Senator Warren, Sept 3, 2019: "I support a Green New Deal that will agressively tackle climate change, income equality and racial injustice."
Never forget: Most Dimocrat programs are more than advertised; Obviously, climate solutions are never just about the climate; Gun control is never just about taking a few guns off the streets; comprehensive immigration policies are never about insuring the offer of citizenship to the immigrant community; the new energy policies of the Left are never simply about wind energy; prison reform is never just about righting court room injustices; abortion rights are never about saving the lives the unborn at ANY stage of pregnancy . . . and on and on.
The reason? The Progressive Left keeps its specific goals for national reform hidden from public view. Take it to the bank, every congressional bill sponsored and past by the Progressive cabal is filled with legislative terminology supporting or creating a furtherance for its (the Progressive/Socialist cabal) global agenda.
Showing posts with label Elizabeth Warren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elizabeth Warren. Show all posts
Elizabeth Warren, the Left's next big star? Maybe not. She will be 71 after the first term of the next presiodent.
<<< The caption within the picture setting, is not consistent with the fact that she was chairman of the TARP oversight committee, and supervised more than 12 trillion dollars passing through the TARP program to Big Banking, all without any auditing process.
Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator who has built a
political career on denouncing banking titans and financial
sophisticates who make a buck off the little guy. Turns out, she is, or was, one of "them," during the days she was building her own personal wealth empire.
Warren bought and sold at least five properties for profit at a
different time in her life, before the cratering economy and a political
career made her a star.
Her life story has been the subject of much
interest, and her 2014 memoir, A Fighting Chance, chronicled her rise
from humble beginnings in small-town Oklahoma and her struggle to make
ends meet. It didn’t much mention, though, the early 1990s, years when
her children were teenagers and she was once again happily married.
These are years when she wasn’t yet the multimillionaire she is today,
and, she has said, she was voting Republican.
As a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, and later as a
visiting professor at Harvard Law School, she was doing well for
herself, building both her professional profile and her wealth.
She owes
at least part of her considerable financial success, it seems, to
snapping up properties in her native Oklahoma and turning them for
a profit — though today that’s not a practice she endorses for the many
people looking to emulate her success. The Boston Herald reported on
these purchases during Warren’s Senate run in 2012, noting that she
invested in “the often topsy-turvy real-estate market of the 1990s” and
that her actions “don’t seem to square with her public statements about
the latest real estate boom and bust.”
In the end, this newest of Marxist/Progressive heroes, is no better than the folks in Big Banking, she is fond of criticizing.
_____________________________
_____________________________
Article text from the National Review and the editor of Midknight Review.
You need to get acquainted with Elizabeth Warren - the newest Utopian Superstar; an Academic with no real world experience and a huge threat to a Representative Republic such as the United States of America.
 |
| Answer to the above: share as a productive member of society, if abled body, but not as as welfare taker. Warren uses this question to grow the welfare state and "the peope's" dependency on their governmental overlords. |
Compare this total, with the 30 to 45 percent private sector participation in all previous Administrations. What does this mean, in practical terms? Simple this: the new age Utopian Democrat has a venomous disdain for the private sector business community. Political theory versus real life experience is the choice, here, and the Dems prefer their theories. You should know that this "separation of powers" is at the heart of hard core Marxism. Business owner are "overlords," capitalism is evil and misguided, and middle class needs representation more than it needs a voice and place in government.
Elizabeth is much more at the center of the New Age Utopian leadership than is Hillary Clinton. This same cabal, the New Age Utopian Leadership, knows that "now" is the time for Progressive Rule. If they cannot stop the slide away from the current Utopian nonsense, they may not have another opportunity for sustained dominance in our life times. As a result, Warren may become a firebrand for the Fringe Left, during the coming presidential election cycle, with Hillary playing the role of "victim," during a failed primary process . . . . . . once again.
