She is as difficult to get along with as was Jimmy Carter or Hillary. Who knew?

Warren Blames America’s ‘Long Legacy’ Of ‘Racism And Oppression’ After Minority Female Staff Flee ‘Toxic Environment’ Of Her Nevada Campaign

What Sanders and Warren want for the U.S. is, for the most part , already a fact of life in Europe . . . apparently.

The following lengthly excerpt comes from the Daily Caller article here.  You all need to read it:


Excerpt: 
Under a European-style tax system, single U.S. workers making $40,000 per year would see a $6,000 increase in income tax, a Heritage Foundation report published Sunday shows.

Single workers making $40,000 per year in Europe pay an average tax rate of 43.8%, leaving them with only $22,467 left in personal income after taxes, while single workers making the same amount in America pay an average tax rate of 28.5%, leaving them with $28,352 in personal income after taxes, according to the study published by the Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.

 In Belgium and Germany, workers who make around $40,000 in income pay average tax rates of 50.6% and 50.2%, respectively, meaning they return more than half of every dollar earned to the government, the study notes.


If the U.S. implemented European-style entitlement programs like Medicare for All, free college, guaranteed jobs and paid family and medical leave, it would also have to increase

Warren registered as an American Indian on her law license. She has been telling this lie since [at least] 1986

Warren registered as an American Indian on her law license.

Obama's # 1 accomplishment? The funding of the domestic progressive movement in the USA

 Obama's # 1 accomplishment?  The funding of the domestic progressive movement in the USA using clandestine funding methodologies centered in and around the Federal Reserve.  

Its part of the Dodd/Frank bill,  but is not funded by Congress.  It is called The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  It is funded via the Federal Reserve, aka "the Fed,"  over which there is no congressional supervision or accountability whatsoever.   It assesses penalties to the banking industry,  collects the funds,  and does whatever it wants with that money.  Some,  maybe the majority of the funds collected

Same person works three jobs; how many people are employed. You know the answer. Harvard professors don't.

You can't get more laughable than this.  When I first heard Cortez push this lunacy,  I thought,  "Someone in her party will tell her."  Wrong.  The Harvard professor, Elizabeth Warren decided to join in and added a couple of jobs  Update:  Before continuing,  you should know that 5% or less of the work force works more than one job.  True under Obama and true with Trump.  

Elizabeth Warren: Low Unemployment Is Because Americans ‘Working 2, 3, or 4 Jobs’

Fiscal responsibility versus knee-jerk "climate warming" policies --- that should be the debate.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said on Thursday that anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change should not head the EPA.   And, so,  the Dems have another complaint versus Trump.  

Understand that the Globalist Progressive Party has already admitted partial defeat when they changed the name of the environmental menace previously known as "global warming" to the more non-descript "climate change."  I mean,  who can argue against climate change?  Except for the fact that,  with their change,  "climate change" is now code for . . . . 

Shocker Poll For Hillary: Warren leads Hillary in Iowa (31-24) and New Hamspire (30-27).

Source:  Washington Examiner.    

Just two weeks ago,  Hillary was leader of the pack,  scoring 65% to 15% for Warren.  So much for polling data.  Like I always say,  the only polls that count are election polls  . . . . . which includes these posted results.  

But,  if true,  Hillary's inability to run an effective campaign,  is in serious danger  . . . . . .   again.  You will remember that she was the Crown Jewel back in 2008, as well,  and, lost to a know-nothing candidate who refused to release school records and ran under a Muslim-type name,  a man who had never so much as run a fruit stand and had skipped out on every scheduled, but, controversial vote as a freshman Senator,  either in the Illinois State Senate or as a freshman Senator in D.C.  What makes her loss to our nations's first Islamic Sympathizer,  is his six year record,  proving the fact that she lost (in 2008) to one of the most inept presidential candidates in American history.  

And, now,  she may be in trouble as she stands in the face of another impassioned Incompetent,  Elizabeth Warren.  Warren is a Harvard "intellectual,"  a committed socialist/Utopian,  with absolutely no business or military experience whatsoever.  She is a freshman Senator from Massachusetts (the only state in the union in which could have won Senate election),  twice divorced,  and,  again,  an academic filled with Utopian ideals, but, without practical experience.   Warren is an enemy of Big Business and believes that all of American Business should function for the "greater good,"  that their profits actually belong to all of the American Poor and should be shared with this class of citizens for no other reason than the fact that the poor are  . . . . . . . . .   ah  . . . . . . . .   poor.  She actually hates the reality that all businesses are created by hard working and qualified individuals who "enter the fray" to make "profit."  Warren actually regrets the fact that "profit" is not a four letter word,  forgetting,  of course,  that her job as a Senator in within Central Planning,  is paid for by these same hard working "profiteers."  

