Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Defend Elizabeth Warren

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 11, 2012, 9:36 a.m. EST by ragincajun (3) from Pleasant Hill, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Karl Rove’s group is pouring cash into another round of attack ads. This time, they're trying to stop Elizabeth Warren’s surging poll numbers and attack her dedication to the middle class.

Rove and his corporate backers know that smearing Warren’s reputation is the only way they stand a chance at the ballot box. They’re betting we aren’t paying attention and think we won’t fight back. Now is the time to prove them wrong.

Stand with the DSCC and tell Elizabeth Warren you’ll help defend her from Republican attacks. The stakes are too high for you to sit this one out.

74 Comments

74 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Shouldn't the fight to limit the influence of special interests be extended to everyone from outside Massachusetts trying to influence their election?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I trust karl rove
you should too


ANYONE KARL IS AGAINST - I'M FOR

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

OWS has made a big and powerful presence at things they disagree with. It would be good to see some OWS supporters do a vocal flash action at some Warren rallies.

OW s can't and shouldn't just be anti everything. Standing for something is equally important. Elizabeth Warren, in spite of the fact that she is a Democrat, is someone worth standing for.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren is under attack because the Republicans are afraid of her integrity and honesty. She is not a politician, but a concerned citizen running for office. Nothing phoney about Elizabeth and she'll win despite the craven tactics of Karl Rove and his billionaire backers.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

She is under attack because she is involved in politics. Attack ads come from both sides of the aisle - or have you not noticed?

[-] -3 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 2 years ago

She's under attack because she is a cradle to grave nanny state idiot. Another "intellectual" without a bit of common sense in her fucking head

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

What makes you think Elizabeth Warren is any different then any other politician? She tells you things you want to hear and spins her actions to put her in the best light.

[-] 0 points by flip (6375) 2 years ago

you don't know much about her do you

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I'm not in her state so no, but who really knows another person? Like a lot of politicians she offers great guidelines for others to live by, I'd like to see her play by the same rules. I am interested to see if she keeps the donations that are known to come indirectly from Wall Street. I'd also like to see if she is willing to be transparent about her finances as she wants others to be about theirs. There are some questions about her TARP committee that need answers too.

[-] 3 points by flip (6375) 2 years ago

not interested in how much she raises from wall street or anywhere else - she did not create the rules (that money determines election outcomes) but she does have to play by them - Elizabeth Herring[2] was born June 22, 1949,[3] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline and Donald Herring.[4] She was the Herrings' fourth child, with three older brothers.[5] When Warren was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack, which led to a pay cut, medical bills, and eventually the loss of their car. Her mother went to work answering phones at Sears and Warren worked as a waitress.[5][6]

At Northwest Classen High School she was named "Oklahoma's top high-school debater", which led her to receive a full debate-team scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16. Initially aspiring to be a teacher, she left after two years to marry her high-school boyfriend Jim Warren.[5][7] Jim was a NASA engineer in Houston at the time, and Elizabeth moved to Houston to live with him. She enrolled in the University of Houston where she graduated in 1970 with a degree in speech pathology and audiology, hoping specifically to work with brain-injured children.[8] She went on to teach for a year in a public school helping children with disabilities. However, she had not taken the required education courses to get a teaching certificate (she previously taught under an "emergency certificate"). After taking several graduate education courses, she realized she no longer wanted to pursue education as a career. By this point she and Jim had moved to New Jersey, and she was pregnant with their first child, so she stayed at home for several years.[9][10][11]

After meeting some former classmates she was persuaded to study law,[9] and enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark, where she served as an editor of the Rutgers Law Review, and was one of two female summer associates at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft's Wall Street office.[12] She received her J.D. law degree in 1976. Shortly before graduating, she became pregnant with her second child, which made it difficult to pursue an active law career. Instead she worked from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings for walk-in clients.[7][9]

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The resume is nice, I'd consider learning more about her and her position on issues if she were running in my state. It's always a concern to me though when politicians accept out of state contributions. As you say, she is forced to use a corrupt system and play by the rules currently in effect. My feeling is that this system corrupts those that use it. Has she released her financial disclosure yet?

[-] 1 points by flip (6375) 2 years ago

no idea and do not really care - she is a good one - has not forgotten her roots - unlike obama

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Well good luck with her, you have faith in her I guess we need that with anyone running for office.

