Elizabeth Warren takes care of defense industry at home

[ellenrr]

Elizabeth Warren’s standing as a liberal warrior immune to the influence of Big Business hasn’t stopped her from pushing the interests of major defense contractors back home.

Warren has fought to stop the Army from shifting funds away from a Massachusetts-built communications network to pay for unanticipated costs associated with the war in Afghanistan. She’s lobbied for problem-plagued General Dynamics-made tactical radios. And she’s pledged to protect Westover Air Reserve Base from the budget ax — all while saying she supports “targeted” cuts elsewhere.

It’s a delicate dance in a state where defense giant Raytheon is one of the largest employers and brings in billions of dollars each year in federal contracts.

The freshman Democrat from Massachusetts insists she’s not running for president, despite a movement to draft her. But if she did — and took on front-runner Hillary Clinton — she’d likely face scrutiny over the way she’s balanced her populist views with her sometimes-penchant for pursuing the well-worn practice of pork-barrel politics.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/elizabeth-warren-defense-massachusetts-115157.html#ixzz3Y8yX5yUs

[sufrommich]

1. There isn't a representative alive that doesn't do that.

Their job is to protect their state's economy.

[KittyWampus]

3. Ah, but when your state's economy depends on Wall Street or Insurance?

I sort of daydream about Warren being president so I could watch some DU'ers melt down when she inevitably had to compromise and -GASP- triangulate.

[sufrommich]

7. Yeah,I hear you.

[sabrina 1]

91. You are assuming that ALL DUers who support a particular politician will 'melt down' should

they find out something nefarious about that person.

So let me explain why you are wrong.

Those who support someone other than Hillary right now WANT primaries because that is where we find out more about the candidates. The purpose is to learn what they actually stand for.

And if, speaking for me specifically though I know others feel the same way, we find out that there was something, which we didn't know before that makes it obvious the politician is deceptive, hypocritical on issues, or any other information that is disappointing but makes the person unsuited for the job, I would have no problem withdrawing support even if it was someone I had almost total faith in.

Why would you assume that people are so invested in personalities that they would 'melt down' if their favorite politician disappointed them?

I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in politics because of the personalities of those asking for our support. I don't know them personally, not married to them, don't care how appealing or non-appealing they are. It's not a popularity contest. This is serious business, those who represent us will have the power to do good, or bad for this COUNTRY.

I would definitely not be 'melting down' if I found out something I need to know before it's too late, AFTER they are elected.

On the contrary, I will be glad to have found out in time to find a better candidate.

[JonLP24]

12. This isn't protecting the state's economy

She likely received some campaign contribution from them so she fights for a direct subsidy of a defense contractor no less. It isn't like without the subsidy the will cripple up & disappear paying 0 taxes or contributing nothing else without the subsidy. As far as state companies go. Competing businesses in the industry of the state are harmed because of the direct subsidy to a competitor.

You're aren't that there isn't a representative alive that doesn't do that.

I'm disagreeing with a poster with a H avatar who is defending Elizabeth Warren. I never thought I'd see the day.

[sufrommich]

16. I don't have any reason to slam Warren because I support Clinton.

The defense industry is a huge employer,I doubt you'd ever find any state rep who wouldn't welcome them with open arms.

[JonLP24]

21. I was just highlighting of the irony of it

because I support Elizabeth Warren far more than I do of Hillary Clinton

but she is wrong on the issue as if giving the subsidy means without it the company doesn't exist or leaves Massachusetts meanwhile tax dollars are going into the hands of private interests. Defense industry is a huge employer (they are also very corrupt) making huge profits & where does the lion's share of government go? Into the hands of defense companies. I doubt I'd find any (maybe I could find a few) either but it doesn't mean most of them are correct.

[MADem]

70. Yes, it is--she's protecting Bay State JOBS. It's simple. I don't blame her.

Constituents don't want to be fired. They would be if these industries left.

She fought for keeping that Army gadget that the Army didn't need specifically to protect jobs--they employ a LOT of people; so does Raytheon. It's all about the people and their paychecks. It is pork, but that's how it rolls.

FWIW, I voted for Warren for Senate, and I plan on voting for Clinton in the primary, and hopefully the general as well.

[JonLP24]

73. That's not how it works

That is the marketing certainly but not the reality. The gadget depends if people purchase it, if there are buyers it is going to sell. Throw money at the company they not going to suddenly start selling when they couldn't sell before the subsidy. They weren't going to fire if they are selling gadgets. If they weren't throwing money they were to cut the jobs anyway because they aren't going to have excessive supply of something with low demand. Why are they going to relocate if they don't get a subsidy. I'm sure you can concoct some theory that would make sense but that doesn't mean it was the subsidy OR ELSE.

Also not taken into account is the opportunity cost. I can waste my time explaining what that means but why bother.

[MADem]

80. The purchaser is the Army--they said they could do without it.

They weren't permitted to make the decision, though. They were informed that they had to buy the thing. They'll use it, but they don't necessarily NEED it. Or WANT it, because it's too clunky and cumbersome.

http://kennedy.house.gov/media/press-releases/kennedy-tsongas-warren-preserve-funding-for-win-t-program

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1454


It's pork. It's jobs. And everyone does it. To include my moderate Senator.

[JonLP24]

84. So why did they buy it?

because of the subsidy? So they weren't going to buy it if they didn't get the subsidy. Extortion essentially. They are going to close up shop & not trying something else that will sell? Do they have keep getting subsidies so the Army will buy something they don't need all the time? What if they have enough of what they need? Will another subsidy mean the Army buy more of it. Informed they had to buy it more. Whatever but wouldn't surprise if something fucked up like that was true.

To say they all do it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. It is quite simple, you have the tax revenue coming in. You go over ways to improve spending save money, do it efficiently. That big thing over there is corporate welfare meanwhile trying to stop SNAP or something from getting cut is politically difficult so we slam the poor for not voting but stopping the corporate welfare can't be done. Why not just get over with and nuke ourselves while were at it. I'm not serious but Jesus Saudi Arabia is bombing the shit out of Yemen (a religious minority specifically) with top of the line Aircraft & fighter helicopters dropping $1.5 million dollar bombs.

Welfare for the Well-Off: How Businesses Essentially

But let's walk through the logic of corporate welfare subsidies and undress the argument in simple terms. Let's begin by accepting the proposition that if the federal government gives $5 million to IBM, that IBM will use the money for some productive purpose. The funds may be used, for example, to help IBM underwrite research and development for the next generation of computer products, expand a domestic operation, or increase its industry market share as it competes with domestic and foreign rivals. It would seem that everyone wins: American workers, IBM shareholders, and the U.S. economy as a whole.

