Elizabeth Warren: Our Populist Agenda - in Her Own Words

[RiverLover]

Elizabeth Warren: Our Populist Agenda - in Her Own Words
1/4/15

Senator Elizabeth Warren has become the most visible leader of the growing populist movement that is uniting new majority around an agenda for economic change.

But with media visibility comes over-simplified media analysis. For example, a McClatchy news service piece, published December 24, characterizes Warren supporters as a liberal faction mobilizing "voter outrage" against the banks - as though Americans were not already outraged by the way bankers manipulate our economy. The story describes populists as pitted against "centrists who want the party to provide economic incentives for people to succeed, relying less on wealth redistribution through higher taxes or guaranteed incomes." Note the absurd implication that we populists somehow oppose helping people to succeed.

All reporters and pundits - and all Warren supporters - should read a series of speeches (stitched together below) in which Senator Warren carefully explains why so few people are able to succeed in today's American economy. And her solutions, drawn from some of the best thinkers and social movements in America today, go well beyond stale debates about redistribution, zeroing in on what it will take to create jobs, raise wages, and put government on the side of working Americans.

For those who know her ideas only from TV sound-bites, we present Elizabeth Warren's thinking about the economy in her own words - words that are teaching us how to talk about economic populism and build a new American majority for change.

(Transcripts at Huffpo article)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-hickey/elizabeth-warren-our-popu_b_6414584.html

[delrem]

1. I'm totally ready to be sceptical of Elizabeth Warren.

Esp. on the front that she's a "one issue" politician.

But she's so good at explaining that issue, and that issue is so central, that I find myself to be a "follower".
She's teaching me stuff, and I like it.

[delrem]

2. Replying to my own post.

On the fact that she's been very "one issue".
That "one issue" fits a weltanschauung, to give it direction.
Much as HRC's lectures for Goldman Sachs give a certain weltanschauung direction.

I'm unsure whether Elizabeth Warren understands how those two directions are contradictory, at the deepest levels, particularly with respect to military spending, with military policy, and the military industry that drives the USA.

[RiverLover]

3. "one issue"

This sort of highlights the problem of the media defining her in sound-bites, which is what the article is stressing we need to be wary of.

She's very good at articulating the problems with Wall Street corruption in our govt. And her speeches on the senate floor are compelling, its easy to see why the media highlights these.

But she also has other issues she's working towards, like, in her own words found at link~

First, education investments are crucial. We need a work force that is well-educated and well-trained, and we need to make that happen without bankrupting families. Education is good for the individual who gets it, improving his or her lifetime chances, but education is also good for our economy, good for building a robust economy and attracting high-paying jobs here at home.

But right now we are on target for a serious shortage of college graduates. By 2020, that's six years, by 2020, we'll have five million jobs that require post-high school education and no one to fill them, and instead of making college more affordable and accessible, we're crushing kids under student loan debt.

Adjusted for inflation, costs at state schools are up nearly three hundred and fifty percent in a single generation. If we want our kids to start a life without carrying a thousand-pound rock of debt on their backs, and if we want our businesses to have a competitive workplace, then we must make sure that education is affordable. Can I have an amen on that? We just have to do this

Second, infrastructure investments. Everyone understands the importance of roads and bridges, and mass transit, and an efficient power grid, and high speed Internet connections. Infrastructure is about creating good jobs in the short run, good construction jobs, and in the long run, it's about creating the environment for more good jobs, plowing the field so that businesses can grow those jobs here at home. But right now we live in a world where China invests nine percent of its GDP in infrastructure, Europe is at five percent, the US-- 2.4 percent and looking to cut. Think of it this way: China is building a competitive advantage for its businesses, while here in America we're looking for ways to cut our basic investments.

Third, invest in scientific and medical research. Research provides the ideas and innovation that power our economy. Federal R&D is the basis. I just made a very short list here that I could do off the top of my head, for the internet, for GPS, for nanotechnology, for flu vaccines, it's the basis.

For every dollar spent at NIH, for example, there's an economic pop of two dollars and 21 cents in the private sector, and in the long run it's that giant pipeline of ideas and all those smart scientists and entrepreneurs who use that research to make this economy soar, but since the 1960s this country has slashed the investment in federal R&D, as a percentage of GDP, by more than 50 percent. Surely no one believes that we build a more competitive, more innovative country by shrinking the pipeline of ideas.

Our country is headed in the wrong direction, the American dream is slipping out of reach, and we, you and I, may be the first generation in American history to see our kids do worse than we did. This cannot be the legacy we leave for our children and for our grandchildren. We must fight back with everything we have.

The game is rigged, but we know how to fix it. We know what to do.

We tested the Republican ideas and they failed, they failed spectacularly, there's no denying that fact....

She "isn't running for president" atm but when/"if" she does, we'll find out more, like the issues of military spending.

[delrem]

5. Those are all included in what I consider to be her "one issue".

Those just round it out.

I think she has to stop the "War on Terror" cold in its tracks, to achieve anything.
She has to say how she's going to do that.

Her opponent will be totally gung-ho MIC and the warmongering rhetoric so common and so repugnant at DU today will be as nothing to when her opponent gets the game going.