[-] 1 points by flip (6375) 2 years ago

if you are very skeptical of all politicians then i am with you. 98% are not people we need running the show. i did not vote for obama (or the other creep with 11 houses) and willnot this time. i agree with chomsky that all presidents since fdr - if they had to stand in front of a nuremberg type trial - would be hanged! that said i think elizabeth is about as good as it gets

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

wow! take off the blinders and you'll see she's the first person to run for a high office that is not a politician--that's because she was a professor and started becoming politically active in 2008 when she had enough of wall street's BS and saw how much damage the buffoons could do. she was appointed to the CFPB--and spoke her mind against wall street on jon stewart, 3 weeks later the nomination was withdrawn. this may have been her subtle way of refusing the job, but it say a VERY tremendous amount about Obama.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I don't need blinders on or off, she's running for office from another state. Interference or contributions from sources outside her state is part of what leads to corruption in the first place. She says all the right things at present, I'm happy or the people of Massachusetts and hope she is what she looks like. I remember that Obama sounded great too.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

yeah, obama really pulled the wool over everyone's eyes--i think, frankly, he changed in office, as opposed to going in (like most) with ill intent. he's an abject failure, but the R's offer terrible terrible alternatives.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

People get into politics to make a difference, then their focus seems to shift to only thinking about reelection. With a 6 year term senators may be just a little less susceptible to that. At least I would hope that would be the case.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

no kidding, the whole job seems to be fundraising and running, punctuated by a few speeches to the public. terms should probably be longer, cuz it literally feels to me like i just voted for obama a short time ago.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

how naive of you. he didnt change , what you have is what he was while campaigning. all you had to do was pay attention. 0bama said , while running for the presidency that he was going to fundamentally change america. There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of the USA, that should have been a clue for you.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

so naive, i don't even know where to start.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

YOU can start with ayers, wright and frank marshall davis.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

"the first person to run for higher office that is not a politician"?

Sorry but that is simply not correct. 2010 saw quite a few "regular" people running for Congress.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

No one is a politician until they start running for office, now all of a sudden her world becomes complex and she's not as willing to be transparent about things.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Educate us then Flip. Do you expect blind support for her just because you support her?

[-] 1 points by flip (6375) 2 years ago

read this second - you can read i assume - you don't know how to use google it seems - Warren and Tyagi also wrote The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. Warren and Tyagi point out that a fully employed worker today earns less inflation-adjusted income than a fully employed worker did 30 years ago. To increase their income, families have sent a second parent into the workforce. Although families spend less today on clothing, appliances, and other consumption, the costs of core expenses such as mortgages, health care, transportation, child care have increased dramatically. The result is that even with two-income earners, families are no longer able to save and have incurred greater and greater debt.

In an article in The New York Times, Jeff Madrick said of Warren's book:

The upshot is that two-income families often have even less income left over today than did an equivalent single-income family 30 years ago, even when they make almost twice as much. And they go deeper in debt. The authors find that it is not the free-spending young or the incapacitated elderly who are declaring bankruptcy so much as families with children... their main thesis is undeniable. Typical families often cannot afford the high-quality education, health care and neighborhoods required to be middle class today. More clearly than anyone else, I think, Ms. Warren and Ms. Tyagi have shown how little attention the nation and our government have paid to the way Americans really live.[24]

In an article in Time magazine by Maryanna Murray Buechner, "Parent Trap" (subtitled "Want to go bust? Have a kid. Educate same. Why the middle class never had it so bad"), Buechner said of Warren's book:

For families looking for ways to cope, Warren and Tyagi mainly offer palliatives: Buy a cheaper house. Squirrel away a six-month cash cushion. Yeah, right. But they also know that there are no easy solutions. Readers who are already committed to a house and parenthood will find little to mitigate the deflating sense that they have nowhere to go but down.[25]

In 2005, David Himmelstein and Warren published a study on bankruptcy and medical bills,[26] which said that half of all families filing for bankruptcy did so in the aftermath of a serious medical problem. The finding was particularly noteworthy because 75 percent of families who fit that description had medical insurance.[27] This study was widely cited in academic studies and policy debates, though some have challenged the study's methods and offered alternative interpretations of the data.[28]

