Elizabeth Warren...

[Ben]

Elizabeth Warren: Markets Need to Be Regulated - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQrc81Coemk)

[Ben]

Elizabeth Warren Explains Why the Bailout Failed - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krP8e4O81Qk)

Elizabeth Warren's Mass appeal - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n641lZKrkWE)

[maxpower]

Smart woman.

[Stavros]

She makes valid points about regulation, but this is going to be one of the key mantras of the next election, given the hostility that Republicans have expressed to the regulatory agencies in the US and what they do. I have seen I think a proposal to scrap the EPA. However, that puts the weight back on Ms Warren, because it is not always the principle of regulation that matters, but the process whereby they are applied, and the regulations themselves: the EPA is not a large part of US govt and it doesn't have a huge budget, but it can affect businesses large and small and has a right of interference which leads some to characterise this as 'back-door socialism'. That doesn't mean the regulations -many of which protect the public from a business dumping its waste on their lawn, for example- should not be there. But it does mean that what should be an informed debate about what does and doesn't work will become an either/or option. But why does she want to be an elected official? There are other ways of being influential, and she seems to have done well at that. Is it because she has a law degree?

[Ben]

She makes valid points about regulation, but this is going to be one of the key mantras of the next election, given the hostility that Republicans have expressed to the regulatory agencies in the US and what they do. I have seen I think a proposal to scrap the EPA. However, that puts the weight back on Ms Warren, because it is not always the principle of regulation that matters, but the process whereby they are applied, and the regulations themselves: the EPA is not a large part of US govt and it doesn't have a huge budget, but it can affect businesses large and small and has a right of interference which leads some to characterise this as 'back-door socialism'. That doesn't mean the regulations -many of which protect the public from a business dumping its waste on their lawn, for example- should not be there. But it does mean that what should be an informed debate about what does and doesn't work will become an either/or option. But why does she want to be an elected official? There are other ways of being influential, and she seems to have done well at that. Is it because she has a law degree?

I think Liz Warren wants to be an elected official to actually serve the public interest.
I mean, she has articulated that the middle class have gotten hammered over the last 30 years. (Now if you look at the income gains in America, well, it's the TOP 0.01 percent of the population who've made staggering gains.)
We live in cynical times. So, we assume all politicians are out to serve their own [rational] interests and the interests of their corporate buddies.
I, actually, think that Liz Warren is different. She does have moral fiber. And is principled. A rarity in Washington -- ha ha!
Imagine a moral and principled politician. And NOT a politician out to simply serve their own selfish interests and the interests of concentrated capital.

[Ben]

Good old Glenn -- ha ha ha! The guy is a genius. He's crazy. But he's a comic genius:

Glenn Beck - Elizabeth Warren is wrong! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiHezYPhVe0)

[Ben]

Warren Buffett speaking about his Fortune !!! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMjepQR1y0w)

[onmyknees]

I've seen him do satire against Washinton Post Lib weenie Joe Klien, and it was pretty funny. The scary thing is people like her are actually running the country now. I'm too tired to look at her bio, but I'd bet a month's haitus from this place she was either a progressive professor at a liberal university, sucking off rich bussiness owner's kids tuition, or has sucked off the rich people she so despises by way of a titty government job....or some combinatio of both. I will guarante you she has never put her last dollar into her struggling bussiness.
I just hope we can make it to 2012.

[onmyknees]

I think Liz Warren wants to be an elected official to actually serve the public interest.
I mean, she has articulated that the middle class have gotten hammered over the last 30 years. (Now if you look at the income gains in America, well, it's the TOP 0.01 percent of the population who've made staggering gains.)
We live in cynical times. So, we assume all politicians are out to serve their own [rational] interests and the interests of their corporate buddies.
I, actually, think that Liz Warren is different. She does have moral fiber. And is principled. A rarity in Washington -- ha ha!
Imagine a moral and principled politician. And NOT a politician out to simply serve their own selfish interests and the interests of concentrated capital.


