Elizabeth Warren knocks it out of the park!!!

[|High School Harry|]

:popcorn:

[T-Dub]

My 2 shekels; you don't get to be in the position she's in without getting your hands dirty.  I'd never put all that much faith in a politician, either.  And like they say, the higher the monkey climbs the more it shows its ass.

 

That being said, she seems significantly better than most.  I'll take that.

[Go Skins]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/buffett-elizabeth-warren-is-too-angry-and-demonizing/ar-BBi8Zjr?ocid=ansbloom11

 

Warren Buffett thinks Elizabeth Warren would be more effective if she weren't so "angry."

"I think that she would do better if she was less angry and demonizing," the 84-year-old Berkshire Hathaway CEO said of the fiery Democratic senator, who has often articulated anti-Wall Street positions, on Monday, according to Business Insider. "I'm not sure that I've fully convinced Elizabeth Warren that that's the way to go."

Speaking on CNBC's Squawk Box, Buffett, an investment guru who gave his first-ever donation to an independent political group in December with a maximum-allowable $25,000 check to Ready for Hillary, said compromise is a better posture during a time of "divided government."

"It does not help when you demonize … the people you're talking to," he said.

Warren, a former Harvard law professor, has often denounced what she sees as lax oversight of the financial system and an overly close relationship between banks and the government, with outlets often calling her "angry" and "upset" in describing her stances.

[|Lucid|]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/buffett-elizabeth-warren-is-too-angry-and-demonizing/ar-BBi8Zjr?ocid=ansbloom11

 

Warren Buffett thinks Elizabeth Warren would be more effective if she weren't so "angry."

"I think that she would do better if she was less angry and demonizing," the 84-year-old Berkshire Hathaway CEO said of the fiery Democratic senator, who has often articulated anti-Wall Street positions, on Monday, according to Business Insider. "I'm not sure that I've fully convinced Elizabeth Warren that that's the way to go."

Speaking on CNBC's Squawk Box, Buffett, an investment guru who gave his first-ever donation to an independent political group in December with a maximum-allowable $25,000 check to Ready for Hillary, said compromise is a better posture during a time of "divided government."

"It does not help when you demonize … the people you're talking to," he said.

Warren, a former Harvard law professor, has often denounced what she sees as lax oversight of the financial system and an overly close relationship between banks and the government, with outlets often calling her "angry" and "upset" in describing her stances.

 

 

Because that's not chauvinistic at all.. "Damn woman, quit being so emotional!"

 

When male politicians are fiery and dogged they are described as lions or tigers or some such. If a woman does it, she's too emotional and needs to calm down.

[Jamie_B]

Fuck all that, if you aren't angry at what has been going on to the middle and lower classes for 30+ years, you aren't paying attention!!!

[Go Skins]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-crisis-hollywood-democrats-see-780450?utm_source=twitter

 

As questions mount about Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account while serving as secretary of state, some Hollywood Democrats are beginning to think the unthinkable: If not her, then whom?

 

Norman Lear, the reigning elder among Hollywood progressives, sums up a common fallback position. If Clinton, 67, declines to run for president in 2016, he'll back lightning rod Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose industry supporters are numerous and passionate. "Women only," Lear tells THR. "I think Elizabeth would make a great president."

 

Warren, 65, a former Harvard Law professor, has said she will not seek the Democratic nomination, but MoveOn.org has been organizing "Run Warren Run" gatherings on L.A.'s Westside. Among the movement's supporters are Mark Ruffalo, Edward Norton, Susan Sarandon, Matt Bomer and Darren Aronofsky. Other potential candidates being debated at industry functions are New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and even former Maryland Gov. and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley.

 

The new questions about Clinton's viability come in what has become a season of discontent for industry Democrats. Many in Hollywood privately have expressed dissatisfaction with President Obama. The more conservative power brokers are disappointed with his handling of threats to Israel, capped off by his recent clash with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran's nuclear program. Hollywood's more liberal contingent feels that many of Obama's policies on national security and his relationship with Wall Street have offered no improvement from predecessor George W. Bush.

[Go Skins]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2562805?utm_content=bufferbaca9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 

Elizabeth Warren is pushing Democrats to expand Social Security rather than cut it, a move that could pressure presumed party frontrunner Hillary Clinton to move left.

