Yeah, this Massachusetts Senate Race is going to rock [Elizabeth Warren]
If you can’t see the video, Warren is speaking to a crowd in someone’s porch or living room, it looks like. Warren explains, and defends, what she calls the “underlying social contract.” This social contract is what all progressives and liberals believe. It has been described before, but not by someone so smart and funny and not so passionately and simply. This is the kind of video that can convince those who vote against their own interests time and again just because “the Republicans want to keep my taxes low.”
If Warren keeps this up, she will win. And perhaps…. 2016. Cuomo v. Warren would be a nice primary. But let’s not get ahead… too much.
Here’s a transcript
I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.’ No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. 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 first part was equally great. I’m so down with this.
Yeah, I laughed at that.
It is like hearing a long-lost language. It is like being a Roman refugee in the early Byzantine Empire and suddenly hearing someone speaking Latin.
I think I am going to send my Coons/Carper money to Warren instead, and tell them why.
OK that was a bit of an exaggeration – I wasn’t planning to give anything to Carper anyway.
THAT’S what a REAL Democrat sounds like.
BTW, has Carper announced his support for the Obama jobs bill yet? Have any members of the Delaware delegation done so?
Or do they not believe that having the wealthy ‘pay it forward for the next kid who comes along’ is good policy?
In other words, are they Democrats or not? (In Carper’s case, this is a rhetorical question.)
Couldn’t you just picture someone challenging Carper the way that Warren is challenging Scott Brown? Don’t tell me that it can’t be done.
‘pay it forward for the next child who comes along’
The very definition of social insurance. As opposed to the Republican ideal of “I got mine.”
For Delaware, Coons is looking like Paul Wellstone. I have no problem with Coons right now.
“Couldn’t you just picture someone challenging Carper the way that Warren is challenging Scott Brown? Don’t tell me that it can’t be done.”
El Somnalbulo 2016
Jason, I am the dictionary definition of a ‘flawed messenger’, and I know it.
I DO hope that I’ll still be around in 2016, however.
So far, I agree with you about Coons. I just haven’t noticed whether any member of our delegation has publicly endorsed the Obama jobs plan yet.
I’m with the sleepy one, but as my grandmother used to say: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Man, I LOVE Elizabeth.
Another video that has me laughing is the following:
Watch Warren’s body language as Mike Barnicle on Morning Joe was whining like a beltway pundit that he is. And then watch her destroy him.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I have a heart vs. head problem with Coons on economic policy (can’t complain about Coons on social policy). My heart says he is the right kind of guy, but my head looks at his votes and public statements and sees all kinds of red flags that need to be clarified.
Coons’s public statements are buzzword-compliant with White House messaging on economic policy, following along even as it drifts well right of Coons’s positions at the start of his campaign. I don’t want to hear White House buzzwords; I want to know what Chris Coons thinks.
1. Coons first supported expiration of Bush tax cuts, then fell in line behind the WH for the “temporary” extension, but now is not talking about expiration at all and is talking about “tax reform” instead, following the WH messaging shift. So is Coons still behind expiring the 2001/2010 tax cuts, or not?
2. Coons’s “ideal tax reform” is Bowles Simpson, which insists that the top marginal rate must be no more than 29% and possibly as low as 23%. This is not what I want to hear from any Democrat.
3. Coons proposes to “increase revenue while lowering rates.” This is an insult to our intelligence. No more goddam unicorns! This is straight-up voodoo economics. The twist this time is that instead of the Laffer curve, the supposed justification is that closing loopholes will provide the unicorn-power for increasing revenue. Show me the CBO-scored plan, and maybe I’ll consider it.
4. Coons wants to “broaden the revenue base” (another WH buzzword). What the hell does this mean? If that means closing corporate loopholes, or lifting the wage tax caps to broaden the base for Social Security, fine. But if it means adjusting the brackets to collect income tax from workers who currently do not make enough to owe taxes, then that just sucks. To be fair I haven’t looked closely at the Bowles Simpson brackets to see if that’s what is going on.
