I <3 Elizabeth Warren

[The T]

Funny how we liberate, while liberals ensnare people with programs to run their financial and personal lives.

Quite a contradiction in terms isn't it? Isn't the root for Liberal Liberty?

I just post here, why you picking on me?

Picking? Not happening...agreement? Quite so.

 

[boedicca]

This is how Elizabeth Warren doesn't get rich on her own...she does it on the taxpayer's big-ol-pile-o-dimes:

The campaign for Democratic Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren said Friday she had been paid $192,722 for serving as chairman of a congressional committee that monitored the 2008 federal bank bailout, three times as much as had originally been acknowledged.

The Warren campaign revised the figure following a POLITICO report on Thursday, highlighting the fact that the Congressional Oversight Panel, which oversaw the TARP program, has not publicly disclosed exactly how it spent $10.5 million on salaries, travel, consultants and other expenses. Warren said she now supports public access to the oversight panel’s records, though her campaign wouldn’t say if she plans to actively push to open up the records....

Elizabeth Warren's campaign revises pay from TARP panel - Scott Wong and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

 

[BDBoop]

Y'all wouldn't be afraid of this strong liberal woman would you?

Actually, she's not liberal by party or stance (as I understand it), but she most certainly is by definition.

 

[Ame®icano]

Rest of us... meaning 50% who pay taxes?

Everyone pays taxes. Stop lying.

Well, am I lying is debatable, but you being stupid is not.

 

[Full-Auto]

Rest of us... meaning 50% who pay taxes?

Everyone pays taxes. Stop lying.

Well, am I lying is debatable, but you being stupid is not.

YOU ARE ASKING HIM TO CARRY A THOUGHT.

The first mistake.

 

[Kuros]

Will Wilkinson tries to chide Elizabeth Warren for her simplification, but can't seem to help approving of her rhetoric.

In this bit, Ms Warren states the liberal philosophy with both clarity and passion:

I hear all this, you know, &#8220;Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.&#8221;&#8212;No!

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

You built a factory out there&#8212;good for you! But I want to be clear.

You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.

You didn&#8217;t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea&#8212;God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

[Watch for where Cato-alum and libertarian Will Wilkinson calls Elizabeth Warren wrong . . .]

This is precisely the sort of rhetoric Democrats need to perfect in order to hold ground in the next round of national elections. Of course, not unlike a tea-party Republican making the case for small government, Ms Warren paints in over-broad, simplifying strokes.

It's true that nobody gets rich by inventing the wheel, electricity, and the institutions of property and liberal democracy all on their own. But that doesn't settle what the terms of the underlying social contract ought to be if our goal is shared prosperity. Maybe the corporate tax rate ought to be zilch. Maybe government ought to arrange the law to enable free markets in health care and education to flourish. Maybe we pay it forward by spending less on government programmes that don't work. Sadly, it's easier to get elected by avoiding the subtleties of these questions, instead keeping it simple and tendentious.

Still, Ms Warren is a Harvard law professor, and her mere presence on the political scene raises the level of discourse, so maybe I shouldn't complain that she doesn't raise it as much as I'd like.

Did you find him call her wrong? Neither did I.

Forbes' Ed Kain responds to Will

Yet Wilkinson himself is painting in overly-broad strokes. Yes, rich people do pay more in taxes, but they also benefit a great deal more from government spending. Those roads that rich people helped pay for with their taxes move goods that rich people sell. Capital requires infrastructure to flow, and infrastructure requires government spending.

And then he posts this:

See the distribution of wealth where Americans think it is today? That's where I'd like it to be. I'm to the right of most of America, and yet I'm still considerably to the left of the entire Republican party. (Cue the "socialist" & "Marxist" chorus)

Will rightly observes that &#8220;Scott Brown favours roads and police and schools and the idea that rich people should contribute more for their provision than should the less-rich.&#8221; But he dodges the point that Warren was responding to, namely that any further tax hike &#8211; even a return to historically low Clinton tax rates &#8211; is tantamount to &#8216;class warfare&#8217;.

To be fair, Will wants an intelligent discourse to flourish, and I agree that this would be really helpful, a clear and startling evolution of how politics plays out in America. But we&#8217;re not going to discuss &#8220;the best mix of publicly and privately financed roads&#8221; or whether &#8220;government ought to arrange the law to enable free markets in health care and education to flourish&#8221; at campaign stops or in stump speeches. And we&#8217;re certainly not going to have that conversation amidst the loud clamoring on the right that any mention of tax hikes is nothing short of a Marxist assault on the &#8220;productive&#8221; class.