But hold on. That is not the full story. If the federal government offers IBM a $5 million research grant, every other American firm and non-IBM worker would be disadvantaged because the rest of us have to pay the taxes or help underwrite the debt so that Uncle Sam can give IBM a check. The fact that IBM may produce something of value with the $5 million hardly makes a prima facie case for this income transfer. After all, if Congress were to send you or me a check for $5 million, we could no doubt find useful things to do with the money--many of which might have genuine societal benefits. We might give some of the money to charity, thus helping the poor. We might use the funds to start a new business, thus building up the local economy. We might build a swimming pool in our backyards, creating construction jobs for American workers. In fact, we could no doubt issue a compelling report to the relevant committee in Congress assuring the politicians in Washington that we had made good use of the tax dollars. If we can claim membership in some "disadvantaged" group--African-Americans, Latinos, women, disabled persons--we can make the additional claim that these funds are helping a downtrodden group in society. We could (and given human nature, probably would) advise Congress in our report that the government give us $5 million again next year, so we can even do more good things for our fellow man.

Hopefully the fallacy of our defense of our grant, and IBM's, is self-evident. It is based on a false logic that permeates the corporate welfare debate called "single-entry bookkeeping." It is the deceit of counting the seen but not the unseen. The Commerce Department--which is the command and control center of America's modern-day corporate welfare state--claims to have created 250,000 jobs through its business assistance programs. This is indeed an impressive number. It seems well worth the $5 billion a year we spend on the department's economic development activities. Where does the number actually come from? The answer is that Commerce officials count all the new jobs that have been directly created through the grant dollars it distributes to the IBMs and the Chevrons each year. Take away the grants and presumably the 250,000 jobs vanish.

But what about the costs? What no one in Congress ever seems to ask is, How many jobs were destroyed by confiscating $5 billion from the nonsubsidized taxpaying workers and businesses in the rest of the economy? The issue is whether we would have created even more jobs if we had never taken money from Peter and given it to Paul in the first place.

http://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers

Everyone does it is why the we have so many problems facing the country today & around the world on the issue of defense spending.

[MADem]

86. The Army took it because the Congress--including the MA delegation--told them to take it.

The same way the USN got forced to take on the hull of an unfinished cruise ship because Trent Lott bullied them into it (they managed to wiggle out of that mess, much later).

The Hoover bunch is in the Krazy Konservative Rand Paul/Grover Norquist bleacher seats, they want to shrink the government down and drown it in that bathtub. They'll never have a good thing to say about any gov't expenditure, so it's not surprising they rail against "corporate welfare" no matter what we're funding --be it levies for New Orleans or NASA rockets, it all sucks to those guys. They'd be opposing the Tennessee Valley Authority if they could go back in time. They'd tell Ike to pound sand on the national highway system, too.

I'm not disagreeing that this shit doesn't happen, but it happens WITH THE CONSENT of people that some call "liberals." Maybe we need to redefine terms, or just recognize corporate welfare as a hit or miss endeavor that combines some good ideas with a sloppy cash re-distribution system.

[JonLP24]

87. Try addressing the argument on its merits

I know enough about economics to know when someone knows what they are talking about (even if I may not agree entirely every single point) & the case against corporate welfare is dead on. Best I ever seen & I have always known it was a bad idea(how do you think I found it?). You're transferring the wealth from taxpayers into the hands of private interests. If you don't see how that is a bad idea than I don't know what to tell you

If perhaps for different reasons, both the left and the right in America should recognize the damaging effects of the expansion of the modern corporate welfare state. Democrats should understand that corporate welfare is the essence of corrupt government. We have basically put Uncle Sam up for sale to the highest bidder--and that is seldom the poor, the disabled, or the working-class family with two wage earners struggling to pay the electric bills each month. Meanwhile, Republicans on the right should see that business handouts make big business a mere ward of the state--an advocate of government expansionism and a well-financed enemy of Adam Smith's invisible hand capitalism. Corporate welfare, in sum, is the antithesis of good government and the antithesis of a free market economic system.

[MADem]

88. Well, OK...I don't agree with a Koch-Scaife approach to government, is that simple enough for you?

When you quote the Drown In The Bathtub Hoover Institute and expect their arguments to have a strong sell here, you might want to re-calibrate.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Hoover_Institution

[JonLP24]

89. I came across it through Google

Paid no attention who they were. I saw Stanford University so I that it was good thing. Either way I focus on what the message is rather than the messenger most often.

Next time, I'll make an extra effort to ensure it is a nonpartisan economist (who I personally prefer myself but both sides know what is good for who) A right wing would normally be in favor of more, right?

From the same link I posted

The Corporate Interest versus the Public Interest

So what has corporate America's response been to these indefensible taxpayer payments? Back in 1992 when the budget deficit hit its high-watermark of $290 billion, the CEOs of scores of major highly profitable corporations jointly signed a preachy letter calling on Congress to end its cowardice and stop the financial madness of deficit spending. They called for tough choices and a budget of sacrifices.

And then Ralph Nader, of all people, undertook an enlightening experiment. He wrote to these CEOs asking how many would be willing to give up their own subsidies. Are you willing, he asked them, to give up the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the International Monetary Fund, or energy department subsidies? Nader got virtually no takers on his offer. Corporate America's communal response was sacrifices, yes, self-sacrifices, never.

It also supports closing tax loopholes which Obama does too.

[MADem]

90. It's an horrifically BIASED source--creepy, icky, Scaife-esque, Koch-ish, and the antithesis of

anything held even halfway dear on the left side of the aisle. They make the Heritage Foundation look less abnormal.

They will put cutting social security AHEAD of eliminating "corporate welfare." See? Bite on the appetizer, enjoy the meal of eliminating social programs, and they'll feed you throwing grandma off a bridge so she's not a drain on society as dessert.

These are terrible, awful people.

[JonLP24]

92. Maybe on most of the other publications maybe every other one

but that one gave Ralph Nader kudos for asking companies if they were willing to give up their subsides & argued in favor of closing loopholes which has always been a policy Obama has tried to do throughout his Presidency (I give him credit for trying, he didn't fulfill his campaign promise to "close all loopholes" but I know he tried very hard. He offered another tax cut in favor of closing loophole & a middle class jobs program which Boehner dismissed it all for some ridiculous reasons because they were lies calling it "tax & spend goodies" Obama renegotiated offered a 3% cut in the corporate tax rate & Hatch said it was more liberal version with more "tax & spend goodies"

[MADem]

95. I give Ralph Nader a fart in his general direction. Nader carried water for Bush.

Intentionally, unintentionally--doesn't matter. We probably wouldn't have endured "Nahn Wun Wun" if President Gore had moved into the White House. So fuck Ralph Nader, and Ron and Rand Paul, too.

