Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 03, 2015, 12:23:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86826 Posts in 2278 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Elizabeth "Forked Tongue" Warren, Fauxcahontas, Harvard's first woman of color  (Read 848 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« on: December 17, 2014, 11:19:16 AM »

It's the moderator's call, but it seems to me it is time to put the cognitively dissonant left's leading voice into her own category for future search and find convenience.  For the record, I fear her the most right now.  And leftists love her the most.

Author of, [you employ a million people,] good for you.  But you didn't build that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-P-CoSNYaI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/great-352668-warren-elizabeth.html
http://twitchy.com/2012/05/15/fauxcahontas-warren-heralded-as-harvards-first-woman-of-color-hilarity-ensues/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

For today:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121514-730656-why-liberal-icon-elizabeth-warren-should-champion-limited-government.htm#ixzz0c8RcNoaU

What Elizabeth Warren Missed in Her Big Bank Tirade  (Crony Governmentism)

Crony Capitalism: Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivered a stemwinder speech last Friday on the need for government to rein in Wall Street influence. But it's big government that created the monster in the first place.

Warren, D-Mass., was attacking a "dangerous provision" in the so-called cromnibus spending bill that, she said, stripped a part of Dodd-Frank that big banks, particularly Citigroup, don't like.

Her speech had the left slobbering over itself. Michael Tomasky, writing for the Daily Beast, said Warren's "weekend heroics" made her the "most powerful Democrat in America." The Huffington Post ran a column calling it "the speech that could make Elizabeth Warren the next president."

That's only possible if voters overlook the glaring problem with her argument.

Warren isn't wrong to complain that big business has too much influence over public policy. But that influence isn't the result of insufficient government intervention. It's the result of a government that is too massive and too willing to intrude in free markets.
To take just one example: Up until the mid-1990s, Microsoft had virtually no lobbyist presence in Washington, D.C., and gave almost no money to political campaigns. Then the Clinton Justice Department decided to sue Microsoft for antitrust violations.

By 1998, the company was pouring $3.7 million into lobbying and giving more than $1.4 million to political campaigns. Influencing Washington became part of Microsoft's business strategy only after Washington decided to butt into Microsoft's business.

Warren and her compatriots also fail to understand that big businesses like costly, intrusive regulations when they handicap new competitors.

It's no surprise that Dodd-Frank — which was supposed to rein in the excesses of big banks — not only didn't get rid of the "too big to fail" problem, it hampered community banks that used to compete with the big ones.

"It was not the intent of Congress when it passed Dodd-Frank to harm community banks, but that is the awful reality," Dale Wilson of the First State Bank of San Diego told Congress this summer.

If Warren and her ilk really want to reduce the influence of Wall Street in Washington, they should start by calling for a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2014, 11:49:05 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2014, 04:27:50 AM »

Doug, I hope I do not intrude on your naming of this thread too much with my addition to EW's name , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2014, 10:31:47 AM »

Absolutely.  You may need further tweeking to fit in the full spelling of forked tongue.  The Cherokee scandal has faded back to just an earlier indicator of zero personal or public integrity.  Now she is just a bitter, big mouthed, dishonest liberal elite of the worst kind.  I would prefer to just take on the principles of liberalism.  But no one ever presents it honestly.  So we have to answer liberalism's deceiving practitioners.

speak with forked tongue - to make false promises or to speak in a way which is not honest
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/speak+with+forked+tongue

intent to mislead or deceive   http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forked%20tongue

The factory owner, good for him, does not pay his fair share of taxes to build the public roads and schools that benefit his business??!  What a bunch of BS.  The factory owner who stops paying MORE than his/her share of the public goods is the own that has to close or move because of dishonest liberalism's punitive policies.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2014, 11:51:00 AM »

Spelling corrected.

BTW, would someone please find and post the info on some consumer agency that was created with its own source of funding (i.e. uncontrolled by Congress) and Obama had her as acting head to set it up but with some fictitious title because Congress would not approve her nomination?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2015, 09:45:57 AM »

Elizabeth Warren Takes Aim at Democrats, Republicans
By
Peter Nicholas
Jan. 7, 2015 10:00 a.m. ET
8 COMMENTS

Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivers a stinging critique of Republicans and Democrats alike in a speech this morning that says policies pushed by both parties have created financial hardships for everyday families while further enriching a narrow sliver of Americans.

