Warren's Rise: A Bad Sign for Billionaires?

[georgephillip]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

 

[Rustic]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

 

[justoffal]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

Speaking of parasites I can't think of a better example than a Cambridge left-wing nut Job who pulls down $350,000 a year for a nearly no-show job of the University then has the balls to complain about the high cost of tuition.

Elizabeth Warren's expertise is certainly not in the field of high finance. Wall Street would eat her for breakfast every day of the week because she is strictly ignorant of the deep mechanics of macroeconomics. They would yes her to death and then dribble the ball quickly around her for the layup.

Trump maybe a loudmouth buffoon but his knowledge of how money works and how to make more of it is a thousand times more proficient than anything Warren ever dreamed of.

Jo

 

[Moonglow]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

Speaking of parasites I can't think of a better example than a Cambridge left-wing nut Job who pulls down $350,000 a year for a nearly no-show job of the University then has the balls to complain about the high cost of tuition.

Elizabeth Warren's expertise is certainly not in the field of high finance. Wall Street would eat her for breakfast every day of the week because she is strictly ignorant of the deep mechanics of macroeconomics. They would yes her to death and then dribble the ball quickly around her for the layup.

Trump maybe a loudmouth buffoon but his knowledge of how money works and how to make more of it is a thousand times more proficient than anything Warren ever dreamed of.

Jo

When the Progressive party was in power reform movements they started were started by people who came from a background in wealth. Who else could afford to lobby for free back then, it surely wasn't the poor people that the laws covered....

 

[Wry Catcher]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

Speaking of parasites I can't think of a better example than a Cambridge left-wing nut Job who pulls down $350,000 a year for a nearly no-show job of the University then has the balls to complain about the high cost of tuition.

Elizabeth Warren's expertise is certainly not in the field of high finance. Wall Street would eat her for breakfast every day of the week because she is strictly ignorant of the deep mechanics of macroeconomics. They would yes her to death and then dribble the ball quickly around her for the layup.

Trump maybe a loudmouth buffoon but his knowledge of how money works and how to make more of it is a thousand times more proficient than anything Warren ever dreamed of.

Jo

How does money work and for whom?

 

[HappyJoy]

Trump maybe a loudmouth buffoon but his knowledge of how money works and how to make more of it is a thousand times more proficient than anything Warren ever dreamed of.

Jo

If you mean multiple bankrupt companies, ripping off workers, being bailed out by daddy and losing a billion dollars over 10 years then sure, Trump knows how money works.

 

[Rustic]

Trump maybe a loudmouth buffoon but his knowledge of how money works and how to make more of it is a thousand times more proficient than anything Warren ever dreamed of.

Jo

If you mean multiple bankrupt companies, ripping off workers, being bailed out by daddy and losing a billion dollars over 10 years then sure, Trump knows how money works.

 

[HappyJoy]

Trump maybe a loudmouth buffoon but his knowledge of how money works and how to make more of it is a thousand times more proficient than anything Warren ever dreamed of.

Jo

If you mean multiple bankrupt companies, ripping off workers, being bailed out by daddy and losing a billion dollars over 10 years then sure, Trump knows how money works.

Thanks for demonstrating you have nothing to contribute.

 

[justoffal]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

Speaking of parasites I can't think of a better example than a Cambridge left-wing nut Job who pulls down $350,000 a year for a nearly no-show job of the University then has the balls to complain about the high cost of tuition.

Elizabeth Warren's expertise is certainly not in the field of high finance. Wall Street would eat her for breakfast every day of the week because she is strictly ignorant of the deep mechanics of macroeconomics. They would yes her to death and then dribble the ball quickly around her for the layup.

Trump maybe a loudmouth buffoon but his knowledge of how money works and how to make more of it is a thousand times more proficient than anything Warren ever dreamed of.

Jo

How does money work and for whom?

First of all money is an illusion. it is a Fiat toy that you can hold in your hand to make you feel like you possess something. I have listened to Warrens speeches in person at times. She has a great schtick and I like what she has to say about the unfairness of wealth and wealth distribution.

But as to her analytical grasp of the situation it is extremely poor. I can tell you that it's highly unfair that the Earth just happens to be in the Goldilocks zone along with Mars and that our Earth has all the resources like water and atmosphere whereas mars has nothing. unfortunately preaching about social justice does not solve this problem nor does it explain how it came about.

