Elizabeth Warren Speaks and Democratic Party gets out new focused messaging for its future direction

[UCmeNdc]

Senator Elizabeth Warren has emerged as its champion. Her speech at the New Populism Conference sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future on May 22 summarizes the case.

For the mainstream media, of course, the headline from the conference was Warren’s reiteration that she has no intention of running for president. Like all such statements, that pledge is written in water, inevitably impacted by times and tides. For progressives, the real news was the expanded agenda that she announced she was ready to “fight for,” and her forceful commitment to reframe the national debate.

Warren began with her basic case: Americans know that the “game is rigged.” That injustice is exposed in everyday scandals, from the tax dodges that allow millionaires to pay lower taxes than their secretaries, budget priorities that lard the most profitable corporations in the world while cutting funding for education, a justice system that jails kids for possessing “a few ounces of pot,” while bankers launder billions in drug cartel profits and “no one even gets arrested.”

This forces, Warren argues, not only a “fight over economics, over privilege, over power,” but also a “fight over values.” Conservatives are guided by their age-old principle: "I've got mine, the rest of you are on your own." “But we're guided by principle, too. It's a simple idea: We all do better when we work together and invest in our future.”

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/05/emerging-populist-challenge-elizabeth

[billhicks76]

1. No Hillary

I'm kinda over Republican-lite. Thanks for moving the center dimwits. What's next? Tea Party Lite. So tired of apologists, excusers, ostriches, lemmings and especially rats.

[Scuba]

12. +1

[daleanime]

2. K&R....

[houston_radical]

3. Redistribution of wealth has always been from the bottom up

I wish the so-called liberal media would challenge the seemingly accepted idea (with notable exceptions such as Krugman etc.) that redistribution of wealth in our country means taking money from the rich and giving it to the lazy, undeserving public. This idea is upside-down. Consider that:

• Historically, kings were rich and peasants were poor; and
• Then there’s your third-world country du jour. Most of the wealth and power is held by a small group of people at the expense of the population.

A principle method used to shift a countries’ wealth to the small group is taxation – typically as rent for occupying property, fees to the church, customs/duties, etc. Since the 1970s in the US, the flow of wealth upwards has increased mostly through deregulation and unfair tax restructuring – more sophisticated than feudal times or some third-world countries, but no less effective.

This redistribution is done using the tax code. And for good reason: because taxes are forever (they don’t need to be re-approved every year). It works like this: basically rich lobbyist, funded by richer oligarchs, pay off rich politicians to sponsor and vote on bills that incrementally protect rich people (big business, inherited wealth, etc.).

All our little progressive income tax does is slow down the flow of wealth. The rest of the taxes we pay are as regressive as any tax has ever been.

---

I’ve had tax arguments that go something like this:

Rich: How about a flat tax?

Me: Sure, no problem, but make ALL taxes flat. So at the end of the year, everyone just adds up all of the taxes they’ve paid, including payroll, property, gasoline, sales, fees, etc., adjust their taxable income accordingly, and then apply the flat rate.

Rich: No way! Usage taxes are good because I shouldn’t have to pay for something that you use. If YOU use it, then YOU should pay the tax.

Me: I see your point. Well then that means we should tax transactions in financial exchanges right? And while we’re talking about big finance, how about taxing capital gains at the same rate as regular income? And why is payroll tax capped anywa ..

Rich: Whooooaa there! You can’t over-tax (meaning fairly tax) the job creators, small business owners, entrepreneurs, and the people who drive the economy, blah blah blah …

Me: zzzzzzzzzz *snore*

---

I didn’t even get the chance to mention loop-holes, offshore accounts, loan guarantees and discounts, etc. (there is basically no end to our government’s largess when it comes to protecting wealth).

I also didn’t get to mention that wealthy people attain their lofty economic status, in part, by taking advantage of our infrastructure: roads, bridges, telephone lines, electrical grids, banking and legal systems, etc. – which are disproportionately paid for by, you guessed it, the public (through taxes).

Finally, I would never have had the time to get into the whole university-to-industry technology transfer system. This is where new technology is developed in universities, which are often supported with public (tax) dollars, and basically handed over to industry, patents and all. So that industry can then generate products to sell back to the public.

---

There are three ways that a middle class can develop:

1) Labor shortage. A classic example is the time of the Black Death, ca 1350, when 30% to 60% of the population of Europe died from the plague. Wages went up, a middle class formed, and what followed was The Renaissance.
2) Increased wealth. An example of this would be the period towards the end of European colonialism, which began in the 15th century. The great wealth of European countries allowed the middle class to flourish, and The Enlightenment followed.
3) Legislation. Government passes laws that restrict the “natural” upward flow of wealth to those with power.

[90-percent]

5. Welcome to DU

Nice high quality worthwhile post. I love history! Esp. the guilded age, which we are currently re-living. I see no Teddy Roosevelt on the horizon to save us from the Oligarch's this time, however.

Well, actually, Elizabeth could be the one?

