This message was self-deleted by its author

[lostincalifornia]

This message was self-deleted by its author (lostincalifornia) on Sun Aug 3, 2014, 09:11 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[djean111]

1. Hopefully, Warren's ideas and stances will be part of 2014 and 2016.

I am curious to see Hillary's stances on Warren's ideas on banking, Wall Street, the safety net. I believe they are at opposite poles on the first two.

[lostincalifornia]

2. She represents what all Democrats used to stand for. Unfortunately, unless Hillary tactics change

I believe she will be ambiguous on the issues of banking, Wall Street, and the safety net, unless of course she gets some new advisors who want their candidate to really take a stand on those issues.

Warren indicated she is not running, however, if Hillary doesn't run I think all bets are off and she will run.

[djean111]

3. unless of course she gets some new advisors who want their candidate to really take a stand on those

issues.
Take a stand, or make a stirring campaign speech. My cynicism knows no bounds, these days. With good reason.

[JDPriestly]

61. Yes. The disappointment with Obama is that his heart is in the right place, and he gives great,

inspiring speeches, but his appointments conflict with what he says and we believe he thinks. He just appoints one corporate type after the other and then of course we end up with corporates winning on everything -- just taking over.

[merrily]

65. I try not to guess where people's hearts are or read anyone' mind.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

And I don't think appointments like Geithner, Gates, Bernanke and Kagan are accidental.

[go west young man]

78. Link to video.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/12/elizabeth-warren-destroys-bloomberg-hosts-on-social-security-entitlements-crisis/

[merrily]

79. Did you mean to post that to me? If so, why?

If you are trying to make a point to me re: my post about Obama, I am not getting the point and need more elaboration than a link. Thanks.

[go west young man]

82. It's not for you. Sorry about that.

I was just looking for an upthread place where it wouldn't get directed downstream so people could access it close to the top.

[merrily]

83. Good to know. Thanks.

[liberalla]

97. That was a thing of beauty - first chance I've had to watch

Thank you VERY much for posting the link

She's so great in interviews. Yeah Elizabeth!

[Egalitarian Thug]

112. Yep. Ignore what they say, watch what they do. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. Yes, I've learned: "Don't believe what people say; believe what they do."

I've been very disappointed.

[starroute]

6. As long as Hillary gets $200,000 a shot to tell the bankers how cool they are...

... and how America can only solve our problems if we all work hand in hand, including the bankers, she's not likely to take a stand on reining in the banks.

[AgingAmerican]

7. Hillary tactics?

Hillary isn't president, Obama is and Obama is doing all of the above.

[WowSeriously]

10. Shhhhhh

[Wilms]

28. "Hillary isn't president".

I hope we can continue saying that.

Nice try at ignoring what the poster said. Did I miss Shill-ary going at the SS issue ANYTHING like Warren has?

[ChiciB1]

72. I SOOOOOOOO Very Much Agree With You!

While I truly do think Obama is sincerely a compassionate and caring person, so many times I find myself scratching my head wondering why he can't be more assertive. Actually, it angers me a lot too.

Neither he nor Hillary were my choice for POTUS, but when it can down to one or the other, it was Obama I supported. Even with Big Dog Clinton I knew he was very much DLC and to the right of me. I'm much more a Warren, Grayson, Sanders person and respect them for fighting back when so many Democrats won't! There are others in the Democratic Party that get my support too, just can't name all of them,

What I will say as a white woman is this. The Congressional Black Caucus seems to always out in front fighting the good fight. Why the DLC types are such wimps kind of disgusts me.

Elizabeth Warren is one woman who has & DOES fight for what she believes in. Hillary is more of a "finger in the air" type checking to see which way the wind blows.

Boy would I love to see more Russ Fiengolds and Paul Wellstones back on the hill!

[dflprincess]

74. Even if Clinton started agreeing with Warren on Social Security, I wouldn't believe her

not with her track record and current support of the TPP.

[ReRe]

84. Not to mention...

... Hill's support of the XL Pipeline.

