Elizabeth Warren: "I am not wealthy"

[Trajan]

"I'm not one of them" is an interjection to her main point, which is "There are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios". Her statement is equivalent to "I realize there are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios. I'm not one of them." The "one" which she accurately says she is not is a wealthy individual who has a lot of stock portfolios, not a general wealthy individual. I don't see a grammatical reason to interpret her statement differently. Further, it would make no sense for her to do so-- she is surely well aware that she has publicly disclosed her wealth.

A 'stock portfolio' is a collection of owned stocks. In it's true sense, no one has more than one 'stock portfolio'. The woman told a fibber and stepped in the shit.

I disagree. Some people take "stock portfolio" to mean any collection of stocks. Then, an individual certainly could own multiple stock portfolios. Even if we take "stock portfolio" to mean (as does dictionary.com) "the complete investments held by an individual investor or by a financial organization" then an individual could still own multiple portfolios indirectly through the ownership of multiple organizations which themselves owned portfolios.

is there a yardstick for singular portfolio wealth? someone could have separated portfolios that amount to 100k or, one that is huge......she doesn't have multiples apparently so shes not wealthy? ( she does it appears have 8 million in the one she has though).
thats another reason why her statement doesn't make sense unless she wanted to pass herself off as not wealthy.

 

[ladyliberal]

UPDATE: Warren spokesman Kyle Sullivan emails, "Elizabeth was making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she'll get rid of the one stock she does own."

Warren's stock, an aide says, is all in mutual funds, with the exception of holdings in IBM which she has had for decades.

From the OP link.

her spokesman, well that explains everything

how can she get rid of the one stock she owns 'with the exception of holdings in IBM '?

so mutual funds are OK?

I think it's fine if members of congress own mutual funds. They have to put their money in something, and even certain commodity funds are more sensitive to congressional inside information than a diversified mutual fund. Incidentally, the proposed STOCK Act wouldn't stop congressional ownership of individual stocks at all, it would just prevent using inside congressional information (STOCK Act - H.R.1148: STOCK bill ("STOCK Act") - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress) in their buying or selling.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

UPDATE: Warren spokesman Kyle Sullivan emails, "Elizabeth was making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she'll get rid of the one stock she does own."

Warren's stock, an aide says, is all in mutual funds, with the exception of holdings in IBM which she has had for decades.

From the OP link.

That's mildly amusing in light of the people here trying to defend Warren based on her use of the letter 's' at the end of the word 'portfolio'.




She made a booboo - brought on by her liberal need to be one with the middle classes.

Now her spokesman is walking it back for her.

At least he's not claiming her defense is that she only has one portfolio not a lot of those little suckers.

She clearly did not mean she is not wealthy. Take off the partisan glasses.

 

[westwall]

Very tedious.

The language that we use consists of words, pauses, inflections and context. Elizabeth Warren, a person who has spent her entire life dealing with matters of finance and income inequality, did not make the claim that she is not wealthy in that interview.

The statement that you leeches are attaching yourselves to today included a pause.

I realize there are some wealthy individuals — I’m not one of them but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.

She meant that she is not one of the wealthy people who have a lot of stock portfolios.

She knows that she's in the 1%, fellas. Please stop inventing negatives.

Where exactly did you learn english?

I realize there are some wealthy individuals — I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.

That little part I highlighted, what exactly is that called?

 

[Dr Grump]

UPDATE: Warren spokesman Kyle Sullivan emails, "Elizabeth was making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she'll get rid of the one stock she does own."

Warren's stock, an aide says, is all in mutual funds, with the exception of holdings in IBM which she has had for decades.

From the OP link.

That's mildly amusing in light of the people here trying to defend Warren based on her use of the letter 's' at the end of the word 'portfolio'.




She made a booboo - brought on by her liberal need to be one with the middle classes.

Now her spokesman is walking it back for her.

At least he's not claiming her defense is that she only has one portfolio not a lot of those little suckers.

I would be surprised if her $14 million put her in the 1 percent in America. At the end of the day I couldn't give a shit. She is an advocate for the middle class and against runaway Wall St lobbyists and destructive banking practices. You guys make that sound like a bad thing

 

[Listening]

Well,

At least we've established she is a 1%.

Are we gong to get the apply the same garbage in her direction that people throw at Romney.

It's the left that is doing most of the chucking.

But I'll be Warren won't be buying catcher's gear anytime soon.

She'll get a pass.

Just look at the spin coming on this thread.

 

[Amelia]

From the OP link.

That's mildly amusing in light of the people here trying to defend Warren based on her use of the letter 's' at the end of the word 'portfolio'.




She made a booboo - brought on by her liberal need to be one with the middle classes.

Now her spokesman is walking it back for her.

At least he's not claiming her defense is that she only has one portfolio not a lot of those little suckers.

She clearly did not mean she is not wealthy. Take off the partisan glasses.

I did not suggest that is what she said or meant. Perhaps you are trying too hard to be nonpartisan here.


Now we're just going in circles. She said something unfactual and it needed to be walked back / massaged / interpreted / brushed under the rug, which it now has been.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There are alot of men out there, and I'm not one of them, but there are alot of men out there who beat their wives.

