Elizabeth Warren Calls Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand a Slut

Is there something we should know about?

A Indian and an African Walk into a Bar ...

Source:

Muskegon Pundit

Untouchable Federal Agency Schemes Behavior Economics

Sometimes I can’t understand why the American people believe the lies perpetuated by the central planners in Washington D.C.   The central planners created the 2008 housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis.  They blamed everyone but themselves and declared they’ll fix the problem by passing more laws and creating more government agencies, all the while, rewarding bad actors like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who by the way, own over 90% of the mortgages in the United States.

Once again, the American people have been bamboozled into thinking the private sector was solely responsible for this crisis and that more regulations are needed to prevent this from happening again, when in fact, we need to get rid of the laws and agencies that ensured a financial crisis and will certainly create another one in the near future.

The central planners capitalized on our misery by implementing Dodd-Frank.  They created a government agency benignly named, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whose mission is to guide the behavior of the American people by approving, or disapproving our economic decisions.  This new school of governance was created by progressives like Senator Elizabeth Warren who believe we are incapable of making sound financial decisions without their benevolent hand.

Carolina Journal Radio discussed this progressive economic stratagem with associate economics professor Adam Smith with Johnson and Wales University.  Here is an excerpt:

Kokai: Now you mentioned behavioral economics. For those in our audience who are not particularly familiar with the term, they might know the book Nudge. … What is the impact of behavioral economics on this approach? Is this having a negative impact on what this group ought to be doing?

Smith: It’s hard to disassociate the two, because [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren, who was obviously the champion of the agency, wrote a strongly argued and very important paper that basically set up the agency, and the paper was filled with behavioral analysis. 

See, what behavioral economics has done is it’s questioned the traditional assumption of economics that we are, for the most part, rational in our decision making. And where they’ve, I think, made some great contributions is showing, yeah, there are certain patterns that people have where we aren’t completely rational, OK? 

We all know that we’re not always rational and so forth, but the problem is, is that you’re finding certain, you know, quirks that humans have, and then immediately assuming that you can use that information to tailor policy … toward the marketplace. 

But it doesn’t all quite fit together, and what pops out of that is not the kinds of careful analysis of human behavior that the academics are performing. It’s more just another excuse for very heavy-handed regulation, that ends up not looking at all like its source material.

Kokai: One of the other concerns I’ve heard about behavioral economics is it basically, as we said from the book title, nudges or steers people toward certain conclusions, things that they will do, and someone, somewhere, has to be the one who decides: Where are we going to steer them? Where are we going to nudge them? [This] is definitely, completely different from what the market would come up with, isn’t it?

Smith: Correct, so not only are they deciding what’s best for all consumers — something that I think even [Richard] Thaler and [Cass] Sunstein, the authors of Nudge, would disagree with — but usually these nudges become shove-like very quickly. So, for example, when you say this credit practice is bad, so we eliminate it, that’s not a nudge. We’re not nudging people away from a bad credit practice. 

And the few times, I should say, that they have employed nudges, consumers have surprised them. One example is they said that, well, consumers are overusing overdraft protection, so what we’re going to do is we’re going to require every customer to opt in to overdraft protection, which they felt would clearly reduce the number of people who used the service.

 

Turned out [that] wasn’t true. Everyone opted back into overdraft protection, especially the people who were using it the most before. Again, obviously, they think it’s a valuable service.

Kokai: Now moving forward, we have this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for good or ill. What should they be doing, rather than having this behavioral economics analysis guiding their acts?

Smith: I don’t think, as I was saying before, given the link between the two, I don’t think you can break them apart. I think it is what it is. I would say, though, that — the Wall Street Journal just wrote a piece on this, it’s a long shot — but it’s possible that the agency could be constrained in a way that it really always should’ve been, but, unfortunately, because of the environment surrounding the financial crisis, didn’t happen. And that is, having a bipartisan commission that oversees the agency’s policies and so forth, and, most importantly, having control over their budget.

Right now, Washington has absolutely no control over this agency’s budget. It’s housed within the Federal Reserve and cannot be touched, even by the Federal Reserve itself. I mean, they’re basically cowboys out there, playing whatever game they want to play with no oversight whatsoever

We have another untouchable federal government agency playing games with the American people?  Say it isn’t so!

Source:

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=12100

 http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-credit-crisis.asp

Senator Elizabeth Warren: I Didn't Flip That!

Senator Elizabeth Warren is a liar and a hypocrite?  Say it isn’t so!  Surely, there must be a mistake.  How can a populist politician be so callous as to profit off the misery of others by buying foreclosed homes, presumably once owned by the middle-class, and then flipping them for a handsome profit without appearing to be a predator?

Why, you have family members do it for you, of course.

Warren's campaign said the claims were baseless and that she and her husband helped family members purchase the houses, since they were in a financially secure position to do so.

"Elizabeth and Bruce are fortunate to be able to help their family," said Alethea Harney, Warren's press secretary, in a statement. "They have been able to help relatives buy their homes and after Elizabeth's brother lost his job as a construction worker, Elizabeth and Bruce were able to provide him support to buy and fix up properties."

