Elizabeth Warren

Via thers, Elizabeth Warren:

Text on the flip.

I hear all this, you know, “Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.”—No! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—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’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—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.
< Tuesday Evening Open Thread | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    God Bless This Woman (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Richjo on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:39:26 AM EST
    Is there anyway we could convince her to run for President?

    I know she won't primary Obama... (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    .... (as much as I wish she would), but 2016? She better!

    Do we really need yet another President (none / 0) (#74)
    by tigercourse on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    with almost no actual experince? 2 years in the senate (with the rest devoted to running for President) is simply not enough time.

    Lack of experience is not the issue... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:48:54 PM EST
    lack of good ideas is the issue, a lack of a willingness to fight for the common person in the face of a 30 year plus class war is the issue.

    Obama's problem isn't a lack of experience...its a lack of a spine, a lack of a heart, a lack of a soul, a lack of imagination.  I think Warren might have all of these things, and only one way to find out for sure...put her in a position of power and see if she is corrupted and coralled like so many of the rest, or if she is the very rare real McCoy.

    We know what we get when we vote for "experienced" Dems, and it looks just like the "inexperienced" Obama admin.  If you need a list of "experienced" Dems who suck just as much donkey d*ck as Obama, let me know and I can provide.


    Lack of experience is indeed the issue (none / 0) (#86)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    and for me it was from the day he was drafted by the boys club, as the Suskind book evidently reveals.

    Are you trying to say... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:16:05 PM EST
    the counter-attack in the 30 year class war would be well under way under Pres. Clinton?

    If so, can I interest you in a bridge in Brooklyn for only $19.99?


    Nope. Not "trying to say" anything.... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:00:59 PM EST
    ...and in this economy I can only make a down payment on your bridge offer, although I'd prefer the 59th St. Bridge to any other...Simon & Garfunkle, ya know!  Feelin' groovy!

    The counter-attack re the class war might, though, have made more headway under a President Clinton than it's making now...which is zero.  Why?  Because Hillary's focus has always been on issues involving women and children, the worst victims of class warfare in so many cases.  They make up most of the poor and defenseless and there is every reason to think Hillary Clinton would have taken on the issue in domestic policy.

    Can't prove it, of course.  I just think the evidence is pretty strong.


    59th Street... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 07:41:40 AM EST
    I like your style, the East River crossing from the superior borough:)

    We'll never know, that is the frustrating thing...and hence we'll never learn that the differences are so minor they don't even rate, at least thats this knucklehead's take.  

    Her defense of women didn't keep her off the discriminatory Walmart board...and Iraqi children could have used a lot less of her defense of their well-being with that war vote.


    As I recall it (none / 0) (#158)
    by sj on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 09:39:22 AM EST
    Walmart under Sam Walton wasn't nearly the community killer that it has become with his children in charge.

    I was looking for more details, but that will have to wait. :)


    I was referring to the rampant... (none / 0) (#161)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    gender discrimination in the company, but the destruction of mom and pop competition is an issue too.

    And Clinton's constant support for the war on drugs does serious damage to women and children...women getting locked up for their boyfriend/husbands non-crimes, or being left to raise children alone because the other bread winner got locked up for winning bread.  A neighbor of mine missed the first 8 years of his daughter's life for this very reason...I can't call that mess anything but anti-woman and anti-child.


    okay (none / 0) (#164)
    by sj on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 10:28:02 AM EST
    I know it seems like I pick on her... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 10:42:42 AM EST
    my main point is she is just like Obama, and Bill, and all the other corporation fellating, pro-war and occupation, tough and dumb on crime big-shot Democrats.  I want this acknowledged!

    I know I set a high bar for our leaders, I'm an idealist, I'm not "realistic", etc etc etc...I just think our realistic isn't all that realistic, we can do so much better than this.

    This is why I wanna know more about Liz Warren's stance on issues other than economics, specifically crime, prison, and drug policy.  She may be the one to finally raise the bar on what is "realistic".


    That's fine (none / 0) (#168)
    by sj on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    Sort of.  She is not "just like" anybody.  As I am not "just like" you, although we agree on many things.  

    If you want to emphasize similarities that's fine.  I will sometimes push back on differences.  

    But we digress.  I am just as interested as you are in exploring Warren's positions.


    Not the same people... (none / 0) (#174)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 11:30:33 AM EST
    obviously, but the same results from their "work", using the term "work" loosely.

    Yes we digress...lets hope Liz wins and achieves better results.


    What is "realistic" in both governance (none / 0) (#180)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    and politics is made through the process, as Bill Clinton found out in trying to reverse/move forward on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

    Don't follow... (none / 0) (#182)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    Realistic is a supposed "improvement" for gays in the military and equal rights (DADT) that actually made their lives in the military worse for almost 20 years?

    Are you saying Bill had to propose and sign something that hurt many a gay person on a whim and prayer that 20 years from now it would be repealed?


    How did DADT make things ... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:42:45 PM EST
    ... "worse for 20 years"?

    Clinton fought for a full repeal at a time when a large majority in Congress, the DOD and the public in general were strongly against lifting the ban, and he paid a heavy political price in doing so.

    No prayers or whimsy were involved.


    I didn't know how bad... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    DADT made life in the military for gays until I caught this doc HBO is running...I too thought it was a improvement, however slight.  Boy were we wrong.

    I highly recommend a viewing.  It may have been a well-intentioned compromise, but it was no help to gays in the military, in fact it was a hinderance, and a very ugly one.

    Warning, you will dispise John McCain more than you thought possible after viewing.


    You mean (none / 0) (#162)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    Key word tried... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 10:37:17 AM EST
    and failed...and silent on their anti-union business model.

    I guess these issues weren't worth risking losing her inner party member status here in Oceania.


    Or maybe (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    ... she realized that arguing for unions as a single board member in a conservative, anti-union state would fall somewhere between pointless and self-destructive.

    "She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one," Mr. Tate said. "It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position."

    But had she tried and failed (as she obviously would have) to push union rights at Walmart, you would have made the same "Key word 'tried'" argument.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


    Au contraire... (none / 0) (#190)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 02:41:42 PM EST
    no shame in fighting the good fight and losing...I won't fault nobody for that.  

    Obviously the Walmart board is not the place to try and fight the good fight...which begs the question, why was she even there if it was pointless and she could not convince Walmart of the err of their ways? Unless something else was afoot besides tireless advocacy for women and children...lol.


    No shame in fighting the good ... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 03:56:25 PM EST
    ... fight, but apparently no credit, either.

    "Key word 'tried' and failed ..."

    As for why she was there, you'd have to ask her, although you appear to be suggesting some sort of nefarious motive ("Unless something else was afoot").  No one's suggesting she served on the board for strictly altruistic reasons.  Maybe it was a way to make connections with some of Arkansas' movers and shakers.  Maybe it was a way to generate business for her law firm or a relatively easy $18K salary.  Maybe she thought she could have an impact on other issues that she pushed while she was on the board (i.e. women, the environment).  Maybe she thought it was progress to have a woman named to the board of (at the time) the largest company in the state.  Maybe a combination of reasons.


    Look, Obama's problem are his VALUES (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:17:14 PM EST
    Yes, I would say experience is pretty important, but I've been thinking about this: there isn't anybody with any real experience in the Senate or House whom I believe has what it takes to lead.  And the state houses are just as corrupt.  I think this is the problem we face.  And let's be honest, if Obama were actually fighting for what we want him to, we wouldn't CARE about his experience or lack thereof.  Obama's problem has always been his PHILOSOPHY of government, which was laid out clearly in his book, and which I knew was going to be a disaster.  His experience never mattered to me really, because he made it clear exactly what he stood for -- basically not standing too hard for anything.  The system has been so fetid for so long, I'm not sure it can even produce a pol we need right now.

