56°
AUBURN, Mass. – U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren told a packed crowd of supporters and undecided voters that she’s going to fight for them in Washington, at a town hall event in Worcester on Sunday.
Warren, who is U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) challenger in November, spoke to more than 300 local residents at the Teamsters 170 building on Route 20, telling them why she’s the better candidate to represent them on Capitol Hill.
“I grew up in an America that was creating new opportunities for our kids and I worry that America has turned in a different direction, and that’s what pulls me into the race,” the Democratic candidate told the crowd. “The Republicans’ vision for how to build the future is to say, ‘I got mine. The rest of you are on your own.’
“Our vision of America is that every single one of us has an obligation to pay forward, to help create the conditions so the next kid can make it big, and the kid after that, and the kid after that,” Warren continued. “I know this race is going to be tough, but I know that sometimes when you see a fire, you just square your shoulders and walk straight into it … I’m ready for this fight.”
After giving her pitch to the attendees, Warren took questions from the audience. People asked her about health care, foreclosures, student loans, renewable energy, Iran, among other issues.
State Sen. Michael Moore (D-Millbury), who moderated the question and answer session, supports Warren for Senate. He said that talking with residents directly is the “only way to find out how the people feel.”
“I think it’s very important that she’s out here,” Moore said. “Every vote counts and you can’t take anything for granted. Central Massachusetts is going to be one of the critical areas in the election and it’s great that she’s here talking with voters.”
John Walsh, chairperson of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, slammed Scott Brown for not having a town hall event for anyone to come and ask a question.
“It’s interesting that Scott Brown in two-and-a-half years has never held an event like this,” Walsh said. “I don’t know of any elected official who doesn’t do that. If you want to go to a fundraiser, he’ll talk to you, or if you buy a ticket for a chamber of commerce event, he’ll talk. But never like this open community event.”
Auburn resident Rene Gibree said he was very excited to see Warren on Sunday.
“I think she has great priorities and I think she’ll do a great job for us,” Gibree said. “She’s looking out for the middle class and we need someone like that.”
Comments (53)
The experience in Massachusetts is that most people have bought in now that they can afford it. It simply is not the case that more and more people drop out of the pool. We now have a track record in this state on this issue. 98% of our people are covered.
A federal system will create efficiencies that states can't create piecemeal. Medicare is a federal program that delivers at a lower cost. You may want to cut it but the people on it like it just fine. Remember that infamous Tea Party line: Keep your government hands off my Medicare! Perhaps some folks need to be educated about the fact that Medicare is a government program.
Clearly you have not had a child graduate from college during the recession, a child unable to find a job for a much longer period of time than they were led to expect, often being forced back under the parental roof through no fault of their own. The ability to remain under the parental plan has been a godsend for some families. An accident or illness to an uninsured person can devastate the savings of an entire family, not just the young person himself or herself. Maybe you haven't been blindsided by a health issue involving an unemployed 25-year old. Lucky you.
Maximus, I have had 3 young adults go through this. In each and every case I have told them that they had to do something for work until the right job came along. If in the mean time we had to assist our kids financially we did, that's what parents do.
If they were uninsured and had to seek care they did and the financial burden fell upon them. Usually the hospitals will work it out with someone that is under insured and settle for a lower amount and establish a payment plan for them. It never came down to the rest of the family paying an adult child’s bill for medical care. The rest of the family's finances are not devastated because I am not responsible for my adult children's bills unless I choose to be.
What is more of a problem is their college loans. That is what cripples many young adults. Student loans to support overpaid professors making 450,000.00 annually or more, like Liz Warren. If these college professors were paid a more reasonable living wage instead the excess amount they get the cost of education would be far less.
People rail against a doctor making 250k a year but are totally happy paying Lizzy 450k for the work she performed as a professor. Something isn't right! She is against "Wall Street", whatever that means, but is all for greed within her own profession. Lizzy is all for the occupy movement and all of the destruction that they have done throughout the city’s they chose to disrupt. But somehow the “Tea Party” people are evil. Get a grip!
Doctors are evil and the lawyers are good. The health care system and the legal system is fine becuse so many of these moon bats are lawyers.
Dr. Warren is the exception not the rule at Universities. She taught at a high paying school. Why should she not be rewarded?
My father taught for decades at a state university. Even with summer school he never cracked $85,000 a year.
To say that hospitals work out a lower payment schedule is unbelievable on it's face.
Let' take a look at what happened to Ron Paul's former campaign manager.
Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. The 49-year-old Snyder was relatively young and seemingly healthy when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother who was incapable of paying. She has since gone bankrupt. So much for help from friends, neighbors and church groups.
