Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 01, 2015, 12:28:29 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
84581 Posts in 2264 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* 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 172 times)
Power User
Posts: 6251

« 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.

For today:

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
Power User
Posts: 32292

« 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 , , ,
Power User
Posts: 6251

« 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

intent to mislead or deceive

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.
Power User
Posts: 32292

« 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?
Power User
Posts: 32292

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

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

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.”

    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.
Power User
Posts: 32292

« 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.
Douglas E. Schoen
Jan. 25, 2015 7:31 p.m. ET

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.
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!