[Whisp]

88. and that Tuzla moment. omg.

major liar. and a stupid one too.

[AgingAmerican]

86. The Obama administration has been riddled with Goldman Sachs execs

...like an apple riddled with worms.

[lostincalifornia]

47. No surprise regarding President Obama, since most of his advisors had the same philosophy as Bill

Clinton. As far as Hillary, I am projecting based on when she ran in 2004 how she addressed the issues.

I also said in my post "if" she runs.

Regardless, I will support the Democratic nominee

[Jack Bone]

95. Hillary didn't run in '04...

It was too close to her Iraq War vote...
She ran in '08

[lostincalifornia]

99. Thanks, I messed up

[Beacool]

54. It would be nice if they could manage to have a thread about Warren

without the automatic reflexive attack on Hillary. I don't see the reverse happening. Hillary supporters don't start threads attacking Warren. The whole thing is divisive.

They are not doppelgangers.

[rhett o rick]

58. "Divisive"?? The Democratic Party has two very distinct factions. One supports the 99%

while the other supports Wall Street. As long as Ms. Clinton supports Wall Street she will not get my support. It appears you choose the Wall Street side.

[decrepittex]

60. There aren't many people who you would agree with 100%

So what do you do if Ms. Clinton is the "D" candidate? Do you stay home on election day? Do you vote for the Green candidate? Either choice is a vote for the R" candidate. There is no doubt the Republican, whoever he is, will be a Wall Street supporter.

[socialist_n_TN]

66. Not to put too fine a point on it, but...

Is there any doubt that HRC is a Wall Street supporter also?

[merrily]

68. Actually, neither choice is a vote for the R candidate.

[rhett o rick]

106. Be nice if life where as simple as choosing between D and R.

Of course any D is better than an R, but that's not the point. Some D's want to end Wall Street's domination of our government, single payer health insurance, expanding SS, cutting defense spending, while other's that call themselves D, because they can, are ok with the Wall Street domination, are ok with minor cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid, are ok with balancing the budget on the backs of the lower classes.

So you see, it is more complicated than merely choosing D's over R's. The lower classes can not survive 8 more years of conservative D rule.

And I am sick of the "Lesser of Evils" rationalization for settling for crap. It only means that the lower classes might hold out just a little longer. Sadly, that's good enough for some.

[nikto]

94. You are correct---

The Democratic Party has two very distinct factions---The Democratic one, and the Republican one.


I happen to be in the Democratic one--You know, the one that wants to regulate Wall street,
NOT cut SS, not bomb or drone other countries, and move ObamaCare to Single-Payer.


Beware the Democratic Party's Republican faction.

[JDPriestly]

62. Hillary is divisive. She doesn't communicate to people to the left of her.

Instead she goes off to prayer meetings with her right-wing friends and to dinners with her Wall Street friends. She divides herself from rank-and-file Democrats.

[Beacool]

64. Yeah, sure.

She's so divisive that she has the support of the vast majority of Democratic voters. BTW, move on, the prayer meetings were years ago.

[blue14u]

92. I'm not so sure that is true.

Any current link that's not a poll done by Wall Street, and that gives those asked a different choice other than HRC?

Even someone hypothetically?

[Beacool]

101. What are you talking about?

There are a myriad of polls. In the latest Real Clear Politics average of all polls, Hillary is up 58% over her nearest potential rival (Biden). Warren is around 7%.

[merrily]

129. Two corporatists. Not a real choice.

I can remember when we actually had a choice in primaries.

Politicians and media have been telling us for well over a year now that it's either Hillary or Biden.

[rhett o rick]

110. But why would you choose her, that is clearly a tool of Wall Street? Do you really

think that she favors us peons? Just this week she sympathized with the poor bankers because of the criticism against them. Surely you dont think she chooses the 99% over the 1%. Even if you think she may help our cause, you must agree that there are those, like Sen Warren that would do more. Or maybe you are just one of those, "I am happy with the status-quo" kinda people.

[Marr]

90. If you're going to push someone as the inevitable nominee...

You're inviting comparisons.

