December 13, 2019

"We know that one Democratic candidate walked into a room of wealthy donors this year to promise that 'nothing would fundamentally change' if he’s president."

Said Elizabeth Warren yesterday, quoted in "The left's nightmare scenario is looking more believable" (WaPo). She was referring to Biden. She continued, referring to another candidate, but WaPo doesn't say who: "We know that another calls the people who raise a quarter-million dollars for him his 'National Investors Circle,' and he offers them regular phone calls and special access. When a candidate brags about how beholden he feels to a group of wealthy investors, our democracy is in serious trouble."

I looked it up: She was referring to Buttigieg.

52 comments:

Shouting Thomas said...

Warren is a law prof at the university with the most mammoth endowment of any university.

Legacy wealth families bribe their kids way into Harvard.

What in the fuck is this lying Injun talking about?

How can you possibly sell such outlandish lies?

Karen of Texas said...

But Mayor Pete pays the women in his campaign more than the men, so I think we can call it a wash...

traditionalguy said...

Lizzie is on the warpath.

rehajm said...

In the spirit of full disclosure:

Warren futures at .14 cents, down from .52 cents at the beginning of October

Buttie futures at .15 cents, up from .08 at the beginning of October but down from a high of .23 cents before Thanksgiving

Bernie, Hillary! futures rising...

rehajm said...

Liz courts rich donors, too. Don't let her kid you...

rehajm said...

It's the Romney 47 Percent Gambit. If only Warren's campaign had paid a busboy for video...

J. Farmer said...

She’s right. Biden and Buttigieg are both corporatist tools.

robother said...

How is it that Bernie and Liz are both still in the race? Doesn't that guarantee a split in the Left vote, doing far more to open the path to a bought and paid for "centrist" like Biden or Buttieigig or Hillary? That's the question she needs to be posing.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Buttigieg is a mayor in Indiana. I'd need more evidence of his evil corporate connections than this.

We know Hillary is an international corporate whore. biggest one of all.

tim in vermont said...

She’s not wrong. They will both be sure to push through tax cuts for rich Democrats, repeal of the SALT thing. Democrats are already working on these tax cuts for the rich in the House.

J. Farmer said...

Buttigieg is a mayor in Indiana. I'd need more evidence of his evil corporate connections than this.

See McKinsey & Company

alanc709 said...

Wonder where a President Warren could find contributors to her re-election campaign, if she gets her wealth tax. But then, Dems always find a way to take foreign money, don't they.

tim in vermont said...

Buttigig is ten years out of college. Does he really want a job this early in his career with no room for advancement? [H/T Harry Truman]

Quaestor said...

Heap big pussy chief scalpum sissy boy.

gspencer said...

Poke-us-Haunt-us sings to Joe and Pete,

Well, your pet name for me is Squaw
When you come home a drinkin' and can barely crawl
And all that lovin' on me won't make things right
Well, you leave me at home to keep the teepee clean
Six papooses to break and wean
Well, your squaw is on the warpath tonight

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The left's nightmare scenario: Any of them. All of them.
From Hillary to Biden to Warren to Buttijudge to Gun-Straw-Soft-Drink-Bloomy to creepy him and creepy her->

The left will never pick a cute smart chick named Tulsi. She speaks to the enemy on Fox News. That bitch. She must be a Russian spy.

Michael K said...

I understand she scares donors. Of course they all lie but maybe she is telling some truth. Of course she got her big donors a year ago.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Donors want the big pay-back.

Hillary will run again. That big pay-back that never arrived still stings.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Liawatha is full of nosepaint.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Well, considering Warren's background, I'm surprised Pete is the Indian Giver here.

Oh, who am I kidding. Of course she will once she's elected!

But I still have reservations.

tim in vermont said...

Tulsi would do well to wait four years and give Trump more time to defang the deep state, or they will tear her up the same as they are trying with Trump.

Bob Boyd said...

Liz has a plan.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

One of the things I like about Warren is that she might be the anti-Hillary as far as corruption in concerned. (tho - I don't really know what is going on behind the scenes between the two of them.) Did Warren kiss the Queens ring yet? Warren's problem is that she has baggage (fake Indian etc) and she keeps moving further and further left.

All candidates have baggage to be exploited. I bet most are sick of being manipulated into caring about that baggage. I care about the big stuff. The BIG corruption.
The Clinton corruption and money grubbing global empire.

Maillard Reactionary said...

"...nothing would fundamentally change if he's President"

Now that, I believe. The fact is that nothing that they care about (e.g. their position, privilege, and non-accountability for crimes) would change if any of them were elected. That's the whole point.

