Elizabeth Warren for President

[_sabotage_]

Can you specify how she has made herself a target of the financial institutions encouraging them to finance her opposition, dig up dirt on her or otherwise try to influence her ability to be elected?

You can't. She is the little consolation gift giving people the illusion of democracy.

[thegreekdog]

I think someone listed Warren's top donors above. The top two are:

EMILY's List - a "national political action committee that works to elect pro-choice female Democrats."
Moveon.org - a "left-leaning organization that almost exclusivley supports Democratic candidates for politial office."

Why is Elizabeth Warren different from a politician who "may believe owe their election finance to the big banks?" Seems to me she is the same; she just happens to have different rent seekers.

I posted the donors list because BBS was implying that all politicians are essentially the same, and that Elizabeth Warren owed her senate seat to campaign contributions from financial institutions, but that list shows that this is not true. So could you specify exactly what kind of rent her supporters are seeking, or how working to elect pro-choice women qualifies as rent-seeking?

I think BBS is implying that all politicians are the same; not that Warren owed her senate seat to campaign contributions from financial institutions (and is therefore the same). Instead of owing her senate seat to financial institutions, she owes her senate seat to campaign contributions from EMILY's List and Moveon.org. As BBS stated (I was going to say "implied" but he stated it), just because someone agrees with the positions of EMILY's List or Moveon.org (or the positions of financial institutions), does not make the practice of rent-seeking any less true.

If you don't like the term "rent-seeking," you may prefer the phrase "beholden to special interests." Elizabeth Warren's views on financial institutions may make her appealing to you, which is cool, but it does not make her special compared to other politicians beause she is also beholden to special interests. They just happen to be special interests that are interested in, for example, legislation that makes abortions easier to obtain or legislation that makes abortions paid for by Catholic school healthcare plans.

In sum - I have no problem with someone supporting Elizabeth Warren. She has certainly (verbally) differentiated herself from other Democrats with respect to the regulation of the banking industry. But she has not differentiated herself from other politicians when it comes to, well, being a politician.

[Fewnix]

Part of the discussion problem is many of the posters in this thread want to talk about "rent-seeking" which, according to Wikipedia is a term closely related to "rational choice" or "public choice: theory:

the subset of positive political theory that studies self-interested agents (voters, politicians, bureaucrats) and their interactions, which can be represented in a number of ways, such as standard constrained utility maximization, game theory, or decision theory.[1] Public choice analysis has roots in positive analysis ("what is") but is often used for normative purposes ("what ought to be") in order to identify a problem or suggest improvements to constitutional rules (i.e., constitutional economics) s:

and that has a basic thesis

.

Its basic thesis is that when both a market economy and government are present, government agents provide numerous special market privileges. Both the government agents and self-interested market participants seek these privileges in order to partake in the resulting monopoly rent. Rentiers gain benefits above what the market would have offered, but in the process allocate resources in sub-optimal fashion from a societal point of view.

I agree with the crittcism of this theory as outlined in the Wikipedia article, basically the theory does not match reality

In their 1994 book Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, political scientists Donald P. Green and Ian Shapiro argue that rational choice theory (of which public choice theory is a branch) has contributed less to the field than its popularity suggests.[24] They write:

The discrepancy between the faith that practitioners place in rational choice theory and its failure to deliver empirically warrants closer inspection of rational choice theorizing as a scientific enterprise.[25]

Linda McQuaig writes in All You Can Eat:[citation needed]

The absurdity of public-choice theory is captured by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen in the following little scenario: "Can you direct me to the railway station?" asks the stranger. "Certainly," says the local, pointing in the opposite direction, towards the post office, "and would you post this letter for me on your way?" "Certainly," says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice

I tend to subscribe to the reality that , flawed as it is, America is a democracy .and there soudl be government of the people, by the people for the people.

Elizabeth Warren for President- she will work for you, and for America.

[degaston]

I think BBS is implying that all politicians are the same; not that Warren owed her senate seat to campaign contributions from financial institutions (and is therefore the same).

The discussion I was referring to went:

...So I'm glad that there's someone like Elizabeth Warren there, who has always struck me as being smart, sincere, and on our (the taxpayer's) side.

...If you check opensecrets.org, you'll see that both Republicans and Democrats receive funding from banks. Once again, another voter has fallen victim to the following reasoning: "The x-politicians suck because they side with rent-seeking group x. Instead, I support the y-politicians (who side with the rent-seeking group y)." (In this case, rent-seeking groups x and y are the same.

If you have some way of interpreting BBS' post other than "Elizabeth Warren is the same as other politicians because she also receives funding from banks.", I'd like to hear your justification for it.

Instead of owing her senate seat to financial institutions, she owes her senate seat to campaign contributions from EMILY's List and Moveon.org. As BBS stated (I was going to say "implied" but he stated it), just because someone agrees with the positions of EMILY's List or Moveon.org (or the positions of financial institutions), does not make the practice of rent-seeking any less true.

If you don't like the term "rent-seeking," you may prefer the phrase "beholden to special interests." Elizabeth Warren's views on financial institutions may make her appealing to you, which is cool, but it does not make her special compared to other politicians beause she is also beholden to special interests. They just happen to be special interests that are interested in, for example, legislation that makes abortions easier to obtain or legislation that makes abortions paid for by Catholic school healthcare plans.