LIZABETH WARREN IN LEADERSHIP -- "Warren to the rescue: Democrats are reeling. So they're calling on their biggest star," by Seung-Min Kim and John Bresnahan: "Warren ... was introduced ... as the 'strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.' It's a mouthful of a title but it has a simple mission: Help come up with a way to sell voters on the Democratic message ... The back story of Warren's rise began last Thursday, when the Massachusetts senator initially reached out to top Democratic officials about the possibility of joining the leadership team." http://politi.co/1wwWvhB
--"Warren gets rock-star reception at liberal donors confab," by Ken Vogel: "'Run, Liz, Run!' Warren drew multiple standing ovations ... in a banquet room at Washington's Mandarin Oriental hotel during the annual winter meeting of the Democracy Alliance." http://politi.co/1uswenH
--"Warren On New Leadership Position: 'Nobody's Clipping My Wings'," by HuffPost's Ryan Grim and Amanda Terkel: "Warren ... pushed back Thursday evening against the notion that her new Senate position means that she will be a 'liberal liaison' between Democratic leaders and the party's progressive base. 'I don't quite understand it,' said Warren of the oft-repeated, informal title ... 'Harry asked me to be a strategic policy adviser, because that's what I talk about, I talk about policy -- college affordability and minimum wage and Social Security,' she said." http://huff.to/115uRzL
Meet Hillary's opposition and be afraid, be very afraid.
37 share
strong reader interest
<<<< Read the quote and, then, say outloud: "B.S." You should know that TARP was used to reconstitute the financial coffers of Big Money to the tune of between 7 and 24 trillion dollars – all legal tender - and Elizabeth Warren was center stage to this process as Chairman of the TARP oversight committee.
“The way
I see this, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, all those other guys on Wall Street,
they’ve got plenty of folks in the United State Senate willing to work on their
side. We need more people in the U.S.
Senate willing to work on the side of America
Editor’s
notes: I have been sounding the warning
for a couple of years, now, and it appears, that “now” is the time these warnings come to
fruition. Understand that Hillary is NOT
the overwhelming choice of the Left, as
many would have you believe . . . . . not even close. She is much more the “establishment”
candidate than a flaming progressive,
and the whose on the fringe Left,
the radical/Obama-type/Marxist driven “world without borders” freak who
push chaos and glory in the thought of a defeated and second rate “Unite States
of America
Of
course, the Obama’s have dealt The
Agenda great damage, but, still, the Marxist Left in the Democrat Party rules the day and will not let go of their vanishing horizon without a fight. Many in the national media, perhaps the majority, will side with Warren over Hillary
Physically, she is as unattractive a candidate as lives
in Marxistville. But she is passionate
in her communalism for the world, and that ideology is what the Fringe Left
wants. They had a taste of same, with the Obama’s, but that fantasy is long gone, lost in a maze of party pay-backs, corruption of the worst order, opaqueness
never seen in our lifetimes, a pettiness that exposes the First Couple
for the immature, schoolyard bullies they are,
and an ineptness for leadership that challenges our senses. “Stupid but educated” is what many of us
see.
While she
preaches one thing, she understands the
realities of Big Money and the hold it has on all political persuasions . . . .
including a well capitalized Marxism. And, she is much more the ideologue than
Obama. At the same time, she is a Fairness Utopian, and suffers from many of the same, utilitarian failings as
the Obama’s. In the
end, Utopian political fantasies
(including Marxism) simply do not work, that is what I mean by "utilitarian failings."
It is a vibrant and well ordered military coupled with a strong diplomatic process, that keeps us free. It is Big Money that oils the wheels of
venture capitalism. It is personal
responsibility and vocational education (whether scholastic or blue collar vocational) that equips the middle class to
experience and participate in this thing we call “upward mobility,” and Warren is on record, opposing much of this.
The next two years will produce a number of surprising new faces to the political event, coming our way. Warren will be one of those newbies, and a serious threat to our free republic, at that.
America: Meet Obama's Mini-Me and be afarid, be very afraid
.jpg)
Editorial thoughts:
First, we can all take a breath, knowing that Obama has no intentions of pushing for more time in office. That has been a concern of the Right, and, for good reason. But the man is not a politician, knows absolutely nothing about getting things done inside an adversarial Congressional system, and is as devoid of original ideological thought as any man to have sat as "president." Because of these failing, he has been a "lame duck" since March 24, 2010, the day after he signed ObamaCare into law.
