Sen Warren attacked by status quo/pro wall st Democrats

[jasonnfree]

Funny how a woman who with her husband are in the top one percent rail about others being in the top one percent.

If she really hates it that some people make a lot of money then she should lead by example and write a check to the treasury every year so that her income puts her at the average.

FDR was in the 1% also and did some pretty liberal things. Sometimes it's the poor guy that will work against his class. Look at Bill Clinton. Cool dude just like Obama but where it counted, he worked for the 1%'s ideas. End welfare as we know it, signed Glass-Steagal, Nafta, most favored nation for china, the list goes on, same as Obama, another poor guy that hasn't looked back where he came from either. Nice speeches but he works mainly for corporations and top incomes on economic issues and is always trying to offer to cut safety nets like no other president before him. Very unrooseveltian. Back in the slavery days they would have house negroes to work against the field negroes. Obama and Clinton (Hillary too) are house negroes. Warren might be different but if she is she won't get the big money backing.

 

[Freemason9]

As I recall Dot Com and other liberals all blast the Republicans for calling out supposed republicans not acting accordingly. So now it is ok for you to attack fellow dems but bad if Republicans attack fellow republicans? I got that right?

I am a registered Democrat, RGS, but only because I don't see any other choice. I may change to independent at some point--but I wouldn't be able to vote in the primary in my state. I don't think Democrats (or "liberals," or "progressives," or "socialists," or whatever other label is tossed around) are a very homogenous group. They disagree on a lot of things, and I don't believe that there is much of a movement to unify our party--that's possibly why our voter turnout isn't as dependable as the GOP's. Many of our ilk just don't give a fuck about national politics because they don't believe the system should be supported. I sort of agree, and I am considering not voting anymore--it's a pointless lie, and the political scam is supported by the American corporate/media/political machine.

I am fairly convinced that the "winning" presidential campaign is decided long before it happens.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I am fairly convinced that the "winning" presidential campaign is decided long before it happens.

In the case of Obama - absolutely.
Obama won because Ted Kennedy wanted him to win. Kennedy put the full machine behind him 110%. He believed that Obama was an easy pushover and he and the top Dem Senators would effectively control the White House.
And that probably would have happened if Ted would not have died.

 

[Freemason9]

Funny how a woman who with her husband are in the top one percent rail about others being in the top one percent.

If she really hates it that some people make a lot of money then she should lead by example and write a check to the treasury every year so that her income puts her at the average.

FDR was in the 1% also and did some pretty liberal things. Sometimes it's the poor guy that will work against his class. Look at Bill Clinton. Cool dude just like Obama but where it counted, he worked for the 1%'s ideas. End welfare as we know it, signed Glass-Steagal, Nafta, most favored nation for china, the list goes on, same as Obama, another poor guy that hasn't looked back where he came from either. Nice speeches but he works mainly for corporations and top incomes on economic issues and is always trying to offer to cut safety nets like no other president before him. Very unrooseveltian. Back in the slavery days they would have house negroes to work against the field negroes. Obama and Clinton (Hillary too) are house negroes. Warren might be different but if she is she won't get the big money backing.

It is highly unlikely that the corporate media would allow a genuine "leftist" to ever get near the White House. The goal of the presidential election is to provide an illusion of democracy, while assuring the election of a corporate representative that leans more right than left. The rhetoric only supports the illusion--but look how the rich are accumulating ever more wealth, and America becomes a nation of wage slaves.

 

[Freemason9]

I am fairly convinced that the "winning" presidential campaign is decided long before it happens.

In the case of Obama - absolutely.
Obama won because Ted Kennedy wanted him to win. Kennedy put the full machine behind him 110%. He believed that Obama was an easy pushover and he and the top Dem Senators would effectively control the White House.
And that probably would have happened if Ted would not have died.

Also, it seemed apparent that the McCain "campaign" was assigned to fail when Palin was selected as a running mate. That ended it, really.

 

[georgephillip]

George is an extreme leftist.

that would be better than a "sell-out" Democrat

"DINOs," eh?

There are a whole bunch of nutty right wingers here. There are few nutty left wingers. George is one.

What are you full of, "Toro?"

 

[peach174]

Looks like Liz is calling-out the status quo corporate Dems of which there are more than a few. ALL the Repubs are pro-wall st types

(snip)
Elizabeth Warren takes sides in Democratic feud - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

A chorus of groups aligned with the liberal wing of the party – from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee to Howard Dean’s Democracy for America and Russ Feingold’s Progressives United – responded by attacking Third Way as a Wall Street-funded front group.