Curious how there's not even an author name on that sixteen year old article from a right wing think tank you are citing. Of course, they probably didn't want to finger any one person, as they were rolling out their propaganda machine and were shilling for Nader, who one scant year later, repaid them by attacking Gore from the left on their behalf and delivering the White House to C- student George W. Bush.

No fools, they.

Always consider the source.

[JonLP24]

98. I noticed it was 1999

I still feel the case against corporate subsidies is the same. The Nader thing was when Corporations were calling on Congress to get serious about government stop the madness & called for shared sacrifices so he went around asking them to give up their subsidies. no takers in 1992. An open mind protects me from the source.

Anyway I'll just put unbiased numbers (without arguments) & let the readers decide

Obama’s Numbers (January 2014 Update)


<snip>

But while wage earners and low-income people struggle, corporate profits keep setting records. Even after taxes, corporate profits were running at an annual rate of nearly $1.9 trillion in the July-September quarter of last year, the most recent for which figures are available. That’s nearly triple the rate during the three months before Obama became president — an increase of 178 percent.

To be sure, that last quarter of 2008 was the worst since 2002, thanks to the worst business recession since the Great Depression. But profits rebounded to well above previous levels. Profits in the most recent quarter were running 33 percent higher than the highest level seen before 2009, which was the third quarter of 2006, when profits ran at a rate of $1.4 trillion.

Obama’s time in office also has been good for those who own corporate stocks — whose values have doubled and more under Obama. As of the close of the market on Jan. 14, the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index was 128 percent higher than it was when Obama first took office.

Other market indicators also have soared. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 106 percent, and the NASDAQ Composite index had nearly tripled, rising by 190 percent.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/01/obamas-numbers-january-2014-update/

[MADem]

99. Nader was being set up to attack Gore from the left. This was a "roll out" for him.

He didn't have to spend a dime to get his screeds out there. There will be players looking to run the same game this time around, make no mistake.

All I can say is consider the source, stopped clocks, etc.

The Hoover Institute and the Heritage Foundation never wish us well. They want the rich to get richer, and fuck the poor. Make no mistake. They just don't want government to regulate ANYTHING--not even limits on greed.

[merrily]

101. Link?

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033492

[JonLP24]

103. I don't see them all

but I'm making a general argument that I've pretty much exhausted against corporate subsidy & will always disagree with Warren decision to support the subsidy & always will but she is still one of my top 10 favorite Senate Democrats.

[merrily]

104. What all are you not seeing where? I asked you to post a link to support YOUR claim.

[JonLP24]

109. I have no idea if they did or not

but that generally is the case with the corporate subsidies which explains "they all do it" posts. I made a guess. Perhaps this was the perfect subsidy of all time but it really isn't a good idea to transfer the wealth from taxpayers into the hands of private interests. Maybe this was the right one cost/benefits & no other better way to spend the subsidy, even better she did so without a campaign contribution from them. Massive kudos to her if she did so without that. I really have no criticisms of any recent issue as far as policies sponsored supported or statements she made recently.

I'm sorry for guessing, I honestly thought it was the case because I see few positive reasons for corporate subsidies the jobs argument is wildly overblown because it doesn't take into account what would happen without the subsidy. I'm sorry, it was a guess.

[Mnpaul]

113. 97% from individual donations

She is obviously on the take.

[NuclearDem]

2. Oh this will be fun.

[Autumn]

4. They all do that.

Name me one who doesn't.

[KittyWampus]

8. I could search through you posting history-

but it really isn't worth the lolz/

Point being- the OP COULD be a "teachable moment". But it won't be.

[Autumn]

15. If you feel the need to search my posting history by all means do so

The admins have given us this awesome tool called a search bar.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Exactly. This is the proverbial teachable moment.

That's why I will refrain from criticizing Ms. Warren...


But it does bring to mind this Biblical admonition:

"And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?

and this one:


[div class="excerpt""]"Forwith the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."




If you look for the "bad" in anyone you will find it, same for the "good".

[Autumn]

18. What do we need to lean from this that we don't already know?

I have never criticized any politician for pork except the republican Alaska guy who built a bridge that went nowhere back under bush when the pukes were pissing away money right and left. That's what politicians do they provide "pork" for their states. I bet we can look and see where Hillary or Obama might have done it in their time in the Senate.

Now if Liz attached a "pork order" in a bill that has to be passed to build a 30 gazillion dollar building with no doors or windows in her state get back to me, I might be offended then. But not at this point.

OT but has Hillary come out against fast track or the TPP yet, or has she given an opinion other than wait and see? I see where the republicans are really hot to trot for it. But we do have a few Democrats speaking out against it

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I am sure both of them did.

I bet we cook look back and see where Hillary or Obama might have done it in their time in the Senate.

[Autumn]

26. I know that they did, and both were right to do so, so is Elizabeth.

The thing is Democrats will do what is right for their states and will add pork that will benefit the people in their state, republicans are pigs.

I had go back to correct the spelling in that sentence. Darn fumble fingers this morning

[JonLP24]

25. We should be criticizing them. Strongly.

That is the biggest thing we should be cutting (evaluate on a case by case cost/benefits while addressing the opportunity costs of where the $5 million or whatever could go). If we were to be serious about improving the economy & balancing the budget the corporate subsides should stop or significantly cut it. We don't need to be spending all that money. Seriously.

That bridge, it connected a small populated island to an airport. I support that than this, it is an infrastructure project (there are still the boats or other previous means of transportation that were being used before so that would be have to looked into in evaluating the need of it but better than a direct subsidy into the hands of private interests.

What is even worse than that Alaska guy is when Sarah Palin said "thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere is aside from her being a previous supporter of the project, she didn't say she kept the money or lied later saying she couldn't give back the money when that wasn't either so she built the Road to Nowhere. Now that is a piss poor waste of tax dollars (the biggest waste is defense spending)

Road to nowhere

After canceling the bridge, Palin's administration spent more than $25 million to build the Gravina Island Highway, which would have connected with the proposed bridge. According to Alaskan state officials, the road project went ahead because the money came from the federal government, and would otherwise have had to be returned.[50] Because "no one seems to use" this road, it has been called the "road to nowhere" by CNN, many local Alaskans, and hundreds of other media sources.[51][52]

CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau took a helicopter over the road. "There's no one on this road," she said. "It kind of just curves around then it just stops. That's where the bridge was supposed to pick up." Boudreau spoke to Mike Elerding, Palin's former campaign coordinator. When asked if he felt the road was "a waste of taxpayer money," he responded, "Without the bridge, yeah." Boudreau also spoke to the McCain–Palin campaign spokesperson Meghan Stapleton, who defended the road: "The governor could not change that earmark. … That had to be spent on the Gravina road and nothing else. And so, the governor had no options." In response to an inquiry of whether Palin could have stopped construction, Stapleton told Boudreau that Palin had "no viable alternative" because Congress had already granted the earmark and the contract for the road was signed before Palin took office.[51][53]

Alaska Department of Transportation spokesman Roger Wetherell disagreed, stating that Palin could have canceled the contract upon taking office and reimbursed contractors for any expenses incurred in association with the project, as happened when Palin cancelled a $18.6 million contract on a Juneau road and reimbursed the contractor for $65,500 in expenses. Federal Highway Administration spokesman Doug Hecox stated that Palin could have opted not to use the federal earmark, which would have allowed Congress the opportunity to send it to other federal needs.[54]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge#Road_to_nowhere

[Autumn]

27. I'll criticize a fucking republican for anything and everything

if they breath I'm gonna criticize them.

