Elizabeth Warren: The People's Champion

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You're being duped by her like I was by Obama in '08. Wake up--all politicians BS their way through their stances on the eve of election season. Learn from history.

Okay, after a good night's sleep and a deserved warning,
I want to retract my sniping. I was upset - and more than likely I am wrong about Warren.

I apologize to all for my ill-mannered outburst. Thanks to you all for helping me stay level-headed.

I'm sorry.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Your intentions were in the right place.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thanks. I was really frustrated. Oh well...
slapped wrist and shame'll teach me, eh Gus?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

We have all gotten a smack or two in our stays here. It happens to the best of us, Lula.

You really can't expect people to trust someone who has been caught lying no matter how much surface sense is being made. She is a Senator in one of only 2 communist states in America and i haven't seen any changes for good since she arrived. Illegals are still welcomed against the wishes of the people who live here. Illegals break our laws with impunity and are released to go about their illegal lives with no consequences. They are fleecing the common wealth and no one in office is taking a stand with the people. Just another Democrat mouthpiece.

Well I watched and took notes; I only made it a few minutes in, but that was plenty to decide it wasn't worth watching.

First failure (put forth by moyers) incomes have decreased while stocks have increased. This is not a problem, it
simply requires adaptation, put money in stocks. I see these same loons wailing about how the rich are making so
much money in stocks, yet they tell you to stay out of the markets becuase you'll lose all of your money. It's
doublespeak meant for one thing, division.

Warrens first failure: "Washington works for lobbyists". It's a good line, and no doubt true to an extent. But
lobbyists don't elect them, their constituents do. The problem isn't the lobbyists (I don't see people railing
against the MADD Lobby) it is their contituents not holding them accountable or not caring. It's the motor voters,
or the single issue voters, people who have no business voting (because they haven't done any research) and do so
anyway, based on one or two issues.

Warrens second failure "Raise the minimum wage, no one should work full time and still live in poverty". LOL so
much stupid. First, no one works full time and remains under the poverty level, unless they've made other decisions that put them there. According to the Census Bureau, the poverty level for an individual under 65 is ~$12,000. Minimum wage, at full time hours, pays $15,080. So it's impossible for such a situation to exist unless the person has made other decisions (such as having kids) that put themselves into poverty status. Even with one child and one income the poverty level is only $424 above what minimum wage pays a full time worker.

Warrens third failure "we need equal pay for equal work". We have it, except in the whitehouse of course. But what they've done is twist the stats, as they usually do. They claim it doesn't exist because the means and medians don't add up. But that's a very false way to look at it. What is the ratio of men to women in different career fields? So when you look at the actual numbers, you find that an engineer makes the same whether a man or woman. A Doctor makes the same, whether a man or woman. A secretary makes the same whether a man or woman. So there is equal pay for equal work, but that doesn't require any more government power, so it's not reported that way.

Warrens fourth failure "we need to lower the interest rate on student loans". Why? So your beloved harvard can jack up the tuition and fees a little more? I'm all for low interest rates, I'm just not sure why student loans should get special treatment (other than to pander to the young and dumb) over any other type of loan. And no, we shouldn't alter the contracts that students have already signed.

Warrens fifth failure (good lord, I'm only 3:25 minutes in!?!?) "Republicans won't discuss". No, this isn't one sided, the democrats won't discuss either. My way or the highway is the meme of both parties. I'm just going to stop here because I can't take this many lies and half truths. She's either a moron (unlikely) or a very, very evil person, trying to deceive her way into power (like most who come to power).

I do need to correct my part about minimum wage, the situation can happen that a person can work full time and still make under the poverty level. Illegal aliens. It's a crime against humanity to allow them to continue to do this to those poor illegal aliens. For the safety of the illegal aliens and the integrity of our economy we need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants who are used as slaves. Amnesty is not a fix. That's like your basement having a leak and saying "I'm okay with a couple of inches of water." but not fixing the leak.