In my 60+ yrs experience watching politics, US Americans always go for the warmongering hero. Always. US Americans never look back on the devastation that they leave behind, they always blame the victim, pretending that they, themselves, are peace-loving civilized folk. That's their birthright, to tell those stories, being born winners. That's the path that led to today. To the problems that Elizabeth Warren will face as leader.

Platitudes about how the "middle class" got screwed and how it can be fixed with this and that can't do it.
There has to be a dedicated change from a military to a civilian economy. But hey, nobody who gains a buck or two from the military economy will gainsay the source, so good luck with that, since no other economy of import exists in the US. It's all military.

[RiverLover]

6. I totally agree. This -might- reassure you some~

Defense spending

Warren supports defense spending cuts. She has suggested reducing the size of the standing army to reduce deficit.[7]

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

Budgeting for our Future: Cutting Spending and Smart Investing

...A budget is about finance and economics, but it is also about values.

At a time when the federal debt is more than $15 trillion, we need to be smart about the budget and about where and how to cut. Our budget should reflect our values and our commitment to creating a better future for our children and grandchildren. At a time when some big companies are paying nothing in taxes and when profitable industries like oil and gas are getting special breaks, it is shameful that Washington would ask seniors to live on less or tell young people they have to take on more debt for school. Those are not decisions that reflect our values.

Budgeting for our future means making smart cuts and smart investments. We need to cut the tax breaks to the oil and gas industry and the loopholes for hedge fund managers. We need to go back to Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. As we wind down two wars, we can make cuts in our defense budget - smart, targeted cuts that preserve our national security. We should get rid of the giveaways in Medicare that prevent negotiating lower drug prices. And we should improve efficiency throughout government by getting tough on fraudulent and abusive practices and by cutting wasteful spending.

http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/jobs-and-the-economy

[delrem]

9. Sounds good,

but how can that be done if the over-riding rhetoric of war, terrorist menaces, Islamic enemies, Russian enemies, and on and on, isn't replaced by a rhetoric which addresses those same issues in a different and more benign way?

I've yet to hear that. I'm sorry (I feel contrite, ffs) for saying that, but I'm pessimistic to infinitely close to the nadir with the whole business of US politics. I have no fucking "belief" in it left.

The rhetoric of war, terrorist manaces, ..., has $trillions$ riding on it, and in fact the entire US economy rides on it.

A lot of middle-class US American folk have put their $$ into the war making machinery, whether directly or through their investment accounts. It is, in fact, almost the only game still going for the US economy. War. The total devastation of the planet wherever the war machine lands.

[quarbis]

8. What does

the German word mean?

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

11. Short version..."worldview"...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

[quarbis]

13. Thanks

My German sucks just one year of college German

[johnnylefty2000]

4. Warren 2016

[PADemD]

7. Warren 2016

I wish she would realize that, as President, she would have the bully pulpit, could veto bad legislation, and could appoint to government people who have the same vision and work ethic as hers.

[Scuba]

10. +1

[Phlem]

12. Exactly

We need to replace the crowd that has been installed period.

[BrotherIvan]

14. She does

But she's smarter than the average bear too, so I doubt she wants to face the guns just yet. I've never heard a book tour sound like a stump speech. Something is going on. But she is not now, currently, running.

[RiverLover]

15. Exactly, BI.

I'm surprised more people here don't see that.

[BrotherIvan]

16. I like to think of it that's she's running in the slipstream

She's right up behind Clinton, letting the focus be on her. Then she's going to change her angle, like in Formula 1 when they use the DRS to change the tailfin to take advantage of the car in front. I think she's also waiting to see who the Republican is/are. Maybe Clinton can take out Jeb. Maybe Warren can beat anyone but Jeb. Who knows, but I'm sure there are quite a few people on her team looking at all the possibilities. I've never seen so many calls for someone to run in my life, never. So she's in a very good position.

But she is not now, currently, running!

[RiverLover]

17. LOL! She is in a great position, you're right.

good article~

Elizabeth Warren for President--A Plan for Posterity
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Elizabeth-Warren-for-Presi-by-Roger-Copple-Elizabeth-Warren_Ukraine-141220-258.html

[BrotherIvan]

18. I think that with the economy improving, people might be lulled into thinking

That half measures and tepid social liberalism are all that we need. Some Democrats only care about social issues and don't think economics are that important, so EW doesn't appeal to them. But it's obvious that the political strategists have figured that out and can now run campaigns with good graphics and liberal slogans which have nothing to do with the actual philosophy of governance.

We do need a plan. We need a vision. The best presidents have always been very forthright in sharing their vision, sometimes calling it The New Deal, The Fair Deal, The Great Society. That really helps to bring focus and move a huge country like the US forward.

I believe that EW is hammering out her message. She is focusing on economics because she is expert and she can not be pushed around in that arena. I can't believe a person who is fighting for the rights of everyone would be crap on social issues. The big question is how does she take on the MIC? Though I saw she was talking about reducing the size of the military. So she is feeling her way, gaining confidence, learning the ins and outs. It's fascinating to watch. At the very least, maybe she will take over for Reid in 2016 though I am not sure she wants to be in charge of procedure as that takes its own kind of wonkiness.

But she is not now, currently, running!

[Autumn]

19. She is not now, currently, running.

My new mantra