@2002lees So what? Thinking about the 1% is a useful concept, but not everyone in the one percent is evil, whether they inherited massive wealth, or made it. And 14.5 million is a long ways from someone like Adelson, who just gave about her entire worth to Newt Gingrich in campaign contributions...and is getting the support for his pro-war point of view he paid for.
Wouldn't that wealth be her joint wealth with her husband? And joint income with her husband?
If she's only making 350,000 that's "down" around the 2%. I have also seen it cited that the dividing line to the "poor rich" is having about $20 million in assets. She grew up working, and the child of a janitor and someone working in a call center. Envy much? Its sad to see the hate here...from people who clearly under the spell of propaganda deep enough to work for the people who destroy us.
"The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
Quoted from USA Today "Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes"
So again the democrats line on "who should pay they're "fair share" is moot my friend.
"LOL I guarantee they will be looking for another government bailout. Without the US government GM is dead." Hey remember those billions of dollars that was spent on bailing out Wall St all so business executives could have raises that year?
Cutting taxes in Red States only makes it possible for those in bed with Republicans to do well. "Reaganomics" is a great example of that extraordinary failure.
It's hilarious that you cite Walker's term as not enough time to be responsible for Wisconsin's economic failure and believe that a Democratic President in office for four years isn't the cause of any prosperity since Clinton. Also, WI votes blue, but has a red congress. Don't worry––they, and Walker, won't be there long.
"Cutting taxes in Red States only makes it possible for those in bed with Republicans to do well. "Reaganomics" is a great example of that extraordinary failure."
Whatever those are just democrat talking points. The fact are jobs are being created in the Red States while Blue see no jobs. That's just a difference in economic policy and the Dems clearly fail in that from the example of the states.
Walker tried to get some good things done like reducing taxes to encourage more private sector job growth but apparently the democrat unions are louder, more obnoxious then ever and want to keep there tax paid goodies. Fine I say let Wisconsin drown like California, Ohio and Michigan if they are crazy enough to continue the status quo.
@wolfengheist Also, are you ignoring the rebuilding of the Auto-industry in MI and the Republican controlled Congress of WI or just choosing to omit that from your argument? Wisconsin is failing because Walker took all of the funding out of public programs and refuses to let workers unionize.
Oh yeah it's Republican fault even though Walker's only been in there for what 2 in a half years? Also you ignore the fact that Wisconsin was and still is democrat ruled before Walker showed up. BTW the Walker is paying down the deficit Wisconsin that democrats built up. Nice try.
"Wisconsin is failing because Walker took all of the funding out of public programs and refuses to let workers unionize."
The unions and the spending is what drove Walker to power.
Laugh all you want, but it's true. And Mitt Romney pays what, 13%?
Demcorats don't need the money. America needs it. We are not going to become a nation that balances budgets on the backs of the poor, elderly, and ill.
Again, Dems want to cut spending and want to stop throwing money at corporations. But Republicans don't want to. That's where we're racking up the most debt. Take issue with that.
Boosting social programs worked after WWII, it worked during the Clinton administration, and it's working now that Obama's in office. There is job creation and economic growth. The government is doing its job. Cutting taxes for the rich only exploits the working and middle class, who can't pay for government alone. Tax loopholes for the rich have led to a unprecedented wealth for few and poverty for most. People who make over 250K need to start paying like the rest of us do.
Cutting taxes for the rich only exploits the working and middle class, who can't pay for government alone.
Not true. Cutting taxes works to bring jobs back. Job growth in the Red states are a great example. Higher taxes will force jobs to leave as evident in most blue states.
"People who make over 250K need to start paying like the rest of us do."
Not everyone earns their income via capital gains, especially those earning $250K. Do you think it's fair that a person earning $250K is taxed at the same rate as a person earning $25 million?
@wolfengheist 250K comes from a figure that divides America between the 1% and the 99%. Of course I think that it's unfair that a person making millions of dollars pay the same as someone making 250K. I also think it's ridiculous that someone earning 75K pays a greater percentage in income tax than both of those groups of people.
Warren Buffet is the definition of a crony capitalist. It's funny how you Libs glum on to such characters because that supposedly agree with your economic views. But you're the same crowd that loves Former Currency Speculator Geogre Soros so i'm not surprised. The left's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
You're also the same guys that would re elect millionaire Obama with his ties to the evvvvilllee bankers and other crony capitalists. LOL. I luv the hypocrisy from you guys on the left.
@wolfengheist And I want you to know that I love that you believe it's okay to balance a budget on millions of suffering people while the rich get richer. Brilliance. Please run for public office in hell.