Point of post?  Don't be surprised if Hillary is not the Democrat candidate in the 2016 presidential election.

Wall Street sees good times ahead - if Elizabeth Warren is not the Democrat candidate in 2016, that is.

14 share

Breitbart.com:  The permanent political class and their donors think a Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton battle in 2016 would be a win-win scenario, and many Republican Wall Street donors would rather have Clinton in the White House than Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) or Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

According to a Politico report, "the darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton."

Editor’s notes:  Embedded in the above excerpt/lede is the fact that an assumed majority of Wall Street investors,  are Progressive/Constitutionalists  (yes,  there really is such a thing).  This is not to say, “Radical/Obama-type/immature Progressives.”  There is a difference. 

Understand that neither Cruz nor Paul would strike against the Street as has Obama.  From a business perspective,  there is nothing Wall Street fears,  in these two men.  As a result,  there will be no campaign against either man,  in spite the assumed “preferences” stated in the Breitbart comment.    

Unless Warren takes the nomination away from Hillary,  the Market is looking at more reasonable times,  regardless who runs and wins the presidency in 2016.  Make note that Elizabeth Warren is not mentioned in the Breitbart article.  
________________

Related: 

Understand that Warren is as duplicitous a Progressive as Boehner is a duplicitous conservative.  Her rhetoric puts her in the anti-business class.  But,  she served as chair to the over-sight committee surveilling TARP.  I say "duplicitious"  because of her association with TARP.  

Before TARP,  the Market lost 700 points in a single day (September of 2008). After TARP,  the Market lost another 4000 points while investor banking concerns were given more than 7 trillion dollars,  funneled through TARP,  without so much as a whimper from the likes of "middle class crusaders" including Elizabeth Warren and the know-nothing Barack Obama.   In fact, "seven trillion" is the low end of what funneled via TARP,  24 trillion being the high end of that estimate.  

As a studied,  One World socialist,  she believes the dynamics of both the domestic scene and the banking world can be controlled via regulation and law,  and,  in this thinking,  she is an "anti-business, socialist reformer,"  but,  more specifically,  she is "anti-small business."  Such is the case,  because it is small business,  with less money and fewer options,  that is damaged by increasing federal regulations.  

Over the weekend, talk within the fractured Democrat Party, sees a huge struggle between Centrist Dems and the Radical Left personalized by the face of Elizabeth Warren.

Editor's notes:  Make no mistake,  although the following article makes "mild," the internal struggles within the Democrat Party,  the last sentence in this story,  is most revealing:  "One thing Democrats seem to agree on is this: If Clinton decides not to run, there will be chaos inside the party."  Without doubt,  the party of the KKK and Jim Crow is in dire straights,  thanks to the convoluted presidency of Hussein Obama.  Many in Hollywood are disappointed.  Dozens more, walking the halls of Congress,  are more than frustrated.  Democrat Pollsters are trumpeting the downward populace trend of Obama,  a trend that threatens to take down the Democrat Party, as well.  The following story,  gives a little insight into the expanse of the problem and,  in the end,  the seriousness of the matter.   

With three years remaining in the presidency of Barack Obama, the party he has led since mesmerizing members with his 2008 campaign has begun debating a post-Obama future.

Though more united than Republicans, Democrats nevertheless face simmering tensions between . . . . .

Warren thinks 22 bucks is fine for a minimum wage, but will start with $10.20 and go from there. She has no clue what business "profits" fund and is not asking.

It is hard to believe that the people of Massachusetts would have so little commonsense or disregard for moral character as to elect Elizabeth Warren to any position of leadership.  This is a woman who literally lied her way into Harvard,  and has qualified herself to speak on business issue by avoiding hard labor in the private sector business community.  She knows nothing but what she has learned as academic theory and from reading Marx and Engels.  As a freshman Senator,  she recently made these statements concerning minimum wage levels:

"'If we started in 1960, and we said [that] as productivity goes up...then the minimum wage was going to go up the same...if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour,' the senator said."   . . . . . .  "The current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. 'What happened to the other $14.75?' 'It sure didn't go to the worker.'"

She went on to claim that the cost of a seven dollar meal at McDonalds,  would increase just four cents if we instituted a minimum wage of $10.20 over the course of the next three years.  (Obama campaigned on an 11 dollar minimum wage back in 2008,  but has not mentioned this bit of political stupidity since  -  not even once in a serious way). 

