15-million-congresswoman/
And Rachel Dolezal is broke! No justice here!
-
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/elizabeth-warren-to-berkeley-protesters-if-you-dont-like-ann-coulter-just-dont-show-up/
-
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/elizabeth-warren-to-berkeley-protesters-if-you-dont-like-ann-coulter-just-dont-show-up/
Runs with broken clocks!
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/29/trevor-noah-enters-pocahontas-debate-mocks-elizabe/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRobFkyRmlNemt6TlRNMyIsInQiOiJ1MzJtY2JnSE5pclwvU1hrZCtrOVNyTThTVnppb3p3VTd5cVFzTjV2UjIwZnZPekxWbmJCZFFKWWJUYzJxZ1RPN3lzXC8xSmM3ZlRDdEswZlhyVGo2XC82VUNNdmZtUmhFZHlON0dBWU52MEdOSzVSbE5iajlLZTI2cXgxZlJicllCVyJ9
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-accuses-trump-of-slut-shaming-kirsten-gillibrand-2017-12
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27142/presidential-smoke-signals-fauxcahontas-makes-ben-shapiro
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27142/presidential-smoke-signals-fauxcahontas-makes-ben-shapiro
If Lieawatha thinks this is going to squash this issue, I have a Manhattan island to sell her.
-
"Lieawatha" :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
https://nypost.com/2018/03/11/elizabeth-warren-refuses-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-heritage/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=facebook
-
https://nypost.com/2018/03/11/elizabeth-warren-refuses-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-heritage/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=facebook
I wonder how many tests she did privately before giving up.
-
https://nypost.com/2018/03/11/elizabeth-warren-refuses-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-heritage/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=facebook
I wonder how many tests she did privately before giving up.
I was watching this on Fox News Sunday yesterday and was very surprised by both the direct question and the answer that was obviously planned and ready. Asked to take a DNA test to put this behind her, one would think her answer would be yes, go idea, or no, it's none of your business. Instead she went into a (pretend) heartbreaking story about mommy and daddy and how they eloped because her Dad's miserable racist family would not allow him to marry an impure woman who might possibly be one sixteenth native American. Warren herself was there during the elope so this story is something that was told to her later in life, perhaps last week by her deceased mother or deceased father. This is not the story I have heard before. I thought it was the high cheek bones of her Grandma or native recipe they found written in settler English. Was this the story she told Harvard? She is saying, so what if she's wrong, she identifies Native - even though obviously she obviously doesn't. Even if there was truth in the 1/32nds, I think it's safe to say she identifies with her 31/32 imperialist white side.
She can't be caught in a lie if she maintains that she always believed it and it can't be proven false if she won't consent to a test.
I've joked since the beginning of the college admissions process that my daughter should change her name to Running Bear in case top ACT scores don't open the right door. The difference is, I was joking, not defrauding an employer.
What does it mean politically? Nothing I'm sure. You already either like her or you don't - for other reasons.
We didn't get to see Trump's tax returns, Obama's grades or a Bill Clinton fidelity test and this is even less relevant. People will vote for whoever they will. The danger here is that her opponents will be cast as making fun of Native when the issue is lying and using false status to land a high paying pretend job.
Note the dishonesty but keep the focus on defeating her policy views. Link her views and Bernie's to the economics of Venezuela and failure, and don't appear to be mocking Pocahontas or any aspect Indian culture, Disney version or not. MHO.
-
IMHO painting her as an amoral cheater cynically exploiting the lunacies of affirmative action is part of a well-rounded attack.
-
IMHO painting her as an amoral cheater cynically exploiting the lunacies of affirmative action is part of a well-rounded attack.
Mockery is a potent weapon to use against the left.
-
Mockery is a potent weapon to use against the left.
True, and foot in mouth has been an epidemic of the right.
I'm just warning, be careful. They are already twisting the mockery into something against being Native.
We need to clearly: "paint her as an amoral cheater cynically exploiting the lunacies of affirmative action".
More importantly, her policies will lead this country into ruin.
-
Agreed!
-
Mockery is a potent weapon to use against the left.
True, and foot in mouth has been an epidemic of the right.
I'm just warning, be careful. They are already twisting the mockery into something against being Native.
We need to clearly: "paint her as an amoral cheater cynically exploiting the lunacies of affirmative action".
More importantly, her policies will lead this country into ruin.
As a member of a federally recognized tribe who has spent a lot of time in and around reservations, white people who claim Indian heritage without anything to back it up are held in utter contempt.
There might be a few lefty professional race baiters that will provide cover for Lieawatha, but the communities in general aren’t bothered by Trump hammering her on that point.
Ask “Low Energy” Jeb (please clap) and Crooked Hillary about how devastating these lines can be.
-
Repeating the gaffe pattern of NYT Thomas Friedman, the Forked Tongue Leftist heroine should be more careful with her praise.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/elizabeth-warren-praises-red-china-whole-of-government-strategy-against-nkorea/
Elizabeth Warren praises communist China ‘long-term whole-of-government’ strategy
As just one example of why be more cautious with unchecked dictatorial praise, Communist China now detains 10% of their Muslim population in concentration camps.
Imagine her ire if US President Donald Trump did that!
“Look at what China is doing,” Warren continued. “China’s got the long term arc and it’s playing everybody. It’s playing North Korea, it’s playing South Korea, it’s playing the United States of America because it has a long-term whole-of-government strategy that keeps driving towards an end.”
Maybe one could add an adjective or two or three to what could easily be perceived as praise, such as, 'the despicably brutal totalitarian regime oppressing the people of China has some advantages in negotiating with a free country governed by separate branches with limited powers.'
I wonder if freedom, term limits and consent of the governed have advantages too...
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/remembering-tiananmen-the-uighur-crackdown/5E12D9A4-1CAB-4612-9625-B2B6B05FC11B.html?mod=article_inline&mod=article_inline
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/02/asia/china-xinjiang-detention-camps-intl/index.html
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg8-qqU477o
-
After her primary victory in New Mexico on Tuesday, Deb Haaland is on a path to become the first Native American woman ever to serve in Congress — a step more than 200 years in the making. - Time Magazine June 7, 2018
http://time.com/5304507/deb-haaland-first-native-american-congresswoman/
Elizabeth Warren, are you excited that Deb Haaland is on a path to become the first Native American woman ever to serve in Congress?
-
After her primary victory in New Mexico on Tuesday, Deb Haaland is on a path to become the first Native American woman ever to serve in Congress — a step more than 200 years in the making. - Time Magazine June 7, 2018
http://time.com/5304507/deb-haaland-first-native-american-congresswoman/
Elizabeth Warren, are you excited that Deb Haaland is on a path to become the first Native American woman ever to serve in Congress?
Anyone expect a professional journalist to actually ask her that?
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/elizabeth-warren-makes-a-case-for-democrats-to-be-the-anti-corruption-party?mbid=nl_Daily%20060918&CNDID=50142053&spMailingID=13664481&spUserID=MjAxODUyNTc2OTUwS0&spJobID=1420821004&spReportId=MTQyMDgyMTAwNAS2
-
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/elizabeth-warren-makes-a-case-for-democrats-to-be-the-anti-corruption-party?mbid=nl_Daily%20060918&CNDID=50142053&spMailingID=13664481&spUserID=MjAxODUyNTc2OTUwS0&spJobID=1420821004&spReportId=MTQyMDgyMTAwNAS2
And yet the Dem dominated states also are very corrupt. Show me big government and I will show you rent seeking and graft.
-
Understood and agreed!
That said, as a political strategy, this one strikes me as having some efficacy. Even FOX was going after Sec. Commerce Wilbur Goss hard for Swampism-- it is a charge readily believed by non-Trumpians about Trumpians.
-
Policies like Warren's actually act to protect the market positions of the already-haves. What those policies mostly do is stop the development of new businesses and new billionaires.
Senator, When you are ready to go full Chavez and just jail them and take their assets away, let us know.
The key lesson here is the us Vs. them approach. The American people as she sees them against the rich who are by inference not the American people. Giant corporation is undefined. RIch is undefined. Even billionaire is undefined. Is she proposing to only raise taxes on people whose income or net worth is over a billion? Not on your life.
------------------------------------
Warren: "Until we have all the Democrats who are willing to take on the billionaire class, until we have all the Democrats who are willing to fight for the American people and not for a handful of billionaires and giant corporations, then it's going to stay an uphill fight."
IBD: ...there are only 585 of them (billionaires) in the U.S. today, according to Forbes. And plenty of them are big-time Democrats.
Does she intend, for example, to take on Warren Buffett, who, with a net worth of $84 billion, is the third richest man in the world? He's a longtime Democrat who's pushed for tax hikes on the rich, backed Hillary Clinton, and who gave 99% of his money to Democrats and liberal groups in the past four election cycles.
Maybe she means Michael Bloomberg, 11th richest man in the world (net worth $50 billion). He's a huge gun control supporter.
What about George Soros, who's worth $8 billion? He's an uber liberal who finances a multitude of left-wing groups like Center for American Progress and Moveon.org. He recently invested $3 million in The New York Times.
In 2016, Soros gave at least $7 million to Hillary Clinton's Priorities USA super-PAC. He's donated more than $61 million to Democrats and liberals since 1989, according to OpenSecrets.org.
Does Warren want to "take on" environmental activist Tom Steyer — net worth $1.6 billion. He donated more than $91 million to Democrats in 2016 alone, and funded a $20 million ad campaign calling for President Trump's impeachment.
Or perhaps she means Netflix CEO Reed Hastings (net worth $2.7 billion). Except that Hastings is another prominent Democrat who eagerly supported Clinton and just signed a deal with Barack Obama to produce programs for Netflix.
Other billionaires Warren says Democrats should have the "guts" take on would include liberals like Google's Larry Page ($48.8 billion), Laurene Powell Jobs ($18.8 billion), Oprah Winfrey ($2.7 billion), Starbucks' Howard Schultz ($2.7 billion), Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg ($1.6 billion).
Of the 36 billionaires who made campaign contributions over the past four election cycles, 40% of their money — totaling $148 million — went to Democrats...
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/elizabeth-warren-democrats-liberal-billionaires/
-
FWIW , I am not sure how good this source is but 60 % of billionaires are libs . it seems like a lot more from headlines we hear:
https://www.quora.com/Are-the-wealthiest-Americans-Republicans-or-Democrats
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32718/elizabeth-warren-responds-trumps-dna-test-james-barrett?utm_medium=email&utm_content=070818-news&utm_campaign=position2
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32718/elizabeth-warren-responds-trumps-dna-test-james-barrett?utm_medium=email&utm_content=070818-news&utm_campaign=position2
According to Charlie Cook she is the Democratic front-runner and she seems to be losing tfhese exchanges to Trump even before we get to her wrong positions on the issues.
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32718/elizabeth-warren-responds-trumps-dna-test-james-barrett?utm_medium=email&utm_content=070818-news&utm_campaign=position2
According to Charlie Cook she is the Democratic front-runner and she seems to be losing tfhese exchanges to Trump even before we get to her wrong positions on the issues.
Funny how well fighting back works.
-
Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders
My new bill would require corporations to answer to employees and other stakeholders as well.
Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders
Photo: Richard Drew/Associated Press
299 Comments
By Elizabeth Warren
Aug. 14, 2018 7:01 p.m. ET
Corporate profits are booming, but average wages haven’t budged over the past year. The U.S. economy has run this way for decades, partly because of a fundamental change in business practices dating back to the 1980s. On Wednesday I’m introducing legislation to fix it.
American corporations exist only because the American people grant them charters. Those charters confer valuable privileges—such as limited legal liability for their owners—that enable businesses to turn a profit. What do Americans get in return? What are the obligations of corporate citizenship in the U.S.?
For much of U.S. history, the answers were clear. Corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community. As recently as 1981, the Business Roundtable—which represents large U.S. companies—stated that corporations “have a responsibility, first of all, to make available to the public quality goods and services at fair prices, thereby earning a profit that attracts investment to continue and enhance the enterprise, provide jobs, and build the economy.” This approach worked. American companies and workers thrived.
Late in the 20th century, the dynamic changed. Building on work by conservative economist Milton Friedman, a new theory emerged that corporate directors had only one obligation: to maximize shareholder returns. By 1997 the Business Roundtable declared that the “principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners.”
That shift has had a tremendous effect on the economy. In the early 1980s, large American companies sent less than half their earnings to shareholders, spending the rest on their employees and other priorities. But between 2007 and 2016, large American companies dedicated 93% of their earnings to shareholders. Because the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households own 84% of American-held shares, the obsession with maximizing shareholder returns effectively means America’s biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer.
In the four decades after World War II, shareholders on net contributed more than $250 billion to U.S. companies. But since 1985 they have extracted almost $7 trillion. That’s trillions of dollars in profits that might otherwise have been reinvested in the workers who helped produce them.
Before “shareholder value maximization” ideology took hold, wages and productivity grew at roughly the same rate. But since the early 1980s, real wages have stagnated even as productivity has continued to rise. Workers aren’t getting what they’ve earned.
Companies also are setting themselves up to fail. Retained earnings were once the foundation for long-term investments. But from 1990 to 2015, nonfinancial U.S. companies invested trillions less than projected, funneling earnings to shareholders instead. This underinvestment handcuffs U.S. enterprise and bestows an advantage on foreign competitors.
The problem may get worse, because executives have a strong financial incentive to prioritize shareholder returns. Before 1980, top CEOs were rarely compensated in equity. Today it accounts for 62% of their pay. Many executives receive additional company shares as a reward for producing short-term share-price increases. This feedback loop has sent CEO pay skyrocketing. The average CEO of a big company now makes 361 times what the average worker makes, up from 42 times in 1980.
Corporate charters, which define the structure and obligations of U.S. companies, are an obvious tool for addressing these skewed incentives. But companies are chartered at the state level. Most states don’t want to demand more of companies, lest they incorporate elsewhere.
That’s where my bill comes in. The Accountable Capitalism Act restores the idea that giant American corporations should look out for American interests. Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue would be required to get a federal corporate charter. The new charter requires corporate directors to consider the interests of all major corporate stakeholders—not only shareholders—in company decisions. Shareholders could sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those obligations.
This approach follows the “benefit corporation” model, which gives businesses fiduciary responsibilities beyond their shareholders. Thirty-four states already authorize benefit corporations. And successful companies such as Patagonia and Kickstarter have embraced this role.
My bill also would give workers a stronger voice in corporate decision-making at large companies. Employees would elect at least 40% of directors. At least 75% of directors and shareholders would need to approve before a corporation could make any political expenditures. To address self-serving financial incentives in corporate management, directors and officers would not be allowed to sell company shares within five years of receiving them—or within three years of a company stock buyback.
For the past 30 years we have put the American stamp of approval on giant corporations, even as they have ignored the interests of all but a tiny slice of Americans. We should insist on a new deal.
Ms. Warren, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Massachusetts.
-
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/Warren-Sanders.jpg)
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/rebutting-trumps-pocahontas-jab-elizabeth-warren-releases-ancestry-test/
-
For comparisons sake , what constituted being a Jew in Nazi Germany?
****Who did the Nazis define as Jews?
Immediately following the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, the Nazis issued the official definition of a Jew. According to German law, anyone with three Jewish grandparents was a Jew. In addition, anyone married to a Jewish person or who had one Jewish parent was also considered a Jew in the eyes of the law.
Those not classified as Jews under German law, but had some "Jewish blood," were categorized as Mischlinge, or hybrids. Those with two Jewish grandparents were to be known as Mischlinge of the first degree, while those with one Jewish grandparent were of the second degree. In short, Judaism for the Nazis was something racial, something someone was born into and about which they could do nothing.****
I remember meeting some who could trace her line back to the 1620 Mayflower. Then I looked it up and it turns out so can millions of other.