    But no one can dispute the experience card, it is of course important.  And yet, people overcome it all the time, because, frankly, they have to start somewhere, and with the insider hardball experience she has in this administration, and with her history of not kow-towing, I thinks she's starting in a good place.  Let her get elected and let's see how she rolls.  Again, I love that her big ISSUE is mine and all of ours basically: economic corruption.


    I don't know if it's (none / 0) (#93)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:30:14 PM EST
    "the" issue.  It is certainly "an" issue.  But maybe if he were more experienced he would have already made those cuts to the safety net.

    Just saying.


    Well, (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:33:59 PM EST
    Experience in the form of building trust and relationships among the Senate, for starters, would have made many of the negotiations to this point a whole different ball of wax.  Nobody in Congress really knew Obama or trusted him because he had no experience.  Relationships are currency in this game and Obama came into office with the equivalent of a day's take at a kid's lemonade stand.

    True (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:53:42 PM EST
    What you say.  however:
    Nobody in Congress really knew Obama or trusted him because he had no experience
    I believe many of them also thought they could use that lack of experience to control him.

    Didn't work out that way.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    Of course, a more seasoned politcal professional would have known that as well.

    I'll Take Lack of Experience Over... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 06:22:40 PM EST
    ... lack of integrity any day of the week.

    Right now we are flush with 'experienced' politicians and that's gotten us two wars, trillions in debt, and a paralyzed political system that is making a lot of folks suffer needlessly.


    Yes (none / 0) (#122)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:09:18 PM EST
    Those with experience are wedded to the status quo

    Found my 2016 candidate (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:00:26 AM EST
    question is whether an Obama win in 2012 makes it easier or harder for her to win in 2016.  Assuming the same failed GOP lite economic policies, notwithstanding Obama's recent protestations (which any thinking being should recognize as as phony as his 2008 campaign talk), would four more years of Obama make it impossible in 2016 for any Democrat?

    That is my fear and it is increasingly clear to me this country needs this woman running it.

    First things first and so I got $$ for the Mass Senate campaign heading her way.

    That is my fear also (none / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:05:09 AM EST
    would four more years of Obama make it impossible in 2016 for any Democrat?
    That is my fear...

    My conclusion is "yes" -- it makes it impossible.  A Republican will follow Obama either in 2012 or 2016.

    Better in 2012 (none / 0) (#124)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    so at least we have the possibility of a real Dem in 5 years.  Otherwise we are looking at 9 years minimum.

    That's the time line that I see also (none / 0) (#128)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    I like her very much (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:00:43 AM EST
    I worried that she might not have the lioness in her, but she does.  She will get all of my money this go around...all of it.

    The evolution of our representation has been very unpleasant.  We lost our Kennedy, we lost our Wellstone, we lost our Murtha, we lost Feingold, and once upon a time I had occassion to be grateful for McCain but he's lost his damned mind.  Who has come along to replace them and really fight for what is right when the chips are down?  Nobody!  We still have Marcy Kaptur, the black caucus consistently fights the good fight often alone, and hopefully we will have Elizabeth Warren.  Al Franken has  been a bit of a disappointment.  It sounds like such a ragtag group of fighters, but they are what I believe in.  I suppose if any of them need some money I can find some for them as well but that's it for me right now.

    What is your issue with Al? (none / 0) (#4)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:03:10 AM EST
    He's not much of a fighter (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:06:00 AM EST
    When it is time to question something that the White House is pushing.  He doesn't get out there and scrap.

    Some truth to that (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:10:00 AM EST
    in public he does not confront when he should. I do read where in caucus he can be pretty forthright with the Administration.

    Picture Obama trying to push through his Medicare elgibility age increase and SS cuts grand bargain through a Senate with Warren in it.  I think she'll show Franken & others how to "man" up.

    She's the real deal.


    He's so bright (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:46:16 AM EST
    He has such a well developed public voice, it isn't as if he's camera shy....at least not that I'm aware of.  Therefore I have been very disappointed in him.

    I believe Franken is (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    following the HRC path in the Senate, which is to keep your head down, work like a dog, build alliances, learn the ropes and stay away from the camera for a few years.  The people who jump out in front of the cameras and raise holy hell as soon as they get to the Senate are pleasing for us to listen to, but they don't get much done and they don't build power and influence.

    That's doubly true for an Al Franken, who came into the Senate after a career as a comedian.  I think he's doing the right thing.


    Now is not the time... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:55:43 AM EST
    ...to worry about anything but speaking the truth loudly, clearly, and ALL THE TIME wherever you can.

    We don't have years to wait for very smart and sharp people, who know what needs to be done, who know what message needs to be pounded home day after day, to find their mojo.  

    I suspect Franken has simply, like most pols, become more conservative now that he has something to lose.  It's natural, but it's destructive.  I get the sense Warren is not afraid to lose, is not afraid of anything.  Good for her and bring it on.

    A mass of American people are more than ready for a leader who is READY to lead NOW.


    Or run for President (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:30:50 AM EST
    The Problem.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    I believe Franken is following the HRC path in the Senate...

    I get what you are saying, but it's really the heart of the problem, politicians are working for themselves, their futures while we suffer.

    Is it wrong to want someone to take a stand, damn their careers, and do what is right, do what isn't popular, because it will make the country better.   Politicians are suppose to be public servants who take the job to better us, not themselves.  People looking to cash in should be in corporate America, people who put their country before themselves should be in politics.

    Politicians should be doing the job they are hired to do.  You want to be a representative, then do that, you want to be Senator, quite your job and do that, and one and on.  Or at the very least, not draw a salary on the time spend trying to get a better job.

    We don't get to take time off to lay the path of the job we really want, we do the job we are hired to do and fit in future aspirations w/o effecting our current productivity.

    I like Franken and this isn't really about him, it's the serious brainwashing we have in regards to politicians.  Politics is a different beast they say, but we all play politics at the job.  If we want to be successful, we all have to do what they do, what you said(modified to reflect us working joes/janes):

    Keep our heads down, work like dogs, build relationships, learn the ropes, and stay out of the spotlight.

    But we manage to do it w/o disregarding our obligations.  Because in the real world that is not acceptable.


    She's talking crazy! (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ignorantia on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:03:13 AM EST

    Isn't it wonderful. (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ignorantia on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:19:02 AM EST
    Damn all those (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:18:56 AM EST
    socialist roads and police and fire departments. What's this country coming to, anyway?

    What about the bootstraps. She doesn't even mention the bootstraps.

    & trickle down from our job creators? (none / 0) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:21:39 AM EST
    Where does she mention that?

    Remember: "trickle down" really (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:39:52 AM EST
    means "P*ss on".

    Please keep the meanings straight.


    Remember... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:06:38 AM EST
    "Archie Bunker" called it, "tinkle down" economics.

    Heh! (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:38:42 AM EST
    Warren knows how to talk Democrat (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:22:12 AM EST
    My gawd, she even used the words "social contract."

    I have asked if there were any Democrats running in 2012. Well it looks like I definitely found one.

    Had planned to put a lock on my wallet this time around since I'm pretty disgusted with the whole lot of them in D.C. but Ms. Warren will get a few $$$ from me.    

    I suspect the Dem establishment will be (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:24:41 AM EST
    shocked by how much $$$ goes to Warren in the next week or so.

    I sure hope so.


    Since Warren is a Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:55:00 AM EST
    I hope TL won't object to this link to Warren's campaign site. Hope people will make sure she has the funding that she needs to get her message out there.