[Beacool]

102. The media is the one pushing her, she hasn't said anything on the subject.

They are doing the same thing they did in 2008. She and Bill have said that people should focus on the midterms, that it's too soon to talk about 2016.

[blue14u]

91. It could be because

there is nothing to attack Warren for. Warrens support for the 99% is very obvious.

Even if Clinton starts speaking about not cutting SS, and not voting for wars, and not supporting Wall Street, or TPP I will find it difficult, if not impossible to believe her.

Hillary is an easy target just by virtue of her support

for things like Wall Street, and TPP. Just to mention two

things that rub Democrats the wrong way. I suspect she will also loose

Independent support for these reason's also. People recognize when someone speakes through

both sides of their mouths.

[Beacool]

103. I disagree that she would lose Independent support.

But, everybody is entitled to their opinion.

[merrily]

67. Hillary is a founding member of the Democratic Leadership Council, was a member of the

board of directors of WalMart, and ran to the right of Obama.

There is more, but that is enough for now.

[blue14u]

93. ^^^THIS^^^

[Beacool]

104. So bleeping what?????

Wal-Mart was in the 80s, the DLC was in the 90s and I disagree that Obama ran to the Left of Hillary.

[merrily]

130. But what evidence do you have that she changed since then? BTW, the DLC was not in the 90's

It began in the mid-1980s. And, it's gone as a separate think tank, but its philosophies live on in the Democratic Party, which the DLC altered greatly, also in think tanks like Third Way and the Progressive Policy Institute. Hillary is a New Democrat.

You can't simply cite a year and assume that resolves everything. I don't see any evidence that she is not the same Hillary that sat on the board of Wal-Mart or traveled around other countries with Al From, trying to sell other countries on DLC policies.

The Obama campaign was indeed to the left of the Hillary campaign, on things like the war, the public option vs. the individual mandate and race issues. For example, Obama never said anything like "hard working white people" or compared being a U.S. Senator to being on the "plantation."

However, I don't think the Obama Administration has governed to the left of Hillary. In reality, I think they are both very much New Democrats.

[caledesi]

73. Hillary? She will be 70 and a blood clot in her brain! .

Yeah, she is going to run ... she does not have much on her plate! I like her a lot. It's her health that I worry about.

[madrchsod]

76. that is why i won`t support her

she`s my age and she is not going to make it a 8 yr presidency.

we need someone a lot younger than hillary.

[Beacool]

107. Warren is a bit less than two years younger than Hillary.

I'm not saying that she's your choice. It's just an observation.

I've been around Hillary. I'm much younger and she tires out people half her age. She has a tremendous amount of energy.

[caledesi]

131. Agree. Hey, I am your age too.

Am in the hospice program ...the Graduate Program...I just won't die! 1 1/2 years... have MS..
Elvis is still in the building! (I survive on my Gallows humor I guess). I don't post much, but am a vociferous reader.

[Beacool]

105. She will be 69 and the blood clot was due to a concussion.

The likelihood of something similar happening again is pretty slim. Besides, women live longer and her mother lived to be almost 93.

[L0oniX]

5. I'm sure Hillary will take action on the 1%...

when hell freezes over.

[lark]

20. About the same time as Obama?

They are both corporatists and pro 1%ers - look what he's doing with TPP - heinous.

[merrily]

70. Yes, but Obama can't run again.

[PatrynXX]

50. she's about as Conservative

as Democrats go without being called Republican. Praying it's Warren because we are screwed if it's Hillary...

[Whisp]

46. they Are opposite. n/t

[L0oniX]

4. When the money for the military is over half of the yearly budget the gorilla should be obvious.

[DallasNE]

11. While Military Spending Is Huge It Is Roughly 1/4 Of The Federal Budget

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie

Veterans benefits are not listed under military spending, which is a little misleading, but even assigning those to defense spending would still result in military spending being under 50%. Indeed, a big chunk of debt service also could rightfully called military spending but good luck in getting an agreement on just how much.

