Jump to content

U.S. Senator Warren launches 2020 campaign, sounds note of economic equality


rooster59

Recommended Posts

U.S. Senator Warren launches 2020 campaign, sounds note of economic equality

By Ginger Gibson

 

800x800 (16).jpg

Potential 2020 Democratic presidential nomination candidate U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) waves at the crowd ahead of a campaign rally in Lawrence, Massachusetts, U.S. February 9, 2019. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

 

LAWRENCE, Mass. (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, struggling to move past criticism over her claims of Native American heritage, aimed for a fresh start on Saturday with the formal launch of her 2020 presidential campaign, saying that she is fighting for all Americans.

 

The Massachusetts Democrat, a leader of the party's progressive wing, made her announcement from a historic site in Lawrence - a city northwest of Boston that was once the hub of textile mills and which launched the U.S. organized labor movement.

 

Warren, 69, has made workers' rights, fair wages and access to healthcare central to her campaign.

 

"This is the fight of our lives. The fight to build an America where dreams are possible, an America that works for everyone," Warren said. "And that is why I stand here today: to declare that I am a candidate for President of the United States of America."

 

Warren is part of an increasingly crowded and diverse field of Democrats vying for the chance to challenge President Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee.

 

A year before any ballots are cast in a Democratic primary, many of those candidates are spending this weekend talking to voters in the early-nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

 

From Lawrence, Warren went north to New Hampshire, where she held a town hall meeting in the town of Dover and repeated her call for Democrats to eschew corporate political money.

 

"We gotta walk the walk, if we actually believe that money has too much damn influence in Washington, then change starts right here in the Democratic presidential primary," she said.

 

Warren's announcement will be followed on Sunday by U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has said she will reveal her presidential plans in her home state of Minnesota.

 

Warren picked up the endorsement of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) simultaneously with her launch - a group that could pump millions of dollars behind her candidacy and provide an outside attack dog against her Democratic opponents.

 

"We believe that Elizabeth Warren is the most electable Democrat and the best person to be president," said Adam Green, the co-founder of PCCC.

 

Warren's heritage claims have dogged her since her first campaign for the Senate in 2012, and Trump mockingly refers to her as "Pocahontas."

 

Her ancestry drew fresh scrutiny earlier this week with the discovery that she described her race as American Indian on a form to join the Texas legal bar in the 1980s.

 

Warren has repeatedly apologized, saying the claim was based on "family lore," and she now understands tribal sovereignty dictates membership.

 

Trump's campaign described Warren as a "fraud." In a statement, his campaign manager Brad Parscale said: "The American people will reject her dishonest campaign."

 

Warren is one of four women so far seeking the Democratic nomination - an unprecedented number of female candidates vying to lead a country that has never elected a woman as president.

 

Warren and the other women running so far, including Senators Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, are hoping to build on the success of women candidates who played a significant role in Democrats regaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November's congressional elections.

 

Lesley Thompson, 43, of Grantham, New Hampshire, had her support for Warren cemented after seeing her hold a town hall meeting, but knows many of her neighbors are still on the fence.

 

"She's a fighter and I'm a fighter," Thompson said.

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-02-10

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

warren another dem political clown of the various dems running for presidency without a political profile. she promises socialism at the expenses of us taxpayers and less freedom. she promises a lot for free and fails to explain the financing of her robin hood agenda.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

warren another dem political clown of the various dems running for presidency without a political profile. she promises socialism at the expenses of us taxpayers and less freedom. she promises a lot for free and fails to explain the financing of her robin hood agenda.

 

wbr

roobaa01

I’m not at all sure on what basis you equate socialism with a lack of freedom.

 

Perhaps you can explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not at all sure on what basis you equate socialism with a lack of freedom.

 

Perhaps you can explain.

Republican propagandists are having a field day equating the word “socialism” with government tyranny, food shortages, Venezuelan chaos, etc. As such, it’s become just another meaningless buzzword, like “political correctness” and “fake news.” If by “socialism” you mean acknowledging the fundamental injustice of any system that enables and encourages the grotesque (and growing) wealth disparity one finds in the US and elsewhere, and believing that the profit motive should be removed from essential services like public utilities, health care, and education, then I’m a proud socialist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cory1848 said:

Republican propagandists are having a field day equating the word “socialism” with government tyranny, food shortages, Venezuelan chaos, etc. As such, it’s become just another meaningless buzzword, like “political correctness” and “fake news.” If by “socialism” you mean acknowledging the fundamental injustice of any system that enables and encourages the grotesque (and growing) wealth disparity one finds in the US and elsewhere, and believing that the profit motive should be removed from essential services like public utilities, health care, and education, then I’m a proud socialist.

those on the left have corrupted the word socialism. socialism is the shared means of production. it has been tried about 40 times over the last 100 years. almost always as it fails the government takes control and the society becomes communist. this results tyranny and food shortages. Venezuela is a good example of what was socialism that has become communist. the profit motive is what drives success, big govt is inefficient and tends to screw everything up. there is a reason why the greatest countries in the world are based on the capitalist system, because it works. that's why everyone is trying to leave socialist countries to get into capitalist countries. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, guest879 said:

those on the left have corrupted the word socialism. socialism is the shared means of production. it has been tried about 40 times over the last 100 years. almost always as it fails the government takes control and the society becomes communist. this results tyranny and food shortages. Venezuela is a good example of what was socialism that has become communist. the profit motive is what drives success, big govt is inefficient and tends to screw everything up. there is a reason why the greatest countries in the world are based on the capitalist system, because it works. that's why everyone is trying to leave socialist countries to get into capitalist countries. 