    I am definitely in. (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:08:17 AM EST
    I'll even go there and work for her.

    She's one in a million in my book.


    No doubt this will be misconstrued: (none / 0) (#33)
    by observed on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    " Elizabeth Warren, of the Democrat Party, warns that she will enforce the socialist constract if elected".

    I love how she ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:27:41 AM EST
    ... was able to break the issue down in such a clear, concise way.

    To be honest, when I heard her announce I was skeptical about her ability to handle the "retail" end of a campaign, but this gives me hope.

    Yes - it seems so easy when someone does it well (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    Why can't they all do it?

    I think sticking to blowhard rhetoric has a (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    lot to do with how big business, Wall Street, and the wealthy of this country essentially owns almost all of them.

    It is harder to do when you must (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    frame every sentence with enough wiggle room allow you do the exact opposite of what people think you are saying so that you can later claim the you are keeping your promise now.

    Also, it is harder to sell bad policies like cutting safety net benefits so that you can lower marginal tax rates for corporations and the medga rich and try to make them sound like something the average person would really like.


    I smell (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:38:14 AM EST
    desperation coming from the Brown people.  The Massachusetts GOP is asking Harvard to stop paying Warren while she runs for the Senate. (the link thingy doesn't work.  You'll have to Google "Mass. GOP urges Harvard to end Elizabeth Warrens salary."  It's on Boston.com)  No word yet on whether the GOP is asking Texas to stop paying Rick Perry while he's running for President, or asking the U.S. Congress to stop paying Michele Bachmann while she's running.

    Here come the attacks (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:50:29 AM EST
    as Dr. Molly pointed out.  She will be getting attacked by the right, she breaks things down that cause tea partiers to "understand" where they got screwed.  The New Democrats may not be as supportive as they need to be as well, they may have more things in common with Scott Brown.

    Here ya go (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:00:18 AM EST

    Not surprising, but so weak that it does reek of desperation.  Still far too early for polls to be of much use, but I was surprised to discover that she's now caught up to Brown in the latest poll.


    not that surprising (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:30:24 AM EST
    there's really no reason a republican should be in that seat.

    And she has been getting really good press.

    While Scott Brown may be personally appealing, if you could find someone to run against him that was both personally appealing and in line with the state politically they had to have a chance.

    She has been a better candidate thus far than even I had hoped for though.


    Brown is an anomaly (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:31:18 AM EST
    the Mass. GOP is a very pathetic and flabby thing-- as this silly letter/demand makes clear.  I can just imagine the reception it got at Harvard.

    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    that they're still laughing about it.  

    I hope they make a formal response! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by observed on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:38:56 AM EST
    What Warren is doing is gathering up (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:42:50 AM EST
    all the threads and weaving them together in ways that make light bulbs go off over people's heads.  I have to think there are a fair number of people nodding their heads as they listen to Warren, and thinking, "you know, I never thought of it that way before, but she's right."

    Oh, how badly we have needed someone who can communicate like this.  Who can speak for all the people who have gotten lost in the shuffle, who have been shouted over by big business, Wall Street, the banks, and - sadly - their own political parties.

    Back when there was talk about having her run for the Senate, I know I said I thought her strengths would be marginalized there, that I would rather see her primary Obama, but you know, I think that the kind of message she's delivering here will, if nothing else, wake people up, energize them, and - I hope - move the more progressive members of the Democratic caucus to join in.  And that would be a good thing.

    Will it move Obama?  Yes, in the sense that, if he sees her message getting the kind of traction he's not getting, he will begin to echo her message - whether he will take any action consistent with that message is, for me, in some doubt, but if he sees political benefit in doing something, all the better.

    That is the reason I wanted her to run (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    Even if she loses, she will have a big microphone for the next year, when we need it so badly. It is the next best thing to a POTUS primary. That is invaluable.

    Warren in just a few sentences dismantles (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    conservative talking points.

    Concise and concrete.....No wonder she won all those teaching awards.....

    Let's see if gender bias hurts her.....I think that was part of what hurt Coakley.


    Pure awesome. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:45:24 AM EST
    She better get ready - the attacks on her will be vicious and merciless. They need to bring her down. That kind of talk means something to people.

    I don;t think she cares (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:52:09 AM EST
    she's fed up and that is why she is running.  She is clearly right on the facts and morally yet she can get little if any traction in DC.  

    Sometimes you just got to do it yourself is how I would characterize her thinking.  And I have little doubt this Senate run is intended as first step to 2016.

    If this is hwo she intends to run then Scott Brown has no prayer.


    Had that same thought: (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:57:36 AM EST
    Even as I was thinking that what she's saying could energize the Democratic caucus to pick up on her message and give us some good follow-through action, the next thought was that it was equally - maybe more - likely that she would be seen as threatening, even to - or especially to - members of her own party who depend on all that corporate cash to keep them in their jobs.  

    I guess we'll know when we see how much support she gets from establishment Dems.

    But, maybe, given that the GOP will do all the dirty work, they'll be free to, if not full-on support her, at least not actively undermine her.

    God, I hate politics.


    this is just not happening (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:37:46 AM EST
    she has a lot of people running against her in the primary, and thus far, the Dem "establishment" has completely ignored her competition and have been pushing Warren into the race from the get go.

    The reason being, that they really just want to win, and it's become pretty clear that the rest of the pack probably wasn't going to cut it.

    She has gotten a lot of support from establishment Dems, and frankly, the rest of the Dem primary candidates are not entirely thrilled about it.


    I'm glad to know this from the "inside," (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:26:06 AM EST
    since you are a MA resident.

    I'm sure the other primary candidates do see her as eating their lunch, but as the saying goes, this ain't beanbag...

    But thank goodness this isn't a Lieberman/Lamont situation, huh?


    oh yea (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    If she were running against Kerry it would be a whole different ballgame.

    And "inside" just means I read the boston globe and have been following this story relentlessly.  But it's been well documented that she's essentially been recruited into the race.


    No you don't (none / 0) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    God, I hate politics.

    Stop lyin'



    It's about time (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:41:35 AM EST
    Republicans blew it badly. The shouldn't have blocked her appointment. She has a very good chance of bringing Kennedy's seat back in the D column.

    It was great to hear a Democrat speak like a Democrat for a change. I've grown weary of all the hybred Republicans that have tried to remake the Democratic party to fit their own agenda.

    The "new" Democratic party has been as big of a bust as "new" Coke was. Scrap this failed strategy and go back to basics.

    I really like your analogy (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 09:49:51 AM EST
    The "new" Democratic party has been as big of a bust as "new" Coke was.

    And I wish that they would take your advise.

    Scrap this failed strategy and go back to basics.

    Don't think they will, but a person should always ask for what they want.


    She (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:00:17 AM EST
    speaks in a manner that I used to associate with the Democratic party before it got hijacked by conservative interests.

    She has brains, heart, courage and experience.

    Perhaps, if she succeeds in motivating people, Obama will take notice and start catering to Democrats instead of Republicans.

    Our situation at present, as I see it, is that Obama and the Democrats cater to the Republicans and the Republicans cater to the Tea Party. That equates to the Democrats catering to the Tea Party. I'm really and truly tired of it.

    Elizabeth Warren is a true breath of fresh air.
    An inspiring personage at long last.

    On this I agree with TINS 99.9%* (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    Elizabeth Warren the Magnificent
    by David Atkins ("thereisnospoon")

    This should be enough to put a smile on the face of even the grouchiest, most cynical progressive sourpuss out there.

    Yep, her speech did put a smile on the face of this grouchy, cynical liberal.