Ben...I don't question her motives...in fact I don't care about her motives. I know some rogue cops who entered the police force to "help people". it's her ideology and philosophy that scares me. Hey Jimmy Carter's motives were as pure as snow, but he too was a disaster. You have to have pragmatic policies that work. Not a view of America that there are 2 types of people....the oppressed and their rich oppressors. Me being affluent because I made a business work, has the nothing to do with you being poorly educated, poorly motivated and aimless. Those are mutually exclusive of one another. She's another one that should stay in the cozy confines of her faculty lounge talking about theories.

[hippifried]

Lizzie Warren took an ax
gave the bankers 40 whacks
when she saw what she had done
she gave the traders 41

[Stavros]

onmyknees, I doubt that you will be surprised to learn that Ms Warren is a graduate in law and was once, sigh, a law professor at Harvard (where her husband is...a law professor)...years ago when I was in the Labour Party here in the UK 60% of the active members (the ones who attend meetings and get elected to various posts) were schoolteachers, 30% lawyers or solicitors (a curious distinction we have in the UK you dont have there) and the other 10% quite possibly workers. This is how our political systems seem to be evolving. Labour leader Ed Miliband is the son of a well-known but now dead Trotskyist Ralph Miliband, who once wrote a book trashing, yes you guessed it, the Labour Party (!). Ed -who did his, sigh, year at Harvard after reading PPE at Oxford (so it was economics not law)- worked in tv for a short while before writing speeches for Harriet Harman and making his way through Labour ranks-having entered several layers above everyone else, so I don't know if he has ever had a 'proper job'. He isn't fit to run the UK, that's basic.

But are you saying to Presidential candidates -You can't run America if you haven't run a business? Doesn't that narrow the field? I understand the fatigue with lawyers and teachers, but at some point feasible policies that make a positive difference should be considered. I can't see anyone on the horizon in either the USA or the UK who makes me feel confident about the future.

[Faldur]

Lizzie Warren took an ax
gave the bankers 40 whacks
when she saw what she had done
she gave the traders 41

http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv351/flickersucks/larry_the_cable_guy.jpg

The woman has a classical socialist mind set. Does she think the factory and all its workers do not contribute to local and federal taxes to pay for roads, police, fire and community projects?

Without the factory Ms. Warren there would be no roads. Without the factory there would be famine, or communism. Maybe that is what she would prefer.

[Stavros]

The woman has a classical socialist mind set. Does she think the factory and all its workers do not contribute to local and federal taxes to pay for roads, police, fire and community projects?
Without the factory Ms. Warren there would be no roads. Without the factory there would be famine, or communism. Maybe that is what she would prefer.

But Faldur, she is describing capitalism just as you have just done. Producers are consumers, and consumers are producers: a Marxist would criticise capitalism as an economic system that favours a small class of people who own capital: Habermas calls it the Private Appropriation of Socially Produced Wealth. Socialism ought to be arguing for public ownership of everything and the fair distribution of what is produced: from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Very few politicians in either the UK or the USA say this.

The intellectual argument can be found with Marx who begins Vol 1 of Capital by declaring his intention to analyse the nature of the commodity. Most of Vol 1 is concerned with general descriptions of industrial capitalism -indeed Marx did for the mid-to-late 19th century what Adam Smith did for the late 18thc with a hefty dose of moral indignation thrown in. Having gone through the general circuit of capital production, in Vol 2 Marxx divides the production and consumption processes into two departments, and analyses what he calls the real subsumption of labour under capital. In effect, because the workers who make things must also buy them, because capital is constantly circulating through people's pockets, the tills in shops, bank accounts, capital expenditure on industry and so on, capitalism is a fish eating its own tail.

Pretty much as you described it -the only reason you are not a Marxist, Faldur, is that you do not accept that working people are exploited in the very act of producing wealth for others just as they are exploited when they purchase at a higher price the goods they collectively produced: you are not morally compromised by capitalism and do not want to see it replaced by something which, so far in history, has been shown to be economically inefficient and personally of great danger to human life....but that doesn't change the nature of capitalism. Everything is a commodity.

