They must be worried if Rove is throwing money around! ; ) Go Elizabeth!

Lizzy Warren: “For years, I worked to expose how Wall Street and the big banks are crushing middle-class families," Warren says in it.

Lizzy should have focused on Congress and the Obama administration. Apparently they did more inside trading than anyone on Wall Street ever did.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/

Lizzy is too far socialist, even for Massachusetts. This video where she tells us "Nobody got rich on their own" will be her downfall:

Source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

This from an article today:

The Occupy Wall Street protesters were first ignored by the media and then maligned by certain outlets, but more recently a slew of reports and surveys have come out showing the movement may be on to something after all.

...Several new studies have offered further evidence that these two problems are getting worse and, perhaps more importantly, that a large portion of the population is concerned about these issues.

Growing income inequality. Few reports in recent memory packed quite as much of a bang in so few words as one from the Congressional Budget Office.

The report shows that between 1979 and 2007, the superrich -- people in the top 1% of wage earners -- saw their after-tax incomes nearly triple, while those in the bottom 20% saw their wages remain relatively flat during that nearly 30-year period. As if that weren't infuriating enough, the CBO's report showed that the top 20% of wage earners saw their share of the nation's overall income increase by 10 percentage points during that period, while the other 80% saw their share decline by 2 or 3 percentage points.

In just a few paragraphs, the CBO showed definitively that the rich are getting richer at the expense of everyone else.

Americans favor wealth redistribution. Given the increasing degree of income inequality, it should come as little surprise that most Americans would echo those protesters who argue the current distribution of wealth is unfair.

One recent survey from The New York Times found that two-thirds of Americans believe U.S. wealth distribution is unfair, with a whopping 86% of Democrats saying so and 67% of independents. Republicans were less likely to agree with this statement, but nearly half still feel the distribution is not fair.

That may not mean two-thirds of the country would be willing to march in the cold weather to change this fact, but it does seem to put the burden of proof on those who claim the status quo is just fine.

Even the wealthy want to pay more taxes. One might assume that those with the most to lose would be the ones to fight hardest against evening out the income disparities, but a survey from Spectrem Group suggests otherwise.

The survey found that the vast majority (68%) of people worth at least $1 million favor raising taxes on Americans who make more than $1 million. And 61% of those worth at least $5 million are in favor of doing so. In other words, even the wealthy are fine with raising taxes on the wealthy, and previous surveys have shown that most average Americans certainly are in favor of it. So that really just leaves legislators inside the Beltway as the real hurdle.

No one likes the government, and few trust it. Perhaps for this reason, there seems to be a growing disconnect between the American people and the federal government that reflects the same sense of distrust heard among the protesters.

The same CBS News/New York Times poll found that just 9% of Americans approve of the current Congress and that 89% say they don't trust government to do what's right. Likewise, 70% say Republicans in Congress are pursuing policies that favor the wealthy.

The negatives of outsiders such as anarchists, the homeless, criminals, etc. taking advantage of the OWS camps are unfortunate.

In Portland, the mayor did not use military force and the camp was dismantled peacefully. The OWS is in the process of trying to find other ways to keep their message in the media and national discussions of the issues above--This is a positive thing.

Yay Elizabeth Warren, a true champion for the American people! May progressives take back Massachusetts, and then get the rest of the nation back on track in restoring the American Dream.

and the MSDNC sponsored campaign begins.

TP: The negatives of outsiders such as anarchists, the homeless, criminals, etc. taking advantage of the OWS camps are unfortunate.

The Tea Party certainly was able to keep those types of malcontents out of their rallies.

And while the Occupy crowd was throwing rocks, paint and bottles at the police, not many seemed to break ranks. Seems if they didn't support such actions, most would have obeyed the police and left the scene. That didn't happen.

If the Democrats want to champion the Occupy violence, they do so at their own peril.

does anyone think it odd how this and all the other bam bam puppets were not able to prevent corzine's theft?

Elizabeth Warren for president in 2016!

JS1 -- The differences have been pointed out multiple times in FR threads, and of course you choose to cherry-pick and ignore the differences.