Secondly, Warren is far more charismatic than Hillary ever thought of being, and is far more faithful to her ideology than Ms Clinton. Consider this: at this late date, Hillary has made it clear that she is still deciding whether to run against some of Obama's actions or to be a candidate for continued "hope and change." No core beliefs. After years and years of political positioning, most of us have no clue as to what issues are passionate concerns of this woman. For those who follow Warren, such is not the case, at all. More than this, in making her indecision known, Hillary has allowed for the notion that she is more of a danger to Obama's legacy than is Warren.
According to the Post, Valarie Jarrett and M Obama, both "haters" of Hillary, are working behind the scenes for a Warren candidacy as they try to convince H Obama of a Warren run for the presidency. Understand that there is nothing that demonstrates the pettiness of Michelle Obama and Jarrett more than their dislike for Hillary, a discontent that is without foundation -- purely personal and as unprofessional as it gets.
The failure of Hillary's book tour, her ties to Benghazi and that cover-up, her ineptness to terms of political instincts, and the fact that so many of us are tired of the Clintons, all have convinced me, as an editor, that Hillary is not electable, especially if opposed by Warren during the primary process. Assuming Hillary would win that battle, a huge assumption, the past-First Lady would come out of such a battle, far less the progressive's choice, than before the primary process, very much "damaged goods."
We are about to discover the strength of the "Marxist/progressive" influence within the Democrat party. Hillary is not in that camp . . . "progressive," yes; Marxist, no. Should be interesting.
Update: Vulnerabilities for Warren: very low name recognition; no administrative experience; no business experience; "freshman" Senator; lied about her heritage (she has no Indian blood in her ancestry); was the civilian chair for the overshight of T.A.R.P., through which between 7 and 24 trillion dollars where funneled back to the banks - adding to her difficulty of claiming to be anti-Big Banking; and her Marxist/collectivist/distributionist doctrine, all leading to an anti-colonial stance that sees America as the problem in the world, not the solution. She is committed and aggressive in her teachings, so there is bound to be a good amount of background info on her - unlike the sequestered Obama, living his life in fear of full disclosure.
Here is proof of the split developing within the Democrat Party. Its civil war time, especially if the "ruling class" decides that Hillary is fatally flawed as a candidate.
22 share (moderate reader interest)
On several occasions, I have stated my opinion as to Hillary's candidacy, specifically, that she is neither charismatic nor blessed with critical political instinct. Her book tour has been a disaster, and her decision to appear as though she is part of the poorer class of the population, has already backfired on her . . . she just does not know it - a perfect example of her poor instinctive abilities. As you read from the Daily Mail, perhaps you will feel the same sense of departure as I did.
Understand that the Socialist Progressives have a foot hold in the Democrat Party, if which they have no intentions of letting go. Hillary is not one of "them" . . . . . . Elizabeth Warren is, and she (Warren) is more a true Utopian Progressive than Obama or Hillary ever thought of being. While Warren is not mentioned in the article, below, you should know that her presence is implicit to the mounting criticism of Hillary. Understand this, there really is no alternative for the true Progressive other than Warren. At many levels, Obama has proven to be a serious disappointment to the far and ideological Left. He is much too self-serving and "messianic" in his agenda . . . Warren much more the ideologue and Hillary is a poor candidate. Expect to see this divide explode, over the coming months. Warren is passionate, well spoken, accustomed to the polemics of Progressive debate/defense, and available. Don't agree? No problem. Just keep this moment in mind, as Campaign 2016 advances.