Tax her to Clinton-era levels. Tax Mitt Romney to Clinton-era levels. It wasn't college professors or kids with pre-existing conditions or women on birth control who caused the economy to collapse. Yet this is what the GOP focuses on. Hold Wall St. responsible. When a man with hundreds of millions of dollars pays an effective 13% tax rate, less than you and me, and shelters his riches in offshore accounts in order to pay as little as possible in US taxes, and then goes on about people who want "free stuff" from the government, we are in the Brave New World. Mitt needs the protection of a set of tax laws unavailable to the rest of us but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET THAT KID OFF HIS PARENTS' PLAN!
Who wants to hold Wall St. responsible for its own mess? Elizabeth Warren. You think Occupiers and lawyers caused the destruction? Turn off Fox News.
Quick note: Wealthy people and businesses often times spend their money on goods and services as well as payroll for their employees. If you take too much money out of their pockets, you're also taking it away from the regular people who provide these goods and services.
Of course there are families for which this an absolute lifesaver necessity. I'm not talking about them. People who absolutely have a need should have the help they need. I think we all agree with that.
I'm talking about people who can work other jobs, but hold out for something "in their field" or "the perfect job". So, they go live with their parents or go back to school indefinitely because they don't have to live on their own. They could leave if they really tried, but it's more convenient to stay on the parents' insurance. These are good, educated people that can start getting experience now if they are motivated.
Extending the age to 26 could encourage a culture of dependence. That's the risk. When people don't believe they can do things on their own, they don't step up, and that hurts the country. There would be fewer producers.
If I had had an option of staying on my parents' plan I may have waited to look for jobs, and I would have missed my chance. Or I may have decided I didn't like my job and quit to go live with my parents rather than pressing forward. I might have put off getting married, buying a house, and having a kid. I could have been a drain on everyone.
So, I don't have problems with the people that need the program using it... it's the inevitable abuse and societal pessimistic attitude that worry me.
All the pearl-clutching when some kid somewhere stays on her parents' health care plan for an extra couple of years, giving the parents enormous peace of mind, sounds excessive when compared with this:
In the paraphrased words of Jon Stewart: Mitt Romney gets $77,000 in tax deductions to send his horse to the freaking prom.
Mitt Romney with his vast wealth is subsidiized to send his dancing horse around the world.
But it is the kid who has heath care until 26 -- paid for by the plan his parents have bought through insurance -- who is creating a culture of dependence.
Okay.
Since you're mentioning Romney, which has nothing to do with this article: Romney didn't stay on his parents plan, and he donated ALL of his father's inheritance to BYU. So he's not dependent on his father. He got up and started making money for himself. Evidently, he has also become very good at making money.
Ok, so Romney wasn't born poor: There are plenty of stories out there about kids who are born into poverty and have a dream of becoming successful. Through hard work and big ideas--not handouts--they have made it big.
Romney could have lived fat and happy off of his parents earnings and done nothing. Instead of just "checking out" he has decided to start companies, try to turn companies around, and wants his chance to ensure that everyone in the country continues to have the opportunity to pursue success.
So $77K is more money than I've ever had at one time, but you know what: Good for him. If Romney gets a tax deduction, that's money that he already earned, he just gets to keep it. I want a leader that knows how to build success and wealth, because he's going to be better equipped to make the country a financial success.
"Evil" corporations are constantly building more wealh through innovation and efficiencies which then allows their employees to support their families and other businesses in turn. There's always room for more wealth and growth in this capitalist system, while a system of government dependencies is a limited by the number paying into the system: a number that can shrink to nothing once regulations force everyone to live off the government.
By the way, I never said the 26-year-old is creating the culture of dependence. The federal government and legislators are doing that.