Millionaire Obama is better than millionaire Bush, Reagan, and Nixon. I don't think you realize how this works. Rich people exist and they are in office. And there are plenty on both sides of the playing field (more on the Republican side). Examine Republican hypocrisy. That's the scary stuff!
I tired of arguing the same points over and over with you. You are obviously stubborn when presented with the facts. So why don't you make like a good little occupier and leave me be.
@wolfengheist I don't think that just one of us is stubborn. When you stop defending corporations, tax loopholes, and Fox News, we can talk.
Let's cut spending on defense (a multi-trillion dollar debt hole that Bush dug us into) and raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans who don't pay enough for the privilege of living in the best country in the world. What's that? Obama's doing that already.
Why don't you make like a good little corporate apologist and wipe that crap off your face?
@wolfengheist You got me! I'm a drone! Just trying to make you less of an ignoramus.
What kind of company hires a moron to watch Youtube and have a comment fight with a college student? How much do you make? Are you Rupert Murdoch? ; )
@wolfengheist You're at work? Translation, you're in your mothers(WHORE) basement mastrobating to kiddy porn like your average conservaTARD. Interesting, but typical that a walking piece of excrement like you has found multiple channels to infect with your stupidity. I can't wait for the people to rise up and slit your throat for the vile garbage and contemptible lies you spew. You'll pay for your treason against this nation someday, and you'll have a fair trial too, you TRASH.
Whether she's "paying her fair share" or not, in this clip she tells the American people and the people of Massachusetts that she is not wealthy when in fact she makes $700,000 a year and is worth more than $14 million. (Server squirrels blocking the URL, so check the citation at reason-dot-com) You're not supposed to lie this absurdly until AFTER you get elected to the Senate.
Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million.
Dems are no less corrupt than Reps. Washington is an enormous never-ending geyser of valueless money to those who think they are actually getting rich.
She says to do blind trusts however in the book "Throw Them All Out" it shows how so many blind trusts are the friends of the politician and they give them insider information then they buy it.
5 million dollar home, 14.5 million portfolio, yeah, that's how I 99% live too. Geeze, she's like the rest of them, a rich liar, playing the poor game. Please don't elect this George Soros crook friend.
@truthforamerica What she said has been explained to death, but your claim that she wants OTHERS to pay more taxes...how do you think she'd escape paying higher taxes herself? She might be able to afford Mitt Romney's tax lawyer, but he's REALLY busy right now.
@ILoooooveCamels He pays 15% on dividend taxes, but the thing you clueless idiots can't understand is he's paid regular taxes on the money he invested in the first go round, so he pays the regular tax, then another 15% if he gets a dividend on a stock. It's never free money. He doesn't claim to be part of the 99% either, he donated a large sum of his money to charity, he gave his inheritance from his father away and his book money was given away too. Warren, who gets your charitable donations?
Warren's rich? How can someone who earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year (a total income of around $700,000) and lives in a house worth $5 million be consider RICH.
I'm amazed there are commenters in here stupid enough (yes, stupid) to propose that she's not wealthy, or that somehow she doesn't qualify as one of the wealthy because of her income stream. Fact...she's rich as hell, parse it all you want but to try to claim otherwise by any other means is incredibly and undeniably stupid. She's another liberal self appointed member of the ruling class and how dare we question her? Rotten to the core folks, she's a liar of the highest order and beneath us.
@hitcharide1 Read this: neither Warren nor her defenders are claiming she isn't wealthy. People with communication difficulties are misinterpreting her words to mean that she said she isn't wealthy, but that's not what she said.
@ILoooooveCamels No, she and her defenders are pretty much claiming she started the movement and she's all about the 1%. She's incredibly wealthy, she's made money from the very sources she appears to castigate, and she's tied into the same organizations she publically refutes. I'd call her a hypocrite but the word isn't strong enough to describe her accurately. She is a rich partisan hack attempting to hijack political support from ppl she personally despises.
@hitcharide1 That's a separate issue, and I don't know enough about her to agree or disagree (though I do know she has a sterling reputation among consumer advocates, and that the Wall Street-friendly congress desperately opposed her nomination to the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which speaks well of her). What I do know for a fact is what she said in this video, and that you're mischaracterizing it.
@ILoooooveCamels I figure we can parse this back and forth all day long, the statement could be taken either way but I tend to go the direction that her past behavior would lead me to. The one thing that comes through loud and clear to me is that she is concerned with her own interests at others expense, she could care less about the common man, and I resent her "populist" stand when she is corporate thru and thru. I'd like her better if I heard some honesty out of her.