At a Washington, D.C., forum hosted by union group AFL-CIO, the freshman Democratic senator from Massachusetts said headlines suggesting the economy is rebounding don’t square with the realities endured by households struggling with student loans, burdensome mortgage payments and sluggish wages.
Elizabeth Warren in December ENLARGE
Elizabeth Warren in December Associated Press

Ms. Warren is a popular figure among liberal Democrats who want her to run for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016. If Ms. Warren were to jump in the race she would be a heavy underdog against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to announce her candidacy in the coming months. Ms. Warren has said she isn't running for president and plans to finish out her term.

The Draft Warren effort reflects a yearning in Democratic circles for a populist Democrat who will, if nothing else, force Mrs. Clinton to move left and make addressing income inequality a policy priority.

In prepared remarks released by her office, Ms. Warren says the falling jobless rate and low inflation are small comfort to millions of Americans who still haven’t recovered from the financial collapse in 2008.

“If you are young and starting out life with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt locked into high interest rates by Congress, unable to find a good job or save to buy a house, how are you benefiting from low inflation?” she asks.

Ms. Warren acknowledges that the national economy is recovering, but says, “There have been deep structural changes in this economy, changes that have gone on for more than 30 years, changes that have cut out hardworking, middle class families from sharing in this overall growth.”

In the speech, Ms. Warren doesn’t mention Bill or Hillary Clinton by name. Yet she took some veiled swipes at the family that has been a fixture of national politics for the past quarter century.

Former President Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the center in his two terms in office, ushering in free-trade policies, overhauling the nation’s welfare system, and signing a deregulatory bill that lifted constraints on commercial banks and other financial institutions. In his State of the Union address in 1996, Mr. Clinton proclaimed that the “era of big government is over.”
Related

    ADP: Private Businesses Added 241,000 Jobs in December
    U.S. Service-Sector PMI Slows in December
    New GOP Contract: Restore Americans’ Trust

Ms. Warren, in her speech, said, “Pretty much the whole Republican Party—and, if we’re going to be honest, too many Democrats—talked about the evils of ’big government’ and called for deregulation. It sounded good, but it was really about tying the hands of regulators and turning loose big banks and giant international corporations to do whatever they wanted to do—turning them loose to rig the markets and reduce competition, to outsource more jobs, to load up on more risks and hide behind taxpayer guarantees, to sell more mortgages and credit cards that cheated people. In short, to do whatever juiced short-term profits even if it came at the expense of working families.”

Ms. Warren also singled out Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a company that figures in Mrs. Clinton’s past. As first lady of Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton served on the company’s board of directors for six years.

Ms. Warren said that while corporate profits and gross domestic product are rising, “if you work at Wal-Mart and you are paid so little that you still need food stamps to put groceries on the table, what does more money in stockholders’ pockets and an uptick in GDP do for you?”

Ms. Warren put forward a few ideas for brightening the prospects of middle class families.

She called for new spending on roads, bridges, and education. Such projects would be financed through “real, honest-to-goodness changes that make sure that we pay—and corporations pay—a fair share to build a future for all of us,” she says.

At least one other potential Democratic candidate is unwilling to cede to Ms. Warren the status as the party’s foremost populist firebrand.

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, in his single public appearance since launching his presidential exploratory committee, has suggested that he would make income inequality a central focus.

“We have a strata of people at the very top who for a complicated set of reasons have grown further and further away from the rest of our society,” Mr. Webb told reporters in Richmond, Va., last month. “We need to find proper avenues in terms of government policy to make sure that equal opportunity and economic fairness can exist.”

He continued: “There has to be a way, without slowing down the ability of those in our society that are the risk takers and the profit makers, there has to be a way to make sure that people are equally paid their fair share of the obligations that we have to keep this country going.”

