The Campaign For America’s Future has a video of Elizabeth Warren speaking at The New Populism Conference last Thursday. The title of the email and web page was “Me? I’m fighting back.”

You can count on the fingers of two fingers the number of people who could run for President in 2016 who speak about these issues the way Elizabeth Warren does.

The person I count on the other finger is Bernie Sanders. In my judgment he is pretty passionate, but not as passionate as Elizabeth Warren and perhaps does not have as much first hand experience fighting the forces of evil that Elizabeth Warren has.

Has any other recent, progressive politician told you so eloquently about the importance of having this fight out in the open? It is not enough to fight with the opposition in secret to eke out some meager compromise. Win or lose, it is more important to get these issues in front of the public so that they can put their strength into the fight.

There is a certain other Democratic woman who seems to be all the rage for the 2016 Presidential campaign. She doesn’t hold a candle to Elizabeth Warren in this fight. (HC doesn’t even hold a matchstick to Elizabeth Warren.) Can you even imagine HC talking this way about accountability for the powerful that Elizabeth Warren talks about in this video?

Does HC really have a clue about how the middle-class has been pounded into submission as Elizabeth Warren so eloquently describes? She is married to the guy that did some of the pounding. “The end of welfare as we know it”, indeed. It was easy to see how this might work in a booming economy if we didn’t look too closely. When the inevitable crash came partially as a result of BC overturning the Glass-Steagall Act, it was obvious back then what would happen with “The end of welfare as we know it.”

Should we give the Clinton Dynasty another chance just as we did for the Bush Dynasty? If we had no one else to run, we could give it a try and hope for the best. In this case we have a far superior alternative. Why would we settle for a little less disaster, when there is a possibility of success?

Thanks to Mark Evangelisto for posting this on his Facebook page.

Elite Daily has the article If You Need Any Convincing That Solar Roadways Are The Future, This Video Will Help.

All Brusaw’s need is a little cash and we can kiss economic woes, pollution and a whole lot of car accidents goodbye forever.

Skeptical though I may be, if nothing else, the concept is a great one.  It would solve a lot of problems if it were feasible.

Here is the link to www.solarroadways.com to learn more.

Facebook also provided me with a link to the National Report article Solar Panels Drain the Sun’s Energy, Experts Say. After reading the article, the comments, and looking around the web site, I still cannot figure out if it is a web site for conservative wing nuts or a satire site.

Much thanks to Rick Merrill for bringing this to my attention.

In 1961, I was struggling with a freshman computer seminar at MIT. I just couldn’t figure out a key step to writing my first program. My father thought he could help me by taking me on a visit to a friend of his who worked at the IRS in Andover, MA. This friend showed me an IBM 1401 and its flashing lights. I don’t recall that the friend had any knowledge of programming, nor was he of any help in answering my question.

Eventually, I realized that I had all the knowledge that I needed. I just had to do it.

That first experience with computers was so traumatic, that I didn’t take another course using computers until my senior year. And the rest is history.

New Economic Perspectives has the article Forget Taxes for Redistribution: What to do about Inequality.

And, as we know, Uncle Sam doesn’t need any stinking taxes to “pay for” jobs and income and healthcare and decent retirements for the poor. If you have unemployed resources, free lunches abound! Just put the resources to work, and you’ve got Bernstein’s wish list filled.

Forget taxes for redistribution. It will not work. It is a bad meme—especially in America. Once you let the greedy rich get their riches, trying to take them away is harder than prying guns out of the “cold dead hands” of NRA members.

Every time a progressive proposes a tax hike on the rich to pay for welfare, the Koch brothers giggle in gleeful delight. It is the surest way to prevent any policies that would help the poor. Tying tax hikes to sensible policy plays right into the greedy hands of the Conservatives and Regressives.

Did you ever hear a One-Percenter ask for a tax hike to bail out Wall Street? Come on, they are not that stupid.

What I’ve long argued is that we need “predistribution”, not “redistribution”.

This article is a continuation of a series that I first posted about in Randy Wray: What are Taxes For? The MMT Approach. Reading the article referred to in the previous post gives you more context and nuance than appears in the current article.  In this article, Wray goes to such an extreme to make his point, that you may not think about other aspects of his recommended policy mentioned in that previous article.

Wray says more about pre-distribution in a subsequent article Pre-distribution or redistribution? The Piketty moment, the Democrats, and the oncoming elections (Guest Post).  Again, Wray’s rant might cloud what he is saying.