You may be conflating the words “socialism” and “communism.” I don’t think any Democratic candidates are advocating the “shared means of production”; many are, however, advocating government and economic interventions to promote social justice, but all within the framework of a regulated capitalist system. Pure communism is not sustainable because it removes the incentive to work; it is not compatible with human nature. However, the profit motive in its purest state (i.e., Friedmanist neoliberalism), while it “drives success” for those at the top, also leads to the concentration of capital in the hands of the few at the expense of the working class. I agree with you that markets should be free, but they require regulation and appropriate levels of taxation, which can only be imposed by central governments.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rooster59 said:

U.S. Senator Warren launches 2020 campaign, sounds note of economic equality

China once embraced communist and socialism.  In 1950 China had a GDP per capita of $615 compared to about $9,500 for the USA.  In the past 40 years China has abandoned socialism and grown at a rate 4 times that of the USA to become the worlds second largest economy.  Who is socialist? The USA provides aid to single mothers, food stamps, subsidized housing and utilities, unemployment compensation, medicaid free medical care, social security pension benefits, section 8 housing and I could go on.  In the USA you pay federal income tax, fica tax, state income tax, real estate taxes, excise taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, death taxes and I could go on.  In China you pay income tax, put money aside for your own retirement, and pay for your own medical care.  If you don't provide for yourself too bad. What are the results? China is growing 4 times faster than the USA has used more cement in the past 3 years for new construction than the USA did in the entire 20th century.  The USA debt is $21 Trillion which is $172,000 for each family.  That does not include the $100 trillion in unfunded promises to social security and medicare.  Who do we borrow that money from.  Mostly the Chinese who run surpluses.  The lesson is clear.  Whether it is Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba etc everyplace socialism has been tried the result has been abject poverty.  Despite that the siren song beats in the USA and other Western Nations that you can have this Utopian society where you confiscate from those who produce to give to those in need.  The trouble is those that produce get sick of the game and stop producing. 

venezuela-braz-did-you-know-that-60-years-ago-venezuela-37818817.png

Churchill.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cory1848 said:
3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not at all sure on what basis you equate socialism with a lack of freedom.

 

Perhaps you can explain.

Republican propagandists are having a field day equating the word “socialism” with government tyranny, food shortages, Venezuelan chaos, etc. As such, it’s become just another meaningless buzzword, like “political correctness” and “fake news.” If by “socialism” you mean acknowledging the fundamental injustice of any system that enables and encourages the grotesque (and growing) wealth disparity one finds in the US and elsewhere, and believing that the profit motive should be removed from essential services like public utilities, health care, and education, then I’m a proud socialist.

maybe some are, what the actual concern of most is the massive taxes to be raised and the bloated bureaucracies that accompany it. nevermind the 22 trillion debt that people keep ignoring while touting all these extra costs so we can prove we are just as kind and compassionate as the EU that taxes more on income, fuel, GST/VAT, employer contributions, etc.

 

The "fundamental injustice" thing is just not backed up by any reality. The assumption is people don't earn their wealth or success and those who don't have success have somehow been oppressed by the wealthy. That BS may fly on a campus, but it is complete nonsense. 

 

The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016

 

The bottom 50 percent of earners pay next to zero federal taxes.

 

in addition to demanding a tripling of fuel prices, a national gst or vat, increased employer paid contributions, etc. to help feed the EU style of society. All of these have serious consequences for the average citizen and businesses.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

You may be conflating the words “socialism” and “communism.” I don’t think any Democratic candidates are advocating the “shared means of production”;

I am of the opinion the Democrats form of "socialism" is actually more perverse than communism.  Consider in Communism the government owns everything and determines what will be produced and how it will be distributed.  If the company fails only the government suffers.  In the USA right now the "capitalist" invest his/her money putting it at risk.  However the Democrats want the government to control where you locate your business,  have bureaucratic agencies that issue edicts on what products you can produce and regulations that your company is required to follow to market your product.  In the case of Obamacare the government mandates what your insurance policies "must" include and also limits your profits to a specific percentage of the premiums giving you no incentive to lower the premiums.  You will have to explain how if government essentially is running your business how that in any way is materially different in communism except in one critical way.  In  capitalism it is my money at risk.  If my company fails I am the one to suffer the loss and not the government and the Democrats want if my business is still as success to confiscate its profits to redistribute.  Ronald Reagan pretty well summed up how the Democrats view capitalism in the USA 

02426a4d04d726682b483ef176013774.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, struggling to move past criticism over her claims of Native American heritage, aimed for a fresh start on Saturday with the formal launch of her 2020 presidential campaign,

She has already shot herself in the foot by sticking by a false claim of minority status for decades. 

She should move aside an let younger Democratic hopefuls vie for the presidency.  It's time for a new generation to move into power.  It's time for the dinosaurs to move aside, especially those with questionable ethics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...