@hitcharide1 ...which is why she championed a consumer protection agency against Republican opposition from the likes of Joe "Apologized to British Petroleum" Barton. Does not compute.
@djwolf12 Accurate but with the addition that somehow she thinks she's entitled to rule over the rest of us because of her wealth and position in the liberal hierarchy. If ppl want to vote for her lying, corrupt, self entitled ass, they can do so.
@hitcharide1 Yes, she's rich. Is that a crime? I'm much more interested in her message, her actions, and how she spends her money. There are good rich folks and bad ones.
The problem is her hypocrisy genius. Telling everyone else around her to "pay they're fair share" while she's making millions like a typical rich democrat.
Ah most rich liberal democrats who talk about a "fair share" don't and try to get away from taxes. John Kerry, Claire Mccaskill, Charlie Rangel is are great examples and can go down the list of hypocritical democrats.
@wolfengheist The real hypocrisy––the one that you're not addressing––is a rich person who says that everyone ought to pay their fair share and doesn't. In that case, you would be describing nearly every Republican candidate for President, not to mention the members of the House and Senate.
What Republican today have you seen tax bate and talks about a "fair share"? I haven't seen one. Most of self righteous talk about a "fair share" comes from hypocrite democrats in government. I'm not aware of Mitt Romney or any other Republican candidate talking about the "rich" should pay a "fair share".
@wolfengheist You're saying that it's better to be a rich politician and not bring up the fact that you're not paying your fair share in taxes rather than be a rich politician who's fighting for fair taxation. I don't see Romney or Gingrich saying that they'll sell their stock when elected nor do I see them talking about how a smaller amount of Americans are experiencing prosperity while a larger amount of us are experiencing poverty.
Ah the so called rich already pay most of the taxes. 70% percent in fact while 50% of Americans don't pay income Tax. The US has the higher corporate tax in world. So the democrats line on "who should pay they're "fair share" is moot my friend.
"Americans are experiencing prosperity while a larger amount of us are experiencing poverty. How is it a successful rich person person fault that someone is poor? I don't follow you. Sounds like class baiting to me.
@wolfengheist The rich pay less than 20% on income. Sounds like you're getting your numbers from Fox News.
It's not class baiting, but you're clever! You'd like to believe that the poor and middle class are trying to sabotage the rich: not true. Asking everybody to pay what is fair for them is not the same as class baiting or punishing the rich.
"The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
Quoted from USA Today "Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes"
So again the democrats line on "who should pay they're "fair share" is moot my friend.
You're saying that it's better to be a rich politician and not bring up the fact that you're not paying your fair share in taxes rather than be a rich politician who's fighting for fair taxation."
It problem is who decides what is fair? Like I said before the rich pay 70% in taxes. That sounds pretty damn fair to me. The problem is the democrat want MORE money instead of cutting spending. The real question should be why do the democrats need all this money but can't cut spending?
@wolfengheist That's actually false. The number is more around 40%. And it's still unfair because it's about the percentage of income, not the total amount of money going to the government.
Democrats get it: we need to grow the economy to get out of debt (like post-WWII era). Dems know that boosting our social programs will support the middle and working class, getting our economy back on track. Also, Dems do want to cut something, the largest piece of the pie: defense.
No Democrats don't get it. We've tried democrat tax and spend for years and is doesn't work. Most of the blue states are bankrupted with no jobs while Red states are gaining in job growth.
"That's actually false. The number is more around 40%."
Actually it varies. In a high tax city in a high tax state, such as New York City, the total tax burden on a wealthy individual can easily exceed 60%. It also depends on their taxable income after deductions.
Also If "boosting our social programs" worked almost every bankrupted left wing blue state like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, California, Washington DC, and Illinois would be a jobs paradise. But since taxes are high in most of those states they won't be coming back any time soon.
@RevAmyinSC She didn't say she's not wealthy. She didn't say she doesn't own a stock portfolio. I'm not a 1st grade English teacher, but I'll try to break this down for you as best I can:
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios"
"Them" in that sentence is referring to "wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios." "A lot" is another way of saying "many more than one."
Yes, I am aware that it is abt reading comprehension. And you need not "break it down for me." I understand the language just fine.
I understand the frustration - I have it, too. Warren's wealth is approx. $14.5 million. She DOES have a stock and bonds portfolio worth over $8 million - that doesn't put her in that bracket? She makes almost half a million a YEAR at Harvard. Don't take my word for it - you can go to Buzz Feed and click on her actual Senate Filing Form.