    *He only gets 99.9% since I had to change the words just a little bit.


    Very interesting person (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:19:20 PM EST
    Born and raised in Oklahoma.  

    Graduated from the University of Houston and Rutgers Law School.  Not the typical resume of a Harvard Law Professor.

    Because of her passion, sounding like another prairie populist, William Jennings Bryan--sans the social positions...

    Coming on like gangbusters.....

    Prediction:  Brown will try to hide from debates....


    Give 'em hell Liz... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    one minor quibble, a pet peeve if you will...why does Warren say there is no class war before her eloquent explanation of the debt owed by the wealthy?  There most certainly is a class war going on, and the working and middle classes are getting their arses kicked in this war.

    Just once I'd like to hear somebody answer the class war question with a retort like...

    "Damn right there is a class war, the upper class has been on the attack for 30 years, and its long past due for the lower and middle classes to launch a counter-attack!  Who is with me?"

    Warren Buffett on "class warfare" (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:22:36 AM EST
    "There's class warfare, all right," Mr. Buffett said, "but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

    There we go.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    Warren/Buffet 2012!  I even got a slogan...

    "Unafraid to state the obvious, and willing to address it!"


    history: proving Marx (basically) (none / 0) (#188)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    right since sometime in the 1840s.

    Of course, publicly pointing out the obvious means your future appearences on Charlie Rose will be severly curtailed..


    Well, Paul Ryan says (none / 0) (#49)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    that we are seeing class warfare -- conducted by Obama.

    But that's probably not what you wanted to hear.:-)


    Obama should've said... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    ..."You are damn right it's class warfare, the right started it a generation ago, and we are going to end it."  Just once I'd love that wretched class warfare card hurled back at Repubs with anger and the kind of imagination that the right is incapable of possessing.

    Dream on, I know.



    Krugman has been banging this drum (none / 0) (#55)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:13:12 AM EST
    Agree with the sentiment on "class war," (none / 0) (#61)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    but not in adopting, adapting or retorting it on those terms.  First of all,  "war" (e.g. ..on drugs, ..on poverty) seems to be inappropriate usage, especially, in the case of claiming or re-claiming fair and progressive taxation.

    And, second of all, our democracy (as opposed to some European cultures) should be thought of as classless--and each in the economic range needs to have respect for the other.  It is neither birth-right of, nor envy for, the rich, or tolerance or disdain of others by the rich.  It should be the ability to contribute for mutual benefit to the democratic society.  Indeed, a social safety net is provided to assure the dignity of all, serving as baffles to the turbulence of capitalism.  President Obama made a start in his '..not class warfare, but math', but he needs to develop that retort more fully.  Perhaps, his speech writers can put down their cardboard cutouts long enough so as to make the idea sing.


    It's called ruining the other side's rhetoric (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    By turning it against them.  Of course, I agree, you should also talk about demeaning the term war, but it is the other side constantly abusing this term, so it needs to be thrown back at them with enough creativity and imagination to shut them up about it.  Which can be done.  That is my problem with ALL pols on "our" side: they never seem to understand the value of imagination and, to be blunt, entertainment.  You must entertain the minds of those you want to influence.  Without that, you remain in the the dry, dull realm of numbers, which never is enough, because all numbers can be twisted to say what you want them to.

    I actually didn't think Obama went nearly far enough, and in fact I think his math answer was really kind of cowardly, because if evidenced to me an inability and lack of desire to defeat the opposition's very effective rhetoric.  Because before the math ever comes into the picture, pols are bought off on all sides by the wealthy interests (the first volley of the "warfare"), and THEN the math gets screwed.  In allowing the class warfare card to be played again and again without staunchly and IMAGINATIVELY answering back every time with a clear and pointed refutation that USES the term in question, the Dems are allowing it to maintain a power it should never have.  

    You cannot defeat what lurks behind the usage of that term without taking it head on and hurling it back at the idiots who use it.  Sh*t, hire Colbert if you have to, at least he has the courage.



    Still hoping for Obama to step it up? (none / 0) (#64)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:01:21 PM EST
    President Obama made a start in his '..not class warfare, but math', but he needs to develop that retort more fully

    I'll keep an eye out for that.

    Sure. Why not.


    But, but cardboard cutouts (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:13:18 PM EST
    at drunken bashes are so much more fun. ;o)

    All joking aside, I do think Warren chose the correct framing for her message.

    I like your description as well. Can we nominate you to be Obama's new speech writer. It would be nice to agree with the words even though I don't at this point believe he would follow them up with the corresponding actions.


    As a one-time frat boy, (none / 0) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:27:50 PM EST
    I do remember the drunken bashes, but the cardboard cutouts somehow didn't make it to fraternity row.  So, obviously, my curriculum vitae is devoid of the necessary speech writing credentials.

    Generally... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:18:28 PM EST
    I totally agree with ya Dan on the tired war analogy routine.  I just think in this case it might not be an analogy.

    But we can't just sit here and let the spin machine bullsh*t us about some fictitous class war on the "job creators" that started last Tuesday...not with the 30 year trends of wages and income disparity and outsourcing and prison population and taxation and government spending and corporation fellating all the rest staring us in the face.  That's a f*ckin' class war.    


    Sad ... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    that a Democrat saying things all Democrats should be saying is cause for celebration.

    But there it is.

    Great, but (none / 0) (#15)
    by koshembos on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:32:49 AM EST
    Way back when no one heard of Elizabeth Warren reading her articles was a complete joy. She then burst into the political life due to her intellect and enthusiasm. Obama, as he always does, missed the great opportunity to employ her to gain popularity; his simple mindedness looks only at what the banks gain now, now, now.

    There is no need to fall in love all over again this time with Elizabeth; do you remember your love for Obama? Treat it politically and logically. Support her and wait. She may be presidential material and she may not. Keep your mind and eyes open. If she is presidential material, she will be elected; she is the people as opposed to all the millionaires now in office.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    And wait until she's in the senate and the powers that be have pressed their thumb on her head.  

    She sounds great tho.


    She has a record (none / 0) (#125)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    and it's very good.

    Obviously, (none / 0) (#16)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:34:39 AM EST
    this women is some kind of socialist or communist based on this:

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

    And certainly we can't be having any of that around here.

    Warren on Morning Joe (none / 0) (#48)
    by magster on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    She was fantastic

    Hat tip to a recommended diary on Kos.

    And Halperin was, not surprisingly, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:49:01 AM EST
    a complet d!ck, immediately firing off a foreign policy question so he could smugly make her out to know nothing outside the realm of consumer issues and the economy.

    I repeat: what a d!ck.


    Yep, he thought he really had her (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    Will he ask that kind of question to Perry?

    nevermind Perry (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    he's running for President, which is an entirely different can of worms.

    I guarantee you he wouldn't ask a question like that of Scott Brown.  She's not running for secretary of state.  That's our other senator.


    A debate with Warren would show (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    Scott Brown to be a dumbas*.

    That term came to mind, too (3.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    for me, having just read your reply in a previous thread to which I no longer can reply.  

    You continue to accuse me of what I did not do, of injecting into that thread the name of another woman in politics, which I clearly did not do.

    Really, when all others can look upthread to see how ridiculous are your accusations. . . .  Well, I have lived and learned not to even attempt to engage in conversation with a dumb*ss.


    Wow, must have hit a nerve (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 06:03:10 PM EST
    All I said--in another thread--was that you raised the issue of Hillary Clinton challenging Obama.  You did.

    And that freaks you out....so much so you bring this over to this thread?


    Can't watch here (none / 0) (#92)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    what was the question?