[JonLP24]

29. OK?

I was just suggesting we should be criticizing politicians who push "pork" (pork itself varies) but especially of the corporate subsidies. I'm not sure what I said to lead this reply but I hope to be clearer next time. In the end to bridge turned into a dead end road so it was a waste, I don't think we disagree there.

[treestar]

50. Still doesn't it violate progressive principles?

I thought it was supposed to be all about principles. No excuses for Elizabeth Warren either.

[Autumn]

51. No. Have I missed posts complaining about Democrats procuring funds for their states? n/t

[NuclearDem]

52. You don't see what's wrong with what's supposed to be the populist revolution of the party

pulling down big money for fucking Raytheon?

[Autumn]

54. Should the people in her state lose their jobs and go on wefare?

Raytheon is the fifth-largest military contractor in the world. It was based in Massachusetts way before Liz came along. Did you have a problem with Ted Kennedy pulling big money down for fucking Raytheon when he was alive?

[NuclearDem]

55. Same bullshit arguments against eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels.

And danger close to justifying trickle down economics.

[Autumn]

56. Hey I want defense contractors done away with too, and fossil fuels, but it ain't gonna happen.

So have a nice day, I'm going to.

[NuclearDem]

58. Not as long as people keep making excuses for giving them money.

[Autumn]

62. Wrong, that's our current system. Our leaders will not change it so we live with it.

I'm not gonna whine about a Democrat procuring money for an industry in their state, if we can elect leaders who are against wars all over the globe and wars of choice, like the Iraq war. And if we can elect people who are willing to put the needs of the American people first then maybe it can change. We people don't decide who to give money. I'm not gonna trash any Democratic Senators for looking out for the people in their state.

[NuclearDem]

65. What a profile in courage.

"Meh, that's how it is, what're you gonna do about it?"



Do note that green line between Congress and defense contractors.

[Autumn]

66. Well at least I'm not busy attacking other DUers for defending Democrats

and lying about what the DUer said. That is the current system, Obama didn't change it as a Senator nor as President , Hillary didn't change it as a Senator and if elected President won't change it. Neither Obama or Hillary have any complaints about the billionaires, CEO's, corporations or lobbyists and certainly don't push against the banks and Wall Street but you want to tear down Liz who does speak out against them. I won't respond to you again.

[NuclearDem]

69. Were Obama or Hillary billed as the populist revolution of the party?

Fine, she stands up to Wall Street over in New York, but can't be bothered to maybe not Raytheon money because they're in her state?

Just hoping for maybe some consistency.

[JonLP24]

68. That is an excellent pic

because if you notice the companies & politicians make arguments justifying the subsidy but the argument is illogical. This perfectly illustrates why

The Corporate Interest versus the Public Interest

So what has corporate America's response been to these indefensible taxpayer payments? Back in 1992 when the budget deficit hit its high-watermark of $290 billion, the CEOs of scores of major highly profitable corporations jointly signed a preachy letter calling on Congress to end its cowardice and stop the financial madness of deficit spending. They called for tough choices and a budget of sacrifices.

And then Ralph Nader, of all people, undertook an enlightening experiment. He wrote to these CEOs asking how many would be willing to give up their own subsidies. Are you willing, he asked them, to give up the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the International Monetary Fund, or energy department subsidies? Nader got virtually no takers on his offer. Corporate America's communal response was sacrifices, yes, self-sacrifices, never.

http://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers

[ProfessorGAC]

63. Not Your Title, But The Text

How does this come dangerously close to justifying trickle down economics? There is no apparent connection between localized distribution of expenditures and repropotioning of revenue.

[NuclearDem]

64. Give a massive profitable company subsidies and tax breaks or jobs will be in danger?

Yeah, can't imagine where I've heard that before.

[ProfessorGAC]

107. Still a Non-Sequitur

If you refuse to see it's not a logical statement on your part, whatever?

Distributing outlays of cash for products and servicves rendered is NOT THE SAME AS SUBSIDIES AND TAX BREAKS!

You're conflating, or completely confusing two totally different economic constructs.

Why do i feel like you're doing it on purpose to make a specious point?

[merrily]

110. Unanticipated costs is the same as subsidies?

[treestar]

53. There are a million posts about how wrong the corporatists are to support the MIC

and people are going to vote their principles, not pragmatically, and so no excuses for Warren either. If she met up with their ideals, she wouldn't support the MIC.

[think]

60. Ya, both parties suck on military spending. BIG TIME /nt

[think]

57. Yes. It sucks. The military spending is completely insane in this country. /nt

[merrily]

111. Funny, I don't remember anyone posting Warren is perfect. Yet about half the people on this

thread are posting as though everyone posted Warren is perfect.

I wonder what explains that?

[Autumn]

112. A very vivid imagination is my guess.

Only explanation I can think of. No politician is perfect but she's the one addressing the important issues we need to focus on and fix.

[JonLP24]

5. I defend her often

I have also posted this Politico link often. We need to end it with the corporate subsidies they are stupid, politicians keep quibbling over ways to improve spending -- balance the budget when the logical & best place to start is the corporate subsidies

Welfare for the Well-Off: How Business Subsidies Fleece Taxpayers

The Illogic of Corporate Subsidies

Proponents of federal subsidies to private industry maintain that a government support network for American firms promotes the national interest. A multitude of economic, national security, and social arguments are offered to justify corporate aid. For example, government aid to industry is said to preserve high-paying American jobs; subsidize research activities that private industries would not finance themselves; counteract the business subsidies of foreign governments to ensure a level playing field; boost high-technology industries whose profitability is vital to American economic success in the twenty-first century; maintain the viability of "strategic industries" that are essential to American national security; finance ventures that would otherwise be considered too risky for private capital markets; and assist socially disadvantaged groups, such as minorities and women, to establish new businesses.

But let's walk through the logic of corporate welfare subsidies and undress the argument in simple terms. Let's begin by accepting the proposition that if the federal government gives $5 million to IBM, that IBM will use the money for some productive purpose. The funds may be used, for example, to help IBM underwrite research and development for the next generation of computer products, expand a domestic operation, or increase its industry market share as it competes with domestic and foreign rivals. It would seem that everyone wins: American workers, IBM shareholders, and the U.S. economy as a whole.