I just listened to this again, just to make sure I was hearing her correctly. When you listen to her sentence, the "I'm not one of them..."clearly refers to the wealthy, not those with stock portfolios. Though as discussed, she is and does.
Again, it is disingenuous, and is meant to play to a certain audience.
@RevAmyinSC The actual sentence, the idea she was communicating, was "there are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios," and she awkwardly interjected "I'm not one of them" in the middle, after which she started over, for clarity.
@ILoooooveCamels , I hear you (and btw, I got to sit on a camel in Egypt a couple of years ago - awesome - they are TALL), but it can be argued as to what is the subject of her sentence. The cadence implies the subject is the wealthy part, not the portfolio part, but since she is and has, yes, I would agree, she is hypocritical (at best). And thanks for the apology - I appreciate it. It makes it way more enjoyable to have discussions! :-)
@RevAmyinSC By the way, you're right that insulting someone over something as trivial as this is pathetic, and I'm sorry. I just can't seem to help it. I'm genuinely baffled and deeply frustrated that people are having trouble with this. It really is fundamental reading comprehension.
At the very least, what she said is disingenuous, and at worst, a flat out lie in an attempt to portray herself as something other than she is.
And thank you - there really is no need for the animosity or condescension. People can disagree without it disintegrating to that level, especially at the outset. If we want this country to get back on its feet, we must learn how to talk to each other better...
@RevAmyinSC I still think you're misunderstanding what she said, but you're right about civility. Again, I'm sorry I was so rude before, and thank you for being so gracious to my apology.
@ILoooooveCamels How is that a misquote? She has a stock portfolio worth $8 million, according to the Financial Disclosure form she filed when she ran for Senate.
@IBWhite69 Here's a statement on the issue made by her spokesman: "Elizabeth was making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she'll get rid of the one stock she does own." She has stock in mutual funds and IBM. Which is less than "a lot," which is what she was talking about not having.
@RevAmyinSC Do your brains just shut off mid-sentence, once you hear what you want to hear? This is fascinating phenomenon, the inability to comprehend a 22-word sentence.
She said that she doesn't have a huge stock portfolio, not that she doesn't have any money. Basic language comprehension skills, people.
AKSBSU 1 month ago
@2002lees So what? Thinking about the 1% is a useful concept, but not everyone in the one percent is evil, whether they inherited massive wealth, or made it. And 14.5 million is a long ways from someone like Adelson, who just gave about her entire worth to Newt Gingrich in campaign contributions...and is getting the support for his pro-war point of view he paid for.
givebirthathome 1 month ago
Wouldn't that wealth be her joint wealth with her husband? And joint income with her husband?
If she's only making 350,000 that's "down" around the 2%. I have also seen it cited that the dividing line to the "poor rich" is having about $20 million in assets. She grew up working, and the child of a janitor and someone working in a call center. Envy much? Its sad to see the hate here...from people who clearly under the spell of propaganda deep enough to work for the people who destroy us.
givebirthathome 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just in case you miss this fact.
"The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
Quoted from USA Today "Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes"
So again the democrats line on "who should pay they're "fair share" is moot my friend.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"LOL I guarantee they will be looking for another government bailout. Without the US government GM is dead." Hey remember those billions of dollars that was spent on bailing out Wall St all so business executives could have raises that year?
extremegrades 1 month ago
Cutting taxes in Red States only makes it possible for those in bed with Republicans to do well. "Reaganomics" is a great example of that extraordinary failure.
It's hilarious that you cite Walker's term as not enough time to be responsible for Wisconsin's economic failure and believe that a Democratic President in office for four years isn't the cause of any prosperity since Clinton. Also, WI votes blue, but has a red congress. Don't worry––they, and Walker, won't be there long.
extremegrades 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Cutting taxes in Red States only makes it possible for those in bed with Republicans to do well. "Reaganomics" is a great example of that extraordinary failure."
Whatever those are just democrat talking points. The fact are jobs are being created in the Red States while Blue see no jobs. That's just a difference in economic policy and the Dems clearly fail in that from the example of the states.
"
wolfengheist 1 month ago
Walker tried to get some good things done like reducing taxes to encourage more private sector job growth but apparently the democrat unions are louder, more obnoxious then ever and want to keep there tax paid goodies. Fine I say let Wisconsin drown like California, Ohio and Michigan if they are crazy enough to continue the status quo.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist Also, are you ignoring the rebuilding of the Auto-industry in MI and the Republican controlled Congress of WI or just choosing to omit that from your argument? Wisconsin is failing because Walker took all of the funding out of public programs and refuses to let workers unionize.
extremegrades 1 month ago
Oh yeah it's Republican fault even though Walker's only been in there for what 2 in a half years? Also you ignore the fact that Wisconsin was and still is democrat ruled before Walker showed up. BTW the Walker is paying down the deficit Wisconsin that democrats built up. Nice try.