Warren, a Massachusetts senator and favorite of progressives, has added expanding Social Security to the list of liberal priorities she has indirectly suggested that Clinton needs to embrace to gain her support.

While Warren has ruled out a run for president, progressives still hope that she can exert a leftward influence on Clinton, who is viewed as closer to Wall Street and big business.

Warren appeared to play that role Thursday morning on CBS when asked if she would support Clinton's candidacy. Warren responded, "I think we have to see first of all if she declares and what she says she wants to run on."

In that and other recent interviews, Warren conditioned her support on Clinton's embrace of her own liberal priorities, which now include expanding rather than cutting Social Security.

[Go Skins]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/elizabeth-warren-banks_n_7072198.html

 

WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday called on lawmakers to break up big banks and change tax rules that benefit Wall Street, part of an ongoing effort to advance a more populist agenda.

The Massachusetts Democrat and longtime consumer advocate has sought this year to draw public attention to what she sees as the unfinished job of revamping Wall Street oversight after the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

"We know what changes we need to make financial markets work better," Warren said in a speech at a Washington conference focused on the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law. "The key steps aren't hard."

Warren has pushed a more consumer-focused agenda for Democrats, calling for raising the federal minimum wage and cutting federal student loan rates.

Hillary Clinton, a top candidate for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, recently slammed hefty paychecks some corporate executives receive as an example of unfair inequality. Observers saw that as evidence of Warren's influence on the party.

Warren said on Wednesday that regulators including the U.S. Federal Reserve and Securities and Exchange Commission had fostered a "slap on the wrist" culture. She said they should get tougher on big banks.

She said lawmakers should crack down on banks by breaking them up and limiting the U.S. Federal Reserve's ability to lend in a crisis so that big institutions cannot count on a bailout.

"When those banks are broken up and forced to bear the consequences of the risks they take on ... regulatory oversight can be lighter and clearer as well," Warren said.

Big banks oppose efforts to break them up, saying their size makes them more efficient. Many Republicans have different ideas about preventing bailouts and view government-mandated size limits as unfair intervention in financial markets.

Warren said Congress could make tax code changes to urge financial firms to drop risky or unfair practices.

She called for closing a loophole that encourages big banks to pay executives big bonuses, creating incentives for companies to seek equity funding rather than debt, and taxing financial transactions to reduce market volatility. (Reporting by Emily Stephenson; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

[Go Skins]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/11/elizabeth-warren-fires-back-at-obama-heres-what-theyre-really-fighting-about/?hpid=z2

 

In an interview with Yahoo News that ran over the weekend, President Obama intensified his push-back against Elizabeth Warren and other critics of the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, flatly declaring that Warren is “absolutely wrong.” That came after a speech Obama delivered at Nike headquarters, in which he continued making an expansive case for the deal as a plus for American workers — and not the massive giveaway to huge international corporations that critics fear.

This week, the Senate will vote on whether to grant Obama “fast track” authority to negotiate the TPP agreement, which involves a dozen countries around the Pacific and could impact 40 percent of U.S. trade.

If the “fast track” framework passes, Congress would hold only an up-or-down vote on the TPP once it is finalized, without amendments. But Congress could also repeal that fast track authority if the TPP is not to its liking, and try to push changes to it, before any final vote.

Warren has previously claimed that the TPP’s controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision, or ISDS, could undermine or chill public interest regulations in the U.S. and other participating countries, and could even undercut Dodd Frank financial reform, one of Obama’s signature achievements. The ISDS is designed to create a neutral international arbitration mechanism that creates a stable legal environment, facilitating investments in countries where investors might fear unfair legal treatment by foreign governments. Obama has strongly rejected Warren’s arguments in the interview with Yahoo and elsewhere.

I spoke to Senator Warren about their disagreements. A lightly edited and condensed transcript follows.

THE PLUM LINE: What’s your response to the latest from President Obama?

SENATOR WARREN: The president said in his Nike speech that he’s confident that when people read the agreement for themselves, that they’ll see it’s a great deal. But the president won’t actually let people read the agreement for themselves. It’s classified.

[Go Skins]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2564513?utm_content=bufferab819&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

When President Obama lashed out at Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., recently, it was about more than just a trade deal. His comments revealed that he is increasingly jealous.