The Bain/Romney scheme – after acquiring a solvent company, borrow heavily against its assets, throw workers under the bus, rob their pension fund (leaving taxpayers to pick-up the tab), avoid taxes by laundering profits through offshore banks, leverage company into receivership or bankruptcy, liquated all material goods, generously reward investors, destroy surrounding neighborhood/community, and skip town - is eerily reminiscent of the scorched earth plan Paul Ryan envisions for America. Over two-thirds of the companies acquired by Bain are now shuddered, accounting for the loss of over 400,000 jobs and billions in profit for Romney and his parasitic cohorts. I find it incomprehensible that workingclass conservatives – in direct opposition to their own best interest – vehemently support the Bain inspired Ryan Plan (i.e., raise taxes for the bottom 98%, add to the deficit by giving more job killing/revenue draining tax cuts to cash-soaked millionaires, cut Medicare by 47%, increase local taxes, and transform the Social Security Trust Fund into slush fund for Wall Street). When Romney argues that taxes and regulations are inhibiting economic prosperity, he’s advocating for the top 2%, not the bottom 98%. In 1970, following the promising dawn of Johnson’s “Great Society,” 65% of Americans claimed middleclass status and poverty hovered around 14%; however, as a cumulative, long-term effect of repeatedly instituting the same failed economic polices started by Reagan and subsequently replicated by Bush 41 and Bush 43, as of 2012, 37% live in poverty and only 43% claim middleclass status, and now Mitt wants back in to reintroduce the same horrendous economic polices offered by Bush 43 - the exact same policies that decimated the middleclass, turned the Clinton surplus into a $11.4 trillion deficit, pink slipped or outsourced 14 million jobs, closed 738 manufacturing plants, laid off 400,000 teachers and police officers, grew food stamp rolls by 22 million, left 50 million child and women without health care, and drove America into the deepest recession in a century. Mitt back in…really?
Mr. White:
Republicans do not want total reform. They want nothing to change. They want insurance companies to enjoy maximum profits. They are all about profit and religious zealotry. How do we know? Because of what they do. They say they want to reform health care but they do is attack collective bargaining and Planned Parenthood. "Repeal and Replace." Where is the Replace?
Meanwhile, millions of children now have insurance because of the ACA, you cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, and young people are covered under their parents' plan until age 26. Most people don't want any of that repealed or replaced.
You say we must stop people from using emergency rooms instead of PCPs. That is the point of the individual mandate. Get coverage -- choose your plan, even a low-cost, government-subsidized plan you can afford -- or pay a reasonable penalty. Everyone is paying into the system.
Lower costs, less use of ERs, personal responsibility.
Maximus,
Wasn't it a Republican that pushed health care reform right here in MA? What is wrong with allowing the states to handle health care as they see fit? Letting the states handle it ensures a greater likelihood that each state will get a solution that works best for them, rather than a one-size-fits-all top-down federal act.
What does adding coverage up to age 26 accomplish in the long run?--Adult children that should probably be able to support themselves (I know they might have to take jobs doing things they didn't study or don't like). It's seems like pandering to an age bracket to me.
What happens when too many people take advantage of the low-cost government-subsidized healthcare? Just keep raising taxes as fewer and fewer people pay in? What happens when government coverage starts covering practically everything similar to the problems with EBT cards today? At the end of the day, the only way the feds can grow is by taking $$ through taxes. What happens when there are more people taking out than are putting into the system?
What is wrong with trusting the states on health care is the same reason Americans should not trust the states on civil rights.
How many GOP governors are putting their hopes on a Mittens win so they won't have to set up health exchanges. That Texas thinks that 25% of their population being uninsured is a good thing.
Health care reform is needed because the free market created the most expensive health care system in the world, without having the best results, or 2nd best, or 3rd, more like 50th.
How many Hospitals could Mittens personal wealth fund?
Health insurance is not a right. We're not heartless though: anyone uninsured can still get care, we just want to find a way to get them out of the expensive ER if they just have a cold.
Americans have come to expect top-quality care, and it's expensive. Socialized healthcare systems in other parts of the world may serve everyone, but the quality of care may be lower. Just look at how long it takes to get an MRI in Canada.
Have decades of relative prosperity in the US resulted in an unrealistic expectations of our healthcare? Or, was it our spirit as a nation that enabled us to do together more than we thought possible?
Then why is Canadians life expectancy is 2 years longer then Americans?
The US life expectancy is 38th in the world. Canada is 10th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
As I said before the US. health care is the MOST expensive in the world. By person and per capita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
Cooler, fresher air, less stress? That'd be my guess.
Do they accomplish more in their lifetime? God only knows...
maximus: I never said that tort reform was the answer it is part of a total reform that needs to take place. The federal government is not the answer they are part of the problem with health care.
Why not use "urgent Care " centers instead of hospitals? Big cost savings if implemented properly. I say keep people out of emergency rooms unless they need to be there. Go to any city hospital emergency on any given night and see what cloggs the system and adds to the costs. We have to stop people from using emergency rooms in place of PCP's.
Exactly what have Republicans done to address our broken health care system when they control the White House and/ or Congress? Nothing. Exactly what do they propose to replace the Affordable Care Act with? Nothing. When Republican governors have an opportunity to enact real healthcare reforms on the state level, get people insured like 98% of Massachusetts residents are, what are their priorities? Forcing doctors to lie to pregnant women and vaginal probes. These are the laws Rebublican legislators have tried to pass or have passed. This is what they actually do when given the opportunity.
