Democratic Candidate for Senator, Elizabeth Warren, worth up to $14.5 million, claims she isn't part of the 1%

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 28, 2012 11:38 PM GMT
    It's incredible...

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1

    The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism -- made the case to MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn't own stock.

    “I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.
    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, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 12:06 AM GMT
    She's not a member of the Senate and when did she claim she wasn't part of the 1%.

    You really can't stand class traitors can you? icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 12:10 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSo she's a self hater, huh.


    Just problems with the truth. It's a good thing she wasn't confirmed given how rabidly and hypocritically classist she has become.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 12:31 AM GMT
    Update to the story:

    Warren spokesman Kyle Sullivan emails, "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."

    Warren's stock, an aide says, is all in mutual funds, with the exception of holdings in IBM which she has had for decades.


    Yeah - what really differentiates her is that she holds just one stock over mutual funds?
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jan 29, 2012 3:37 AM GMT
    I guess I missed the part where she claims she's not part of the 1%. Please post that specific quote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 3:37 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidUpdate to the story:

    Warren spokesman Kyle Sullivan emails, "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."

    Warren's stock, an aide says, is all in mutual funds, with the exception of holdings in IBM which she has had for decades.


    Yeah - what really differentiates her is that she holds just one stock over mutual funds?


    No. What differentiates her is that she is willing to dispose of them if elected. A very reasonable position and one that would differentiate her from the majority of her colleagues.

    And, really, riddler, don't you know that the US is a class-free society? You don't want to go admitting that people have shared class interests do you? Because then they might vote according to those interests and "bye bye" 40 years of propaganda. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 3:38 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidI guess I missed the part where she claims she's not part of the 1%. Please post that specific quote.


    He can't because it never happened.

    For riddler and his ilk, the only thing worse than a poor person is someone who has made it and wants to even the playing field so more Americans can enjoy the great wealth of our nation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 8:16 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    KissTheSky saidI guess I missed the part where she claims she's not part of the 1%. Please post that specific quote.


    He can't because it never happened.

    For riddler and his ilk, the only thing worse than a poor person is someone who has made it and wants to even the playing field so more Americans can enjoy the great wealth of our nation.


    You mean her attempt to claim she wasn't wealthy wasn't enough? How forgiving you are of those who side with you ideologically despite the hypocrisy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 8:18 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    KissTheSky saidI guess I missed the part where she claims she's not part of the 1%. Please post that specific quote.


    He can't because it never happened.

    For riddler and his ilk, the only thing worse than a poor person is someone who has made it and wants to even the playing field so more Americans can enjoy the great wealth of our nation.


    You mean her attempt to claim she wasn't wealthy wasn't enough? How forgiving you are of those who side with you ideologically despite the hypocrisy.
    LMAO.. I think the discussion/your being roasted is about your 'claim' that you cant back up with factual data nor a quote..icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 8:20 PM GMT
    “I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.

    What does she expect? Are folks with money supposed to keep it in their mattress?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 8:23 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    KissTheSky saidI guess I missed the part where she claims she's not part of the 1%. Please post that specific quote.


    He can't because it never happened.

    For riddler and his ilk, the only thing worse than a poor person is someone who has made it and wants to even the playing field so more Americans can enjoy the great wealth of our nation.


    You mean her attempt to claim she wasn't wealthy wasn't enough? How forgiving you are of those who side with you ideologically despite the hypocrisy.
    LMAO.. I think the discussion/your being roasted is about your 'claim' that you cant back up with factual data nor a quote..icon_wink.gif


    Are you like deliberately ignoring her attempt to claim she isn't part of the wealthy? Or is it denial?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 8:24 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    KissTheSky saidI guess I missed the part where she claims she's not part of the 1%. Please post that specific quote.


    He can't because it never happened.

    For riddler and his ilk, the only thing worse than a poor person is someone who has made it and wants to even the playing field so more Americans can enjoy the great wealth of our nation.


