MoveOn has the article These Powerful Stories Of Americans Telling Mitt Romney, ‘We’re Voters, Not Victims,’ Will Move You.

Check out these brave people who’ve responded to Mitt Romney’s comment that 47% of Americans think of themselves as “victims” and will never “take responsibility for their lives.” Then go ahead and vote for your favorite response by clicking on the “like” button beneath each video!

There are already too many video clips for me to replicate them all here. Perhaps the following one best exemplifies what we would lose as a country if we just write off the people who are not paying income tax.

As Elizabeth Warren likes to point out, this country became the great country it is by investing in its people, especially its children. If we stop that investment, then we will lose out on the people who would go on to make great contributions to the country after we made the investment.

As capitalists, Republicans should understand the theory of investment. Are they just pretending that they don’t know what an investment is anymore? Or have they gotten so used to getting ahead by cheating others that they don’t think they need to invest anymore? There might be some other possibilities as to why so many of them are blind to what keeps a great country great.

This is the first debate between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown. It was broadcast by WBZ-TV from Boston on September 20, 2012.

I wonder how many people know that the national organization of the Chamber of Commerce has been rabidly right wing during the Obama administration. They say things that are clearly not correct about how the economy works. Local Chamber’s of Commerce are divorcing themselves from the national organization because of what the national organization is doing.

In the current environment, taxing the wealthy is not taxing the job creators. The wealthy already have so much money they can’t even find productive things to invest in. So they squirrel away a good part of their money in tricky financial instruments to see if they can make a profit by tricking somebody else into taking a loss. If there were enough customers to demand more than the current factories could produce, then the wealthy might become job creators again. If we took away the advantages that we have enacted for creating jobs in other countries, they might even create some of those jobs in this country.

Until such time as the economy can produce enough employment to get private investors to create jobs, the only way that we can accomplish this is for the federal government to tax away some of that ill invested money and put it to more productive, job creating uses. When the private investors see these employed people spending money and creating demand for goods and services, only then will private investment start carrying the load for creating jobs.

When the private sector starts to do its job, the accepted economic theory is that the government should back away somewhat so the economy can stay balanced and not become overheated. When the government reduces its spending and the tax revenues increase, the budget will come into surplus, if the Republicans don’t insist on giving that surplus away and leaving the government in debt.

The last time we had a surplus under the Clinton administration and the beginning of the Bush administration, the Republicans were horrified that we might pay down the debt. They thought the wealthy could spend that money better than the government paying down the debt. They didn’t just make temporary adjustments that fit the situation at the time, they made the adjustments permanent so that the next downturn would be a disaster. They got their wish, and are now trying to blame it on Obama even though they won’t let him undo their original mistake.

I wish Elizabeth Warren could figure out how to fit the above explanation into a 90 second slot in a debate. It would be better than letting Scott Brown keep repeating his misunderstanding of how the economy works.

By the way, there is a perfectly logical reply to why Elizabeth Warren does not choose to pay more taxes than the law requires if she believes the wealthy should pay more in taxes. “I should pay more taxes so you Republicans can give it away to some other wealthy person? I wasn’t born yesterday. When the rules are made more fair for all, then I will be happy to pay more taxes, and see those taxes help the people who deserve it. Unlike you, I don’t think more money needs to go to people who can’t figure out what to do with all the money they have. Why aren’t they creating jobs already with all the money they have? What kind of foolish capitalistic theory would have people invest in more jobs, when there aren’t enough customers to buy what the employed are already able to produce? It’s time you stop listening to the self interested Chamber of Commerce, and start thinking for yourself.”

What makes Scott Brown think the $5 billion subsidy to the oil companies is lowering the price of gasoline at the pump? With $135 billion in profits the oil companies have plenty of room to lower the prices if they want to. Take away the $5 billion subsidy and they will only raise the prices if market forces let them do it. Otherwise that money would come out of the pockets of the management and the investors. Once again, Scott Brown shows that he knows nothing about capitalism.