[hippifried]

It's almost impossible to have an intellectual discussion of economic social systems as long as there's a face put on the terminology or abstract social constructs. There's no "be all & end all" philosophical book on any of this stuff. There are no commandments. If you lose the faces of philosophies & thoughts, you can lose the stereotypical pinnings, & maybe even have a civil discourse "outside the box".

Adam Smith was not divine! He was a smart guy & came up with some good descriptions, but he did not invent capitalism or any other economic "system". He was born into a world that was just starting the transition from aristocratic feudalism, at the onset of the industrial revolution. This isn't the 18th century, & we don't live under the rule of kings. So why does all currently recognized economic theory defer to him & his writings? Why are economic ideas automatically discounted if any part of it butts heads with Smith's "...Wealth of Nations"? Whatever theory you can come up with will not be recognized (let alone win you a Nobel Prize) unless you can prove that it jives with Smith's treatise. The face on "capitalism" narrows the parameters of the discussion & stifles independent thought.

Karl Marx was not divine! I've heard the tale that he coined the term "socialism" in as economic context. I ain't buying it, but I'm not going to waste the time to research it. He certainly didn't pull the basic ideas & constructs of his philosophy out of his ass. He was born into the same transitional industrializing world as Smith, that'd grown even more contentuous. This isn't the 19th century. He saw capitalism as an extention of feudalism without the bloodline requirement. Feudal lite... He was right about that. Don't think so? Look around. The modern feudalists (capitalists) are right back to the same old nonsense of hoarding wealth. That's the number one cause of strife. We're social critters who gather together in order to pool resources & make life better for the society in general. That's not Marx. It's mother nature. Why this automatic deferral to Marx when trying to discuss the general welfare of people & society? We can't discuss any aspect of this without the torches & pitchforks. The face on "socialism" narrows the parameters of the discussion & stifles independent thought.

& y'all wonder why I so vehemently dislike the left/right false dichotomy?
As far as I'm concerned, capitalism is just privatized socialism with a narrow scope.

[Ben]

Ben...I don't question her motives...in fact I don't care about her motives. I know some rogue cops who entered the police force to "help people". it's her ideology and philosophy that scares me. Hey Jimmy Carter's motives were as pure as snow, but he too was a disaster. You have to have pragmatic policies that work. Not a view of America that there are 2 types of people....the oppressed and their rich oppressors. Me being affluent because I made a business work, has the nothing to do with you being poorly educated, poorly motivated and aimless. Those are mutually exclusive of one another. She's another one that should stay in the cozy confines of her faculty lounge talking about theories.


Conservatives, true conservatives, believe in morality, traditional values and the rule of law. American bankers broke the law. But none have been sent to prison. This is the antithesis of actual conservatism.
In the 1980s Ronald Reagan sent 1,000 bankers to prison in the Saving and Loans crisis. Reflecting true conservative values. Again, the rule of law.
Liz Warren is concerned about the middle class. (And in order to have a functioning and meaningful democratic country you need a strong, vibrant and burgeoning middle class. Which happened in the 50s under Republican President Eisenhower. Was this a reflection of core conservatism? In the absence of a middle class you've a complete plutocracy.) And she rightly says: The middle class are getting hammered.
Wages, for the vast majority of the population, have been stagnant for over 30 years.
What happened in the 1980s is that America and the world shifted/switched from industrial capital to financial capital. Now industrial capital isn't concerned with inflation. So, workers, under industrial capitalism, made significant wage gains. But when the overall economy shifted to financial capital, well, the game changed. Inflation or wage growth &/or economic growth was a serious concern to finance... because it depreciated their investments.
I mean, mostly what's happening in the world economy is financial speculation. There isn't long term investment in the OVERALL economy. (I mean, in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, well, 90 percent of investment was LONG TERM. And 10 percent was speculation. Now it's: 10 percent long term investment and 90 percent short term. So, almost complete speculation. Which isn't good for the overall economy. Great for speculators. Like the Koch brothers. But very harmful -- as we've seen -- to the economy.)
So, the crux was and is the financialization of the world economy -- :)

And the conservative author Kevin Phillips:

Kevin Phillips: Financialized - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YufAvCbfPGc)

[Stavros]

Hippifried I understand your disdain for grand theory and the reputations of Smith and Marx. The problem is that we live in capitalist societies, and apart from some micro-economic and social sub-theories, the basic propulsion of capitalism has not changed, which is why the 'authorities' in history are often consulted. Smith was morally neutral and Marx morally biased, but after them, it is Keynes who has acquired as great a status.