[justabob]

17. also

I think a lot of the costs for our nuclear arsenal are listed under the Dept of Energy, so that is another neat little budget trick.

[Veilex]

18. I can confirm that statment. EOM

[truebluegreen]

37. More than half of discretionary spending,

which is the part that congress budgets.

[L0oniX]

108. Well ...we all have our info sources.

[DallasNE]

109. Your First Post Said "Budget", Not "Discretionary Spending"

So I responded to what you said rather than what you meant, hence the budget pie chart. No one is disputing that military spending is the 600 pound gorilla in the room.

[Egalitarian Thug]

113. You have to watch the weasels very closely. Military and defense are not the same, when

you add up all the military spending it is, still, more than half.

Here's a piece from last year.

You can re-create it with the current numbers if you like, but the expenditures all remain.

[NewJeffCT]

8. A good part of our $16 trillion national debt

is money owed TO social security by the rest of the federal government.

Last I heard, it was about $2.7 trillion to SS, and another $2 trillion or so to other areas of the federal government.

[FogerRox]

27. Thats confusing, No Money is owed to SS. And wont be until

the SSTF needs to take its mature Treasuries and turn them into cash to pay benefits. (2019?)

The 16 trillion dollar debt is mostly from deficit spending under Bush Jr. & Sr, and to a lesser degree to Clinton & Reagan.


The SSTF current has nearly 2.8 trillion in special US Treasuries, plus cash. And the CBO scores the projected shortfall at about 90-95 billion a year.

[yodermon]

38. Bondholders are "owed money" by definition. n/t

[FogerRox]

75. I described the process correctly,no?

Because no money is owed until the said Treasury reaches maturity.

Is that not correct?

In fact when a 30 yr old Treasury reaches maturity, and is rolled over, the Treasury just swaps them, at least if you look at the accounting, thats what is indicated in the books, which is also what people like Bruce Webb & Dean Baker have stated.

Since the SSTF still has more income than costs, the only act is to roll the Treasuries over. It'll be 4-5 years before the first Treasury is redeemed because costs exceed income.

[El_Johns]

118. The SS TF is part of the federal debt.

Total federal debt, which was about $16.1 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2012, consists of two components: (1) debt held by the public and (2) debt held by government accounts (also known as intragovernmental debt holdings), such as the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/debtbasics.html


SS debt is being turned over on a regular basis. It's not just all sitting there until 2019. They cash it in & out pretty routinely.

The above properties of special issue securities are summarized in the following table.

Type of special issue Investment frequency Maturity

Certs of indebtedness Daily Next June 30
Bonds June 30 1 to 15 years


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/specialissues.html

[FogerRox]

121. Every quarter they roll over mature Treasuries

[El_Johns]

125. ? I don't understand your point. The Social Security admin claim that I linked says:

The above properties of special issue securities are summarized in the following table.

Type of special issue...Investment frequency...Maturity

Certs of indebtedness... Daily...Next June 30
Bonds....June 30...1 to 15 years


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/specialissues.html

There isn't just one type of security in the TF, with just one single maturity, all turned over on the same schedule. According to the SS admin, at least.

[FogerRox]

122. Bruse Webb explains why thats misconstrued.

http://angrybearblog.com/2013/11/debts-deficits-and-social-security-once-again.html#more-19543

[El_Johns]

124. Social Security's surplus = a debt to the general budget, because the surplus SS taxes are borrowed

into the general fund.

The article you linked is about federal yearly budget deficits. Surplus SS doesn't create any yearly deficit in the budget, in fact it reduces deficit. But borrowing from SS surplus taxes increases debt. The debt is to the Social Security program, which is why CBO & Treasury classify it as such. It's intragovernmental debt, but still debt.



What are Intragovernmental Holdings?

Intragovernmental Holdings are Government Account Series securities held by Government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds; and Federal Financing Bank securities. A small amount of marketable securities are held by government accounts.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner


In economics, intragovernmental holdings (also known as intragovernmental debt or intragovernmental obligations) are Government Account Series (GAS) securities held by government trust funds, revolving funds and special funds. [1]

Intragovernmental debt is incurred when the government borrows from federal trust funds to help fund current operations.