And for all of those that don't know how to end lobbying (well you don't want to do that) or what you call lobbying, here is the solution.

Lessen government power. That is the only effective solution that won't cost you your rights. See, the right to petition your government is guaranteed by the first amendment. So unless you want to give up your rights under the first amendment, you'll just have to deal with the fact that those with money are going to use it to influence politicians.

When you take the power to choose winners/loser from the government, you'll take away the incentive to lobby.

Wow what an intense thread.

I just have to say I am looking forward to 2016 where I will no longer be a racist, but a sexist.

As for Warren and her interview. Yes, what she said was dead on - and I know that's what the OP want to hear. She is right in her assessment of the economy. However (this is a big however) she's had years in congress (which holds the purse strings) to fix it and I have seen nothing in her voting record or legislative proposal record to indicate that she feels as strongly as she came across in this interview.

Y'all want real change in 2016 - I am going to start a campaign "VOTE THEM ALL OUT". That might work.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: 2ndthought

It's a shame that you call people 'trolls' for simply not agreeing with you.

Disagreeing with me is fine.

###snipped###

This woman is clearly NOT an idiot, dumb bimbo, or boob.
She is fighting for Working Americans. I don't agree with ALL of her platform - I am anti-war, pro-recreational pot, and anti-big Ag. I am NOT "Elizabeth Warren" - I just wanted to talk about her approach to re-enfranchising the middle class.
She wants to bring the big banks to task, to eliminate lobbying, and to stop rampant plutocracy. So do I.

Others complained "she offered no solution". Well - seems to me she's poised to start offering solutions. Did she bash the Republicans as non-actors, as belligerent obstructionist filibuster whiners? YES, she did. I didn't mention that at all - yet the conservative membership of ATS attacked her just for being a "Progressive."

I also don't care about her mistakenly claiming Native American status (and apparently she was unaware that it was a family myth or even that she had been counted as a "minority" at Harvard without her knowledge). So big deal. My dad always told us if we lived in Russia we'd be royals - which is what his older relatives (who came here from Prussia) told HIM. My moms' family claimed to have sailed in with William Penn on HIS ship, and that General Sherman was related to us - neither of which is true.

###snipped###

THAT is a shame.

edit on Mon Sep 8 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: Community Announcement re: Decorum and Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Just a couple of things. Mistakenly identified as native? She propagated that identity. There was no mistake about it, on her part. Harvard listed her as a minority , BASED ON WHAT SHE TOLD THEM. If she's as smart as you think, she knew they had a 'diversity census'. They print that census by what their faculty tells them about themselves. There was no mistake or without her knowledge about it.

Read this... legalinsurrection.com... . You may not like the source, but they copy from Wiki, and explain the many changes that happens on her page.

Also, if she ever actually comes up with real solutions, rather that seeming to be poised, THEN you can post about your champion.

As for Reps in Congress. How many bills have been sent to Harry Reid from the House, which he refuses to bring to the Senate floor? Even when the Dems had the House, Pelosi was complaining about the Senate, and Reids habit of not taking action on HER bills that SHE sent over. Who're obstructionist?

originally posted by: KaDeCo
As for Warren and her interview...she's had years in congress (which holds the purse strings)...

Minor point here but she is a Senator and the "purse-strings" are held by the House of Representatives; at least if they even cared to follow their enumerated and granted duties.

Article 1, Section 7 explicitatly states that "[a]ll bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills"

Like I stated, minor to the point you were making but I think understanding that the Senate has been stripping H.R. bills (not really a *new* practice) and amending it by gutting them and dumping in whole new language; this is an oft overlooked procedural practice that ends in the words from the Senate such as: "Well, the bill DID originate in the House..." --NOTE: This of course pertains to bills that require some sort of revenue (taxes/tariffs/etc) and not just any bill. Wanted to make that clear.

Anyway, sorry to nit-pick that small issue to the message.