Fundamentally, this is because neither Smith nor Marx envisaged the growth of the State taking place in the manner in which it did. Neither had much experience of popular democracy either notwithstanding Marx's acid and historically inaccurate diatribes on its French version (The Class Struggle in France, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon). Keynes has become the dividing line between those who argue that in a deep recession only government can push the economy along and compensate for the lack of demand; while the libertarians who hate government anyway believe in markets and that all restrictions on markets should be lifted.

Robert Reich, an unashamed Keynesian has today outlined his vision for the American economy, too long to reproduce here so the link is below.

Theory tries to give coherence to a complex set of information -and there is always the danger that the theory will become more important than the evidence, but while you have a disdain for it, I actually like reading a lot of philosophical literature, it helps keep my brain functioning. That doesn't mean I believe in it, but I enjoy it.

But even I can't believe that simple Keynesian remedies will get the USA or the UK out this current depression.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/29/america-jobs-depression

[BluegrassCat]

But even I can't believe that simple Keynesian remedies will get the USA or the UK out this current depression.



Argument from personal incredulity? You're better than that.

[Stavros]

Fair point, bluegrasscat. Its been a tiring day. Given the volume of Federally funded projects in the USA, the government has been 'priming the pump' for years -Reagan did it for example; but it hasn't helped do much more than maintain those people's jobs, and for the most part they apear to be in the defence industry. As we have said before on this topic, the Fed could reduce costs in a number of areas and raise money -rationalising its currency, replacing sales taxes with a federal added value tax, reducing the cost of foreign entanglements. The reason I feel gloomy is that what the USA and also the UK needs are jobs at both blue and white collar level, the sort of things which contributed to 'mass employment' as far as that can be measured. New technology, moving jobs offshore has reduced the need for so much labour, hence the limited effect of 'simple Keynesian' policies. Reich in his article is arguing for the US to borrow more (at historically low interest rates) and spend more, but it is all based on the same belief that Osborne and the free marketers have, which is that we are in a cycle, and eventually we will get out of it. Maybe. But if we do, what proportion of people who were employed before be back in work?

[BluegrassCat]

New technology, moving jobs offshore has reduced the need for so much labour, hence the limited effect of 'simple Keynesian' policies. Reich in his article is arguing for the US to borrow more (at historically low interest rates) and spend more, but it is all based on the same belief that Osborne and the free marketers have, which is that we are in a cycle, and eventually we will get out of it. Maybe. But if we do, what proportion of people who were employed before be back in work?

It sounds like you're saying "since any government stimulus would be temporary, wouldn't any workers employed by it go back to unemployment when it ends." And if the stimulus had no impact on the economy other than shifting the unemployment needle then yes they would. But the expectation is that the temporary boost to GDP would restart consumer spending thus giving businesses reasons to hire and invest. Government spending gets the economic engine firing, and then hopefully it will be able to continue under its own momentum when the stimulus retracts.

And so what if these jobs are temporary? All construction jobs are temporary but no one suggests we never build anything because of it.

Economist Brad Delong has a more detailed explanation of how this could work.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/09/a-free-lunch-for-america.html

[hippifried]

I don't have a problem with theories. I have a problem with the dearth of theories. You can't tell me that Keynes & Marx are the only independent thinkers in the last couple of centuries. Even Keynes deferred to Smith. He just expanded the basics without a thought to challenge the assumptions. Friedman too. He's just a contrarian to Keynes. With the demise of Marx as a serious thinker (despite the rantings of modern McCarthyites), we're left with Keynesians & antiKeynesians. Without competition in theory, there are no ethics. That would be counter to fiduciary responsibilities & therefore illegal. The moral code is tossed in the round file when dealing with economics, & that's bullshit.
This shit ain't working. We need a rethink.