Jo

 

[georgephillip]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

Speaking of parasites I can't think of a better example than a Cambridge left-wing nut Job who pulls down $350,000 a year for a nearly no-show job of the University then has the balls to complain about the high cost of tuition.

Elizabeth Warren's expertise is certainly not in the field of high finance. Wall Street would eat her for breakfast every day of the week because she is strictly ignorant of the deep mechanics of macroeconomics. They would yes her to death and then dribble the ball quickly around her for the layup.

Trump maybe a loudmouth buffoon but his knowledge of how money works and how to make more of it is a thousand times more proficient than anything Warren ever dreamed of.

Jo

Elizabeth Warren's expertise is certainly not in the field of high finance. Wall Street would eat her for breakfast every day of the week because she is strictly ignorant of the deep mechanics of macroeconomics. They would yes her to death and then dribble the ball quickly around her for the layup.

Wall Street would starve on a level playing field, and Warren's Macroeconomic policy prescriptions will hasten its demise:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"The strength of Warren’s campaign is a series of detailed policy proposals aimed at correcting a series of corrupting inequities in American life.

"The first major proposal she released, on January 24th, was aimed at perhaps the biggest problem in American society: the wealth gap.

"While working people almost all live off highly-taxed “income,” high net worth individuals mostly live off other revenue streams: carried interest, capital gains, inheritance, etc.

"Warren’s plan would create a net worth calculation that would hit households worth between $50 million and $1 billion with a 2% annual “ultra-millionaires tax.”

"She has a similar plan for corporate tax..."

 

[justoffal]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

Obama didn't renege on a single thing. In fact I have never seen another chief executive officer who was more of a pitbull that has causes and beliefs than was Barack Obama wrong though he was.

What happened to Obama is that a loudmouth punk kid made it to the big times
And came to the sudden realization that he only thought he was in charge he actually was not. You got taken out behind the figurative woodshed and have his ass kicked by global powers and by the the globalist agents that inhabit our government.

He was pretty much told what he was going to do and what he was not going to do. Much of what he was not going to do are things that he had promised to do but discovered that he was was unable to do. Not that he didn't try.

Warren who was cut out of the same bolt.only....not quite as quick and spry as her predecessor Obama would be utterly devoured by the office, completely ignored by Wall Street and laughed at in the back rooms of DC for as long what she cakled and finger waved to no avail.

Jo

 

[georgephillip]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

 

[georgephillip]

In 2009 Matt Taibbi called for Elizabeth Warren to run for POTUS.

He had noticed how Obama was reneging on progressive campaign promises like closing Gitmo and drug re-importation, but it was Obama's unwillingness to take on Wall Street after the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression that made Warren the most appealing candidate:

Elizabeth Warren’s Rise Is a Plus for Issue Politics — And a Bad Sign for Billionaires

"Warren, a rare high-finance literate among national politicians, seemed like the person needed to lead an economic reform effort after the crash:

"'We need someone … to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it … [Someone] who will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.'"

Any viable candidate who wants to tightly regulate banks, dismember Amazon and Google, and tax the hell out of both major party's donor base seems like a bad sign for all economic parasites.

The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs

Obama didn't renege on a single thing. In fact I have never seen another chief executive officer who was more of a pitbull that has causes and beliefs than was Barack Obama wrong though he was.

What happened to Obama is that a loudmouth punk kid made it to the big times
And came to the sudden realization that he only thought he was in charge he actually was not. You got taken out behind the figurative woodshed and have his ass kicked by global powers and by the the globalist agents that inhabit our government.

He was pretty much told what he was going to do and what he was not going to do. Much of what he was not going to do are things that he had promised to do but discovered that he was was unable to do. Not that he didn't try.

Warren who was cut out of the same bolt.only....not quite as quick and spry as her predecessor Obama would be utterly devoured by the office, completely ignored by Wall Street and laughed at in the back rooms of DC for as long what she cakled and finger waved to no avail.

Jo

Obama didn't renege on a single thing. In fact I have never seen another chief executive officer who was more of a pitbull that has causes and beliefs than was Barack Obama wrong though he was.

Obama did not close Gitmo.

Why Obama failed to close Guantanamo

"In his 2008 run for the White House, Barack Obama promised to shut down the prison for suspected foreign terrorists opened by President George W. Bush at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"On his second full day in the White House, President Obama issued an executive order to close Guantanamo within a year.

"Eight years later, that has not happened..."