There's a major backlash against GOP rhetoric. It only makes sense that Elizabeth Warren is leading the charge.

 

[Cuyo]

See the distribution of wealth where Americans think it is today? That's where I'd like it to be. I'm to the right of most of America, and yet I'm still considerably to the left of the entire Republican party. (Cue the "socialist" & "Marxist" chorus)

By gum, those statistics look similar to the "Who pays the most taxes" statistics!

AHH-MAY-ZING!

 

[Oddball]

Shorthand: When government itself is the threat to liberty, liberals oppose government power and conservatives support it.

When something else is the threat to liberty and only government can keep it restrained, liberals support government power and conservatives oppose it.

Now, you're just flat out lying.

Attempts were made to get the various provisions of the USAPATRIOT act sneaked through congress on a piecemeal basis, for nearly the entirety of the Clintoon administration.

In 2001, that travesty not only passed the Senate on a 98-1 vote, it has been renewed by the current regime.

There isn't one so-called "liberal" who will come out in favor of ending the liberty strangling "war" on (some) drugs.

Seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, smoking bans and too many incursions upon personal liberty to mention have all been foisted upon the populace, by your beloved authoritarian fake "liberals".

Liberoidal nanny statist tyrants are just as much a threat to liberty as fake "conservatives".

 

[saveliberty]

Do some liberals run and hide from the truth or have they just perfected things right in front of them.

 

[Mr. H.]

I just realized <3 is a heart. I always thought it meant boobs LOL.

 

[edthecynic]

I just realized <3 is a heart. I always thought it meant boobs LOL.

 

[BDBoop]

I just realized <3 is a heart. I always thought it meant boobs LOL.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPVgKoruWdA&feature=related]THE FUGS-Boobs a Lot - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET7wb651VFI]I LIKE BIG TITS JOE WALSH - YouTube[/ame]

 

[saveliberty]

I see no reason that it can't mean both.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

(Lizzie Borden, er Warren, continued. Pardon the confusion, but the current day Lizzie wants to do to the banking system and property rights in this country what the former Lizzie allegedly did to her parents.)

"Posted on September 24, 2011 by Scott Johnson in 2012 election, Obama administration

Mrs. Warren&#8217;s profession, cont&#8217;d

Given that citizens of lesser means always outnumber the rich, the classic political philosophers held that government based on majority rule was untenable. They were of the view that it would lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. Thus Aristotle observed in The Politics, for example: &#8220;If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city.&#8221;

The Founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle&#8217;s concern. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be &#8220;incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.&#8221; James Madison and others held that the &#8220;first object of government&#8221; was to protect the rights of property.

They understood the protection of property rights to be bound up with freedom itself. &#8220;In a word,&#8221; Madison explained, &#8220;as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights&#8230;.&#8221; The Founders thus incorporated numerous provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the property rights of citizens from the power of the government.

Whatever else might be said about him, President Obama operates on a different philosophy of government from that of the Founders. His credo is reflected in the proposition: &#8220;I think at some point you have made enough money.&#8221;

The Founders thought that at some point the government had enough power. Obama, however, is a devout believer in unlimited government. The common denominator among so-called health care reform and financial regulatory reform as well as Obama&#8217;s other big proposals is the augmented power they confer on the government in general and the executive branch in particular.

Obama appointed Elizabeth Warren to wield substantial power in his administration. Warren thought up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and was to be the agency&#8217;s first director. Republicans in the Senate kept her from assuming the position, but Obama appointed her a czar and made her the agency&#8217;s de facto head. Warren left the administration last month to return to Harvard Law School, where she was to step back into her position as the the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law."

Mrs. Warren

 

[driveby]

This is how Elizabeth Warren doesn't get rich on her own...she does it on the taxpayer's big-ol-pile-o-dimes:

The campaign for Democratic Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren said Friday she had been paid $192,722 for serving as chairman of a congressional committee that monitored the 2008 federal bank bailout, three times as much as had originally been acknowledged.

The Warren campaign revised the figure following a POLITICO report on Thursday, highlighting the fact that the Congressional Oversight Panel, which oversaw the TARP program, has not publicly disclosed exactly how it spent $10.5 million on salaries, travel, consultants and other expenses. Warren said she now supports public access to the oversight panel&#8217;s records, though her campaign wouldn&#8217;t say if she plans to actively push to open up the records....

Elizabeth Warren's campaign revises pay from TARP panel - Scott Wong and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com

Thanks for posting this.....

Like i said, this Maxist blowhard gets to have her bureaucrat job with her over inflated salary because of the tax dollars paid by these business owners......