Obama has long envisioned himself as a transformational liberal leader. But as he enters the twilight of his presidency, he's being forced to grapple with the fact that his party has begun to move on, and liberals are increasingly looking to Warren as their champion.

Back during his 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination, Obama famously said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." He saw himself as the liberal answer to Reagan — a charismatic leader who could not only win elections, but move the country ideologically. He wanted to get Americans to embrace a larger role for government as an antidote to the skepticism in big government that Reagan helped foster.

"There are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans," Obama said in hisfirst inaugural address. He countered that "the ground has shifted" and that "the question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works..."

Flash forward six years, and Obama's influence is waning by the day. Trade is one of the few chances for him to pass major legislation through the Republican Congress, but he has encountered stiff resistance from a resurgent populist Left. Warren, the leader of this faction in the Senate, has made Obama's life difficult, and progressive activists are increasingly looking to her, rather than the president, to be their advocate.

"The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else," Obama said in an interview with Yahoo News. "And you know, she's got a voice that she wants to get out there."

[Jamie_B]

Obama had the chance to be the "transformational liberal leader" and he sold out to his corporate overloads.

[T-Dub]

Obama had the chance to be the "transformational liberal leader" and he sold out to his corporate overloads.

 

 

Did he really though? I doubt he ever had an intention to be anything of the sort, but either way he's faced an obstructionist Congress almost his entire time in office.  Who are, of course, sold out to most of the same corporate overlords.

 

On that note, who is funding Warren's campaign if not those very same corporate overlords?

[|Lucid|]

 

 

Did he really though? I doubt he ever had an intention to be anything of the sort, but either way he's faced an obstructionist Congress almost his entire time in office.  Who are, of course, sold out to most of the same corporate overlords.

 

On that note, who is funding Warren's campaign if not those very same corporate overlords?

 

I have no idea bout her Senate run, but she has ruled out running for president this time around and hasn't done any of the things that you typically see from people "not running" like establishing PAK's and campaigning in early caucus states.

[MichaelWeston]

Look at funding for Bernie sanders. There is actual an app you an download that tells you every time there name is mentioned.

[MichaelWeston]

With the rich having all the power what is to stop them from leaving if someone like warren got elected.

[|Lucid|]

With the rich having all the power what is to stop them from leaving if someone like warren got elected.

 

Leaving? What, the country?

[T-Dub]

 

Leaving? What, the country?

 

 

I'm not sure there's another "civilized" country where one can avoid paying taxes and still live the same lifestyle with the same degree of power.  If there were such a place they'd likely already be there.  Kinda like the mouthy expatriate types who slag the US but still hang on to that passport in case shit gets real.. then suddenly they're Lee Greenwood.

[Jamie_B]

 

 

Did he really though? I doubt he ever had an intention to be anything of the sort, but either way he's faced an obstructionist Congress almost his entire time in office.  Who are, of course, sold out to most of the same corporate overlords.

 

On that note, who is funding Warren's campaign if not those very same corporate overlords?

 

 

I believe he did. He has the bully pulpit and has been afraid to really use it. He had during the first election been a master of oratory and IMO was changing minds with his speeches. His speech on race after the Jeremiah Wright thing was nothing short of transformative. He hasn't done the same since being in office, he has shown to be just another politician rather than a statesman who could have used that oratory power to persuade the people to get behind him. I think Rattigan has it right here....

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E

 

I have no idea bout her Senate run, but she has ruled out running for president this time around and hasn't done any of the things that you typically see from people "not running" like establishing PAK's and campaigning in early caucus states.

 

 

PAC

 

Political Action Committee

With the rich having all the power what is to stop them from leaving if someone like warren got elected.

 

 

Let them go to Galt's Gulch. We don't need them.

[|Lucid|]

 

 

I believe he did. He has the bully pulpit and has been afraid to really use it. He had during the first election been a master of oratory and IMO was changing minds with his speeches. His speech on race after the Jeremiah Wright thing was nothing short of transformative. He hasn't done the same since being in office, he has shown to be just another politician rather than a statesman who could have used that oratory power to persuade the people to get behind him. I think Rattigan has it right here....

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E

 

 

PAC

 

Political Action Committee

 

 

Let them go to Galt's Gulch. We don't need them.

 

Yeah, I know.. I originally typed out PACK and realizing the mistake accidentally erased the C because I was at work and in a hurry.

