Home | About | Donate

Why Seniors—Not CEOs—Deserve a Raise


Why Seniors—Not CEOs—Deserve a Raise

Elizabeth Warren

Any conversation about tackling poverty in the United States should include protecting and expanding Social Security. The reason is pretty straightforward: Social Security is the most powerful tool available to lift people out of poverty. Nearly two-thirds of seniors depend on Social Security for the majority of their income, and millions more children and adults depend upon survivors and disability benefits.


With the Obama and most of Congress owned by corporations, Social Security and Medicare are the only two available pots of money large enough to fund the ever expanding corporate welfare programs that Obama and those Congresscritters owe their owners.

Bernie is the only 2016 Democratic or GOP candidate who considers corporate control of government AN ISSUE. If Bernie was not in the race it would not even be discussed.


Not fair. We may want her to do something but that doesn't mean she has to do what we want. She may not want to get involved in a battle between two friends for example. The Dems may have let her know that they won't back her legislation if she chooses sides...or worse.

She is a great legislator and has earned our respect because of what she chooses to do ... And not only because we want her to side with Bernie.

I forgive her ...Lol... She deserves that from us lefties. I think she is great and I have always considered a Sanders/Warren ticket a shoe in for election but she makes up her own mind.

She is still a great person to have representing the public who also fights the good fight inside the beltway against oligarchy and corruption.

There aren't all that many of those around


I don't mean it that way. Yes she is our employee but that doesn't include telling her what personal choices she should make. That is the equivalent of your boss telling you whom to vote for. Whomever she picks is up to her and when she finally does pick (if she even does) is solely her own prerogative.


That is not a political decision..it is her preference and choice. She doesn't have to endorse anyone remember. It is not part of her job.


At this point, i interpret Warren's behavior toward the Democratic Party nomination process in a similar way as you: Pandering to Clinton out of opportunistic careerism, with very limited progressive backbone.

Her single issue is a great one and she's very good on it: Roll back the hyper-exploitive and engineered looting that permeates the financial system. But i'm frankly unaware of any other "progressive" plank in the Warren platform.


What are you saying here? That an individual must do what a certain percentage of her constituency wants and not what the other members of her constituency want? Are you saying that because she is in congress that she no longer can exercise her own rights as a citizen to make a personal choice which is what voting is all about?

This is so symptomatic of America today, a tendency away from freedom and towards control. You want to insist that she does what you want?

We are of the same age and that means I know that you should know better. FREEDOM is the essence of a democracy... No one can insist that someone else vote a certain way. So what if Liz has sponsored bills with Bernie! As an American she has the right to endorse (or not) anyone she wants.

What the hell happened to you since the 60s? I know that you should know better.


She is yours body and soul then? You own her?

My point is that what about the Hillary Dems who like her and want her to endorse Hillary. Just asking. What about what they want?

You forgot about them huh?


Dear Senator Warren,

Senator Sanders will make sure seniors get a raise. Secretary Clinton won't.

Why don't you do the right thing, the courageous thing given your party's bent, and endorse Senator Sanders?

People are real tired of your silent ambivalence. If you want support in the future, you should endorse Senator Sanders NOW!


Nicely put.


It's the media that is rigging this game or rather is running this game on people's heads isn't it? It isn't the endorsements that matter as much as it the way everything is being slanted to create an impression like how the media keeps reporting the fraudulent delegate counts it makes it look like Clinton has such a big lead. Dumbed down and fucked over because of media consolidation, the American people lose their democracy.

They have stolen the press from the public and have made freedom of the press mostly only a memory by creating in its place, an oligarchy owned press instead.

We never realized how much the press protected us ... Until we lost that protection.

It really doesn't much matter who endorses who although Warren as Bernie's Veep would make a difference. Carter can endorse or Warren could and others but does that really matter. The press matters...

The press matters far more than we ever realized because they used to be less obvious in their bias towards things. They came out of the woodwork this election and are actively rigging the game against the people in favor of oligarchy and the status quo (a status quo that includes themselves btw).

I don't think yet another endorsement matters but that is because they don't matter that much to me. maybe other people pay more attention to them.