But hold on. That is not the full story. If the federal government offers IBM a $5 million research grant, every other American firm and non-IBM worker would be disadvantaged because the rest of us have to pay the taxes or help underwrite the debt so that Uncle Sam can give IBM a check. The fact that IBM may produce something of value with the $5 million hardly makes a prima facie case for this income transfer. After all, if Congress were to send you or me a check for $5 million, we could no doubt find useful things to do with the money--many of which might have genuine societal benefits. We might give some of the money to charity, thus helping the poor. We might use the funds to start a new business, thus building up the local economy. We might build a swimming pool in our backyards, creating construction jobs for American workers. In fact, we could no doubt issue a compelling report to the relevant committee in Congress assuring the politicians in Washington that we had made good use of the tax dollars. If we can claim membership in some "disadvantaged" group--African-Americans, Latinos, women, disabled persons--we can make the additional claim that these funds are helping a downtrodden group in society. We could (and given human nature, probably would) advise Congress in our report that the government give us $5 million again next year, so we can even do more good things for our fellow man.

Hopefully the fallacy of our defense of our grant, and IBM's, is self-evident. It is based on a false logic that permeates the corporate welfare debate called "single-entry bookkeeping." It is the deceit of counting the seen but not the unseen. The Commerce Department--which is the command and control center of America's modern-day corporate welfare state--claims to have created 250,000 jobs through its business assistance programs. This is indeed an impressive number. It seems well worth the $5 billion a year we spend on the department's economic development activities. Where does the number actually come from? The answer is that Commerce officials count all the new jobs that have been directly created through the grant dollars it distributes to the IBMs and the Chevrons each year. Take away the grants and presumably the 250,000 jobs vanish.

http://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers

That said she still ranks behind Sanders on my list for President (she's not running so I default to the next candidate that emerges (tie between Clinton-O'Malley at this point don't trust neither). The sad thing is 99% of politicians push corporate subsidies.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Ah, a save Hillary hit piece. You want she should tell them to go nextdoor to CT, ME, NY, etc.?

[KittyWampus]

9. Facts are "hit pieces"? You want Hillary or Schumer to tell Wall Street to go to TX?

[NuclearDem]

10. Standing up to the MIC is hard.

[Orsino]

30. Particularly when Massachusetts jobs are involved.

Warren seems to have been doing her own goddamned job here.

[JonLP24]

37. Were the jobs threatened without the subsidy?

The total amount could be spent on something else right? Say the jobs stay there, (giving a private company money doesn't translate to more jobs "tickle down economics&quot you spend it on something else that adds additional Massachusetts jobs. What do we know here? This is where most of government is going, into the hands of defense contractors that are making a killing in profits. If this is OK. I give up hope completely.

[Orsino]

41. That part isn't up to her.

We know, however, that budget cuts are typically paid for in jobs,rather than in CEO and investor profits. Yeah, it's the military-industrial complex, but it's also middle-class jobs.

[JonLP24]

59. Because it is the spending on corporate subsides that isn't being cut

Its going up, especially for the defense industry. I wonder how many $1.5 million dollar bombs Saudi Arabia dropped recently.

I agree that part of it isn't up to her & this is small potatoes & the only thing I ever found myself disagreeing with Elizabeth Warren still leaves her in my top 10 favorite Senate Democrats (which includes Sanders)

[MADem]

72. That battlefield comm system that the Army said they didn't want -- that was ALL down to jobs.

She posted a link to an article on her web page about the jobs that were saved by making the Army keep the program.

It's not just Westover, it's Bedford (Hanscom) as well--there are a lot of MIC jobs in MA. All of the tech in the immediate area of that installation is contributing to the MIC in some fashion. Then, there's the facilities at Natick that test all sorts of military clothing and equipment--if MA turned its back on the MIC we'd lose a BUNDLE in tax revenue through jobs alone.

[JonLP24]

74. Of course she is going to market her reasons for the subisdy

all the politicians & companies do it justify the subsidy.

[MADem]

78. In the case of that battlefield system, she was lobbied by the workers for help saving their jobs.nt

[snooper2]

14. everything isn't about Hillary, except she is responsible for my check engine light coming on

Some kind of emissions leak, either return hose to gas tank or gas cap...

Not sure, But I know she fucking did it!

[NYC_SKP]

17. Her husband is responsible in part for all those Giant Trucks and SUVs on the highway.

Also, quadrillions of dollars of productivity sent overseas, never to return and, if ever, not under a Hillary presidency.

If we hire her, even if she's the candidate, kiss the Democratic party goodbye because there's nothing left to distinguish it from the opposition.

[NuclearDem]

19. How many Republicans consider LGBT and women's rights human rights?

[NYC_SKP]

22. Yup. That's the only thing Hillary's got going for her. Any Dem will similarly support these.

If LGBT and women's rights human rights are the only thing that distinguishes her from them, then we're in deep shit no matter who wins.

TPTB have successfully implemented their vision/strategy. Two parties, one outcome.

[NuclearDem]

24. Oh I doubt that's all she has going for her.

But it does make your hyperbolic "indistinguishable" comment kind of bullshit, wouldn't you say?

[emulatorloo]

31. BUT SHE PUT SUV's ON THE HIGHWAY! AND THE CLENIS!

PLUS BERTHA LEWIS OF ACORN AND THE BLACK INSTITUTE IS A CORRUPT MONEY WHORE FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6550898

[JonLP24]

28. Why would they go next door if they don't get the subsidy

Oh shit they extorted Elizabeth Warren. Fuck.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Politico

"Tiger Beat on the Potomac" -- Charlie Pierce

Mmm.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Ah, Politico. That's what it is alright. This clip from the Esquire article that coined the term..

...offers a fair description of modern politics:

(snip)...That would be Politico, aka Tiger Beat on the Potomac, which manages on a regular basis to cover the worst of our politics through the worst of our political journalism. It is a remarkable parlay to have achieved.