[-] 1 points by flip (6375) 2 years ago

start with this - Elizabeth Herring[2] was born June 22, 1949,[3] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline and Donald Herring.[4] She was the Herrings' fourth child, with three older brothers.[5] When Warren was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack, which led to a pay cut, medical bills, and eventually the loss of their car. Her mother went to work answering phones at Sears and Warren worked as a waitress.[5][6]

At Northwest Classen High School she was named "Oklahoma's top high-school debater", which led her to receive a full debate-team scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16. Initially aspiring to be a teacher, she left after two years to marry her high-school boyfriend Jim Warren.[5][7] Jim was a NASA engineer in Houston at the time, and Elizabeth moved to Houston to live with him. She enrolled in the University of Houston where she graduated in 1970 with a degree in speech pathology and audiology, hoping specifically to work with brain-injured children.[8] She went on to teach for a year in a public school helping children with disabilities. However, she had not taken the required education courses to get a teaching certificate (she previously taught under an "emergency certificate"). After taking several graduate education courses, she realized she no longer wanted to pursue education as a career. By this point she and Jim had moved to New Jersey, and she was pregnant with their first child, so she stayed at home for several years.[9][10][11]

After meeting some former classmates she was persuaded to study law,[9] and enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark, where she served as an editor of the Rutgers Law Review, and was one of two female summer associates at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft's Wall Street office.[12] She received her J.D. law degree in 1976. Shortly before graduating, she became pregnant with her second child, which made it difficult to pursue an active law career. Instead she worked from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings for walk-in clients.[7][9]

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Aw wikipedia.....

[-] 1 points by flip (6375) 2 years ago

yes google is easy - know how to use it?

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

yea, and I can copy and paste with the best of them too!

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/104416

That is a rebuttal to her "you" attack on those in business. I used google to dig deeper into Warren than a user based wiki page.......you can do that too you know.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

very conservative spin on the article, Concerned. but thanks anyway

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Of course it is...because there are two sides to every story. And the conservative side is the one that explains that while the comment that Warren made sounds really really good to the populace, the reality is somewhat different.

Her famous statement implies that the business owner didn't pay property taxes for education - everyone else did. It implies that the business owner didn't pay for his/her own higher education or pay the "dues" for experience that led to his/her creating a business that benefits others in its goods/services and provides a paycheck for who knows how many folks. It implies that the business owner didn't pay for education for his/her employees - the taxpayer did. Her statement implies that the business owner doesn't provide anything back to society - ignoring the reality of jobs and goods/services provided by and taxes paid by that business owner.

Her statement played very well with the masses - but critical thinkers saw it for what is was - nothing but very good rhetoric that divides people.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

it implies nothing more than we're in this together and no man is an island.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Only if you look at the statement out of the context in which it was made. Which is pretty clear when you look at the last part of her comment....

"But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

The business owner pays property taxes not only on his/her home, but also on the business property which is a "hunk" of the income of that business owner and is "paying forward" things like education.....The business owner pays "income tax".

The business owner - depending on the size of the business - pays a portion of the health care insurance of his/her employees. That is a "hunk" of their income paying forward.

The business owner - depending again on its size - matches 401K and Roth IRA deductions - that is a "hunk" of their paying forward.

The business owner pays a portion of the SS and Medicare Taxes for the employee - that is a "hunk" of their paying forward.

Many businesses pay for the continued education of their employees - that is paying forward a "hunk" of their income.

Businesses must have licensing and permits the fees for which go to the government - that is their paying forward.

Many give a portion of their profits to charitable organizations - that is their paying forward.

Many businesses employ private security - that is them providing jobs to the community and paying forward.........

The business owner contributes to the Unemployment Fund - that is a hunk of their paying forward.

Warren wants the business owner to pay forward a larger "hunk". Question is...how much larger should the "hunk" be according to Warren?

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

we all have to pay a percentage of our income in taxes and when you earn more you pay more. if you can write off expenses then you do that as GE has. your 'concern' about warren perhaps conceals other 'concerns' that you may not wish others to see

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

No. 47% of working Americans pay no Federal Income Tax. And it not that those who pay it all make "too little" to pay income tax, it is deductions and credits just like the businesses are allowed to take that allow them to pay no income tax.

Elizabeth Warren implied that business owners pay nothing "forward". It is simply not true.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Why? Besides the fact that she is a candidate of one of the two major factions of the one party of the 1%? Truly, I don't have a whole lot against Warren excepting that she is holding people in the Democratic Party which has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the Populists.

