Elizabeth Warren Turns The IBM Stock Hit Job On Her Into A Total Fail
SNIP (video here)
When Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren was asked about her stock holdings specifically IBM by Jennifer Granholm, she said, The IBM stock, yes, we own it. Ive owned it since, it was actually a pretty modest investment made thirty five years ago I think, and the moneys been reinvested. If I were in Congress, Id sell it in a heartbeat. I dont think people in Congress ought to own stock in companies where they can influence the outcomes. Other than that, my retirement funds are held in big mutual funds. Theres no way to influence the outcome of any part of that at least not that I know, but the heart of this is about what our public officials should be doing. I dont think they ought to be trading on insider information, but more importantly, I dont think they ought to be out there influencing potentially their own pocket books when theyre making decisions on behalf of the public.
This question stemmed from a piece in HuffPo a few days ago that read more like a hit job on Elizabeth Warren than investigative journalism. Elizabeth Warren never said that she wasnt rich, but that she wasnt a wealthy individual with a big stock portfolio. Her statement was not in the same ballpark as Mitt Romneys claims that he is unemployed too, or that he has feared losing his job.
It may come as a shock to some, but a person can have money, and still be a strong advocate for those who have less. The big bombshell of the HuffPo story was that Warren owns stock in IBM and is pretty wealthy herself. The difference between Elizabeth Warren and Mitt Romney is honesty. Warren directed stated that she owned the stock and said that she would sell it in a heartbeat. There was no evasiveness in her answer. There was no dodge.
SNIP
Full article (and video) here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/elizabeth-warren-ibm
aquart
(69,014 posts)Javaman
(62,926 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)"Warren directed stated that she owned... " With so many out of work, where are the editors/proofreaders? I get that it's a website, and we hold them to different standards, but ... since when was it okay to release stuff with such obvious errors?
gateley
(62,683 posts)READ them anymore.
I used to proof copy in an ad agency and I went over each piece THREE times. Once to make sure it read right, and twice to check for typos and misspellings. (No spellcheck back then!) But you really need to read it. That jumped out at me, too.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,011 posts)which would explain the increasing number of idiom errors one sees in print.
Using "rein " in stead of "reign" etc.( my personal peeve).
MADem
(135,425 posts)As in "Mitt should rein in those absurd ideas!" and "Newt was given free rein to run his big fat mouth all day!"
If you are using "reign" you need to be talking about a king or queen.
http://www.beedictionary.com/common-errors/reign_vs_rein
All these years and that has ducked my notice!
Thank you for posting this. I would never have known I was coronating people and even things left and right.
thesquanderer
(12,241 posts)mine are: lead instead of led, and loose instead of lose, with an honorable mention to compliment instead of complement
gateley
(62,683 posts)ashling
(25,771 posts)$10,000?
Romney's bet? I think your joke went over my head.
I bugs me. And always question the credibility of the publisher.
gateley
(62,683 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Response to Tx4obama (Original post)
Post removed
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I support her strongly, and I think that would be a good idea because I'm sure she pays her fair share. Most of her ongoing income is probably earned through work, not through investments. She is/was a law professor at a leading Ivy League school. That probably pays pretty well. She also does other work and would have to pay income taxes on her earnings.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)She may be well off now, but that was not always so for her. Can't say the same rMoney.
on edit: typo
INdemo
(7,002 posts)running for President this year...but she should be the nominee in 2016 but then maybe by then free elections
will be a thing of the past...
Skinner
(63,645 posts)It looks like their URL is just showing a generic placeholder. Is anyone else getting this?
http://www.politicususa.com
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)kemah
(276 posts)That's the crux of the situation. Chris Matthews has it right, here is a man who was born rich, got richer with his daddy's connections, has set up a trust fund of $100 million dollars for his kids. How is he going to relate to the average Joe's problems. He sees the world from very different perspective. He just relates to his millionaire friends and puts up with the rest of us as just a chore want has to do to run for office.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)And I love this sentence: "Elizabeth Warren never said that she wasnt rich . . ."
You know that we've got the M$M on the run whenever a politician has to defend being rich (eternal thanks to OWS). Along with the Stock Act (should it pass), we have the beginnings of a true discussion on the class warfare being conducted by the corporations.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)No doubt about that.