Brad, I'm thinking one of the reasons the elitist label won't stick to Warren is that she has working class roots. She didn't get to be a Harvard professor from being privileged, he got there from being damned smart and working her butt off, and it shows. You can see immediately that she is the real deal and those trying to paint her otherwise are probably going to get backlash.

I love this. It's not enough for Republicans to hate Blacks, Mexicans, Gays, Muslims, immigrants, single mothers, and atheists, but they also have to hate intelligent people.

The reason being, of course, is that only stupid people hate Blacks, Mexicans, Gays, Muslims, immigrants, single mothers, and atheists. They know their base, and their base hates "professors."

Elizabeth Warren is the Banksters nightmare. Too bad she is only running for the U.S. Senate instead of the Democratic nomination for President.

Wow, just think about an Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders ticket.

Warren/Sanders 2016?

2012

Everyone should pledge to post this video somewhere so that everyone in America can get a look. Start small, make a difference.

She is wonderfully articulate and clear-thinking. Amazing how such sanity is scarce among politicians.

Brad, it is always a pleasure to read the articles and see the videos on your blog.

I might be going off on a tangent, but I want you to know how I appreciate your willingness to allow different opinions to be voiced, and would quickly correct any mistakes you might make. I say this because I got banned from commenting at www.RawStory.com (as adam8), due to mistakes on their side. You've often discussed the dangers of software. Rawtory banning me was apparently due to some funky software that falsely associated me with crap to which I had no connection and led to me being slandered by admin to to several RawStory staff (and with no apology for that) then being re-banned for defending myself and openly wondering if someone on their side was lying. So, basically, RawStory editors, by their actions, convey that they think slandering a reader, whether due to funky software or whatever, is not as bad as questioning their authority. While you've certainly achieved great success as an investigative reporter, you haven't let it inflate your head and turn you into someone who thinks that you are better than your readers. I know that you wouldn't get into hissy fit if someone questioned the truth of what you're saying. That is because you are not a hypocrite. Thank you for that.

Why wait until 2016, Shortbus?

See Paging Eugene McCarthy.

http://electiondefenseal...lieveIt_OrNot_100904.pdf

what the election integrity movement is missing is candidates that understand the problem

I couldn't agree more. If every Democratic candidate took that point by point no BS approach as to why the nation is in the economic crapper and ever larger numbers of Americans fall in to the unemployed and underemployed box, they could get back the House with change.
It was also gratifying to hear her debunk the “self made man” myth – no one succeeds alone in today's reality (although I suppose one could be a self made failure ) . Further, I don't look at those who inherited huge fortunes to be a success – they just won the birth lottery.

So, David Lasagna, KarenfromIllinois and others, I had the tremendous pleasure of meeting Elizabeth Warren today at a tea (not tea party) for her sponsored by the Cambridge Ward 6 Democratic Committee. Scott Brown should be worried. She's articulate and generally well-informed and has a good sense of humor.

On your behalf (and my own, of course), when I got the chance to speak with her, I said the words "election integrity" (after introducing myself as HLS Class of '83 and observing that it was the most woman-hating place I have ever been, including the job I usually describe as akin to working in a men's locker room, to which she nodded). Not only did she understand what I meant, but she told me the very interesting fact that one of her daughters works at Demos, which, among other, mostly economic issues, works on election integrity issues. It looks to me from their website (demos.org) that they get it.

As I said before, Scott Brown should be worried.

Priceless.
The "Industry Captain" who lives in a vacuum. Pays no taxes herself. Pays no wages to her employees. Pays no vendors who support her business. Took no personal risk and invested none or her own money to for a factory; that nobody got paid to build. Creates NO wealth whatsoever for anyone. Just sits there, idly, in her evil, ostentatious, palace sucking up all of her peasants resources and contributing nothing to our socio-economic system.

I agree with you who say all Democrats should be as plain spoken. I too have wished for years that Liberals would just come clean with their Socialist / Marxist Agendas for our country.

When I hear people say that a statement like Elizabeth Warren's represents Marxist agendas, I am not surprised that this country is in trouble.

It is not accurate to state that Elizabeth Warren pays no taxes. Professor Warren pays more taxes than factory owners who make much more money. That's because her income is taxed as "wages" and many factory owners don't take much of a salary, but take bonuses and stock options which are taxed as "capital gains."

No factory owners "makes" jobs. Except for government programs like the WPA, jobs are only made by demand. When the middle class shrinks and the number of Americans who do not make enough money to buy all of the basics, much less some non-essential items, then jobs go away. There is no demand because the average person doesn't have enough money to buy many things.

Or to donate to charity. People whose incomes are in the lowest quintile of income give a higher percentage of the income to charity than people in the highest quintile. People in the middle quintile give more dollars per person than people in the highest quintile.

When the middle class is a larger percentage of the population, it spends money in a way that makes jobs--college educations, vacations, consumer goods, cars, etc.

When the wealthy get more money, they do not spend it in a way that makes jobs. They buy high-end, low labor input items like diamonds and furs or they gamble it on the stock market.