We have much more important things to do than defending Elizabeth Warren, including defending ourselves and building our movement, which even a Warren victory will not do. If she was serious she'd be occupying Boston.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

YOU love YOUR rich liberals. But you hate our rich conservatives. The richer the liberal the more you love them. While the poor liberal gets poorer. You get what you vote for. One day you will wake up and think, "Why the hell do I support rich liberal democrats that just want to get elected and use ME while I get poorer" Will you ever wake up? Nope, 50 more years of the liberal agenda where the poor keep getting poorer,,, as you all claim.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

We don't need another Harvard egghead running our country

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I do support Elizabeth Warren.

[-] 1 points by flip (6375) 2 years ago

you are ok - warren is a very good woman - read suskinds book about obama what he said about warren should be known to all - as my friend said - warren for president and obama for the supreme court! ---Elizabeth Herring[2] was born June 22, 1949,[3] in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to working class parents Pauline and Donald Herring.[4] She was the Herrings' fourth child, with three older brothers.[5] When Warren was twelve, her father, a janitor, had a heart attack, which led to a pay cut, medical bills, and eventually the loss of their car. Her mother went to work answering phones at Sears and Warren worked as a waitress.[5][6]

At Northwest Classen High School she was named "Oklahoma's top high-school debater", which led her to receive a full debate-team scholarship to George Washington University at the age of 16. Initially aspiring to be a teacher, she left after two years to marry her high-school boyfriend Jim Warren.[5][7] Jim was a NASA engineer in Houston at the time, and Elizabeth moved to Houston to live with him. She enrolled in the University of Houston where she graduated in 1970 with a degree in speech pathology and audiology, hoping specifically to work with brain-injured children.[8] She went on to teach for a year in a public school helping children with disabilities. However, she had not taken the required education courses to get a teaching certificate (she previously taught under an "emergency certificate"). After taking several graduate education courses, she realized she no longer wanted to pursue education as a career. By this point she and Jim had moved to New Jersey, and she was pregnant with their first child, so she stayed at home for several years.[9][10][11]

After meeting some former classmates she was persuaded to study law,[9] and enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark, where she served as an editor of the Rutgers Law Review, and was one of two female summer associates at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft's Wall Street office.[12] She received her J.D. law degree in 1976. Shortly before graduating, she became pregnant with her second child, which made it difficult to pursue an active law career. Instead she worked from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings for walk-in clients.[7][9]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Palinize Warren!!!

She deserves no respect,dignity or privacy. File ethics complaints,one after another till she resigns!

She is an elitist Leftist Wall st. 1%'er!

Palinize Warren!!!

She is a hypocrite,liar and is completely inept. She is actually too stupid to do the job. She doesn't have a clue,she is totally over her ugly head!

She is an Obama Drone!

Everyone knows she's a Lesbian,she's disgusting and inept!

Palinize Warren!!!

Palinize Warren!!!

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Does Warren have a cross-hair map? Noooooooooo.

http://elizabethwarren.com/priorities

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

She raised $5.7 million in last three months. She is corrupt and inept.

She is an elitist Leftist Wall st. 1%'er!

File ethics complaints,one after another until she resigns!

Palinize Warren!!!

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Dream on. :D

[-] -2 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren is the ultimate expression of the nanny state. Maybe they could just put her in charge of a Bureau of Big Decisions where the government would co-sign on everything you do. Government's no substitute for being a competent person. Warren disagrees and would set up the government bureaucracy to prove it.

[-] 3 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Maybe you should read a little bit about what bankers without nannies do. Sadly they are unable to handle risk and very much in need of nannies. We let them do whatever they wanted while Greenspan ran the fed and look at the mess they made with our money, Maybe you like to think of your savings as a big pot of cash for gamblers to do what they want, I like to think it is will be cared for by responsible people I hope a few people out there will get some sense and vote for warren and more like her, it's not working to let the lunatics run the asylum. I hope they allow folks of your persuasion to deposit your money in unregulated banks ---but that's not where I want my savings.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

Demcapitalist, you could invest in a home, rather than a savings account. (joke)

[-] 0 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

It's bad enough with the nanny state we already have without making it bigger. People already think they can eat or sign about anything because government is looking out for them. With Warren, this atrophy will just get worse. But government can never be a substitute for the brain in your head, as much as people like Warren try to convince us otherwise.