Tort reform? Seriously? Tort reform is the answer to the insurance boondoggle that will be our health care system once more if the ACA is repealed?
John, So what you do is not answer a direct question you simply ask a question of your own. This tells me that you know that you would have to talk out of both sides of your mouth by calling Senator Brown an obstructionist but somehow defend any Democrat who has or will take the same party line votes. I believe this exposes you for who you are.
As far as health care you and every Democrat know that a big part of reform needs to be tort reform. The astronomical costs that doctors are forced to pay in malpractice insurance increases the cost significantly for everyone while helping the insurance companies make millions. In addition the rules that forces hospitals to treat anyone without health insurance that comes through the doors free of charge is kill all of us that do have insurance. Now everyone should have access to care however to allow people with a runny nose or a skinned knee or sprained wrist to go into a emergency room for care because they do not have a PCP is ludicrous. The cost per square foot to construct, staff and maintain these highly sophisticated medical facilities is crazy. A better solution is to have many more “urgent care” facilities across the city and state where people with those problems go and get triaged before they take a bed in a trauma center. These facilities should be staffed with interns and medical student to help offset the cost of their education. They could either be funded by business or if necessary the government in some way. This type of system would reduce overall cost and better utilize the trauma centers and emergency rooms that we have. Again to do this there would need to be tort reform but it would save the system in many ways.
Individuals now pay significantly more for service than Medicaid, Medicare or Insurance Companies pay. This is because the reimbursement rates to hospitals by government programs is so low the health care providers make up the difference, to the extent possible, by charging people who can pay even more. This has to change! If the government requires free care they should pay what the true cost is to deliver that care not a reduced rate that then forces the rest of us to pay higher prices to make up the difference. This is where the “urgent care” centers would make a huge difference.
The health care issue requires much more space than I have hear however none of the things that I mentioned are even addressed in the current bill which is why I believe it needs to be killed and something that makes more sense written and instituted.
Tort reform has already been implemented, years ago by many states.
http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_tort_reform_state_table.htm
I do not see you quoting the wonderful ideas put forth by GOP governors on health care reform, but it was a trick question.
But I lower myself by raising to your bait.
John B, You are correct it is not Scott Browns seat nor was it ever Ted Kennedy's as the Democrats called it. The seat has always been the people's seat. You passed the test very good.
You did not answer my question, Let’s say hopefully the Republican's win Back the Senate and unfortunately Scott Brown loses to Liz Warren. Then the Republican's take a vote to repeal Obama Care. If Liz votes against repeal, which she will, does that then make her an obstructionist? If every vote she takes is with the Democrats will she then be a obstructionist?
Since 2009 we have not had a federal budget because Harry Reid will not present one for a vote. Is Harry Reid an obstructionist?
Every bit of commentary is the the GOP is try to stop Obama, not work for Americans. The silly debt crisis was a GOP manufacturer.
The GOP says Obama care is bad, but it is good enough for Scott Brown to have his kids on it the insure the child under 25.
What will the GOP replace it with the old system that is so good that Ron Paul's campaign manager died in debt of over $100,000. Cancer treatment is very expensive. Under the old system 1/3 of American bankruptcies are due to health care costs.
Let's have you answer the questions of what will be better. Be specific and quote your resources.
It is a trick question, but some body might impress me.
Obstructionist? No. Harry Reid is a coward. By presenting a budget Dems would have to put a cap on spending as well as promising the world to everyone who asks. As it stands now, money is only paper with little designs on it......we can always print more.
To John B., Even if Senator Brown did vote with the Republican Party 93% of the time. What percentage of the time do you think Liz Warren would have voted with the Democratic Party? I’ll give you a hint the percentage would NOT be south of 100%. Would she then be an obstructionist because she never voted with the republican’s?
Afetr all it is Scot Brown's seat isn't it?
It is not Scott Brown's seat. It is the people's seat.
The Last Great Newspaper is also a FAUX news property. Looks like I nailed my jump and landing. See you at the Olympics.
I will be wearing my made in the USA uniform. Mittens did not supply that in Salt Lake City.
William Buckly thought that conservatives were about better ideas. But congressional leaders number one goal is to make our President a 1 term president.
Working together is a dirty word with the GOP. The democrats want to implement an idea from the Heritage foundation. OUTRAGEOUS, now that idea is BAD!
GOP does not equal conservative.
Can you name a "Liberal" GOP member?
Can you name a moderate GOP member?
Was W not conservative enough?
W was not fiscally conservative. Wouldn't you agree?
He thought he was, he lowered taxes, decreased regulations, throughout most of his presidency.
How was he not a fiscal conservative? He got the GOP to go along with him on most of his spending plans.