[Stavros]

Economist Brad Delong has a more detailed explanation of how this could work.

Bluegrasscat: most of what Delong says Robert Reich says in his article, only to turn it on its head in a paragraph and claim it wouldn't work because savers would rather choose the private sector's 7% than Federal Bonds at 1%. He does not address the fundamental problem of heavy industry and light industry jobs -they do exist, but not at the same scale as the 1950s and 1960s and that is where a substantial proportion of blue collar workers were based. A lot of jobs at one time were not temporary, in the UK generations of men 'went down the pit'; the Mills of Lancashire gave jobs to generations; not temporary in a long time frame, but then on that scale all life is temporary.

I think part of the problem with late capitalism, is that there is a distinction between being prosperous and being rich: even within a 'rich' country like the USA, or indeed the UK, it is possible to live a prosperous and comfortable life in remote areas, on substantially less than it costs in the London area where everything is so much more expensive. Nationally, parts of the UK and the USA have always been poor relative to other parts of the country, but when taken internationally, it means that it is unrealistic for Greece to aspire to have an economy as diverse and wealthy as Germany because it doesn't have the components that give Germany that edge, and never will. Greece is a small country with modest natural resources, it can be prosperous, and individual Greeks have fabulous riches based on shipping rather than anything 'Made in Greece'. Greece will probably never be as rich as the Netherlands, which is prosperous rather tha rich anyway. I sometimes think the UK should make a similar adjustment to reality -indeed this may be what is happening now- we are not a Major Power and haven't been since the 1960s; our economic aspirations should be more modest and prices be adjusted to reflect this. I think we should give up our seat on the Security Council to India, and so on.

Is this current depression going to be seen 50 years from now as the moment when real power shifted to Asia? Its been discussed for decades, I wonder if it is now finally happening. The great unknown, is what happens when there is a recession in China. They can't grow year in year out for ever.

[Ben]

Published on Saturday, October 1, 2011 by Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64872.html) Wall Street Readies Assault on Elizabeth Warren


by Robin Bravender & Josh Boak

Wall Street is quietly watching Elizabeth Warren, getting ready to pounce.
The Democratic primary in Massachusetts is still almost a year away, but the expected race between the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Republican Sen. Scott Brown is already a hot topic in the financial services universe.
“The potential Brown-Warren matchup is on everyone’s radar,” said Scott Talbot, chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable.
On the Washington cocktail circuit, banking lobbyists are chattering about how to take Warren on. They fear that a massive, public money assault might be more of a gift than a challenge for the Harvard Law School professor who built her reputation taking on big banks.
The powerful lobby is in wait-and-see mode, weighing its options as it plots a strategy designed to hit hard, but smart.
“You don’t want to make her sympathetic by landing on her with both feet,” said a financial services industry insider and former GOP Senate aide.
All of this could be welcome news for Brown. Even though he’s the fourth-largest recipient of banking, insurance and real estate industry donations in Congress, not everyone in the banking world is enamored with him, since he cast votes to reduce debit card swipe fees and approve financial reforms.
“Better a friend with whom you sometimes disagree but can always talk to, than an antagonist who is always coming at you, guns blazing,” said the former Hill aide.
And the industry seems willing to forgive Brown.
“Although many people associated with the financial industry disagreed with his vote on Dodd Frank, most feel that Sen. Brown’s involvement in the bill was balanced, thoughtful and driven by policy considerations rather than politics,” said Sam Geduldig, a financial services lobbyist at Clark, Lytle & Geduldig. “I believe the same people view Professor Warren’s contribution to the debate to be less so.”
Support for Brown also comes with a grudging respect for Warren’s ability to electrify the left, making her a threat to the GOP’s grander plans to take the Senate next year.
Warren’s backers see the race as a blueprint for Democrats campaigning against moneyed interests. Trouble in the Bay State could spell trouble countrywide.
“A Warren victory in Massachusetts would say that a candidate can talk boldly about holding Wall Street accountable and the rich paying their fair share,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “That will have ripple effects across the nation in showing Democrats how to talk about Wall Street and still have political success.”
Warren is showing she can appeal to the grass roots out of the gate, picking up $376,848 in donations so far by more than 18,000 people through the Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s website, which the group said is a record level of support for a Senate race more than a year away. She hasn’t had to file her campaign’s full fundraising numbers to the Federal Election Commission, yet.
Democratic strategists are prepared to use Brown’s ties to the industry against him, particularly after he was dubbed one of “Wall Street’s Favorite Congressmen” last year by Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/28/schumer-gillibrand-scott-brown-business-washington-wall-street-contribution.html). Whether or not he raises another dime from Wall Street is “sort of irrelevant,” said a Democratic campaign strategist. “The die has been cast.”
When asked about Wall Street’s role in the contest, campaign spokesman Kyle Sullivan said Warren “is working hard to build a strong grass-roots campaign.”