...I have seen nothing in her voting record or legislative proposal record to indicate that she feels as strongly as she came across in this interview.

Yep that is what I highlighted a few pages back; her actions versus her words aren't quite matching up as much as the OP presented in my opinion. Though she has had only 2 years in the Senate but holds a pretty powerful committee seat -- the Committee on Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs.

As to the whole of the thread

On a note regarding the OP, lobbying itself is never going to be banned unless you amend the First Amendment of the Constitution and strike out (or modify) the last portion of it "...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." While I do understand the argument regarding the amount of monies that are flowing into nearly all of our elected (and non-elected) officials is obscene; to modify such, will vastly move power into the hands of the Federal Government to dictate what exactly is a "redress" and how we can go about doing it.

There are plenty of lobby groups that receive thousands of small donations to push and idea or policy change within the halls of Congress that would be instantly snubbed out; effectively chilling one of the greatest components of our Republic -- to actually change and drive our Government in a direction we want to see it go. Actually there has been grumblings because of the complete misrepresentation of Citizen United and what is actually meant, that Senators are actually going to present a proposed (dead on arrival) change to the First Amendment.

Though the above statement could be easily be read that we already have lost that power and to an affect, we must surely have. Though why is it the lobbyists' that are getting the bad-rap when surely the hundreds of Senators and Representatives should be blamed also. If we start looking there, then those that voted such immoral sellouts would realize that they themselves were either duped or enjoy the influx of goodies their corrupt and greedy representation is.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Okay, after a good night's sleep and a deserved warning,
I want to retract my sniping. I was upset - and more than likely I am wrong about Warren.

I apologize to all for my ill-mannered outburst. Thanks to you all for helping me stay level-headed.

I'm sorry.

You are passionate in your beliefs and convictions and you should never be sorry; even in the face of adversity. That is my opinion on the matter. Some here (like me), like to hit hard and draw out the emotions to leave a fact based view in which we can all discuss on the same playing field.

Also, just because people are against what you say doesn't mean you were wrong. Find support for your initial post and get back in the game.

a reply to: beezzer

Is it possible because it's the only economy that we have? To completely uproot the 240 years of progression (Not 'progressive'.) in our system of wealth distribution will ONLY be done if a large portion (I would guess 25% of every societal segment. Not just minorities because they are ignored safely by giving subsistence to them.) are wholly disenfranchised.

We are not yet there and the ELITE will maintain a brinksmanship position to maximize the extraction of wealth.

Currently things are moving along because what nearly everyone fails to grasp is that all forms of currency ARE NOT REAL.

As long as people are willing to transfer goods for paper, it does not matter how much paper there is. It is only their ability to allow the commonly held illusion of worth to keep things rolling. The fact that scadillions are being thrown around does not mean anything. The 99% dude buying his groceries still only has scarce means. Massive inflation does not occur because the majority of purchasers do not have the greenbacks to pay much more.

The ELITE may purchase extremely expensive cuts of meat but they can only eat so much. They are not going to affect the price of 'choice' ground chuck. So we can continue to pump that money into the system which only goes into the ELITE's coffers to buy more things which only they are interested in. The Stock Market principally. Please recall that the profits are intangible. Buggati can only produce a $2.2 million car once a week. So they charge accordingly. It's still only one car and the price does not affect the 99%.

The ELITE are not living on the same planet as us. Money in their world is an after thought. Price is not an object. It is only a toll that they let the chauffeur pay. The trillions we talk of has NO meaning. As long as the ELITE only bid amongst themselves, we do not suffer.

Not that it makes a terrible amount of sense to continue a process that crushes us as a democracy and maintains 'survivor' wages for the vast majority. This transfer of wealth will not affect the majority for some time. Just like corpseration (sic) exec's, politicians time scales are very limited and as long as they are getting theirs, status quo is full speed ahead.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Seriously, you right wingers need to stop being brainwashed into calling anybody who fights for labor rights or calls out big money "marxists."