The individual mandate is an idea out of the conservative Heritage Foundation that was supported by Republicans until Barack Obama decided to support it. The individual mandate screams of personal responsibility. Those who refuse to join the pool by not purchasing even low-cost insurance subsidized by the government, will have to pay a tax or penalty, call it what you will. This tax is not huge and would affect an estimated 3% of the population. If the individual refuses to pay the penalty there are no criminal repercussions.
It ain't broccoli. Almost everyone accesses the health care system some time in his life. You the taxpayer already pay right now in your premiums and in your taxes for the uninsured, because they do get sick, they are treated, and costs rise. All the individual mandate does is force people to pay what they can toward their health care costs. Makes the pool bigger, lowers costs.
Conservatives should love this and they once did. It's called personal responsibility.
While I recognize the sentiment behind the tax, I think going about implementation this way sets a very DANGEROUS PRECEDENT to say the least. Also, threatening people with a tax to force them to do what the federal government wants--hardly seems like personal responsibility to me!
By this, aren't the feds basically saying that they don't trust individuals to manage their own money and health affairs? They have to be "led" down the right path?
It's a vicious cycle: The more we rely on government, the less we do on our own. These things that we no longer do on our own don't get passed on and are lost to future generations. Gradually, our descendents have no choice but to depend entirely on government for those functions that everyone used to know a few decades or centuries before. But the "Government" is "The People", right? Not anymore... it eventually becomes just those people who divy everything up and "know" what's best for those poor, helpless citizens (or "useful idiots"). Great way to slowly kill off a democracy whether intentional or not...
I hope I'm just being paranoid and synical... but then again, hope is not a strategy...
GOP and DEMS are both part of the problem... maybe that's why 51% of the state's voters (including myself) are unenrolled. People are starting to see the importance of thinking for themselves. We need balance, and we need common sense. I believe Scott Brown can deliver both of those better than his opponent.
The vicious cycle argument is nicely phrased. Good job.
With Citizens United ruling, Money equals speech. Corporations are poring money into the race to get the government to benefit their business.
Is there a "War on Coal". Coal fired powered plants are closing down. Why? Because natural gas has gotten so cheap thanks to fracking. But to coal miners it is not that but Obama war on them, with ads brought to you by, the coal industry.
Here is what I know about Liz Warren:
- She supports the Individual Mandate that forces citizens to purchase a product from a private company or be faced with a huge TAX.
- She supports government investment in more failed "Green" companies like Solyndra and Evergreen Solar (there is a list of about 12 more). Does she really think suburban moms (her biggest supporters) are ready to give up their gas guzzling suburban tanks and drive sub compacts to school drop off?
- She supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and upholding existing laws? How is that possible? If they are illegal then they need to leave and follow the already exiting path to legal entry into this country.
- She supports bailing out people who were irresponsible when they borrowed too much and could not afford the home they bought through principal write downs, special refinancing options for those people. How does that make those of us who lived within our means feel?
- She supports the largely outdated concept of unions and thuggery that ensues with labor unions. Why did GM fail? Why is the Post Office bankrupt? Tenure for teachers...the list goes on.
- She supports pouring more money into Higher Ed by giving out more of our tax dollars through grants and FORGIVING loans??? Why?
I just don't understand this person and the lack of support for personal responsibility...I know enough that I would never vote for someone who continues to advocate for taking my money and giving it to someone else.
A little digging into your opinions.
Wells Fargo steered people into mortgages they could not afford, A cut from Fortune magazine
"But in July, Wells Fargo paid $85 million to the Federal Reserve, the largest ever consumer protection fine in the central bank's history, to settle charges that it routinely put people in subprime loans that they either couldn't afford or didn't qualify for. The Fed said that the bank regularly pushed borrowers into high-cost subprime loans even when many of those customers would have qualified for traditional lower cost loans. The Fed also said that loan officers at Wells Fargo Financial, a subprime lending division of the bank that has since been shut down, would often falsify loan documents by inflating the incomes of borrowers to make it appear that the person would be able to afford a loan that they normally would not be able to qualify for. As is normally the practice, Wells settled the Fed's charges without admitting or denying it broke the law."
Giving illegals Amnesty, that is what Ronald Reagan did in 1986, with the immigration and reform act! How could Saint Reagan be wrong!
She supports Romeny Care, because that is a tax, and people who don't buy insurance Which is so bad that Mass has a LOWER unemployment rate then the rest of the country, and only 1% of the population is being taxed, or in Mitten's view point penalized.
But facts wont change your view point, it so much easier to be angry.
