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
Populist Reform of the Democratic Party
Showing Original Post only (View all)Elizabeth Warren's response to Third Way Criticisms: 'Oh Please' [View all]
Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 11:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Warren On Third Way Criticisms: 'Oh Please'Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Thursday that think tank Third Way is "flatly wrong" about the solvency of Social Security.
"We could make modest adjustments and make the system financially stable for a century, and we could make somewhat larger adjustments and make the system pay more for seniors who rely on it," she told the Huffington Post. "The conversation for too long has been about whether to cut Social Security benefits a little bit or a lot. And that is flatly the wrong debate to have in mind."
An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday by Third Way leaders that criticized Warren's beliefs about programs like Social Security caused liberals to issue condemning responses to the progressive Wall Street-backed group. Warren wrote to major banks challenging them to disclose their donations to think tanks. And the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has urged multiple Democrats to cut ties to Third Way.
Third Way responded by agreeing that banks should disclose their donations, but co-founder of the group, Matt Bennett, said that the group still considers Warren's stance on Social Security "magical thinking." He added that JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon's Social Security benefits would increase under a Warren-backed plan.
Warren scoffed at this in the interview with the Huffington Post.
"Oh please. I'm out there working for Jamie Dimon the same way Dick Cheney is out there trying to save the environment," Warren said.
"We could make modest adjustments and make the system financially stable for a century, and we could make somewhat larger adjustments and make the system pay more for seniors who rely on it," she told the Huffington Post. "The conversation for too long has been about whether to cut Social Security benefits a little bit or a lot. And that is flatly the wrong debate to have in mind."
An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday by Third Way leaders that criticized Warren's beliefs about programs like Social Security caused liberals to issue condemning responses to the progressive Wall Street-backed group. Warren wrote to major banks challenging them to disclose their donations to think tanks. And the Progressive Change Campaign Committee has urged multiple Democrats to cut ties to Third Way.
Third Way responded by agreeing that banks should disclose their donations, but co-founder of the group, Matt Bennett, said that the group still considers Warren's stance on Social Security "magical thinking." He added that JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon's Social Security benefits would increase under a Warren-backed plan.
Warren scoffed at this in the interview with the Huffington Post.
"Oh please. I'm out there working for Jamie Dimon the same way Dick Cheney is out there trying to save the environment," Warren said.
If you haven't read the article written by the two Third Way founders, you can find it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=2771
Warren is correct about Social Security. A few adjustments will make it good for a century.
The backlash was so great to that article that they tried to explain it, claiming they were not attacking Elizabeth Warren. She had stated that she agreed with Sen. Harkin that SS should be expanded and benefits increased. People liked her and Harkin's suggestions a whole lot better than the Third Way's. . So, here is their response to all the negative reaction they got:
Third Way Co-Founder Explains Op-Ed Criticizing Warren
Third Way Co-Founder Jim Kessler on Friday explained the group's Monday op-ed in the Wall Street Journal criticizing a plan backed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to expand Social Security.
"That Social Security plan was the final moment for us," he said in an interview on Sirius XM with Ari Rabin-Havt, as recorded by the Huffington Post. "That Social Security plan had been out there but really languishing -- because Senator Warren has such a powerful compelling voice, she started talking about it, and it suddenly it became much more talked about and viable alternative."
Kessler said that the op-ed was not meant as a personal attack on Warren, but that she gave a popular voice to a plan that concerns Third way.
"She is a very compelling elected official and national figure," he said. "Her involvement in that particular bill, we just looked at it and said 'okay, this seems to be starting to get out of hand.'"
"That Social Security plan was the final moment for us," he said in an interview on Sirius XM with Ari Rabin-Havt, as recorded by the Huffington Post. "That Social Security plan had been out there but really languishing -- because Senator Warren has such a powerful compelling voice, she started talking about it, and it suddenly it became much more talked about and viable alternative."
Kessler said that the op-ed was not meant as a personal attack on Warren, but that she gave a popular voice to a plan that concerns Third way.
"She is a very compelling elected official and national figure," he said. "Her involvement in that particular bill, we just looked at it and said 'okay, this seems to be starting to get out of hand.'"
And the response they received to their 'explanation' was even more negative backlash with liberal organizations like PCCC starting a campaign to ask Democratic members of Congress to 'cut ties with the Third Way'.
Just WHO do these people think they are?
Who elected them and what gives them the right to feel politicians not agreeing with their DISASTROUS policies are 'getting out of hand'???
Warren is an elected Senator. She has a RIGHT given to her by the people to represent them, and the people WANT SS expanded.
I DARE them to run on cutting SS and privatizing it. On a Dem ticket!!
It's an outrage that these people are playing the role of overseers of our elected Senators!!
They ARE a small group compared to all of us. If people continue to wake up as they appear to be doing we could take care of this problem in no time.
Elizabeth Warren didn't just tear apart the Third Way lies about Social Security, but she also wrote to Wall St Banks asking them to reveal their donations to Think Tanks.
The political world is teeming with these organizations, Think Tanks, Lobbyists, Security Contractors bidding on contracts to smear people, journalists, bloggers, politicians who speak out on corruption in our large institutions. Seemingly having more influence over Congress than the people who hired them.
This whole mess needs to be exposed and cleaned up so politics is free of these deceptions and shadow operations out to destroy anyone who tells the truth about Big Banks and their corrupt influence on our government.
'Okay, this is getting out of hand!'
Iow 'Bad girl, Elizabeth! You will have to be reined in!'
Iow 'Bad girl, Elizabeth! You will have to be reined in!'