In the larger perspective of our Nation's position in the world and the prospects for the non-elites to improve (or maintain) their situation, on the other hand, any of them being elected would be disastrous.

But who the hell cares about that?

Maillard Reactionary said...

Lucid-Ideas: "But I still have reservations."

Dude, if Chief Spreading Bull is elected you're going to have more than reservations, you're going to be on one.

Robert Cook said...

"'We know that one Democratic candidate walked into a room of wealthy donors this year to promise that "nothing would fundamentally change" if he’s president.'
Said Elizabeth Warren yesterday, quoted in 'The left's nightmare scenario is looking more believable' (WaPo). She was referring to Biden."


In other words, it will be Obama Administration Redux, (which was itself Bush Administration redux with better optics and rhetoric).

Sebastian said...

'nothing would fundamentally change'

Which would be good, mostly: the economy doing well, sensible judges appointed, peace abroad, China being pressured, illegal immigration down, deregulation proceeding, crazy leftism stymied for now. What's not to like? Debt rising -- there's that. Anything else?

Anyway, since nothing needs to fundamentally change, let's just keep Trump, shall we?

J. Farmer said...

In other words, it will be Obama Administration Redux, (which was itself Bush Administration redux with better optics and rhetoric).

Exactly right. And Bush was basically a Clintonite.

Shouting Thomas said...

Let's hope like hell that the fundamental change hoped for by Warren (and Cookie) never takes place.

I like being able to buy what I want at the supermarket, and filling up my car with cheap gas.

gilbar said...

Nancy don't have to worry, neither of those two will be President
However, nothing Will fundamentally change after the next election...
Because the winner of 2020 is going to pursue the same agenda as the 2016 winner...
Because it's Going To Be The Same Person!!!!

rcocean said...

I'm liking Warren better all the time. Honest Injun.

DarkHelmet said...

Warren going negative on the other Dem contenders is a pleasing development. I hope they return the favor.

JAORE said...

I can't vote for Warren because I fear her loyalty to the Cherokee Nation is stronger than her loyalty to America.

But, GIVE EM HELL, LIZZY!

John henry said...

 Skylark said...

Democrats are already working on these tax cuts for the rich in the House

Sheesh, Skylark. Taxes on wealth are explicitly forbidden by article 1 section 9 of the us constitution. The rich have never paid taxes on their riches/wealth.

Not will they unless 2/3 of the states ratify a constitutional amendment permitting it.

I think you are confused about the meaning of "rich". I suspect you are misusing it to mean income.

I'd love to see someone ask Warren et al how they will get a wealth tax amendment passed.

John Henry

Ralph L said...

Buttiegeg is the right candidate to be offering "special access."

Hillary & Lieawatha shared a stage a few months ago. I forget the event or who gave the tongue bath, but there certainly wasn't a cat fight.

John henry said...

PDJT did, in a roundabout way, increase taxes on the rich with salt.

Wealthy people often pay significant state & local property taxes on land, houses and other stuff.

These used to be deductible on federal taxes but SALT limits that.

So now they pay more federal taxes because of their wealth.

Perhaps that's what you were thinking of Skylark?

Also, pdjt's tax cuts probably raised taxes on most people, especially high earners. Tax rate may have decreased but because of increased earnings because of the better economy they are paying more money in taxes.

John Henry

Yancey Ward said...

Warren should have been doing this 2 months ago when the wind was at her back.

I still think she is going to be the nominee, but she has, until now, made the same mistake Sanders made in 2015-16.

cubanbob said...

John Henry they will tax unrealized capital gains. In essence that is no difference between a wealth tax and the inheritance tax.

Yancey Ward said...

"Taxes on wealth are explicitly forbidden by article 1 section 9 of the us constitution."

Here is a snippet of news I picked up in my time machine internet feed- it is from July 2024:

"John Roberts, writing for the five judge majority, gave approval to President Warren's wealth "tax". In his opinion, Roberts accepted the Warren Administrations argument that the levy wasn't a tax at all, but was, instead a user's fee."

John henry said...

Cubanbob,

Unrealized capital gains are still "income" and presumably taxable as such.

Inheritance taxes might be considered by some to be a tax on wealth.

Since they involve a transfer to the inheritee, they are technically income to them and taxable under the 16th amendment.

John Henry

John henry said...

 Yancey Ward said...

levy wasn't a tax at all, but was, instead a user's fee."

That's why it is critical to reflect pdjt in 2020 (and 2024) so he can appoint a solid majority of Supremes

John Henry

narciso said...

investment managers, who broadcast on the weekends, find biden elimination of the step up basis, even worse for more people,

daskol said...