Still, it is Ms. Warren—not Mr. Webb—who has energized a Democratic liberal wing that believes Mrs. Clinton is too closely tied to Wall Street banking interests.

Mr. Webb will seek to change that if he decides to mount a serious presidential campaign, an aide said.

“The issue of economic inequality and the dangers of foreign intervention are things he’s talked about for a long time, long before Sen. Warren came along,” said Mr. Webb’s communications director, Craig Crawford. “That just goes to a big reason to why he’s seriously considering this. He thinks it’s time for working people to have a president.”

—Reid Epstein contributed to this article.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2015, 01:07:35 PM »

An Opening for Elizabeth Warren If She Wants It
Hillary Clinton’s daunting lead in national polls masks much closer results in Iowa and New Hampshire.
By
Douglas E. Schoen
Jan. 25, 2015 7:31 p.m. ET
48 COMMENTS

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren told Fortune magazine this month that she won’t run for president in 2016, deepening the sense that the Democratic nomination is Hillary Clinton’s for the asking. Yet in contemporary politics the landscape can change dramatically, seemingly overnight. Before 2008 Barack Obama said repeatedly that he wasn’t running for president.

If Elizabeth Warren doesn’t change her mind, it could be because of intimidating national polls showing Mrs. Clinton with an overwhelming lead. Most recently, a CNN/ORC poll had the former secretary of state with a 66%-9% advantage over Ms. Warren.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2013. ENLARGE
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2013. Photo: Bloomberg News

But these numbers don’t tell the whole story, and if Ms. Warren eventually does get into the race, it could be because the numbers in the crucial primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire are not nearly so scary.

In my own recent polling there, I found a much more competitive landscape. Telephone interviews with 400 likely caucusgoers in Iowa and 400 likely primary voters in New Hampshire, conducted Jan. 13-15, suggest that Ms. Warren is already considerably more competitive than national polls suggest. In a head-to-head Clinton-Warren matchup in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton ran 15 points ahead of Ms. Warren, at 51%-36%. Surprisingly, caucus-voting Iowa Democrats already appear to be thoroughly familiar with the Massachusetts senator, and well-disposed toward her, with a 75%-7% favorability rating. Mrs. Clinton has great favorables, too: 93%-6%.

But Mrs. Clinton’s favorables don’t appear to make her invulnerable to a populist challenge from the left, as a Warren campaign would almost certainly be. My polling shows that there is a significant opening with Democratic primary voters who are extremely liberal in ideology and populist in orientation.

I also tested Mrs. Clinton’s message, based on her public statements, of charting a new direction and standing up for working people against Ms. Warren’s more explicitly populist direction in which government addresses fundamental unfairness in American society through more oversight of Wall Street and policies to reduce income inequality. In that message comparison, Ms. Warren polled a mere four points behind Mrs. Clinton, at 31% to 35%.

Ms. Warren could find similar encouragement in New Hampshire, the nation’s first primary state and neighbor of the senator’s state of Massachusetts. Among likely Democratic primary voters, Mrs. Clinton led Ms. Warren by only nine points, 51%-42%. The two had virtually identical favorable ratings at 89%-5% for Ms. Warren, 90%-5% for Mrs. Clinton.

Ms. Warren’s populist message resonates more strongly in New Hampshire than in Iowa. New Hampshire residents, when polled on the specific Clinton and Warren messages, had Ms. Warren within hailing distance of Mrs. Clinton, at 38%-31%. When respondents were asked the sort of question that a campaign might pose—whether they’d vote for Mrs. Clinton, described as close to Wall Street and a supporter of the Iraq war, versus Ms. Warren as a true progressive who stands up to Wall Street—Ms. Warren polled ahead of Mrs. Clinton, at 47% to 42%.

Given that front-runners in primaries typically draw their highest poll numbers at the start of a race, when their name-recognition advantage is most pronounced, Mrs. Clinton’s best hope would be to solidify her current support. Worst case: She suffers the same slippage she did in Iowa in 2008 when she finished a poor third after showing a resounding lead of 58%-12% over then-Sen. Obama.