Genghis Khan descendants estimated at ~ maybe 1 in 200:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.W8Sz6Fw-dmA
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/15/elizabeth-warren-less-native-american-than-many-americans-average-white-american/
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/37137/warren-releases-study-showing-shes-supremely-white-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=101518-news&utm_campaign=position1
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/37137/warren-releases-study-showing-shes-supremely-white-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=101518-news&utm_campaign=position1
Per 23 and Me, I am .04 Sub Saharan African. So, using the Warren standard I will be checking a new box on the EEOC forms from now on!
-
https://news.grabien.com/story-flashback-elizabeth-warren-says-her-parents-had-elope-becaus?fbclid=IwAR00EhdLedlWPcBizIduo3sfJ0h67MgoXsZdn4bHLGg_BAmzU68mteePOgg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYWfhO9dqG0&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3HHT3aY5fXUwDoxY4sEtJusQqgbRxi4QTFFA3hh4AUMG7xYkZ-4a8JabI
-
Ivy League universities spend a lot of time talking about how much they promote diversity. But numerous Ivy law faculty now insist they didn’t lift a finger to give an edge to a woman claiming to be Native American and in fact didn’t even know she was calling herself a minority. Why not? The academic history of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) doesn’t seem to square with the policies of the universities that employed her.
On Monday Sen. Warren, who used to call herself Cherokee, presented an analysis of her DNA suggesting that she had a Native American ancestor “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.” Later that day, the Cherokee Nation in Ms. Warren’s home state of Oklahoma rejected this latest effort to justify her claim of Native American status.
One might have expected the senator to simply acknowledge the tribal statement and apologize. But a campaign website is still featuring a story about her “Native American Heritage.” And she’s not the only one who still has a few questions to answer. Her former employers in the Ivy League have offered explanations about her years as a law professor that are hard to reconcile with their schools' stated efforts to recruit, promote and encourage minority faculty.
Here’s the Monday statement from the Cherokee Nation.:
“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America,” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. “Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
It is hard to see how the senator will be able to stick with her claim of Native American heritage when the relevant tribe has rejected it. Leaders of other federally-recognized Cherokee tribes have been more kind to Ms. Warren in their responses and specifically the chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee has lauded Ms. Warren’s policy work, but none is embracing her DNA claim. According to the Associated Press:
The DNA test that Sen. Elizabeth Warren used to try to rebut the ridicule of President Donald Trump angered some Native Americans, who complained that the genetic analysis cheapens the identities of tribal members with deeper ties to the Indian past... she’s not a member of any tribe, and many Indians take exception to anyone who claims to be part Indian without being enrolled in a tribe, especially for political purposes.
Still, the senator’s not ready to give up yet, nor is she relenting on her claim that she never gained any advantage from presenting herself as a minority law professor.
“Ethnicity not a factor in Elizabeth Warren’s rise in law” reads a recent headline in the Boston Globe. The Globe’s Annie Linskey reported:
The Globe closely reviewed the records, verified them where possible, and conducted more than 100 interviews with her colleagues and every person who had a role in hiring decisions about Warren who could be reached. In sum, it is clear that Warren was viewed as a white woman by the hiring committees at every institution that employed her.
This same message is carried by various former colleagues who are offering testimonials in the senator’s campaign materials. One Warren video features a number of Harvard Law colleagues who were involved in hiring Ms. Warren and in granting her tenure saying that her claim of Native American status had nothing to do with their consideration of her and that they didn’t even know she was identifying as a member of a minority group.
Before teaching at Harvard, Ms. Warren taught at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2012 the Boston Globe reported:
Robert H. Mundheim, the dean who hired Warren at Penn, laughed when asked whether he thought of her as a minority.
“Somebody who’s got a small percentage of Native American blood — is that a minority?’’ he said. “I don’t think I ever knew that she had those attributes and that would not have made much of a difference.’’
Professor Mundheim thought the question was laughable in 2012, and this week’s DNA claim certainly seems to have added to the humor. But when did her colleagues start getting the joke?
In the 1980s and 1990s when she was working at Penn and then Harvard, she was claiming in a legal directory to be a minority and was identified as such in federal forms filed by these universities, according to the Globe. And as far as this column can tell no one at that time was publicly rebutting her claim. So why was her status not being considered?
The 2012 Globe report stated:
At the time, elite East Coast law schools were facing protests from minority students and activists who wanted them to diversify their faculty. But they were not on the lookout for Native American scholars, said Colin S. Diver, who succeeded Mundheim as dean at Penn Law during Warren’s time there.
“In Philadelphia and Cambridge, what mattered was African-American and Latino,’’ Diver said. “That’s where the pressure was coming . . . and that’s what you meant when you said ‘students of color.’’’
But this doesn’t seem to square with a February, 1991 report in the Globe about a lawsuit filed against Harvard Law School:
The Harvard students, who filed the suit Nov. 20 in Middlesex Superior Court, claim that Harvard has failed to hire sufficient numbers of black, Hispanic, Native-American and women professors, denying students a full range of perspectives in the classroom.
A separate Globe report on the case noted that the law school did not have any Native American professors.
A November 1991 report in the New York Times on admissions at elite universities also suggests that at least when it came to students, schools were not simply looking for blacks and Latinos to enhance diversity:
Even as the legality of scholarships expressly for minority students is under review in Washington, some of the nation’s largest and most prestigious universities continue to give preferential treatment to students from certain minority groups when making decisions about financial aid...
“The marketplace is most competitive, particularly for African-American and native American students,” said Susan Murphy, Cornell University’s dean of admissions and financial aid. “Recognizing the difficulty in the marketplace, this is one way of trying to increase campus diversity.”
Randall Kennedy is one of the Harvard Law professors who appears in the Warren video saying that he has no memory of her ever claiming Native American status when her appointment was considered and says it was not a factor in Harvard’s evaluation of her.
In his book, “For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative Action, and the Law,” Mr. Kennedy wrote about his own experience joining the Harvard faculty in the 1980s after being contacted by the dean of its law school. At the time Mr. Kennedy was in his final year as a student at Yale’s law school. An excerpt of the book appeared in Salon in 2013:
This recruitment was highly unusual. Rarely does Harvard seek to persuade someone to apply for a faculty position. Dean Vorenberg and his colleagues did so in my case because influential professors at Yale had touted me, because I had written essays that appeared in a number of national publications, and because of the prestige in academic circles of the judges for whom I was clerking. They also took extra steps to recruit me because they wanted to add some color to a faculty that, in the mid-1980s, included only one African American and no Latinos, Native Americans, or Asian Americans. During the two years before my arrival, in 1984, the campus had been beset by highly publicized protests in which a substantial number of students and a small number of faculty members accused the law school administration of discriminating against minority academics of color or failing to reach out sufficiently to recruit them.
Then in 1990 the student lawsuit was filed against Harvard Law. Ms. Warren became a visiting professor at Harvard in 1992 and a few years later accepted a permanent appointment. To sum up, shortly after getting sued in part for not having a single Native American member of the faculty at the law school, the Harvardians say they never even knew Ms. Warren was calling herself a Native American and she maintains she never received any benefits from this status. Some commitment to diversity!
Could it be that the Cambridge crowd finds the idea of her being a minority just as funny as Professor Mundheim did?
***
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-york-times-and-the-warren-math-1539981950?cx_testId=16&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=0&cx_tag=collabctx&cx_navSource=newsReel#cxrecs_s
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/the-blackface-party/?fbclid=IwAR0yHNl5hPzeQOWZHbXm8E6t61EN5oF_13ogvCRukSnUvH3lWkE8lIdf6FA
-
Kim Strassel rips Elizabeth Warren in the WSJ. Everyone she campaigned for lost. The party and the voters rejected her ideas. She won her own election but the Republican Governor got more votes.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biggest-loser-elizabeth-warren-1541721305
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/elizabeth-warrens-theory-of-capitalism/568573/?fbclid=IwAR1xUkCLTLoIJeAwKwO2FaO9NiOJioWx7YUJLqvCpLf1dnBLCd3d61H_q5E
-
second post-- note date
Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders
My new bill would require corporations to answer to employees and other stakeholders as well.
929 Comments
By Elizabeth Warren
Aug. 14, 2018 7:01 p.m. ET
Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders
Photo: Richard Drew/Associated Press
Corporate profits are booming, but average wages haven’t budged over the past year. The U.S. economy has run this way for decades, partly because of a fundamental change in business practices dating back to the 1980s. On Wednesday I’m introducing legislation to fix it.
American corporations exist only because the American people grant them charters. Those charters confer valuable privileges—such as limited legal liability for their owners—that enable businesses to turn a profit. What do Americans get in return? What are the obligations of corporate citizenship in the U.S.?
For much of U.S. history, the answers were clear. Corporations sought to succeed in the marketplace, but they also recognized their obligations to employees, customers and the community. As recently as 1981, the Business Roundtable—which represents large U.S. companies—stated that corporations “have a responsibility, first of all, to make available to the public quality goods and services at fair prices, thereby earning a profit that attracts investment to continue and enhance the enterprise, provide jobs, and build the economy.” This approach worked. American companies and workers thrived.
Late in the 20th century, the dynamic changed. Building on work by conservative economist Milton Friedman, a new theory emerged that corporate directors had only one obligation: to maximize shareholder returns. By 1997 the Business Roundtable declared that the “principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners.”
That shift has had a tremendous effect on the economy. In the early 1980s, large American companies sent less than half their earnings to shareholders, spending the rest on their employees and other priorities. But between 2007 and 2016, large American companies dedicated 93% of their earnings to shareholders. Because the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households own 84% of American-held shares, the obsession with maximizing shareholder returns effectively means America’s biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer.
In the four decades after World War II, shareholders on net contributed more than $250 billion to U.S. companies. But since 1985 they have extracted almost $7 trillion. That’s trillions of dollars in profits that might otherwise have been reinvested in the workers who helped produce them.
Before “shareholder value maximization” ideology took hold, wages and productivity grew at roughly the same rate. But since the early 1980s, real wages have stagnated even as productivity has continued to rise. Workers aren’t getting what they’ve earned.
Companies also are setting themselves up to fail. Retained earnings were once the foundation for long-term investments. But from 1990 to 2015, nonfinancial U.S. companies invested trillions less than projected, funneling earnings to shareholders instead. This underinvestment handcuffs U.S. enterprise and bestows an advantage on foreign competitors.
The problem may get worse, because executives have a strong financial incentive to prioritize shareholder returns. Before 1980, top CEOs were rarely compensated in equity. Today it accounts for 62% of their pay. Many executives receive additional company shares as a reward for producing short-term share-price increases. This feedback loop has sent CEO pay skyrocketing. The average CEO of a big company now makes 361 times what the average worker makes, up from 42 times in 1980.
Corporate charters, which define the structure and obligations of U.S. companies, are an obvious tool for addressing these skewed incentives. But companies are chartered at the state level. Most states don’t want to demand more of companies, lest they incorporate elsewhere.
That’s where my bill comes in. The Accountable Capitalism Act restores the idea that giant American corporations should look out for American interests. Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue would be required to get a federal corporate charter. The new charter requires corporate directors to consider the interests of all major corporate stakeholders—not only shareholders—in company decisions. Shareholders could sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those obligations.
This approach follows the “benefit corporation” model, which gives businesses fiduciary responsibilities beyond their shareholders. Thirty-four states already authorize benefit corporations. And successful companies such as Patagonia and Kickstarter have embraced this role.
My bill also would give workers a stronger voice in corporate decision-making at large companies. Employees would elect at least 40% of directors. At least 75% of directors and shareholders would need to approve before a corporation could make any political expenditures. To address self-serving financial incentives in corporate management, directors and officers would not be allowed to sell company shares within five years of receiving them—or within three years of a company stock buyback.
For the past 30 years we have put the American stamp of approval on giant corporations, even as they have ignored the interests of all but a tiny slice of Americans. We should insist on a new deal.
Ms. Warren, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Massachusetts.
Appeared in the August 15, 2018, print edition.
-
Third post
Elizabeth Warren Dives In
She’ll counter Trump’s populism with a left-wing economic version.
0 Comments
By The Editorial Board
Dec. 31, 2018 6:20 p.m. ET
Senator Elizabeth Warren announces she has formed an exploratory committee to run for president in 2020, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Dec. 31.
Senator Elizabeth Warren announces she has formed an exploratory committee to run for president in 2020, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Dec. 31. Photo: brian snyder/Reuters
The Democratic presidential nominee in 2020 will have an excellent chance of winning, so voters would be wise to pay attention even more than usual to the many candidates and their policies. Wasting no time is Elizabeth Warren, who dropped a video to unveil her exploratory committee on the last day of 2018. As the announcement shows, she intends to run as a troubadour for the populist left.
After 30 seconds of home-movie footage, the video takes a grim turn worthy of the Trump inaugural address. She has studied why some Americans “slip through the cracks into disaster,” says the Massachusetts Senator, “and what I’ve found is terrifying. These aren’t cracks that families are falling into—they’re traps. America’s middle class is under attack.” She calls it all a “scam” and adds that “corruption is poisoning our democracy.”
Journal Editorial Report: Hits and Misses of the Year
Journal Editorial Report: Hits and Misses of the Year
The worst and best from Kim Strassel, Mary O'Grady, Kate Bachelder and Dan Henninger
Ms. Warren plans to counter President Trump’s populism of the right with a left-wing economic version. “How did we get here?” she asks. “Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie, and they enlisted politicians to cut them a fatter slice.”
Like all Democrats these days, she favors higher taxes. Like many others, she supports Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for all” bill and she’d “abolish” and replace Immigration and Customs Enforcement with “something that reflects our morality,” which she doesn’t specify.
The Warren difference is that she also wants fundamental changes to America’s free-market system. Ms. Warren has proposed the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would require corporations with $1 billion in revenue to get a new charter from the federal government. Most corporations are state-chartered now.
Companies would have to fill 40% of board seats with employee representatives, among other stipulations. Ms. Warren wants to make businesses accountable not to shareholders, who are the owners, but to “stakeholders” who may have a different agenda than business success.
On trade, Ms. Warren’s rhetoric is Trumpian
—though she may be more protectionist. Globalization has “been tremendously profitable for the largest American corporations,” she writes in Foreign Affairs, but it has “not delivered for the middle class.”
Her suggestion? “Trade negotiations should be used to curtail the power of multinational monopolies,” she says. “We should leverage foreign countries’ desire for access to U.S. markets as an opportunity to insist on meaningful environmental protections.” This sounds like higher tariffs for countries that ignore U.S. dictates on climate policy.
On foreign affairs, Ms. Warren echoes Mr. Trump’s desire to exit “endless wars.” But unlike Mr. Trump, she says, “the Pentagon’s budget has been too large for too long.” It should be reset to “sustainable levels” with the savings put toward “other forms of international engagement and critical domestic programs.” Never mind that defense spending is down even with Mr. Trump’s increases to not much above 3% of GDP—the lowest in decades other than the brief holiday from history between 1998 and 9/11.
All of this amounts to a platform even further left than Barack Obama’s, but don’t think it can’t win. Democrats have moved markedly left in recent years, and Ms. Warren’s name ID and reputation make her potentially formidable.
One weakness is that she isn’t the most natural, or likable, politician. Exhibit A is her identity-politics faux pas, standing by her claim of Native American ancestry and then asserting vindication when a DNA test showed a smidgen—six to 10 generations back. Mr. Trump used it to raise questions about her political authenticity, and this could work against her in a party fixated on identity politics.