[Go Skins]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2564666?utm_content=buffer59e61&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Monday issued a report slamming U.S. trade deals, citing "decades of broken promises," about enforcing fair labor standards.

Warren, D-Mass., has been one of the more outspoken Democratic critics of international trade deals and the report comes as the Senate prepares to vote on a bill that would give President Obama "fast track" authority to sign off on new trade deals.

The 15-page report, which includes three pages of citations, takes apart claims and promises by the Obama administration and proponents of trade deals that the agreements bring about increased enforcement of labor standards.

"This analysis reveals that the rhetoric has not matched the reality," the report concludes. "There have been widespread enforcement problems and flaws that prevent enforcement of the labor provisions of these free trade agreements."

[Jamie_B]

Globalization is a farse

[Go Skins]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2565167?utm_content=bufferde3d3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough launched into an epic tirade castigating liberal favorite Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for taking what he sees as uncontroversial stances, like calling for more money for health research and infrastructure, while not standing up to the special interests within the Democrat party – the unions – that block real reform on education and Amtrak.

 

Co-host Mika Brzezinski, a Warren fan, was barely able to get a word in edgewise as Scarborough skewered Warren.

 

"I'm sure as hell for funding more of NIH [National Institutes of Health]; we've talked about funding infrastructure. But is she going to support changes? Is she going to support real reform?" Scarborough asked rhetorically.

 

"We hear time and time again on this show, liberals coming on [and] saying do this, do that," Scarborough said. "... There was only an earthquake in Nepal because we didn't spend enough money in Washington, D.C. Everything goes back to that. We found out with the Amtrak train, it wasn't about not spending too much money; it was because the union didn't want do a cheap fix for the union's sake."

 

He continued a long string of rhetorical questions for Warren, should she join the show again: "Is Elizabeth Warren going to be all for reforming stupid workforce practices that make us unproductive and make us waste so much money? Is she going to be for reforming the union stranglehold on Amtrak reform? Is she going to be for more than just saying 'taxpayers of Massachusetts, I know if you make $300,000 or $400,000 you pay 60 percent of your salary to taxes, fees and regulations, but I think that you're greedy and you should pay 75 percent of your salaries to taxes, fees and regulations.' "

[Jamie_B]

Joe's gonna wish he didn't do that. :)

[Go Skins]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2565332?utm_content=buffer130ef&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Popular Sen. Elizabeth Warren, still being urged to run for president, is calling Republican White House hopefuls Sen. Ted Cruz and front-runner Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker "scary," two potential presidents that could undo a decade of Democratic policies.

 

"Just the thought of a possible President Ted Cruz or President Scott Walker is scary," she warned in an email to supporters.

 

"But here's something even scarier: A President Ted Cruz or President Scott Walker with a Republican-controlled Senate – confirming extremist judges, repealing health care and financial reform, and rigging the system even further for the rich and the powerful," she added in a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Some polls show the Democrats falling short of expectations of taking control of the Senate in 2016, and Warren is one of the party's stars in the chamber.

[Go Skins]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2566017?utm_content=buffer6f5f6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren late Wednesday reinforced the war on President Obama's secret trade agenda, slapping the president for refusing to reveal the details and declaring that it "is not a trade deal that we can trust."

 

On a conference call with progressives who failed to convince her to run for president, Warren said that foes of "free trade" have to double down as the House nears a Friday vote to give the president and his successor approval to speech through trade treaties.

 

MoveOn.org and Democracy for America delivered nearly 400,000 petition signatures urging Warren to run, but she said that she will stay in the Senate to fight trade, Wall Street and corporations. The groups said that they will turn their efforts to supporting her anti-trade agenda.

 

Warren said her top and immediate target is killing Obama's Trade Promotion Authority. She urged progressives to call House members and tell them to "vote no on fast track tell them you want to see the deal."

 

A DFA executive noted that progressives agree with some conservatives and Tea Party officials on the concerns and can be an "ally" in the fight against the trade plan.

Warren echoed conservative Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions who has warned that the secret deal kept under lock and key and kept from the nation harbors bad impacts for the nation.

 

On the call, Warren bashed the Clinton-era NAFTA deal with Canada and Central and South America as a jobs killer that also kept wages stagnant for 20 years.