The implications are clear. Hillary Clinton is vulnerable in the Democratic primaries, something her new adviser Joel Benenson (currently an Obama pollster who previously worked for me) is presumably in the process of finding out. The results from my polling also suggest that potential candidates who would offer populist messages—former Sen. Jim Webb from Virginia and Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont—also have the potential to narrow significantly Mrs. Clinton’s current lead.

If either Mr. Webb or Mr. Sanders gets into the race, Ms. Warren might have second thoughts—a split of the populist vote could pave the way for Mrs. Clinton. The former secretary of state could further complicate matters for potential challengers from the left by developing her own theme to appeal to an electorate that sees American society as fundamentally unfair.

Tom Donahue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, last week attacked Ms. Warren’s “economic populism” and charged that she stands for more regulation and government control of business. That’s music to the ears of many Democratic primary voters, who seem ready to embrace candidates who take on big business, the banks and Wall Street—some of Ms. Warren’s favorite targets. In other words, the Democratic presidential contest could go very quickly from a foregone conclusion to a fierce contest.

Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2015, 01:33:29 PM »

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/02/10/sen-warren-opposes-audit-the-fed-bill/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2015, 01:52:53 PM »


This is a great example of exposing these hypocrites with actual bills and votes.  The phony populist wants to rein in mostly with words and excessive regulations the big, so-called, private banks, but won't even support an audit of the very largest one for which she has the sworn, CONSTITUTIONAL duty to oversee.

Also, pretty good chance she is a 'friend' of Janet Yellen, whose hands this would tie.  Without QE, zero interest rates and the screwed up dual mission of the Fed, what is the Obama recovery?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2015, 01:57:51 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2015, 02:54:50 PM »

There IS merit to the concern of getting Congress involved with setting monetary policy.  Look at the decades of mischief created by the Humphrey Hawkins Act making full employment and not just price stability as part of the Fed's mission.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2015, 03:49:35 PM »

There IS merit to the concern of getting Congress involved with setting monetary policy.  Look at the decades of mischief created by the Humphrey Hawkins Act making full employment and not just price stability as part of the Fed's mission.

Yes, there is a fine line between getting involved with policy and conducting constitutional oversight. 

Ron Paul wrote a 2009 book called "End the Fed.".  I have strongly criticized that approach.  Rand Paul's proposal, 6 years later, is called, "Audit the Fed".  Maybe his intention is to meddle, influence, and effect change on their policies.  Audit, yes, have 535 members of Congress set monetary policy, no.  But end the dual mandate,  which is the Humphrey Hawkins of which you refer.

How does the self proclaimed champion of the ordinary people oppose auditing an independent bureaucracy that is playing with not trillions, but ALL of our money?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2015, 11:08:47 PM »

Let's keep this information handy in case Hillary never uses it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398510/how-hillary-scares-elizabeth-warren-john-fund

Elizabeth Warren, if she ran, would not receive such a pass [as Obama got] from Team Hillary, which is famous for playing both mean and creatively.

A ready-made army of liberal bloggers and surrogates would stand ready to belittle Warren’s lack of political experience and foreign-policy credentials.

And then there would be the character shots. Anti-big-business liberals would be reminded frequently that for all her populist rhetoric, Warren opposes a bill to audit the Federal Reserve and supports funding for the Export-Import Bank, a favorite of crony capitalists.

Then there is the “Fauxcahontas” scandal. In April 2012, the Boston Globe broke the news that while Warren never claimed American Indian heritage as an undergraduate or law-school student, she began doing so in her 30s as she sought jobs at highly competitive law schools such as Harvard.

The Association of American Law Schools requires law professors to answer ethnicity questions on its questionnaire. Only Warren can release a copy of her original questionnaire, and she has refused to do so. Back-channel Hillary surrogates would make hay out of that.