In the United States, intragovernmental holdings are primarily composed of the Medicare Trust Fund, the Social Security Trust Fund, and Federal Financing Bank securities. A small amount of marketable securities are held by government accounts. [1][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intragovernmental_holdings


What is debt held by government accounts? View details More Results Toggle

Debt held by government accounts represents balances in the federal government's accounts—primarily trust funds—that accumulate surpluses. Trust fundsFederal budget accounts that are so designated by law. These accounts usually have a designated, or "earmarked," source of revenue. These revenues are authorized to be spent for the programs and activities supported by the trust funds. Examples are the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. are accounting mechanisms used to link dedicated collections with the expenditures of those receipts. Trust funds for Social Security, Medicare, Military Retirement and Health Care, and Civil Service Retirement and Disability account for the vast majority of the total debt held by government accounts.

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/debtbasics.html

[FogerRox]

127. I see you didnt read it.

In FY 1999 the General Fund ran a surplus, and Social Security ran a surplus, and the combined figure for THE Federal deficit/surplus was a surplus. Yet ‘Total Public Debt Outstanding’ went UP by $130 billion. And the explanation is actually pretty easy. But so too is the following conclusion: - See more at: http://angrybearblog.com/2013/11/debts-deficits-and-social-security-once-again.html#comments

[El_Johns]

128. But I DID read it. You didn't post the summary comments:

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)

"And the explanation is actually pretty easy. But so too is the following conclusion:

Public Debt is NOT the Sum of Federal Deficits."


1. Do you know the easy explanation?
2. Did someone in this thread claim that the debt was the sum of federal deficits?

On edit: I got tired of waiting for your response so here's Webb's "easy explanation" of why the debt went up by $130B though both the general budget & SS ran a surplus: it's in the Comments section of your link:

Bruce Webb
November 12, 2013 8:46 pm

If the General Fund runs an actual surplus what you would expect is to see ‘Debt Held by the Public’ decrease. And decrease it did in FY 1999

On the other hand when Social Security runs a surplus what you would expect to see is an increase in its Total Assets. And so you do, but NOT at this link. Instead you see a corresponding increase in Intergovernmental Holdings with in turn adds to ‘Total Public Debt’.

Which leads to the rather odd result that no matter how large a given General Fund surplus might be in any given year and not matter how much that serves to reduce Debt Held by the Public if the Social Security surplus is larger than the General Fund surplus then Total Public Debt still goes up...

A Social Security system in perfect actuarial balance, that is one that has a Trust Fund ratio exactly at 100 for every year in the projection period and so neither overfunded or underfunded, will see the nominal value of the assets in the Trust Fund increase year over year in the amount needed to maintain that TF Ratio at 100. And that increase will score as an equal increase in Total Public Debt...

Yep this means that we could balance the General Fund tomorrow and put Social Security into a perpetually solvent state and we would STILL have the raise the Debt Ceiling every year. And this would also be true if we acchieved both goals via the Ryan Roapmap to Fantasy Land Act and ‘saved’ Social Security by slashing benefit formulas.

Under current law definitions and metrics a fully Solvent Social Security system will add to Total Public Debt every year. And that fact has nothing to do with other off budget spending or the state of the General Fund. Instead it is a direct consequence of the requirement established with the 1939 Amendments that all SS revenue in excess of cost be held in instruments fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the U.S. government coupled with the requirement that the Trustees target a certain level of annual reserves. Both decisions were and are perfectly sound ones, any insurance plan needs a level of reserves (or good reinsurance) and ideally has those in safe and liquid investments. And outside the minds of Gold Bugs there are no safer and more liquid investments that Special Issue Treasuries. So that is all good.

It just ends up playing havoc with our idea of what Total Public Debt means in real terms. As opposed to the similarly named but quite different thing that is Debt Held by the Public.