Yeah, I do kind of have a problem with the economic term "rent-seeking" being applied to social issues. Rent-seeking refers to people using their own resources to try to get more of someone else's (in this case, via political influence). Issues like abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, the death penalty, assisted suicide, equal rights, etc. are not about getting someone else's resources, so they're not rent-seeking. Also, the reason it's called rent-seeking is because it relates to income derived simply from ownership of some resource. As a result, the income from rent-seeking behaviors generally flows from those at the bottom the economic ladder (the "renters") to the top (the "landlords"). So it is plainly false to say that all politicians are the same because they're all beholden to rent-seeking campaign contributors. You might try to make the argument that they're still beholden to their campaign contributors whether they're rent-seeking or not, but even that is questionable, as it appears that most politicians tend not to change their voting patterns even when they are nearing retirement and no longer campaigning. (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Bronars-1997-Money-And-Votes.pdf) It is probably far easier and more reliable to find a candidate who already agrees with your position, and help to get them elected, than to try to buy the support of someone who opposes or doesn't much care about your pet issue.

But if the possibility of politicians being beholden to rent-seekers is what really bothers you, then what you need to do should be obvious: Stop voting for republicans. I'm not saying that they are all bad and the dems are all good, but the republican party is staunchly opposed to campaign finance reform, while the democrats support it. I think this is a strong indication as to what the difference between the parties really is, and who is benefiting from, and therefore beholden to, the rent-seeking campaign contributors. So to paraphrase BBS, stop it. For the love of all that is good in this world, stop contributing to the problem by voting for republicans.

[degaston]

Can you specify how she has made herself a target of the financial institutions encouraging them to finance her opposition, dig up dirt on her or otherwise try to influence her ability to be elected?

You can't. She is the little consolation gift giving people the illusion of democracy.

It's hard to find something she's said publicly that wouldn't encourage financial institutions (or more specifically, the people running them) to finance her opposition. They want to continue to have free reign to gamble with depositor's money, knowing that when it all blows up, their good ol' Uncle Sam will be forced to bail them out once again.

But to answer your question, does the fact that she was referred to as "Wall Street's Public Enemy #1" 8 months before she entered politics give you some indication as to how much of a target she was?
Wall Street’s Public Enemy #1 Fires Back at Critics

[thegreekdog]

I think BBS is implying that all politicians are the same; not that Warren owed her senate seat to campaign contributions from financial institutions (and is therefore the same).

The discussion I was referring to went:

...So I'm glad that there's someone like Elizabeth Warren there, who has always struck me as being smart, sincere, and on our (the taxpayer's) side.

...If you check opensecrets.org, you'll see that both Republicans and Democrats receive funding from banks. Once again, another voter has fallen victim to the following reasoning: "The x-politicians suck because they side with rent-seeking group x. Instead, I support the y-politicians (who side with the rent-seeking group y)." (In this case, rent-seeking groups x and y are the same.

If you have some way of interpreting BBS' post other than "Elizabeth Warren is the same as other politicians because she also receives funding from banks.", I'd like to hear your justification for it.

I don't; I was remembering incorrectly. Apologies.

Instead of owing her senate seat to financial institutions, she owes her senate seat to campaign contributions from EMILY's List and Moveon.org. As BBS stated (I was going to say "implied" but he stated it), just because someone agrees with the positions of EMILY's List or Moveon.org (or the positions of financial institutions), does not make the practice of rent-seeking any less true.

If you don't like the term "rent-seeking," you may prefer the phrase "beholden to special interests." Elizabeth Warren's views on financial institutions may make her appealing to you, which is cool, but it does not make her special compared to other politicians beause she is also beholden to special interests. They just happen to be special interests that are interested in, for example, legislation that makes abortions easier to obtain or legislation that makes abortions paid for by Catholic school healthcare plans.

Yeah, I do kind of have a problem with the economic term "rent-seeking" being applied to social issues. Rent-seeking refers to people using their own resources to try to get more of someone else's (in this case, via political influence). Issues like abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, the death penalty, assisted suicide, equal rights, etc. are not about getting someone else's resources, so they're not rent-seeking. Also, the reason it's called rent-seeking is because it relates to income derived simply from ownership of some resource. As a result, the income from rent-seeking behaviors generally flows from those at the bottom the economic ladder (the "renters") to the top (the "landlords"). So it is plainly false to say that all politicians are the same because they're all beholden to rent-seeking campaign contributors. You might try to make the argument that they're still beholden to their campaign contributors whether they're rent-seeking or not, but even that is questionable, as it appears that most politicians tend not to change their voting patterns even when they are nearing retirement and no longer campaigning. (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Bronars-1997-Money-And-Votes.pdf) It is probably far easier and more reliable to find a candidate who already agrees with your position, and help to get them elected, than to try to buy the support of someone who opposes or doesn't much care about your pet issue.

I would argue that issues like abortion, gay marriage, and drug laws all involve (at least peripherally and, in my opinion, directly) rent-seeking. The renters are attempting to derive resources from the landlords. That's why I pointed out the Affordable Care Act's rules on contraceptives. I would also say that gay marriage advocates want to be legally married to obtain the same tax status as non-gay married folks... also rent seeking. Again, this is not to say I agree or disagree with these particular issues (I've found in my years posting on this site that I need to caveat things like that; usually it doesn't work, and we'll end up discussing how I hate gay people or abortions or something, but let's see if it works with you).

Perhaps this is a poor example and simplistic as a whole, but President Obama can serve as an example (I would use President Bush, but I'm trying to make the point that both Republicans and Democrats are beholden to special interests and most people understand that Republicans do what is in the best interest of the corporations giving them money). Is he beholden to special interests? And if he is, when did the public know that he was beholden to special interests? This presupposes that you think that the president has some flaw with respect to policy as compared to how he campaigns. I did a quick check of opensecrets.org and found that in both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, the president received donations from, among others Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Microsoft and Google. President Obama has verbally promised to bring (more) manufacturing back to the United States and to crack down on banks and other financial institutions. If you believed that rhetoric, does it make you more or less inclined to vote for him if you understood that he took money from entities that do much of their manufacturing (such as it is) outside the United States and two financial institutions that want deregulation? Does it make you more or less inclined to vote for him if you realized he appointed some of those Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan people to positions inside regulatory bodies in the federal government? The most important question, in my opinion, is whether anyone who voted for him in 2008 or 2012 had any knowledge that he had those particular backers and understood that the president was more likely to do what was best for the CEO of Microsoft and the owners of Goldman Sachs than he was more likely to do what was best for the people who voted for him.