Then there is the scandal-in-waiting concerning her sleazy scholarship while a law professor. She co-authored a highly-publicized study in 2005 that claimed that 54.5 percent of all bankruptcies have “a medical cause” and that 46.2 percent have a “major medical cause,” telling interviewers that those findings demonstrated the need for national health care. In fact, the proportion of bankruptcies caused by catastrophic medical losses is more like 2 percent. Her numbers were inflated by including “uncontrolled gambling,” “alcohol or drug addiction,” “death in family,” and “birth/addition of new family member” as “a medical cause.” In addition, spending as little as $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses over the course of two years — hardly unusual for a family — was enough to get a bankruptcy classified as “a major medical cause” even when the debtor himself or herself did not list illness or injury as a cause of the bankruptcy. A number of scholars have criticized the study as intentionally misleading.

Nor was this the only blot on Warren’s scholarship. George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki told Breitbart News in 2012:

    Questions about the validity of Warren’s scholarly findings have haunted her since early in her career. Reviewing her first major scholarly work [her 1990 study on bankruptcy], a co-authored book, noted bankruptcy professor Philip Schuchman (now deceased) stated bluntly, “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.” Similar questions have continued to nag her scholarship throughout her career, especially her usage and handling of empirical data and the conclusions she draws from it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2015, 06:34:11 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153832/Elizabeth-Warren-accused-making-fortune-flipping-foreclosed-homes.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2015, 05:50:43 PM »

A interesting chance to size up Warren:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=423362941159538

You best believe that this is going to really appeal to lots of decent people.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2015, 10:31:43 PM »

Besides that she has her facts and causes all mangled, it is quite striking that she is one angry person.  Maybe the Marc Levin of the left?  I notice that she chooses to read every word, looking down, where the top Republican candidates just showed they able to think and talk on their own.

Yes, this is the line they will sell and a good number of people will buy into it.  Everything is great now because of Obama and the Democrats but at the same time everything is bad and wrong because of Republicans. ??   Now its the Dems who want to go back to the 50s, lol.  Good luck getting her Ozzie and Harriet middle class growth back where 9 out of 10 minority children live in a house that does not have with a mom and a dad married under one roof, mostly as a result of Democrat programs.

2 million views for her; I regret being one of them.  Nearly all would buy into this line of bs if not exposed to an equally persuasive rebuttal.   I would love to see the most persuasive of the Republicans debate either Warren or Hillary on this.  Fact check their work and lay out a better alternative to doubling down on the failed Obama agenda of even more regulations, higher tax rates and stepped up redistribution.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2015, 11:21:17 PM »

I humbly suggest that you are missing a piece of the pie here.

IMHO her critique overlaps more than a little with our Liberal Fascism critique-- which also addresses rent seekers, corruption of the political process by favored business interests and the like.

"Nearly all would buy into this"

EXACTLY!

WE should be making some of these points AND offering actual solutions.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2015, 08:56:35 AM »

I humbly suggest that you are missing a piece of the pie here.

IMHO her critique overlaps more than a little with our Liberal Fascism critique-- which also addresses rent seekers, corruption of the political process by favored business interests and the like.

"Nearly all would buy into this"

EXACTLY!

WE should be making some of these points AND offering actual solutions.

Agree in part.  Yes, most certainly, rent seekers and corruption of the political process by favored business interests should be OUR attack on THEIR system. 

Her attacks on capitalism and free enterprise however do not hold up to scrutiny.  Free enterprise and constitutional capitalism does not favor special interests over the interests of those not connected and powerful; it is the exact opposite.  In a free society, the government does not get in bed with one business over another.  They can cooperate only in the open, public bidding system of providing a product or service to the government.  The government is the referee, not the participant, yet her side partners up with interest after interest, with auto makers, health insurers, the mortgage industry, the solar cronies, the colleges and everything up to the marriage industry.  Her claims are laden with factual errors and her proposals or solutions make each of these problems worse. 

Candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are running campaigns expressly on the concept of upward mobility which IMO does address specifically the problem of stagnation of the middle class.  I know what is holding me back, regulation and taxes, and I know that what is holding back the formation of new small businesses that will create and grow the better jobs is over-taxation and over-regulation, as unexciting and cliche as that may sound.  As Rubio has said, the giant, entrenched corporations with compliance departments can deal with all of that, but a startup business run out of spare bedroom cannot.