    He asked her where, over the next (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:57:57 PM EST
    several years, she saw the major threats from the Chinese military to US interests around the world.

    She started to answer - and I knew exactly where she was headed, to the relationship between economic strength and military strength - and he interrupted her by saying he wasn't asking about economic challenges, but military ones.

    She came back at him by explaining that one couldn't really separate the two, and wrapped it up by saying that it was one of the reasons why the connection between the economy and national security was being made right here in discussions about our own economic troubles.

    He may still be gnashing his teeth over how easily, and calmly, she got her point across, in spite of his obvious attempt to throw her a ball he was hoping she couldn't hit.

    If you can watch it later, do - it's worth it.


    I know, it was great (none / 0) (#110)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:03:45 PM EST
    He wanted her to yap about aircraft carriers and military bases and how we have to stick our chests our more, and all she did was keep it smart and humane and on rational point.

    I got the impression ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    ... from the clip that he was just trying to catch her offguard on a subject (foreign/military policy) that she doesn't get very often, given the nature of her expertise.  I think that's why he tried to interrupt her and push back on her answer.

    Both the content and the manner of her response to his attempts at a "gotcha" moment were admirable.  So far she's shown good instincts as a candidate.


    As for the answer, he wanted (none / 0) (#113)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    a soundbyte, and it's interesting to see how good she is at taking back command of such situations, when the answer cannot be so simplified for the simple-minded.

    If he had watched any of her (none / 0) (#115)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:19:08 PM EST
    appearances before some very unfriendly members of Congress at the CFPB hearings, he'd know she doesn't suffer fools glady, nor does she take any crap.

    She's simply not afraid of people like Halperin, who no doubt thinks she needs to read the handbook on the relationship between politicians and the media/power structure.

    I have no doubt they are sharpening the long knives, but my money's on her, for sure.


    She probably has cankles (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:30:29 PM EST
    That's the kind of stuff we'll hear, at least.

    Once again, WOW (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:05:56 AM EST
    A strong voice in the wilderness.

    And she was much nicer to Obama... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    ...than she needed to be.  I have a hunch, behind closed doors, she isn't so soanguine.  A little hard to believe she's happy with the economic team he handpicked to fill his brain with bullsh*t.

    And I love that her big issue... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:18:54 AM EST
    ...is MY big issue, is the COUNTRY'S big issue.  In working for her, you will be working for the issue that matters the most to the most people.  Isn't that your old maxim, BTD?  Work for the issues you care about not the pols you think might share your conerns.

    She may have been much nicer (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:26:26 AM EST
    to Obama than he deserved but she probably wasn't nicer to him than she needed to be if she wants to win. At this point in time she needs the support of the party establishment and all members of the Democratic base to beat Brown.  

    I have no doubt (none / 0) (#59)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    But I also have a hunch she is capable of flipping that on its head.  Time will tell, but I had a bad feeling before he was elected, after reading his books, that Obama was going to be a disaster.  I have none of those worries with Warren.  Her issue is my issue is EVERYONE'S issue right now.  Obama never made issues important, he talked in vague terms about vague ideals of holding hands.  Fighting for issues, to Obama, is anathema.

    Not entirely (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 11:59:39 AM EST
    Fighting for issues, to Obama, is anathema.

    He's fighting pretty hard for deficit reduction.  And that is the opposite of Warren's positions.  I'm very much afraid the party will be undermining her rather than supporting her.

    Could be problematic (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:05:41 PM EST
    At this point in time she needs the support of the party establishment...

    But if her state party supports her (and stays that way) then she can hopefully pull it off.  National party won't help.

    I hope they prove me wrong.  But I'll wait and see.


    the national party recruited her (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    from my third link below:

    "Top Senate Democrats believe Elizabeth Warren, who is overseeing the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is warming to their entreaties to seek the Democratic nomination to take on Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., next year."

    "Democrats said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray was referring to Warren when she told reporters last month that "we expect to have a good, strong candidate within weeks," in the Massachusetts Senate race."

    "Several Democrats are already in the Bay State race, but D.C. Democrats appear to view none of them as major threats to Brown. That judgment from afar seems to have miffed Bay State Democrats."


    I'm happy to hear that (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:33:21 PM EST
    the national party recruited her

    Very happy.  Doesn't necessarily translate into support.

    or I give you (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:37:14 PM EST
    this hit piece from the MassGOP

    If anything it's the state party support she still needs.  But I imagine they will hold off for the most part until after the primary.

    She should win the primary hands down.  But the state Dems aren't going to want to ruffle too many feathers, as the others will probably be sticking around for a while here as well.

    I'm pointing this out because this is going to be a meme in this race, and it just bothers me to see so many people getting it wrong.  Also, sometimes I think people get cynical to the point of impractical.  Practically, the national Dems really want to keep the senate.  They will put that interest first.


    My comment comes (none / 0) (#91)
    by sj on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:26:21 PM EST
    from my many years working for/with the Democratic party and seeing how it works -- or at least how it can work.  Up close and personal.  And yes, the state party should hold off until after a primary.  From my "up close and personal" vantage point I can say absolutely that it doesn't mean it will happen that way.  Depends on party leadership.  Entirely on party leadership.  That ugly article from MassGOP likely had some natural ugly it could grow and exaggerate.  

    Your comment regarding the motivations of the national Dems is based on assumptions.  You might be right.  Who knows?  I don't make assumptions about what motivates the national party.  Not anymore.  

    But that is all you've got.  An assumption.  So spare me the patronizing "it just bothers me to see so many people getting it wrong".  You might mean well but it doesn't serve anyone well.


    Warren's view on taxes is rather obtuse. (none / 0) (#65)
    by coast on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:03:27 PM EST
    Her position seems to be based on the notion that this person doesn't pay any taxes at all and is basically freeloading.  In addition, a majority of local law enforcement and and educational funding is provided via local taxes, not federal.  And her entire arguement can easily be turned on its head with a simple question, what about the 45-50% of American who pay no income tax at all?  Do you tell them to get off the road or leave school because they haven't paid for it?  I doubt it.

    those who pay no income tax (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    still pay taxes.  Gas tax, property tax, sales tax, social security, etc...

    There are all kinds of taxes that you pay.  Income is just one of many.

    But the person who is not paying as much in taxes is also not benefitting as much in taxes.  Who gets more from the department of education?  One educated worker making relatively low wages?  Or a business tycoon who has hired and relied on the work of many educated workers?  The person who can drive to work?  Or the person who needs thousands of people to drive to work?


    What?!? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:29:06 PM EST
    Warren's view on taxes is rather obtuse.  Her position seems to be based on the notion that this person doesn't pay any taxes at all and is basically freeloading.

    She says, nor implies, nothing of the kind.  She's saying the wealthy didn't earn their wealth in a vacuum, and that as heee-YOOOOGE beneficiaries of our economic system, they should pay somewhat more in taxes as part of fixing the budget deficit.  Suggesting she thinks that the wealthy pay nothing in taxes in just silly.

    In addition, a majority of local law enforcement and and educational funding is provided via local taxes, not federal.

    I'm sure she was unaware of this.  Send her an email and let her know.

    And her entire argument can easily be turned on its head with a simple question, what about the 45-50% of American who pay no income tax at all?  Do you tell them to get off the road or leave school because they haven't paid for it?  I doubt it.

    There's no inconsistency in her argument.  The wealthy should pay somewhat more because they derive a far greater benefit than do the middle class or poor.  The poor pay little or no federal income tax because, well ... they're poor.  Blood from a stone, and all that.  Not to mention the fact that no one (even Republicans) disagrees with setting a floor on income taxes, below which income is not subject to taxation.