All that illustrates what BBS said (that Democrats and Republicans are the same) but does not do anything to prove that Elizabeth Warren is the same as all the other politicians. I would say that Warren (and Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich) are prime examples of who I would vote for if I had a pro-government outlook... not because they don't take money from special interests, but because they take money from special interests that a liberal Democrat, pro-government, pro-union, would agree with (rather than, say Microsoft or Goldman).

Additionally, while it may be true that politicians don't change their voting patterns when they near retirement and/or no longer campaign, they still have a vested interest in pleasing whomever got them to the dance so that the politician has a job when he or she retires.

Additionally, additionally, while it is far easier to find a politician to agree with your point of view, and then give him or her money, it does not discount rent-seeking or special interests. Goldman Sachs would not give Elizabeth Warren money to fund her campaign because it wouldn't make a difference (because they could find someone else to run against her and give that person money). But what if, as illustrated by President Obama above, Elizabeth Warren received money from a group to which she had no real vested interest in the opposite point of view?

But if the possibility of politicians being beholden to rent-seekers is what really bothers you, then what you need to do should be obvious: Stop voting for republicans. I'm not saying that they are all bad and the dems are all good, but the republican party is staunchly opposed to campaign finance reform, while the democrats support it. I think this is a strong indication as to what the difference between the parties really is, and who is benefiting from, and therefore beholden to, the rent-seeking campaign contributors. So to paraphrase BBS, stop it. For the love of all that is good in this world, stop contributing to the problem by voting for republicans.

I'm unclear as to where I indicated that I voted for Republicans. How did you make that determination?

I have not determined where I stand on campaign finance reform. On the one hand, it's pretty easy to determine where politicians get their money, so I'm unsure of what Senator Shumer means by "dark money" (this is neither here nor there, but when a senator says something like "We want to make Republicans say where they got their money. Like from the Koch brothers" it makes me laugh because, well, you just told us where Republicans get their money; on the Democrat side we also know where Democrats get their money... it just makes me laugh is all). On the other hand, if the general public would become more knowledgeable about campaign finance, they may be better able to understand exactly who they are voting for so I'd be in favor.

[_sabotage_]

http://www.upworthy.com/a-senator-blunt ... t-shutdown

So it would seem that Warren opposes government shutdowns. So what other tools are available to a senator? Maybe she informed the public and rallied her troops around public support. Let's see: Warren warns of derivatives. Warren Buffet, Buffet, again Buffet, ah following the vote, Senator Warren. So prior to the vote, silence and then after the vote opposition.

But it came as a "surprise", she says. Not a surprise to the WSJ, businessinsider, or a whole host of financial journals. Sure the dangers of derivative markets may be obscure, without much info in them. The collapse was so long ago, no doubt she'd have to rummage through all her yard sale items to find any.

But Senator Warren goes to great lengths to oppose the banks, she writes letters, and then gives interviews on the letters after the fact. Joy, who voted in my grandma?

The media makes this nobody a hero. If I were the banks, and my only opposition was Warren, I'd be thrilled. It makes the public feel there is legitimate government while not offering any opposition and if she gets too frisky, we just threaten her pro-choice agenda and shut her up.

In any con involving more than one person, the other players in the con are supposed to legitimize the con.

“No matter what individual professions and party claims may be to the contrary, it is apparent to anyone who has been a Member of Congress, and to anyone else who examines, that the will of the people in regard to legislation is seldom consulted. The price of leadership here is exactly the opposite of carrying out, in good faith, the will of those we are elected to serve.

Wholesale deception of the voters has been, and is now, the means used most successfully to secure office and remain in public life.

…Every one here knows that these things are true. But the public gets no information from the press about it, but anyone who dares to uncover the system and expose the schemes for deceiving the public finds that a certain part of the press will attack him and call him a radical and obstructionist, and excoriate him in every way possible. If to tell the truth about things makes one a radical, then radicals ought to be at a premium. But they have not been so far politically."

Charles Lindbergh, 1916.

[patches70]

Obama talked big about reigning in the big banks when he was campaigning for his first POTUS run and it turned out that Obama became the bankster's best friend. Obama has been a better friend to the money powers than even Bush Jr. And that's sayin' something.

Politicians will say whatever they want to get elected. Warren is a demagogue pure and simple. We always try to think "If only we could get the right person in power" and that's just foolish. It's not the people in power, it's the system that exists. There is no reforming that system, it's too entrenched. At this point it can only be destroyed or left alone. The politicians choose the latter route. Warren would be no different.

But, for the sake of argument, let us say that Warren would choose the latter. Any attempts at trying to reform how our economic and political system works would meet such incredible resistance that it just can't be done. But it can be destroyed. The problem with that though is that few who want to go that route really understands what that would entail. It would be akin to putting a loaded gun to one's temple and pulling the trigger.
The tranzies are going to implode soon enough. No need for demagogue like Warren to be tossed into the mix to further muddy the waters.

[_sabotage_]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/periannebor ... fed-audit/

"After avoiding the subject of auditing the Fed by calling Sen. Paul disingenuous, I asked Sen. Warren if she believes the Fed’s books should be audited. She looked me right in the eye and then moved on to the next person. I’ll take that as a “No.”