If it is so important to lower the cost of gasoline at the pump, why not use the $5 billion subsidy to give vouchers to the customers to buy gas, and let the oil companies compete for the money? If they can manage to get that business, then the oil companies will come out even. If not, then the customer comes out ahead. Why do Republicans never think of those solutions unless it means more money to the big guys?

Elizabeth Warren needs to train herself to think (and to say to her opponent), let’s examine what you are saying to see if it makes any sense. If it does, then I will agree with you. If it doesn’t, then you should change your mind. (He won’t change his mind, but people in the listening audience might.) This should be her entry point to refute almost every argument that Scott Brown makes, because so few of his arguments make sense when you look at all the factors involved.

Mayor Tome Menino made a surprisiingly good speech in announcing his endoresement of Elizabeth Warren.

Unlike Ray Flynn, Mayor Menino seems to have spent some time understanding where the two candidates stand on issues before making a decision.

Ray Flynn admitted in The Boston Globe article that he has no knowledge of how Scott Brown has actually voted and he knows nothing about Elizabeth? Warren.

Here is The Boston Globe article Former mayor Ray Flynn adds his voice to Senate race.

Flynn said he came to his conclusions about Brown based on “what I knew about his personal life growing up.”

“It’s really a nonpolitical message about the man, rather than it is about politics or ideology,” he said. “I didn’t go through his congressional record or roll call. I don’t have time for that. People don’t have time for that. I am interested if the guy is honest, that he has personal integrity.”

As Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, it is not enough to know how someone grew up. One also has to know what lessons they learned from that experience. She learned about how important community investment was to her success, and she wants other people to have the same chances as she did. The Republicans, including Scott Brown, have learned, “I’ve got mine, the rest of you are on your own.”

The trail ends in The Boston Globe article Elizabeth Warren was key in asbestos case, but it started in the article Brown sharpens attacks as Warren woos voters. You can also read  Fact Check: In Travelers Case, Warren Fights for Victims’ Compensation.

The starting article describes the most recent attempt by Scott Brown to turn Elizabeth Warren’s good deeds into something bad.

In the press conference at his headquarters, Brown sought to keep the focus on Warren’s role in the asbestos lawsuit. He stood before a bank of television cameras and held up papers that showed the $212,000 Travelers Insurance paid Warren for her work in the case.

Brown said Warren’s advocacy on behalf of the insurance giant flies in the face of her reputation for sticking up for “little guys.”

As the Globe reported in May, Warren did represent Travelers in the 2009 asbestos case, but at the time, the company was seeking to unlock a $500 million settlement ­account for victims, a step many victims supported. After Warren’s work on the case had ended, however, Travelers won a separate court ruling that ­allowed the company to avoid paying out the settlement. That ruling is under appeal.

“Elizabeth Warren got involved to protect the settlement,” against a challenge from another insurance company, said David J. McMorris, a lawyer at Thornton & Naumes in Boston, who represented victims in the case.

McMorris and several officials from an asbestos workers’ union showed up outside Brown’s headquarters to ­defend Warren’s role in the lawsuit.

“It should be very, very clear the victims would have no chance to get paid by ­Travelers were it not for the work of Elizabeth Warren,” McMorris told reporters. “She’s been with the victims then, and she’s with the victims now.”

If you follow the link at the beginning of this blog post or the same link in the excerpt above from The Boston Globe article, you will find a more complete description (4 web pages) of the Travelers case.

Warren says she was fighting for an arcane but important principle in taking on the case: the constitutionality of allowing bankrupt companies facing a flood of lawsuits to form what are known as trusts. The trusts are large bank accounts that set aside money for current and future victims.

Warren says that the trusts provide a fair system to distribute the money – rather than first come, first served. But companies only will agree to them if they receive protection from future lawsuits.

“The issue I was focused on like a laser was the constitutionality of preserving the trust, because the trust is a critical tool for making sure that people who’ve been hurt have a fair shot at compensation,’’ she said. “Without it, millions of people who’ve already been injured will get nothing, and millions more in the future will get nothing.’’

All I know about this case is what I have read in The Boston Globe, so it is really going out on a limb to draw any conclusions.  Even though there are more nuances than the conclusion I am about to draw,  in essence, I still believe the following conclusion to be a good one.