Let’s hope primary voters do their due diligence well. Putting the competing Democratic agendas to close scrutiny will matter—this year perhaps more than ever.
-
fourth
https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-delivers-speech-on-comprehensive-plan-to-end-corruption-in-washington
-
Fifth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=rbH0RU4GcVo
===================================================
She's a school marm shrew and , , , well we all know.
That said, there are some interesting themes here-- ones that may be picked up by others.
-
If Democrats pick Warren they will force debate on some basic economic points. For example, is one person poor because someone else is rich? Is the middle class stuck in place because a few [Democrats] have become incredibly rich?
She has a proven electoral history; she ran against a Republican in Massachusetts and BEAT HIM.
It's a divided country; she promises to divide us further. Or as she might put it, unite us against them. Within the argument that the civil war is already on, she is the perfect candidate. That may be perfect for the Dem primaries. But in game theory, everything she says gets answered - on twitter. Her economic arguments have never been challenged, just spewed in the Leftist bubble. Even Trump could shoot that down.
Does Warren in, mean Bernie is out? Will the younger candidates attack her or ignore her?
She is a "fighter". What fight has she won? Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, immigration reform, tax reform, Medicare for all, foreign policy, trade, Wall Street, even consumer protection, what fight has she won? Why don't we just admit it, she is an angry talker, not a fighter.
Once again they want the first female President to have no female qualities whatsoever. I don't see the gender card helping her with women or men. If you are a pure Leftist, she is your candidate, nor more, no less than Bernie. Qualities men want in a woman: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-lodolce/9-personality-traits-men-_b_11164558.html Empathy, intelligence, sense of humor, kindness, great character. Mean and ugly fighter doesn't make the list for either gender.
Either you buy her economic argument or you don't. Capitalism is destroying us or it isn't.
We want to go the way of Venezuela or we don't. There is no blank canvas like 2008 Barack Obama offered to paint your own picture on the vagueness and platitudes he espoused.
-
I underline that some of her themes there have political potency.
Predicition: Others will be picking them up.
-
I underline that some of her themes there have political potency.
Predicition: Others will be picking them up.
Agree. She lives and breathes the themes of American Leftism. Does that attract new people in or just harden the base? Does it win the 'rust belt'? What then do they do in the debates if they all share or copy the same themes? They have a mirror image problem of what Republicans faced in 2016. Is the contest to see who is furthest Left? Who is angriest? Do they fight out their differences on the margin? Do all these far Leftists split the base, never drop out, and someone with a slightly different take walks right through?
-
Where she is most clever here I think is with the "fixing excesses of capitalism" meme. Some of these will play well against Trump.
-
Where she is most clever here I think is with the "fixing excesses of capitalism" meme. Some of these will play well against Trump.
True. "she is most clever here I think is with the "fixing excesses of capitalism" meme."
- She will fix it by ending it.
"Some of these will play well against Trump."
- Yes, if not effectively challenged and refuted.
She is sort of an English-Irish-Cherokee version of Hugo Chavez - without the charisma. He too was populist, railed against the excesses of capitalism - until those 'excesses' like food, water, oil and medicine were all gone.
The opponents of Sanders-Warren-Chavez-onomics need to stop allowing them to scoff off the similarities of their proposals to those of the failed states. What you are proposing has failed everywhere it has been tried. Socialism requires coercion which they quite openly support. A good number of Americans want more economic equality without losing freedom but that is not what they are proposing.
We need to pursue prosperity for all, not equality for all.
As some have put it, she is better at scolding than inspiring.
-
Where she is most clever here I think is with the "fixing excesses of capitalism" meme. Some of these will play well against Trump.
True. "she is most clever here I think is with the "fixing excesses of capitalism" meme."
- She will fix it by ending it.
"Some of these will play well against Trump."
- Yes, if not effectively challenged and refuted.
She is sort of an English-Irish-Cherokee version of Hugo Chavez - without the charisma. He too was populist, railed against the excesses of capitalism - until those 'excesses' like food, water, oil and medicine were all gone.
The opponents of Sanders-Warren-Chavez-onomics need to stop allowing them to scoff off the similarities of their proposals to those of the failed states. What you are proposing has failed everywhere it has been tried. Socialism requires coercion which they quite openly support. A good number of Americans want more economic equality without losing freedom but that is not what they are proposing.
We need to pursue prosperity for all, not equality for all.
As some have put it, she is better at scolding than inspiring.
Hillary without the charisma.
-
"Hillary without the charisma."
Yes. Also Bernie without the sex appeal.
-
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1080858959404240896/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1080858959404240896&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F39921%2Fyes-its-okay-laugh-donald-trumps-elizabeth-warren-ben-shapiro
-
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/424006-where-warren-stands-on-top-defense-issues
-
Detroit News [Opinion]:
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2019/02/12/finley-warrens-lie-should-end-her-campaign/2800550002/
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam put black shoe polish on his face when he was a medical student 35 years ago to pretend to be Michael Jackson in a dance competition. That revelation has brought a torrent of calls for his resignation.
Elizabeth Warren has pretended to be an American Indian for decades to boost her professional and political prospects — the equivalent of smearing her face with red shoe polish — and yet she intends to go ahead with her presidential bid.
What the Democratic Massachusetts senator did is every bit as offensive as what Northam did, perhaps more so. Northam’s bit of poor judgment appears to be an isolated incident deep in his past, committed before he entered public service.
Warren continued her egregious behavior until just days ago, when she finally admitted she was no Indian and apologized.
-
Ummm , , , forgive me but isn't there a touch of the glib in that? His nickname was "Coonman" and whichever of the two he was on his med school yearbook page bespeaks more old school Southern confederate that young "wigger".
No argument on Squaw Warren however :lol:
-
Prediction: Warren will be the first to drop out - even though she is one of the few with her own thread.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/poll-elizabeth-warren-lags-in-new-hampshire.php
She isn't popular in neighboring New Hampshire and she has no other place to go where she would have more appeal. Besides no white and no black appeal, she couldn't win the Cherokee primary.
-
The world retains its ability to surprise , , ,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll61nxDqImc&fbclid=IwAR3GGCew-60kt0PBT-mwxtaDnSWFKSu4ryvJyCf9E9IiFcs6X8SEnh-wOBQ
-
Jailing CEOs to Please the Masses
Warren’s proposal would overturn hundreds of years of U.S. legal tradition.
By John F. Wood
April 21, 2019 3:05 p.m. ET
Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks in Reno, Nev., April 6. Photo: Tracy Barbutes/Zuma Press
Elizabeth Warren was one of my best law-school professors, but her political ambitions seem to have suppressed her once-reasonable instincts, particularly regarding corporate regulation. One of her recent proposals, the Corporate Executive Accountability Act, would upend hundreds of years of U.S. legal tradition and wreak havoc in boardrooms.
The proposal would make it a federal crime, punishable by up to a year in prison for a first-time violation, for corporate executives to “negligently permit or fail to prevent” violations of the law at their companies.
As a former U.S. attorney, I am all for prosecuting executives who knowingly engage in misconduct. But negligence is an extremely low standard ,normally reserved for civil enforcement and tort law. It means that a violation should have been avoided through greater care but was accidental. By definition, negligent executives are unaware of any wrongdoing.
For centuries, with very few exceptions, U.S. law has reserved criminal penalties for people who knowingly engage in misconduct. Otherwise, a person does not deserve to lose his liberty and be branded a criminal. Even if the sentence is short, criminal convictions carry significant moral and social stigma. That reputational damage is often impossible to repair.
Ms. Warren says we must lower the criminal standard from intent to negligence because it is hard to prove that top executives were “personally aware of all their company’s actions.”
She is correct—it is difficult to prove knowledge and intent. But that high burden of proof is a good thing. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “If justice requires the fact to be ascertained, the difficulty of doing so is no ground for refusing to try.”
Her proposal is also baffling in its limitations. If Ms. Warren truly believes oversight failures warrant jail time, shouldn’t she also call for the arrest and conviction of members of Congress who negligently fail to prevent their staffers from breaking campaign-finance laws?
Though she leaves lawmakers untouched, Ms. Warren’s proposed criminal sanctions for executives are extremely broad. They would apply to negligence at all companies with more than $1 billion in revenue if the company violates any federal or state criminal law. Roughly 2,000 U.S. companies, employing nearly one-third of all workers, meet these criteria.
The proposal would even criminalize negligence by executives at such companies that violate any civil law “if that violation affects the health, safety, finances, or personal data of 1% of the American population or 1% of the population of any state.” Ms. Warren points out that corporate executives who negligently cause the adulteration or misbranding of drugs may face criminal penalties under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. But that’s much narrower than making it a crime to fail unknowingly to prevent any violation of state or federal, criminal or civil law.
At the same time, Ms. Warren’s bill would make it harder for prosecutors to get the victims of corporate misconduct their due. The government often brings cases against companies when lower-level employees have acted inappropriately. In many instances, that is a good thing. A corporate fine encourages companies to be more vigilant in adopting and implementing compliance programs. Fines and settlements may also provide compensation to consumers and others who have been harmed.
But under Ms. Warren’s bill, executives can be jailed for civil violations for which companies are found liable or settle. This sets up very different incentives. It’s one thing for your company to pay a fine, another for your life to be ruined. CEOs may simply refuse to settle, and victims will either lose out on the money they are due or have to spend exorbitantly to get it.
If Ms. Warren’s idea becomes law, executives will have to pour more time and money into protecting themselves and less creating jobs and boosting shareholder value. That’s no way to run a company—or govern a country.
Mr. Wood is senior vice president, chief legal officer, and general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He previously served as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri.
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/444346-warren-policy-ideas-show-signs-of-paying-off
-
https://www.theblaze.com/news/elizabeth-warren-gay-reparations?utm_content=buffer2716a&utm_medium=Referral&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=TheBlazeFB&fbclid=IwAR2vG1eAVWMswynKZNjE_OCWLAFBzTlSXnPHQ4aW9nOBpVp2aWJQ6O8KbmA
-
https://www.theblaze.com/news/elizabeth-warren-gay-reparations?utm_content=buffer2716a&utm_medium=Referral&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=TheBlazeFB&fbclid=IwAR2vG1eAVWMswynKZNjE_OCWLAFBzTlSXnPHQ4aW9nOBpVp2aWJQ6O8KbmA
Electoral gold!
-
Elizabeth Warren’s Crisis Has Arrived
She claimed taxpayers would profit from the scam that helped make her rich.
By James Freeman
Aug. 21, 2019 12:52 pm ET
Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass) at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota on Monday. Photo: craig lassig/Shutterstock
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s past claims of minority status may not be the most embarrassing fraud she’ll have to explain as she continues to seek the Democratic presidential nomination. A Journal editorial outlines the scale of a Warren-backed disaster that is goring taxpayers even as it has helped the Massachusetts lawmaker accumulate a small fortune.
Sen. Warren has done as much as anyone in Washington to support the taxpayer-financed bubble in higher education by serially demanding expansions in student loans and pretending the government would make money off the program. But now the cost to taxpayers—including those who never went to college— is getting too big to ignore. A report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York notes the disturbingly high delinquency rates on student loans compared to other types of debt.
The senator made headlines recently by predicting an economic crisis. But the crisis has already arrived for taxpayers—and her fingerprints are all over it. The Journal explains:
About 10% of the $1.5 trillion federal student-loan portfolio is 30 days or more past due. Another 20% is in deferment or forbearance, and about 30% is in income-based repayment plans that allow most borrowers to cap monthly payments at 10% of discretionary income and discharge the remaining balance after 20 years or 10 for folks in “public service.”
Sen. Warren spent years demanding more subsidies and claiming that taxpayers would make a fortune off student loans. But it was all based on fraudulent Washington accounting that would land private financiers in prison. The Journal adds:
Using fair-market accounting that prevails in the private economy, CBO now projects a $306.7 billion cost to taxpayers over the next 10 years. The red ink will be far worse beyond that 10-year budget window.
Federal administrative costs are also running at more than twice the level promised by Washington. “The government’s overhead tab this year was $2.9 billion,” notes the Journal.
The editorial also helpfully notes that because of the many ways politicians like Ms. Warren have created to let borrowers avoid payment, even non-delinquent borrowers can still contribute to a taxpayer fleecing:
As long as borrowers are making de minimis monthly payments on student loans, their credit scores won’t be hurt. The upshot is that student-loan borrowers collectively are paying down a mere 1% of their balance each year, according to a recent Bloomberg News analysis. At this rate the U.S. Treasury’s existing student-loan portfolio wouldn’t be repaid for 100 years.
Perhaps to avoid more bad delinquency news in the future, Sen. Warren has proposed to “cancel debt for more than 95% of the nearly 45 million Americans” with student loans. Taxpayers will eat the losses, not the faculty and college administrators who have been gorging on all this subsidized education spending. Ms. Warren is coincidentally a former law professor and Forbes recently estimated her household net worth at $12 million. Reported Forbes:
Teachers aren’t paid so poorly after all—at least not Harvard professors. Warren and her husband, Bruce Mann, both longtime instructors at the university, have built up a small fortune through years of teaching, writing and consulting.
Given all the taxpayer money continuing to flow into education, one place where no one should expect a financial crisis is the Warren household.
***
-
"She claimed taxpayers would profit from the scam that helped make her rich."
"CBO now projects a $306.7 billion cost to taxpayers over the next 10 years. The red ink will be far worse beyond that 10-year budget window."
This is definitely a scandal of major proportions but I was expecting from the headline a larger personal connection to ill-gotten wealth for Warren. Still the point is well taken. We are enriching all these education liberals with a scam that would make Bernie Madoff blush.
Instead of embarrassed by the low payback rate, they are racing to drop that rate to zero.
Debt wiped clean if you work in "public service"? Good God.
My daughter paid off 100% of her debt and the overall average is 1%. Someone isn't pulling their share. Keeping it off the credit report means no one has to pay it.
-------------------
Warren apparently drew a "huge" crowd at liberal Macalaster College in St Paul yesterday. This is exactly her element. A place that educated Walter Mondale and Kofi Annan with one wind turbine made in China but no one comes out of there knowing how to do boiler maintenance.
I didn't see a press report on how WHITE her crowd was, or an independent verification of crowd size if that was notable.
-
Bring back the riots! Let's all get heated up again over false facts on a false narrative.
Will the intentionally division of Elizabeth Warren's August tweet [also Kamala Harris] wrongly calling the unfortunate shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson 2014 a murder become an issue in the upcoming Democratic debate?
They all want to replace Donald Trump because he is what? Hateful, divisive, reckless with his words and tweets etc. So they counter that by being what? Hateful, divisive, reckless with his words and tweets etc.
Way to give voters a clear choice...
BTW, where was the Warren tweet when the black cop shot the white woman in her pajamas as was convicted of murder?
-----------
5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 9, 2019
But the Justice Department’s 2015 report contradicted many of the protesters’ claims, finding that Wilson likely did have reason to fear for his life and didn’t violate the law in shooting Brown. The Warren and Harris campaigns did not return requests for comment.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/12/20801975/elizabeth-warren-kamala-harris-michael-brown-ferguson-tweets
-
It turns out the Kamala Harris post was 35 minutes earlier making the Warren tweet nothing more original than a pathetic ''me too' attempt. In that 35 minutes or any longer time she wanted to take, she could have fact checked the matter and eliminated the hate and violence inciting falsehood. After called out on it, she sticks with the Dan Rather "false, but true' defense.
If not her memory or her knowledge, how good is her staff if the time taken to copy her primary opponent does not discover a horribly inflammatory falsehood?