Prior to joining the Senate, Elizabeth Warren served as the Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This agency was created under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law and unlike most agencies, is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve. Opening up the Fed’s books would mean opening up the CFPB’s books. Warren played an integral role in the CFPB’s inception, and when asked if these agencies should be transparent, she chose not to respond. As someone who has championed reforms and transparency within our financial institutions, she should be outspoken about holding her own agency to these same standards.

The Fed wishes to remain independent and doesn’t want to be truly audited. However, the Federal Reserve has chosen to engage in policies that contradict and undermine other financial regulators and have even been called corrupt. 75% of Americans support auditing the Fed. Americans deserve transparency from our elected officials and government, since we pay for them. Senator Rand Paul and Rep. Paul Broun are the sponsors of the Federal Reserve Transparency Acts. If your elected officials are not cosponsors, I suggest giving them a call."

Hmm. Wonder why Senator Warren described Citi's bailout as $500 bn, instead of $3 trillion as divulged in the partial audit of the Fed?

Let's see how Warren describes Citi's ability to stop a popular, bi-partisan move to break up Citi:

During Dodd-Frank, there was an amendment introduced by my colleague Senator Brown and Senator Kaufman that would have broken up Citigroup and the nation’s other largest banks. That amendment had bipartisan support, and it might have passed, but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between Wall Streeters on Wall Street and Wall Streeters who held powerful government jobs. They teamed up and blocked the move to break up the banks—and now Citi is bigger than ever.

So she says that government can get together and block things. Does she suggest that this new provision should or can be blocked?

"a must-pass spending bill".

So, it must pass according to Warren. Sounds like she was suggesting people vote to approve.

Wow, apparently Citi acting through politicians are more able to pass laws or block them than politicians acting for themselves.

Apparently, the $2.5 trillion in secret bailouts can't be discussed. Apparently, Citi is the only bank in America and the larger issues can't be discussed. Thanks Senator Warren for telling us what is and what isn't important at the last minute while telling people they must pass the bill. Thanks media for championing her.

[degaston]

I would argue that issues like abortion, gay marriage, and drug laws all involve (at least peripherally and, in my opinion, directly) rent-seeking. The renters are attempting to derive resources from the landlords. That's why I pointed out the Affordable Care Act's rules on contraceptives. I would also say that gay marriage advocates want to be legally married to obtain the same tax status as non-gay married folks... also rent seeking. Again, this is not to say I agree or disagree with these particular issues (I've found in my years posting on this site that I need to caveat things like that; usually it doesn't work, and we'll end up discussing how I hate gay people or abortions or something, but let's see if it works with you).

I think that including abortion rights and legalizing drugs as examples of rent-seeking stretches the definition of the term to the point of breaking and/or irrelevance. Is there any issue within the political realm that you would not consider to be rent-seeking, and if not, then why even talk about it? You may as well be upset about the nose breathers vs the mouth breathers, and how they're all the same because they just want more oxygen.

If the objection to gay marriage is that they are rent-seeking the financial benefits of marriage (never mind the non-financial benefits like adoption, hospital visitation rights, etc.) then why not criticize heterosexuals for doing the same thing? Maybe you do, but society (meaning the mostly married politicians) has decided that having stable families is a good thing so they reward that behavior with a variety of benefits that are not available to unmarried couples. Since it takes a lot of work to maintain a family, I would argue that families are simply being compensated for the value they add to society, and so the financial benefits of marriage are no longer a rent-seeking activity, but just a nebulous form of wages. And because gay families provide the same benefit to society (or perhaps a greater benefit, as a higher percentage of gay couples adopt unwanted children), it is not rent seeking for them to want the same legal and financial benefits that are awarded to straight couples.

I believe the Hobby Lobby contraceptive issue was mainly a politically motivated attack on Obamacare that devolved into a case about whether a company can impose the religious views of its owners on their employees, and even more stupidly, whether someone's "sincere beliefs" are more important than facts. If any side was rent-seeking, it was Hobby Lobby because they used to provide contraceptive coverage in their health care plan (I can't seem to find exactly what types were covered before), and then filed the lawsuit so that they would no longer have to cover a few particular kinds of contraception. The coverage probably didn't cost very much anyway, so I doubt that money was their primary motivation. And it appears that the insurance companies still have to provide "free" coverage for whatever Hobby Lobby won't pay for, which in turn gets passed along as extra costs to everyone, including Hobby Lobby, so in the end, I like to think that they're paying for it anyway.

Perhaps this is a poor example and simplistic as a whole, but President Obama can serve as an example (I would use President Bush, but I'm trying to make the point that both Republicans and Democrats are beholden to special interests and most people understand that Republicans do what is in the best interest of the corporations giving them money). Is he beholden to special interests? And if he is, when did the public know that he was beholden to special interests? This presupposes that you think that the president has some flaw with respect to policy as compared to how he campaigns. I did a quick check of opensecrets.org and found that in both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, the president received donations from, among others Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Microsoft and Google. President Obama has verbally promised to bring (more) manufacturing back to the United States and to crack down on banks and other financial institutions. If you believed that rhetoric, does it make you more or less inclined to vote for him if you understood that he took money from entities that do much of their manufacturing (such as it is) outside the United States and two financial institutions that want deregulation? Does it make you more or less inclined to vote for him if you realized he appointed some of those Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan people to positions inside regulatory bodies in the federal government? The most important question, in my opinion, is whether anyone who voted for him in 2008 or 2012 had any knowledge that he had those particular backers and understood that the president was more likely to do what was best for the CEO of Microsoft and the owners of Goldman Sachs than he was more likely to do what was best for the people who voted for him.