"Wisconsin is failing because Walker took all of the funding out of public programs and refuses to let workers unionize."
The unions and the spending is what drove Walker to power.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
"rebuilding of the Auto-industry in MI "
LOL I guarantee they will be looking for another government bailout. Without the US government GM is dead.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
Laugh all you want, but it's true. And Mitt Romney pays what, 13%?
Demcorats don't need the money. America needs it. We are not going to become a nation that balances budgets on the backs of the poor, elderly, and ill.
Again, Dems want to cut spending and want to stop throwing money at corporations. But Republicans don't want to. That's where we're racking up the most debt. Take issue with that.
extremegrades 1 month ago
Boosting social programs worked after WWII, it worked during the Clinton administration, and it's working now that Obama's in office. There is job creation and economic growth. The government is doing its job. Cutting taxes for the rich only exploits the working and middle class, who can't pay for government alone. Tax loopholes for the rich have led to a unprecedented wealth for few and poverty for most. People who make over 250K need to start paying like the rest of us do.
extremegrades 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Boosting social programs worked after WWII,"
So are you advocating a war to boost are economy?
"it worked during the Clinton administration"
No it did'nt What worked was a Republican congress and a Tech bubble.
"working now that Obama's in office."
It is? Where is that?
"The government is doing its job"
Yeah bankrupting the nation with massive spending.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
Cutting taxes for the rich only exploits the working and middle class, who can't pay for government alone.
Not true. Cutting taxes works to bring jobs back. Job growth in the Red states are a great example. Higher taxes will force jobs to leave as evident in most blue states.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
"People who make over 250K need to start paying like the rest of us do."
Not everyone earns their income via capital gains, especially those earning $250K. Do you think it's fair that a person earning $250K is taxed at the same rate as a person earning $25 million?
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist 250K comes from a figure that divides America between the 1% and the 99%. Of course I think that it's unfair that a person making millions of dollars pay the same as someone making 250K. I also think it's ridiculous that someone earning 75K pays a greater percentage in income tax than both of those groups of people.
extremegrades 1 month ago
"I also think it's ridiculous that someone earning 75K pays a greater percentage in income tax than both of those groups of people."
Well then that not the "rich's" fault that's the tax code. Blame the government.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist So true! Wow, it's like we're finally on the same page. Elect Warren!
extremegrades 1 month ago
Warren Buffet is the definition of a crony capitalist. It's funny how you Libs glum on to such characters because that supposedly agree with your economic views. But you're the same crowd that loves Former Currency Speculator Geogre Soros so i'm not surprised. The left's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
You're also the same guys that would re elect millionaire Obama with his ties to the evvvvilllee bankers and other crony capitalists. LOL. I luv the hypocrisy from you guys on the left.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist And I want you to know that I love that you believe it's okay to balance a budget on millions of suffering people while the rich get richer. Brilliance. Please run for public office in hell.
Millionaire Obama is better than millionaire Bush, Reagan, and Nixon. I don't think you realize how this works. Rich people exist and they are in office. And there are plenty on both sides of the playing field (more on the Republican side). Examine Republican hypocrisy. That's the scary stuff!
extremegrades 1 month ago
I tired of arguing the same points over and over with you. You are obviously stubborn when presented with the facts. So why don't you make like a good little occupier and leave me be.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist I don't think that just one of us is stubborn. When you stop defending corporations, tax loopholes, and Fox News, we can talk.
Let's cut spending on defense (a multi-trillion dollar debt hole that Bush dug us into) and raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans who don't pay enough for the privilege of living in the best country in the world. What's that? Obama's doing that already.
Why don't you make like a good little corporate apologist and wipe that crap off your face?
extremegrades 1 month ago
More left wing Obama talking points. Are you a paid Obama hack because you come off as a drone? I can't waste time on drones. Plus I'm at work. :)
wolfengheist 1 month ago 2
@wolfengheist You got me! I'm a drone! Just trying to make you less of an ignoramus.