- See more at: http://angrybearblog.com/2013/11/debts-deficits-and-social-security-once-again.html#comments

To summarize: the SS TF assets = part of the Total Public Debt, as intragovernmental holdings. The TF is excess SS taxes that have been borrowed by the government, PLUS interest payments on same.

[CrispyQ]

41. I wrote to my senators & rep about this.

I asked them, if Congress thinks SS is in such dire straights, then why don't you pay it back? For all the talk about how much we owe China, look how much we owe the SS fund!


Pay Back the Money Borrowed From Social Security

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html

According to the U.S. Treasury Department's "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States" (9.30.10), the total debt was $13.562 trillion and was held as follows:

US Holders of Debt
42.1 % -- US Individuals and Institutions
17.9 % -- Social Security Trust Fund
6.0 % -- US Civil Service Retirement Fund
2.1 % -- US Military Retirement Fund

Foreign Holders of Debt
11.7 % -- Oil Exporting Countries
9.5 % -- China and Hong Kong
6.3 % -- Japan
1.4 % -- United Kingdom
1.3 % -- Brazil
1.6 % -- All other foreign countries


I want to post this chart on FB & watch some right wingers go berserk.

[NewJeffCT]

51. great chart

thanks for sharing it.

[bvar22]

9. Thank You, Elizabeth Warren.

Is an unambiguous statement like this too much to expect from our Party leadership?

#t=26

[magical thyme]

44. Fabulous, Bvar! Keep that link forever...

We need to play it and play it and play it...to everybody!

[polichick]

69. "Our Party" isn't ours anymore. In my mind, the question is NOW WHAT?

[BrainDrain]

12. She rocks the talking heads.....

and she rocks them better than HRC ever could. You know why? 'Cause she actually KNOWS what she is talking about.

Sen. Warren You actually make me wanna believe again.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

13. What would Hillary do...?

"My view, and the view of many, is that trade agreements are more of a foreign policy tool than an economic policy tool. Presidents and their State Departments want alliances with countries, and use trade agreements as part of the diplomacy, tying us together. The problem is that we lose so many industries as we “bribe” those countries by way of giving them access to our domestic market without receiving similar volumes of foreign sales.

<snip>

Thus… Clinton’s and Obama’s strategy is fatally flawed, because (1) the TPP will likely worsen our trade deficit or at least it won’t help and (2) the fact of our trade deficit means we can’t be a substantial foreign investor (because we are a net recipient of foreign investment)."

http://economyincrisis.org/content/hillary-clinton-wants-u-s-investment-in-asia

[Beacool]

55. Why? Does Hillary have to respond every time Warren speaks about some issue?

Since when? Warren is a senator and Hillary is currently a private citizen.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

56. Warren is painting Hillary into a corner...

Elizabeth doesn't have to have aspirations beyond being a Senator. But every time Warren speaks, which is often, intentional or not, she defines Hillary.

You may not see it, yet, but I do.

[progressoid]

59. A private citizen who is again being touted as the Democratic front runner.

These are important issues that a candidate would need to address. And until she declares that she's not running, she's going to continue to be called on about these issues.

That's why.

[ReRe]

85. She'd make some of those famous chocolate chip cookies. n/t

[cantbeserious]

14. Warren For President 2016

eom

[closeupready]

16. +1M.

[lark]

21. +2M

[closeupready]

25. .

[Laelth]

32. FYI

You can get an Elizabeth Warren 2016 banner for your DU sig. line here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1265876



-Laelth

[Laelth]

31. FYI

You can get an Elizabeth Warren 2016 banner for your DU sig. line here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1265876



-Laelth

[closeupready]

34. Done - thx!

[Laelth]

35. My pleasure. n/t

-Laelth

[Laelth]

30. FYI

You can get an Elizabeth Warren 2016 banner for your DU sig. line here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1265876



-Laelth

[Enthusiast]

52. +1 a whole bunch.......nt

[SpcMnky]

15. I adore this senator, simply the BEST!

Thank you so much for serving all of us Senator

[polichick]

19. Many Democrats are as invested in freeing up SS funds as Republicans...

Why else would the Dem prez put it on the table - and also make a deal that steals from the account, making the situation appear much worse than it is, and thus creating an excuse to cut?