I had no illusions that Obama was a saint (or Elizabeth Warren, or any politician). The election process is so expensive, and the campaign finance system is such a mess, that I doubt any politician would turn down a contribution, even from a group they disagree with. (I've heard of trolls doing this just to embarrass a politician) That doesn't necessarily mean that the politician will provide them with some political favor. I also understand that politics does not occur in a vacuum, that compromise is necessary if anything is to get done, and that even presidents can't always get what they want. What I really want from a politician is not that they'll do what's best for their contributors, or the people who voted for them, or even for me, but that they would try to do what's best for the country and society as a whole. So I think that whatever Obama might do that is counterproductive to that goal is nothing compared to the potential disaster that a Romney administration would have been.

All that illustrates what BBS said (that Democrats and Republicans are the same) but does not do anything to prove that Elizabeth Warren is the same as all the other politicians. I would say that Warren (and Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich) are prime examples of who I would vote for if I had a pro-government outlook... not because they don't take money from special interests, but because they take money from special interests that a liberal Democrat, pro-government, pro-union, would agree with (rather than, say Microsoft or Goldman).

Yes, every politician takes money from contributors because that is what is required to get elected - unless you're rich enough to self-finance your campaign, in which case aren't you just beholden to making sure that you have enough money to finance your next campaign? I'm not sure quite what your point is. People tend to like politicians that agree with them on their favorite issues? That's the way politics works - or at least used to kind of work until the republicans joined up with the tea-baggers, and started electing people who refuse to compromise under any circumstances, and are more interested in shutting government down than in making it work.

Additionally, while it may be true that politicians don't change their voting patterns when they near retirement and/or no longer campaign, they still have a vested interest in pleasing whomever got them to the dance so that the politician has a job when he or she retires.

Could be - I would guess that some are true believers, and others are just life-long sellouts. That still doesn't make them all the same.

Additionally, additionally, while it is far easier to find a politician to agree with your point of view, and then give him or her money, it does not discount rent-seeking or special interests. Goldman Sachs would not give Elizabeth Warren money to fund her campaign because it wouldn't make a difference (because they could find someone else to run against her and give that person money). But what if, as illustrated by President Obama above, Elizabeth Warren received money from a group to which she had no real vested interest in the opposite point of view?

I don't know - name the issue and the side that she was influenced to take.

I'm unclear as to where I indicated that I voted for Republicans. How did you make that determination?

Sorry, I didn't mean that to be specifically directed towards you. I think I had seen somewhere that you described yourself as a hardcore libertarian.

I have not determined where I stand on campaign finance reform. On the one hand, it's pretty easy to determine where politicians get their money, so I'm unsure of what Senator Shumer means by "dark money" (this is neither here nor there, but when a senator says something like "We want to make Republicans say where they got their money. Like from the Koch brothers" it makes me laugh because, well, you just told us where Republicans get their money; on the Democrat side we also know where Democrats get their money... it just makes me laugh is all). On the other hand, if the general public would become more knowledgeable about campaign finance, they may be better able to understand exactly who they are voting for so I'd be in favor.

I don't know what the solution is, but the current system seems broken and the republicans are determined to keep it that way.

[thegreekdog]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/perianneboring/2013/11/29/call-your-congressman-in-favor-of-rand-pauls-fed-audit/

"After avoiding the subject of auditing the Fed by calling Sen. Paul disingenuous, I asked Sen. Warren if she believes the Fed’s books should be audited. She looked me right in the eye and then moved on to the next person. I’ll take that as a “No.”

Prior to joining the Senate, Elizabeth Warren served as the Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This agency was created under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law and unlike most agencies, is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve. Opening up the Fed’s books would mean opening up the CFPB’s books. Warren played an integral role in the CFPB’s inception, and when asked if these agencies should be transparent, she chose not to respond. As someone who has championed reforms and transparency within our financial institutions, she should be outspoken about holding her own agency to these same standards.

The Fed wishes to remain independent and doesn’t want to be truly audited. However, the Federal Reserve has chosen to engage in policies that contradict and undermine other financial regulators and have even been called corrupt. 75% of Americans support auditing the Fed. Americans deserve transparency from our elected officials and government, since we pay for them. Senator Rand Paul and Rep. Paul Broun are the sponsors of the Federal Reserve Transparency Acts. If your elected officials are not cosponsors, I suggest giving them a call."

Hmm. Wonder why Senator Warren described Citi's bailout as $500 bn, instead of $3 trillion as divulged in the partial audit of the Fed?

Let's see how Warren describes Citi's ability to stop a popular, bi-partisan move to break up Citi:

During Dodd-Frank, there was an amendment introduced by my colleague Senator Brown and Senator Kaufman that would have broken up Citigroup and the nation’s other largest banks. That amendment had bipartisan support, and it might have passed, but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between Wall Streeters on Wall Street and Wall Streeters who held powerful government jobs. They teamed up and blocked the move to break up the banks—and now Citi is bigger than ever.

So she says that government can get together and block things. Does she suggest that this new provision should or can be blocked?

"a must-pass spending bill".

So, it must pass according to Warren. Sounds like she was suggesting people vote to approve.

Wow, apparently Citi acting through politicians are more able to pass laws or block them than politicians acting for themselves.

Apparently, the $2.5 trillion in secret bailouts can't be discussed. Apparently, Citi is the only bank in America and the larger issues can't be discussed. Thanks Senator Warren for telling us what is and what isn't important at the last minute while telling people they must pass the bill. Thanks media for championing her.

Senator Warren could be more concerne about the historic nature of the appointment and less concerned about the substantive effect.