By lunch time, Warren jumped into the fray. Her Senate office blasted out a letter from the freshman firebrand senator to the CEOs of the country’s six largest financial institutions, prodding them to disclose money they provide to think tanks like Third Way.

Good on her We have too many Dem'ds profiting by selling-out the people in favor of big biz so that they can get campaign contributions &/or future *cough* "jobs".

Elizabeth isn't afraid to point out the elephant (or jackass) in the room:

"Income inequality in the United States has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[1][2][3][4][5] after several decades of stability,[6][7] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States..."

"In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[15]

"In 2012, the gap between the richest 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent was the widest it's been since the 1920s.[16]

"Incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, whereas the income of the remaining 99 percent rose 1 percent in comparison."

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What ideology was started big time in the early 70's and has now taken over completely oops Liberal Democratic Socialism.
Redistribution of wealth does not work.
In order to get rid of income inequality, we need to get the Federal government out of our lives.

 

[georgephillip]

I was wondering when someone, who isn't fooled by the Left/Right paradigm would respond. Good post.

George is an extreme leftist.

that would be better than a "sell-out" Democrat

So far, Elizabeth Warren hasn't shown any signs of selling out:

"Elizabeth Warren is emerging as a kind of spokeswoman for the new economic populism that many Democratic activists want the party to embrace heading into 2014 and 2016, this speech that Warren is currently delivering on the floor of the Senate suggests the push to expand Social Security could become a key issue in the argument over the Democratic Party of the future.

"In remarks Warren just began delivering, she strongly endorsed the push to boost Social Security benefits — in keeping with Senator Tom Harkin’s proposal to do the same — and condemned the 'Chained CPI' that liberals fear Dems will embrace in strong terms. From the prepared remarks..."

Elizabeth Warren: Don?t cut Social Security. Expand it!

 

[georgephillip]

Looks like Liz is calling-out the status quo corporate Dems of which there are more than a few. ALL the Repubs are pro-wall st types

(snip)
Elizabeth Warren takes sides in Democratic feud - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com
Good on her We have too many Dem'ds profiting by selling-out the people in favor of big biz so that they can get campaign contributions &/or future *cough* "jobs".

Elizabeth isn't afraid to point out the elephant (or jackass) in the room:

"Income inequality in the United States has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[1][2][3][4][5] after several decades of stability,[6][7] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States..."

"In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[15]

"In 2012, the gap between the richest 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent was the widest it's been since the 1920s.[16]

"Incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, whereas the income of the remaining 99 percent rose 1 percent in comparison."

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What ideology was started big time in the early 70's and has now taken over completely oops Liberal Democratic Socialism.
Redistribution of wealth does not work.
In order to get rid of income inequality, we need to get the Federal government out of our lives.

When the next Wall Street bubble POPS...

"Rates are low, credit is easy, underwriting is shoddy, and sales are booming.

"There’s your thumbnail sketch of today’s 'surging' auto market. It’s a carbon copy of the subprime mortgage fiasco that plunged the economy into recession 5 years ago. Now the same nightmare is unfolding in Cartopia, the emerging credit Shangri-la where anyone who can transport himself onto a carlot in an upright position can drive away in a shiny new vehicle no-strings-attached."

Will you blame government?

Easy Lending to Risky Borrowers Makes a Comeback » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[Dot Com]

if she's angering the puppets of wall st then she must be doing something right.

 

[Rshermr]

Looks like Liz is calling-out the status quo corporate Dems of which there are more than a few. ALL the Repubs are pro-wall st types

(snip)
Elizabeth Warren takes sides in Democratic feud - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com
Good on her We have too many Dem'ds profiting by selling-out the people in favor of big biz so that they can get campaign contributions &/or future *cough* "jobs".

Elizabeth isn't afraid to point out the elephant (or jackass) in the room:

"Income inequality in the United States has grown significantly since the early 1970s,[1][2][3][4][5] after several decades of stability,[6][7] and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. While inequality has risen among most developed countries, and especially English-speaking ones, it is highest in the United States..."

"In spite of this data, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[15]

"In 2012, the gap between the richest 1 percent and the remaining 99 percent was the widest it's been since the 1920s.[16]

"Incomes of the wealthiest 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent, whereas the income of the remaining 99 percent rose 1 percent in comparison."