    You mean her attempt to claim she wasn't wealthy wasn't enough? How forgiving you are of those who side with you ideologically despite the hypocrisy.
    LMAO.. I think the discussion/your being roasted is about your 'claim' that you cant back up with factual data nor a quote..icon_wink.gif


    Are you like deliberately ignoring her attempt to claim she isn't part of the wealthy? Or is it denial?
    Nope.. Im making sure your deflection from this:
    KissTheSky saidI guess I missed the part where she claims she's not part of the 1%. Please post that specific quote.

    isnt forgotten.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 9:21 PM GMT
    She's not part of the 1% just as Michelle Bachmann claims she's not a politician.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 9:27 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    TropicalMark said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    KissTheSky saidI guess I missed the part where she claims she's not part of the 1%. Please post that specific quote.


    He can't because it never happened.

    For riddler and his ilk, the only thing worse than a poor person is someone who has made it and wants to even the playing field so more Americans can enjoy the great wealth of our nation.


    You mean her attempt to claim she wasn't wealthy wasn't enough? How forgiving you are of those who side with you ideologically despite the hypocrisy.
    LMAO.. I think the discussion/your being roasted is about your 'claim' that you cant back up with factual data nor a quote..icon_wink.gif


    Are you like deliberately ignoring her attempt to claim she isn't part of the wealthy? Or is it denial?


    When you produce the claim, we'll discuss it. Thus far, you have not.

    Socal's attempt isn't getting it done because she's speaking about people having their wealth in stock portfolios versus her won wealth, which - as the very article you posted notes - is in her home and mutual funds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 9:34 PM GMT



    Here's an exercise in English comprehension.

    "I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him"

    Break down the sentence.

    Here:

    I realize there are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios, I'm not one of them.

    In this she's right. She doesn't have a lot of stock portfolios. She isn't saying that she's NOT part of the 1%.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 9:35 PM GMT
    meninlove said


    Here's an exercise in English comprehension.

    "I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him"

    Break down the sentence.

    Here:

    I realize there are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios, I'm not one of them.

    In this she's right. She doesn't have a lot of stock portfolios. She isn't saying that she's NOT part of the 1%.



    Notice how riddler runs off when confronted? Happens EVERY thread that way.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 9:44 PM GMT
    Christian73 said...Socal's attempt isn't getting it done because she's speaking about people having their wealth in stock portfolios versus her won wealth, which - as the very article you posted notes - is in her home and mutual funds.

    Unless funds are of the fixed-income bond type funds, they are invested in stocks.

    "She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF."

    ... "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."
    Warren's stock, an aide says, is all in mutual funds, with the exception of holdings in IBM which she has had for decades.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 9:53 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidNotice how riddler runs off when confronted? Happens EVERY thread that way.icon_wink.gif

    Not true at all. Riddler has an excellent record of following up and participating in threads he starts. Some people have other things to attend to and are not on RJ continuously, so the gaps mean nothing. Were you aware that there are a number of guys who post liberal articles and videos and almost never participate in their threads? Shocking!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 9:55 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said...Socal's attempt isn't getting it done because she's speaking about people having their wealth in stock portfolios versus her won wealth, which - as the very article you posted notes - is in her home and mutual funds.

    Unless funds are of the fixed-income bond type funds, they are invested in stocks.

    "She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF."

    ... "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."
    Warren's stock, an aide says, is all in mutual funds, with the exception of holdings in IBM which she has had for decades.




    You realize you're not disagreeing with what I wrote, right? icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 10:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said...Socal's attempt isn't getting it done because she's speaking about people having their wealth in stock portfolios versus her won wealth, which - as the very article you posted notes - is in her home and mutual funds.

    Unless funds are of the fixed-income bond type funds, they are invested in stocks.

    "She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF."

    ... "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."
    Warren's stock, an aide says, is all in mutual funds, with the exception of holdings in IBM which she has had for decades.




