Watch: Elizabeth Warren makes the political case against Big Banks

[NACBA]

In a fiery floor speech at the US Senate on Friday, Elizabeth Warren argued not just against the bank-friendly provision that was snuck into the CRomnibus, but against the very existence of very large banks. What's fascinating is that rather than an economic argument against mega-banks, she offers a political argument. She says that a century ago a lot of people called for trusts to be broken up "because they had too much economic power. But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power."

Today, Warren wants to apply the same logic to giant banks. She says that like the trusts of yore, their "concentrated power threatens the very foundations of our democratic system."

http://news.yahoo.com/watch-elizabet...120002668.html

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

One of the most maddening things about progressives is that they often come to the right conclusions for completely the wrong reasons, or conversely have good reasons but come to wrong conclusions. It really is a pain in the ass.

Really though, I would vote for a principled progressive over a neocon, and I wonder if any other RPF members agree with me. Principled progressives oppose the warfare state, corporate subsidy, corporate rent seeking and the drug war. If it's Elizabeth Warren vs Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or Rick Santorum (especially Rick Santorum) race in 2016, I'm voting Democrat.

Anyone agree or think I'm off the mark?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Makes for nice cable tv entertainment, but Biden will be the nominee.

[acptulsa]

One of the most maddening things about progressives is that they often come to the right conclusions for completely the wrong reasons, or conversely have good reasons but come to wrong conclusions. It really is a pain in the ass.

Really though, I would vote for a principled progressive over a neocon, and I wonder if any other RPF members agree with me. Principled progressives oppose the warfare state, corporate subsidy, corporate rent seeking and the drug war. If it's Elizabeth Warren vs Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or Rick Santorum (especially Rick Santorum) race in 2016, I'm voting Democrat.

Anyone agree or think I'm off the mark?

Yes. Some agree and some think you're off the mark.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...light=Kucinich

[Cleaner44]

One of the most maddening things about progressives is that they often come to the right conclusions for completely the wrong reasons, or conversely have good reasons but come to wrong conclusions. It really is a pain in the ass.

Really though, I would vote for a principled progressive over a neocon, and I wonder if any other RPF members agree with me. Principled progressives oppose the warfare state, corporate subsidy, corporate rent seeking and the drug war. If it's Elizabeth Warren vs Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or Rick Santorum (especially Rick Santorum) race in 2016, I'm voting Democrat.

Anyone agree or think I'm off the mark?

I would vote for a principled anybody over all of the politicians that we normally are offered. I don't know that Warren is principled though, in fact I really doubt that she is. The fact that she pretended to be a native American tells you much about her lack of integrity.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Definition of principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

Advocating sky high minimum wage or smoking bans doesn't have much to do with truth, at least in the larger sense. The proposition of the so-called progressive is not based on a foundation of liberty. You might happen to agree with them and then work with them, but only as a means to an end. Their principles have very little, if anything, to do with liberty. They are fundamentally different than people whose baseline is freedom.

No, I would never vote for such a person in anything.

[angelatc]

She is $#@!ing evil. Progressives are evil.

Please don't tell me that we're going to have to have suffer the utopian delusions of the Warren Worshippers for the next two years on a libertarian forum.

[NACBA]

She is $#@!ing evil. Progressives are evil.

Please don't tell me that we're going to have to have suffer the utopian delusions of the Warren Worshippers for the next two years on a libertarian forum.

Worshipers of any politician suck--I agree

But Warren is good when it comes to Wall Street

[Occam's Banana]

[Warren] says that a century ago a lot of people called for trusts to be broken up "because they had too much economic power. But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power."

Today, Warren wants to apply the same logic to giant banks. She says that like the trusts of yore, their "concentrated power threatens the very foundations of our democratic system."

But of course, noble and selfless regulation mavens like Warren (or trust-busters like Roosevelt) don't have any interest in wielding concentrated political power ...

It's just one self-serving gang of political power-mongers trying to wrench power from other self-serving gangs of political power-mongers.

And guess who gets stuck in the middle, caught in their crossfire ... ?

[enhanced_deficit]

She is moderate neocons/swcbags' puppet.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

NACBA, quit spamming for Warren. Few here like her. It's tantamount to promoting Nader or Alan Grayson.

[NACBA]

NACBA, quit spamming for Warren. Few here like her. It's tantamount to promoting Nader or Alan Grayson.

In the end, Warren will have influenced American polity much more than Nader, Grayson, etc.

[enhanced_deficit]

In the end, Warren will have influenced American polity much more than Nader, Grayson, etc.

But not as much as Obama or McCain or Lieberman.

[Rudeman]

There are reasonable reasons to like a Nader or Grayson on certain issues, I can't think of any reason to like Warren. Maybe I'm missing something but she appears to be an awful candidate to me.

