29 Jan

Elizabeth Warren is worth $14 million but she says she’s not wealthy [Reader Post]

                                       

Elizabeth Warren doesn’t like the way Mitt Romney pays his taxes:

“And that is that Mitt Romney pays 14% of his income in taxes and people who get out there and work for a living pay 25%, 28%, 30%, 33%. I get it. Mitt Romney gets a better deal than any of the rest of us because he manages to earn his income in a way that has been specially protected for rich folks. I think that’s wrong,” Elizabeth Warren, a democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts said on MSNBC’s “The Last Word.”

In 2003 John Kerry paid an even lower rate than Romney.

In a bit of Democratic comeuppance for dinging Mitt Romney for how little he pays in taxes, Wonkblog published this chart of presidential candidates’ tax rates. And wouldn’t you know, John Kerry had a (slightly) lower tax rate than Romney does. In 2003, a year before running for president, Kerry’s tax rate was 13.1 percent, versus Romney’s at 13.9 percent in 2010. As Brad Plumer, who culled together tax returns to make his chart, explains, “John Kerry’s overall rate is so low — lower than Romney’s, in fact — because his return is getting lumped together with that of his (wealthy) wife, Teresa Heinz, who had a lot of investment income.”

That didn’t bother the painfully hypocritical Warren or her hypocritical democrats brethren back then. It’s only a concern when a Republican fall in that group. Moreover, Romney paid more than he owed:

It appears that the return filed by that trust overstated capital gains realized by nearly $300,000, causing Mr. Romney and his wife to pay about $44,000 more in taxes than they owed.

Of course this would also be the year the NY Times notices the tax laws- but not back in 2003:

Mitt Romney’s tax returns tell us some things about him. They tell us a lot more about the sad state of the tax laws in this country.

But it is Warren who absolutely waterboards the truth. On MSNBC Warren made the argument that member of the Senate shouldn’t own stock.

YouTube Preview Image

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

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

She’s not one of those “wealthy individuals”?

…according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

A $400,000 salary from Harvard for doing nothing, worth $14 million and she claims she’s not wealthy?

Really?

It gets better. She said Senators should not own stock. Does she own stock?

Warren spokesman Kyle Sullivan emails, “Elizabeth was making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she’ll get rid of the one stock she does own.”

So she only owns stock in one company. She has $8 million in mutual funds, which own broad portfolios of stocks in individual companies. See? If you invest in mutual funds which invest in stocks it’s not the same as owning stocks.

Simple.

And owning a house worth $5 million, making $500,000 a year and being worth $14 million also makes her part of the 99%. According to Warren, she is not even wealthy.

“I realize that there are some wealthy individuals- I’m not one of them…”

Warren’s dishonesty and contempt for the intelligence of people is breathtaking. What the US government does not need is another utterly dishonest member.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Deception and Lies, Education, Liberal Idiots, Occupy Wall Street, Politics, propaganda bureau and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, January 29th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
| 1,653 views

26 Responses to Elizabeth Warren is worth $14 million but she says she’s not wealthy [Reader Post]

  1. THE SOOTHSAYER says: 1

    When Stephen Smith, Northern Trust son-in-law, managed the Joseph Kennedy Trust taxes were paid on the current accounts (Merchandise Mart rents, etc) and the net proceeds went into low yield AAA tax-exempt bearer bonds “Clipprer Chips” which formed the distribution base giving the male heirs double that provided the girls. Grandchildren of the girls are excluded from further distribution while the boys offered money to pay for their education. Their is no disclosure requirment for tax-exempt bonds which is the case for trust-fund babies like Bill Ayers so Elizabeth Warren should divulge her municipal bonds.

    ReplyReply
  2. Michel says: 2

    This is rediculous. Mitt already paid a 35% rate when he initially made the money – as income. He pays an ADDITIONAL 15% on capital gains. Think he should be taxed 35% again on money he already has been taxed on? Capital gains taxes should be zero. Heck, how many times does the tax man cometh? Who is the greedy one? If I win the Powerball of 50 million, they are going to tax about 60% of that upfront. I invest the remainder and attempt to live on the interest of my investment and should feel guilty because it is ONLY at and ADDITIONAL 15% RATE?

    ReplyReply
  3. Wm T Sherman says: 3

    I think the term “bloodless freak” was coined to describe this humorless dishonest pseudo-Marxist zealot.