    BTW - Not even particularly good examples, since the vast majority of road and school funding isn't paid for through federal income tax.  Lower income and middle income people pay a far higher percentage of their income for these things than do the wealthy.


    If it is the poor not paying enough (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    taxes that you speak of, or our children trying to become educated so that someday they can contribute to civil society and earn a living wage and pay taxes, well sorry...they can't do it and the reason why they can't pay taxes is because of the oligarchy of this country making sure they stay under the velvet jackboot.  If you are railing against General Electric not paying taxes, well lets go after them...I'll help you.

    The federal government provides funding to the states though so that many needed programs can function.


    Many corporations and (none / 0) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 05:42:01 PM EST
    the mega rich do not pay state taxes either.

    The federal government does contribute to the education of of citizens in various ways. Here is a list:

    The following program amounts for FY 2011 are final.

        * College- and Career-Ready Students (Title I)
        * School Turnabout Grants (School Improvement Grants)
        * Migrant Student Education
        * Neglected and Delinquent
        * Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
        * Mathematics and Science Partnerships State Grants
        * Language Acquisition State Grants
        * 21st Century Community Learning Centers
        * Grants for State Assessments
        * Education for Homeless Children and Youth State Grants
        * Indian Student Education
        * English Learner Education
        * Special Education - Grants to States
        * Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
        * Federal Work Study
        * Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
        * Independent Living State Grants
        * Services for Older Blind Individuals
        * Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants
        * English Literacy and Civic Education State Grants

    How about first responders?

    State's first responders depend on federal money


    House approves aid to desperate states - Aug. 10, 2010 - CNN Money

    Aug 10, 2010 - ... money and $10 billion to prevent layoffs of teachers and first responders.

    The largest sources of federal funds for first responders were the State. Homeland Security Grant Programs

    for all those wondering (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    if Elizabeth Warren will get Dem establishment support, I give you these articles:

    link1 link2 link 3

    I'm linking to these because of the tone, not because I agree with the authors but because they highlight the way she got into the race.  She is the establishment candidate.  The third one in particular makes it very clear.

    Frankly (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    The first writer is saying nothing except this boring stuffed-shirt ran in '84 and got beat by another shirt with a slightly better ability to campaign.  The times have changed mightily, as, um, has technology, a little thing this guy seemed to overlook (um, that Obama guy?)

    Hillary won New York and never lived there.

    I think the Dem establishment, as any highly unimaginative organization dedicated to following rather than leading does, looks for whom they think has the best shot of winning.  I think that's all they care about.

    I'd suggest to the other candidates that, perhaps, Warren's message is clearer and more focused than theirs, though I don't know for sure.  I'm sorry, but right now we need help, and I'm not concerned with hurting feelings.  If Warren turns out to lose or be a bad candidate or not take criticism well or whatever, well, I'll be the first one to say what a moron I was.  Not like I don't have to say it often enough around the house. ;-)


    Dems want the seat (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    I doubt they will be too thrilled once she is in it.  She iwll make the corporate tools sweat.

    Anybody seen or heard... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    Warren speak on criminal justice and drug policy issues?  Googled a bit and can't find a stance...just wanna know if I should leap from string like to head over heels in love.

    err... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    s/b strong like.

    I really don't think... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:42:57 PM EST
    ...a person who evidences that much sentient concern for everyday people is going to jump on the lock 'em up bandwagon.  But I could be wrong.  Obama was pretty clearly a law and order guy, a don't rock the boat guy.

    Hillary always struck me as a law and order hawk, play the boys game, a comfortable insider.

    I get none of that from Warren.  We shall see.

    BTW, how went the softball playoffs?


    Round 2 Semis... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    start Friday, stay tuned!

    I too would be surprised if Warren is not enlightened on those other epic fails outside the raging class war, but I've been suprised by the lock 'em up and inalienable rights infringement streak of those who are enlightened in other areas.


    Keep waiting on that ball (none / 0) (#104)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    And I too have been disappointed many a time, so I remain a sort of optimistic skeptic.  When I get to cynical, game over.

    A worry. Professor Warren (none / 0) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:14:09 PM EST
    is great--knowledgeable and courageous and all.  But, does she know sports?   She won't need Scott Brown's red pick-up, but she will need more than Martha Coakley's appreciation for the Red Sox.  Maybe, you and BTD can serve as sports advisors: one at each elbow.

    wellllll (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    let's just say, she's smart enough not to pretend to be something she's not, or try really.

    She recently declined a request to name red sox players, noting that her husband is the sports fan in the family, and that she's from Oklahoma.

    I guess that's better than calling Curt Schilling a Yankee.  Honestly, I think it's fine that she's not a sports nut, as long as she's not a phony.  I think she's playing this well.

    Basically, what he said.


    Keep a big hunk of it." (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:44:41 PM EST
    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.
    As always, these types of conversations always come down to the definition of "hunk."

    George Clooney? (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    is that the hunk you keep? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CST on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:48:48 PM EST
    or the hunk you give up?

    If I had that hunk (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    I would definitely keep him.  Probably locked up to keep supermodels away.  :)

    Sigh... (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:06:08 PM EST

    Many a woman has tried to keep him, but he must be a true believer in paying it forward; I only hope I live long enough to be at the top of the waiting list, and am still young enough to fully enjoy it.


    And how the hunk... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    is used to help the kids, the old, the sick, the unlucky, and the nation as a whole.

    iow the amount raised is irrelevant if there is no plan to spend it wisely and productively, and most of all not spent causing more harm.


    THAT'S the question to me (none / 0) (#109)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    We need that hunk, but what we use of for is the thing.  I think she wants to use if for the right things, but none of us are clairvoyant.  Time will tell.

    As one senator... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    she could be easily overruled and outvoted on how it is spent...as president at least she would have a veto to send every spending bill back that will spend the potential bigger hunk on misery or further class war market rigging.

    I like her a lot better for president...or we need to clone her:)


    Personally, (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    I favor Johnny Depp but I wouldn't turn George Clooney down.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 07:24:10 AM EST
    when the "hunk" at present is at historic and abnormal lows, it's fair to increase the government's share a bit.

    Yeah yeah, but come on Sarc... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    ...do you really think she's talking about confiscating their wealth and staring a utopian commune.  Corporations should pay taxes that reflect the almost insurmountable advantage they have over the individual.  Our system is so skewed right now, it has to change.  

    IMO, without the imposition of a generous floor, which provides employment if it cannot be found, we are going to descend into chaos by the time we are old folks.  Technology + population growth = losing jobs hand over fist forever.  The establishment of a humane floor, that ensures we don't have people unemployed for years, desperate, robbing, committing acts of desperate violence, is really our only solution.  Let people get rich from innovation and invention and dumb luck, I would never want to change that, but our floor doesn't exist, we just bury people in the ground.  

    Jobs for the sake of jobs is what we need.  Because human beings need purpose.


    So your definition of a "hunk" (none / 0) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 02:40:31 PM EST
     is different from most corporation's (of which I own one), and, probably, different from Warren's too.

    The "hunk" exists already, whether it's too big or too small or just right is where all the debate occurs.


    Sarc, again, come on (none / 0) (#129)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    Do you REALLY think your corporation is what we are talking about.  You are not a mega-player hiring lobbyists to rewrite the tax code for you every year.

    I understand you position, but you are not addressing the actual issue.  I would assume you run a fairly small company, and small companies get screwed all the time, as I'm sure you know, since the government only has time to hassle THEM and not the huge players who rig the game in their favor.

    Do you REALLY think G.E. should be paying no taxes in a given year?