 

[Bfgrn]

(Lizzie Borden, er Warren, continued. Pardon the confusion, but the current day Lizzie wants to do to the banking system and property rights in this country what the former Lizzie allegedly did to her parents.)

"Posted on September 24, 2011 by Scott Johnson in 2012 election, Obama administration

Mrs. Warren&#8217;s profession, cont&#8217;d

Given that citizens of lesser means always outnumber the rich, the classic political philosophers held that government based on majority rule was untenable. They were of the view that it would lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses. Thus Aristotle observed in The Politics, for example: &#8220;If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city.&#8221;

The Founders of the United States were deep students of politics and history, and they shared Aristotle&#8217;s concern. Up through their time, history had shown all known democracies to be &#8220;incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.&#8221; James Madison and others held that the &#8220;first object of government&#8221; was to protect the rights of property.

They understood the protection of property rights to be bound up with freedom itself. &#8220;In a word,&#8221; Madison explained, &#8220;as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights&#8230;.&#8221; The Founders thus incorporated numerous provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect the property rights of citizens from the power of the government.

Whatever else might be said about him, President Obama operates on a different philosophy of government from that of the Founders. His credo is reflected in the proposition: &#8220;I think at some point you have made enough money.&#8221;

The Founders thought that at some point the government had enough power. Obama, however, is a devout believer in unlimited government. The common denominator among so-called health care reform and financial regulatory reform as well as Obama&#8217;s other big proposals is the augmented power they confer on the government in general and the executive branch in particular.

Obama appointed Elizabeth Warren to wield substantial power in his administration. Warren thought up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and was to be the agency&#8217;s first director. Republicans in the Senate kept her from assuming the position, but Obama appointed her a czar and made her the agency&#8217;s de facto head. Warren left the administration last month to return to Harvard Law School, where she was to step back into her position as the the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law."

Mrs. Warren

Comparing Elizabeth Warren to Lizzie Borden? You folks on the right are sick.

Do you support corporations and banks having the power to author laws and contracts that are so contrived and complicated that they swindle the middle class and working folks? Because THAT is what has happened in this country.

Our founding fathers HEAVILY regulated corporations.

 

[bripat9643]

Comparing Elizabeth Warren to Lizzie Borden? You folks on the right are sick.

Comparing her to Joseph Stalin would be more accurate.

Do you support corporations and banks having the power to author laws and contracts that are so contrived and complicated that they swindle the middle class and working folks? Because THAT is what has happened in this country.

Our founding fathers HEAVILY regulated corporations.

Congress passes our laws, not banks and corporations. If you don't like the laws Congress passes, then you must not be a big supporter of democracy. It has always been a swindle, so why do you have your panties in a tight little wad over it all of a sudden?

 

[Bfgrn]

Comparing Elizabeth Warren to Lizzie Borden? You folks on the right are sick.

Comparing her to Joseph Stalin would be more accurate.

Do you support corporations and banks having the power to author laws and contracts that are so contrived and complicated that they swindle the middle class and working folks? Because THAT is what has happened in this country.

Our founding fathers HEAVILY regulated corporations.

Congress passes our laws, not banks and corporations. If you don't like the laws Congress passes, then you must not be a big supporter of democracy. It has always been a swindle, so why do you have your panties in a tight little wad over it all of a sudden?

Comparing her to Joseph Stalin? Elizabeth Warren is not a conservative.

Moneyed special interests authoring laws that benefit only those special interests is NOT democracy. It is malfeasance of democracy. You right wing turds are incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. Conservatism is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

 

[Lakhota]

So, that's the new mantra of the left. Every penny everyone earns is their's because they 'helped'. It is laughable.

Is that what she said? Really? And you have idiots thanking you for distorting her words?

 

[bitterlyclingin]

So, let’s recap: Liz Warren is at best exceptionally sloppy about both her personal finances, and the finances of the government agency that she oversaw. Getting information about either was and is as difficult as a broken wisdom tooth extraction – and in the case of Warren’s personal income, the real problem was getting accurate information. Because apparently Liz Warren doesn’t know how much she earns every year. Or she knows, but lies about it. Either way, she is used to making a ridiculous amount of money every year for doing… nothing really productive. Which explains her frankly puerile if somewhat passive-aggressive embracing of class warfare rhetoric: in Liz Warren’s world, the way she became rich* is the way that surely everybody becomes rich. And surely Warren knows, deep down, that she didn’t do anything to actually earn all that sweet, sweet cash.


Liz Warren: pig-ignorant about her own salary? | RedState