In answer to her question, “What happened to the other $14.75,”  it went to fund the salaries of the remaining skilled labor force,  a collective that demands far more than minimum wage.  It went to pay the increased employment taxes,  when wages are increased.  It went to sustain increased health care costs demanded by the government and the three trillion per year the business community has to pay for regulatory compliance.  It went to cover litigation insurance costs and judgments.  We should not forget the benefit packages of the full time and skilled labor force and the increased costs of those packages.  What about vacation pay and pregnancy pay,  and forced sensitivity forums?  Then there is the rising costs of inventory and the demand to reward business owners and inventors and patent owners  -  a class of labor Ms Sitting Full of Bull Warren despises.   

Warren believes the whole world is about the unskilled labor force working at McDonalds,  a labor collective that moves out of “minimum wage” limitations precisely because of “minimum wage.”  Want more money?  Learn a trade !!  It is that simple. 

Warren’s own philosophy works against her "concerned" pretense.  When you pile on regulation over regulation,  when you demand less time spent in labor for higher wages,  when you demand a free ride for those who do not work but live off the profits of the business community,  what happens?  Business’s hire more and more part time labor,  work fewer people over-all,  reduce benefit packages and often go broke.  That is the world the Marxist Warrens of this world are creating right before our eyes.  

Elizabeth Warren displays her academic stupidity in this friendly exchange with a fellow academic.

Updated for content:  Elizabeth Warren is the perfect example of an academic who believes that data is all one needs to correctly and wisely determine what is right and wrong for the workers of America as they struggle to make a living in our society. She lied her way into Harvard and won an election in which the voting demographic was so partisan,  they did not care about her proven distortions.  She has never worked a serious, public sector job,  in her life,  and joins Obama's horde of advisers and partners in the quest for restructuring this great nation.  

In the video, she is concerned about a living wage for the "workers of America."  She posits that if  "we" had increased the minimum wage commensurate with the increase in national productivity,  since the 1960’s,  that wage would be somewhere around $22.75 per hour. 

Further,  she posits that a raise in federally required wage minimums,  to $10.10 per  hour over the course of three years,  would only add 4 cents to a McDonald’s meal costing   $7.19.  Her point?    “We”  (she includes herself in reference to the business community) can certainly absorb such increases. 

The entire video discussion is about Warren dealing with increases in the fast food industry and the mutten-head on the opening screen,  agreeing with her.  

She does not care that a minimum wage of 10.10 per hour,  effects different industries,  differently. In fact,  she ignores the comments of a restaurant association representative/owner trying to point out that McDonalds is better suit for a minimum wage increase than other businesses.  She has no clue as to the fact that a three dollar raise in hourly  wages,  translates into  6 dollars per hour, to a building contractor,  when workman’s comp is figured,  when insurances based on total wages is figured, when liability insurance is recalculated, and when benefit packages are refigured.   

More than that,  she is talking about a minimum wage,  originally designed as a safety net,  not as a guaranteed "living wage."  To keep qualified people on the payroll,  wages well above the minimums must be paid.  

At any rate,  her approach to justifying wage increases is laughable and incomptent,  all at the same time.  

Elizabeth Sitting Full of Bull Warren refuses her identify as an Amerian Indian. She wanted to be Sioux instead of Cherokee ??

From the Boston Herald, we learn that Elizabeth Sitting Full of Bull Warren,  will not list herself as “American Indian.”

Despite repeated claims she is “proud” of her Cherokee heritage, newly minted U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is keeping that pride under wraps and won’t be taking advantage of a chance to officially list herself as the Bay State’s first Native American U.S. senator.

Aides said Warren, who describes herself as part Cherokee and part Delaware Indian, won’t contact historians at the Senate Historical Office to tell them she’s Native American. The office lists minority senators in its official directory.

Warren’s aides refused further comment, but Betty Koed, an associate historian at the Senate Historical Office, said, “If her office wants to call and have her listed, we’d be happy to do so.”

The office’s running tally of African American, Asian, Hispanic and Native American senators is based on the senators’ biographies and self-identification. Despite the extensive reporting of Warren’s claims of her Native American heritage during last year’s campaign. Koed said the senator is not being listed because she didn’t self-identify.

Massachusetts has elected to themselves,  another phony.  Congrats. 

The wheels have come off Obama's Bain Attack on Romney and, in its place, we have Obama running defense as he seeks to make his anti-business statement of last week, sound somehow, American.

<<< make no mistake,  Liz Warren has been an Obama insider since 2007.  She is a big time collectivist,  a borderless One Worlder.  Her comments help to define Obama's critical statement on business,  last week.  


Latest polling results:  63% support Romney's Bain experience;  73% believe Obama is wrong in his critical, anti-business, remarks.  