Military spending is the best way to transfer dollars from the average person the the wealthiest few percent. Most military spending is investment income, and almost all investment income goes to the very wealthy.

Military spending is secret and there is an incredible amount of graft. A $500 toilet seat in the 1980's was about $5 of toilet seat and about $495 of graft! Ditto for the $200 hammers. I taught in a family practice residency before I retired. The doctor who directed emergency medical training for the residents was a retired Navy seal. He joined the military at age 18, became a seal, completed college and spent his last 10 years running training programs for seals. At age 38, he retired after 20 years in the military and went to medical school. He told me that when he purchased items for his SEAL team, there was only one place that he was allowed to spend his voucher. He was never able to purchase sufficient equipment. So, he would wait 2 weeks, and then return two-thirds of what he had purchased for cash. He would then take the cash to other suppliers and purchase three times as much--of the exact same equipment. Only by doing that could he buy all the equipment he was supposed to have for every one. Remember the first soldier to die in Iraq in 2003? It was a sergeant who gave his body armor to a private for whom the army had given none.

The only countries that have managed to have a large and stable middle class are countries that have regulated capitalism. The 1800's was the first century of capitalism. There were about 10 great depressions. Don't take my word for it, read the book, "Ten Acres Enough" by Edmund Morris, published in 1846. It's only 170 pages, so you should be able to get through it.

I also recommend:
Sharing the Pie: A Disturbing Picture of the U. S. Economy by Steve Brouwer. A well-referenced, short, compelling book.

What's Wrong with the U.S. Economy: A Popular Guide for the Rest of Us [Paperback] this is 20 years old, but it shows how we went from the post-WWII boom with a strong middle class to an almost nonexistant middle class today. They quote a lot of original material from the mainstream and right wing press and those quotes will scare you to death! (At the time the book came out, I couldn't believe what they were saying, so I looked the references up. I found them all)
from the South End Press.

Elizabeth Warren is very intelligent and wasn't handed her degrees. She worked for them. But, she is missing something here in her slam at the rich. The factory owner paid for that road too when he paid HIS taxes. He paid for that road when he paid the taxes on the trucks he sent to market with the goods for us to buy. With the taxes he paid on the gas he put in the trucks that went to market. He paid for the policemen in his local taxes. He paid his local school taxes to help educate the kids... Just like you and me and every other Tax-paying
American Citizen!

That factory owner has every right to keep his money, just like you and I do. As long as the % of tax is the correct amount to go with his earnings, why do we have the right to TAKE MORE from him?! And, how much MORE is ever going to be enough?! They will just take ALL of the factories and ALL of their money to other countries and then HOW will we get our tax money?!

Start with the rich Congress. Ask them for MORE of THEIR money if you want to TAKE from the RICH! The government is who got us into this mess. Ask the ones who don't include themselves in anything they pass for the Anerican people. Look up some of their wealth. You will be surprised!

Did you know that Harry Reid just made a deal with a Chinese "Green" company in Texas?! Didn't give it to an American company! A CHINESE COMPANY?! As if we don't owe them enough, Harry gives them a business deal... IN OUR COUNTRY?! Start with CONGRESS to ask for MORE! NOT the Factory Owner who is wiring FOR our country and paying taxes in multiple ways!

Kathleen @ 14 said:

The factory owner paid for that road too when he paid HIS taxes. He paid for that road when he paid the taxes on the trucks he sent to market with the goods for us to buy. With the taxes he paid on the gas he put in the trucks that went to market....

Not when that corporation gets tax breaks that allow them to pay NO taxes. Ask GE, ExxonMobile, etc. about that.

He paid for the policemen in his local taxes. He paid his local school taxes to help educate the kids... Just like you and me and every other Tax-paying American Citizen!

Right. But unlike the worker at that factory who also paid those things, "he" gets additional protections and benefits from the government that the factory worker does not get.

That factory owner has every right to keep his money, just like you and I do. As long as the % of tax is the correct amount to go with his earnings, why do we have the right to TAKE MORE from him?!

For a start, because we don't have enough money to pay for all of the wars and tax breaks that the Bush Administration (and the Reagan and previous Bush administration) put onto the credit card. TRILLIONS in spending, with no way to pay for it. But I guess you could ask the guy who works two jobs and can't pay his rent or mortgage each month as it is to pay more to make up for that??

And, how much MORE is ever going to be enough?! They will just take ALL of the factories and ALL of their money to other countries and then HOW will we get our tax money?!

For a start, by removing the incentives that have been put in place by the U.S. Government for those companies to move their companies overseas. (Yes, they get tax breaks for outsourcing to other countries --- you in favor of that? Or would you like to see them penalized with additional taxes for doing so?)

As to how much is "enough", it's a silly argument. Asking for 3% more, as the rich paid under the Clinton Admin, during one of the most prosperous periods in our nation's history is not taking "ALL of their money". You do know under Republican Eisenhower (another most prosperous time in our nation's history) the the top tax bracket was 91%, right? Under JFK it was lowered to 74%.

Right now, AT BEST, the rich pay 35% and are being asked to raise it to 39.5%. You knew that, right?