[lark]

22. Many Dems are truly not worthy of that designation, IMO

They may be (somewhat) socially moderate but their economic stances are always in favor of the 1%. In fact, I'd even say that most Dems fit the above description, which is really troubling.

[polichick]

23. True - imo the fight to take back the party will be harder than...

a fight between principled Dems and Republicans - more Americans agree with the principles of the Democratic Party.

[lark]

24. We definitely have a rough path to follow & it's all uphill.

The corporatist have most of the money, and contol the vast majority of the media so it's hard to get out a pro 99% message. Thankfully, Warren and Sanders are leading the way, just need a whole lot more reps. going in their direction.

[polichick]

26. imo the word will get out through the internet and social media...

but there has to be a primary challenge to the establishment choice.

I hope Bold Progressives gets behind the challenger, the way they (we) got behind Warren's Senate run. So far they haven't been involved in the pres. primary but the membership is over a million - a place to start.

Warren is saying the right things, but I'm still uneasy about her remaining a RepubliCon during the Reagan years - I don't want to be surprised down the road.

Very curious about Sanders' plans - I definitely trust him. The establishment will try to sink him asap - but the power of the internet and social media, coupled with the disgust of millennials for both parties could make for an interesting time.

[magical thyme]

45. I think Sherrod Brown is on the side of the people as well. nt

[Enthusiast]

53. +1 a whole bunch.......nt

[Laelth]

29. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

[WillyT]

33. HUGE K & R !!!

[truedelphi]

36. Why would Democratic Leadership pay any attention to

Sen E Warren, outside of polling numbers?

The hands who butter the toast of the Dem Leadership have nothing to do with Sen Warren. So neither does Democratic Leadership.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. K&R

[bvar22]

40. And another kick for Elizabeth Warren!

If this Chicken-in-Every-Pot populist stuff catches on,
and more Democrats start demanding that our "representatives" actually start representing us,
things might start looking better for the Working Class for the first time in 30 years.


I'm lucky to be old enough to remember when A LOT of Democrats sounded just like Warren,
and actually worked FOR America's Working Class & Poor.
They are why I joined the Party so many years ago.

Gawd but it feels great the hear someone who sounds like a REAL Democrat again.

[mbperrin]

42. I'm ready for our first female President!

Why can't I have a Senator like this, instead of Cruz and Cornyn?

[truebrit71]

43. The morning hosts on Bloomberg are the most overt of the right-wing apologists...

...the rest of the day's crew is much better....and it is streets ahead of the Wall Street-worshipping whores on CNBC...

[lostincalifornia]

48. no question about it, however, compared to cnbs, and most of the other networks, it is still better

In addition, Senator Warren handled them quite adequately

[hopemountain]

49. every one of their voices

irritate my ears to no end. why are all their women broadcasters so high pitched and tinny sounding? is it so no one will listen? they all need voice coaching.

[alfredo]

57. Would default allow the US to "write off" Social Security?

[DallasNE]

81. What Default Means Is That Overnight We Have A Balanced Budget Imposed

The government has money coming in all of the time. That is the only money they can spend so expenses would have to be cut back instantly by roughly $60 billion per month. Who know what the priorities would be. I think we can assume that interest payments would come first and discretionary spending would come last. Half of that is defense spending and it is hard to see the President as Commander in Chief slashing $30 billion a month from defense spending. On top of that is the trade deficit and it is unclear if those payments can be legally delayed. If not, Katy bar the door....