The fact that an experienced, expert witness and attorney could be tricked by the meanderings of our legal system is further proof of Elizabeth Warren’s claim that the system is rigged against the little guy in favor of the big guy.  If she could be fooled, what chance do you and I have when going up against the armies of lawyers of the big corporations?

This is exactly why it is important to send Elizabeth Warren to the Senate.  She wants to try her best to level the playing field.  Her invention, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is already working and making some headway in this direction.

The “nasty” corporations that Scott Brown thinks that Warren tried to help do their cheating are exactly the ones he does not want to tax because they are “job creators.”  Are you a hypocrite, when you try to call someone else, who is sincerely trying to help the victims, a hypocrite?  Even before that accusation Scott Brown was the true hypocrite.  We must not reward people like Scott Brown by reelecting them as Senators.

It might also be noted that the second article contains the quote:

Warren is considered a leading authority on bankruptcy, and the Travelers case was among a very few that reach the heights of the Supreme Court. She began writing and lecturing about bankruptcy trusts in the 1980s. The trust issue was also addressed in a 1,100-page congressional report on bankruptcy law, drafted in 1995 by Warren, the primary adviser for the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. An attorney who worked with Warren on that commission was heading Travelers’ legal team and called her when the issue boiled up to the highest court.

I am not sure that the people of Massachusetts fully appreciate the high regard that the professionals hold for Elizabeth Warren.  Do any knowledgeable and professional people hold Scott Brown in such high regard?

If the people of Massachusetts only knew what I do about Elizabeth Warren, they would all vote for her in an instant.

I put that previous sentence in only because I know how much it irks a particular letter writer who complained about this attitude by the “liberals” of Massachusetts.

People may make fun of Joe Biden for his occasional gaffe, but this video shows the real Biden.

Why can’t we all just use HTML?

Politico has the article Paul Ryan booed at AARP conference.

Speaking to an audience of seniors in New Orleans, Paul Ryan was booed after he called for a repeal of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, and faced one of his frostiest crowds since joining the GOP ticket.

Maybe we old folk aren’t as dumb as Paul Ryan thinks we are.

As long as I am getting nostalgic about Portland, Oregon, I thought I would post this to remember it by.

and finds a Jewish Synagogue.  He meets the Japanese Rabbi and introduces himself as an American Jew.  The Japanese Rabbi says to the America, “That’s funny, you don’t look Jewish.”

In my family that was a hilarious joke.  Perhaps you have to be Jewish to appreciate it fully. However, after enough of us had been “complimented” by acquaintances with the phrase, “But you don’t look Jewish”, this was our way of laughing at other people’s ignorance.

What has this got to do with politics? Well, if you saw last night’s debate between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown, you would see the connection.  Scott Brown said that he was absolutely positive that Elizabeth Warren was lying about her Native American heritage because she didn’t look like a Native American.

I half expected Elizabeth Warren to say, “Let me give you a lesson in biology, genetics, and blonde hair dye.”

Could Scott Brown be so ignorant of women to think that Elizabeth Warren does not look like a Native American because she has blonde hair?

The image below shows Elizabeth Warren in her pre-blonde stage.

I used to just love hearing the name of a popular and excellent singing group in Portland, Oregon, Pepe & the Bottle Blondes.

When Pepe & the Bottle Blondes appeared on the same stage as Pink Martini, then you had an unforgettable musical evening.  How I wish I were back in Portland, sometimes.

MSNBC has the article and video The story of the waiter and the wealthy scion.

Krystal Ball tells viewers the tale of the waiter “with a small cell phone camera and a whole lot of idealistic chutzpah” who is responsible for the footage that made the private 47 percent comments public knowledge.

I was somewhat disturbed by reading what I thought was the commentator’s name displayed continuously throughout the clip. “Krystal Clear”, come on, what a silly stage name. Then I realized her “real” name was Krystal Ball, I thought well that’s better, you know like Lucille Ball? Then I said “Krystal Ball” to myself several times, and said, gee that’s even worse.

Anyway, thanks to CarolG for emailing me the link to this video.