    You don't seem to grasp the main point: we have a regressive system right now, where the ONLY people actually BURNDENED by taxes physically are those who have the least.  I know you'll say you're burdened too, but have you ever wondered where your next meal is going to come from?

    No.  Many people do, and the number is going to grow, it is rationally inevitable if we sit on our hands and expect some magic free market to provide everything, when technology is reductive to the nth degree when it comes to employing people.

    Seriously, you object to a government that will guarantee employment if it cannot be found in the private sector?  You really want tens of millions of people desperate and hopeless.  That is the only logical outcome of the way our economy is structured right now.  


    This is the one area... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 06:06:13 PM EST
    ...where I understand some Tea Partier rage.  Their membership has many small business owners who feel overburdened and nickel and dimed by government, which they often are.  But the REASON they are is where truth and myth seem to collide: because the government is so beholden to big corporations and their financial power, because they have those army of lobbyists and lawyers to write the legislation in their favor, they cannot pursue them, so they go after the low-hanging fruit of small business owners.  So instead of aiming their anger at the giant corporations who really start the process by coopting the legislative process with bribes, essentially, they see ALL government as the problem.  This when the Tea Party is funded by the figgin' Koch Brothers!

    It is astonishing to me how many Americans will consistently allow themselves to be hoodwinked into voting against their own interests.

    You think the Koch's care about anything but their own fat wallets?  Please.


    Please stop parroting that ridiculous claim. No disrespect, your not the only one.

    The rest is, again, defining what a "hunk" is.


    How is the claim "ridiculous"? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:03:41 PM EST
    Do you REALLY think G.E. should be paying no taxes in a given year?

    Yeah, GE did pay their taxes ...

    $0 for tax year 2009.


    "This is the first time in at least decades that GE has reported negative U.S. pretax income and it reflects the worst economy since the Great Depression," Anne Eisele, GE's director of financial communications, said via e-mail.[...]

    But GE isn't exactly escaping all tax-related pain: The company paid almost $23 billion in taxes to governments around the world from 2000 to 2009, Eisele said.

    And? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 06:47:43 AM EST
    Dadler's point ("Do you REALLY think G.E. should be paying no taxes in a given year?")was 100% correct, yet you called it a "ridiculous claim".  That's nice they paid taxes to foreign governments, but the discussion was about US taxes.  Unless, of course, you think that Elizabeth Warren is discussing the responsibility that corporations have to pay taxes in other countries.  Now that would be "ridiculous".

    But GE has lots of "company" (Exxon, Bank of America, etc.):

    Between 1998 to 2005, GAO found that about 72 percent of large foreign controlled companies and 55 percent of large U.S. controlled companies reported zero tax liability for at least one year. About 57 percent of foreign controlled large companies and 42 percent of U.S. large companies paid no taxes in two or more years, and a third of the foreign companies and one quarter of their U.S. counterparts paid no taxes for at least four of those years. Just 45 percent of large U.S. companies and 28 percent of foreign companies reported a tax liability for each of the eight years. The report defined large companies as those with at least $250 million in assets, or at least $50 million in receipts

    When GAO factored smaller companies into the mix, it found a higher overall proportion who didn't pay taxes. Throughout the eight years the study examined, the overall percentage of non-tax-paying foreign and U.S. controlled companies never fell beneath 60 percent annually.
    The report said that corporations may not pay U.S. income taxes for a variety of reasons, including current-year operating losses, tax credits, and multinational corporations shifting income to lower tax jurisdictions.

    BTW - Funny how you left out the next sentence:

    But what about the $10.8 billion profit overseas? GE is "indefinitely" deferring income tax payments on those profits, Eisele said.

    It may seem like accounting magic, but it's completely legit.

    If a company makes no money, (none / 0) (#159)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 09:42:12 AM EST
    or an individual makes no money, yes, I think they should pay no taxes.

    If doing business in a foreign country results in lower taxes, or buying cigs in NJ instead of NY results in lower taxes, or buying a car in Ventura County instead of LA County saves on taxes, I would expect rational people to do so.


    Not the point (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 10:21:02 AM EST
    The point was that Dadler's statement about GE - which you called "ridiculous" - was entirely correct.

    BTW - Many of these companies aren't "making no money" - they're making lots of money, but hiding the money overseas in lower tax jurisdictions to avoid taxes.  Of course "rational people" try to minimize their taxes.  But Joe Sixpack doesn't get to hide his income overseas to avoid taxes like large corporations or wealthy individuals can, particularly large corporations that set up thousands of subsidiaries in offshore tax havens like the Caymans or Bahamas to avoid taxes, or manipulating transfer prices between parent corporations and subsidiaries to shift income to lower tax jurisdictions.

    As a result, while Joe Sixpack and small corporations have to pay money on their income, larger corporations do not, resulting in $100 Billion+ in lost revenue.  Now who do you think picks up the tab for that?

    BBTW - I own a corporation and so does my wife.


    The claim is often made here on TL (none / 0) (#170)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    that GE doesn't pay taxes, that is ridiculous. As you point out Dadler's comment couched it differently, I should have read it more closely.

    If Joe Sixpack works in a country with lower income rates, he will pay that lower rate on the income he generates in that country.


    "Couched it differently" - heh (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 11:28:07 AM EST
    You mean "differently" as in "accurately"?

    If Joe Sixpack works in a country with lower income rates, he will pay that lower rate on the income he generates in that country.

    Uhhhhmmmm ... yeah, no kidding.  If it wasn't already entirely clear, I'm talking about "Joe Sixpack", a US citizen.  I don't think anyone is arguing that foreign nationals or foreign corporations earning income outside the US should be subject to US taxes, but I'll keep that one on file ...

    ... under "red herring".


    do business in foreign countries pay the tax rate in those countries. You then conflate those co's doping business in foreign countries with Joe Sixpack. Either your argument is ridiculous because Joe Sixpack will also pay the foreign country's tax rate for working in a foreign country, just as the corps do, or your argument is ridiculous becuase Joe Sixpack isn't working in a foreign country, in which case he can't be conflated with corps that are. Either way is fine by me.

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    I'm not "conflating" anything.  Read my posts a little more slowly, as you claim you should have done with Dadler's.  My point was that the average, wage-earning US citizen ("Joe Sixpack"), as well as small US corporations, must pay taxes on their income.  Large U.S. corporations receive an unfair advantage because they can (and do) shelter income overseas and defer taxes on that income indefinitely.  They also can (and do) use transfer pricing to avoid income taxes by converting sales in one country to profits in another, on paper only, and often in places where they have few employees or actual sales.  This doesn't mean that companies that "make no money" are avoiding taxes, and no one is suggesting that companies that truly "make no money" should pay taxes.  It means that even extremely profitable companies such as Google can use these techniques to avoid paying taxes or at least drastically cutting their tax rate (in Google's case, to just 2.4%).

    The wage-earning "Joe Six-pack" and small US corporations can't do this.

    You all clear, now?


    etc. in those foreign countries, he could then take advantage of the tax laws just like the multinational corps do. It is ridiculous to conflate Joe Sixpack's taxes and a multinational corp's taxes.

    They're not making the money ... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    ... overseas.  They're using tax loopholes and accounting gimmicks to avoid paying taxes on profits they earn here in the US.  Multinationals filter these profits through paper subsidiaries (in the Caymans, Bahamas, Luxembourg, Ireland, Holland, etc.) to shift profits to the tax havens in amounts wildly out of proportion to any economic activity that takes place there.  You often end up with companies buying products internally from their tax-haven subsidiaries at ridiculously inflated prices, like flash bulbs at $321.90 each (normal price 66 cents), pillow cases at $909.29 each (normal price 62 cents) and a ton of sand at $1993.67 (normal price $11.20).  Easy to eat up US profits and show a paper loss (or much lower gain) when you do that.