I know we don't have both sides represented on the board right now, but what Trump tweet is as egregious as this, I would like to know. Everyone please ask your anyone-but-Trump friends and relatives what Trump tweet was worse than the top Democrats trying to restart civil unrest and police ambushes over a false story on a false narrative.
This story the first time around arguably cost Justine Damon her life. Police feared an ambush - because police were getting ambushed over a false msm story on a false narrative that has long since been corrected.
------------------------------
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/newsrooms-actually-call-out-kamala-harris-and-elizabeth-warren-for-lying-about-michael-browns-death
-
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/elizabeth-warren-wants-to-make-cronyism-great-again/
Elizabeth Warren Wants to Make Cronyism Great Again
August 23, 2018 by Dan Mitchell
Donald Trump wants to make protectionism great again. Bernie Sanders wants to make socialism great again.
And if we continue with sarcastic headlines, Elizabeth Warren wants to make cronyism great again.
She has a plan, which she explained in a column for the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-shouldnt-be-accountable-only-to-shareholders-1534287687 and also in this press release on her Senate website https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-introduces-accountable-capitalism-act, that would give politicians and bureaucrats sweeping powers over large companies.
There’s a technical term for this system of private ownership/government control. It’s called fascism, though I prefer referring to it as corporatism or dirigisme to distinguish what Warren is doing from the racist and militaristic version of that ideology.
Or we can just call it crazy. Kevin Williamson summarizes this dangerous proposal for National Review.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has one-upped socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: She proposes to nationalize every major business in the United States of America. If successful, it would constitute the largest seizure of private property in human history. …Senator Warren’s proposal entails the wholesale expropriation of private enterprise in the United States, and nothing less. It is unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, irresponsible, and — not to put too fine a point on it — utterly bonkers. …To propose such a thing for sincere reasons would be ghastly stupidity. …Politicians such as Senator Warren lack the courage to go to the American electorate and say: “We wish to provide these benefits, and they will cost an extra $3 trillion a year, which we will pay for by doubling taxes.” …It treats the productive capacity of the United States as a herd of dairy cows to be milked by Senator Warren et al. at their convenience. And, of course, Senator Warren and her colleagues get to decide how the milk gets distributed, too. …Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Hugo Chávez, Huey Long: The rogues’ gallery of those who sought to fortify their political power by bullying businesses is long, and it is sickening. Senator Warren now nominates herself to that list
Professor Don Boudreaux of George Mason University exposes Warren’s economic illiteracy.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)…outlined her new bill that “would require corporations to answer to employees and other stakeholders as well.” …If this mandate is ever enacted, it would radically restructure corporate law, governance, and finance, which is especially frightening because seldom have I encountered so many fallacies…no company in a market economy can force anyone to buy its outputs or to supply it with labor and other inputs, every company, to survive, must continually make attractive offers to consumers, workers, and suppliers. The ability of consumers, workers, and suppliers to say no combines with the law of contract — which requires parties to honor whatever commitments they voluntarily make to each other — to guarantee that companies are fully accountable to everyone with whom they exchange. Companies therefore are fully accountable to their customers and to their workers… the senator offers absolutely no evidence — not even a single anecdote — that companies are unaccountable to consumers.
Not that we needed more evidence that she doesn’t understand economics.
Walter Olson points out that Warren’s legislation would expropriate wealth, presumably in violation of the Constitution’s taking clause.
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has introduced legislation that would radically overhaul corporate governance in America, requiring that the largest (over $1 billion) companies obtain revocable charters from the federal government to do business, instituting rules reminiscent of German-style co-determination… Sen. Warren’s proposal would pull down three main pillars of U.S. corporate governance: shareholder primacy, director independence, and charter federalism. …Warren-style rules…would in effect confiscate at a stroke a large share of stockholder value, transferring it to some combination of worker and “community” interests. …This gigantic expropriation, of course, might be a Pyrrhic victory for many workers and retirees whose 401(k) values would take a huge hit… some early enthusiasts for the Warren plan are treating the collapse of shareholder value as a feature rather than a bug, arguing that it would reduce wealth inequality. …it would test the restraints the U.S. Constitution places on the taking of property without compensation.
Wow, it belies belief that some leftists support policies that will hurt everyone so long as rich people suffer the most. The ghost of Jonathan Swift is smiling.
Samuel Hammond of the Niskanen Center explains why Warren’s scheme would be devastating to fast-growing innovative companies.
The United States is home to 64 percent of the world’s billion-dollar privately held companies and a plurality of the world’s billion-dollar startups. Known in the industry as “unicorns,” they cover industries ranging from aerospace to biotechnology, and they are the reason America remains the engine of innovation for the entire world. Unless Elizabeth Warren gets her way. In a bill unveiled this week, the Massachusetts senator has put forward a proposal that threatens to force America’s unicorns into a corral and domesticate the American economy indefinitely. …the Accountable Capitalism Act is in many ways the most radical proposal advanced by a mainstream Democratic lawmaker to date. …Warren’s proposal is to fundamentally upend the way the most productive companies in the American economy work from the top down.
Writing for CapX, Oliver Wiseman wisely warns that Warren’s power-grab will undermine productivity.
…her federal charter system would make large firms accountable to politicians – not the people. And that, given the current occupant of the White House, it is surprising that someone from the left of the Democratic party cannot see how this isn’t just deeply illiberal but really rather dangerous. …much beyond the imposition of costly and inefficient box-ticking exercises. Firms will hold meetings with communities, conduct internal reviews and, in all likelihood, reach the same decision they would have reached anyway. Only more slowly and at greater expense. …If you are worried about stagnating wages, you should be preoccupied by one thing above all else: how to boost productivity. Warren’s vision for “accountable capitalism” not only has nothing to say on the issue, it would chip at way at the dynamism that has been the engine of America’s economic success. …The proposals in the Accountable Capitalism Act are drawn up by someone interested in how the pie is sliced up, not the size of the pie. …According to the economist William Nordhaus, innovators keep just 2 per cent of the social value of their innovations. The rest of us enjoy 98 per cent of the upside.
Amen. When there’s less innovation, investment, and productivity, that means lower wages for the rest of us.
Ryan Bourne highlights for the Weekly Standard how political meddling would create uncertainty and will harm both workers and shareholders.
While she might want businesses to notionally be private entities, the “Accountable Capitalism Act” she unveiled last week represents pure, unadulterated European corporatism… Warren’s proposal would establish in the Commerce Department an Office of United States Corporations to review and grant charters… This office is an almighty and arbitrary Damocles sword, with the politicians that control it able to hold companies in breach of charter for anything and everything they are thought not to have considered. …To say the Act would muddy the waters and create perverse incentives is an understatement. … A 1995-96 meta-analysis of 46 studies on worker participation by economist Chris Doucouliagos found that…co-determination laws were a drag. This all means lower wages for employed workers and huge losses for pension funds and other shareholders.
Last but not least, Barry Brownstein, in an article for FEE, is concerned about politicians holding the whip hand over the economy.
Senator Elizabeth Warren… Her ignorance is bold. …Under her proposed law, Warren and others in government will pretend to know much about that which they know nothing—running every large business in America. …In a few years, under a democratic socialist president—I almost wrote national socialist president—Warren’s dystopia could become a reality. …Imagine a major bear market and the resulting spike in fear. Then, it is not so hard to imagine a future president, with a mindset like that of Senator Warren, barnstorming the country dispensing field guidance. Is not President Trump managing trade via “bold ignorance” paving the way for more politicians like Senator Warren?
These seven articles do a great job of documenting the myriad flaws with Warren’s scheme.
So the only thing I’ll add is that we also need to realize that this plan, if ever enacted, would be a potent recipe for corruption.
We already have many examples of oleaginous interactions between big business and big government. Turbo-charging cronyism is hardly a step in the right direction.
Let’s wrap up. I used to have a schizophrenic view of Elizabeth Warren. Was she a laughable crank with a side order of sleazy ambition? Or was she a typical politician (i.e., a hypocrite and cronyist)?
Now I worry she’s something worse. Sort of a Kamala Harris on steroids.
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/51363/shapiro-how-quest-power-corrupted-elizabeth-warren-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=090519-news&utm_campaign=position1
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/12/elizabeth-warren-a-direct-descendant-of-militia-indian-fighter-who-fought-seminole-tribe/
:-D
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/12/elizabeth-warren-a-direct-descendant-of-militia-indian-fighter-who-fought-seminole-tribe/
And 'black' Kamala is a descendant of slave owners. They are so full of identity politics and then blur all the distinctions.
-
At first glance, her proposal to outlaw going from government work into lobbying has a lot of appeal. Not only does it steal a Trump issue, it puts him in the cross hairs.
I suspect this one is going to work very well for her, and puts Trump in the awkward position of going "Me too!" or trying to tout his much lesser EO early in his term all the while rehashing the various accusations against his underlings.
-
At first glance, her proposal to outlaw going from government work into lobbying has a lot of appeal. Not only does it steal a Trump issue, it puts him in the cross hairs.
I suspect this one is going to work very well for her, and puts Trump in the awkward position of going "Me too!" or trying to tout his much lesser EO early in his term all the while rehashing the various accusations against his underlings.
A public official must not own a business. Public officials must all come from the public sector. Very convenient for the party of government. Career governmentists are not what the Founders envisioned, but their side has come to hate the work of the Founders anyway.
People from the public sector don't have an even worse conflict of interest? Regulators, teachers unions, bureaucrats, no bias? People who risk nothing to make $400,00 per year to teach one class at Harvard, they have moral superiority to a business person?
I agree with you Crafty that unanswered, the Warren plan sounds good to a large part of the electorate.
The main point with corruption is that the larger you make the government role in every business, the more corruption you will have on all sides.
Warren and Sanders et al are great experts at regulating and dividing up wealth that never would have existed under their policies.
-
https://babylonbee.com/news/elizabeth-warren-claims-two-men-in-colonial-outfits-assaulted-her-with-smallpox-infested-blankets?fbclid=IwAR0ZfQwl5D6rcEpfGnx-tellPrwtBExut0A11Y7ZYBCdllmFo26fux0RBuc
-
https://babylonbee.com/news/elizabeth-warren-claims-two-men-in-colonial-outfits-assaulted-her-with-smallpox-infested-blankets?fbclid=IwAR0ZfQwl5D6rcEpfGnx-tellPrwtBExut0A11Y7ZYBCdllmFo26fux0RBuc
:-D
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsX91mHWDao
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsX91mHWDao
Fingers on chalkboard voice. Even if she was someone I agreed with, it's painful to listen to her.
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/warren-clinton-talk-behind-scenes-2020-race-intensifies-n1049701?fbclid=IwAR06aT8c-uavZR5vChsMgTAMqcSOYWaCLBxL7zscjEdvEnzT95KivCUCBdo
-
Shiny object aside, can we get back to defeating Elizabeth Warren? :wink:
Besides despising Trump and his policies, she also despises FDR.
I'm trying to remember how many states Walter Mondale won besides his home state when he promised to raise taxes... None.
Also, the punitive wealth tax is unconstutional.
From the article:
Warren’s scheme upends FDR’s notion that Social Security should be an “earned benefit.”
"The cornerstone of FDR’s Social Security program is its “earned right” principle, under which benefits are earned through payroll-tax contributions. …in a major break from one of FDR’s main Social Security principles, the plan provides no additional benefits in return for the new taxes. …Such a large revenue stream to fund unearned benefits, aptly called “gratuities” in FDR’s era, would put Social Security on a road to becoming a welfare program. …Ms. Warren’s proposal returns the country to an era when elected officials regularly used Social Security as a vote-buying scheme."
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/elizabeth-warrens-reckless-scheme-to-expand-the-social-security-burden-and-undermine-american-competitiveness/
Elizabeth Warren’s Reckless Scheme to Expand the Social Security Burden and Undermine American Competitiveness
September 25, 2019 by Dan Mitchell
Social Security is projected to consume an ever-larger share of America’s national income, mostly thanks to an aging population.
Indeed, demographic change is why the program is bankrupt, with an inflation-adjusted cash-flow deficit of more than $42 trillion.
Yet Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to make a bad situation even worse.
In a blatant effort to buy votes, she is proposing a radical expansion in the old-age entitlement program. Here’s how USA Today describes her proposal.
Warren’s strategy would make major changes to Social Security, boosting benefits for all and imposing new taxes on high-income earners to finance them. …Under the proposal, everyone would get a $200 increase in monthly payments from Social Security, including both retirement and disability benefits. …Certain groups would see even larger increases. …In order to cover these benefits and shore up Social Security’s future finances, Warren would impose two new taxes. First, a new payroll tax would apply to wages above $250,000, with employees paying 7.4% and employers matching with 7.4% of their own. This is above the 6.2% employee rate that applies to current wages up to $132,900 in 2019, …Second, individual filers making more than $250,000 or joint filers above $400,000 would owe a heightened net investment income tax at a rate of 14.8%. …The Warren proposal breaks new ground by largely disconnecting the benefits that Social Security pays from the wages on which the program collects taxes.
In a column for the Wall Street Journal, John Cogan of the Hoover Institution explains why the proposal is so irresponsible.
It’s a strange campaign season, loaded with fantastical promises of government handouts for health care, college and even a guaranteed national income. But Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’s Social Security plan takes the cake. With trillion-dollar federal budget deficits and Social Security heading for bankruptcy, Ms. Warren proposes to give every current and future Social Security recipient an additional $2,400 a year. She plans to finance her proposal, which would cost more than $150 billion annually, with a 14.8% tax on high-income individuals. …the majority of Ms. Warren’s proposed Social Security bonanza would go to middle- and upper-income seniors. …The plan would cost taxpayers about $70,000 for each senior citizen lifted out of poverty.
Cogan also explains that Warren’s scheme upends FDR’s notion that Social Security should be an “earned benefit.”
The cornerstone of FDR’s Social Security program is its “earned right” principle, under which benefits are earned through payroll-tax contributions. …in a major break from one of FDR’s main Social Security principles, the plan provides no additional benefits in return for the new taxes. …Such a large revenue stream to fund unearned benefits, aptly called “gratuities” in FDR’s era, would put Social Security on a road to becoming a welfare program. …Ms. Warren’s proposal returns the country to an era when elected officials regularly used Social Security as a vote-buying scheme.
For all intents and purposes, Warren has put forth a more radical version of the plan introduced by Congressman John Larson, along with most of his colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus.
And that plan is plenty bad.
Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute wrote about the economic damage it would cause.
…the Social Security 2100 Act consists of more than 100% tax increases – because it not only raises payroll taxes to fund currently promised benefits, but increases benefits for all current and future retirees. …Social Security’s 12.4% payroll tax rate would rise to 14.8% while the $132,900 salary ceiling on which Social Security taxes apply would be phased out. Combined with federal income taxes, Medicare taxes and state income taxes, high-earning taxpayers could face marginal tax rates topping 60%. …Economists agree that tax increases reduce labor supply, the only disagreement being whether it’s by a little or a lot. Likewise, various research concludes that middle- and upper-income households factor Social Security into how much they’ll save for retirement on their own. If they expect higher Social Security benefits their personal saving will fall. Since higher labor supply and more saving are the most reliable routes to economic growth, the Social Security 2100 Act’s risk to the economy is obvious. …an economic model created by a team based at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School…projects GDP in 2049 would be 2.0% lower than a hypothetical baseline in which the government borrowed to fund full promised Social Security benefits. The logic is straightforward: when taxes go up people work less; when Social Security benefits go up, people save less. If people work less and save less, the economy grows more slowly.
And the Wall Street Journal opined about the adverse impact of the proposal.
