Author Topic: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color  (Read 46294 times)



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
EDJ: Forked Tongue Warren's crisis has arrived
« Reply #102 on: August 21, 2019, 10:05:29 AM »



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.

***

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Forked Tongue Warren's crisis has arrived
« Reply #103 on: August 21, 2019, 02:12:35 PM »
"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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren, The "murder" of Michael Brown, Ferguson MO
« Reply #104 on: September 03, 2019, 06:27:46 AM »
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

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Elizabeth Warren, The "murder" of Michael Brown, Ferguson MO
« Reply #105 on: September 03, 2019, 10:03:54 AM »
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

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren, Make Cronyism Great Again, from one year ago
« Reply #106 on: September 04, 2019, 08:45:58 AM »
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.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Time for fauxahontas to pay reparations
« Reply #109 on: September 12, 2019, 01:32:35 PM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color
« Reply #110 on: September 17, 2019, 07:14:11 AM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color
« Reply #111 on: September 17, 2019, 07:38:00 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 08:11:33 AM by DougMacG »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, gun grabber vs. Colion Noir
« Reply #115 on: September 21, 2019, 08:59:54 PM »
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.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren: Make Social Security a Welfare Program
« Reply #117 on: September 27, 2019, 09:03:42 AM »
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.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren the Capitalist has hypocrisy issues
« Reply #118 on: September 28, 2019, 09:38:31 AM »
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

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Did I mention Hypocrisy issues?
« Reply #119 on: September 28, 2019, 09:44:14 AM »
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?!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Did I mention Hypocrisy issues?
« Reply #120 on: September 28, 2019, 09:39:14 PM »
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?!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren and the elopement fable
« Reply #122 on: October 05, 2019, 08:55:41 AM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
So What Happened to Warren?
« Reply #123 on: October 05, 2019, 09:07:42 AM »
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]

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
At the Warren rally
« Reply #124 on: October 05, 2019, 10:33:10 PM »
"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

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
I'm seeing reports of impressive crowd size (8-10 thousand?).  She may be very well positioned to swoop in on the corruption issue.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Warren Wealth Tax
« Reply #128 on: October 06, 2019, 02:50:37 PM »
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/



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: "Forked Tongue" Warren calls for breaking up Goolag
« Reply #131 on: October 08, 2019, 06:49:09 AM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren video interview
« Reply #132 on: October 08, 2019, 07:06:10 AM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Is Warren's Wealth Tax constitutional?
« Reply #133 on: October 08, 2019, 07:34:26 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 07:39:35 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth "Two Tale" Warren lacks authenticity
« Reply #134 on: October 09, 2019, 07:47:24 AM »
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

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, millionaires left France fleeing wealth tax
« Reply #135 on: October 09, 2019, 10:13:58 AM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Warren continued, Profits from corporations should not go to shareholders
« Reply #136 on: October 09, 2019, 10:46:20 AM »
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

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Elizabeth "Two Tale" Warren, 4 tales and her nose keeps growing
« Reply #137 on: October 10, 2019, 07:29:36 AM »
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...

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren: Too liberal for moderates, too liberal to win?
« Reply #138 on: October 10, 2019, 08:54:24 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 02:00:51 PM by DougMacG »




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Warren vs. the Constitution
« Reply #142 on: October 14, 2019, 06:30:47 AM »


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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
"How Elizabeth Warren can win" - John Ellis, Boston Globe
« Reply #143 on: October 16, 2019, 08:58:06 AM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Democrat from Massachusetts
« Reply #144 on: October 17, 2019, 06:50:44 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 06:53:47 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
BTW for the record we need to remember the obvious stupidity of her lie about her parent's elopement.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Good list of Forked Tongue Warren's lies
« Reply #146 on: October 17, 2019, 06:47:31 PM »
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/
« Last Edit: October 17, 2019, 09:17:48 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Elizabeth Warren did not win the debate and now she’s got work to do
« Reply #148 on: October 18, 2019, 07:36:06 AM »
"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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Warren's challenge, Sean Trende
« Reply #149 on: October 19, 2019, 05:14:20 PM »
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.