    Still not sure how it works?  Here's one example.

    Not sure how your corporation works, but I'm not able to have my US income disappear and be largely (if not entirely) transferred to a tax haven in the Caribbean or Ireland to avoid taxes in the US.

    Neither can Joe Sixpack.


    Joe Sixpack is not involved in (none / 0) (#186)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:44:21 PM EST
    out of US business and therefor is not goverened by the tax laws regarding out of US businesses.

    What's next, complaints that it's unfair that people driving in cars can't be on sidewalks like people walking can? Seriously, and this is the last I can beat this dead horse, they're not the same thing.


    You're only beat that straw horse ... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    ... to avoid the obvious, just as you were with Dadler's comment.

    I don't think you need to worry (none / 0) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:17:00 PM EST
    While I believe that Elizabeth Warren is sincere in what she is saying, the powers that be have decided to cut the marginal rates for corporations by 10 - 12% and offset those cuts by closing loopholes by cutting benefits for the safety net programs.

    So chill. You will make out like a bandit.  


    Hahahahhahahha! (none / 0) (#149)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:38:38 AM EST
    Yes, indeedeedo, 10-12% of 35% means that I will make out like a bandit!

    Malibu beach house here I come!

    Too funny.


    Since it's so funny ... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 06:30:43 AM EST
    ... can we assume you'd have no problem with raising your marginal rates by 10-12%?

    Funny how it then becomes a matter of life and death.


    Not funny at all (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 08:16:44 AM EST
    You will be able to keep 10 - 12% more of your income and the rest of us non corporate types will wind up losing chucks of our income and/or medical benefits to pay for your tax break.

    No I don't think it is funny at all.

    But if you think having your marginal taxes go from 35% to 23% is not a big deal, please contact your congresscritters and tell them you don't want them to reduce the tax rates or to cut the safety net benefits.  


    Dude, that's corporate marginal rates (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 08:38:57 AM EST
    not my rates. If you think that translates into me making out like a bandit you have absolutely no clue. It'll likely go to more advertising or another trade show. If it does in fact happen...

    Yes it was corporate marginal rates (none / 0) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 09:10:06 AM EST
    I fail to understand why lower corporate rates do not apply to you. From your comment #120:

    most corporation's (of which I own one)

    If the corporation pays less taxes, all things being equal, you as owner have more revenue.

    If you choose to spend that additional available revenue to increase business expenses (advertising, trade shows) you will also generate more tax write-offs with the anticipation of receiving more income from your investment.

    The offset to your tax cuts will be made by cutting domestic and safety net programs. So when Congress forces people who are living on a small fixed income to pay large deductibles before Medi-gap insurance pays the first dime, they will have to chosse between medical care and paying their basic living expenses. You know simple things like food, heating and shelter. When Congress cuts funds to WIC, more babies do without simple things like formula.

    BTW, the same plan that will lower corporate taxes will also lower the upper brackets to between 23%-29%.



    I am not my corporation, the tax cuts (none / 0) (#157)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 09:36:08 AM EST
    you describe are at the corp level not personal level.

    At the corp level, in real life, there's competition.

    If my biz has a lower corp tax rate, so will my competition. In order to compete and continue as a viable business we all will likely spend as much as we can on keeping our old customers and trying to attract new ones.

    In this economic climate there is no growth of the pie, likely what we will do is spend the extra money and end up with essentially the same size slice that we had before.

    iow, the money is going to be spent and there is likely to be little to no increase in revenues because of it, basically we're just fighting to keep what we have.

    No, a (possible) corp tax rate cut is not my ticket to a Malibu beach house and "making out like a bandit" though I wish it was.


    I guess I still fail to see how lower (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 10:29:57 AM EST
    corporate tax rates will increase the demand for goods and services, which is what is needed in order for any business to make money, no?  

    Perhaps if there were an incentive for being eligible for a lower tax rate - say, by voluntarily structuring a corporation's employee compensation with a tiered, but fixed, multiplier based on the salary of the lowest-paid employee - we could simultaneously increase the standard of living of 95% of employees, who could then take that money and spend it in the community, increase demand and thus improve the corporation's bottom line.

    Some companies have gone to just this kind of compensation calculation; if someone at the top wants a raise, everyone else has to get one, too.


    the possible lower corp tax rates, I haven't looked into it at all.

    Off the top of my head, I would assume one of the goals is to decrease US tax-advoidance by multi-nationals who file and pay taxes in foriegn nations where the tax rates are lower than in the US.

    Presumably if the MN's are confident that this lower US tax rate will exist for a long enough time, and that they can take advantage of the lower US rates and file and pay taxes here instead of, say, India, they will.

    I also would guess that lower corp taxes on these big co's could enable them to be more price-competitive with foreign goods/services whose producers pay lower tax rates.

    Dunno, really, I haven't looked into it.


    I suppose it could also encourage foreign (none / 0) (#176)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 12:09:38 PM EST
    corps to establish/invest in a presence in the US, and thereby hire US workers, etc., if they knew they'd be taxed at a lower rate here, in addition to US corps pulling production back to the US to take advantage of the lower rates..

    Oh so it's your corporate PERSON who (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by sj on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 11:02:01 AM EST
    is affected and not you.  Maybe that corporate PERSON will share.

    Oh are you saying that the (none / 0) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 09:54:43 AM EST
    proposed tax cuts won't really help your corporation? Does that mean you are are not part of this group?

    Despite high unemployment and a largely languishing real estate market, U.S. businesses are more profitable than ever, according to federal figures released on Friday.

    U.S. corporate profits hit an all-time high at the end of 2010, with financial firms showing some of the biggest gains, data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis show. Corporations reported an annualized $1.68 trillion in profit in the fourth quarter. The previous record, without being adjusted for inflation, was $1.65 trillion in the third quarter of 2006 link

    Depending on the size of your corporation and what type of product or service you produce, taking money out of my pocket to finance tax cuts (i.e. leaving me with no discretionary income) may result in less business for you while others will get billions. But that is reality when the government takes money away from the poor and the middle class to give it to the top  1 - 2%.  


    Your claim was that a possible/proposed (none / 0) (#171)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    corp tax cut would enable me to "make out like a bandit." You are wrong, unfortunately.

    If you maintain the current (none / 0) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    revenue stream, lower taxes will provide you as a corporate owner with additional spendable income. If people on fixed income maintain their current revenue stream, paying more out of pocket for medical expenses gives them less spendable income.

    Maybe, what you claim is true or maybe you are like Rep. Fleming who only has $400,000 left over after paying all of his corporate and personal expenses. He whines non stop about not paying a penny more in taxes and is more than willing to cut domestic and safety net programs.  

    Louisiana Congressman John Fleming's businesses bring in only $6.3 million a year but after he's done doing payroll, paying rent, paying taxes, feeding is family and other personal expenses, he only has $400,000 left to invest.

    400K in pocket per year? I wish. (none / 0) (#184)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    SITE VIOLATION _ SPAM (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:45:20 PM EST

    SITE VIOLATION _ SPAM (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:45:45 PM EST

    SITE VIOLATION _ SPAM (none / 0) (#147)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 10:45:57 PM EST

    Finally (none / 0) (#192)
    by cal1942 on Sat Sep 24, 2011 at 05:52:03 AM EST
    a Democratic candidate who makes the social compact case.

    Our problem, especially in this past 30 years, is that the money goes to the top and stays there.