You ass clowns would really try to claim that I just called myself a woman? Get the fuck over your partisan bullshit, people.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Investopedia explains 'Portfolio'
Prudence suggests that investors should construct an investment portfolio in accordance with risk tolerance and investing objectives. Think of an investment portfolio as a pie that is divided into pieces of varying sizes representing a variety of asset classes and/or types of investments to accomplish an appropriate risk-return portfolio allocation.

Read more: Portfolio Definition | Investopedia

port·fo·li·o
   [pawrt-foh-lee-oh, pohrt-] Show IPA
noun, plural -li·os.

3.the total holdings of the securities, commercial paper, etc., of a financial institution or private investor.
Portfolio | Define Portfolio at Dictionary.com


Definition
A collection of investments all owned by the same individual or organization. These investments often include stocks, which are investments in individual businesses; bonds, which are investments in debt that are designed to earn interest; and mutual funds, which are essentially pools of money from many investors that are invested by professionals or according to indices.

Read more: What is portfolio? definition and meaning

: the securities held by an investor : the commercial paper held by a financial house (as a bank)
Portfolio - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In NONE of these cases is portfolio pluralized, it is a single entity containing multiple investment items. You may have separated your portfolio into classes or types of investments, but they all reside in a single portfolio. If you use the word any other way you are using it incorrectly.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Where exactly did you learn english?

I realize there are some wealthy individuals — I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.

That little part I highlighted, what exactly is that called?

It's called this:

(A ^ B)
~B
∴ ~(A ^ B) ^ (A v ~A)


I'm sorry, did you not comprehend that? My bad. I thought I was dealing with someone WHO HAD A FUCKING CLUE about how to think logically.

 

[Listening]

Where exactly did you learn english?

I realize there are some wealthy individuals — I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.

That little part I highlighted, what exactly is that called?

It's called this:

(A ^ B)
~B
∴ ~(A ^ B) ^ (A v ~A)


I'm sorry, did you not comprehend that? My bad. I thought I was dealing with someone WHO HAD A FUCKING CLUE about how to think logically.

Cute but worthless unless you are going to define A and B.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Where exactly did you learn english?

I realize there are some wealthy individuals — I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.

That little part I highlighted, what exactly is that called?

It's called this:

(A ^ B)
~B
∴ ~(A ^ B) ^ (A v ~A)


I'm sorry, did you not comprehend that? My bad. I thought I was dealing with someone WHO HAD A FUCKING CLUE about how to think logically.

Cute but worthless unless you are going to define A and B.

Which just goes to show you don't know a fucking thing.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Maybe she parks her boat like Kerry,

in another state to avoid taxes

 

[StevenC]

Has she realesed her tax forms yet?
If she only pays 15% on here investments will the left attack her like they attack Romney?
Isn't she the one that said no one gets rich on there own? Shouldn't she then turn over her wealth to the state like a good little socialist. After all they believe the Government is better at spending others peoples money than the people themselves.

Also If Romney or Newt had made a msitake in not clarifiying what they meant would the left be defending them?

 

[mudwhistle]

As I suspected. I looked at the video.

They were discussing stock portfolio's and how members of Congress should not be trading while in office. She did not say that she is not wealthy....she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios.

Just another attempt to misinform.

What's the difference???

Being wealthy is the point, not simply owning stocks. Wealth is wealth whether it's in stock, property, or cash.

 

[Article 15]

Another fabricated issue, another swing and a miss.

Warren by ten in November.

And of course you missed the thread where the left was claiming a Republican said all Liberals should leave the US? Right?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

So yeah, I missed it.

I suggest you cry some more about whatever it is you are crying about. It's appears to be therapeutic for you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats are the Tawana Brawley Party, they will repeat back what they are told to believe no matter how stupid it makes them look. Their candidate prior to the Marxist Macaca, was John Kerry one of the richest people in American who only married well. But now, we are told being wealthy is evil.

Nobody "manipsnates" Democrats, no Sir

 

[Trajan]

frankly I think the sentence was very poorly constructed, its almost gibberish, the first portion makes complete sense, the back end? *shrugs* if she left out the BUT, maybe I could see it that way.

I give politicians a lot of credit for backtracking midstream when they realize thy have said something they probably should not have said.


whats a 'general wealthy' individual?

I agree that the sentence was not very well constructed. I think that's understandable in a live interview-- I'm sure if someone took a transcript of everything I said aloud much of it would be ungrammatical.

By "general wealthy individual" I meant any wealthy individual, as distinct from the specific case of a wealthy individual with many stock portfolios.

ok well, her delineation even if we take your example makes little sense, the whole point again if we take the blurb in the way you think she means it is is to create a difference between people who are wealthy because they have multiple portfolios 'like other, or as other', congress people, but becasue she has one portfolio, she isn't?

no matter how you slice it, it makes no sense, UNLESS one believes that 8 million in a portfolio, with assets in addition that add up to 14 million, is not wealthy. I propose that that, is ridiculous.

 

[Trajan]

As I suspected. I looked at the video.

They were discussing stock portfolio's and how members of Congress should not be trading while in office. She did not say that she is not wealthy....she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios.

Just another attempt to misinform.

What's the difference???

Being wealthy is the point, not simply owning stocks. Wealth is wealth whether it's in stock, property, or cash.

exactly, her proposition is ridiculous in any case.