I kinda loathe Hillary. Her ignorant and cynical vote on the IWR back in 2003 sealed it for me. Anybody that get's played by Bush/Cheney is unfit to be President.

-90% Jimmy

[AllyCat]

6. Nicely said. Love your argument!

[mikekohr]

7. Welcome!, Great post. Facts and history matter, but only if we are aware. nt

[Enthusiast]

9. +1

I really like this little history lesson

"There are three ways that a middle class can develop:

1) Labor shortage. A classic example is the time of the Black Death, ca 1350, when 30% to 60% of the population of Europe died from the plague. Wages went up, a middle class formed, and what followed was The Renaissance.
2) Increased wealth. An example of this would be the period towards the end of European colonialism, which began in the 15th century. The great wealth of European countries allowed the middle class to flourish, and The Enlightenment followed.
3) Legislation. Government passes laws that restrict the “natural” upward flow of wealth to those with power."

[whathehell]

10. In listing ways that a middle class may develop, you forgot one big one -

- Labor Unions. Millions of poor were brought into the middle class

during the Thirties and beyond when FDR decided to protect Labor Rights

and established the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor Unions in America brought Millions out of poverty and into the Middle Class.

It's no coincidence that Republicans hate them and have done everything to destroy them.

[houston_radical]

11. Fair point - mea culpa

But Labor Unions exist because the law allows them to exist. I realize that it was a bloody battle, and many suffered to achieve this legal status to organize. And the battle continues. So I fully agree that as long as there is an adversarial relationship between management and workers, then unions make prefect sense.

[Xyzse]

15. Can only agree.

Nicely worded.

[santroy79]

4. I love her!!!!

[yallerdawg]

8. The ultimate purpose of politic...

is simply "who gets what." It is or should be exactly about distribution of wealth informed by our values.

The 'revolution' devised by our Founding Fathers should be a revolution of ideas realized in the voting booth.

Elizabeth Warren is a revolutionary force. Look how the Obama Democratic (our Party) administration had to 'let her go.'

She then ran an insurrection in Massachusetts and fought her way back into the body politic.

The moneychangers at the Temple of Wall Street fear this person. That alone is a really good reason to hope she runs in 2016.

[cascadiance]

13. She hit on the same notes here in Portland yesterday at Powell's and with Merkley downtown...

She said in both locations that the game was rigged. She never said "she wasn't running", even though in Merkley's fund raising an audience member yelled "President Warren", and in the other location one of the hosts at one point conjectured on possibly a great event being that she would run for president.

She emphasized that one of her big worries are that so many out there that have tried so hard have been tempted to throw up their hands and say they are giving up since it might be "hopeless", and she wants to appeal to them that you can't give up. In both locations she postulated different ways for her to move forward of "giving up", becoming one of the elite "insiders", or lastly to "fight back". And in both locations she strongly said to everyone that her choice was to "FIGHT BACK"! But she emphasized that she was happy with the people who attended but noted that she couldn't do it alone and she needed them to help her "FIGHT BACK"!

Folks, she's asking for a movement from us. She can help inspire one, and give voice to movements on Capitol Hill, and is committed to doing so, but she emphasized she can't do it alone. And folks, I believe that IS the reason why she doesn't announce her candidacy for 2016 at this point. I have believed that the best thing for her to run then, and I think she was basically saying with those statements for us to use the next year to build big movements, that defies the corporate media's lobbying efforts, bought candidates, bought court decisions, etc. where we win on a big or some big issues despite that "moderate" or "centrist" viewpoint against the 99% that has governed our political landscape up until now. If we build that freight train and it is successful, and has many people driving that success across party lines, THEN would be the best time for her to jump in that locomotive and be at the head of that train guiding it in the right location. That engineer was missing with the Occupy movement earlier. She could be that engineer, but without that train that has momentum now, she can't do it on her own or she will get shot down before she's able to start. She's smart and knows that. Let's not lose hope in her hesitance to commit to 2016.

The button I got at the fundraiser she (and Senator Wyden) helped with yesterday for Jeff Merkley showed a picture of her standing next to Warren without a year on it or a mention of the Senate race, but that they were both fighting for all of us. I believe that button might have a bigger second life if she were to run in 2016, as I still think it a strong possibility of those two being our ticket if she were to win the nomination then.

Too early to talk too much about that now. She also mentioned at someone's questioning how Larry Summers lectured her in a passage of her book that "insiders don't criticize other insiders" when he said she had a choice of being a "part" of the insiders and what was going on or be pushed out as an "outsider". That is indicative of the games that are going on here.

[Doctor_J]

14. this will not turn into "focused messaging for the (entire) Dem party" any time soon

There are too many in our party who either disagree with her message (large number of DC Dems) , or are so addled by personalities that they believe the DC Dems actually are working for the little people.

I love the dems who still believe in regular Americans, but they are few, and have almost no power.

[UCmeNdc]

16. You are correct

The Democratic Party should highlight these policy positions not run and hide from them.

[emsimon33]

17. Warren 2016