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

You seem to have no Idea what happened to our banking system under Greenspan's fed. Do you live under a rock or just get all your info from FOX news?

[-] 0 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

Government can't protect you from yourself. But the underlying premise of Warren is that if we'll only empower her, it can.

[-] 0 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

We had a decent banking system for 50 years from the mid 1930's till Greenspan. every country that is kicking our ass has done it with a strong government behind them. Japan when the put all our electronic firms out of business, China that bunch of commies is kicking our ass with the help or their government, but you expect America to just roll over and take it and hope to become like one of those no government banana republics with no healthcare or jobs or social security. it's a business model that has been tried. Take a trip to Congo and when you get back tell me how the no gov thing worked out there. While your there see if you can get some of the "doctors without boarders" folks to come here and help us after your folks get the country how you want it.

[-] -1 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

You should note that the societies with the most government are having the most problems. Greece is the ultimate where half the fucking country worked for government. They're finished. Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal... all the welfare states and they're fucked too as the borrowed money has run its course. Now they face their unions that can't comprehend why the largesse can't keep flowing. All these countries are scrambling for growth to manage their debts and they're all looking for ways to become more flexible, more like us so they can survive.

Others aren't far behind them. We're rebounding and Europe is imploding. China has a colossal real estate problem and a hollow banking system as a result. If they can't export, they die. Japan blew a hole in its own head too. Ever heard of the "lost decade"? That's them.

It's true here too. Stifled states like Illinois and New Jersey are among the worst performing. Texas is among the best.

Our country remains the best in large part because of our flexibility, because we have less of a rigidity inducing government.

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Once again a little reading on your part would be key. Greece had a right wing government in place when they made a deal with Goldman Saks to hide the extent of their debt so that they could join the European union.All that Greece proves to me is that right wing governments are lying scumbags along with Goldman. You know who helped Japan have that lost decade? Morgan Stanley's scammy bond deals that covered up Japans bad bank debts and prolonged the problem. There's quite a few northern European counties that have great healthcare and education programs that are very successful along with Canada. Where is there a successful no government country?

[-] -1 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

Greece hid what it did as a way to avoid confronting reality. It's a giant welfare state where half the country works for government. It finally hit the wall when the markets understood that they'd default. Now the borrowed money high times are coming to an end. Of course, the unions don't get it, they have no understanding why foreign creditors won't continue to lend money that'll never be paid back. "Turn the machines back on!"

Italy is similar. Italy's biggest problem right now is the rigidity imposed by unions that force the whole country to live in denial. Italy needs growth. Unions and welfare states like to live off of the benefits of growth, but resist at every turn the changes needed to create it.

Belgium is another country that'll be more in the press soon as another failed welfare state about to run out of debt capacity.

Japan screwed itself. It was state managed mercantilism, similar to China today. Japan's culture and government are why they couldn't move on from their massive banks losses, not Morgan Stanley.

Norway is a tiny country that funds its welfare state off of oil.

Finland, you should know, ranks very high for economic freedom. Sweden is another tiny country and not much of an example. Germany has been propped up by an undervalued currency. If it wasn't for the Euro whose value is suppressed by the even sicker other Euro-states, it's exports would be massively repriced and the trade surplus would vanish.

Our own country is an example of a low government country. That's our history. Wealth comes before a stifling government bent on redistributing and living off of it. And now we're separating from the problems of other countries thanks to our model. They have problems changing, for us it's easier.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

This is not a low government country its a corporate welfare state. We spend trillions on a overblown military, we spend trillions bailing out banks that we let do whatever they wanted with our money till they used so much leverage and risk that the needed 14 trillion dollars in loans and bailouts just to get bank to even, we give huge subsidies to oil companies meanwhile with all that excess government spending we can't come up with a healthcare system that works for sick people, just one that takes money from the healthy and kicks them off their plans when they get to sick to work. You realize 14 trillion is our entire national debt for the life of our country and banks got themselves into that much of a mess within 7 years of repealing Glass / Steagall. Germany does better than us because they fought to keep manufacturing at home rather than just bend over to China like we do.

[-] 0 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

Germany was able to export because of the Euro. If they went back to the D-Mark, it's valuation would make much of what they sell uncompetitive. Germany won via exports by linking itself to the PIIGS, but now those same PIIGS are dragging it down. So, no win there.