Among the many tax increases Democrats are now pushing is the Social Security 2100 Act sponsored by John Larson of House Ways and Means. The plan would raise average benefits by 2% and ties cost-of-living raises to a highly generous and experimental measure of inflation for the elderly known as CPI-E. The payroll tax rate for Social Security would rise steadily over two decades to 14.8% from 12.4% for all workers, and Democrats would also apply the tax to income above $400,000. …The proposal would also further tilt government spending to the elderly, who in general are doing well. …Democrats are also sneaky in the way they lift the income cap on Social Security taxes. The Social Security tax currently applies only on income up to $132,900, an amount that rises each year with inflation. But the new payroll tax on income above $400,000 isn’t indexed to inflation, which means the tax would ensnare ever more taxpayers over time. …The new 14.8% Social Security payroll-tax rate would come on top of the 37% federal income-tax rate, plus 2.9% for Medicare today (split between employer and employee), plus the 0.9% ObamaCare surcharge on income above $200,000 and 3.8% surcharge on investment income. …As lifespans increase, the U.S. needs more working seniors contributing to the economy. Yet higher Social Security benefits can induce earlier retirement if people think they don’t have to save as much. Higher marginal tax rates on Social Security benefits and income also discourage healthy seniors from working.
Now imagine those bad results and add in the economic damage from a 14.8 percentage point increase in the tax burden on saving and investment, which is the main wrinkle that Senator Warren has added.
Don’t forget she also wants higher capital gains taxes and a punitive wealth tax.
Her overall tax agenda is unquestionably going to be very bad news for job creation and American competitiveness.
The “rich” are the primary targets of her tax hikes, but the rest of us will suffer the collateral damage.
Instead of huge tax increases, personal retirement accounts are a far better way of addressing Social Security’s long-run problem.
-----------------------------
All these tax increases and she still can't pay for all her programs.
-
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/elizabeth-warren-private-prisons-investments-2020-election/2019/09/27/id/934617/
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., invested up to $50,000 in a retirement account run by an investment management company that has heavily invested in private prison companies
-
Wants to clean up corruption, just not on her side.
Her hesitation to take on Biden and Hunter Biden is strategic but also exposes character flaw. Was Trump afraid to take on Jeb Bush, McCain, anyone?
Here she is speechless when asked if her own proposal would apply to real people in real situations on her side. Don't offend anyone Lizzie.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/warren-flustered-by-hypothetical-ethics-question-concerning-hunter-biden/
She fumbled with an answer when asked about whether the policy would apply to her vice president—a hypothetical scenario alluding to Hunter Biden's lucrative appointment to the board of a Ukrainian gas company while Joe Biden served in the Obama administration.
"No," Warren said, before haltingly adding, "I don't—I don't know. I mean, I’d have to go back and look at the details on the plan."
What?!
-
Her plan is what China does. You selectively prosecute political enemies under the banner of cleaning up corruption while ignoring what your side does.
Wants to clean up corruption, just not on her side.
Her hesitation to take on Biden and Hunter Biden is strategic but also exposes character flaw. Was Trump afraid to take on Jeb Bush, McCain, anyone?
Here she is speechless when asked if her own proposal would apply to real people in real situations on her side. Don't offend anyone Lizzie.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/warren-flustered-by-hypothetical-ethics-question-concerning-hunter-biden/
She fumbled with an answer when asked about whether the policy would apply to her vice president—a hypothetical scenario alluding to Hunter Biden's lucrative appointment to the board of a Ukrainian gas company while Joe Biden served in the Obama administration.
"No," Warren said, before haltingly adding, "I don't—I don't know. I mean, I’d have to go back and look at the details on the plan."
What?!
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/elizabeth-warren-claimed-her-parents-had-to-elope-because-of-mothers-native-american-ancestry/
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/elizabeth-warren-claimed-her-parents-had-to-elope-because-of-mothers-native-american-ancestry/
You can tell when she's lying - her lips move.
-------------------------------------------------
But her $15 minimum wage will be great, huge, ... wait:
According to the CBO’s median estimate, the increase of the minimum wage would have the effect of killing 1.3 million jobs, increasing consumer prices and reducing economic growth. In effect, $8.7 billion in family income would simply disappear into the progressive economic ether. A proposal that would reduce household income for everyone by $8.7 billion as a means to increase wages for some Americans is absurd.
https://www.timesonline.com/opinion/20190821/andy-puzder-sen-warren-is-real-economic-threat
Government mandated wage increase equals decreased family income. Or as Warren might cal lit, win-win.
-
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/04/how_the_quest_for_power_corrupted_elizabeth_warren_141163.html
How the Quest for Power Corrupted Elizabeth Warren, By Ben Shapiro
...
[Her 2003 book:] "The Two-Income Trap," which discusses the rising number of bankruptcies among middle-class parents, particularly women with children. The book posits that women entered the workforce figuring that by doing so, they could have double household income. But so many women entered the workforce that they actually inflated prices for basic goods like housing, thus driving debt skyward and leading to bankruptcies for two-income families. The book argued that families with one income might actually be better off, since families with two incomes spent nearly the full combined income and then fell behind if one spouse lost a job. Families with one income, by contrast, spent to the limit for one income, and if a spouse was fired, the unemployed spouse would then look for work to replace that single income.
Warren's core insight was fascinating: She argued that massive expansion of the labor force had actually created more stressful living and driven down median wages. But her policy recommendations were even more fascinating. She explicitly argued against "more government regulation of the housing market," slamming "complex regulations," since they "might actually worsen the situation by diminishing the incentive to build new houses or improve older ones." Instead, she argued in favor of school choice, since pressure on housing prices came largely from families seeking to escape badly run government school districts: "A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly."
Her heterodox policy proposals didn't stop there. She refused to "join the chorus calling for taxpayer-funded day care" on its own, calling it a "sacred cow." At the very least, she suggested that "government-subsidized day care would add one more indirect pressure on mothers to join the workforce." She instead sought a more comprehensive educational solution that would include "tax credits for stay-at-home parents."
She ardently opposed additional taxpayer subsidization of college loans, too, or more taxpayer spending on higher education directly. Instead, she called for a tuition freeze from state schools. She recommended tax incentives for families to save rather than spend. She opposed radical solutions wholesale: "We haven't suggested a complete overhaul of the tax structure, and we haven't demanded that businesses cease and desist from ever closing another plant or firing another worker. Nor have we suggested that the United States should build a quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model."
So, what happened to Warren?
Power. ... [more at link]
-
"If you could set aside her politics, was energetic and impressive."
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/what_i_saw_at_the_elizabeth_warren_rally.html
-
I'm seeing reports of impressive crowd size (8-10 thousand?). She may be very well positioned to swoop in on the corruption issue.
-
I'm seeing reports of impressive crowd size (8-10 thousand?). She may be very well positioned to swoop in on the corruption issue.
Except that her brand of public private partnerships is fertile ground for growing corruption exponentially.
Example:
"The Warren bill could promote beneficial public-private partnerships"
https://www.statnews.com/2019/01/21/warren-bill-promote-public-private-partnerships/
Her economic view is the opposite of [our] view that government is the referee, not not the team or a player on the team. Government guarantees level playing fields, not outcomes. The players should be in the private sector, not mingling, strategizing and playing with the refs.
More examples:
Solyndra etc. wind subsidies, solar subsidies, ethanol mandates, healthcare subsidies, COLLEGE subsidies.
-
Agreed 100%. My point is purely political. With the Biden corruption and the smears of Trump on this subject (like so many others) a lot of people could respond with a "pox on both their houses" and vote for her.
-
At a conference sponsored by the Brookings Institution in September, N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economist, …offered a searing critique, arguing that a wealth tax would skew incentives that could alter when the superrich make investments, how they give to charity and even potentially spur a wave of divorces for tax purposes. He also noted that billionaires, with their legions of lawyers and accountants, have proven to be experts at gaming the system to avoid even the most onerous taxes. …“On the one hand it’s a bad policy, and then the other thing is it’s a feckless policy,” Mr. Mankiw said. Left-leaning economists have expressed their own doubts about a wealth tax. Earlier this year, Lawrence Summers, who was President Bill Clinton’s Treasury secretary, warned…that wealth taxes would sap innovation by putting new burdens on entrepreneurial businesses while they are starting up. In their view, a country with more millionaires is a sign of economic vibrancy.
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/10/02/senator-elizabeth-warren-says-its-time-to-break-up-amazon-google-and-facebook-and-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-fights-back/?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2702329474&utm_campaign=sprinklrForbesMainFB#69614b7e6791
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/10/02/senator-elizabeth-warren-says-its-time-to-break-up-amazon-google-and-facebook-and-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-fights-back/?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2702329474&utm_campaign=sprinklrForbesMainFB#69614b7e6791
I am with her on that, of course her being president would break up the US as well.
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/10/02/senator-elizabeth-warren-says-its-time-to-break-up-amazon-google-and-facebook-and-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-fights-back/?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2702329474&utm_campaign=sprinklrForbesMainFB#69614b7e6791
I am with her on that, of course her being president would break up the US as well.
My view on anti-trust is that Google, Facebook etc should be sued, stopped, prosecuted for bad and unlawful criminal business behaviors. Being big and successful alone is not a crime. Note that FB was allowed to buy out their biggest competitor during the Obama administration. Maybe Trump-Warren should break them up to correct that government oversight oversight.
-
Getting to know the new frontrunner of the moment:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/video-elizabeth-warren-caught-lying-about-being-fired-from-teaching-over-pregnancy/
This is a good, long interview of her long before she was running for office. It also happens to be the video that shows in her own words she wasn't fired as a teacher for getting pregnant.
-------------------
While we search for her flaws and point out her lies, keep in mind that the central flaw is that her policies make worse the things she identifies as the problems in the country.
-
Legal scholars disagree on the constitutionality of a federal wealth tax:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08/heres-elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-completely-unconstitutional/
https://taxfoundation.org/warren-wealth-tax-constitutionality/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3322046
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/
It depends for one thing on whether you consider it a direct or indirect tax.
I would add this concern to the discussion, whatever happened to the right to privacy? It was the constitutional foundation of abortion, tossed aside in the interest of growing government. Does every taxpayer, citizen, resident have to disclose every asset owned every year to the federal government? What if your assets are in your bedroom? What is the make, model, location, condition, acquisition date and value of every gun you own, for example. And your ammunition, did that supply go up or down in the past year? Please explain. Send in 2% of your gold to the federal government every year. Are you hiding any assets? If so, federal crime, off to prison you go.
Do Leftists, Liberals and Feminists really want to be chipping away at our right of privacy?
Isn't the federal government already taking 2% of the value of our assets every year by the stated goals of the Federal Reserve system? She is proposing a wealth tax on top of a wealth tax.
Most wealth is tied up in properties, wasn't the wealth tax set aside to fund the cities, counties and schools? That which Leftists want a federal government takeover, at least when they are in charge of the federal government.
Not to mention that in France and everywhere else it is tried, the wealth tax kills of jobs, growth, wages investment and income.
Income and consumption has an inherent cash flow to the transaction; wealth does not. Again, how do you send in 2% of a bar of gold or 2% of a farm, home or family cottage. You just force its sale if you don't have other liquid assets, that are also already taxed.
But this wealth tax only applies to the rich. Yeah, right.
Is it possible that the economic genius professor hasn't fully thought through the implications of all her ideas, that she didn't expect to be frontrunner and have her hairbrain ideas taken seriously?
-
I was thinking recently that Warren seems to have survived the whole Fauxcahontas thing as she has moved on in the campaign with position papers, policy talks and stumbling primary opponents. But then comes the poor me, fired for being pregnant, men are so mean, story. And it wasn't true. I posted the video yesterday where she refutes in advance her own invented story.
Really she has three main tales to date that undermine her authenticity.
1. First was the whole Cherokee thing. Mama and Daddy had to elope because one family couldn't accept the "Indian" heritage of the other, eight generations back. Like a lot of other made up life stories, why did she feel a need to tell that? Something about being a victim, when she came from a strong supportive (Republican) Oklahoma family and had every door she wanted to enter open up for her, from teaching without credentials to teaching one course at Harvard for 400k to being US Senator from an all-Democrat state. False but true, she still claims the Indian heritage stories were a part of her upbringing.
2. She still claims she did not advance her career with her fake Indian ethnicity. "Harvard's first woman of color" did not gain from that or use it to her advantage to get a job or a promotion. Really? She was still trying to profit from it right up until the DNA test went public. Strangely, the Democrats loved the lie but hated her for releasing the DNA truth right before the midterms.
3. Now her fired-for-being-pregnant story has blown up in her face. Who is refuting her? It's her own familiar voice and face in a 2007 interview. Oops. She was replaced in the next school year for lacking a key teaching credential. The real 'bad guy' is the teachers union forcing credentials rules over competency and experience, not evil men punishing a (married) woman for having a child. Again, why did she feel a need to make up that story? And what else is a lie?
------------------------------------
John Kass at the Chicago Tribune has a column on this topic today:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-elizabeth-warren-kass-20191009-dofne7egvvaa3celgv7oxazrvy-story.html
-
Of course Crafty nailed this in advance when he named the thread:
Def: speak with a "forked tongue"
To make empty or false promises; to speak duplicitously or beguilingly. Likened to having the tongue of a serpent, a traditional symbol of deceit and dishonesty.
Duplicitous: Deception
Beguile: To "hoodwink"
Proven right.
------------------------------------
The wealthy fled the wealth tax in France.
https://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/464585-why-elizabeth-warren-will-fail-to-shine-in-her-moment-on-the-trail
42,000 millionaires left France between 2000 and 2014,
The failed wealth tax was repealed in 2018.
Elizabeth Warren told UC Berkeley in the 2007 interview that she follows the data wherever it leads.
Not on economics, she doesn't.
-
In her own words, Warren's recent letter to the 'Business Roundtable':
"I am pleased that the Business Roundtable has acknowledged the harm that this trend inflicts on the economy [a greater share of profits being returned to the shareholders] and that you have pledged to take steps to reverse it."
https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/warrenletter2019.pdf?mod=article_inline
Professor (of nothing) Warren requires that 200 business leaders submit a written essay to her by October 25 about how they will help others in their mission statement, other than their shareholders.
Or what? She will dissolve their businesses? Ban businesses? What if a business doesn't agree with her social agenda if/when she is President and her demands are law? They will need to appease the regime anyway as if they are in Communist China?
Not surprisingly, Warren's expertise is in bankruptcy.
https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10935/Warren
-
Apologies for listing some lies and missing her recent "Michael Brown was Murdered" tweet.
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2533.msg119238#msg119238
5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 9, 2019
Nothing wrong with trying to re-incite discord and violence in America's inner cities and across the country, is there?
Starting to make Trump look like the Honest Abe of 2020 politics.
Warren's Tales: 'Why We Lie', to be continued...
-
The WSJ opinion page tries to keep one halfway reasonable lefty on staff for columns; currently it is Bill Galston. He is too left for my taste and Elizabeth Warren is too far left for his. By the end you can see this is written as a pro-Biden piece. No one on that side has attacked until yet. Things are heating up.
Key word: "unabashedly", without embarrassment or hesitation. That is how Warren presents leftism, socialism, anti-capitalism and not-so-incremental totalitarianism.
Interesting point: Warren is up in polls 48-46% over Trump [long before the campaign begins and with known flawed polling that consistently understates Trump's support]. That is the same percentage Clinton "won" by. The warning is, Democrats beware.
-----------------------------------------------------------
https://www.wsj.com/articles/watch-out-for-elizabeth-warren-11570575921
Watch Out for Elizabeth Warren
Her plans are more radical than anything Obama proposed. Are Americans ready?