[otherone]

Really though, I would vote for a principled progressive over a neocon, and I wonder if any other RPF members agree with me. Principled progressives oppose the warfare state, corporate subsidy, corporate rent seeking and the drug war.

Sounds like King Barry in 07.
Principled politicians are as common as rainbow-crapping unicorns.

[Rudeman]

One of the most maddening things about progressives is that they often come to the right conclusions for completely the wrong reasons, or conversely have good reasons but come to wrong conclusions. It really is a pain in the ass.

Really though, I would vote for a principled progressive over a neocon, and I wonder if any other RPF members agree with me. Principled progressives oppose the warfare state, corporate subsidy, corporate rent seeking and the drug war. If it's Elizabeth Warren vs Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or Rick Santorum (especially Rick Santorum) race in 2016, I'm voting Democrat.

Anyone agree or think I'm off the mark?

I wouldn't vote for any of them. If I were forced to pick between the 2, Santorum is probably the only Republican I wouldn't vote for over Warren and even then I would likely choose to just sit out the election because America would be screwed either way. I think some are making Warren out to be this special candidate on certain issues when she really isn't any better than the rest.

[RJB]

I don't see someone as evil because I disagree with them but rather if they'll sell us out. That's most politicians. I'd take an honest progressive over a dishonest conservative (I couldn't see any difference between Obama and McCain.)

The worst that could happen is that there will be honest dialogue. Most of what is decried as evil "socialism" by neocons and evil "capitalism" by neolibs is usually the same corporatism. Look at Obamacare/Romneycare... same thing, different packaging.

That said, I know very little about Warren.

One of the most maddening things about progressives is that they often come to the right conclusions for completely the wrong reasons, or conversely have good reasons but come to wrong conclusions. It really is a pain in the ass.

Really though, I would vote for a principled progressive over a neocon, and I wonder if any other RPF members agree with me. Principled progressives oppose the warfare state, corporate subsidy, corporate rent seeking and the drug war. If it's Elizabeth Warren vs Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or Rick Santorum (especially Rick Santorum) race in 2016, I'm voting Democrat.

Anyone agree or think I'm off the mark?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Definition of principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

Advocating sky high minimum wage or smoking bans doesn't have much to do with truth, at least in the larger sense. The proposition of the so-called progressive is not based on a foundation of liberty. You might happen to agree with them and then work with them, but only as a means to an end. Their principles have very little, if anything, to do with liberty. They are fundamentally different than people whose baseline is freedom.

No, I would never vote for such a person in anything.

Obviously progressive principles are entirely different from libertarian principles, but there is some overlap in terms of policy. True blue progressives are for reducing the influence of corporate lobbyists, reducing subsidy, drug war reform, auditing the Fed, monetary reform, and they're against preemptive wars, corporate bailouts and the surveillance state. I'm well aware that there would be numerous problems with a truly progressive administration, but I would rather have a progressive President who cuts military budgets, tries to stop spying programs, pushes for drug war reform than a neocon who maintains and increases everything I just listed.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I wouldn't vote for any of them. If I were forced to pick between the 2, Santorum is probably the only Republican I wouldn't vote for over Warren and even then I would likely choose to just sit out the election because America would be screwed either way. I think some are making Warren out to be this special candidate on certain issues when she really isn't any better than the rest.

I take back some of my praise for Warren after looking into her more closely. She's not particularly critical of drug war policy and though she is for reducing military budgets, she's also for sanctions against Iran. Seems she's not the principled progressive leftists have painted her as. Still though, I would definitely vote for her over Santorum and I think over Jeb as well. Christie is a closer call, I suppose, but what would any libertarian get out of a Jeb Bush presidency? In the case of Warren vs Bush, there would be an increase in the size and scope of the state, but at least with Warren we might see less military spending, less subsidy, and a complete pullout from Afghanistan. What would yet another Bush do that libertarians would support? Maybe a tax decrease of some sort, but that's it.

[TaftFan]

If you want to make sure that Elizabeth Warren doesn't get close to the White House in 2016, then consider liking this brand-new page:

https://www.facebook.com/stoplizwarren

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Sounds like King Barry in 07.
Principled politicians are as common as rainbow-crapping unicorns.

Obama never opposed the warfare state-he specifically said "I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-dumb war" and campaigned on Afghanistan being the real conflict that should be fought. He also took the opportunity to look more hawkish than McCain when it came to bombing Pakistan. He did pay lip service to being against corporate lobbyism, but never in any specific way, just pablum. He certainly never opposed or even mentioned reforming the drug war as a presidential candidate-he wouldn't even come out in support of legalization or medical use of marijuana. The idea of Obama as an anti-war candidate who would reduce the drug war and clear out special interest influence existed only in the minds of overly optimistic Democrats. It's not something he ever really claimed to be.

There are reasonable reasons to like a Nader or Grayson on certain issues, I can't think of any reason to like Warren. Maybe I'm missing something but she appears to be an awful candidate to me.