What kind of company hires a moron to watch Youtube and have a comment fight with a college student? How much do you make? Are you Rupert Murdoch? ; )
extremegrades 1 month ago
@wolfengheist You're at work? Translation, you're in your mothers(WHORE) basement mastrobating to kiddy porn like your average conservaTARD. Interesting, but typical that a walking piece of excrement like you has found multiple channels to infect with your stupidity. I can't wait for the people to rise up and slit your throat for the vile garbage and contemptible lies you spew. You'll pay for your treason against this nation someday, and you'll have a fair trial too, you TRASH.
imaginativelads 3 weeks ago
And one more time. Taxes do not need to be even higher and spending should be cut. If you agree spending should be cut then we can talk.
wolfengheist 1 month ago 2
@wolfengheist Let's cut taxes on people who can't pay 30%––people making under 250K.
extremegrades 1 month ago
Whether she's "paying her fair share" or not, in this clip she tells the American people and the people of Massachusetts that she is not wealthy when in fact she makes $700,000 a year and is worth more than $14 million. (Server squirrels blocking the URL, so check the citation at reason-dot-com) You're not supposed to lie this absurdly until AFTER you get elected to the Senate.
Bartelldarcy 1 month ago
Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million.
TheJesusdangerchrist 1 month ago
Dems are no less corrupt than Reps. Washington is an enormous never-ending geyser of valueless money to those who think they are actually getting rich.
manmanguy 1 month ago
She says to do blind trusts however in the book "Throw Them All Out" it shows how so many blind trusts are the friends of the politician and they give them insider information then they buy it.
jlauniere 1 month ago
typical hypocritical lying fart muffin of a woman
faron27 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5 million dollar home, 14.5 million portfolio, yeah, that's how I 99% live too. Geeze, she's like the rest of them, a rich liar, playing the poor game. Please don't elect this George Soros crook friend.
juniemoon 1 month ago
Haha! She's worth more than Sen. Scott Brown yet claims to be Part of the "99%"!
Hilarious!
ObaManure 1 month ago
Comment removed
SchoberForSenate 1 month ago
Wealthy individuals who hold public offices is not the problem, but who they are beholden to is the problem.
planetcave 1 month ago
Typical liberal hypocrite. Act like she isn't wealthy and she is. Wants others to pay more taxes. These people are disgusting.
truthforamerica 1 month ago
@truthforamerica What she said has been explained to death, but your claim that she wants OTHERS to pay more taxes...how do you think she'd escape paying higher taxes herself? She might be able to afford Mitt Romney's tax lawyer, but he's REALLY busy right now.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ILoooooveCamels He pays 15% on dividend taxes, but the thing you clueless idiots can't understand is he's paid regular taxes on the money he invested in the first go round, so he pays the regular tax, then another 15% if he gets a dividend on a stock. It's never free money. He doesn't claim to be part of the 99% either, he donated a large sum of his money to charity, he gave his inheritance from his father away and his book money was given away too. Warren, who gets your charitable donations?
juniemoon 1 month ago
Get That Commie Broad some Food Stamps before she starves!! No Wonder she is running ! She needs the Job!
SmokeBojangles 1 month ago
Well, she DIDN't get wealthy taking her clothes off, and THANK GOD FOR THAT. Sleazy, Disgusting Marxists ARE NOT HOT!!!!
djwolf12 1 month ago
Warren's rich? How can someone who earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year (a total income of around $700,000) and lives in a house worth $5 million be consider RICH.
MrPeterprinciple 1 month ago
The title is misleading. She is saying she is not one of the rich with a big stock portfolio.... which could be true.
jtbpnw 1 month ago
I'm amazed there are commenters in here stupid enough (yes, stupid) to propose that she's not wealthy, or that somehow she doesn't qualify as one of the wealthy because of her income stream. Fact...she's rich as hell, parse it all you want but to try to claim otherwise by any other means is incredibly and undeniably stupid. She's another liberal self appointed member of the ruling class and how dare we question her? Rotten to the core folks, she's a liar of the highest order and beneath us.
hitcharide1 1 month ago 7
@hitcharide1 Read this: neither Warren nor her defenders are claiming she isn't wealthy. People with communication difficulties are misinterpreting her words to mean that she said she isn't wealthy, but that's not what she said.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
@ILoooooveCamels No, she and her defenders are pretty much claiming she started the movement and she's all about the 1%. She's incredibly wealthy, she's made money from the very sources she appears to castigate, and she's tied into the same organizations she publically refutes. I'd call her a hypocrite but the word isn't strong enough to describe her accurately. She is a rich partisan hack attempting to hijack political support from ppl she personally despises.