The Tea Party was notorious for interrupting Town Halls and conducting brief protests. Even with this, they were obnoxious (loud and insulting), aggressive (packing heat and head stomping), as well as carrying signs of HATE. Look at the signs in OWS marches. The most egregious may be a Che Guevara sign, which could be infiltration of Latina causes, but by no means is as insulting as the president with bones through his nose, as Hitler, as the Joker, and what have you.

Most importantly, the Tea Party is an Astro-Turf farce that never grew at the rate or size of OWS. The idea of occupying parks may not be the best, but it has helped to keep the media reporting on the "we are the 99%" cause. If only the media gave OWS the same attention as the minority fringe Teabaggers, this would not be necessary.

Futher to my post above, this from another article today about the Super Committee:

Despite some concessions, the two sides remain divided over the same basic issues that thwarted earlier deficit reduction efforts — finding a mutually agreeable blend of tax increases and cuts in the largest government benefit programs.

Democrats on the committee say they are willing to make significant reductions in social benefit programs only after Republicans agree to higher tax revenue, including a larger bite out of the income of the wealthy.

Republicans say that soaring federal deficits result from too much spending and not from a shortage of revenue to the Treasury. They say that tax increases would crimp efforts to create jobs.

Aside from questioning cuts in Social Security, which does not have anything to do with deficits (and even Medicare could become solvent if we had Medicare for all), but look at the two statements from each Party. It's like the game "one of these things are not like the other" or just "what's wrong with this picture?"

The first thing you'll note is the Democrats mention concessions and Teapublicans don't. The second thing you'll note is the unsubstantiated positions of the Teapublicans. First that we can reduce the HUGE deficit with spending cuts alone (LIE). And second that taxing the richest 1% will destroy job creation -- There is NO evidence to support this claim. In fact the last decade + of tax cuts for the rich proves this is a LIE.

Go Elizabeth Warren, and OWS!

Why can't my ignore button stay on, instead of switching off, so there's Snuffy and MitchJ and the other negativists that I don't even want to see their names or their comments. I've had them on ignore for a long time, now it doesn't seem to work. What's UP FR?

I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.’ No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own—nobody.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces [sic] that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory—and hire someone to protect against this—because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless—keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

~~Elizabeth Warren~~

I just found out that my boss is going to be volunteering for Elizabeth Warren.

That is GREAT news Pat!

I will be sending Elizabeth a check here & there to support her campaign!

this from a state that re-elects a man who had boys being r @ ped in his basement.

Time to get those eyes checked Rob!

"Freaky looking"

Really? If you passed her on the street and didn't know her, you'd think she was a pleasant looking, middle aged woman. But because your politics differ from hers, you attack her physiognomy. You're pathetic.

Rob saying pretty sure is like saying you assume. Don't have to say more than that.

Jeez Jack I don't recall you callling Fiesty and her fan club pathetic when they referred to chris christy as governor cripy creme. Oh well, the fact is between Warren's clothing and hair style she is more suited for the "Big Love" studio than politics. And her eyes have that certain Xanax haze to them.

And her eyes have that certain Xanax haze to them.

Speaking from experiene eh Robby?

You want to talk about some freaky eyes, l@@ok no further than Bachmann! ;o)

Rob,

If you can't see the difference between a person who takes no pride in his health and physical appearance and one does take pride, then I can't help you.

Rob, I know I differentiated between fat jokes and legitimate concerns about Christie's health and the ability to keep up the the rigors of being POTUS. It even takes a toll on President Obama who is relatively young and in good shape (and had to stop smoking). I suspect Christie knows he will never have the "fire in his belly" for this and other reasons.

And no offense, but likewise who wants a VP who is only a heart beat away from being a heart beat away?

I can't believe you put down the way Warren dresses, like the average American that she is. She doesn't come from money--that's part of the appeal. But I suppose Jesse Ventura, or Joe the Plumber, or what have you are just fine with you.

Robert Roben, who works for lobbyists that worked for GE from 2003 to 2010

If you haven't been told Bob, THIS IS NOVEMBER 2011!

That fact makes YOUR statement a "fraud"

Please note that I cited the source of my contention; your own posted statements. Really too bad YOU can't or won't cite proper authority in support of yours statements. Just sayin' - we don't like to read your opinions presented as fact. Such actions alert all readers that you are posting spin.