[thegreekdog]

I would argue that issues like abortion, gay marriage, and drug laws all involve (at least peripherally and, in my opinion, directly) rent-seeking. The renters are attempting to derive resources from the landlords. That's why I pointed out the Affordable Care Act's rules on contraceptives. I would also say that gay marriage advocates want to be legally married to obtain the same tax status as non-gay married folks... also rent seeking. Again, this is not to say I agree or disagree with these particular issues (I've found in my years posting on this site that I need to caveat things like that; usually it doesn't work, and we'll end up discussing how I hate gay people or abortions or something, but let's see if it works with you).

I think that including abortion rights and legalizing drugs as examples of rent-seeking stretches the definition of the term to the point of breaking and/or irrelevance. Is there any issue within the political realm that you would not consider to be rent-seeking, and if not, then why even talk about it? You may as well be upset about the nose breathers vs the mouth breathers, and how they're all the same because they just want more oxygen.

Any area in the political realm in which money does not play a part in supporting a candidate is what I would consider not rent-seeking. For example, if there was no group called EMILY's List (and no substitute), I could say there is no pro-abortion rent-seeking.

If the objection to gay marriage is that they are rent-seeking the financial benefits of marriage (never mind the non-financial benefits like adoption, hospital visitation rights, etc.) then why not criticize heterosexuals for doing the same thing? Maybe you do, but society (meaning the mostly married politicians) has decided that having stable families is a good thing so they reward that behavior with a variety of benefits that are not available to unmarried couples. Since it takes a lot of work to maintain a family, I would argue that families are simply being compensated for the value they add to society, and so the financial benefits of marriage are no longer a rent-seeking activity, but just a nebulous form of wages. And because gay families provide the same benefit to society (or perhaps a greater benefit, as a higher percentage of gay couples adopt unwanted children), it is not rent seeking for them to want the same legal and financial benefits that are awarded to straight couples.

You had me at "the same thing."

Perhaps this is a poor example and simplistic as a whole, but President Obama can serve as an example (I would use President Bush, but I'm trying to make the point that both Republicans and Democrats are beholden to special interests and most people understand that Republicans do what is in the best interest of the corporations giving them money). Is he beholden to special interests? And if he is, when did the public know that he was beholden to special interests? This presupposes that you think that the president has some flaw with respect to policy as compared to how he campaigns. I did a quick check of opensecrets.org and found that in both the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, the president received donations from, among others Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Microsoft and Google. President Obama has verbally promised to bring (more) manufacturing back to the United States and to crack down on banks and other financial institutions. If you believed that rhetoric, does it make you more or less inclined to vote for him if you understood that he took money from entities that do much of their manufacturing (such as it is) outside the United States and two financial institutions that want deregulation? Does it make you more or less inclined to vote for him if you realized he appointed some of those Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan people to positions inside regulatory bodies in the federal government? The most important question, in my opinion, is whether anyone who voted for him in 2008 or 2012 had any knowledge that he had those particular backers and understood that the president was more likely to do what was best for the CEO of Microsoft and the owners of Goldman Sachs than he was more likely to do what was best for the people who voted for him.

I had no illusions that Obama was a saint (or Elizabeth Warren, or any politician). The election process is so expensive, and the campaign finance system is such a mess, that I doubt any politician would turn down a contribution, even from a group they disagree with. (I've heard of trolls doing this just to embarrass a politician) That doesn't necessarily mean that the politician will provide them with some political favor. I also understand that politics does not occur in a vacuum, that compromise is necessary if anything is to get done, and that even presidents can't always get what they want. What I really want from a politician is not that they'll do what's best for their contributors, or the people who voted for them, or even for me, but that they would try to do what's best for the country and society as a whole. So I think that whatever Obama might do that is counterproductive to that goal is nothing compared to the potential disaster that a Romney administration would have been.

At that point, we're arguing about political views, not politics. We can reserve another thread for that if you like.

All that illustrates what BBS said (that Democrats and Republicans are the same) but does not do anything to prove that Elizabeth Warren is the same as all the other politicians. I would say that Warren (and Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich) are prime examples of who I would vote for if I had a pro-government outlook... not because they don't take money from special interests, but because they take money from special interests that a liberal Democrat, pro-government, pro-union, would agree with (rather than, say Microsoft or Goldman).

Yes, every politician takes money from contributors because that is what is required to get elected - unless you're rich enough to self-finance your campaign, in which case aren't you just beholden to making sure that you have enough money to finance your next campaign? I'm not sure quite what your point is. People tend to like politicians that agree with them on their favorite issues? That's the way politics works - or at least used to kind of work until the republicans joined up with the tea-baggers, and started electing people who refuse to compromise under any circumstances, and are more interested in shutting government down than in making it work.

Ignorant comment on the government shutdown notwithstanding, I'm okay with rent-seeking when it does not involve money (i.e. when it involves votes). I'm also okay with rent-seeking when a politician says "I will do X" and then does or tries to do X. What I'm not okay with is rent-seeking that involves campaign contributions in exchange (whether tacit or not) for a political favor and rent-seeking that occurs when a politican says "I will do X" and then does or tries to do the oppositve of X.

Additionally, while it may be true that politicians don't change their voting patterns when they near retirement and/or no longer campaign, they still have a vested interest in pleasing whomever got them to the dance so that the politician has a job when he or she retires.

Could be - I would guess that some are true believers, and others are just life-long sellouts. That still doesn't make them all the same.

They are all the same. I believe that Elizabeth Warren is pro choice and she is pro-choice regardless of whether she receives money from EMILY's List or not (I believe Mitt Romney is pro-business whether he receives money from businesses or not).