By William A. Galston
Oct. 8, 2019 7:05 pm ET
Democratic voters should consider a recent survey that shows Warren’s weakness against Trump if she gains the nomination in 2020.
It is time to take seriously the possibility that Sen. Elizabeth Warren could end up as the Democratic presidential nominee. She has moved into a virtual tie with former Vice President Joe Biden in the average of recent national surveys. She leads him narrowly in Iowa, trails by a small margin in New Hampshire, and has moved within striking distance in Nevada. If she does this well in the first three contests, Mr. Biden’s South Carolina firewall could prove less than impregnable. For those who believe in the wisdom of crowds, the betting markets give Ms. Warren a roughly 50% chance of winning the nomination, compared with less than 20% for Mr. Biden.
Other factors have shifted the dynamic of the race in Ms. Warren’s favor. Sen. Bernie Sanders’s candidacy was flagging before his heart attack, which is bound to intensify doubts about the wisdom of nominating a man who will turn 79 next September. And although no publicly available evidence connects Mr. Biden’s central role in the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy with his son’s position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Democrats quietly fret that the Ukraine-focused impeachment inquiry into President Trump will create a false but damaging equivalence between the two men.
Meanwhile, Ms. Warren sails along, unscathed and gaining strength. She has earned her success with a well-organized, focused and energetic campaign. For those who believe politics should be a battle of ideas, she is a dream come true. She has turned a blizzard of position papers (“plans,” in her parlance) into an effective mark of political identity. And she can be tough in debates, especially in the clinches.
Nevertheless, Democrats would be well-advised to inspect the goods carefully before making the purchase. In every general-election survey I’ve seen, including those conducted well after the events that triggered the impeachment inquiry became public, Mr. Biden matches up better against Mr. Trump than Ms. Warren does. The most recent national poll shows Mr. Biden defeating Mr. Trump 51% to 44% while Ms. Warren can manage only a two-point margin, 48% to 46%. Democrats should recognize these numbers, which are identical to the shares of the popular vote that Hillary Clinton and Mr. Trump received in 2016.
As Democrats were reminded three years ago, presidential elections are won in the Electoral College. Here again, Mr. Biden enjoys the advantage over Ms. Warren. Although the existing state surveys are imperfect and sometimes dated, they show the former vice president leading the president outside the margin of error in eight key swing states. By contrast, Ms. Warren trails the president in five of the eight. She does six points worse in Michigan than Mr. Biden; seven points worse in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Iowa; and eight worse in North Carolina.
The reasons for caution about Ms. Warren’s candidacy extend to her positions on key issues. She strongly favors Medicare for All, but the American people reject a program that abolishes private health insurance by a margin of 56% to 41%. By 62% to 36% they oppose extending health insurance to immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally, another measure in her plan. She has endorsed Julián Castro’s proposal to decriminalize unauthorized border crossings, a move that 66% reject. She favors abolishing the death penalty and the Electoral College, two more proposals strong majorities oppose.
Ms. Warren also has endorsed a national ban on fracking, a stance that plays better in solidly Democratic coastal states than in the interior of the country. It is hard to imagine Texas will shift from red to blue to back a presidential candidate who wants to eliminate drilling for natural gas.
In Pennsylvania, state statistics show the natural-gas industry supports 80,000 jobs, most in areas of the state that have been devastated by the decline of traditional mining and manufacturing. These are the regions that generated a tidal wave of nearly 300,000 new votes for Mr. Trump in 2016, enabling him to overcome the longstanding Democratic edge in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Beyond these specifics, a larger question looms: Are the American people discontented enough with current conditions to embrace a candidate who unabashedly favors expansive and expensive federal programs in every sector of America’s economy and society? Will they believe that a candidate who advocates raising taxes on the wealthy and large corporations by many trillions of dollars over the next decade will leave the middle class untouched?
Ms. Warren is betting that the country is ready for structural change far more radical than anything Barack Obama dared propose. During the next nine months, Democrats will have to decide whether this is a gamble worth taking.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/warren-calls-for-imprisoning-trans-women-with-biological-women-in-new-lgbtq-rights-plan/
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/warren-inmates-are-entitled-to-taxpayer-funded-transgender-surgery?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=101119-news&utm_campaign=position1
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-shows-contempt-for-legal-constitutional-boundaries/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202019-10-13&utm_term=WIR-Smart
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/elizabeth-warren-shows-contempt-for-legal-constitutional-boundaries/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202019-10-13&utm_term=WIR-Smart
Yes, bankruptcy advocate Elizabeth Warren is now the frontrunner. She teaches at Harvard law School and doesn't give a rat's ass about the constitutionality of her "plans". A wealth tax is constitutional? Is single payer constitutional, banning all other care? Is a fracking ban constitutional? Gun bans constitutional?
End the Electoral College is constitutional? It's the definition of constitutional, where does she think it comes from??!!
They want Trump out because he's running wild with the Executive Branch, and they opposing him by proposing far more of that.
-
It looks like she can win the Dem race by doing what she is doing, but how does she win the general election? From the column title, I expected a campaign strategy, but the changes she needs to make are structural.
-----------------------
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/10/14/how-elizabeth-warren-can-win/K70blgW3fH7l7omYGr6XqJ/story.html
"She's vulnerable on a number of fronts. Medicare for All is a general election loser."
...
"She is well to the left of the electorate on immigration. She has embraced a disruptive Green New Deal program to address climate change. And she celebrates what might be called "woke" cultural values which many older voters view with dismay if not disdain."
"Warren is not given to backing down."
[Her ban on fracking alone will cost her Pennsylvania and the election.]
So what does Ellis suggest? A Hail Mary. Pick Gen. Jim Mattis or equivalent military man person as a running mate. What? He left the Trump administration over a Syrian troop withdrawal disagreement, but would whole-heartedly support the foreign policy views and background (there are none) of Liz Warren?
It isn't going to happen.
-
Democrats across the nation like their fellow Democrats from Massachusetts. They envy them for their purity they develop from not having to compete with Republicans to get elected.
They are considered smart and well educated. Not just JFK, RFK, Ted Kennedy, but also Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Barney Frank! and now Elizabeth Warren, they all either went to Harvard or Yale or taught there.
So how does that translate into success in national elections?
In 1980, Ted Kennedy lost a close challenge to the incumbent President in his own party.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis lost in a landslide to George H.W. Bush.
In 2004, John Forbes (Heinz) Kerry lost to George W. Bush.
1960, 60 years ago, was the last time a Democrat from Massachusetts won the Presidency. It was the closest election ever at the time [Chicago cheated] in his victory over Richard Nixon.
Kennedy became known as a politician for assertions like, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," and "A rising tide lifts all boats". In today's politics, JFK would be a Republican.
What does this say about Elizabeth Warren? We will hear about her growing up in Oklahoma, but she will not carry Oklahoma. She is popular enough in Massachusetts, but any and all Democrats will win in Massachusetts. Will her brand, her style and her policies carry the heartland? Hell no.
She has never competed in a contentious election. She has never seriously run against a Republican. She has never competed in a red or purple state, much less against Trump, much less against the advantages of his incumbency.
Her policies are designed to lose the conservatives, the independents, the rust belt and the heartland. To begin, the ban on fracking means losing the energy producing states. Western Pennsylvania is the most obvious, but what about Colorado? Phasing out fossil fuels in the name of climate change including natural gas means losing in climates like Minnesota who ran out of gas during the coldest snap last winter and values the heating of large homes as truly a matter of survival. If Minnesota and Pennsylvania go Trump, rest assured that Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio are already lost for the Democrats.
Warren is too far Left on immigration. Note that Trump won on that issue last time against an arguably less leftist nominee.
What about fiscal issues and the budget? Sen. Klobuchar called out Warren in Tuesday's debate for her unwillingness to admit that "Medicare for all" has a tax cost to working families. It also has a choice cost. Your freedoms vanish in a Warren administration and her opponent chomping at the bit to run against that, and tie her policies to those of Venezuela, for example.
Liberal groups estimate the cost of 'Medicare for all' is $34 trillion over ten years. That means the monetary cost is art least double, $68 trillion, not counting the cost of long lines and lousy care.
If she doesn't turn too the middle in the general election, she is toast. If she does turn, she is a flip flopper and inauthentic, a very easy case to make. Even if she turns, all will know her real intentions are a government takeover of everything.
Is America ready for that? I hope not.
-
BTW for the record we need to remember the obvious stupidity of her lie about her parent's elopement.
-
BTW for the record we need to remember the obvious stupidity of her lie about her parent's elopement.
And this:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/media-cover-for-elizabeth-warren-lies-again/
-
BTW for the record we need to remember the obvious stupidity of her lie about her parent's elopement.
Yes.
Her list of lies prove she is a liar. Oddly that is what they say they don't like about Trump. What they really hate about Trump is that he makes lifetime appointments of judges that uphold the constitution and the constitution is the only thing standing between them and implementing their agenda.
Why does she lie? These lies remind me of Hillary landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. Why lie, why make that up? Why risk getting caught up in a lie? For some reason, their life experiences weren't exciting enough in their mind to tell a compelling story. But who cares about her parents story before she was born? Isn't Medicare for all exciting enough? I guess that story ties to her 'Indian" heritage which was patently false but was needed for her to get hired at Harvard without which she would not be US Senator and noticed on a national stage. She's ashamed in her world to just be a white Anglo from Oklahoma, which she is.
Why the fired for being pregnant story? I guess it puts her in another victim group, but again, who cares? If she wins, she will be the first woman President. Madam President. That's a big deal. Losing a low paying, part time teaching gig she wasn't qualified for and didn't want, didn't match her ambitions, that was not a big deal. Why lie? Why create a fake life and persona that you have to keep track of everything you said to everyone instead of just tell people what happened, or not. Bill Clinton lied to hide his life as a predator, philanderer. Warren is lying to hide a boring, uneventful upbringing and early career life? These were stories that didn't need to be told. Or did they advance her career? If so, admit it, or she will be faced with that challenge all the way through the election and the rest of her career.
If she can't and won't explain the lies and sincerely regret the lies, then she is just a socio-pathological liar by nature. Nice quality for a leader...
Reminds me that people were supposed to support Hillary for being the candidate with integrity. It didn't pan out. The reason for people in the middle to support Warren is because at least she will tell you the truth? I don't think so.
-
"The debate wounded her and revealed her vulnerability on the issue of Medicare For All."
------------------
[Doug] It is a big deal that in this all-agree-on-everything cast, more than one of candidates has split from the rest on 'single payer', "Medicare for All". If Warren or Sanders is the nominee, the general election opponent will now say, 'don't take my word for it, listen to what Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden said about it'. That is a far more powerful argument than saying Republicans oppose it.
------------------
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/elizabeth-warren-did-not-win-the-debate-and-now-shes-got-work-to-do.html
Elizabeth Warren did not win the debate and now she’s got work to do
PUBLISHED THU, OCT 17 20192:58 PM EDTUPDATED THU, OCT 17 2019
John Ellis, editor of online publication News Items
How anyone came away with the idea that Elizabeth Warren “won” the debate is beyond me. Yes, she was the focus of the others’ attacks. Yes, she got the most speaking time. And yes, she’s good at getting her points across.
But she did not “win” the debate. The debate wounded her and revealed her vulnerability on the issue of Medicare For All.
Which means that Warren, sooner rather than later, is going to have to walk back her support for Medicare For All or propose a massive middle class tax increase to pay for it.
---------------------------
She can't do that. She won't do that. In other words, she is fatally wounded.
Me, yesterday: "If she doesn't turn to the middle in the general election she is toast. If she does turn, she is a flip-flopper and inauthentic ..."
---------------------------
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/elizabeth-warrens-risky-dodge-health-care-and-taxes/600073/
The Risk of Elizabeth Warren’s Dodging
She’s presented herself as the truth-teller, the straight-talker, the one who can break down complex economic ideas and bring nonprogressives along.
OCT 16, 2019
WESTERVILLE, Ohio—Elizabeth Warren has a lot of plans—including a plan not to cop to how she would pay for Medicare for All.
It’s a simple answer. Everyone knows it: Taxes would almost certainly have to go up on middle-class families, even if Warren is right that their overall costs would go down. She knows it, too. She’s just decided not to say it.
That decision is bigger for her candidacy than a conversation about health care or the tax code is. On the campaign trail, the senator from Massachusetts has presented herself as the truth-teller, the straight-talker, the one who can break down complex economic ideas and bring nonprogressives along. Now, just as she’s started to get the attention from competitors and the press that comes from leading public polls, she’s insisting on talking in circles. In politics, there’s little more dangerous than moments that undermine a candidate’s core image—even the parody of Warren on Saturday Night Live, from the actor Kate McKinnon, is centered on her brutally telling it like it is.
Warren has been doing a dance on Medicare for All for a long time now. When she was first running for the Senate, in 2012, she didn’t support the idea. Then, in 2017, she signed onto the bill written by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Then, after declaring her presidential candidacy late last year, she ducked questions about her position for months. Finally, onstage for the first debate, in Miami in June, she quickly ended the suspense by saying that she supported the proposal, vaporizing the wedge that Sanders supporters were preparing to drive between them. Yet as her campaign has issued plans on all sorts of smaller policy matters, it has offered little on how she’d pull off the big structural changes she’s proposing.
The hubbub around her dodging—one of the defining features of last night’s debate—makes staffers on the Warren campaign roll their eyes. They think that reporters and Republicans and her rivals onstage are just looking for a sound bite about raising taxes, an “Aha!” to stick her with all the way through the primaries, and perhaps through Election Day. They clearly take pride in not playing the game the way political insiders and Twitter critics want them to. They can also take solace in the fact that, in the month since the previous debate, when the ABC News moderator George Stephanopoulos pressed her on the tax question, her poll numbers have continued to go up.
-
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/18/would_warrens_ideology_weaken_her_as_democrats_nominee_141525.html
It is not that she is liberal. It is that the issues on which she has taken the most prominent liberal stances are issues that are likely to give suburban whites pause. In particular, her pledge to abolish private insurance is likely to cause resistance among suburbanites, many of whom have top-notch health care plans.
You may be thinking, “But Republicans will accuse any Democrat of being an extremist on health care.” This is probably true. But most Democrats will be able to run commercials and point to speeches denying the claim. For voters who want to vote Democratic, that will probably be enough. Warren, however, has to make a different argument: “Yes, I want to do away with private insurance, but your anxiety over Medicare for All is misplaced.” That’s a much tougher sell, as it forces voters to abandon their preconceived notions, rather than supplement them.
Or, as one of my readers put it: There’s a big difference between having a Republican attack ad run against you, and running on a Republican attack ad.
Will it be enough to sink Warren? I don’t know.
-
Warren will lose bigly.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/18/would_warrens_ideology_weaken_her_as_democrats_nominee_141525.html
It is not that she is liberal. It is that the issues on which she has taken the most prominent liberal stances are issues that are likely to give suburban whites pause. In particular, her pledge to abolish private insurance is likely to cause resistance among suburbanites, many of whom have top-notch health care plans.
You may be thinking, “But Republicans will accuse any Democrat of being an extremist on health care.” This is probably true. But most Democrats will be able to run commercials and point to speeches denying the claim. For voters who want to vote Democratic, that will probably be enough. Warren, however, has to make a different argument: “Yes, I want to do away with private insurance, but your anxiety over Medicare for All is misplaced.” That’s a much tougher sell, as it forces voters to abandon their preconceived notions, rather than supplement them.