Banking industry observers are concerned about protecting their image, regardless of who wins the contest next year.

“You have to be careful. She has powerful friends in this administration. She was almost part of this administration,” said a financial services lobbyist. If President Barack Obama wins reelection — and even if he doesn’t – the industry must still deal with a new bureaucracy that she helped create and is full of her friends, the lobbyist added.

Obama consigliore David Axelrod essentially offered a tacit endorsement for Warren, even though five other Democrats are competing against her in the primary.

“Elizabeth Warren, who I expect will be the nominee, [is] someone I know well, and there probably isn’t a person in America who’s fought harder for the embattled middle class in this country than she has,” Axelrod recently told the Boston Herald.

With Warren’s momentum, bank lobbyists are overcoming their unease about Brown, who has straddled a fine line between appealing to populists and his donor base after winning a long-shot race last year to succeed the late Ted Kennedy.

So far in the 2012 election cycle, Brown has received $776,672 from the insurance and real estate industries, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Brown trails only Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), and House Speaker John Boehner.

Among Brown’s top 20 donors so far this cycle: PACs and employees associated with Boston-based FMR Corp., Goldman Sachs, Bank of New York Mellon, Bain Capital, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and the hedge fund Paulson & Co., according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Thanks in large part to the deep pockets of his backers, the Massachusetts Republican had an imposing $9.6 million in cash-on-hand as of the June 30 filing deadline.

But the Brown campaign seized on his Dodd-Frank and swipe fee votes as evidence that he shouldn’t be identified with Wall Street interests.

“His independent voting record proves that he is a bipartisan problem solver who decides issues on the merits,” said spokesman Colin Reed.

Banks could also target their money to outside political groups.

“My guess is that if they want to play in that way, they will do it through another party,” like the super PACs American Crossroads or Americans for Prosperity, said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor at The Cook Political Report. “There won’t be a financial services campaign fund to defeat Elizabeth Warren; it’ll be much more subtle than that.”

The financial services lobby has a series of competing and conflicting interests on Capitol Hill, such that support for Brown wavers among the different interests. Brown disappointed some last year by casting a decisive “yea” for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, yet his backing was contingent on creating exemptions so that banks can still engage in a degree of proprietary trading.

Industry lobbyists are still reeling after the swipe fee vote this summer, and say that while they’re still attending fundraisers for the Massachusetts Republican, their trust in him has faltered.

“Scott Brown dealt us a tough, huge disappointment, a blow on this interchange vote,” said the financial services industry lobbyist. “That was not something that small or large financial institutions will readily forget.”