If so, you're incredibly dishonest to suggest ANYONE wants ANYBODY to give "ALL of their money".

The government is who got us into this mess. Ask the ones who don't include themselves in anything they pass for the American people. Look up some of their wealth. You will be surprised!

The rich members of Congress would also have their taxes raised, if the top bracket was raised by 3.5%. So your argument is specious there as well. But nice try!

Did you know that Harry Reid just made a deal with a Chinese "Green" company in Texas?! Didn't give it to an American company! A CHINESE COMPANY?! As if we don't owe them enough, Harry gives them a business deal... IN OUR COUNTRY?!

Um, I think you may be either disinformed there, or purposely attempting to disinform here. But please do share your evidence for the claim you are making above. Because I happen to know you are wrong. But I'll give you a chance before you are set on moderate as a knowing disinformationist, as per the few rules we have for commenting here.

Thanks!

If you can't see that the rich are ALWAYS advantaged, then YOU are rich; beyond the everyday person's dreams.

Kathleen @14 wrote:

The factory owner paid for that road too when he paid HIS taxes.

IRS: 1,470 millionaires paid no income tax in '09

Exxon Mobil’s 2009 profits totaled $18 billion, yet according to its SEC filings, the company received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, plus, it didn’t pay any federal taxes.

The list goes on-and-on, Kathleen.

Ignorant people fall for Elizabeth Warren's type of rhetoric. Just as little thinking about Warren’s arguments will show how ridiculous they are.

No one is stopping the non-rich from using the roads. In fact, they use them to buy food and clothing, go to the movies, and shop for their favorite electronic toys brought to them by the rich sons of bitches they so despise. There are lots of not-so-rich people who own cell phones and televisions. Can you imagine? Where did these things come from? That’s right; some rich company produced them and drove them on the roads they also pay for within a few miles of our homes.

You don’t even need a car to buy what we want or need. You can I can get almost anything delivered right to our front door by some other rich company that built warehouses, bought delivery trucks, hired workers, paid them a salary, trained them, etc.

Starting a business is difficult, but it can be done. If you or I start a business, we can use the same roads the rich use. No one is barred from using the roads.

The rich aren’t the only ones who went to school. Maybe the rich studied harder. Maybe a lot of people who are poor dropped out of high school. There are economic ramifications as the following points out:

Young adults with low education and skill levels are more likely to live in poverty and to receive government assistance. Further, high school dropouts are more likely to become involved in crime. Poor health, including poor mental health, is also linked with dropout status. Such negative outcomes, along with diminished labor force participation exact a high economic toll on society. In a recent study in California, researchers found that each annual wave of high school dropouts cost the state over $40 billion over the course of their lives.

Why does a non-rich person have the right to the profits that a rich person makes if he’s not willing to participate in the risks the rich person takes? Is Ms. Warren willing to pay back a company if it fails in the same way that she wants that company to pay in taxes if it succeeds?

There’s a lot that goes into making money. The non-rich don’t have to worry about payroll, payroll taxes, insurance, competition, rent, inventory costs, government regulations, hiring regulations, legal costs, and dozens of other unseen expenses. President Obama has never run a business. He’s never had to meet payroll or wrangle with the EEOC over hiring irregularities. He and his fellow Democrats believe that by passing a law, economic equity can be achieved.

The poor aren’t poor because someone else is rich. Some poor people may be lazy, unskilled, unwilling to take risks, unable to run a company, or not interested in putting the time and effort needed to run a business. If the rich are doing something illegal to keep people poor, then that’s a different issue, but Ms. Warren and else wealth-redistibutionists aren’t playing that game because they know they can’t win it. No one is forcing people to buy iPhones, iPads, high priced celebrity clothing, expensive cars, big houses, and TVs.

Instead of envying the rich like Elizabeth Warren does, she should promote the idea of participating in the free enterprise system. There are thousands of companies to invest in. Of course, the stock market is a dangerous place at the moment. That’s because government has gotten involved. The mortgage crisis was the result of the government telling mortgage companies that they had to lend to people who had less than desirable credit. When lenders balked, the government promised to back the risky loans through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Calling for “tax equity,” like Warren does, only takes the incentive away from people involved in business. Tax equity doesn’t help the little guy. If a millionaire gets taxed at a higher right than he is being taxed now, what benefit does it bring to the person who is not taxed at all? Is there any wealth transfer? Has anyone actually been made wealthy by having the rich taxed, other than politicians and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?

The non-rich know that their benefit will be minimal. They know that their household income is not going to increase if the rich are taxed more. The results of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society anti-poverty legislation is prime evidence that programs designed to help the poor only help to keep them poor.

If the rich were taxed less, they would spend and invest more. Their capital would be at less risk. It’s their spending and investing that leads to job growth. Job growth leads to hiring. Hiring leads to a direct increase in household income.

But there’s a problem. Prosperity that comes by way of the market place and not the halls of Congress does not benefit politicians. That’s why President of Obama and the Democrats want more tax revenue. With it, they can buy votes and stay in power. It’s not about helping the poor; it’s about keep more voters dependent on government.