Or, as one of my readers put it: There’s a big difference between having a Republican attack ad run against you, and running on a Republican attack ad.
Will it be enough to sink Warren? I don’t know.
-
Give credit where credit is due, Warren sides with Marco Rubio and Tim Scott on Hong Kong:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3033466/top-us-democratic-candidate-elizabeth-warren-backs-hong-kong-pro
-
Funny, given that her policies align much closer to the People's Republic.
Give credit where credit is due, Warren sides with Marco Rubio and Tim Scott on Hong Kong:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3033466/top-us-democratic-candidate-elizabeth-warren-backs-hong-kong-pro
-
Warren needs to pick Sanders as her running mate. If she picks a so-called 'moderate' to 'balance' the ticket she dilutes her own brand and weakens her own arguments. If Single Payer/Medicare for All is the right answer, the best vice presidential pick is someone who also supports it. Trump wants to run against socialism and the Left thinks all these young people want socialism, why no double down on it and call the question?
The goal of Warren and Sanders candidacies is not to tone down Leftism; the goal is to win with it.
--------------
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-scores-aoc-michael-moore-endorsements-clash-warren-inevitable-ncna1068806
-
https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/elizabeth-warren-s-medicare-for-all-plan-will-need-higher-taxes
-------------------------
I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on the new front runner. :wink:
Why can't Democrats pick someone more honest then Trump, too high of a bar?
We've known known for more than 2000 years what happens when government gets too big and too powerful in our lives but it all sounds new and fresh when the charismatic Sanders and Warren say it.
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.msg99130#msg99130
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB 2/index.php?topic=1023.msg16968#msg16968
-
Warren had better have a plan — she needs one to win in November
BY ALBERT HUNT, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 10/21/19
[Hunt is NOT a conservative.]
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/466694-warren-had-better-have-a-plan-she-needs-one-to-win-in-november
--------------------------------
In other words, no Democrat can win both the party nomination and the general election without lying to one group or the other.
-
Warren won't say what Medicare for All will cost or how
she WE will pay for it because she doesn't know. "Estimates vary by trillions." Yes they do.
- It will cost at least two or more times the highest estimate.
I have been looking into a number of cost situations in health care in the 'micro' level. Even is I was a Leftist, I would not want to be the President responsible for the federal government takeover of all healthcare. Talk about blood on your hands, expense and DEBT. Who balances that budget?
She is going to propose a tax on just the rich that doesn't raise any new revenue.
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-tax-plan-is-asset-forfeiture/?fbclid=IwAR0zs_5lthTy4pmO3NQQkRCo4fXqFbGiWtYPonAtPcGM5lfN1L_u_ZlQ568
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-tax-plan-is-asset-forfeiture/?fbclid=IwAR0zs_5lthTy4pmO3NQQkRCo4fXqFbGiWtYPonAtPcGM5lfN1L_u_ZlQ568
Asset forfeiture / confiscation IS socialism, along with the force to make it happen against the people's will. See Chavez Mduro, Stalin et al. They all seem so nice until you offer any resistance to their coercion.
In the US, income and wealth taxes were prohibited by the constitution (for good reason). The Sixteenth Amendment opened up an exception strictly limited to income, not wealth:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Besides unconstitutional, the wealth tax has practicality problems. How do you take 2% of a farm or a factory every year? Out of the profits? No. That is a profits tax and we already have that. Absent large profits, you have to forfeit the asset.
They promised it would only be a small percentage levied on only the very rich for the income tax too. They lied.
Note that the wealth tax didn't work where it was levied elsewhere, see France. Warrens advisers have been fully debunked and discredited on these pages.
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.msg106051#msg106051
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1791.msg116703#msg116703
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.msg100957#msg100957
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1518.msg84679#msg84679
--------------------
After the adoption of many new taxes, hikes of several existing taxes, and the promise of more tax increases to come, France is suffering from a massive brain drain. According to Jean-Philippe Delsol, now that the richest Frenchmen have left, it’s the turn of young entrepreneurs to take off.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/frances-brain-and-wealth-drain-veronique-de-rugy/
A war on wealth is a war on capital.
A war on capital is a war on productivity .
A war on productivity is a war on workers .
https://freedomandprosperity.org/2019/blog/the-destructive-impact-of-wealth-taxation/
France’s 75% ‘supertax’ reduced government tax revenues through hindered economic growth and capital flight.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonhartley/2015/02/02/frances-75-supertax-failure-a-blow-to-pikettys-economics/#15a5a7665df2
-
https://www.blindspotblog.us/single-post/2019/10/19/The-Elizabeth-Warren-Fantasy?fbclid=IwAR3bELLI76YdqJr9j38ZbRYKVdlwjOw8kNrT8iiAa1camn2OIIbpY_a1r8I
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-has-a-plan-to-tax-wealth-and-its-a-joke
This article reiterates points made in the last couple of days here on the Forum.
-
https://www.aier.org/article/the-big-fib-about-the-rich-and-taxes/
Their department website at Berkeley boasts that the new tax-simulation “website will play a role in the coming presidential election, and especially the primaries.” It also features favorable portrayals of the Warren campaign’s tax plan, and accompanying editorial content that argues for the adoption of a national wealth tax.
Editorial content of this type would be fine, provided it is acknowledged as such and distinguished from the academic iterations of the underlying data. Yet here again, Saez and Zucman seem to be blurring the lines between their scholarship and political electioneering. This development is especially curious, considering that Zucman himself has responded to several challenges to his data by name-calling and accusing his critics of having political motives.
-----------------------
Like all the inequality alarmism pieces, they neglect the largest tax credits of the poor (EITC for example) in order to make a false conclusion. Then they include health care premiums as taxes. That bizarre move is to set up their point of justifying Medicare for all 'without a tax increase'.
The previously published peer reviewed economic research they contradict includes their own.
-
Elizabeth Warren Pledges To Crack Down On School Choice, Despite Sending Her Own Son To Elite Private School
-
Elizabeth Warren Pledges To Crack Down On School Choice, Despite Sending Her Own Son To Elite Private School
Well, at least the Obamas sent their kids to the DC public schools!
-
Even the NYT says her proposals are far to the Left of Obama's.
Raising tax rates on those most able to rearrange their affairs does not grow the economy or bring in more revenues, much less $20 trillion more.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all.html
Elizabeth Warren Proposes $20.5 Trillion Health Care Plan
Ms. Warren would impose huge tax increases on businesses and billionaires to pay for “Medicare for all,” but she said she would not raise taxes on the middle class.
By Thomas Kaplan, Abby Goodnough and Margot Sanger-Katz
Nov. 1, 2019
WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday revealed her plan to pay for an expansive transformation of the nation’s health care system, proposing huge tax increases on businesses and wealthy Americans to help cover $20.5 trillion in new federal spending.
The plan represents a significant bet that enough voters will favor an approach that dismantles the current system and replaces it with “Medicare for all,” a government-run health insurance program. And it comes after decades in which Democrats have largely tiptoed around policy proposals that relied on major tax increases and Republicans ran on tax cuts.
While the proposal allows Ms. Warren to say she is not raising taxes on the middle class, it opened her to renewed charges that her plan is too radical to pass through Congress. It represents an extraordinary embrace of the tax system to redistribute wealth and re-engineer one of the pillars of the American economy, with measures that would double her proposed wealth tax on billionaires and impose new levies on investment gains and even stock trades.
“This debate has moved so far and so fast within the Democratic Party, it makes your head spin,” said Larry Levitt, the executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Ideas that used to be political third rails are now being proposed by one of the leading candidates for president.”
Ms. Warren, of Massachusetts, is not the only Democratic presidential candidate envisioning a large new government program funded by tax increases. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Ms. Warren’s top rival in the party’s progressive wing, is the architect of Medicare for all and has also proposed sweeping changes.
Together they are presenting a profoundly different vision from the one Democrats promoted as recently as the mid-1990s when President Bill Clinton declared in a State of the Union address that “the era of big government is over.” While President Barack Obama pushed through the Affordable Care Act and managed to bring down the number of uninsured, he preserved a major role for the private sector in the country’s health insurance system.
Under Ms. Warren’s plan, private health insurance — which now covers most of the population — would be eliminated and replaced by free government health coverage for all Americans. That is a fundamental shift from a market-driven system that has defined health care in the United States for decades but produced vast inequities in quality, service and cost.
Ms. Warren would pay for the new federal spending, $20.5 trillion over 10 years, through a mix of sources, including:
Requiring employers to pay the government a similar amount to what they are currently spending on their employees’ health care, totaling $8.8 trillion over a decade.
Changing how investment gains are taxed for the top 1 percent of households, raising $2 trillion, and ramping up her signature wealth tax proposal to be steeper on billionaires, raising another $1 trillion.
Creating a tax on financial transactions like stock trades, bringing in $800 billion.
Beyond the $20.5 trillion total, she is also counting on states and local governments to contribute an additional $6.1 trillion to help pay for the system.
Like Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren would essentially eliminate medical costs for individuals, including premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. But it is not clear if her plan would cover the costs of free health care for everyone. It relies on ambitious assumptions about how much it can lower payments to hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies, and how cheaply such a large system could be run.
Several economists have said providing free health care would cost trillions more over a decade.
“We made different assumptions, because we didn’t think these kinds of assumptions were realistic,” said Linda Blumberg, a health economist at the Urban Institute, whose detailed assessment of Medicare for all found it would require $34 trillion in added federal spending.
Under her health plan, Ms. Warren would eliminate private insurance companies and direct the federal government to reimburse doctors and hospitals at roughly the rates paid by Medicare. How would you feel about being paid entirely at Medicare rates?*
As Ms. Warren has risen steadily in the polls, with strong support from liberals excited about her ambitious policy plans, she has been under pressure from top rivals like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to release details about paying for health care. She has been asked over and over whether she would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it, but had not answered directly until now.
Her lack of specificity became a vulnerability as the primary race heated up, especially because she had established herself as the candidate with a plan for everything. Democratic rivals like Mr. Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., who prefer building on the existing system of health coverage, have pointedly criticized her on the issue, with Mr. Buttigieg calling her “extremely evasive.” Two weeks ago, with no sign that the pressure would relent, she announced she would soon release her own financing plan.
“A key step in winning the public debate over Medicare for all will be explaining what this plan costs — and how to pay for it,” Ms. Warren wrote in her plan. To do that, she added, “We don’t need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny.”
[What??]
...
“Candidates often pivot to the center on issues in the general election,” he added. “This proposal will make it more difficult for Warren to do that on health care.”
For Ms. Warren to achieve her desired health care transformation, she would need to persuade Congress to pass far-reaching legislation, an enormous political challenge and a virtual impossibility unless Democrats win control of the Senate.
Mr. Biden’s campaign quickly criticized Ms. Warren’s plan as “unrealistic.”
“The mathematical gymnastics in this plan are all geared towards hiding a simple truth from voters: It’s impossible to pay for Medicare for all without middle-class tax increases,” Kate Bedingfield, a deputy campaign manager for Mr. Biden, said in a statement. In an interview with “PBS NewsHour,” Mr. Biden said of Ms. Warren’s plan, “She’s making it up.”
Speaking to reporters in Des Moines, Ms. Warren rebuffed criticism of her proposal, saying: “Democrats are not going to win by repeating Republican talking points and by dusting off the points of view of the giant insurance companies and the giant drug companies who don’t want to see any change in the law that will bite into their profits.”
She said anyone defending the profits of the insurance and drug companies was “running in the wrong presidential primary.”
The Republican National Committee described Ms. Warren’s plan as a “fairy tale,” adding that it would have the effect of “bankrupting the country and hurting the quality of care.”
The comments sent a signal of how President Trump and Republicans would portray her: as a tax-and-spend liberal who wants to vastly expand the role of the federal government while abolishing private health insurance. Her plan’s price tag is equal to roughly one-third of what the federal government is currently projected to spend over the next decade in total.
Still, the idea of government-run health insurance excites many liberal voters. Mr. Sanders has long championed single-payer health care, and Ms. Warren has aligned herself with him on the issue.
A New York Times/Siena College poll released Friday found that about three-quarters of likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa supported creating a single-payer system, while about nine in 10 supported the creation of an optional government plan that any American could buy.
Asked whether they would be likelier to support a candidate who promises to replace the existing health care system with Medicare for all or a candidate who promises to improve the current system, likely caucusgoers said by a 14-point margin that they preferred the second option.
Ms. Warren’s proposal shows just how large a reorganization of spending Medicare for all represents. By eliminating private health insurance and bringing every American into a federal system, trillions of dollars of spending by households, employers and state governments would be transferred into the federal budget over the course of a decade.
Ms. Warren tries to minimize fiscal disruption by asking the big payers in the current system to keep paying. Her tax on employers is meant to replace the amount that companies now pay directly to health insurers. (Small businesses would be exempt if they are not currently paying for their employees’ health care.) She has also proposed that states pay the federal government what they currently spend to cover state workers and low-income residents under the Medicaid program. [Authorized by Article WHAT of the constitution?]
But to help replace an estimated $11 trillion in health care spending that would be borne by American households over a decade — on premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs — Ms. Warren lays out a series of new taxes on corporations and wealthy people.
She would raise $3 trillion in total from two proposals to tax the richest Americans. She has previously said that her wealth tax proposal would impose a 3 percent annual tax on net worth over $1 billion; she would now raise that to 6 percent. For the top 1 percent of households, she would tax investment gains annually instead of when the investments are sold.
Ms. Warren is also counting on stronger tax enforcement to bring in more than $2 trillion in taxes that would otherwise go uncollected, as well as $800 billion in cuts to military spending. And she is banking on passing an overhaul of immigration laws — which itself would be a huge political feat — and gaining revenue from additional taxes paid by immigrants.
Ms. Warren’s plan would put substantial downward pressure on payments to hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies. She expects that an aggressive negotiation system could lower spending on generic medications by 30 percent compared with what Medicare pays now, for example, and spending on brand-name prescription drugs could fall by 70 percent.
Payments to hospitals would be 10 percent higher on average than what Medicare pays now, a rate that would make some hospitals whole but would lead to big reductions for others. She would reduce doctors’ pay to the prices Medicare pays now, with additional reductions for specialists, and small increases to doctors who provide primary care.
-
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/03/snl_spoofs_warrens_medicare_for_all_plan_numbers_this_big_are_just_pretend_money_doenst_exist.html
I wish real reporters followed up the way spoof questioners do.
-
Warren Has a (Fantasy) Plan
Her financing and savings ideas for Medicare for All bear no relation to reality.
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 3, 2019 6:16 pm ET
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren November 02, 2019 in Dubuque, Iowa. PHOTO: SCOTT OLSON/GETTY IMAGES
Now we know why Elizabeth Warren took so long to release the financing details of her Medicare-for-All plan. The 20 pages of explanation she released Friday reveal that she is counting on ideas for cost-savings and new revenue that are a fiscal and health-care fantasy.
The House Finally Goes on Record on an Impeachment Inquiry
SUBSCRIBE
You certainly can’t criticize the new Iowa Democratic caucus front-runner for lack of ambition. Despite criticism from fellow Democrats, she is sticking to her plan for a government takeover of American health care, including the elimination of private insurance that 170 million or so Americans now have. She continues to claim that this will cost “not one penny in middle-class tax increases.” She walks on water too.
***
Start with the overall fiscal math, which by itself is staggering. She concedes that her plan will cost only “slightly” less than the $52 trillion that the U.S. is expected to spend on health care in the next 10 years. She deducts from that what the feds now spend on Medicare and Medicaid, plus $6 trillion that the states contribute to Medicaid, the state-federal children’s health program and government worker benefits.