C'mon John B. nobody held a gun to anyone's head and said sign here...anyone can see the payment on the final paperwork and ask the simple question, can I afford this home? If you don't have the basic skills to understand your mortgage payment and interest rate then you have no business buying a home. It's just basic math.
Amnesty for illegal aliens is wrong by any president, even Reagan. I don't agree with it.
Not sure I understand your last point completely but supporting a law that forces citizens to buy a private product wrong by any measure.
If you had been following the investment news, you will know that banks lied to people about what they could afford, the banks, not just Wells Fargo, engaged in fraudulent practices. Lenders were lied to by the banks about what they could afford. Simply watch Inside Job, it is at the Grafton Library.
Considering the law to buy health insurance came from right wing think tanks, which is why Mittens put it into place. People without health insurance are free loading on these people who do have health insurance. Hospitals are required to treat anyone who comes in that door.
If Ron Paul's campaign manager died of cancer in debt to a hospital, then the free market is NOT working.
John B, it's simple math. I make x amount of money and my bills are y amount per month. Can I afford to pay this mortgage? I don't care if the lenders are lying and saying people can afford the payment, if your not bright enough to do simple math then your deserve what you get. Allowing people to point the finger at someone else and shirk their individual responsibility for the mess they got themselves into is absurd on its face.
I have seen you mention over and over again that the free market has failed or is not working. I would argue that we do not have a free market in the U.S. I'm not sure there is a real free market anywhere in the world. The markets in the U.S. see intervention from the government all the time in the form of Trade Policy, Regulations, Bailouts, Quantitative Easing, ZIRP, Crony Capitalism, the FDA, the SEC, the FTC, etc....The U.S. is a centrally planned, managed economy. A free market simply does not exist.
Lieawatha, aka Faux-cahontas, offers nothing but the same old tried and failed tax and spend policies that have prevented recovery on the National Level these past forty months. She should come out from her ivory tower and listen to business people instead of just Harvard and Washington, DC Marxists.
It is very simple why businesses are not hiring. Washington big spenders and regulators have killed what economists refer to as the animal spirits in the economy. Business people will hire, spend and take risks when there is an atmosphere of potential reward. When Washington demonizes us, threatens higher taxes, and ever expands regulations, we retreat, and play defense.
Although there has been some growth in my work load, I am very loathe to hire. When Taxmeggedon and Cap and Trade come into being business will come to a screatching halt. Economists of all stripes, Keynsians and Supply Siders agree. Rather than hire a Project Manager or perminant Yard Laborer to stock projects, I'll just continue to work seventy hours a week. I'll sub-contract out more work too. Talk to any business person. Nobody wants to hire while the Washington sword of dameclease hangs over our head.
There is a clear choice in the Senatorial and Presidential Elections. Will we return to the Free Market Capitalism that made America an Economic Superpower for 200 years or will we continue down the Socialist Path we are on? We're lucky. We have Europe to show us where Socialism leads. Shall we elect Warren and Obama and become like Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc., etc., etc.? My God, I hope not.
20 straight months of job growth.
If GW Bush had created at this time 4 years ago, John McCain would have been president.
I certainty don't want to return to that failed policy. But Mittens does!
You can take a look at Austerity expansion, that notion that cutting government spending has will increase confidence in the market.
That has been tried in Europe with England and Ireland and Spain. It has FAILED. They are not bailing out Greece.
That Pro-union country Germany is Bailing out Greece.
When you have your facts wrong, your conclusions are wrong.
Well John B (If that is in fact your real name)
Twenty months of job growth is technically true, however the economy must expand at 230,000 new jobs per month to keep pace with people entering the workforce, so as compared with population the net is job loss. That is why the unemployment rate has increased under President Obama.
Aa far as austerity goes, the two countries in Europe who have historically kept government spending at under 20% of GDP are Germany and the UK. What two countries are now being counted on to bail out the rest of Europe because they have relatively healthy economies? That is correct, Germany and the UK. Now that the socialistic basket cases have to go on a diet, of course there will be pain. Like a junkie who goes through the DTs, these failed economic models must be weaned from the government teat. It will be painful, but it must eventually happen.
You are entitled to your opinions, but not your facts John. You are wrong.
From a Nobel Prize winner in Economics, from This May.
Paul Krugrman
“The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.” So declared John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago, and he was right. Even if you have a long-run deficit problem — and who doesn’t? — slashing spending while the economy is deeply depressed is a self-defeating strategy, because it just deepens the depression.
So why is Britain doing exactly what it shouldn’t? Unlike the governments of, say, Spain or California, the British government can borrow freely, at historically low interest rates. So why is that government sharply reducing investment and eliminating hundreds of thousands of public-sector jobs, rather than waiting until the economy is stronger?