[alfredo]

114. That would be the last thing a conservative would want. Whatever that is now.

[K lib]

63. Social Security running a deficit

SS has run a deficit the last couple years and will continue to run one until congress changes the funding mechanism to remove the cap on income above 117,000 i think. It was running a surplus for a while but it got raid to fund two wars and the ever growing defense contractors i mean budget. Even so the deficit is only 40 to 50 billion and could easily be meet by cutting defense

[eridani]

96. Bullshit. It has a 1 trillion dollar surplus n/t

[El_Johns]

117. $2.8 trillion, to be exact.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

[K lib]

120. Not wrong and you didnt read the rest of my post

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

"Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012"

[eridani]

126. And? That is precisely what is supposed to be happening

The reason that the fund accumulated a trust in the first place was to prepay the retirement of the boomers. Before that it was pay as you go, and when the last boomer dies it is supposed to return to that situation. That more is going out is exactly the intention, as boomers are now retiring. Of course there will have to be a similar prepayment for the Millenials (another pig in the python generation), but that is quite a way off.

[El_Johns]

116. $2.8 trillion dollar surplus.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

[merrily]

71. Good. Maybe she can explain it to the White House and Congress, too.

[Uncle Joe]

80. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, lostincalifornia.

[ReRe]

87. K&R

We keep talking about Hill's age. How old is Sen Warren? I do listen to Elizabeth Warren and am always left feeling informed after doing so. Lively talkative thread!

[DeSwiss]

89. What the Social Security Administration needs......

...is its money back from the federal government. Stop stealing OUR money you creeps! Raise taxes to pay for your stupid-assed wars you fucking cowardly morons!

- Was I clear? Too much?!?! Hmmm.....

K&R

[INdemo]

98. Why wont Democrats besides Elizabeth Warren and (I) Sanders

speak out more on Soc.Security(there are a couple more maybe)..The facts are there but they will not mention how Social Security was robbed over a short period of time by more than 2 Trillion dollars for budget spending. Most of it was during Republican admin and Repuke majority. But the corporacrats just wont mention this when they have their time in the spotlight on the Sunday Shows. Its like they have been threatened by their big money pals.

[raindaddy]

100. What being suggested here is highly immoral

I hope people are smart enough to understand what Wall Street's talking heads are trying to do here. Same old story, divide and conquer. They use race, religious beliefs, gender and now they're using age..

They've created an economy that ends up with the wealthiest holding the cookie jar and they are trying to convince us that we should be fighting each other over the crumbs that happen to fall through their greedy fingers.

What they're actually suggesting is, seniors collecting the benefits "they paid for" are somehow hurting children and young adults. They want us to believe in a world of crumbs and forget about a system that allowed the cookies to be stolen. They're trying to create a world where young people blame their grandparents for taking away their futures and of course if seniors start to feel guilty because their entitlement programs are taking food out of the mouths of babes all the better.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

111. Nice little sneak-in there of Sen. Warren being asked if she will run for POTUS...

She says "I am not running for president of the United States." No, as a matter of fact, she is not currently running for president. She did not say she would never run, just that she is working hard right now at being a Senator for Massachusettes.

You know, they say that if your eyes look to the left after you say something, that might be an indication that you're not being 100% truthful, or that you may doubt your own words. View the OP's video carefully.

Disclaimer: I love Hillary, always have since she was my first lady in Arkansas when I was in high school. While in college in Conway, I even spent a day and had dinner with her and Bill, as their host. But I have been crazy about Elizabeth Warren since the first time she was interviewed by Charlie Rose.

?

Except for Gore/shrub, I've had an impressive track record going back 35 years or so of predicting who would eventually become president, long before they did so (and not necessarily liking all of those predictions). When I first saw that Warren interview, I got that old familiar feeling, call it gut instinct (from whence it comes, I have no idea, lol), that she would some day be president.

I never got that feeling about Hillary. But, hey, I'm good either way, right?

[Jasana]

115. K&R This is NEWS...

How dare these idiot news readers on TV think of themselves as reporters? They can't even identify reality if it hit them over the head, let alone news, especially financial news.

I don't have a TV but I was with my grandma the other night and made the mistake of turning on CNN. Anderson Cooper was on. What did I hear? Honestly... 11 minutes of commercials and 9 minutes about some broad that supposedly pushed her husband off a cliff. That is not news! I could care less. What a waste of 9 minutes of air time when we have so many terrible problems we have to fix.

[B Calm]

123. K&R