El Som, and everyone, Chris Coons is coming to speak to the PDD on Tuesday at 6:30. And we will get him on record about that.
Heilman: “doing jewish work for Parry”? OMG!
There’s a new favorite for First Female President.
I watched both the post and the response attachment and felt she did much better in the livingroom than on Morning Joe.
Clearly, you don’t want her to look “over-handled”, but when she just says what she wants about another topic, she looks like she’s evading the question and instantly becomes just another “politician”. With the Chinesse defense issue, she should have said, “….I really need to expand what I know, but on the surface, I feel A, B, C, … , what’s more important to me right now is 1, 2, 3….” And then, be prepared the next time it comes up.
All in all, I like her…. she just needs a little help.
You know who she sounded like? Al Franken before he started running. I heard him making the EXACT same argument on his Air America show.
Of course, Al said that every wealthy person is standing on the shoulders of another wealthy person who is standing on the shoulders of another weatthy person who is at the bottom of it all standing on some native American’s neck.
“Always Watching” has a formula that looks guaranteed to make Dem candidates sound like phony losers.
In the morning Joe clip, she didn’t evade anything, she stuck to her point that the economic is linked closely to the military.
OMG what a joke. The True meaning of Christmas, I mean Communist. You people are so far gone you should consider moving to Venezuela. I hear they will be looking for a new leader soon too.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/no-one-got-rich-on-your-own/question-2174563/
KCurtis, Thanks for the comment. The comment itself isn’t very substantial, but just the fact that you took the time to post it is a great sign that Warren’s message it on target.
If by that you mean her message is as completely ridiculous as it sounds I agree. After all if it wasn’t for those roads and fire stations Paul Revere’s Silver Shop would have surely gone under.
KCurtis makes a good point. Let’s get rid of all roads and fire stations and go back to the good ol’ days of Paul Revere. I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!
Yes, the good old days of Paul Revere, when we were so broke the FRENCH had to pull our ass out of the fire when we declared independence but couldn’t follow through. Let’s all go begging to the French to help us meet our world obligations now! Being a superpower is just too damned expensive, and we’re tired.
It is almost worth noting that Paul Revere made his post-Revolutionary War money supporting the shipbuilding industry and was contracted to do the copper dome of the Massachusetts state house. I suspect a good deal of that was made possible by tax dollars.
Teabags like K think they have a really winner in the tax version of the chicken/egg argument. You have to pity them a little bit.
Thank God patriots like Paul Revere went ridin’ through the land, ringin’ those bells, and died fighting for lower taxes.
The great thing is that KCurtis sees no problems with that line, while I can see the error in almost all of the clauses.
“After all if it wasn’t for those roads and fire stations Paul Revere’s Silver Shop would have surely gone under.”
From Wikipedia:
“His business plans in the late 1780s were stymied by a shortage of adequate money in circulation. His plans rested on his entrepreneurial role as a manufacturer of cast iron, brass, and copper products. Alexander Hamilton’s national policies regarding banks and industrialization exactly matched his dreams, and he became an ardent Federalist committed to building a robust economy and a powerful nation.”
Maybe you should choose another example, K.
It is very interesting, the discussion of the social contract. There doesn’t seem to be any recognition or discussion that there has to be some limits to the social contract. First, there are limits to what can be paid for. That is reality. As well, how much of what is paid for provides low results. Look here in Delaware and how much is spent on education. Can anyone say they are happy with the results. But do you see any pressure on state officials to spend that money more wisely. We have extended unemployment compensation benefits over and over again, and the number of people on unemployment doesn’t seem to change. Keep doing the same thing? We spent tons on stimulus, all borrowed and what do we have to show for it. Now there is discussion of stimulus II. It is my feeling that there is room to discuss the social contract and how we spend that money which never gets addressed in today’s public dialogue. Long term, here like every other country, government jobs, benefits and budgets will have to go down whether you like it or not. No country , government or person can indefinitely spend more than they bring in. So when will we discuss how to take limited money and get it to result in something.