Liz Warren

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Liz Warren

    So,  a big debate last night, and none of the progressives are filling us in.  For one, I would like to know if the party apparatus muzzled her, or is she still spouting Marxist nonsense.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    She's a very smart lady.

    How those smarts will translate to being a good senator is anyone's guess...

    ...but a lot of people are paying to try and find out.


    The nomination isn't hers yet, but if she wins, then her debates with Mr. Brown will be spectacles in their own right.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : She was a Harvard Prof ? Education does not make a good senator. I'm sure she is verbose, after years of practise.   If Brown stays out of the blame game he will be fine.  On the other hand there are many give it to me's in MA.
    Posted by howiewho[/QUOTE]

    I might agree (as important as education is to all of us)...

    ...however, seeing as we are currently in an economic crisis, it might help to have a senator who is well-versed on the subject as it pertains to public policy.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    "On the other hand there are many give it to me's in MA."

    Ya got that right.
    The redistributionist Professor wants badly to rob Peter to pay Paul..and there are many many Pauls in Mass.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    Bela Pelosi II
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : I might agree (as important as education is to all of us)... ...however, seeing as we are currently in an economic crisis, it might help to have a senator who is well-versed on the subject as it pertains to public policy.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    True but the Obama Harvard Team hasn't been able to put more than an temporary positive bump in the economy as we look head on at double dip recession.  So relying on Warren's Harvard economic public policy background would almost qualify as the definition of insanity.  It would make for great GOP ads come the election.

    Now relying on someone's proven economic public policy that has created jobs that would be a plus, but those folks are running for president.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : True but the Obama Harvard Team hasn't been able to put more than an temporary positive bump in the economy as we look head on at double dip recession.  So relying on Warren's Harvard economic public policy background would almost qualify as the definition of insanity.  It would make for great GOP ads come the election. Now relying on someone's proven economic public policy that has created jobs that would be a plus, but those folks are running for president.
    Posted by massmoderateJoe[/QUOTE]

    As 1/100th of the senate, she would definitely raise the collective IQ of that chamber.

    Also, the repubs blocked her as head of the CFPB, remember?  The reason was not her stellar policy qualifications but her consistent emphasis on protecting the middle class.

    If you must insist on painting all Harvard profs with the same brush, then you're just as guilty of the kind of sophistry you aim to denounce.

    And perhaps ironically, Ms. Warren might be an esteemed faculty mind, but she sure doesn't speak or act like one.  Repubs and dems alike who espouse so-called "middle class values" only wish they had her established credibility on the topic.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    Brown has no worries!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    If Obama felt he needed her, he could have recess appointed her.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : As 1/100th of the senate, she would definitely raise the collective IQ of that chamber. Also, the repubs blocked her as head of the CFPB, remember?  The reason was not her stellar policy qualifications but her consistent emphasis on protecting the middle class. If you must insist on painting all Harvard profs with the same brush, then you're just as guilty of the kind of sophistry you aim to denounce. And perhaps ironically, Ms. Warren might be an esteemed faculty mind, but she sure doesn't speak or act like one.  Repubs and dems alike who espouse so-called "middle class values" only wish they had her established credibility on the topic.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    I read some of debate stories today; she has a good story, polished and she had a great response to the military service question as she's from a military service family, while others had to dance with the answer.  Almost sounds like a well placed question by those in support of her.

    She comes off as very intelligent and with much more savvy than Martha but then our very smart president hasn't been able to lead very well.  I'm only painting the Harvard crowd that is part of the Obama Administration with the brush of ineptness. 

    She would have been blocked by the Congress because over her aggressiveness against business interests, which would have a negative impact on job creation.

    One story I read implied that the debaters all tried to out moonbat each other,(not my words) to the point of being much further left then Obama, maybe that was the intent.

    Romney has a Harvard MBA but then again I don't support him for other reason, but a Harvard degree put in the hands of the right person is a powerful thing.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]If Obama felt he needed her, he could have recess appointed her.
    Posted by UserName99[/QUOTE]

    True.  And Repubs weren't alone in thinking she wasn't a good fit for the job, so I revise my previous intimation.

    As it turns out, she was too "independent and outspoken" to get the post, yet those traits might make a good lawmaker.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : True.  And Repubs weren't alone in thinking she wasn't a good fit for the job, so I revise my previous intimation. As it turns out, she was too "independent and outspoken" to get the post, yet those traits might make a good lawmaker.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    The same 'Independent' trait that Brown has.  It will be a good match up.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren :  She would have been blocked by the Congress because over her aggressiveness against business interests, which would have a negative impact on job creation.
    Posted by massmoderateJoe[/QUOTE]

    This statement bothers me, and not just because it's impossible to quantify and therefore a falsehood.

    What bothers me is the notion that federal regulators in charge of keeping an eye on certain industries need to be less "aggressive".