    Yeah, they’ll tell any whopper they think they can get away with. Her audience isn’t really all of us, it’s voters in Massachusetts, and maybe in the end she knows her audience well enough. Look at the “Progressive” freak show that they’ve elected in Mass over the years. Ted the Swimmer, Barney Frank, Deval Patrick…

    ReplyReply
  4. liberalmann says: 4

    You lie. Warren is great and one of them most pure candidates to come along in a long, long time. So cheesy that asshole wingnuts have to attack her like this when she is fighting for average Americans the GOP is fighting ao corporations can continue to screw you and send more jobs overseas. Wake up please.

    ReplyReply
  5. drjohn says: 5

    @liberalmann: Tell me where I lied. She’s full of it, lib. Sorry to burst the bubble.

    ReplyReply
  6. plainjane says: 6

    She claims not to be rich…tries to align herself with the OWIES.
    She and Michelle are two of a kind….MO spent $50K on lingerie:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9048122/Agent-Provocateur-sales-boosted-by-US-First-Lady-Michelle-Obama.html

    ReplyReply
  7. Wm T Sherman says: 7

    Is she rich, liberalmann, or is she not?

    ReplyReply
  8. Greg says: 8

    So she only owns stock in one company. She has $8 million in mutual funds, which own broad portfolios of stocks in individual companies. See? If you invest in mutual funds which invest in stocks it’s not the same as owning stocks.

    Simple.

    Actually, if you’re a member of Congress, there probably is less potential for conflicts of interest if your investments are widely diversified in mutual funds. You’re far less likely to be inclined to behave preferentially toward any one particular corporation, or toward any particular sector of business or industrial activity. To me, the assertion makes sense.

    ReplyReply
  9. drjohn says: 9

    @Greg:

    she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies

    This is exactly what a mutual fund is, Greg.

    Next I imagine you’ll argue that she is neither rich nor part of the 1%.

    ReplyReply
  10. drjohn says: 10

    @liberalmann:

    when she is fighting for average Americans the GOP is fighting ao corporations can continue to screw you and send more jobs overseas.

    Yes, they should stay here and wind up like Solyndra until they all fail. Then liberals will be happy, because everyone will be equally miserable.

    ReplyReply
  11. johngalt says: 11

    @Greg:

    Greg,

    You are partially correct, and partially wrong. Yes, mutual funds tend to be “widely diversified”, and yes, I do agree that that makes it less likely for a congressperson to have a conflict of interest. However, either you are forgetting, or are ignorant of the fact, that amongst ALL mutual fund type investments, many of them are targeted towards certain industries, industry sectors, etc. For example, I currently contribute to a fund that specializes in the real estate industry.

    There are others that specialize in “green energy” stocks, or precious metals(or even a specific metal, like gold), or government bonds. There are, literally, hundreds more beyond the generic funds that you allude to that tend to specialize in particular areas.

    It is because of this that it is very easy to imagine a congressperson, even with an entire investment portfolio of mutual funds, could still have conflicts of interest in particular bills he, or she, would vote for. And it is because of that that what Ms Warren claims is pure BS.

    ReplyReply
  12. Nan G says: 12

    @plainjane:
    She claims not to be rich…tries to align herself with the OWIES.

    LOL!
    A night or so ago the OWsers broke into Oakland’s City Hall and stole a rather nice looking American flag which they then proceeded to burn.
    VIDEO:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5pzI-hmAag8
    Is she one of them?
    LOL!
    She’s a silly goose.

    Mutual funds can be chosen by many different classifications, targeting them to your individual risk taking level and even targeting them to a range of industries (like green ones, non-tobacco ones, etc.)
    Over the years we have switched from one set of mf’s to a completely different set.
    But our portfolio always contained several different mf’s.

    ReplyReply
  13. Marine72 says: 13

    @liberalmann: Wow! Kool Aid, way to much Kool-aid!

    ReplyReply
  14. Marine72 says: 14

    @Greg: No! Please speak to the question. We can probably all agree that for an elected official, most mutual funds are a better stock position. The issue was that $14.5 M personal wealth (not-including $5M home) is a person that is “NOT” wealthy? Worse than that will be the continual drain on the future MA students to be educated as she continues to receives her current do-nothing salary and eventually converts it to the same $400K plus annual retirement income (I know the MA educators can’t be paid less in retirement than CA’s educated idiots).