Sanders/Warren in '16...Lol


Senator Warren, you should be the first women President NOT Hillary. This is not your time, you need to be doing the peoples work in the Senate and that was the choice you made months ago. Bernie is the progressive more like you than Hillary.

You need to endorse, Bernie needs you, we need you as Bernie always says it is not about him but about we. We the people.

Please! Endorse Bernie NOW!


What is ridiculous about there being plenty of democrats that support Hillary who like and respect Warren. My whole point is that you and others seem to think that Warren belongs to only progressives. I think anyone saying that people insist that another person choose what they want instead of her own preference (vote or endorsement) have forgotten what a free country means .


Nicely put ... We could use her help electing Bernie..


Social Security provides retirement, disability, and survivors' benefits. Each time the Clinton wing has launched one of these efforts to assure the public that they will protect retirees (for now), it means that they plan even deeper, potentially life-threatening, cuts to the disabled. I assume the goal is to "reform" Social Security the way they "reformed" our former welfare programs -- one cut, one program, at a time, until there is nothing left.

This continues to be a deceptive, reprehensible strategy. As a result of Bill Clinton's cuts, the disabled/seriously ill had become the fastest-growing group of homeless people by 2000, and they did very poorly on the streets. Benefits were restored when Obama was elected, but the Dems in Congress have continued to whittle away at Social Security disability ever since.

Ask Elizabeth Warren about the Democrats' plans for Social Security Disability. Demand that Democrats protect Social Security in whole.


An endorsement of Sanders would be nice, but I hope that you-all realize that Ms. Warren doing her job as a US senator working within the US Senate to promote improved Social Security and other public programs is almost certainly accomplishing a whole lot of good compared to a symbolic endorsement of Sanders. Yet you-all (with one exception) are willing to total discount - even vilify - all her good work because she won't "support Sanders"??? What reaction could Ms. Warren possibly have to your vilification except to tell you, like William Shatner told his infantile trekkie fans, to "Get a Life!" Then, just to spite you-all, she would endorse Hillary!

Do you-all think that the beginning and end of all good governance is, or will be Bernie, Bernie, Berne??? I bet there are a lot of commenters here who cannot even name their US congressperson, much less their representatives in their state capitol. The internet-left's infantile, black-white, circular-firing-squad thinking, and their complete and total aversion to any form of organizing - which always involves working with people who will not be in agreement on a lot of things - is enraging!

The world and human organizations, notably governments, are complex things. What do you all do for a living? Don't you all work in an organization of some sort? Do you level vitriol at your colleagues at work if they don't agree with you like you are attacking Ms. Warren for not behaving exactly to your totally uncompromising specifications?


So you think she should pay attention to the polls? How else is she supposed to know what her constituents want? Then someone will come along and say that she has no spine because she only cares what the polls say. If her job is to do what's best for her constituency, does she have any say in the matter? I would think so. What we think on CD is skewed, to put it mildly. About a third of us-according to my unscientific sampling-want to vote for Jill Stein. Now there's a point of view that has the establishment quaking in its boots.


You would fail logic 101. The fallacy affirming the consequent:

If p, then q; q; therefore, p.

If Obma and most of Congress are owned by corporations, then things will happen that I don't like.
Things happen that I don't like.
Therefore, Obama and most of Congress are owned by corporations.

Although both premises are true, the conclusion is false because you must first prove that Obama and most of Congress are owned by corporations before you can conclude that this is the reason things are bad in the country.


On the contrary, in a republic the people have the power to elect representatives to make decisions; we do not elect robots who are slaves to how we program them. If an elected representative doesn't do what you want, then throw the bums out in the next election.

A parliamentary system has the vote of no confidence. If you think the majority party and prime minister (the prime minister is leader of the majority party) are stupid, you can call for a vote of no confidence. Once this happens, elections take place and a new majority and prime minister can set up a government. This is superior to our system where the only way to get rid of a president is to impeach his/her ass for high crimes and misdemeanors (not stupidity). But to get them out of office, the Senate must vote to convict. We impeach presidents for oral sex in the Oval Office instead of for stupidity.


Obama hasn't endorsed Sanders either. What is your point?