Senator Elizabeth Warren didn’t flip that house; her family did.  That’s what she would have everyone believe.  National Review attributes some of Warren’s wealth to her vulture capitalistic nature:

As a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, and later as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, she was doing well for herself, building both her professional profile and her wealth. She owes at least part of her considerable financial success, it seems, to snapping up these properties in her native Oklahoma and turning them for a profit — though today that’s not a practice she endorses for the many people looking to emulate her success. The Boston Herald reported on these purchases during Warren’s Senate run in 2012, noting that she invested in “the often topsy-turvy real-estate market of the 1990s” and that her actions “don’t seem to square with her public statements about the latest real estate boom and bust.”

What Senator Warren did in Oklahoma, stays in Oklahoma, except of course, her Cherokee heritage.

Source;

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418907/elizabeth-warren-bought-foreclosed-homes-make-quick-profit-jillian-kay-melchior

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/elizabeth_warren_gop_criticisms_real_estate_transactions.html

Our Shared American Values?

Whenever a democrat lectures an American on our “shared values,” I get a little nervous.  Is that a pejorative to them?  Are they mocking us?  Or, are they trying to mask their true intention, which ends in loss of liberty and property.  Usually, it’s the latter.

The Democratic Party’s ideology is contrary to the America ideal. They constantly scheme to undermine self-determination and limited government, and they do it under the guise of “shared values,” usually couched in a way to engender a common goal that justifies ends to a nebulous means.  Here is a perfect example of high rhetoric employed by progressives:

So what is our "shared values"?

Could it be family?

 

Well, Democrats seem to believe the ideal family unit is a single mother.  They praise, pander and indeed subsidize generations of them.  The centerpiece of Obama’s reelection campaign was the supposed “republican war on women.”  I contend the real war on women is conducted by Democrats who want to make them dependent.  Nothing says daddy like a federal government bureaucrat.

How about life?

 

Surely, everyone values the sanctity of life?  Not so much.  Democrats don’t see a viable fetus as a member of society that needs to be nurtured and protected.  No.  A fetus is a womb occupier; a mass of tissue much like a cancerous lesion, or a parasite sucking the life force out of its host.  And they demand Americans pay for abortion mills like Planned Parenthood by confiscating our hard earned money.  However, cop killers on death row are victims of society.  These innocents are misunderstood and entitled to our sympathy.

Surely, Democrats value hard work and entrepreneurship?

Again, you would be wrong.  Obama’s Department of Labor banned kids from working on farms.  Many of us learned the value of a dollar and a good work ethic at a young age by working on farms.  This administration is methodically cultivating a generation of indolence and entitlement.  Over 46 million Americans are on food stamps.  Work is not a priority in the Age of Obama.

  

Oh, and you didn’t build that!  That small business of yours couldn’t have happened if it weren’t for a federal bureaucrat holding your hand.  That is the Democratic meme.  What is really happening is the death spiral of small businesses under the Obama regime.  More businesses are closing than starting up.  The last time this happened was 35 years ago.  The real meme should be:  you didn’t destroy your business, it couldn’t have happened without the Democratic Party.

National security and the value of citizenship is an uncompromised value?

The Obama administration allowed millions of third-worlders to invade our country.  Evidence demonstrates his administration instigated this mass of humanity from Central America.  Now they, and their fellow colonizers who preceded them, have been granted temporary amnesty and are entitled to most benefits and privileges due a citizen.  Is devaluation of citizenship a “shared value”?  I hope not.

As far as national security, James Woods summed it up in a tweet:

Shared values my ass.                

Source:  http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-death-of-the-american-dream-in-22-numbers

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/14/economic-death-spiral-more-american-businesses-dying-than-starting/

Dem Capos Demand Don Obama Enforce Loyalty Oaths

Senate Democrats want a crackdown on companies that have fled their extortionist policies.  Capos Durbin, Warren and Reed want Don Obama to remind these taxpaying soldiers of their obligation to the federal government.  They want undying loyalty to this thing called Cosa Nostra.  Here is an excerpt from their letter to the Godfather, as reported by the Hill:

“Corporations that renounce their U.S. corporate citizenship should not be able to reap all the benefits that American tax dollars provide,” they wrote. “We urge you to use your authority to stand up for American companies which are proud to be part of our nation and reduce U.S. incentives for others corporations which would abandon their responsibilities to their country for a nod of approval from Wall Street.”

The senators warned that 47 corporations have inverted operations in the last decade, with over a dozen more announcing plans to do the same. If the government does not act soon, the U.S. could lose billions of dollars in tax revenue from companies that enjoy perks provided here, they cautioned.

“Inverted corporations take advantage of all the things American tax dollars provide—from tax credits for research and development, investments in transportation infrastructure, and strong patent and copyright protections, to profiting from taxpayer-supported programs like Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration. Yet, these companies claim to be foreign corporations when it’s time to pay their tax bill,” they wrote.

The federal mafia needs those soldiers producing.  And they had better.  After all, they have all the benefits of this thing called a family.  By the way, once you’re in, you can’t leave.

Source:  http://thehill.com/policy/finance/214343-senate-dems-urge-obama-to-act-alone-on-inversions#ixzz39ee5Fscv 

Sen., Elizabeth Warren's Bumper Sticker Tenets of Progressivism

Democrats always pander to the lowest common denominator.  The ill-informed and unengaged will fall prey to simplistic sound bites and bumper sticker slogans.  Senator Elizabeth Warren knows her audience well.  She gave a speech outlining “11 tenets of progressivism”:

- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."

- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."

- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."

- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them."

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."

- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform."

- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"

How utopian!  How simplistic!  How Vague!  How Democratic Party!

Source:  http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-s-11-commandments-of-progressivism-20140718