Buttigieg is more of a progressive technocrat than a Biden/Clinton corruptocrat. Long term, it's the Buttigieg left-technocrat stuff that will eventually threaten the more right-wing economic nationalism/populism currently ascendant. Once the crazy progressives are somewhat sidelined, it's the Buttigieg style that could restore the Democrat Party fortunes.

mccullough said...

The Washington Redskin stopped taking Corporate Money after her last two elections.

Sanders is a loon, but he’s never been a Corporatist. The Washington Redskin has.

mccullough said...

Mayor Pete is Mitt Romney Redux

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...
(Cook)In other words, it will be Obama Administration Redux, (which was itself Bush Administration redux with better optics and rhetoric).

Exactly right. And Bush was basically a Clintonite.


BushClintonBushObama were all owned by the same people that own the media and corporate America.

Obama is receiving massive "movie" and "book" deals right now. He has produced absolutely nothing of value to anyone and is getting paid millions of dollars.

Obama took bribes. Obama sold us out to foreign interests. Obama is a traitor just as much as Clinton and Bush were.

Jail is too good for the lot of them.

All of the media. Almost every Large corporation.

Even corporate at Chick-fil-a is staffed by Obama people who donate huge sums of money to the SPLC.

But Warren's assault on wealth would do nothing to change this. It would entrench that wealth. As they all know and as those policies are designed to do.

Nationalism is the force that is fighting this global corporatism. But paradoxically it is a global movement.

Achilles said...

mccullough said...

Sanders is a loon, but he’s never been a Corporatist.

Sanders sold out to Clinton in 2016.

He clearly made a deal with her and he clearly got paid a lot of money to do it.

Sanders is a soulless shill and a sellout. He has no principles at all.

rcocean said...

"Taxes on wealth are explicitly forbidden by article 1 section 9 of the us constitution. The rich have never paid taxes on their riches/wealth."

Really? So what is a real estate tax? What is a gift tax? A wealth tax, will be a tax on UNREALIZED GAINS. It will therefore NOT be a tax on "wealth".

You libertarian idiots should just shut up.

rcocean said...

In any case, what is a tax on wealth will be decided by 5 SCOTUS Judges. Good Luck in getting the 4 left-wing judges and Roberts to agree that you can't tax "wealth".

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger rcocean said...

Really? So what is a real estate tax? What is a gift tax? A wealth tax, will be a tax on UNREALIZED GAINS. It will therefore NOT be a tax on "wealth".

What's a real estate tax? It is a state or local tax. It is not a federal tax. It is not prohibited by the Constitution. A gift tax is not a wealth tax. It is the same as an income tax (permitted by 16A) in that one person is giving money to another. It is the same as giving you money for services rendered except that they are no specific services rendered. How you get that this is a wealth tax is beyond me.

If I get a 10% unrealized gain on $100,000 of stocks, that is income. Or at least imputed income which is a very real thing in federal tax law. It can be taxed as income under 16A. This kind of tax, on imputed income, exists in federal law and there were many stories during the internet boom of the 90s of people at startups getting caught up in it. Whether it is a good idea is another thing.

What cannot be taxed is the $100m of wealth the stocks represent. Or the $7.5m left after the feds have taken their 25% income tax. That is wealth, not income.

You libertarian idiots should just shut up.

I much prefer "liberal" or even "classical liberal" but can live with libertarian. At least you did not call me conservative!!!

But what does that have to do with what is permitted and forbidden in the Constitution?

John Henry

rcocean said...

OK, so you just agree with what I said. For example, if Warren taxes 401K, every goddamn 401K has unrealized tax gains. You AVOIDED taxes by putting $$ in your 401K and you've not paid taxes on the what you've gained over the years.

Bezos is worth $50 Billion - how much of that is Unrealized tax gain. Almost ALL OF IT! So, lets hear your lame come back, about how that's all wrong, and you're REALLY right, because blah, blah, blah.

People like you give ignorant people false hope. They somehow think "Oh, don't have to worry about that Warren/Sanders tax plan - its against the constitution. Judge Roberts will save us". NO he's NOT going so save you.

Robbie Payton said...

I rarely share my story with people, not only because it put me at the lowest point ever but because it made me a person of ridicule among family and friends. I put all I had into Binary Options ($690,000) after hearing great testimonies about this new investment

 strategy. I was made to believe my investment would triple, it started good and I got returns (not up to what I had invested). Gathered more and involved a couple family members, but I didn't know I was setting myself up for the kill, in less than no time all we had put ($820,000) was gone. It almost seem I had set them up, they came at me strong and hard. After searching and looking for how to make those scums pay back, I got introduced to maryshea03@gmail.com who helped recover about 80% of my lost funds within a month.