Upon looking further into Warren, she doesn't look that good after all. Apparently my progressive friends were overstating her virtues. However, she does seem like a slightly lesser evil than Jeb Bush, and considerably lesser to Santorum. Christie, Romney, Perry, Jindal all seem like tossups vs Warren. Obviously I'd support Rand over all of them, I'd hold my nose and vote for Cruz (mainly because of immigration) and maybe Paul Ryan.

[Rudeman]

I take back some of my praise for Warren after looking into her more closely. She's not particularly critical of drug war policy and though she is for reducing military budgets, she's also for sanctions against Iran. Seems she's not the principled progressive leftists have painted her as. Still though, I would definitely vote for her over Santorum and I think over Jeb as well. Christie is a closer call, I suppose, but what would any libertarian get out of a Jeb Bush presidency? In the case of Warren vs Bush, there would be an increase in the size and scope of the state, but at least with Warren we might see less military spending, less subsidy, and a complete pullout from Afghanistan. What would yet another Bush do that libertarians would support? Maybe a tax decrease of some sort, but that's it.

AFAIK her foreign policy is still a big ??? She has largely focused on populist Domestic issues (banks, student loans). I think there are much better and more principled Senators, they just aren't getting nearly the attention that she is. She was basically anointed a future Presidential candidate, Progressive savior the second she became a candidate for the senate race.

Obviously Rand (or Ron) would be best case. Ultimately it comes down to which issues matter to you the most and how much you're willing to sacrifice on others.

[Antischism]

It ultimately depends on which issues you think are most important to tackle. For example, would you vote for a run of the mill pro-war Republican who doesn't want to spend more on social safety nets, or a staunchly anti-war Democrat who wants to strengthen social safety nets? I'd take the Dem every time because foreign policy is my absolute biggest concern (and non-interventionism is itself a big form of fiscal conservatism). I think most "true progressives" support the Green Party, not Elizabeth Warren. Others are simply libertarian socialists.

As for Warren, she says some nice things sometimes.

“I do not want America to be dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, and it is time for those nations in the region that are most immediately affected by the rise of ISIS to step up and play a leading role in this fight.”

But she also voted to fund Iron Dome, like Rand Paul. So it's difficult to take politicians seriously when they're inconsistent or willing to abandon their principles when it comes to Israel.

It's rare to get a politician like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, and even when they do appear, they're branded as the "crazy uncle" no one should listen to.

[idiom]

If you vote for anyone whose top donors are wall street banks, guess what you will get.

The big banks would break themselves up if the government stopped propping them up.

Ask Senator Warren who she thinks should be jailed for the 2008 scandals, and why they were not.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It ultimately depends on which issues you think are most important to tackle. For example, would you vote for a run of the mill pro-war Republican who doesn't want to spend more on social safety nets, or a staunchly anti-war Democrat who wants to strengthen social safety nets? I'd take the Dem every time because foreign policy is my absolute biggest concern (and non-interventionism is itself a big form of fiscal conservatism). I think most "true progressives" support the Green Party, not Elizabeth Warren. Others are simply libertarian socialists.

I'm surprised to see a libertarian refer to entitlement programs as "social safety nets". Other than that, I'm inclined to agree, except for the fact that there's never going to be a staunch anti-war Democrat as a viable presidential candidate. The average of what you get is Republicans who want to massively increase the warfare state and slowly increase the welfare state, and Democrats who want to slowly increase the warfare state and massively increase the welfare state. If there was a GOP candidate who was radically hawkish on war, but a real supporter of capitalism (in the mold of Barry Goldwater for example) going head-to-head with an anti-war Democrat who wanted even more massive state intervention in the economy who would you choose?

On another note, it seems to me that self-described "libertarian socialists" are either market anarchists with a left wing fetish or Chomsky drones who are not libertarian in the slightest. The difference between a modern self-styled "anarcho"-syndicalist and a Marxist are negligible at best.

[PaulConventionWV]

One of the most maddening things about progressives is that they often come to the right conclusions for completely the wrong reasons, or conversely have good reasons but come to wrong conclusions. It really is a pain in the ass.

Really though, I would vote for a principled progressive over a neocon, and I wonder if any other RPF members agree with me. Principled progressives oppose the warfare state, corporate subsidy, corporate rent seeking and the drug war. If it's Elizabeth Warren vs Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or Rick Santorum (especially Rick Santorum) race in 2016, I'm voting Democrat.

Anyone agree or think I'm off the mark?

I wouldn't vote, but I agree with you. I would choose a progressive over a war hawk any day. They may hate me for being a cis white male, but at least I would have less of a chance of getting shot by police for a little bit of weed and they wouldn't cheer it on if I did.

As a disclaimer, though, I don't think Warren would actually help anything.