THAT Is a tried and true manipulation/propaganda technique BY big business and the military-industrial complex for a century now.

Fox News is that you?! Good to see you've joined ATS

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

She is still a hack piece if she doesn't expose the Central Banking Oligarchs.

She can blame wallstreet all she wants but the Federal Reserve is where the true power lies.

THis is more Marxists type rhetoric to further demonize the free market for destablization in order to push their Socialist Marxists agenda.

Now u know why the Central Banking Oligarchs love to bankroll Marxists to power. It helps further enslave the country in debt through socialism to the globalists bankers.

I suggest you study the Russian Revolution of 1917. You know. The one where low class labor rights people overthrew the Csarist government? The one where those same labor people not just called out big money, but destroyed it.

Yeah, study that revolution and see how well it worked out for them. And don't think that 'we'll do it different'. As with all revolutions of that type, it'll devolve to the point where the oppressed become the oppressors.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Okay, after a good night's sleep and a deserved warning,
I want to retract my sniping. I was upset - and more than likely I am wrong about Warren.

I apologize to all for my ill-mannered outburst. Thanks to you all for helping me stay level-headed.

I'm sorry.

After My previous reply, i see this post. Don't be sorry. We all learn things about various topics by talking about them. Sometimes we're wrong, sometimes right. Sometimes we learn more than we thought we knew. Never be sorry for learning more.

a reply to: 2ndthought

I suggest you study the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Interesting you should say that....

a few months ago I read "Doctor Zhivago" all the way through. That 'revolution' was ..... well, worthy of studying.

Thanks for bringing it up. I had been thinking about it a few weeks ago. Scary stuff. Not knowing what to do, but wanting changes.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

Though the above statement could be easily be read that we already have lost that power and to an affect, we must surely have. Though why is it the lobbyists' that are getting the bad-rap when surely the hundreds of Senators and Representatives should be blamed also. If we start looking there, then those that voted such immoral sellouts would realize that they themselves were either duped or enjoy the influx of goodies their corrupt and greedy representation is.

This ^^ is gold. Thank you.
I appreciate it very much.

I am a registered "unaffiliated" voter, and yes - (as largo said) we get disenfranchised.

Gha.

Anyway, mate.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I am a registered "unaffiliated" voter, and yes - (as largo said) we get disenfranchised.

Gha.

Anyway, mate.

I am registered I think Republican....just because. It isn't my view points that we should be beholden to a party line. Ideas transcend such artificial constructs that humans naturally create. I would love to say that "parties" should be banned but that is unrealistic. It goes against the concept of the First Amendment for one and it goes against our natural inclinations to group together with like ideals.

On that....

I don't have time for the whole interview at the moment but I will check it out later.

I will say she is one of the better ones, but with this bunch that doesn't take much. I have heard her say some really poignant stuff, but then I remember what Obama said before he got elected...lies. It also makes me realize that under the current system in place and with the people currently seated in Washington nothing will ever change no matter who is elected.

Though she does make good points, there are a couple things I don't like; as an earlier poster mentioned she won't go after the ROOT of the banking problems she rallies against--the Federal Reserve system. The other thing is that she is a staunch zionist and loyal to Israel's plans for America.

I can honestly say though if it came down to Warren and Paul it might be a hard choice for me. Though I like most of Paul's libertarian stances he seems to be losing conviction at the same rate as his popularity grows.


*****UPDATE******

Just watched it and I do appreciate her sincerity, which goes a long way with me. I like that she's not a thumb-pointer.

But nevertheless she still views things in terms of the left-right paradigm and the 'way things are'. Washington has gotten so out of hand that it is going to take someone RADICAL to really change things. And if they won't let anyone truly radical to get to that point, revolution of one kind or another is inevitable. We're talking about the WHOLE of Washington being sold out hypocrites...nothing will change as it is.