The great growth of the Obama administration she brags of is 2% growth and more than 100% of that came out of fracking which she and Obama vehemently oppose.  What is left if they prevailed in those states is decline.  They passed their big bank regulations, their health monstrosity - the largest wealth transfer in history, their tax rate increases in two dozen different ways and a hundred thousand new regulations and the result was that middle class income is stuck and income inequality widened.  Her answer now is the same as Hillary's, do more of the same, double down on failure.  Every economic statistic and every symptom of a private economy weighed down by a bloated public sector is another reason for her to make further increases to the size and scope of central government.  That carries the day when our messengers are Boehner and McConnell in the context of committee and floor votes on liberal policies through the filter of reading it in the mainstream media.  We haven't had a leader in a very long time who could reach the people articulate the other side of it and now we have several of them.  That is why I have tried to get out early in support of whoever can best express the link between freedom and prosperity and define the differences between that and the Elizabeth Warren mindset. 

I would like to come back to her rant, point by point, and expose the deceptions and contradictions within it.  Median income stays stagnant even during growth, for one reason, because we have added tens of millions of new people to the country at the low end.  People stay off the lower steps of the economic ladder because we offer them more not to work.  Disability is the fastest growing profession of the Obama economy.  The greatest building block to economic success is marriage and the liberal culture wars have decimated that.  She opposes the entire concept of an economic ladder, saying that all who work should be fully compensated regardless of value.  Some people stuck on the line between programs and work face effective tax rates on their next dollar of income earned greater than 100%.  Worst of all is the dearth of real, new business startups which is hidden by the fact that most LLC new filings are just people trying to protect existing assets from liability.

She is missing a link in her liberal economic logic.  She says the top 10% or top 1% experienced all of this success, but she doesn't follow it with what is stopping the rest from doing that too!  It isn't the wealth and success of some that is limited the economic opportunities for the middle class; it is the programs and policies she espouses that are doing that.

I am all ears to learning of solutions beyond giving people back some of the freedom and responsibility to take care of themselves and their own families.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2015, 09:34:44 AM »

"rent seekers and corruption of the political process by favored business interests should be OUR attack on THEIR system."

EXACTLY SO!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2015, 08:15:30 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/now-warren-may-run-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6550


« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2015, 02:20:32 PM »

Note: This story is old - from August 2014.  Jarrett and Warren have plenty of reasons to talk and no one knows the content of these talks.  But since these people aren't transparent, we only have conjecture to figure it out.  )  Jarrett is telling Warren to stay ready for when the President gives her the green light to run.  (I fear Warren more than Hillary, FWIW.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/8/valerie-jarrett-secret-meetings-elizabeth-warren/

New York Times best-selling author and long-time journalist Ed Klein said that Valerie Jarrett has been engaging in secret meetings with Sen. Elizabeth Warren in recent months, giving rise to speculations that the Massachusetts political newcomer is actually the administration’s choice to head the White House in 2016.

“President Obama has authorized Valerie Jarrett, his most important political adviser, to hold secret meetings with Elizabeth Warren to encourage her to challenge Hillary Clinton because the Obamas do not want to see the Clintons succeed them in the White House,” Mr. Klein said.  He believes the stories he’s heard from sources about the meetings are “absolutely true,” Newsmax reported.   Mr. Klein said the feud between the Obamas and Clintons — which he details in depth in his recently released “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas” — has been largely ignored, despite its “deep and gut-wrenching” aspects.

“[Clinton] is looking quite vulnerable” for 2016, he said... Ms. Warren is being pushed by a handful of high-ranking politicians to run for president in 2016, including the “Kennedys and a lot of people on the left wing of the Democratic Party,” Mr. Klein said. “And Elizabeth Warren really gets that left wing base of the party excited, where Hillary does not.”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2015, 12:12:09 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/21/warren-obama-keeping-trade-deal-secret-because-the-public-would-oppose-it/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33611


« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2015, 12:15:09 AM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418907/elizabeth-warren-bought-foreclosed-homes-make-quick-profit-jillian-kay-melchior
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12508


« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2015, 06:03:23 AM »


Making money is evil, except when leftists do it.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!