Additionally, additionally, while it is far easier to find a politician to agree with your point of view, and then give him or her money, it does not discount rent-seeking or special interests. Goldman Sachs would not give Elizabeth Warren money to fund her campaign because it wouldn't make a difference (because they could find someone else to run against her and give that person money). But what if, as illustrated by President Obama above, Elizabeth Warren received money from a group to which she had no real vested interest in the opposite point of view?

I don't know - name the issue and the side that she was influenced to take.

Goldman Sachs.
Defense contractors.
Alternative energy companies.

I'm unclear as to where I indicated that I voted for Republicans. How did you make that determination?

Sorry, I didn't mean that to be specifically directed towards you. I think I had seen somewhere that you described yourself as a hardcore libertarian.

I am a hardcore libertarian. How does that make me a Republican? Republicans are as much the antithesis of libertarians as Democrats.

I have not determined where I stand on campaign finance reform. On the one hand, it's pretty easy to determine where politicians get their money, so I'm unsure of what Senator Shumer means by "dark money" (this is neither here nor there, but when a senator says something like "We want to make Republicans say where they got their money. Like from the Koch brothers" it makes me laugh because, well, you just told us where Republicans get their money; on the Democrat side we also know where Democrats get their money... it just makes me laugh is all). On the other hand, if the general public would become more knowledgeable about campaign finance, they may be better able to understand exactly who they are voting for so I'd be in favor.

I don't know what the solution is, but the current system seems broken and the republicans are determined to keep it that way.

Yes, but I don't know that the Democrats' solution is one that I support.

Pre-solution - Campaign contributions are secret (except they aren't).
Post-solution - Campaign contributions aren't secret AND we get a new government oversight committee (or commitees) and 5,000 new government jobs! YAY! Let's get them in the union!

Let me ask you another one - state government employees are members of a union (let's call it "SGEU"). The union, every two years, negotiates a contract the state government on new wages, benefits, etc. The SGEU is represented by various attorneys (let's call the law firm "Dewey Cheathem and Howe"). The state is represented by the state legislature. When the state legislators are up for reelection, members of one party receive campaign contributions from the SGEU (and other associated unions) and its members and from Dewey Cheathem and Howe (and its attorneys). When the union contract comes up for renewal two years later, do you have confidence that the state government will do what's best for the state or do you think the state will do what's best for the SGEU? Regardless of whether you are a pro-union man or woman (I love unions), the contract between these two parties is a disgusting display of rent-seeking.

And if you are annoyed that I'm using Democrats, flip it and use government contractors instead of unions.

[Metsfanmax]

Ignorant comment on the government shutdown notwithstanding, I'm okay with rent-seeking when it does not involve money (i.e. when it involves votes). I'm also okay with rent-seeking when a politician says "I will do X" and then does or tries to do X. What I'm not okay with is rent-seeking that involves campaign contributions in exchange (whether tacit or not) for a political favor and rent-seeking that occurs when a politican says "I will do X" and then does or tries to do the oppositve of X.

What is the fundamental difference between trying to buy a politician's vote with money and trying to buy a politician's vote with votes? Either way, you're influencing their chances of getting re-elected in return for laws that you like.

[thegreekdog]

Ignorant comment on the government shutdown notwithstanding, I'm okay with rent-seeking when it does not involve money (i.e. when it involves votes). I'm also okay with rent-seeking when a politician says "I will do X" and then does or tries to do X. What I'm not okay with is rent-seeking that involves campaign contributions in exchange (whether tacit or not) for a political favor and rent-seeking that occurs when a politican says "I will do X" and then does or tries to do the oppositve of X.

What is the fundamental difference between trying to buy a politician's vote with money and trying to buy a politician's vote with votes? Either way, you're influencing their chances of getting re-elected in return for laws that you like.

Is this a trick question? I have 1 vote. Goldman Sachs' employees have many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can't offer Elizabeth Warren a job after retirement (I guess I could, but not sure she would want to work for me). Merrill Lynch can.

The problem with special interests or moneyed interests or rent seeking or whatever is that money has more power and influence than a vote.

[_sabotage_]

You also have to worry about money being used against you.

And being considered unwilling to play ball.

[rishaed]

http://www.upworthy.com/a-senator-bluntly-says-what-were-all-thinking-about-the-awful-and-obnoxious-government-shutdown

So it would seem that Warren opposes government shutdowns.

I don't know about you... But I'm all for government shutdowns at least for periods of time.... The only thing that seems to happen is that they stop recklessly spending money. Now understandably, Governments are formed for reasons, and part of that is so it can regulate stuff.... but its also worse than anything else when it comes to guzzling money down the drain. The only solution they have is borrow and print it seems.

[_sabotage_]

I'd be happy if they closed up shop for good. We have state government, let the federales eat themselves.

[thegreekdog]

I thought degaston's comment was ignorant because of the "more interested than shutting government down than in making it work" was not what the "tea-baggers" were trying to do. It's what people who didn't like what they were trying to do said they were trying to do. One of the best ways to eliminate in a rival is to make them look crazy and marginalize them. While I loathe defending tea party folk (given their penchant for inserting Christian values into every-fucking-thing), what they were trying to do is get Congress to cut back spending; the only way to effectively do this is to threaten to "shut down the government" because the people who want to increase spending or keep spending levels level are also not willing to compromise. Even libertarians believe that the federal government is necesary (even if it's only for stuff like national defense), so even us whackjobs want to "make it work."