One financial services industry executive said that propelling the GOP to the Senate majority would be the pivotal justification for donating to Brown. Contributions to Brown might depend on outreach from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

“There are other candidates we’ll support in other states; that’s where the first dollars are going to go,” the executive said. “I think the last dollars will be going to Massachusetts.”
© 2011 Politico.com

[Ben]

Nobel Prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz agrees w/ Liz Warren -- :)

Stiglitz: Gov't Regulation Key to Healthy Economy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orsfTY-zL-w)

[Ben]

Joseph Stiglitz: 'Trickle Up Economics' to Blame for Crisis - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wputRsxArSI&feature=relmfu)

[Ben]

Elizabeth Warren Is Scary!

by Ruth Conniff (http://www.commondreams.org/ruth-conniff)

The Republicans are trying to sink Elizabeth Warren by linking her to the Occupy Wall Street protests. But the nation's top financial reformer is not backing down.
The furor started when Warren told the Daily Beast, “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do.
The Republicans jumped all over what they view as an exciting new weapon in the contentious Massachusetts Senate race.
Check out ""Matriarch of Mayhem," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWDJA-OSyzg%3Cbr%20/%3E) the Massachusetts Republican Party's ad, which uses protest images and quotes taken out of context to imply that Elizabeth Warren advocates actual, physical violence.
Even among negative campaign ads, this is a new low.
You knew Wall Street and the Republicans were afraid of Warren and her idea for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. But you haven't seen the depths of their nightmarish fears until you've listened to the scary music and seen the video.
After plenty of shots of pierced protesters denouncing capitalism and getting arrested, the video cuts to an interview clip of the owlish Warren saying, "I have thrown rocks at people I think are in the wrong."
Text of a Warren quote appears next: "My first choice is a strong consumer agency . . . My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth on the floor." (The last part of the quote appears, helpfully, in bright red.)
Who is buying this stuff?
The Republicans hope that the language they use in their ad about protesters "bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies" and "redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience, and, in some instances, violence" will alienate middle-class voters in Massachusetts.
But here is the problem: The people they hope to alienate tend to agree with the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
Like Harvard law professor, finance expert, and former Republican Elizabeth Warren, they are more concerned about the actual damage Wall Street and its enablers in the government are doing to the economy and the working people of this country than some silly 1960s bugaboo about radical Marxist hippies.
In fact, some of the people who are most open to Warren's anti-Wall Street message are the Massachusetts voters who elected her opponent, Senator Scott Brown.
As the Center for Media and Democracy's Mary Bottari pointed out in a blog (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8842) back in January 2010, the Brown campaign "successfully capitalized on the bailout blues" by making an issue of Wall Street in its own ads about "bailouts, broken promises, and . . . backroom deals."
Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley, shot back with her own anti-Wall Street ads, but it was too late. Brown claimed the issue first, and as polls showed voter anger at Wall Street was high, he surged ahead.
"Democrats ignore this message at their peril," Bottari wrote at the time. "They must pass meaningful financial services reform, reform that stirs up a Wall Street backlash, that truly puts an end to the high-stakes casino and prevents the next crash."
As Occupy Wall Street shows, this issue has only gotten hotter.
While Obama and the national Democratic Party can hardly claim to be true opponents of Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren is the real deal. And the Republicans' scary ads have not intimidated her one bit.
I've been protesting Wall Street for a very long time," she said in response to the controversy (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/elizabeth-warren-ows-theres-plenty-credit-go-around.) "I understand the frustration, I share their frustration with what's going on, that right now Washington is wired to work well for those on Wall Street who can hire lobbyists and lawyers and it doesn't work very well for the rest of us. That's what I'm talking about, that's why I'm running for office."
When I interviewed Warren back in 2010 (http://www.progressive.org/elizabeth_warren_interview.html), she put it this way, "The banks lobbied Washington so they could write the rules that got us into this crisis. They then lobbied Washington to get the money to bail them out. And now they are lobbying Washington to write the rules so they can get us into the next crisis."
At the time, she had been drafted by the Obama Administration to be the government's watchdog on the massive $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. One Wall Street lobbyist denounced her Congressional Oversight Panel because it entertained outlandish ideas like nationalizing or liquidating the banks. The hatred of her by Wall Street and the politicians it paid for was so hot, Obama couldn't get her appointed to head her own brainchild agency--Consumer Financial Protection.
But that didn't make her back down. "Every single day that goes by I read another news report about . . . how large financial institutions have figured out ways to lie to people, to squeeze them for money, to make profits by tricking and trapping people rather than by offering a better product," she told me.
Bad feeling toward the banks was not going to die down, she said then.
"My view is that middle class America is acutely aware of how bad this economy is, and it is going to demand changes. I don't think politicians can afford to be complacent."
Those politicians would do well to listen to Warren--Republicans and Democrats alike.