Almost 45 years ago, an author named Tim Crouse wrote The Boys on the Bus, a still-essential account of how our electoral politics are conducted. In the book, Crouse illustrates a number of deadly problems—pack journalism, horse-race coverage, corruption through access, the fact that political marketing is better at its job than political journalism is, the claque of outright starfuckers in the media—almost all of which are worse now than when Crouse was tagging along as Richard Nixon crushed George McGovern in 1972. A big part of the reason that none of these problems ever was solved is the acceleration of the news business. Crouse covered writers. He covered television personalities. Today, the campaign is covered by people who produce content across many platforms. The late-night bull sessions in the hotel bars in Manchester have been replaced by gatherings of content producers bent like illuminating monks over their personal devices, tweeting something that will be irrelevant 15 seconds after it is posted. Almost nobody covers actual policy in any kind of depth; to be fair to the journalists, candidates running in this media environment are gun-shy about proposing any. So what we get are personality-driven "narratives" constructed to make sense of a dizzying (and dizzy) process. That the "narrative" may have nothing to do with who might be the best person to run the country or that it might have nothing to do with, you know, the truth, as Al Gore found out to his horror between 1999 and 2000, is no longer effectively relevant. The content must be produced for the many platforms. Personality is a simpler way to do this and still appear to be wired into the scene. This is not entirely Maureen Dowd's fault, but she did win a Pulitzer for being good at it, and she unleashed a generation of reporters who think the same way.

Full article at: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29876/politico-tiger-beat-on-the-potomac/

Now some of the "boys on the bus" are girls.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. This is why being a senator is a poor resume feature for presidency.

Senators with any significant tenure have too much conflicted voting history.

[JonLP24]

33. This is the only dirt on her

but the bigger problem is you have people pushing corporate subsidies because a personality does when they're simply a bad idea using bad arguments justifying them.

[sufrommich]

35. Governors have the very same conflicts.

State elections are won by people who promise to preserve the jobs of those states.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. I don't agree.

A senator is generally expected to put the wellbeing of the country first, rather than the interests of his or her home state.

No such expectation falls to governors.

The weakness of governors is the responsibility for the performance of their state.

[sufrommich]

38. Regardless of what a Senator is in Washington to do,

I have yet to see a senator who has won an election,or re-election by promising to put country before state. Voters certainly do expect their senators to bring home some bacon,which is why every Senator running for re-election promises to keep and attract jobs to his /her state along with providing examples of job creation on their watch.

[JonLP24]

44. What the voters expect

Oh I'm getting sick. You mean what the campaign contributors expect.

Read this top to bottom

Welfare for the Well-Off: How Business Subsidies Fleece Taxpayers
http://www.hoover.org/research/welfare-well-how-business-subsidies-fleece-taxpayers

A subsidy isn't an example of job creation unless you can show specifically what benefits came as result of the money & what would have happened without the subsidy. The company was going to leave the state without the subsidy?

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Which was my initial point.

That conflicting set of expectations is a kobayashi maru to people who subsequently want to be president.

That more than anything else was Kerry's problem.

[JonLP24]

39. Tell me how the jobs are threatened without it

tell me how the money couldn't have been better spent elsewhere?

It isn't conflicts they receive campaign contributions so they give them subsidies. making it about jobs. Jesus there are articles making the case that we wouldn't receive this much in taxes if we didn't give welfare to Halliburton as if they'd *poof* & pay 0 without the taxes and they don't make any damn sense either.

[sufrommich]

42. "tell me how the money couldn't have been better spent elsewhere?"

The money probably could be better spent elsewhere but unless and until it is, no senator in their right mind is going to kick the military cash cow to the curb. Try to get elected in any state,no matter how liberal, on that platform, see how it works out for you.

[JonLP24]

48. We have big problems no matter what so why bother

Ending corporate welfare platform is unelectable now? No wonder we are fighting cuts to SNAP or most things. We have problems.

US Military Spending Still Up 45% Over Pre-9/11 Levels; More Than Next 7 Countries Combined

Despite a decline in military spending since 2010, U.S. defense expenditures are still 45 percent higher than they were before the 9/11 terror attacks put the country on a seemingly permanent war footing.

And despite massive regional buildups spurred by conflict in the Ukraine and the Middle East, the U.S. spends more on its military than the next seven top-spending countries combined, according to new figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

That’s nearly three times as much as China, and more than seven times as much as Russia.



Saudi Arabia is now the fourth-biggest military spender on the globe, which in its case means spending nearly $80 billion last year buying weapons, mostly from the U.S., and most notably including fistfuls of F-15 fighters and top-of-the-line attack helicopters.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/20/u-s-military-still-spending-45-911-much-next-7-top-spending-countries-combined/

This is accelerating death & destruction especially corruption. Halliburton & KBR have been human trafficking for over a decade. What Elizabeth Warren did here is small potatoes. I have posts all over DU strongly supporting her. Search my name, I'm not a Warren hater. I discuss the issues here or there on the merits. I have known this for months about Warren in fact, it is nothing new to me. I was surprised some desperate haters haven't used it yet. Small potatoes but if we can't kick military cash to the curb not even a little bit. I weep for the world.

[Autumn]

34. Interesting, here's a DU point of view on this site

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026554392

A Guide for Finding Dirt on Democratic Candidates

Since that seems to be a popular activity on DU these days, I thought I'd help DUers find the juicy dirt they're looking for on pretty much any Democratic candidate. You won't find it on websites with a liberal focus. No. You'll have to delve into the depths of right-wing websites. Here are a couple of favorites for those whose goal is trashing Democrats:

http://www.politico.com/
http://www.wnd.com/

However, post carefully from these links. Some DUers are aware of their right-wing nature, and may object to your links.

[JonLP24]

40. Is the story true or not

if it is why does it matter? If not, I'd like to know right now to know never look at a Politico link again.

[Autumn]

46. You will have to decide that for yourself. IMO this article posted is a hit piece on Liz

so of course I disagree with it. if it were a hit piece about "Senators" Hillary or Bernie or Obama procuring "pork" for the people in their state I would disagree with it. Senators and Governors work to procure money, jobs and industries needed for the people of their state and as long as the money isn't wasted and benefits the people of the state I don't have a problem with "pork".

I would imagine like any site there would be some articles there that are worth while but as far as I'm concerned this one isn't. Your opinion or the OP opinion may be different.

[MineralMan]

43. I observe that you left out the :sarcasm: smiley

in my original post. If you're going to quote me, please quote me completely. It was important in the post. Here it is again.

[Autumn]

47. I thought that was always there in your posts

and overlooked it. Who knows there are so many sites that a loved or hated. I just know people always complain about this one. I fixed it and put in your sarcasm tag.

[MineralMan]

49. No. In fact, I rarely use it.

Your omission of it gave the wrong impression of what I wrote. Perhaps it was just an error on your part. If so, you can still correct that error. In fact, I see that you already did. Thank you.

[hrmjustin]

61. Not a huge suprise that a senator would fight for her state to get these things.

I understand some of her fans might not like it but it is what a senator does.

I also don't think itnis a hit piece and is a legitimate story.

[MADem]

67. Elizabeth Warren is not a "liberal." She's a moderate. She believes in a strong defense and she

won't hesitate to put the interests of HER constituents first--like any good senator would do. Her brothers served in the military, one has a purple heart. Anyone hoping to see her on the front lines of Pentagon protests are smoking some serious weed (and that's another thing she opposes--outright MJ legalization; it's a stance I think she's wrong on).