The genie is already out of the bottle.  Obama,  acting as a free spirited pundit,  talking without his teleprompter,  has made his feelings clear with regard to the business community.  In short,  he is [really] saying,  

“You owe more than you are paying in taxes,  because you did not create your business on your own, and, because I, as a representative of the Government,  say you owe more.” 

Here are his exact words:  If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Editor’s notes in brief:  re: the government and the internet – he is talking the military.  While the internet was invented by the military,  Cerf and Robert Kahn invented the “IP address system,”  and,  the private market place gave the internet its capital value and glory.  In the end,   the “return” on the military’s contribution to the internet is not a demand for higher and higher taxes,  but revenue increases to the national economy (GDP)  and  private sector jobs created by businesses and the incomes associated with that reality THAT is the payback for the private sectors refinement and use of the internet,   but neither Obama nor Elizabeth Warren go anywhere close to this reality.  In fact,  they completely ignore the fact that society already has its payback [in perpetuity,  I might add]. 

With all the critical talk against Obama’s statement,  Elizabeth Warren made these comments: 

“You know, this [the uproar over Obama’s thoughtless words] is just one more attempt to not talk about the central issues. But the way I look at this: I love little businesses. My daughter started a small business, my brother started a small business, my Aunt Alice started a small business. I worked in it when I was a teenager.  

This is really about a basic question of fairness. And that is when big businesses really make it big, should they get the special tax breaks so that they don't have to make the contributions to help support all the basic infrastructure. You know, the roads, the bridges, the schools and all those pieces. The basic infrastructure that lets the next kid make it big, and the next kid after that, and the next kid after that. 

You know, the way I see this, this is really is about a basic question about how we build our future. The Republicans have given their vision about how we build the future. They said, 'I got mine, the rest of you are on your own.'  

Our vision of how you build a future is that you make the investments forward so every kid has a chance. That's what this is really about.

Warren,  of course,  is not talking about fairness, at all.  In a world where the top 1% pays 38% of all federal taxes – regardless of the tax rate – well,  there is nothing fair about that.  It is not fair that half the population lives off the other half with no demands to improve their state of affairs,  to educate themselves,  to work to become part of the productive part of our society, especially when there are so many low cost or free opportunities for educational/vocational advancement.  Her claim that conservatives’ plan includes the sorry statement, “You’re on your own”  is not only a lie,  it is criminal in its charge and as disingenuous as her long time claim to being an American Indian.  She received miles and miles of “open door” benefit off that lie,  and now,  wants folks to trust her assessment on a much more critical issue. 

Finally,  more than all the above,  neither Warren or Obama offer a concrete methodology for achieving their Utopian world view. 

I have included the Warren video of a few months ago because it helps to define Obama's thinking.  In fact,  it is the opinion of the radicalized Left that Business - whether Big or Small Business - feeds off societal blessings and provisions,  and,  therefore, owes society whatever the Government says it owes.  

Obama again shows his disdain for the Constitutional form of governance he has jokingly sworn to protect.

This morning, Elizabeth Warren, who authored the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), was formally appointed by President Obama to oversee its establishment. The CFPB was created by law in July 2010 when President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform (FinReg) and Consumer Protection Act. Her job is capsulized in the statement of purpose for this bureau: to "implement and, where applicable, enforce federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent and competitive." Warren, who is being appointed to the bureau chairmanship as an Obama staff member (another czar) rather than as a legitimate department head, vetted and approved by Congressional review, will have all the subpoena power of the presidency at her disposal being that she functions in this position as staff. She is protected by "executive privilege" and cannot be questioned by . . . . . . anyone. Her official title is "assistant to the President."

She will supervise hundreds of employees and a half billion dollar annual budget.

Warren believes that Wall Street has taken advantage of the "common man" for 30/40 years. She is an anti-profit babe steeped in the thinking of redistributive politics, Marxist/Socialist to the core. You know there is something seriously wrong, here, when labor unions and consumer advocacy groups enthusiastically support her appointment - not to mention that her appointment is an end run around the United States Congress.

Obama tries to sneak in another lie about the Bush days.

Two considerations:
In announcing her appointment, Obama stated and restated the notion that the middle class lost income for the period 2000 to 2008 to the tune of 5%. He decided to offer up this percentage without off-setting this supposed loss of income with markedly higher benefit packages and increased healthcare benefits during this same period of time.

If Obama has created or saved 4 million jobs with an unemployment rate of 9.6 % , we can argue that Bush created or saved somewhere around 25 million jobs --- using the same "accounting features" of the Obama Administration. Understand that the unemployment numbers for Bush averaged 5.2% THROUGHOUT HIS EIGHT YEARS. More than that, the "underemployed numbers" averaged less than 11% while Obama's "underemployed numbers" range between 21% and 17%.