Daily Mail
Hillary Clinton’s fellow Democrats smell blood in the water after her recent gaffes over her considerable wealth and they began pouncing on the presidential hopeful on Monday.Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina, framed his insult in terms the fictional aristocratic Crawley family and their servants could understand.‘I don’t know whether it’s just that she’s been “Madam Secretary” for so long, but she’s generating an imperial image,’ Harpootlian told The Washington Post.‘She’s been living 30, going on 40 years with somebody bringing your coffee to you every morning. Is it more Downton Abbey than it is America?’Harpootlian, like more than half of the Democratic establishment, backed President Barack Obama in his epic battle with Hillary for the 2008 presidential nomination.He’s also an ally of Vice President Joe Biden, who took his cue Monday morning and asked the audience at the White House’s ‘Working Families Summit’ to cut him some slack because his personal wealth falls short of the Clintons’.‘Don’t hold it against me that I don’t own a single stock or bond,’ Biden said. ‘Don’t hold it – I have no savings accounts. But I got a great pension and I get a good salary.’He declared himself ‘the poorest man in Congress.’ As vice president, Biden officially presides over the U.S. Senate and can cast tie-breaking votes.Biden’s financial disclosures suggest a net worth of around $800,000, enough to put him in America’s often derided ’1 per cent.’But Bill and Hillary Clinton’s balance sheet has been estimated at between $50 and $100 million.
Trickle down economics has no viable alternative in our world, regardless of Karl Marx and his pathetic theories on wealth management.
105 share
The chart, from a New York times article, immediately below, shows the rising tide of acquired wealth for the top 5% ("95th percentile" in dark blue), compared to those in the 50 percentile range, and, finally, the lowly bottom 2oth percentile grouping. As you can see, if you believe the numbers this chart represents, the 5 percenters in America own most of the wealth and their rate of increase is substantial. (continued below):
More from the Editor: The New York Times article, here, claims that income inequality need not be perpetual or inevitable, a conclusion based, strangely enough, on the facts represented in the chart. You can read the article, for yourselves, and decide. But, frankly, that conclusion is so bizarre that I did not finish reading the article. Why waste time reading nonsensical theory from the academic Left?
Here is what we can take away from the series of charts coupled with a little bit on commonsense thinking:
1. The US has more wealth than any other nation on earth.
2. Most of that wealth, regardless of the sociology of the particular nation, is owned by the "5 percenters." Keep in mind, the European nations illustrated on the chart, all push varying degrees of socialism, with France, as it turns out, being the most pronounced socialist nation of the four.
3. I would argue, that the difference between the wealth of America's 5 percenters is more than that of others, in each country, because the US has a much larger population as to the investor class. If France had the same population of investors, as the US, its wealth would be (nominally speaking) the same.
4. Not a product of the chart, but the reader (I believe) needs to understand that the investor class functions very differently for the middle and poorer class of citizens.
That difference being this: The 50 and 20 percenters, all work for the investor class. Take away the investor class, the "evil and greedy 5 percenters," as many of the Tent People on the Left want to do, and you have . . . . . . nothing AND . . . . . . no one offering you a job or an avenue for the pursuit of wealth. You are back in the fields, pillaging for food, or hunting game (gawd forbid the hunting).
Understand that the ONLY reason we are not hunting our own food and living in caves, is because of the investor class. . . . . period.
The Leftist Uptopian class, incestually borne of Harvard's academic cabal, hating all those who make more money than they, you know, hating rich folks like the Obama's and Pelosi's of the world, have tried their best to pollute the debate, branding the collection/acquirement of wealth in the Land of the Free, as "trickle down economics," pretending that they, The Tent People, have a viable alternative to "trickle down."
Go back and look at the above "wealth distribution chart(s)." Know that the wealth acquired by the 5 percenters, increases, but, also, feeds the other two classes of wealth seekers. That is how it works . . . . always has, and always will. Indeed, you can call it "trickle down," if you prefer, but, after decades, we are still debating this issue, trickle down theory never goes away because it works and is the basis for our way of life as human beings.
It is an incredibly idiotic fantasy, pushed by the Radical Left and people like Elizabeth "Sitting full of Bull" Warren, our little Harvard squaw from the Cherokee Nation (we KNOW she is Indian because of her high cheek bones, so she says), that wealth is a natural resource, like underground water supplies or veins of gold in California . . . . wealth is a natural resource just waiting to be mined. And those who have more of this natural resource, are just plain evil - using power and manipulation to steal wealth that "rightfully belongs to us all."