The dance is less "delicate" than POLITICO wants to make it out to be. MA is a great state for military retirees...why? They don't tax our pensions! We paid taxes through the nose on active duty, but our reward is that we live state-tax free in our dotage. There are a lot of military retirees, many "snowbirds" who leave from DEC-APR, who make the Bay State home.

[JonLP24]

71. I'm not too familiar with her foreign policy views

but she scores 90 on ADA which tracks vote record & she scores in the top 10 most liberal (a little left of Bernie Sanders) rated by Govtrack which tracks a variety of behaviors. This is consistently year-by-year so apparently most Senate Democrats are more moderate than she is. I didn't know about her view of MJ or overall drug policy. She pushes expanding social security, reforming student loans because government is profiting from it, & a variety of other things.

I would probably disagree with the "dance" but I'll concede it. I fail to see what this has to do with them, I'm former active duty military and I'm against corporate subsidies -- especially for defense contractors. I don't receive pension so I don't know what it is like but out of states to choose to live in probably Washington or Oregon. I never been East of St. Louis (except Europe & Kuwait-Iraq) but Vermont is a state that appeals to me (like another country like Sweden kinda appealing). I never complained, cared, or noticed the taxes taken out, I didn't receive state tax because I was active duty military (which Arizona at-the-time allowed) but it is never a lot of money anyway.

[MADem]

77. "They" also said that John Kerry was "the most liberal Senator in the Senate" when he wasn't even

close. Votes don't always tell the story. It's not like there have been a zillion votes on MJ legalization, but EW has said, repeatedly, that she opposes unfettered Colorado-style legalization (which, IMO, is a stupid position and she should change it).

She's not a "liberal." She'll find herself in the same situation as other politicians, under the bus, raked over the coals, should anyone have cause to focus on her views vis a vis other issues besides "banksters" and "Wall Street" and those populist touchstones that are occupying people's minds of late.

I don't have a problem with her job-preserving attitudes in MA, because most of the jobs are useful ones. The work they do at Natick is very important. Raytheon is going to do what they do, because the Russians and the Chinese aren't going to shut down their programs, so we'd be fools to play the plowshares game unless we all want to learn Mandarin.

I paid state taxes to MA for decades and never got a lick of "benefit" for it until I retired. I could have been a cheap bastard and changed my home of record, but I am possessed of integrity and I did and do regard MA as my home so I wasn't going to do that. Now, in my dotage, I reap the benefits of contributing towards the coffers of MA for all the years that I didn't live here.

If you go to OR or WA, be advised they've got a very robust MIC there. There aren't many places where you can escape the thing--it truly is everywhere. I'm sure you realize VT's relationship with the Army goes back to the Revolutionary War...and they've got close MIC associations too, even though people don't realize it until they look closely.

[JonLP24]

79. That wasn't the ADA that rated John Kerry nor Gov Track

That was the notorious National Journal which gives wild swings over one vote. They rated Obama as one of the most liberal if not most liberal in 2007 while the ADA score was more realistic. Gov Track is probably the most comprehensive but they don't track vote record (co-sponsors, sponsors, powerful cosponsors working with the house, etc)

There is a Boeing plant in East Mesa where I live. They are always going to be there, they are going to hire who they hire if they need you. It is notoriously easy to get a "strike" that gets a canned especially in your first 30 days. I know someone who had a back injury biked several miles back in several wee hours of the AM because no buses were running. There are really no good jobs around here anymore. Suffered a hip injury, worked through it desperate to keep the job. Spotted a fellow new employee's mistake saving him from getting a strike saving job. Made a mistake, lost her job.

Giving Boeing a subsidy isn't going to change a thing.

[MADem]

83. When you rank politicians based on votes you get an incomplete picture.

When you rank based on statements, how much "weight" do you give or take away when a politician changes their mind? Do you weight each one and average them, or do you toss the old and give all weight to the new comments?

I look at what she says about current issues, and my conclusion remains that she is a moderate. I mean, this is no surprise--she wrote a book where her thesis was, to no small extent, that life was better when women stayed home, that two - income families are bad for wages. She used to vote for the other team (unsurprising given that she lived in OK and TX and PA--bastions of the "other team&quot so I'd say, big picture, she's come a long way. I'll be honest, though--I don't understand how anyone with half a brain could vote for Reagan--"markets" be damned. The way he treated gays and POC, to me, is just unforgivable. He was a right bastard. But hey, you forgive people for their ill-advised affiliations, and you move forward. That said, she IS a product of her generation--she came up in a family where "the men" served in the military and that informs her attitudes.


I do think that a combination of Scott Brown's screeching and wailing and over-use of the "lib-rul" word rubbed off in a way that people who were actually liberal believed Scott Brown instead of looking critically at her history and comments. Also, people have this idea that "populist" or "progressive" is a synonym for "liberal" when it isn't. One can have some populist/progressive views in specific areas, and be decidedly illiberal with regard to others.

[JI7]

96. i like the info you give as somEone from the state

Who is actually a supporter of warren and actually knows what she is doing.

Unlike some who only bring her up as a way to attack other democrats .but don't really have much of an idea or care about what she is doing.

[MADem]

100. She is a very good senator who cares about her constituents. She is in the state every weekend,

pretty much. She goes to the small towns and the western part of the state (often ignored). She gives speeches at community colleges and high schools, and does town meeting type stuff--she's very accessible and responsive to her constitutents. I give her an A+ for her performance in service to the Commonwealth.

She has to represent a diverse group of interests. People look at MA and they think "Oh, reliable blue state....Ted Kennedy, JFK, rah rah" but in actual fact we've also produced (gag) Governor Romney and Scott Brown. Gotta watch those margins, here--Independents are the key to elections...it's how we got stuck with Airhead Republican Charlie Baker as governor following Deval Patrick. Ugh.

[Blaukraut]

75. So did Ted Kennedy and John Kerry - as they should

The Massachusetts economy relies heavily on the defense industry located in the 128 tech sector. There are thousands of jobs involved. We're also talking about government civilian employment, in particular at Hanscom - a base that is constantly on the BRAC radar. Thanks to Teddy, and now Liz, those jobs are staying around instead of being moved to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

[Hoyt]

81. She was also a supporter of removing the ACA tax on medical devices, because there are a lot of

medical device companies in her area.

While the tax was only about 2.3% or so, it was an important funding component of the ACA, and potentially threatens Obamacare.

Not only did she not care about that threat, her supporters here didn't either. Politics is very strange.

[BainsBane]

93. The entire MN delegation does too

because most of those companies are based here. People underestimate the role of money in politics by focusing on one or two high profile candidates. It is pervasive and influences not only all the politicians, but even writing legislation. That is why I see personalizing the issue as about Clinton alone is counter-productive because it ignores the serious dimensions of the problem.