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What ideology was started big time in the early 70's and has now taken over completely oops Liberal Democratic Socialism.
Redistribution of wealth does not work.
In order to get rid of income inequality, we need to get the Federal government out of our lives.

Redistribution of wealth does indeed work. The upper 1% have seen great increases in their wealth at the expense of the middle class. Need proof??? Google it. Simple to find that it is true.

 

[manifold]

I don't agree with her on everything but I did vote for her... and so far I like her a shit load more than Scott Brown... who I had also voted for previously.

 

[Stephanie]

Warren is just another wealthy Politician spewing about inequality because her base eats it up, while she lives it up in the lap of luxury like most of these politicians

and notice they keep their wealth, and their plans for wealth redistribution is off the backs of you little peons who work for a living

this country is doomed

 

[Dot Com]

thanks for being honest. Yeah, only time will tell.

 

[Toro]

that would be better than a "sell-out" Democrat

"DINOs," eh?

There are a whole bunch of nutty right wingers here. There are few nutty left wingers. George is one.

What are you full of, "Toro?"

What were the Jews role in 9/11?

 

[Dot Com]

"DINOs," eh?

There are a whole bunch of nutty right wingers here. There are few nutty left wingers. George is one.

What are you full of, "Toro?"

What were the Jews role in 9/11?

don't attack the source (deflect from the OP) Toro, only the argument

 

[georgephillip]

What are you full of, "Toro?"

What were the Jews role in 9/11?

don't attack the source (deflect from the OP) Toro, only the argument

Elizabeth is inspiring others to put the "Third Rail" back into the discussion of Social Security reform. That's why "Third Way" corporate tools are marching in lock step.

"They’re not afraid that Warren will run for president, they’re afraid that she’ll be so popular that other senators will start acting like her. They’re worried that she’ll have money to direct to candidates who share her views.

"They’re worried that Warren might embarrass Democrats into passing stricter bank regulations.

"They’re worried that finance’s iron grip on the Democratic Party might weaken.

"The impetus for writing the editorial was Third Way’s realization that Warren was sabotaging the decades-long project that turned cutting Social Security into a bipartisan goal.

"A lot of money and time was spent encouraging elite consensus around 'entitlement reform,' and suddenly a bunch of senators are talking about making the program more generous.

"That, of course, is a wildly popular idea, judging by all polling conducted on the subject, but the anti-populism backlash relies on reinforcing the common Washington idea that it is brave to oppose policies most people want and would benefit from.

"The bankers and CEOs who back Third Way understand that their policy preferences have won out in the Democratic Party in spite of popular opinion."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/12/10/elizabeth_warren_s_war_the_lefty_netroots_and_the_long_game.html

 

[Toro]

What are you full of, "Toro?"

What were the Jews role in 9/11?

don't attack the source (deflect from the OP) Toro, only the argument

You praised him for being outside "the left/right paradigm."

An anti-Semite twoofer usually is.

 

[georgephillip]

What were the Jews role in 9/11?

don't attack the source (deflect from the OP) Toro, only the argument

You praised him for being outside "the left/right paradigm."

An anti-Semite twoofer usually is.

From February 2012

"Warren’s statement on Israel consumes far more space than any other foreign policy issue on the page (she makes no mention of China, Latin America, or Africa).

"To justify what she calls the 'unbreakable bond' between the US and Israel, Warren repeats the thoughtless cant about 'a natural partnership resting on our mutual commitment to democracy and freedom and on our shared values.'

"She then declares that the United States must reject any Palestinian plans to pursue statehood outside of negotiations with Israel. While the US can preach to the Palestinians about how and when to demand the end of their 45-year-long military occupation, Warren says the US 'cannot dictate the terms' to Israel.

"Warren goes on to describe Iran as “a significant threat to the United States,” echoing a key talking point of fear-mongering pro-war forces.

"She calls for 'strong sanctions' and declares that the “United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon” — a veiled endorsement of a military strike if Iran crosses the constantly shifting American 'red lines.'

"Perhaps the only option Warren does not endorse or implicitly support is diplomacy. Her foreign policy views are hardly distinguishable from those of her Republican rival, who also marches in lockstep with AIPAC."

Surprise-- courageous Elizabeth Warren is craven on Israel lobby

Possibly Elizabeth's thoughts on Iran have changed in the last six months.
Israel is an authentic "third rail" for almost all elected Republicans AND Democrats.

 

[Political Junky]

Senator Warren rocks.