Over the past few days, I’ve posed that question to a number of supporters of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron, sometimes in private, sometimes on TV. And all these conversations followed the same arc: They began with a bad metaphor and ended with the revelation of ulterior motives.
The bad metaphor — which you’ve surely heard many times — equates the debt problems of a national economy with the debt problems of an individual family. A family that has run up too much debt, the story goes, must tighten its belt. So if Britain, as a whole, has run up too much debt — which it has, although it’s mostly private rather than public debt — shouldn’t it do the same? What’s wrong with this comparison?
The answer is that an economy is not like an indebted family. Our debt is mostly money we owe to each other; even more important, our income mostly comes from selling things to each other. Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income.
So what happens if everyone simultaneously slashes spending in an attempt to pay down debt? The answer is that everyone’s income falls — my income falls because you’re spending less, and your income falls because I’m spending less. And, as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better.
This isn’t a new insight. The great American economist Irving Fisher explained it all the way back in 1933, summarizing what he called “debt deflation” with the pithy slogan “the more the debtors pay, the more they owe.” Recent events, above all the austerity death spiral in Europe, have dramatically illustrated the truth of Fisher’s insight.
And there’s a clear moral to this story: When the private sector is frantically trying to pay down debt, the public sector should do the opposite, spending when the private sector can’t or won’t. By all means, let’s balance our budget once the economy has recovered — but not now. The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.
As I said, this isn’t a new insight. So why have so many politicians insisted on pursuing austerity in slump? And why won’t they change course even as experience confirms the lessons of theory and history?
Well, that’s where it gets interesting. For when you push “austerians” on the badness of their metaphor, they almost always retreat to assertions along the lines of: “But it’s essential that we shrink the size of the state.”
Now, these assertions often go along with claims that the economic crisis itself demonstrates the need to shrink government. But that’s manifestly not true. Look at the countries in Europe that have weathered the storm best, and near the top of the list you’ll find big-government nations like Sweden and Austria.
And if you look, on the other hand, at the nations conservatives admired before the crisis, you’ll find George Osborne, Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer and the architect of the country’s current economic policy, describing Ireland as “a shining example of the art of the possible.” Meanwhile, the Cato Institute was praising Iceland’s low taxes and hoping that other industrial nations “will learn from Iceland’s success.”
So the austerity drive in Britain isn’t really about debt and deficits at all; it’s about using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs. And this is, of course, exactly the same thing that has been happening in America.
In fairness to Britain’s conservatives, they aren’t quite as crude as their American counterparts. They don’t rail against the evils of deficits in one breath, then demand huge tax cuts for the wealthy in the next (although the Cameron government has, in fact, significantly cut the top tax rate). And, in general, they seem less determined than America’s right to aid the rich and punish the poor. Still, the direction of policy is the same — and so is the fundamental insincerity of the calls for austerity.
The big question here is whether the evident failure of austerity to produce an economic recovery will lead to a “Plan B.” Maybe. But my guess is that even if such a plan is announced, it won’t amount to much. For economic recovery was never the point; the drive for austerity was about using the crisis, not solving it. And it still is.
I attended Warren’s Worcester “ice cream social” and was able to ask her a few questions as she worked the crowd. She was at a total loss for words and could not gave me a straight answer to any of my questions. Warren seemed totally out of touch with reality, and would be a terrible choice for the Senate!
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/16/warren_draws_on_wellsprings_of_cash_in_ny_ca/?p1=News_links
Speaking of softballs....go over to the local Patch sites and read the transcript of Lizzie's "chat" from last week.
45 minute, 8 questions, all softballs.
As far as being accessible to the people, and not being about money.....she's not exactly doing this for free you know. Lizzie is raising more money than Brown.
Must be all those "middle class" supporters she's looking out for................
Everyone who came was asked if they wanted to enter a lottery to be chosen at random to ask a question. The questions were pertinent to everyone there - average people with real concerns who appreciated Elizabeth's respectful, thoughtful and intelligent answers.
Access to the GOP.
Pay money, then only ask pre-approved softball questions. That is the elite's senate seat. Scott Brown said it was the people's senate seat.
Till he got it.
If you want to reach Scott Brown, all you have to do is contact his office, and that's more effective than a random Q&A.
I think it's great that he doesn't always vote in lock-step with the GOP and still seems to have a common sense approach. He is trying to serve ALL the people in MA, not just his party. Would Elizabeth represent everyone in the state, and would she do it as well as Scott... I'm not convinced.
Your Opinion is not supported by the FACTS. Scott Brown is a GOP obstructionist, in no way does he act in a bi-partisian manner.