    It means that the govt MUST be beholden to industry at all times and that ANY digression of policy which may favor the people over the companies MUST be stopped at all costs.  This is backwards - the opposite of liberty and freedom.

    If businesses are violating the law and flouting regulations, then why don't they deserve to be investigated and punished like any other criminal would?? 

    Why is there a "War On Drugs", but not a "War On Insider Trading" or a "War On Price Gouging" or a "War On Bribery"...??
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : The same 'Independent' trait that Brown has.  It will be a good match up.
    Posted by UserName99[/QUOTE]

    You mean, the one he has yet to brandish?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : This statement bothers me, and not just because it's impossible to quantify and therefore a falsehood. What bothers me is the notion that federal regulators in charge of keeping an eye on certain industries need to be less "aggressive". It means that the govt MUST be beholden to industry at all times and that ANY digression of policy which may favor the people over the companies MUST be stopped at all costs.  This is backwards - the opposite of liberty and freedom. If businesses are violating the law and flouting regulations, then why don't they deserve to be investigated and punished like any other criminal would??  Why is there a "War On Drugs", but not a "War On Insider Trading" or a "War On Price Gouging" or a "War On Bribery"...??
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Matty,

    A lot in life is impossible to quantify unless you debate and agree on the assumptions needed to quantify it.

    Warren has been viewed as very unfriendly to business, not that she's for strong controls but she is more from the Occupy Boston crowd and I fully expect to see her there soon.  She is a wealth redistributer.

    Now regulation to prevent price gouging, predatory loans (if there is such a thing) bribery and corruption there is no confusion there.

    Ms Warrens's motives are suspect because I don't agree with her, and conversely the same is true for you.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]Sorry. We were busy planning how to use unions to get illegal immigrants to kill all conservatives and their grandmothers. But we DVR'd it!
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    So are you going with the Rosanne Barr guillotine idea or was that to "french revolution" for you?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : Matty, A lot in life is impossible to quantify unless you debate and agree on the assumptions needed to quantify it. Warren has been viewed as very unfriendly to business, not that she's for strong controls but she is more from the Occupy Boston crowd and I fully expect to see her there soon.  She is a wealth redistributer. Now regulation to prevent price gouging, predatory loans (if there is such a thing) bribery and corruption there is no confusion there.
    Posted by massmoderateJoe[/QUOTE]

    There you go again, making derogatory claims and ad hominems and thinking you're making a point.

    Predatory loans don't exist?  Are you @%#^ing high...??!?

    Why doesn't it occur to you that some businesses may not be friendly to the american public's interests??

    Why are Ms. Warren's motives suspect, but business owners' motives are pure...??


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : There you go again, making derogatory claims and ad hominems and thinking you're making a point. Predatory loans don't exist?  Are you @%#^ing high...??!? Why doesn't it occur to you that some businesses may not be friendly to the american public's interests?? Why are Ms. Warren's motives suspect, but business owners' motives are pure...??
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    So there were mortgage programs supporting public policy to give everyone a chance to own a home and they are deemed predatory?  Many people got loans at zero down, no skin in the game and they then they when they couldn't make payments because they lost their job does that make them predatory?  Does taking a variable rate mortgage make it predatory?  No, they're only called predatory when the economy tanks and people are subject to the consequences of the risk they signed up for.

    I'm sure there were some shyster mortgage brokers who were just driven by clsoing mortgages, but I don't think it was an industry issue. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : So there were mortgage programs supporting public policy to give everyone a chance to own a home and they are deemed predatory?  Many people got loans at zero down, no skin in the game and they then they when they couldn't make payments because they lost their job does that make them predatory?  Does taking a variable rate mortgage make it predatory?  No, they're only called predatory when the economy tanks and people are subject to the consequences of the risk they signed up for. I'm sure there were some shyster mortgage brokers who were just driven by clsoing mortgages, but I don't think it was an industry issue. 
    Posted by massmoderateJoe[/QUOTE]

    You are directly enabling those who contributed to the collapse and covering for them by trying to make this argument.

    Look up the term usury and what it means.

    The notion that poor homebuyers caused the collapse is so ludicrous as to be indefensible.  It's not true.  Never was.  Even making this claim itself is class warfare of a reprehensible sort. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Liz Warren

    In Response to Re: Liz Warren:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Liz Warren : You are directly enabling those who contributed to the collapse and covering for them by trying to make this argument. Look up the term usury and what it means. The notion that poor homebuyers caused the collapse is so ludicrous as to be indefensible.  It's not true.  Never was.  Even making this claim itself is class warfare of a reprehensible sort. 
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    I beg to differ with your version of reality.

    I'll say it differently; too many people got loans in the 2000's that they never would have qualified for in the past, and guess what the grand experiment didn't work.  Instead of loosening criteria a little to qualify more people on the fringe they just let everyone in; without good credit, with out income verification to meet public policy goals and that's usury.  I don't think so.  That's public policy run amuck.

    This grand experiment plus poor regulations on the newly created deriviative market sunk the economy.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share