Understand two things:
A). for all practical purposes, wealth is unlimited. If we run out of dollars or gold sheckles, we can always use the barter system to add to our dollar supply or trade labor for labor or wives for whatever. And . . . .
B) "the poor will be with us always." The only exception to this, is during a rebuilding time, following a war or a natural disaster that does not include your mother-in-law moving back into your home. When our homes are all destroyed, we are all equally effected and, therefore, "equal." But it doesn't stay that way, does it? Never.
Why? Because humans are wired to compete at differing rates, to achieve at different levels, to strive for varying degrees of success, to earn more than the next guy, to share, with variation, in the irresistible fact of "upward mobility."
Point of this post: Upward mobility is an irresistible force, an important aspect of our DNA., not governmental meddling. Some have more of it than others. As a result, there will always be a financial class structure because some are wired more intensely than others. Some will take advantage of this fact, others will not.
Karl Marx be damned.
______________
Related:
See the article (12/10/2012) discussion why Central Planning "trickle down" does not work, but Reagas's trickle down, did: https://jds-midknightreview.blogspot.com/b/post-preview?token=kYDoxkUBAAA.Ywo3C4y0xVcCia9MoawpWA.j6QeO2H9KK7pLIrtgRBFDg&postId=6971481967029968674&type=POST#!/2012/12/why-centralized-trickle-down-economis.html
Hillary did not simply lose to Obama in 2008, she lost to the Radical Left Wing of the newly defined Democrat Party ------------ and she may lose again.
Noam Scheiber / The New Republic:
Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its
Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren —
On the other side is a group of Democratic elites associated
with the Clinton era who, though they may have moved somewhat leftward in
response to the recession—happily supporting economic stimulus and generous
unemployment benefits—still fundamentally believe the economy functions best
with a large, powerful, highly complex financial sector. Many members of this
group have either made or raised enormous amounts of cash on Wall Street. They
were deeply influential in limiting the reach of Dodd-Frank, the financial
reform measure Obama signed in July of 2010.
Editor's notes: These two paragraphs (above) define the two major factions within the Democrat Party. Both sides are "big government" but one is much more radical than the other. Understand that the "New Republic" is a far, far Left publication whose name really means "A Totally Different Kind of Republic." It clearly supports the Obama/Warren socialist theory while maligning the Clintonian theoretic model. What may surprise you all, is the fact that Hillary is not nearly as radicalized as is Obama and Elizabeth Warren, and, Warren is much more the purest than Obama.
While Hillary lost the 2008 primary to Obama and the very angry radical Left within that party, what we may have missed is this: She lost to the anti-colonialist of the Democrat Party. "Anti-colonialists"? Those who reject the US Constitution and the idea of a representative democracy that originated within the 13 colonies, forerunners of this great nation.
While the line between Clintonian political theory and Warren's is not as stark as some claim, still, there is a big difference between the two. Hillary lost to the Far Left in losing to Obama. And, the New Republic is hoping that she will lose to Elizabeth Warren and her convoluted socialist theory, as well.
Point of Post: To point out that "we" are not the only political party at war with itself.
Where did Obama get his justification for taxing the "rich." In short, his comments are a plagiarism of an Elizabeth Warren statement.
Since it is clear that Obama has no ability to
"invent" an idea, or come up with a profoundly novel anything,
where did he get his idea that "if you got a business, you
didn't build that; somebody else did that?"
We have Elizabeth Warren, the Cherokee commie babe out
of Harvard, the opponent to Scott Brown, to thank for this bit of nonsense (see the video).
Neither Obama nor Warren bother to mention that in a capitalist system
such as ours, those who built the roads, the bridges, presented the
education and so on, all were paid for their services and all benefit
from the entrepreneurial successes of
our business community.
In my first report of the Obama speech (July 15), I made this statement:
"Understand that, at the center of socialism, is
the altruism expressed by Hussein Obama in this video statement.