That leaves $30 trillion to finance, but Senator Warren waves her wand and says the bill will really be $20.5 trillion. She makes the rest vanish by positing magical savings from things like “comprehensive payment reform.” One of her ideas is the hardy perennial known as “bundled payments,” which have failed to reduce costs as promised by Obama Care.
She says hospitals would be reimbursed at an average of 110% of current Medicare rates, which is supposed to address the criticism that Medicare currently under-compensates patient care. But hospitals now rely on private insurance payments to stay in business, and 110% of what Medicare now pays will hardly be enough to compensate for the loss of that private money.
Amusingly, she also proposes savings from “restoring health care competition.” Because everyone will have good insurance, she says, “providers will have to compete on better care and reduced wait times in order to attract more patients.” But if government is controlling all prices and reimbursements, what incentive is there to compete at all?
There’s a reason every government-run health system in the world rations care. Ms. Warren won’t admit this explicitly about her brave new health world, but she comes close. If U.S. health-care spending exceeds GDP growth, she says, “I will use available policy tools, which include global budgets, population-based budgets, and automatic rate reductions, to bring it back into line.”
In a word, rationing. And that’s no surprise, since she credits the advice for developing much of her plan to Donald Berwick. He was an advocate for ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board—known uncharitably as the death panel—that Congress repealed last year in a bipartisan vote.
Ms. Warren would also impose foreign price controls on U.S. drug makers, which is why patients in France and the U.K. have access to only about half of new medicines that are available in the U.S. Manufacturers that don’t agree to Ms. Warren’s price negotiation would get whacked with a hefty excise tax on their profits. She also threatens to confiscate their patents.
The details of how she’d pay for the other $20.5 trillion are even more fantastical. Start with her “Employer Medicare Contribution.” Instead of paying employee health-care premiums, businesses would cut a check to Uncle Sam to the tune of $8.8 trillion over 10 years based on what they pay now.
She says per-employee health costs for every employer would remain about the same, but payroll costs of this sort are essentially middle-class taxes on employees. Fixing per-employee business costs at some future date would also be an incentive for companies to reduce their coverage now to reduce future costs. So employees would get worse coverage than they have now. If this “employer contribution” raises less money than projected, her fall-back is to whack “big companies with extremely high executive compensation and stock buyback rates.”
Meantime, she’d also raise the corporate tax rate back to 35% from 21% and extend it to income earned worldwide with no deferrals for foreign taxes. She claims this would generate $1.75 trillion over 10 years, which is fanciful since it would be an immediate incentive for companies to relocate overseas.
She also doubles down on her plans to soak the rich, assuming there are any left after her other tax proposals. She wants a new annual tax on unrealized capital gains of the wealthiest 1% of households (raising $2 trillion over 10 years), which would mean you owe a tax even if you haven’t sold the asset. She graciously says taxpayers could offset the gains with losses in bad years, but that would lead to extreme revenue fluctuations from year to year.
Ms. Warren has already proposed a 2% wealth tax on assets of more than $50 million, which is supposed to pay for her education, child-care and college-debt forgiveness plans. She now wants to add a 6% annual tax on Americans with more than $1 billion in assets that she says would raise $3 trillion. Most economists, including Democrat Larry Summers, believe a wealth tax would raise far less due to tax avoidance, which is why so many European countries have repealed their wealth taxes.
But, no worries, Ms. Warren would hire a new army of tax collectors to close what she calls the 15% “tax gap” between what people owe and what they pay. The Senator says this will be worth $2.3 trillion in additional revenue. This is another old Congressional standby that never yields what is predicted.
Oh, and she’d save $800 billion by cutting defense spending for Overseas Contingency Operations. Senator Warren calls this a “slush fund,” but it’s really the account to finance current overseas operations as well as readiness. This would return to the Obama years of slashing defense even as global threats from regional powers and new technology are increasing. This is a hyper-fantasy.
***
The political vulnerability of all this isn’t lost on Ms. Warren’s Democratic competitors. A spokeswoman for Joe Biden said Saturday that Ms. Warren is “lowballing the cost of her plan by well over $10 trillion” and isn’t telling the truth about her taxes “that would come out of workers’ pockets.” The likeliest outcome, if her plan ever became law, would be a value-added consumption tax on the middle class.
Ms. Warren is trying to sell an illusion and make it sound like political courage. Donald Trump’s boast that Mexico would pay for the wall was more believable.
-
We used to talk about DINK, Dual income, no kids.
Now we have HENRY, High Earner, Not Yet Rich.
(https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-02-at-20.04.48.png)
Also: https://www.clintonherald.com/on-health-care-warren-sounded-like-a-student-who-hadn/article_eb668490-f1c5-11e9-bd8e-c3179ab2abd7.html
On health care, Warren sounded like a student who hadn't done her reading
By MEGAN MCARDLE Oct 18, 2019
Q: "You have not specified (2 weeks ago) how you’re going to pay for the most expensive plan, Medicare-for-all. Will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it, yes or no?”
Warren answer: The former professor sounded like a freshman who hadn’t done the reading. Warren ambled between heart-tugging anecdote and amiably unobjectionable generalities — “Look, the way I see this, it is hard enough to get a diagnosis ... what you shouldn’t have to worry about is how you’re going to pay for your health care after that.” She didn’t attempt to answer the question, except to insist that the only people who will pay for her new plan are the rich and big corporations. As real wonks know, that math doesn’t work.
-
Warren’s Medicare For All: Longest Political Suicide Note In Recorded History
https://lidblog.com/medicare-for-all/
-------------------------------------
Plans by Warren and Sanders Neglect Logic, Math and Honesty
Veronique de RugyVeronique de Rugy|Posted: Nov 07, 2019
https://townhall.com/columnists/veroniquederugy/2019/11/07/plans-by-warren-and-sanders-neglect-logic-math-and-honesty-n2556034
-
Warren's Medicare for all: Longest Political Suicide Note In Recorded History
yes and even many on the Left are running scared of this.
maybe nominee won't be her after all as I thought 2 weeks ago.......
My best guess now is it will be the Hillary monster after all out of desperation
or maybe Boomer the Democrat, later the Republican , later the Independent, now back to being the obvious Democrat he always has been....
And while thee LEft scours around looking for their savior the imperial Democrat Guard (MSM) keeps up the daily minute to minute verbal nuclear attacks of the Orange Man and his followers.
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/elizabeth-warrens-cruelty
"... This is all a cruel lie to those people who will lose their private insurance, pay more in taxes, and find it harder to get seen by a doctor."
...
"Washington can cure what ails you simply by taking from others. It isn't true. Never has been. Never will be."
-------------------
PLEASE read it all.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/11/08/warren-yes-id-suspend-all-deportations-to-enforce-my-agenda-n2556168?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=&bcid=52f016547a40edbdd6de69b8a7728bbf&recip=18183372
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/warrens-2-cents-come-at-your-expense-11573515899
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/12/why-a-warren-presidency-would-jeopardize-retirement-funds/
Your retirement plunges while "they" remain wealthy. Your jobs, your wages, your growth, your opportunities plunge while "they" remain wealthy.
It is an interconnected economy. Economics 101
-
Warren claim to national fame was her bankruptcy work that tied medical expenses to more than half of bankruptcies: "Harvard Study: Half of U.S. Bankruptcies Caused by Medical Bills". This scholarly work linked below is entitled "Misdiagnosis" was published in 2006 in the 'Texas Review of Law and Politics'. It systematically rips Warren's assertion to shreds:
Reprint at: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/lie-a-watha.php
...
"For example, the authors (Warren) state that their study classified bankruptcies in which the debtor cited “uncontrolled gambling,” “alcohol or drug addiction,” “death in family,” and as having a“medical cause”"
...
Author Gail L. Heriot is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, former member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
-
Good find.
-
https://patriotpost.us/articles/67001-warrens-phony-bio-continued-2019-11-26?mailing_id=4691&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4691&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
-
https://patriotpost.us/articles/67001-warrens-phony-bio-continued-2019-11-26?mailing_id=4691&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4691&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
Worse than error by omission when you watch the video:
Black lady parent volunteer says: "We read that your kid went to private school." 0:06 on the video.
Warren interrupts instantly to correct her. By 0:07 on the video she has finished saying:
"My children went to public schools."
Yes they did, partly, but that doesn't make what the nice lady said wrong. YOUR KID WENT TO PRIVATE SCHOOL, like it or not. There is no way to read this other than Warren is telling the woman who is exactly right that she is wrong.
Patriot Post: "Warren, like most Democrats, opposes school choice because she’s backed by teachers’ unions. But Warren also wants blacks to vote for her, and school choice is popular among the black community because it is their kids who suffer most in failing urban schools."
CHOOSE ONE: Teachers unions support or support from people who pressing for school choice for their children and their neighborhoods.
There is something worse than dishonesty going on here. Warren is admitting that the truth is not good enough to make her case. That's why she lies.
The tie between medical bills and bankruptcy is not good enough to make her case - so she exaggerates it. White lady from Oklahoma, former Republican, is not good enough in her world of identity politics - so she passes along her false, native heritage story. Bouncing around in jobs while trying to figure out what she wants to do isn't good enough of a life story to tell - so she pretends she was a victimized woman in employment. Big School against a little, powerless, pregnant woman. So few women ever make in Elementary teaching? Good grief. Get a life - and leave us out of it.
-
Warren's first instinct is to lie. It's gotten her this far.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/67001-warrens-phony-bio-continued-2019-11-26?mailing_id=4691&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4691&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
Worse than error by omission when you watch the video:
Black lady parent volunteer says: "We read that your kid went to private school." 0:06 on the video.
Warren interrupts instantly to correct her. By 0:07 on the video she has finished saying:
"My children went to public schools."
Yes they did, partly, but that doesn't make what the nice lady said wrong. YOUR KID WENT TO PRIVATE SCHOOL, like it or not. There is no way to read this other than Warren is telling the woman who is exactly right that she is wrong.
Patriot Post: "Warren, like most Democrats, opposes school choice because she’s backed by teachers’ unions. But Warren also wants blacks to vote for her, and school choice is popular among the black community because it is their kids who suffer most in failing urban schools."
CHOOSE ONE: Teachers unions support or support from people who pressing for school choice for their children and their neighborhoods.
There is something worse than dishonesty going on here. Warren is admitting that the truth is not good enough to make her case. That's why she lies.
The tie between medical bills and bankruptcy is not good enough to make her case - so she exaggerates it. White lady from Oklahoma, former Republican, is not good enough in her world of identity politics - so she passes along her false, native heritage story. Bouncing around in jobs while trying to figure out what she wants to do isn't good enough of a life story to tell - so she pretends she was a victimized woman in employment. Big School against a little, powerless, pregnant woman. So few women ever make in Elementary teaching? Good grief. Get a life - and leave us out of it.
-
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/19/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-economy-087346c
If this were two companies colluding, it would be highly illegal. Sounds also a bit like extortion. Not just one politician helping another.
-
“The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women: Amy and me,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said during the Democratic debate in Des Moines on Tuesday.
[Besides that she is a Democrat who barely won in a heavily Democratic state: Every elected president of the last half-century [except Trump?] has been a loser. From Richard Nixon to Barack Obama, all of those professional politicians lost a political campaign before making it to the White House. Nixon and Ronald Reagan lost big promising bids for the presidency itself.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/477685-the-test-elizabeth-warren-needs
Had to look up this one:
Georgia Democratic primary results 1966
Candidate Votes %
Ellis Arnall 231,480 29.38
Lester Maddox 185,672 23.56
Jimmy Carter 164,562 20.89
Paraphrase of anti-fragile, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Warren's setbacks were to be caught up in lies. What did she learn from that, to stop lying? Not when she still denies all her lies.
-
(http://CAPRICA 6.5 (@fortinowski) Tweeted:
@FreeBeacon https://t.co/uPZ2LLZvgJ https://twitter.com/fortinowski/status/1219761403554299906?s=20)
https://mobile.twitter.com/fortinowski/status/1219761403554299906/photo/1
-
Think the fog of partisan Trump investigations will lift once the President leaves office, either in 2021 or 2025? Not if Elizabeth Warren has anything to say about it. With the Iowa caucuses approaching and her campaign fortunes flagging, Senator Warren now says that as President she’d launch an open-ended criminal investigation into her predecessor and anyone who worked for him.
Ms. Warren’s latest “anti-corruption” plan says she would create “a Justice Department Task Force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration and to hold government officials accountable for illegal activity.” She would order Justice to look for violations of “federal bribery laws, insider trading laws, and other anti-corruption and public integrity laws” as well as immigration-enforcement offenses.
Day One of the Impeachment Trial, and Joe Biden in Iowa
SUBSCRIBE
“This will be no ordinary transition between administrations,” the document says ominously. Team Warren won’t be satisfied with taking control of the executive branch in an election. They also want scalps of choice ex-officials. The plan links to news articles about Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, White House Adviser KellyanneCon way and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson.
If there is evidence of a crime by a former Administration official, it should be investigated through the normal channels. Ms. Warren is proposing something different: A law-enforcement task force dedicated to searching for wrongdoing only by political opponents. This would be familiar in Latin American dictatorships where the party that loses an election may be jailed as retribution.
Pundits said Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign threat to investigate Hillary Clinton for her email mismanagement was a chilling breach of democratic norms. We opposed such an investigation but at least the alleged misconduct was limited to specific conduct by one official, whereas Ms. Warren wants investigations of all Republican officials for any political offenses.
Despite all the apocalyptic think-pieces and high-minded books, America has not become an “autocracy” three years into Donald Trump’s Presidency. The opposition party won the House in the midterms, proceeded to impeach the President, and its leading candidates are ahead in the head-to-head 2020 presidential election polls.
Yet in polarized times the temptation to criminalize political differences is stronger than ever. It will be especially strong for Democrats once they are back in control of the Justice Department. Down Senator Warren’s road lies a real threat to liberty.
-
https://www.theblaze.com/news/dad-who-paid-for-daughters-education-confronts-warren-over-student-loan-forgiveness?utm_content=bufferd79e4&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fb-theblaze
-
https://www.theblaze.com/news/dad-who-paid-for-daughters-education-confronts-warren-over-student-loan-forgiveness?utm_content=bufferd79e4&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fb-theblaze
*it rewards people who were financially irresponsible, and it punishes those who avoided racking up overwhelming student loan debt.*
I am afraid he was at the wrong party's event.
-
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/01/we-can-end-our-endless-wars/162666/?oref=d_brief_nl
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-warren-runs-and-hides-behind-staffer-after-being-caught-flying-private-plane?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-warren-runs-and-hides-behind-staffer-after-being-caught-flying-private-plane?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro
(http://www.kawvalley.k12.ks.us/schools/rjh/marneyg/03-04_Plains-Projects/ingwerson_03_uses%20of%20buffalo.jpg)
Following the ways of her people.
-
Warren will lose bigly.
With Democratic lying and pandering, it's hard to know how much is too much. Better to be a buffoon in this case than a cold, calculating liar.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/elizabeth-warrens-pandering-and-dishonesty-brought-her-campaign-to-an-end
One good point in the article, she is the one who took down Bloomberg.
-
Who knew the democrats voting base was so deeply anti-woman? Racist towards Native Americans as well!
Warren will lose bigly.
With Democratic lying and pandering, it's hard to know how much is too much. Better to be a buffoon in this case than a cold, calculating liar.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/elizabeth-warrens-pandering-and-dishonesty-brought-her-campaign-to-an-end
One good point in the article, she is the one who took down Bloomberg.
-
https://victorygirlsblog.com/warren-staffers-get-very-unwoke-tattoos/