[Ben]

Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren Want to Shut People Up:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/scott-brown-and-elizabeth-warren-want-to-shut-people-up/251693/

[Ben]

Brown v. Warren: Automatons v. Leaders (http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/brown_v_warren_automatons_v_leaders/)

Corporate execs fear elected officials who have inconvenient morals or brains–like Elizabeth Warren:

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/brown_v_warren_automatons_v_leaders/

[Ben]

Starts at the 34 sec mark:

Scott Brown Elizabeth Warren Debate Debacle - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYKI_HGUyzw&feature=plcp)

Scalia: Scott Brown's Model Justice...Oops! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W0_OfwZSY4&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Elizabeth Warren Schools CNBC Talking Heads!

Elizabeth Warren Schools CNBC Talking Heads! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9C0eVyzlT8)

[Willie Escalade]

She's one of my heroes; doesn't take shit from anyone and calmly rebukes all. If she were to run for president...or be Hillary's running mate...uh, oh!

Two to go...

[hippifried]

Lizzy Warren took an axe
gave the banker 40 whacks
When she saw what she had done
she cut off the broker's dick for fun

[Ben in LA]

Clinton/Warren 2016

[Ben]

Liberals' darling Elizabeth Warren defends Israeli attacks on Gaza schools and hospitals:

http://rt.com/usa/183744-elizabeth-warren-gaza-israel/

[Ben]

Clinton/Warren 2016

Please not Hillary Clinton.... I mean, what sets her apart from Obama? She'll follow the same domestic policies as Obama and serve the criminal class on Wall Street -- and be much more bellicose on the foreign front.
I wouldn't be shocked if McCain ended up in her cabinet.
Anyway, change comes from the bottom up and never the top down. Don't look to leaders for change. Plus we don't elect leaders. We elect representatives. They are supposed to represent our interests... which I'm sure Hillary Clinton is so eager to do -- ha ha! ;)
She is simply serving her own interests. Those are her values. She is serving the ultra rich; she's serving herself. Those, again, are her values.

[ohiodick]

You'll note that Clinton's maximum estimated net worth ($25 million) was about 1/10th that of Romney, with whom Kerry is in the same ballpark. It's important to note that the Clintons likely upped their net worth significantly after Hillary Clinton left as secretary of state -- some have estimated it at $55 million or higher -- but that's a lot of ground to make up. But it's also worth noting that, while Romney has spent his life as a part of the upper economic echelon of Americans, the Clintons are relative newcomers to extreme wealth. And their extreme wealth isn't quite as extreme as Romney's.

And he was the conservatives greatest hero 2 years ago. Now all of a sudden wealth is a problem. Interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/net-worth-of-office-holders/

[broncofan]

And he was the conservatives greatest hero 2 years ago. Now all of a sudden wealth is a problem. Interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/net-worth-of-office-holders/
I find a lot of progressives don't understand the Democratic party platform either. With a 39% marginal income tax rate, you can become extremely wealthy. Even with a tax rate much higher than that you can accumulate enormous wealth. There's nothing wrong with being wealthy, but somehow there are Republicans who think that a Democrat who makes money is a hypocrite...and I'm sad to say that there are progressives who have also intimated as much...which is stupid in my view. They should be saying the incentive is still there to work hard and do well with a higher marginal income tax rate, a higher estate tax, and a higher capital gains rate.

[Ben]

Elizabeth Warren Finally Speaks on Israel/Gaza, Sounds Like Netanyahu:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/28/elizabeth-warren-speaks-israelgaza-sounds-like-netanyahu/

[Ben]

Elizabeth Warren Could Use Some Elizabeth Peacen:

http://davidswanson.org/node/4612#.VImqszOX-KM.twitter