Where do I get this information? From Below.
For Immediate Release: May 7, 2012
Contact: Mathew Helman, Communications Director
E-mail: mathew@progressmass.org, Cell: 617-821-8004
BOSTON - A new study of Republican Scott Brown's voting record in the U.S. Senate by ProgressMass reveals that, when Brown had the opportunity to oppose Republican obstruction in the U.S. Senate and demonstrate bipartisan leadership, he voted overwhelmingly with his Republican colleagues. This finding runs directly counter to Republican Scott Brown's recent claims of bipartisanship. Brown voted with his Republican colleagues at a rate of over 75% (over 93% prior to Elizabeth Warren's entry into the Senate race) to block legislation that had the support of 50 or more Senators, measures that would have passed the U.S. Senate on a so-called "up-or-down vote," according to the ProgressMass review of Brown's Senate record.
"Republican Scott Brown's misleading claims of bipartisanship ring hollow when we take a close look at his actual voting record," noted Mathew Helman, Communications Director for ProgressMass. "On the votes where he could have displayed true bipartisan leadership, Republican Scott Brown overwhelmingly supported his right-wing Republican colleagues, choosing partisan obstruction over getting something accomplished for the American people. That is Republican Scott Brown's real record; and, he can't Etch-A-Sketch it away, no matter how many times he simply repeats the word 'bipartisanship' on the campaign trail."
ProgressMass tallied every roll call vote Republican Scott Brown has taken during his time in the U.S. Senate (ranging from when he began casting votes on February 9, 2010, through the end of April 2012) in which:
50 or more Senators supported a measure, meaning it would pass on an up-or-down vote;
the Republican minority used Senate procedural rules to require 60 votes for passage instead of a simple 50 vote majority for passage; and,
a majority of Republican Senators opposed a measure.
Republican Scott Brown's Pattern of Partisan Obstruction
The result is a collection of 53 roll call votes during Republican Scott Brown's roughly 27 months in the U.S. Senate. Analysis of these 53 roll call votes resulted in findings roundly discrediting Brown's recent claims of bipartisanship. Quantitative observations included:
Republican Scott Brown supported Republican obstruction of measures that had the backing of at least 50 Senators - measures that failed but would have passed on an up-or-down vote - 40 times out of 53 roll call votes, or 75.5% of the time. In other words, during his tenure in the U.S. Senate, when Republican Scott Brown was faced with a choice between bipartisan leadership and partisan obstruction, Brown chose partisan obstruction over bipartisan leadership 3 to 1.
Eleven of the thirteen votes Republican Scott Brown took in opposition to Republican obstruction of a measure with majority support occurred after Elizabeth Warren officially filed papers to form her Senate campaign's exploratory committee on August 18, 2011. Obviously, this event gave Brown clear political motivation to artificially distance himself from his Republican colleagues.
Perhaps the most revealing finding of the study - the metric that best indicates how Republican Scott Brown will vote in the U.S. Senate in 2013 and beyond should he win re-election - is that, prior to the formation of Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign exploratory committee on August 18, 2011, Brown voted in support of Republican obstruction of measures with majority support a resounding 30 out of 32 times (93.8%).
John B,
I HAD heard of the 75% number, and that is part of what prompted my comment. There have been rumors of Scott Brown earning the label of "RINO" within the GOP since shortly after he took office because he does not vote with the GOP 100%. This is not a recent development, either: On Feb 22, 2010, he "broke ranks" and voted to support the Democrats' jobs bill (just check the Huffington Post).
I wasn't claiming that he's a 50/50 split, and why should he be? Scott Brown is obviously still a Republican, but he can and does think for himself. To me it says a lot when a man is willing to consider more than just his party's position. His job is to represent MA and appears to be doing a fine job.
PS-Think of this... According to Sec. of State Bill Galvin's 2010 statistics (as mentioned on masslive.com) there are 45.3% Democrat, 11.3% Republican, and 51.9% Unenrolled (Independent) voters in MA. Kerry is a Democrat, and let's call Brown a 75% R/ 25% D... that means that our senate representation is still ~63% in support of Democrats... on top of that there are 10 out of 10 US Representatives that are Democrats.
Based on the goal of fairly representing registered voters in this state, it makes a lot of sense that we have Brown balancing things out to represent the 11.3% Republicans and some of the 51.9% "Independents". I believe that this setup with Brown and the Dems results in better-balanced representation for the registered voters of MA.
Warren would just be another 100% Dem. Do you want a more representative delagation for the state, or do you want an all-Dem delegation that sometimes goes against as much as 63.9% of registered voters?