[Hoyt]

105. Completely agree. Sadly, if someone didn't do it, they probably couldn't get elected.

[BainsBane]

108. In the current system, yes

which is why, I believe, we need to focus on changing it rather than pretending it is all about one politician. I'm not saying people should support any candidate they don't want, but rather that personalizing the issue is problematic and counter-productive.

[NCTraveler]

82. It is what politicians do. nt.

[99Forever]

85. What's your point?

I must be blind, because I don't see any.

[frazzled]

97. I think the OP's point might have been this:

No politician is immune from actions taken in the course of their many duties and responsibilities that we might disagree with. When it comes to the president or a potential Democratic nominee (read: Hillary Clinton), however, these kinds of things tend to be used as blunt cudgels--gotcha bombshells that make that politician "hypocritical" or "corporatist" or "third way."

I think this (and other) boards have tended to venerate politicians like Elizabeth Warren because of a few strongly worded statements about the financial and banking industries. Which makes sense, because as a career-long bankruptcy lawyer this is her bailiwick. But there are just as many things we may find to "indict" her with as we do with Obama and Clinton. She just hasn't been around long enough for that kind of scrutiny.

The moral of the story (I think) is: politics is not predominantly about ideology. It's about the hard—and, yes, sometimes compromised—positions and actions real political figures have to make every day in the course of actual governing.

So this was not an indictment of Warren. It's an indictment of the fairy-tale projections of "progressivism" people tend to make. I would think the Internets would have learned their lessons from projecting things onto the tabula rasa of John Edwards 7 years ago. It was fantasy, and when everyone woke up it was just another inexplicable dream.

So let's ease up on the hair-on-fire indictments of politicians who have actually had to do hard shit. Because it's always possible to make such indictments.

Other moral: don't be one of those kind who can dish it out but can't take it.

[zappaman]

106. Awesome response!

[Cha]

118. Yes, "gotcha bombshells" that some are fond of to Get other politicians but ask "what's your point?"

if it's their favorite pol.

"The moral of the story (I think) is: politics is not predominantly about ideology. It's about the hard—and, yes, sometimes compromised—positions and actions real political figures have to make every day in the course of actual governing."

Well Done, frazzled! ".. don't be one of those kind who can dish it out but can't take it."

[JI7]

94. same reason Landrieu supported drilling

But people here usually can't view things at local and state level.

[MADem]

102. Nope--if they don't follow a very narrow path, they're in trouble here...

All politics is NOT local on DU....!

[RiverLover]

114. This story is from 2 months ago.

And what she's been doing is trying to protect jobs in her state.

Isn't that part of her job?

All of the defense contractors gave a LOT more money to Scott Brown's campaign. It wasn't pay back. It was trying to help people in her state keep their jobs.

Warren has fought to stop the Army from shifting funds away from a Massachusetts-built communications network to pay for unanticipated costs associated with the war in Afghanistan.

She’s lobbied for problem-plagued General Dynamics-made tactical radios.

And she’s pledged to protect Westover Air Reserve Base from the budget ax — all while saying she supports “targeted” cuts elsewhere.

Is any of that even bad? Politicians have done much worse.

[TheKentuckian]

115. Hillary Clinton takes care of them world wide and all sides.

[ucrdem]

116. The problem isn't that she's providing services to the defense industry.

Others in Congress have done the same. The problem is that she's launched herself as a serial Obama basher. Why? She's supposedly running against Mrs. Clinton, not the president, and they're supposedly in the same party. But what other Dems regularly get in front of a cameras and bash Obama over a signature issue? No current offceholders that I'm aware of. So this makes me wonder what other connections we haven't heard about yet.

[Cha]

117. Yeah, politico.. Here's a article from 2012 on how the Defense Industry is watching.. from a Boston

source..

Massachusetts defense industry watching Elizabeth Warren closely



snip//

WASHINGTON — It is one legacy of Senator Scott Brown’s tenure in Washington that Elizabeth Warren may want to continue: champion of the defense industry, a critical component of the Massachusetts economy.

But how the liberal senator-elect will come down on one of the most pressing issues facing the new Congress remains a burning question for industry groups and company executives who are wary of the former Harvard professor and have been relying on Brown, a member of the Armed Services Committee, to protect Pentagon contracts, military bases and thousands of Bay State jobs that depend on them.

“The defense technology community in particular is not quite sure of whether she is going to be supportive at the end of the day,” said Chris Anderson, president of the Massachusetts Defense Technology Initiative, which represents Waltham-based defense giant Raytheon, Textron, General Dynamics, BAE Systems, and other large and small defense companies and research universities in Massachusetts and across the region.

“She has an obligation to major sectors of the Massachusetts economy that are inextricably linked to the federal government,” Anderson said.

snip//

Warren has privately shown a desire to build bridges to the defense sector in Massachusetts. For example, two people with direct knowledge said that back in June, in the heat of the campaign, she initiated a phone call with William Swanson, the chief executive of Raytheon, which is the state’s largest single employer.

MOre..
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/11/12/massachusetts-defense-industry-watching-elizabeth-warren-closely/m2DJB1HFXBzy3WPx8rbgHO/story.html

[Cha]

119. Thank you, ellenrr.. Politics Is about making difficult choices and trying to keep constituents

happy. Fulfilling obligations as in this case.. No one is perfect.

Massachusetts defense industry watching Elizabeth Warren closely



snip//

WASHINGTON — It is one legacy of Senator Scott Brown’s tenure in Washington that Elizabeth Warren may want to continue: champion of the defense industry, a critical component of the Massachusetts economy.

But how the liberal senator-elect will come down on one of the most pressing issues facing the new Congress remains a burning question for industry groups and company executives who are wary of the former Harvard professor and have been relying on Brown, a member of the Armed Services Committee, to protect Pentagon contracts, military bases and thousands of Bay State jobs that depend on them.

“The defense technology community in particular is not quite sure of whether she is going to be supportive at the end of the day,” said Chris Anderson, president of the Massachusetts Defense Technology Initiative, which represents Waltham-based defense giant Raytheon, Textron, General Dynamics, BAE Systems, and other large and small defense companies and research universities in Massachusetts and across the region.

“She has an obligation to major sectors of the Massachusetts economy that are inextricably linked to the federal government,” Anderson said.

snip//

Warren has privately shown a desire to build bridges to the defense sector in Massachusetts. For example, two people with direct knowledge said that back in June, in the heat of the campaign, she initiated a phone call with William Swanson, the chief executive of Raytheon, which is the state’s largest single employer.

MOre..
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/11/12/massachusetts-defense-industry-watching-elizabeth-warren-closely/m2DJB1HFXBzy3WPx8rbgHO/story.html