Europe rations healthcare. Government says "no" a lot more than does private insurance. Just a fact. But if you are worried about healthcare, support ending the mass immigration of people with zippo for education and skills as they'll OBVIOUSLY join the ranks of people that can't (or won't) pay for their own healthcare. Close the border and deport the illegals: improve healthcare.

"Huge subsidies" to oil companies. You realize, I hope, that oil companies pay huge amounts of taxes and royalties.

Here's Exxon Mobil's annual report for 2010. Have a look at page 64. They showed about $86 billion for 2010 or almost triple what the shareholders earned.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000119312511047394/d10k.htm

You should smarten up a little too with the "... we spend trillions bailing out banks..." TARP was under a trillion and has been mostly PAID BACK with a profit. So, "invested" is a better word. Goldman and Morgan Stanley paid it back and taxpayers made money. You can find a MS article, but here's Goldman.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/much-ado-about-tarp-profits

Here's another on the broader program. The funny part too for all the "government knows best" crowd is that the biggest losses of all were in the entities MOST closely associated with the government, Fannie and Freddie. The biggest mistake of all leading up to the crisis was the merger of politics and housing finance.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/08/surprise-the-big-bad-bailout-is-paying-off/

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

The fed gave no interest loans to banks between that and the bailouts it was 14 trillion. Where does the fed get trillions to loan banks at tiny interest rate so that banks can keep up the gambling spree they have been on for a decade? Oh right the corporate welfare system. Yes Fannie and Freddie leaned on the Gov backing to make tons of money for themselves --corporate welfare at it's best. XOM didn't pay any taxes last year.

[-] 0 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

You're really ignorant. Fannie, Freddie, and FHA represent the merger of politics and finance. That idea exploded. The sick part is that they're still doing it. FDR's brilliance idea in the depression that came back to kick us in the balls because government can never stop what it starts. The closer government was, the worse the losses.

The Fed did flood the system with liquidity and interest rates fell for about everything, including financing of the Federal Government. Where did it get the money? It created it. But what the Fed did largely worked and that liquidity was paid back. Goldman and Morgan Stanley in particular provided nice profits for taxpayers.

As far as taxes go, look that stuff up for yourself. I gave you an SEC link to actual financial statements. That way, it'll be a little easier in the future for you to do something other than to repeat leftist talking points.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

I'm ignorant? why because you don't know the extent of the bailout? Moron.

[-] 0 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

Just say it, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and many others you hate paid it back with a profit to taxpayers. The things government was closest to, had the biggest losses. Kinda tough when facts confront demagoguery.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

bankers without nannies!!

bankers without nannies!!

bankers without nannies!!

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

LOL BWN's we can put that with the rest of initial banking SPV CDO CDS MBS

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I think I'm gonna post that every single time I hear that term nannie state from some lyin repelican fuck . . .

I mean, look at this shit . . .

this is what their bumper sticker sloganeering has gotten us.

[-] -2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Maybe you should read a little bit about what bankers without nannies do

LoL!

bankers without nannies

bankers without nannies

That is such an apt response to those nannie state fools I'm tempted to post it everywhere . . .

Then I'd probably get another spankin from Jart -

hehe

say . . .

spank me baby!

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

LOL Reading a new book "The Devils Derivatives" about the invention and execution of some of the financial products that took us down, SPV's CDO's CDS's, ETC. Pretty scummy behavior. There really did used to be an ethic on wall street that put the customer first and attempted to be honest about risk. and these guy really did keep the good stuff for themselves and stuff pure crap into these products and sell them off to pension funds, foreign banks etc. It's bad enough that we used to make the best stuff in the world and now all we can buy is crap made in China, but our best export "financial products" turn out to be sad scams. It's not just unethical it's embarrassing.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Don't be embarrassed man.

Be outraged.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Wall St. is the ultimate expression of the nanny state. Profits are private and losses are socialized. We have socialism in America - socialism for banks and corporations.

[-] -1 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

So is signing something you don't understand figuring your government has rendered everything in life harmless.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

It might help if you tried to make youself intelligible. WTF, in other words, are you yammering about?

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

maybe you should apprise yourself of her views before making misguided, patently false derogatory statements.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

bankers without nannies cannot handle risk!!

bankers without nannies!!

bankers without nannies!!

bankers without nannies!!