[degaston]

I thought degaston's comment was ignorant because of the "more interested than shutting government down than in making it work" was not what the "tea-baggers" were trying to do. It's what people who didn't like what they were trying to do said they were trying to do. One of the best ways to eliminate in a rival is to make them look crazy and marginalize them. While I loathe defending tea party folk (given their penchant for inserting Christian values into every-fucking-thing), what they were trying to do is get Congress to cut back spending; the only way to effectively do this is to threaten to "shut down the government" because the people who want to increase spending or keep spending levels level are also not willing to compromise. Even libertarians believe that the federal government is necesary (even if it's only for stuff like national defense), so even us whackjobs want to "make it work."

I don't have to do a thing to make tea-baggers look crazy - they do it all themselves...
"We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." –Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) on the government shutdown, Oct. 1, 2013
"We're very excited. It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it." –Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on the government shutdown, as quoted by the Washington Post, Sept. 29, 2013
"This is my idea of fun." –Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) on the government shutdown

They did it because they wanted to defund Obamacare - which was modeled after "Romneycare" - which was praised by the Heritage Foundation and supported by many republicans. Once it became Obama's program, they stopped supporting it, and refused to do anything to try to make it better. Their entire focus was on making Obamacare, and by extension Obama, fail. (A Blueprint for the GOP's Attempt to Sabotage Obamacare)

But they failed at that, too. Obamacare became the law, so they decided to hold the entire government hostage unless Obamacare was defunded. At least they succeeded in that - they shut down the government - and there was much rejoicing among the republicans. Even though they didn't get a single substantive concession, and it cost more to shut the government down than if it had remained open. So how, exactly, was this "effective"?

I suppose you think at least they were fighting the good fight - why should they compromise when democrats won't, right? Well the democrats did compromise when the Bush tax cuts were passed in the first place. (History lesson: Why the Bush tax cuts were enacted) But the economy was much different at that time - we had a budget surplus, and there was talk of getting to zero debt. This was just 7 years after the Clinton tax increases that republicans said would destroy the economy. (In 1993, Republicans Said Clinton Tax Increase On Rich Would Lead To A 'Recession'; - The Economy Boomed Instead) So why couldn't republicans be the one's to compromise this time? Especially considering what a complete failure the Bush tax cuts turned out to be. (The Bush Tax-Cut Failure)

[thegreekdog]

So how, exactly, was this "effective"?

Seriously?

http://www.politico.com/2014-election/r ... ap/senate/

Also, for whatever this means to you, I put little stock on things the government does having a massive effect on the economy (whether they are Bush tax cuts, Clinton tax increases, Obama tax cuts or increases). There are things the government has done (the bailouts) and could do (reduce the income tax rate on corporations to something that is competitive with the rest of the worl) that would have an effect on the economy, but they are few and far between. There are so many other factors associated with how an economy works... taxes are just one (very) small portion.

[degaston]

So how, exactly, was this "effective"?

Seriously?

http://www.politico.com/2014-election/r ... ap/senate/

Well, I was talking about effective in terms of their stated goal of stopping Obamacare. If your only measure of good governance is how much control you can seize in the next election, then yes, something they did was effective. As I recall, the shutdown was not popular overall, and the republicans received most of the blame for causing it, which is why they had to end it without getting any changes to the law. So I think it's baseless to imply that the shutdown was the reason they took control of the senate.

Republicans have been more effective at gerrymandering, fear-mongering and voter suppression, so there's something to be proud of. The party in control of the white house typically loses seats in the mid-term elections, and even more during a president's 2nd term, so republicans had history on their side. And the democrats had 21 seats up for re-election to the republican's 15, so that was another factor. But if you want believe that the 2013 shutdown was somehow responsible for the republicans taking control of the senate, go right ahead.

Also, for whatever this means to you, I put little stock on things the government does having a massive effect on the economy (whether they are Bush tax cuts, Clinton tax increases, Obama tax cuts or increases).

I guess my response would be: Why?
Did you used to think that things the government did could influence the economy, but some sort of evidence caused you to change your mind? Or did you start from the idea that small government is better, and conclude that there was little that a big government could do that would change anything, without even looking for counter-evidence?

It's a massive, complicated economy that is generally slow to respond to any changes that the government makes, so even if a change would have a "massive" effect, it may be years or even decades before the full effect is known. And it's not a laboratory where you can isolate a policy from outside influences or repeat an experiment under identical conditions, so proving a cause and effect relationship may be extremely difficult. Policy makers usually want to make as small a change as possible to avoid over-correction, or causing unforeseen problems. That doesn't mean that these things do not have massive effects over time.

Would you say that the increasing income inequality in the US since the early 80's is, or is not a massive change? Was it something that just came about naturally, or was it the result of government actions?

What about this graph?

Does it not matter who is in control?

There are things the government has done (the bailouts) and could do (reduce the income tax rate on corporations to something that is competitive with the rest of the worl) that would have an effect on the economy, but they are few and far between. There are so many other factors associated with how an economy works... taxes are just one (very) small portion.

What world are you talking about? The one within the conservative thought bubble that only looks at the statutory rate, and ignores what corporations actually pay?
How far below 0% do you want to go?

There's this, from an admittedly partisan source, and I don't know how they calculated their numbers:

Reality Check: Effective U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Much Lower Than Most Other Developed Nations

Or this one, which is more recent and seems to show higher (though dropping) effective rates, but still does not put the US out of line with the rest of the world.
Effective Corporate Tax Rates - A Global Comparison
(The charts are on pages 7-11)

Do you have any evidence that your beliefs match reality?

[_sabotage_]

That graph is utter bullshit.

[degaston]

That graph is utter bullshit.

How can one argue with such a coherent and well-reasoned counter-point?

[_sabotage_]

During the time period, the wealthy have become vastly more wealthy than the poor.

Your graph doesn't reflect reality.

[degaston]

During the time period, the wealthy have become vastly more wealthy than the poor.

Your graph doesn't reflect reality.