hitcharide1 1 month ago
@hitcharide1 That's a separate issue, and I don't know enough about her to agree or disagree (though I do know she has a sterling reputation among consumer advocates, and that the Wall Street-friendly congress desperately opposed her nomination to the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which speaks well of her). What I do know for a fact is what she said in this video, and that you're mischaracterizing it.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
@ILoooooveCamels I figure we can parse this back and forth all day long, the statement could be taken either way but I tend to go the direction that her past behavior would lead me to. The one thing that comes through loud and clear to me is that she is concerned with her own interests at others expense, she could care less about the common man, and I resent her "populist" stand when she is corporate thru and thru. I'd like her better if I heard some honesty out of her.
hitcharide1 1 month ago
@hitcharide1 ...which is why she championed a consumer protection agency against Republican opposition from the likes of Joe "Apologized to British Petroleum" Barton. Does not compute.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ILoooooveCamels Wonder how you're going to feel when they are watching where you spend your money. Let's see how much you love another agency then.
juniemoon 1 month ago
@hitcharide1 She is a Marxist Scumbag Bitch. How's that description?
djwolf12 1 month ago
@djwolf12 Accurate but with the addition that somehow she thinks she's entitled to rule over the rest of us because of her wealth and position in the liberal hierarchy. If ppl want to vote for her lying, corrupt, self entitled ass, they can do so.
hitcharide1 1 month ago
@djwolf12 It's trashy, misogynistic, and ignorant, that's how it is.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
@hitcharide1 Yes, she's rich. Is that a crime? I'm much more interested in her message, her actions, and how she spends her money. There are good rich folks and bad ones.
extremegrades 1 month ago
The problem is her hypocrisy genius. Telling everyone else around her to "pay they're fair share" while she's making millions like a typical rich democrat.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist And is she paying her fair share? Do you even know? All you seem to know is that she's rich, "genius."
extremegrades 1 month ago
Ah most rich liberal democrats who talk about a "fair share" don't and try to get away from taxes. John Kerry, Claire Mccaskill, Charlie Rangel is are great examples and can go down the list of hypocritical democrats.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist The real hypocrisy––the one that you're not addressing––is a rich person who says that everyone ought to pay their fair share and doesn't. In that case, you would be describing nearly every Republican candidate for President, not to mention the members of the House and Senate.
extremegrades 1 month ago
What Republican today have you seen tax bate and talks about a "fair share"? I haven't seen one. Most of self righteous talk about a "fair share" comes from hypocrite democrats in government. I'm not aware of Mitt Romney or any other Republican candidate talking about the "rich" should pay a "fair share".
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist You're saying that it's better to be a rich politician and not bring up the fact that you're not paying your fair share in taxes rather than be a rich politician who's fighting for fair taxation. I don't see Romney or Gingrich saying that they'll sell their stock when elected nor do I see them talking about how a smaller amount of Americans are experiencing prosperity while a larger amount of us are experiencing poverty.
extremegrades 1 month ago
Ah the so called rich already pay most of the taxes. 70% percent in fact while 50% of Americans don't pay income Tax. The US has the higher corporate tax in world. So the democrats line on "who should pay they're "fair share" is moot my friend.
"Americans are experiencing prosperity while a larger amount of us are experiencing poverty. How is it a successful rich person person fault that someone is poor? I don't follow you. Sounds like class baiting to me.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist The rich pay less than 20% on income. Sounds like you're getting your numbers from Fox News.
It's not class baiting, but you're clever! You'd like to believe that the poor and middle class are trying to sabotage the rich: not true. Asking everybody to pay what is fair for them is not the same as class baiting or punishing the rich.
extremegrades 1 month ago
"The rich pay less than 20% on income."
LOL. Where did you get that number from "the Nation" or MSDNC?
"
"It's not class baiting,"
Ah yeah. Tell me another.
"Asking everybody to pay what is fair for them is not the same as class baiting or punishing the rich."
I'll ask again. Why do the democrats need all this money but can't cut spending?
wolfengheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
Quoted from USA Today "Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes"
So again the democrats line on "who should pay they're "fair share" is moot my friend.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
You're saying that it's better to be a rich politician and not bring up the fact that you're not paying your fair share in taxes rather than be a rich politician who's fighting for fair taxation."
It problem is who decides what is fair? Like I said before the rich pay 70% in taxes. That sounds pretty damn fair to me. The problem is the democrat want MORE money instead of cutting spending. The real question should be why do the democrats need all this money but can't cut spending?
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@wolfengheist That's actually false. The number is more around 40%. And it's still unfair because it's about the percentage of income, not the total amount of money going to the government.