    ReplyReply
  15. drjohn says: 15

    And here’s more on Warren:

    One of the Harvard professor’s many well-com-pensated part-time gigs included consulting for Travelers Insurance. I know that it is hard to believe that on one hand, Democrats would be bashing an industry, and on the other hand they are making money from it. To be a Democrat is to be a hypocrite.

    What did Lizzy do to earn $44,000 in compensation from the insurance company? She made it harder for claimants to collect. Warren helped establish the bankruptcy strategy for companies to avoid crushing lawsuits. In short, go bankrupt to avoid paying victims.

    In court briefings, she supported the effort to protect Travelers Insurance from future lawsuits after agreeing to a $500 million settlement with asbestos plaintiffs.

    That sort of destroys her image as consumer advocate, doesn’t it?

    http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220130insurance_past_should_sink_lizzy/srvc=home&position=also

    ReplyReply
  16. Wm T Sherman says: 16

    @drjohn:

    It’s just like Lizzie famously said. Nobody ever got screwed out of compensation for asbestos-induced deadly lung cancer on their own. It takes a village.

    ReplyReply
  17. Richard Wheeler says: 17

    Anyone who owns a mutual fund that consists of stocks owns stocks. Anyone worth 14 million is wealthy
    I’d vote for Scott Brown the Repub. He hid very little in his Cosmo spread.

    ReplyReply
  18. liberalmann says: 18

    @liberalmann: Anyone with half a brain can see how the corporate right have gone after Warren to discredit her becasue she is fighting for-YOU-the average American. She is not worth $14M. PROVE THAT!

    ReplyReply
  19. The trolls supporting this hypocrite are the same geniuses, or the progeny of, those who stood up for the drunk Ted Kennedy, after July, 1969, when he was responsible for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne whose body was found in the drunk’s car, in a tidal channel on Chappaquiddick Island.

    These trolls, who attack conservatives for being ‘for the rich’, were thrilled to find their wealthy hero protected by powerful ‘connections’.

    Funny how the mantra of “he’s looking after the interests of the little people” is incessantly repeated to defend wing-nuts like Warren and Kerry.

    ReplyReply
  20. FAITH7 says: 20

    Isn’t she “the roads the rest of us paid for” witch?

    She is just another bastion of Liberal Hypocrisy….

    This woman is nuts. And lays the foundation for a lousy argument. Roads have been ‘needed’ since towns sprang up. If it were not for wealthy, job creating entrepreneurs we would still be traveling by wagon train and horse and buggy ON dirt roads… Sheesh!

    If what this woman is saying doesn’t raise a ton of Red Flags…then we are really, really in trouble.

    Many intelligent Americans already know ….when Obumbles, and his Democratic/Liberal/Lefty/Progressive ELITIST ilk speak of the “Wealthy”…. it NEVER, EVER includes THEM… (oops, another Red Flag).

    … BUT! It always, ALWAYS Includes the Middle Classes…the middle classes are considered – by Government ponzi scheme rip off standards -“Wealthy”…. And Oh, Party affiliation? No discrimination there! And this you can bet on!

    ReplyReply
  21. Greg says: 21

    If the wealthy are so wonderful, why do authoritative sources tell us that camels have an easier time getting into heaven?

    ReplyReply
  22. #21 is such a perfect example of a mind incapable of making sense. Logic illudes it, and disconnected, non-firing neurons have no capacity for understanding or comprehension.

    ReplyReply
  23. Greg says: 24

    @James Raider, #22:

    Maybe I should have simply quoted the statement I was referring and named the person who said it, but liberals generally try to keep religion out of their politics.

    ReplyReply
  24. Hard Right says: 25

    @Greg:

    Leftist beliefs/politics IS your religion.

    ReplyReply
  25. MarineVeteran says: 26

    She did not say she is not wealthy because we all already know about her $14.5 million net worth, earning nearly $700,000 last year and living in a $5 million home. Rather, she said that she is not a wealthy stockholder. Guess what? She’s still wrong, failing to mention her ownership of $100,001 to $250,000 of IBM stock and $2.8 million to $7.9 million in TIAA-CREF funds. Numbers don’t lie, folks, but Elizabeth sure does.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>