    You realize you're not disagreeing with what I wrote, right? icon_cool.gif


    Are you really um that simple to believe that's what she meant? Look at the context of her statement. She's backtracking after attempting to claim that she wasn't wealthy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 10:07 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TropicalMark saidNotice how riddler runs off when confronted? Happens EVERY thread that way.icon_wink.gif

    Not true at all. Riddler has an excellent record of following up and participating in threads he starts. Some people have other things to attend to and are not on RJ continuously, so the gaps mean nothing. Were you aware that there are a number of guys who post liberal articles and videos and almost never participate in their threads? Shocking!
    Oh yes it is.. every time riddler is confronted with having to produce factual data to defend where he has been proven wrong, he beats feet and never returns. He has been asked to provide data that he himself stated in the thread TITLE and refuses to do so by deflection or outright ignorance. This is a pattern for him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 10:09 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TropicalMark saidNotice how riddler runs off when confronted? Happens EVERY thread that way.icon_wink.gif

    Not true at all. Riddler has an excellent record of following up and participating in threads he starts. Some people have other things to attend to and are not on RJ continuously, so the gaps mean nothing. Were you aware that there are a number of guys who post liberal articles and videos and almost never participate in their threads? Shocking!





    --------------------------------------------------------------------


    God your hypocritical SoCal, you speak highly of Riddler, then down the Liberals, but some close scrutiny of your own history here and your buddy FreedomGeezer shows that you run every time on certain subjects when facts are shown that contradict your 'ideology'.

    The two of you start name calling, and dodging the facts then start your 'ignore' bullshit. So remember, if your the black pot, don't don't try to put down the kettle's that are also black.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 10:14 PM GMT
    meninlove said


    Here's an exercise in English comprehension.

    "I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him"

    Break down the sentence.

    Here:

    I realize there are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios, I'm not one of them.

    In this she's right. She doesn't have a lot of stock portfolios. She isn't saying that she's NOT part of the 1%.





    Yeah taking a legalistic approach to her statement? Right... Watch the video and I guess if you're partial to her ideology, then that's what you believe but that's now what a reasonable person would believe. If you have to parse it with talk of grammar and language in order to justify her statement, you've already lost the message in an attempt to bend over yourself to justify her statements.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 10:15 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said
    TropicalMark saidNotice how riddler runs off when confronted? Happens EVERY thread that way.icon_wink.gif

    Not true at all. Riddler has an excellent record of following up and participating in threads he starts. Some people have other things to attend to and are not on RJ continuously, so the gaps mean nothing. Were you aware that there are a number of guys who post liberal articles and videos and almost never participate in their threads? Shocking!
    Oh yes it is.. every time riddler is confronted with having to produce factual data to defend where he has been proven wrong, he beats feet and never returns. He has been asked to provide data that he himself stated in the thread TITLE and refuses to do so by deflection or outright ignorance. This is a pattern for him.


    Um or I actually have I work and leave the computer. It's the same title of the link - plus if you look at what she actually said, she makes the clear claim she wasn't wealthy and now she backs away from that statement with a rather legalistic interpretation of what she said... The average person doesn't interpret statements in that way nor should they.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2012 10:18 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said...Socal's attempt isn't getting it done because she's speaking about people having their wealth in stock portfolios versus her won wealth, which - as the very article you posted notes - is in her home and mutual funds.

    Unless funds are of the fixed-income bond type funds, they are invested in stocks.

    "She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF."

    ... "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."
    Warren's stock, an aide says, is all in mutual funds, with the exception of holdings in IBM which she has had for decades.

    You realize you're not disagreeing with what I wrote, right? icon_cool.gif

    Not clear what you're saying. If you are suggesting there is a significant difference between owning a portfolio of stocks versus being invested in mutual funds, which are in turn, invested in stock portfolios, then I would have to question the relevance of the difference. There are differences, but she is apparently suggesting that one is good and the other is bad, or something, but not clear what the point is, other than to try and misrepresent her wealth somehow.