Democrats get it: we need to grow the economy to get out of debt (like post-WWII era). Dems know that boosting our social programs will support the middle and working class, getting our economy back on track. Also, Dems do want to cut something, the largest piece of the pie: defense.
extremegrades 1 month ago
No Democrats don't get it. We've tried democrat tax and spend for years and is doesn't work. Most of the blue states are bankrupted with no jobs while Red states are gaining in job growth.
"That's actually false. The number is more around 40%."
Actually it varies. In a high tax city in a high tax state, such as New York City, the total tax burden on a wealthy individual can easily exceed 60%. It also depends on their taxable income after deductions.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
Also If "boosting our social programs" worked almost every bankrupted left wing blue state like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, California, Washington DC, and Illinois would be a jobs paradise. But since taxes are high in most of those states they won't be coming back any time soon.
wolfengheist 1 month ago
@hitcharide1 If she is "self appointed", why is she trying to get elected?
manonthemount 1 month ago
If you're going to strategically misquote someone, don't put the whole, accurate quote in your video.
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios"
On the positive side, if she'd actually said what you say she said, this would be a good video.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
She is a wealthy individual, she does have a stock portfolio, and perhaps yo may want to do your own homework before attacking other people.
And insulting someone because the reality doesn't match what YOU want to hear is pathetic.
RevAmyinSC 1 month ago
@RevAmyinSC She didn't say she's not wealthy. She didn't say she doesn't own a stock portfolio. I'm not a 1st grade English teacher, but I'll try to break this down for you as best I can:
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios"
"Them" in that sentence is referring to "wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios." "A lot" is another way of saying "many more than one."
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
Yes, I am aware that it is abt reading comprehension. And you need not "break it down for me." I understand the language just fine.
I understand the frustration - I have it, too. Warren's wealth is approx. $14.5 million. She DOES have a stock and bonds portfolio worth over $8 million - that doesn't put her in that bracket? She makes almost half a million a YEAR at Harvard. Don't take my word for it - you can go to Buzz Feed and click on her actual Senate Filing Form.
RevAmyinSC 1 month ago
I just listened to this again, just to make sure I was hearing her correctly. When you listen to her sentence, the "I'm not one of them..."clearly refers to the wealthy, not those with stock portfolios. Though as discussed, she is and does.
Again, it is disingenuous, and is meant to play to a certain audience.
RevAmyinSC 1 month ago
@RevAmyinSC The actual sentence, the idea she was communicating, was "there are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios," and she awkwardly interjected "I'm not one of them" in the middle, after which she started over, for clarity.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
@ILoooooveCamels , I hear you (and btw, I got to sit on a camel in Egypt a couple of years ago - awesome - they are TALL), but it can be argued as to what is the subject of her sentence. The cadence implies the subject is the wealthy part, not the portfolio part, but since she is and has, yes, I would agree, she is hypocritical (at best). And thanks for the apology - I appreciate it. It makes it way more enjoyable to have discussions! :-)
RevAmyinSC 1 month ago
@RevAmyinSC By the way, you're right that insulting someone over something as trivial as this is pathetic, and I'm sorry. I just can't seem to help it. I'm genuinely baffled and deeply frustrated that people are having trouble with this. It really is fundamental reading comprehension.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
At the very least, what she said is disingenuous, and at worst, a flat out lie in an attempt to portray herself as something other than she is.
And thank you - there really is no need for the animosity or condescension. People can disagree without it disintegrating to that level, especially at the outset. If we want this country to get back on its feet, we must learn how to talk to each other better...
RevAmyinSC 1 month ago
@RevAmyinSC I still think you're misunderstanding what she said, but you're right about civility. Again, I'm sorry I was so rude before, and thank you for being so gracious to my apology.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
@ILoooooveCamels How is that a misquote? She has a stock portfolio worth $8 million, according to the Financial Disclosure form she filed when she ran for Senate.
IBWhite69 1 month ago
@IBWhite69 Here's a statement on the issue made by her spokesman: "Elizabeth was making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she'll get rid of the one stock she does own." She has stock in mutual funds and IBM. Which is less than "a lot," which is what she was talking about not having.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
Um, yes she did. And she has over $8 million in assets in addition to a $5 million house. THAT is the very definition of wealthy...
RevAmyinSC 1 month ago
@RevAmyinSC Do your brains just shut off mid-sentence, once you hear what you want to hear? This is fascinating phenomenon, the inability to comprehend a 22-word sentence.
ILoooooveCamels 1 month ago
Misquoted, she was saying she wasn't one of the wealthy people WHO OWN STOCKS.
MinotawrTV 1 month ago
She said she doesn't have a lot of stock portfolios, she didn't say she's not wealthy.
mslavick 1 month ago