Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Warren on Obama Admin: “They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes, jobs" [View all]Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)99. President Obama signs the bills that Congress passes.
Congress will start the new year with an old fight: whether to extend jobless benefits for 1.3 million long-term unemployed. Obama urged lawmakers to restore the benefits.
"Right now, a bipartisan group in Congress is working on a three-month extension of unemployment insurance -- and if they pass it, I will sign it. For decades, Republicans and Democrats put partisanship and ideology aside to offer some security for job-seekers, even when the unemployment rate was lower than it is today. Instead of punishing families who can least afford it, Republicans should make it their New Year's resolution to do the right thing, and restore this vital economic security for their constituents right now," Obama said.
Democrats argue the program is needed to sustain economic recovery and offer a lifeline to those struggling to keep their heads above water financially. Republicans counter the benefits are an economic drain and a disincentive to looking for work. The Congressional Budget Office estimates continuing them for another year will cost about $26 billion.
Many Republicans, including potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, have long insisted that the Great Recession-era extension of emergency federal benefits deters job hunting and is unnecessary as the economy rebounds and unemployment declines.
"Right now, a bipartisan group in Congress is working on a three-month extension of unemployment insurance -- and if they pass it, I will sign it. For decades, Republicans and Democrats put partisanship and ideology aside to offer some security for job-seekers, even when the unemployment rate was lower than it is today. Instead of punishing families who can least afford it, Republicans should make it their New Year's resolution to do the right thing, and restore this vital economic security for their constituents right now," Obama said.
Democrats argue the program is needed to sustain economic recovery and offer a lifeline to those struggling to keep their heads above water financially. Republicans counter the benefits are an economic drain and a disincentive to looking for work. The Congressional Budget Office estimates continuing them for another year will cost about $26 billion.
Many Republicans, including potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, have long insisted that the Great Recession-era extension of emergency federal benefits deters job hunting and is unnecessary as the economy rebounds and unemployment declines.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/04/politics/president-weekly-address/
For all those quaking on the right at the sight of an ascendant Warren, rest easy. Warrens no lefty. In fact, Warren was a registered Republican into her 40s. When it comes to ideology, Warren makes for a rotten heir to Kennedy.
I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore, Warren says. I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role.
Did she vote for Ronald Reagan, who ushered in much of the financial deregulation which Warren has devoted her life to stopping? Im not going to talk about who I voted for, she says.
I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore, Warren says. I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role.
Did she vote for Ronald Reagan, who ushered in much of the financial deregulation which Warren has devoted her life to stopping? Im not going to talk about who I voted for, she says.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/elizabeth-warren-i-created-occupy-wall-street.html (The same interview when she takes credit for Occupy)
Elizabeth Warren was "in her 40s" from 1989-1999. She stood with the party of Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm. She stood with George HW Bush. She stood with those people at a time when she was damn well educated enough and old enough to know better.
ICTMN had by that point requested multiple interviews with Warren in order for her to clarify her statements on her ancestry, to explain how she highlighted that self-reported ancestry while working in academia, as well as to examine the fall-out that has occurred in Indian country regarding identity issues as her campaign fiasco has stayed in the news.
In the meantime, throughout the month of May, Warren continued to do interviews with the mainstream and local press, including national appearances on MSNBC.
On May 25, after several more requests from ICTMN, Harney responded by e-mail, Thanks for your request(s)! I will keep you posted. Thanks for understanding. Have a wonderful weekend.
To date, Warren has done no interviews with the American Indian press. There are dozens of tribal papers and national Native news outlets, including well-respected Cherokee outlets, that she could have reached out to in order to help calm the controversy and alleviate Native concerns about both her background and its impact on Indian citizens.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/31/elizabeth-warren-avoids-american-indian-media-115802
So before St. Elizabeth criticizes Barack Obama for things the Senate & House should have done, she should STFU and, instead, explain to us all what she found so appealing about Daddy Bush, Newt, and Phil Gramm (the people really responsible for all of the things she purports to oppose), and she can explain to Native American media what the Hell she was thinking when she claimed Native American ethnicity.
She says a lot of things that appeal to progressives, but she's as phony as a $3 bill.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
145 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Warren on Obama Admin: “They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes, jobs" [View all]
kpete
Oct 2014
OP
at this very moment, no one is 'running for president' or have you news the rest
LawDeeDah
Oct 2014
#58
show me where anyone here has denied Clinton said, in 2012, she would not run in 2016
wyldwolf
Oct 2014
#37
I thought I answered that in my post. But have you ever made a plan that needed to be
A Simple Game
Oct 2014
#79
No you are the one with the special insight. I have been saying all along that
A Simple Game
Oct 2014
#92
People "plan" a lot of things... That doesn't mean that plans don't change...
cascadiance
Oct 2014
#80
...and she has given no indication she is - which is why you resort to parsing her words.
wyldwolf
Oct 2014
#122
Correcting implies that what we have said is WRONG! You've not been able to do that!
cascadiance
Oct 2014
#138
cascadiance says Warren hasn't said she's not running. Warren says she has. Record corrected.
wyldwolf
Oct 2014
#145
I don't. If someone repeatedly said the world was flat, I'd correct that, too.
wyldwolf
Oct 2014
#121
And there's a far greater chance that Warren might run for president than the world being flat...
cascadiance
Oct 2014
#124
Just because you're talking in circles doesn't mean my responses are meaningless
wyldwolf
Oct 2014
#140
And Hillary Clinton has ALSO repeatedly "not announced" her plans to run either...
cascadiance
Oct 2014
#81
I haven't seen her once say "she is not running" but I HAVE seen Elizabeth Warren say so repeatedly
VanillaRhapsody
Oct 2014
#88
What I *believe* is that the corporate PTB WANT us all to "believe" that Clinton is runniing...
cascadiance
Oct 2014
#93
What I am saying is that what we believe doesn't really matter at this point to them...
cascadiance
Oct 2014
#96
Yes he did have obstacles, but he appointed conservatives, friends of Wall Street as his
rhett o rick
Oct 2014
#40
"he appointed friends of the people he was stuck with who were there when he arrived"
BuelahWitch
Oct 2014
#54
The goal of both parties was clear after the financial collapse: Save the Rich
Dragonfli
Oct 2014
#8
To be honest I think rescuing the banks made sense at the time and it still does.
cstanleytech
Oct 2014
#15
Oh I agree but some here seem to be advocating for letting the banks just go completely
cstanleytech
Oct 2014
#142
Ask yourself, why is the system broken? The answer is that we allow our politicians to be bought.
Dustlawyer
Oct 2014
#19
So who is *forcing* Obama to push to "fast track" TPP in secret to the congress?
cascadiance
Oct 2014
#85
Obama didn't have enough of a record really to ID him as absolutely third-way
NorthCarolina
Oct 2014
#101
You are correct. After the disastrous previous eight years we were ready to believe.
Enthusiast
Oct 2014
#108
he made no attempt to do so. and yes, Presidents have gone after "the money changers"
cali
Oct 2014
#31
A lot of the safeguards FDR put into place were disbanded during the '80s and '90s.
BuelahWitch
Oct 2014
#53
The 1% protects itself. Obama bought into their lies hook, line, and sinker.
blkmusclmachine
Oct 2014
#52
Could someone tell Elizabeth Warren about the HARP program, maybe she forgot.
Thinkingabout
Oct 2014
#55
It seems like he's more against Hillary Clinton whom he claims McCain supports over Rand Paul...
cascadiance
Oct 2014
#133