Are they for REAL??
Sorry, I'm still almost speechless at what we are learning regarding who has been running things in our party!
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
158 replies, 43559 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (133)
ReplyReply to this post
158 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I just read this steaming pile of propaganda.The writer knows how to demonize someone.
easychoice
Jan 2015
#3
Twitter and FB are great places to criticize and make fun of them. I'm going to see if he has a
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#7
I just found his twitter account. He used to work for the Washington Times and is now the
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#12
Yes, I noticed those words too. She is anything but shrill, she is EFFECTIVE. And that's what
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#85
so true...the more eyes she opens, the more screechy they're gonna get.
BlancheSplanchnik
Jan 2015
#68
Warren fights back. Why did we have to wait for HER to come along, why haven't we
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#44
We need more like her to take the pressure off her. Better believe the Oligarch Rulers have her
rhett o rick
Jan 2015
#49
Consistent with the goal of making Social Security needs based, then eliminating it entirely,
merrily
Jan 2015
#29
Already, here at DU, I have started reading posts which assert that SSDI and Florida children's
djean111
Jan 2015
#31
(*This post is wrong.) Unlike Social Security (aka OASDI), SSDI (aka SSI) is a welfare program.
merrily
Jan 2015
#33
And I firmly believe that, at least here in Florida, any purported fraud by poor people
djean111
Jan 2015
#35
Most likely, welfare fraud is petty cash compared to all kinds of defrauding the
merrily
Jan 2015
#36
If you think about it some, wasn't the entire effort to 'contain' communism, from
merrily
Jan 2015
#38
Right now, thinking about it, maybe all of history is just protecting assets. n/t
djean111
Jan 2015
#41
ssdi is *not* a 'welfare program,' and its not the same thing as ssi, which *is* a 'welfare program"
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#91
Read the link again. It says very clearly that you have to have paid into the social security
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#98
(*This post is still wrong!) Okay, I got it. Yes, Social Security and SSDI seem to be
merrily
Jan 2015
#101
thanks for listening. it's a very common mistake, so much so that i fear the close naming
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#109
OASDI IS 'social security' and includes SSDI. that's why it's called "old age, survivors, and
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#116
No democrat would even suggest that. So if there are people here making those statements,
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#45
I agree with that. I thought it might be a good idea when I first heard it also. I thought it should
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#122
Exactly! The deception is beyond belief especially when you know how much influence
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#39
I'm glad you picked out that nonsense. This is how they deceive the public, with half truths like
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#32
the 'most wealthy' don't get so much social security anyway. it's the upper middle that does.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#119
I know that which is why it is so despicable of him to try to deceive people into thinking Warren
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#124
and there's a cap on benefits, even if he were drawing the biggest wage in the world.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#126
I did know about the DLC but didn't realize how bad they were until I began reading about
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#40
Checking your links right now. Rahm's attack on Liberals and one other thing that really got to me,
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#46
I can't wait to hear the excuses when Republicans manage to do what Dems ccould not do when they
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#52
You're not the only one. And they definitely don't want to talk to the people. I remember calling
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#63
There will, of course, be an effort to smear or denigrate or change the perceived meaning of
djean111
Jan 2015
#30
I try to stay away from the term "progressive" because it means very different things to
merrily
Jan 2015
#34
Well Bernie is saying it, but he's not a Democrat. Not sure about anyone else.
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#58
It would help, but on its own wouldn't be enough. However it would increase the fund
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#57
according to those who make such projections, it still won't cover the shortfall.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#125
For those complaining about the 1% getting everything the reforms suggested by the Third Way
Thinkingabout
Jan 2015
#79
That is a terrible idea and the only reason they want to do that, is to turn the program into a
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#81
You always bitch about the rich, here is something in which the rich does not need to receive and
Thinkingabout
Jan 2015
#89
You have TOTALLY misunderstood what I wrote. SS is NOT a welfare program. It is a retirement
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#114
if you know all this, what would those 'few adjustments' be? and i tell you, i stopped
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#87
First stop sending US jobs overseas. Create jobs here and remove tax breaks from Big Corps which
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#95
it's not the case that the cap is raised only to cover inflation. it was once raised to
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#113
completely eliminating the cap wouldn't fix the problem, because the problem has been
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#139
I gave you the data from Urban League and it's not the only group saying that even totally
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#141
Well then why do you insist on splitting hairs with me about raising the cap
99th_Monkey
Jan 2015
#142
ok by me. i can hear what you're saying on any mainstream news outlet so not very informative.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#145
sure monkey. on fox news they're always claiming that social security projections showing
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#147
it happens especially when you say your codiscussant gets talking points from fox news.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#149
as i told you, you didn't hear about my plan because i don't buy the "social security is going
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#151
Why do you think Sanders is proposing to raise the cap, if there's nothing to fix?
99th_Monkey
Jan 2015
#158
Since you are not quoting Sen. Warren, who didn't say that at all, WTF are you talking about?
BeanMusical
Jan 2015
#88
no, "modest adjustments" and "a few adjustments" are oceans apart in meaning. sue me.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#90
You're the one who thinks there's a vast difference between modest adjustments and a few
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#127
Since I don't accept the projections as presented, I'm under no obligation to present
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#129
Social Security is going to be the ONLY money coming in for a majority of Americans....
Spitfire of ATJ
Jan 2015
#96
even in the good years, SS was the sole source of income for about 1/3 of retirees and
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#107
Some of these assholes wanting to trash it make money by flapping their gums to fellow assholes.
Spitfire of ATJ
Jan 2015
#110