Obama believes that society owes itself the wealth accumulated by its more
prosperous and creative members. His reasoning is flawed in that it takes
the generic truth, “no man is a island,” and uses it to increase
welfare roles (wealth) to individuals who did not personally participate in the
ways described in Obama’s remarks."
You should know that social justice collectivists never give full credit to those who actually build their businesses. What is most significant with the words of Obama, is that the wheels have finally come off the sham/pretense that Obama and his hordes, are not socialist to the core. They are not returning this country to past goals but are in the midst of fundamentally transforming (their words) this nation into something that it was not. Don't believe me? Take another look at the words of the revolutionary Michelle Obama:
May of
2008:
MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."
MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."
Elizabeth Warren is Obama in drag and she is coming after Scott Warren
m
Update: before getting into the printed text, below, I really should mention Warren's math. Not reflected in the text, but presented at the very beginning of her recorded comments, is Warren's version of how we got in the current financial mess, and . . . . . you guessed it . . . . . it was all Bush's fault. She wants her audience to believe that her math is profoundly simple and straight forward, after all, she is an esteemed (for reals) Harvard professor.
- She mentions 1 trillion "lost" because of the Bush tax cuts on the "rich." She does not mention the $400 billion in tax cuts to the middle class (no Liberal ever does) nor does she allow for the stabilizing of revenues at 18.5% of GDP in 2007, because of these tax cuts. No mention is made (by Warren) of the Clinton recession at the end of his time in office (Bush 'inherited' this) or the recession during the entire year of 2008. She allows for nothing as the result of the destruction of the Twin Towers, a preposterous omission and never hints at 5 trillion in deficit spending under Obama. Finally, she ignores the "dot com" bubble that burst during Bush's early years with a lost of 12 million "dot com" jobs, a bubble that gave Clinton his claim of 22 million jobs created.
- She claims a 2 trillion cost for "two wars," when, in fact, the cost from 2001 until now is 1.2 trillion. Bush was responsible for .9 trillion of that total. She forgets that the "second war" is Obama's war. She forgets about the billions of dollars being spent in the four month "days not weeks" war in Libya.
- Finally, she hits on the "1 trillion" for Bush's prescription bill. Here, she becomes incoherent. It is Elizabeth Warren and her band of socialist reformers who believes that "all government spending is stimulus." Bush is often criticized for his spending. We conservatives hated it. But, with Keynesian macroeconomics in mind, Bush 43 should be one the far Left's heroes. Understand that the Keynesian crowd does not believe that we can run out of money. So you don't believe me? See what happens when you object to one of their new social programs with these words, "But we have no money." More than this, Bush prescription bill cost the taxpayers $700 to $800 , not a trillion.
Text from the above video:
“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.”
*********Look at that last statement and answer this question: what in the world does this raging collectivist think Big money is doing. "We' (she talks about what "we" the little people do for Big Business) take 35% of the man's income after he pays a flat rate of more than $50,000. Here in California, we take another 10%. As to his corporate profits, we make him wait a full year before he can take a profit and then, make him pay another 15% on top of the taxes he paid to accumulate his investment monies. We make him spend hundreds of thousands of dollars before he can build his
factory and, then, force him to hire a work force that demands unsustainable health and retirement benefits.Understand this, the tax rate for millionaires is 35% and 98.5% of them pay 29% or more after taking their legal deductions. They are actually paying 29% of their income just to the Feds plus excise taxes, environmental taxes, sales taxes on everything they buy. In fact, a typical new factory will be charged more than 1.5 million in fees and taxes before a shovel is used to "break ground."
Big Business pays 70% of all Federal taxes -- that is, by definition, "doing their fair share." Warren makes it sound as if Big Business forced the common man to suffer for nothing so that it, Big Business, could garner its fortunes.
In Elizabeth Warren, we have a flaming socialist who has never worked outside academia, presenting those who will listen, most of them rich, communist theory that has nothing to do with the American reality.
And she may run for the GOP seat held by Scott Brown. Never forget this:
Elizabeth Warren is Barack Obama in drag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)